PDA

View Full Version : Thoughts on New Core Rules



v0iddrgn
05-01-2016, 14:51
So, as I try to get back into 40K there seems to be a lot lacking in enthusiasm from players. I can't help but wonder what could balance out the game and bring players back. For now, I'm trying to play lower point games to limit the shenanigans and get a game played out in the very limited time my schedule allows these days. I am still getting used to 7th edition but many of you know what has been needing a change for a time now. Being that I have always loved the assault phase and assault-based armies I was thinking that introducing an Initiative test to grant Overwatch would be a great way to improve the chances of getting "there" with units like Genestealers and Boyz. I hope a new edition is around the corner so we can bring the casual players back. Thoughts?

Theocracity
05-01-2016, 15:10
I'm not particularly interested in new core rules, mostly because I don't want to have to buy another expensive book.

Assault armies can work in 7th as long as they have the rules support. For example Khorne Daemonkin gives enough of a boost to otherwise lackluster units that people find them fun to use. I've also heard people having success with Green Tide when used properly.

I think Boyz and Genestealers could probably get a worthwhile boost from a super-formation for their factions, removing the need to muck about with core rules.

Scammel
05-01-2016, 16:15
The single best change that could be introduced to the core rules is the abolition of anything bar CAD. Issues would remain, especially in relation to individual books, but it would be a good start. Some formations are passable, but I'd rather prune the branch than take tweezers to the leaves.

Wolf Lord Balrog
05-01-2016, 18:25
The single best change that could be introduced to the core rules is the abolition of anything bar CAD. Issues would remain, especially in relation to individual books, but it would be a good start. Some formations are passable, but I'd rather prune the branch than take tweezers to the leaves.

^^ This. Formations outside of Apocalypse was just a bad idea, a band-aid to make up for lazy efforts to fix core rules or balance codices. My recommendations for making-do with the current rules:

Cap at 1,000 points
1 Combined Arms Detachment
No Allies
Nothing with Strength D
No Superheavies/Gargantuan Creatures
No Flyers
No Fortifications
No single models that cost more than 200 points.
No Summoning
No Invisibility
No re-rollable Saves

In the alternative, in addition to the rules revision linked in my sig (that I never completed, life happened), I am currently doing what I didn't have the energy to do before: writing my own rules from the ground up. I should have something to post in a couple weeks when there is more to it.

WarsmithGarathor94
05-01-2016, 19:11
^^ This. Formations outside of Apocalypse was just a bad idea, a band-aid to make up for lazy efforts to fix core rules or balance codices. My recommendations for making-do with the current rules:

Cap at 1,000 points
1 Combined Arms Detachment
No Allies
Nothing with Strength D
No Superheavies/Gargantuan Creatures
No Flyers
No Fortifications
No single models that cost more than 200 points.
No Summoning
No Invisibility
No re-rollable Saves

In the alternative, in addition to the rules revision linked in my sig (that I never completed, life happened), I am currently doing what I didn't have the energy to do before: writing my own rules from the ground up. I should have something to post in a couple weeks when there is more to it.

So By your rules your opponent couldnt bring a decent daemon prince or greater daemon...

Beppo1234
05-01-2016, 19:52
I would like generic formations and detachments outside the CAD

Charistoph
05-01-2016, 20:38
The single best change that could be introduced to the core rules is the abolition of anything bar CAD. Issues would remain, especially in relation to individual books, but it would be a good start. Some formations are passable, but I'd rather prune the branch than take tweezers to the leaves.

That's not core rules, though. Those are all advanced rules (aside from the now misnamed Allied Detachment).

I cannot fully agree. I like having the options. Do most of them need to be toned down? Yes, especially since only a few have the plethora to compete with them. But otherwise it just sounds like sour grapes.

Bonzai
05-01-2016, 22:37
People point a finger at formations as the evil of this edition, but what have they really done to hurt things? With them Gladius provides a strong but fluffy MSU alternative that keeps pace with other power lists, Dark Angels are awesome and powerful for the first time since..... Ever? Necrons are upper mid tier due to sheer durability, war convocation holds it's own, and Tau are about to make a comeback. Eldar don't need their formations, but they do add diversity to their builds.

Without formations? All that goes away, and your pretty much get back to psychic fueled death stars, grav spam, and Eldar bike spam on a competative level. Frankly I think we are better with formations and the diversity they bring.

I think it's the diversity that everyone is really complaining about. The vocal minority is up in arms because they are used to making 5th edition style, relatively balanced, take all comers lists. Those are now the white buffalo of 40k, and are extremely hard to find. The battle ground has expanded and there is just too much ground to cover. Those that try are the ones getting frustrated right now.

The question is, should a 1,500 point list be able to handle everything that can be thrown at it? If that answer is yes, then you are going to hate 7th. For me the answer is, not necessarily, and Rock Paper Scissors isn't necessarily a bad thing. This game is more random than ever before, and the mechanics themselves can screw you more than your opponent ever can (cough... cough.. Maelstrom).

I like the variety. I remember 4th and 5th edition. It seemed to jump from one power list to another and you either played it or built against it. Nidzilla, lash princes, nob bikers, leaf blower, 5th edition SWs, grey Knights...etc. In 6th edition it was all about psychic Death Stars towards the 2nd half. All based around an unkillable unit. I've enjoyed the current variety, and there are more strategies involved.

Wolf Lord Balrog
06-01-2016, 02:41
So By your rules your opponent couldnt bring a decent daemon prince or greater daemon...
Yes. Good, you've caught on quickly ...


People point a finger at formations as the evil of this edition, but what have they really done to hurt things? With them Gladius provides a strong but fluffy MSU alternative that keeps pace with other power lists, Dark Angels are awesome and powerful for the first time since..... Ever? Necrons are upper mid tier due to sheer durability, war convocation holds it's own, and Tau are about to make a comeback. Eldar don't need their formations, but they do add diversity to their builds.

Without formations? All that goes away, and your pretty much get back to psychic fueled death stars, grav spam, and Eldar bike spam on a competative level. Frankly I think we are better with formations and the diversity they bring.

I think it's the diversity that everyone is really complaining about. The vocal minority is up in arms because they are used to making 5th edition style, relatively balanced, take all comers lists. Those are now the white buffalo of 40k, and are extremely hard to find. The battle ground has expanded and there is just too much ground to cover. Those that try are the ones getting frustrated right now.

The question is, should a 1,500 point list be able to handle everything that can be thrown at it? If that answer is yes, then you are going to hate 7th. For me the answer is, not necessarily, and Rock Paper Scissors isn't necessarily a bad thing. This game is more random than ever before, and the mechanics themselves can screw you more than your opponent ever can (cough... cough.. Maelstrom).

I like the variety. I remember 4th and 5th edition. It seemed to jump from one power list to another and you either played it or built against it. Nidzilla, lash princes, nob bikers, leaf blower, 5th edition SWs, grey Knights...etc. In 6th edition it was all about psychic Death Stars towards the 2nd half. All based around an unkillable unit. I've enjoyed the current variety, and there are more strategies involved.

If you prefer random, silly, beer-&-pretzels type fun, then yes, 40K as it currently exists is your game. Some of us would like it to be a more serious strategy game though. I'd also like to see 40K shrink in scale back to something more like a skirmish game, where infantry are the focus of the game. This 28mm-scale-Epic nonsense just makes infantry obsolete.

insectum7
06-01-2016, 04:10
This 28mm-scale-Epic nonsense just makes infantry obsolete.

Meltaguns say hi.

Wolf Lord Balrog
06-01-2016, 04:18
Meltaguns say hi.
If you are playing the one or two armies that can field infantry-based mass-melta, and you get lucky enough that most of your infantry aren't wiped off the table in the first or second turn, sure.

WarsmithGarathor94
06-01-2016, 06:53
wow wolf lord you really are bitter aint you

march10k
06-01-2016, 13:22
Nah, he just can't imagine anyone other than himself being even slightly right about anything, let alone the concept that he could ever be less than 120% correct.


Cap at 1,000 points

Why? What's broken about 1200 points? When I started in 1998, 1500 was the norm. It soon crept to 1750, now 1850 for a few years. I don't think points levels are "broken." Different armies shine at different points levels...I guess your preferred codex is a rockstar at 1k...


1 Combined Arms Detachment
"1" is kind of superfluous if you limit things to 1k points...Separately, I'd be okay with a requirement to field a CAD before moving on to adding in formations. Let those who take CADs seriously run roughshod over those who just take a CAD 'tax' and don't try to make it useful.



No Allies

I'd be ok with "no 'ally' detachments," the (1 HQ and 1 Troop detachment from the BRB), but I'd like to continue to have access to a culexus invisibility-killer, for example.


Nothing with Strength D

I'm okay with this. D weapons are a bit silly, although they are stupid expensive and you can survive them by hiding behind a mulberry bush! I'd say ban them from regular 40k (or nerf them to S10AP2 in regular 40k, with blasts capped at 5"), but where actual strength D is still allowed (like APOC), they should ignore cover and invuls should be capped at 4+.


No Superheavies/Gargantuan Creatures
Agreed.


No Flyers

No. Integrate them better. Especially, nerf FMCs.


No Fortifications

Maybe kick some of the OTT ones to APOC, but simple bunkers and walls and stuff have a place. But silly bovine space commie walking walls gotta go!


No single models that cost more than 200 points.

Unacceptable. Maybe nerf most 200+ point named characters and adjust their points cost down, but land raiders? You'd ban those? C'mon, man!


No Summoning

I hate summoning, but it doesn't need banned, it needs abuse-proofing.


No Invisibility

Hate this, too. But fix it, don't ban it. Let accute senses USR ignore it, or something else that's not universally available, but widespread enough to make invisistars a bad idea.


No re-rollable Saves

??? Only one I can think of, off-hand, is Ravenwing's rerollable jink. Plenty of ways to ignore jink out there.

Beppo1234
06-01-2016, 14:07
Some of us would like it to be a more serious strategy game though.


bwahahahahahahaa, 40k has never been this, is not this, nor will it ever be this. Any belief in the otherwise is just plain ludicrous

wanting the game reduced to a skirmish game is between you and your opponent. I personally like having the ability to now go to whatever scale I want now (large or small), rather than the past where it was a skirmish game, but whenever one wanted to go bigger, one couldn't because it wasn't supported. The 40k Skirmish game is possible, and players don't need GW to spoon feed them every single possible scale of game-play.

v0iddrgn
06-01-2016, 14:07
Nah, he just can't imagine anyone other than himself being even slightly right about anything, let alone the concept that he could ever be less than 120% correct.



Why? What's broken about 1200 points? When I started in 1998, 1500 was the norm. It soon crept to 1750, now 1850 for a few years. I don't think points levels are "broken." Different armies shine at different points levels...I guess your preferred codex is a rockstar at 1k...


"1" is kind of superfluous if you limit things to 1k points...Separately, I'd be okay with a requirement to field a CAD before moving on to adding in formations. Let those who take CADs seriously run roughshod over those who just take a CAD 'tax' and don't try to make it useful.




I'd be ok with "no 'ally' detachments," the (1 HQ and 1 Troop detachment from the BRB), but I'd like to continue to have access to a culexus invisibility-killer, for example.



I'm okay with this. D weapons are a bit silly, although they are stupid expensive and you can survive them by hiding behind a mulberry bush! I'd say ban them from regular 40k (or nerf them to S10AP2 in regular 40k, with blasts capped at 5"), but where actual strength D is still allowed (like APOC), they should ignore cover and invuls should be capped at 4+.


Agreed.



No. Integrate them better. Especially, nerf FMCs.



Maybe kick some of the OTT ones to APOC, but simple bunkers and walls and stuff have a place. But silly bovine space commie walking walls gotta go!



Unacceptable. Maybe nerf most 200+ point named characters and adjust their points cost down, but land raiders? You'd ban those? C'mon, man!



I hate summoning, but it doesn't need banned, it needs abuse-proofing.



Hate this, too. But fix it, don't ban it. Let accute senses USR ignore it, or something else that's not universally available, but widespread enough to make invisistars a bad idea.



??? Only one I can think of, off-hand, is Ravenwing's rerollable jink. Plenty of ways to ignore jink out there.

^This^ This is the voice of reason! When I started this thread it was with this mindset that I had hoped players would embrace. Balance. I know, I know, it's nigh unachievable but it's worth trying. I agree psyker's need to be taken down a notch or two. How about giving each psyker D3+Mastery Level dice to get their power off and not have a massive "pool" of 20+ dice to pull it off from? Then it could be set at 3+ to get the power off and I'd be cool with that.

Wolf Lord Balrog
06-01-2016, 14:26
bwahahahahahahaa, 40k has never been this, is not this, nor will it ever be this. Any belief in the otherwise is just plain ludicrous
Note I used a qualifier: "*more* serious". I don't operate under any delusion that 40K will ever be a truly 'serious' strategy game. But GW could try a little harder to make it less of a joke.


wanting the game reduced to a skirmish game is between you and your opponent. I personally like having the ability to now go to whatever scale I want now (large or small), rather than the past where it was a skirmish game, but whenever one wanted to go bigger, one couldn't because it wasn't supported. The 40k Skirmish game is possible, and players don't need GW to spoon feed them every single possible scale of game-play.
There's a reason different scales of miniatures exist, and different sets of rules to go with them. You can't bring Super-Heavies and GCs into a tactical game and pretend it doesn't have a disproportionate effect on play. Suddenly the game becomes about either killing or avoiding the giant machine/monster on the table instead of tactical units maneuvering against each other. That's not a game I want to play.


Nah, he just can't imagine anyone other than himself being even slightly right about anything, let alone the concept that he could ever be less than 120% correct.



Why? What's broken about 1200 points? When I started in 1998, 1500 was the norm. It soon crept to 1750, now 1850 for a few years. I don't think points levels are "broken." Different armies shine at different points levels...I guess your preferred codex is a rockstar at 1k...


"1" is kind of superfluous if you limit things to 1k points...Separately, I'd be okay with a requirement to field a CAD before moving on to adding in formations. Let those who take CADs seriously run roughshod over those who just take a CAD 'tax' and don't try to make it useful.




I'd be ok with "no 'ally' detachments," the (1 HQ and 1 Troop detachment from the BRB), but I'd like to continue to have access to a culexus invisibility-killer, for example.



I'm okay with this. D weapons are a bit silly, although they are stupid expensive and you can survive them by hiding behind a mulberry bush! I'd say ban them from regular 40k (or nerf them to S10AP2 in regular 40k, with blasts capped at 5"), but where actual strength D is still allowed (like APOC), they should ignore cover and invuls should be capped at 4+.


Agreed.



No. Integrate them better. Especially, nerf FMCs.



Maybe kick some of the OTT ones to APOC, but simple bunkers and walls and stuff have a place. But silly bovine space commie walking walls gotta go!



Unacceptable. Maybe nerf most 200+ point named characters and adjust their points cost down, but land raiders? You'd ban those? C'mon, man!



I hate summoning, but it doesn't need banned, it needs abuse-proofing.



Hate this, too. But fix it, don't ban it. Let accute senses USR ignore it, or something else that's not universally available, but widespread enough to make invisistars a bad idea.



??? Only one I can think of, off-hand, is Ravenwing's rerollable jink. Plenty of ways to ignore jink out there.

I was talking about a recommended way to make the game as it exists more playable. If you want to talk about changing rules to make it a better game, that's an entirely different discussion. It's good to see we mostly agree though.

Szalik
06-01-2016, 14:29
If you prefer random, silly, beer-&-pretzels type fun, then yes, 40K as it currently exists is your game. Some of us would like it to be a more serious strategy game though. I'd also like to see 40K shrink in scale back to something more like a skirmish game, where infantry are the focus of the game. This 28mm-scale-Epic nonsense just makes infantry obsolete.

Very good rundown, my thoughts exactly.

As for me, reducing randomness is a bare minimum to ever consider coming back to actually playing the game instead of just painting the miniatures. That means at least reduced random charge distance (or fixed 6 inches charge in the open) and removed random warlord traits table.
On the other hand, reworking "to hit" table is in my opinion necessary (actually here getting more results would be in my opinion better, hitting on 2+ and 6+ etc).

Reworking "morale" is my major problem with this game. The starting point should be something like ATSKNF for all of the units. No sweeping advance, bonus cc rounds for the winners with all the "to hit", "to wound" procedure involved, no losing control over units, severe minuses to WS, BS instead.

Generally speaking I'm all after more freedom given to the players, less strict assault phase, less randomness, more movement, assault, shooting, run, generally speaking more control over units given into hands of players.

Inquisitor Engel
06-01-2016, 15:10
Man... I hate to say this, and I know people will be annoyed, but I would love a simpler, more straightforward ruleset. I've been playing a lot of X-Wing and it's so... Easy. Making a list is fun. Trying that list is fun. Re-jiggering that list later is fast and easy. Playing again is fun.

While I wouldn't want 40k to get that level of simplicity, I do think the rules right now are incredibly overcomplicated. Perhaps a return to third edition, when things were fast. Remove some of the crazy exceptions to the rules. I also think alternating unit activation would shake things up very nicely.

Charistoph
06-01-2016, 17:13
While I wouldn't want 40k to get that level of simplicity, I do think the rules right now are incredibly overcomplicated. Perhaps a return to third edition, when things were fast. Remove some of the crazy exceptions to the rules. I also think alternating unit activation would shake things up very nicely.

GW's biggest problem in 40K isn't the complexity alone, it is that they tend to ignore half of what they have already written.

40K can largely be a simple game if they bothered to lay out a plan for their basic rules, and then had Advanced Rules reference back to this plan on a consistent basis.

One representative point is "remove from play". How many editions did it take to define this?

Another representative point is how multiple targeting works with the Shooting Sequence. I know a lot of assumptions are made, but most of these rules act like neither one exists.

You want to clean up 40K, start with that. Anything else is window dressing from there.

Beppo1234
06-01-2016, 18:29
While I wouldn't want 40k to get that level of simplicity, I do think the rules right now are incredibly overcomplicated. Perhaps a return to third edition, when things were fast. Remove some of the crazy exceptions to the rules. I also think alternating unit activation would shake things up very nicely.

totally agree... IMO this has a lot to do with special rules, and their ridiculous names (rather than logical ones that essentially describe the special rule and how it works, for example ATSKNF = no break test rule, which is easier to remember).


some of the things that have always bothered me about 40k have been inconsistencies with actions. For example, in pretty much every action in the game one is trying to achieve a given dice score or higher... then for some dumb reason when it comes to leadership tests, one has to try and roll under a given score. That never made much sense to me, and is inconsistent with the rest of the system. Low dice rolls should always be bad, and high dice scores should always be good IMO

also, give back the movement characteristic so all those related movement special rules can be discarded

Okuto
06-01-2016, 19:19
One word:

CONSOLIDATION


40k has become overly bloated and weighted down by excessive book keeping. That old simple 40k can only be found in 30k and smaller scale games nowadays.

I wouldn't be adding more core rules.....you just add to the bloat, if anything you ought to be consolidating rules, less is more imo.

The more stuff you add that more stuff that breaks

Smooth Boy
06-01-2016, 20:52
I hope that GW see how well 30K is doing a take a hint. I know 30K is still unbalanced, I don't even believe you can get a game outside of chess perfectly balanced but it's a damn sight better.

Beppo1234
06-01-2016, 20:58
I hope that GW see how well 30K is doing a take a hint. I know 30K is still unbalanced, I don't even believe you can get a game outside of chess perfectly balanced but it's a damn sight better.

I dunno, HH might just be a little easier to balance because both sides are generally marines... balance fails in 40k more I think because of diversification and (maybe) forced differentiation

Charistoph
06-01-2016, 21:49
I dunno, HH might just be a little easier to balance because both sides are generally marines... balance fails in 40k more I think because of diversification and (maybe) forced differentiation

No might about it. After all, how balanced is a Codex Marines v Codex Marines match?

Orthodox
07-01-2016, 04:01
I'd like rules for infantry units that show the reasons they are still useful on the same field as super heavies and jet bikes. They should be able to use their squad weapons to do multi-wounds to MCs and critical damage to super heavies.they should be able to get in cover and shoot as soon as monsters come into view. Elite infantry like Chosen, Trueborn, immortals, vanguard, Sternguard, and blood brides should be able to survive more attacks by stacking cover and armor saves. IGOUGO should be maintained so that managing activations doesn't break ghe fourth wall, but there should be more simultaneous parts of the turn, like shooting at a very close by infantry unit should cause them to shoot back like it was a close combat round.

comradeda
07-01-2016, 05:30
Internal codex balance is important too.

Voss
07-01-2016, 06:00
If you prefer random, silly, beer-&-pretzels type fun, then yes, 40K as it currently exists is your game. .

I strongly disagree with this. I miss the days of 40K as a beer&pretzels fun game. The current overpowered-gimmick-deck-building-counter game bears little relationship to the fun game that existed once.

Latro_
07-01-2016, 09:51
Think of the exciting stuff they are gonna come up with when they AoS 40k soon:

Take an ork warboss 'Scream waaaaarrrggghhhh' at you opponent as lud as you can, if you manage to give your self a nose bleed you can re-roll all 1's'

'When moving the Masque, engage in a seductive techno goth dance... should your opponent looks suitably impressed you may move the masque a further 6"'

'When deploying the great unclean one, attempt to flatulate in the general direction of the model, if your opponent shows any sign of discomfort your entire army receives a 2+ cover save on the first turn'


Meanwhile the actual game and new units becomes 'mech warrior' like with all the new armies being units of titans, knights etc... no pts cost ofc...

Yrch
07-01-2016, 10:21
Imo 40k needs simplfication in some parts to make it less of a headache and balance it.
As of now there are so so many special rules and a lot of units and formations gain new special rules that ignore/modify other rules and the games gets a complete mess due to the bad writing (Tau Formation) and amout of **** you have to keep in mind.
Just field a Deamonkin Prince and you get tons of special rules for just that one mini.
Also stop moving to large scale battles and stuff like Vehicle Squadrons (wich are specially stupid with Dreadnaughts...)
40k needs no 'AoS-ofication' but there is stuff that can be, like Okuto said, consolidated or removed.

Smooth Boy
07-01-2016, 19:42
I dunno, HH might just be a little easier to balance because both sides are generally marines... balance fails in 40k more I think because of diversification and (maybe) forced differentiation

I just meant tone it down a bit, I agree 40K will never be balanced to the level people want, look at 9th age it's pretty much been a full time job for half a year and they're still nowhere near.

Charistoph
08-01-2016, 00:02
Crazy idea for Overwatch: What if a unit that was shot at with Overwatch counted as having Assault Grenades? This would be useless against Space Marines, but it may cause people to think twice about Overwatching against Tyranids (provided they still have issues getting analogues).

Wolf Lord Balrog
08-01-2016, 00:07
Crazy idea for Overwatch: What if a unit that was shot at with Overwatch counted as having Assault Grenades? This would be useless against Space Marines, but it may cause people to think twice about Overwatching against Tyranids (provided they still have issues getting analogues).

Why in the world would or should Overwatch make the target better at assault?

v0iddrgn
08-01-2016, 00:54
I think taking an Initiative test to Overwatch would be a nice compromise

Wolf Lord Balrog
08-01-2016, 02:36
I think taking an Initiative test to Overwatch would be a nice compromise
Or just go back to the old method. The unit foregoes the ability to shoot in its own Shooting phase so it can fire at a nominated unit in the opponent's Movement phase. Maybe apply a -1BS penalty.

Charistoph
08-01-2016, 05:22
Why in the world would or should Overwatch make the target better at assault?

Because you expose yourself and show where you are in cover, allowing for the enemy to plan their Charge properly through the Terrain instead of second guessing where you are.

carldooley
08-01-2016, 05:40
Internal codex balance is important too.

that is something that always struck me. like, what is meant by internal balance? That there are clearly delineated uses for each of the units, or that there are no clearly superior units over others?

anyway, my response was pretty much an echo of the second post in this thread:

I'm not particularly interested in new core rules, mostly because I don't want to have to buy another expensive book.
any more yearly rule turnarounds for what is essentially a glorified catalog is going to do more to put nails in the coffin of GW's future than anything else I can think of. But a reboot like what happened between 2nd & 3rd would be wonderful especially with free rules like AOS (though as it is free, I hold no illusions that it will never happen).

comradeda
08-01-2016, 12:05
that is something that always struck me. like, what is meant by internal balance? That there are clearly delineated uses for each of the units, or that there are no clearly superior units over others?

Usually that each unit should have a clear purpose, and not have that purpose stomped on by other units within the same codex. And that it should actually be a choice at the army list stage of the game (writing up an army list) whether or not to take a unit. Obviously, people have personal preferences. But one unit shouldn't be a "just better" version of another unit (within the same codex). Each thing should be costed somewhere around its usefulness to the rest of the codex.

Sometimes, GW does do internal balance ok. Other times, they introduce units that blatantly fill the same role, like the Dreadknight (which is a Dreadnought, but more survivable except to small arms). And sometimes their rebalancing with new codexes renders some units fairly pointless (like the Hellion, which is now just a worse Reaver).

Wolf Lord Balrog
08-01-2016, 13:21
Because you expose yourself and show where you are in cover, allowing for the enemy to plan their Charge properly through the Terrain instead of second guessing where you are.

OK, but the charging unit is also under fire. I would think the two would cancel each other out. I get that Assault is under-powered these days, but Overwatch isn't the place to make up the difference, its already such a weak defense for squishy armies. First I'd recommend going back to a fixed 6" Charge, and allowing some units to Charge out of Outflank or Deep Strike (Elites or Fast Attacks only of course, and not both in any one faction).

mdauben
10-01-2016, 13:49
For me the answer is, not necessarily, and Rock Paper Scissors isn't necessarily a bad thing.
So, you don't mind losing the game in the list building phase, before you even put a miniature on the table?


This game is more random than ever before, and the mechanics themselves can screw you more than your opponent ever can
I don't want to play a game where I get screwed by the mechanics of the rules. I want to win or lose because I'm a batter (or worse) general. Of course both 40K and WFB have suffered from this to one degree or another since day one.

IMO most of the problems you point out are valid but they are the result of poor rules or unbalanced lists and it would be better to address the root problem rather than tacking on more unbalanced rules to try and compensate.

From a Galaxy far, far away...

Hell's Angel
11-01-2016, 02:32
I guess you dont mind the concept of not playing any Chaos players, or constantly wiping the floor with the ones you do Wolflord. Summoning and a DP platform to do it properly is one of the only things that mitigate Chaos Marine's over priced and under performing units... I suppose Deathguard can field a somewhat competative list at 1000 points, although hordes of all ages and Eldar would steam roll it. Just play Killteam and call it a day.

Wolf Lord Balrog
11-01-2016, 02:52
I guess you dont mind the concept of not playing any Chaos players, or constantly wiping the floor with the ones you do Wolflord. Summoning and a DP platform to do it properly is one of the only things that mitigate Chaos Marine's over priced and under performing units... I suppose Deathguard can field a somewhat competative list at 1000 points, although hordes of all ages and Eldar would steam roll it. Just play Killteam and call it a day.

Chaos Marines' problems are due to an out-dated codex with terrible internal balance far more than problems with the core rules. Give Chaos Marines an Eldar - or Tau-style upgrade, and they would be just fine, even under my recommended restrictions.

Zustiur
11-01-2016, 05:14
Exactly. There's nothing in this thread about having a rules refresh instead of fixing the chaos codex.

sent via tapatalk

v0iddrgn
12-01-2016, 01:46
So, when could we possibly see 8th edition roll out?

Chevron_Locked
12-01-2016, 02:58
So, when could we possibly see 8th edition roll out?

Tomorrow probably.

I did have an idea the other day to make spamming weapons less viable. A sort of tax if you will. Along the lines of; if multiple squad members can take weapon upgrades and they all take the same, they must pay an extra points cost on top of what they have already paid.

So say you have EJBs and they all take SL. They would have to pay extra points on top of cost of the SL's. This could work across the board (grav cents and the like) and I would feel this would at least encourage more diversification.

I know this isn't exactly a core rule change but I felt like putting a few feelers out there anyhoo.

Inquisitor Kallus
12-01-2016, 14:37
Chaos Marines' problems are due to an out-dated codex with terrible internal balance far more than problems with the core rules. Give Chaos Marines an Eldar - or Tau-style upgrade, and they would be just fine, even under my recommended restrictions.

Please, no Eldar style ugrade for CSM. Id anything Eldar need to be brought back down to Earth (i.e. better costings, limitations on certain upgrades etc)


Tomorrow probably.

I did have an idea the other day to make spamming weapons less viable. A sort of tax if you will. Along the lines of; if multiple squad members can take weapon upgrades and they all take the same, they must pay an extra points cost on top of what they have already paid.

So say you have EJBs and they all take SL. They would have to pay extra points on top of cost of the SL's. This could work across the board (grav cents and the like) and I would feel this would at least encourage more diversification.

I know this isn't exactly a core rule change but I felt like putting a few feelers out there anyhoo.

I dont think we need this, merely more appropriate pricing. I feel a lot of problems in 40k could be addressed in this way. There are a number of units that get Heavy Weapon upgrades far too cheaply. What needs to be done is to not make it a no brainer. Do you pay a reasonable amount of points for a weapon upgrade that gives you a bit more hitting power/ROF/whatever or put ti towards more models in the unit? The shuriken cannon upgrade for EJB for example doubles your range, gives +2 strength and an extra shot whilst having no restrictions and being pretty cheap. Most people wont think twice. Others will spam Grave because of the meta. A fair bit falls on the designers, but its not just them, its also the gamers. They choose what is in their army and, indeed, I haven't always played against OP llists. If a weapon is particularly strong it should be priced accordingly, though the problem with that is that what is great against one army can be awful against another, such as in the case of Grav guns vs Ork boy hordes. There are also the weapons units that are just silly good vs whatever they fight (for their points)

murgel2006
12-01-2016, 18:03
Please, no Eldar style ugrade for CSM. Id anything Eldar need to be brought back down to Earth (i.e. better costings, limitations on certain upgrades etc)


Really? Still on the Edar hate tripp? Sad, IMO.
I would like to see a Necron/Eldar/Tau upgrade for CSM. Especially Eldar style. The codices have gone and tried to make every unit viable, almost on pare with each other. That was good work. It was very successful with Eldar and Tau was well done as well. They now feel very "rules-meet-fluff" and especially the last two are still quite beatable.
CSM in such a style would offer the fluff players fun and the competitive players cheese. So that would be a great thing.
Around me the meta has changed with tau again, suddenly Eldar & Necrons try for CC again. The game has become more about tactics instead of statics...

Inquisitor Kallus
12-01-2016, 22:18
Really? Still on the Edar hate tripp? Sad, IMO.
I would like to see a Necron/Eldar/Tau upgrade for CSM. Especially Eldar style. The codices have gone and tried to make every unit viable, almost on pare with each other. That was good work. It was very successful with Eldar and Tau was well done as well. They now feel very "rules-meet-fluff" and especially the last two are still quite beatable.
CSM in such a style would offer the fluff players fun and the competitive players cheese. So that would be a great thing.
Around me the meta has changed with tau again, suddenly Eldar & Necrons try for CC again. The game has become more about tactics instead of statics...

I dont have a clue what you are talking about, I collect Eldar and dont hate them. Their codex on the other hand is ;eagues ahead of most other codexes, barring Necrons and Tau (Necrons generally only the decurion formation). The Eldar dex is ramped up to 20 and, though a fair deal of things are fluffy it seems like excessive rules and bonuses are just piled on to already solid choices. Id prefer to see a levelling out, but enough of the slightly off topic.


Core rules are for the most part ok, it would be nice to have different 'levels' of game so people dont have to worry too much in a pick up game about having their friendly force 'ambushed'. Though this only really happens in pick-up games

carldooley
13-01-2016, 00:08
Tomorrow probably.

I did have an idea the other day to make spamming weapons less viable. A sort of tax if you will. Along the lines of; if multiple squad members can take weapon upgrades and they all take the same, they must pay an extra points cost on top of what they have already paid.

So say you have EJBs and they all take SL. They would have to pay extra points on top of cost of the SL's. This could work across the board (grav cents and the like) and I would feel this would at least encourage more diversification.

I know this isn't exactly a core rule change but I felt like putting a few feelers out there anyhoo.
rather than math-ing it up, consider instead playing highlander. meaning you have to take each option available before doubling up.

Orthodox
13-01-2016, 00:18
But levels already exist. I'd rather not bring the wrong level and be forced by the rules to forfeit the game before it starts.

I don't thin that is different than having a game with a friend, being different types of player, and thus having to slog through a game that is that kind of totally one-sided ambush.

Neither of those things sound good compared to bringing the models we already decided to buy and spend time with and having a competitive game.

forbin
13-01-2016, 09:50
the one thing that hasnt been covered is

where's the profit incentive to GW to change the core rules ?

that is they have said they will make models forever , so as they create new models they change the rules to use them

Grand Master Raziel
13-01-2016, 16:05
My group has enjoyed a lot of success with just 3 house rules.
1: Minimum of 40% Troops
2: No allies
3: Psykers can only use their own power dice, not dice from another psyker.

Even with formations, the 40% Troops requirement keeps the cheese down, and the other rules prevent the ggame's most obnoxious shenanigans.

murgel2006
14-01-2016, 00:05
There are a few things I would like to see changed in the core rules. Like bring back the jumping/falling of buildings or correct the idiotic templates in buildings/ruins rules. And while we are house ruling this in my group it would be nice to have it official.

Quite frankly I would love to see a more variable rules set like the "leaked 6th". All in all I think the rules work ok around me, I do know however that the comp players are not happy at all and a variable rules set or an extra set of tournament rules could correct that. It would however, be counter productive to miniature sales, at least I think so.

Even more earthshaking would be the change of the dice. Personally I feel the D6 had reached its limit in 5th ed and GW should change to either D12 or D20 because it offers a wider range of stat values.
Still, I would hate to roll 32 or more D20... :eek:

Wolf Lord Balrog
14-01-2016, 01:38
Even more earthshaking would be the change of the dice. Personally I feel the D6 had reached its limit in 5th ed and GW should change to either D12 or D20 because it offers a wider range of stat values.
Still, I would hate to roll 32 or more D20... :eek:

I'm working on a set of rules using D10s. More range and granularity than D6s, maps to easier decimal counting, but still easier to roll than D20s. Plus it brings back fond memories of playing the old White Wolf RPGs. :)

Losing Command
14-01-2016, 07:33
I think the core rules would benefit the most from being written out properly and more clearly. Some rules are worded so vaguely that multiple interpretations are possible.

Oh and a few silly things could use adjusting (like a single Big Mek with mega-armour, which makes him slow-and-purposefull, joining a unit of lootas making them all able to move and shoot)

v0iddrgn
14-01-2016, 12:11
I think the core rules would benefit the most from being written out properly and more clearly. Some rules are worded so vaguely that multiple interpretations are possible.

Oh and a few silly things could use adjusting (like a single Big Mek with mega-armour, which makes him slow-and-purposefull, joining a unit of lootas making them all able to move and shoot)

I agree. I personally would like 8th edition to reign in on formations and detachments. I hate the supplements.They aren't even thinly veiled attempts at a cash-grab by GW.

Herecomesyourman
16-01-2016, 01:31
I'm a new player, who only briefly played smaller point games in the 90's...this year I've been getting back into gaming in a major way for the first time in nearly ten years. Turn based strategy is one of my favorite genres (as I was a Magic The Gathering player for over 10 years in competitive tournaments.) And I was hoping I could treat Warhammer 40K with the same kind of mind set. I don't mind paying good money for units, but I was games that really get into how good a player is, not how good they are at exploiting power imbalances. Obviously, in every game there are things that will tend to be superior in a zeitgeist sense, depending on editions. But as a new player, I'm concerned about this sort of talk. Is it largely considered that 40K has severe balance issues with 7th?

Wolf Lord Balrog
16-01-2016, 01:36
Obviously, in every game there are things that will tend to be superior in a zeitgeist sense, depending on editions. But as a new player, I'm concerned about this sort of talk. Is it largely considered that 40K has severe balance issues with 7th?

Power creep and balance issues are at an all-time high in 7E. Unless you make extensive pre-arrangements with your opponent beforehand (or you are running very similar armies), the likelihood is very high that you will have a hilarious mis-match and one of you will get roflstomped.

Charistoph
16-01-2016, 02:07
Power creep and balance issues are at an all-time high in 7E. Unless you make extensive pre-arrangements with your opponent beforehand (or you are running very similar armies), the likelihood is very high that you will have a hilarious mis-match and one of you will get roflstomped.

Still, it has been around for quite some time, with 5th Edition codices being the Vanguard.

Rogue Star
16-01-2016, 07:30
While I wouldn't want 40k to get that level of simplicity, I do think the rules right now are incredibly overcomplicated.

It's the bloat. All the additions and extras snipped from Apocalypse, Alter of War, Death from the Skies, etc that have long gone out of print but a rule here and there have been carried over has snowballed and turned the basic, straight up hour-and-a-half/two hour 1500pts games into a needlessly complicated chore. The sheer number of additions added have resulted in even the game designers, as noted...


GW's biggest problem in 40K isn't the complexity alone, it is that they tend to ignore half of what they have already written.

... rarely remember all the little extras now mixed into the soup.

The game would benefit massively from a rework, as happened with the jump from 2nd edition to 3rd.

Herecomesyourman
16-01-2016, 08:39
Power creep and balance issues are at an all-time high in 7E. Unless you make extensive pre-arrangements with your opponent beforehand (or you are running very similar armies), the likelihood is very high that you will have a hilarious mis-match and one of you will get roflstomped.

That's seriously disappointing. I've been gearing up to invest in a mid sized army while doing a bit of research the last few weeks. Aren't GW concerned about getting new players? Games like these thrive on Internet based researching due to the personal investment of time and money involved. I'm guessing from what I'm reading that Eldar lead the pack for power gaming currently, but since tournaments are held (one of the main reasons I wanted to start playing), I'm kind of baffled that attention to detail with rules and balance are lacking with a game system as old as this.

Herecomesyourman
16-01-2016, 08:44
My group has enjoyed a lot of success with just 3 house rules.
1: Minimum of 40% Troops
2: No allies
3: Psykers can only use their own power dice, not dice from another psyker.

Even with formations, the 40% Troops requirement keeps the cheese down, and the other rules prevent the game's most obnoxious shenanigans.

Do you mean 40% of points have to be spent of troops? All in all I like the idea of house rules if the game needs it...and the whole "Allies" thing feels like a cash grab to make people buy more models rather than play to the strengths of their army lists. Also I have yet to run any practice games with psykers as the rules seem to be the most random and I wanted to get more into basic mechanics first. Are we seeing a lot of psyker abuse in game play with 7th?

Herecomesyourman
16-01-2016, 08:46
I'm working on a set of rules using D10s. More range and granularity than D6s, maps to easier decimal counting, but still easier to roll than D20s. Plus it brings back fond memories of playing the old White Wolf RPGs. :)

Love WW! Also that sounds cool.

Charistoph
16-01-2016, 13:59
... rarely remember all the little extras now mixed into the soup.

The game would benefit massively from a rework, as happened with the jump from 2nd edition to 3rd.

Maybe. The biggest example is how they changed the Shooting Sequence, but didn't update rules that allow for multiple targets or Ordnance to avoid confusion or shenanigans.


That's seriously disappointing. I've been gearing up to invest in a mid sized army while doing a bit of research the last few weeks. Aren't GW concerned about getting new players? Games like these thrive on Internet based researching due to the personal investment of time and money involved. I'm guessing from what I'm reading that Eldar lead the pack for power gaming currently, but since tournaments are held (one of the main reasons I wanted to start playing), I'm kind of baffled that attention to detail with rules and balance are lacking with a game system as old as this.

GW is concerned about getting new modelers, not new gamers. They officially do not recognize themselves as a game company, but a modeling company. Any rules are a side note to sell models.

Of course good rules sell models, so why doesn't everything have good rules? They haven't quite figured that out yet.

Fangschrecken
16-01-2016, 20:19
I really want to see restrictions on some of the larger units and formations. My gaming group generally gets together and randomly assigns matches, so I like to bring a balanced list, but it's hard to bring something that can deal with that damned giant Tau suit or even a riptide without wasting points in other matches.
I mean, I have no issue with monstrous creatures most of the time. Fexes and wraithlords are ok and even if spammed in a CAD list don't break the game, but you put a multi wound 2+ 5++ (or 3++) shooting machine on the board that can blast you and jump out of range is just a pain to kill and really really game breaking to a balanced list unless you always bring a dedicated suicide squad to alpha strike it. Maybe I just like the idea of a combined arms force moving across the field seizing ground.

comradeda
17-01-2016, 03:55
Of course good rules sell models, so why doesn't everything have good rules? They haven't quite figured that out yet.

Because when everyone has good rules, no one does.

Obviously, this applies when good rules mean that a unit is powerful, not good as in well written or particularly smooth to play with.

Grand Master Raziel
17-01-2016, 14:07
Do you mean 40% of points have to be spent of troops? All in all I like the idea of house rules if the game needs it...and the whole "Allies" thing feels like a cash grab to make people buy more models rather than play to the strengths of their army lists. Also I have yet to run any practice games with psykers as the rules seem to be the most random and I wanted to get more into basic mechanics first. Are we seeing a lot of psyker abuse in game play with 7th?

Yes, I mean 40% of points have to be spent on Troops. That does include their dedicated transports.

I haven't seen the psyker abuse, but that's because I read about it before starting to play the current edition, and came up with the house rule to head it off. In addition, it makes having a single psyker relevant against an army with a lot of psykers, because the psyker-heavy army can't just pool all their dispel dice and shut the single psyker down completely.

murgel2006
17-01-2016, 15:19
That's seriously disappointing. I've been gearing up to invest in a mid sized army while doing a bit of research the last few weeks. Aren't GW concerned about getting new players? Games like these thrive on Internet based researching due to the personal investment of time and money involved. I'm guessing from what I'm reading that Eldar lead the pack for power gaming currently, but since tournaments are held (one of the main reasons I wanted to start playing), I'm kind of baffled that attention to detail with rules and balance are lacking with a game system as old as this.

Don't let the people drag you down. There is a faction of negatives who claim 7th to be really bad with power creep and rules etc. and then there are those who say the exact opposite. so make up your own mind.

CWE are currently really good but Necrons are still leading the pack by far and Tau can beat them easily as well as can any of the other new supplements and Codices.

I like 7th very much and am having much fun playing it. The power creep is not as bad people make it, still the last few codices (Necron, CWE, SM, DA, RG, Cadia, WSc, etc.) have significantly more power then the older ones (CSM, Orks etc.) BUT they are on pare to each other or at least close enough to still have entertaining games.
The one fault the game currently has is the scenarios (Mission and Deployment) which are in use by most gamers. There are many others around (official GW) but people tent to restrict it to the BRB and that's it. Play a variety of missions and you will have real challenges and real fun games.

Thirdeye
17-01-2016, 17:45
The core rules that need fixed the most are the UGOIGO game turn mechanics and the chart/characteristic based combat resolution system.

While many players recognize the faults of UGOIGO it really surprises me how many players accept GW’s terrible combat resolution system. Its overly complicated, time consuming, and clunky. It’s requires players the juggle seven characteristics, all expressed on a ten scale, but resolved with a D6. It requires multiple dice rolls and several charts just to resolve a simple attack. And even that tedious process is more often than not interrupted by any one of a plethora of special rules and re-rolls.

A far better way is a dice roll-off system, with different dice types used to represent different Skill/Armor/equipment. See Force on Force and Tomorrow’s War. It’s the best combat resolution system for 40K and the Community should embrace it.

vlad78
17-01-2016, 18:55
People point a finger at formations as the evil of this edition, but what have they really done to hurt things? With them Gladius provides a strong but fluffy MSU alternative that keeps pace with other power lists, Dark Angels are awesome and powerful for the first time since..... Ever? Necrons are upper mid tier due to sheer durability, war convocation holds it's own, and Tau are about to make a comeback. Eldar don't need their formations, but they do add diversity to their builds.

Without formations? All that goes away, and your pretty much get back to psychic fueled death stars, grav spam, and Eldar bike spam on a competative level. Frankly I think we are better with formations and the diversity they bring.

I think it's the diversity that everyone is really complaining about. The vocal minority is up in arms because they are used to making 5th edition style, relatively balanced, take all comers lists. Those are now the white buffalo of 40k, and are extremely hard to find. The battle ground has expanded and there is just too much ground to cover. Those that try are the ones getting frustrated right now.

The question is, should a 1,500 point list be able to handle everything that can be thrown at it? If that answer is yes, then you are going to hate 7th. For me the answer is, not necessarily, and Rock Paper Scissors isn't necessarily a bad thing. This game is more random than ever before, and the mechanics themselves can screw you more than your opponent ever can (cough... cough.. Maelstrom).

I like the variety. I remember 4th and 5th edition. It seemed to jump from one power list to another and you either played it or built against it. Nidzilla, lash princes, nob bikers, leaf blower, 5th edition SWs, grey Knights...etc. In 6th edition it was all about psychic Death Stars towards the 2nd half. All based around an unkillable unit. I've enjoyed the current variety, and there are more strategies involved.

I disagree with that because many games are won before they even started and rock paper scissor is making things even worse. A game favoring all comers lists rewards the better player far more imho.

vlad78
17-01-2016, 18:57
The core rules that need fixed the most are the UGOIGO game turn mechanics and the chart/characteristic based combat resolution system.

While many players recognize the faults of UGOIGO it really surprises me how many players accept GW’s terrible combat resolution system. Its overly complicated, time consuming, and clunky. It’s requires players the juggle seven characteristics, all expressed on a ten scale, but resolved with a D6. It requires multiple dice rolls and several charts just to resolve a simple attack. And even that tedious process is more often than not interrupted by any one of a plethora of special rules and re-rolls.

A far better way is a dice roll-off system, with different dice types used to represent different Skill/Armor/equipment. See Force on Force and Tomorrow’s War. It’s the best combat resolution system for 40K and the Community should embrace it.

The UGOIGO system needs to go, plain and simple. Alternate activation of units would make this game far better.

Charistoph
17-01-2016, 23:12
The UGOIGO system needs to go, plain and simple. Alternate activation of units would make this game far better.

Or alternatively, a system closer to Battletech where players use each Phase at the same time. The challenge with that is who goes first each Phase.

Thirdeye
18-01-2016, 01:15
Or alternatively, a system closer to Battletech where players use each Phase at the same time. The challenge with that is who goes first each Phase.

Yeah, there are a bunch of ways of doing a more interactive turn sequence, some better than others for a game like 40K. You can do it with Phases based on Orders. Old Epic used something like that. There were three basic Orders: Charge, Advance, and First-Fire. Units with CH moved first, then Adv. moved, then units on FF shot first, then units with Adv. Orders shot, then Charge units shot.

As for who goes first in each Order Phase, you can do that a number of different ways as well. You can do a simple roll-off to see who goes first, then alternate actions, or you could use an Initiative or Leadership value, then alternate actions, or a combination of both: roll-off with a modifier based on Initiative or Leadership, then alternate. Thing is, since its by Orders, the higher Initiative or Leadership armies don’t necessarily go first.

Wolf Lord Balrog
18-01-2016, 01:26
Or alternatively, a system closer to Battletech where players use each Phase at the same time. The challenge with that is who goes first each Phase.
This is my personal favorite idea. Do initiative like Battletech too: Roll off at the beginning of each turn (as I remember it only really made a difference in the movement phase though).

murgel2006
21-01-2016, 09:50
This is my personal favorite idea. Do initiative like Battletech too: Roll off at the beginning of each turn (as I remember it only really made a difference in the movement phase though).
Sure is a better way then what GW does (which I really never saw any logic in).
Still I would prefer if it were initiative based and damage resolution not simultaniously. i.e. like this:
- Use unit ini plus D to determine order of action for every unit.
- Movement is done reverse to this order, low value first, making high ini units better at response)
- weapons fire, etc. is done in order, making low ini units better at support. This also represents nicely the high ini units calling out for help.

Fangschrecken
21-01-2016, 21:25
I'm unfamiliar with battletech, is it similar to the betrayl at calth activation sequence?

Charistoph
21-01-2016, 23:39
I'm unfamiliar with battletech, is it similar to the betrayl at calth activation sequence?

I haven't run Calth, so I couldn't say.

Roll for Initiative.
Players take turns moving units, with larger proportions moving more units per alternations.
Once all are moved, Shooting is declared in the same manner.
Rolls are then made and damage assessed. Damage is applied at the end of the Phase.
Charging and the Assault Phase would be added to the end here.

Makes Overwatch less necessary/desired fix and being stuck in the open after a good Charge result less likely.

de Selby
22-01-2016, 00:23
That's seriously disappointing. I've been gearing up to invest in a mid sized army while doing a bit of research the last few weeks. Aren't GW concerned about getting new players? Games like these thrive on Internet based researching due to the personal investment of time and money involved. I'm guessing from what I'm reading that Eldar lead the pack for power gaming currently, but since tournaments are held (one of the main reasons I wanted to start playing), I'm kind of baffled that attention to detail with rules and balance are lacking with a game system as old as this.

we're all baffled.

As someone who refus ed to spend on the latest edition of supplements I would quite like to see it all torn down and started again from a rational foundation, but gw don't have the capability to do that. Their designers exist to service new releases.