6th ed , reshuffle or re boot?

[wittdooley]

I'd rather see a "reboot" of the game, with major changes to the basic game mechanics, and all-new Codexes (or even a different release system!) which could be used to build a game system that's more stable and expandable in the long-term, rather than one with a narrowly-defined "meta" that changes with the winds of Codex releases.

So...I dunno. Option W? Let's go with W. It's a fun letter.

In order for this to happen, GW would need to do what Privateer did. Retest and redesign everything AT ONE TIME. It's not going to happen because that would be an insanely monumental task. Privateer had a big enough job with 4 armies. Triple that, then add it customization options, and you're just scratching the surface of the undertaking GW would need to endeavour upon.

We complain enough about not all the models in a codex being made available for a single codex release. Now imagine if they added two new units to each codex. Privateer has enough trouble releasing 4 models a month. Triple that, and again, your'e looking a huge freakin job.

Privateer was able to rebuild their game because of three reasons: it's relatively small, units are static, and the game is still young.

40k is none of these things, and thus would make that undertaking pretty damn implausible.

[Wildeybeast]

Hi all.
Do you not agree with my objective assesment of the current 40k rules and codexes?
Fair enough.
What other rules sets and game systems are you comparing 40k to?

Can you point out the references where Jervis Johnson, Rick Priestley , Tom Kirby say that the 40k game play issues, game mechnaics and game support is top priority ?

Tom kirby '....GW is in the buisness of selling toy soldiers to children...'

Jervis Johnson'...the games are just the icing on the cake....'

'....only about 1/3 of our customers play the games...' (I wonder why...)

'....of course we dont play test every concevable option, but the level of imballance wont be worse than 60/40..'(WTF)

Rick priestley '...(40k game mechanics )...are rather old fashioned and clunky...'
'...(40k) is specificaly written to appeal to teenagers , who absorb data, but have a limited grasp of the over arching tactical conciderations...''

And concidering the Codex release shedule is set by coperate finance ,NOT the studio staff...

If you were offended by the term 'short term marketing ploy'.
I apologise for causing offence.

But as ther is NO evidence to counter this assumption , shouldnt you be more offended by GW plcs disreguard for the importance of its own games?

I realy like the 40k universe game setting .
I would like the rules to be written specificaly for the 40k game.
NOT STILL use the WHFB game mechanics that just dont work that well with modern unit types.
(Skirmishing infantry armed with ranged weapons and amoured vehicles.)

Most modern rule sets have far more complexity in the game play, and far less complication in the rules.

40k rules are not difficult to understand, but there is about 60 pages too many of them!IMO.

More suitable game mechanics would allow for more game play covered by less pages of rules.

What is wrong with that?

Out of curiousity, where did you get all these quotes from? I'd like to read them in their original context before passing judgement on them. Also, do I understand correctly that you are saying you want more complexity in the rules, but less pages in which to explain them?

[Lexington]

In order for this to happen, GW would need to do what Privateer did. Retest and redesign everything AT ONE TIME. It's not going to happen because that would be an insanely monumental task. Privateer had a big enough job with 4 armies. Triple that, then add it customization options, and you're just scratching the surface of the undertaking GW would need to endeavour upon.

Well, you're vastly underrating the crazy job Privateer undertook here - they redid eight "normal" factions (Hordes, yo), two semi-factions that can play independently or combine in all sorts of different ways with the above mentioned "normals," and added a whole new faction for the hell of it. In the span of a year. It was pretty damn impressive.

Really, with 8th Edition Fantasy, GW's done all but what I'm asking for, and 6th Edition's rumored to be heading down a similar path. I just wish GW could grow the sort of cojones they had as recently as 1998, and go whole-hog with this sort of thing, rather than let their past continue to hurt their product's overall value.

[Mauglum.]

Hi all.
Currenlty 40k rules are over complicated , there is a LOT of rules compared to the complexity of the game play.

Other games use more apropirate game mechanics so get more complexity in the game play with less complication in the rules.

40k devs write the rules in an exclusive way.
(Eg rules for specific types of models, rather than include ALL unit types.)
So they need to write MORE rules to cover the elements excluded by the re-writing of the new rules.

Originaly...(and used by most other games...)
Everything has a Movment value .The model may move up to this value in inches during the movment phase.
(Models may move up to twice this amount , but may not shoot in the shooting phase.)
Difficult terrain halves movement values,(rounding up.)
Verry difficult terrain quarters movment values ,( rounding up.)

This has been 'simplified' with re-writing to;-
Everything moves 6".(Apart from the things that dont!)
Models moving through difficult terrain move the highest D6 valuel of 2 D6 rolled in inches.(Or pick highest from 3D6)
Dangerous terrain kills the model on the roll of 1.(Or it doesnt sometimes!)

And now needs the following EXTRA rules to cover the exluded features.
USRs.
Fleet.
Move through cover.
Skilled rider.
Slow and purposefull
Turbo boosters.

Vehilce rules.
Walker.
Tank.
Skimmer.
Fast.
Combat speed /Crusing speed

So what was 2 pages of clear concise rules, has been 'simplified' to 14 pages of rules across several sections of the rule book .

My point is if the rule set (including codex special rules) , were less complicated,the devs could support the game in a far more efficient way.

Complication =amount of systems /elements.

Complexity = amount of options/ functions.

[wittdooley]

Well, you're vastly underrating the crazy job Privateer undertook here - they redid eight "normal" factions (Hordes, yo), two semi-factions that can play independently or combine in all sorts of different ways with the above mentioned "normals," and added a whole new faction for the hell of it. In the span of a year. It was pretty damn impressive.

No, don't misunderstand. I completely understand how large an undertaking Privateer had. I don't envy them at all. Which furthers how big GWs undertaking would have to be. You're right about the 10 factions, but even then that's still 4 less than GW. The biggest thing that would be a problem for GW would be the amount of playtesting and tweaking you'd have to undergo due to the variable point costs and upgrades. I can't imagine how big that can o' worms would be.

[Mauglum.]

Hi folks.
I may be misunderstanding your argument against a complete re-write of the rules?

Currently there is approximatley 7 times more pages of rules than absolutley necissary.
And for the devs to wade through and play test everything for release takes far longer than it should due to the holistic and abstract mess of a rule set they have to work with.

Where as a NEW well defined and concise rule set of about 40 pages that covers everything , in a straight forward intuitive and proportional way , would make this task so much easier.

And as reguards to PV allocation, which is the easier system to calculate?

1)The AP system where the change in AS has an exponential increase in the level of protection .
Eg 6+ AS to 5+ AS = appx 17% increase.
3+AS to2+ AS = appx 84% increse,
Not to mention the wild variation on effectiveness based on the AP value of the weapons you are facing.
And the completly seperate vehicle section of the rules...
And the impact of USRs on these values , and also the Codex special rules that have not been written yet..


2)New system.
Armour value (1 to 15) is deducted from the weapon damage (5 to 22)to give the save roll required.
ALL results and values are scalable and proportional.
A unit can increase its armour value by 1.
And it gets ALL of its saves vs ALL weapons improved by ...1.

ALL units and ALL weapons covered by the same simple game mechanic.

If you were a game developer who is ALWAYS getting it in the neck about game balance.
What system would you want to use?

[DrLove42]

Wow. Your maths is terrible

A 6+ to a 5+ is indeed a 16.66666% increase in survivability.

A 3+ to a 2+ is also a 16.66666% increase in survivabilty.

By your maths a 3+ save (which is a 66% chance of living) increased to a 2+ would make terminators have 150% chance of ignoring a wound.

In current 40K all weapons are covered by a simple game mechanic. You roll 1 dice against what it says in the book. You don't roll it if the gun has a lower AP than what it says in the book. No maths, no powers changing armour saves

Its obvious from your posts that you are heavily against anything GW can do, do or are willing to do and want them to just copy PP.

[Mauglum.]

Hi Dr Love 42.
If all weapons had the same AP value , then that would be correct.
But how many weapons have AP1 ?
How many weapons have AP 2?
How many weapons have AP 3?
How many weapons Have AP 4?
How many weapons Have AP 5?
How many weapons have AP 6?

So the overall survivablity increases exponentialy due to the distribultion of the weapons AP values.
Which is what I was refering to , not the increased % chance of making the save, but this AND the reduced chance of the AP value negating the save also.

You wrote ..
'In current 40K all weapons are covered by a simple game mechanic. You roll 1 dice against what it says in the book. You don't roll it if the gun has a lower AP than what it says in the book. No maths, no powers changing armour saves.'

What about vehicles , invunerable saves, Feel No Pain, etc.

Or do you just play 40k with standard infantry?

I dont hate everthing GW.
(Just the corperate managers!Who have totaly ruined a great game setting with short sighted marketing directives.)

I like everything about 40k apart from its rule set.
I think it should have a rule set written specificaly for it own game play.
Not use WHFB game mechanics and a load of bodges.

PP make great rule sets for thier game settings.So do all the other game companies.

But you want GW to continue to produce poorly defined abstract and holistic rules, that slow down rules updates/codexes releases ,and make ballancing the game a complete nightmare...

WHY?

[Melissia]

Why do you need a new Guard codex? You do not like the 5th edtion IG codex?

I don't need it, but those are the three armies I play, and frankly I doubt the new edition will change my army lists drastically unless it does so like second to third did.

[Gir]

Hi Dr Love 42.
If all weapons had the same AP value , then that would be correct.
But how many weapons have AP1 ?
How many weapons have AP 2?
How many weapons have AP 3?
How many weapons Have AP 4?
How many weapons Have AP 5?
How many weapons have AP 6?

So the overall survivablity increases exponentialy due to the distribultion of the weapons AP values.
Which is what I was refering to , not the increased % chance of making the save, but this AND the reduced chance of the AP value negating the save also.

So I take it you have the full list of weapon aps distributed by quantity that can appear in an army? Because if seems like your asking Dr Love to do that in order to prove his point, but you don't have to to prove yours.