Editorial: A 40K Reboot


I’ve been number-crunching Warhammer 40,000 for decades – which has led me to a conclusion on what the game needs:


I started playing 40k during the beginning of 3rd edition (which may be 8th edition). I’m an engineer by trade which is kind of a combination of tech marine and mekk boy. A tech marine is trained by 1000 litanies and learns each one inside out while a mekk boy has a natural inclination towards technology that’s purely intuitive. Neither really understands exactly what they are doing but both tend to produce positive results. At the time I knew how to program in a computer language know as FORTRAN that was a penultimate number cruncher. Due to the simplicity of the game at the time I was able to develop a simulation program for 40k that covered all the armies at that time and all of the rule book missions… So it was possible to simulate most any game and create a database for the results. I would run each game over 1000 times to develop an average and the results were in line with actual expected results.



Early days: the Rhino Rush is perfected.

The end result was a set of look up tables I was able to memorize to enhance decision making during actual game which proved to be quite helpful at winning. As an aide I could test various builds for each army and see how they performed versus each other against the various opposition as well as each other. One interesting example is the results showed that Blood Angels performed best as a mix between jump infantry and drop pod units versus a pure Rhino rush build which might be surprising. Fourth edition spelled the end of Rhino rush as a viable competitive army but jump infantry and drop units were largely unaffected. Out of well over 1000 games including many tournaments I only lost a total of five games, each loss which I remember and also won all the rematches.

I lost interest in programming during fifth edition for various reasons plus FORTRAN lost support as an active language (think Latin which is a dead language… No one speaks it anymore). Sixth edition was a huge shift away from fifth edition and basically all armies had significant changes so my program became obsolete and is no longer useful as a tool to track army performance. However I did discover it is still possible to maintain the look up tables via a combination of intrinsically derived data and empirical information for main armies such as Orks and Space Marines which is a great tool for decision making assuming you can memorize them. While I don’t play 40k as much as I used to I am still very much a student of the game and spend many hours studying battle reports and internally analyzing the game in my mind.


The first 40K Deathstar is theorized.

If you truly love something stay true and don’t let anyone deter you.

Now for an interesting observation based upon the old code… What I found to be truly fascinating is the unexpected always does well assuming it’s tightly crafted and well conceived which I think still holds true today even with the speed of the Internet and a stagnant meta dominated by spammed army lists with little room for any variance at the top tier. Consider Eldar, Space Marines and Tau – with the exception of the nerf to the once ubiquitous Wave Serpent these three armies lost nothing and gained so much more. Sure it’s very tough playing against them with all their many inherent advantages but believe it or not it’s still possible which I consider to be a salvation for the game.

Thinking back to when I first started playing when the third edition rule book was released it had a new army list for every race. This is what the game needs now – a total reboot. Space Marines, Eldar and Tau are too strong. I don’t want to see AoS for 40k which is an anti competitive system. The rules need to be parsed though for sure. This could be a totally win-win situation. Players are happy again, veterans come back and GW can profit.


Hard at work cracking the Eldar

Third edition was a reboot and was very popular streamlining the cumbersome 2nd edition rule set which was so detailed there was even a supplement just for weapons. Think about it.

~ What say you? Incremental changes, or an entire system reboot?

  • euansmith

    I’d be happy for a reboot, just as long as it wasn’t a JJ Abram’s reboot; where the author apparently has no understanding of the source material. I would like to see a game that is fast, fun and streamlined and provides proper balance across the system.

    One way to achieve this might be to create a template unit for each combat role (Fast Heavy Infantry, Slow Heavy Infantry, Close Combat Scouts, Fast Transport Vehicle, etc) and apply these across all of the codices.

    For example, if the Chaos Space Marines, ‘nids and Orkz each have a unit that functions as an infiltrating close combat monsters then they could all be assigned the Berzerker unit type.

    With fewer unit types to compare against each other, and with different factions being able to access some of the similar units, balance should be easier to achieve.

    Another thing to do would be to lift the Warscroll idea from AoS; so each units has all of its special rules in one place, and they use Keywords to clear up any questions about who the rules apply to.

    Regarding the power of FORTRAN, Black Blow Fly, did you ever give other players access to your look-up tables to check that the tables helped you win, rather than it all just natural ability reinforced by an encyclopaedic knowledge of the rules?

    • Thatroubleshootah

      I like how bolt action does this. All things which are transports basically have he same rules. It makes the game very difficult to remember all of the rules for when every army has it’s own separate rules. Infinity has a lot of special rules but they are all universal special rules. They are all in a total of about three books. Making everyone’s rules the same and just giving units different universal special rules would go a long way towards simplifying the game without dumbing it down.

      • ZeeLobby

        A happy medium would be enough for me. I don’t want the faction diversity of checkers, but some clear definitions of unit purpose and value would be refreshing.

        • Muninwing

          honestly, the game would be improved massively with an appropriate analysis of how exactly they price units.

          i;m ok with Eldar being hard to kill with the strongest weapons in the game, or Necrons being reincarnating monstrosities with devastating attacks — they had perfected advanced technology when humans were still developing language.

          just… pay for them.

          and if Tyranids were actually supported as hordes, they would be priced so. pay for what they have.

          this is when the writer of this article should be really bending his eye — if he or others have had experience parsing such mechanics, perhaps coming up with a system of pricing would be within their abilities.

          polish rules conflicts with FAQs. recalibrate points. then… the big issues are taken care of.

          • euansmith

            I think that the need to sell minis messes with 40k as a game. GW want to sell loads of minis, but the game isn’t designed to support that huge battles.

          • Muninwing

            it’s designed for medium-sized ones though. it’s not a skirmish game. really, i think that 1000-1500 points is the sweet spot after you learn how to play.

            the need to sell is the reason we have such imbalance now. the kirby-ward unholy teamup and their lack of oversight and standards did horrible things to the evenness and balance of the game back in 5th, all in the name of selling models. now we should see an evening out, but instead we’ve seen inordinate increases depending on the faction.

          • Brettila

            What is different now? I ask anyone to refute this. Formations are the problem now for balance, et. al. They exist SOLELY to sell models. “Here buy 3 ______ models at $75 a piece and you can fire them all twice, shoot vehicles in the rear, have some other insanely unfair, FREE, ability just for spending the money!” Until this silliness is reigned in there can be no meaningful change. All they will do is keep making additi0ns, which is sort of the problem now.

          • Muninwing

            refute? that’s easy. all i have to do is ask you for your proof, and since you have an opinion instead of facts (such as an internal GW memo, or the like, declaring it such), you lose.

            remember that everyone can have an opinion, but they are usually worthless unless you have professional credentials in the field.


            do i like formations? meh. i think it’s a badly-executed good idea. that pure Deathwing auto-loses is stupid. that running certain lists gives free units tweaks balance. i like that taking extras gives an advantage… but i feel like it needs to be better implemented. a Decurion/Lion’s Blade/etc should lose ObSec if it gains other rules.

            maybe it should be an issue of having the option? like, you have one slot to plug a rule into, and you can unlock the option of having one or another, but have to choose one? ObSec, an upgrade to your version of Chapter Tactics (which i think every army should have one of), or a new rule… but you pick at creation and never can change it.

            i can play good games with low points using some formations. it’s not about selling models, it’s about showing the fluff in the organization… which is badly done via a CAD.

          • JJ

            I agree! I wish that GW would realize that If i can build a take all comers 1500 points list that actually functions.

            I will move on and collect another 1500 point army. The mandate that I must have 100+ models (aka sell more) just means that I stick to the armies that I have.

          • NagaBaboon

            All of this, my biggest problem with the game is the pts and a lot of the rules just don’t reflect the fluff of the armies.

      • NagaBaboon

        Infinity is also a smoother game, it’s compicated as hell to learn but it’s much more thematic and the mechanics are very well designed.

    • zeno666

      Statcards would be good. Warmachine use it and that game is awsome ๐Ÿ˜‰

      • Spacefrisian

        Agree with this, i made stattcards once for units, made everything alot easier and easier to remember, instead of flipping through all the pages of a codex.

        • Muninwing

          pretty sure that ArmyBuilder has this option…

    • Don’t be absurd, his cat/mum/mannequin can’t read lookup tables.

      Is it just me who’s imagining he has carved the 5 games he lost into his chest with a bowie knife?

      • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

        he cuts off a finger joint each time he loses, like the Yakuza. Makes painting awkward but we all know real gamers never paint.

        • If he had to paint, it would be with the spurting arterial blood of his enemies. And he would make it happen WITH HIS MIND.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            You win the internet today ๐Ÿ™‚

          • Why thank you Sir. ๐Ÿ™‚

    • Jamie Richard Micheal Seddon

      play warmachine then fun fast and brutal

      • ZeeLobby

        Like euansmith, I love the 40K universe tho. I play WMH, and love it, but GW’s fluff is awesome.

        • Muninwing

          it’s the primary draw for many, and is even big enough that there’s room for the occasional bad bits…

        • DeadlyYellow

          Really can’t argue that point. 40k’s theme and fluff are great, and really makes me want more from the system than what GW is willing to give.

      • euansmith

        I’m looking to pick up one or two starter sets to get a taste for the game. Apparently I need to learn to “play like I’ve got a pair”, where I normally play like I’ve got a pear.

        • Wayne Molina

          They are dropping that in the new edition. Seriously it’s a great game. Fairly balanced, lots of tactical depth. The lore, while good, I find very lacking and can’t “get into” it.

          • Muninwing

            exactly. and the short games are less interesting to me too.

            about half of what i read from PP reads like some high school kid’s recitation over the lunch table about what happened last night in his D&D game…

          • Brettila

            I don’t like the old fashioned bit where it is all about your warcaster. It reminds me of Warzone.

          • Muninwing

            that’s one of my big complaints.

            it’s worse though because there are no generic or self-created warcasters. each is a specialized person, with fluff connections to each other.

            the 1st edition book read like a soap opera… secret separated twins, ex-lovers, etc.

            and that builds to the next and bigger complaint. the same 20-30 people are the only people who matter. they are so powerful that there are multiple-tiered versions of the same people at different points in their careers… but they cannot bother to bring out generic joe sergeant as more than a mook.

            meaning that all of them are all simultaneously everywhere doing everything, and every plot circles around these same few.

            how boring. very middle school D&D game that the neighbor kid runs at lunch.

        • JPMcMillen

          Maybe not in the next edition (or printing). They have been called out by some gamers that that particular line is a bit juvenile with a bit of a ‘Boys Only’ attitude. Gaming is supposed to be about inclusion, not exclusion.

          • Wayne Molina

            As someone sad to see that line go, the intent was always “Play the game to win, but don’t be a jerk about it”, basically don’t complain “X is OP” but don’t be a poor winner. Just people latched onto the “pair” part as sexist or whatever.

          • JPMcMillen

            Well, in this day and age companies have to be aware of what they say and how they say it. Sure, you can’t guarantee that absolutely nobody will be offended by something but they can usually avoid the bigger missteps by trying to look at things from different perspectives.

            Especially these days with more women and girls getting into gaming. Companies have to be careful to not accidentally alienate an entire half of the human population with a poorly chosen phrase. Gaming still has to overcome the perceived ‘boys only’ culture that most of us have long outgrown.

          • Porty1119

            Ah, the wonderful world of corporate gaming products…lol. Glad I’m not involved.

          • Shawn

            Sounds to me that you want everyone to be PC. It doesn’t matter what you say, you can’t keep everyone from being offended.

          • sgoodell

            Ahh… PC… the term people use when they want to be crude, rude, disgusting, or obviously offensive, but blame others for being offended. What is called PC nowdays used to be called manners, or propriety… or class. But those days are obviously long gone.

            If you can’t play a game with a group of ADULTS (you know, those people who actually grew up) without acting like a 10 year old trying to get attention, then maybe you shouldn’t play.

            Our FLGS is loaded on ‘wargame days’ with 300+ pound guys who you can smell when you enter the door. They are overly-loud, overly-obnoxious, generally verbally/ gesturally offensive, and generally act like they own the place (which they don’t). The owner has spoken to them, and they respond, but ten minutes later… back again.

            None of the other gamers there (card, dice, board, rpg) are this way, and this behavior seems isolated to the wargaming ‘boys club’ be it 40k, warmachine/horde, anything at all really as these are the same nimrods that believe women just shouldn’t be in gaming. If they didn’t believe that way, their speech wouldn’t be so blatantly misogynistic.

            How anyone could act as if behaving in such a manner is acceptable is beyond me, but trust me there are always a few lurking just nearby.

          • JPMcMillen

            What I want is people involved in gaming to be polite and respectful of everyone and not say/do something that will blatantly offend someone. As I previously said: “Sure, you can’t guarantee that absolutely nobody will be offended by something”. And the vast majority of the tabletop community is really good about how they treat each other. We just need to get the outliers to either get with the program and be more respectful of others or start shunning them till they go away and play with others like them.

          • Muninwing

            it’s not about being offended. it’s about not being a jerk to others… which is a basic adult skill.

            nanny states only exist when the people act like children. if you are unable to handle your rights and freedoms responsibly, you lose them.

            if you cannot handle being at a basic level of mindful of those around you, observant of the effect of what you are saying, or understanding that your words and actions have consequences, then perhaps those people “being offended” are not the real problem.

            i know that there are some examples of people who get offended at everything, blow an issue out of proportion, or the like. those people are far less common than you might believe. the ones that are, are usually immature in a different way (and they learn… it just takes time).

            but mostly those example are just strawmen set up by those who are also easily offended… they’re just offended at being required to be responsible or polite, since they’d rather spend all their time judging other people’s personal responsibility.

          • Muninwing

            well, they were trying to adopt the over-testosteroned “exxxtreme!” voice when they wrote it, and that alone made it sounds stupid to me.

            i could just imagine it being the minis game of choice of the dudes from Harold and Kumar go to White Castle…

          • Muninwing

            yeah, how dare they claim that an explicit mention of genitalia has anything to do with sex…

          • zeno666

            I do believe that those gamers exists everywhere, playing any game.

        • zeno666

          There are rumours that they are removing that tagline in the new edition ๐Ÿ˜‰

          • Drpx

            “Play like you got a Type A personality.”

    • blackbloodshaman


      • tutu_beater

        hopefully they’ll include rules for wh40k just like KoW included rules for WHFB

    • Muninwing

      i don’t think the new writers have shown that they understand the material terribly well…

      some of them have really lost the weight of the original works, and either amped it up with bad tell-don’t-show extreme styles (like ward’s sisters-blood stupidity), or with weak, lifeless misunderstanding (like about half of what chaos and much of AoS has become)

      so if it’s just redone unit entries and organization, that’s great. if it’s a readdressing of fluff… that’s going to yield worse results than leaving well enough alone.

    • The “vocal minorty” (which I am a part of) would flock back to a 40k that was balanced. It would allow me to play casual games AND competitive games at a whim.

      I wouldn’t need to help the rules along, but just show up and play, based on what my opponent and I are looking for (competitive or casual).

      It’s a pipe dream, though. I’m even shock BBF confessed the need for a reboot, people have been crying out for one for ages and the 40k faithful seem generally reluctant to admit we need one. So kudos to him.

    • I never shared any of it .

  • Keaton

    So…you created some algorithim, which was useful in identifying trends in lists and win tendencies from everything prior to 6th. Sounds pretty cool. You go on to say you don’t play as much and admit that the changes in rules made your code unviable. Alright, I’m on board so far.

    Next you rush to the conclusion that these three armies are overpowered and the gane ought to be overhauled. Errr…?

    In what context? In what format? Are you looking at tournament results? Are you reading opinion articles? Do you play with allies, super heavies, gargantuan creatures, formations, or any other CoD manipulating rule that made balancing a dozen plus units impossible?

    This hobby doesn’t need 5000 word articles who’s summary is “let’s overhaul everything”. This isn’t the 2016 election cycle. What we need, if we need anything at all, is to identify exactly what is wrong and why. And then suggestions as to how to make it work again.

    • ZeeLobby

      And well, we shouldn’t have to do any of this. GW should have been doing this the whole time.

      • Keaton

        No doubt. But damnit the universe is great and the models are great and we all have a stake in it so let’s help them get their act together.

        • ZeeLobby

          True. I def agree with both of those points. They’d have to pay me at this point though. It’d be sooo much work. At this point AoSing the game, then letting us come up with the point values, and then taking what we do and turning it into a book, might be the best we can hope for. Itll quickly devolve with each new release, but there might be a moment of sunshine.

          For GW to do this, they might have to accept posting 2 years of losses and they’d have to tell their stock holders what would happen. just don’t think they’d do that.

      • Valourousheart

        I am not sure I get wholly behind the idea that it is all GWs fault. Don’t we players, with a tendency to play units in ways not intended by GW, have some responsibility for the current situation?

        Take a look at the current target of GW hate, death from the skies. A corroding to the Internet flyers weren’t working and weren’t selling. So GW revamps how they work. And the chief complaint is that certain units are criticized because they were give a role based on their fluff as opposed to how we want to play them.

        So instead of having an open mind and at least giving the new flyer rules a try, the Internet goes on a tirad about how GW shouldn’t sell a book full of flyers for people that want to use flyers, but should instead release a new edition with the flyer rules so that everyone will have to buy it.

        Or more likely so they can rage quit another edition… And while the dust is in the air can secretly buy into the new edition and finally try out the new flyer rules.

        • ZeeLobby

          Well then GW should clarify how things were intended to be played. Vagary and obtuseness in rules is not the responsibility of the players to determine. a tight ruleset (something many of us have been clamoring for) would make many of these broken issues go away.

          Regardless of wall the whining for Death from the Skies, my HUGE issue with it was that resources weren’t put towards something else. Regardless of whether the new flier rules are great, or garbage, I would have much rather seen a new codex for some of the factions that are just horrible right now. Or new codexes to tone down some of the ridiculous ones. I think the last thing most people wanted were more rules on top of rules. More rules to be interpreted incorrectly by players and broken.

          • Shawn

            I love 7th edition. Sure it has it’s issues. All games do. However, I don’t think what everyone is suggesting needs to be done, other than streamline the rules. Clear up ambiguity, remove USRs that are too clunky or repetitive. Reclassify some units, especially the MC/Walker stuff, etc.

            I don’t play maximized lists, never use deathstars, and refuse to play chapters or ally chapters that seem to be the only competitors – UM, IM, SW. Also, I’m not the best tactical-minded player around. I play Iron Hands and I try to play to the fluff. The universe is just as important to me as the game itself. Now having said that, this is what I’ve noticed:
            1. Tournaments appear more balanced using Highlander events (no spamming, minimal cheese)
            2. I enjoy my games more against Tyranids, Dark Eldar, other space marines, and CSM because they seem challenging and and I don’t get dirt stomped in a couple of turns. I actually have a chance to win which is all I ask for from a game.
            3, Formations allow me to play my army in a unique and fluffy way, while enhancing the effectiveness of my chosen army. I now have more of a chance to win against those other crazy factions.
            4. Some codices are just better than others, period. Tau, Eldar, Khorne Daemonkin, and, perhaps, Space Marines, but I have trouble seeing it. Probably because I get my butt handed to me 90% of the time by these armies. Get rid of insane Tau, I’mma gonna break the rules and fly away BS and Eldar D weapon shennanigans and we’re halfway to fixing the game.
            5. Some units, the way the game is now, aren’t as effective as they could be, if at all. I might be able to use the same list all the time and learn to optimize sub-par units, but I don’t tie myself to the same list all the time. I try to bring something that I think will be effective dependent on what faction my opponent will bring.
            6. The big elephant in the game is spamming. Let’s take unit A and running about five, six, or more and no one stands a chance i.e. wave serpents from 6th, thunderfire cannons, battle suits, eldar D, etc. Get rid of spamming and that’s a third of the game fixed.
            7. At higher point games, but not apoc sized with apoc type units (hounds, gargants, etc) the game balances out more, I think. More toys are the big equalizer.

            So, I think fixing the game comes to this:
            1. Streamline BRB
            2. Remove/Nerfe insane amounts of shooting and/or high str high ap weapons
            3. Kibosh Spamming
            4. Fix overpowered or borderline over powered units

          • Brettila

            Could someone please tell me what the D weapon craziness is they are seeing? I have 30 Wraithguard that never see the table because it is too hard to get enough of them anywhere where they can use their weapons. Perhaps it is Wraithknights people hate. I only have 1 with suncannon that I have played a whole 3 times. Movement seems to be the greatest asset for Eldar

    • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

      whats wrong is the codexes and supplements being over complicated and very imbalanced. The core army building rules make these imbalances worse, but aren’t at fault in themselves for bad balance.

      I’d hate to see the core rules, which though over complex aren’t terrible, stripped out and leave us with just as unbalanced a game.

      Some simplification would be good though. The core rules for movement could be simplified with an M characteristic. The core rules for vehicles and MCs need to be merged and made consistent, as we’ve oft discussed before. Giving vehicles T and W and a save but a special rule (vehicle) which forces a roll on a damage chart would be good. Treating vehicle movement the same as infantry ( move in the shooting phase and you can’t shoot) would simplify things nicely.

      Superheavies and Gargantuans have too many exceptions from the main rules, these need stripping out. LoW/Gargantuans should be 1 per army, in normal games. In fact having two or three special types of games wiith their own objectives, allowing unlimted Sheavies + Gargs, or unlimited flyers, or unlimited tanks and walkers, would be a good alternative to unbound with both players knowing what they are getting into.

      Removing the psychic phase and having all psychic effects take place in the shooting phase would be my preference. There was nothing wrong with the old system of ‘cast as many powers as you have levels and they work on Ld test, perils on double 6 or 1’.

      Simplifying and reducing special rules is also essential. Reducing the number of special rules in the codexes too would help.

      And most importantly of all, Battle Brothers can join units but no sharing of special rules and no starting in each other’s transports. In fact you should lose special rules when you join an unit that doesn’t have it, likewise units should lose special rules when a character without that rule joins. .

      • euansmith

        I like the idea that has been posted before on BoLS of getting MCs to roll on the vehicle damage table, so that they get wounded and get bits shot off. It is so much more cinematic than just having them drop a wound point.

        • JPMcMillen

          What about having their stat line change as they take more wounds? I know Reapers Warlord and CAV games used that for multi-wound models. Maybe even lose abilities, like FMC’s losing fly after a certain number of wounds.

          • euansmith

            Have a two sided stat sheet; one side is, “Swooping Haughty Sky Tyrant” and the other is, “Bloodied Grounded Murder Machine”? ๐Ÿ˜‰

          • nurglitch

            Yes, the AoS-style of big models would be great.

          • Shawn

            Kind of like the AoS?

          • Brettila

            Big stuff in AoS have these charts.

        • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

          maybe (at the risk of actually adding a rule), MCs, GMCs, SH and vehicles all have T and W and a save, but each roll on a different chart when they take damage, or maybe GCs and SHs only roll if the to-wound roll was a 6.

      • HiveFleet Charybdis

        Loads of great ideas here. There’s so many rules that could just be removed, simplifying the game but not breaking the basic mechanics. Removing vehicle rules would be good. Lots of exceptions and restrictions can go too. You could cut the rules in half without a huge amount of effort.

        • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

          I agree, and with hardly changing the way the game feels or plays.

          GW really need a statistician to work on the rules. Many complex mechanisms, like the perils chart, give a very predictable result that could be replaced with a much simpler procedure.

    • WellSpokenMan

      The game is dated, inaccessible, and clunky compared to it’s peers.

      Let’s start with dated. Malifaux has the fate deck, Infinity has it’s reaction system, Bolt Action has random unit activation, and 40k has lots and lots of D6 rolls. It’s dated. It’s the Budweiser of miniature games. Blessed with a solid consumer base, but ultimately lacking in flavor compared to others in it’s industry. The 40k fluff deserves better than the current gameplay. I’m not suggesting that the game get dumbed down. None of the above innovations make the game easier, they make it richer and more interesting to play. GW could just play around with different games and decide what to keep, or they could try to come up with their own innovations, but something new is needed to keep new players coming in.

      The game is inaccessible to new players because the game is generally geared to high points levels, which require a stack of cash and mountain of time for a new player to get to. It’s also inaccessible because the game is complicated and (at least in some areas) no one is trying to bring new players onboard. There are no Warcors, Henchmen, or Press Gangers out there at a grass roots level pushing the game. In some places it seems that GW stores do a decent job of this, but in others there are either no local GW stores, or the stores do little to nothing aside from selling GW merchandise at MSRP. The rules cost is also prohibitive. When most other games now have free rules, charging for a BRB and a Codex seems ridiculous. Either include the rules with the models or make the BRB a free PDF. Ideally you could do both, but doing one or the other would help new players buy models and get them on the table.

      The game is clunky due to a preponderance of special rules, some of which are simply exceptions to other special rules. Not only do all these rules make balancing the game a complicated or even impossible endeavor, they make the game bland as well. The rules need to be streamlined. Not necessarily simplified AoS style, but streamlined. Once you’ve cleaned up those USRs you can start making units reflect their fluff. Terminators can be made elite. Berserkers can be made scary. Currently too many units don’t reflect the fluff on the table.

      There’s my $.02. I’m sure there are more things that I couldn’t think of off the top of my head, but there is what I’ve got.

      • euansmith

        “… but something new is needed to keep new players coming in.”

        “Welcome to Vedros, young citizen, the Imperium salutes your noble sacrifice. Want to buy more?”

        • WellSpokenMan

          If I had concerns about GW (which I tell myself I do not), it would be that that they have created a great product without creating a desire for it. Mainstream toy buyers will never have heard of 40k unless there is some serious marketing, and veteran 40k players seem ambivalent at best about bringing young blood into the game. I expect that Vedros will sell well, but to people already playing the game who won’t be using the simplified rules anyway. I have my doubts that Vedros will do anything more than cannibalize GW’s mainstream sales.

    • Shawn

      Well said, Keaton.

  • AreyouaNazi? Isthatyourelf?

    You don’t need a reboot of the rules, you need to tweek certain units, such as MC’ and Fliers, obviously fixing this fetish GW has for MC’s that are clearly walkers in the process.

    But if anything, the Coke snorting intern who decides the points values of units and formations needs to be drawn and quartered.

    What I propose is to rewrite all the codexes and formations from scratch. A lot of work, but considering how little work seems to got into a codex these days, should take a week. Start out with a datum point, a basic stat line from which all other stats are taken. Could be a guardsman, you set his point value at say 8. From there, an increase in his stats and abilities will increase his points value until such time as you end up with a marine. You would then continue this trend across everything. This will stop things like equal-stats chaos marines with three special rules less than loyalists somehow costing only a single point less.

    They need only look at the sterling work done with the Horus Heresy (which is more than just marines) to see how it could be better.

    • Richard Mitchell

      coke snorting interns, as if interns could afford coke.

      • ZeeLobby

        He capitalized it, so I think he means the soda.

        • I don’t think you realise how little the interns are paid at GW. ๐Ÿ™‚

    • ZeeLobby

      It still wouldn’t work. A lot of a units value comes from synergies and combos within the army, or special abilities and their effectiveness vs certain factions. To really “fix” 40k, GW would have to get back into organized play in a big way. They would need to throw/oversee events, collect and analyze results and playtest their own games repeatedly, many many times. Creating a stat-based formula for points is a good start, but without those extra steps we’ll still end up with an imbalanced game with clear winners and losers.

      Other companies do this rather successfully, and their playerbases love them for it. I just don’t see GW having the mental fortitude to pull it off at this point (it would now be a monstrous effort with the sheer number of crap they’ve thrown on top, they’d have to trim). It also doesn’t directly translate into $$$, and will most likely cost some. So that’s reason enough for GW to avoid it. They MIGHT try attempting it with AoS. Well just have to see how much of their heart they actually put into it.

      • Shiwan8

        Solution: Kick the synergies.

        • ZeeLobby

          I mean you could dumb down the game to chess/checkers. But who would want to play a game like that?

          • Shiwan8

            I meant things like Relentless not being inherited by the rest of the unit. Fast army and hard to kill army is still better than the mix of both but you would not get hard to kill and fast in the same package.

          • ZeeLobby

            True. They’d probably have to rethink the whole psychic phase as well. They’d also have to reimplemented some kind of limitation on special weapons. Etc. It’d be significant work.

          • Shiwan8

            I’m pretty sure something better than what we have now could be achieved if they put a weeks worth of work per codex.

          • ZeeLobby

            Maybe. The problem is they have no baseline for where to go. I mean they have a long list of things the community has yelled at them about, but that’s not really empirical.

          • Shiwan8

            I thought that the base line was tactical marine. Not that they’d managed to hold in to that in any reasonable way. I mean, 5 CSM vs. 5 tac marines. Both suck, but loyalists are roughly 50% better and cheaper.

          • ZeeLobby

            Haha. A lot of that has a lot to do with the toys they’re supported with and options they have. 8 different land raiders helps.

          • Shiwan8

            That is true also. If we look at things with the same role and what they do we will inevitably find that CSM and SM have a roughly same chance of winning, but CSM costs more and can be sweeped.

            We do not have to go looking for reasons from beyond the actual unit.

          • ZeeLobby

            Eh. I’d still argue spammable grav sweeps more CSM than unit inequalities. After all, CSM and SM have never been equally costed, but there have been times they’ve been close in the rankings. You can do it either way, as long as CSM have the tools necessary to win against a larger SM force, it doesn’t matter if they’re more expensive. You just have to give them those tools. Again, I’m not saying points shouldn’t be re-adjusted. Obviously there’s large cost/value gaps in 40K. I just don’t think fairly costing similar units would do anything to fix the current state of balance. SM would still sweep CSM purely because of the better toys they have available. Take those away and even an uneven costed game of Vanilla SM and CSM would be closer than a sweep.

          • Shiwan8

            I agree. My point was just that even looking at the closest match the SM have a very significant advantage. That just gets amplified if we compare whole codices.

          • Brettila

            We CSM’s have been WAAAAAAAAAAAAYYY weaker than marines since the end of 4th. There is no remote comparison. There SHOULD be. We are supposed to be the main bad guy, but currently it feels like a 5 year old in a wheelchair taking on an MMA champ.

          • Muninwing

            see… therein lies the problem.

            if a SM is the base, then what’s an IG?

            no… we really need to see regular humans being the base, with aliens that are tougher or stronger or faster getting those bonuses.

            if you wanted to change all stats appropriately, then an in-shape athletic trained human (IG, for instance) would be T4… and if you want to show that SM are tougher, stronger, and better then they get T5. then T3 eldar makes a difference.

            but really, they need a whole recalibration anyway. and i’d prefer a wider spread of randomization — a d10 system would better suit the game in so many ways.

          • Shiwan8

            That’s one perfectly reasonable point of view.

          • Muninwing

            they need to rethink the psychic phase anyway… it’s clunky and imbalancing or else utterly insignificant. i love the idea, i just hate the outcome.

            i’d even be happy with removing the phase, giving a time when powers are used depending on type (most would happen in the shooting phase), and you’d get your dice at the start of the round.

            the big sabot in the cog is, as it is in AoS, summoning. it’s just too awkward to fit into the game as is.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            I would have all psychic powers and summoning happen in the shooting phase.

            Summoned units arrive, like any unit in reserve, at the start of that player’s following movement phase.

          • Muninwing

            if it’s a movement power, it should happen in the movement phase.

            if it’s a blessing or malediction, it should happen at the end of the movement phase, or during shooting.

            if it’s a ranged attack, it should happen during the shooting phase.

            if it’s a hand-to-hand attack, or augmenting one, it should happen during assault (maybe before a unit charges? that’s workable).

            i also have played around with the idea of gathering dice… that you can roll them whenever, or maybe that you have to roll them first, but you have to spend the charge or it does a wound… or the idea that you are reaching for a target number, and you can choose to roll more dice to open up the power more, but after the first roll any double rolled is a perils attack…

            think of that one for a second.

            – i get five dice from my 2-2-1 librarians.
            – you get 3 from your 1-1-1- whatever (you’re not me, i don’t care)
            – we both get four more from the random roll

            now… the power i really need has to get a 14 to use. so i roll 4 dice. if i get snakeeyes, i suffer perils… but i don’t i get 12 though (four 3s). then you roll your dice, and negate one of my dice on a 6+ (because reasons, not unlike now). you roll four, and get one gone. now i have a 9.

            to get the 14 i need, i can roll another die. if i get a 5+, it works. if i get a 3, it’s a perils. i get a 1. now… is it worth going more? i roll another die. on a 1 or a 3, it’s a perils. on a 4 i get it. i get a 2. now i can spend another die… i have a 50% chance of it working, and a 50% chance of melting his brain and losing all those dice.

            there’s the gamble. i’ve got 3 dice left… do i want to keep boosting, and potentially waste it? i’ve got to debate between conservation and risk. and my opponent has one chance to stop me and take away my dice… does he want to save some for later, or really shut this one down? if it’s really important, i could roll one die so he couldn’t block more than one… but then is the boosting afterward more of a risk?

            and any power that cancelled a perils would also have to cancel that die, not adding it to the total — meaning the risk is still present through eldar shenanigans.

            then again, this is longer. so it defeats the streamlining idea. so maybe worthless?

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            I think the psychic phase and power dice, or variations thereof, just makes too much complexity. Essentially buying the ability to attempt a spell by buying a mastery level makes sense to me, and Ld makes psykers vary in efficiency, not just their chance of getting a wound with a perils result. Difficult spells currently requiring more dice would count as two or three spells, making them impossible for low level psykers to cast and helping prevent spam, especially summoning spam. Currently people take cheap psykers as batteries to provide psychic dice without any intent of ever casting a power with them and that seems very unfluffy and ‘gamey’ to me. In fact there is so much of the current psychic phase that just feels ‘gamey’ in a way relatively atypical of 40K as a whole and which breaks immersion. The old system seems to me better in every way and it could be easily improved upon without adding complexity by adding a couple of restrictions as I’ve shown.

            I would resolve movement powers in the shooting phase because then it can replace a run move for the models moved, which would also be a slight balancing as they would lose the ability to shoot. It doesn’t really matter when buffs and debuffs are cast, as long as its before the buff would be needed in assault or shooting.

          • Muninwing

            see? easier than mine, and i like it.

            spamming lv 1 psykers wouldn’t really help if all the good stuff requires lv 2 to cast.

            ld is a great equalizer.

            what about the idea of buying powers though? i know that’s the old way… but wasn’t it a little more efficient? higher point costs meant mitigating efficiency with price.

            i do like the idea of countering them though…

            maybe you get the dice at the start of the first round, and don’t refresh until the start of your next turn? then you have to consider casting your spells or disrupting theirs?

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            I think you could still roll on a chart to decide which power you get, with only some powers being accessible to lvl2 and 3 psykers (reroll if you can’t cast it).

            Outright buying particular powers rather than psychic levels would be good, as it saves game time since you do it at list writing time, but would only work if powers were rigorously balanced, and what are the chances of that happening? Certainly Invisibility and most rerolls of saves and the terrain moving powers would have to go.

          • Muninwing

            invisibility as it stands right now really needs to go, anyway…

          • Brettila

            Or at least make stopping a power now and then possible. Every 6 should eliminate 1 successful casting die. There could be other factors that aid cancelling powers.

          • Muninwing

            i pitched that elsewhere…

            – get all dice at start of round

            – use powers in the round they affect

            – die rolls add up to a target number

            – 6s take away one die…maybe the lowest?

            – applicable psychic hood, or outranking the psyker, (or others such as iron will etc) drop that 6 to a 5, 4, etc. as applicable

            – casting player declares the roll with number of dice. opposing player declares number of disruption dice. both are rolled simultaneously. number is found

            – then… casting player can continue to harness the warp by rolling more dice. doubles with any already rolled die and the power fizzles and the psyker takes a perils test.

            – any specials that cancel the first perils also cancel the die roll, meaning it was a wasted die

            – each psyker that isn’t Ahriman may only use one power per round (not counting Force), or a number of powers equal to their rank

            i fear that it’s too bulky, but i think it would work better.

          • Regicide players? ๐Ÿ™‚

          • ZeeLobby

            Hahaha. I definitely thought of that as I wrote it.

          • Corsair6

            Checkers is simple but chess is an example of exactly what 40k and every other game needs to replicate. Elegant rules that are simple and straightforward with no ambiguity. A system that is easy to learn and insanely difficult to master. The use of a rook or bishop is simplistic, but the effective application is an art form. A strategy game that has been around for hundreds of years without needing a re-boot or developing a meta. Where 40k has faultered over the years is by allowing every faction and unit do everything. A rook is a rook and nothing else can do what it does. in 40k too many do-it-all options.

      • Wayne Molina

        I think they could do 40k with the “three ways to play” approach they are doing for AOS, but they would need to revamp the rules to streamline it and not take 4 hours for a game. But I think that would be good: Casual = Unbound, Narrative because they like their campaign supplements, and matched to have a (at least intended to be) balanced approach that’s suitable for leagues and stuff.

        Problem is they don’t want to really create a balanced game, they want that to be up to the players.

        • ZeeLobby

          Which in the end will just see players leave their game system. It didn’t matter back when there were no real alternatives, but now there’s plenty. Obviously GW knows and realizes this, as they’re adding points back into AoS, and have stated that they’ll get more involved with tournament play. I just don’t think they’ll spend the necessary resources to go the full distance, and instead make one or two attempts and say “hey, we did it!”.

        • Muninwing

          really? 4 hours? i only have to take that much when playing with new players. with experienced players, and no one inordinate phase (like 40 psychic dice, or moving hordes) it’s pretty easy to finish a game in an hour per 1000 points on a side.

        • Brettila

          No, they want to sell you models. Remember, GW actually said that 80% of the mini buyers are collectors, not players. I don’t think they really understand who is even buying their product, let alone what we want.

      • Brettila

        Years ago they finally came out in WD and said there was no formula for points. They decide that a unit “feels like” 15 points or whatever. I don’t think they can buck 30+ years of this. Could they? Of course. However, the points of many units would radically change; and probably look like 2nd when a marine was 30 points. So then they would have to change everything else to keep the model count up, and people would spaz about the new points and we would be right back where we are now…sigh.

  • markdawg

    What the game needs to more than anything is get rid of I go you Go. Please step in to the modern age. No more phases just unit Activations.

    • Drathmere

      Excellent point. I think it would significantly enhance 40k.

    • Thatroubleshootah

      Bolt action/Gates of Antares style random activation would be great

    • Shiwan8

      MSU would rule the game even more.

      • JPMcMillen

        Not if there’s a balancing mechanism when armies have varying numbers of units.

        For example, in Battletech movement is usually back and forth. However if you have twice as many units left to move as your opponent, you have to move 2 instead of one. This does carry up to higher multiples as well (x3, x4, etc…). The only exception is that if you won the initiative roll, you always get to move one unit last. So if it’s your turn and you have two units left and your opponent only has one and you won initiative, you would only have to move one.

        Of course, in Battletech combat doesn’t happen until all movement is done and all combat is simultaneous.

        • Shiwan8

          So, MSU would win still. You just shoot more small units instead of fewer big ones. You can target more units and do just enough damage to cripple the enemy while the opponent shoots down your 100ish point small units IF he is able.

          Yeah. Too many ways to exploit it against bigger units.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            the game as it is has all those issues with MSU.

          • Shiwan8

            Sure, but that suggested system would create more.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            not sure I agree.Bolt Action works fine. Kill Points and First Blood can control MSU as can proper army construction rules (eg CAD). However as problems go I’d rather have an excess of MSU than Deathstars, at least MSU feels like a real game where stuff dies and there are tactics.

          • Shiwan8

            How does bolt action work?

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            random activation, but fairly strict army composition rules.

          • Shiwan8

            Yeah…no. I like to play games based on skill.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            random activation doesn’t diminish skill. Think about it like this, in 40K you get to use all your units one after another, and aside from a few cases it doesn’t matter what order you do things in.

            In BA you have to decide which unit to use next, reacting to what your opponent has done in the turn so far and what they might do later, depending on how many activations you or your opponent have left. Towards the end of the turn you have to calculate the odds of whether you will get the next activation, make contingency plans in case you don’t etc.

            Because you are making decisions about these things as well as what to shoot at/assault/where to move, there are actually more decisions which reflect player skill.

          • Shiwan8

            I get that. It being random diminishes the skill part of the game.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            I don’t think it does, for the reasons I just mentioned. Coping and planning for the randomness (and its not very random- if your opponent gets three activations in a row you’ll probably get two or three since you now have more dice in the bag, plus you and your opponent always get the same number of activations as you have units) is a very skillful excercise, just as in 40K which also has a lot of randomness. And the BA system actually mitigates some of the randomness of 40K, such as who gets first/last turn.

          • Shiwan8

            Still do not know how bolt action alternating system works.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            Sorry thought you knew the basic idea. Every unit you have generates a dice. These go in a bag along with your opponents dice which have to be a different colour. Pull a dice from the bag, if its one of yours then you can activate a unit, if its one of your opponents then he can. Keep taking dice out and activating units until the bag is empty and all units have been activated. This is the end of the turn.

          • Shiwan8

            Roger that. I can believe that that can work. Not for 40k, imo, but anyway.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            BA is very similar to 40k in mechanics, being a Rick Priestly game. It and Gates of Antares are indicative of how R P would have evolved 40k if he’d had the chance.

          • Shiwan8

            I do not doubt that.

          • JPMcMillen

            That’s because GW has that silly rule about everyone in a squad has to shoot the same target nonsense. Allow a squad to divide their fire how they see fit. That’s what happens in modern war these days. A squad with enemies both in front and behind them are going to split their fire between the two, not just shoot at one of them.

            Also, soldiers with special weapons would not only be trained in proper operation of their weapon, but what types of targets they should use it on. So even if the rest of the squad is firing at nearby infantry, the guy with the missile launcher should know that the nearby enemy tank would be a better target for his weapon.

            The rule is really a holdover from WFB which is based on medieval warfare where large formations lined up and marched at each other. Ranged units would be ordered to target other large formations, so everyone was firing at the same target. Combat in 40k is more like modern warfare and the rules should reflect the type of fighting it’s trying to recreate.

          • Shiwan8

            True, not that it’s a bad thing to force the player in some form of ractical thinking when choosing targets. This is actuallu a good thing in 40k making it a bit more a game of skill.

        • Muninwing

          it’s an idea… but you know a new strategy would be to try to predict how many units your opponent has, and to try to have one less than double their count.

          suddenly fortunetellers rule the game, and we call them cheez.

          • JPMcMillen

            Doesn’t work. You check for double units after each move, not just at the beginning of the game. Having 2x-1 units will only give you 1-2 single moves before you are moving 2 for each of your opponents 1.

          • Muninwing

            you’d have to have foreknowledge of your opponent’s list to do it, so it wouldn’t work anyway… that was the joke.

      • markdawg

        Not True If you went to a Bolt Action unit activation system This would not be the case. If you activate a bunch of units that are Chaff they are still Chaff. Open your mind 40k is stuck in the past.

        • JPMcMillen

          Don’t forget, in a system like that, it’s best to target units that haven’t activated yet. So while your opponent activates his chaff, you target his good stuff first.

        • Shiwan8

          I have no idea of how bolt action works so I can not really argue one way or the other.

          At times being stuck in the past with the activation system is not a bad thing. 40k being archaic is still awesome compared to infinity in which you take x amount of deathstar equivalents and then with the rest of your points what ever the cheapest unit for a given faction is.

    • Epic’s unit activation scheme would work just fine. In fact, I’d prefer it. It’s amazing.

    • Muninwing

      that too has its problems

      what it needs instead is first round protection and reasons for not wanting to go first.

      my old Dark Eldar (that i sold in early 5th) army was the king of this. if i went first, i had a much higher chance of winning.

      but my Deathwing, up through 6th and grav/bladestorm/formations made them unuseable as before, were excellent at the hiding game. playing a small-count army meant that my 5-man units could easily hide where they could not be shot in round 1, so it was a wasted round at full potential for my opponent. then i could allow them to move closer to a shorter-range army, and put distance-games into play to cut them apart. i never wanted to go first.

      i don’t mind the optional rules, like the 3 tiers of AoS, including some different turn sequence rules. really though, i haven’t seen a system i really like — they all have their problems

  • Painjunky

    Reboot but don’t go full AoSigtard.

    40K is a mess right now and needs a re write.

    • ZeeLobby

      Totally agree.

    • zeno666

      Agree, it would need a total reboot. Throw that statline away and come up with something more modern.
      Don’t solve stuff with buckets of d6.

      • Shiwan8

        That would be a whole different game. Besides loads of dice feels like war. Throwing one for attack and one for defense per combat/shooting is just meh, takes away the immersion. Imo.

        • ZeeLobby

          At least take away the rerolls EVERYTHING now has in the game. Lol.

          • zeno666

            Just keep re-rolling till you’re happy with the result ๐Ÿ˜‰
            I mean the rules are just guidelines. It actually says so on the rulebook.

          • Muninwing

            didn’t the War Pony have that ability?

          • Brettila

            I completely agree with Zee. A friend loves his Necron star unit. He has a 2+/3++, reroll saves of 1, T5, 4 – I SAID FOUR – resurrection orbs, 4+ reanimation. Try to get through those 14 models in under 25 turns or so in a normal game. Yeah, seems like they could eliminate a little bit of this.

          • zeno666

            Yeah, its just lazy game design.

          • Muninwing

            implementing limitations on things like rerolls isn’t a bad idea. as the system gets bloated, what was special becomes commonplace.

        • zeno666

          A whole different game you say? Yes please thank you.

          • Shiwan8

            Meh. The game is not that bad. It’s just that the balance between codices is.

          • ZeeLobby

            I mean if they just collected event results, and changed points values based on power, it’d help a lot. It might invalidate lists/builds though. Would be hard to take as many WKs if they cost what they’re supposed to… and they like selling many of those.

          • Shiwan8

            Yep. Warp spiders with their infinite jumps are not that bad when the cost is doubled.

          • Muninwing

            exactly. if they won’t solve the power problem for one reason or another, they can at least address it with a renegotiation of the points.

          • Brettila

            Not sure why the don’t just say you can Flickerjump once. I’m pretty sure that is what was meant.

          • Shiwan8

            And yet there is no restriction….

          • Muninwing


            and coupled with this article, that would be a great way to start off a half-edition or new edition.

            GW comes out with a couple streamlinings for rules, in a cheap paperback book with little art, that also provides every army with new points-costs and a new formation.

            sell it for $10 to shut the price whiners up.

            it would revitalize the game.

          • euansmith

            I think it could do with playing faster too. Only being about to get in a couple of “quick games” in an evening is a bit limiting. I know that it plays faster at 500ps, but some codices really suck at those points levels.

            Thinking about it, though, 500pts is really a more reasonable limit for what is still a 28mm skirmish game. If GW set 500pts as the standard game, and then produced some 500pt starter armies, that could work.

          • zeno666

            I would like to see a skirmish 40k-based game with some more interesting and detailed rules similar to Malifaux or Warmachine.

          • JPMcMillen

            You mean like 40K 1st edition (Rogue Trader)?

          • euansmith

            “… now roll %D on Sub Table 3G to determine what type of bullets your Stub Pistol is loaded with. Roll once for each chamber. Then roll on Sub Table 3H to determine the quality of propellant in each round.”

          • JPMcMillen

            “… but first have someone throw some Anti-Plant Grenades at them to get rid of their cover so I don’t take a penalty to my to-hit roll”

          • euansmith

            Did you roll to check that you’ve brought the correct species of Anti-plant Grenade? This cover is Catachan Knot Weed.

          • zeno666

            Oh yeah, that reminds me. The stupid randomness has to go ๐Ÿ˜‰

          • zeno666

            I didn’t play that one. Got started with 2nd ed 40k.
            But sure, if its less Epic but in 28mm

          • ZeeLobby

            Totally agree. That’s what I was hoping AoS was going to be, with it’s lower barrier of entry. But now they want you playing 5 star dragons simultaneously (go figure), haha.

          • Shiwan8

            Sure. Then again GW does not do tweaks. It has a spectrum and only knows how to go to one end or the other.

          • Muninwing

            speeding up play…

            – limit psychic stuff
            – get better at rolling
            – know your rules
            – don’t need to check your codex every five minutes

            on their end they could
            – streamline psychic stuff
            – make cover saves a modifier on to shooting instead of another save
            – reintegrate psychic stuff into other phases, and gut summoning
            – streamline special rules

          • euansmith

            I’m definitely a casual gamer rather than a top table wargaming athlete; trained to peak physical and mental fitness. I think I’ll stick to One Page 40k ๐Ÿ˜‰

          • Muninwing

            one of the best ideas associated with AoS has been their “3 ways to play” concept.

            i’d love a onepage 40k, a regular 40k, and a detailed in-depth version where you account for each bullet in the guns…

            well, maybe not that. but like that.

          • Muninwing

            i think certain things could be streamlined. but for every one, i could add another new change that would recomplicate it.

            take for example shooting or combat.

            i don’t understand people who claim that rolling fewer dice is less complication. if you have 2 shots/attacks, you roll 2 dice — that’s really easy.

            the issue comes with the to-hit, to-wound, armor mechanic. to change that would be fundamentally a different system — and there are many others that exist out there, meaning that perhaps an adaptation akin to d20/GURPS licensing would be your thing.

            the hit-wound-save mechanic works better for larger groups acting as one than it does for a skirmish game. i don’t understand why they ever tried to use it for killteams for that very reason — it just gets clunky for smaller or individual units.

            to streamline the rules that need it mist is sometimes to change the focus or scope of the game. that’s the real issue — as with WHF, some people actually wanted to play that game over others due to that scale or scope, and changing it means losing them as customers.

          • euansmith

            I think your “Three Ways To Play 40k” idea would be a winner. Mantic is working on Deadzone (small scale), Warpath: Firefight (larger scale, but still granular, like 40k) and the Warpath itself (Apocalypse scale with streamlined mechanisms).

            Regarding Skirmishes working better with streamlined rules, I’m definitely with you on that. Things like Inquisitor and Necromunda always seemed to faffy for my liking.

          • Muninwing


            if you want this game to be more like another game, then you should play that other game.

            trying to make WHF more like WM/H resulted in AoS, which has not done as well as it could have. it’s picked up new fans, but lost a ton of old ones… and there’s no guarantee that the new ones will last, while the old ones have already proven that. it’s a bad business model.

        • euansmith

          “I love the sound of a dice bucket in the morning… it’s the sound of victory!”

          • Shiwan8


        • JPMcMillen

          Not necessarily. Kings of War is a whole different game and you still throw buckets of d6’s.

          • Shiwan8

            I’m missing your point or you missed mine. I did not mean that changes would be automatically bad or that different games could not have 40kish elements. I meant that reducing combat to 1d(what ever) roll off + what ever effects = combat result does not really fit this size games. 1-10 model games would work with that.

      • Muninwing

        “more modern” often translates to “the fluff of the week that people will lose interest in”

        personally the only fundamental change i’d make to system would be to change to a d10 system… but just adapt attributes up accordingly.

  • Shiwan8

    TL;DR; “Back in the day when I was like the most leet of leets in the freaking universe….anyway, the game could use balance and rationalisation.”

    • ZeeLobby

      Haha. Yeah. The game has devolved to pickup Eldar and win, and it stings for those who used to find the more difficult patterns.

      • to be fair in 3rd edition you picked up eldar and won or picked up blood angels and rhino rush won.

        Eldar were the go-to army for me simply because 99 out of 100 players were playing blood angels or space wolves so my anti marine star cannon army was never disappointed to face all marines every tournament and rack up beautiful trophies for my epeen.

        • ZeeLobby

          Oh. No doubt. That said they used to tone down, sometimes way too much, broken things. When we got uber Eldar book 2 when everyone expected instead of some reasonable rethinking. That’s when I realized they aren’t even playing the game anymore.

          • Muninwing

            it’s interesting how much that is evident.

            you’d figure they would playtest more. not like there aren’t a thousand well-running organized groups that would love to be a part of the process…

  • Patriarch

    FORTRAN: it’s an older code, but it checks out.

  • And you don’t show some of that algorithm in the article? I would be quite interested to see how you analyzed stats from assault marines and compared them to tactical in drop pod. How you integrated special abilities and situational events of the game into that fortran code that let you define winning armies.

    And with all that you won 995 games ouf 1000, theorized death star units and did not publish a scientific paper to show your exceptional results?

  • Eddie Draper

    Couple of the guys in my local scene have all agreed that 40k could use a reboot. Not the AoS treatment, because that is aweful and damn near killed the community. The rule system has become a cumbersome. There are newer/other game systems that have better rules for specific units. Like flames of war for tanks, Battletech for walkers, and DZC for buildings.

    • Muninwing

      but putting all that into one would be a kludgey mess, and worse than 40k is now…

  • Tim

    I think the game needs cleaned up and streamlined. There are too many special rules that do the same basic thing that can be combined. Really alot could be improved purely with presentation. Moving the rules and the war gear to unit cards would help tremendously. Furthermore the rules and the cards need moved online where we aren’t beholden to a broken unit for years. That then combined with a tablet app gets you a much quicker experience that’s balanced much better. Vehicles and some monstrous creatures need to be balanced as does assault. Honestly I think armor save modifiers at the minimum and perhaps hit modifiers need to be brought back. Their lack has lead to some odd rules propagation and game evolution. Unkillable marines into plasma everywhere into let’s get tons of cover into let’s indore cover into let’s stack types of unmodified saves.

    • Muninwing

      i’m not convinced about the unit cards… they seem to work better with skirmish games to track wounds.

      maybe for a modified/rebooted necromunda?

      • Tim

        They already sell digital codices. No reason the box can’t come with the data slate for the unit and then be updated online. They could make money selling digital ones, but it could contain all of the necessary stats for a given unit. All in one place, speeds up play helps prevent rules misinterpretation. Plus it removes the tie between a unit and a codex release so if something is broken, we can either buff or nerf as appropriate.

  • We had something similar. We had a program in 3rd and 4th that also crunched every stat in every army for every mission to produce lookup results, and then for any tournament coming up we could feed to it what missions could be expected and then feed it our army lists and it would give a power coefficient based off of some nasty trig formula that one of the guys in our group came up with (who was a phD in statistics).

    The thing was very accurate and it demonstrated with math how busted the game was because the disparity between a small handful of builds over every other build was quite pronounced.

    We also used it for WHFB 5th and 6th ed tournaments. I attribute that program to how I did so well in tournaments back then because it essentially gave me the most numerical superior statistically based armies that I could field, to the point where I could literally zone out and not pay much attention and still be doing well. (back then my armies were either the break you due to auto-break vampire count bus fear armies or the 5th edition chaos army that had like eleven models in it)

    I daresay this has never changed, only some of the lists have.

    To the topic on hand I hope 40k gets the AOS treatment, because I happen to like AOS a lot and am tired of the 40k rules bloat and am tired of having to have my face in a rulebook 1/3 of the game every game.

  • Rufus Der Eisenhans

    You must be a Genius Level programmer then.

  • trn

    Latin isn’t dead. It just smells funny. Ask the guy with the Latin GCSE who keeps churning out the 40K copyrights.

    • Drpx

      Chapter house was declared Lawsuitinamous Ceaseandesistus.

  • Birger Vogt

    Fortran is dead?! Noone told me that! its stil the number one Numbercrunched as far as I know, and it is used activly in professions where numbercrunching is more important than estetics. You will also see quite a few climate models run Fortran.

  • LordKrungharr

    The Pope still speaks Fortran! Or is that Latin? I don’t speak either one so I can’t tell the difference.


    • Drpx

      The Bible reboot will be directed by J.J. Abrahms and produced by Michael Bay.

  • Wayne Molina

    I remember that. Honestly yes, I think with the focus on supplements and the like now 40k needs a hard reboot, fixing the rule issues so it’s not a skirmish game’s rules for epic games, and have the CORE army lists all in one book. Then they can add supplements that add additional things or formations, but the “basic” game needs to be one book. One of the biggest barriers to entry right now is that you technically need what, half a dozen $50 rulebooks just to get all of the rules?

    A combination of having “core” armies in a single rulebook and AoS’s approach of including the unit rules with it and available online, for free, will go a long way. They still can sell books with formations and detachments and campaign books.

  • Joseph Boyd

    Yes! but your an engineer. And I have come know that engineers just have no common sense. a reboot for 40k after what fantasy has gone through would be stupid on GW’s part. 40k shakes its money maker on a monthly basis. In other terms “Cash Cow”. No reboot is comming. New Rulebook? Yes, but reboot? No.

  • BlooDeck

    I’m probably going to get shouted at for this but I would really love it if 40K presented its unit references in the same way as AoS.

    Having all that information on one page (even if it means duplication) is so useful compared to the nightmarish amount of cross referencing needed in 40k.

    • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

      I agree, one page, all the special rules and what they do, weapon stats etc. Would take 20 minutes off the average game.

      Looking things up isn’t fun GW! Particularly in a BRB as poorly set out as yours!

      • WellSpokenMan

        I have to look things up in Infinity all the time, but since Infinity has an online list builder that they maintain with the current unit stats (for free, I might add), and that list builder is connected to the a company maintained rules wiki, it really isn’t an issue. A smart phone contains all the rules I need.

    • Shiwan8

      That’s a good idea. Making it AoS like not-game is not though.

  • vyrago

    not just a reboot, but full re-birth under a new company. GW needs to fail and someone needs to buy the IP and re-launch the whole lot. I nominate FFG. The old guard won’t be happy, but they can go grow older somewhere. Say goodbye to customizable models, but welcome the new age of balanced rules, regular FAQs and less silly price gouging.

    • ChubToad

      Today, in things that will never happen in your entire life…

      • WellSpokenMan

        Yeah, because the world is dominated by well run English companies.
        If GW slips enough it will be sold so the shareholders can pocket some cash and pass the buck to other shareholders. It’s IP is valuable enough that it will attract buyers. I don’t think it will happen soon, but who can say what will happen in 20 years, and I think most of us hope to still be around then.

        • ChubToad

          In 20 years I’ll be savoring my retirement and playing with my grandchildren. Or the world would be a wasteland filled with zombies. Anyway 40k will not be one of my priorities for sure.

    • zeno666

      Yes please!
      Won’t happen any time soon though.
      But luckily for us, there are other more interesting games around, from game companies that actually care ๐Ÿ™‚

    • Shiwan8

      So, just sell the rights for rules to FFG…because really…FFG sucks at model making and many people just will not play a table top war game game that looks like crap. Boards games are ok with their models but not things like 40k.

      • WellSpokenMan

        FFG would not have to do anything to the model part of GW. Also, 40k has great models, OK models, and some of the ugliest most dated miniatures on the market. People play 40k in far greater numbers than games with better models, so I don’t think it matters too much.

        • Shiwan8

          “Better” meaning different looking styles. Not really “better” as in better quality. There are very few better models than what GW does now.

          • WellSpokenMan

            40k has models in it’s line that are older than any of it’s competitor’s games. Choosing the stuff they’ve put out in the last few years and ignoring models like the metal sisters or the early finecast is putting a rosy spin on things. That’s not even looking at the older WHFB models, many of which are also eyesores. GW is more than capable of making nice models, but there are models for sale on their site that are downright embarrassing. So, while I think GW makes the best multipose plastics in the world at the moment, I think that there are other games with better models when you consider the whole model line.

          • Shiwan8

            Well, sure, if you want just one of each when unipose is not a problem.

          • WellSpokenMan

            Some of my favorite GW models are the Crimson Slaughter Chosen from Dark Vengeance. If the pose is good enough, and cheap enough, then I don’t mind. If GW would just get around to resculpting some of the worst offenders, most of which are monopose characters anyway, I’d think much more favorably about their product line.

          • Shiwan8

            I suggest that you go and look at one of the older unipose starters and then think what it would look like having 20 strong units of those in the field. 100 marines and all the sculpts are shown in the picture. Would that be cool?


          • WellSpokenMan

            I play IG, so that isn’t too far from what I already have. I also have Dark Angels, and all most of my Tacs are from DV. That being said, I like the multipose, which I already said, and I think they are GW’s strongest selling point models wise. I don’t see how the posing argument justifies this http://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6e29d4fcc3dd119e77527ec82164be9898843fc60c6b806dfceb5633e0d381ef.jpg

          • Shiwan8
          • WellSpokenMan

            Why? I’m not suggesting FFG do 40k miniatures. I just don’t think that GW’s models are the pinnacle of quality considering some of the crap they still have for sale.

          • Shiwan8

            I know, vyrago did.

    • Muninwing

      wow, you basically want everything i would hate.

      – the company does not need to fail, the current people in charge have to admit that things aren’t working and fix it. change that large usually ends disastrously

      – FFG has their own problems. they (their parent company) also just bought L5R, and probably don’t have the capitol

      – insulting the old guard didn’t work for AoS, and probably is what made the game fail so hard. to do so again would be foolish and shortsighted.

      – customizable models are also another draw toward GW and away from companies like PP. it’s one of the aces in their proverbial hole. it’s good that you aren’t in charge, since you clearly want what’s just not what they do.

      – and you torpedo your argument at the end with accusations of “price gouging.” you’ve got to look up the term. just because you want to pay less does not mean that their prices are inordiante.

  • sjap98

    AoS-like reboot, excellent. If not, also okay but rules need to change to speed up the game. A game buddy said yesterday that the assault phase is actually a double phase, both player hacking at each other. With modified rules you could only attack in your own phase.
    Also, like in AoS: Bypass the Toughness…it’s built in the save….one series of rolls less., that sort of things.

    • Shiwan8

      So, you want it to be a competition of who has most disposable income in stead of strategy/tactics. Roger that.

      • I don’t think anything that the OP said disregards strategy or tactics.

        • kloosterboer

          I think he’s referring to the widely held opinion and misrepresentation that all AOS games are about whoever has the largest collection of Greater Demons.

          Which is a shame, but…you can’t make people think before they judge. It’s called prejudicial thinking.

          • Shiwan8

            In this case the prejudice is also the truth.

          • kloosterboer

            Except, it’s not. You’re letting your prejudices interfere with the truth, which happens all the time. You can choose to be better than that. Or not.

            The truth about AOS is, even though you CAN play that way, everyone DOESN’T. And those of us that don’t play that way, really enjoy the game.

            Likewise, if you played no points WH40K, you might play that same way – he with the most dollars, wins.

            Except that’s no fun, at all. And that’s what we’re here for, to have fun.

          • Shiwan8

            Well, the proof is heavily in favor of the perspective I presented. Even a random PuG is a competition and if there is no way to objectively measure the strength of an army there is no way to make it a game of skill. So it’s a game of money, really. You are right, 40k would be the same without points.

          • kloosterboer

            And, I totally see where you would get that idea. Still doesn’t make it the truth or even ” heavily in favor” of the way that AOS is actually played. It is ” a” truth, not ” the” truth. Try not to think of it in terms of absolutes.

            I agree, without points, players are left to their own devices to figure out a balanced game. And that can be hard, when the past has put so much emphasis on the meta – “curb stomping” or ” tabling” your opponent – that you can’t see past “breaking the game” to win.

            Games Workshop created this culture of points based competition, and now they have to cater to it/ live with it. That’s why points will return to AOS this month.

            However, those of us that play AOS, and enjoy it, do not play that way…and we balance the game just fine without points, or by using one of the many systems developed by other players – usually from the competitive tournament circuit.

            The rules themselves are tight, fun and agile. GW’s publishing strategy for AOS is significantly more interesting and responsive than previous versions, not to mention more affordable.

            I think you’ll see many innovations in a new WH40K that mirror what’s happening in AOS. What you won’t see is a complete shattering of the background, or lack of points.

          • Shiwan8

            Dude, the only strategy/tactic in that game when playing by the rules literally is that you bring more and better hits and wounds to the table than the opponent. That is it, literally there is nothing else. Now, you can houserule things and that will change something, but the actual rules permit no other way to be a “better player”.

          • kloosterboer

            I’m sorry, but that’s totally not true. Literally. At all. At least, not any more than bringing more grav weapons or invulnerable saves on top of invulnerable saves wins you every game of 40K.

            But, keep espousing your opinions as truths. If it makes you happy.

          • Shiwan8

            40k is a mess, true, but at least there aregenuine options when playing it. AoS has none, at the moment. The only way to win is to just invest more. That might change though.

          • kloosterboer

            I guess we’ll just have to respectfully disagree on that point. And since an official points system is coming this month, it will settle that issue once and for all.

            For those that need them.

          • Shiwan8

            That is perfectly reasonable cource of action.

          • In a year of playing ive never encountered that truth.

          • Shiwan8

            Awesome. You never played anyone who wanted to win and you do not want to win. In that one in a million situation the game might actually make sense.

          • I used to be a tournament player. I know all about the tournament culture.

            Your issue is that you feel that the entire world thinks like you do and that no one else would possibly be interested in narrative gaming.

            People like you would never accept a narrative game like AOS. Thats also perfectly fine. People like me don’t accept tournament games for inverse reasons. Also perfectly fine.

            Its a great world we live in when we have options.

          • Shiwan8

            My issue? I love narrative gaming and have deliberately avoided tournaments for some time now. The issue with the game, the issue almost every gamer sensible enough to actually think about the rules, is that you go to a store or club to get a game, you poured your soul to make as cool army as possible, you deploy and see how the opponent fills his side of the table with what ever the cheese in AoS is. On top of that you can not say anything about it without being a whiny b*tch because all he is doing is playing by the rules. There is no reasonable way to call him “that guy”, he’s just playing the game by the rules. Imagine the new guy coming in with his 2 mobs of something cool and the opponent just drops 15 thirsters on the table. That is the reality of the game.

            It’s wargaming. The rules will be abused and AoS deliberately encourages people to do that. We could lie to ourselves and each other about it claiming it’s not so, but it would be lying.

          • Where I am, there are people like you that frequent one store and people like me that frequent another. The competitive store is full of people that will min/max all day long and be ok with it as long as it is within the rules (thats also fine). The other store we all play for the narrative and realize that while taking 10 blood thirsters may be optimal, thats not what a narrative force looks like, so we don’t do it.

            Twenty people sgned up for a summer campaign where that is the general attitude amongst all twenty people.

            The game is what you want it to be. You hate it. Cool. That still doesn’t make it a game with no tactics or strategies.

          • Shiwan8

            And if even one of those other gamers comes to your store he will just win all the games, which tells us exactly what AoS is worth. It is not inaccurate to call it GWs version of that sand pit play in which kids bring their toy soldiers, make sand castle forts for them and then start throwing small stones at eachothers forts. All AoS does is that it replaces rocks with dice and thus takes away the one skill based element the sand pit version had going for it.

          • You are hung up on winning and losing which is why our points of view will never be realized.

            What you are complaining about is list building. List building complaints have been around since forever. What you are saying is equally true of 40k or whfb 8th ed, or any of their past incarnations.

            For someone fixated on winning and losing, listbuilding has always been the primary vehicle to achieve that, and to me there is little skill in winning games based on knowing how to min/max a 40k or whfb list, especially today when the internet shows you how to do it with the point of a mouse.

            That doesn’t lessen skill and tactics in the game overall, it means that the superior force will likely win no matter what game is being played.

          • Shiwan8

            it’s about balance. 40k has none but in AoS you literally buy your victories. The point of 40k is to do your best with the best list you can build and hopefully play smarter than the opponent. The point of AoS is to buy enough cheese from GW that the opponent can not out cheese it.

          • Thats not really the point of AOS either. Unless you are hung up on winning and losing, which goes back to my earlier comment where our perspective will never align.

          • Shiwan8

            It’s a game, a tabletop competition. It’s always about winning. Otherwise It’s not a game and there is no point treating it as one.

          • Once again – nope. Your viewpoint is fine and is one way to view the game, but is not the only way and again is why our viewpoints will never align.

          • Shiwan8

            It’s not a matter of opinion. A game, be it hungry hippos, AoS, 40k or something else, is always a competition. You may ignore that part of the product, but it’s still a competition.

          • Again – no. A game is a competition if you want that. Your desires are not global.

            There are many cooperative games that are not about competing with other players.

            Also competitive doesnt mean always min/maxing. To some people it does. To you it seems to. But not everyone will do that.

          • Shiwan8

            Not about desires. It’s what all games are.
            In co-ops you compete against the board/comp. Still a competition.
            What people do with the competition does not change it’s nature, it’s still a competition.

          • That still does not dictate that everyone will approach the game as a min/maxing git where winning at all costs is the goal.

          • Shiwan8

            That is true.

      • Axis Mundi

        Um – isn’t that a perfect description of 40K now? ๐Ÿ™‚

        Actually, with a points system and objectives, AoS is really a game with surprising depth when it comes to strategy/tactics. Which is why GW are rebooting it next month – to, you know, add those back into it “officially”.

        • Shiwan8


          AoS does not have a point system yet. The objective is to kill the opponent which is pretty much just determined by the amount of super units you can field vs. the opponents.

          • Axis Mundi

            Uh… no. The objective for each battle is set out in a scenario – either the ones out of all the books published so far, or ones from tournament packs, or ones you make up yourself. Almost none of these involve each side trying to wipe the other out – that’s a terrible way to play AoS, but sadly it’s what everyone defaulted to when the game came out.

            I’ve been playing in tournaments, which have had points and scenarios and all that good stuff for the last year. My post was based on this experience – the way that AoS plays under these conditions (which have formed the basis for GWs forthcoming rules) would suit 40K perfectly. So GW will certainly be figuring out how to shift 40K across without causing the net-rage that sank AoS.

          • Shiwan8

            Since the only objective is to kill everything…yeah. It’s a terrible way to play most games.

            House rules are not a part of this discussion.

            Making a “40k for mentally challenged” will not go well with the present crowd and GW does not have the luxury of alienating 9/10 of 40k players.

          • Axis Mundi

            I just said the objectives are not to kill everything. “house rules” probably should be noted as they are about to become the actual rules – the TOs that wrote them have been working with GW on the new book. I thought first hand experience of them in action was relevant – I guess other people might find it interesting even if you don’t.

          • Shiwan8

            What is the basic scenario that everyone has access?

            House rules are still house rules as long as they are not official.

          • Axis Mundi

            The article was about re-booting 40K. Those of us posting about AoS are trying to shed some light on how the most recent GW system reboot has developed. GW have admitted they screwed up, which is unsual to say the least. Even more amazingly they have included the authors of the community re-boot of AoS in the development of the Matched Play rules. Why is none of this relevant to the article? Why ignore it, or pretend it hasn’t happened? It’s obviously very relevant to where GW’s mind is in regards to rules development – and will be feeding into their plans for 40K.

            Also, if you choose to ignore all of the published rules that GW have put out since last July, and insist on only looking at that first four pages, then what difference will the General’s Compendium make to your argument? You can still say that the basic scenario is what everyone has access to, so AoS will remain a bust as far as you are concerned.

          • Shiwan8

            The problem is that GW refuses to fix things they break. At the moment 40k core rules are not broken but AOSs are. 40k does not need to be in the state AoS is. It’s bad enough that marines, eldar and tau get fepeatedly better at everything while other factions are ignored.

          • Axis Mundi

            Well, new management and the AoS crisis have definitely pulled them out of their previous bunker mentality, so hopefully this will lead to a reboot of 40K that includes the community and delivers what the majority are looking for. Something like the Alliance books might work for 40K and would allow for regular across the board re-balancing of data sheets and points.

          • Shiwan8

            That remains to be seen. Those FAQs take a lot longer than they should.

      • sjap98

        Shiwan8 ,you are so negative!

        • Shiwan8

          You say “negative”, people interested in balanced games say “realist”.

  • Porty1119

    This article shows why you do not trifle with engineers. We are largely only restricted by physical reality and our own laziness.

    • euansmith

      Thank you, Reality and Laziness, if it weren’t for you…

    • nurglitch

      Engineers are so full of themselves it’s hard not to trifle with them, and pudding them too!

  • Admiral Raptor

    Burn it all down! (Except the fluff, that can stay)

  • Muninwing

    it depends on what you mean by “reboot”

    – are you changing the fluff?
    – are you answering calls to “advance the plot” or the like?
    – are you fundamentally changing the system?
    – are you adding or subtracting composite parts?
    – are you just changing the army lists?

    because each of these has its benefits and its drawbacks.

    and too much change too fast, including what we saw with AoS where they changed some fundamentals that were draws for many players, and you have catastrophic failure for the company’s prime money grabber, and thus the company itself.

  • charlie

    I would like some kind of reboot. I’ve been out of the game since 3rd until recently, and although I’m having fun with my old DE army, it’s difficult to know they are just not able to keep up with other armies, and being repeatedly smashed to pieces is not much fun.

    I wouldn’t mind having things like the 5+ save and low toughness if it was compensated in other areas, but most of the time I don’t feel like it is. I don’t think I’ve ever had to put a wound marker onto my Warlord. They have always been doubled out and instantly killed, and it’s extremely difficult to do that kind of damage back to my opponent. A lot of the game feels like it’s left certain armies behind, and there have been many moments when I felt like the other army is just better, and there’s not much I can do.

    I don’t need my army to be the best, but the problem is it doesn’t make me feel like investing more into an army that can’t get much better, and that is a problem for GW if they want more player variety than the few top tier armies.

    Finally, it’s a very slow game due to its complexity, and I think it could be simplified and sped up without sacrificing too many thematic elements.

  • Andrew Thomas

    Sure, just make massed Infantry viable, come up with a justifiable reason for the weakest armies in the game to become a credible threat and then deliver, then give us a compelling reason to not be overly concerned about GMCs/Superheavies/D in smaller games, ideally by adjusting point values away from each other, or by making reinforcements an evergreen tactic for all factions.

  • Corsair6

    You used ‘penultimate’ incorrectly and it stuck with me as I read the rest of the article.

    Streamline please. I also started with the release of 3rd and have not played in the past few years. Just way too much to get into to understand what is going on. Games like XWing and Bolt Action excel because of an elegant rule set with the ability to generate complexity from gameplay. When you over regulate the system rules lawyers create loopholes to unfairly (in the spirit of the game) exploit. More rules mean more loopholes. Less rules and less exceptions will bring a lot of players back and hopefully bring in new ones. Take a look from the outside from a newbies perspective and see I you would want to start this game. From the cash outlay to the time for assembly and painting and then volumes of rules (some hidden in the myriad of data slates ) that make it near impossible to know what you are doing — not fun. A supposedly casual game that has more study time to understand than many university courses.
    Just simplify the game sounds easy — which it is not. I hope GW can come up with a palatable solution. There is a fine line between great and garbage ( see Xwing vs Attack Wing).

  • carlisimo

    The best part of the 3rd ed. reboot, imo, was that the vast simplification of the special rules made it easier to rebalance everything. Units were simplified and consolidated, too. As players, we were weren’t happy about losing all of that flavor, but it did improve the game. The special stuff was then slowly added back in as new codices replaced the rulebook lists. Points values were significantly different, perhaps in part to make it impractical to mix in 2nd ed. list entries.

    It’s time to do it again.

    • Shiwan8

      OR just adjust the points to actually fit the units capabilities. No need for a new edition, a PDF with corrected point values would be enough.

      Not that I would mind if it went for simpler side…but that would mean Age of Emperor and that would kill the game.

    • kloosterboer

      It definitely needs to be brought back to simpler state, that focuses more on gameplay, than whether or not you bought a pistol that put you 2 points over a point limitation.

  • Adrien Fowl

    Obviously there is nothing wrong with the fluff and it is the most important part of the W40K IP. Do not worry about it, they are not going to change that, but I do think they should streamline the game, because nowadays it is impossible to catch up with what is going on.

    Too many rulebooks and supplements. It is pretty expensive to get all the rules, which should be given away for free like many companies out there usually do.

    I believe that the system of AoS is deeper than what you see at first glimpse, and I am telling that after a couple of months playing the game. Even if they do not simplify the ruleset this much, they should include all the info you need to use the units on the unit description, just like they do in AoS.

    If they did something like this, that would definitely drag me back to W40k. It is just not fun for me anymore, although I love the background and I keep reading novels every now and then.

    • Shiwan8

      Well, it would alienate over 90% of the existing player base. I do not think that they would fail that badly twice in a row.

    • kloosterboer

      This, without a doubt. It would help the game become playable and fun, again.

  • JP

    No amount of anything is going to solve this game’s problems until the following underlying issue is dealt with:
    Using rules/power creep to drive model sales.

    As long as that mentality is their business model, you will NEVER, EVER have a balanced game. EVER.

  • This is pretty much false. I’ve been playing the game pretty heavily since last years and I can say there is a lot to the game in regards to movement and positioning, particularly if you are playing objectives and not the default scenario which is horrible.

    • Shiwan8

      So, without heavy house rules what I said is actually true even in your opinion. “It’s ok if you invent the whole game from scratch and kick the original one” is not really an argumen in the games favor.

      • Playing with one of the many published scenarios is not playing with houserules. Its playing the scenario game with one of the scenarios that the company wrote.

        There is no reinventing the game.

        • Shiwan8

          Yet, playing with the official rules is still just a “game” of “who has most disposable income to spend in AoS”. It’s in the basic rules…

          • If your point is aos is not a super serious tournament game where super serious individuals get together to compete for an espn3 wargaming endorsement, magazine covers, snd glittering trophies where their manhoods and reputations are on the line then yes youre right.

            When you are playing it as the narrative game that it is, then whoever has the most disposable income doesnt matter since that only matters when playing to win is the sole objective…which narrative games are not.

            40k also has the same feature.

            That speaks nothing to if the game has strategies and tactics. I can tell you are primarily a tournament / competitive player and thats fine, but there have been an assortment of documents and videos in the past year that have demonstrated the tacticsl and strategic applications of aos.

            The kind of game you want elicitly defines valid tactics in its rules. That is also fine but also not the only quantifier of strategy and tactics.

            I also know that what im writing has no bearing on anything you may consider so we will just leave it at that.

          • Shiwan8

            Yeah, that strawman of yours has a real version in which normal people play just for fun and the exact same problem occurs 10/10. There is a reason why WHF player base went away from GW.

            I personally think that WHF was crap but AoS is just an insult.

          • I must be playing it wrong then. Oh well.

          • Shiwan8

            You are deliberately handicapping yourself. It’s not wrong. It’s also not to be expected from others.

          • If by not min/maxing I am handicapping myself, sure. Thats accurate. I play in a large group that does not min/max.

          • Shiwan8

            Lucky you. Your group might be the only one in existence.

          • Not hardly.

          • Shiwan8

            Does that mean softly?

            Anyway, I’s hadly a game past of what yazzee is. You just push units against eachother, roll the dice, see who lived and repeat.

          • Which sounds a lot like 40k or old whfb as well.

            In 40k i roll a ton of dice, you take models off, see who lived, repeat.

            In whfb it was I rolled six dice on my killer spell and if it goes off I likely win, and if not we repeat until someone gets their six dice off.

            Or it could be something else. It just depends on the people playing it and the perspective that they want to apply to it.

            The last time I played a meaningful wargame that involved actual skill, short of chess, was twenty odd years ago playing military simulations for training in the army.

            Games Workshop games have had very little actual meaningful strategy and tactics in them short of finding loop holes and exploiting them.

            In 5th edition my meaningful tactic and strategy was a chaos lord that could generate around 40 attacks by himself that you got no save from.

            In 6th and 7th edition my meaningful tactic and strategy was a vampire bus that made you break automatically to fear. I placed 5th out of 80 players in chicago with this tactic and strategy.

            AOS has the same tactics and strategies as six dice for the win whfb had, or auto break to fear had or cav-hammer did where armies were nothing more than a collection of cav units running around each other trying to auto break due to flanking.
            I don’t consider those very deep or meaningful tactics and strategies either.

          • Shiwan8

            Well now, that right there just means that you have no idea what either of those GW games are like. Even if that was ghe total debth of those 2 games it’s still alot more that can be said about AoS. ๐Ÿ˜€

  • Keith GatlingGun Gatchalian

    Heh. Blood Angels had no drop pod units in 3rd edition.

    • You just put the models on the table and rolled for scatter.

  • DeathBy SnuSnu

    I’m just glad you’re not a member of my local gaming club.

  • NagaBaboon

    I totally agree. It is in dire need of a reboot, the mechanics are clunky and the many of the rules are jarring.