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.

I've been thinking about ways to increase the balance and reduce the problem of bad matchups, seeing that I think that a game should be decided by equal parts tactics and preparation.

The most basic idea I came up with, was to change the system in such a way that there is no rule which outright denies another rules. E.g.:

Armor saves: Instead of denying an armor save AP forces rerolls, depending on the AP value. (Ap3 = 1 Reroll, Ap2 = 2 rerolls, Ap1= 3rerolls?)

Same for cover saves and ignoring cover.

On the other end of the spectrum "fearless" units instead roll 3w6 and take the two lowest or something similiar (maybe with a variant that comes with some kind of drawback kind of like the old fearless?).

I hope that by having less useless rules (fear) more units become viable.



This is just a very rough idea, and I wanted to get a bit input, before I actually try to come up with a working modell.

Wrong forum mate.

I totally support this. Rules like "Ignore Cover" I feel flat out add to the paper scissors rock and detract from the tactical element of the game. Sadly the game would need a total rehaul to work without such stuff

This makes absolutely no sense. Having an AP 1 weapon re-roll a successful armor save three times (which is what it sounds like you mean) takes a lot more tedious dice rolling to get essentially the same result. A slight chance of surviving an AP 1 wound isn't meaningfully different than no chance at all in terms of strategy, it just gives you a pointless illusion of having the ability to roll some dice. Meanwhile you have to do a lot of work to re-write the rules, re-balance everything, convince people to play it, etc, for very little reward. I just don't see any point in using this system.

The only way to improve game balance , interaction and tactical focus in 40k, is to write rules for 40k, NOT WHFB then add in loads of exceptions omissions and additions to arrive at a sort of rule set that sort of works.

40k NEEDS a complete re write from the ground up to get any level of improvement with out adding even more complication..
There have been loads of great game mechanics and resolution methods developed since WHFB rules were written .
GW 40k rules use NONE of them!

Basic Idea for 40k home brew rules.
Start with Epic rules(Net Epic/Epic E.A.) , ADD detail , (to scale the game play up,) Job done.

Basing game development on MODERN battle games , would allow far more game play with far fewer pages of rules .