PDA

View Full Version : With regard to change



Nurglitch
16-08-2005, 02:05
++Deleted++

burzikak
16-08-2005, 02:19
I voted for option 2, but i would like to see an expansion of psyhic powers and the inclusion of a psychic phase (like magic in WHFB) but that would unfortunatley require an entire rewrite

starlight
16-08-2005, 02:19
Minor changes.

While some of the rules from 2nd Ed would be welcome, I don't want a return to the mirco-detailed days of yore. If you want to play that way, check out Necromunda or Inquisitor in 40K scale. 40K should stay unit based, not model based.

That being said, I'd also like to see more and better codexes and expansions a la Storm of Chaos and Eye of Terror. More options!

Maybe GW will get a grip and start putting more rules/army lists in WD or on their website (in PDF form) for playtesting.

Kahadras
16-08-2005, 02:34
I would like to see quite a major overhaul of the rules. One of my main gripes is the fact that winning the first turn can sometimes decide who is going to win the game. I would prefer to see a Battletech esque system in which both sides deal damage simultaniously in a go and 'dead' models are removed at the end of the turn.

Kahadras

Vic
16-08-2005, 03:06
I voted for option 2, but i would like to see an expansion of psyhic powers and the inclusion of a psychic phase (like magic in WHFB) but that would unfortunatley require an entire rewrite


Not me. The psychic phase became a game winning joke in 2nd ed. Keep it in WHFB where it belongs IMHO.

Psiweapon
16-08-2005, 03:11
there's a simple change you can all do to make things more even, risky and dynamic, and to override the 1st turn hegemony issue.

Player 1 does movement phase
Player 2 does movement phase
Player 1 does shooting phase
Player 2 does shooting phase
Player 1 does assault phase
Player 2 does assault phase.

Due to some heavy rules misinterpretation, my first game was played that way. And it works! Just change that, and if some odd thing conflicts with this order of phases, just resort to common sense or make an agreement with your buddy.

Alco Engineer
16-08-2005, 03:21
Minor changes.

While some of the rules from 2nd Ed would be welcome, I don't want a return to the mirco-detailed days of yore. If you want to play that way, check out Necromunda or Inquisitor in 40K scale. 40K should stay unit based, not model based.


I agree. I remmeber one mate who used to take up to 2 hours to write his army list in 2nd Ed because he went through and read every wargear card, every time before he wrote out his army list. This was incredibly frustrating as we'd have an army list sorted in 10-115mins at most and would just be sitting around waiting while he read them all.

It was fun to have personalised characters that could do whatever you wnated them to and you could gear them up for certain situations (Eg. the warpspider Exarch with Vortex grenade one me one tournament on his own, Or the Farseer on Speed that'd axe anything in HTH combat.) But that took the fun away and I rather the current attitude towards characters as a back up to the troops. The troops are the most important thing, not just making up the minimum req's so that you could max out on vehicles and characters.

A few creases ironed out. Maybe a little more complexity but not as bad as 2nd Ed.

Alco Engineer
16-08-2005, 04:46
I did, but he didn't own Dark Millenium, so always insisted on reading them all. Admittedly I didn't have it either but I was so used to what I liked I generally knew what I was looking for. Normally we knew we wanted a game but sometimes we'd rock up unprepared.

Grumnir
16-08-2005, 05:44
Any effect which in some way represents suppressing fire.

f2k
16-08-2005, 07:24
I voted for a complete overhaul…

Mind you, I don’t want to go back to the hyper-detailed rules of 2. ed., but I do think that the current rules are inherently flawed.

Bring back modifiers, both to BS and armour saves
Tone down hth and put the emphasis on shooting. Alternatively, leave hth alone, but up the power of shooting by quite a bit.
Bring back some of the funky wargear and weapons.
Change the rules to a D10 based system. This goes for Fantasy too…
Return the fluff to the dark gothic days of Rouge Trader and early 2. ed.

Ok, so the last one doesn’t really have much to do with the rules…

The current rules are heavily slanted towards MEQs, and therefore everybody loads up on AP3 weapons. Is it to much to ask that marines get toned a bit down? Hmm, knowing GW, it probably is…

In any case, I don’t think that the flaws in the current system can be worked out without a complete rewrite…

Malakai
16-08-2005, 07:37
My biggest gripe is that the Codex sizes are no where near what they used to be in second edition. I don't want to buy White Dwarfs or seperate books for the full skinny on my army. I want to get all of that in one comprehensive book. Nothing wrong with expanding the fluff in other mediums like WD after that, but I want the largest concentration of it to be in my army books. Guess that's nothing to do with the rules and OT so here ya go, I voted for expansion of the current rules (new codicies and expansions).

Malakai

Wraithlord
16-08-2005, 07:42
I voted for major change.

I like the game to be more dynamic, not a contest who can field more heavy weapons.

Modifiers would be nice, for range, cover, armour, weapon type. Maybe change the die from d6 to d20 to have a larger skale of options avaliable. And only one type of die.

What about something like in Starship Troopers, a Reaction System?
A bit more details in the vehicle rules would be nice also.

EyEwitness
16-08-2005, 09:09
I'd like to see a move back to a more detailed game, but not as detailed as 2nd edition. I've never liked playing 40k since 3rd edition.

Modifiers to armour and BS, a movement stat again (6" is too much as a standard move, especially as most tables are only going to be 4'x4' or 6'x4'), better vehicle rules (and tougher skimers), and a move away from so much Close combat.

He Who Laughs
16-08-2005, 10:55
I agree. I remmeber one mate who used to take up to 2 hours to write his army list in 2nd Ed because he went through and read every wargear card, every time before he wrote out his army list. This was incredibly frustrating as we'd have an army list sorted in 10-115mins at most and would just be sitting around waiting while he read them all.

Who was that - Grat, Steggles or Gav? Alcohol has addled my brain...


Or the Farseer on Speed that'd axe anything in HTH combat.)

Ahh, memories. It's something the younger generations don't get to appreciate - having a grizzled old 1000 year old Farseer smacking out on combat drugs, swinging his witchblade around his head (whilst still managing to control his Jetbike :cheese: ), killing Marines left right and centre before he completely wigs out, has a heart attack and dies from stimulant abuse. Those were fun games.

I must admit, that while I get a longful tear in my eye when I remember some of the funky in-depth rules of 2nd ed, I'm quite glad those days are gone - having to crack open the rulebooks every 5 minutes wasn't condusive to have good, fast games. Thank the Emperor that overwatch has gone - gee that used to s**t me...

I'd have to agree with psiweapon though, the LOTR turn structure would probably have its merits.

Psiweapon
16-08-2005, 15:01
wow, LOTR turns go that way??

I didn't knew.

I just thought that it would be common sense that both turns interactuate, and not: -First turn: I move for the emperor, I shoot the heck of you for the emperor, I assault you for the emperor, and I r@pe your @ss for the emperor. Your turn"
-Second turn: My guardians commit suicide to feed Ynnead.

archangels uk
16-08-2005, 15:26
#Fluff advancement please

Xander-K
16-08-2005, 17:09
being able to move shoot then move again i.e. marine moves 3 inches rapid fire then move another 3 inches back into cover (much like crystal targetting matrix, but for all units).

Which means you couldn't move BACK into the same cover, but it would have to be moving past a small fire lane and into new cover.

Cade
16-08-2005, 19:11
Minor changes for me;

Clarifications and loop-hole closures for the main rules.

More fluff in the Codexes.

Helicon_One
16-08-2005, 19:34
#Fluff advancement please

Yeah, we want Warhammer 41,000!

I'm not sure my preference quite fits in, I said major changes but what I really want to see is 'extensive tweaking'. Stick with the basic structure of the current ruleset, but there are numerous additions and modifications that would lead to improvements in the current ruleset. I have a text document I keep adding ideas to, in anticipation of either GW going bust, them hiring me to write 5th Ed, or me finding a gaming group that I can inflict TimHammer 40,000 on....

Tim

Flame Boy
16-08-2005, 20:14
I'd like 2nd-ed style weapon ranges, save modifiers and to-hit modifiers, phychic powers can happily exist without a psychic phase, clearly the 3rd edition psycher purge has been undone, so psychic models aren't so hopelessly boring anymore.

I'd like rules that make vehicles behave more like vehicles and not odd roving bunkers with multiple guns that can only fire in one direction at once...

I think the psychic phase and the close combat phase were the biggest hindrances in 2nd edition, and those have both been extensively streamlined or removed. From an outsider's point of view, 4th edition assault loks a bit confusing with it's average armour rules and other wierd rules that are hard to justify in one's mind, but it's much easier than 2nd edition.

The one-on one duels between characters were better in second edition by far, because of the parry, critical hit and fumble rules, but the overall focus on unit-based combat made it ridiculously unwieldy to use this system in large battles.

I think the old 2nd edition ideas of various modifiers should be taken in spirit and re-developed rather than just dug up again, there just needs to be a better system than the AP system in my opinion, but it should be an advance, rather than just heading back to the 2nd edition shooting phase, as fun as it was to open far with Missile launchers 72" away to pummel the enemy...

I think vehicles shoud be more mobile, able to fire at multiple targets with their different weapon systems and the armour system should be reworked so that APC vehicles aren't so vulnerable (It seems odd to me that a Rhino is actually quite feebly armoured for a hulking great chunk of plasteel, even bolt pistols can kill it, right?). This would mean that vehicles would be more valuable, but a rarer sight. having about three tanks, three APCs and a couple of infantry squads is somewhat odd unless it's deliberately designed as a mechanised army. Then again, in this case I'm trying to increase the survivability and power of vehicles but I'm not really considering game balance, so I guess it's just my personal preference showing through.



Anyway, more shooting options, more depth to vehicle operation, a reliable close combat system that doesn't require the player to use the majority of a squad for toughness/armour resolution. More options for characters and officers, thought not neccessarily more power, just more modelling opportunities and more character for erm.... characters... Yeah. lol

Nurglitch
17-08-2005, 18:41
++Deleted++

Gethalorre
17-08-2005, 18:53
I would like:

- BS and Armour modifiers.
- HtH less decisive/shooting moreso
- More wargear
- A more tactical game


pretty please...

athamas
17-08-2005, 19:20
i would say more tactical.. and ASM...


for 1 version of more tactical read: less power weapons!
currently there are too many power weapons..... a company will have a few [2-5] veteran sgt's, with a power weapon or 2 between them.. not 1 in every squad...
games seem to revolve around who can get the most power weapon attacks first... [tau vs necrons is a good game for this reason!]

Gethalorre
18-08-2005, 11:47
because they're so overly effective against the hugely over proportioned amount of 3+ save armies that they're a no-brainer. SM and CSM are so widely used that they need to be underpowered quite a bit.

If it's tactical, that would mean you'd have to think more, so no-brainer=bad.

lord_blackfang
18-08-2005, 12:14
Except for some minor quirks, I like the game as it is.

I doubt any of the major features like the turn sequence or die type will ever be changed. We have other game systems for that, both GW's and others'. Try Epic.

berzerka
18-08-2005, 16:22
Gethalorre: So what you're saying is that the prevalence of power weapons reduces the number of live options open to a player?

guess not. what's the last time you deployed a whole company of space marines.

Wolflord Havoc
18-08-2005, 16:33
Right - don't get me wrong - I love the game and get a great deal of enjoyment from it.

However.....

I think the game could be easily 'calmed' by having characters given the same Stats as the basic troopers.

Now before you dismiss this idea out of hand can some one explain why a 45 year old Imperial Guard Colonel would have 3 wounds and 3 attacks compared to a 21 year old Trooper.

The same with Space Marines - how many times have you seen a tooled up character (Artificer Armour + Lightning claws etc) smash into a squad and route it single handedly. Wheres the tactics? Now if the same character was coming in with 3 attacks rather than 6 and only has 1 wound.....it makes the whole prospect more fraught.

Characters should be there for their leadership abilities or other subtle skills not as one man killing machines using the rest of their army as ablative armor (IE Dark Eldar Lords).

However my pet hate is how over powering HTH is (Or can be) - my pet hate being a HTH unit charges a units destroys/routs it and then 'consolidates/follows up into another squad.

In previous versions of the game a unit that 'sweeping advanced' into another unit could have the 'proverbial' shot out of it by the squad being 'swept' before HTH - this made perfect sense to me but it was dropped in 4th Ed!?!?!? Especially if the unit being 'swept' was a heavy weapon team of some description.

I suppose you could argue that blast and flamer weapons would be ineffective/impracticle against a unit in base contact etc etc but you could simply use the rules from city fight ie D3 hits for a blast template D6 for a flamer template and D6 for an Ordinance weapon. Or I seem to remember some trial rules on the GW site some years back that allowed a unit to shoot first forgoing its HTH attacks during an assault phase during the first round of HTH.

Or simply bring back overwatch? Hmmm Maybe not!

Master Fulgrim
18-08-2005, 22:06
Well, i would go for an D20-system, as it adds more difficulty between the characters without the big jumps you have now. That would balance the whole system quite better. Also you dont need stupid specialrules anymore, as you could create different units by just changing a few points in their skills.

Fulgrim

lord_fenric
19-08-2005, 09:17
I'd guess i'd have to go with major changes. Whilst i like the current edition of the game some of the *new* (i.e. 3rd editon additions) just don't fit well, and removing them would be a major rewrite.

The obvious contenders are the re-addition of dice modifiers. Whilst i can see the argument that they could slow the game down with the reduction in the number of weapons available to troops now that would be heavily mitigated.

athamas
19-08-2005, 09:44
the D10 system would be better, as its a single digit stat, and would work much better,


also allow more variation!

lord_blackfang
19-08-2005, 09:44
Well, i would go for an D20-system, as it adds more difficulty between the characters without the big jumps you have now. That would balance the whole system quite better. Also you dont need stupid specialrules anymore, as you could create different units by just changing a few points in their skills.

Fulgrim

Which would be, IMO, boring as hell.
I'd rather have a unit stand out because it has a special rule (like Sharpshooters, say) than because it has BS 14 instead of 12. As the previous edition of Epic demonstrated, people can't indentify themselves with a unit that's no more than a string of digits.

athamas
19-08-2005, 10:04
hence the reason why D10 would work better as its a single digit!

Adept
19-08-2005, 13:02
I think the lack of charge reactions, the way cover works and the way armour works could be improved to make the decisions made during the game more important than the decisions made before the game.

As it stands, Marines trump all. You can take a Marine army, and reliably trounce any take-all-comers non-marine army. Because chances are, that army is comprised of troops with an armour save of 5+ or worse, and without the 4's statline of Marines.

The metagame has taken care of this imbalance, since people know that marines are so prevalent, and they tool out on S6+ and AP3+ weapons. Things that remove the Marines natural advantages. My problem with this is twofold. Firstly, it's really the only way to remain competitive. If you don't have to tools to kill marines, you are fighting an uphill battle all the way. Secondly, it's a choice that has to be made before the game starts, when you are building your list. You can't make decisions during the game, or create situations during the game where you can increase the effectiveness of the lighter weapons, like autocannons or heavy bolters.

By introducing armour save modifiers, you can prevent Marines from wiping out Guardsmen, Eldar and Orks without recourse to an armour save. And you can make the heavy anti-infantry weapons actually worth firing at a Marine squad. Which means that things like heavy bolters and autocannons are much more viable options since they are still deadly dangerous to light infantry, but can give marines a hell of a scare as well.

By changing cover from an extra (often useless for marines) save into a "to-hit' modifier, all armies can benefit from it equally.

Charge reactions gives the game a whole other level of tactical options. Units about to be assaulted to bits by big angry monsters should have the option of hitching their skirts up and running like girls. It simultaneously makes an assault a more risky venture (as it should be), gives a defensive firing line an advantage (as it should be) and gives commanders extra options. I think 40K can learn a lot from WHFB in terms of panic tests and charge reactions. Making a unit fall back instead of recieveing an assault might prevent the unit from getting mauled in combat, and allow you another turn to shoot the assaulting unit, but your other units within 6" might decide to fall back as well. And a single tactical withdrawal could easily turn into a full blown rout.

Anyway, I think those three (relatively) minor changes could make the game much more interesting, and fair.

Sai-Lauren
19-08-2005, 14:17
What I would do.

Bring back ASM, and movement stats

Splitting file from units (including vehicles with multiple crew) - with a ld test and allow only a single separate target for the squad heavy weapons (eg, a tactical squad with a ML and flamer could open up with bolters and flamers at a nearby infantry squad, whilst the ML fires on a tank or the infantry, whilst a devastator squad with an LC, 2HBs and an ML faced with the same options can dump it's bolters and heavy bolters into the infantry, whilst the ML and LC go tank hunting). Fail the test, no firing at all.

Properly play-tested VDR, to iron some of the inconsistencies out.

Grenades, but limited so games don't end in frag-fests.
(What's just popped into my head is make the like a normal shooting attack, but each grenade type has a to hit modifier to represent it's blast radius - so frag might be +0 to hit, whilst crack might be -2 and non-lethals like smoke/blind might be +1 to hit, and if you can manage to get more hits on a unit than there are models, the attacks strength is increased by one for each multiple - so 8 hits on a unit of three would be +2 - makes big units of stikkbommas scary if you can get them close :eek: . Say a max of three grenades per model, and if you've lost track, you've run out.)

Improved psyker powers, but not so they're game shattering (well, not unless you're Ahriman, Eldrad or some similar special character ;) - but they'll have minimum game size limits of several thousand points a pop).

Move marines away from their current dominance of the entire game.
More doctrines for guard, so assault guard (as in the RT era list style), rough rider companies, engineer companies, PDFs/militia and other formations are possible.
Bring back the ork clans, and maybe introduce a couple more.
Variations on the other lists, to give flavours to the different Tau septs, the forces of the individual C'Tan, some of the more noteworthy hive fleet talons (reflecting the different forces they've engaged and evolved against), the cults and kabals of the Dark Eldar and so on.

Start a second tier set of armies, such as the AM, Exodites, Harlequins (and possibly crone world eldar), Demiurg, Hrud, Mercenaries and so on, with a few units in a semi-official list, not too competitive list (so they're legal for tournaments, even if they may not do very well), with the guarantee that if they reach a certain point in sales, they'll move to full army status and be worked on properly.

More scenarios other than line-up equal points and do x. Things like convoy ambushes by infiltrators, raids on command posts/fuel or ammo dumps, seiges etc - where one side has only a fraction of the troops of the other side, but can claim victory if they destroy the objectives, or hold out for x length of time. Kill team kind of gets there, but doesn't quite go far enough IMO. Basically, to try and promote an attitude other than "guns, big guns, bigger guns, nuke the site from orbit, win at all costs - even if it's not enjoyable anymore".

Adept
19-08-2005, 15:07
More scenarios other than line-up equal points and do x. Things like convoy ambushes by infiltrators, raids on command posts/fuel or ammo dumps, seiges etc - where one side has only a fraction of the troops of the other side, but can claim victory if they destroy the objectives, or hold out for x length of time. Kill team kind of gets there, but doesn't quite go far enough IMO. Basically, to try and promote an attitude other than "guns, big guns, bigger guns, nuke the site from orbit, win at all costs - even if it's not enjoyable anymore".

Problem with that is that it requires pre-thought out lists. I, and most gamers I know, simply don't have the time. We rock on up to the club night, don't know who we are playing (or even who will be there) and don't have the time to sit down and write a list especially for the next game, nor the ability to transport all of our miniatures at once so we can pick and choose. It's pick-up gaming. The scenarios we have now are great. They force people to do things other than sit and shoot, the extra levels of difficulty (alpha, gamma, omega) put a dampner on 'first-turn-I-win' syndrome, and I can play all of them with a reasonable chance with a single pre-written list.

The only people that funky extra scenarios would benefit are the people who arrange games with each other on a regular basis. And these people probably just make up their own scenarios anyway.

useless
19-08-2005, 19:06
change the races and destroy the tyranids! damn them! damn them to hell! stupid lictors! : :D:

starlight
19-08-2005, 19:14
Problem with that is that it requires pre-thought out lists.

And?

Buy a decent case (I use a Battlepack) and have a stack of variant lists in your transport case and whip out whichever one works for the given battle. I have several lists pre-made incase my opponent doesn't have enough points for a given limit. I have Combat patrol, 500pt, 750pt, 1000pt, 1250pt, 1500pt, 1750pt, 1850pt, 2000pt and 2500pt ready to go and just use the appropriate models. With this basis, I can play just about any game with little, if any, modification to my lists.

Captain Brown
19-08-2005, 19:46
I am getting old and the constant changing of the rules is starting to get hard to keep up with. So minor tweaks are fine by me.

Adept
20-08-2005, 08:27
And?

And not everyone can carry 10,000 points of miniatures at once, safely.