Have your say on Warhammer 40K 6th Edition!
September 30, 2011 by warzan
With the 6th edition of Warhammer 40K on the horizon (most likely next summer, followed by a new starter set in September, in time for Games Day 2012) I haven’t been able to stop myself wondering what changes I would make to the game.
We have it on good authority that there are a number of Games Workshop’s finest who enjoy Beasts of War… in fact… you may be one and you may be reading this now!
Which is why we are taking the opportunity to discuss changes you the beasts of war community would make to the next edition of Warhammer 40,000 6th Edition.
What we've heard so far (all unconfirmed) is that they are going to take 40K in the direction of Warhammer 8th Ed, and basically make a slightly less competitive game, almost all the sources we've spoke to have said that GW is not very taken with the tournament/competitive style and believes that its detracting from the fun of the game (and it is a game after all!).
We've been told to expect a pretty detailed overhaul of rules for buildings etc too. And that its possible that a 'one book to rule them all' could replace apocalypse and other supplements.
But hey, this is not about what we have heard, this is about what you think!!!
If you have thoughts on the direction Warhammer 6th editon should take, then this is your chance to get your message out there.
So join the discussion and let’s see if we can make a difference, each of the BoW crew will be adding their thoughts and ideas below as well so get stuck in!
Supported by (Turn Off)
Supported by (Turn Off)
Supported by (Turn Off)
Well, wishlisting wise: It’d be nice to see a ‘Tesco Exclusive’ style edition aimed at getting more people into the hobby, with a different army set to the main edition.
It’d also be nice to see ‘not space marines’ in the next set; this makes some commercial sense, as Space Marines are the cheapest things to get second hand. (That’s assuming the second hand market noticeably affects profits.)
Fluffwise: move the plot on another few years (more peril for mankind, more I say.)
What I personally would love to see is a roll off to see who goes first in combat. each player takes a D6, rolls and compares the result with the model with the highest iniative in their squad. Whoever gets the highest result goes first.
That way its not such a certain thing that you’ll get to strike first based solely on the stat line. If they have it an iniative roll off at the end of the combat, surely they can have one at the beginning.
Also I’m not fond of the rule that charging models get an additional attack. There should definitely be some advantages to charging into combat (unlike fantasy 8th ed), but I think an extra attack is too extreme.
I really enjoy premeasuring distances in whfb, makes the game more tactical, plus let’s face it in the 40th millennium everyone would have range finders as part of their kit.
I think pre-measuring range only works when it’s coupled with certain limitations. Remember that while you can measure distances in fb, you cannot charge or shoot in any direction you please.
what about certain wargear that lets you pre-measure instead? like targeters (i think, been a while since i used that codex) back in the daemon hunters codex did. i think that would be better.
@bloodhunter – that works for me.
The biggest flaw I’ve seen in Warhammer during the last couple of editions
RELEASE THE UPDATED CODICES, YOU MORONS!
That said, I think they should simply make a basic army list update and have it as a free download or included in the book, like it was back in 3rd. I’m not asking for a complete codex, Im just asking that a whole team doesn’t become completely worthless for several years. Also, keep Dan Abnett away from any game content, we all know how it ends.
Cheers
Actually, I have no idea how things end when Dan Abnett isn’t kept away from game content…
What happens?
Hopefully we won’t see the likes of the 5th edition Imperial Guard codex again.
Actually, I’m not sure how much Abnett was involved in that, it’s just been one of these in-the-know-jokes floating around.
Calling the people behind one of the most popular wargames out there ‘ MORONS’ isn’t the best way to get their attention. I agree, however, with your points of releasing free supplements to codices so they don’t become out-dated.
I too have no idea what happens when Dan Abnett creates game content?
Are you implying that GW listens to us?
Well, yes, since BOW stated that in the description.
Actually, they say that some GW employees might possibly be reading this thread. It says nothing about wether that is in an official capacity or in their spare time and it surely doesn’t say they will listen to us.
Having a “base” list in the rulebook for each race makes lots of sense to me. Then codices could be released that add in additional units when ready, but still allow people to play with just the rulebook and models.
Errm, calling people ‘moron’s’ isn’t going to help get product out to us.
I’m confident that I’m speaking the mind of a good share of GW’s customers with that statement and I will stand up for it.
If any GW official wishes to discuss what word will better describe those who think that it’s a good idea to have half the teams’ codices based on one or even two editions old rules, then I’m here. If not, then i will respectfully reserve the right to call them a whole bunch of less flattering, but well earned, words.
If they can’t keep up with the codices then perhaps they shouldn’t release a new edition so often.
I think the way they did close combat in 2nd edition was the best ridiculously complicated yes, but definitely gave the best feel that this was 2 people trying to bash each others faces in, rather than your turn my turn approach, it was however very complicated, but a stream lined easy to understand way I think would make close combat a lot more realistic
I just hope they dont make is “easy” at they did with WFB.
I would love to see an alternating unit activation: instead of the first person moving, shooting and assaulting with ALL of their units, and then the second person (what’s left of them) doing all of theirs, I’d like to see the first person having to choose ONE unit to activate, and then the second player would get to activate one. I think it would make players think a lot more, and not make that initial roll to see who goes first so all important.
There are games like that you know.
Absolutely. Actually, most miniatures games seem to work that way these days. I assume it’s because it works well and makes more sense. 🙂
Or because WH is so big that you have to make something different to even have a chance to sell it.
That would also change the very nature of the game. They way i see it, there are a limited number of ways to handle the basic tactical challenge.
WH has alternating full turns, as do Warmachine. In WH you then go through the phases of the turn whereas in Warmachine you go through each unit until the last one. In Infinity, as I’ve heard, you alternate between players like you describe.
These three ways of handling player turns pose very different tactical challenges and changing this in Warhammer would make it a very different game, one might even say it wouldn’t be Warhammer anymore.
So while I don’t think it’s a bad idea to have a game like you describe it, I would want to call it an improvement over the current one, just a different way of playing, which may or may not be be appreciated by each individual player.
If you want that kind of game I would suggest you go for one of these three alternatives
1. Hope for GW to make a completely new game
2. Play another game that uses that method (I for one combine Warhammer with Warmachine and I find both games very enjoyable because they have different challenges)
3. Mock up something of your own. Why not take 40k 5th ed. and make the changes you like and try it out. If you have gaming friends who like to try out new or customized games (god knows i have) you should be able to get a fully working 40K game using those principles in very little time. If you can hide from GW’s lawyers, why not share the finished result with the rest of us, it might be a very cool game and we already have the armies to play it.
Cheers
I have to disagree that changing the activation rules would make the game no longer 40k. In my opinion, it’s the storyline and art and models and the like that make 40k different than any other game out there. I would suspect that there’d be some initial trauma due to a fundamental change as I’ve described, but it’d still be Ultramarines punching Orks in the face, and I think that’s the more important part.
While you are correct that the hobby surrounding the game is a bigger part than the game itself, i feel that you are missing the fact that the game is central to everything around it.
Obviously it would still be 40k, it was a figure of speech. What I’m saying is that changing such a fundamental part of the game would make it a completely new game rather than a new edition and it would most likely cause a split between those who wanted the game to remain what is was, with improvements over time obviously, and those who prefer the new game. I realize that the combined changes of time would be comparable in size but much of the basics of the game is still there, it’s the second layer that’s been polished, mostly.
From what i’ve heard from the first two editions, a lot has changed in the basics as well, but you can’t really compare to those because they were the first two editions, this would be 5th to 6th and a much more mature game that has found it’s niche.
All i’m, saying is that your suggestion changes a very fundamental part of the game and it’s big enough that i wouldn’t call it the same game anymore because it isn’t an improvement, it’s a whole new road, and that road is already occupied by a lot of other games.
This topic just begs a flame war, hopefully i’ve been able to make myself clear, so that we can avoid uneccessary confusion.
Cheers
I understand what you’re saying, but I must still respectfully disagree. It would be a more drastic change than the change from 4th to 5th of course, but I think that GW’s past actions have put them into a position that they’ll need to make some drastic changes to get out of. I know changing IGO/UGO would certainly make me want to play their game more, and probably some other games a bit less than I do currently. I don’t want to lay down a blanket “EVOLVE OR DIE” because I don’t believe it’s that dire, but they do need to make some major changes in my opinion.
Really though, changing to a unit-by-unit turn system isn’t a considerably big change, not compared with past ones such as 2nd into 3rd ed. 40K, where the new rulebook HAD to contain every army list for any of the armies to remain playable with the new rules.
I’m a big fan of simultaneous turns; games like Battletech and Call to Arms. That way first turn isn’t an absolute game decider for shooty armies like Tau and Guard, and better represents two forces moving in to attack each other.
My guard army took twenty lasguns to kill one marine, or one plasma gun to kill a marine of the same points as the marine. It’s a balanced game for the ‘recent’ cidices. I feel for the Eldar though.
Interesting idea, but what if the two sides don’t have the same number of units? Does the side with the most units then activate all theirs to end the turn?
If so, the new meta game would be based around MSUs very quickly (Not necessarily a bad thing…).
The way Battletech does it:
If I have 2x more unmoved units than you, I move 2x the units per activation.
So if I have 9 units and you have 5:
Activation 1: We both move 1.
Activation 2(8 – 4): I move 2, you move 1.
Activation 3 (6-3):I move 2, you move 1.
Activation 4 (4-2): I move 2, you move 1
Activation 5 (2-1): I move 2, you move 1, turn is over.
so if my army of deamon hunters which has efefctively 2 units goes up against a horde army of say 10-15 units i’d move one unit for half his army?
A delay or hold rule would allow small forces to react when it suits them
2 units vs 15 would be bad, Stalin says “Quantity has a quality of its own”
Not sure how well this would work when you can get some big differences in unit numbers. But I agree they need to change the “who goes now” setup. Once you roll at the start everything is set in stone. You need to have some randomness at the start of each turn. I don’t play fantasy so don’t know how that works but LOTR uses a die roll at the start of each turn to decide who goes first that turn. Also would it hurt to alternate each major step, I move then you, I shoot then you, I assault then you.
I must say the main tactic in the game is deployment and then play the army style (shoot or assault) little unit style tactics left.
Why not employ the unit’s initiative to determine game setup and usage during the turns -i.e. an ork unit of initiative 2 would have to set up before a guardsman unit? The guardsman unit would also be activated before the ork unit. This would give a new dimension to the I stat and the game mechanic. Food for thought
Better buildings sounds like a good start. The ‘cover save’ stopping 6 lascannons, 4 missiles and a conversion beamer is ludicrous in some games.
I wouldn’t be opposed to some type of ‘overwatch’ or I based reaction system, unless it is needlessly complicated.
Remove the ‘modeling and painting section’.
5th is batter than 4th and certainly 3rd in my opinion, please don’t take up old rules that stunk the first time.
I like the Infinity (IIRC) idea of weapon range covering the entire game board (apart from flamers of course!) with modifiers affecting accuracy as range increases
A way to break the you go – I go pattern would be great but I have to admit that I have no idea how that would work
Overwatch please
Do NOT increase simplicity at the cost of losing detail – If I spend large amounts of money buying an army and large amounts of time painting the army and months tweaking army lists the bloody game better not be over in 30 minutes
Produce a package that allows existing players to buy the small rulebook without having to lash out on the full starter set OR have a starter that lets me choose which armies are in it
Include starter army lists in the new rulebook so I can use all of my kit from the get go.
MAKE THE GAME ENJOYABLE OR DON’T BOTHER
This seems like a good idea. I don’t know how feasible it is for GW, but I presume they have the current starter molds laying about collecting dust. I think it would make sense to produce a small number of the older starter sprues, like say the current SM and Orks, and then produce one or two new starter sprues for the new set. Eventually they could build up quite a collection of them, and then set about replacing one every new edition, and rotate in a couple of the old ones to give people additional choice in what army to start collecting.
So they’re arguing that Wh40k would make more fun if it becomes less competative in nature? oO Can’t really follow them there tbh, it’s like saying chess would be more fun with less figures
Anyway, I too would like to see the melee mechanics revamped. Imho, the melee hit chart needs either a complete overhaul or should be dropped entirely for something similar to the shooting mechanics. Models with high WS don’t seem to get that much of an advantage against less capable enemies, just the kind of combat I would expect them to excel in
Forgot to say :-
NO LANDSCAPE FORMAT RULEBOOKS – They are an abomination …
Oh and get the suits to make sure the flaming books don’t disintegrate 20 minutes after buying them
What format do you want? Square? Why? Or landscpe but the other way?
Rectangular rule books are fine. Better to be able to buy the small format rulebook as well.
There are three things i would like to see change.
1) Change the igo/ugo system, have the players moving one unit each, alternatively,
( we have a joke at our club, on the first turn someone always says “Lets roll the dice to see who wins ” when rolling for initiative on turn one.)
2) Allow units to break off from combat.
(The game is to combat orientated [instead of shooting] because of this.)
3) Bring back overwatch. Firing at moving units
(Though do it the way its done in AT-43, a unit that is contacted in a charge does not get to shoot. But overwatch can be used to shoot up advancing enemies. And the attacker, who is clever, will use terrain to cover his attack.)
Actually…… looking at this …..it would play more like AT-43…..oops. 🙂
Breaking off from combat sounds interesting, especially since combat units can usually move faster than standard troops. It would give units with move and fire weapons a chance to retreat and fend them off, while dedicated heavy weapons would only be able to flee in the hopes of other units covering their escape.
Some units can already break off from a fight, those with the Hit & Run special rule.
The reason most units can’t Hit & Run, or just run away voluntarily, is that shooting would be the be all and end all of the game. Locking an enemy unit in combat prevents it shooting, that is the advantage of doing so. While trying to get into combat your unit risks being shot, and either whittled down or destroyed in the process. If enemies you assault could just take a step back and unload their guns on you (especially in the case of Bladestorm/Rapid Fire) there would be no point in assaulting them, you would be better off trying to out-shoot them.
I agree with bringing back Overwatch though, that was a huge part of the strategy for shooty armies back in 2nd. The ability to excercise area control, and set up killzones, would make shooty units much more effective at controlling objectives, and denying the enemies’ advance.
I think taking away the competitiveness is a huge mistake, and I speak as someone who only plays with a group of friends for fun, dont even understand the ‘must wiin’ concept at all, and have never , ever, seen a tournament.
The point that gets missed when people go on about the tournament scene is a simple one.
I can play any ruleset and have fun in my non competitive world, finecast and costs aside, there is little they can do to alienate me.
The converse isnt true though, take away the competitive angle and you stop the tournament scene in one go, I would have thought the last year or so of fantasy would have tought at least one person in Nottingham this.
No need to alienate your tournament players, those of us playing for enjoyment will do so regardless, the rules are much less important to me in the first place.
There are definite signs of power creep in each new codex which come out. Although his makes for a way to constantly have people buy the latest models, I find it irritating from a gamers perspective. Anything new that comes out should be balanced against anything else that is currently on the market.
Definite changes to the game need to be made. It is hard to keep interested in a game when you have to wait for your opponent to do everything the want with all of their miniatures, even more so against horde armies like orcs and tyranids. An “I go-you go” unit and deployment approach, similar to the late AT-43 mechanic, keeps players involved and prevents any player from winning on the first turn of he game.
Although I enjoy 40K from the model and fluff aspect, it is easy to tell that something is wrong with the game when most of the hyper competitive players play nearly the same army list (ie Space Wolves). The definite lack of balance in all the armies hampers this game and drives newer players away. In my experience, GW has a history of not listening to their consumer base which has lead to the subsequent rise in popularity of other tabletop games. If changes are not made soon, GW will find itself playing second fiddle to other game companies who do listen to their customers. Just my opinion.
I disagree most strongly.
Sure, each of the codices have strong builds, but those builds can be countered by other strong builds.
If two different 5th ed armies both tailored their list to beat the opposing army, then they would have a hard game on their hands. If it was two lists aimed at beating all comers, then they would also have a decent game.
The problem is when:
1) One list is tailored to beat the other but not vice versa (eg. competitive vs. fluffy)
2) One Codex is so new that the appropriate counter hasn’t been found yet. For example, no one is worried about Wolves or Grey Knights anymore as the appropriate counters for their “overpowered” units have been found…
I would like to see a condensed version of the rulebook, aswell as the big huge book. I remember when i first got a rulebook for 40k i nearly cried when i saw the book. Also just make it far more easier for beginners to get in and i nice cheap starter set.
Most of all, GW FOR THE LOVE OF GOD PLEASE RELEASE A CODEX CHAOS LEGIONS!! i want my legion specific rules back! Oh and chief chaplian Asomdia for the Dark Angels.
Slight correction:
I think by ‘Asomdia’ you mean Asmodai. I also believe Sapphon is the current Grand Master of Chaplains.
NO MORE KILL POINTS
And don’t make it a limited edition ….. 😉
DEATH TO IGOUGO!!! That’s what drove me from the game…
I agree, it makes the game less fluid in strategy and it makes so much downtime for the other player when it’s your turn, especially when moving IG or ‘nids.
Totally! Armies don’t move in waves. I want to be constantly engaged in a game. Not have “walls” of miniatures run into each other…
i would like to see bonus’ for beening close like point blank within a certain distance you can re-role.
would also maybe like to see bonus’ for charging like up and down hill. aswell as maybe something along the lines of counter-charging where the opponent meets you in the middle
2nd edition had something similar, There was a list of things that affected combat resolution as long as your arm, stuff like fighting someone off from behind a fortification or occupying higher ground.
Get rid of Force Organisation
In fact, stuff your forces chart up your @SS. OK I’ve said it, I want to ditch the force organisation as one of the core rules for 40K, I think they are great for competitive tournaments, but I want to have the freedom to field all kinds of army lists as well as play against them.
If I want 6 Landraiders … that’s cool, if you want 10 Drop Pods … hey that’s cool too. GW started to go down this route with 40K Apocalypse but I feel that Apocalypse was a wasted opportunity (not only by GW), the best games of apocalypse are not at 100,000 points. They are at 2000 or 3000 points, where the games are slightly bigger, but you can field whatever the hell you want.
I want a game that at its heart is asking me to have battles that are wrapped in a story before the first die is cast. Stories of being out numbered or where I took down a division of tanks with a few bands of men.
So perhaps the first page of rules should have 2 sections…
· Game Rules – here’s where the rules are
· Competitive Play – here’s the other rules for more structured games sited to tournaments
So you’re asking: Why don’t you just use House Rules?
Well, you right of course. With the right gaming group, or just a bunch of friends, you could just use house rules and do this anyway, but then you become isolated pockets of gamers with their own rules for their own version of the game. What I’m thinking of is a change in the gaming environment, one that challenges all players to try different styles and gets everyone involved… and think about it from a sales point of view… If folks can field armies of Terminators or Howling Banshees… how many boxes do you think GW would sell?
Of course there are downsides to this as well, and tournament players are probably seething at the thought of this, but hey it’s only one of the suggestions I’m gonna make!
Force Organisation needs to stay, IMO.
It’s an important factor to balance armies. Otherwise, you’d just get stupid spam armies of the same unit, because its the best option in the codex… which would just be daft.
FO gives the right layout for how an army would be, you have the troops moving in, backed up by the big guns and the faster aspects. Having 8 land Raiders in a 2000pt army, and nothing else, would be, frankly, stupid. Against Orks, it would be plain unfair… as long as you kept moving them, there would be very little way of an Ork player actually taking you on, certainly my orks wouldn’t mange it, one land raider is bad enough!
If you want to do a fluffy battle, then thats fair enough, sort it out and agree with whoever you want to play, as long as it doesn’t look like stupid powergaming, then I’m sure people would be okay with it.
As for the actual ideas, I really don’t like the idea of them trying to relax it, that sort of thing immediately springs to mind, that it will be much easier for people to find ways to exploit and break the ruleset. If instead they really focussed on working on a way to make it as balanced and as fair as possible, then that would be much of an advantage.
I expect, that they will try and move the focus away from whatever the main sort of army is now, I get the feeling they will find a way to try and make footslogging a more reasonable option again, and try and get people to have to max out on big squads, meaning everyone has to buy more! Pretty much exactly what they did with Fantasy…
If they do go the way of Fantasy, I will be gutted, I really preferred the old fantasy, parts of the new fantasy are cool, but after I faced a Warriors of Chaos player who simply filled out 2500pts with 15 Chaos Knights, a Chaos Lord, and as many Warriors as could fit the points, I got fed up. IN that game my Dwarves got utterly destroyed, and there was nothing I could do to try and prevent it. Multi charging units of 20 Dwarves was barely enough to take out a unit, and by doing that, it just mean that a unit had to face the wrong way, and get attacked from there. That might just be that WoC are the space Marines of Fantasy…. Anyway I need to get back to the point somewhere! :p
I hope they manage to bring out something, that allows a change of ruleset without having to change my army around too much, and simply adds to 5th edition, which IMO works really nicely. It was the first ruleset I played, and I have enjoyed it immensely, it always seems to work well, and I will be sad to see it go…
I see your points, and agree with many of them but not all of us “spam” things because they are powerful.
Speaking purely for myself – I tend to have a very niche taste : if it has legs and walks, I will not like it aesthetically, and to me I only want to buy models I like the look of, I like stuff that is amorphous, floaty and lovecraftian ect.
I am not a competitive gamer and I even enjoy losing (going down with a last stand is fun to me). I only like non-humanoid aliens, so I don’t want to pick models I dislike! So if I could take a tyranid or necron army of stuff I actually liked the look of, id actually play an official army rather than a counts-as (My main armies are converted Enslavers, Ulumeathi ect). For Necrons I love the wraiths, scarabs, tomb-spyders, monoliths and destroyers – but without warriors and lords id never be able to use them in a normal game – so for me I don’t like force-orgs because of things that.
Enough would ‘Spam’ things to make it less fun.
Keep FO.
The Auld Grump
Right suggestions for 6th edition well a house rule i have found quite fun to use has been that a model gets any save it is allowed. This came about after using logic why would a models armour say well you’ve just gotten through/passed that cover there im not gonna bother doing anything or by joe you’ve just beaten my forcefield but this bunker im sat in isn’t going to do anything. So a model should be allowed every save it can get be it armour, cover or invulnerable. Now i can hear people shout out now that some models will be really difficult to kill how do you kill that terminator behind cover with a lasgun. Or thats not fair my tyranids wont benefit. but hey thats my idea.
Also Rather than scrapping the force organisation chart bring in a system where you can customise it depending on your armies likes and dislikes. I enjoyed the imperial guard doctrines system because i could customise my guard army to my playing style. Plus it reflected the fluff side of the guard there are a billion worlds with over a billion armies they are not all going to work exactly the same. some are going to have better armour and others will have better stealth. but work this into all armies. so you want to take 6 landraiders take this doctrine they become dedicated transports like the blood angels. Or like your squads to have a bit more staying power add in apothacaries as squad leaders. However for every silver lining there is a cloud or a everything has its opposite so add in things things like the space marine codex where say you take your landraiders but your other tanks are in short supply because your resources went on the landraiders.
Anyhow ideas over for now
The only thing about that is the realistic element. You already have a system of random in the rolling to hit and wound. If its a highly armour piercing round, the terminator doesnt get his save!
warzan wrote: “I want a game that at its heart is asking me to have battles that are wrapped in a story before the first die is cast. Stories of being out numbered or where I took down a division of tanks with a few bands of men.”
I know what you mean and I think story driven campaigns or custom scenarios are very cool and a lot of fun.
warzan wrote: “What I’m thinking of is a change in the gaming environment, one that challenges all players to try different styles and gets everyone involved… […]”
I understand what you want to have or achieve by this rules change. But I think the effect would not be the way you estimated.
First of all, I don’t think you “become isolated gamers” by using your house rules. Think of it this way: There are those people out there who love story driven games and custom szenarios. If you meet those guys, how hard do you think it will be to find common ground concerning rules for a scenario? Really, this is a piece of cake!
You sit down, have a nice talk and create a new scenario with its rules, you play and you have fun! Thats the way it is. Thats the way it was. Thats the way it will be. And it really does not matter what anybody writes in any rulebook or not.
Now, if you meet some players who love competitive play and hate changing the rules whatsoever, you’ll never be able to convince them to play otherwise.
Lets say the FOC would be completly removed. What would be the result?
1. The new players would start the game with totaly imbalanced lists. And if you are new to wargaming and maybe rather young, its hard to “just come up” with balanced armies on your own. So games might be pretty unfair and people might lose interest soon.
2. The competitive players would make their own rules (concerning FOC) in record time. Due to the internet the big leading gaming groups would find common ground on some rules and an inofficial rules system would be created and used in tournaments. These players would still not play with you (exaggerated).
3. The scenario / narrative campaign players would do their thing as they did before.
There are games out there where there is no FOC of course. In a BoW Video from a Con I saw a historical ruleset where models have no points value. These type of games are especially made for guys like you! So if you start one of those games, you know that all players will be open minded on these kind of scenario things. But players playing these games play them because they know that they are made for scenario gaming.
So what I want to say is: Changing 40k won’t change the players! 40k is made as a game that is fun for beginners and young players as well. The kind of games I mentioned above are made for a different kind of players in mind.
If you like custom scenarios, try this:
First, I wanna say, it’s impossible for the “defending” army to win, they will eventually all die.
Ok, what you do is, the defending army consists of 1000 points and deploys 12″ from the centre of the table.
The attacking army writes multiple army lists. Starting at 50 points, then 100, then 200, then 250, then 350, etc. Each list has to contain everything in the previous list, so basically, you just add either 50 or 100 points on each time, alternating. Up to 400 points, all you’re allowed is troops, after that you can have whatever you like, so long as it adds a max of 100/50 points each turn (Prevents really powerful things from being used and wiping out most of the defenders in a single wave.).
The attacking army sets up 12″ from any table edge.
Each time a list is defeated, you deploy the next army list.
The idea is to see how many lists (Or “waves”.) the defending army can survive, kinda like a “horde mode”.
Of course, feel free to add to this, or do what you want with this idea, but I’ve played it a few times (As the attackers, I play Tyranids.), and it’s really quite fun.
Also, there’s no turn limit, it just goes on as long as the defenders are alive.
I completely agree,
The only problem that I can see with this is when you get that one guy at the local club who brings his cheesiest most competitive list to every game.
(which is never any fun for anybody… except maybe him obviously)
So I was thinking, perhaps in lieu of the Force Org. They should implement a cost per unit change the more of a certain unit you bring along. Basically if I want to field an entire regiment of tanks. To balance it the first 3 tanks would be at base cost, the next 3 would cost slightly above the base, and anything past that would cost an additional premium of points. This way you can have whatever army you want, and don’t get the cheesy advantage of just spamming the one unit.
it’s just a thought though.
What I want:
1. New Vehicle Armour system. Why is it that sometimes my Chimera withstands 20 Lasergun shots, only to be killed by one Autocannon shot in the next game? This is not only unrealistic (ok, ok, lets not talk about this…) but very frustrating. My suggestion: Something similar as to Warmachine.
2. Go back to the old – x saving throw modifier. AP is crap. With AP it makes absolutely no sense to shoot rockets at Terminators. And therefore you have less tactical options. Say a rocket launcher had – 2 safe modifier, then you would have more options, had to think more and the game would be more interesting. It had to be rebalanced of course…
3. No more wound allocation. I mean, this game is pretty simple, except for wound allocation. Well, its not too hard to grasp, but the rules make no sense. Why is it sometimes better not to shoot your bolters together with your melta weapons? Why are your troops tougher by being equipped with different kinds of fancy (non armour related) gear? This makes no sense at all…
4. More special rules, more tactical options. When I play Warmachine, I have to do a lot of thinking each turn (and then do the wrong thing anyways :D). With 40k things are pretty obvious. At least thats how it feels for me. Maybe its because I have been playing Warhammer for so long and Warmachine just for a year. Dunno, don’t want to be unfair…
i like number 3. perhaps they could go for closest model because i find it strange how me shooting a bolt-gun at a horde of 30 orks and the bolt goes all the way through the horde and only manages to hit the rearrest model so if they make it that the dead model has to be from either the front or second rank only might be good
serrin, you’re quite right in what you say. A chum pointed out that self same issue. Sometimes tanks are nigh on invulnerable, other times they fall over to a frag grenade. I’d make damage cumulative, so the higher up the chart you go the more likely you are to blow up. Putting it all down to one roll half of which are pretty much lethal is jolly unfair.
Excuse me but I’d just like to add the current vehicle armour system is realistic: a tank in real life won’t just go “Boom” if you toss an RPG at it. There’s a lot of luck factors involved.
That being said, I agree AP should be some sort of modifier. I hate the fact I have to look at AP to decide if a gun is worth bringing. I don’t want lasguns to be able to affect tanks, but I’d be really thankfull if a grenade launcher krak grenade had a chance at stunning a transport.
Tournaments are great!! you need competitive players and all round players, its a game for everyone not just players who want to have fun.
I hope its not too warhammer style because thats why I don’t play it lol.
I reckon good tweaks would be useful in the next edition AS IT WOULD SAVE RE-LEARNING THE RULES AGAIN, I def agree with more building rules, overwatch is something I miss. outflank rule is ridiculous, deep strike is awesome and funny. I would like them to bring back the BS modifiers for shooting (like -2 for only seeing their heads)
A few mates of mine have been playing for about 20 odd years… never set foot ina tournament, to much stress in everyones lives already :/
Competititve players are important I agree, yet its the fun fluffy gamers that use the real tactics, and that make it exciting and unpredictable in some cases.
Sorry, I like the “I go you go”. I like the “your move. creep” element. I think this really depends what kind of game you’re after. I liked overwatch and was sad that went away, oddly enough though.
What I don’t like about I go, You go, is that the team that gets 1st turn gets a guaranteed amount of damage dealt with no ensured return fire. Simultaneous shooting phases make more sense.
The cover system has got to go. Instead go with a -1 to hit or something. I am sick of my ultra accurate guys getting nullified on a 4+.
The cover system is weird, I’ll admit. When I think about the concept of “You’re in cover, but your armor save is better than the cover save, so it doesn’t matter: roll for armor save” it just doesn’t make sense to me. The cover is between your opponent and your armor, so that roll should occur first no matter what.
By that logic, you should always take all saves you are eligible for. Actually, since there are two pieces of cover between you and the shooter, you should take two cover saves and then a regular armor save. _That_ doesn’t make sense. What does make sense is having to choose the best out of all the ones you are eligible for.
That said, i also think the cover system must be remade, it’s just ridiculous that a pack of Long Fangs in a building have better armor than a tank.
I swear (and it’s been a long time since I’ve read it, so I may be wrong) that’s the way the LotR skirmish game worked. If there were three pieces of cover for example, than your cover save was ‘more powerful’ for lack of a better term (a +2 modifier, perhaps?), or you got a re-roll or something. I think that makes total sense. I don’t see why a unit should be able to fire through three open windows and over a stone wall (in an obviously extreme case) and have that shot be as easy as a shot over a single stone wall. In my mind, it makes sense that if a unit is in cover, roll for the cover first: if the shot gets past that, then roll for armor save. Or, maybe the cover should affect the ‘to hit’ roll, which makes even more sense, in my mind.
Cover on cover might be a bit complicated for 40k since there could be a lot of stuff in the way in a regular city fight. A slightly more realistic and line of sight-based approach to shooting and cover saves would be the natural evolution to 5th editions changes in those areas.
However, i would prefer them to be kept on a fairly basic level as i’ve come to learn that actually crouching down to see what a model sees is a very tedious business. I our gaming group we usually do a mix of 4th and 5th where we make a rough assessment of line of sight and cover from a vantage point (in difficult cases we check from the model’s eye) and lean towards the generous side, that way we don’t have to waste a lot of time with these questions and still get a much better experience than the old rules.
Something along the lines of what you say might work. I’m not sure how changing the hit roll would play out but it’s not a bad idea.
Going for realistic results, i feel, is a pointless battle. Game rules have to be balanced and fast, not make sense from every point of view.
Why is that so ridiculous though? I think you should be able to get more than one save (FNP is obvious exception) If there is intervening terrain, you would only take one save. Not for both pieces. But that’s the way it used to be, armour and invulnerable. You got to take both. Marneus Calgar was so much harder to kill back then…. ah, the glory days. 🙂
Simple, it’s a bitch to work out and takes a lot of time. If you want realistic, join the army.
I don’t remember it taking that long in 3rd edition…. I have a 3+ save and a 4++ save. I think we could handle it, it’s gotta take less time than the current wound allocation system… freaking biker nobz.
All of this is moot of course, I really think 40k became unplayable for me, due to power/codex creep and the ever increasing army size. I hope in the next edition they make it more playable at lower pt lvls…. but I can’t see that happening.
It’s not possible to reply once the depth is so big so this one is for you garwjenk.
I can’t remember that you ever got to take more than two saves in 3rd and how often did that happen, really? 3rd is too long ago and i actually sold my 3rd ed rule book a few weeks ago so i can’t look up all the details.
What is suggested is that 40k lacks realism and that saves should be taken in the order they occur. Even if we limit each category to one save max we could be looking at a single figure taking a cover save, a regular save, an invulnerable save, possibly a FNP or a save from magic item (are there units with both magic and FNP?).
What the frack kind of weapon do you suggest would take out a terminator in cover who first gets a 4+ cover, then a 2+ regular and then a 5+ invulnerable and on top of that possibly a magical save unless it cancels out one of the other?
So two wrongs make a right? Would allocation has nothing to do with this, except possibly as a good example of why not to increase the number of dice used for saves.
My post had nothing to do with realism, I just don’t like the mechanic of cover saves. I think they should be done away with altogether, and instead go with a modifier system. So, I guess I wasn’t suggesting more than 2 saves. I just liked it when I got my armour save and an invulnerable save. It made my characters harder to kill and more fun to play. Nor am I suggesting that 2 wrongs make a right, I was just pointing out that some rules (wound allocation) are significantly more cumbersome than figuring out 2 or 3 dice rolls.
My characters still seemed to die when they had 2 armour saves… even from bolters… so I guess bolters would the “fracking kind” of weapon that I would suggest.
I’m sorry you don’t like the idea of multiple saves… but to each his own.
@garwjenk
But you do realize that you just can’t get that extra die for free? Everything must be balanced and so in practice you would get an extra die to throw in return for giving everyone just slightly better weapons or something.
The rules have to be fluent and easy, not a orgy in die throwing just for the sake of it.
Oh yeah, of course I realize you can’t just throw it in. That would be silly. I was just saying I wasn’t satisfied with the current system.
Or as ‘bastion breacher’ s10, big blast AP1 template getting nullified because of a bush.
lol, awesome
A flamer is template, a blast is not. Just for future clarity.
While i understand your objection i would like to do the math on this.
A bush would obviously be a 6+ save, so it would statistically cancel out 1/6 of the wounds. And S10 would wound on 2+ so that would be 1/6 that isn’t wounded in the first place.
Given that this is a big blast you either shot it at a single enemy model or you missed by such a major distance that you only managed to hit a single model.
In the first case it’s probably not a good tactical call unless it’s a very important figure (most of which would probably have invulnerable saves anyway) but there would also be a 83% chance that it wasn’t a direct hit.
This leads to the second case. Are you saying a single model under a 5″ badly fired blast shouldn’t stand a chance of surviving?
Any more than one model in the hit and you would probably have at least 4 out of 6 kills and i would’t call that nullified.
Thats just the math because I’m an anal retentive bastard 🙂
I do agree with you that a bush shouldn’t give a save against a S10 blast. But you know what we do in my group? We don’t assign covers to bushes, and having a save against that kind of weapon in a forrest i would call pretty fair.
Also, i don’t like the cover system, i think it needs a serious nerf, just not because of marines hiding behind bushes for incoming ordinance barrage.
Cheers
1. Change to vehicle armor/damage rules to make vehicles more vulnerable. Perhaps revamp the AV system to make them like monstrous creatures or something Each vehicle should have it’s own system damage chart as well.
2. This should be an infantry game first. Vehicle presence is getting ridiculous! I really think that all elite infantry should have invulnerable saves. Even in open ground, an elite infantry unit will find cover/concealment. You’d be surprised what a well-trained grunt can do given few minutes, a shovel, and motivation. Horde-type infantry wouldn’t get this.
3. Allow pre-measuring.
4. Allow assaulted units a leadership test to “stand and shoot” like WHFB. On the flipside, reward fix and flank drills which, of course, means giving synergy bonuses for fixing a unit with supporting fire from one attacking unit while assaulting with another. US tactics in WWII.
5. Wound allocation sucks in the current edition. Too complicated and too gamey.
6. Nix kill points and bring back victory points.
7. Again, please change vehicle damage rules!
I´ve been around the wh40k hobby for about 15 years now and found myself more and more often looking for alternatives for wh40k due to some drastically old fahsioned core rules… I hoppe for these changes to keep me with the system and not moving on to another game as infinitv/ dust.
1. Get rid of I-go-you-go. Activate a squad, perform its actions. Opponent activates a squad, …
2. Break up fixed turn sequence. No more movement then shooting then assaults. Why not shoot, move in which order you see fitting for your army/ situation on the battlefield?
3. Introduce some basic system of orders as IG have e.g. some kind of overwatch, split fire for heavy weapon in the squad.
4. Change the benefit for charging: not +1 AT but +1S +1 I in turn one (as furiuus charge now). Furious charge: +1 AT.
5. Split fire for vehicles. A tank should be able to use his heavy bolters to stop coming Infantry while the main gun does what it is “supposed” to and takes out other vehicles, primary threats.
6. Move on the storyline for some centuries.
7. Quicker pdf-updates for older codices.
AND PLEASE STOP THE INFORMATION-EMBARGO! We want to be looking forward to coming stuff for not just 4 weeks. Feed us with previews and give us back the feeling, that you care for our opinon… Others do, and it feels great (Warpath, Hordes,…)!
I’m one of those who has abandoned the 40K game, mostly because it was not fun. I’ve only played in 5th Ed, so I can’t compare it to any other version. The i go, you go seems really lame. Also, I think deployment needs work too, although scenarios can change, modify, and enhance this. Sometimes though, deployment takes forever.
Shooting needs to change too. Many of you have stated this, and I agree. if you have different guns with different ranges, you should be able to shoot at different targets. It makes no sense that I have to choose whether to shoot my Lascannon or my bolters at a squad of troops, when a tank/vehicle is out of the bolter range (but within range of the Lascannon).
Grenades are useless.
Wound allocation is stupid…. like posted above. The models that are removed from the board are actually out of the range of the weapon? How does that make sense?
Force Org needs to be tweeked. I think % is a better way to go (like in WFB)
Take the fluff out of the Codex. If I want to read the history of my army, I can read about it in novels. just give me the basics of who this guy (or squad is) and what he (they) can do. I really don’t care that Shrike killed thousands of Orks on his own, yet in a game gets killed by bolters. *this is just an example, don’t get excited fanboys. Fluff is for novels, Codex is for playing.
Allow all kinds of weapons for same army type. ie, Land Speeder Storms for BA, Stormravens for UM. It’s really a weak premise that all these Chapters who “Fght and Die for the Emperor” would not share technology, tactics etc.So so weak.
I think that’s about it.
oh yeah, please, for the love of god make the weapons available to units available to hobbiests. I would love to not custom make Combi-Flamers anymore. There are more examples too.
Rebuild customer confidence has to be #1. Please do not expect customers to fall at your feet because your doing new rules. There are a lot of new games out now and customers have an awful lot more choice where to spend their limited cash. Infinity/Warpath/Cutlass/warmachine/Malifaux/Warlord miniatures..etc
Make the books actually financially viable for people to buy, even if they don’t have the armies. An awesome novel = £6.99/7.99, a codex (full of pictures you can find on-line) £20!! I used to like collecting them all so I could plan different armies or try and find a weakness to exploit against my friends UBER army. They are a great product, just not financially viable. Don’t force people to buy hardback books like your doing with some of the WHFB armies. It just makes the company/warhammer hobby feel like it’s only about the money. I am not suggesting you don’t make money, that would be ridiculous, your a business and we are/were your customers. We like what you do an awful lot and we want to spend more. but we need it to be a happy event when we part with our cash!
Make it more attractive to the masses. How easy it it for a child (12yr old) to get into the hobby? skirmish games area easier to get into as a 12yr old can afford a few models at a time. If a child wanted to get an army with his pocket money, how long would it take them? your looking at about £250ish (not a researched figure). My sisters can’t afford to get their sons into the game as the make up of a worth while army would have some very expensive models in it. Tanks costing £31!, 5 marines for £20!! Meganobz £12.50 each!! my sisters won’t buy models at that price for my nephew to decorate it with a paint bomb tbh.
I can’t really comment on the rules aspect of the game as not had much chance to try them out as my circle of friends ebay’d a lot of their models in protest and started alternative gaming systems listed above. I would like to get back into it, as I have retained my models. As I have said before, your product is awesome, great mini’s great books, a lot of thought about the fluff etc, great tournaments and prizes, brilliant website. Then you act all arrogant about it and ignore your enthusiastic customers (sometimes too enthusiastic imho). unfortunately that enthusiasm has turn to a feeling of isolation and this has only aided the popularity of other gaming systems. I personally feel that this has been a good thing for the hobbiest/gamer overall. I certainly don’t want to see GW go belly up, and I can only hope that this will focus you back onto providing a sounder and more cost efficient product for the future.
There is already quite a few posts on here in such a short time. I hope you see this as an opportunity to view how many people actually WANT to come back. Please give us a reason to and take the time to LISTEN to your potential customer base.
Many thanks and I wish us all the very best for next year. I love you GW, but you need to love me too.
Broadside
S.W.A.L.K.
P.s. Please don’t go belly up prior to finishing the Horus Heresy novels, even though there will probably be about another 30yrs left in that money cow. hehe
Please lose the insta kill option…what is the point of having a multi wound model if it can be insta killed with a 25 point power fist.
i hope the trend with the starter sets getting bigger and bigger doesn’t continue, they should go back to something like battle for maccarage, just some basic infantry with some simple terrain to let new people get into the game without being overwhelmed. also that could keep its price down, 100 dollars is way to big of an investment into a new game
it would also be nice if they changed the order of shooting a bit, so you take armor saves before rolling for wounds, that’s the way it works for tanks in FOW, and it feels more natural, after all how is your armor going to save you if your already wounded
That would take some metagaming fun away from 40k.
Theoretically you could even combine save and wound rolls into one but current tension: I roll to wound then you roll for a disparate save is priceless. With people making all sorts of magic and prejudice before rolling dice.
For example in late 90s there was an urban myth around here about a young catholic priest who encouraged young men to play Warhammer instead of doing drugs and stealing cars.
All was fine but in his presence no demon could make a save…
Chaos Marines in starter set please! I hope the rumours are true, my Plague Marines need recruits. 😀
What i would like…hmmmmm….
Clear rules no grey areas (some ppeps tend to abbuse that).
Major overhaul to the coversave system.
Advancement of storyline.
Change to FoC or remove the stuff about only troops can claim.
Bring back the chapter approved stuff, i want to include deathwatch in my imperial armies.
I agree with advancement of storyline. We’ve been stuck in M99 for how many years now? It’s like GW is competing with the Simpsons to see who can suspend time the longest…
I would like to see an Integrated turn sequence where you activate a unit and go through the 3 phases then your opponent does the same.
Owerwatch’s return so that your squad of guys that has just moved but not had anything in range to shoot so that if someone wander into your LOS and the range of the weapon then you can shoot maybe have the range at 12″
CC total revamp
but that is just my 2 cents
oh and rules for taking allied units say you are guard and you want to take an allied unit of say assualt marines
Allies? Sounds like Apocalypse.
I’d suggest that ever army have the possiblilty to defend itself against another – psychic powers specifically for example.
couple of simple things:
Bring back a move stat – eldar/nids should be faster as standard.
Bring back move/run/charge (as per whfb) make that decision about combat or shooting.
bring back to hit mods. no more cover saves, if i hit you i hit you.
bring back save mods. no more shooting a marine with an autocannon and he gets same save as against a multilaser.
Complete agree about about the save and hit mods. Make it like WHFB. Give infantry that don’t move some kind of save bonus/hit bonus.
well there are a lot of rule i would love to see back like the khorne barzerker running up to terminators and ask what your Sv 2+ you said X worng said hello to my chainaxe 4+ like every thing else mohahaha, and the 2+ Sv for kharn, however i do under stand that my view may be a bit baius and that the new way is more balanced, but demoic arma would be a good thing to bring back,
right on to more realalsic ones then, i, sine i love fluff, would like a fluff bise game not has the main game but toke away in the book somewere, one in which space marines only have 5 men for there defriecce agaist the 300 orks for that is all they need. i’m not sure that it would ever work but hay.
seconly a nice ease way to make your own amry setting out surchen thing so that you can make sure that your army will not be to powaful or to week, a thing on how to make balanced special rules and the like, i’m sure if i was to look on the websit i might fine one but to have it in the book would be nice.
and about this competitive thing can you real take that out of a game, i meen that surly depense on the players if there a player who is playing to win, then you change the rules he still going to be playing to win, unless you say that you can only draw.
hope this is clare enough for everyone to read sine i know my spelling ins’t that good 🙂
Wishlisting is always nice, but doesn’t help a serious discussion about what the necessary changes are to make 40k better.
So what are the necessary changes in your opinion?
How is this news? this rumor has been around for like 4 months. BoW Reports world not flat.
@markdawg This isn’t news, I think you have miss understood the point. This is a discussion over the weekend 🙂
1. Overwatch
This is all we need to stop problems with single player turn mechanics.
Units should be able to start the game in overwatch.
2. 4ed-style abstract terrain rules
Current rules generate a lot of unnecessary discussions. Especially the area terrain rules for woods are stupid. If you model a good forest you can’t physically put miniatures and vehicles in it although “in real life” they would sneak around trees or bash through them.
3. Less powerful melee combat
I think it is too swashbuckly now for a SF game.
4. Bring back Squats, Robots and Zoats 😉
And the original Genestealer cults. Those were actually fun to play with and against.
i think the force organisation chart should change there should be minimums like must have a hq and 2 troops as we do but no max and instead in each codex in the back under the statline it has the maximum amount of that squad you can take so
terminator squad dreadnought
maximum of 20 models or 3 squads which ever higher maximum of 2
ideas of cousre i dont think that would be pertect but would be nice also i think pre measureing shooting attacks for some things is ok
eg
movment NO (they dont know how far they will get before stopping from increased fire (squads shound have different movments))
assault NO (they dont know if they are close enough to catch them off guard before they see them (deifferent squads different assault ranges))
shooting SOME (ork gun NO space marine las cannon YES ordanance NO pycic powers NO)
Having redesigned a chaos marine army to fit two different edition Codexs. This edition had better be something special with all the codexs updated pretty quick. If not said Chaos marine will be cosigned to E-Bay.
I remember the days of rogue trader before organisation charts. If the rules and point values are any good, then they are are uneccessary. But then GW would lose out on all those sales of the latest army books.
Overwatch! Am I late? They don’t have to go the full Infinity but some kind of reactive options you could gain by sacrificing actions in your own turn would liven things up. Save modifiers are a strange omission too.
I really like this idea of getting rid of the force organisation chart. Not only does that give you the variety of game styles mentioned up top but it would also make games easier to scale down, which would then make it easier to get into 40K, or back into it for lapsed gamers. And if the shooting rules had a little more complexity with to hit and save modifiers then squad vs squad level games would be fun too. IT ALL FITS.
Having a think about this they really need to change the turn system. I play orks who love to close combat but I sit there as the other player takes his turn, moves his unit to within 6″ , then shoots everything he has at me, then assaults. And I just sit there and take the damage with no response. either these steps need to be broken up or give me a counter-charge, or defensive fire.
The only other must do I can see is with new rules certain units become less or more powerful and therefore there needs to be a new points for all exisiting codex at the beginning and not years down the track. Ok nice if you have that powerful army but if you just suddenly became flacid then what do you do ?
It would be too complicated for some, but why not keep a tally of everything then both players remove their casualties at the END of the COMPLETE turn. I move, shoot, assault and you put a marker next to models that got killed. You move, shoot, assault and I put markers next to my models that got nixed. Then, when we’re BOTH done, we remove all the casualties and do the leadership tests and so on. Would make it more consistent with actual combat and keep it interesting.
Owww, just thought of one. Not sure if this is in the rules already though.
10 man devastators 2 x Lascannon, 2x Heavy bolter. = 2x different targets please. Was a bit ridicules firing my 2 heavy bolter’s at a Monolith for example. Space marines should have common sense implant and be able to fire at an alternative viable object. Same with all races that can do this, I don’t want to be bias 🙂
OHH OHH! I KNOW! PICK ME!! how about a special rule that means I ALWAYS WIN 🙂
seriously though. i think there should be less of a restricution of FoC but it should stay.
then there should be a rule about if a heavy weapon moves, it can’t fire. not if the guy next to the heavy weapon it can fire. not the stupid way it is. i hate it. it makes no sense. AAAAAARRRGGHH!!!!
My desires, alter the shooting mechanics, so someone with a boltpistol cant hit a jetbike going a bazilllion miles an hour on a 3+, perhaps change the movements to each unit, i doubt a banshee and a terminator can run the same distance.
make the vehicle damage more complex, but also, try and make it so not everyone HAS TO PLAY TANK AND TAKE ALL ANTITANK TO LIVE. i can only buy so many hive guard.
There are only two things I would like to see in the next edition of 40K (other than every codex completed and balanced before the next rules change). One the return of overwatch from second edition, and Two being able to assault or fire after a deep strike (but not both)
Only 2 things need to change.
1.) Have in the rule book any mini can be in your game even if its not from them. This will show your not a bunch of asses and will bring others back that you most likly lost over the past years.
2.) Let me play games naked in the hot days of summer! OK not all naked but at least in a speedo 😛
Few of my suggestions have already been talked about, but my thoughts anyway:
1) Overwatch or some more reactive strategies to shooting and moving. I don’t mind the moving rules as they are, but maybe moving in order or initiative for everyone might work.
2) Agree the wound allocation is horrible and chessy (and I’m an Ork player who benefits with the Nobz).
3) Vehicle shooting: why must all weapons fire at the same target? Part of the reason I play 40K is for the vehicles so don’t mind having them, as long as the rules can be tweaked. Maybe all vehicle weapons need a minimum range or something to make them vulnerable or less effective at close ranges.
4) Agree the cover saves should instead be shooting modifiers and leave armour saves for hits.
5) Don’t like the true line of sight- go back to an abstract ruling for determining cover
6) Change the Force Org chart to % instead of slots to help with balancing
7) Release updates/FAQ/Errata for all army books when 6th is released to help with balancing.
I would totally rewrite the rules and call it either Epic, Infinity or maybe warpath
ok, less snarky…
bring back the good bits from 2nd edition
do something about the dull turns of doom where you just sit there bored out of your skull
make units and weapons fit the fluff better and adjust points to suit
I hate the 70d6 roll multiple times- simplify to speed up game
stop changing the fluff- instead maybe invent new stuff for 40,001?
Hm, thinking about this it seems that what 40K needs is some kind of eighth ra-
What I would like:
Revamp saves and AP, AP= modifier to save roll, cover saves need to be nerffed, but be taken with armor saves, take cover save—>armour save—->invol (make invols like ward saves where they can be taken after other failed saves)
Minimize randomness: no run/difficult terrine rolls. (the randomness is one of the issues with 8th ed WHFB)
Revamp vehicles: one shot turn can keep a vehicles from doing anything. perhaps give them something like wounds and then once they run out of “wounds” then go to the damage table.
Give us information on upcoming stuff, this hush-hush stuff is pissing people off.
Keep this ed around for a while, and bring everything up to date than go to the new ed (one new codex every 4 months this ed could last 6 years)
GAME BALANCE: update what needs to be updated (4th ed stuff then 5th), make every unit useful in a competitive list (planing for competitive games make for better fun games).
per-measure
quality books (see FFG Dark Hersey books)
Lower prices and listen to player-you treat a player well they will buy more, you lower prices they will buy more.
Yeah, this is just off the top of my head but I may have more later.
What I would like to see:
Reduce Cover saves.
Make instantly killing commanders harder.
Being able to premeasure things with proper wargear.
Other then that…more good codexes.
just keep the rules clear and easy to understand
How?
not strictly about rules and game play, but i would like to be able to buy components for conversions like we used to able to. the selection on the site is really limited.
Yes, a return to the old days of the “Bitz Box” shop would be great. I don’t want to pay $40+ for a box of TS when I only want the helmets.
Or the meltaguns….
But aye. Thing is, it would make things expensive to produce and to sell. (cough) Balls. It just means we wouldn’t have to buy whole boxes for £15.
But come on, they’d just overcharge on them.
Hmm…
I know I am just one voice in a sea of voices, but it just takes one ripple in it to make a change.
I overal really enjoy Warhammer 40k, but comming from a new player perspective, it is rather complicated to the extreme in certain areas and often feels like most players just tailor to “Win” rather than tailor to “have fun!”
What I would LOVE to see in the new edition!
#1- Better wound allocation method
#2- Reduce the amount of cover saves
#3- Be nicer to Chaos Daemons (We need loving too!)
#4- Make every unit useful
#5- Overal just balance the armies out more!
I would change:
1. Cover should apply negative modifiers to hit rather than saves (possibly long range and moving too)
2. I would like more psychology. Is it too much to ask for a unit to be pinned from time to time and maybe not stop them moving but move as if in difficult terrain.
3. Armies need to be updated more regularly. Maybe have downloadable updated codexes which you get access to when you buy the book.
4. Have commanders/sergeants actually be able to issue orders like the imperial guard to their own squads as standard for all armies. Not necessarily the same maybe like “hold your ground” giving fearless or charge to give a unit fleet. Over watch could be incorporated in to this.
5. A mission based skirmish game with a campaign system so people can start small and use different armies with models they like. Warhammer is a great game but I find I am increasingly priced out of new stuff as I can’t afford an army.
6. Being able to split fire as said previously.
>>2. I would like more psychology. Is it too much to ask for a unit to be pinned from time to time and maybe not stop them moving but move as if in difficult terrain.<<
Along with this, make the psychology rules actually worth a damn again. I remember when "Hatred (x race)" or "Preferred Enemy (x Race)" use to do more than take up another line on your army list.
I think it is silly the way the codexes are geared towards having to buy a certain named character in order to play a certain style of army… Like the spacemarine characters that allow you to field a certain trooptype as core. It would be a lot better if these ‘rules’ could be bought to normal unnamed captains instead. Those would ofcourse be limited in such a way that only ever one specialization would be allowed. It is silly that Vulcan must be present in EVERY Salamanders army and so on… Its is as silly as saying that in order to play Blood Angels you MUST field Dante…. While a cool character, I dont think it is so much fun of an idea.
I’m not too interested about what the people here say (no offense) other than general gripes about how certain parts are broken; when it comes to like “no more uGoIGo” etc, it’s about preference not what would actually make the game better. At the end of the day nothing matters if GW don’t get a GOOD writer with a good reputation in. I’d much rather here people’s opinions on which writers could make 40K work rather than just stating their opinions which the next person to come along disagrees with.
Putting it in a good writer’s hands, who is dedicated to making 40k a GREAT game is really all that matters at the end of the day. Even if readers gave a great list of good ideas for the new 40k edition, all of it can be wasted by GW employing some lousy writers.
That’s true, but the old ‘wisdom of crowds’ thing holds. And it’s our game, not theirs. They might write it, but when my opponent asks if he can field a remote controlled melta bomb I say why not, and we hack together some rules from our ideas.
Besides, who’s to say GW don’t read these sorts of forums to get an idea of what the player base is thinking? I know I would. After all, you want to give people what they want to keep them playing. If you ignore them utterly eventually you lose them to other systems that will give them what they want – such as Warpath/Kings of War/Warmachine/Hordes.
Hi all.
I like the 40k background and minatures.
I like the straight forward game play of the current game.
I DO NOT like the abstracted WHFB rules , they are just over complicated .(Too many resolution methods to cover the simple systems.)
This is due to the game devs writng rules excusivley to promote the latest releases.
Rather than writing the rules INCLUSIVLEY to maximise the game play to rules ratio.
In the spirit of ‘FUBAR’ one page rules , I attempted a re-write of the 40k rules using game mechanics developed after 1990.
Currently Its a rought draught of 14 pages.
It has..
Interactive game turn to maximise tactical interaction.
Intergrated supresion mechanic,
UNIFIED damage resolution,
etc.
I was going to start a new thread in 40k general discussion , to out line these new ideas.
Even if GW plc dont want 40k to have a rule set written specificaly for it,( a modern well defined tactical wargame,) Could we have a look at some alternatives and see if we could develop a new rule set ?
I want the units in 40k to work in an intuitive way.
Forcing WHFB game mechanics on 40k units just doesnt allow this.
Modern warfare is a balance of mobility , firepower and assault.
Mobility to take objectives , fire power to control enemy movement, and assault to contest objectives.
In a game where over 95 % of minatures carry ranged weapons , having HALF the stat line dedicated to resolving close combat, only ONE to resolve ranged attacks and NONE for mobility , could be seen as a handicap perhaps?
Anyhow I vote for a complete re-write!
I would like some charge reactions in 40k (stand and shoot, flee etc)
Also allow pre-measuring and change force organization to the % system in fantasy
call it Rogue Trader…
And bring back TRR? Calculating fractions of a circle each time you want to turn to see how many you’ve used up?
Something close to fluff would be nice though. I want my 5 man blood angels to be able to stand up and defeat 30 gaunts. Perhaps an attack per member if the unit type is horde? That’d give elite infantry a chance to actually live up to all the story.
What I would like to see?
A well written, balanced game system, were mass of dice is not the way to win the game, I would also love to see the flames of war system of rolling to hit based on the target instead of your own abilities be implemented in there.
Change up the whole turn system to maybe have it so that you take turn about each phase. In a proper battle if you see the enemy moving into position you don’t stand and wait to get hit, you move to give your self the best tactical options. Maybe just have the movement phases turn about then the shooting and assault taken as one phase (so you move, they move. You fire and assault, they fire and assault)
Have pre measuring, every army will have a basic understanding of how far their gun would fire so it does make sense. two options i can think of:
1. have range finders as an upgrade.
2. once you pre measure you are not allowed to shoot a target outside the forward arc (i.e cannot turn models)
Get rid of wound allocation. Such a waste of time.
Cover save have a penalty to hit rather than a 50/50 save
Combat, ws differences mean nothing in most instances, crazy!
It’s actually been a while since I’ve played a proper game of 40k, so a bit hazy.
Give all units falling back the chance to regroup. End this being escorted off the table or units below 50% or what ever having no chance of staying on the board (we don’t all play marines)!!!
That’ll do for now I think
I agree 100% with all your points, well said.
I don’t I’m afraid. A cover save makes you harder to kill, not harder to hit. If I spray a building with machine gun fire you’re better protected, but I can still fire at you. If I fire an anti tank weapon it’s going through the building and taking you with it. Both are same to hit, one just negates the cover bonus. WS do make adifference? My guard need 20 men to kill 2 marines, mathematically. My blood letters on the other hand need 5 to kill 5. It does work, but it should be simpler, as there areonly three options, stick them on the stat lines?
I see what you are saying about cover, but don’t you think the idea could also be to provide concealment? I think harder to hit and harder to kill are semantics, my problem is that 4+ save is so good. I think maybe if they reduced it to a 5+ then it would be better. But I would prefer a penalty to hit. But just my opinion, I can see where you are coming from.
I would argue spraying a building makes you harder to hit…basically more bullets will hit the building then the target.
Maybe just semantics and the way 40k has condition players- i prefer roll to hit, roll to wound…..40k has IMO: do you have good aim, does your hit have a chance of wounding, does it actually wound
Basically this can be simplified as:
roll to hit with a potential wounding shot, modify by range, cover etc
roll to wound- weapon str vs target, modify by armour, toughness etc
To be honest this whole less competitive thing to me is slightly worrying and kinda pointless. It’s much easier for players to take a competitive ruleset and play a relaxed game with it than it is for competitive players to take a relaxed ruleset and make it competitive, without resorting to arguing the minutia of every sentence. The thing GW don’t seem to realise is that any game that involves more than 1 person and a nominal winner or loser is going to lead to competitiveness, and in some case over competitiveness. A lot of the WAAC style of gaming could be removed by GW writing rules without loopholes, which is not that hard to do, just ask any lawyer(and we all know GW have plenty of them) Actually balancing codexes is another step, and I’m not just talking about power creep. From the rumours I’ve read of codex playtest GW seems to test each unit in a vaccuum on the battle field, they never seem to consider the consequences of someone spamming multiples of the same unit(I’m looking at you ML Long Fangs etc)
Rant aside for the actual rule changes I agree with most people. A turn system other than simply sitting there all day would be nice, personally I think you move I move you shoot I shoot etc works kinda well. Cover saves, especially area terrain ones need a nerf badly. ID from double toughness should be changed to something like inflicting two wounds instead, and leaving ID to things like force weapons/psychic powers/special rules etc. Im sick of watching cheap power fists splat 100+ compulsory units. Also there really needs to be some sort of balance shift more towards shooting and not just the alpha strike style either. 40k is definitely CC oriented, which is kind of hard on armies like Tau who are built around shooting.
Personally i’d love a return to the far, far too complicated Rogue Trader, but being realistic i’d say they should go back to 2nd edition…
…Only this time without f***ing up the codexes by making each one more over powerfull than the last.
I enjoyed 2nd ed- the box set with its basic codex etc was dam fine
Codex creep, bolt on rules and you nedd all the white dwarf issues to be up to date did kill it for me
Also Terminators where pretty awesome i recall
I feel the “its not a competitive game” is just an excuse to have a poorly written and imbalanced game system, instead of a good one.
Possibly, but it’s not helped by the egomaniacs who want to argue to win a game at all costs instead of play a game for fun, with winning as a side line.
As I said before, those people will always exist, regardless of how the ruleset is organised Playing a game for fun is simple, find an opponent who isn’t a WAAC guy, and if you find one of those guys don’t play them again, it’s the only practical solution at the end of the day.
What is waac?
Win At All Costs, basically the kinda guy who turns up with the hardest, cheesiest list possible and then spends the entire game rules lawyering every single thing in an effort to gain more of an advantage.
What this game really need is a tree organization form…. for example u start with one commander and two troops of your choice … and them u can add stuff for example
for a commander a two troops -one elite, one fast, one heavy
for a commander and 4 troops u have 2 elites, 2 fast, 2 heavy
and so on….
and different units open different options like get a techmarine and have access to vehicles,
librarians give u access something, chaplains give u access to something..
This can be apply to any race and will be much better
And the best change that they can do is actually make a couple of bundles for the armys,( apocalypse type) i miss those man……
Thats not going to work, you’ll just see the same army for each race.
Does anyone else think that it doesn’t matter what we think? It’s not like GW will listen to us. 🙂
So why don’t we collect our ideas and plunk them together as unofficial ideas which we can take to our own clubs?
Now that’s a good idea, a consolidated house rules thread.
For me, I’d like a return of armour mods. I know it was to make things easier, but if you fire a tank shell at a grunt in a wood the grunt, and wood get made a mess of. Also, for many armies the 3+ save a marine has may as well be invulnerable. Why can’t a genestealer reduce that to 4+?
Also put to hit and to wound in the stat line, to get rid of the tables. I’d really like ‘overwatch’, or a way to react to an action. Currently you’re stuck there while your opponent blats you.
The deep strike rules are bonkers. Why can you lose a landraider to a gaunt? Why can daemons not assault/move after daemonic standing about looking stupiding?
Vehicle damage rules need refinement – yes, a rocket can destroy a tank, and say three glancing hits add +3 to the roll but have no effect and a penetrating simply rolls on the chart but 6 is weapon destroyed, 7 immobilised, 8 engine blows up 9, wrecked, 10 explodes.
I blew up a storm raven with a krak grenade from a guardsman after it had turboboosted. It simply should not be possible. Equally another should not survive 9 lascannon shots. It’s preposterous that there is such variation.
In the same area – scatter. You should never scatter more than twice the original range back toward you. It’s daft. Does anyone use demolition charges? 6″ range, 2d6 scatter. Flippin’ stupid.
Yes, get rid of force org. But then, a part of me says, why not just agree it amongst yourselves. It’s designed to balance armies out so I can’t field 15 landspeeders each as individual units.
Personally what the game really needs is a level playing field. Every army needs a current codex that is balanced, even if that means updating some older codices. I’ve been playing 40K for about 2 years now after a long hiatus and much has changed, much has improved since 1st and 2nd ed. Privateer managed a defined timescale – an incredible on at that – on releases, so perhaps if GW said every 3 months you’ll get a new army book, alternating warhammer/40K to make models for every unit in a codex over the following three months, so basically in a year 4 entire new/updated armies are released.
From a business perspective, maybe they won’t sell as many Tau as space marines, but if GW gives up on the army then they’ll never sell any, so it’s an odd situation.
My advice would be to buy out mantic and use their Warpath rules 😉 Although there are balance issues, my group likes Kings of War waaaay better than 8th. The game is much faster and, in my experience, still results in many tough decisions during a match. I haven’t tried warpath yet, but its got to be better the tank-hammer.
I like to see something for transport skimmers when they go flat out. I mean the troops can bale out before the skimmer goes down. Just have them do a initiative test and then deep strike them.
I’ve thought out a bunch of different things I want then looked at them then started again two or three times, when I realise I’ve just described another system or 2nd or 3rd edition 40k almost exactly. To be honest at this point I don’t think it matters what I want for 6th editions rules- since what I want is out there in some form or another, But what I would like to suggest is changes to the system outside the rules EG how we get the rules. Ebooks and DRM etc have advanced to the point were it could probably be made more time consuming to pirate an electronic format codex than it is to scan the pages of the hard copy, plus they could sell the rulebook on a cheap(well cheap to manufacture anyway) tablet with a custom OS and sell each codex as a plug in through a download manager- they can still sell ’em as printed media alongside, but it would be nice to have the option.
Wouldn’t that be cool? Instead of carting a bag full of books to a tourney you just bring a physical representation of the data slates that are in so much of the fluff with all your stuff on it. From GWs side look at all the ancillary crap they could foist on us, Chaos player? well here’s a choice of 5 possessed skins taken from the back of an imperial servant for the back of your tome-one with the eye and one for each god. Guard player? Here you go, its your munitorum approved shock resistant protective sleeve. Marine Have a drop/assault protective casing. And all these are just different names I’ve come up with on the fly to market a rubber cover for the back of the reader, imaging the *ahem* quality merchandise *ahem* the GW marketing team could come up with.
Oh sweet, dear, baby Jesus!
What a great idea! Holy shit, I already want one of everything you just said up there!
The sad thing is I am being totally serious. I think that would be awesome.
You Sir, are a genius! I salute you!
I’m an EX-40ker myself so I am pretty sure I wont be part of the target customer base, but there are quite a few things I’d want to see in 6th edition to bring me back. If anyone from gee-dub is actually taking their time to read this, you have my thanks for allowing me to express my thoughts.
1:Scaling- The game plays very poorly at low points levels where new players are likely to afford and frankly, we don’t all want to sit down for four hours for a single game at a balanced point level. I think Warren’s idea with doing away with force organization would be a good start to this, but more than that, just balancing the units/vehicles/etc. would be a huge improvement.
2:Put power in my hands, not just more dice- One of 40k’s hallmarks is that it’s a ‘buckets-o-dice’ kind of game, but that never seems to help you hit or wound when you really need it. I would like to see a mechanic that allows you to stack the odds just a little in your favor. Maybe lesser psykers that you have to pay points for, or a set number of command points you get per turn, or even some way that can let you roll two dice and pick the highest on important rolls. I would even settle on giving up some attacks from a unit to make the rest more reliable.
Conversely, dice rolling for random effects kills the reliability of my army and prevents me from making a solid battle plan. This sort of thing can be fun when it’s just one or two unpredictable effects that are always similar (like how massive an explosion is), but I get the feeling it could be taken too far if things stay on course(like whether my opponent’s models or my own models are the ones that explode).
3:Late game drama over attrition- Ever since I started in 3rd edition 40k has been a game where defense is greater than offense and things slowly start dying even at the top of turn one. The problem here is that I don’t remember more than one or two big battles that I actually finished. the winner was obvious by turn 3 or 4 and thing really start winding down and getting dull. I want those later hum-drum turns to be more decisive and really become the climax of the game where a comeback is always possible. I have come to look for more in a game than having the primary way of winning to be just grinding down the enemy. That’s always an option, but never the main objective. I feel the extra long ranges in 40k tend to work against this goal. It may be unpopular, but I kind of feel ranged weapons should cap out at 36″ maximum range.
4:Vehicles- Vehicles have always been awkward in 40k and never synchronized well with how infantry and damage work for the rest of the game. I think it’s about time they were all reigned in and reworked from the ground up. Something that feels less rigid and random would be very welcome. Surely there is a way to keep the distinct feel of 40k while still updating how vehicles work- there’s got to be over a decade’s worth of ideas on this on file.
5:Balance the army rules, PLEASE- Even if the game is made to be more casual you guys know very well people will still shoehorn it into a tournament format. How well armies are portrayed in the competitive environment has a large impact on how the public views them. Balancing armies also saves so much grief for players who get stuck with what they feel is an uncompetitive codex and really helps the game’s overall vitality. You guys are professionals and I am certain you already know this stuff, but the fact remains that the 40k codices represent the least balanced armies in the industry, internally and externally. I’m not trying to condemn anyone here but it’s a shameful state for the industry leader. It’s ok to disregard the old codex as long as the stopgap list is still balanced.
My fifth point above comes off more harsh than I intended. I intended it as a plea for progress, not a damning complaint. Frankly the core 40k rule book is written rather well and it seems to be the codices that punch holes in the rules. For instance, It isn’t until you make an army with double-casting psykers that the lack of rules for two casts becomes apparent.
@dais
excellent posts but i dont agree with reduced ranges.
The codices were balanced and tied into the rules at only really one point over the last 15 years- the “use this for now” rules that came in the back of 3rd edition. after that just like you say the rules that don’t work started being added, and the explanations were missed out -I feel- because of the very limited groups GW uses to play test I.E. its own staff, if they’d just reach out to the community now and then a little alpha test for BoW backstage ala mantic, or a few random email addresses from their news letter mailing list sent a request, combined with appropriate non disclosure agreements (eg you’re allowed to say X has rule Y but not post the statlines of a whole codex on your blog)
That’s were most of the frustration comes from with GW nowadays I think, the people that they expect to fork over £20+ for 10 little toy soldiers or 50 for a rulebook that needs a 10 page correction document in 6 months when a new army breaks it are excluded from its development until its too late, they receive feedback *after* going to print and charge people money for the privilege of providing that feedback, and that’s assuming the feedback is even taken into consideration.
Capping the shooting ranges isn’t a particularly good move I feel, they’re already laughably short in some cases, but I understand were you’re coming from with that suggestion, I think rather than capping range, bring back the range modifiers for all non barrage weapons- people still have the range, but its less reliable for the wall of guns types.
A few posts up I said you were a genius…
Well that didn’t last long did it? 🙂
I’m sorry, but in all seriousness your suggestion that GW allows anybody that they can’t completely control to Alpha test anything is, I’m afraid, laughable. The amount of paranoia shown by this company in the last year is astounding!
I’ve read post’s from others on other forums that claim GW’s information embargo is making sales go up for retailers. As God is my witness I cannot put together the particular set of circumstances that makes that happen in my head, but if it is, then more power to them I guess.
If the above paragraph is indeed true, and GW is moving more kit by saying less then one can only expect more of the same. It’s sad and I hate it with a passion, but that’s going to be the only game in town IMHO.
Well they say there’s a fine line between genius and madness, I prefer to think of it as a giant rail to grind the skateboard of my mind down.
Like I said, I know taking ranges down would not be a popular Idea, and I think the modifiers might be a more elegant solution if they are done well. It really bugs me when a standard missile launcher can fire deep into enemy deployment on turn 1 -at a diagonal even! It just feels like super long ranges take away some of the elements of positioning when most good weapons can shoot across 2/3 the usable battlefield or the back of enemy deployment.
I still very fondly remember that tyranid list in the back of the book when I started 40k. I think it captured the alien menace feel I loved better than either the 3rd or 4th edition codices.
I personally enjoy 40k but there are a few things I’ve noticed.
Cover saves are too powerful, but I do like the fluff of troops diving behind rubble etc. to avoid damage.
Astartes are veterans of many campaigns but it doesn’t feel like it when you’re playing. For the sake of balance and number of models being fielded I imagine this will have to stay the same though.
I did not know any other way of playing other than ‘I go/You go’ until I read these forum posts. Now it has been mentioned I realise it would be a great change if it was unit activation.
There should be modifiers to your accuracy based on how close your target is. Shooting someone point blank and then missing doesn’t make sense.
The outflank rule is maybe a bit powerful whereas deep striking is too risky. They both add tactics to the game though.
I agree with moving the background on a bit. The Horus Heresy series is excellent but the ‘present day’ background should be focussed on more. The background section was a little disapointing for me in this edition since it was ‘samey’. Although the artwork was nice.
P.S. Cheaper starter sets and battleforce sets would be welcome.
Battle forces I don’t mind – paying £10 for one model I do. It stops collectors, new players, puts off younger ones. It’s just bonkers.
How about $38 (24 quid) for a Ogre Kingdoms hero model? I nearly puked when I saw that!
Totally ridiculous!
The more I think about it the more it dawns on me. Balance is impossible because each player has the option to choose what they want with set stats per choice.
Now I know what I’m about to say is really radical from what 40K is but I’ll put it out just to see what you all think of it. Don’t kill me for this idea.
1. What needs to happen is no more codexes. Have one book with all the stats per unit that all players can choose from. What I mean is that an HQ stat is the same for a IG army as an HQ from a CSM army.
My reasoning is I look at chess and its a very challenging game, but each side has set number of pieces and have no advantage over the other player. It comes down to what you do with them, not what rule they might not have but you do to turn the tide in your favor.
2. Have it that both sides have to have equal number of figures. That is true balance.
3. You can play and of the models as you wish it to be as long as its clear what stat is with it. If I want my guardsman to be the lord he can be the lord so long as we both can tell its a lord, like have a marker to indicate its role.
Now I know what I mention is not going to happen but it does make us think of why its so hard to have competition thats balance. They have to many options that allow for loops in the rules. Chess has a simple set of rules and fair balanced that forces the players to strategize over depending on a special army list with special rules. And chess is hard to master, so I say 40k can have set rules that are easy yet hard to master as well.
That just wouldn’t work and would kill the game off in about 6 weeks. Balance is a very woolly concept for a tabletop game, it shouldn’t be a prefect balance for every list, some lists should do better against other lists, or in certain scenarios, its up to the players to try to force their opponent to play in such a way as to defend their weaknesses while pressing their advantages, that is the only analogue that should be drawn between chess and 40k IMO. For an imperial guard commander to have the same stats as a Chaos lord is frankly abhorrent to me, at best I would suggest its ill advised at worst its pissing on the almost 25 years of fluff that keep most of us interested in 40k even when the prices are ridiculous and certain armies get fobbed off with kits that don’t even have the most basic options EG the basilisk is missing its heavy bolter and the gun crew, and Eldar storm guardians don’t even have the minimum unit in the box.
As far as I can recall, overwatch was dumped because GW found people were just putting their entire army into overwatch and just sitting there, leading to scenarios where both armies on the table would sit in overwatch waiting for the other side to do something.
I think each turns phases should be alternated (e,g. I move, you move, I shoot, you shoot). This would allow for a much more tactical game.
Also, if the dump the FOC, there needs to be some sort of restrcuction in place saying that the bulk of your points must be spent on troops – I remember the bad old days of my friends attempts at Herohammer 40,000.
So how about only one unit in overwatch?
Roomin lack of an edit. How about ‘orders’ as a special rule, allowing dig in, overwatch, disguise, change your underpants, put on new shoes – something to allow a unit (one unit) to do something ‘special’.
Overwatch needs to come back
If both sides are forced to do something by good scenario design and with better turn order and terrain placement you dont get armies sitting still doing nothing for fear of shooty death.
Although static armies afraid to do stuff is very ww1 dont you think?
That would be a better way to do it.
That was meant as a response to bubbles 15. And yes, trebormills, it’s exactly WW1.
Okay, I have a few ideas.
Get ride of power creep in the codices.
Sit down, Plan out all the codex’s at one time, go down one by one, and plan them out. Then plan out the armies strength and weakness. give each army a few things that there good at and a few things there not so good at. Make sure all the codexes are covered, then start the roll out of the books
See, the thing now it each codex is a ridiculous one ups man to the last. Grey Knights being the worst. It nullified the Dark eldars codex when it comes to them attacking the Knights.. and there now physic tanks..
also, really who wants to wait four years to get an army book?
Second, make sure that you have models for each entry in the codex. Okay, so you can only make five plastic kits per codex, and three metal / resin / fine cast make sure that with in six months of the codexs release, that that codex has all its entries covered by basic kits. Leaders and special characters can still be left for conversions, but give the players the units to paly.
One super heavy of some kind for each army. Got to share the love. Great now we had 2 Imperials super heavy and one orks super heavy. What about Eldar? What about Necrons? What about Chaos? you want to keep the game competitive, keep the armies slightly even.
Plan out your updates. Frist we had ten years between an update. then it was seven.. then three? now five.. Seriously, any thing under five years is too short of a time.
Rule wise i need more time to think.. these are just simple suggestions
Four years? The last Necron codex is nine years two months old. Tau is five years six months and eldar is just shy of five years.
In all other respects; nicely put.
My two cents……
I would like to see the turn change a bit myself to keep it more interactive. The turn sequence from ASL would work well:
1. Rally Phase – both players
2. Prep Fire Phase – attackers units that fire in this phase cannot move
3. Movement phase – attackers that have not yet fired can move
4. Defensive fire – defenders get to shoot. They can also shoot at units as they move.
5. Advancing fire – units that move fire at 1/2 firepower
6. Advance phase – attackers units advance move and can advanc einto close combat
7. Close combat – both players
Now the attacker becomes the defender. Once both players have a go as the attacker one turn is over.
The game is moving more unit based as opposed to skirmish base throught he editions. I would like to see this continue.
Finally, tournaments are great! I am not a big tourney player, but it is what gives 40k passion.
Here is to hoping that I will not hate 6th edition……
I love ASL…not sure a 400 page manual for 40k is a good idea however 😉
ASL is a great way to do you go, i go but still have both sides able to do stuff. Also the SK rules are only 24 pages- infantry, artillery and afv. Would be longer if we get rid of all those tla terms (ffmo, cx, ffnam, etc)
Dont forget Residual fire as well, markers for 40k might be fun…maybe a cd sized bit of terrain to show its an area full of possible death
Stupid no edit…so ill reply
ASL= Advanced Squad leader (also known as full asl these days)
SK= Starter Kit (a cheap entry to full asl)
Squad leader came out 1977 and became ASL in the 80’s so its about 25 years old now.
The full ASL manual is basically 100 pages of core rules plus a load of extra pages for special bits. The manual is huge due in part to Chapter H which in 40k terms is the codex
ASL is currently supported by MMP and is a hex and counter ww2 wargame
The game is good as it is, there wouldn’t be much I would change, too much change and it will not be 40K..
I would however i do find there is a balancing issue with the armies, I do not play space marines and I believe GW idea of balancing is using a space marine army as a centre focus.
Also take care and check your rules,.wording and accuracy. It seems every time I pick up a GW book, the referencing, wording or even spelling in some cases is plentiful. For example in my eldar codex Prince Yriel rules (p53 Master Strategist) it refers you to read the rules on master Strategist on page 18, and when you turn to page 18 it is a background story of Ulthwe the Damned and not the rules your refering to.
Organised your rules and include a Glossary. Eg. Morale checks, Leadership Checks, Psychic Checks, not only do my friends and I get confused what they are and that they are different to each other but to find what each of them means, it is not clearly marked in the rule book and when you do find them they are miles appart from each other even though they use the same figures. Eg leadship test page 8, Morale check pg44, and if I wanted to know about granades. that is split into several pages too. Last thing i want in a middle of a game is to ping pong in the rule book to check on a rule..
last thing I can think of an this minute is your rules on buildings. the book talks about a single building and not considering size or partially ruin areas. Say I have a castle fort or a small Bunker, and it as an armour value of 14. and a guy comes over and flames it. it seems to matter not that the building is a castle or a bunker, if you flame the building it injuries all . again if you managed to destory the building , it doesn’t seem to matter the size . The same can go for ruins. just because a ruin is a ruin doesn’t mean the ruin cannot be further ruined. yet the rules does say it cannot be damaged further.
I suggest after pointing out the above a chart or change of rules to expand the imagination merging ruins rule sand building rules as one. Maybe add structure points to a building or give the AV or a single wall only and if destroyed the direction of the wall falling using a scater dice and 1D6 and that area becomes difficult terrain and any models on that wall or total troops divide by number of walls must take a save , additionally destroyed wall section becomes open to fire/ ruin etc (maybe even roll on a table to see what it is). The rule books a does say use your imagination (p80). I say give use the fluff to achieve this.
Shouldn’t armor saves be done before wound rolls, to see if your armor stops the shot before it rends your flesh?
While I miss the days of Rogue Trader, I dont want to go that far back.
Things I would like to see:
Overwatch – this is a game with guns…..there is always going to be someone sitting back waiting for an enemy to show its self. The modern military uses Bounding Overwatch. I know in the 41st Millennium they have lost a lot of knowledge and such…but come on.
Hit and Save modifiers – these are just easier and work better than cover saves and AP.
Alternating turns – heck…someone earlier proposed just making the movement section alternating. I could get behind that if we weren’t going full blown alternating turns.
Army Balance – this says it all….someone else said earlier to plan out the books and then release them. Hmmmm……could that be done? YES!! Privateer Press did it with 12 books in ONE YEAR. 40k could just as easily do the same. 1 Rulebook, then 14-15 army books until they were out. Hell, I would be joyful even to get my latest codex in the year and a half or so since the rulebook came out. Take 2 years even….but plan at the beginning and get them lined up.
I would like to see some rules that makes all the armies equal so that there is no more super powerful army list that just beats everything. Some rule that says I play this so I stand just as fare of a chance at winning this game as you do. For example lets say one player is playing Tau and the other is playing Tyranids the Tyranid player has all genestealers and infiltrates all of them. Under the current edition this is death for the Tau player I know I have done it, I have killed almost all of my friends army turn one with this tactic and once I got off the whole army but that was pure luck there, so please lets get something to make these armies more equal. I want games where every game I play is a close game that each player had to fight for the victory with everything we had not just hey I slaughtered your force want to go again. I would like to also see GW admit some things are overpowered like Warmachine does on Page 5. Actually I would like to see something similar to Page 5 in 40k.
Arguably the Tau should be inside vehicles, and toting flamers galore, or, reserving everything!
There’s always a way to beat an army, it just takes a bit of thinking around.
A mass troop army is easy to beat as you concentrate your fire at one end and move up the flank, retreating when you get encircled.
Ironically, I still think (minus balance issues) that 2nd Ed had a great set of core rules. I still miss effective vehicle ramming and the strategy cards. For me, 2nd Ed was also clear cut and easy to follow.
– Modifiers instead of allocations/covers/etc…
– Only special units being able to select different targets. (Oh, there’s a warboss walking up behind a group of Nobz? Well, you have to clear out the nobz before the boss can be targeted. Which makes sense, unless you’re a sniper.)
– Dice roll plus Ld/Int to see who goes first (was always fun leaving it up to lady luck and planning your strategy to be able to survive going first or second).
– Penalties if your leader gets killed (2nd Ed Avatar death, for example. Every model within 12 or 24″ IIRC had to take an immediate Ld test or break and flee).
Just revamp it for the D6 system and it would cover all forms of gamer – hobbyist, fun-seeker, competitor.
If we’re including wish list items…
Return to the days when White Dwarf was actually a useful supplement, not just a monthly advertisement for your products.
Spearhead? Possibly the best white dwarf going, yes.
Agree on 2nd edition but why revamp it for D6 – the different dice made it easier to differentiate higher strength weapons
squads should be able to split fire
Too many of the ADHD crowd that plays these days would complain about having to use different kinds of dice.
Now that I think of it, I haven’t actually seen any kind of dice except for d6, d10 and d20 in a long time.
1. taking turns activating squads for sure
2. reaction actions, overwatch
3. moving shouldnt limit a rapid fire weapon to shoot once 12″, this stupid rule has been in there long enough.
4. commanders and officers can issue orders to allow extra actions to be taken
5. allow special/heavy weapons within units to go for separate targets than the rest of the squad is shooting at.
6. being able to back off a melee engagement to fire weapons with some sort of penalty to hit etc.
overall i feel the game right now is way too simplistic, so much more can be done to make it more interesting.
It’s a bit irritating that GW can only see one way to play the game – competitive or non competitive, why can’t you cater for both styles using an approved tournament pack to make the changes to a competitive role
More changes from me :-
Wound allocation done by the player whose squad is shooting
Only minis in los can have wounds allocated against them
Bring back sustained fire dice including the jam rules
1: I-go-you-go on unit basis. 2: No “fixed” phase order (move-shoot-assault), should be up to the player. 3: Modifications concerning to hit / cover saves 4: Special weapons / tanks able to split fire!5: Run should be fixed distance not random 6: CC tarpitting fix (weak units should not be able to tie up a carnifex for instance, the fex should be able to squash them and get on like nothing). 7: Get rid of the whole “powers negating other powers”, that stuff is straight out of “kids in a sandbox” situations.
I did like the old nullify rules, though.
And why not bring back a psychic phase, instead of choosing to use a power or shooting? A SM is supposed to be disciplined enough to not need that much concentration, a CSM just wouldn’t give a sh*t, Eldar have practised psychics longer than mon-keigh have been around, and so on…
I very rarely play 40K these days. Why? Armour. (Troop not vehicle.) I think it’s undercosted. How many times have my orcs “won” a combat by a country mile just to have my opponent make all his saves whilst my guys just drop dead on the spot? Then what happens is my opponent shuffles me off the board by keeping a single character close to the fleeing troops and half my army is gone.
I don’t think it’s a balanced game. Either more playtesting is needed or GW need to listen to the playtesters more.
I was thinking of bringing it to a D12 (2d6) standard instead of D6. Anyone has any thoughts on that?
I like the idea of something based on a D10. The stats are based on base ten, after all.
But it’s complicated to manage. It gives a much wider scope though.
Just thought I’d share a site a colleague of mine had pointed out about a year ago to me.
Hope all those people looking for individual bits will enjoy it 🙂
http://www.bitsandkits.co.uk/
Excellent call on bitsandkits!
ok so there are alot of things i would change but one main thing is when a unit is hit by a template you must take off models under the template. i find it so annoying when i land a large template on the special wepons in a unit and all the models that arnt under the template get removed as casulties instead.
For me the game as is, is almost broken to the point of being unplayable for fun. My group has long since employed house rules to make the game more enjoyable. I fully understand that the new armies must have appeal in order to sell mini’s but to do so at the cost of game balance has and will continue to drive people away from GW games. Here is a few things I would love to see in 6th:-
1. Rework the cover system – as a tyranid player I can safely say I rarely take armour save outside of combat. The fantasy system is far more realistic and fun, so for example shooting a model in standard cover would give -2 to the BS of the shooter. After all if a shot hits terrain or the attacker cant get a clean shot, then it misses. The wounding bullet doesn’t just decide to back up and hit cover after.
2. The turn sequence. We have messed around with this a lot, doing things like 1 squad at a time, which while it is more tactical is also unwieldy, unbalanced and time consuming for large armies. What I have found to work far better is to alternate phases. GW published something to this effect in a White Dwarf e.g
Player 1 – Movement
Player 2 – Shooting
Player 1 – Combat
Player 2 – Moving
Player 1 – Shooting
Player 2 – Combat
Its more fast paced, fun and real time making players think about weathering a turn of fire for a first turn charge or running out into the open. Much more like a real battlefield.
3. Balance. BTP did a battle report recently where one of the players used a Tau Ethereal, and the response was just why? This really sums up the state of the game, GW needs to balance the codices prior to launch to save their spot as industry leader, as more and more games become mainstream and competitive, only a balanced game can truly dominate the market, as well as retain avid fans. Instead of pushing new models by making them more effective in game, something which has lead to the game becoming newer equals better and “cookie cutter” lists, making each unit balanced will allow people to enjoy a greater degree of personal choice while keeping customers, which in the end will shift more models. As an example making the Carnifex redundant in order to sell Trygon’s meant previous model collections were obsolete and resulted in more than a few local people selling up and moving to Warmachine taking their continuing business with them. Think about it GW.
Apologies for the following wall of text, but I think this bears pointing out…
The rules don’t matter. Warhammer 40,000 is the single most popular/populous tabletop system on the planet so to a certain extent (obviously there can’t be any shenanigans such as “OK, we’ve deployed so now I’ll roll and on a 4+ I just win”) it doesn’t matter what Games Workshop does with this new edition.
I have seen posts on Dakka after the summer’s embargo and Finecast outcry suggesting “let’s make our own wargame” but where are these threads now? Not on the front page, the enthusiasm has died out. I’ve also seen posts where people have brought up the problems with the current ruleset, but this has been waved away with the fact that no other ruleset lets you pit power armoured super soldiers against daemonic hordes – the models are just too good. Despite the false nature of this idea, no other ruleset, even with the same minis, can match 40K because the fluff is hardwired into the rules by the way the codices are written and also because it is the official GW product.
40K is so widespread that whole other companies survive by making nothing but conversion parts or proxy models for the game. Other companies get a great deal of their sales from people who want alternate 40K minis when they weren’t intended for the system. Until Infinity Week, how many people saw those figs and thought “Oh that would be a sweet Inquisitorial henchman/Tau auxiliary” instead of thinking to try the game. Even during Infinity Week people were suggesting Ariadna would make good IG.
WHFB 8th is not dying because of its rules. The mood from Warseer feels to me to be saying “Yay! The competitive douchebags are gone! Now we can enjoy the game as it was always MEANT to be played. So what if the spells are a bit too powerful? It’s high fantasy. If you want balance, play chess” or something like that at least (I think the guy who said that last line posts here too) and therefore while acceptance and uptake of the new rules may take time, it won’t be the thing that kills the game.
Simply put, 40K has achieved critical mass. The rules don’t matter because of the universe created by GW. Many, many people will not bother with anything else, or have tried and found they didn’t like it. They are completely addicted to Warhammer and/or 40K alone.
Veteran players either love the fluff or don’t want their 20000 points of Space Wolves to become a useless collection of plastic, so they will pay at least for the new rulebook and maybe the odd codex regardless so as to keep up with the latest OFFICIAL rules, the alternative being to have to make up rules for new models and not participate in tourneys using the new, shiny, CURRENT rules that everyone else will go to. The model range is one of, if not the widest in wargaming, it’s easily accessible, and since it’s mostly plastic unlike other ranges which are mostly metal (harder to assemble) or resin (potentially carcinogenic) it’s the easiest to work with.
(This last part is probably why Mantic takes so much flak across the web – by being mostly plastic manufacturers they are more of a threat to the company everyone loves or at least has a love/hate relationship with.)
Whatever is written here about the rules means practically nothing. 40K 6th will be played no matter what. Only the pricing will affect player numbers (WHFB costs what, around £400 to get a good sized army together without spamming Island of Blood sets?) and if peer pressure is applied, and veterans in your area don’t want to play other games, those who are unlucky may have to bite the bullet if they want to play tabletop wargames at all.
I hope I haven’t missed anything out, but there it is. 40K is practically eternal. Even if GW goes under through dwindling numbers of players since newbies won’t have been imbued with a love of their IP and therefore don’t want to pay GW prices for what are still, for all their quality, just plastic toy soldiers…40K will go on through fan support. If you thought Battletech and the Specialist Games section had staying power then you ain’t seen nothing yet.
BTW, if it comes to needing a fan-supported version of 40K, check out Sandwyrm’s work…
http://them42project.blogspot.com/
Great comment! Cheers!
As much as I’d like to disagree with you, you pretty much hit the nail on the head. Which is also one of, if not the, main reasons GW has been able to ignore its customer base for so long and do whatever they want. Because, yes, sadly, people will roll over and take it.
Most of the points that I would like to be changed have been mentioned several hundred times now, i.e, get rid of FoC, wound allocation, cover saves, revamp vehicles/buildings and close combat. But the biggest thing I would like to see changed has only a little to do with the rules (mainly the FoC), I would like to buy, say a starter set and or a battle force and be able to get a good game out of it without having to pay for an expensive Codex and other units that you would need to get a decent game in. I am dreading having to buy my son an army when he gets older (he is only 5 atm but likes all the models and story and all that), and I can barely afford a new one myself!!!
I think that as more and more sci-fi games get more sophisticated GW will have to update their kiddy-rules sometime … Imo thanks to sites like BoW, wargaming is becoming mainstream and its easier for new people to experience a wider side of the hobby.
cut out the tournament hardass mentality, bring back mission cards, turn the force org chart back to 2nd edition style squads/support , bring back allies, stop with the 1/3 of the 40k armies being friging space marine codexes (most rare and elite warriors my ass). bring back and revision the squats. Include some sort of skirmish type minigame ( not killteam) with the crb the way fantasy did a while back (not sure if its in the current edition still)
Offer legitimate pdf releases along side the traditional book codexes. its a lot easier to carry arround your crb and codexes on a tablet than lugging a bunch of books arround. this is not the 1900’s get with the times GW. prople use pdf copies of codexes anyhow, might as well cash in on it.
If they sold codex/rulebooks in an EBook format I’d buy a Kindle (and I HATE ebooks) the size/weight advantage and ability to search would be a massive benefit in a gaming environment BUT I’d expect the electronic format to be released at a lower price – remove all the fluff by all means – I have a 20+ year old library to refer to and as a fluff lover it would add an incentive to buy more paper based product in addition to the electronic stuff
“stop with the 1/3 of the 40k armies being friging space marine codexes (most rare and elite warriors my ass).”
Hear, hear!
Hmmm, I don’t mind Igo/Ugo – many other activation mrthods are more awkward.
For blast templates I would prefer something akin to to 3e WH40K – less random, please and thank you.
A starter codex for all the armies would be very useful, just the major units and characters, enough to get folks started.
The Auld Grump
I agree with Adam that it should involve an alternating turn sequence now. I think a Sci-fi game can feel at home with that and will make things feel more realistic and reactionary. It also means that play styles can be changed and a new game can evolve from it.
Pre-measuring is also a good idea. It feels right and I don’t think it would abuse the system in many ways. I can’t really think of anything else I would really want to see apart from updated codices which would deal with the problems.
Force Organisation needs to stay though, as it allows for a basic building block in an army which could benefit any ideas they have for a starter set of sorts.
In terms of what should be in the new box, Eldar & Imperial Guard always sounded like an interesting combination. Have it based off an Eldar incursion to a dormant webway gate with the Guard led by a Commissar struggling to hold his men together. Perfect scenario driven fodder.
That would be a good combo. Would get a lot of people away from sticking with the Big 3 (SM, CSM, Orks) and let veteran players experiment with a new army.
Well I have been in the hobby of 40K for about 10 years and a few things always bugged me about the rules. I loved the move from 4th to 5th edition, tank ramming, wound allocation, and rules that gave the game more flavor. Things that I don’t like however:
1. Deep Strike rules state that when a unit comes in from DS it can’t move or assault, only shoot. (unless you have heroic intervention which is not used with very many units .)
2. Grenades are not that effective.
3. Tank Shock is a lack luster rule.
4. You shot at a unit and obliterated it and you have another unit in assault range, but you can’t attack it because your first target is dead?
Things I would like to see change:
1. Make it an option with transports like Drop Pods and the like that you can assault out of them when they land. (perhaps this could be a Sergent upgrade or an upgrade that the vehicle gets.)
2. Make it so armor penetrating grenades can be thrown at range (6in I think would be reasonable) Some shoot and some in the squad toss a grenade.
3. I just don;t like tank shock, never seem to get anything good out of it, perhaps make it so the unit being shocked gets a minus Leadership check to get out of the way, and give tanks an upgrade that causes this.
4. madmatt said it above me, an order system would be great for solving the single target problem.
Great discussion guys, glad to see this I hope that GW is watching this, I love your products but don’t forget that we are the community that pays your salaries and I would love to be heard more often. Thanks for your time.
>>2. Make it so armor penetrating grenades can be thrown at range (6in I think would be reasonable) Some shoot and some in the squad toss a grenade.<<
I liked the RT/2nd Ed rules for throwing grenades. IIRC it was your strength plus a d3 modifier for how far you could toss it.
Make the core rules and armybooks free to download instead of charging a rediculous amount of money for it
I would like to see them make chaos interesting again. I just think the current codex took alot away from the customisation of chaos marines. I mean they used to have a wide varitey of cool deamons and now its generic lesser and generic greater. I would like to see them bring back the dark gods book system and either bring back the choice of deamons or do what they did with warriors of chaos and remove them and give the chaos marines some cool new rule like dark gifts.
As for the rulebook I love 5th edition and tbh i dont know where they could improve one it vastly but yet again i said this from the transition from 4th to 5th.
In no particular order…
1. Change wound allocation
2. Cover saves modify the roll to hit
3. Make Weapon Skill count for something
4. Units able to split fire
5. More psychology
6. Overhaul Armour Value system
7. Add a Move stat
8. Balance codices
9. More frequent FAQ updates
10. Keep competitive game-play
I would like to see the background move on , Maybe the Emporer has died, the pskers that were needed to keep him alive arent being shipped….Horus has returned…..Gulliman has emerged from Statis and has taken over the empire…
Something to move the storyline on.
(then again , I dont play 40k , just use its background….so my opinion on all this is moot)
A few other things that could use changing.
revamp running, I love this rule but why can’t a unit shot or assault after running? are they so winded that they need to rest? give them some negative modifiers if shooting or a charging unit loses it’s charge bonus when they where running
revamp movement through terrain, atm if I want to move a unit, standing 3 inches away from difficult terrain, to move into the terrain I roll 2D6 and choose the higher result, even if it’s a fucking 1 or 2?!!?! did they trip on the way or how the hell do you explain it?
revamp dangerous terrain, a model shouldn’t die without any saves when rolling a 1, just a week ago my friend lost 3 out of 5 terminators while moving over dangerous terrain, what happend? is dangerous terrain the kryptonite of all living things in 40k?
revamp that stupid difficult terrain role for vehicles, if im driving with a 10 ton heavy tank over a hill it shouldn’t get immobilised on a roll of 1
revamp the role of seargents, give them orders to give there squads advantadges or special rules or overwatch or something, whoever had that idea to give the IGs orders was a genius, I don’t play ’em, but it gave the army a feel or realism, that you are playing an army or soldiers where you can issue orders and such, make them more then the one guy without helmet wearing the power fist or whatever
revamp the psyker rules, psykers are supposed to be extremely dangerous able to kill someone with just a though unless you fail a leadership test -.- give psykers a new stat or something, drop that stupid rule of psykic ranged attacks having to rule on your BS to hit someone/thing with lightning or a death laser or whatever
so that’s it, I’m sorry for every error you may find or not, but frankly I don’t give a shit ^^
Well after 180+ comments I don’t think there’s much more to add 🙂
I would like to see a change to the FOC – with Unique Characters getting 1 Slot and add an extra 2 for Allies – with a restriction – so you may need 2 troops to get 1 allied which could be a troop/elite/fast attack choice, thereby letting people use different models from their collection as well as giving them a valid reason to go and buy models for units they like, but for armies they don’t strictly collect. You could use the apocalypse allies table as the guide to determine who can ally with.
I see GW having two choices – radically change the game with activation or an action/re-action system, with different use of cover, changes to vehicles with a toughness/wound profile – basically re-write it – which is unlikely.
Alternatively they can just fix the more common issues with 5th Ed – wound allocation and whatever else they can do to cutback on people’s cheese – often it’s the wording of the rules.
For me the main thing that lets 5th ed down is the main ‘go-to’ missions in the book. Return to 2nd Ed style missions, where players may have different missions to fulfil, get rid of kill points and have a solid objective to complete – make people fight for something more than just numbers. Oh, and please have strategy rating do something. Just because I’m incompetent doesn’t mean my Chapter Master is too 😉
I’ve started playing 2nd Ed again – the issues it had are easily fixed with a few house rules, you need less models, it’s a bit more tactical at the 1,000-1,500 point level and it’s far more cinematic. I can split fire, shoot into combat, throw grenades, and use sustained fire dice! Personally I’d rewind back to 2nd Ed and tweak it – but that’ll never happen.
I’ll await to see what 6th Ed brings but for me it’s my game as much as GW’s and I can’t see them bringing it back down to platoon level or just above, as a player will need less models for an army.
ok here goes , I play Orcs , Bugs , Space Wolves ,
my wish list would be :
1 : get rid of kill points there is no way a 35point orc truck should be worth the same as a 250 point land raider . victory points make more sense , and are more balanced .
2 : get rid of the FOC , i didn’t think it was a problem until i started to think about it , it really limits some army builds . going to the fantasy system with % min max limits makes more sense and is more flexible . and would allow for more competitive build for all armies .
or if you want to keep the FOC , put a points penalty for taking units over and above the basic FOC , if you want more than 1 HQ you need to pay an extra 50 points , want to spam land raiders , no problem the 1st heavy slot one costs nothing so land raider 1 costs 250 pts , the 2nd heavy slot costs 50 pts so land raider 2 costs 300pts ( 250 +50 ) , the 3rd heavy slot costs 100 points so land raider 3 costs 350 pts (250 + 100 ) . same deal with elites , HQs, fast attacks, ect .
although personally i prefer the % min max system
3 : at least 6 different missions and at least 6 different deployments , again this would even out things some , as well as add fluff and flavor to the game .
4 : I like the special terrain types in fantasy , and would love to see something similar in 40k toxic rivers , and haunted forests , stuff like that . I think it adds flavor , and helps balance the game . and add another level of stuff to think about during the game . at my LGS terrain is very vanilla , we plop it down , ( usually trying to get places for units that need cover ) they start the game it is very boring .
I like your idea of keeping the FOC but being able to break it at certain set points penalties. Seems like a good compromise between Warren’s initial comment about playing freer, more narrative-driven games, and the grim darkness of playing someone who has paid over £300 making and painting their army dudes and *really* wants them to win at any cost.
The Warhammer system with the percentages does seem like it would scale better than 40K 5th ed. but anything involving ranks and columns is out of my experience so I dunno…
RE: #4 -> Sadly, this DID exist in 40K for a long while (sponge moss, Catachan Brain Leafs, NPCs, etc…). Never understood why they got rid of it, as it was always optional anyway…
Bring back the deathworld rules, and the Catachan face-eater!
The shooting rules need to have a modifier for range/size. Its discouraging to have a space marine sergeant continually miss a side shot on a parked Baneblade from an inch away.
My list, even though the post count is already pretty heavy:
1. Pre-measuring is a good thing. Innocently gamers can have a ruler lying and get an idea of how far something else is, even if they didn’t mean to. Warriors would know the range of their weapons, losing shots because you’re out of range doesn’t seem logical to me. It may be because the weapons are very powerful and unlike fantasy you can’t shoot 360 degrees etc. but I definitely prefer pre-measuring.
2. Cover saves. Again this may hinder playability and be hard to implement but I feel cover saves are too powerful. Warriors weapons are lasers etc. they should rip right through cover. Like the above poster make the terrain have some effects occasionally as it adds flavour and reduces too much of a reliance on cover.
3. Psychic powers. Some of the newer books seem to be having really powerful psychic powers such as jaws or blood lance. If so then give armies with no ‘psychability’ some kind of defence from it.
4. Make the book more fun and less competitive. Compettiveness will ensue but warhammer should be about fun, so as BoW has written if this is indeed the direction you are going in then i am pleased. But remember balance allows the game to be fun.
5. Kill points is an awful system, even if it is quicker than victory points. Even replace with victory points or devise a system fairer than KP but quicker than VP.
6. Keep up the good work on codexes they have improved tremendously from the old days.
I’m not convinced on moving the background on especially on massive shifts like killing the Emperor or having Primarchs in game – it’s a major change in background that wouldn’t really chage the way the game is played
This change is for me and I can’t see anyone else going for it …..
/ahem ….
Fewer (or none) large vehicles on the table – they’re physicaly too big to play on a four foot wide table, ok flame away lol 🙂
I’m with you on the primarchs etc. all they need to do is add to what is going on already, more big battles instead of going on about armageddon for the 475th time. Fortunately I can’t see them moving it on considering whats coming out of black library with horus heresy for example, simply adding detail to what has happened already.
As for the vehicles, not with you on that 😛
Lol not surprised on the vehicles – it’s a perception thing, a 4ft wide table with vehicles that in some cases must approach a foot long just looks wrong to me, more like a diarama than a game 😀
I think they should move the story along, but in pace with what has gone before. Maybe the Emperor provides some ‘divine intervention’ and the Golden Throne miraculously repairs itself. But, yeah, no Primarchs. It would make for ridiculously one-sided games.
As for the vehicles, I agree to an extent (and coming from someone who hardly ever uses vehicles – don’t have the time or patience to paint them.. 😛 ). Maybe invoke a scaling rule? Use of vehicles and vehicle-type availability is in relation to the size of the table? (It doesn’t make sense to have a Titan or a Baneblade on a 4×4 table…) Or if you do take a giant vehicle on a small board, that’s all you get (or maybe vehicle plus one support squad…).
After reading through the replies I am probably going to echo many of the points already mentioned and possibly add a few things from recent discussions with my mate over how some of the current rules don’t allow for some of the armies to be played as the fluff is written.
First up as Warren mentioned it the FOC. I don’t see any real problem having an FOC as armies need to be organised some how, modern day armies are getting more elite but they still have grunts as a majority. However each army should be able to modify it in some way. IG could have an additional HQ for three to get like a tank commander or other lower points IC but it costs an elite slot, more troops need more controllers. ‘nids could get an additional slot for a synapse creature where ever they are but lose a slot somewhere else.
Or it could keep something similar to now with a minimum of one HQ and two troops but the elite, fast attack and heavy slots could be combined into nine specialist/support slots. This would give greater customisation opportunities. You could take any combination say five heavy but no elite or fast attack for a heavy hitting but slow force or take eight fast attack for a super fast force that may lack the heavy firepower when required. Also more than just troops should be allowed to hold objectives.
Now onto my big bugbear it is the 41st millennium why is the emphasis so heavy on getting into hand to hand when nearly every army has so many technically advanced shooty weapons. Look at modern warfare everything is done at range until you really have to go door to door. It just does not sit well with me that they have planetary bombardment weapons yet in game it all boils down to running up to your enemy and hitting them in the face with the butt of your gun.
Being able to back out of hand to hand even with some kind of penalty like having to make a run move next turn or having to make a leadership test would allow armies like the Tau to be played more in line with their fluff.
Things like overwatch, counter charging or retreating before being engaged in hand to hand should be added or reprised. Units not moving, shooting or assaulting that still contain a sergeant or equivalent should be allowed some other action at the appropriate time. Shooting in overwatch when a unit moves within range, a unit trying to run away before getting hit by an assault or in making a counter charge units getting an initiative/leadership roll off to see who gets the charge bonus on a draw no one does.
The game turn and phases need to be looked at. Moving and shooting should be allowed in any order it would add to tactics being allowed to shoot and then move into cover to avoid return fire or assault. I go you go takes a long time and someone with a superior number of units getting the first go can really affect the game from the offset. Single unit activation sounds like the way to go but I really don’t think it would do much for time reduction and may even take longer. However it would really add some layers to the tactics like making sure you select your units in the right order. If say you want to pin someone down with ordinance or snipers so an assault unit can catch up to them you could try it, however your opponent would also get the opportunity to then try and cut off your assaulting unit if they could active the right unit next.
Range and cover should give modifiers to shooting attacks, hard cover levels could also give bonuses to armour saves rather than giving an additional save of their own.
Alrighty, where to start… how about game mechanics.
First the shooting and close combat need to be reworked… generally overall, modifiers need to be brought back. it allows you to use more intricate game mechanics. For close combat, a modified version of the old style, a’la necromunda, needs to be done. One general roll based off the unit’s most common attack value with modifiers for outnumbering and other such things. The main goal would be to make the other guy break and run him down. To make units a bit more durable a double fault system would be good. Where if a unit fails a morale roll, that unit will try to make a defensive retreat(i.e. waver) and the victorious units gets another regular attack and the unit falling back will use an unmodified roll. Kind of like how if a fearless unit loses combat now except technically they get a chance to fight back. So if the unit falling back takes enough damage to force a test again and fails again then they are in complete rout and need to test to be wiped out.
Basically close combat goes until either every unit makes their morale tests or a unit has failed 2 tests in a row. The cool thing about this is on a second roll, even thought the retreating unit may be at a disadvantage, if they’re skilled enough they may be able to turn the fight around and force the originally victorious unit back… and it could go back and forth for a few rounds. The psychology rules would need to be tweaked from what they are now but yeah. Other than that, units need to be able to disengage voluntarily.
Now the shooting needs to take a note from AT-43, no range limit for weapons. There may be an impossible to hit roll but no real set limit for weapon range. So say, a guardsmen has a 50/50 chance to hit at 18″ with his lasgun where as a SM is 50/50 at 24″ with a bolter. This doesn’t take into account any environment modifiers. Both would have the same range modifiers but the marine is better skilled. He would also have a better max range because of his skill. say still be able to hit at 36″ say on 6s with a bolter. It would also mean that up close shooting would be deadly accurate.
Now to preemptive strike some points I’m sure will be raised… the phase order needs to be changed; move, assault, shoot… to make these changes work well. AND it would be good to move to a yugo-aigo system. it just flows better and keeps each side involved in the game with no long lulls.
next up the force organisation chart and missions. I agree that having to stick to the FOC sucks, but it does help balance the game. So why not say you can build whatever force you want but you are going to be restricted on how it plays on the field by the FOC. So the FOC would be re-tasked. it’s new purpose would be to dictate how many units can act freely in the phase without command intervention. By act freely I mean: X amount of troops can act, and after that other troop units have to take some sort of command test to act.
On that note, there need to be more mission styles. Sort of like back in 3rd ed, pitched battles, breakthrough missions etc. IF they do 3rd ed style of varying FOCs for mission types, without requiring you to stay within the FOC limits, it would really move the importance away from the metagame and back on to the tabletop.. making you use what you got the best way you can in various situations instead of always knowing you can count on every part of your army to be effective all the time. Not having to worry about needing to taking any command tests to keep your force moving really makes the metagame strong.
As for command tests; the first failed test, if any, would mean a players phase is over. With the tests getting progressively more difficult to pass odds are your force is going to run out of steam if it’s too big. Basically the FOC would represent the limit of your chain of command for that category of missions but you could exceed the limits to a certain point.
So a big horde probably wouldn’t get to move all their units but they would have reserves ready to take up the slack and also they still have at least a chance to move a lot of units. Plus you could build your force anyway you wanted, except that if you wanted to remain competitive you would need to keep the mission FOCs in mind, but if your strategy allowed for it you could exceed the FOC, by say taking advantage of reserves or deep striking for example.
I would imagine that for close combat even if you don’t activate a unit they still get to fight (because the necromunda style of CC requires opposed rolls), the unit that activated the CC would get a small bonus tho. but generally speaking you would need to manage your resources in the game… not on paper.
Get rid of the “I go-you go” turn base. It’s so annoying as it’s not tactical, if a squad was to make a move and an enemy see’s them or they see them depending on their Initiative they fire at them and they fire back, this could be the same as close combat (Which is the same)
As it is the future add some neat weapons, such as allow weapons to fire through cover, walls etc.
If tanks etc were to explode, a radius template would be placed to damage anything around it (Like Apocolyspe)
Add some good scenario’s based on famous 40k battles.
Allow special orders (Such as bomb runs etc based on radio men)
ADD SOME NEW SPACE MARINES!
Use templates like Mercs, Wings Of War for bikes, land raiders, tanks etc to bend measurements to get rid of annoying straight line travelling in every direction!
Destructive terrain, able to destroy terrain to prevent cover for enemies.
OVER THE TOP FUN ACTION!
Allow troops to carry any weapons, allow to power them up for short mini battles. For example an assault troop able to carry a heavy gun while have an jump pack with special perks etc to allow them to power up. to run faster, jump higher to reach bulding tops to make the game MORE FUN!
If they wanted to move the fluff on somewhat, they could actually start up a sub-storyline to go alongside the main fluff, like a war over a particular territory/subsector etc.
I’d like to see changes to the cover save system. While I do not see it as a major issue in the current rules, i’d prefer it if it gave a modifier to hit the target rather than just deflecting stuff. Overwatch was a good system in the old days but I think in all honesty it has had it’s day. It basically was just an excuse to not advance or be bold in your tactics.
ok heres my 2 cents and 5th edition is all ive known. apologies if im repeating anything as i havent read everything people have said. but as a new player heres what i think
1/ everything in a squad shooting at the same time and same target is stupid. why wouldnt 5 guys with bolters shoot at a nearby squad of marines just because their lascannon guy is aimed at a landraider???? it makes no sense! seperating fire in a unit is something that seems completely natural to me.
2/ following from 1…if a squad has a heavy weapon and the guys with the bolters move, why cant the lascannon shoot? as long as HE doesnt move and the unit remains in coherancy why the hell shouldnt he fire? “we are moving around this cover but you stay where you are” seems pretty simple to me.
3/ vehicles do seem to be destroyed pretty quickly. im not sure i have the solution as i mentioned earlier, im new. but if there is a way of damaging them first and destroying them later, then count me in.
4/ i have a load of models i cant field due to FOC. im not saying scrap it, but i think there needs to be more freedom.
5/ im also up for multiple saves. if the shot gets passed the cover, see what the armour does. if armour fails see what invunerable does. if invunerable fails you should bite the dust.
6/ this wont happen but i cant help feeling that moving a unit each would keep the game flowing better. i really should try it out, but i often feel that waiting for a full turn to be over could put a lot of people off the game.
7/ i dont feel that running should stop a unit assaulting. fleet shouldnt be specific to units. if my chaos marines have decided not to shoot so they can leg it at you to split your skull open, then let it be so
8/ i do think exploding vehicles should do more damage to surrounding units upon exploding. its ow it would be.
9/ targetting models within units should be allowed. squads dont choose who gets killed, good marksmen do! if you wanna concentrate all your fire on the heavy weapons guy then let him try n save his own ass. if a guy can jump in the way to take a bullet then fair play. but not a guy at the back.
i cant think of owt else at the min. and forgive me if some of this makes no sense but ive just got in and im trollied.
I forgot a couple of things from my previous list.
As mentioned by a few people why not let a unit split its fire between targets depending on weapons this would make full use of their effectiveness and be more realistic.
A movement stat would allow for distinction between units of different races and add to tactics. Some faster ‘nids could have say up to eight or more inches of movement allowing them to run slower units down. Some Eldar or Dark Elsar could have seven inches slightly above IG and Marines who would have six as standard. Slow meganobz could end up with four or five. Up grades could add or subtract from these numbers like taking no heavy weapon might allow a unit to move quicker or taking heavier armour might slow you down.
Vehicle movement rates also would need to be looked at. Currently it is very WWI in as much as tanks move at walking speed along with the troops. Base movement should really be higher for vehicles or what point are transports except to gain armour. In reality transports are there to get you some place quicker and in a better condition to fight when you get there. Fast vehicle rules work reasonably well as they are as you can only go so fast and still be accurate with ranged weapons.
Better starter sets. The Battleforces should be complete, legal, playable armies. There needs to be a concentrated effort to make the game more playable at lower points levels and for it to be more accessible to someone who doesn’t want to shell out $500 to get a decent starter army.
I’d like to see
-superheavies, flyers and stratagems.
-Narrative missions and a campaign system.
-Tiered skills/abilities where possible to represent the fact that some units are better at using their abilities than others, FnP for instance could be FnP(6) is a 6+ save, FnP(5) a 5+, ect.
-Most cover knocked back to 5+ with 4+ reserved for suitable things like trenches or intact buildings and 3+ for hard targets like bunkers.
-No more random game length.
-Reserves get more reliable, same with scouting in from the board edge.
-No more random movement.
-Pinning weapons have more of an effect on the game.
-Special rules for specific terrain types(cities, death world jungle, desert, swamp, ect.)
Try just finishing one before releasing another!!! I will just stay were I am in codex and rules and to H*ll with any new way to send there kids through private schools!
There’s a couple points I’d like to put on the table.
1: Over watch. Back in 2nd edition you could put a squad into over watch. This meant they could sit still and not shoot. However in the opponent’s movement phase they could then shoot. So you could sit a squad there and just wait for the enemy to come strolling in. It realy messed with opponents heads and changed the tactics of a game.
2: Force organization: The only changes I would like is more HQ choices. Only taking two seems so hard to pick who’s coming along for the ride.
3: Measure before firing: I’m terrible at judging distances. I hate having to decare which unit i have to fire on, then whip out the tape measure and see if i’m even in range. If i’m out of range, oh crap that squad can’t even fire! Previous editions you could whip out the measure right off the bat, and say who’s going to feel my wrath next.
I’m showing my age, I think all these things were in play back in 2nd edition.
Otherwise I like 5th fine.
One more thing, of coure back in 2nd edition. You could take a squad of allies. A squad from a totaly different army. Sure “evil” armys and “good” army had to stick together. For example the imperial guard could sport some terminatior allies. My space marines always had their eldar scouts along. I know it sounds so cheesy but the possiblilies were endless. What’s 40k without the crazyness?
I miss the days of having my Eldar backed up by a single Harlequin Troope as an Ally (and I miss the Solitaire even more), so agree with the Allies rule. My friend would always take an Assassin with his SMs to make the army just that much more vicious.
I commented or replied somewhere back about beneficial psychology doing something again (Hate, Preferred Enemy, etc…). But, I think the negative psychology should be made worthwhile again also. If something is Monstrous, Causes Fear or is Terrifying it should actually affect other models with a lesser Ld stat (or going back to RT/2nd Ed WP/Int). I always hated it in-game, but also always had a chuckle after games when a Greater Daemon would materialise in the vicinity of my Eldar Guardians and they would just stupidly stand there pissing their cod-pieces due to the Terror rule.
I want more Women Please 🙂 i.e Cadians…
I would like to see an in-game penalty added to the rules for using unpainted miniatures.
There is a culture of using unpainted minis in WH40K that i find very annoying.
Players should have a temporary disadvantage for not painting their figures.
Double the points cost !…………………..
……………………..or ……….. +1 to hit unpainted miniatures………………Something !
Send a message to GW.
Give a +1 thumbs up to this post.
most annoying thing about any tabletop wargame…..peeps dont want to paint there minis!
I also play historical games, and none of the guys at my club who play ancients/napoleonics/ACW/WW2 would dream of using unpainted miniatures.
However when doing WH40K people will quite happily field entire unpainted armies !
I love painting my Minis 🙂
No……. No…. Just no, yes a painted army looks great on the table, but it is only one aspect of the hobby. Next you will be penalised for forgeting your tape mesure or not havi.g the right fluff lol. When I started the hobby when I was a nipper my fried used gloss to varnish his marines by mistake so we came up with a rule that gave them a special save against energy weapons, maybee they could put that in the book lol
I’m not up to date on the new books but I thing I read something about an energy based save in one of the newer books. …and then they didn’t list what counts as an energy weapon until some faq.
If someone forgets their tape measure , they can borrow mine. 🙂
You don’t need the fluff to play a wargame, but it spoils the enjoyment of the game when people are to lazy to paint their armies. And usually the same kind who spend hours analysing every word in the rulebook and codex looking for an edge.
Their time would be better spent painting imho.
And its not just painting….i once played against an Ork buggy that was just a chassis base and four wheels, (unpainted of course) . 😉
Fielding unpainted minis is childish and amateur. 🙁
this is a reply to those who would roll off on each turn…have you concidered the fact that bad dice rolls could ruin the game for you? imagine if you will that your playing against orks; the ork player rolls awesomely every turn (not common by any means, but possible in the realm of chance) and you end up going second for the first 3 or 4 turns…what then? the idea of the initiative system is sound in my opinion and shouldin’t be messed with. that being said, there are some things i would gladly change. two things i would bring back from previous editions are partial hits on vehicles with blast weapons, and consolidation into close combat (i would however make an addition to that rule where if you consolidate into another close combat, your initiative drops due to the fact that they are tired from the previous fight).
Well the best way to make the game less competitive is to remove the points system of creating armies and just use scenarios. Problem solved. Points should only be used for competitive games, tournaments or pick up and play. But I thing GW want 40k to pick up and play, so this won’t happen.
1. I want better terrain rules. The current rules are rubbish because there are too many gaps. How do move over a hill, is it difficult terrain, do you subtract movement like a ruin, does it provide cover? Where are rules for tank traps, razor wire, etc. The terrain rules are so bad that we just declare everything difficult and gives 4+ cover. If you want to have more variable terrain then you have to discuss it with your opponent who may not be happy to use tank traps as being impassible for non-skimmer tanks or razor wire only being difficult for infantry.
2. Better missions. Scenarios and missions make all types of gaming (competitive and non-competitive) more enjoyable. 5th edition improved on the 4th edition missions and this trend needs to continue. Seize ground mission is a good mission, kill points bad and capture and control needs improving because it is mostly a draw.
3. Counter actions or reactions need to be added to break the IGOUGO slugfest that is the first turn. There is still too much advantage for going first unless there is good terrain and decent missions.
4. Vehicle damage chart removed, it just does to make any sense and is a source for annoyance both in competitive and non-competitive games. It far too many shots to destroy a 35 point rhino. And a land raider can be destroyed from 1 meltagun?
5. Monstrous creatures are too easy to kill. Compare a predator to a daemon prince. The daemon prince will die far quicker in a game than a predator.
6. More emphasis on close-combat. 40K should be about close-combat that is why there are chainswords, power fists, etc. At the moment close-combat rules are boring and models hardly kill each other; too many 3+ invulnerable saves, too many models who only have 1 attack. If this is not fixed then half the unit stats are pointless (strength, weapon skill, initiative, attacks). If you want a shooting game then you just need ballistic skill, morale and a defense value.
I mostly agree there, except on “6” … Its already about close combat more than I personally like for a sci-fi setting. Shooting should be hard ass, although more advanced rules to allow for more strategy should be added.. the same goes for close combat, if you want troops up close there should be rules to use terrain and special movement etc. to outflank shooting units. Im all for close combat units when they are used as a strategic distraction to help the rest of your army, not when it comes to “hey look my medieval hand-axe is better than my fully automatic bolter so I better leave cover to go hand to hand”. It really disturbs me that close combat can completely stop units carrying heavy and special weapons to draw freakin knives instead of taking advantage of short range easy kills.
Balance nad fun before realism oh sure, but I think it can be both realistic and fun… it just takes GW to move away slightly from their simplistic rules.
with respect, i don’t at all agree with your last statement that “it just takes GW to move away slightly from their simplistic rules.” you risk alienating new wargamers by complicating the game anymore than it already is…think about it, you’d lie if you said you weren’t intimidated by the amout of knowledge you had to absorb to play 40k the first time out…i know i was. it took me a good 20 games to get compfortable enough to play without wondering “am i doing this right?” and i still don’t know everything off the top of my head.
The 40K sci-fi setting has several armies which have little shooting (orks, daemons, tyranids) compared to other armies (tau, space marines, imperial guard). At the moment the balance of power is with shooting armies. It is too effective, 8 Chimeras is only 440 points. How can close combat armies destroy them? There are too many penalties for close combat armies.
All the penalties for mechanised units were removed in 5th edition. So, it stands to reason that issues for combat armies that don’t have excess to vehicles need to be addressed. When combat units cost the same as shooting units (bloodletter vs tactical marine) but can not get into combat then there is a balance issue with the rules.
Make ranged combat main focus of the game instead of close combat unlike in FB. 40k is scifi miniature wargame were troops carry guns so its only natural to make them more effective than close combat. For example maybe shooting could automatically ignore armour saves or something like that to make ranged combat focus of game.
I agree with you that the save mechanic eventually needs to removed. It just adds unnecessary complexity. There is not much difference in being tough like an ork or wearing armour like a termagant. But I think this would never happen as that has always been part of the game.
A game that I recommend for to look up (if you have not already) is urban war. Most models have no save and have 1 wound. So if they are hit they are dead. Only a few models get to make a save and even then the chances of making it a low. Ranged combat is the main focus but close combat lists can succeed because they cost less points.
What I would do to improve the game:
Use clearer concise rules with a better FAQ updating system.
Use a model/army/rules/ update system similar to privateer press to keep the game balanced better.
Tournaments work well with games and remain fun when all the armies are balanced and the rules are clear and simple.
Rock/Paper/Scissors is fine in my opinion of course.
Incubi will slaughter Long Fangs in melee but the long fangs will obliterate a Baal Predator which would roast a squad of incubi…
But the poor hormagaunts are left out of the loop…
5th edition is great. The only reason they are changing it is for more MONEY!!!!!! Wake up people. Also getting rid of FOC’s is absolutely Stupid. You’d be playing nothing but unbalanced power gamers.. BORRRRRRRRRRIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGG.. The one thing that needs altering is the Grey Knights list.. Come on GW. REALLY!!!!!!! Super cheese………………Leave “OUR” game alone. We the gamers made you the powerhouse you are. Give it a rest. You are making enough money already.
Well here is GW’s opportunity to get me to play 40k again. It’s going to take a lot to get me to play again though. The number one thing I want: NO MORE CODEX. Make them all free online. Come out with fluff books, source books etc. but I don’t want armies books. I don’t want to see them not take YEARS to update armies. It’s silly and one of the things that made me get out of 40k. I admit I’m spoiled by Infinity. Rules and army lists FREE. I just want the armies to be free. I really feel they are more likely to sell more figures if anyone can have the army rules. It’s just so annoying to wait years for updates. If they did them online then they can pretty much fix anything on the fly. They can even add whole new troop types at any time.
Next, bring at least a little bit of realism to the rules. I can’t stand a heavy bolter on a tank being the exact same thing as one carried by a man. I know it’s sci-fantasy but come on!
As mentioned I’d also like to see some good female figs. I’m sorry but the Sisters are like watching women’s basketball. might as well be guys with ponytails.
I like the alternating squad activation. I have always hated that the outcome of the game is almost always determined by who goes first.
Lastly, I’m sick of the game being Space marines vs. everyone else. Just try to focus a bit on other armies. But I doubt that’s ever going to happen.
More clearly defined rules would be nice, as well as some expanded uses for equipment. I don’t understand why we cant throw a frag grenade 6″ or so inches like a barrage weapon, over cover and without LOS, and get a strength 3 small blast. Or maybe give grenades an AP. And more clearly define line of sight and cover saves, by which I mean getting rid of the blanket 4+ and making it more dependant on what you can actually see. Also, even though this isn’t directly related to the 6th edition rule book, FIRE MATT F@#&ING WARD AND GIVE US BALANCED CODICES! NO MORE OF THIS GOD D@MN ESCALATION CRAP! Lowering the prices of the products and hiring some people that actually understand economics and doing market research would also be nice, because it would help GW improve their profits and lower consumer costs, thereby increasing the total market that can purchase GW products. Back on topic though, more missions would also be nice.
Switch the Armor save and To Wound rolls around. Things have to go through the armor BEFORE they impact the body.
It’s supposed to go in this order:
-Roll to Hit
-Roll to Pierce (i.e. the saving roll)
-Roll to Wound
My opinion is that there is no perfect system no matter what. All I was going to change for 6th is one and only rule! a rule that infinity mastered from the beginning! Wha is that rule?
The ARO (automatic reaction orders)!!!!!!!!!!
This single rule will give a much more realistic tone to the game. Until now in 40k when you move a unit from a covered place to another in movement face nothing happens and your unit is safe. But is this the real thing? the enemies see you and say “oh, ok… it it their moving face, we wont shoot them as long as their movemnt gets them into cover”
Is this what happens? Hell no!!!!! if you come out of cover they will blow your head of in seconds! and that is a luck of reality missing from 40k.
This auto reaction will change many things in gameplay! because then you will have to think twice to come out of cover. You wont be able to attack straight without cover with a big bully unit that has super armor save! Even with super units you will have to thing if you are going to attack straight. Because if you go out of cover this might pin your unit and you will not be able to cover it, or it will come to a loss of a couple of miniatures. This will bring the vehicles in a more active role too. You will use them as shields if you want to move in open field. Same way as happens in reality.
Hello.
I ain’t played 40K for a while now but at one point I played it a lot, including games using the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th edition rules in some shape or form. While I had good games playing 40K, I increasingly felt that there was something substantial missing from the rules, especially since 2nd edition. 2nd edition was by no means a perfect system. It was very complex!! So along with my brother, I made rules that were a mish-mash of 2nd edition and 4th edition rules to play our 40K games. We then found using my house rules to be more rewarding than anything published from a 40K rulebook.
Also I found codex creep and GW’s obsession with Space Marines to have damaged the game somewhat. It has increasingly lost direction and balance. 40K in my opinion has progressively been drifting towards a game for power play (smashing your opponent with cheesy army combinations) rather than anything for rewarding strategy and ultimately, for fun!!!
Therefore I would recommend the following changes:
Overwatch – this rule gave the old game depth in terms of strategy. It made using cover all the more important. It also gave more shooting orientated armies a great asset vs the combat specialists/hoard. Bring it back!
Mission Cards – this old system was brought up on the Fantasy forums last week and it reminded me of another great asset missing from 40K now. I don’t think they should replace totally the current mission based system but I certainly think they should be used as an alternative. They were great! Mission cards gave all games – big or small – relevance and the fun was trying to work out what mission card your opponent picked whilst trying achieve the goals on your own. Great stuff.
Balance – I think balance in 40K has gone out the window. I think the force organisation chart system for picking armies is fine. What needs to be done is the scaling down of some model’s values and abilities. Also, GW must put an end to codex creep. In Warhammer Fantasy all models are measured by the stat level of a basic human soldier. In 40K the basic model that all other models should measured by needs to be your bog standard Space Marine. Then all other models be it from the Tyranids, Elder or Chaos armies should be measured accordingly. Ultimately I think all army list combinations should have a chance of winning a game, as long as the strategy/tactics are good! GW have more or less managed it with Fantasy, I’m sure they can do it for 40,000.
Space marines – I propose a radical idea that I know will be unpopular. I myself collect Dark Angels and my brother is a fan of Blood Angels. Even still, Space Marines need to be confined to the ONE book. Maybe the one big book but just the ONE book nevertheless. All the different Space Marine codex books have watered down the game’s direction and have contributed towards the codex creep that has plagued 40K for sometime now. Tau, Necrons and Dark Elder should have been given the usual rerelease treatment ahead of Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Black Templers and Grey Knights. After all the game is called ‘Warhammer 40K’ not ‘Space Marine’! White Dwarf should be used more for updates. That was it’s original purpose in addition to pushing sales and printing fixed battle reports. White Dwarf is the perfect home for new Space Marine armies and other codex updates.
Chaos Marines – just a little concern of mine! With all the big love loyal Space Marines get from GW, the evil ones get next to no support at all! I find this crazy considering the big fuss made with the Horus Heresy books and new Space Marine video game. A significant block on my own decision to want to pick up 40K again is the weakness not just of the current Chaos Marine rulebook but of the whole model range. I can make whatever loyal Space Marine army I want with various different colours, weapons, heads and all sorts. But if I want to create a Chaos Marine army, say one of the original chosen 9, I literally need to sit down with a box of headache tablets in order to work out how to do it. The Chaos Marine box set doesn’t come with decent heavy weapons. Havocs and Raptor are either metal or finecast, and are expensive as a result. And to make an Emperor’s Children army led by a geezer armed with a doom siren is now impossible. Even making my own champion armed with whatever weapon is near impossible as the hero plastic kit comes with terminator armour and terminator weapon options only. Oh the agro!
What I want from 40K – I don’t expect 40K to be the narrative game to the extent that Fantasy has now become. They are 2 completely different games. Yet what I want the rules to help me feel, to help me recreate, is a tense, exciting and dramatic battle in the 40K universe. I want to play a game of loyal Space Marines vs Chaos Space Marines fighting it out in bitter conflict on board a spaceship or industrial world or ruined city. I want the rules to help me recreate this as well as make it an exciting strategic challenge and a fun experience to play. That is what I ultimately want from any new edition of 40K.
So, GW plans to take 40K 6th in the direction of WH 8th, eh? So that means psykers/horde lists/the biggest guns will rule the game?
The 8th WH is nicknamed “war machine-hammer” for a reason …
The army list section ( WHRB p.132-134 ) works pretty well, so I’d like to see that in the 40k 6th.
I’m probably the only player who misses the “over watch” rules :}
Finally, GW needs to get there butts inot gear, and update the codex-es! Going into 6th, while some codex-es are still in 4th, just isn’t fair :/
List of Things I would like to see for sixth edition:
1.) The main rulebook actually separated into two halves; 1st half rules, second half fluff.
2.) Terrain generation rules in the main rulebook like there were in 3rd edition rulebook.
3.) Solid rules where there is no variation of interpretation (aka no more rules lawyering).
4.) Like others have stated I would not mind the percentage chart instead of the Force Organization slots.
5.) PDF updates for older codex books at sixth edition release.
6.) Keep the name of Warhammer 40,000 but move on the 42nd millennium where the fluff has progressed to where the 40k world is getting more grim for humanity (as stated in the newer codex books).
Grim would be good…a lot darker and with a threat of the Emperor actually kicking the bucket. Would be interesting indeed. As for rules lawyers lol…will never get rid of them.
Here are my thoughts on 5th and what i will be looking forward to in 6th:
-some kind of reaction or action in the opponents turn:
It does not have to be overwatch, but i want to do something in my opponents turn. that can be making tactical decisions like going to ground or rolling armor/cover saves. In 5th you dont have much to do while your opponent is making his turn. possible example could be:
-bracing for a close combat charge
-going to ground
-making a 2″ dodge or evasive move
-rolling for any of the above reactions
FOC
– FOC has to stay imo. Maybe it needs a little update, but it definitely has to stay to keep the game balanced.
no pre-measure:
– personally i hate pre-measuring! There is so much more skill involved in estimating the distances by eye then just checking with a ruler. What is the benefit of pre-measuring? The decisions each player has to make will be easier. WHY would you want that?! isn’t the fun of this game to make difficult tactical decisions? a definite no go.
not too much randomness:
-Randomness is without a doubt a big part of the game, but so is making tactical decisions, And if the decisions i make dont matter, because rolling a dice for everything ruins my plans the game gets really frustrating. Maybe there could be a way to manipulate randomness like boosting attacks in Warmachine, or a bonus to the statline for different actions.
Armor,cover,AP – modifiers:
-In my opinnion the cover/armor rolls work pretty good, and are easy to understand. Cover plays a big role for cheap infantry but is almost irrelevant for terminators, and this is the way it feels right. However it makes no sense that armor is completely neglected when i get a cover save or the other way round. It would be interesting, if the cover was a positive modifier to your armor roll.
Armor piercing should work in the same way. It feels weird, if a weapon grants NO 3+ armor roll, however a 2+ is granted. This way the next best armored model ( a model with 3+ in comparison to a model with 2+) has only 1/6th of the casualties. AP should be a negative modifier to the armor roll.
Movement of a unit
– Also the distance and MAYBE the size of the target should affect the “to hit roll” a turboboosted jetbike should not be hit on a 3+ and a stationary land raider should not be hit at the same roll as a turboboosted jetbike. You could also take the distance into consideration, but that might make it too complicated. So speed,size,distance could be modifiers for “the to hit roll”
If a model moved it moved, if the guy next to it moved, the guy next to it moved.
– “the unit counts as moved”… makes no sense. if the guy with the missile launcher was stationary he was stationary, period.
update wound allocation
– just have it make sense please…
missions:
– the current missions are really okay, but maybe there should be a couple more scenarios in the ruebook maybe not d3 but d6 scenarios and deployment variants
overall:
keep it tactical, have the game make sense, make it interesting for both players.
I realize you probably didn’t want this to turn into a long debate solely about FOC.
That being said I think it should be canned, but I think required units should scale with points.
Like right now you need 2 troops and 1HQ to have a force at all.
Force prerequisites should be based on total game points value.
FOR EXAMPLE(please note the word “example”)
500-750pts – 1 HQ, 2 Troops
750-1500pts – 1 HQ, 2 Troops, 1 Heavy
1500-3000pts – 1 HQ, 2 Troops, 1 Heavy, 1 Elite
Might not be the best example of points v. units required, but you get my meaning.
You can argue that it shouldn’t be necessary to force people to select units, but min-maxing is real, it’s everywhere, and codices will always be imbalanced.
I would like to see each of the Chaos gods get their own codex in 6th ed, barring that, a Forces of Chaos codex.
I like this idea but I would add in the word OR. Like: 750-1500pts – 1 HQ, 2 Troops, 1 Heavy OR 1 Elite. This can allow for a bit more flexibility. I also think you don’t need an HQ for low point games. A Sgt. can be an HQ for something like that.
The only thing I can think of that is definitely wrong is HQ characters being made to continually flee just because they were with a group that had to flee. Your Main Chap shouldnt be running away just from a bit of shooting! Obviously if theyre caught in combat thats debateably ok.
Generally a bit more flexability would be good too, but not too many changes please or my codex will be made useless for another 12 years.
Hi folks.
I belive the F.O.C is far to restrictive.
And that it pigeon holes units by function.
HOWEVER. if it used how rare the units were in the army composition, it would allow more themed armies , and more freedom of chioce.
AND still give enough structure to allow for balance.
If we have different themes in each codex.Eg, airbourne /fast strike , foot slogging infantry, mechanised infantry , armoured company/heavy assault. etc.
We could have different HQ units for each theme type.(Eg foot slogging- mounted- jet pack/winged-in a heavy vehilce (or a Monstrous creature.)
And each HQ unit allows you to select :-
0 to 3 support units.
2 to 6 common units.
For every 2 common units you may select:-
1 specialised unit.
For every 2 specialised units you may select :-
1 restricted unit.
ALL the units currently used are still available, BUT they change ‘class’ depending on what HQ you pick.
EG, perhaps a SM assault squad is COMMON in a fast strike list, SPECIALISED in a foot slogging list, SUPPORT in a mechanised infantry list, and RESTRICTED in an armoured company/heavy assault list.
I think this is a good balance between narrative themed list bulding, and structure required for ballance.(And it allows players to re-create the Klan-Craftworld-Chapter-Regimental-Pantheon variations that made 2nd ed more narrative and interesting.)
I would much prefer interleaved actions, or alternating activation game turn mechanics.
Rather than use wordy conditional rules ,(like overwatch and charge reactions.)
(Concidering GWs track record of explaining ‘simple rules’ ,I can hear the rubbing of the rules lawyers hands in anticipation of even more pages of poorly defined rules they can exploit!)
(Big Squig used LoTR game turn mechanic in his 40k update on Warseer, and it worked well requiring litle alteration to the existing rules.)
One thing that I want clarifying in the rules is; where are the lines drawn to determine side and front armour. I wish it was just a 45 degree line coming from the corner of the front armour. Nice and simple.
I am fed up trying to determine front armour on irregular shaped vehicles (eg. piranha). Also ork battlewagons might be finally hit on their front armour.
I have always maintained that 40k vehicles should be on square or rectangular bases to make it easier to identify their sides. I feel the same way about warpath vehicles for weapon firing purposes.
Don’t make the mistake of buying the new rule book immediately, wait for the mini rule book with the new 40k boxset. I regretted buying the last one after getting assault on black reach
Removing the Force organisation would be a good change, to allow a little more flexibility in list building.
Bring back overwatch. I want my Squats back. People say “why have Dwarves in space” well then why have Orcs or Elves(eldar). They were a big part of the beginning of 40K. I think they belong back. Also focus on other races too. Not just Space Marines. PLEASE! PDF updates would rule (like some one else said) soi we dont have to wate decades for our armys to be up to date. Come on GW you got enough writers on the payroll. Just so you know I have been a loyal customer since the “Rogue Trader” days. Please dont let this old nerd down!