PDA

View Full Version : 40K rules revision *discussion*



Carlos
25-08-2007, 20:24
There are several rumours floating around that 40K may get a rules revision next year. This won't be the 5th edition but more of a 'patch' to make some things flow easier.

Any hazardous guesses as to what might change? I can see the terrain rules getting a bit of a re-jig with 'size X and area blah' being simplified to 'If you can see it, you can shoot it with various saves for cover'

The-Malefic
25-08-2007, 20:29
The area terrain rules are the only glaringly bad part imo, so yes I could see and indeed would like them to be re-jigged.

However, I'm not sure if I'd rather wait for 5th ed than have some kind of 'patch' which will probably get abused and whatever else.

Necronlord3
25-08-2007, 20:39
The area terrain rules are the only glaringly bad part imo, so yes I could see and indeed would like them to be re-jigged.

However, I'm not sure if I'd rather wait for 5th ed than have some kind of 'patch' which will probably get abused and whatever else.

If any patches were added to 40k I would like to see a change to initiative. More of a back and forth I move you move sorta thing, rather than the one roll win initiative for the entire game.

TheOneWithNoName
25-08-2007, 20:42
There going to be any real rumours in here or just a wishlist session?

Lord Malek The Red Knight
25-08-2007, 20:51
I could see them tweaking the Reserves rules again (I get the impression the studio dont stick to the RaW).

aside from that, they just need to finish all the incomplete rules and rethink the silly parts in the (:eyebrows:) FAQ.

~Tim
EDIT:
The area terrain rules are the only glaringly bad part imo, so yes I could see and indeed would like them to be re-jigged.

whats wrong with the Area Terrain rules?

i find them particularly elegant, personally. :)

of course, they could do with taking things further (for example, implementing a Sz stat, say, between 1-10 for everything), and eliminate WYSIWYG LOS altogether... but that would have the downside (from their POV) of making it easier for people to play without actually using models...

TheStrategist
25-08-2007, 20:57
If any patches were added to 40k I would like to see a change to initiative. More of a back and forth I move you move sorta thing, rather than the one roll win initiative for the entire game.

:confused: You want 40K to become like LOTR???

Where's the fun in that?

Homemaster
25-08-2007, 21:09
pfffffff i agree entirely that they should just wait for a 5th ed. a patch might be useful but it could also be very messy.

also the initiative rules are good IMO why change it to what you suggest, they have initiative value for a reason...

Ravenheart
25-08-2007, 21:59
reds8n once mentoned a change of the shooting phase. Nothing specific, just that he wasn't to fond of the idea.

Strategems being 'en vouge' now, I wonder if there will be some for the core game. Or detachements on a smaller scale. I'd welcome it.

Mr Zephy
25-08-2007, 22:15
I imagine this will merely be more of a reprint for the rulebook, with revised rules in that ambiguous rules will be clarified ( incorrectly, this being GW, but still better).

(re-reading the thread, basically what M'Lud Malek said.)

Erazmus_M_Wattle
25-08-2007, 22:15
personally I don't think they should change the terrain rules. They do the job. Anyway just because a model is standing doesn't mean the soldier it represents is standing around shouting "over here, hey, shoot me!" I rather think may need to make the terrain rules more complex rather than simpler.

OverchargeThis!
25-08-2007, 22:17
THey'll probably fix vehicles. If the rumors I've heard about how vehicles work on Apoc end up working out, it's an easy port to 40K. The type of stuff I"m taking about is

one damage table.
glance rolls at a -2.
vehicles have a main weapon. The main weapon can ignore a weapon destroyed result on a 4+ and a shaken/stun result on a 4+.

Probably fix hull down so it always gives the glancing result.

This is all speculation, but I think apoc will be a test lab for much of the changes.

Bunnahabhain
25-08-2007, 22:27
Fix hills.
It just doesn't feel right that a model standing on a size three hill cannot see over the size three woods. Introduce a size 4, only for hills or very large buildings, and let people on a size 4 object see over a size 3 one....

GodHead
25-08-2007, 23:20
THey'll probably fix vehicles. If the rumors I've heard about how vehicles work on Apoc end up working out, it's an easy port to 40K. The type of stuff I"m taking about is

one damage table.
glance rolls at a -2.
vehicles have a main weapon. The main weapon can ignore a weapon destroyed result on a 4+ and a shaken/stun result on a 4+.

Probably fix hull down so it always gives the glancing result.

This is all speculation, but I think apoc will be a test lab for much of the changes.

That would be the best.

Maxis Lithium
26-08-2007, 03:34
Given some of the problems The Orks, Tau and Necron have with breaking from Combat, I suspect that there may be some changes to how you break off from combat. I don't know exactly how, but something so that Low I units don't get ripped up by fast moving assault units as often.

On a personal level, I would like to see changes to No Retreat, making it more devastating if units are heavily out numbered, as right now it's almost a non-factor.

Hellebore
26-08-2007, 03:53
Most of these sound cool, but appear to be more like edition changes rather than 'simple patches' unfortunately.

I'm trying to think what problems they would 'tweak'; the terrain system could do with a bit I think, I'm with lord Malek on Area terrain myself. Cuts out all the arguments over whether a target is obscured or not.

Perhaps wound alotment? The argument over whether an ork slaver takes wounds on T2 or not etc. At least make it a little clearer.

Perhaps they'll change certain USRs? Or alter some of the unit definitions?

I would like to see the 1 is always a fail rule applied to vehicles - at the moment it's pretty much the only rule I can think of where rolling a 1 doesn't fail to do something (a 1 to hit, a 1 to wound, but a 1 to penetrate...). At least it means there would be SOME chance a vehicle hit by a S10 weapon won't auto penetrate/glance....


Everything seems to run fairly smoothly at the moment - perhaps not the best way of doing things, but most of the game is coherent.

Hellebore

Darnok
26-08-2007, 07:33
Most of these sound cool, but appear to be more like edition changes rather than 'simple patches' unfortunately.

Really? I'd doubt that, simply because there are quite a few races without a 4th Ed. Codex, namely DE, IG and Necrons. And I would feeld quite ****ed if they bring out a big supplement like Apoc just to overhaul the complete game shortly afterwards.

Captain Cortez
26-08-2007, 07:39
In my oppinion if these rumours are true GW should just give out these changes for free via downloud from their homepage. I'm not buying another $50 rulebook that only has minor rule changes:mad::rolleyes:.

Lord Malek The Red Knight
26-08-2007, 14:32
Fix hills.
It just doesn't feel right that a model standing on a size three hill cannot see over the size three woods. Introduce a size 4, only for hills or very large buildings, and let people on a size 4 object see over a size 3 one....
first off, you shouldnt have "Size 3 hills" - hills should be WYSIWYG (p17) instead, which means they have no Size Category.
secondly, theres no such thing (based on the core rules - im ignoring FW/IA etc) as a "Size 4 object" (p7) - Sz 3 is the max, and as such nothing can see over it.

I used to be quite uncomfortable with the fact that standing on a hill made no difference when it came to seeing over Area Terrain/CC, but eventually i came to terms with the fact that the 3 broad Size Categories are just that abstract. and its no different really than the fact that an increase in Size Category (say, comparing a Necron Warrior Sz2 to Tomb Spyder Sz3) doesnt necessarily mean better vision over WYSIWYG LOS blockers either (as you can still have the same physical height).

by ditching WYSIWYG LOS/the use of physical size, and installing a bigger range of Size Categories (allowing each one to represent a narrower group of models/terrain), this couldbe avoided. it would also get rid of the fact that advantages/penalties can happen due to modelling/converting/using different versions of the same model.

then, for example, a Size 3 Space Marine can stand on a Size 6 hill and see over a Size 8 Rhino.

~ Tim

reds8n
26-08-2007, 15:17
reds8n once mentoned a change of the shooting phase. Nothing specific, just that he wasn't to fond of the idea.

.

I'd forgotten about that until you mentionned it just now.:D

Heard it was to do with ACTUAL los. As in NO area terrain or sizes, just if you can draw a line to it then you can see it.

As i mentionned before the topic pruning I wonder if it is to do with reserves/retinues etc.

Lord Malek The Red Knight
27-08-2007, 21:08
Heard it was to do with ACTUAL los. As in NO area terrain or sizes, just if you can draw a line to it then you can see it.

lets look at what that means:

at present, I can represent a wood in any of the following ways:
- a boundary line drawn on the board with the word "WOOD" written within it
- 3 plastic model trees stuck to a base
- dozens of model trees, some vines, bushes, leaves and grass stuck to a base
and they will all behave exactly the same ingame. :)

under this new idea, each of those woods would act completly differently ingame. to have a wood that blocks LOS completly from one side to the otheryou could quite possibly need hundreds of model trees, otherwise there might be a chance that a model could thread its LOS between the branches and leaves. 3 plastic trees stuck to a base wouldnt be able to represent a wood anymore, it would just be 3 trees (and would hardly block LOS to anything, by comparison).

why would anyone want to try to represent such things in an accurate manner, when doing so in an abstract fashion is so easy? :wtf: :confused:

unless GW start selling laser pointers i cant see such a change being imposed. ;)

~ Tim

Drogmir
27-08-2007, 23:11
I don't know about a patch but I would love to see a change to the charging in the 5th edition.

Striking 1st like in Fantasy makes more sense than +1 attack.

It's not very heroic to see space marines scream charge and the moment they go over the hill they get wiped by genestealers before being able to do 1 attack.

grickherder
27-08-2007, 23:36
Ummm. Genestealers. Anyone running at them should get carved into bite sized chunks. There's nothing heroic about charging those things-- that's just stupid. Ever since the days of old, genestealers have been more than capable of munching anything in close combat-- they are the natural predator of terminator armour-- always have been.

Seriously, theres nothing that needs fixing about genestealers beating space marines in close combat.

sebster
27-08-2007, 23:38
why would anyone want to try to represent such things in an accurate manner, when doing so in an abstract fashion is so easy? :wtf: :confused:

Ayup. If they changed the area terrain rule to LOS thing then you’d either have area terrain that blocks LOS or area terrain that models can be put in. It’s basically impossible to have a wood that’s thick enough to offer any kind of cover and to be able to fit models in. The current system provides a reasonable abstraction of that.

I could see them changing the current terrain rules. Not changing how they actually work, but just rewriting them to make them clearer. They’re quite good rules, but almost everybody has misinterpreted them, and often really, really badly.

Drogmir
27-08-2007, 23:41
Ummm. Genestealers. Anyone running at them should get carved into bite sized chunks. There's nothing heroic about charging those things-- that's just stupid. Ever since the days of old, genestealers have been more than capable of munching anything in close combat-- they are the natural predator of terminator armour-- always have been.

Seriously, theres nothing that needs fixing about genestealers beating space marines in close combat.

No the point was in real life the flow wouldn't make any sense. I'm assuming the charge is allowing them to get the drop on their enemy due to a sudden bust in speed. To have them wiped out on turn 1 just because their opponents are 1 initiative faster and not even have a chance to receive damage back seems kinda silly.

Hellebore
27-08-2007, 23:49
The way we've played terrain at the club I run is simply that EVERYTHING is area terrain, and anything within the boundaries of the terrain's edge (or touching it) receives the cover save.

It's cut down on the arguements over los et al.

Personally I think that terrain would benefit from being treated like a model with a stat line. Of course there are many, many different types of terrain, but if they listed a set of them, it would be easy for people to go off them.

So a terrain profile would look like this:

Size:
Save:
Movement:

You would have heavy and light forests;

Heavy Forest:
S: 3
Sv: 4+
M: Difficult

Light Forest:
S:2
Sv:5+
M: Difficult

etc.

The above applying to anything touching/within the area of the perimeter of the base.

EDIT: a better system would be:

Movement:
Open
Difficult
Very Difficult
Dangerous
Impassible

Save:
Light (6+)
Medium (5+)
Heavy (4+)
Dense (3+)

Size:
Small (1)
Average (2)
Large (3)
Massive (4)

So a forest could be a Difficult, Heavy Massive piece of terrain.


Hellebore

sebster
28-08-2007, 00:17
No the point was in real life the flow wouldn't make any sense. I'm assuming the charge is allowing them to get the drop on their enemy due to a sudden bust in speed. To have them wiped out on turn 1 just because their opponents are 1 initiative faster and not even have a chance to receive damage back seems kinda silly.

That rule works in WHFB because a lot of the skill in rests in getting the charge in. You pay a big premium for cavalry because of their long charge range.

40k is not that kind of game. While getting the charge in is important, there is at least as much emphasis placed on close range shooting. A lot of the skill is in making the decision as to how you want to deal with enemy units in close quarters.

A game built around marines being heroic blokes that can charge an equal number of ‘stealers and beat them would be a pretty crappy game. Marines are versatile, they can adapt by charging units that are poor in melee, and rapid fire superior HtH units like genestealers. This means players have tactical options at their fingertips, not just the knowledge that if you charge first, you can beat almost anything.

And no particular bonus for charging is closer to ‘real life’ than any other. Why should a guy running at another guy get any bonus at all, when the other guy has time to prepare himself to take the charge?

Aundae
28-08-2007, 00:21
In my oppinion if these rumours are true GW should just give out these changes for free via downloud from their homepage. I'm not buying another $50 rulebook that only has minor rule changes:mad::rolleyes:.

Amen to that!

malisteen
28-08-2007, 00:37
I could see them tweaking the Reserves rules again (I get the impression the studio dont stick to the RaW).

You too? I get the distinct impression that the studio allows ICs to be attached to units in reserve for single reserve rolls, rather then following the FAQ ruling.

Hellebore
28-08-2007, 00:40
And no particular bonus for charging is closer to ‘real life’ than any other. Why should a guy running at another guy get any bonus at all, when the other guy has time to prepare himself to take the charge?

Depending on how you are attacking, charging gives you more force (accelerationXmass) to apply (if you're tackling your opponent, or swinging a large weapon).

Technically this would give you +1 Strength rather than +1 Attack...

Hellebore

empireguard
28-08-2007, 00:47
I don't think too many things will change just some clearer wording and adding in a thing or two they forgot. Like mentioning that IC’s can’t join Vehicle, because as the rules stand IC’s can join any unit and all Vehicles count as units. Silly things like that is all I think they will change.

sebster
28-08-2007, 01:08
Depending on how you are attacking, charging gives you more force (accelerationXmass) to apply (if you're tackling your opponent, or swinging a large weapon).

Technically this would give you +1 Strength rather than +1 Attack...

Hellebore

Assuming you’re just running up to the guy and rugby tackling him. Which would be pretty hard to do when the other guy has a gun. For the units crazy enough to just run full pelt at the bad guy, there’s the ferocious charge rule.

And when you remember that charging represents close range shooting and grenade throwing as well, it makes even less sense to argue for one kind of bonus over another based, based on the real world.

There are good game reasons for giving a bonus to charging units. There isn’t any real world reason to favour one kind of bonus over another.

reds8n
28-08-2007, 01:43
lets look at what that means:

at present, I can represent a wood in any of the following ways:
- a boundary line drawn on the board with the word "WOOD" written within it
- 3 plastic model trees stuck to a base
- dozens of model trees, some vines, bushes, leaves and grass stuck to a base
and they will all behave exactly the same ingame. :)

under this new idea, each of those woods would act completly differently ingame. to have a wood that blocks LOS completly from one side to the otheryou could quite possibly need hundreds of model trees, otherwise there might be a chance that a model could thread its LOS between the branches and leaves. 3 plastic trees stuck to a base wouldnt be able to represent a wood anymore, it would just be 3 trees (and would hardly block LOS to anything, by comparison).

why would anyone want to try to represent such things in an accurate manner, when doing so in an abstract fashion is so easy? :wtf: :confused:

unless GW start selling laser pointers i cant see such a change being imposed. ;)

~ Tim

I totally agree it would be a stupid change, hence when I first mentionned it I was very WTF, why are you doing that.

Then I saw the new plastic trees that GW produced, yeah you would need to buy/theywouldsellalotofthem to make a decent forest viable.....

Drogmir
28-08-2007, 01:47
Assuming you’re just running up to the guy and rugby tackling him. Which would be pretty hard to do when the other guy has a gun. For the units crazy enough to just run full pelt at the bad guy, there’s the ferocious charge rule.

And when you remember that charging represents close range shooting and grenade throwing as well, it makes even less sense to argue for one kind of bonus over another based, based on the real world.

There are good game reasons for giving a bonus to charging units. There isn’t any real world reason to favour one kind of bonus over another.

When I think of a charge, I think of a last ditch sudden attack which leaves the defender dumbfounded and scrambling for a counter attack. Thus justifying a first attack instead of a extra in my mind.

It's so abstract though, maybe they shouldn't have a bonus at all in the 5th edition?

sebster
28-08-2007, 02:02
When I think of a charge, I think of a last ditch sudden attack which leaves the defender dumbfounded and scrambling for a counter attack. Thus justifying a first attack instead of a extra in my mind.

It's so abstract though, maybe they shouldn't have a bonus at all in the 5th edition?

There was bayonet charge by a British unit in Iraq a few years ago, that resulted in a complete rout of the insurgents, without any British casualties. It was basically the surprise factor that led to that result.

But in 40k there’s assaults in every game. Every army has dedicated assault units, and there are a lot of lists built around assault. I just can’t see too many soldiers being surprised by an assault.

They could drop the bonus for charging from a hypothetical 5th ed, but the current game is balanced for assault units getting that bonus, and while it doesn’t make a lot of sense if you look at it pretty closely, it ‘feels’ alright in play.

To me, I think the best thing is just to leave the rule as it is.

unclejimbo827
28-08-2007, 07:38
I still think there should be at least an initiative bonus for charging.

ChosenOfKhorne
29-08-2007, 12:41
In my oppinion if these rumours are true GW should just give out these changes for free via downloud from their homepage. I'm not buying another $50 rulebook that only has minor rule changes:mad::rolleyes:.

I for one would gladly pay $50 dollars for a rules book that makes the game better. Whose to say that it has to be a $50 dollar book? Why not a codex sized revision with only the rules in it like the little black book, which is the only book I've used since the day of its release. It's only 92 pages, almost the exact same size as the last Eldar codex. So rules updated, codex size, $22 dollars. People often buy updates for things every single year, look at the Madden series for consoles, which makes a crazy amount of money, so I don't think this is unreasonable. I just hope it doesn't throw off the general release schedule by more than a month. A revision/tweak doesn't warrant a 3-4 month suspension of the rest of the game's development. Having an online only update or an out of print WD as the only source for the most current rules will make it difficult to ensure everyone (new players especially) is using the same rules. I don't really want to have to carry around a stack of FAQs, online rules revisions, and WD compilations in addition to my rules book just to have the standard rules set. $22 is less than the price of many of the box sets GW sells, so I don't think that is unreasonable. After all, if GW was slightly more of a rules company, and not just a miniature company that happens to sell rules, wouldn't the game be more fun?

Calden
29-08-2007, 19:54
I could see them trimming the rulebook down. With the move towards "expansions" to the main game, I would see the rules for Combat Patrol and Kill Team maybe being taken out and being fleshed out in their own right. Making it closer in size to either the codexes or the Battle for Macragge rulebook would also be nice changes.

I could also see the likes of True Grit, and Heavy close combat weapons leaving the USR section if the rumours that the Orks will be loosing them are true. And with the Plague Marines loosing True Grit, I could see the marine redux loosing the rule, and eventually the Grey Knights too. These rules would effectively become dead weight in the book.

Terrain could certainly do with a tidy up, the system is pretty solid in my eyes, but I see WAY too many young gamers get completely thrown by it, and with some peoples views on it there doesn't seem to be a standard way of playing it. Moving entirely to area terrain I could see, but without codex overhauls I don't see size categories being broadened at all. Possibly fixing all infantry to height 2, vehicles and monstrous creatures to 3 for example.

Missions I could see being changed, if only to encourage people to play the game differently.

Not sure what else they could change without causing balancing issues between codexes before and after the "rule-patch".

BenK
30-08-2007, 03:45
Make Krak grenades AP3!

Icarus
30-08-2007, 03:52
I hope the rumour isn't true because it would just be ridiculous. Releasing a new edition would be one thing, but a rulebook tweaking would be a nightmare to deal with. Everyone has a copy of the 4th ed book, some would buy the new one but most wouldn't because why pay money for the same thing, and then you effectively have 2 rulebooks with slightly different interpretations of the rules. Likely to cause more problems than it would solve.

If theres problems with existing rules then FAQ them? Is that so hard?

The Orange
30-08-2007, 04:23
Maybe they'll tweak the transport rules. The whole scoring unit in a transport doesn't count as a scoring unit, rubs me the wrong way. Transports taking damage is pretty harsh, I shot a rhino once and killed all but 3 Sisters once. Sadly a feat I can't really accomplish by actually just shooting at them.

Blackwolf
30-08-2007, 06:51
I for one would gladly pay $50 dollars for a rules book that makes the game better. Whose to say that it has to be a $50 dollar book? Why not a codex sized revision with only the rules in it like the little black book, which is the only book I've used since the day of its release. It's only 92 pages, almost the exact same size as the last Eldar codex. So rules updated, codex size, $22 dollars. People often buy updates for things every single year, look at the Madden series for consoles, which makes a crazy amount of money, so I don't think this is unreasonable. I just hope it doesn't throw off the general release schedule by more than a month. A revision/tweak doesn't warrant a 3-4 month suspension of the rest of the game's development. Having an online only update or an out of print WD as the only source for the most current rules will make it difficult to ensure everyone (new players especially) is using the same rules. I don't really want to have to carry around a stack of FAQs, online rules revisions, and WD compilations in addition to my rules book just to have the standard rules set. $22 is less than the price of many of the box sets GW sells, so I don't think that is unreasonable. After all, if GW was slightly more of a rules company, and not just a miniature company that happens to sell rules, wouldn't the game be more fun?
You didn't actually just suggest that people might have to spend money after their inital investment. How could it even be suggested that people spend money to continue on with a hobby.
I applaud you for being brave enough to say that a monetary investment would not be out of line. So many people in this hobby don't think about the new console game they buy every other week and the new consol system they buy every year but they scream bloody murder whenever they might have to buy something new for this hobby.

On topic I don't really think this is going to happen for a while. It would be nice to have some of the rules cleaned up, bu I think right now GW has other things on the burner.

big squig
30-08-2007, 08:35
Fix hills.
It just doesn't feel right that a model standing on a size three hill cannot see over the size three woods. Introduce a size 4, only for hills or very large buildings, and let people on a size 4 object see over a size 3 one....
Except hills don't have size values, they're WYSIWYG. Only area terrain has size.

Bunnahabhain
30-08-2007, 16:03
Except hills don't have size values, they're WYSIWYG. Only area terrain has size.

Hmmm, so they are. Here in Edinburgh, both the GW veterans night, and the independent club treat them as size 3 area terrain....

If they're wysiwyg, then most vehicles, and a fair number of monstrous creatures can see straight over them. Again, not sensible.

Size 4 area terrain for them still makes more sense.

Lord Malek The Red Knight
30-08-2007, 16:21
Hmmm, so they are. Here in Edinburgh, both the GW veterans night, and the independent club treat them as size 3 area terrain....
thats a very silly thing to do. :p

which one of these best describes a hill:

option A:
- you walk over it, and stand on it
- it can increase your physical height
- standing behind the crest provides you with cover, standing on the front side leaves you in the open
- seeing out over it is determined by how high up you are (if you stand at the tallest point you can see in every direction)

option B:
- you walk through it, and stand in it
- it canot increase your physical height
- you get cover from it where-ever you stand within the area it occupies
- seeing out over it is determined by how far you are in from the edge

shouldnt be too hard to work out that option A is WYSIWYG Terrain, and is the best choice. ;)


If they're wysiwyg, then most vehicles, and a fair number of monstrous creatures can see straight over them. Again, not sensible.
why isnt it sensible for something to be able to see over something that its bigger than?

lets not forget that real hills would be bigger than the whole tabletop - what we call hills in games of 40K are really just hillocks, mounds of earth or bumps in the ground. :)


Size 4 area terrain for them still makes more sense.
theres no such thing as Size 4 Area Terrain in normal 40K - and see above.

hope that helps - now go forth and spread the word! :D

~ Tim