Modding the Game: How would you change 40k?

[Steakhouse]

I've been following the 40k universe for a number of years and have recently gotten into the game itself with the release of Black Reach. I find I enjoy painting and modeling, but the game itself escapes me. The basic elements of maneuver/get shot fail to live up to the strength of the fluff when I'm actually there throwing the dice. As a preamble, this isn't me ragging on the game, as I know it delights thousands the world over. This is simply me not being able to connect with it myself in my own conceptual space.

With that in mind I've been asking the question of how I would alter the game to better fit my expectations. What is it that I feel is missing. I'll be posting my own alterations as I think of them, but what about you? What changes, sweeping mind you, tweaks are for another thread, would you make to make 40k live and breath as the game you imagine it to be?

Of note, balance doesn't apply at this time, these are blue sky imaginings. Balance comes later, should any of these concepts prove exciting enough to examine further!

[Steakhouse]

One of the first things that comes to mind for me is a change in how the weapons are demonstrated on the field of battle. What I mean by this is that a las cannon and a bolter should feel different when they're employed beyond how many shots it gets and how hard it hits. Lets look at the fluff for these guys. A Bolter is a mass reactive shell that detonates on contact with an opponent. More then a simple hollow point or sabot round, it is effectively a mini rocket. Enemies struck by such a round are described as having their entire torso explode when taking a single shot from such a weapon. With that in mind Shouldn't bolter weapons actually be template attacks? The small template mind you, and probably with a high chance of resistance, but still, an explosive is an explosive.

Las Cannons on the other hand fire a nearly physical beam of super intense light that can sever limbs, create instantly cauterized wounds, and flash melt holes in the strongest of armor. Where as the standard las rifle beam likely stops on the first target it connects with, a las cannon's strength is an order of magnitude higher. Let's represent that. Let the player pick a target at the opposite side of a squad and then open fire on them, using a ruler to trace the path the beam would follow. Any models touched by the ruler would have to take all the standard hit/wound rolls. This would give a tangible sense to punch of a las cannon as well as emphasis the positioning of a unite wielding the weapon.

Further along these lines I haven't thought that much on how to differentiate missile launchers, or plasma weapons. What could be done there to make them really unique?

[Lord Inquisitor]

Now what all you say is true fluff wise. But this is a point I have to stress with a lot of people. The fluff is based off the game. Here is one point Space Marines are supposedly 8 or so feet tall. But there minis are basically as tall as Guardsmen. Well I say Marines are maybe a little bigger, but. I cite the rulebook, a picture nonetheless but whatever. You know the awesome pic with the Inquisitor, Space Marine, Tech Priest, and Guard guy. Well that Ultramarine is just as tall as the Inquisitor. So well its what you make it. But for you to enjoy it more, I try to imagine whats happening in the battle actually happening. Like my 100 Guardsmen lined up 2 deep getting ready to charge across up th hill in the middle of the battlefield to attack the Plague Marine Terminators with Lord at the top while Bezerkers are charging up the other side bent on seizing from the Guard and Plague Terminators. Now in my eyes I just sit and grin at the site. That was in a recent game of mine. Just take a second and think of the scenario unraveling in front of you. And for your information the Guard seized the hill. In no small part because my tanks blew up the 20 man Bezerker squad with Lord. The Nurgle player was on his own because he showed up late.

[Lerra]

I would change deployment to be more dynamic - rather than deploying the whole army at the start of the battle, have reserves be a crucial part of every army, with more varied options for entering play. Rather than rolling randomly, add more strategy, either in being able to declare at the beginning of the game when a certain unit enters play, or perhaps each side would write down when their reserves enter play, max of 1 per turn. Maybe some units are rolled for randomly, and others can be declared. Anything to change the game up, add new elements to the later turns of the game.

Right now, I see a lot of this: two armies deploy everything on the table. Army A spends three turns running, while Army B spends three turns shooting. Then there is nothing but assault for the rest of the game. Not as exciting as it could be. Starting with a chunk of the army in reserves also allows you to play quicker games, I find :)

[Steakhouse]

Lord Inquisitor: I see what you're saying, but unlike a good book I've never been able to imagine how things are going on the table top. There simply isn't enough there, second to second, for me to form a coherent narrative, at least not until after the battle is over. Even then the story usually plays out as "Unit A killed Unit B, but then they were killed by C" and so on. I suppose, as a result of this, I'm unable to really discern a difference between the weapons on the field, and thus am looking to add in more direct variation to how they handle.

Lerra: From what I understand Planet Strike and Planetary Empires will be the perfect place to test out some of those ideas. I also agree with your assessment on how the game plays out. I don't know if it's my armies or my play style, but games between myself and my friends always seem to degrade into blow trading events without any significant upsets or dominations. The game plays out in a nice, even keel every time and it would be good to have a bit of variation.

[Zigmunth]

The one thing I would change is the cover. If you are shooting a unit that is obscured by any other unit (friendly or foe), that obscuring unit should get shot too.take the missed rolls and roll them again, on 5, 6 they get hit.

That's what I think, any thoughts from you guys?

[ebbwar]

I would change the turn system!

The 'All my guys go, then all your guys go' system seems to be outdated to me :( I much prefer a system where one unit on one side acts then a unit on the other side acts. It could vary from a unit does all of its actions at once, to keeping the phases for movement, shooting etc but units alternate in that phase.

40k/WFB can easily be converted to such a system at present :)

What do you guys think?

[Shallowain]

I would change it quite drastically:

1. Movement, shooting and psychology from 2nd Ed 40k, somewhat streamlined
2. Turn sequence of 2nd Ed. with turn number of 5th ed.
3. dedicated psionic phase, probably somewhat similar to 7th ed Fantasy, maybe less random.
4. Close combat resolution from 5th ed (2nd ed. was way to bothersome)
5. Army lists somewhere between 2nd and 5th ed, more variety in stats and reintroduction of movement stats.
6. complete overhaul of the vehicle rules, maybe some sort of hybrid between 2nd and 5th but honestly, I have no real idea how to really make good vehicle rules.

Basically I want a 40k that is 2nd ed. with most of the awkward and cumbersome mechanics removed or streamlined while keeping the game structure as is alive. I think the rules in general were much better in 2nd ed with the biggest trouble being to complex wargear (dozens of charts, persistent and shape changing templates, ever played with about 30 Dark reapers with plasma missiles? call THAT cumbersome about 30 minutes to 1 hour alone for adjusting the plasma templates) and the IMO unplayable assault phase replaced with the way it is handled in 5th.

[TheRico]

I think 5th strikes a great balance between complexity and efficiency.. 2nd ed was like launching a rocket into space sometimes.. and totally unbalanced.

I think they need to tighten up someparallells to keep it logical.. as in: consolidation after combat.. why cant u do that after you fight a vehicle, but you can after fighting infantry... Why are meltabombs not AP 1?

Adding a psychic phase would be cool, to create more depth and another theme to focus on for an army... would be a great area for a new race to specialize in.

I personally always wished they had challenges in 40K... two heroes battling it out encircled by their squads... way too cool.

One last thing.. not really about the game, but connected to it. I would love it if GW put out small sourceboks that tied in the fluff to the game in a deeper way. There should be a Crimson Fists/Imperial Fist sourcebook - maybe called The Sons of Dorn - that gave players their background, the history of Rogal DOrn, and 3 or 4 special characters for each army... instead of jamming it all into Space Marines.

What they did with the Blood Angels was great, with more fluff. No need to realise specialized models..

Overwatch should come back too.

[Sangre]

The biggest improvement to the day-to-day game I can think of is overhauling the codex structure. I've always thought that the Space Marines stood to demonstrate this the best. In 3rd Edition you had Codex: Space Marines and then supplemental books for Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, and probably someone else. Then in 4th Edition they brought out a new SM Codex and replaced the Dark Angels supplemental with a Dark Angels standalone, along with a Black Templars standalone and a Blood Angels minilist in White Dwarf. Now in 5th Edition we have yet another new codex for the Space Marines, with Dark Angels and Black Templars lists from the 4th edition, and (until soon) the Space Wolves supplemental list from 3rd Edition (which points directly to the codex two editions newer than it).

It's got very complicated, very unwieldy, and somewhat ridiculous. For example, look at the humble Land Raider, which is a completely different tank depending on which army you're taking it with. Doesn't that sound messed up?

[Salvation122]

Change to a d10 system, rather than d6. This would allow for greater variety between weapons, units, and armies.

Armor save mods.

A Warmachine-esque Codex system, where the initial game is released with all army lists, and additional units or options are made available for every army each update, with the occasional (RARE) all-new force.

Vehicles need to be reworked so that AV14 tanks aren't unstoppable behemoths of destruction unless you load up for anti-armor.

[Nedark]

There are three main things that bug me:
1.Grenades. Grenades explode. They don't shout "Uh oh, boys! Here comes the enemy! Better get down!" They should explode. Not very powerful, and not that big. What I was thinking was like if you use a grenade on a trench to the north occupied by the enemy, you would roll a scatter dice to see if the grenade lands correctly. If you get an arrow, you roll 1d6 to see how far off it was. If the arrow points, for example, west, it would go X number of inches west of the intended landing sight. if it points southeast, it would go X number of inches southeast of the intended landing sight, etc. If the grenade got in the trench, it would explode in all available directions like 2 or 3 inches. So, since the trench stretches from east to west (and is narrow) the explosion would go 2 or 3 inches east, west, and up.

2. The 'IgoYougo' turn system. If done right, the enemy can take out half of your army in the first turn just because you had to go second. I think it would be better if loses were recorded somewhere else, they still got to attack that turn, than after both people are done attacking, loses from both sides are removed. That way, it isn't like one side is just sitting there taking casualties while the other is slaughtering them.

3. It has two barrels. That should mean two shots. But what it does mean is that if barrel A hits, barrel B doesn't do anything. It should be that if Barrel A hits, Barrel B still gets to fire.

[Skragger]

The one thing I would change is the cover. If you are shooting a unit that is obscured by any other unit (friendly or foe), that obscuring unit should get shot too.take the missed rolls and roll them again, on 5, 6 they get hit.

That's what I think, any thoughts from you guys?



We have a similar system in my gaming group. It mostly involves obscured tanks though. We figure, if you roll the dice for your BS, roll for pen, THEN roll for hull down, it means no matter what the shot has been taken, and the hull down roll is to see what it impacts.

If the tank makes its HD roll, then we resolve the hit against whatever gave it that HD roll (building, another unit, another vehicle).


Another system we use, and this works better for large games overwrites the YouGoIGo system. Allow me to explain the two variants:

1) This system works best with 3 or more players, its the multi-phase system. Player 1 moves, player 2 moves, player 3 moves, etc. THEN player 1 shoots, player 2 shoots, player 3 shoots ETC. THEN player 1 assaults, player 2 assaults, player 3 assaults, Etc.

This system makes the game go a lot smoother and in really large games it means the later players aren't sitting forever waiting for their turn to come around or getting picked to shreds by the earlier players

2) Dynamic Turns: this system works off of the aforementioned system. However instead of it being player 1 then 2 then 3. At the start of each PHASE (i.e movement, shooting, assault), every player rolls a D6 and adds their highest Initiative value to that roll, the player who rolled highest goes first for that phase, then the next highest goes second, etc.

Both of these work great for giving the game a more realistic feeling and mean that (esp. with the dynamic turns) tactics sometimes need to be changed on the fly.

[Drunkencorgimaster]

The 'All my guys go, then all your guys go' system seems to be outdated to me :( I much prefer a system where one unit on one side acts then a unit on the other side acts. It could vary from a unit does all of its actions at once, to keeping the phases for movement, shooting etc but units alternate in that phase.


Several of us who play together came up with some House Rules that did this a few years ago. They created a much more-balanced game, although it slowed things down quite a bit.

[VinceBlack]

Two things come to mind...

1. I like having cover saves but I don't like the static 4+ cover save from anything. Behind a sandbag emplacement or barbed wire it matters not 4+ cover save vs that plasma cannon?

2. Something that I always believed would add a whole new dimension of strategy to 40k would be having to call all fire orders before firing. This would make people have to decide how important bringning something down really is. My problem is that if everything is happening simoultaniously on the board then how do you fire one squad, not crack the tank and then shoot the next volley? If you need to make sure that thing goes down you need to dedicate more fire to whatever.

[Denzark]

I would change it quite drastically:

1. Movement, shooting and psychology from 2nd Ed 40k, somewhat streamlined
2. Turn sequence of 2nd Ed. with turn number of 5th ed.
3. dedicated psionic phase, probably somewhat similar to 7th ed Fantasy, maybe less random.
4. Close combat resolution from 5th ed (2nd ed. was way to bothersome)
5. Army lists somewhere between 2nd and 5th ed, more variety in stats and reintroduction of movement stats.
6. complete overhaul of the vehicle rules, maybe some sort of hybrid between 2nd and 5th but honestly, I have no real idea how to really make good vehicle rules.

Basically I want a 40k that is 2nd ed. with most of the awkward and cumbersome mechanics removed or streamlined while keeping the game structure as is alive. I think the rules in general were much better in 2nd ed with the biggest trouble being to complex wargear (dozens of charts, persistent and shape changing templates, ever played with about 30 Dark reapers with plasma missiles? call THAT cumbersome about 30 minutes to 1 hour alone for adjusting the plasma templates) and the IMO unplayable assault phase replaced with the way it is handled in 5th.

Liking this.

I would go:

Movement: 1st Ed (including minuses for shootingat targets per every 10" they move).
HtH: 2nd Ed
Shooting - 5th Ed - not including poxy wound allocation. Also bring back 2nd Ed Weapon profiles with multiple damages and minuses of armour save not AP.
Psychics - 2nd Ed (liked the crazy cards and with 3-power psykers we're almost back).
Morale - 5th Ed.
Vehicles - 3rd/4th ed with 2nd Ed ramming.
Codexes - 3.5 ish - bring my old codex back and bin the newer crap layout.
Prices - Rogue Trader all the way!

[warpcrafter]

Many things already posted are on my wishlist, such as changing to a D10 system, getting double shots for twin-linked weapons and integrating the turn phases. However, I would drastically change the way some of the races work.
Space Marines: All Space Marines except for scouts should have 2 wounds. Power armour should be 3+/5+ invul, while terminator is 3+ invul. Also, they would have most of their stats improved to 5 for troopers, and characters stats would go up to 6 or 7. And their points would all be doubled.
Orks: All Orks would have FNP, gain an extra +1 to S when they charge on the turn that a Waaagh! is declared and Warbosses would be allowed to purchase rokkit packs and snazzguns.
Eldar: Their WS or BS would go up to 5, depending on their speciality. Their armour save, whatever is is, would become invulnerable but they would gain some sort of ability to gain a partial victory through preserving at least one member of s unit.
Also, I would get rid of all blast templates and replace them with a dice roll to determine how many models are hit, with modifiers for BS, distance between models and such. Vehicle gunners would be allowed to shoot at any target they can see, invulnerable saves would be in addition to regular saves (With a re-roll if the model only has an invulnerable save) and also cover saves would be separate.
As you can tell, I've been playing 40K with my teeth gritted these past months.

[TSINI]

back in the old 3rd edition days, my friends and i used to employ simple additions to the rulebook to increase realism


for example when in combat, a character with a plasma pistol can only use it as a dumb club, when it clearly states in the rulebook fluff that:
"Close combat is a swirling melee of troops leaping, spinning, hacking and slashing at one another. As well as fighting hand to hand, warriors will be firing pistols at point blank range at any target that presents itself"
-p35 BRB "Who Can Fight?"

we used pistol weapon strengths in combats and we employed a simple step further from the wound allocation, Hit allocation for weapons.

for example, a character with 4 attacks (after charge etc) has a plasma pistol and a power weapon

pistols could only be fired once each assault, so the other 3 would be power weapon attacks. roll for these "to hits" separately as you would normaly for different attack types.

on the wound though, the pistol attack (assuming it didnt roll a 1 for "get hot") weapon strength is used instead of the characters strength and the AP value of the pistol used to determine a save or not,
and the Power weapon attacks would use the charcter strength as normal.

this also worked conversely, a character with bolt poistol and power weapon, would have to allocate a single attack to the pistol (which the enemy could get a save from if not bested by the AP of the pistol)

basically we disagreed that models could count all their attacks as power weapons, and we devided the attacks between each weapon in the characters hands. and we disliked the pistols being used as dumb clubs

[TSINI]

There are three main things that bug me:
1.Grenades. Grenades explode. They don't shout "Uh oh, boys! Here comes the enemy! Better get down!" They should explode. Not very powerful, and not that big. What I was thinking was like if you use a grenade on a trench to the north occupied by the enemy, you would roll a scatter dice to see if the grenade lands correctly. If you get an arrow, you roll 1d6 to see how far off it was. If the arrow points, for example, west, it would go X number of inches west of the intended landing sight. if it points southeast, it would go X number of inches southeast of the intended landing sight, etc. If the grenade got in the trench, it would explode in all available directions like 2 or 3 inches. So, since the trench stretches from east to west (and is narrow) the explosion would go 2 or 3 inches east, west, and up.

2. The 'IgoYougo' turn system. If done right, the enemy can take out half of your army in the first turn just because you had to go second. I think it would be better if loses were recorded somewhere else, they still got to attack that turn, than after both people are done attacking, loses from both sides are removed. That way, it isn't like one side is just sitting there taking casualties while the other is slaughtering them.

3. It has two barrels. That should mean two shots. But what it does mean is that if barrel A hits, barrel B doesn't do anything. It should be that if Barrel A hits, Barrel B still gets to fire.




I agree with all 3 of these. infact i might have to experiment with the "still gets to act even after dead" scenario.

grenades would be better if they exploded i agree, the problems are that throwing 10 grenades would take a hella lot of time to work out. and if they were that effective, would negate shooting or close combat entirely.
but i do think maybe a simpler system could be "when charging a squad armed with defensive grenades (like frag) treat the assault move as over Dangerous terrain (take wounds on a roll of 1) that would sure make guardsmen a little tougher to assault.
Or conversly, when a unit with frags assaults, enemy squad assaulted must take a dangerous terrain test immediatley

and the good old twin linked debate. i utterly and wholeheartedly agree. 2 shots for 2 barrelles dammit. (then the twin punisher vulture will have 40 shots :D:D:D:D