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.

You have an opportunity--- Tell Games Workshop the 3 BEST things to explore/create in 40K.....


I will guarantee they see the 3 BEST ideas...


You never know ... if your idea(s) are used.. you may be immortalized as a 40K FIGURE !!!!!!

In the Age of Sigmar subforum?

in ALL of 40K tabletop gaming --

Toyzdeziner wrote:
in ALL of 40K tabletop gaming --

Probably best to put that in the 40K subforum then. Unless you value the opinions of AoS players over 40K players, which I completely understand on a fundamental level.

Toyzdeziner wrote:
in ALL of 40K tabletop gaming --

Games Workshop is more than 40k.

40k is one game and doesn't belong here.

Toyzdeziner wrote:

You have an opportunity--- Tell Games Workshop the 3 BEST things to explore/create in 40K.....


I will guarantee they see the 3 BEST ideas...


You never know ... if your idea(s) are used.. you may be immortalized as a 40K FIGURE !!!!!!

So if you can GUARANTEE GW will see these ideas?
Why haven't you posted this in the 40k forum?

You could have all just hit the yellow triangle of friendship to ask a mod to move this you know?

Toyzdeziner wrote:

You have an opportunity--- Tell Games Workshop the 3 BEST things to explore/create in 40K.....

1) 11th edition. But only after you've fired everyone involved in making 10th edition.

2) So you know how you're remaking WHFB and the rules aren't a steaming pile of cow-dung? Could you perhaps investigate the concept of good rules finding its way back into 40k?

3) I hear there's a faction called "Drew Kari", or something like that. Perhaps you could remember that they exist and that it's been ~12 years since they last got a new unit? Perhaps, in between releasing Primaris Lieutenants #4857294-4857463, you could manage to give them a few new units?

1. A ruleset for roughly Combat Patrol-sized games that provides more detailed and evocative rules. Basically, use the smaller number of units/models to incorporate more detailed mechanics that would be a pain to implement in a 2,000 point game of 40k. Stuff like unit facing, crossfire, "real" overwatch, etc. Essentially some KT or Shadow War: Armageddon levels of nuance but with a variety of unit types present in a given game.

2. Ditch stratagems. They were a neat concept, but they've never quite clicked. Spend that design space on fleshing out detachment rules to be more in-depth. Aim for something closer to Rites of War. Changes to how armies are built, how units behave on the table, etc.

3. Keep expanding your Crusade/narrative campaign content. A lot of us strongly prefer this to tournament play. There's so much room to build flavorful missions or fun minigames that you can do between games of 40k.

1. Do something with the Ynnari. Perhaps have it rescue souls devoured by Slaanesh, reducing She Who Thirsts obsession with the Eldar, without diminishing it in anyway. Have those souls somewhat purified and refined, and reincarnated as Ynnari.

2. Give Chaos a proper failure. Something which sees Abaddon and his unifying presence removed from the galactic stage for a period of recuperation. Perhaps a proper kicking at the hands of Guilliman or The Lion. Let the forces of Chaos properly fracture and be chaotic.

3. On that last one? For heaven’s sake Give Us Lost And The Damned.

CSM and Daemons may be the face and muscle of Chaos, but it’s the little guys that are the true threat. The tumour and parasite chewing away at Imperial society. Often generated by the Imperium’s own casual cruelty and indifference to suffering. Those who see in Chaos, at least at first, a better life. They’re the tragedy of 40K. The average Joe who thinks they’re swapping a lie for the truth, only to find out when it’s much too late it’s just another lie.

1) Stop catering to the tournament crowd.

2) Get back to something closer to 6th ed missions.

3)No more stratagems.

Do something about the Codexes nerfing the indexes. Getting errata 2 weeks after each Codex release is annoying.

1) Stop teasing us with lore (and a video, which I realise was a fan creation brought into GW's Warhammer + system, but still) and do Eldar Exodites.
Dinosaurs with lasers and Eldar deserves to be its own army; especially as Craftworld are nearing (steadily) their general upgrade to modern plastics.

2) Go back and read some earlier codex - relearn how to put information into the codex in a sane structure. I know many of the old "Troop/HQ/Heavy support etc..." elements are gone, but at the very least some logic could be applied.
Eg putting unit cards in alphabetical order (The Tyranid one has some in that and some just scattershot).
There's more little things all around too - things have improved a bit, but there's still a lot of what feels like needless page flipping to access all the information; information that used to be on a single profile page. Even if its then repeated elsewhere in a summary table or page; more info in a single spot is very desirable.

3) Bring back the codex unit lore pages. I was very sad to see that whilst lore has generally increased in content and quality over the years; the latest codex don't feature the page per unit (or unit type) that laid out some art and lore about the units in the setting. Even if some of it is, again, repeating what earlier ones had; its still a really neat bit of lore that helps connect you with the army you're playing and the models you're putting down. Especially very new things, but even older stuff that's been around for years because there's always new people joining into the game who need that info

 vipoid wrote:

Toyzdeziner wrote:

You have an opportunity--- Tell Games Workshop the 3 BEST things to explore/create in 40K.....

1) 11th edition. But only after you've fired everyone involved in making 10th edition.

2) So you know how you're remaking WHFB and the rules aren't a steaming pile of cow-dung? Could you perhaps investigate the concept of good rules finding its way back into 40k?

3) I hear there's a faction called "Drew Kari", or something like that. Perhaps you could remember that they exist and that it's been ~12 years since they last got a new unit? Perhaps, in between releasing Primaris Lieutenants #4857294-4857463, you could manage to give them a few new units?

I hear they're getting a range refresh right after they release the Left Hand Dominant Lieutenant in Gravis Armor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
1) Bite the Bullet and release everything else in Primaris to finally finish the switch. Better to make everyone a little angrier for a shorter time than a little angrier and angrier over a long time. Fill out the armor/theme HQ's to go with the Armor/Theme Dets. Finish the assorted other squads to "replace" Devastators or Primarisize Devs. Refresh Vanguard Vets in Primarisize. Primarisize Assault Terminators, Ravenwing Bikes and Speeders, the Transport=12 Rhino replacement, etc.

2) Improve the rules for the Oliver datasheets: Make fortifications better and easier to use. Make Flamers better. Lightning Claws.Other stuff from factions I don't play, and thus can't name.

3) Expand/Flesh out the factions that desperately need it: Custodes, World Eaters, Votann, etc. Add more variety to these factions, and builds in general.

1) Kill "no models, no rules" and "kits dictate rules". It's the main reason driving me away from current 40K despite liking the overall frameworks since 8th.

2) Stop killing an edition every 3 years. Give an edition time to evolve. The FW team could even turn the aweful 7th ed. rules into something playable, imagine what you could do with a better baseline if you just tweaked it.

3) More narrative campaigns. If you need a "restart" every 3 years, do it with a world-wide campaign instead of an "all new" edition every time.

Wow. I think I agree with just about every suggestion in this thread. Good ideas, guys.

 Gibblets wrote:

2) Get back to something closer to 6th ed missions.

Interesting. I don't see people ask for a return to 6th edition elements very often. My memory on 6th's missions is a little hazy. What specifically do you want to bring back? All I really remember is having to roll for mysterious objectives (and then promptly forgetting to bother with them 9 times out of 10.)

1) Transpose something akin to the HH/3rd-7th core ruleset and push it as "narrative 40k"

2) Keep the current 8th-10th edition core ruleset and push it as "matched/tournament 40k"

3) Get rid of CP/stratagems.

I think a crunchier ruleset like the 3rd-7th/HH rules is perfect to make for interesting narrative decisions. I also think that with a "narrative" tag, you could get away from trying to have perfect balance since a lot of the balancing will come from the players organizing their narrative campaigns. Obviously glaring issues would need to be rectified (looking at you 7th edition invisibility!)

The direction that 8th-10th has gone with simplified rules and a general faster pace, I think is perfectly serviceable as a competitive game. This is where you can focus on striving for clear balance.

Now I do not think GW will ever do something like this, because it basically means writing two separate rulesets, and they already struggle to write one.

1) MUCH faster resolution. Make the game about playing, not about watching random numbers being generated.

2) Solid, well thought out automa rules for solo and cooperative missions.

3) Make terrain important and interactive.

Now I do not think GW will ever do something like this, because it basically means writing two separate rulesets, and they already struggle to write one.

The biggest hurtle here, I think, is that it would mean spending the money to write/support another game. Especially given that HH is sort of what you're describing (but without support for many 40k factions). I could see something like this happening if they eventually decide to reallocate funds from HH, but I think a more likely outcome is that they simply decide to make money writing crusade/narrative rules and start giving more love and attention to narrative play as a result.

Cyel wrote:
1) MUCH faster resolution. Make the game about playing, not about watching random numbers being generated.

I feel like not remaking the game every 3 years and having more logical and structured layouts of information would go a LONG way to helping achieve this without even changing anything that GW mechanically does with the game itself. Just making something more stable and then having information easier to digest and find are huge things.

A lot of the time what slows things down is finding information on the game state. Heck doing more than 1 print run of rules cards would help!




After that the other side is reducing the downtime for players. GW have tried that by having more interrupt abilities and such using model abilities and command point things so players can play "gotcha" on their opponent's turn. Thing is that always ends up feeling clunky and also adds a lot of layres to the game which makes it harder to learn (learning and integrating command points and abilities has already been highlighted above and I'd second that I find it trickier to learn to pull int othe game when getting into it. You end up forgetting most of the abilities and perhaps using only a few on repeat).

the other layer is to try a different activation system. I'd love to see 40K try for a proper full alternate activation. I didn't make it one of my "3" in this thread mostly because I feel that its such a huge change that I don't think its got much change of GW doing it; even though it opens the game up for so much more reactive play. It even works BETTER with GW's style of very high lethality; because being able to react in the moment means that one player takes a hit but then gets to hit back right after that. Instead of taking hits from a whole army and only then getting a reaction.
It's sort of happening with close combat, but its not there at al with ranged right now

the other layer is to try a different activation system. I'd love to see 40K try for a proper full alternate activation. I didn't make it one of my "3" in this thread mostly because I feel that its such a huge change that I don't think its got much change of GW doing it; even though it opens the game up for so much more reactive play. It even works BETTER with GW's style of very high lethality; because being able to react in the moment means that one player takes a hit but then gets to hit back right after that. Instead of taking hits from a whole army and only then getting a reaction.
It's sort of happening with close combat, but its not there at al with ranged right now

I still think a version of the game balanced around 500-1000 point armies that uses something like Kill Teams turn structure would work really well...

Has all the benefits you mentioned. Small enough number of models/units to not be a hassle bookkeeping everything. In my recent 1k game, my army had... 8(?) distinct units running around. That seems like a managable number to mark as "readied", etc.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

the other layer is to try a different activation system. I'd love to see 40K try for a proper full alternate activation. I didn't make it one of my "3" in this thread mostly because I feel that its such a huge change that I don't think its got much change of GW doing it; even though it opens the game up for so much more reactive play. It even works BETTER with GW's style of very high lethality; because being able to react in the moment means that one player takes a hit but then gets to hit back right after that. Instead of taking hits from a whole army and only then getting a reaction.
It's sort of happening with close combat, but its not there at al with ranged right now

I still think a version of the game balanced around 500-1000 point armies that uses something like Kill Teams turn structure would work really well...

Has all the benefits you mentioned. Small enough number of models/units to not be a hassle bookkeeping everything. In my recent 1k game, my army had... 8(?) distinct units running around. That seems like a managable number to mark as "readied", etc.

I think so long as GW makes some "activation tokens" (and if they don't others will); then you can have even bigger armies without activation issues. It's just then part of the game itself. Even right now you basically have "activation" where you have to remember to activate your models one by one for your whole army. So its no more nor less difficult.

I'd also say that I thick armies are too diverse now to make the main game smaller. There's so many cool models and in a game that takes hours where you might only get one game a week at best; I think formats that let you bring more to the table are always going ot win out. Smaller games are neat and they do let you play faster; but in general people want diversity on the table.

 Overread wrote:

I'd also say that I thick armies are too diverse now to make the main game smaller. There's so many cool models and in a game that takes hours where you might only get one game a week at best; I think formats that let you bring more to the table are always going ot win out. Smaller games are neat and they do let you play faster; but in general people want diversity on the table.

Valid point, but I also think that's kind of a trap. 40k definitely has problem arising from trying to fit armored companies and knights in the same game as infantry squads and heroes having sword duels. I think it would be more fun to have dedicated smaller and bigger game rules. Maybe do something like Apoc for 2k games. It's easier to make the game better by embracing specific styles of play rather than smooshing it all together.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Overread wrote:

I'd also say that I thick armies are too diverse now to make the main game smaller. There's so many cool models and in a game that takes hours where you might only get one game a week at best; I think formats that let you bring more to the table are always going ot win out. Smaller games are neat and they do let you play faster; but in general people want diversity on the table.

Valid point, but I also think that's kind of a trap. 40k definitely has problem arising from trying to fit armored companies and knights in the same game as infantry squads and heroes having sword duels. I think it would be more fun to have dedicated smaller and bigger game rules. Maybe do something like Apoc for 2k games. It's easier to make the game better by embracing specific styles of play rather than smooshing it all together.

I see your point, but I also think that whilst there is value in more formats, I think there's also a risk in having too many. We already have Killteam, Crusade, Regular and Apoc. I think subdividing further might be a step too far in fragmenting the playerbase and so forth over too many formats. Especially if GW sticks to 3 year releases where they've already not kept up with an apoc release every edition.


Even if GW kept up, players might simply burn out. Too many rules getting updated too often for too many formats and BOOM they'll all vanish for a simpler format that just scales with game size.

I would like to see GW explore

1. Actually playtesting. 'Metawatch' articles are not testing. Bringing in a token tournament player to provide high-level feedback is not testing. Studio staff playing fluffy highlander lists to see if it works when played as they intend is not testing.

2. Beta testing through the community. Publishing experimental rules and soliciting feedback before official release. Tournament players regularly find broken combos and severe balance issues on day 1; leverage that to make a better product.

3. Online living rulesets. Slaving game development to how quickly it can be rendered onto dead trees and carted to a brick and mortar store, only to be immediately rendered outdated by an online errata for all the things that slipped through the non-testing, is obnoxious.

Beyond that I'm not very picky. Getting away from designing games like it's still 1980 is really the important thing.

 Overread wrote:

I see your point, but I also think that whilst there is value in more formats, I think there's also a risk in having too many. We already have Killteam, Crusade, Regular and Apoc. I think subdividing further might be a step too far in fragmenting the playerbase and so forth over too many formats. Especially if GW sticks to 3 year releases where they've already not kept up with an apoc release every edition.

No we don't.
1) Apoc isn't a thing as it hasn't been sold for years. It's as oop as any other previous edition or expansion to such.
2) Kill Team is a completely different game. If you want to play only 40k then you needn't pay any attention to the rules for KT.

It’s the same models, just at different scales of gameplay.

ccs wrote:

 Overread wrote:

I see your point, but I also think that whilst there is value in more formats, I think there's also a risk in having too many. We already have Killteam, Crusade, Regular and Apoc. I think subdividing further might be a step too far in fragmenting the playerbase and so forth over too many formats. Especially if GW sticks to 3 year releases where they've already not kept up with an apoc release every edition.

No we don't.
1) Apoc isn't a thing as it hasn't been sold for years. It's as oop as any other previous edition or expansion to such.
2) Kill Team is a completely different game. If you want to play only 40k then you needn't pay any attention to the rules for KT.

As I said, GW has enough trouble keeping up with Apoc, which whilst its not been updated in a long time, is still a game mode many understand and play (albeit rarely due its its nature). Heck the club I'm at now is toying with the idea of finding somewhere cheap to rent for a weekend to do a game.

So adding more game modes for 1K gameplay is muddying the water. I agree small skirmish like killteam and larger mass battle like Apoc; as well as Crusade for narrative. These are all good slots; however I think 1K isn't so far from 2K that it needs its own slot and format. At that point adding too many formats weakens the system

There are a lot of good suggestions in here. Mine are:

1. Massive Crusade expansion. This would include a Big Book of Crusade and a range of Non-Imperial terrain, non-combat support assets, etc. The book would have multiple campaign systems, Agendas and Relics according to environments for campaign building, alternate faction specific long-term goals that interact other Crusade elements, etc.

2. A minimum five year edition window with ZERO campaign books released until ALL dexes are out. So dexes come out one per month without fail for roughly the first two years until they're all out. Then the campaign books carry the rest of the edition, where everyone gets to play with their toys for the lion's share of the edition.

3. A really strong emphasis on models for everyone other than marines. every faction should have 50ish units to draw upon; and I know the world would fall apart if I suggested no more marines until that happens, so I won't take it that far... But honestly, it could stand to be that aggressive.