PDA

View Full Version : The next 40k: my 2 cents



ericthemadcow
09-08-2010, 22:13
The current version of 40k represents a lot of good revisions since it began with 3rd edition. Although I generally like the system, and think it provides a fun game, I hope the next edition will be a complete departure from the current system. Not merely a rules revision which repairs rules ultimately broken or unbalanced by the next cool codex to come out, but a complete rewrite as different as 3rd ed was from 2nd ed.

I doubt this will happen but I can dream. They should do the same thing for fantasy too. It just sucks to have to buy all new rulebooks for what is essentially the same game.

Messiahnide
09-08-2010, 23:11
I would like a change back to second edition style gameplay as In my opinion it was more tactical and indepth, I do like the current system a lot but its a different type of "tactical" in ways, I like the streamlineing and speed you can play a game but I also loved the weekend long drawn out tactical games I used to play in 2nd ed.

But take into consideration how long it took for each race to get a codex and not a back of the book "get you by list". That kind of shake up will annoy me and probably a lot of people who have been waiting for a new codex over the last few ie: dark eldar and inquisition.

scopedog91
09-08-2010, 23:39
Actually, I am quite the opposite on that one.
A "all codexes in one" is what I think is needed.
The rules disparity between different armies is, what, 14 years apart in some cases?
That is unacceptable to many players.
I can think of almost 10 long time players who have given up on different rule book changes. Codex after codex, some 3rd edition ones, trying to compete with 5th edition ones, is just unacceptable.
One main rulebook editon should be released with all current codexes (codeci?) at the same time, within a 6 month to 1 year time frame at the most, perhaps a better idea than an "everything in one" codex.
Is that too much to ask?
Because honestly, I just do not understand GW's business model.
Not in the least...

Reflex
09-08-2010, 23:47
It would be kinda nice to have a rules change but all in all the game runs well. I think a meta game chug would be nice and a reduction in the number models on the table would also be nice. (but this goes against marketing so won't happen)

It would be nice to see more in-depth and random damage tables for veichles. So a weapon destroyed is not chosen but random. Stuff like this would be nice... Imho

Corax
10-08-2010, 05:44
I tend to disagree. Too many wholesale changes and a lack of consistency has been part of the problem with GWs design approach for a while. Rather than trying to reinvent the wheel, GW should be trying to refine the product. Open beta testing (as used by other companies) and a "living rulebook" would make it much easier to develop and retain game balance and allow changes to be made incrementally rather than wholesale, as well as allowing bad changes to be undone.

If GW needs to change anything major in the way they operate, I would suggest that it is the Rulebook, SM Codex, Xenos Codex, Chaos Codex, Other SM Codex, Xenos Codex, Other SM Codex, Xenos Codex, Other SM Codex, Inquisition (if they can be bothered) model that spreads the releases of a "set" of codices over (many) years. This is clearly a far from ideal situation to have for the reasons outlined by scopedog91 above, which I pretty much concur with.

Simo429
10-08-2010, 05:53
Id like to have more of a lord of the rings feel about in so much as you have your movement phase and your opponent as his

you then have your shooting phase and your opponent has his ect

freddieyu
10-08-2010, 06:16
I predict the rulebook to be as, or even more, glorious, than the 8th ed WHFB hardbound book. I predict that premeasuring will also come into play. I also hope elements of planetstrike and spearhead also make it to the core rules.

The current 5th ed rules are the best so far, but a shakeup of rules will always be exciting and prevent stagnation. The current shakeup in 8th ed WHFB is proving to be very dynamic. I am confident that if they do change things in 6th ed, it will be for the better.

lanrak
10-08-2010, 09:18
Hi all.
I agree that the 5th ed rules are an improvment on 3rd ed rules.

But the direction 3rd ed took was NOT for game play, but the simplest for the corperate managment to inforce, to aid marketing.(To increse the model count with minimum of effort on thier part.)

40k SHOULD be either a great skirmish game ,with the focus on individual models, eg 2nd ed developed PROPERLY,IMO.(Lots of great FREE skirmish rule sets, No Limits, Stargrunt, Fast And Dirty,Chain Reactions etc, mean its not worth while GW going down this well covered route.Why pay 40 for rules whan there are so many FREE alternatives....)

OR a great battle game , where the focus is squarely on unit interactions.There are very few modern battle games out there.
(Even my 'amateur' re-write covered ALL 40k gameplay + supression +command and control elements, in less than 20 pages of rules.:eek:)

So a concentrated effort from a team of proffesional game developers should be even better!

Using an army level Napolionic rule set(WHFB), for modern unit interaction is not the best basis for a intuitive game , is it?

WHFB rule set is like a steam engine , very efficient for moving large blocks around.

Since 1980s rules systems that are the equivelent of petrol ,deisel and jet engines have been developed, to cover smaller unit interactions than Army -brigade/regimental level.

So 5th ed 40k is the best steam powered rule set to date.:D
But it is VERY poor when compard to the JET powered rules used by other companies.:eek:

TTFN

Zweischneid
10-08-2010, 09:29
Hi all.


40k SHOULD be either a great skirmish game ,with the focus on individual models, eg 2nd ed developed PROPERLY,IMO.(Lots of great FREE skirmish rule sets, No Limits, Stargrunt, Fast And Dirty,Chain Reactions etc, mean its not worth while GW going down this well covered route.Why pay 40 for rules whan there are so many FREE alternatives....)

OR a great battle game , where the focus is squarely on unit interactions.There are very few modern battle games out there.
(Even my 'amateur' re-write covered ALL 40k gameplay + supression +command and control elements, in less than 20 pages of rules.:eek:)

So a concentrated effort from a team of proffesional game developers should be even better!

Using an army level Napolionic rule set(WHFB), for modern unit interaction is not the best basis for a intuitive game , is it?

WHFB rule set is like a steam engine , very efficient for moving large blocks around.

Since 1980s rules systems that are the equivelent of petrol ,deisel and jet engines have been developed, to cover smaller unit interactions than Army -brigade/regimental level.

So 5th ed 40k is the best steam powered rule set to date.:D
But it is VERY poor when compard to the JET powered rules used by other companies.:eek:

TTFN


I think you're mistaking precisely what makes 40K unique and successful in the first place. 40K is the elephant on the block today not because it does the best "napoleonic rules" or "skirmish rules" or "battle-game rules", but precisely because it does a bit off it all and in ways ambigious enough that anyone can, in theory, pick their favorite flavour.

No other wargame I know brings together so many different aspects of the larger hobby as 40K does; both "rule-wise" and "theme-wise". There's better army/battle-style games like Flames of War and their players might feel drawn to an IG army. There's better fast-and-dirty skirmish like Stargrunt and their players might be drawn to some Space Marines. There's Warmachine, Starship Troopes, even WHFB, all with their own niche and specialty.

The genius of 40K is that is strides across them all. To start a bad analogy: Some people like Cricket, some people like Football, and both might clamour for a "tighter" set of rules that caters to their preferences in their own little corner of the sports world. 40K on the other hand is sort of the equivalent to the place where a Cricket team can play against a Football team, have fun, and largely not even notice that they, in many respects, actually play two different "games".

Gutted
10-08-2010, 09:47
Put me down for a complete rules rewrite. 40k needs to ditch Warhammer system (5 editions and it is still a clunky uninutitve crap) and decide on what elements to focus on and achieve them.

Personally my vote is for a DoW 2 scale game with suppression mechanics (as opposed to morale). Larger game could be handled by their own book and take a more abstract approach.

lanrak
10-08-2010, 10:01
Hi Zweischnied.
I agree that the 40k rules set is unique.
And yes its eclectic rambeling mess of a rule set is good enough to attract new players that are swayed by the cool background and minatures.

But most GAMERS ,tend to prefer maximum game play from the minimum amount of rules.;)

And in this respect 40k is very poor.(Unless reading through 100s of pages of poorly edited and ill defined text, and argueing about it , is you idea of fun?:D)

This probably is s core reason for GW poor customer retension rate.(80% of customers leave in less than 2 years.)

Collectors dont realy care about rules, so maybe those that just collect and see gaming as 'icing on the cake ' make up the 20% that stay with GW ?

A good game can be learned in less than an hour, but takes a liftime to master.

Have you tried out any alternative rule sets ?If you only play 40k you may fail to see the problem with its rule set.

TTFN

Zweischneid
10-08-2010, 10:12
Yeah. I played other games. But if you find a game you like over 40K as a matter of personal preference, you might fall to the fallacy of believing your own bias to by synonymous with actual improvement.

Also, the retention rate you quote doesn't sound bad. I don't think stuff like Warmachine fares any better. Hell, I would certainly believe that 80+% of the people trying to pick up Chess or Go have had it after less then 2 years.

People keep saying like this is a bad thing. Customers come and go. My own 40K comes in phases of indulgance divided by times of disinterest, sometimes years. It's human nature and not the fault of GW's game.

Oguleth
10-08-2010, 17:01
The only thing I do hope for is that they make a 5th ed codex for most of the armies out there. I really like 5th, so would be nice to at least have the option of having a semi-complete collection of rules to use for it (and was made for it, not 12 year old dumped factions).

I very much doubt they'd revamp it like they did with 2nd to 3rd again. Most of all because with the current codex release scheme, most would be stuck with a 6th ed small list until way out in 7th ed (at the very least), they'd just kill off entire lines with that idea.

To guess at the future, I'd say they either just make minor adjustments (like nerfbat something, like transports again and boost others, like some weapon mechanics and so on) OR take inspiration from fantasy and lotr and add more dicerolls to anything you want to do, go back to percentages for army composition and so on.

Changing the whole game, the whole release schedule idea and suchlike will never happen, unless they go bankrupt and someone else takes over the IP.

Col. Tartleton
10-08-2010, 17:29
I agree they should move away from fantasy more. The biggest problem with the way they stagger the codices and rulebooks is that you can't make sweeping overhauls you have to correct little pieces each time. Its like a constitution, you can't just fix it every time you feel like it. You need to change a ton of stuff. However if they used the internet more effectively they could put out a streamlined version of the codices adapted to the new rule set and tell people to still buy the old codex for the fluff and art until the new one is out.

They'd be smarter to have what amount to sourcebooks and putting the army rules in the rulebook.

Things I'd like to see: FOC replaced with formations. Like in Spearhead or Apoc. I think that's a bit more loose and fun.

Instead of the 2 hq 3 elite 6 troop 3 attack 3 heavy

1 HQ + 1-3 Heavy (ie. 9 Russes and a Command Chimera)
1 HQ + 1-3 Fast Attack (Autarch and three squads of shining spears)
1 HQ + 1-6 Troops (Warboss and a metric tonne of boys)
1 HQ + 1-3 Elites (Dante and Sanguinary Guard)