PDA

View Full Version : 6th ed 40k , reboot or reshuffle?



lanrak
19-09-2009, 21:50
Hi all.
I was wondering how you want 6th ed 40k to be approached.

Would you like GW to continue to 're-shuffle the contents' to change the game play slightly, with the usual 'side effects.'

Or do you think its time for a complete overhaul , and re-boot the game with new game mechanics and more straightforward rules?(Lots of special abilities covered by the basic rules , rather than having to depend on multiple USR and umpteen special rules.)

Assume in BOTH cases that ALL current armies would be supported,( not neglected.) And the game play would remain unchaged, or be enhanced.

I just want to know if you think the time is right to break with tradition and embrace a rule set written specificaly for 40k.(Rather than just another modification to the WHFB rules.)

TTFN
Lanrak.

StormWulfen
19-09-2009, 21:56
i don't think it would need a complete re-boot but not a re-shuffle either, somewhere in-between;)

Absolutionis
19-09-2009, 21:57
I think the game is fine right now, but a reboot would mean a simultaneous balancing of all armies. This is what most armies need, so be it.

Gorbad Ironclaw
19-09-2009, 22:00
For what it wants to do I actually think 5th does it fine. I don't necessarily feel there is a need to reboot the system.

I would personally like to see moral/leadership play a much bigger part and actually be able to suppress people with firepower and do fire and manoeuvre but I don't think that fits with the 'heroic' image 40k wants to put forward so probably won't happen anyway.

Bunnahabhain
19-09-2009, 22:01
No 6th ed for some time. Decent FAQs and erratas for ALL armies in the meantime.

6th ed complete reboot, built and tested from the ground up, with all codexs written from the outset.

Rely on decent, balanced rules, and good models, and they will sell, without the new book cycle.

Vaktathi
19-09-2009, 22:02
In a perfect world, if they were to redo their business model as well, I'd prefer a reboot and a new start from scratch and a single book with all the basic army lists in it (from which expansion lists like Legions, individual IG regiments, etc could be released).

That said, if 6E just removed KP's, rehashed defensive weapons into something intelligent that didn't make guntanks pillboxes, and redid cover to a BS modifier, I think a huge amount of the games problems would be solved.

Dasyatis
19-09-2009, 22:03
Personally, I`d like to see a nice big overhaul for 40k. It needs a game system that`ll do justice to the fluff really.

With there being a hell of a lot of guns in this game I would love it to use a similar system to AT-43s fire zones. Its a great little mechanic. I`d also like there to be more game choices. As an example, combat is more going through the motions at the moment. You can write a little program relatively easily to simulate it. Theres no real interaction. Imagine if you could do different things with a models combat dice though. That character with 4 attack dice could use them all as normal, making four attacks *or* he could attribute some of them to defending (a special 5+ roll per dice to deflect an incoming attack) *or* he could activate his coup de grace (sacrifice all attack dice, gain +2 str) etc etc. There needs to be more choices dammit. At the moment you just look up what numbers you need and roll. I want to be able to alter what numbers I need.

I`d love it if 40k gained a turn order system with a bit of a difference. Rather than moving everything, it would be nice to have an alternating activation system. Would cut down on the strength of going first and make people have to prioritise a little more.

ntin
19-09-2009, 22:15
I would like a reboot but GW does not even maintain the errata and FAQ for their current rule set. Slapping a new coat of paint on 3rd edition is much easier than changing any of the core game mechanics.

Tymell
19-09-2009, 22:22
To be honest, I don't -want- 6th edition anytime soon.

I'm not a fan of the way things are with updates these days, to both armies and the games as a whole. The updates used to be special for me, now they're so expected. It feels like the armies/games get updated not through an attempt to really do something new and interesting, but simply "Because it's time for another update".

If I had to pick one, it would be a reboot, because at least then it would mean something, unlike the past two "editions", which have been more like a bunch of rule tweaks rather than actual new editions.

The Orange
19-09-2009, 22:24
Eventually I'd like to see a reboot. 5th edition did bring in some nice changes but there's some core mechanics which I've become quite weary of.

Juggalo
19-09-2009, 22:30
Assume in BOTH cases that ALL current armies would be supported,( not neglected.) And the game play would remain unchaged, or be enhanced.

That makes for an unfair comparison. The rebooted edition could very well be worse, like 3rd was worse than 2nd.

Nym
19-09-2009, 22:31
I'd be ok with a reboot, but only if they hire me to do it... :D

Imo, most game designers (be it video games or tabletop games designers) ignore popular wisdom way too much to ever produce a really balanced game. Reading message boards is all you need to do nowadays to get a good idea of what's broken and what's not, but apparently it's something they don't want to do (and I honestly wonder why).

Until the day they finally listen to the community, I don't want to see a reboot.

guillimansknight
19-09-2009, 22:33
Re boot reboot reboot !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I quit cause of 5 th ed I don't like it at all

And marines need a NEW codex not some recycled piece of crap that is barely different And make that ONE codex IT !!!!!!!!

scarletsquig
19-09-2009, 22:41
It works okay as a casual game, which is all it's really meant to be. If I want a tactical wargame I can always go play warmachine, at-43, space hulk or whatever instead. 40k is supposed to be the game where you rolls lots of dice and blow stuff up and don't have to think too much while doing it.

In terms of rules there a few ideas that could make games a little better, and the kill points thing needs some work. Minor tweaks that don't affect the codexes would be the best way forward.

I'd prefer a focus on releasing new army books and updating the model range.. orks are a perfect example of what every army should be receiving, several waves of new plastics.
I have a feeling that we'll still be having the same damn "when will dark eldar be released?" conversations in 2011.

A complete overhaul would probably turn out worse to start with then take a decade to sort out. All 5th edition is the ruleset that 3rd edition should have been when it was released.

susu.exp
19-09-2009, 22:54
Reshuffle. While there are things that could be changed, a complete reboot would invalidate the Codices around. That in turn would mean GW would put them all out in a relatively short time frame. The options there are limited: Either they get rushed - anybody who thinks a reboot would solve balance issues is certainly getting it wrong. Right now, armies arent that imbalanced. Yes, I hear you Necron players (building my own Nec army right now and feel spoilt for choices of what not to include...). But all in all the recent revisions do bring Codices to relatively similar power levels.
A second option would be to have lots more game designers. In this case, youd also get balance issues despite more testing (simply because they all get tweaked at the same time) and youd see an increase in prices to recoup development costs. The third option would be to release at the same pace as now, leaving armies unplayable for a while. Thats how youd wreck 40k (first 3 months: Marines only).

I would like to see tweaks in the missions, without removing the key aspect of balancing (troops to score, other slots for destructive power, MSU for objective, FBU for KPs - the mechanics can change, but the principle should remain). Accordingly troop choices should be balanced in the Codices (Working well for SM, CSM, Orks, IG, Daemons and Eldar right now, not working that well for Crons, Tau and Nids - with others somewhere in between).

So my hope is that 6th will tweak some things and that we get a unified design philosophy for all codices.
After that GW can concentrate on supplements, new races(?) and SGs (and WFB and LotR)...

Vepr
19-09-2009, 23:15
I know it would not be that popular and all the codices would have to be redone at once but I would like to see a move to d10 to spread out the differences a touch.

LonelyPath
19-09-2009, 23:51
A reboot now would leave anothr huge mess like there was t the launch of 3rd edition. At least with the way things progress now some people may have to wait some time (8 or 9 years) for a new codex, but at least they still have one that is largely usable. A reboot would restrict people to partly written army lists and nothing else for a long time.

kardar233
20-09-2009, 00:14
I'd be fine if we just went back to 4th edition rules, with appropriate changes for current Codecies.

My brother got out of the game because 5th was so easily breakable.

lanrak
20-09-2009, 00:35
Hi again.
I wouild like to assume that after the debarcle that was 3rd ed 40k , GW would NOT make the same mistake again.
(As they did NOT make the same mistake with LOTR-WOTR , and wrote a new rule set ,rather than scew up the skirmish rules trying to make the fit a bigger scale game.)

TTFN
lanrak.

koran
20-09-2009, 00:50
Mmm... Im not sure if this counts as a reboot or a reshuffle. But either way something SERIOUS needs to be done to get codexs more in balance.

I think the game really needs to get a bit more complex and a bit less dumbed down, assuming that the kids GW relies on are stupid. I was 8 when I started and I managed with 2nd ed fine... Are kids getting stupider? No. People are just treating them as such and making everyone else pay for it.

5th ed is fine but to hit modifiers need to be brought back for the speed tanks/bikers move and for cover. And the AP system should be forgotten for the vastly superior armour mod system.

Id like to see a move to a D10 system as well. It would add more variety and allow armies to be more characterful.

Aries_37
20-09-2009, 01:28
Cover needs to be fixed. As it is now low AP weaponry is overcosted because cover is everywhere.

Leadership tests need to be easier to fail. Too many fearless/ld 9+ units

GW need to hire someone to word their rules properly. You read the warmachine rules and there are very few points to argue over when compared to 40k.

Armour saves need to not be binary on/off affairs.

Rapidfire needs to be fixed. As it is it is probably one of the worst firing attributes.

Gamechanging rolls, like the game ending, armour penetration, reserves, going first etc need to be based on 2d6. Much less luck and much more consistency.

DeeKay
20-09-2009, 01:37
I think that 40k needs a reboot. To be honest, sometimes you find something that is so...wrong that sometimes it is better to put it out of its misery.

I have experimented with an alternating activation using the current books and got mixed results. On the one hand, you did have the whole thrust-and-parry thing going on with armies, which I would dearly like to see. On the flipside, most people that I know that still play 40k simply play it for the buckets of dice they get to roll. They don't really care for the idea of tactical nuances that can be found in other systems. If that is what rocks their boats then so be it. I would personally ask... no... demand better from the company claiming to be the best miniatures company in the world.

With regards,
Dan.

big squig
20-09-2009, 01:41
Both. I'd want a reshuffle, but a big enough one that it would count as a reboot.

I like where 40k is now, but the kind of changes I'd like to see wouldn't work with the current codexs.

Besides, I'd rather have the army lists in the rulebook. The rulebook should give the FULL army list with all special rules and wargear. It should be laid out in a minimal way to save page space, but would be the full list.

Then, start releasing codexs, but don't update them. Just copy/paste the list form the rulebook in a nice layout with photo examples for each unit. Make it hardback and full color. Include special characters, new missions, battle reps, tactics articles, painting guides, a campaign, everything...just no new rules. Think of it like the collector's guide to your army.

Players shouldn't "need" their codex but they should "want" their codex.

Occulto
20-09-2009, 02:47
I think the game really needs to get a bit more complex and a bit less dumbed down, assuming that the kids GW relies on are stupid. I was 8 when I started and I managed with 2nd ed fine... Are kids getting stupider? No. People are just treating them as such and making everyone else pay for it.

I really hate this line of thinking.

Complexity doesn't make a game more intelligent - it doesn't take a genius to work through additional steps or pick from a longer list of options.

It's the way the rules interact makes a game more intelligent. Take BFG movement rules for example. Not difficult to learn, but incredibly difficult to master - because the difficulty comes in anticipating where things will be two or three turns ahead.


Id like to see a move to a D10 system as well. It would add more variety and allow armies to be more characterful.

And cost more to players. :rolleyes:

I can pick up a pack of d6 from my supermarket for a few bucks - I have to order online or go to a specialty game store to get d10s.

As for the original post?

I'd like to see a reboot. Mostly to introduce an alternating turn sequence similar to Epic.

CthulhuDalek
20-09-2009, 02:48
I'd be in support of a shuffle with some interesting changes.

The main things I'd change would be to add a movement characteristic BACK into the standard model profiles.

I'd also like to see armour modifiers, either based on strength or by weapon, or both -- similar to fantasy.

The other rules are pretty good imo, so would only need *minor* changes.





And cost more to players. :rolleyes:

I can pick up a pack of d6 from my supermarket for a few bucks - I have to order online or go to a specialty game store to get d10s.



I'd prefer a d10 system, as long as GW kept using stats of 0-10. However, if we did want to change things, why not keep a d6 system and make stats basically 0-6?

Of course this would be a MAJOR overhaul, BUT if done right would be a step towards making the game better.

Tymell
20-09-2009, 09:24
I'd like to see a reboot. Mostly to introduce an alternating turn sequence similar to Epic.

I second this. I think it would be refreshing and a lot of fun to play this way.

Old Gobbo
20-09-2009, 09:29
Neither. Chuck 5th in the bin and bring back 4th;)

Poseidal
20-09-2009, 09:39
I'd be in support of a shuffle with some interesting changes.

The main things I'd change would be to add a movement characteristic BACK into the standard model profiles.

I'd also like to see armour modifiers, either based on strength or by weapon, or both -- similar to fantasy.

The other rules are pretty good imo, so would only need *minor* changes.

I mostly agree with this. The removal of the Movement stat made the game more complicated as there's a load of special rules all about movement that needn't be there.

I've always hated AP since it's inception too.



I'd prefer a d10 system, as long as GW kept using stats of 0-10. However, if we did want to change things, why not keep a d6 system and make stats basically 0-6?

Of course this would be a MAJOR overhaul, BUT if done right would be a step towards making the game better.

Actually, although D10s give better variance, it doesn't make a difference (except for BS and Ld) since most stats are relative. They could be 1-6, 1-10, 1-12, 1-16 or whatever, because you're always comparing against someone else's score.

However, I do not think D10 is the way it should be the way to go. D6 are more friendly to use and easier to get hold of.

Neilza
20-09-2009, 10:44
Reboot pls remove wound allocation sort out leadership issues sort out to hit modifiers it always seems 4+ and fix constant 4+ cover saves

Hakkapelli
20-09-2009, 12:10
If I could choose one games system that GW would re-boot it would be WHFB. 40k is not that bad at the moment, not perfect but acceptable. A few things could use some changes, mainly the morale, veichles and AP system. A movement stat to replace the current mess would be nice too.

Increasing the number of turns and decreasing the damage done each turn would also be high on my wishlist for both 40K and WHFB.

lanrak
20-09-2009, 12:25
Hi again.
Thanks for the replies so far.
I would like to make it clear that a 're-shuffle' would NOT include a more interactive game turn,movement rates or increase the importance of LD,etc.

These major changes in direction would come under 're-boot, re-write'.(Because most of the current special rules that artificialy inject these features would no longer be needed!)

And BTW it is possible to use game mechanics that utilise D6s more effectivley.
Used in a direct determinist way a D10 has 4 more pips.
D6s can generate 100s of different results if used in multiples, or as modifiers.
Not just the pitiful few (2-6) when used deterministicaly!

As most other game companies find far more creative ways of useing dice than this,GW could do too.(And have done in some specialist games;).)

Also alot of people are hesitant to use modifiers.BUT a few well placed modifers can make the rules far more intiutive.

Too many bog the game down in unnecisary detail.(ASL,NRFN.:eek:)

To few bog the rules down in too many exeptions ,or extra systems .(40k.:D)

TTFN
Lanrak.

Cynisperer
20-09-2009, 13:52
I don't think it needs either, but on IG wise regimental books with lists for the diffrent regiments would be nice, especially the Harakoni Warhawks, which Im surprised they dont have any models for when they have cadian, catachan, valhallan, tallarn, mordian, and tanith models, and most look cool.

Thud
20-09-2009, 14:00
Neither. I like 5th edition.

I'd prefer it if they kept 5th edition long enough for all the armies to get a codex and have it for a while before things get shuffled up again.

hummus
20-09-2009, 18:32
Hi again.
I wouild like to assume that after the debarcle that was 3rd ed 40k , GW would NOT make the same mistake again.
(As they did NOT make the same mistake with LOTR-WOTR , and wrote a new rule set ,rather than scew up the skirmish rules trying to make the fit a bigger scale game.)

TTFN
lanrak.

how about if they did the reverse with 40k
5ed 40k being war of the ring
release a skirmish version of 40k being akin to lord of the ring
so u could have the choice of big game or little game.
you could even use 2ed rules or some kinda squad based version of necromunda:angel:

Poseidal
20-09-2009, 18:35
how about if they did the reverse with 40k
5ed 40k being war of the ring
release a skirmish version of 40k being akin to lord of the ring
so u could have the choice of big game or little game.
you could even use 2ed rules or some kinda squad based version of necromunda:angel:

I'd pay real money for something like that if they released it. Using a different ruleset and stats, for a different fell of game.

AFAIK the WOTR book has stats for everyone, so they can do a 'ravening hordes' in the main book for this.

Arkfatalis
20-09-2009, 22:19
The only things that annoy me is the fact that the shotguns in imperial guard armies are lame and should be more deadly at cloe range, and that you don't throw grenades as that would just be much better then the lame grenade rules at the moment. Also why do Ogryns have a BS or 3 like normal guardsmen who train, and it's generally considered that Ogryns are terrible shots, make things a bit more fluffy like Ogryns having BS of 2 but WS of 5 etc.

Kalec
20-09-2009, 23:32
All 40K needs, rules-wise, is to dump killpoints, make leadership more important, and mess around with cover saves a bit.

Glabro
21-09-2009, 00:18
A reboot after all the codices for 5th have been released and had at least a year of play time. We'll get new codices all the time regardless, so it's not like NOT rebooting will somehow stop that.

However, GW has stated that they will not reboot either system completely...which is a shame.

antin3
21-09-2009, 00:35
I think a simple re-shuffle should do, the game is pretty balanced right now. There are just a few army books that need updating. I don't like the idea that more rules need to be introduced. Give me a break, really. Most of the time people that are saying this don't or haven't even played 5th ed. Simple rules doesn't make for a simple game, the addition of objectives and troop scoring units adds much to the the game as far as strategy goes. I'm just worried that if they do a complete overhaul we will be regretting what we were wishing for.

CthulhuDalek
21-09-2009, 01:18
I like where 40k is now, but the kind of changes I'd like to see wouldn't work with the current codexs.

Besides, I'd rather have the army lists in the rulebook. The rulebook should give the FULL army list with all special rules and wargear. It should be laid out in a minimal way to save page space, but would be the full list.




I'm sure plenty of people would react to this with "whaaat? But that's like 3rd ed! *expunge*"

However, I actually agree with this.

The only issue I had with the 3rd edition book was that the rules were not written as well(comparatively speaking to both 4th and 5th editions).

If GW stopped releasing codices(at least 40k codices) for a year, and updated them all for 6th ed, put them in the B*-*B then they could simply do an annual chapter approved with ALL updates, or only release updates with the next edition.

The current fullsized book has enough room for army lists AND pictures.

They could even divide it into TWO RULEBOOKS -- purely from a cost standpoint, that'd have all xenos in one book + all core rules and ALL imperial in another book+ core rules. Not to say that these races would play together, but that they'd be organized into two "megabooks."

But if they could fit all codices in one book with sufficient fluff and pics I'd also be in favour of a single book.

But until then... we can dream.

Imperius
21-09-2009, 03:02
Ballistic Skill modifiers towards a targets speed and cover would be an excellent addition in my eyes.

Also I would like all saves to STACK. If your model is behind a barricade, has terminator armour and a magical force field of pie then he should be able to take all of those saves! 3+ 2+ 5+. Yes it will make some models RIDICULOUSLY tought to crack, but you wont see Space Marines boldly marching across a 12x8 board for the simple fact that they do not benefit from cover saves.

big squig
21-09-2009, 03:07
Ballistic Skill modifiers towards a targets speed and cover would be an excellent addition in my eyes.

Also I would like all saves to STACK. If your model is behind a barricade, has terminator armour and a magical force field of pie then he should be able to take all of those saves! 3+ 2+ 5+. Yes it will make some models RIDICULOUSLY tought to crack, but you wont see Space Marines boldly marching across a 12x8 board for the simple fact that they do not benefit from cover saves.
One, in second edition, stacking saves got really out of hand, and I don't trust GW to restrain themselves.

Two, space marines should be charging in the open. Each one is like a personal tank and they have a lot of pride and garish colors. Why hug cover if most small arms just pig right off you? How are going to smite someone with a holy rage while hiding? To me, marines not shock attacking feels very unfluffy.

Ianos
21-09-2009, 03:39
Two, space marines should be charging in the open. Each one is like a personal tank and they have a lot of pride and garish colors. Why hug cover if most small arms just pig right off you? How are going to smite someone with a holy rage while hiding? To me, marines not shock attacking feels very unfluffy.

Marines are bold but not stupid. They will do whatever necessary to the best of their knowledge, intel and capabilities to achieve their mission objectives under any circumstance.

Cover right now is ok, and marines can both use it or shock attack the enemy.

As for 6th, i think its too early for all of us to understand how the ruleset should evolve, especially since many core armies have not been yet updated to give the whole picture.

I do think that 5th took the right direction and just needs some adjustments especially on some rules that are ambiguous or need fixing like KPs.

So no overhaul for me, just a few fixes here and there for now.

Vaktathi
21-09-2009, 03:42
Please no stacking saves, that would simply get ridiculous, especially for units with already decent saves, and would cripple most shooting armies.

It wouldn't benefit guardsmen at all for example against most attacks. A bolter still ignores their save so they'd only get cover. However a space marine would become twice as resilient against non AP3 weapons as they 4+ cover would stack with the 3+ armor.

A BS modifier fixes the whole thing much better.

EDIT: just looked at some of the math to kill a Space Marine in cover with a -1BS modifier and stacking saves.

A normal lasgun right now needs about 18 shots to kill an SM at BS3

With a BS modifier and stacking cover, this becomes 54 shots needed. This necessitates a 300% increase in firepower to achieve the same casualties. way too ridiculous and would basically mean you'd see nothing but CC armies.

Dictator
21-09-2009, 04:35
BS modifier sounds like a great idea. Along wiht movement stats perhaps and getting rid of AP. I have never played second edition but I always loved the idea of to hit modifiers and piercing modifiers.

Krail
21-09-2009, 05:08
I would like to see a reboot which should bring 6th Ed closer again to what 2nd Ed used to be.

More variance and choices, distinctive characteristics for weapons so you CAN choose and do not have no brainer options lke now. what i would like to see:

- Bring back Armour mod Values for Weapons (CC ones too), drop AP system. No need for Armour Penetration (Vehicles) stat, as this could be taken over from 5th and underlined with USRs (-5 Armour means +1 on damage table)

- Movement Values

- Alternating activation system (no chance in hell, i know)

- Reworked cover saves. Dont get rid of them but lower the benefit overall.

and tons of other things one could steal :)

Just make it streamlined enough. 5th Ed isnt bad if you look at it, but more choices would go a long way. Opening up the system would open up more paths to create differences between armies and wargear. As of now, its not that easy without adding tons of Special rules or just going too far or falling too short.

big squig
21-09-2009, 05:21
Actually, almost everything in 5th ed I'm totally fine with. What would go a LOOOOOOOO (miles of O's) OOOOOONG way to making the game better would be better codex;s and for the love of God, more missions. Get rid of Kill Points and overload me with new deployment methods, new objectives, new mission special rules, and new attacker/defender scenarios.

and I mean in the main game, none of this apocalypse/planetstrike junk.

magnum12
21-09-2009, 06:45
Reshuffle. 5th edition is a big step in the right direction compared to 4th edition. Why reboot it when all it really needs are a few modifications. Items that do need to be worked out include the following.

1. Kill Points. Scrap it and replace with victory points.
2. Cover. Convert to a BS penalty.
3. Wound Allocation. The new system has caused nothing but trouble since its introduction (Nob bikers as poster boy and more attacks leading to less kills). The 4th edition version is more intuitive and less exploitable.

Ianos
21-09-2009, 07:40
1. Kill Points. Scrap it and replace with victory points.

Although i agree, i have to also note that KPs do keep the unit spam down. However i do believe that VPs should be more important.


2. Cover. Convert to a BS penalty.

I don't think it can happen, a forest will make anyone inside virtually un-target-able by Orks for example. Cover is right now alright, it provides a bonous but it will both slow you down and can be denied.



3. Wound Allocation. The new system has caused nothing but trouble since its introduction (Nob bikers as poster boy and more attacks leading to less kills). The 4th edition version is more intuitive and less exploitable.

Wound Allocation does need fixing, Especially on what happens with mixed damage (high/low ap&strength allocations)

koran
21-09-2009, 08:32
I really hate this line of thinking.

Complexity doesn't make a game more intelligent - it doesn't take a genius to work through additional steps or pick from a longer list of options.

I agree. But in interviews GW have said that a lot of the changes were to make it easier to learn and staff always say it was to get more kids interested. And its true that complexity doesnt always make the game better, but in this case it definitely did.

Appoloclypse
21-09-2009, 08:49
vhicles need to beable to move and shood more, run needs to be droped, i feel it took away from eldar and nids, kill points needs a rework, charging should be done in the movement phase, i understand the current system is to show shooting on the way in but it feels to move stop move again to me, and i would like to see terain have more effect on shooting again, the converted models csm army got completely screwed by going back to true line of site, also you should have a hard time seeing the sniper hiding in the 5 floor window of a building.

CthulhuDalek
21-09-2009, 08:52
What if being in cover just added plus one to your armour save value? Then high AP weapons could still blast right through cover OR if we switched to an armour save modifying system based on strength and weapon type it'd have similar benefits(maybe a +2 to armour saves in this case). A roll of a 1 would still fail.

Also, I wouldn't drop killpoints entirely, just make a mix between killpoints and victory points. VPs were always kind of annoying. When the battle's over you don't want to spend 20 minutes calculating just HOW BADLY you lost. 1 minute works fine. Also it DOES limit small unit spam.

I agree with Apooloclypse that vehicles need to be able to move and shoot more, which could be solved by saying defensive weapons=str. 6 or below.

I do *not* think charging should be done in the movement phase. It's one of those rules from fantasy that would not translate well into 40k where shooting should matter a little bit more. Run is a fine rule, I just think units with fleet need to reflect that it isn't as good as before -- maybe a slight points drop for the units that already had it.

True line of sight has its benefits and its downsides but I think that's what balances it out.

Poisonpen
21-09-2009, 09:30
As shall soon be evident I am in favor of a major overhaul for most current GW game systems. Despite what I am about to say, 5th edition has been my favorite thus far, but there is so much they could do with the next edition... Here are the more realistic of my wishes for the future of 40k:

-Kill kill points, or at least fix the obviously broken parts such as Spore Mines and Devilfish Drones.

-Fix defensive weapons.

-More basic missions and set-up templates in the main rulebook. I like the mission+set up system they have presently, we just need more than a measly 3 apiece.

-Movement values make a return.

-Different grenade rules (honestly I am stumped on this one. I have no idea what I want to have happen with them, I just know the current rules are pants).

-Ballistic Skill & Armor Save modifiers make a return.

-Fewer things that ignore the basic leadership rules and an increased importance on leadership for all armies.

-Fewer special characters. Especially unit-upgrade special characters, but by far cut down on army composition-modifying special characters the most. Ick.

...and now here is the list of utterly hopeless ideas that will never be implemented because they change up the gameplay too much for GW to stay in their comfort zone:

-In addition to movement values returning I would like to see the subsequent removal of most movement special rules, as almost all of them can be simulated with universal rules in addition to movement values.

-Overhaul turn system into I-go-you-go alternated by unit with Initiative value modifying unit activation order.

-Codexes less about introducing new rules than focusing on how the army manipulates the core rules in interesting ways. This should cut down on the ever increasing rules creep, and make for more sensible and tactical gameplay, instead of 'and now I do this' type gameplay.

Killgore
21-09-2009, 10:54
Armour save modifers and removal of the current AP system would make me a happy bunny :P

Making spacemarines think twice before advancing infront of my Heavy Bolters :P

Im in favour of a complete re-write, afterall theres nothing stopping people from using older editions if they dont like the new one.

lanrak
21-09-2009, 11:44
Hi again.
Lots of great posts , and a nice insight into the core divisions between 40k players.

First I would just like to try to clarify the distinction between complex and complicated.

Complexity is the amount of 'variation'(gameplay) within a 'system'.

Complication is the amount of 'instructions'(rules) to use the 'system'.

A rule set can have a lots of game complexity, and very little in the way of rules complication.This is the gamer ideal IMO.
Very little time spent learning the rules , (30 mins tops,)and a life time of interesting game play.:D

Some games have very little complexity, but have over comlpicated rules that try to artificialy inject more diversity.(An allogation that could be leveled at 40k perhaps?):eek:

My impressions of player divisions.
(Very rough and broad , and not intended to offend anyone at all!)

Those players that just want to relax, thow some dice and push some minatures about for a couple of hours , are generaly very happy with 40k 5th ed.
(But would be just happy with any other rule set that achived this basic goal.)

Those players who have only played 40k, may feel uneasy about drastic changes to the ONLY system they know.(Very undestandable .)
And may feel that the complicated nature of the current 40k rules would HAVE to be used to expand the game to a level of complication beyond comprehension?(Not true BTW.)

And as the 40k dev team HAVE made slow progress in better defining the rules , they would rather follow the 'devil they know'.
(This is more a vote of no confidance in the 40k devs ability to completly re-write the rules, and end up with something much better, perhaps?)

Those players only playing 40k/WH , may feel 40k is getting changes for the sake of making 40k different to WH.
Even though WH methods are the most efficient way of using WH game mechanics, which both games share.
And so want 40k to use WH resolutions methods.(Again very understandable atitiude.IMO.A 'proper' development of 2nd ed rules to fit the new game size and game play is sort of what they are after?)

Those player who have experianced totaly different rule sets from other companies , can see how far away from ideal the current 40k rules are.:eek:
(Ideal being minimum amount of rules, giving the maximum amount of game play.)
And so would like GW to re-start 40k completly to get a rule set written to optimise current gameplay.(Rather than pander to direct marketing influence.)

If rules are writen focusing on maximising game play.They tend to be written inclusivley.Everything is covered elegantly in the basic rules .

If the rules are written to promote product they tend to to be written exclusivley, and maximise the slightest of differences . This means lots more rules are added to make the individual products appear more 'special'.

Poisonpen put it so well...
'(Making) Codexes less about introducing new rules than focusing on how the army manipulates the core rules in interesting ways. This should cut down on the ever increasing rules creep, and make for more sensible and tactical gameplay, instead of 'and now I do this' type gameplay.'

Well said!

TFFN
lanrak.

CplHicks
21-09-2009, 12:20
There really should be an option for neither. Im fine with it as it is.

I started playing again with 5th last after quitting shortly after the switch to 3rd (played 2nd extensively). I played a lot of other companies rulesets like VOR, Warzone, Dark Age and Flames of War in the meantime. Still do with FoW regularly and eagerly await VORs 2nd edition. Still, 5th is immense fun to me. Some areas could be tweaked a little (e.g. defensive weapons), but if they continue the current path with the rules and codices, Im absolutely fine with that. They could be quicker in releasing the updated book, but that doesnt have to do anything with the rules.

So all in all Im quite tired of these discussions. I can avoid them on the forums easily (and this place is for them to take place) but they tend to crop up in my playing group as well and there it is harder to stop them from wasting my time. So, I wish all of you to have plenty of fun as it seems to me that many experience a severe lack of that.

All the best.

Petay1985
21-09-2009, 12:23
I had a long disscussion with a staff member about the potential for 6th edition being a 'new-phase' in the 40k history.
The ideas we discussed were that the imperium has fallen, imperial guard & space marines are all split up, no longer opreating successfully under the watchful gaze of terra, now far more sects & empires springing up!
The nids are really taking over, the Tau now have a reasonable empire and are looking stronger than ever. Eldar are almost completely gone, practically none left 1 craft world, etc...
Orks running riot everywhere, chaos really messing with the show.

Etc, etc, you get the idea. Our conversation sprang from discussing arumour that in 6th the imperium would fall!! - don't know where this has come from!!

Rules wise i'm not fussed whether we have a re-write or not... so i've voted re-shuffle :)

Giganthrax
21-09-2009, 13:20
I think 5th edition is just fine. The 6th edition should just improve on a few things, but generally I wouldn't want a huge change, if any.

AmasNagol
21-09-2009, 13:28
Cover should have an effect against shooting to hit rolls. The To Hit modifier in 2nd Edition was a better system than the cover save. I also quite liked over watch, as I am in a nostalgic mood.

But the biggest loss going from 2nd Ed to 3rd 4th and 4th is the omission of a Universal Wargear Book! That NEEDS to be included. 4 different versions of Storm Shields in the game is just a complete nonsense. Fair enough codex specific wargear can be added for that race, but stuff used by multiple codices such as Marine gear and generic human weapons needs to be consistent across all lists.

Col_Festus
21-09-2009, 13:35
I would love to see a reboot for 40k personally.

Ive played since 2nd edition and as such have seen the big swing from 2nd to 3rd, 3rd to 4th and 4th to 5th (2.5 ed in my opinion). It seems they attempted to stream line parts of the game, but back pedaled in other areas (wound allocation and TLOS). I don't mind such things as TLOS, or the wound allocation system, but not when you combine them with stream lined rules leaving a very funny system. TLOS and wound allocation wasn't such a big deal back in 2nd edition simply because the game was half the size. I remember from 2nd to 3rd your 2000 point army because a 1000 point army!

Personally I would like to see them take all the codexs (apoc, planetstrike, and cities of death included) lock themselves in a basement, balance EVERYTHING to each other in terms of point costs, then get tons of local gamers to play test the hell out of it. Release all of the codecies in one book (and yes it would be a monster book but thats something Id pay 100$ american for). Then going forward have splash releases similar to privateer press. This way they could advance the fluff every year, as well as bringing out new units for every army. They could also update rules and FAQ things with each release of the new system. I know that GW makes money on the codex release system, but imagine if every 40k player had to buy a new book that was around 80 - 100 bucks every year along with the new minis released for their armies? Surely that would make up for more than the cost of a single army being released to a limited fan base (people who play that army). Also with all the rules in the big book for every army, folks maybe more inclined to start a new army seeing as they have all the rules in front of them.

I'm fairly certain you will see apoc made into a core rule set in 6th. With the release of all these plastic kits it would be stupid for GW not to capitalize on that and annex it into their core system.

GorillaSurfer
21-09-2009, 13:45
Reboot. Burn this motherfrakker down and rebuilt it. Release all codizes at the same time. No more 3rd edition stuff in 5th edition or rules, that didn't take into account, how certain non-Marine armies work.

AmasNagol
21-09-2009, 14:26
On further thoughts, I think that To Hit modifiers would only be balanced (due to the additional bonuses that would be conferred onto well armoured units such as Marines) if combined with Save Modifiers to bring down the effectiveness of armour.

Radium
21-09-2009, 14:55
Reboot the system. Starting from scratch with the good ideas from every edition, and a fix for every problem. Also, balance all armies out in a single go.

Cynisperer
21-09-2009, 15:09
Now that I actually read through my IG codex I think SOMETHING has to be done to it, cause everything that I had that was compeditive in 4th ed was etheir downgraded or point cost rocketed (like the demolisher) and a lot of the tank varients are now needed when personally, how many of us actually have the cash to buy FW tanks?

Dasyatis
21-09-2009, 15:25
Thinking about it, why even bother with having rules in the Codex ? Just make them fluff books. Along with these books include a pack of cards with the unit stats / rules on. Put all the psychic abilities / special rules / etc on cards too. By all means, sell them as a single set.

From this point on, if anything *needs* to be changed then it can by changing a single card. Erratas are easy. Hell, include updated cards in White Dwarf and make it a must buy. It also makes it nice and easy to introduce special "stuff". Dark Angels being miffed about a new codex ? Release a card for Belial to be used with the C:SM Codex stating Terminators can be used as troops. During the worldwide campaigns you could release a card with White Dwarf for special magic items but have a use by date on the bottom.

One of mt favourite games, Hell Dorado, had an interesting tournament mechanic where you could win special cards that gave you some kind of a bonus in future games. Only small things, but nice little bonuses to add a bit of flavour. These could be used in any game you play in the future. The catch is that you had to tear the card when you used it.

Poseidal
21-09-2009, 16:04
Cards were tried and used extensively in 2nd edition 40k and 4th edition Warhammer.

Although I'm fond of those systems, the card usage was one of the most annoying things about them.

BrainFireBob
21-09-2009, 16:27
On further thoughts, I think that To Hit modifiers would only be balanced (due to the additional bonuses that would be conferred onto well armoured units such as Marines) if combined with Save Modifiers to bring down the effectiveness of armour.

Someone is beginning to figure out why the designers did what they did when we moved from 2nd to 3rd- they do this for a living, they already thought of that. You are correct- effectively, it's all of it or none of it.

Edit: lanrak, you're pushing your own interpretations and views- such as defining "complex" and "complicated" in a way that forces a "reboot" vote. I'm seeing a lot of nostalgia, and people who weren't there asking for things to be added to 40K that previously were- and were rejected. This is not to dismiss, but it is a valid category of comment.

For myself, a reshuffle, with defensive weapons being defined by a type other than strength (even a list!) and a rewrite of wound allocation. Better psych might be nice, but 40K isn't a highly competitive, tightly driven game- it's a laid back game for laid back gaming. If I wanted a highly competitive game, I'd go back to MtG or Warmachine. I don't enjoy those, 40K is my option. I really don't want it changed into yet another WAAC system.

The Highlander
21-09-2009, 17:58
I think 40K is mostly fine as it is, yes there are thing I would like to see changed (kill points, defensive weapons, consolidating into combat) but I don’t think a total reboot would be a good idea. As others have pointed out that would mean being stuck with ‘get you by’ for a long time while waiting for new codexs. What I do thing GW should do is release more trial rules so that more of the bugs can be worked out before they become official.

Glabro
21-09-2009, 18:03
Someone is beginning to figure out why the designers did what they did when we moved from 2nd to 3rd- they do this for a living, they already thought of that. You are correct- effectively, it's all of it or none of it.


Hell yeah, bring on save modifiers - I like those Space Marines rolling 5+ for their saves. Meanwhile my orks will cry a river over their completely negated saves.

Twinmold
21-09-2009, 18:08
The things that imo need changing is:

1: Cover should be fixed to a bs modifier so that all armys gain significant benefit from being in cover as i don't see how just because you have power armor shots fly through buildings.

2: Leadership more important, it is ridiculous how even the armys that are at all morale effected are either ld9+, have rerolls for morale tests or some other mechanism.

3: Wound allocation, more shots do cause more kills not the other way around.

4: AP system, i can not see how the lasgun is just as good at killing terminators as the hotshot lasgun.

big squig
21-09-2009, 18:08
-Use the LOTR turn sequence. (this requires moving assault moves to the movement phase and allowing assault weapons and pistols to fire on the charge like throwing weapons in LOTR).
-Drop area terrain
-Change BS to 4+ for example. Why do I need to convert a number to figure what I need to hit? Just tell me in the stat line like ya do with saves.
-Drop wound allocation rules.
-Units in the way of LOS don't provide cover, they block LOS.
-Cover should force hits to be re-rolled.
-Pinned units should be I1 and assault grenades should cause a pinning check on the enemy as you charge.
-All models in a combat may fight. Multiple units in the same combat are merged together with majority WS and T for the fight.
-Get rid of kill points and all annihilation missions. Just do objectives.
-Change lots of small crap like rending, sniper weapons, dangerous terrain, rapid fire, fearless, USR clean up...so on.

big squig
21-09-2009, 18:13
Oh, and the AP system doesn't really bother me. Armor in real life is pretty much impenetrable to all shots up to a certain caliber...but as soon as you reach that caliber the shot will pierce right through the armor like butter.

In real life, it really is all or nothing. The only time a shot of low caliber ever makes it through armor is if it hits a place where the armor is weak or where there is a seam.

Glabro
21-09-2009, 19:36
Indeed, and that's why I think the current AP system is not only a win for realism, but for ease of play and better balance as well.

Twinmold
21-09-2009, 19:44
Oh, and the AP system doesn't really bother me. Armor in real life is pretty much impenetrable to all shots up to a certain caliber...but as soon as you reach that caliber the shot will pierce right through the armor like butter.

In real life, it really is all or nothing. The only time a shot of low caliber ever makes it through armor is if it hits a place where the armor is weak or where there is a seam.

You still have a higher chance of getting through armor the larger the round even if it doesn't go through with ease.

Vaktathi
21-09-2009, 20:03
Also, armor in some areas is harder to get through than others. A modern bulletproof vest can protect against mid-size rounds like 7.62x39, but most helmets may only protect against shrapnel and pistol rounds like 9mm. So for example, a model may have a 4+ save base, and may take that against laspistols and the like as the armor will protect against any hit to one of the locations covered by armor, but a bolter may be able to penetrate clearly through some parts of that armor, so it may only have a 5+ against bolters.

darker4308
21-09-2009, 20:07
I would love to see pdf codex's again. Honestly, it was a good idea.

x-esiv-4c
21-09-2009, 20:14
"Oh, and the AP system doesn't really bother me. Armor in real life is pretty much impenetrable to all shots up to a certain caliber...but as soon as you reach that caliber the shot will pierce right through the armor like butter."

Makes you wonder what the V50 curve is about then.

Glabro
21-09-2009, 20:22
Also, armor in some areas is harder to get through than others. A modern bulletproof vest can protect against mid-size rounds like 7.62x39, but most helmets may only protect against shrapnel and pistol rounds like 9mm. So for example, a model may have a 4+ save base, and may take that against laspistols and the like as the armor will protect against any hit to one of the locations covered by armor, but a bolter may be able to penetrate clearly through some parts of that armor, so it may only have a 5+ against bolters.

That's a bit drastic though. Besides, nobody is hit in the head in 40k unless specificially mentioned. Space Marines don't need helmets for fighting purposes, simply for environmental concerns.

Codsticker
21-09-2009, 20:26
I couldn't vote as there is no third option. ;) I want a major re-shuffle but not quite a complete re-boot.

lanrak
22-09-2009, 10:56
HI agian.
@BrainFireBob.
I only tried to define the difference between 'complicated' and 'complex' as some people get them confused.
(And a previous post may have mis used them?)

The examples I used showed my preference of lots of 'in game complexity' coverd by 'un-complicated rules'.(Easy to learn ALL the rules,and give loads of gameplay options.)

If some gamers only have the 'WHFB rules modified for RT, mutated into to 5th ed' as a reference.
Then they have a very limited view of the options availble.

The ONLY constant theme is the rules used with 40k were never written specificaly for the game.(And were poorly implemented, IMO.)

I dont want 2nd ed back.
But I simply want the most elegant and efficient rule set for my favorite game setting.(Dont we all?)

But viewed as either/or.
Suitable game mechanics, concise charateristics compared directly , coupled with limited modifiers.Tend to give fewer, more straighforward rules .

If the core rules are written for ease of explanation,(roll a dice, 'x'+ is sucessful),they often need more rules in the form of seperate additional exceptions, that contradict the basic rules.:rolleyes:

Just to be clear I dont want a WAAC system.I just want the amount of rules to be proportionate the the amount of game play.
Clearly defined easy to underatand intuitive rules make EVERYONES game more enjoyable.
(Unless you like arguing over rules interpitations.:evilgrin:)

And for all those people who think the AP system is an accurate representation of weapon and armour intraction.:rolleyes:

Remenber that 40k 'wound' represents being out of action due to injury -death.

So if you are wearing a bullet proof vest , and you are hit by a bullet you can suffer ,minor bruising, major briusing , winded, broken ribs and winded ,unconcuisness, serious internal bleeding , your heart stopping through SHOCK WAVE passed from the vest to you.

NONE of these injuries 'beat the vest'.But can put a serious crimp in your day.:evilgrin:

Its a power of impact vs effectivness of the vest to reduce harm done by the hit.

Armour reduces the effect of the weapon hit!;)

Thefore;-
Whats wrong with subtracting the armour value (1 to 15) from the damage value of the weapon?(5 to 15)

Damage 10 hits Armour value 6. (10-6 =4) target saves on a 4+
Damage 10 hits Armour value 8 (10 -8=2) target saves on a 2+

This gives simple graduated results with 'natural occuring invunrablity' and a wider range that could apply to ALL units.
Rather than having.
AP vs armour saves.
Inv saves vs special rules.
AV vs Str.
(And some special rules for wound allocation/removal.:rolleyes:)

(Just one of many simpmle alternatives, that allows proportional graduated results.)


@Codsticker.
Any MAJOR changes would count as a re-boot.
Movement values, interactive game turn,modifiers, and making LD more important, all count as major changes , as it would reduce the number of special rules.(A major change in direction for GW .)

As just changing values of what the current rules have , plus some unnecisary changes for the sake of it, is the reshuffle oprion.(What happened from 3rd to 5th ed.IMO.)

TTFN
Lanrak.

Bunnahabhain
22-09-2009, 15:03
Another good example of in game complexity from simple rules is vehicle damage.

Roll Armour penetration vs Armour value of target. If you don't equal your targets armour, nothing happens.

Now roll 2D6 on ( much bigger) damage table, and add the amount you beat the armour by. Cover is a negative modifier. Some results do nothing, some add +X to any additional roles, and then the normal ones of weapon destroyed, immobilised etc...

Replaces AP1, AP-, glancing, cover saves etc with a simple system.
If you want to represent something being really hard to kill, ie a monolith, then you can use a simple modification of the damage table, ie one of these

1) Instead of 2D6, roll 2D6 -3 on the damage table
2) No modifiers ever apply to damage rolls against the monolith- you only roll 2d6
3) You may always re-roll the damage result against the monolith

Simple systems, with re-rolls and modifers. Stick within this, and it works.

shin'keiro
01-10-2009, 02:01
Make Ruined buildings a 5+ cover save!

If its 'True line of sight' - then you should only be able to kill what you can see!

Remove wound allocation.

big squig
05-10-2009, 07:50
-Drop area terrain. Do true LOS. (my gaming group has gone from using area for trees to just using individual trees as impassible...it's made the game so much more exciting)

-Either drop the wound allocation rules or fix them.

-More variety in cover saves.

-Units shouldn't provide cover, they should block LOS. (friend and foe alike)

-All models should fight in CC and multiple units in the same combat should just be merged with majority WS and T for the purposes of being attacked.

-The whole move/shoot relationship of tanks needs retooling. It should be 0"-6" fire everything, over 6" fire one weapon. Defensive weapons should be Str 5 and should get free shots at charging units.

-Make the damage chart less of a crap-shoot. I love that glancing hits can't destroy tanks anymore as that was retarded, but it's crazy to see a melta weapon get like an 18 and then roll a one for effect. You should get a + modifier for each point you beat the armor by.

-Drop KP, VP, and annihilation. It makes for very boring no-tactics games. (and no, multiple small units or maxing out on troops does not give you any real advantage)

-I know it's a long shot that will never happen, but would like the LOTR (SBG) turn sequence. It's just superior.

Though, I will have to disagree with one point many here are making, removing casualties from outside LOS/range. I know it seems silly, but it's there for two reasons. One, where the models are may not be their exact location, everything is in motion, everything is an abstration. You may not see that guy behind a wall, but who's to say he didn't run by a near by window or pop his head out real quick? Who's to say the shot didn't pierce the wall?

The other reason is a game mechanic reason...it prevents sniping. Too often in 4th and 3rd ed I lost a sarg or gunner because my opponent line up their model just perfectly so that was the only guy they could see.

Tarax
05-10-2009, 10:50
-The whole move/shoot relationship of tanks needs retooling. It should be 0"-6" fire everything, over 6" fire one weapon. Defensive weapons should be Str 5 and should get free shots at charging units.

I'd rather see them making a distinction between main and defensive weapons. With the entry they should specify which weapon is which.


-I know it's a long shot that will never happen, but would like the LOTR (SBG) turn sequence. It's just superior.

Why not have rules like overwatch, so you can shoot in the enemy's turn.


Though, I will have to disagree with one point many here are making, removing casualties from outside LOS/range. I know it seems silly, but it's there for two reasons. One, where the models are may not be their exact location, everything is in motion, everything is an abstration. You may not see that guy behind a wall, but who's to say he didn't run by a near by window or pop his head out real quick? Who's to say the shot didn't pierce the wall?

The other reason is a game mechanic reason...it prevents sniping. Too often in 4th and 3rd ed I lost a sarg or gunner because my opponent line up their model just perfectly so that was the only guy they could see.

I disagree. Though the game is more fluent than represented, it makes for more tactical choices. Anyway, placing your models so that they become vulnerable, is just poor generalship on the player's part.

Sons of Russ
05-10-2009, 11:09
No 6th ed for some time. Decent FAQs and erratas for ALL armies in the meantime.

6th ed complete reboot, built and tested from the ground up, with all codexs written from the outset.

Rely on decent, balanced rules, and good models, and they will sell, without the new book cycle.

Utopian Socialism called. They want you to know that GW did not get the memo....

Poseidal
05-10-2009, 11:21
I disagree. Though the game is more fluent than represented, it makes for more tactical choices. Anyway, placing your models so that they become vulnerable, is just poor generalship on the player's part.

It's not because of their placing.

This is how sniping occurs:

I place a rhino, which blocks LOS to all the guys but my target from my unit. I fire on that unit, and because I blocked LOS to the others with my rhinos, I hit that particular dude. He can do literally NOTHING about it if his unit is visible.

This sort of rhino blocking is abuse of the rules, so makes less sense than the Wound Allocation that replaced it which is an abstraction rather than the old system that worked in this reverse manner.

Vaktathi
05-10-2009, 11:27
That's not a problem with wound allocation, that's a problem with LoS rules and players intentionally exploiting the **** out of a mechanic in a way that they shouldn't and it as never designed to, doing that in a computer game would be considered hacking/cheating. I don't recall ever actually seeing someone do this. That also can be alleviated by intelligent placement of ones own models.

And honestly, the current wound allocation system causes a lot more problems. When shooting *more* results in fewer kills, the system is probably borked.

Tarax
05-10-2009, 12:36
@Poseidal: That makes me a fair gamer as I don't do that kind of stuff.

I was more thinking of placing your precious models in the middle of your unit. However, if you want your special model to shoot at a certain target, eg Lascannon against tank, they will expose themselves and are a valid target.

Poseidal
05-10-2009, 13:09
I don't really understand where that's coming from, or how positioning would help. The Lascannon can't move and fire anyway, so I don't see how it would be better under the old system than the current one.

Abstraction is better, but I think they should do something more similar to Fantasy where under certain unit sizes, hits are randomised.

HsojVvad
05-10-2009, 13:46
I say reboot. This way all the armies would be redone. I am getting a bit pissed off that these new edtions is nothing but just rule tweaks and not really new. Paying $85 Canadian just to have rule tweaks is not fun.

Well the game might be fun, it's not fun paying full price for a new version wich is basically the same, since 3rd edtion. All these things could have been a free FAQ.

But then again, if GW did a complete overhaul then you would have people crying that the game is too different, and it completely changed their army and people wouldn't be able to play anymore with their current army.

Guess you just can't make everyone happy, so I guess GW did the best they can do.


Cover needs to be fixed. As it is now low AP weaponry is overcosted because cover is everywhere.

Leadership tests need to be easier to fail. Too many fearless/ld 9+ units

GW need to hire someone to word their rules properly. You read the warmachine rules and there are very few points to argue over when compared to 40k.

Armour saves need to not be binary on/off affairs.

Rapidfire needs to be fixed. As it is it is probably one of the worst firing attributes.

Gamechanging rolls, like the game ending, armour penetration, reserves, going first etc need to be based on 2d6. Much less luck and much more consistency.

See these are just tweaks that are made, and not worthy of a new edtion. These things can be fixed through a FAQ. After all I need to use the FAQ if I want to play at a Tourney or anyone at a GW store. So they should be able to update it that way.


I'd be in support of a shuffle with some interesting changes.

The main things I'd change would be to add a movement characteristic BACK into the standard model profiles.

I'd also like to see armour modifiers, either based on strength or by weapon, or both -- similar to fantasy.

The other rules are pretty good imo, so would only need *minor* changes.



I'd prefer a d10 system, as long as GW kept using stats of 0-10. However, if we did want to change things, why not keep a d6 system and make stats basically 0-6?

Of course this would be a MAJOR overhaul, BUT if done right would be a step towards making the game better.

I agree with you. I like to see each race have movement, not everyone move at 6". How can a Tyranid wich is suppose to be fast, moves just as fast as a Terminator?

Also one question, how can you use a d10 and have 0-10? shouldn't it be 1-10 or 0-9? and how do you get 0-6 from a D6? shouldn't it be a 1-6 you ment?


Cards were tried and used extensively in 2nd edition 40k and 4th edition Warhammer.

Although I'm fond of those systems, the card usage was one of the most annoying things about them.

Though I never played 2nd edtion or how the card system works, if I wanted cards to play with, I would have played Pokemon. :p

LordLucan
05-10-2009, 14:26
Background-wise I want neither a re-boot or re-shuffle: Merely an expansion. As for the rules, I've never really seen anything wrong with any edition's rules to be honest with you. I suppose I don't play ften enough to notice.

big squig
06-10-2009, 00:58
Why not have rules like overwatch, so you can shoot in the enemy's turn.

Because that's just more rules added on to the problem. The LOTR turn sequence allows for more tactical options. It also lets combat units safely slaughter enemies without fear of being shot down simply because of who's turn is next.

Ronin_eX
06-10-2009, 07:00
I'd prefer a complete re-boot with them focusing their development philosophy instead of scattering it. I'd love the rules created to not be a kitbash of WFB mauled into an unrecognizable state. As it is the rules don't really represent the reality of 40k or the units in it. They are unthematic and kind of a mess and have been for the last decade or so.

Now it wouldn't take a huge list of changes for me to enjoy the rules but for me to love the game again it would take a re-boot with a well thought out and thematic ruleset that makes me sit up and go "wow" like WM, Warzone or Infinity did when I started playing. My personal thought is find a way to take the Epic rule system and port it to a smaller combat size because Epic is a much better representation of 40k, thematically speaking, than the WFB-clone system ever was.

Especially the morale system, the Epic morales system is not just a good morale system it is one of the best I've seen next to games that deal with it a lot like Stargrunt II. It melds suppression fire and faltering morale together into a seamless mix that is quite enjoyable and makes morale intensely important, perhaps even more than actual casualties.

So ideally they would use the successful rules aspects they have learned from their other games and put them in 40k instead of fiddling with a system that has been showing its age for nearly twenty years.

So I voted re-boot but a re-shuffle with the right bits could certainly improve things.

lanrak
06-10-2009, 11:28
Hi Ronin_eX.
I totaly agree that adding definition to an 'Epic' based system to scale it down to 40k size would deliver far better results than the current WHFB based abstraction that is given rise to such a large amount of rules bloat.

When the amount of exceptions(USR +special rules, ) is outnumbering the (basic)rules, its time to start again IMO.

TTFN
Lanrak.

Gutted
06-10-2009, 12:32
Complete reboot. Choose either cinematic action or abstract battle simulation and then write the rules accordingly.

Either way Morale should be made important for each faction or scrapped entirely

Stepping away from the D6 would be a good idea.

Bringing back movement stat would be a good idea.

Making the game more streamlined and interactive would be a good idea.

elite_dannux
06-10-2009, 13:11
I think that you should take armour saves before wounds :)

When that happens 40k has hit nirvana ;)

Gutlord Grom
06-10-2009, 14:22
I think 40k works pretty well generally. A few things here and there might be a little more than messed up, but overall, I feel the games works pretty well for most things. What needs to be done right now is a rules update for some of the older codexes before a new edition can creep up, but that's generally about as hopeful as most of the rule suggestions in this thread.

Dasyatis
06-10-2009, 16:10
I think a nice and easy way to sort out wound alloation from shootoing would be to fire in waves.

Say you have a unit with 8x bolters, a missile launcher, and a lascannon. You fire with the lascannon, wound with it, armour saves, etc. Then you fire with the bolters, wound with them, etc etc. Then the missile launchers.

Anything that kills a full model (due to high strength or the like) must remove an unwounded model if one exists. Otherwise, all the wounds are bunched until something dies.

druchii
06-10-2009, 16:48
I'd be ok with a reboot, but only if they hire me to do it... :D

Imo, most game designers (be it video games or tabletop games designers) ignore popular wisdom way too much to ever produce a really balanced game. Reading message boards is all you need to do nowadays to get a good idea of what's broken and what's not, but apparently it's something they don't want to do (and I honestly wonder why).

Until the day they finally listen to the community, I don't want to see a reboot.

Game Designers tend to ignore people and their "popular wisdom" because, ironically enough, people tend to not have it.

If warseer is any indication of other message boards (I'm told it isn't) then people just don't know what they're talking about. Message boards/talking to players is one of the absolute worst ways to analyze a game. People playing it usually don't know much, they're just reacting to what punches them in the face.

Take Infinity Ward and Blizzard for example. They've got entire teams of people that just sit, and analyze game data. Who killed who with what, from where, how? And they tweak things from there. That's why both games have such a high degree of polish and balance (if you don't believe me watch how close the word finals were in WoW's arena tournaments).

Unfortunately GW can't really analyze which gun/spell killed who, and how, because it's an entirely different sort of game.

Give me a re-shuffle. Quit re-relasing codexes that don't need to be made, finish the ones that do, and let us play with some more expansions and random things that aren't army releases.

d

Bloodriver
07-10-2009, 00:14
I would have said reshuffle, except that I think that the turn order needs to be more interactive, and that means a fundamental re-write. In addition, I believe that HQ units should be more about actually leading the army. The orders system in the new IG Codex is a step in the right direction, but all armies need an equivalent and this should be hard-wired into the core rules.

There are still a lot of details in the rules that irk me, but most of these would be just a case of fine-tuning.

For example:
- A vehicle's movemet should not affect the number of weapons it can fire, it should affect its weapons' accuracy. Stationary: fires at printed BS, Combat speed, BS -1, Cruising speed, BS -2, Flat out, can't shoot.

- if a model with special equipment (heavy weapons, vox-caster, icon, etc) is killed the unit should be able to attempt to recover the equipment if it doesn't move from the spot where the casualty was taken.

- Heavy weapons and power armour. Look at a model of a space marine with a heavy bolter and explain to me why he can't fire this weapon while moving. Models in power armour (3+ save) should be able to move and fire heavy weapons, but to a maxium range of 12 inches.

- Certain armies (Chaos, Orks, Tyranids, Necrons & Dark Eldar) should be categorised as callous, which would remove certain restrictions, like being able to fire into close combat involving friendly troops.

- True line of sight does not work if the terrain is an abstraction of the real thing, especially forests. The 4th ed rules worked much better.

- I hate the rule about only troops being able to control objectives. It seriously unbalances the game in favour of armies with cheap troops selections, and the lower the game's points total, the worse the imbalace becomes. My "broken rule" alarm started sounding as soon as the 5th ed Codicies started appearing with exemptions (Orks counting Nobz as troops, SMs counting certain units as scoring, etc)

- the 5th ed standard missions in general are crap. 4th ed was far more varied and more interesting.

There's probably more, but a lot of the issues I have with 5th ed have already been covered. Generally speaking I think that it improved a few aspects of the game while regressing in others, while still leaving certain anomalies unaddressed. Overall, I preferred 4th ed (I've not played with earlier editions).

Ianos
10-10-2009, 08:15
Here's what i would do.

1) Missions: I like the current 3x3 mission matrix (it offers a good base for expanding the missions too) but would add/change the following:

a) Add two more missions:

i) King of the hill, one objective he who has it wins.

ii) 5th mission, CTF (capture the flag): 2 (one for each player) objectives within as close to as 24" of each other, 12" away from all edges. Infantry, bikes and MCs can "capture" it and bring it back to their own objective if still intact. To win, the objective captured must be brought back to the home objective's original location, while the home objective still stands. If carriers die the objective is dropped.


b) Add 2 deployments:

i) Meeting engagement:, Quarter setup, 2 troops, 2 fast attack and 1 HQ
are deployed with the rest in reserve (coming from LTE as usual).

ii) Pincer. Roll for attacker-defender. Defender sets up within a 24"x48" box in the middle of the board. Attacker sets up 12" from the sides.

c) Change the annihilation mission to using VPs as main and KPs as tie-breakers. This way people are careful not to spam units but are also not penalized by an unfair system as much.

d) Now that we have a 5x5 matrix we can add strategy rating again, rolled separately for both deployment and mission. Furthermore deployment should always be decided first to avoid confusion. Finally, VPs and then KPs should be used as tie-breakers in all missions to ensure more fairness, allow more army lists to play competitively and make games conclusive.

2) Mechanics:

a) Instant death: change entry to "grievous wound" for multi-wound models, they now receive 2 wounds from an unsaved instant death wound.

b) Suppressing fire: In the shooting phase, if a unit has to save for more wounds than it totally has, it has to pass a leadership check or go to ground. Monstrous creatures and fearless/relentless models are of course immune.

c) Defensive weapons are back up to str 6.

d) Special rules: Eternal warriors suffer only one wound from ID and fleet allows 2d6 keeping the highest. Add, bulky, units as such (using the terminator base) count as 2 models for the purposes of transporting.

e) Units give 5+ cover to other units with the exception of vehicles which keep the 4+.

f) Wound allocation: add, models in a unit cannot be allocated more than one ID or no-save wound, unless all other models have also been assigned one.

g) Go to ground: units are immediately pinned, count as being assaulted with assault grenades and gain the stealth USR.

h) Maneuver warfare: Units that have moved more than 6" for infantry and 12" or more for vehicles/bikes during their previous turn, are counted as having the stealth USR for one turn. MCs are unaffected due to size. This bonus is not cumulative with cover from other units and vehicles/bikes turbo-boosting save.

i) Buildings: Ruins now have a facing, which is defined by the largest wall area.

j) Flank attack: Units in a ruin shot from behind its facing, re-roll successful cover saves. Units assaulted likewise, count as being assaulted by unit equipped with assault grenades.

That's it for now...

smicha6551
10-10-2009, 20:15
I'm with Vepr - I'd like to see a switch to a d10 to spread things out a little more, and make things like plasma weapons more reasonable. Honestly a reboot with a full release of modern codices would be the best route...but that's as likely as a Squat army coming back in plastic so don't worry.

Squallish
10-10-2009, 22:30
I would like a reshuffle with the following:

Assault:
- can consolidate into a new unit, but go 1/2 distance to do so (so if you roll a 1 on your massacre, you move 0.5")
- if you consolidate into another unit, they count as I10 for the next round of assault regardless of grenades or other bonuses

Cover:
- Cover from shooting through units = 5+ instead of 4+
- models out of LoS from the firing units get +1 Cover save, the model out of cover counts as having different wargear in terms of wound allocation

Wound Allocation:
- if a multi-wound model that is not an Independent Character has taken a wound already then the first failed save from any other unique model group goes to this model

Shooting Weapons:
- Defensive Weapons = S6
- Pinning Weapons are tested at -2 Ld, Ordnance Barrage at -3 Ld
- Pinned units can crawl 1+d3" in their movement phase, ignore pinning modifiers on Ld the next turn

USR:
- Fleet = 3+d3" instead of d6"
- Fearless units count as Ld 12 for Pinning tests instead of ignoring them ; can choose to test counting at Ld 12 (subtracting modifiers as normal) instead of taking No Retreat wounds
- Slow & Purposeful: move 3.5", no roll needed
- Rending on a 6 is AP1 not AP2

Rob'
11-10-2009, 00:19
In red are the changes I think are needed, especially the one about vehicle squadrons. The rest is just some random thoughts.

SHOOTING
1) Cover modifies BS.
2) "TLoS" (Theorical line of sight) instead of what we have now. I can kill the guys I see and all guys 2" in cover, even if I can't really see them (I have technology or instincts or ears to spot them), but not the ones 2.5" in
3) Shooting "through" friendly units lowers the BS, but not through enemy units. Like I care if stray bullets hits the enemy?
4)Blast weapons shoot like normal weapons, but if you miss, it'll scatter 2D6 with the arrow, or D6 on a HIT.
5)Templates that partially cover hit on a 4+.
6)Units in cover ignore one Ld modifier in shooting (like ordinance)
7)A blast can't scatter enough to hit it's shooter.

GENERAL STUFF
1) Morale modifiers with outnumbering and multiple charges.
2) Complete redo of psychic powers. How is it supposed to be that how tough your muscles are prevents your brain from boiling, I never understood.
3)A BRB where I don't have to go through 20 pages for something considering the same phase.
4) Fearless units only fail morale tests on double 6s, regardless of modifiers. Byebye "no retreat"
5)A special weapon/equipement can be picked up by a member of the unit with a same profile and special rules if the holder dies, unless he died of "gets hot!" or suffered an instant death

VEHICLES
1)Defensive weapons not at a said strength, but listed in the vehicle's description.
2)Penetrating a tank working like this:

-1 shaken
-2 stunned
-3 weapon damaged
-4 Immobilised
-5 weakened (-1 to armor taking the shot. Reduced to 9 the vehicle goes wrecked)
-6 wrecked
-7 Explodes

With a few more modifiers.
3)"Hull down" back to "only glancing hits (so -2 modifier)
4) Tanks made more mobile in general.
5) Immobilised squadron members are destroyed when they break coherency with the rest of their squadron.

CC
1)Casualties are taken from the engaged models. The combat can be broken that way.
2) Charging automatically gives +1I. Ignored when attacking units in cover, where it follows the actual rules (and all the grenades stuff)
3)Pinned units count as I1 when charged, wherever they are, and cannot "pile in!".

hydra66
12-10-2009, 15:47
I'd like to wait sometime before 6th. GW makes most of its money from the minis, so they shouldn't be so mean with the rulebooks and codexes. The rulebooks and codexes should be made available online, with the option of buying print copies (possibly with colour pics of models etc - same as the differences between the main rulebook and Black Reach's rulebook) if wanted.

Ideally all the codexes should be released at the same time as the main book to give balance and playtesting to the armies. If every 2 years or so, an 'update book' comes out to address metagame issues and new models, fair enough.

The current starter set's fine if you play marines or orks but if you play neither, it can be annoying. What about 2 or 3 starter sets to cover the more popular armies - eg Marines v Orks, Chaos v Eldar, Guard v Tyranids? At retail, half of black reach equates to 25 even with GW price increases - you could do what Privateer Press does and sell balanced 'starter' boxes (30-35 quid) for each of the main races designed to play against each other straight out of the box.

Asymmetric
12-10-2009, 18:53
I really doubt we'll see a restart. A hefty overhaul maybe... GW has stated their heavily averse to doing what they did from 2nd to 3rd again.

I can see some of the apocalypse rules eventually being rolled into the core rulebook. GW loves to sell more models and we're already seeing apocalypse style weapons turning up codex's, from the IG manticore, deathstrike and now the nid's trygon. With Super Heavy rules in the main rulebook it would open the way for "small" 2-4 structure point vehicles cropping up in newer codex releases as like a 1 per 1,500 points slot, possibly taking up multiple heavy support slots.

Their really isn't that big a difference fighting a baneblade to fighting 3 different Russ's.

kazkal
12-10-2009, 19:54
All I really would want is more Objectives :P and maybe more scoring units then just troops I'd say Elites too but nothing else.

yabbadabba
12-10-2009, 20:06
I'd like to see a merging of cultures. I'd like to see a core rulebook, with army lists, for beginners and tournament players. Then I'd like to see an advance set of rules that are not tournament legal, but are official. This could be everything left out of the core rules including the mad stuff they would love to have included but daren't. The third section should be about taking stuff to the next level - games without points, campaign and scenario design, using historical sources, scenery management etc. Finally, between the core rules and the rest of the book I'd like a page explaining that while the core rule are great, that they are the start of a journey which should end up ultimately in players being comfortable in taking their hobby in any direction that appeals.

Badger[Fr]
12-10-2009, 20:12
My brother got out of the game because 5th was so easily breakable.
And how was 4th Edition better? If anything, it was far more easily breakable.


And the AP system should be forgotten for the vastly superior armour mod system.
It wasn't, really. Any seasoned Second Edition player will tell you that the only saves ever worth taking were either Invulnerable or rolled on two dice. Considering how most weapons had at least a -1 or -2 ASM, even power armour was barely better than the current IG Flak Armour.

As much as I'd like a complete reboot (with BS modifiers and a movement characteristic), I know it will never happen. Therefore, I'd rather have a complete, updated, and FAQed set of Codices for 5th Edition than a brand new Rulebook.

Frostea
12-10-2009, 22:39
IMO 5th Ed made some mechanised armies able to roll over infantry-based armies too easily. There should be some changes regarding this. Modifiers should also make a come-back. Its not complex, its not difficult.

Malice313
12-10-2009, 23:37
40k has been a consistent process of shuffling forward. Even that has disenfranchised many players to the detriment of the hobby.

I think the likelihood of total business collapse involved in a "reboot" is too much of a risk for the conservative business model of GW.

big squig
13-10-2009, 02:51
I really doubt we'll see a restart. A hefty overhaul maybe... GW has stated their heavily averse to doing what they did from 2nd to 3rd again.

I can see some of the apocalypse rules eventually being rolled into the core rulebook. GW loves to sell more models and we're already seeing apocalypse style weapons turning up codex's, from the IG manticore, deathstrike and now the nid's trygon. With Super Heavy rules in the main rulebook it would open the way for "small" 2-4 structure point vehicles cropping up in newer codex releases as like a 1 per 1,500 points slot, possibly taking up multiple heavy support slots.

Their really isn't that big a difference fighting a baneblade to fighting 3 different Russ's.

Honestly, I'm half expecting GW to just drop 40k entirely for 6th ed and just replace it with apocalypse.

relasine
13-10-2009, 05:52
I'd love a reboot. Here's why:

I really think that Games Workshop got the save mechanics correct in Warhammer Fantasy. I like how strength reduces the effectiveness of armor instead of using the AP mechanic which just doesn't work as well due to cover save rules. I also like how ward saves stack with armor saves instead of having to choose one. You could remove the cover mechanics as well and just turn them into BS modifiers. Nothing but a reboot would give them the opportunity to change this.
Vehicles still don't quite "feel right" under 5th edition. I'll agree that they're certainly hardier in the current edition than they were back in 4th, but there's just got to be a better way for vehicles to take damage. Perhaps some kind of injection of the structure point rules used in Apocalypse would do the trick, but regardless, this would require a reboot to accomplish.
Unit movement is way to constrained. I appreciate that 5th edition was a move to make foot models faster, but why the heck don't they just give models movement stats? They have all these odd movement types for infantry: regular movement, Slow and Purposeful, Jump Infantry, Cavalry, Fleet, Leaping, Running, etc. The problem is that these movement types often have huge gaps between them that just don't quite hit the mark. Why not just hand out movement stats in order to better gain control over movement mechanics? Again, a reboot is needed to make that happen.

A1TEC
13-10-2009, 08:47
I am to used to the rules and if they are completely changed then completely new tactics will have to be thought of

Tamwulf
13-10-2009, 15:37
There are a lot of problems in 5th, but a new rulebook isn't going to change that. Better codex writting/play testing will fix that. Inconsistent design philosophy is destroying 5th. Dark Angels codex vs. Space Wolves. The "Codex Creep" which I thought was a thing of the past until the Space Marine's Codex came out.

The idea of "play whatever you want as long as you are having fun!" is great between you and a couple friends. What about when you go somewhere else? What about tournament play? In my area, each gaming group has it's own "house rules" and if you don't like them, well, don't play. Hard Boyz is also destroying the game- no sportsmanship, no painting, and a different rules set. What happened to Grand Tournaments? What happened to the Games Days? GW is fracturing its player base and doesn't seem to care.

In short, we don't need a new rule set, we need better codex writing, proper play testing, and a consistent design philosophy.

lanrak
13-10-2009, 17:43
Hi Tamwulf.
If the core rule sets covers the entire game play in the most straightforward and efficient way.The gameplay is more 'transparent', as the relationships between stats and in game performance is more direct.

Therfore it is possible to write more ballanced army composition lists at a faster rate.

Because the basic rules in 40k DO NOT cover the game play but rely on 'special rules' to cover the game play.
The rules end up being vey disjointed , counter intuitive and over complex.
This means the effect of seperate systems and 'special rules' 'isoated instances/exceptions' make it VERY hard to achive a reasionable level of game balance with out extensive playtesting.(Unfortunatley GW do NOT extensivley play test either.:rolleyes:.)

Most rule sets try cover the game play with the fewest amount of written rules.

If you are using WHFB game mechanics , then use the WHFB resolution methods with them!

If you think 40k is more than WHFB in space with more guns, then lets use a rule set written for 40k not WHFB!

Please note it is possible to include alots of special abilities without writing lots of 'exclusive special rules!'

TTFN
Lanrak.

Tamwulf
14-10-2009, 04:41
Hello lanrak!

So if I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that with a strong base rule set that covers everything, then a player will be able to create more balanced army lists quicker.

Would you have the next edition be simple (as complex rules can be confused and misinterpreted) with all the special rules of all the races within? What then, would be in a codex? You would have the codexii of third edition- not much more then a pamphlet with a page or two of fluff and some pictures. The armies would be very bland.

I would rather have GW stick with one rule set, and have a clear, concise, system for developing and play testing new codexii. With proper play testing and design, the need for FAQ's would not be needed. I don't know about you, but I'm getting tired of needing an FAQ for a new Codex just to play an army, or rules so ambiguous and unclear that you have to have a house rule in order to play that army. All because GW has taken the lazy route and told people "Hey! It's a game! Play how you want and have fun!!!".

What we have now is a system where new editions come out faster then the armies' codex, so that we are now playing 5th edition with several codexii that where written in 3rd! At the very least, GW should finish the Codex update cycle before releasing or even working on 6th edition!