PDA

View Full Version : Your Issues with 40K



Pages : [1] 2

Scribe of Khorne
16-07-2015, 20:32
Hey All.

Short and to the point. I'm looking to start gathering what people feel are the issues with 40K. Is it the FOC, is it Barrage Weapons, is it blasts or templates?

Whatever it is, if you can outline it even in the most pointed of forms, it would be appreciated!

To me, its the minor things.

1. Mysterious Objectives.
2. Random Terrain.
3. Random Lists (Warlord Traits, Psyker Powers)
4. Re-rolling.
5. Str D implementation.

I'm just trying to gather data at this point, so please if you have anything add it!

Minsc
16-07-2015, 20:33
The fact that GW slowly but steady turns "regular" 40k into Apocalypse.

TheKillerCoyote
16-07-2015, 20:53
1. Needs a bit more clarification in regards to the 'Super Detachments'.
2. Simplified 'To Hit' formula for close combat.
3. Lower price point. Seriously, guys...

Lion El Jason
16-07-2015, 21:14
Games Workshop.

Simply put for a huge company that makes a lot of money they could hire professionals to write, edit and develop their games.

Recent releases have mistakes and misunderstandings that are unforgivable at best, not understanding the product you develop for should get people fired but GW simply continue to put out terrible books and now have officially stopped producing the copious errata needed for their games.

They also have a "Change for change sake" policy, so they never evolve their rules, they get data about what works and what doesn't then release a new book where nothing is fixed, just everything is changed.


Other than that:
Badly designed scenarios
Random move distances
One shot design over holistic design (Seriously why don't they look at other marine codexes when designing different chapters?)
Legacy issues
No playtesting

Necrontyr
16-07-2015, 21:17
1) Multiple detachments
2) formations
3) allies

The game is actually a lot of fun and decently balance when running single CADs against each other. Those games have been my favorite and 7th edition rules are awesome too. All the other army building shenanigans is where it gets screwy.

itcamefromthedeep
16-07-2015, 21:23
-The vehicle rules are garbage:
-move to Toughness/Wounds/Save
-they shouldn't be special snowflakes in close combat.
-vehicles should have a full stat line, including Leadership
-damage table for MCs as well, keyed off of a lost Wound or Hull Point
-damage table that still makes sense for super-heavy units
-there should be a simplified damage chart for units of vehicles and MCs (1-4 nothing, 5 lose another wound, 6 lose another wound and roll again) so that there's no extra bookkeeping but no free ride for being in a unit/squadron

-the Assault phase is messed up:
-stopping to fight makes you go faster (charging at someone gives you more overland distance than a full sprint)
-you can't shoot into an assault
-most units can't voluntarily leave an assault
-you can't charge something after a Deep Strike
-charging through terrain reduces Initiative (which means a lot more to high-I troops, and nothing to power fists) (it should just cut out the bonus Attack for charging)
-you can't ever use guns in close combat (I'm thinking of assault-class weapons) (why can't my meltagun dude use his meltagun on a Knight in close combat? Why can't my Guardsmen use their shotguns in a room-to-room sweep of a building?
-additional hand weapons give a bonus Attack to whatever else you're using, when they could/should just use their own profile instead (have mercy on the poor plasma pistol)

-Movement is messed up:
-we have special rules instead of a Movement stat. It's absurd
-you move a model many times in a turn for some unfathomable reason (it takes a long time to handle hordes)
-why am I rolling randomly to see how far I can run? Why am I spending time on this mechanic?
-you can't split fire with a Tactical Squad (all characters should give something like the split fire rule, because ffs)
-Cover saves and some invulnerables should be split off into cover saves, dodge saves, and stealth saves. Ignores Cover won't ignore dodge or stealth saves.

-combined unit rules need tightening:
-"An 'XXX unit' is a unit with any models of XXX kind in it."
-"When a unit consists of models from more than one unit entry, any reference to one unit entry does not apply to models from a different unit entry." So a reference to a Tactical Squad unambiguously doesn't apply to characters that have joined it.

-"Always wound on X+" effects just shouldn't exist, because they need exceptions for Gargantuan Creatures. Just use Strength for stuff, it's fine.
-Grav weapons should use the target's armor as their Strength, then roll to wound normally.
-Poison should be a Strength bonus (Tougher things should be harder to poison)
-Sniper weapons should have a Strength value, and pseudo-rending

-the Characteristic rules are silly:
-Your mechanic is roll a die, add your stat, match or beat 7 (1s always fail, 6s always pass). Want to hit with a gun?: roll a die, add your BS, match or beat 7. Want to wound something?: Roll a die, add your Strength, exceed your opponent's Toughness by at least 4. Want to pass an armor save?: roll a die, add your armor stat, match or beat 7.
-characteristics don't need a cap. Destroyer weapons are are a workaround for a Strength cap that doesn't need to exist.
-power fists can be S+4. There, done, power fists don't get crazy on models with naturally high Strength.
-Instant Death should be "If Strength exceeds Toughness by X" thing rather than a "If Strength doubles Toughness" thing. ID should add to your damage chart roll, making the mechanic less binary so that it scales up seamlessly.

-The psychic phase doesn't need to exist, along with some other psychic-related problems:
-Invisibility, man. Invisibility. Just make it a cover save (stealth) or something.
-Fortune is bad, and should feel bad.
-you shouldn't get to add to invulnerable saves. That's how you get ants (and 2++ re-rollables).
-powers belong on an army list in ink, rather than on a random table you need to roll on. You don't roll for a random combi-weapon, or random Leman Russ variant, and you shouldn't roll randomly for psychic powers.

-The morale rules are bad. There are a number of better ways of doing it. Pick one.

ehlijen
16-07-2015, 21:27
1: The game doesn't know what scope it wants to be played on (infantry vs superheavy?)
2: The game claims to be narrative and anti-competitive while its built on the structure of a competition game.

Scribe of Khorne
16-07-2015, 21:43
Great start everyone, thanks.

What I intend to end up with is a series of tweaks to allow for a scaling system. Dont like Super Heavies, then dont include the 'module' kind of thing. Mostly this will just be an exercise to keep me from going nuts over AoS and its potential impacts on 40K. :]

TheKillerCoyote
16-07-2015, 21:55
I think that every time your opponent uses the Skyhammer formation, they should be required to give you a hug and grief counseling afterward.

Spiney Norman
16-07-2015, 22:17
1. OTT formation bonuses that are essentially free (esp. Skyhammer, Decurion, CW warhosts & SM battle company)
2. Deplorable inter-codex balance (contrast DE with CWE for example)
3. Rock bottom proof reading/quality control (e.g. DA formations)
4. Lords of war in standard 40k
5. Invisibility
6. The psychic phase mechanic in general

Denny
16-07-2015, 22:40
The inability to stick with a single design direction.

I had no issue with the DE codex when it came out, because I'm happy with USR and barebones unit entires. But this suddenly shifts to massed uber buffed formations. Now these are fine too (I like the Eldar Warhost, it encourages a fluff army) but only if it's consistent.

It feels like there's a lack of direction and leadership in the design team.

Snake Tortoise
17-07-2015, 00:47
1. Superheavies and gargantuan creatures
2. Flyers and flying monstrous creature rules. I don't like that there's a separate game going on with flying stuff and anti air
3. Invisibility
4. Strength D
5. Ignores cover is a little too prevalent for my liking. Restrict it to template weapons, barrage and CC
6. Codex inbalance

There are always improvements to be made but the biggest step GW could take to improving the game for me would be separating apocalypse and regular 40k again. I didn't want to play apocalypse before and I still don't

Inquisitor Shego
17-07-2015, 01:27
without wanting to sound like a negative nancy, I walked into my local GW last week, and saw someone with two wraithknights against a kid with a scattering of space marine units like a tactical squad here, a rhino there, a dreadnought here.

THAT is what's wrong with 40k

Scribe of Khorne
17-07-2015, 02:47
Some pretty easy themes here with clear break downs between Unit Types and relevance or appropriateness I guess.

Speaking for my group, we mostly dont see the issue as we police ourselves, except the one guy who thinks its funny to scream for 3 hours about his 'titans' size and power. :/

Cynec
17-07-2015, 03:32
Some pretty easy themes here with clear break downs between Unit Types and relevance or appropriateness I guess.

Speaking for my group, we mostly dont see the issue as we police ourselves, except the one guy who thinks its funny to scream for 3 hours about his 'titans' size and power. :/

I guess that's what happens when you live your life without ever making anyone else scream from your...titan's size and power ;)

No but really, itcamefromthedeep basically nailed it. Also, this is purely anecdotal, but I don't think I've ever enjoyed a single game against Eldar. Ever. First it was flying circus, then it was "This farseer is casting fortune, and this one is casting guide, and my tanks shoot their shields at you and it makes them twin linked..." and now--this. To be fair though, I did once play a Night Shield abusing Dark Eldar skimmer army, so I'm a dick too, but at at least that required some semblance of forethought and would sometimes fold in a single turn of "oops" or some good deep strikes on the part of the other guy. GW fixed that though, Night Shields now do nothing, but it's okay since Craftworlds were buffed to compensate.

mightymconeshot
17-07-2015, 04:17
The focus on small details and lack of focus on large details
The power scale differences between 6e codexs, early 7, supplemental codexs, and recent 7.
The lack of foreword/projects beig worked on
The increasing scale and rising cost of models and books
2 year turn over on expensive hardbacks.
Lack of balance between unit types
WS being largely meaningless. WS10 vs. WS1 hitting on 3+ just like high WS
The rule loopholes/gaps/editing/proofreading that is done
Randomisation of certain traits
Psychic powers/phases/and balance

MajorWesJanson
17-07-2015, 04:34
Lack of a move stat, which would be clean, simple, and remove the need for a number of special rules.
Related, giving a move stat to vehicles and adjusting how they are hit in CC, and what speeds they can shoot at, would make them more mobile and remove the need for certain vehicle types.
BS using all 10 numbers, while WS is mostly a waste. Make it a broader range so you can hit on 2+ or 6+, so very high and very low WS means something.
Special treatment of certain factions (Eldar) over others (Orks, Dark Eldar)
Destroyer being made a random chart, rather than a scalable rule for weapons, so that a Wraithguard does as much damage per shot to an enemy model as a Reaver Volcano cannon.
Superheavies, being large, relatively rare single models, ought to have a more complex damage chart, not simply ignore 6/7 of it.

Okuto
17-07-2015, 04:43
1)Anything random being mandatory(warlord trait, objectives, etc)
2)Come the APOC allies, love allies but hate seeing everyone and their mother taking a knight
3)super heavies, they have no place in normal 40k
4)High WS largely meaningless, 5+ is good enough to hit
5)Hardbacks simply for the sake of hardbacks....the rulebooks shouldn't cost that much

Hellix_The_Thanatar
17-07-2015, 05:39
Lack of official GW forum to post in with good moderation and living FAQ and erratas. It is beyond stupid GW couldn't moderate even a facebook page. Get in the 21st here gw your rules need help sometimes DEAL WITH IT instead of IGNORING the community.

Random Charge lengths is still one of the dumbest things ever.

I really wish 40k had a movement speed stat, and running was just X2 to that stat.

Cover saving is in a ridiculous state. Direct hit explosions should not be providing cover. An exploding shell does not fly through a window and everyone in the room gets to duck and cover. It blows up and kills things. Standing in an open topped ruin should not be granting saves to blobs of plasma and explosions. I do not understand the logic of 'hur dur no cover against flamers!" but OH MY GLOB my ruins just got hit by a Phantom Titan's D cannon DIRECTLY ON MY HEAD! Good thing my cammo cloak and these shoddy ruins with no roof will grant me a 3+ cover save! Like really WHAT?

In fact the whole shooting phase is in a ridiculous sate. Range, and cover should be modifiers to HIT. Not to saves. (yes many other wargames do shooting better than 40k in my opinion).

I have no problem with super heavies in 40k. But that is because I am willing to talk to my opponent about what kind of game we want to play, I get that others disagree. In tournament settings, it should be what the organizer wants, but seriously restricting entire armies because some people cry foul is ridiculous. This is a wargame, your list needs to either have a theme strong enough to crush your opponent, or play to objectives. Trying to balance the two in one list is fool-hearty and will usually leave you with a single 'linchpin unit' that if your opponent destroys they will win. Eggs in one basket and all that.

Competitive formats by GW. Create guide or suggested tourney types that any store could pick up and use for a weekend. 40k will never be balanced their is simply to much variety, and with how big the scope is I daresay that sometimes crazy winning combos will come from no where (remember that crazy lictor tyranid list where he just snatched very objective by popping up all over the board). Foster this with tourney rules that have wild themes and scenarios. Forgeworld has AMAZING scenarios in many of their books. GW could put some out for free in tourney formats.


Streamline monstrous creatures and dreadnaughts. Really I like the idea of hull points on tanks and such, but dreadnaughts got such a raw deal when it comes to survivability and effectiveness. I got into a silly talk with local GW shop guy, which boiled down to: him saying monstrous creatures are susceptible to instant death weapons!

...ok? And how many of those are there? Especially shooting variety? A dreadnaught is susceptible to a SINGLE LAS CANNON SHOT. And it is much easier to make a dreadnaught less combat effective than it is a MC.
I really dislike what GW did in Age of sigmar with things getting weaker as they lose wounds because I really don't want the same issues as a dreadnaught. Just buff dreadnaughts by making them MCs.

Powers: Invisibility is still straight broken. Like really that is the only power that needs a tone down. Like can only affect the caster. or just provides a bubble invul to represent the enemy not knowing exactly where they are. This whole snap fire business is redic. Especially when it can be used on super death stars.

Wesser
17-07-2015, 07:36
- Cover and Jinx saves are way too broken. The old song about Eldar being fragile is made always moot at this point

My real gripe though is that if a unit can't threaten half the board it's essentially terrible. Any Infantry Assault unit that can't at least take an assault vehicle are a lousy unit. This combined with the above point about cover means that shooting power and mobility rules the game, while in-built durability and assault prowess count for nothing (although it for some reason costs the same points).

40k is largely a game of listbuilding and target priority. However with board control being paramount and Assault being nerfed to the ground it's just a game of blasting away and dinking around. Thank god for objectives or we could ditch mobility as well and just shoot at each other's army from our respective deployment zones.

Lacking assault means 40k quickly become stale and predictable...

Mawduce
17-07-2015, 08:27
Hey All.

Short and to the point. I'm looking to start gathering what people feel are the issues with 40K. Is it the FOC, is it Barrage Weapons, is it blasts or templates?

Whatever it is, if you can outline it even in the most pointed of forms, it would be appreciated!

To me, its the minor things.

1. Mysterious Objectives.
2. Random Terrain.
3. Random Lists (Warlord Traits, Psyker Powers)
4. Re-rolling.
5. Str D implementation.

I'm just trying to gather data at this point, so please if you have anything add it!

I agree with the random warlord traits and psyker powers. If you deploy an army you would know who is in charge or what weapons you have in it. I do like the mysterious objectives, and I do like it more when I don't know what cards someone has drawn.

I don't like open boards. Generally 25 to 50% of the board needs cover with terrain. Most people like to shoot all day so I see a lot of open boards.

There is too much re-rolling.

Greavous
17-07-2015, 09:08
personally i find pretty much everything in 40k fine as it is, warhammer is the melle game 40k is the shooty game.but a couple of things anoy me.

- allies, people taking the same army as allies and taking the same bonus to have double advantage.
- too many AV14 tanks.
- jink and GTG (then some silly rule/power that stops them firing snap shots or lets them get up and carry on).
- things with rules that shouldnt have them (eldar walker is gargantuan with all the immunities but a riptide isnt?).
- seemingly indestructable commanders with more saves than you have dice for (screw 1 save only, they have rules around that).

i wouldnt have them removed from the game or changed (maybe slightly) they just get me anoyed when you almost kill them all and oh look saved.

Russell's teapot
17-07-2015, 09:20
Well, I think you're opening a can of worms here, but here's my take:

1. Imbalance: a perceived lack of any play testing by GW has lead to a situation where some codexes (in any competent build) are an "auto win" against other codexes (in any build). Add in the ill thought out allies capability, and there is simply no downside to taking a SM army, especially when you have the "pay to win" option of getting a shed load of free in game stuff because you paid GW enough to buy enough tanks.

2. Lore: The lore is no longer represented on the table top. There used to be a nod to the lore in the tabletop game, but now every Imperial army has impossibly rare war constructs in super heavy tanks, titans, and knights. Add in the maxim that stagnant technology is holding the imperium back, yet somehow in the last few years SM have "discovered": mass construction of grav weaponry; at least 4 types of new flyers; suit designs better than terminator armour (twice): and the AdMech have decided that war robots and AI are oky-docky for some reason.

3. Too much of a good thing: In 5th ed, if I went to a tournament, I could understand my opponent's army without asking any questions. Now I'd need access to their codex(es), dataslates, and formations too have any idea what possible synergies they've managed to work into a list.

4. Really bad rules writing: Everything has a special rule. Special rules have special rules in them or referenced to them. It's inelegant, pointless, and frustrating; and leads to players having to reference everything due to point 3. The rule book is a mess - I'd love to say that you could condense it to 4 pages, but we've discovered recently that GW can't do that either.

5. Pointless dice rolling: Not just rerolling everything due to points 3 & 4. But we're rolling buckets of dice to represent each individual soldier - that's fine in a squad based game, but at a company level game it just seems archaic. Anyone who's played Epic in its many guises will tell you that less is more. Mostly this is caused by being a slave to the D6.

6. Randomness: A little bit of well thought out randomness is good (we use dice after all). Why does so much need to be random, and why does it need to have such a huge impact on the game? A player can have well thought out, tactical plans ruined by a "gotcha" dice roll. Or an army relies on pre-game rolls to determine how good it is (I'm talking about you psychic powers).

7. Lack of design direction: Why do different SM chapters have vastly different things? Why are the same things priced differently in functionally identical units? Why are some SM chapters in different books? Why are there 2 AdMech codexes? If everything gets a new book every 3 and a half weeks where are CSM?

8. Shoddy missions: these appear to be designed to try to cover up as much of my other gripes as possible. But what they do is to put them in the spotlight and show up what a cock-up GW have made of the rest of it.


I'd like to get to 10, but I'm getting exasperated over a game I used to love.

Karhedron
17-07-2015, 11:19
1. Balance between armies. I want a fair game.
2. Balance within armies. I don't want auto-choices or duff units.
3. Properly written rules with no scope for arguments.

All 3 issues could be addressed if GW treated games development life software development. When we test our stuff, we don't treat it gently, we set out to try and break it. They need their devs to stop thinking just of fluff and try to actually abuse the rules they create. Only when you find the abusable options can you iron them out.

silentsmoke
17-07-2015, 12:49
It's not second edition, where I really enjoyed the game mechanics, even though it was not perfect, but that left it open to players to decide.

The fact that vehicles were better and things had a different movement value instead of rolling for a silly run move.

Althwen
17-07-2015, 13:04
1. Balance between armies. I want a fair game.
2. Balance within armies. I don't want auto-choices or duff units.
3. Properly written rules with no scope for arguments.

All 3 issues could be addressed if GW treated games development life software development. When we test our stuff, we don't treat it gently, we set out to try and break it. They need their devs to stop thinking just of fluff and try to actually abuse the rules they create. Only when you find the abusable options can you iron them out.


That's the gist of it.

Some of my own grievances:

- 7th edition coming so soon really ticked me off. Especially since 6th seems better.
- GW's tendency to write rules as if they're the end all be all and set in stone (example: movement = 6") and a few years later create new rules that bypass the former rules (example: Fleet of foot/claw/hooves/clown shoes and turbo-boosting) and not even having the decency to stop there but going a far as creating Battle Focus and turbo-boosting Ultra (read: Eldar). Just bring back the movement stat for crying out loud!
- The general cluttered nature of the 40K system that comes across as simplified (compared to old WHFB at least) but requires a mind-boggling amount of page flipping due to the plethora of special rules for each unit, some of which are in the Rulebook, others in the army book, while some pretend to be in the army book by referencing the Rule book!

-The AP system and lack of modifiers that enables an all-or-nothing system. Terminator armour has never been the same ever since the introduction of the AP system.

GrandmasterWang
17-07-2015, 13:14
I agree with almost every thing in here.

The new psyker phase and the random warlord traits especially annoy me.

Gw replacing Codexes after a year is a massive problem as well. I used to know that while the balance/rules in a new Codex would be kind of iffy I'd at least get a guaranteed 3 or so years out of it. Thinks like Imperial Knights V1 now V1.2 (a year later) really discourage me from buying the new books.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Flame Boy
17-07-2015, 15:16
One of the biggest things discouraging me from playing 40k is that it's getting difficult to know what your opponent is fielding. I know what a Space Marine Tactical squad is. Ten marines, one sergeant, one special weapons soldier, one heavy weapon trooper. That's pretty simple. However, when taking a Tactical Squad in combination with another unit grants it some additional special rule on top of it's own special abilities, suddenly your understanding of the Tactical Squad is skewed due to a buff that's nothing to do with the unit itself. Not only do you have to know the capability of that squad, you also have to know every dataslate to figure out what random buff they will get for being part of an arbitrary selection of units. If a unit gets a buff for being in a particular strike force, say Orks get a bonus when fielded with a Warboss or something, that should be in the Warboss or Ork boy rules, not on a third sheet.

I am also beginning to believe that the abundance of random charts in the rules is because that is how the rules are developed. Roll one dice and consult the codex revision table:

6: Buff unit until it breaks the codex, the metagame and possibly the space time continuum itself.
5: Buff unit until fielding is makes you "that guy" for fielding it.
4: Nerf a unit until a random dataslate "fixes" that unit a couple of months later.
3: Phrase the unit entry in such a way that it can be exploited in an unintended manner.
2: Nerf a unit until it is only fielded by people who write non-competitive lists.
1: Nerf until Pyrovore.

:p

Personally I think the inflexibility of the rules is the game's biggest problem.

Movement phase has a number of silly workarounds to bypass the lack of a movement stat.

Strength limits of 10 have made D weapons into it's own catagory which is in itself a problem. As I understand it, rapid fire spammy D weapons on Titans are better than the real big weapons like the Volcano Cannons. D Weapons need to either scale with the strength stats of have a sliding scale of power.

I still think the shooting phase is a mess at the moment. Having cover as a saving throw rather than a modifier to hit is unintuitive, the AP system makes armour saves into an all-or-nothing affair where it gets easier to kill a Terminator squad with a thousand pebbles rather than a dozen AT missiles.

I also really dislike the mysterious objective table. I've literally had it blow up in my face too often to find it anything more than an annoyance, not to mention that lightly armoured and horde armies suffer more from sabotaged objectives compared to marine equivalent armies.

Grand Master Raziel
17-07-2015, 15:49
Bad rules, yes, but that doesn't give a guy much to go on. I think the OP is asking us to identify the worst rules.

1: Allies - For my money, the Allies matrix is the absolute worst thing in the book. What should have been a tool for narrative games and one-off scenarios has instead become an exploit for WAAC players. I'd be perfectly happy to see it go away entirely, but I'd be content seeing it modified with an additional consideration - who you're squaring off against should be a factor. For instance, Space Marines and Tau might get along fine vs Tyranids, but the justification for SM + Tau vs Imperial Guard is very, very thin. Getting rid of Allies as a general list building tool would go a ways towards fixing what's wrong with our current 40K.

2: Special Rules proliferation: Over the years, we've wound up with a ridiculous amount of special rules. I'd personally like to go through them with a fine tooth comb and get rid of redundant rules. First to go would be special rules that just grant other special rules - just give the model the special rules in question without coming up with a new name for having a combo of them! Then, get rid of special rules that do similar things - Stealth and Shrouded spring to mind, as do Preferred Enemy and Hatred. Replace them with a special rule covering the contingencies which required multiple special rules - for instance, have Stealth +1, Stealth +2, etc, and to my mind we could just do away with Hatred entirely and just have Preferred Enemy - we could have modifying clauses so a unit/model just gets it in a particular phase if needs be - PE (Shooting) or PE (Combat), with an absence of modifier meaning the unit/model gets the rule in both.

3: Pre-game random rolls: Yes, do away with these, if only because of the time they eat. Make the choices for Warlord Traits/Psychic Powers/etc roughly equivalent in value and just let players pick them.

4: Flyers/FMCs: Since flying units interact in a special way against the rest of the units in the game, and since they're virtually invulnerable to most units in the first place, give them their own FOC slot similar to Lords of War. This means players can take a modicum of anti-flyer and be covered without having to worry about skewing their whole list. In return, remove Interceptor from any unit that can also easily get Skyfire - that way players can get at least that one turn with their Flyer before it gets shot down.

WarsmithGarathor94
17-07-2015, 16:19
Sonic weapons.
So wait slaanesh ya know the god of Excess the guy who's followers generally dance around while listening to I'm sexy and I know it for the most part have weapons which work best when they are stood still which is funny because slaanesh always struck me as speed and loads of slashes over one heavy blow

Also remove atsknf and don't give any points reductions to compensate

Spiney Norman
17-07-2015, 16:28
Bad rules, yes, but that doesn't give a guy much to go on. I think the OP is asking us to identify the worst rules.

1: Allies - For my money, the Allies matrix is the absolute worst thing in the book. What should have been a tool for narrative games and one-off scenarios has instead become an exploit for WAAC players. I'd be perfectly happy to see it go away entirely, but I'd be content seeing it modified with an additional consideration - who you're squaring off against should be a factor. For instance, Space Marines and Tau might get along fine vs Tyranids, but the justification for SM + Tau vs Imperial Guard is very, very thin. Getting rid of Allies as a general list building tool would go a ways towards fixing what's wrong with our current 40K.

In all honesty the allies system we have doesn't even work particularly well as a narrative device, because allied contingeant should be much, much larger than a couple of squads of troops and a character, the purpose of the allies matrix was quite clearly an attempt to draw people into starting new armies by allowing them to tag a small force on to their existing army and builds from there, especially when they have intentionally developed some armies to be 'side-show' forces for other armies (DE & Harlies for CWE, Skitarii for imperials etc).

Dr. Who
17-07-2015, 17:42
1. Balance between armies. I want a fair game.
2. Balance within armies. I don't want auto-choices or duff units.
3. Properly written rules with no scope for arguments.

All 3 issues could be addressed if GW treated games development life software development. When we test our stuff, we don't treat it gently, we set out to try and break it. They need their devs to stop thinking just of fluff and try to actually abuse the rules they create. Only when you find the abusable options can you iron them out.

That is pretty much how I feel about 40K (and GW in general) as well. I would add that: Balance between the phases of the game. Ie the phases should be complementary to each other rather than having one or two phases dominate the game the way shooting tends to in 40K and the way the magic phase tended to in 8th edition Warhammer Fantasy.

- Dr.

catbarf
17-07-2015, 17:56
Too many special rules. Just too many unique rules for individual units, weapons, and capabilities, many to patch over areas of insufficient detail in the core rules. I'm a big fan of Epic and the comparison is like night and day, and if there's one thing Age of Sigmar does well, it's that it streamlines the ruleset to just enough to do the job. I get that a lot of the flavor to the individual armies comes from these special rules, but I feel that there are a lot of mechanics that could be simplified, abstracted, or rolled into universal rules without reducing depth. Giving units special rules to represent their bravery (instead of using the Ld stat) or special rules to represent their quickness (instead of using the Initiative stat) or special rules to represent their resilience (instead of using the Toughness/Wounds stats) is needlessly complex.

insectum7
17-07-2015, 18:07
Sonic weapons.
So wait slaanesh ya know the god of Excess the guy who's followers generally dance around while listening to I'm sexy and I know it for the most part have weapons which work best when they are stood still which is funny because slaanesh always struck me as speed and loads of slashes over one heavy blow

You misunderstand Slaanesh.

AND the 80's :)

WarsmithGarathor94
17-07-2015, 18:17
You misunderstand Slaanesh.

AND the 80's :)

LOL see every time I field my noise marines now I may just have to start humming a really bad song

Scribe of Khorne
17-07-2015, 22:04
What I'm after in a larger sense is 'What are the most common failings of 7th, and would there be a straight forward way to address them.'

Right now overloaded Special Rules, Super Heavies, Allies, Movement (brought up often but I started in 3rd so I dont have context for the M stat) and some of the quirks of weapon profiles and damage assignment seem to dominate the discussion.

ColShaw
17-07-2015, 22:24
Let's not forget Flyers and all they brought with them, straining the system to breaking point.

Also, put me down for:
-Excessive randomness;
-Size and scale creep (models getting bigger, and more models on the field; 6'x4' never felt so small);
-Allies;
-Psychic phase;
-Weapon power creep (weapons getting more and more powerful, exemplified by Strength D);
-Random objectives.

I was going to write some more down, but I've gotten too depressed. I'm going to go home, look at my hundreds of Imperial Guardsmen patiently awaiting my orders, and quietly weep.

Spiney Norman
17-07-2015, 22:56
What I'm after in a larger sense is 'What are the most common failings of 7th, and would there be a straight forward way to address them.'

Right now overloaded Special Rules, Super Heavies, Allies, Movement (brought up often but I started in 3rd so I dont have context for the M stat) and some of the quirks of weapon profiles and damage assignment seem to dominate the discussion.

Going back to the 5th edition FOC would be a huge positive step, superheavies go back to apocalypse is also a must. Allies I'm not so down on as to ditch them entirely, the problem with allies is more a subsidiary problem caused by codex imbalance which leads to certain combos/codexes cropping up as allied contingents all the time, if they were reigned in the allies mechanic could fulfill it's intended role rather than just being the power gaming tool it is now.

Bloodknight
17-07-2015, 23:54
I'm with Russel's Teapot and ColShaw here.
Randomness, imbalances and special rule bloat are my main pet peeves. Also it's basically impossible to keep up with all the stuff that your army supposedly can or cannot do depending on which obscure formation someone managed to dig up from whatever publication. I hate formations, they're just another layer of special rules over two other layers of special rules.
40K7 is like somebody tried to force 2nd edition in a 5th edition ruleset and killed both the quirkyness and fun of 2nd edition and the elegance (not that those were particularly elegant, but in comparison with RT, 6 and 7 those were genius) of 40K 3-5 in the process. As I keep saying, the current team is aping what the old guys did, but they don't know how and why the old designers did it and why those were better games on their own merits*.

*to be fair to the old 40K systems, they usually got killed by the codices and their proliferation of stupid stuff, not the basic rules. 40K has always been decent in that regard.

Baaltor
17-07-2015, 23:57
This thread's a pretty good read, please keep going. I'd add something, if all my stuff hadn't been posted already. :P


You misunderstand Slaanesh.

AND the 80's :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6GgEyS9GFk

Zustiur
18-07-2015, 00:18
What I'm after in a larger sense is 'What are the most common failings of 7th, and would there be a straight forward way to address them.'

I have suggestions to post but no time to post them at the moment.
Great thread idea by the way.

Sent via Tapatalk 2

TremendousZ
18-07-2015, 00:57
without wanting to sound like a negative nancy, I walked into my local GW last week, and saw someone with two wraithknights against a kid with a scattering of space marine units like a tactical squad here, a rhino there, a dreadnought here.

THAT is what's wrong with 40k

Nailed it! I would put over 75% of the complaints here in this category.

Game Balance: Totally fine if you discuss the type of game you want to have with your opponent. HOWEVER, if you play someone who keeps a record of their win/loss for every game and has an ego about his plastic army general skillz. (MAD SKILLZ YA!) Then you are going to waste 3 hours putting out models and putting them away. ALSO GW is now telling you what units to take to balance the core armies people bring! You have Decursions, eldar battlehosts, and the like. Lets just pray they stick to a common codex design and finish all the armies in the same fashion.(This adds to the problem of overpriced units, but not too bad)

Invisibility: Can be abused, a little overboard. Cool spell, one to be desired. I do agree with the comment above to make it stealth + shroud so there are counters. It is 1 spell tho with a 1 in 6 chance of appearing. HOWEVER, when you play against 2 Belakors bc remember we r fighting for the sake of the galaxy here and ABSOLUTELY NOT TO HAVE FUN! Then you are in for a ride.

Superheavies: Again depends on the player
Strength D: Can be spammed, but my ork boys love strength D. Can you please put more points in 1 shot? and Ohhhh boy do tha boyz love it when one goes pop! It's rare unless ur opponent is fighting for the sake of the Eldar race.....

Get the idea? In a competitive tournament, people will try and statistically set themselves up to win. It's math, really! Look at the Belakors and Fateweavers, and other tourney lists doesn't look fun to play against.

Now the other 25%.

Game Length- By giving everyone special rules/formations, normal games of 2000pts with veteran players and armies we know takes roughly 3 hrs. That feels rushed sometimes too. We set timers for turns, time our games, make cheat sheets to streamline rules, but cannot seem to get it in under 2 hours. I will defend the psychic phase tho! BC it took even longer to remember what phase you had to use what spell in. This is a problem with wives/children, responsibilities, you know big boy stuff.

Selling Special Formations- Limited Quantity! Buy Now! Just plain bad business. Just wait for the new Tyranid Pyrovore + 3 boxes of new model formation!

Model Creep- Someone mentioned it earlier, 40k is slowly turning into apoc. How soon till we see 1/2 pt increments? Slowly going lower and lower.

Codex Turnover/BRB Turnover: I think 6th was just truly an untamed beast. Every character was special. The Necron and GK codexs were Warded to the max(or should i say Matt;)). 7th needed to come around to clean up the cage, so to speak. BUT 2 years? really? I have now made a personal rule to not buy a new codex until I'm done painting my previous models. This &*$# takes awhile! With the turnover on Space Marines, Knights, and Eldar I'm worried GW is coming for my wallet next year(Tau,Chaos,CSM).

Entry Cost- AoS just kicked this in the chestnuts. 40k requires $85 rule book and $50 codex, to read, digest, and learn. Battlebox $90-120. Hq $25. Troop $40. 1 Heavy $50-75. To clip, assemble, spray, paint. Or your friends can buy a PS4 and press play. See the problem?

In all 7th is pretty clean. See its really mostly TFG! Hope this helps!

Ayin
18-07-2015, 10:57
I was going to write some more down, but I've gotten too depressed. I'm going to go home, look at my hundreds of Imperial Guardsmen patiently awaiting my orders, and quietly weep.

I gave up and boxed mine up. I couldn't sell them, I put way too much work in converting them.

Then I figured "I'll just go on loving Fantasy. Good ole Fantasy. And just in time for the End Times, this ought to be exciting..."

Geep
18-07-2015, 14:17
1. Meaningless force restrictions. Whether it be allies, formations, multiple force charts, unbound, or anything else- the core troops are no longer actually core in the game.

2. Weird scaling. There are many levels to this- I can shoot the gun off of a Sentinel, but not the gun off of a Knight? I can zoom my Eldar jetbike off the table, along the floor, and into my neighbour's game in one turn- but a fighter jet can, relatively casually, hover around for as long as it wants?

3. The disparity between toughness and wounds, and armour values- combined with the oddity that a near-dead non-vehicle doesn't suffer any penalties (I would like a generic wounding table for ALL multi-wound models).

4. Strength D, instant death, and other strength/toughness oddities. My Tyranid Warriors are terrified of the Str8 Battlecannon, taking all 3 wounds in one go- when the StrD weapon is actually pretty unlikely to kill them in one hit. My preference here is that ID should go away entirely, and maybe be replaced with a 'D3 wounds' mechanic, or similar.

5. Unnecessary randomisation. Mysterious terrain, Warlord traits, Psychic powers (making them random is no excuse for not balancing them!). Some armies suffer terribly with this- like poor Daemons and their damned Warp Storm, and Necron C'Tan, who have so much potential but are too unreliable to be worth it.

6. Weapon bloat. Once upon a time, a Bolter was considered pretty good. A Heavy Bolter very nice for anti-infantry, and a Lascannon great anti-tank. If you wanted to split the difference a Missile Launcher was ok at both jobs. Now these weapons are trumped absolutely, in every aspect, by things like Grav-Cannons. I haven't seen a Heavy Bolter in years, save where it's a non-optional vehicle accessory. The weapons of your common trooper are so meek in comparison that it's no wonder people don't care about an average Tac Marine anymore.

itcamefromthedeep
18-07-2015, 17:44
-The AP system and lack of modifiers that enables an all-or-nothing system. Terminator armour has never been the same ever since the introduction of the AP system.
I'm actually a proponent of the AP system.

When you get to the scale of vehicle armor (which just about everything in 40k uses, such as how Space Marines are as well-armored as the former Eldar Dreadnought), it gets really binary. A round that will go in one side of a Sherman and out the other will probably bounce off of Tiger completely. When you're shooting at a battle tank or a Riptide, its armor won't care whether you loaded APDS rounds in your pistol.

Since weapons pay to have good AP values and any model can fail an armor save, you end up with a sliding scale of effectiveness where weapons that don't have the correct AP will often have more shots or more Strength, so while they're less effective, the target isn't exactly immune to them.

At the end of the day, I don't want to go back to the days when power armor was a joke. If you go to save modifiers, what's the modifier on a bolter? Even a -1 and it starts to feel like marines are armored in tissue paper. I certainly don't want to roll 20 armor saves for Terminators 2D6 at a time (talk about the game taking too long) and if you just give them a 2+ or a 1+ and heavy bolters are -2, then Terminator Armor goes back to being a joke.

I'm happy to treat armor save as an abstract representation of coverage and logarithmic scale in armor effectiveness.


Having cover as a saving throw rather than a modifier to hit is unintuitive,
If you want to turn Stealth and cover and dodging into modifiers to hit, be very careful. Eventually you'll get a jinking, Concealed, Invisible, Fortunate Jetlock unit with a 3+ save increased to 2+ and their 4+ invulnerable on top of that. When you let too many kinds of durability stack on top of each other models quickly fall out of reach of conventional weaponry. By phrasing most kinds of durability as saves, and preventing saves from stacking on top of each other, you get a "many paths to the same destination" effect, putting a cap on how durable a unit can be.

The problem with Invisibility and fliers are that it's a modifier to hit, rather than a save. Going to modifiers to hit will proliferate the toxic experiences people have with Invisibility. I get it. I really do. However, I think that this game should compromise a bit on realism in order to preserve playability in this respect.


2: Special Rules proliferation: Over the years, we've wound up with a ridiculous amount of special rules. I'd personally like to go through them with a fine tooth comb and get rid of redundant rules. First to go would be special rules that just grant other special rules - just give the model the special rules in question without coming up with a new name for having a combo of them! Then, get rid of special rules that do similar things - Stealth and Shrouded spring to mind, as do Preferred Enemy and Hatred. Replace them with a special rule covering the contingencies which required multiple special rules - for instance, have Stealth +1, Stealth +2, etc, and to my mind we could just do away with Hatred entirely and just have Preferred Enemy - we could have modifying clauses so a unit/model just gets it in a particular phase if needs be - PE (Shooting) or PE (Combat), with an absence of modifier meaning the unit/model gets the rule in both.I'll gently push back on that. It's best when rules are evocative of the background.

Harlequins, for instance, used to have a rule the went something like "Dance of Death: see Furious Charge" where now they just have Furious Charge, such that if I picked up the rulebook for the first time today I'd wonder what it is they were so angry about. I would prefer if the rules actually kept a bit of the curtain of representationalism, even when they're recycling existing rules.

Having said all that, I do think that the special rules section could use some (much) consolidation.


Too many special rules. Just too many unique rules for individual units, weapons, and capabilities, many to patch over areas of insufficient detail in the core rules. I'm a big fan of Epic and the comparison is like night and day, and if there's one thing Age of Sigmar does well, it's that it streamlines the ruleset to just enough to do the job. I get that a lot of the flavor to the individual armies comes from these special rules, but I feel that there are a lot of mechanics that could be simplified, abstracted, or rolled into universal rules without reducing depth. Giving units special rules to represent their bravery (instead of using the Ld stat) or special rules to represent their quickness (instead of using the Initiative stat) or special rules to represent their resilience (instead of using the Toughness/Wounds stats) is needlessly complex.What I've found over the many years of my gaming experience is that when done right, those fiddly little special rules often add a lot of flavor to units. Without them, a codex or army book gets accused of being "bland". That makes me a strong advocate of Chapter Tactics in its current form. It can really help immersion.

Having said that, the simpler the rule involved the better, and if you can recycle USRs when doing that kind of flavor then all the better.

---

Sometimes there's actually some history here, and game design at play that isn't immediately apparent. I'm not saying that 40k is a masterwork of games writing (I wouldn't have the lengthiest list of specific complaints so far if I thought it was a luminary work) but having started a 40k re-write (for the purposes of catharsis) that ends up at least speaking to many of these concerns I can say that it's helpful to have some of the history of the game for context about how we got to where we are.

Cynec
18-07-2015, 19:35
I'm of two minds on the "too many special rules" argument. On the one side, certain USR's should just be merged (looking at you Hatred and Preferred Enemy) but on the other, as has been stated, special rules give armies flavor. The antipathy to them kind of reminds me of the antipathy toward the 3.5 Chaos Codex, about how it was "too hard" to write a list with it. Which I honestly just don't buy. I was about 13 when 3.5 launched and although I didn't initially realize that Gifts of the Gods counted toward your demonic gifts limit, once I read the FAQ, I had no problems building lists and loved all of the options for the RPG aspect of designing my own squads and characters. And I was a child at the time. Certainly similar complexity should not be overly difficult for adults.

Plus, you play with your army all the time, sure there may be a lot of rules, but you get used to them. Same with the armies most often fielded by your regular opponents, or in your local meta or whatever. I think the better issue is how compelling those special rules are and what their impact is on the game. For example, there used to be quite a few special rules that allowed a player to either force enemy models to hurt themselves, or to outright control enemy models (psyk-out grenades, mind shackle scarabs, lash of submission) and these were absolutely awful and annoying. The turn system is bad enough in making us lose agency with respect to the game, we don't need rules that allow your opponent to make your own models do things. But that's not an issue of confusion or complexity, just of bad design. My issue with just replacing army specific special rules with USRs is that it makes everything feel like slightly different permutations built from the same blocks. Units just feel like different points on the same sliding scale with points costs adjusted to match. This may be easier to balance (not that GW does that anyway) but it feels boring.

Dark Eldar should have things are are completely different and not directly comparable to Orks who should have things not directly comparable to Chaos or Tau, etc. That's what gives each army its flavor, and flavor is what really hooks you to your army and keeps you wanting to try out new things and keep buying buying buying like the good little "collectors" GW wants us to be.

Tailessine
18-07-2015, 20:15
I don't think vehicles should have wounds and toughness- obviously hitting a vehicle should have a different effect than hitting a flesh-and-blood unit. I don't get however why riptides etc are MC but, say, a dreadnought isn't when it is almost exactly the same concept.

Lord_Crull
18-07-2015, 20:32
1. The quick rules change over. This has gotten to be a fairly new trend of GW, replacing books after only a year or two. Some like the Imperial Knights got replaced after barely a year. Previously, I could buy a Codex and be confident it would be of good use for 4-5 years. While I think the codices are currently overpriced, I would be fine with paying $49.50 for a Codex if it would last that long. I would not be fine with buying a $49.50 Codex that would only last one or two years. It stinks of price gouging rather than any meaningful need to update the rules.

2. Random dice tables. I will never understand GW’s fascination with random tables and results. While I do understand that as a D6 game, a certain amount of randomness is necessary for game resolution, GW takes it a bit too far for my tastes. Warlord traits and psychic powers for example. It was annoying on my Possessed’s mutations table and it became even more annoying when 6th and 7th rolled around.

3. Lack of consistent Codex design and game balance. Compare the recent Dark Eldar or Orks books to the Craftworld Eldar and Necrons books. GW seems to commit itself to one design philosophy and then change around midway through an edition. While it’s not impossible to win with these weaker armies, it is very frustrating.

4. Silly special detachment rules and formations. I greatly dislike the latest design paradigms that GW is going with, i.e. the Decurion Detachment or Gladius Strike Force. Take the Necron Codex for instance, I find when playing it as a CAD it’s a fun, balanced book. Once one takes the Decurion then they suddenly become an uncrackable juggernaut that is very boring to play against. Honestly I find that a lot of the overpowered books people complain about become much more playable when just taking a CAD without any kind of formations.

5. Prices in general. It’s hard to get into 40k. I once had a college buddy who was interested in Necrons and 40k after playing Dawn of War, but he declined to actually get into the game because he could not afford the high prices just to start a 1000pt army. There is definitely a big price barrier to this game. Several of the latest GW design decisions have also been centered around rather blatant examples of price gouging, for example, the new Formations that require you to buy more units in order to get awesome rules and buffs on the tabletop. It seems like every couple of years the model count in boxes goes lower and lower while the prices rise higher and higher.

The Dire Avengers are a great example of this. Once they sold for $37.50 for ten models. Then GW recut the kits and now sells 5 models for $35 dollars. It’s rather blatant price gouging on one of the Eldar staples.

Hellix_The_Thanatar
19-07-2015, 03:37
4. Strength D, instant death, and other strength/toughness oddities. My Tyranid Warriors are terrified of the Str8 Battlecannon, taking all 3 wounds in one go- when the StrD weapon is actually pretty unlikely to kill them in one hit. My preference here is that ID should go away entirely, and maybe be replaced with a 'D3 wounds' mechanic, or similar.



Ahem, you do realize that nids are just as likely to die to D as str8 right? (technically more so because you MIGHT get cover against the str8 even if it wounds on a 6 wheres D ignores the cover). Wounds of Str D are resolved at str10ap2. So even if he rolls a 2 to wound you, and a d3 of 1 for number of wounds caused your warrior dies outright due to being resolved at str10 ap2.

Losing Command
19-07-2015, 08:47
I really, REALLY don't like the random game length. The number of times the game was decided on that single die roll to see if there is a turn 6/7 or not, and the different choices one has to make based on wether there will or won't be a next turn ... ugh.
Random psychic powers and warlord traits are also a bit meh. One or two dice rolls decide if your psyker will be very usefull or completely useless this game :rolleyes:

Here people generally agree on using a single FOC, but I do understand that constructing an armylist in 7th can be very confusing with all the formations, detachments and what not. It's also not that positive how 40k turned into Apocalypse somehow, with all the superheavies and Str D one can bring.

Chaplain Mortez
19-07-2015, 10:50
One thing I haven't seen brought up yet in this thread is True Line of Sight.

It was a godsend when they got rid of it in 4th. Area Terrain made the game faster, there were less disputes, and it was actually more realistic.

The issue with tabletop games is we work within an abstraction. If our wargaming tables were actually representative of real life, the table would be uneven everywhere, foliage and debris would be scattered all over, etc. Not to mention, our models aren't actually models...within the game, they're fluid, moving bodies that crouch, lean, duck, and go prone.

These things are all impractical when actually playing the game. Trying to balance models on an uneven surface, your opponents' models having questionable poses (such as a sniper rifle in a submerged barrel), models getting picked off randomly because you didn't want to waste time positioning them just right so they couldn't be seen...the list goes on.

I think a major portion of the game is slowed down and leads to disagreements because of true line of sight and the elimination of area terrain.

ehlijen
19-07-2015, 14:16
I never minded TLOS. 40k is a model driven game, so I always enjoyed when the actual models determined game effects.

I also enjoy battletech which doesn't use model driven rules, has abstract terrain and a hex grid.

Both can work, it just depends what kind of game you want to build. I think TLOS is the more fitting choice for a free movement model game.

itcamefromthedeep
19-07-2015, 15:34
The TLOS thing is very divisive, and the "right" thing for a table will often depend on the terrain coverage available to the club.

If your intent is to get a set of house rules done, then you can include both. "Woods" for TLOS and "Jungle" for more abstract LOS-blocking, and let the local group pick which kind of forest and ruin rules they want to use based on their situation.

Thrax
19-07-2015, 15:37
Unfortunately 5th Ed. went too far with TLOS, emphasizing the shape of the model over its placement. So an entire squad could be shot at if part of one guy on a fancy stand could be seen. That and the atrocious wound allocation method were the biggest failings of 5th.

So what does GW do to fix it? They make wound allocation even more stupid (closest model with 'look out, sir - current system), add gak like challenges from their failed fantasy system, add a ponderous psychic phase, add a nonsensical allies system, add really bad flyer rules to a 'platoon' level game, super-heavies, etc.; all the while adding minutia to the evermore convoluted close combat phase (random charges, variable effects of all weapons). The whole 'game' is a bloated mess now with a continuous stream of unsupported glitter-covered garbage updates to squeeze every short term cent out of its customers. For a 'model' company they sure dump out a lot of rules, don't they? You'd think they'd be smart enough to realize good overall rules would sell more models in the long term.

Sir Didymus
19-07-2015, 17:05
Whiny players, who spend their time on internet forums, instead directing their anger to those who matter.

Whiny players, who complain about bad rules and ridiculous pricing, while rushing into stores to buy, what they need to make the next uber formation.

-

Come on guys. Stop wasting your bile on internet forums and start doing the things, that can actually accomplish change.

a) Start writing GW. Although, they insist on getting feedback via old-school ink-on-paper mail, and it will cost you a stamp. They still provide an address to sent your complaints. And if GW started getting a thousand letters of complaint a week, they'd have to address it. And if you don't like the snailmail part, just think of it as a quaint role playing gimmick on their part; in the grim dark future of the 41st millennium, there is no interwebz.

b) Stop buying the stuff, you don't want. Plenty of you have sat through various editions and changes, you should have enough tools to play 40K like you want it with likeminded people. But constantly throwing money at GW newest models because of their awesome rules, is the equivalent of housebreaking a puppy by giving it treats for pissing on your laptop.

- only then, will you actually see some changes

Dkoz
19-07-2015, 18:32
So far I'm pleased with GWs 7th edition and all the new codex's and formations.

Reaper85
19-07-2015, 19:36
that the Sisters of battle are still waiting for an update ;) but being this is more to do with rules... i can't add to the comprehensive list made here...

Seriously though ... Adepta sororitas... GW has 'em, i want 'em...

ehlijen
20-07-2015, 00:56
Whiny players, who spend their time on internet forums, instead directing their anger to those who matter.

Whiny players, who complain about bad rules and ridiculous pricing, while rushing into stores to buy, what they need to make the next uber formation.

-

Come on guys. Stop wasting your bile on internet forums and start doing the things, that can actually accomplish change.

a) Start writing GW. Although, they insist on getting feedback via old-school ink-on-paper mail, and it will cost you a stamp. They still provide an address to sent your complaints. And if GW started getting a thousand letters of complaint a week, they'd have to address it. And if you don't like the snailmail part, just think of it as a quaint role playing gimmick on their part; in the grim dark future of the 41st millennium, there is no interwebz.

b) Stop buying the stuff, you don't want. Plenty of you have sat through various editions and changes, you should have enough tools to play 40K like you want it with likeminded people. But constantly throwing money at GW newest models because of their awesome rules, is the equivalent of housebreaking a puppy by giving it treats for pissing on your laptop.

- only then, will you actually see some changes

Or we could tell GW to take a hike and make our own games, which is what I believe the OP is intent on doing. For that purpose, discussing what we think 40k does or doesn't do right is helpful, if not actually important.

mrknify
20-07-2015, 03:16
1 too much waiting for your turn.

2 power gamers, why? Its not competitive...

3 not enough 500-750 point games.

4 why do my troops do nothing when you run over a hill in a clear field. Should I not be able to shoot you? In the real world you stick your head out of cover you get shot at, not the ability to move and then kill me, when in fact a real soldier would have you dead to rights.

5 I'm still waiting for my turn.

6 you want me to roll how many dice?

7 what do you mean my flyer that's the size of a knight titan only gets 1 attack on a titan but can hit another flyer for 1d3+1.

I will rant like this for days... here is the last one.

8 you made my army crazy and let them be troops, now I'm not aloud to take them as troops?

Lol. There is so much wrong with the game, but there is so much that is awesome.

No more new op codex. Just make them balanced.


6 stupid rules that cause impossible wins. Or is that an aos issue... no its also 40k.

Losing Command
20-07-2015, 03:31
Come on guys. Stop wasting your bile on internet forums and start doing the things, that can actually accomplish change.

a) Start writing GW. Although, they insist on getting feedback via old-school ink-on-paper mail, and it will cost you a stamp. They still provide an address to sent your complaints. And if GW started getting a thousand letters of complaint a week, they'd have to address it. And if you don't like the snailmail part, just think of it as a quaint role playing gimmick on their part; in the grim dark future of the 41st millennium, there is no interwebz.

b) Stop buying the stuff, you don't want. Plenty of you have sat through various editions and changes, you should have enough tools to play 40K like you want it with likeminded people. But constantly throwing money at GW newest models because of their awesome rules, is the equivalent of housebreaking a puppy by giving it treats for pissing on your laptop.

- only then, will you actually see some changes

Well but...

a) GW does, by its own words, not listen to its customers. They don't want to know what we want, THEY decide what we want.

b) A lot of Fantasy players stopped buying directly from GW because they didn't like where the game was going. Look where that got them :p

Back on topic : I do also dislike the way TLOS works in 40k, because it's such a pain when you're not sure. The way Lotr handled TLOS felt a lot smoother, if only for the inclusion of the rule "When you're not sure, on a 4+ it can be seen, otherwise shoot at something else"

The_Real_Chris
20-07-2015, 03:58
-The vehicle rules are garbage:
-move to Toughness/Wounds/Save

Back to first edition? :)


Movement is messed up:
-we have special rules instead of a Movement stat. It's absurd
-you move a model many times in a turn for some unfathomable reason (it takes a long time to handle hordes)
-why am I rolling randomly to see how far I can run? Why am I spending time on this mechanic?


Legacy of 3rd edition (and the reason some people quit the game).

But yes having orders like other GW systems would be better. Over watch - don't move shoot in opponents turn after a unit has completed a move; sustain - don't move blaze away to maximum effect; advance - move and fire; engage - double move enter close combat; March - triple move no firing no close combat some sort of penalty if assaulted.



Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

Zustiur
20-07-2015, 10:16
I have many small gripes with the game as it stands. I remember the transition from 2nd to 3rd. For the most part I agreed with the intend of what was done, but not the implementation. Ever since then things have moved more and more towards 2nd edition complexity, without the benefits of 2nd editions core rules.
Here are some of the things I'd do to 7th as a patch/FAQ/errata/house ruleset, prior to launching a larger shift in edition. Note that I intend to do it that way to ensure that the rules get tested in actual play, and to ensure that my fellow gamers like where I'm going with the rules before making more jarring changes. I'll let you infer what the issues are from the fixes.


Movement
• Fleet is a movement rule
○ Fleet has a number 1, 2, 3, etc. This number gets added to all forms of movement. Walk, run, charge. At some later point. 3 is the default if none is specified.
• Run occurs in the Movement phase (Except Eldar with Battle Focus)
Psychic
• No warp charge roll it was a bad rule due to not scaling at all
• At the start of your psychic phase, each of your psykers generates twice their mastery level in warp charges
• Must spend charges as per cost shown on each power
• Psychic test taken on 2d6 vs Leadership
• The warp charge cost is also a penalty to leadership for the roll. e.g. Warp Charge 3 power on LD 10 psyker only succeeds on a 7.
• Can spend extra charges to improve chance of passing check, +1 to leadership for each additional charge you put into the power. Cannot be used to increase LD past 10 in total after all modifiers are calculated.
• Each psyker can only spend its own warp charges
• Psykers cannot know powers that require more warp charges than they generate (this only affects level 1 psykers)
• Deny the Witch available on malediction + Witchfire. Single D6 roll of 6 prevents the power. +1 to roll if target unit contains a psyker, +2 if that psyker is higher level than the caster
• Perils of the Warp happens on double 1 and double 6
○ If daemonology remains, happens on any double
○ Not sure which perils option to use, probably 6th ed
○ Alternate perils rule: take another leadership check using leadership -4. Pass = no wound. Fail = wound with no saves of any kind. Roll of 12 = removed from play.
• New power given to all psykers: Nullify
○ Costs 1 Warp Charge. Use to contest a blessing or malediction within 18"
○ Both psykers roll d6+mastery level. If the nullify caster wins, the power is nullified. Else the power remains in play
○ If the original caster has already been removed from play, the nullification succeeds automatically
• Any psyker model may pay an upgrade cost of 15 points per mastery level to select their powers instead of rolling randomly.
• Invisibility now gives stealth and shrouded vs shooting, and treat WS as 10 in combat (but only for receiving attacks, they still make attacks at their regular WS).

Shooting
• Look Out Sir to be reduced to 3" and once per phase. If the heroic model survives, swap it and the original target so that it will continue to soak up hits.
• Rapid Fire gains a value. If no value specified, assume 2 shots half range, 1 shot full.
• Storm bolters become rapid fire 4/2
• Sniper and barrage weapons regain pinning

Assault
• Chainsword S: User, AP: -, Shred or reroll successful saves.
• Powersword S:+1, AP:3
• PowerAxe S:+2, AP: 2, Unwieldy
• Power Maul/Crozius S+3, AP:4
• Power Fist: S: x2, AP: 2, Unwieldy no longer specialist
• Similar changes for non imperial weapons
Morale
• Shooting casualties that exceed 50% of original unit size in 1 round results in Break Test with LD -1
Vehicles
• Heavy vehicles treat Ordnance weapons as if they were heavy weapons, thus ignoring the 'all other weapons are snap shots' rule.
• Walkers in assault can be hit on the rear armour when they are outnumbered by 5 to 1 or more. In these situations, one in five models may strike the rear armour.

Competitive gaming army selection rules:
• Use a single CAD , no LOW slot
• Possibly place a limit on how many points you can spend on arming any single model (like, max 100 pts of wargear)
• No special characters/unique creatures etc
• No Org Chart altering shenanigans. Units cannot be moved from one position on the org chart to another by any means. For example, space marine bikes and tyranid tervigons cannot become troops.

Narrative gaming army selection rules:
• Discuss what style of battle you wish to play with your opponent before making your list
• Discuss any intent to include flyers, superheavies or gargantuans as these units can be so powerful that they require your opponent to prepare accordingly. An unprepared player might not actually be able to hurt these units, which would not make for a very fun game.


Other
• Remove warlord traits entirely
• Remove mysterious terrain, mysterious objectives and the record maelstrom card
• Smash doesn't set AP to 2, instead it improves the AP of the creature's weapon by 2, to a maximum of AP2. This way 'creatures' which have no business being good in combat (rip tide…) don't gain AP 2 with no reason.

skorczeny
20-07-2015, 12:50
Army building rules: CAD, unbound, formations, and general lack of FoC or % system to balance things.
Fliers
The apocolypse-ification of all 40k. Strength D, tank squads for everyone, knights, titans, LoW, GC
High turnover rate of new edition/rules/codexes.
Explosion of content: dataslates/formations in WD, download for $, codex, codex supplements, etc. Too many things in too many different places.
Movement: move in the movement phase, and the shooting phase, and the assault phase
Overwatch
AP, armor save, and cover save mechanics.

Poncho160
20-07-2015, 13:11
The look out sir rule. Just feels silly to me, I feel a character should only be allowed to take it once per phase or weapon type perhaps.

The idea that a whole squad would dive in front of a charcter to save him just seems off to me. Cinematically it should just be one guy, jumping slo mo style, screaming, "Noooooooo".

It might unbalance the game slighty as well making shooting more powerful but I do not like the vehicle shooting rules. Only being able to snap fire most of your vehicles weapons after moving seems a bit stupid to me, but again it might be a balancing rule.

I do like the new fluffy Army detachments though, Decurion, Warhost, Demi Company ect. Encouraging people to bring more troops and lesser used units is always a good idea I think. Plus they are what an army should look like IMO :)

shabbadoo
20-07-2015, 13:18
One of my main issues regards Vehicles and their defenses based on speed/type.

Vehicles, of all kinds, should be able to swerve around so as to be more difficult to be hit by shooting attacks. Some will of course be better at this than others. A proposed solution:

Amend the Jink rule to be usable by ALL vehicles as a standard ability, but modify it to a base 6+ cover save. Fast Vehicles gain a +1 bonus, as do Skimmers; with Fast Skimmers therefore gaining a total bonus of +2. This is further modified by a +1 bonus for each full 6" of movement beyond 6" that is moved (i.e. +1 at 12", +2 at 18", +3 at 24", etc.), to a maximum Jink cover save of 2+ (only Fast vehicles or better moving Flat Out can gain a 2+ cover save as a base in any case).

Also, in the current rules, fast moving vehicles are much too easy to hit with close combat attacks, their speed not even being a factor. It is like T-ball/slow pitch baseball out there! :p Vehicles should be more difficult to hit in close combat the faster they are going, with skimmers being even harder for ground troops to hit. A proposed solution:

Keep Vehicles as WS 1, but allow Vehicles without a Weapon Skill the ability to avoid close combat attacks by Jinking, with bonuses as above. Either way, Jinking has the downside it currently does (i.e. snap shots the following turn), whether it was used to avoid shooting attacks, close combat attacks, or both in the previous player's turn. Also, the +1 Jink bonus of Skimmers does not apply to close combat attacks made against them by Jump Units, who find it just as easy to get to grips with a Skimmer as a ground unit will a ground vehicle.

Also, for a unit to be able to Jink at all, in either situation, it has to have moved in the previous turn. The only exception to this would be at the beginning of the game when a vehicle has yet to move because the player has not yet had a turn. In this case it is assumed the vehicle has just arrived at the battlefield at Cruising Speed (Combat Speed for Heavy Vehicles), and so uses that speed as the basis for figuring its Jink save.

Thoughts?

Poncho160
20-07-2015, 13:26
One of my main issues regards Vehicles and their defenses based on speed/type.

Vehicles, of all kinds, should be able to swerve around so as to be more difficult to be hit by shooting attacks. Some will of course be better at this than others. A proposed solution:

Amend the Jink rule to be usable by ALL vehicles as a standard ability, but modify it to a base 6+ cover save. Fast Vehicles gain a +1 bonus, as do Skimmers; with Fast Skimmers therefore gaining a total bonus of +2. This is further modified by a +1 bonus for each full 6" of movement beyond 6" that is moved (i.e. +1 at 12", +2 at 18", +3 at 24", etc.), to a maximum Jink cover save of 2+ (only Fast vehicles or better moving Flat Out can gain a 2+ cover save as a base in any case).

Also, in the current rules, fast moving vehicles are much too easy to hit with close combat attacks, their speed not even being a factor. It is like T-ball/slow pitch baseball out there! :p Vehicles should be more difficult to hit in close combat the faster they are going, with skimmers being even harder for ground troops to hit. A proposed solution:

Keep Vehicles as WS 1, but allow Vehicles without a Weapon Skill the ability to avoid close combat attacks by Jinking, with bonuses as above. Either way, Jinking has the downside it currently does (i.e. snap shots the following turn), whether it was used to avoid shooting attacks, close combat attacks, or both in the previous player's turn. Also, the +1 Jink bonus of Skimmers does not apply to close combat attacks made against them by Jump Units, who find it just as easy to get to grips with a Skimmer as a ground unit will a ground vehicle.

Also, for a unit to be able to Jink at all, in either situation, it has to have moved in the previous turn. The only exception to this would be at the beginning of the game when a vehicle has yet to move because the player has not yet had a turn. In this case it is assumed the vehicle has just arrived at the battlefield at Cruising Speed (Combat Speed for Heavy Vehicles), and so uses that speed as the basis for figuring its Jink save.

Thoughts?

I would cap the save at 3+. 2+ jink saves are annoying and are not fun to play against, firing multiple units at a squad and seeing nothing die, dosen't make a good game IMO.

Nice idea in general though :)

Neckutter
20-07-2015, 15:01
What pisses me off the most, and drives me crazy is the lack of FAQ support for their books. English is a weird language and sometimes needs clarification.

Secondly spelling mistakes in $50 codices.

Starter sets should be $100 max. Same goes for AoS, Execution Force or anything. Get more people into the hobby.

urbanevil
20-07-2015, 15:35
I think a streamline and simplification of the core rules is a good start. From there I think you can start balancing and working out the other issues.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

itcamefromthedeep
20-07-2015, 17:23
why do my troops do nothing when you run over a hill in a clear field. Should I not be able to shoot you?It sounds like you're looking for 2e Overwatch.

Running over a hill doesn't make the enemy machine guns fire twice as fast, and having dozens of troops crest a hill at once doesn't make the enemy fire dozens of times as quickly. You stumbled on the reason I won't be playing Infinity.


But yes having orders like other GW systems would be better. Over watch - don't move shoot in opponents turn after a unit has completed a move; sustain - don't move blaze away to maximum effect; advance - move and fire; engage - double move enter close combat; March - triple move no firing no close combat some sort of penalty if assaulted.I think you'd enjoy my Deephammer draft.

And yes, back to first edition, except that ground cars don't get 20 Wounds or something silly like that.


The warp charge cost is also a penalty to leadership for the roll.

[...]

Invisibility now gives stealth and shrouded vs shooting, and treat WS as 10 in combat (but only for receiving attacks, they still make attacks at their regular WS).

Sniper and barrage weapons regain pinning.

Chainsword S: User, AP: -, Shred

Smash doesn't set AP to 2, instead it improves the AP of the creature's weapon by 2, to a maximum of AP2. This way 'creatures' which have no business being good in combat (rip tide…) don't gain AP 2 with no reason.A gamer after my own heart. Note on that last one the Black Mace problem.



Overwatch
What's wrong with it? There are a number of possibilities, I'd just like to know which you're referring to.


Vehicles, of all kinds, should be able to swerve around so as to be more difficult to be hit by shooting attacks.

[...]

Thoughts?"Go evasive", rather than go to ground. Use the same mechanic, or a very similar one.


I think a streamline and simplification of the core rules is a good start.What do you mean, specifically?

mrknify
20-07-2015, 17:27
It sounds like you're looking for 2e Overwatch.

Running over a hill doesn't make the enemy machine guns fire twice as fast, and having dozens of troops crest a hill at once doesn't make the enemy fire dozens of times as quickly. You stumbled on the reason I won't be playing Infinity.

I think you'd enjoy my Deephammer draft.

And yes, back to first edition, except that ground cars don't get 20 Wounds or something silly like that.

A gamer after my own heart. Note on that last one the Black Mace problem.

What's wrong with it? There are a number of possibilities, I'd just like to know which you're referring to.

"Go evasive", rather than go to ground. Use the same mechanic, or a very similar one.

What do you mean, specifically?
There is a bit of a difference for bullets going faster and a reaction. Ever play paintball?

I feel that if you have a unit standing around and an enimy comes out in the open that you should have a chance to fire on them. Not the whole unit but at least some of the guys should be switched on enough to call contact and start shooting.

You have to remember they are trained to react. If they are already shooting then no free shot.

Here is an easy way to handle this, we will roll a d6 even I'm right odd your wrong (lol)

But seriously say you have a 10 man tac squad and 30 ork boyz jump over a ridge. Would you just watch them run at you? Or would you take a defensive posture and fire back or go for cover?

I feel the whole. 30 dice for an attack is a bit much. When I played nids I would roll in excess of 100 dice on an assault. Tell me that's not a silly way to do this.

I propose you roll a leadership test, you roll 2d6 + ld against your opponents 2d6+ ld if your higher then you get to shoot at them. You dont get a full round of firing, but what you rolled on your 2d6.

But shouldn't a 30 man unit get to shoot more?
Sure,but your buddy is in front of you, and the guy behind you is picking his nose while the ten guys in the front are aimed in 4 different directions.

The game is supposed to be fast paced. I also believe that movement should be broken up as well as attacking... etc

And I do like infinity, its a different kind of game for a reason.

Example, if you give out actions to each unit, say for example 2 actions. You can move then shoot, shoot then move or move then move. Or move then cast a spell. Or use a psychic ability.

Then we get hit with invisability. I agree with many others, here is my solution.
Psychic buffs/powers are not passive you must maintain them. Requiring a ld roll every turn to keep them up. Some are easier to maintain, others are not. If a unit is in combat the difficulty to maintain a buff should get harder. In the case of invisability, the power should fail unless additional actions are used to maintain. This makes the caster a bit more vulnerable.

Look I just balanced psychic abilities without special rules.


There should be no "special" rules within rules.

There are abilitys that use rules or ignore then.

Rules are what determine what a given unit is able to do.

Invisible/stealth same rule.

I can go on.

Cheers.

Grand Master Raziel
20-07-2015, 18:37
"X should change because it's not realistic!"

I get the realism gripe, but unless we want a set of rules like the Encyclopedia Britannica, we have to accept the game has a certain amount of abstraction. Without abstraction, we get Advanced Squad Leader, which DOES have rules like the Encyclopedia Britannica.

mrknify
20-07-2015, 19:56
"X should change because it's not realistic!"

I get the realism gripe, but unless we want a set of rules like the Encyclopedia Britannica, we have to accept the game has a certain amount of abstraction. Without abstraction, we get Advanced Squad Leader, which DOES have rules like the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Its not sure much the realism, its the millions of dice and being destroyed even when you have overwhelming odds in your favour.

Things that can be fixed by streamlining the rules, fixing all the too many exceptions with special rules within special rules.

I have so many troops and knights and daemons and undead and, and..... I really just want something that's playable and not have to worry about the op flavour of the week because it gets sales.

I want to love my game again, I want to be able to have a fun game where if I win its not due to insane rulings or op broken units.

I love playing apocalypse, butt 7th ed is too much apocalypse. 3k in forces that take an hour to set up, and an hour a turn to play is horrendous.

I just want to play!

So I do, once every couple of years I pull out my death company 500 pt army and play for an hour.

I no longer play 3k games as my time is more valuable. I enjoy painting, converting and playing skirmish games where I can have 2 games in an hour.

As for the encyclopedia.... I've can make skirmish rules that work for any system, and they are only a couple pages. Without hundreds of dice.

I will put my money where my mouth is, I will make (a table top game) streamlined. These rules will not work for any one game, you will need to paint some toys or use legos or my little pony's as I will not have any permission to use other ip in my product.

The rules will be in pdf format and available online, location to be determined.

As for the specifics it will be generic and cover "replacement rules" this way you can easily use your rule book along side these play rules. This will aid in your enjoyment and understanding.

(Disclaimer: no ip was hurt in the making of this post, although their pride may be.)

Cheers

Poncho160
20-07-2015, 20:10
I think terminators are very lacklustre in the last few editions, their shooting is very weak and they are very very vulnerable to mass attacks. Gants, gaunts, guardsman and the like can take them down with just the weight of poor quality shots or close combat attacks they can put down. I am feeling that terminators are not worth their points anymore. Necron warriors are more survivable than they are.

I would like their storm bolters to be upgraded to assault three or be made twin linked and for them to always be able to take their invulnerable save.

Lord Damocles
20-07-2015, 22:15
I am feeling that terminators are not worth their points anymore. Necron warriors are more survivable than they are.
Against anything which isn't ignoring saves, Warriors are about as tough as Terminators only if they're in a Decurion and within 12" of the Reclamation Legion Overlord.

Against weapons ignoring armour saves (which are obviously more common for the Warriors), without being in a Decurion they're (only) equally as resilient. Terminators with Storm Shields are obviously tougher to put down than Warriors.

DuskRaider
20-07-2015, 22:33
The issues I have? The rules are garbage. Absolute garbage. It's a pay-to-play game these days with all the absolute broken BS that is Necron & Eldar, you have Space Marines that get FREE vehicles, not for any other reason than to sell more crap. The allies rules are crap, the Formations are crap, including Apocalypse units in normal games is crap, using Strength D in normal games is crap (especially when Eldar can field nothing BUT Str. D). Battleforged vs. Unbound... crap. The best way to fix this? Give the GW designers the boot to the curb and hand everything over to Forge World. Until then, I will firmly cement myself in 30K. Good riddance.

jet_palero
20-07-2015, 23:51
I've recently been trying to relearn the game, and the pointless complexity is just astounding. I mostly played as a kid during 2nd edition (which wasn't exactly candyland), and so many of these current design decisions have me scratching my head. I'm not going to say 40k is a bad game (I frankly haven't played it enough to tell), but it its way harder to learn than it ought to be. My friend had me playing warmachine at about 90% rule comprehension in one gaming session. There's no way I'd be at that point in one session with 7th edition 40k. Not to mention warmachine gives away copies of their mini rulebook in the army box sets (a damned brilliant idea if you ask me). 40k just seems really really fidly. Lots of special rules to remember, rather than a few over arching rules. And vehicles play completely differently from normal units, for no real reason that I can see.

Bloodknight
20-07-2015, 23:58
The movement rules are dumb, too. I wonder why they had to port 40K's worst part into AOS, too. It's easily possible that you have to move the same unit 3 to 4 times in one turn. I once played a tournament with 150 guardsmen and counted the moves. At the end of the 6 games I had moved about 6000 miniatures, I thought my arms would fall off.

Dark Elf
21-07-2015, 00:04
Melee is pure crap IMO. That would be a nice fix - a bit better melee.

Scribe of Khorne
21-07-2015, 00:27
How would you do it though?

The biggest issues I see are delivery/movement, which you kind folks keep bringing up as a sore point.

Bloodknight
21-07-2015, 00:38
A Movement stat. Just like that. Since they took that out, half a dozen special rules and random events took its place to achieve roughly the same effect.

Thrax
21-07-2015, 00:44
Here's our infantry movement stat: armor save + initiative, in inches.

skorczeny
21-07-2015, 00:57
What's wrong with it? There are a number of possibilities, I'd just like to know which you're referring to.

The problems with overwatch are numerous. There is no decision, there is no reason not to fire overwatch. For some reason it's ONLY triggered by assault. Your ability to hit the enemy is determined by... nothing: no matter who or what you only hit on 6s. I think the only reason overwatch was implemented was because of random charge distance and pre-measuring everything: it stops you from just declaring a charge once your w/n the 12 inch threshold in the hopes that you might roll double 6s.

The only thing I like about overwatch is that it makes flamers more interesting weapons. Maybe some of these are 6th edition only issues. I forget.

Scribe of Khorne
21-07-2015, 02:49
Here's our infantry movement stat: armor save + initiative, in inches.

Hah, cool idea, would it hold up?

Marines at 7, Terminators, 6. Ok.
Dark Reaper at 8, Banshees at 9. Ok.
Ork at 8 (Nob at 9)? Eh Ok.

At a glance it seems like a fine baseline. :D

itcamefromthedeep
21-07-2015, 03:18
There is a bit of a difference for bullets going faster and a reaction. Ever play paintball?

I feel that if you have a unit standing around and an enimy comes out in the open that you should have a chance to fire on them. Not the whole unit but at least some of the guys should be switched on enough to call contact and start shooting.

You have to remember they are trained to react. If they are already shooting then no free shot.40k used to have a rule back in 2e where you could choose to stand still in your turn in exchange for the ability to shoot in your opponent's turn in reaction to what they are doing (like moving out into the open). Would something like that satisfy you?


I think terminators are very lacklustre in the last few editions, their shooting is very weak and they are very very vulnerable to mass attacks. Gants, gaunts, guardsman and the like can take them down with just the weight of poor quality shots or close combat attacks they can put down. I am feeling that terminators are not worth their points anymore. Necron warriors are more survivable than they are.

I would like their storm bolters to be upgraded to assault three or be made twin linked and for them to always be able to take their invulnerable save.There was a lot of speculation that with the 2-wound sergeant trend that Marine veterans would get a second Wound across the board, which would handily solve the Terminator durability issue in my estimation. However, that's not what hap


I've recently been trying to relearn the game, and the pointless complexity is just astounding. I mostly played as a kid during 2nd edition (which wasn't exactly candyland), and so many of these current design decisions have me scratching my head. I'm not going to say 40k is a bad game (I frankly haven't played it enough to tell), but it its way harder to learn than it ought to be. My friend had me playing warmachine at about 90% rule comprehension in one gaming session. There's no way I'd be at that point in one session with 7th edition 40k. Not to mention warmachine gives away copies of their mini rulebook in the army box sets (a damned brilliant idea if you ask me). 40k just seems really really fidly. Lots of special rules to remember, rather than a few over arching rules. And vehicles play completely differently from normal units, for no real reason that I can see.Is there a distinction between fiddly special rules and clear ones? The presence or absence of Stealth strikes me as being as easy to remember as a model's WS stat. Lictor, for instance, have something like 14 special rules but aside from Instinctive Behavior they're all pretty straightforward.

I think this is an important detail for game design, so I'd like to hear some talk on this front.


Hah, cool idea, would it hold up?

Marines at 7, Terminators, 6. Ok.
Dark Reaper at 8, Banshees at 9. Ok.
Ork at 8 (Nob at 9)? Eh Ok.

At a glance it seems like a fine baseline. :DM11 Hormagaunts. M4 Tyrannofexes.

mrknify
21-07-2015, 04:53
40k used to have a rule back in 2e where you could choose to stand still in your turn in exchange for the ability to shoot in your opponent's turn in reaction to what they are doing (like moving out into the open). Would something like that satisfy you?

There was a lot of speculation that with the 2-wound sergeant trend that Marine veterans would get a second Wound across the board, which would handily solve the Terminator durability issue in my estimation. However, that's not what hap

Is there a distinction between fiddly special rules and clear ones? The presence or absence of Stealth strikes me as being as easy to remember as a model's WS stat. Lictor, for instance, have something like 14 special rules but aside from Instinctive Behavior they're all pretty straightforward.

I think this is an important detail for game design, so I'd like to hear some talk on this front.

M11 Hormagaunts. M4 Tyrannofexes.
At least then you could do something in wait.

Zustiur
21-07-2015, 05:49
As in the 2nd edition memories thread, I do not want to see the turn of 2nd edition overwatch. That rule derailed the game too many times.

As for the point, you do get to react to the unit coming over the hill. It just happens in your own turn as part of the abstraction.

Sent via Tapatalk 2

Ironbone
21-07-2015, 16:45
My issues with 40k ? Oh my Lord, where to start....

- Games Workshop. No doubt the biggest one. Lacklouster (if any) playtesting, insane pricing policy, outright, poorly hidden enormours greed, and sometimes questionable design choices (age of sigmar, really ?). Unforgivable even for total newcomer. For company this big and experienced, byond absurd. And yet it still keeps going......
- apocaliptisation of game, with formations, sh-s and gargants in "core" game.
- Cover saves. On one hand it's way too easy to jump them to 3+, or 2+, possibly even with re-roll. On the other hand, cover save is almost none egsistant as so many weapons simply ignore it. And if they don't, cast a spell, or use markelights, or issue an "revel all" order.
- Assoult phase. It was nerfed hard on more than one occasion, yet still plays way too much important role in games IMHO.
- Swiching to needlesly complicated decurion style detachments mid edition for no reason.
- Multiple detachents leadiing to extreamy broken and unrealistic armies
- Imperium gest almost all the love. And almost all imperial love is about space marines. Yes, they ARE awesome, but thre are other forces in galaxy, you know.....
- Shameless monygrabbing (like "death from skies, aka lacklouser FAQ and reprint of what we relase before )
- #formations#formations#formations
- Vechicles beeing inferior to monsters, especialy in durability
- Randomnes everywhere

mrknify
21-07-2015, 18:00
My issues with 40k ? Oh my Lord, where to start....

- Games Workshop. No doubt the biggest one. Lacklouster (if any) playtesting, insane pricing policy, outright, poorly hidden enormours greed, and sometimes questionable design choices (age of sigmar, really ?). Unforgivable even for total newcomer. For company this big and experienced, byond absurd. And yet it still keeps going......
- apocaliptisation of game, with formations, sh-s and gargants in "core" game.
- Cover saves. On one hand it's way too easy to jump them to 3+, or 2+, possibly even with re-roll. On the other hand, cover save is almost none egsistant as so many weapons simply ignore it. And if they don't, cast a spell, or use markelights, or issue an "revel all" order.
- Assoult phase. It was nerfed hard on more than one occasion, yet still plays way too much important role in games IMHO.
- Swiching to needlesly complicated decurion style detachments mid edition for no reason.
- Multiple detachents leadiing to extreamy broken and unrealistic armies
- Imperium gest almost all the love. And almost all imperial love is about space marines. Yes, they ARE awesome, but thre are other forces in galaxy, you know.....
- Shameless monygrabbing (like "death from skies, aka lacklouser FAQ and reprint of what we relase before )
- #formations#formations#formations
- Vechicles beeing inferior to monsters, especialy in durability
- Randomnes everywhere
I have something for you...
To fix the randomness and make everything else make sense... (lol)

All missions now end after 1d6 turns or
Instead of the regular victory points, you now play until one player has a total of 1d6 + 1 victory points. Now remember to roll for each player. Players will roll a d6 and add the highest ld in their army to it, the highest roll chooses.

Random terrain.
Take the random terrain list from the mission you are on and multiply it by 1d3.

Table edges,
Mark off each players edge into 12" sections.
For each unit roll 2d6, then subtract the units ld.
Starting clockwise, (counter clockwise if negative) and count each square until you reach the number you got from your 2d6-ld. This is where that unit starts.

Objectives,
the mission objective if a location now roll 2d6 and a scatter die, the objective now moves that many inches in the direction indicated. If the objective ends within a players table edge, move it 1d6 inches towards the furthest table edge, in a direction that brings it off of a players starting edge.

Good luck.

HelloKitty
21-07-2015, 18:10
My issues with 40k out of the box and why I would never play a game of 40k without some kind of house rules mainly revolve around summoning.

* Summoning. This is my prime dislike for 40k. Summoning is way too easy and way too overbearing. Summoning needs in my opinion to be able to be dispelled like normal (in fact all psyker abilities should be able to be dispelled as if the unit was being targeted now, the psyker phase can get out of hand) and there should be some drawbacks to summoning such as the unit being summoned is worth a kill point or something.

Scribe of Khorne
21-07-2015, 18:21
Thanks HelloKitty, I dont think thats been touched on much yet.

A.T.
21-07-2015, 19:57
...and there should be some drawbacks to summoning such as the unit being summoned is worth a kill point or something.The old style of summoning made more sense - pay points for the unit, bring them in during the game. Just needs to be less random that the old system.

mrknify
21-07-2015, 21:04
The old style of summoning made more sense - pay points for the unit, bring them in during the game. Just needs to be less random that the old system.
I always felt sumoning should take a turn from casting for them to appear, and if a enimy caster managed to get close enough they could counter / battle the summoner. Or you would have a chance to kill the summoner with your non magikal / psykhic (intentional spelling)

Scribe of Khorne
21-07-2015, 21:13
Could someone describe this other summoning, why would it not just be Deep Strike on a Reserve Unit if you had to buy the unit?

Bloodknight
21-07-2015, 21:46
That's basically what it was.

I liked the 2nd edition way of summoning where you had to do stuff to summon daemons. Like, for summoning Khorne units your army had to inflict hits in CC, flor Slaanesh you had to force failed LD checks (sucks, do not use this, since hardly anybody fails LD checks), for Nurgle you had to kill stuff and got 1 summoning point per wound killed, and Tzeentch collected summoning points via casting spells. Then you could spend your summoning points on summoning Daemons of the God you had points for.


Could someone describe this other summoning, why would it not just be Deep Strike on a Reserve Unit if you had to buy the unit?

That's what it was, but in a time when not everybody and his dog had widespread access to deep striking units.

A.T.
21-07-2015, 22:32
Could someone describe this other summoning, why would it not just be Deep Strike on a Reserve Unit if you had to buy the unit?The 4e CSM summoning (if you are unfamiliar with it) was -

1) Buy the units to summon as normal. The price factored in (to a degree) the limitations and requirements of their summoning, and did not occupy any slots on your FOC (though they counted as HQs and Troops for the purposes of contesting objectives, etc)

2) Units to be summoned started in reserves and had to wait for their dice to come up. This was the major weakness of the old system as it often took far too long for them to become available and once they did show up they could not be delayed until a tactically sound moment. Too random.

3) Lesser daemons had to be summoned within range of a summoning icon. They did not scatter and could shoot and assault immediately - this allowed them to be used for drive-by assaulting from passing units in transports, etc. The earlier 3.5 CSM dex had the more extreme version of this with untargetable flying siren princes throwing old school rending daemonettes directly into combat.
Greater daemons had to possess a suitable character model. Their base cost was lower to account for the compulsory sacrifice.


Opposing players could target enemy icon carriers and characters to restrict the summoning as the new units had to be placed very close to the icons. The summoning could not be dispelled, and there was no model generation - you had what you paid for, no more and no less.

Scribe of Khorne
22-07-2015, 03:05
Thoughts on Overwatch having a facing? I'm playing Deathwatch on my son's Ipad, and was thinking to 40K and how supremely lame the 'give me a 6' overwatch can be.

Would adding a restriction to facing be an better restriction than 'you can only hit on a 6'?

itcamefromthedeep
22-07-2015, 03:18
I'd just scrap the free shots on the way in and go back to the "do nothing this turn so that you can shoot in your opponent's turn" Overwatch.

Scribe of Khorne
22-07-2015, 03:59
I just worry about if that system is still too rewarding to the shooty player, vs the assault player. If you force a player to pick an angle to defend against, they are forced to 'overwatch' in that direction and not 'ever alert' to every angle or direction of attack, which thematically doesnt make a lot of sense to me.

A contrast between Overwatch, and Snap Shots, I guess.

Vet.Sister
22-07-2015, 04:29
that the Sisters of battle are still waiting for an update ;) but being this is more to do with rules... i can't add to the comprehensive list made here...

Seriously though ... Adepta sororitas... GW has 'em, i want 'em...

I try not to post the Battle Sister Lament, so I will just echo someone else... LINE 2 SAYS IT ALL!

Poncho160
22-07-2015, 05:04
The complaints against overwatch were that it encouraged gun line armies and restricted movement across the board.

I think that now we have objectives and Maelstrom of War missions, gun line armies are becoming very rare, as movement is key to winning a battle.

I would like to see the return of overwatch for these reasons:

1. It lets both players take part in a player turn.
2. Makes the game a bit more tactical by forcing both players to take important decsions on both movement and shooting.

I think I would implement something like this:

1. Player A declares that he is moving a unit.
2. Player B declares that he is overwatching on that unit. Player B states with what units he is overwatching with.
3. Player A moves the unit the desired distance.
4. Player B fires his units one by one at the moving unit. The normal rules of shooting are applied. Template weapons within range cause D3 hits. The best cover save along the route of travel are used. Any casualties caused are removed. Casualties (because there would be no real "closest model" to fire at) are determined randomly if there are more than one type of troop in the unit, ie, on a D6 roll, 1-2 is the Sgt, 3-4 is the heavy weapon guy, 5-6 is a normal trooper.
5. Any unit that fired cannot snap fire at charging troops for the rest of that player turn and is forced to snap fire in their own turn.

Or something like that. :)

Scribe of Khorne
22-07-2015, 05:17
I'd just go like intercept, you dont get to fire on your next turn.

Poncho160
22-07-2015, 05:30
That would work as well :)

mrknify
22-07-2015, 05:31
Or did not fire in the previous turn...

Scribe of Khorne
22-07-2015, 05:36
Turn 1 - Dont fire.
Turn 2 - Intercept/Overwatch
Turn 3 - Fire Again?

Yeah I dont know if I like that mechanically, but I think Overwatch is a mechanic that either is open to abuse, or like Poncho mentioned is open to some lame gameplay.

Poncho160
22-07-2015, 05:45
Or did not fire in the previous turn...

That would involve slightly too much book keeping. You would have too different types of overwatching units, those who did fire in their prevoious turn and those who didnt, forcing the player to remember quite a bit and would possibly overcomplicate the rule and slow the game down. Having one standard way of overwatching would probably be simplier.

Bloodknight
22-07-2015, 08:13
I just worry about if that system is still too rewarding to the shooty player, vs the assault player. If you force a player to pick an angle to defend against, they are forced to 'overwatch' in that direction and not 'ever alert' to every angle or direction of attack, which thematically doesnt make a lot of sense to me.


Since people were talking about 2nd ed. overwatch.

YOu declared overwatch in your own phase, foregoing that unit's shooting phase. Models had a 90° Arc of Fire. You could fire at any point in the enemy movement phase. Shooting at units emerging from or moving into cover or charging the overwatching unit was handled at -1 BS. Mathematically the overwatch game was worse than just straight up shooting in most cases, so I guess the stories about overwatch spamming come mostly from people who did not remember that they had to apply a modifier. I didn't overwatch a lot, but then I played IG and they were bad shots from the start, given that units that moved over 10" in their movement phase got another -1, and 5+ means twice as many hits as 6+.

StraightSilver
22-07-2015, 10:09
We had a house rule for 6th / 7th edition overwatch which was you could only overwatch if your initiative was higher than the unit charging you.

Wasn't perfect as tbh almost everybody has the same initiative but it gave assault based units such as Wyches a better chance.

Otherwise you could do an initiative test before overwatching but just saying you could only overwatch if initiative was higher just made it easier.

A.T.
22-07-2015, 10:17
We had a house rule for 6th / 7th edition overwatch which was you could only overwatch if your initiative was higher than the unit charging you.Didn't that completely break one of the defining abilities of the tau?

duffybear1988
22-07-2015, 11:40
My main issue is that it isn't 4th edition :cool:

Off the top of my head it's this -

1) Formations and unbound make FOC useless in many cases.
2) Superheavies.
3) Strength D.
4) Random everything.
5)That Sisters of Battle are still without a good codex.
6) Allies means armies lost their uniqueness.
7) Price of everything.
8) The new codex style is crap. If they want to do away with the fluff then just cut it out and go back to £8 pamphlet books. Stop charging me a small fortune for a slightly updated army list and less fluff.

Wesser
22-07-2015, 11:45
- Assoult phase. It was nerfed hard on more than one occasion, yet still plays way too much important role in games IMHO.


Say what? Assault was nerfed to the ground and then nerfed some more. It basically plays no role in the game anymore as almost every dedicated assault are priced based on what assault units could do 3 editions back.

A few isolated cases remain such as Maulerfiends and certain Eldar units, but crucially only superfast units can hope to compete


Basically it's only the presence of objectives and viable shortranged shooting that encourage the actual moving of units nowadays

mrknify
22-07-2015, 12:47
That would involve slightly too much book keeping. You would have too different types of overwatching units, those who did fire in their prevoious turn and those who didnt, forcing the player to remember quite a bit and would possibly overcomplicate the rule and slow the game down. Having one standard way of overwatching would probably be simplier.
Nah just use reload tokens.
Your unit fired put a token beside it.
Your turn starts remove token.

We had a house rule for 6th / 7th edition overwatch which was you could only overwatch if your initiative was higher than the unit charging you.

Wasn't perfect as tbh almost everybody has the same initiative but it gave assault based units such as Wyches a better chance.

Otherwise you could do an initiative test before overwatching but just saying you could only overwatch if initiative was higher just made it easier.
A leadership roll vs initiative roll also works.
Unit Ld+1d6 vs attacking units initiative +1d6 for every 10 members of the attacking unit -1
For every 10 members of the defensive unit add 1 unless they are unruly then its starts after 20 numbers of that unit.

Ex: 30 ork boyz are sitting around, they like to fight everyone so they are not as good at paying attention so they get 1d6+ld+2 because they have 20 levers and an addition 10 members.

But still the biggest issue is its another die roll.
Then again I do have other ways combat should be done.....

The_Real_Chris
22-07-2015, 13:22
Overwatch kinda depends on having a decent level of terrain...

The Epic system was fine. When activating a unit decide wether or not it will overwatch. Overwatching units don't move and can fire as normal at any point after an opposing unit has moved (so no interupting moves).

The Enemy can still dash between cover to avoid being shot but if they charge you or advance accross the open you can shoot them up.

The trade off was sustained fire - firing without moving - was more powerful.

By the by really. For 40k to become a good system a lot would have to change and if you play 2nd ed you remember a lot of what changed (bar movement) was a good idea.

As a fan of Epic A I would port a lot of ideas from that.

Sureshot05
22-07-2015, 13:41
Major issues in order of priority:
(1) - Randomness. Really spoils the game and creates far too much book keeping which slows down the game. Mysterious terrain, mysterious objectives, psychic powers, daemons, chaos blessings, warlord traits, etc. They are not a form of balance. They are quite the opposite. In too many cases (such as psychic powers) there are bad and good rolls, which can determine far too much of a game without the player choosing. These should be balanced against each other to allow for fun, or a player should be able to choose.

(2) - Balance between flyers, infantry, vehicles and super heavies. Too many hard counters which create very unfun games. These should be balanced so that players have more fun. If someone turns up with a knight list, both players want to have a great game, but at the moment it can be a disaster (for both players) if the other guy has an infantry heavy army.

(3) - Allies. In principle great, but not balanced at all and certainly don't appear to factor in to codex design. These should be left for apoc or your opponent should receive a bonus for you taking allies.

(4) - Formations. Really unbalanced and exaggerates rather than mitigates the above problems. They should all be weaker than the standard chart, but allow you to do nifty things (such as an all flyer list or something), but instead they are simply the standard list but better in a lot of cases.

And as I hate to criticise without offering suggestions to improve I would do the following:

I would add a chart of counters which a player can select from each time his opponent selects from a prohibitive category. So if you take 2 Superheavies, your opponent can take two anti-super heavy upgrades for their force. This still allows anything to go on the table, but reduces the penalties players pay.
Allies, additional formations, non-standard formations, and flyers could all be balanced by the addition of counter tables which you get access to (for free) when your opponent takes something which makes its hard to counter.
Psychic powers - return to the selection based method in older editions. If you want to take psychic scream, do so.

Warlord traits, make a selection. Remove mysterious objectives and terrain. And fix the poor daemon book keeping nightmare. :P

Do these and I think the game would look healthier without restricting units, allies or anything else. It simply gives the players the tools to play, and makes it more easy to meet a random opponent and have a great time, which should be the end goal (because hopefully when its a friend, you were already going to have a great time to begin with).

itcamefromthedeep
22-07-2015, 15:30
This may be the healthiest, most positive and insightful thread I've seen on Warseer to date.

insectum7
22-07-2015, 16:23
Mathematically the overwatch game was worse than just straight up shooting in most cases, so I guess the stories about overwatch spamming come mostly from people who did not remember that they had to apply a modifier. I didn't overwatch a lot, but then I played IG and they were bad shots from the start . . .

IG were bad shots, but Space Marines were not. They had a +1 to hit from their Targeters on all heavy weapons, Terminators had a BS 5 and Dreadnoughts had a BS of 6. I spammed the crap out of Overwatch back in 2nd.

The game (and statlines) have obviously changed a lot though, the end result of bringing an "interrupt" style of overwatch would be considerably different these days. However, a lot of people still seem to feel that shooting is far favored over assault. I can't imagine implementing a "2nd style" Overwatch would help that.

murgel2006
22-07-2015, 20:41
I like this threat. There are so many opinions and man of them differ massively as well as many raise the same points. Here are mine.

If I could I would drop the whole system and create a new one. There are many mechanics I like in 40k and many I don't but my primary point of critics is the Turn approach.
I loved it when in the "leaked 6th edition" there was a different basic game process as an alternative.

But as far as keeping the system and try to fix it:
TLOS has to go. 4th ed. worked nicely for aiming purposes. Area terrain is easy and leaves only small room for discussion.
Some weapons need fixing. Sniper rifles come to mind, as do ID weapons. Various weapons need dual stat lines - one anti-infantry and one AT. (no AT profile ->no AT)
All work a rounds for rules need to go. (i.e. ID is ID no escape; streamlining- one save means one save etc.)
Movement stat needs to come back. So does jumping/falling from buildings.
Morale/Ld/fear/hate/atsknf etc. need to be seriously reworked.


I like:
the detachment-formation approach and hate the FOC.
the current vehicle damage system (much better than the old tables) but think ther should be more HP on the vehicles and weapons should have a damage value in AT
The models :)

itcamefromthedeep
22-07-2015, 21:46
Morale/Ld/fear/hate/atsknf etc. need to be seriously reworked.
Any brilliant ideas on that front?

KurganFr
22-07-2015, 23:22
I was toying with using suppression tokens like in Epic. When a unit gets shot at and/or takes casualties (25%?), they receive suppression tokens. When they take a Leadership test, if the result is lower than the number of suppression tokens, the unit becomes Suppressed and has restrictions on movement, firing and overwatch (against charging enemies). A Suppressed unit that fails a Leadership test is Routed.

I was also thinking about alternate unit activation where players take turns moving a similar proportion of units (e.g. Bob has 5 units, Fred has 10; Fred moves 2 units to Bob's 1), and a spattering of the Command Points from AT-43 to allow out-of-sequence actions based on leaders.

Zustiur
22-07-2015, 23:41
I wrote an edition with alternate turns. In the end I scraped it without even trying it because I felt it was too much of a departure from the game we're all familiar with.

Regarding morale I think shifting back to 2nd edition would be a good starting point. Fear did more. Terror existed. Shaken instead of ATSKNF. I do prefer run to table edge from 3-7 though. Run to cover was appropriate for a skirmish game but not for the battle game we play now.
Sent via Tapatalk 2

KurganFr
23-07-2015, 00:01
I feel that the Initiative and Attack stats need re-examining. In 2nd Ed, more Attacks gave you a higher chance of rolling high to best each individual opponent but also made it more likely you would roll a 1 and fumble. Initiative was only a tie-breaker. It doesn't make sense to me that a lumbering ork boy could lay waste to 3 enemies when a lightning-fast eldar guardian can only kill one ork (albeit hitting first).
Also, a lot of the complexity comes from mixed models in the one squad (special weapons and characters). Not sure how to fix this yet.
Finally, I think stats need to be rebalanced from scratch across the board. I'm not just saying that because I'm a marine player, but I think marines should be high-costed elite troops (WS, BS, S, T 5) and 1500 points should only see maybe three squads and a couple of support items. Boltguns need a boost. Dreadnoughts and vehicles should have better versions of the infantry weapons; just looking at 2nd Ed makes me realise how underpowered SM Dreadnoughts are now - missile launchers that fire multiple missiles, multimeltas that can be used as heavy flamers, assault cannons with 3 sustained fire dice, let alone the cyclone missile launcher that could fire all 12 missiles in one salvo. Other races need rebalancing just as much. The omnipresence of special and heavy weapons needs to be reduced, along with allowing those models to split fire (like in 2nd Ed). In fact, let's just tweak 2nd Ed and I'll be happy! :)

Scribe of Khorne
23-07-2015, 00:19
I do feel that ATSKNF needs a massive nerf.

Immunity to Fear would be conceptually, thematically, and fictionally appropriate, however the immunity to being swept? 100% needs to go, 100%. I would actually say that ATSKNF just becomes immunity to Fear.

Perhaps a bit of a contentious stance to take, but I'm open to arguments on why ATSKNF should stay at all at the power level it is at.

Zustiur
23-07-2015, 01:42
The answer to that depends on how much you want to rewrite the rule set. Nerfing atsknf without a price alteration or other buff while keeping the current rules... Ouch.

Changing all the rules and getting rid of atsknf in the process, ok.
Sent via Tapatalk 2

itcamefromthedeep
23-07-2015, 01:53
I'm open to arguments on why ATSKNF should stay at all at the power level it is at.Power-armored marines have been unimpressive for a while now.

Scribe of Khorne
23-07-2015, 02:58
I really dont want to do it, but....how do we buff Chaos then?

Zustiur
23-07-2015, 04:20
Legion rules I guess. I really don't know chaos well enough to make suggestions on that one.

Sent via Tapatalk 2

Scribe of Khorne
23-07-2015, 06:17
Legion rules I guess. I really don't know chaos well enough to make suggestions on that one.

Sent via Tapatalk 2

I really dont want to go down that route (the whole of the CSM discussion) in what has been a positive thread so far. :D

Suffice it to say, ATSKNF, and the bonus it provides will forever put your Tac Marine out of balance with a CSM. If MEQ has issue (and I would be the last to argue that they dont) ATSKNF is not a positive way to correct things, all IMO of course.

I look at 30K, where a bog standard Tac Marine is 10 points. With Legion rules on top, all they dont have? ATSKNF.

Losing Command
23-07-2015, 07:21
Only the additional marines are actually 10 points. The first 10 are 150 combined, so unless that veteran sergant upgrade is 50 points the first 10 tactical marines are as expensive in points as 40k marines, but then without ATSKNF. Additional squadmembers being cheaper is something that happens a lot in 30k, and in some cases the unit only becomes point-efficient if you take the full unit.

What if ATKNF prevented being sweeped at the cost of a few model from the unit being removed as auto-casualties ? Would still be similiar to what it is no, but maybe even more fluffy with a few squadmembers staying behind and sacrificing themselves so that the rest can fight back from a better position.
Though I think morale in general hasn't any impact in 40k, units running away from shooting happens rarely and only a codex without acces to re-roll morale, fearless or ATSKNF with low Ld values has anything to fear from having to take morale tests. Only with some serious modifiers does morale start to matter.

A.T.
23-07-2015, 10:05
I really dont want to do it, but....how do we buff Chaos then?Marks of allegiance, banners/icons of power. Perhaps mutations, perhaps an option to upgrade generic CSM to veteran status to represent the long war against the imperium. A bit of extra cc punch with a second close combat weapon.

Forgeworld renegades also have a leader-based ability which might work for CSM, essentially each warband shaped by their master. These are purchasing options rather than freebies - for instance a heretek might allow the purchasing of mastercrafting or artificier armour for squad vets.

Legion marines average 12 points a model, but only if you buy 20 of them, and they are bolters only - no special or heavy weapons.

Greavous
23-07-2015, 11:32
my latest gripe is with insta death, either weapons with the rule or high str weapons. there seems to be far too many options for armies to field str 8+ or buy insta kill weapons, oh you have a MC with 5 wounds tuff it died to 1 hit.

on movement we do have basic rules, infantry move 6" its the extra rules that mess it up, all my army can only move 6" but can run and/or jump pack but that a seperate alternative to doing something else. if you hate moving your units 3 times a turn well.... dont, its an option not mandatory.

pricing, i dont mind it, id still pay 2x what it is now as once you have it you have it forever. its not like the model melts after a month. think of paintballing you have to keep buying the gas and balls and after a couple of months youd probably hit more than the models are worth, nevermind if your gun breaks and you have to get a new one, cant just glue it back together like the plastic models.
the hobby doesnt have to be cheap just because you cant afford it, i cant afford to do motorbike racing but i dont complain about it.

Da Etruskan
23-07-2015, 12:12
1) Power creep. In detail, the fact that there is just too much dakka, and the answer is apparently either add big creatures/vehicles unkillable by infantry or add additional layers of defence like FnP. How long before every model has an integrated FnP rule just to withstand the firepower and stay on the field one turn? This started early, mind it.
Just think about Str5 Pulse rifles in Tau, 3rd edition. You can say is not too much but it kind of killed a sacred cow. We had then a Str5 weapon in massed infantry. Strength and rate of fire of a lot of weapons should be toned down. "Get's hot" was a balancing factor for plasma because was powerful then. Is still fantastic now, but if you think about the scary stuff some units are armed with nowadays, you do wonder if such balancing mechanism even makes sense anymore.
And of course, point cost and delivery for a crippled assault phase is not taken in account when assault units are designed. Because... because.

2) Lack of internal and external balance. The first is baffling, especially considering that there is not a decent attempt to fix units through different editions of the codex of the same army. Some unit (sometimes armies) just cannot be taken. They are just that bad. Think about DE Mandrakes. Was really the case remove saves from them in the last iteration (BTW, they need all those rules? Yes because point 1). This is baffling because GW is supposed to sell those models. The second one, external balance, is related to point (1). The designer are just not able to weight improvements and additions and they just pump everything up to 11. Maybe to sell the new box, see Skyhammer. But we had examples of new models really sucky so I am tempted to just think that the design team is just not competent. The last brokenness is forgotten just because something more preposterous will come.

3) Randomness. It subtracts choices from the player. Of course in a game you need a random generator to assess how a conflict is resolved, I cannot just say "I shoot your guys and hit all of them". But.. there are elements that do not need to be random. Why should the tactics of my general be random? If you are not able to balance stuff don't add it, do not think something is balanced just because is random. Terrain, powers, movement. Demons. I can accept in movement but the rest is crazy. And the more you roll, more time you need to end the match. People complain about it a lot and randomness is never linked to the game lenght, but it matters! And let's not start about Maelstrom. If the game is so broken that you need maelstrom, it's over. The end. Let's all play rock-paper-scissors is subtler.

4) Progressive fluff destruction. And I do not mean just Khornate Knights. I mean the mechanics. So to make the guardians idiot-proof we had to raise the WS/BS to 4. Well, I suppose that the training of the Marines and Aspect Warriors, the Long War of the CSM, and the years and years of service of the Guard veterans are not that special if militia can shoot as good. And Space wolves have Lance weapons. But only spacewolves. Because.. reasons. Well I guess the mechanicus would be interested, you know. Just to have a look. Chaos Marine lore and flavour destroyed. Destroyed.
To add insult to injury, they rub in CSM players's face loyalist chapter tactics rules and people still dare to criticise CSM players if they complain.
Lore and the mechanics are more and more disconnected. For a game that has as the biggest point the background this is bad news. And this does not count the plain ridiculousness of the design. Dreadnight. Thunderwolf cavalry. Centurion. Taurox (even if people kinda overreacted here). Space marines flyers. DA new skimmers. Wolfwolfwolfitywolf Spacewolves. Bloodbloodsanguineblood Angels. The setting have always been over the top, but with a different tone. One count is exagerration, one count is plain ridiculousness.

5) General lack of vision. This is the main issue. And addresses points 1 2 3 and 4. GW designers have no direction. They do not know how to change things and the design has education issues. It is lower level culturally. Yes, I said it. Think about it a minute. The references are dumber and dumber. Then, Solar Macharius was Alexander the Great. "Now", the Dreadnight is the walker from James Cameron Avatard. They are even bad at doing the new bad stuff. The Leman Russ Punisher is Heavy 20, in accordance with the new DAKKADAKKADAKKA paradigm. But high school probability, lesson 1, tells you how much the basic Punisher sucks at this job. It takes 30 seconds to calculate that, tops. Does GW hire people that went to school? I have doubts.

6) Poor company strategy. Short term strategy. Short term only. GW does everything to be hated. Can't keep design goals constant one whole year (see point 5). Does not support armies/kits and then get's pi***d that people look somewhere else. Does not update stuff but keeps power creep (point 1). So your carefully collected army gathers dust because is terrible against the new sexy thing. People just quit, at least for a while. You can start a new army; but you think "you fooled me once..".
Just think about WH Fantasy. They felt smart enforcing big units with 5 models to make 1 rank, and rules for hordes. Result? Ugly big units, huge entry cost and boring sameness in the modelling part; loads of magic, and a bloated game soon dead. Great job. Applauses.
Well, sometimes you are just, like afraid of their updates. See Orks. And then they recognise something is broken, and add fixes; Fixes you have to pay for. And these fixes are not what people want, in fluff and crunch. See as an example Crimson Slaughter for CSM. WHO CARES ABOUT CRIMSON SLAUGHTER? I DON'T CARE. HE DOES NOT CARE, YOU DO NOT, NOBODY CARES. How the warp was this a priority? Is baffling. I could go on pages.

And let's not start with half codexes like Tempestus and Skitarii. Just make ONE decent codex for that faction, thank you very much.

Da Etruskan
23-07-2015, 12:13
Bonus:

7) Fanboys. Yes. You, maybe; "Everything GW does is good" and I just cannot enjoy the game without being a powergamer. Well, not. I am collecting and painting now an eldar army composed of the weaker models, just aspects no psionics no wraithbone no bikes. But I do it as an informed choice. If one youg gamer picks AM or DE now, and goes against a Wraithnight Scatterbike list, could just quit instantly. This is GW fault, and none else.

Fanboys have no tastes or sense of criticism, and this ruins everything. They are the reason behind mind numbing movies and sloppy writing. If people buy everything regardless the quality, why should designers and writers care?

One note: I do not think "less rules" is better. I love my aspect warriors and their laundry list of rules. They make them functional and full of flavour. I am in for introductive rules, but the main dish must be full of flavour because for a long term attachement to the hobby, you need nuances and things that challenge your mind. And stimulate the community. There is nothing bad in many rules (if kept reasonable). There is a lot bad in BAD rules.

BTW, this is why I think AoS will fail. No depth, no talk, no community, no game.

Ironbone
23-07-2015, 15:58
Say what? Assault was nerfed to the ground and then nerfed some more. It basically plays no role in the game anymore as almost every dedicated assault are priced based on what assault units could do 3 editions back.

A few isolated cases remain such as Maulerfiends and certain Eldar units, but crucially only superfast units can hope to compete


Basically it's only the presence of objectives and viable shortranged shooting that encourage the actual moving of units nowadays
I know, assoult phase is shadow of it former self, but still for my taste it happen to fast, and and it's way to often one sided. Bikes of all sorts, twolf cavalary, beststars, and so on, have, like ZERO, trouble starting assoults on turn 2, 3 max. This kinda makes me hard to me say "shooting phaze is only one that matters" :p.


See as an example Crimson Slaughter for CSM. WHO CARES ABOUT CRIMSON SLAUGHTER? I DON'T CARE. HE DOES NOT CARE, YOU DO NOT, NOBODY CARES.
I care :p. CS is one of few decent non-legion parts of CSM fluff. Legions are core part of this, but this makes them sort of overplayed.

Lord_Crull
23-07-2015, 16:35
Well, sometimes you are just, like afraid of their updates. See Orks. And then they recognise something is broken, and add fixes; Fixes you have to pay for. And these fixes are not what people want, in fluff and crunch. See as an example Crimson Slaughter for CSM. WHO CARES ABOUT CRIMSON SLAUGHTER? I DON'T CARE. HE DOES NOT CARE, YOU DO NOT, NOBODY CARES. How the warp was this a priority? Is baffling. I could go on pages.


One of the best players at my local gaming store plays Crimson Slaughter, fully modeled up and everything.

Scribe of Khorne
23-07-2015, 16:42
I think there is room for faction growth, while still respecting the legacy and history of the faction at the same time. In a setting as vast as 40K, its actually difficult outside of a full on retcon, to ruin a factions fluff.

That said, mechanically there is nothing wrong with Crimson Slaughter, it adds a new wrinkle to CSM. Same with all the supplements really. While we may desire for less books, more consolidation, I dont think it fundamentally ruins the game to have them.

itcamefromthedeep
23-07-2015, 17:12
its actually difficult outside of a full on retcon, to ruin a factions fluff.GW are up to the challenge.

I'm always impressed by the ability of Space Wolves to make friends with wolves. I'd be a little miffed if someone who was wearing my second cousin's skin as a trophy asked if we could be best buds. That's one of the reasons the Eldar / Dark Eldar kinship looks strange to me. Don't the Incubi still have to kill an Aspect Warrior and mutilate their spirit stone aspart of their hazing? If I were a Craftworlder I'd have trouble not taking that sort of thing personally.

Still, rules should absolutely evoke the background. I always thought it was really odd that nids would start eating each other when there were no enemies around. It contradicted a bunch of established background, including the forces that stayed in one of the polar fortresses on Magragge. Going by the 5e/6e codex IB rules the nids would just kill each other off on the own if you leave them be. It also sours the Anphelion Project pretty badly.

Daemons having Eternal Warrior for a long time was bad, as it made them resistant to Force Weapons, precisely the opposite of what the background would suggest.

In the 40k game vehicles always pass Leadership tests. In the field, tank crews get nervous and scared all the time, and often choose to retreat rather than stay in dangerous circumstances.

Perils of the Warp strikes me as the sort of thing that deserves a massive and intricate table with all kinds of wacky results. Something as boring as "lose a wound" is not what the doctor prescribed. All the senseless D6 charts should go and make way for a few gigantic charts of doom, particularly for Perils and the mission.

lanrak
23-07-2015, 18:30
Hi folks.
I think lots of people have made lots of very valid comments about the symptoms of core 'miss steps' in the development of 40k .
(The GW sales departments focus on 'selling toy soldiers to children.')

As opposed to the 40k 'game development based on game play in synergy with the background people are inspired by.' We should have got.

I am referring to the established background not the new ' appeal to kiddies by producing what GW sales department think ,younger gamers will find grown up and cool.'

This is a problem with GW plc corporate attitude NOT younger players/customers.I want a better rules set for 40k so I am not ashamed to play it with my kids!;)

IMO the fist step is defining the scale and the scope of the intended 40k game.
Detailed skirmish game (Necromundia,) is going to be completely different to a large battle game.(Epic SM.)

GW plc used to have different games for different scales and scopes.But now try to cover everything in one game , and its just a complete mess.

If we assume 40k should be a battle game using similar sized forces to 5th ed?And a game play that delivers a balance of mobility fire power and assault?

Then the current core 40k game mechanics and resolution methods are not the most suitable are they?

If we could change the core rules that do not support elegant and intuitive execution of the intended game play.
We may not need so many extra rules to try to make the game work how it should, but fail to do it .

I would use a more interactive game turn.(Remove the need for additional conditional reactive rules like over-watch.)
And reduce the number of resolution methods to just 2.
Direct use of stats, number of dice rolled, range in inches etc,
And compared opposed stats on a single resolution chart for the three stage resolution methods.

2 things I would keep,
D6s, and rolling to hit, rolling to wound and rolling to save.

To sort out the largest amounts of problems with the minimum effort.
Its important to get the foundations of the game play solid and wide enough to cope with the intended game play.

EG if you get the basic right, you do not need to add in extra rules to sort out the issues you get later on.

I may need to explain this in more detail?

Da Etruskan
23-07-2015, 20:03
To people answering me about Crimson Slaughter - yes I got it. Someone love them. I was exaggerating. But the point being: do they deserve to have a codex before, say, Night Lords? Or at least, don't Iron Warriors, Night Lords, Word Bearers and so, they do deserve some supplement, even all together and not one per legion, before the CS, right?
Are night lords overplayed? More than "blue regular CSM" I mean.

And yes, CS supplement was mechanically decent. because half of a patch. Because the CSM codex was bad the first day it came out.
And this is inexcusable. Kelly wrote a 5th edition codex that now CSM player are using for 7th. and came out in 6th. This is 40k setting warp travel nonsense, and I say is inexcusable because Kelly is an experienced writer. And makes me miss Matt Ward.

@Ianrak: I speak about my personal tastes now: I do not think that a simpler statline helps in resolving the game issue.
Barring perhaps the to-hit for melee, in which a WS double the target could well grant a 2+, I do find the GW tables for 40k and old WH fantasy quite brilliant. As a kid approaching the game, I could well imagine those result as
"oh well that's obvious - this guy is so skilled he hits the little guys easily" (3+, WS higher than target)
"oh well I see - this guy is so skilled the average guys struggle to hit him (with a 5+, too high WS)
"oh I understand, the strenght of the blow is good/bad enough that is incredibly easy/difficult to harm the target" (S vs T table).

This shows better the interaction of the models on the table. I see in my mind what is going on. I imagine how skilled is an Incubus or pathetic a grot. Is intuitive, and helps immersion. And immersion is vital for a fantasy/sci-fi game.

And is 2 simple function I learned at 12. Is that difficult?
A) "You hit at 4+. If your WS is higher, at 3+. If the target has more than double your WS, you hit at 5+"
B) "You wound 4+ if S e T are equal. You add 1 for point of S greater (max 2+); You subtract 1 for point of S lesser. You can wound with 6, but if T is 4 points bigger, the blow will not wound".
Is really that difficult?

"Fix" these stats with a dumb AoS warscroll (hit regardless the WS of the enemy) would be an example of what did GW do so far: fix something that is not broken, and do not intervene on the real issues. Just IMHO.

Scribe of Khorne
23-07-2015, 20:26
Yeah I find the BS/WS/Wound tables very good, I think the order of dice rolling could change though to cut down on dice being rolled. I wonder if we couldnt just streamline things a lot, leaving the same probabilities, but keeping dice rolling at a min (6's for overwatch for example, I decline to even roll these days, its simply not worth my time).

itcamefromthedeep
23-07-2015, 21:01
The attack resolution mechanic just isn't that important. There are hundreds of miniatures strategy games out there and most of them do a good enough job of it. Changing the core mechanics costs a lot, and is usually lethal for a house rules system, and gets a negligible or nonexistent payoff.

The tables are easy enough to remember. In my first post I recommended rephrasing a few (a characteristic test is really just d6+stat, match or beat 7). A roll to hit with a gun is just a Ballistic Skill characteristic test. A leadership test is 2d6+stat, match or beat 14.

There's a benefit to reversing armor saves into a positive number (d6+armor, match or beat 7), in that it lets armor and AP scale up indefinitely. Anything more drastic than that and I think you've killed the interest of your players. Go full AoS on people and you never get off the ground.

---

I don't think you need to do much to change the scope of a game. After all, Necromunda worked just fine and it used the 2e chassis with only changes to the unit mechanics for gameplay purposes.

You can scale down to Kill Team easily enough by letting each model be its own unit.

Scale up to Epic by treating each detachment as its own unit (they all fire at the same thing, they need to stay near other units in the detachment, etc.) and include new detachments rules. I promise the unit mechanics alone make a huge difference.

streetsamurai
23-07-2015, 21:59
Cover rules: Hate that cover has almost no effect on heavy armour guys.
Detachement and Decurion: Hate them with a passion. Tought that they nailed it perfectly with the first few codexes of 7th edition which had special foc for each army giving some special rules. The new way of organising army just makes the game more complicated for nothing while restricting creativity in list building.

insectum7
23-07-2015, 22:03
I really dont want to do it, but....how do we buff Chaos then?

I always felt that the value of Chaos Marines should come from a boost in lethality over loyalists. Sort of like the dark side of the force. They've embraced their "warrior" selves to the exclusion of everything else, and should be individually more powerful than individual "good guys". I felt like their incarnation of having the bonus chainsword, the re-rollable Ld 10 (didn't they at some point have higher Ld. than loyalists, with 10 on the Champion?), and the ability to have two Special Weapons in their squad was pretty solid for a time. But now loyalists have Chapter Tactics, and Grey Hunters have wound up being more savage than Chaos, I think.

Didn't Berzerkers have WS 5 and another attack in Chaos 3.5 too? I thought that was great. Then WS 5 was given to Grey Knights instead. Booo.

IMO, Space Marines should keep their ATSKNF, because its a great way of showing their cohesion as a fighting unit, and the benefit of selfless loyalty to "the brotherhood". But in turn, Chaos Marines should just be outright nastier, preferably in close combat. They should also not be affected by Fear (like loyalists, but for different reasons. They routinely hang out in hell after all), possible cause Fear themselves. I mean very clearly nastier too. Like a new player can compare the stats/gear of Chaos and loyalists and be seriously tempted by the dark side. Free CC weapon, Rage and Counter Attack. Or the ability to get a power weapon or two in the squad for cheap. Free Champions. Rending Chainaxes. Upgrades along those lines feel appropriate to me. For lack of ATSKNF Chaos Marines should defeat Grey Hunters. Berzerkers should trounce them. Berzerkers should be horrific, IMO.

Overall, I really hope that Chaos Marines and the "Devotees" (Berzerkers, etc.) get the "Aspect Warrior treatment."

ColShaw
23-07-2015, 22:26
'Zerkers didn't have WS5 in Chaos 3.5. What they had was Chainaxes (reducing saves to 4+) and all manner of gifts for their champs (Furious Charge +1I/+1S and Power Weapons that got more attacks if you rolled 6s, for starters). It was awesome.

insectum7
23-07-2015, 23:54
'Zerkers didn't have WS5 in Chaos 3.5. What they had was Chainaxes (reducing saves to 4+) and all manner of gifts for their champs (Furious Charge +1I/+1S and Power Weapons that got more attacks if you rolled 6s, for starters). It was awesome.

No WS 5? I wonder where I got that from. I remember they were bad news if they got close :) Those Chainaxes were like Choppas, I remember that. Even reducing Terminators to 4+. As viscous as Orks but stronger and tougher.

I also seem to recall that they got out of their Rhinos when they raged, while Blood Angels didn't. wtf.

Bloodknight
24-07-2015, 00:05
Yeah, Khorne Berzerkers usually get some stupid special rule that makes them play the second fiddle to other assault troops from the same book (3.5 unreliability), or they're just simply badly overpriced, like, for example, now.

They' were upped to WS5 only a short while ago, but paid for it with losing an attack in their statline, so that they're now just about as effective on the charge as they used to be all the time. Also, Furious Charge got nerfed, so they don't strike before other MEQs on the charge anymore. Which basically means that you're better off just taking CSM with MoK because those guys get more wounds and more firepower to soften up the enemy for the points. Berzerkers have always been massively overvalued by GW's people, I wonder if they even tested them or sat there admiring the statline...

Scribe of Khorne
24-07-2015, 04:49
Berzerkers imo have always been close. I really hoped that they would get something like the Assault Marine (or Plague Marine if we could be so blessed) treatment, of taking 2 Special Weapons per squad.

Unfortunately we endured the 'if its not in the kit' syndrome. I think Berzerkers packing 2 x Melta, or 2 x Flamer, while keeping that 2 attack base would have been something but alas, it wasnt meant to be.

The game does not treat well units that can really only assault, its been that way for a long time.

Da Etruskan
24-07-2015, 09:37
Berserkers should get back their 2nd base attack, and have either a cheap delivery system or a point reduction. Bonus, go Space Wolf and have a "normal dude" or two in the unit get power weapon/fist.
For cheap, "just rage" assault, marked normal marines. For elite unit "relase the berserkes", 1-2 (depend from the points), with WS 5, FC, 4 attacks on the charge and countercharge, nasty weapons.
Plague are pricey but fine. Thousand son should get back the second wound. People will cry how much overpowered is it, and then on the table would see that is still a barely functional unit but at least can endure a bit more punishment.
Remove the salvo for the noise marine weapons. Assault 2/Heavy 3 was perfect.

More on topic ("general problems"), BTW, salvo. Why? And why on weapons like sonic weapons (makes no sense there) or on relentless platforms which make the whole thing pointless?

You know a weapon that would have been good with salvo? Heavy Bolter. like 36 Salvo 2/4. Now imperium and chaos have a pointless heavy bolter and way less useful sonic weapons.

Salvo looks like something invented to justify a new edition, and never deeply thought. Has no point most of times.

A.T.
24-07-2015, 09:50
Free CC weapon, Rage and Counter Attack. Or the ability to get a power weapon or two in the squad for cheapOr they should pay the going rate for their abilities - stronger but more expensive rather than a return of the 5e space wolf '+1' marines :p

---progression/power creep of CSM---

3e rulebook CSM and loyalists were the same cost. CSM had +1 LD, loyalists automatically regrouped.
Berzerkers were just regular WS4 CSM with +1 attack.

3.5e CSM were Ld 9/10 and were outright cheaper than 3e loyalists, though loyalists could deepstrike for free (old drop-pod rules).
Berzerkers were normal (though more expensive) marines with WS4 fearless, +1 attack, and random compulsory (bonus) movement which often prevented them from shooting. Chain axes were dirt cheap and the champion could take a power weapon that got extra attacks on 6 to hit.

4e CSM were still LD 9/10 and had the pistol/cc/bolter combo, and were the same cost as the loyalists save for the 5pts tactical marines got off their heavy weapon - though CSM had free grenades while loyalists still paid 3 points a model for them, and a free pistol that loyalists couldn't get without taking drawbacks to allow them to swap their bolter out.
Berzerkers went up a few points and gained WS5, furious charge, grenades, and lost their random compulsory movement and option for chain axes.

5e - loyalists caught up with the free pistols/grenades about a year after the CSM release.

6e CSM got 2 points cheaper but all of their unique bonuses were made optional - 3 pts gets you back to Ld 9/10 with a bolter/pistol/cc plus hatred(marines) on top of that.
Berzerkers also got cheaper at the cost of their +1 base attack becoming +1 attack in the first round of combat only. The change to furious charge rules also impacted them and chain axes came back, but not in a useful way.

Zustiur
24-07-2015, 10:43
I'd be fairly happy to see SMs get Shaken back in replacement of ATSKNF. It made more sense to me as a fluff matching rule anyway. This way you can sweep marines, but it takes two failed checks to happen, and there's no auto rally.

itcamefromthedeep
24-07-2015, 12:04
I really dont want to do it, but....how do we buff Chaos then?

I think you buff Chaos in a separate but perhaps related project. One that changes the points values and/or rules of stuff.

lanrak
24-07-2015, 17:34
I think the over familiarity most players have with the 3ed ed onwards rules , makes it difficult for them to see where the core issues start.

Having so many different resolution methods for resolving combat sets up some core imbalances that are difficult to address.
(Even with over 80 special rules in support.)

EG Vehicles being resolved in a completely different way to other units.
AP being totally effective or having no effect what so ever.
Invunerable saves , special rules like FNB and WBB, EW and ID.
Seperate cover saves are a complete waste of time.

Gw plc failed to explain its rules well enough , for players to understand.
So they simplified the rules to make them easier to explain , but over simplified them to the point they did not work properly without loads of additional rules.And GW plc totally failed to explain the additional rules .

So we just ended up with loads more complication, and even worse clarity.

What is wrong with adjusting the resolution methods slightly, so all units are covered with the same rules?

Would you like examples to help clarify what I am referring to?

Scribe of Khorne
24-07-2015, 18:19
I guess what I would like to see is a true simplification of the game, to speed things up considerably. As it is 6th and 7th added far too much upkeep to the game, they have slowed the whole thing down with rolls, re-rolls, overwatch, and other meaningless 'must get a 6' type actions, hell they added a whole new phase with more dice rolling!

To allow the game to scale up, and retain some level of respect for the time of the players, some adjustments to resolution, movement, and imo the re-roll/6's/random tables issue, need to be made.

Vehicles imo require a complete re-work in how they function as well, they are just too different.

insectum7
24-07-2015, 18:36
Or they should pay the going rate for their abilities - stronger but more expensive rather than a return of the 5e space wolf '+1' marines :p

---progression/power creep of CSM---
. . .


Power creep is one way to look at it, but your chart disregards pre-3rd. Berzerkers had a 2+ save, vs. the 3+ of other Space Marines. They were Frenzied, which I believe meant they doubled their attacks. From the Chaos book 2nd Ed: "Such is the skill of these warriors in close combat that they are allowed to parry even when frenzied.", which was a pretty nice bonus on top of that. They also got to triple their charge move, rather than the usual double that most other units had. They were the top tier assault unit as far as power armored marines went. Being devotees of the god of war and bloodshed that's the most appropriate place for them. It's their identity.

Nothing wrong for paying for that status, mind you. But I just think Berzerkers should outclass the rest of the crowd in terms of assault-oriented marines. If we're talking about buffs for chaos, that's where I'd like them to go. Nor is it "Space Wolves +1" either, since there's a distinct lack of ATSKNF.


I guess what I would like to see is a true simplification of the game, to speed things up considerably. As it is 6th and 7th added far too much upkeep to the game, they have slowed the whole thing down with rolls, re-rolls, overwatch, and other meaningless 'must get a 6' type actions, hell they added a whole new phase with more dice rolling!


The easiest two moves towards simplicity I can think of are A: going back to "unit owner chooses casualty", I find the current wound allocation mechanics annoying. and B: assault moves are 6".

Poncho160
24-07-2015, 18:41
Fluff wise, Bezerkers should be up there with the best marine CC troops in the game, being able to go toe to toe with the likes of Death Company or tricked out Wolf Guard. Sadly they are not :(.

It is a bit sad that these days, the answer to everything Chaos, is to play the Daemonkin book (which is GREAT! :)).

insectum7
24-07-2015, 18:55
Fluff wise, Bezerkers should be up there with the best marine CC troops in the game, being able to go toe to toe with the likes of Death Company or tricked out Wolf Guard. Sadly they are not :(.

It is a bit sad that these days, the answer to everything Chaos, is to play the Daemonkin book (which is GREAT! :)).

Agree! Hopefully the Daemonkin book is a taste of future Chaos releases. It's nuts to play against.

itcamefromthedeep
24-07-2015, 18:59
If speeding things up is the goal (or a big goal) then do your movement all at once, cut down on the pre-game bookkeeping, use fewer d6 tables in the game, and cut down on the low-probability high-reward mechanics.

Choose your powers and warlord traits. Run and charge consistent distances, all resolved at once (this means cutting down on shooting and then charging, which may be an ingredient in the "fix close combat" stew). No Destroyer table. No mysterious terrain. No mysterious objectives. No Stomp or Thunderblitz table. Super-heavies don't automatically explode. Cut down (or out) Look out Sir, but that's a really tricky thing to dial in properly. Roll saves by the unit rather than going model by model front to back. No fire-on-the-way-in Overwatch. Make melta a Strength bonus so you don't need to roll multiple hits two dice at a time. Gets Hot let's you do a high-heat option where you can't fire next turn and a low-power option wit worse stats, so that you don't need to track who's taking saves. Rework a flier's Hard to Hit into a jink save, maybe 3+ base and 2+ if you're going evasive. Maybe go back to 4e Blast rules, where a blast either hits or gets ignored (scattering and resolving takes time). Re-do Soul Blaze so that it doesn't waste my time (maybe a re-roll to wound or something and that's it).

Rolling to hit and wound don't usually take that long and aren't hard to figure out. I can't remember the last time I heard of someone actually looking up a table for those. It's not particularly complicated or time-consuming to resolve the core mechanics, particularly when armor and cover and invulnerabls and dodging don't all stack (which cuts down dramatically on rolls in the sequence and prevents durability from spiralling out of control). There are plenty of ways to save time, but the damage tables aren't where your time is being wasted.

Bloodknight
24-07-2015, 19:20
They were Frenzied, which I believe meant they doubled their attacks.

It also made them immune to Fear, Terror and Stupidity and forced them to charge the closest enemy.

A.T.
24-07-2015, 19:46
Power creep is one way to look at it, but your chart disregards pre-3rd.2nd edition was a very different rules system, particularly when it came to things like saves and close combat attacks - the numbers simply don't mean the same thing.

But for what it's worth their cost was, proportionally to CSM, the same as in 3rd ed, they had 2 attacks (1 base, doubled), and their longer charge and compulsory movement was pretty similar to the compulsory bonus move they had in the 3.5 dex.



They were the top tier assault unit as far as power armored marines went. Being devotees of the god of war and bloodshed that's the most appropriate place for them. It's their identity.In 2nd edition they were in the same price bracket as WS5 2 wound frenzied death company, WS6 I5 wolf guard (zerkers were WS4 I4) ... hell even battle sister veterans could get frenzy at WS4 I5 and they hit just as hard as the berserker did.

Berserkers were decent close combat units, they were never all-conquering marine destroying bringers of death. Perhaps they should be, and if they all turn up with 2+ armour, 2 attacks base, and power axes for instance that's cool - if they are priced like honor guard.

By 'space wolf +1' I was just referring to the way the SW got a bunch of free bonuses like counter attack, extra cc weapon, cheaper weapons, etc. It was poor design.

insectum7
24-07-2015, 21:03
2nd edition was a very different rules system, particularly when it came to things like saves and close combat attacks - the numbers simply don't mean the same thing.

But for what it's worth their cost was, proportionally to CSM, the same as in 3rd ed, they had 2 attacks (1 base, doubled), and their longer charge and compulsory movement was pretty similar to the compulsory bonus move they had in the 3.5 dex.

Stat's were different in 2nd. But if I had a choice between +1 WS for Grey Hunters, and +1 armor/+1 attack/50% farther charge for Berzerkers, I know which one I would go with for my CC needs.

They were pretty good in 3.5. Still something to fear. The translation between the systems was pretty good there.



In 2nd edition they were in the same price bracket as WS5 2 wound frenzied death company, WS6 I5 wolf guard (zerkers were WS4 I4) ... hell even battle sister veterans could get frenzy at WS4 I5 and they hit just as hard as the berserker did.

Berserkers were decent close combat units, they were never all-conquering marine destroying bringers of death. Perhaps they should be, and if they all turn up with 2+ armour, 2 attacks base, and power axes for instance that's cool - if they are priced like honor guard.

By 'space wolf +1' I was just referring to the way the SW got a bunch of free bonuses like counter attack, extra cc weapon, cheaper weapons, etc. It was poor design.

Wolf Guard are Vets. Sisters Veterans are Vets. Those aren't the relationships that bother me. Even then, Berzerker Vets stacked up quite well with their WS5 BS5 2+ on 2D6 Terminator armor, frenzy etc.

What matters to me about standard Berzerkers is how they stack up against other "troops of the line". Berzerkers are not vets. Berzerkers are "run of the mill" marines having dedicated themselves to assaults in Khornes name. Even though they're in the Elites slot, they're not actually veterans.

A.T.
24-07-2015, 21:33
What matters to me about standard Berzerkers is how they stack up against other "troops of the line"I would have thought what matters is how they stack up against units of comparable value and functionality, at least when making direct comparisons.

Guardsmen and grey knights are both "troops of the line" for instance, but that's about where the similarity ends. Berserkers, wolf guard, celestians, death company on the other hand are 'elite' power armoured close combat units - whether they are elite due to experience, devotion, faith, or madness is just fluff.

On topic - GW often doesn't seem to subscribe to the idea of "units with similar functions and similar costs should have similar capabilities"

mrknify
24-07-2015, 22:12
I feel there should be no +1 guy in a unit. It should be + 5 or +10 for a set cost. This forces the meta to change just enough to balance out small point issues.
I also feel that heroes should have option sets. You pay for the set and this should be added to characters as well, allowing some degree of control over special character loadouts.

Voss
24-07-2015, 23:00
LOL see every time I field my noise marines now I may just have to start humming a really bad song

You obviously misunderstand music as well as the 80s. Which of course, is perfectly natural, as very little of the noises developed after the 80s qualify as 'music.'

Poncho160
24-07-2015, 23:07
You obviously misunderstand music as well as the 80s. Which of course, is perfectly natural, as very little of the noises developed after the 80s qualify as 'music.'

Lol, best and truest comment I have seen on Warseer for a long time!!

The_Real_Chris
24-07-2015, 23:34
I always felt that the value of Chaos Marines should come from a boost in lethality over loyalists. Sort of like the dark side of the force. "

Epic A I think has captured the marine/chaos marine difference the best. Leaving aside cult marines these are the guys who have betrayed the emperor either recently or a while back :) Marines are the peak of superhuman soldiering so most don't get better than the basic stats forming the bulk of both sides.

So a stand of tacticals has the same stats, firepower, as a stand of CSMs. But you get around a third more for the points (8 vs 6). So they hit harder, shoot more etc but lack ATSKNF, so break faster etc. That funnily enough matches veteran real world units that tend to retire far early than other formations, be less likely to be gung ho etc (it is fascinating reading). This change means the two sides play extremely differently. Now I realise 40k has very different moral systems so you can't just patch from one to another, and there are changes such as a free warlord etc in the csm formation, but still you get a very different feel playing the two sides which really captures the respective fluffs.

The suggestion of 'buff 'em doesn't really do that in a sustainable way...



Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

Scribe of Khorne
25-07-2015, 00:39
Buffing CSM is not the solution imo. I dont even want to get into it unless we create a new thread really, as it derails from the general topic.

I think it was touched on, but your bog standard MEQ body has been left behind, and there may be something mechanically that makes that so.

MEQ as a general statline - Does it need tweaking?
Would those tweaks involve AP, Armour Saves, and the whole Save Mechanic?
Are the peers of the MEQ (GEQ, Eldar/DE Troops, etc) on par with MEQ, better/worse?

Those are all more interesting questions to me. :p

Poncho160
25-07-2015, 00:47
The standard Marine is fine in my opinion, Tacticals, Assault and Devastators all perform their job well, especially now with the rules in the new Codex.

It is their elites that I would like to see buffed, especially Terminators. Always letting them have their invunerable save or giving them two wounds would be good, buffing their storm bolters to assault 3 or twin linked would be good as well. This would be all the various Terminators across all the Codexes.

The various elite assault troops could do with a buff as well, Vanguard, Sanguinary Guard, Bezerkers ect.

Inquisitor Kallus
25-07-2015, 00:58
The standard Marine is fine in my opinion, Tacticals, Assault and Devastators all perform their job well, especially now with the rules in the new Codex.

It is their elites that I would like to see buffed, especially Terminators. Always letting them have their invunerable save or giving them two wounds would be good, buffing their storm bolters to assault 3 or twin linked would be good as well. This would be all the various Terminators across all the Codexes.

The various elite assault troops could do with a buff as well, Vanguard, Sanguinary Guard, Bezerkers ect.

Indeed. I also had the idea a while ago about re rolling their saves so they become highly resilient to small arms fire though it would need some looking at

Poncho160
25-07-2015, 01:24
Indeed. I also had the idea a while ago about re rolling their saves so they become highly resilient to small arms fire though it would need some looking at

It just seems a bit wrong that a big squad of Guardsman or Gaunts can, on the charge, force so many saves and take down a few terminators. Even mass low AP shooting is highly effective against them. They just dont seem to justify thier fluff or more or their points. Even one dead Terminator can really hamper their combat ability.

I think a 2+ save followed by a 5+ invunerable, if the 2+ was failed, would make them a lot more points effective.

Scribe of Khorne
25-07-2015, 02:15
I think it could easily just be handled via a USF 'Impregnable' - Failed Armour Saves may be re-rolled, and could be applied across the board to anything with a 2+? If one thought it was needed that is. :]

cswang
25-07-2015, 02:56
Eh, I wonder if some of that comes down to issues with granularity in the dice mechanics. Using d6's for everything under the sun puts very discrete limits on how nuanced your range of results can be for any given die-decided outcome. It does make for some oddities like how a Terminator has an equal chance of failing saves against lasguns and grot blastas as he does against battlecannons and krak missiles.

If you look at some of the Age of Sigmar warscrolls, I do think the GW design studio is aware of this. There are quite a lot of special rules for rerolls and rerolls of specific results. Does it adequately address the issue? YMMV on that one.

I do think that the d6 system contributes to a proliferation of special rules trying to get around those limitations. Of course, using a more granular system has its own costs and downsides, so you pick your poison there.

Scribe of Khorne
25-07-2015, 03:38
I think it completely is an issue with the d6, and re-roll's are well and good I guess for covering for it, I dont know if going to a d10 is a possible 'fix' though if we are looking at what GW could do, or what a house rule/community driven rule set would gain traction with.

itcamefromthedeep
25-07-2015, 04:37
I'm a fan of the second wound option for Terminators (veterans in general).

The status of power-armored models should get some re-evaluation in light of the most recent codex, where a lot of minis end up getting all kinds of detachment-related re-rolls. You can fit Terminators into a Gladius, which means some Tactical and Devastator doctrines are available. The Fisrt Company Strike Force also gets a Preferred Enemy target. It may be that Terminators these days get enough firepower for their now-reduced price.

Assault Marines are not fine. They still have the same value problem they've had since 3e.

Scribe of Khorne
25-07-2015, 05:04
I think a big part of what makes Jumpers fail (in my meta anyway) is not enough punch at range or CC, and not fast enough to cover the more open tables we have without getting eaten up on the way to any target. The 7th edition changes tried to help, but Fleet/HoW should have been always, and the HoW should be at S++ to represent them literally falling on top of their target.

I've ran pure jumper lists (angels 6th), raptor heavy lists (6th/7th), and even in 30K (where they actually do better with extra PW's + always running up against MEQ) and its just not an ideal environment for them out there.

Contrast to bikes and they continue to lose out.

In fact, the best jumpers I've ever used where probably Hellions, late 5th.

Losing Command
25-07-2015, 06:15
Actually the best jumpers I know are GK Interceptors - because they can move 30" once a game and then drop two Str 6 flamers on a unit, and after that jump around threats while firing stormbolters at 24".

The only threat Assault marines had was an equipped sergant with expensive melee weapons that could do the heavy lifting while the rest of the unit catched all incoming blows and bullets for him. Now he can just be singled out and dealt with very easy in a challenge. The one thing Assault marines are still effective at is forcing a Ld. test on weaker units that aren't fearless and then wiping them with a sweeping advance. But if you don't run into IG, then there are not going to be such units on the table.

The only advantage most jump units have over comparable units is their mobility - but without any weight behind it it doesn't count for a whole lot, sadly.

insectum7
25-07-2015, 06:24
I would have thought what matters is how they stack up against units of comparable value and functionality, at least when making direct comparisons.

Guardsmen and grey knights are both "troops of the line" for instance, but that's about where the similarity ends. Berserkers, wolf guard, celestians, death company on the other hand are 'elite' power armoured close combat units - whether they are elite due to experience, devotion, faith, or madness is just fluff.


You're wandering out of context here, the original quandary was about the differences between Space Marines and Chaos Space Marines, Cult marines I put in the same group because thematically they are the dark/corrupted counterparts to loyalists. I've laid out my thinking in my previous posts.

Game balance matters, sure. Representation of the themes represented by the fiction is also important. For those of us who are in it for the background as well as the game, points can be less of a consideration.


Buffing CSM is not the solution imo. I dont even want to get into it unless we create a new thread really, as it derails from the general topic.

I think it was touched on, but your bog standard MEQ body has been left behind, and there may be something mechanically that makes that so.

MEQ as a general statline - Does it need tweaking?
Would those tweaks involve AP, Armour Saves, and the whole Save Mechanic?
Are the peers of the MEQ (GEQ, Eldar/DE Troops, etc) on par with MEQ, better/worse?

Those are all more interesting questions to me. :p

IMO Marines are dandy. But historically there's been armies where less-than-marines have been more prevalent in lists, so the basic Marines always had something to bully around with their basic stats. Nowadays I feel like the popular armies load up on units that are MEQ or better, so marines don't feel as powerful individually, and you buy them for the special weapons. Grav Cannons are hideously effective.

Granted, this is also what I did in 2nd ed. Shame on me.

But I also felt that for a time during 3rd and 4th, basic marines held a little more weight than they do now. Special/Heavy weapons have become more abundant and lethal since then. It's had an effect.

Da Etruskan
25-07-2015, 12:19
So we just ended up with loads more complication, and even worse clarity.

What is wrong with adjusting the resolution methods slightly, so all units are covered with the same rules?

Would you like examples to help clarify what I am referring to?

What do you mean here, care to elaborate? Not confrontational, I am genuinely curious.


In regard of the "marines feel less marines" issue, see my point 1 above. Too much dakka. Even orks would agree. "Actually boss dat is enuff dakka".

You need a lot of dakka to put down riptides and wraithknights, but this of course this means that T4 3+ armor is not that special anymore. And then you have profiles of units like Immortals. And pulse rifles that put bolters to shame. And gauss and tesla.
I think Necrons and Tau codices started the escalation, in 3rd. Yes, Eldar can shoot horrible stuff but they are way less resilient (if you exclude abominations like wraitknight and last codex jetbike shenanigans).

If we really want to go on with the escalation, I agree the Termy should get a second wound. In this way, big guns still harm them (but with a ++ save) and there is more resilience in melee and small arm fire. But then you have to raise the cost again...

BTW, how good Obliterators do with 2 wounds and no MoN?

Da Etruskan
25-07-2015, 12:34
In regard of rerolls, that is a huge danger in my opinion. If everything is rerolled, the single roll is less important and somehow less "thrilling".
Moreover, the more one rerolls, the more time is needed for the game. And that's terrible.

****

Grav weapons are an entirely different issue. They are dumb. Really, really dumb. People can say how much they want they are not OP, but the premise is incredibly stupid, design wise.

Yes, there are weapons that wound on weird stats. Filament vs Iinitative, The Callidus uses the neural Shedder vs Leadership. But all these rules have a characteristic: the higher is the statistic of the target, the more difficult is to wound. And that's vital, because I, owner of the target model, I paid more points for that stat.

Enter grav weapons. Now, I paid a load of points for a 3+ or 2+ armor, and that is what will likely get the model killed.
I paid more points to have a model more vulnerable to enemy fire. That is insane.

The_Real_Chris
25-07-2015, 12:45
D6's are a design constraint, but not a debilitating one. Again turning to epic using again d6's the difference between terminators and imperial guard is fine. Ignoring the fact the terminators can teleport in and wipe them out first thing, a formation of 60 guardsmen and a command squad firing with all their heavy weapons at a formation of 4 five man squads of terminators would on average have a 58% chance of knocking out one squad. If they closed to assault range and used all their lasguns they will on average kill one stand. But get mostly wiped out in return and broken :)

Anyone who loves how the armies are supposed to 'feel' in 40k should try epic A as it captures that brilliantly. Might give you ideas on what you could change at the bigger scale (an annoying example was Thursday nights game where my orcs with a great gargant, over 40 vehicles, fighter bombers, 150 orcs of various types and 10 big guns were defeated by 80 marines of various types backed up by a couple of thunder Hawks and 2 war hounds and a strike cruiser).


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

Commissar von Toussaint
25-07-2015, 13:51
You obviously misunderstand music as well as the 80s. Which of course, is perfectly natural, as very little of the noises developed after the 80s qualify as 'music.'

Science tells us that the most eclectic and varied period of musical expression in the history of mankind occurred in the 80s. You don't want to be anti-science, do you?

Meanwhile, my issues with 40k are pretty basic.

1. It is counter-intuitive.

2. It tries to do too much and ends up falling short.

To me the test of a wargame is whether detailed knowledge of the subject matter is a benefit or a burden. In 40k, applying the basic rules of strategy will get you stomped. Everything is based on rules knowledge which leaves you at the whim of the designer. I'm not going to list them - most have already been pointed out.

I think some people like this because it rewards people who study this particular game with obsessive attention to exploits (which GW is willing to sell you for the low low price of $40 per book every 18 months).

Another issue is that 40k doesn't know what it wants to be. Is this a game of squad-level firefights or is it supposed to take place on the platoon, company or even battalion-level scale? At each level, different things become important and the decision tree faced by players should change.

At the company level, the individual health, position and equipment of your soldiers no longer matters, nor should you be worring about aiming the specific weapons of your armored vehicles.

This also causes problems when player A brings a light infantry force with modest mechanized support up against a breakthrough detachment of Kaiju-hunting Jaegers (or whatever we call them these days).

This isn't the place for my 2nd ed. partisanship, but at least the scale of the game was known. If you took a half-dozen squads backed up by some transport you figured you'd face about the same type of enemy. Now you have to wonder if your going up against Force 10 from Navarrone, Panzergruppe Guderian or Rodan the Flying Monster. Yes, 2nd had issues but at least you had that going for you.

Yeah, the mechanics are fiddly and despite my desire to "get current" and be part of all the cool fun threads (which mostly consists of ceaseless whinging about the Broken Unit of the MonthTM, I can't do it because it just isn't something I can get into. Too problematic, as the kids today like to say.

Inquisitor Kallus
25-07-2015, 15:06
I think it could easily just be handled via a USF 'Impregnable' - Failed Armour Saves may be re-rolled, and could be applied across the board to anything with a 2+? If one thought it was needed that is. :]

As I said earlier, it makes quite a nice bonus and would greatly enhance durability against small arms and attacks. Maybe something like AP3/4 doesnt allow the second save/re-roll or something?


In regard of rerolls, that is a huge danger in my opinion. If everything is rerolled, the single roll is less important and somehow less "thrilling".
Moreover, the more one rerolls, the more time is needed for the game. And that's terrible.


People seem fine with a double save, whether its from cover or re-rolls. One set of dice oesnt take THAT much more time. It doesnt make it 'terrible'


It just seems a bit wrong that a big squad of Guardsman or Gaunts can, on the charge, force so many saves and take down a few terminators. Even mass low AP shooting is highly effective against them. They just dont seem to justify thier fluff or more or their points. Even one dead Terminator can really hamper their combat ability.

I think a 2+ save followed by a 5+ invunerable, if the 2+ was failed, would make them a lot more points effective.

Yes, this is another decent way to go. The 2 wound option is a thing, but im slightly hesitant about it. The other thing is that giving the Terms re-rolls or the extra save could help distinguish them from articifer armour. Im also with some people on the Storm Bolter thing, they need something. They were solid weapons back in 3rd etc, but now they seem lacking compared to a lot of other things. Terminators need to be scary again

Lord_Crull
25-07-2015, 15:11
Centurions always felt to me what Terminators should be, rules-wise at least. 2W and T5 goes a long ways to improving their survivability against small-arms fire.

ColShaw
25-07-2015, 15:23
Now you have to wonder if your going up against Force 10 from Navarrone, Panzergruppe Guderian or Rodan the Flying Monster. Yes, 2nd had issues but at least you had that going for you.

Well put. That put a smile on my face. You are absolutely right. :)

insectum7
25-07-2015, 17:02
If you took a half-dozen squads backed up by some transport you figured you'd face about the same type of enemy. Now you have to wonder if your going up against Force 10 from Navarrone, Panzergruppe Guderian or Rodan the Flying Monster. Yes, 2nd had issues but at least you had that going for you.


The issue of "basic trooper cannot begin to hurt Knight" is a problem right now, absolutely. Knowing it's coming before the game can help quite a bit, but I think the major difference between the two systems is that in order to have those specialists theses days, it usually hurts the wallet more. I think that's part of the frustration.

The scale was somewhat more predictable in 2nd, but I definitely saw some pretty horrendous things thrown around in pickup games. Avoiding games involving multiple level four psykers, a swarm of 40 discs of Tzeentch, all-Wolf-Guard-all-the-time or eight Pulsa Rokkits in 2nd Ed. relies on the same techniques however. Just chat with your opponent before hand.

Fun fact: I just had a pick up game against a Reaver Titan! But I was given a warning and I was able to tailor my list for it and beat it.

I also had a pick up game against a Reaver Titan in 2nd Ed. using the Armorcast rules. I was also able to tailor my list for it and beat it.

Some things don't change. . .

Scribe of Khorne
25-07-2015, 17:36
I think on the topic of re-rolls, for me anyway there are 2 things.

Re-Roll a 3+ save, or even better a 2+ save? NP, because how many of those dice are going to fail?

Its the Re-Roll on Inv (normally 5++) or god forbid Snap Shots, that really kills me.

Poncho160
25-07-2015, 19:38
I think on the topic of re-rolls, for me anyway there are 2 things.

Re-Roll a 3+ save, or even better a 2+ save? NP, because how many of those dice are going to fail?

Its the Re-Roll on Inv (normally 5++) or god forbid Snap Shots, that really kills me.

To save time with re-rolls ect, how about for Terminators something as simple as they ignore AP 6 shooting?

lanrak
25-07-2015, 20:54
Hi folks.
I think most people would agree with the issues raised by Commissar von Toussaint.

And many could see that the rules need to be altered to get the game play needed with out all the unnecessary complication.
However, Itcamfromthedeep has raised a very good point that if the way the basic game works , changed too dramatically .It is difficult to gain traction with existing players.

I would like to try to change the way the core rules arrive at the game play.So there are less pages of rules , but more granularity in the resolution.
BUT keep the core elements of the game play, that make 40k fun to play.

I think most people can see the advantage of having a units mobility represented in the stat line.(Or unit descriptor.)

EG
T 6"= tracked unit that moves 6".
W 12"= wheeled vehicle that moves 12".

Or use the unit description eg;-
Slow infantry,=4"
Infantry=5"
Fast infantry 6"
Beasts/Cavalry 8"
Tracked vehicle 6"
Fast vehicle 9"
Bikes /jet bikes 12"
(The values are just for illustration of how the idea works,they are not fixed in stone proposals.)

This removes the need for all the special rules to cover movement that is not 6", and makes an action based game turn.(Alternating phases or unit activation,) much more intuitive, and free flowing.

The rest of the stat line is very similar, but with some slight revision.

(BS)Shooting skill.
(NEW)Stealth Skill
(WS)Assault skill
(Sv)Armour value
(T)Resilience value
(W)Damage (number of models and wounds/structure points per model.)
(New)Morale
(Ld) Command value.

I think we could move the model stats that determine weapon effect to the weapon stat line for each unit.
EG if A sgnt has a strength of 4, but is equipped with a Power fist.The player has to look up the strength of the wearer then look up the rules for the power fist, and any other special rules that apply and work out the net result.
If the player just reads the in game effect of the weapon and its user, off the unit weapon stats .Its just less complicated..

This way ALL weapons can be presented in the same way.
EG
Name , Effective Range, AP Value, Damage , Attacks , Notes/special abilities.


The reason I added a Stealth value is to allow the shooting to hit roll be resolved by comparing opposed stats.Rather than fixing the value at 'subtract from 7.'
Adding a Stealth value allows the targets size , shape and skill at using cover into account.
It is harder to hit a Ratling sniper (Stealth value 7) than it is to hit a Baneblade (Stealth value 2)

We could add simple modifiers , eg light cover adds 1 to the targets stealth value.Heavy cover adds 2 to the targets stealth value.
(Maybe set a long range size , EG over 30"= long range , also adds 1 to the targets stealth value?)

This adds the missing element back into 40k and allows parity between shooting and assault.IMO.(Both now used an opposed stat to determine the score needed to hit.)
EG Currently a model with a las cannon and BS of 4 , hits anything anywhere in LOS on a 3+ up to 48" away.Which is far too powerful IMO.

The new rule reduces the effectiveness of shooting, by making smaller/more agile targets harder to hit, units in cover harder to hit , and units at longer distances harder to hit.

All the combat resolution to hit to save and to damage, involves comparing the opposed stats of the attacker and the defender.
I would like to use a single 'universal table' to resolve these three stages of damage resolution.

I will stop there for comments and questions.I may need to explain these ideas better?

Vipoid
25-07-2015, 23:17
My issues with 40k... where to begin?

Randomness! You know how people joke about SWs being Wolfwolfymcwolfinson and BAs being Bloodbloodbloodbloodblood? Well, going by that, I'd expect every army to have 'Random' in their title. It seems everywhere you look there's something else that needs to be rolled for on a random table. I'd like to think that my decisions are having more impact on the game than, say, a random number generator would.

Also, as an extension of this, I'd like to get rid of snapshots. If they must be included, then make them a modifier - otherwise it amounts to nothing more than a glorified time-killing mechanic. The game is slow enough without rolling a ton of dice each game that do nothing 85% of the time.

Balance. There isn't any. The balance within codices is terrible, the balance between different codices is even worse, and even books from the same edition aren't remotely consistent in power level or design philosophy.

Lack of narrative/fluff focus. I can get behind a more narrative game, but apparently GW can't. Despite all their claims about forging the narrative, their game is, if anything, anti-narrative. A narrative game would surely encourage choices, nor punish you for them? Likewise, I'd expect a narrative game to actually follow the fluff - as opposed to just giving you free reign to use the most unfluffy (but powerful) combinations of armies and units.

Lack of anything resembling the compulsory FOC. Remember when you couldn't take an army without troops?

Ludicrous escalation. Remember when MCs typically had 4 wounds and 3+ saves? And when the Psyfulman Dreadnought was about as good as anti-tank weapons got? I miss those days. Hell, remember when infantry wasn't just window-dressing?

Lack of logical scale. Why do I need to be keeping track of the position of individual guardsmen, in a game that can contain fliers and super heavies? Also, is there even a point in including lasguns? At this point, it would be more productive to arm guardsmen with laser-pointers, which would also save a lot of time in terms of rolling dice.

Crap rules. At this point, the rules just feel like a mess - especially with the million different slightly-different units that apparently each need separate entries and lists of special rules. The worst ones being the super-heavies, with their pages of exceptions to the core rules. And, many special rules in general just seem to be a list of other rules that that unit ignores. Also, why is there even a movement phase when units can move in every phase of the game anyway?

That'll do for now, but I may well add more later.


I'm always impressed by the ability of Space Wolves to make friends with wolves. I'd be a little miffed if someone who was wearing my second cousin's skin as a trophy asked if we could be best buds.

This made my day. :D

Hope you don't mind me sigging it.

Poncho160
25-07-2015, 23:38
My issues with 40k... where to begin?

Randomness! You know how people joke about SWs being Wolfwolfymcwolfinson and BAs being Bloodbloodbloodbloodblood? Well, going by that, I'd expect every army to have 'Random' in their title. It seems everywhere you look there's something else that needs to be rolled for on a random table. I'd like to think that my decisions are having more impact on the game than, say, a random number generator would.
A short story (not by me) in to the silliness of the Wolfwolfymcwolfinson problem…..

LOGAN GRIMNAR GETS A TALKING TO

"Brothers, brothers, let us call the grand convocation of chapter masters to order."

Slowly hush descended as various post human supermen put down glasses of wine or forkfuls of food, all save for Pedro Kantor and Helbrecht who were eating large spoonfuls of chocolate pudding whilst staring at Vladimir Pugh making loud mmmmmm noises. Pugh's face was growing redder by the second.

"Brothers, order please!" Dante of the Blood Angels slammed a fist on the lectern.

"I have called this conference to discuss a very pressing problem, I speak of course of the wolf issue."

Angry muttering filled the room, the Space Wolves new armoury had caused consternation in the fellow astartes chapters.

"Logan Grimnar, you and I have known each other for hundreds of years, we have fought by each other's side more times than I can remember so as a friend I have brought you here to tell you that this **** has to stop. We could cope with the Wolf Guard, **** it we could even deal with everything being called wolf but this." A picture of the the wolf sled appeared on the holo projector "This has to stop friend."

"Hypocrite!" bellowed a Space Wolf "Don't think we've forgotten about deep striking land raiders, or the obsession with blood."

"At least they're not furries!" a voice yelled and was met by a cheer.

Now it was Grimnar's turn to stand.

"Hunting Fenrisian wolves is part of our culture, we have a right to take trophies."

"So do we," rumbled Tu'shan of the Salamanders, "but you don't see us with ears and and tail." He gave a worried look at his fire drakes each covered is horns and scales and made a mental note to have a chat with them back on Nocturne.

"Logan we do not wish to insult you but we just wanted to show you how far-"

"You have come to being a total faggot!" yelled Gabriel Seth who threw a bread roll for added emphasis.

Logan gave a sigh as the roll stuck on the wolf pelt on his armor.

"Brothers, surely you can forgive a first founding chapter their..." he glanced at the wolf swords of his Wolf Guard "their little eccentricities, have we not done much for the cause of the Imperium. By our actions, the Inquisition have been told to back off from interfering in the affairs of our chapters and by our blades have countless innocent lives been saved" (muttering greeted this statement as the definition of 'innocent' was one that was up for close debate amongst the various chapters). "We all after all have our iconography, the Dark Angels bolt stonework to everything, the Salamanders have their scales, we have our wolves I find it breathtaking" Logan's voice raised to a deafening yell "that other chapters would have the audacity to interfere-"

"You make us all look ridiculous!" yelled a Silver Skull.

The debate raged for two hours more until eventually the Great Wolf and his Wolf Guard where driven from the hall in a hail of bread rolls and catcalls.

Later Logan found himself trudging the deep passages of the Fang, lost in his own thoughts, he had exchanged his armour for the loose tunics the Wolves wore when not in battle and his footsteps echoed through the dimly lit corridors he passed Murderfang being wrestled into containment by a trio of Iron Priests.

"YIFF!" it screamed gnashing at the air "YIFF! YIFF! YIFF!" Logan winced and carried onward to an ornate vault which swung open at his touch.

"LOGAN!" a voice boomed from the darkness "What brings you here this night?"

In an jewel encrusted alcove stood the squat form of Bjorn the Fell Handed, the ancient dreadnought beckoned with a claw.

"Come Logan, sit and tell me what ails you boy."

Logan pulled a short three legged stool from a corner, noting the mating wolves carved on the top. The Great Wolf sank forward head in his hands.

"Where did it all go wrong Bjorn? We used to be feared and loved. Everyone wanted to be us. When the chapter walked and met it's fellows, they would respect us. Now they laugh."

There was a mechanical sigh from the sarcophagus.

"It's because we just aren't scary anymore son. We used to be, gods we were downright terrifying. Do you know why people used to join us back in the day?"

"For honour, for being selected to fight in the Allfather's crusade?

"WRONG" yelled Bjorn "It wasn't for honour. It wasn't to see the stars. Sure as **** wasn't to pansy around with the Allfather, it was for these reasons: drinking, fighting, bitches. Becoming an astartes gave you lots of all three. We were supermen for crying out loud, all young and fired up and ready to go. People were scared of us not because we loved death but because we LOVED LIFE, we loved BEING an astartes, we loved the blood and booze and the pillaging. We were raiders and reavers and lunatics. You," Bjorn pointed a claw at Logan "have lost sight of that. "We had enthusiasm."

"But what does this have to with the whole 'wolf thing'?"

"Because you think the wolf thing was what gave us identity, made us special but it wasn't. What made us special was that we were sweaty beardy angry savages with guns and gene implants. We wore the teeth and totems to remind us of home. Wolves didn't define us, they were a part of the rich primal heritage of Fenris, one symbol amongst many."

Commissar von Toussaint
26-07-2015, 00:10
I think most people would agree with the issues raised by Commissar von Toussaint.

I've wired a couple of bucks to your bank account for that. Now say something nice about Conqueror and I'll add a couple of zeroes to the next payment. ;)


I will stop there for comments and questions.I may need to explain these ideas better?

You've basically built your own game there.

Not that I have a problem with that.

At some point, the house rules and players' fixes reach a stage where you are basically playing a different game, and that'sand pretty much what is needed now.

One of the obstacles for me getting 'current' is that it seems everyone is doing that right now. If I go and take my vintage mixed infantry force against a bunch titans, I'm really playing a totally different game. It isn't the 40k I've been use to.

Same thing if a flyer shows up. Never faced those back in the day. Instead of just dealing with troopers and a few tanks, now there's just a ton of things going on and it's really a bunch of different systems all mashed together.

There was a heated debate about this a while back, but it's still true: 40k has lost its scale and that problem really drives all the other ones.

There's just too much of everything - unit types, factions, and special rules to make the all different.

You've got an idea to straighten it all out, but it's fundamentally a different system at that point.

This thing doesn't need band-aids, it need bone saws and blood transfusions.

The_Real_Chris
26-07-2015, 01:12
Didn't Andy chambers want to write basically a different game before leaving?

Something to remember - you are all older. As you get older on average your taste in games changes. Lots of chrome (all those exceptions and special rules etc) isn't fun any more, and you dream of a better system...


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

Commissar von Toussaint
26-07-2015, 01:46
Something to remember - you are all older. As you get older on average your taste in games changes. Lots of chrome (all those exceptions and special rules etc) isn't fun any more, and you dream of a better system...

Yes and no.

Experience does have its advantages and as you get older (hopefully) you gain in wisdom and knowledge.

The thing is, I didn't like the trend of 40k 15 years ago. I didn't need to be an old f@rt to figure that out.

We are also each a product of our times. Compared to Herohammer, 2nd ed. 40k was a breath of fresh air. Sure, there were tough characters, but no one could dominate the game to the extent the fantasy cheeselords did.

Gaming itself has evolved and become more sophisticated as well. The state of the art has changed.

Time was, people conflated complexity for realism. Now people are more discerning. The problem with GW's products is that they would be world-beating in 1987 but now their flaws are obvious.

The rest of the industry has moved on. GW has not. I give them credit, though - the loyalty and branding they built up 25 years ago is still paying off handsomely. I will be lucky to get 1/100th of their following.

Zustiur
26-07-2015, 02:11
I'd like to treat this as a two phase project.
1st phase, a bunch of house rules for 7th, that tweak the game, but don't alienate the player base too much.
2nd phase, a total rewrite on the scale of 2nd to 3rd ed.

The 1st phase is necessary to get other players on board. Once they trust that you can write decent rules, you can ask them to accept bigger changes.

I'll be starting a thread in the rules section on this topic soon, but here's a preview:
Chain swords gain shred
Look out sir can only be done once per unit/per phase, and you swap the models
Fleet gets a fixed value, run happens in the movement phase
Storm bolters become 'double rapid fire', that is, 4/2 just like firing two bolters.
Warp charges are limited to the model/unit that generated them
Rending weapons use save modifiers instead of looking for 6s (default is -2 unless specified)
Maelstrom: If a card you just drew is impossible from this point forward in the game, then you immediately discard and re-draw it. Cards you already hold which become impossible must be discarded per the normal discard rules

Scribe of Khorne
26-07-2015, 02:44
I think this thread has inspired (or been inspired by?) about 5 or 6 folks into looking at a rules re-write or in my case tweak. :]

"All going as planned...."

mrknify
26-07-2015, 03:59
I'm a fan of the second wound option for Terminators (veterans in general).

The status of power-armored models should get some re-evaluation in light of the most recent codex, where a lot of minis end up getting all kinds of detachment-related re-rolls. You can fit Terminators into a Gladius, which means some Tactical and Devastator doctrines are available. The Fisrt Company Strike Force also gets a Preferred Enemy target. It may be that Terminators these days get enough firepower for their now-reduced price.

Assault Marines are not fine. They still have the same value problem they've had since 3e.
2 wounds is agreat idea, make them feel like real heavy troops.



I think this thread has inspired (or been inspired by?) about 5 or 6 folks into looking at a rules re-write or in my case tweak. :]

"All going as planned...."
Yes, yes it has!

Losing Command
26-07-2015, 04:16
...Warp charges are limited to the model/unit that generated them...

As somebody who plays a pure Thousand Sons army, this rule would pretty much invalidate what little advantage my army has. Being able to share warp charges and funnel them to the guy that has to get that crucial psychic power off is what keeps them from being overwhelmed by sheer lack of damage output. Casting psychic powers is just too unreliable without using lots of dice for a single power.
It would also mean that the aspiring sorcerers, if they roll the Breath of Chaos power (WC 2) would have a psychic power they will never be able to cast, as they are masterylevel 1.

Poncho160
26-07-2015, 05:21
I'd like to treat this as a two phase project.
1st phase, a bunch of house rules for 7th, that tweak the game, but don't alienate the player base too much.
2nd phase, a total rewrite on the scale of 2nd to 3rd ed.

The 1st phase is necessary to get other players on board. Once they trust that you can write decent rules, you can ask them to accept bigger changes.

I'll be starting a thread in the rules section on this topic soon, but here's a preview:
Chain swords gain shred
Look out sir can only be done once per unit/per phase, and you swap the models
Fleet gets a fixed value, run happens in the movement phase
Storm bolters become 'double rapid fire', that is, 4/2 just like firing two bolters.
Warp charges are limited to the model/unit that generated them
Rending weapons use save modifiers instead of looking for 6s (default is -2 unless specified)
Maelstrom: If a card you just drew is impossible from this point forward in the game, then you immediately discard and re-draw it. Cards you already hold which become impossible must be discarded per the normal discard rules

Eldar players wouldn't like the run move in the movement phase.

There are quite a few armies that rely on generating large amounts of warp charge dice as well.

Storm bolters should be assault 3 or twin linked I think.

Agree with the lookout sir rule though with making it once per phase, except for tyrant guard.

Zustiur
26-07-2015, 05:49
@Losing Command and Ponch160; Yeah I really shouldn't have posted just those little snippets. Please refer to my longer list of changes mentioned upthread. I want to do a complete rewrite of psychics and I made allowances for battle focus.

Here is a summary of the thread thus far. I collected every 'distinct' issue in a list and recorded how many times each was mentioned. I ruled out pricing and other GW issues that we cannot fix with rules. I also skipped codex specific stuff for now (not that there was much) because altering the core rules would require a re-assessment of codices anyway. I'll revise and sort the list later and repost.
Things in italics were presented as solutions rather than issues.

1. Mysterious objectives 3
2. Random objectives [maelstrom] 2
3. Random Terrain 4
4. Random warlord traits 6
5. Random psychic powers 9
6. Too much re-rolling 2
7. Str D implementation 2
8. General 40k becoming apocalypse 10
9. Super Detachments need clarification
10. Simplified 'to-hit' formula for assault
11. Badly designed scenarios 2
12. Random move distance 2
13. Isolated design mentality (all SMs should be written the same way, not vary the way BA did from SM and DA in 7th). Inability to stick to a design direction for a whole edition. 6
14. Legacy issues caused by GW not correcting mistakes (e.g. fixed movement requires fleet) 4
15. Multiple detachments/formations etc 9
16. Allies 9
17. Come the apoc allies
18. Vehicles not following toughness/wounds/save 2 -1
19. Vehicles not behaving like other models in combat
20. Vehicles not having a full statline, including leadership
21. Damage tables for MCs
22. Damage table needs to work for Super Heavies 2
23. Damage chart: 1-4 nothing, 5 lose another wound, 6 lose another wound and roll again, so that there's no extra book keeping but no free ride for being in a unit/squadron
24. Stopping to fight makes you go faster (charging is additional to movement)
25. Can't shoot into combat
26. Can't voluntarily leave combat
27. Can't charge after deep strike
28. Charging through terrain reduces initiative, which isn't equally penalising for all units. Should just remove the bonus attack
29. Can't ever use guns in combat, even against knights etc
30. Pistols not having individual melee profiles (plasma for example)
31. Special rules instead of movement
32. Multiple handling of model movement 4
33. Cannot split fire with most units characters should grant it
34. Cover saves should be divided into cover, dodge, stealth. Ignores cover doesn't ignore dodge or stealth.
35. Combined unit rules have issues when model types vary
36. Combined unit rules need clarity for what does and does not get conferred to independent characters etc
37. Always wound on X+ is a bad mechanic because it forces the creation of exception rules like for gargantuan creatures
38. Grav weapons should use the target's armour as a S value then roll against T as normal
39. Poison should be a strength bonus
40. Sniper weapons should have a strength value and pseudo rending
41. D6+characteristic vs total of 7 doesn't allow for a large enough range. e.g. no 1+ armour saves
42. Characteristics don't need to be capped at 10, this is why destroyer weapons had to be created 2
43. Instant death should be 'exceeds T by X' rather than double toughness. ID should add to your damage roll chart [on vehicles and MCs] making the mechanic less binary so that it scales seamlessly
44. The psychic phase doesn't need to exist/the mechanic in general 5
45. Invisibility 6
46. Fortune (rerolling saves is bad)
47. You shouldn't get to add to invulnerable saves.
48. Morale rules 2
49. Game scope issues - infantry vs superheavy 8
50. Game claims to be narrative, but is built on a competitive game structure
51. OTT formation bonuses for free (skyhammer for example) 2
52. Inter codex balance 11
53. Intra codex balance 7
54. Proof reading issues, Rule loopholes/gaps 4
55. Flyers and FMCs 4
56. Move flyers/FMCs to their own slot ala LoW
57. Strength D 6
58. Ignores cover too prevalent
59. Focus on small details and lack of focus on large details
60. WS being largely meaningless 3
61. Lack of movement stat 6
62. Lack of correlation between speed moved and to hit vehicle value in assault 2
63. Random charge distance
64. Cover for blast weapons being determined from the firer
65. Range not modifying to hit value
66. Cover not modifying to hit value 3
67. Vehicle [walker] vs MC imbalance 2
68. Cover and jink saves being too powerful 2
69. Too much focus on list building
70. Too much focus on target priority rather than tactics (due to assault being terrible)
71. Too many AV 14 tanks
72. Jink and GTG having their penalty be bypassable (DA, guard orders, assaulting)
73. Lack of consistency in unit type (riptide not being gargantuan yet)
74. Indestructible characters/units (2+, 3++, FNP, LOS all stacking)
75. Lack of correlation between lore and game rules (abundance of Grav despite being a lost tech) 3
76. Too many rule books (book, codex, supplement, data slate) 4
77. Special rules over abundant and refer to each other [6e zealot for example] 4
78. Pointless dice rolling [too many 6+ rules, ala snap fire]
79. Too many dice - refer to Epic for how to improve 3
80. Game changing randomness [end of game, night fight]
81. It's not 2nd edition 2
82. AP system and lack of modifiers 2
83. Formation and other buffs that make it difficult to understand your opponent's army at a glance
84. Pre game random rolls 2
85. Sonic weapons being salvo
86. ATSKNF
87. Balance between phases of the game
88. Too many unique rules to patch over insufficient detail in core rules
89. Weapon power creep/Model stat creep 4
90. Randomness in general 9
91. Formations 2
92. Game speed/hours of play required 2
93. Weird scaling (flyers can hover, yet jetbikes can outrun them)
94. Loss of player agency (mind shackle scarabs, lash of submission, psyk-out grenades)
95. Turns vs unit activation 5
96. Random game length
97. TLOS. If you’re not sure, roll 4+ to see. 3 -1
98. Casualty selection
99. Challenges
100. Look out sir
101. Too much waiting for your turn
102. No 2nd ed overwatch
103. Vector strike only hits titans once, but hits other flyers d3 times
104. Bring in unit orders ala Epic
105. Insufficient emphasis on troops in army selection
106. All vehicles should be able to jink, effectiveness modified by speed
107. Jink being possible when you haven’t moved
108. 2+ jink saves
109. Storm bolters now insignificant due to changes in RF
110. Assault phase too weak 2 -1
111. Ignores cover too prevalent
112. Summoning dispel should be possible
113. Too many work around rules (instant death v eternal warrior)
114. Bring back jumping/falling from building
115. Attacks vs Initiative vs WS discrepancy, why is an ork boy able to attack more times than a swift eldar?
116. Instant death doesn’t scale well at all

The above list does not constitute my opinion! There are a number of points I disagree with.

Scribe of Khorne
26-07-2015, 06:44
Great effort, thanks! I feel a spreadsheet coming on...

Bloodknight
26-07-2015, 09:09
Something to remember - you are all older. As you get older on average your taste in games changes. Lots of chrome (all those exceptions and special rules etc) isn't fun any more, and you dream of a better system...

Certainly not wrong. As a kid, I used to like MERP. Today I like Storyteller or Fate. You'd have to hold me at gunpoint to touch something like MERP again.

lanrak
26-07-2015, 09:42
Hi again.
The point I was trying to make , was with a slight changes to the foundation of the rules, (3rd to 5th ed), we can get a much more stable foundation to build the game play on.

The elements introduced in 6th and 7th can be added into a STABLE rule set with thought and care.Without too many issues.(Even if it is just in campaign supplements.)

I know that house rules are the quickest way to address the current issues.But these generally mean adding more rules to a bloated system.
Which is basically what the GW devs have been doing since GW corporate managers refused to let Andy re-write the rules.

The best way to make changes to a broken system is to identify the root cause of the fault, and fix it.
Throwing everything away and starting again leaves you with something that may not be recognized as 40k.

Especially if you just cherry pick the bits you like form other game systems , that work well in their native environment.
But may not work that well together in the same rule set.
Remember the reason 40k has so many issues id because it is a modified ancient warfare skirmish rule set, trying to cover high tec battles.

So I thought if we analyse the basic functions of the current unit types , and see where the rule fall short in representing them directly in the STAT LINE .
We can find out the important bits that are missing , (Eg mobility and stealth) .And see what happens if we add them to the core rules.

Also using the same familiar methods to resolve the game play, and presenting the information in a more straight forward way .Is very important.

EG adding mobility back removes the need for all the special rules to cover movement that is not 6".

The main problem with house rules is they are very subjective . as everyone has an opinion on what is broken from thier own personal experience with their own game play preference and the armies they play.

Where as looking at basic mechanics and resolution methods, is much more objective , as it effects everyone equally.

Ever since 4th ed 40k hit we have been looking at fixing 40k.And we have found out the hard way the things that just do not work that well.
EG using D10, D12 D20, are just impractical when you want to roll 15+ of them .(And lots of people like rolling hand fulls of D6, to get the statistical spread!;))

Using stats directly with limited modifiers works well.(Eg K.O.W.)

But 40k players are familiar with looking up results on a chart of opposed values.So adding ONE stat to allow all three stages of combat resolution to be resolved in the same way.

Means we can get assault and shooting on a equal footing at the core rules level.(Which prevents the need to buff assault to gain parity with shooting . and then buffing shooting when assault get too good, and flip flopping between the two.)

Maybe we should start two separate threads, '40k core changes' and '40k house rules'?
So people can post relevant ideas in the relevant threads?

Vipoid
26-07-2015, 10:23
A short story (not by me) in to the silliness of the Wolfwolfymcwolfinson problem…..

LOGAN GRIMNAR GETS A TALKING TO

...


Hah, that was amazing (and also very insightful) Thanks for sharing it. :D

Zingraff
26-07-2015, 10:23
I tend to think that 40k is a lot better now than I remember it to be when played 3rd and 4th edition 10 years ago, but then I've always played some version of Imperial Guard, and Guard tend to benefit more from the direction the rules development has taken, than most other factions. I do see that most of you have made valid points here, but none of you have raised the issue I would have liked to revise. With boardgames being one of my biggest interests, what has come to bother me the most in 40k is the turn structure. The old "I go, you go", which in my opinion often leads to downtime and disengagement between the turns, a general lack of interactivity and an actual inability to respond to threats. With the larger battles current 40k promotes, this problem gets worsened.

I would have liked to implement a system of randomised activations, either by dice rolls or drawing cards from a shared deck, with which the players would activate their units in as they see fit but in a randomised player order, until every unit had been activated at which point the next turn would start. This would eliminate the often huge advantage some armies have of starting first, and it would make the game more interactive.

In my model, if your suit of card is drawn (or the dice favour you or something), you pick a unit, then carry out movement/shooting/running/charging/etc. with that unit, until it's "exhausted" at which point it's marked to distinguish it from the "fresh" units, and a new card is drawn (or whatever). The new card could lead to more activations for you, or if it's your opponent, he might want to carry out a counter charge against you or shoot at units you've put within his range since his last activation. I think you'll see how this would help make the game feel a lot more fluid and immersive.

I originally considered letting both players put one card for each unit in the same deck, but I quickly realised this would lead to unfair advantages for horde armies and bloated army lists elsewhere. So now I'm leaning towards both players having either the same number of cards or a dice throwing system. The advantage of using dice (aside from not needing a deck of cards), is that you can make it harder for the players to retain activations; if you've already had an activation, 1-4 means your opponent gets the next, then if you get the second activation, the third die roll will be 1-5 opponent, 6 you. That sort of thing.

The_Real_Chris
26-07-2015, 12:16
Ah ha! Someone has mentioned turn structure :) normally I bang on about it online :)

I am completely in the camp of alternating stuff. WhEther like warmaster, epic A, or the games that split armies into x commands and you alternate them (all have pros and cons).

But it is a big change that affects everything else and you can still do alternating sides games. I think 40k should remain one while it has this rule set, but if you are doing a complete rewrite then you would look at that.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

Fulgrim's Gimp
26-07-2015, 12:40
I'd like to see more player choice. Perhaps an order type system for all armies so that it is not just do/do not move shoot assault.
Look how Malifaux or Warmahordes handle it.

Less random for random sake . Looking particularly at Ctan powers and Chaos here. Also warlord traits being random is just dumb.

Streamlined and less onerous psychic phase. Personally go back to a more organised version of third ed.

lanrak
26-07-2015, 12:47
I think most people would agree that a more interactive game turn structure would be a much better option than the current alternating game phase mechanic we have now.

A basic alternating phase game turn works well with the current rule set.(With only a few minor adjustments.)
Many gamers have used the LoTR turn structure,(and movement rates) with 40k rules to great effect.

And over on B.O.W using random unit activation (based on Bolt Action,) with a few tweeks was well received.

However, the game turn option we use in a re-write of the core rules is not going to be limited by having to be backward compatible to WHFB 3rd ed.

If we are looking at 'fixing the core issues with 40k rules ', while keeping the game play 'honest' to itself.Then I think it is important to be as objective as we can about the process.(Which is very hard when people are so emotionally attached to the game they love to play.)

There are lots of ways to make things 'better'.
But the 'fixed rule set', needs to be seen as a development of 40k rules,' true to the 40k game play'.

So it think it is important to explain the 'working out' so other people understand why you want to make the changes you do.

I do not claim to have any of the answers to how to re write 40k core rules.But I have lots of good questions we can ask... :D

ehlijen
26-07-2015, 13:00
Malifaux handles alternate activations in a terrible way :( Don't do that!
Alternating activations in a game that has both very squishy units, very lethal units and something approaching herohammer (plus some daisy chaining of activations) makes the alpha strike problem that alternating activations are supposed to solve worse, no better, in my opinion.

Warmaster does it in an interesting way, but I'm not sure that system is thematically appropriate for a scifi squad based game.

If you want a good alternating activation system look to battletech (that part it nails): alternating movement, but all attack results take effect at the same time. It also has only the most lethal units able to kill the squishiest in less than two turns under good conditions.

Vipoid
26-07-2015, 13:07
I must be the only one who doesn't actually mind the IGOUGO system.

I don't mind waiting for my turn - I just object when I'm kept waiting longer because the game constantly demands that we take time to faff around for a while, before we're allowed to carry on. Like when we have to roll on random table #416, or when 20 saves need to be rolled twice and one at a time, because of bloody LoS. And then there's crap like the psychic phase, which seems to be yet another time-killing mechanic. First one player rolls to determine how much random there is, then that player has to roll enough random with each spell to get to an arbitrary number (often with rerolls involved, lest the phase be over in any decent time frame). But then his opponent may opt to play off his own randomness against his opponent's - potentially countering his spell if he our-randoms him. And then, of course, there are the dangers of the casting player rolling too much random - which can randomly lead to that player suffering from perils of the warp. Naturally, this manifests as a random roll on random table #1367.

Frankly, I feel many aspects of this game could be accurately recreated by having players take it in turns to throw handfuls of dice whilst shouting random words.
"Winds of Magic!"
"Perils of the warp!"
"Mysterious Objectives!"
"Tanks!"
"Isosceles!"
"Cake!"
"Tubular!"
"Potato!"
"The alphabet!"

ehlijen
26-07-2015, 13:35
I must be the only one who doesn't actually mind the IGOUGO system.


You're not. With a game built around it and not too many distinct units on each side IGOUGO is the superior system, in my opinion.
Battlefleet Gothicfor example (IN vs Chaos at least) has some decisions of the opponent outside their turn (BFI and turrets), but most importantly the game is written so that the first turn rarely decides the game; players will usually be jockeying for position for a turn or two before any decisive salvoes can delivered. It has problems, but the turn structure isn't really one of them (apart from the eldar simply not following it).

Vipoid
26-07-2015, 13:50
On that point, I think there are just too many weapons that can reach across the battlefield from turn 1. They put too much emphasis on getting the first turn, and also diminish the importance of movement.

Inquisitor Kallus
26-07-2015, 15:10
On that point, I think there are just too many weapons that can reach across the battlefield from turn 1. They put too much emphasis on getting the first turn, and also diminish the importance of movement.

Terrain....

Commissar von Toussaint
26-07-2015, 15:27
On that point, I think there are just too many weapons that can reach across the battlefield from turn 1. They put too much emphasis on getting the first turn, and also diminish the importance of movement.

That isn't a problem if there is sufficient LOS obstruction. One of the interesting things about 2nd was that the armies had strategy ratings which helped to determine who had the first turn. This meant that Orks, Marines, Chaos and Eldar were the ones with the biggest chance of going first. IG, Tyranids not so much (unless they were fighting each other).

There is nothing inherently wrong with an IGO-UGO system and I've come over the years to prefer it, albeit with some interactivity to keep the players honest. 2nd ed. had overwatch to allow reaction fire while WHFB had charge reactions, so GW had some notion that this was necessary at some point.

If you are starting with a blank slate, I'd keep IGO-UGO but have BOTH players fire during the shooting phase (with results considered simultaneous).

This has the advantage of keeping the game moving but allowing you to go the bathroom/get another beer without imposing a delay on the proceedings.

I dislike alternating activations for two reasons.

The first is that it disrupts maneuver and does so in an unrealistic way. This is a particular issue in games that use lots of linear formations where alignment is a key element of strategy. Instead of your three infantry units rolling forward on a given signal, they stagger at different times and it is incredibly easy to disrupt their cohesion.

Now as someone who has done more than his share of close-order drill, I can tell you that the easiest maneuver you can undertake is "When the gun goes off/flag goes up/flaming arrows are aloft everyone goes forward." This is especially true when your forces are concentrated in an area the size of a football field. The hard thing is not for everyone to go; the hard thing is for them to go at different times or only when conditions are met.

In a future/modern context you have related problems. Vehicles also use formations, like the Panzerkeil. This is a valid formation where you keep the heaviest armor on the outside of your arrowhead and the squishy stuff behind, using them as cover. You can't do this in an alternating activation system.

Alternating activations can work in a more open environment, where your units are companies or battalions and coordination is done on the macro scale. Basically it simulate subordinate commands responding to orders at different times and shows how difficult it is to synchronize things that are spread out over miles.

This leads me to the second problem: Uneven unit counts.

With IGO-UGO, you must move what you have. When you have alternating activations, you have to either constantly re-balance the numbers or allow one side to get a bunch of moves at the end.

It also rewards the side with more maneuver elements, which is the exact opposite of how it works in the real world. Yes, some articulation is good, but too many subordinate commands burden the commander and creates a greater potential for communications breakdowns. I think it is interesting that in peacetime, armies tend to like lots of little separate detachments and then in wartime they consolidate them into fewer moving pieces. It happens again and again.

In terms of building a new game or keeping the core of the one you have, that's a complex issue.

Probably the easiest thing to do to obtain the largest following of existing players would simply to be to cut down the rule book to the core elements and slice out the worst offenders in terms of special rules. So bye-bye aircraft, super-heavies, goofball game mechanics, etc. See if you can fit everything you want to do onto a single page and then play the game. Accept that lots of units will be nerfed but the models can still be used as unique-looking or themed basic troopers (which is the way things used to be).

If that doesn't work, than you may need to go all-in. In that case, this would definitely be something for the design section.

itcamefromthedeep
26-07-2015, 16:00
I share the good Commissar's feelings on the IGOUGO system.

Epic Armageddon players know that alternating activations where your weapon ranges don't all reach across the board leads to "the activation race" where on the first turn players activate small, unimportant elements of maneuver until the enemy runs out of chaff and needs to put an important detachment iin danger, then you hit it with lots of stuff. In later turns, the ability to move lots of stuff at once at the end allows you to coordinate units to get crossfires set up, where otherwise you would need to make one unit vulnerable in a flanking maneuver and it may be shot up before your bigger detachments can take advantage of the crossfire.

Another example is Battletech, where players alternate movement and then do combat simultaneously. In that game it helps to have unimportant "initiative sinks" the let you kill activations early and then respond to what your opponent iis doing, consistently outmaneuvering the enemy.

I feel like 40k wants to be the kind of system that allows for a strong asymmetry in elements of maneuver, such as allowing a game where an MSU bike army fghts against a few Imperial Knights. In that context, where there is absolutely no assurance of comparable numbers of units on each side, alternating activations are ripe for abuse (on top of the usual coordination iissues such games often have).

Kings of War goes directly for a game where the passive player does absolutely nothing (no decisions made, no dice rolled) as a way of making it conducive to timed play in tournaments. They explicitly wanted to make it so that turns go so quickly that the passive player never has to feel bored by paring interactions down to the bare essentials. I think the approach to the passive player issue is viable, but not what 40k needs.

I'm more in favor of letting the passive player make more decisions. I'd be up for going back to the passive player soon casualty removal (with a caveat or two) and giving units more reaction options.

I think it's worth noting that in Warhammer games, historically, I would often use my opponent's turn to plan my own. In recent 40k games it's harder to do that as resolving a bunch of the fiddly little stuff is distracting. Not iimpossible to plan ahead, of course, but more difficult iin a way that didn't need to be there.

Vipoid
26-07-2015, 16:03
Terrain....

Unless you literally flood the board with LoS-blocking terrain, it really doesn't do much these days. Not when you can see a millimetre of model, shoot it and just ignore its cover save.

ColShaw
26-07-2015, 16:36
I agree that TLOS contributes to this issue.

Inquisitor Kallus
26-07-2015, 16:37
Unless you literally flood the board with LoS-blocking terrain, it really doesn't do much these days. Not when you can see a millimetre of model, shoot it and just ignore its cover save.

You dont have to, some larger solid terrain features greatly help with this problem.

Vipoid
26-07-2015, 16:47
You dont have to, some larger solid terrain features greatly help with this problem.

No, they really don't.

Inquisitor Kallus
26-07-2015, 16:55
No, they really don't.

I forgot, you can just fire through these things, how silly of me....

Vipoid
26-07-2015, 16:57
I forgot, you can just fire through these things, how silly of me....

I forgot, you can just hide an entire army behind them, how silly of me. :rolleyes:

Also, good thing every weapon in the game requires LoS.

lanrak
26-07-2015, 17:03
I think there are a lot of valid points made .
And lots appear to be very contradictory.Yet all have very sound reasoning behind them.

So perhaps what we are experiencing. is people looking at the same problems , but from different perspectives due to their perceived effects of the problems?

For example people looking at the current game from the way it was developed from 2nd ed , will see the problems from that perspective.
Eg Skirmish game that could not cope with the current range of units.

Those looking from the direction of Epic SM or Armageddon , will see a rule set that fails to be a good battle game due to the enforced backward compatibility to a skirmish rule set.

The problem is the same, the rules were not developed to cover the current units and resulting game play effectively.
(The core rules were oversimplified, and so the game play needed propping up with lots of special rules.)

But the way people express their concern may make it look like there is a difference of opinion , when its just a difference of expression?

IMO the game devs have tried to replace game play complexity, with rules complication, in the hope no one would notice.
But according the this thread lots of people have.:D

This is why I think it is better to look at adjusting the core rules to cover the current game play first.
As I have stated in other game development threads, I think alternating game turn mechanic works fine when units have to maneuver in to effective weapons range.

So if we fix the flaws of the core rules ,(add mobility and stealth values back in, ) we may find it works fine.

But if we are going to do the job 'properly' , we should at least try all the different game turn mechanics , just to see what other alternative works well
for larger games perhaps?(Were more 'cramped conditions' can not be compensated for by the new rules.)

Relying on gamers to smother the playing area in LOS blocking terrain , because you could not be bothered to deal with game play issues .
Is a bit of a cop out IMO.
Unless your game is developed to a specific set of guide lines like Arty Conliffes Crossfire.(No measurement what so ever!)

The problem is functional analysis of game issues is a bit 'dry'.(And I am not that good at explaining concepts in the written format.)

And lots of people are much more aware of the symptoms of these core flaws that spoil their enjoyment of the game, they are passionate about.
So proposing house rules to add on, that appear to solve some symptoms , (but generate other issues.)Are far more popular to discuss.

I think looking at how GW changed 2nd ed from a 'sort of functional skirmish game' (complicated rules, complex game play).
In to a 'hardly functioning battle game'.(Complicated rules , restricted game play.)
(These descriptions seem harsh, but compared to games that work well, they are not that much of a generalization.)

Is a good starting point,(if we can agree what the current game play should be !)

Vipoid
26-07-2015, 17:10
On a different note, what do people think of Formations?

Any way they could be made to work, without being unbalanced?

itcamefromthedeep
26-07-2015, 17:55
IMO the game devs have tried to replace game play complexity, with rules complication, in the hope no one would notice.
But according the this thread lots of people have.:D

This is why I think it is better to look at adjusting the core rules to cover the current game play first.
As I have stated in other game development threads, I think alternating game turn mechanic works fine when units have to maneuver in to effective weapons range.If the game was fine before with the same core mechanics, then the core mechanics are fine and it's the mechanics on top that are the problem.

Honestly, the core mechanics are just fine. Switching to a BS v Stealth mechanic for shooting solves maybe one or two of that giant list of complaints above, while magnifying few of the complaints people have with some kinds of units (fliers) being too durable and requiring specialists to fight.

Alternating activation games are worse when you need to maneuver into range, because you get players alternating units that "don't matter" until one player is forced to bite the bullet and put their unit in a place where it can get shot. When you need to maneuver into range or LOS you get the gamey "initiative sink" and "activation race" phenomena.

---

If formations had points values they would be fine on the game balance front.

If models were priced appropriately for what they do and a few immunities completely removed then you could almost certainly get away with tossing out the army composition rules, the way LoTR did (mandatory heroes and how limit notwithstanding). For context, in LoTR you could do an army of all Treemen or all Hobbits and it would still work just fine, and you could even have then fight each other without either side being certain of the winner.

Inquisitor Kallus
26-07-2015, 18:46
I forgot, you can just hide an entire army behind them, how silly of me. :rolleyes:

Also, good thing every weapon in the game requires LoS.

You plan to hide your whole army behind them? Have fun with your 'game' You dont need to be able to hide everything.

99% of weapons require LoS. Not being able to see everything all the time encourages movement. Also most weapons that have crazy long ranges dont have ignores cover. Some do, thats cool, stay out of LoS. If an enemy needs to get closer to you to see your units then you can use that to your advantage to bring about more devastating shorter ranged weaponry or initiate CC. I mean what do you do, play purely flying armies or on open boards?

Countless times LoS blockng terrain has stopped units from being destroyed and provided tactical options in games that I have played, seen and heard about (battle reports, friends recounting games etc)

mrknify
26-07-2015, 18:50
Formations is the get around for unbound lists. It adds more hq choices and creates balance issues.

Why? The rules were not made to handle them in standard play.

We can already see, with all the extra rules within rules that add other rules(etc...) that the core rules no longer exist in a usable manor.

Solution: register to the core rules and mechanics. Its a lot easier then you think.

My solution. In 6 months (as I will be on a course) I will be writing a "conversion" rule set. Designed for ANY game.

If you want to support me in this, just like this post(+1 it)

If not just ignore. I wont mind, it will not hurt me feeling(singular not plural)

I will however need players willing to test it out, sending me reports on issues encountered in play. I dont need any information from you about you just a pm with play tester request, the armies you play and point levels you play at.

The latter is more important for seeing how a conversion rules set works for the various lists.

I will not be replying to the pm's at this time, this is just to see if there is an interest from others willing to test the conversion rule set.

Zingraff
26-07-2015, 18:58
I think alternating activations could work if they're randomised (player order, not which units you get to activate), but I see your points.

What bothers me the most at the moment, aside from the overcomplicated rules which results in having to use multiple rule books with every game, and sub-phases which doesn't serve any other purpose than letting the other player feel he's doing something to affect the outcome of what he's opponent is doing (such as any kind of saving throw), is the downtime between each turn and how often I see passive players become unconcentrated, bored and often impatient. All of these things are symptoms of poor game design.

I would have liked to fix the underlying issue, which I think has mostly to do with the "I go, you go"-sequence, but your points against doing that are perfectly valid.

Vipoid
26-07-2015, 19:23
You plan to hide your whole army behind them? Have fun with your 'game' You dont need to be able to hide everything.

Oh, yeah, because hiding 5-10% of your army makes sooo much difference. :eyebrows:



99% of weapons require LoS. Not being able to see everything all the time encourages movement.

No, it doesn't. Not being in range of *anything* encourages movement. Not being able to see *anything* encourages movement.

Not being able to see a single target, when you have dozens of others to shoot instead, encourages nothing.

frapermax
26-07-2015, 19:27
Just a top 3:

1) LoW and D-weapons
2) Allies as they are (nothing against allies, but more the way they did it)
3) Formations with either OP rules or buy to win mentality

lanrak
26-07-2015, 19:38
@Itcamefromthedeep.
But the core mechanics of 40k were not kept the same!(They removed the movement stat, and modifiers, and multi sided dice, etc.)
And they also changed the game size and scope. :eek:

Do you agree that replacing the movement stat would remove the need to use the special rules that do the same job?
And make the game simpler to learn ,develop, and enjoy?

You could put lots of modifiers back into the game.OR we can used opposed stats in a chart instead.
(To reduce the amount of modifiers we need to use.)
(EG add a Stealth stat to oppose Ballistic Skill to allow players to resolve to hit in the same way we always resolved close combat and to wound.)

If you trace the history of the rules for 40k back , to WHFB, a ancient ranked up massed battle game.
The core mechanics and resolution methods make sense for this type of game where the game play is about maneuver to get the best close combat match ups, with ranged attacks in a purely supporting role.

One stat for mobility, one stat for shooting and four stats for close combat.

In a skirmish game with lots of modifiers to hit , to balance the flat shooting resolution.You can just about get away with it.

But if you remove all the to hit modifiers and cram as many models as can fit in the deployment zones.Shooting becomes very over powered.

And so you have the choice of redressing the balance at the core rule level.(Stealth value to oppose Ballistic Skill is one option.)

OR you find ways to make units keep going despite suffering massive amount of shooting damage.(Well the unit that are left after , large amounts of units removed before they got to do anything...)

You make units move faster, ignore morale tests, and get back up because they are not really 'dead'.(WBB and FNP.)
And have to try to make assault more deadly, to balance up the deadly shooting...
And with no option to fine tune anything ,this end up as flip flopping between assault favored editions or shooting favored editions of rules.
All the time accumulating lots of special rules that add to the rules bloat and needless complication...

And then give up and pretend everything is just a 'narrative' and random events are more fun than carefully crafted interplay of tactical interaction.
And it all starts with picking an option without really thinking about the long term implications.

I just got a bit annoyed with how easily GW game development got derailed as I was typing that.Sorry if it sounded a bit 'ranty'.

I am very aware that some changes are required.
But I want to keep them to minimal necessary changes to put the core rules in line with the game play.So we do not repeat the mistakes of the GW devs.

And it is important we get to discuss these changes in depth.And I am happy that people want to question my reasoning and my motives.

Commissar von Toussaint
26-07-2015, 20:07
The conversation has fragmented somewhat, so here are my responses in no particular order:

RE: The terrain debate. Terrain should block LOS and it should do so easily. If there is some current nonsense rule that allows you to ignore cover and have LOS if only a fraction of a model is visible, change the rule. It's that simple.

RE: Core mechanics. Yes, the question is what they are at this point. Which is the "definitive" version of 40k?

I would say that for what people are talking about here, the current version is the base line, simply because more people are familiar with it. As for what has to be done, the more you change, the more you're creating an independent design and the less people there are that are going to follow you into exile.

RE: Scale of game. Huge problem but easy to fix by putting limits on force selection. Same applies to super-heavies and aircraft.

Just include a phrase that says "If both players agree..." when talking about army lists. This used to be quite common before the notion of screwing your opponent before the game even started became institutionalized (all in the name of FUN! of course :rolleyes: ).

The advantage I have is that there is a published version of the rules I like that can be played pretty much off the shelf. I've put together a single page of 'errata' that removes or modifies some of the more problematic rules for those who are interested (sort of like the old tournament guidelines).

Doing the same thing with the current version seems like a lot more work because there is so much more wrong with it.

Then again, I could be wrong. Maybe it is possible to fix everything just by revising the army lists, dumping special rules and giving units a movement stat.

itcamefromthedeep
26-07-2015, 21:36
Third edition 40k was still very much a growth phase for the game. The core mechanics have changed very little since then.

Adding in a Movement stat would help a bunch of things, but to be honest it's wouldn't make the game easier to remember. The difference between "the unit has Fleet" and "the unit does not have Fleet" is about as hard to remember as the difference between M5 and M6. I advocate switching mostly because it would save time in-game and verbiage in the rulebook.

---

The advantage shooting has in 40k is actually quite precarious. All you need to do is remove one sentence ("A unit that arrived by Deep Strike may not Assault that turn") and shooting is left on the ground curled up in the fetal position whimpering a few octaves higher. The relationship between the two ways of killing things is quite intricate and delicate, revolving around a wide variety of rules buried in the text (though God knows it doesn't need to be that way).

---

Re-writing the army books could solve a wide variety of problems in the current paradigm, but by no means all of them.

Poncho160
26-07-2015, 21:44
Third edition 40k was still very much a growth phase for the game. The core mechanics have changed very little since then.

Adding in a Movement stat would help a bunch of things, but to be honest it's wouldn't make the game easier to remember. The difference between "the unit has Fleet" and "the unit does not have Fleet" is about as hard to remember as the difference between M5 and M6. I advocate switching mostly because it would save time in-game and verbiage in the rulebook.

---

The advantage shooting has in 40k is actually quite precarious. All you need to do is remove one sentence ("A unit that arrived by Deep Strike may not Assault that turn") and shooting is left on the ground curled up in the fetal position whimpering a few octaves higher. The relationship between the two ways of killing things is quite intricate and delicate, revolving around a wide variety of rules buried in the text (though God knows it doesn't need to be that way).

---

Re-writing the army books could solve a wide variety of problems in the current paradigm, but by no means all of them.

God, I would hate to play against a turn one deep striking Deathwing or Grey Knights army that was allowed to charge on the turn it came in! It would be quite brutal!

ehlijen
27-07-2015, 00:23
Oh, yeah, because hiding 5-10% of your army makes sooo much difference. :eyebrows:



No, it doesn't. Not being in range of *anything* encourages movement. Not being able to see *anything* encourages movement.

Not being able to see a single target, when you have dozens of others to shoot instead, encourages nothing.

Then you're still not using enough terrain and by the sounds of it are playing on too crowded a battlefield (another problem 40k has with its move to larger points systems while the costs of units goes down).

In an objective driven game with lots of terrain and cover, simply being able to shoot something isn't always good enough. You only get 5-6 turns, you have to make your volleys count and that means manoeuvres. Get into rapid fire range to get those extra shots, move around the flanks to get better shots (40k fails by not rewarding that, though), move to get LOS on targets that matter etc.


As for formations, here is my suggested fix: Formations offer no rewards, bonuses or benefits and cost no points on top of their components. Armies must consist of complete formations (throw out unbound and detachments). Ensure that no cherry picking formations are written.

Scribe of Khorne
27-07-2015, 00:48
Flanking and such do matter, due to how wounds are taken in 6th/7th, its my favorite addition! :p

ehlijen
27-07-2015, 01:26
True, but the way area terrain works, it doesn't really matter from what direction you shoot, and either way, the entire enemy unit can shoot back at you because they can't block each other's field of fire.

Thrax
27-07-2015, 02:51
As an aside to the IGOUGO discussion, there is nothing inherently wrong with it except GW has added so many elements to each turn it does seem like it takes forever for a side to complete its actions. We added what we call a Reaction Phase, where if an enemy unit moves within 12" of friendlies, the friendlies have a chance to react (Leadership test) by either shooting (-1 BS) or moving (D3"). Heavy weapons must fire within a certain arc of their actual facing. If enemy movement is sufficient to reach the friendlies, they are considered locked in combat and may not react. Then again we don't use random charge ranges, 'look out sir', challenges, etc. Defensive weaponry on vehicles can actually be fired defensively! We used to use an 'over watch'- like mechanic (more similar to 2nd Ed) before but found it unnecessary with our reaction phase.

Vipoid
27-07-2015, 09:00
Then you're still not using enough terrain and by the sounds of it are playing on too crowded a battlefield (another problem 40k has with its move to larger points systems while the costs of units goes down).

We use plenty of terrain - but most of it doesn't entirely block LoS. That was my point to begin with.



In an objective driven game with lots of terrain and cover, simply being able to shoot something isn't always good enough. You only get 5-6 turns, you have to make your volleys count and that means manoeuvres. Get into rapid fire range to get those extra shots, move around the flanks to get better shots (40k fails by not rewarding that, though), move to get LOS on targets that matter etc.

The thing is though, most of those don't matter. Flanking a WK is worthless. Same goes for many vehicles that have equal FA and SA.

Also, if movement forces your unit to snapshot (or brings it into charge-range), then it's probably not worth it either. And, if your units are in a good position with regard to cover and/or objectives, then you'll be trying to avoid moving them. In our games, at least, I find most units only move if they've run out of targets *and* aren't already in a good position.

I mean, it's all very well to say that you need to move to shoot an enemy out of LoS, but often you really don't. Unless they're firing a barrage weapon (or have JSJ), then they're not actually a threat until they move out. So, it's often better to shoot the rest of their army whilst they hide those few units. If they expose those units, you can shoot them. If not, you have plenty of other targets. This also means that, should your opponent be forced to bring those hidden units into play, your units will still be in good positions behind cover and such.

Finally, with regard to objectives, is this really an issue? Aside from IG, it seems most armies have several units that can cross the board in a single turn (not to mention drop pods, WWPs and other deep striking units). Sorry, but capturing objectives in EW really lacks any kind of urgency these days.

Baaltor
27-07-2015, 09:35
Third edition 40k was still very much a growth phase for the game. The core mechanics have changed very little since then.

I guess this doesn't really matter anyway, but are you talking about 3rd edition as in the years that the edition took place in, or third edition the rules? I think the rulebook was an 'evolution', but it was mostly about downsizing, not growth. After typing that I think that on the other hand: the expansions made the net growth of the game big enough to call the edition a 'growth phase' like you said.


Adding in a Movement stat would help a bunch of things, but to be honest it's wouldn't make the game easier to remember. The difference between "the unit has Fleet" and "the unit does not have Fleet" is about as hard to remember as the difference between M5 and M6. I advocate switching mostly because it would save time in-game and verbiage in the rulebook.

Bolded text is my own work

I agree with the bolded stuff 100%, but I think that you're wrong to call the mnemonic part of the equation obsolete. If you replaced EVERY stat with names, you'd have a hell of a time.

'How strong are they?
'they've got strength "Mighty"
'I coulda sworn they were 'Great'
'No, but last edition their toughness was 'Resilient'
'I can't wait until the next codex, they're getting their attacks buffed from 'Fierce' to 'Ravening'!
'How do you calculate the hits with the ravening rule again?'

And then there's the fact that these rules change like every other edition. Sure you can say that numbers change too, but it's not as hard to swallow that a 6 became a seven, versus the idea that 'Fleet's definition entirely changed.[/QUOTE]


@Itcamefromthedeep.
...If you trace the history of the rules for 40k back , to WHFB, a ancient ranked up massed battle game.
The core mechanics and resolution methods make sense for this type of game where the game play is about maneuver to get the best close combat match ups, with ranged attacks in a purely supporting role.

One stat for mobility, one stat for shooting and four stats for close combat....

...You make units move faster, ignore morale tests, and get back up because they are not really 'dead'.(WBB and FNP.)
And have to try to make assault more deadly, to balance up the deadly shooting...
And with no option to fine tune anything ,this end up as flip flopping between assault favored editions or shooting favored editions of rules.
All the time accumulating lots of special rules that add to the rules bloat and needless complication...


You make a couple of good points here. An 'evade' stat would be a great way to deal with the different abilities to avoid fire some units have. I'm not sure infantry should have it to speak of without special gear or being... Eldar..., but for fast moving units, and fliers etc. it'd make things a lot more uniform. BS across the board might have to go up to compensate (not much though), but it might also open the door for weapons that interact with the stat by ignoring it, or weapons that are harder to hit nonvehicles/MC's/Squigs.

I might consider removing one of the combat stats too. All of them are redundant with something else. WS+A=fightiness WS+S=Punchiness A+I=Smashiness. Sure they are all different, but in a game where shooting is (barely) the main mode of combat, having so much granularity is somewhat redundant. Not to say assault should get worse, by anymeans, I just think attacks as a stat for example is a bit silly in a modern combat simulation. How much smashier can an ork be than a marine? Where does a human find the time to issue THREE ATTACKS in the span of time his fellows do one? How about with a POWERFIST?? Unless he's a Genestealer its a bit hard to imagine for me.

I think assault's as deadly as it needs to be, but the changes to shooting and armies especially have limited the assualt unit's ability to get there. Making it deadlier won't make anyone happy, because it's not fun to be someone who wiped an army with three hammernators, or to be the army that got wiped.



Sorry if it sounded a bit 'ranty'.


It's okay. I am hatred.



No, it doesn't. Not being in range of *anything* encourages movement. Not being able to see *anything* encourages movement.

Not being able to see a single target, when you have dozens of others to shoot instead, encourages nothing.

Sorry man, I gotta disagree here. Hiding 10% of your army is fairly low in terms of an investment, so it'd probably represent infiltrators who're set up to resist objectives, threaten with casualties or disrupt other processes in any other way. But that's more than enough to base an entire strategy around in my opinion. Until you hit the 20%ish range it's not a major force in a list, and you have to work it around whatever your primary forces are.

Remember the 80/20 rule? 80 percent of what you can shoot doesn't matter, and 20% is what you do wanna shoot. Hence, if you're hiding half of that 20 percent, you've potentially increased the survival of a key element by 50%. If your whole list is based around the function of that 20%, you've increased the effectiveness of your WHOLE list's primary function by 50%! Them's big potaters! Of course this is unreasonably hypothetical since we broke a game down to a laughably simple equation, but but still....


As an aside to the IGOUGO discussion, there is nothing inherently wrong with it except GW has added so many elements to each turn it does seem like it takes forever for a side to complete its actions....

To be honest I just skimmed your following ideas, but I just wanted to point out that I think this is a good idea that's seen some popularity occasionally. So I somewhat agree it'd be a good target for improving the game.

Vipoid
27-07-2015, 09:50
Sorry man, I gotta disagree here. Hiding 10% of your army is fairly low in terms of an investment, so it'd probably represent infiltrators who're set up to resist objectives, threaten with casualties or disrupt other processes in any other way. But that's more than enough to base an entire strategy around in my opinion. Until you hit the 20%ish range it's not a major force in a list, and you have to work it around whatever your primary forces are.

Really?

I guess I must be the only one who'd never see a battle won by someone camping a tiny percentage of their army behind a piece of LoS-blocking terrain in their deployment zone. :skull:



Remember the 80/20 rule? 80 percent of what you can shoot doesn't matter, and 20% is what you do wanna shoot. Hence, if you're hiding half of that 20 percent, you've potentially increased the survival of a key element by 50%. If your whole list is based around the function of that 20%, you've increased the effectiveness of your WHOLE list's primary function by 50%! Them's big potaters! Of course this is unreasonably hypothetical since we broke a game down to a laughably simple equation, but but still....


I've actually never once come across that rule.

Where does it come from? I mean, saying that shooting 80% of your opponent's army is meaningless seems like a really dubious statement to begin with. :confused:

ehlijen
27-07-2015, 10:02
We use plenty of terrain - but most of it doesn't entirely block LoS. That was my point to begin with.

Then I strongly advise playing with more terrain that does. It really improves the game. You could simply try a houserule where some of the terrain you have just blocks LOS to units behind for example.


The thing is though, most of those don't matter. Flanking a WK is worthless. Same goes for many vehicles that have equal FA and SA.

Those are more ways in which 40k is a bad game, yes. Flanking should be a powerful advantage to try to gain.


Also, if movement forces your unit to snapshot (or brings it into charge-range), then it's probably not worth it either.

Depends what you might gain from the move.


And, if your units are in a good position with regard to cover and/or objectives, then you'll be trying to avoid moving them.

Yes, which is why placing them there to start with should not be easily achieved and why the enemy should be trying to move as to force you to move to counter.



In our games, at least, I find most units only move if they've run out of targets *and* aren't already in a good position.

Then you should use more LOS blocking terrain and put more objectives into no man's land rather than into deployment zones.


I mean, it's all very well to say that you need to move to shoot an enemy out of LoS, but often you really don't. Unless they're firing a barrage weapon (or have JSJ), then they're not actually a threat until they move out. So, it's often better to shoot the rest of their army whilst they hide those few units. If they expose those units, you can shoot them. If not, you have plenty of other targets. This also means that, should your opponent be forced to bring those hidden units into play, your units will still be in good positions behind cover and such.

There is more to winning 40k than just shooting the enemy. What would you do if the enemy is moving on an objective out of sight of your fire support units? Do you just let them have it? If you do, they won't need to expose themselves to win the game.



Finally, with regard to objectives, is this really an issue? Aside from IG, it seems most armies have several units that can cross the board in a single turn (not to mention drop pods, WWPs and other deep striking units). Sorry, but capturing objectives in EW really lacks any kind of urgency these days.

Random game length means you rarely know when your last chance is. Moving that fast also generally nullifies your attack power (and even if it doesn't, bad rolls can always happen) and you often can't take objectives from the enemy simply by moving there.

40k has many problems and mobility and its advantages are not well implemented. But some of these shortcomings can be reduced by using a good amount of LOS blocking terrain.

Spiney Norman
27-07-2015, 10:39
Unless you literally flood the board with LoS-blocking terrain, it really doesn't do much these days. Not when you can see a millimetre of model, shoot it and just ignore its cover save.

The way some people on warseer talk about 'LoS blocking terrain' it comes across like they play games with a 1' high wall running across the entire centre line of the battlefield :rolleyes:. In my experience, even with a high terrain density, it is virtually impossible to deploy your entire army out of sight of the enemy. TLoS is a terrible rule for a tactical war game, but then it's been a good two editions since 40k was even remotely tactical.

ehlijen
27-07-2015, 10:56
The way some people on warseer talk about 'LoS blocking terrain' it comes across like they play games with a 1' high wall running across the entire centre line of the battlefield :rolleyes:. In my experience, even with a high terrain density, it is virtually impossible to deploy your entire army out of sight of the enemy. TLoS is a terrible rule for a tactical war game, but then it's been a good two editions since 40k was even remotely tactical.

No. For example: Take some hills, take some infantry and behold, you can hide that infantry.

TLOS is perfectly fine as long as you use more than just citadel woods and craters. You need things such as walls, hills and solid buildings.

murgel2006
27-07-2015, 11:51
concerning the Phases and YGOIGO

I would love to see a change where Ini and Strategy value count.
The higher the ini the later you move but the sooner you fire or charge.
This could be implemented into formations easily.

So you have movement - all units move in ini order (ascending) and the player with the worse strategy rating goes first.
Psy, shooting and assault go in reverse order better strategy goes first and then in order of ini descending.

Personally I think this wold make the game much more tactical.

Vipoid
27-07-2015, 11:58
Then I strongly advise playing with more terrain that does. It really improves the game. You could simply try a houserule where some of the terrain you have just blocks LOS to units behind for example.

Again, that was exactly my point - we shouldn't have to flood the field with LoS-blocking terrain for the game to work.

Baaltor
27-07-2015, 13:19
That's fair enough. Well, you should almost have to INCLUDE it to make a balanced game, in my opinion, but you shouldn't have to have it literally filling the table.


The way some people on warseer talk about 'LoS blocking terrain' it comes across like they play games with a 1' high wall running across the entire centre line of the battlefield :rolleyes:. In my experience, even with a high terrain density, it is virtually impossible to deploy your entire army out of sight of the enemy. TLoS is a terrible rule for a tactical war game, but then it's been a good two editions since 40k was even remotely tactical.

My old group practically did do (my) bolded segment. It was silly, but they always insisted...

But yeah, I'm so against TLoS, LoS block terrain is a must, but I'd like to be able to imagine that things are cluttered so they don't have to be cluttered in reality.


I guess I must be the only one who'd never see a battle won by someone camping a tiny percentage of their army behind a piece of LoS-blocking terrain in their deployment zone.

Dude, have you ever seen LotR? The Free Peoples won that last battle by infiltrating four points worth of Hobbits!

Edit: although looking at your icon I can see why you'd wanna repress that memory.


I've actually never once come across that rule.

Where does it come from? I mean, saying that shooting 80% of your opponent's army is meaningless seems like a really dubious statement to begin with. :confused:

I didn't know the origins, so I looked it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle


The Pareto principle (also known as the 80–20 rule, the law of the vital few, and the principle of factor sparsity) states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.

I highly recommend reading about that idea, it's like a universal life lesson.

I totally agree that the idea is loaded, but what I meant was that if 20% of your army is tied up in, say lictors that will pop out and deny objectives, and you can hide half of them, and the game comes down to your lictors doing their job to beat a tie, hiding half of them in the most ignorrant mathematical sense gives them 50% more survivability. The odds that they're doing their job are massively improved.

I was also talking about individual units though. like a lascannon wouldn't want to shoot '80%' of the enemy army, because they want to shoot tanks, not guardsmen.


concerning the Phases and YGOIGO

I would love to see a change where Ini and Strategy value count.
The higher the ini the later you move but the sooner you fire or charge.
This could be implemented into formations easily.

So you have movement - all units move in ini order (ascending) and the player with the worse strategy rating goes first.
Psy, shooting and assault go in reverse order better strategy goes first and then in order of ini descending.

Personally I think this wold make the game much more tactical.

Yes I would like to see this too. It doesn't just make the game more tactical too though, it also makes different armies have the potential to be so much more that just stat lines. Play styles between each one would be a lot more thematic, with marines and Eldar being super controllable, Tyranids being rigid blobs of might, Orks being savage deathballs, and Chaos being bedlam incarnate! You could also make different lists from the same codex that are different.

And then of course Commander units like SM captains & such would actually MATTER again! That'd be so cool. I'm tired of Captains just being meatheads.

ehlijen
27-07-2015, 14:06
Again, that was exactly my point - we shouldn't have to flood the field with LoS-blocking terrain for the game to work.

Yes, you should. Not just because it makes the game actually work but also because big, impressive looking terrain pieces make the game a lot more fun. LOS/LOA blocking is a core part of all wargames and deploying and moving around it is the key to using any kind of direct fire support unit.

Commissar_42
27-07-2015, 14:39
For me it's nothing specific just general rules bloat. Armour and Toughness should be just one value with one roll to penetrate and kill, blast/template weapons should simply inflict a given number of wounds if they hit (sick of spacingHammer). There's tonnes of others but it's been a while since i played a game.

lanrak
27-07-2015, 18:21
Just to comment on some posts...
If the players have to rely on LOS blocking terrain and/or specialized deep strike attacks, ignore morale, wounds etc.To counter over effective shooting, because the core rules do not balance the core game play elements like they should.

Why is this preferable to just making shooting on a par with assault by adjusting the core rules?
If you just want to change the meta every few years to artificially drive sales by buffing assault/shooting every other edition It sort of makes sense.

But if you want a stable core rule set you can add and expand from , it is not the best option is it?

Not fixing a core issue in the core rules, but relying on 'work around' and additional rules, has lead to the rules bloat in the first place.

2nd ed 40k was a functioning rule set that covered all elements of the game play.
It had complex game play , which was good but over complicated rules, which was not so good.

The 3rd edition 40k rules the GW devs worked on for 18 months was the cleaned up skirmish game THEY wanted to release.(Reduce the complication in the rules , but keeping the tactical complexity.)
But corporate management /sales department wanted to up the model count in 40k to match WHFB.
The dev team had to re-write the rules at the eleventh hour for the 3rd ed 40k that was published.
(It was an 'eleventh hour' rushed job.)

In the rush to streamlining the rules for higher model count in 3rd edition, several functional features, and fine balancing methods were removed from the 40k rules.
This led the the 'Bland-hammer' 3ed edition.Which was 'spiced up' with special rules for 40k 3.5ed Codex books, and every edition after.

By 4th ed the GW dev team realized they had cut too much from the core rules for the game , and asked to be allowed to redress all the core issues with a re-write.(And GW plc corporate has refused.)
And every edition since 4th the game devs keep asking for a re-write . Until 7th ed, when they apparently just gave up ...:eek:

2nd ed 40k was a complicated but functional skirmish rule set.
3rd ed was a restricted and complicated rule set, that just got more complicated when they tried to remove the restrictions. by adding lots of rules on top.Rather than fix the flaws by putting the missing parts of the game foundation back.

As 40k rules failed to work properly in 3rd edition, I think the transition between 2nd ed and 3rd ed is where the core flaws crept into the rules.

But were highlighted in later editions when the 'quick fixes' that were added to address them, just caused more issues with the game play.

I am trying to be as objective as I can about this.
I am not trying to promote my favorite edition of 40k.
Or trying to port 40k game play into another rule set.

But look at rules functionality , mapped on to game play requirements.(Based on units intended in game combat abilities.)

Perhaps I should start a new thread in the rules development forum?

The_Real_Chris
27-07-2015, 21:41
I think alternating activations is getting a bit unfairly treated. Not for wether or not it is a good idea but for what it is.

There are lots of different alternating systems. The two main camps seem to be formation by formation (like epic a, or a random system) or by commands. Note I am leaving aside hybrids like BFG.

I loved the Epic A system when it came out, as has been noted above though it has driven certain behaviours. Now an army has to keep up the activation count which encourages rather more small formations than you would expect at that scale supporting the big hitters. Epic still pulls it off and when playing with friends it is fine. For tournies though you will want to have at least 12 activations for 3000 points or the ability to rapidly strip off enemy activations.

The command system is very interesting and if was doing a rewrite what I would gravitate to. Two 'levels' here. The higher is the Warmaster system which is really focuses on command and control. I prefer the lower more tactical system of splitting the army into groups. Players then take turns activating a group, often with the player with the most groups activating first, doing all the movement, shooting etc. it allows armour to do a spearhead advance, or infantry to support armour etc but breaks thing up enough to lessen first mover advantage and have a bit more back and forth. And you get some great ways to reflect style and theme. So at a base level a game has x commands. The bigger the game the more x is, generally 2-4. Then different armies, either through rules or unlocks through characters, units etc, can add different amounts. You can also vary the command radius or area of operations.

So an example. A mid sized game - orcs vs guard vs marines. The marines have several characters and have 7 commands all of which stretch across the entire table. Each group of units can go anywhere and spread out. The orcs have a warboss and several groups of nobs. They have 4 commands each with a 1 foot radius of control from a command element, if they are knocked out that command grinds to a halt in the area they last occupied as they start to bicker amongst themselves. The guard force structure has given them 3 commands, each with an assigned area of operations within adjacent 2 foot strips of the table running from one side to the other.

Rough stuff lifted from other games, but already each force is feeling and handing differently and you haven't added any infantry!

The_Real_Chris
27-07-2015, 21:51
I think alternating activations is getting a bit unfairly treated. Not for wether or not it is a good idea but for what it is.

There are lots of different alternating systems. The two main camps seem to be formation by formation (like epic a, or a random system) or by commands. Note I am leaving aside hybrids like BFG.

I loved the Epic A system when it came out, as has been noted above though it has driven certain behaviours. Now an army has to keep up the activation count which encourages rather more small formations than you would expect at that scale supporting the big hitters. Epic still pulls it off and when playing with friends it is fine. For tournies though you will want to have at least 12 activations for 3000 points or the ability to rapidly strip off enemy activations.

The command system is very interesting and if was doing a rewrite what I would gravitate to. Two 'levels' here. The higher is the Warmaster system which is really focuses on command and control. I prefer the lower more tactical system of splitting the army into groups. Players then take turns activating a group, often with the player with the most groups activating first, doing all the movement, shooting etc. it allows armour to do a spearhead advance, or infantry to support armour etc but breaks thing up enough to lessen first mover advantage and have a bit more back and forth. And you get some great ways to reflect style and theme. So at a base level a game has x commands. The bigger the game the more x is, generally 2-4. Then different armies, either through rules or unlocks through characters, units etc, can add different amounts. You can also vary the command radius or area of operations.

So an example. A mid sized game - orcs vs guard vs marines. The marines have several characters and have 7 commands all of which stretch across the entire table. Each group of units can go anywhere and spread out. The orcs have a warboss and several groups of nobs. They have 4 commands each with a 1 foot radius of control from a command element, if they are knocked out that command grinds to a halt in the area they last occupied as they start to bicker amongst themselves. The guard force structure has given them 3 commands, each with an assigned area of operations within adjacent 2 foot strips of the table running from one side to the other.

Rough stuff lifted from other games, but already each force is feeling and handing differently and you haven't added any infantry!

Russell's teapot
27-07-2015, 22:35
I think that IGOUGO with saving throws is 'core' to 40k - if you don't have that then you aren't playing 40k. I agree that there are other methods, and they may be better, but for me it's the soul of the system.

There are plenty of fixes that can, and should, be made within that restriction.

Commissar von Toussaint
27-07-2015, 23:06
I just have to ask the folks who don't use a lot of terrain: Where do you live?

No, seriously, is the landscape around you as smooth as the placid sea? I'm not a hugely traveled man, but the real world has way more terrain than even the most obsessive 40k will use. I mean, entire battles take place in forests, in swamps, downtown sections of cities.

In fact, combat is more likely to take place in terrain-rich areas because that's where one side is likely to have dug in. Why fight on a flat level field well away from anything? Heck, even the desert has dunes and topography - and the great battles of the desert were not located out in the middle of the Sahara but near mountain passes and defiles.

Even a 'flat' field usually has some topography to it such that one can't see from one end to the other.

The point is that LOS obstructions are the norm, not the exception.

I prefer to play on terrain-rich boards. I have a cityscape filled with multi-story buildings that channel tanks into the streets while jump-pack troopers bound across the rooftops.

When we play greenscape battles, the woods are many and hills break up LOS in every direction.

I do that not only because it makes the game better but because anything else is really just silly.

I guess because it is a sci-fi game you can argue that your troops are massed to fight on Planet Cueball (perfectly smooth!) but that's a fantasy environment that doesn't interest me.

It is a fact that for most battles, LOS is a greater limit than range. Definately 40k should be played that way.

Poncho160
27-07-2015, 23:20
Plastcraft games do a nice little range in precoulred scfi buildings that are well worth looking into, for anyone having trouble with LoS blocking terrain :)