Goatboy’s 40k: What 40k Needs Right Now

800px-Aquila1

The Fall of Cadia has some big hints for 40Ks new edition rules. Here’s where I think it’s going.

60040199075_fallofcadiahbeng01

The new Fall of Cadia book has come out and the leaks I saw last week as I wrote this article gave me some ideas on what we can expect in the new “edition” will get later this year.  I think the new Detachments are a pretty big example of how 40k will look at building armies as it feels very much like Age of Sigmar – but with a 40k twist to the units and choices available.  I think overall it can be a good thing if we have GW look at it as a way to balance some of the inherent combos and do small tweaks to ensure the game are not dominated by specific builds and army types.  Currently AOS has a pretty healthy set of armylists and I expect it to continue to be healthy with the rumored yearly General Handbook refreshes and a the companies push to invest and build the competitive scene.

math_problem630px_1

Army Construction is a Hot Mess

The first thing 40k needs is a streamlined way to build army lists.  Currently it is just a hot mess.  You have codexes, supplements, White Dwarves, and digital releases clogging the table top.  These take a ton of books to even play correctly.  Heck you even have issues with 3rd party army builders as well as a buddy had to play against a Knight army that took a fortification because the digital army builder said it could.  These are the things we don’t need because it already makes a complicated game even harder.  With AOS and its streamlined army building set up based on Allicances, free rules, and the ability to purchase formation rules quickly makes for a much easier game to handle.

How many times have you felt that your opponents army list felt off?  Where was this hidden detachment/rule and why can’t you get it?  These types of things are causing this game that works overall to become way to bloated.  It becomes a chore to try and remember all the pieces that create a “good” list.  I don’t want a complete blow up and change of the game system – but we need something to help clean up the army building process.

Imagine if we had the 3 Alliances to rule over the armies with multiple Factions within each Alliance.  Each Faction would have a set of rules they got if the army was only comprised of that Faction – thus eliminating some of the death star nature as some of their rules wouldn’t work if you took other factions to augment it.  You would have Alliance based rules as well – like how the new Cadia factions have extra rules that while not completely broken – do make the army a bit better.  Each unit would have a list of Keywords to help create the Factions.  Think about how a Space Marine could just have the set of Keywords – Imperium, Mortal, Adeptus Astartes.  You pick a Faction and they gain X Faction keywords and abilities.  Think about how much the rules could get knocked down when you just have rules for a Tactical Squad instead of Blood Angels Tactical Squad.  I think these small reshuffles would do wonders to help remove some bloat, lock in some rules, and let you create a full “rulebook” that isn’t just you trying to find 10 different rules in 5 supplements.

7th-p105

Special Rules & Characters

From there we need to seriously look at how rules are passed onto units.  I think there needs to be a big change in how things like Scout, Infiltrate, Hit and Run, Shrouding, etc all get added when combining a unit.  There is no way will see the shift in Characters AOS has over what 40k does.  The Independent Character is most likely staying around as there are too many and it is too locked into the current game play.  Heroes need to leave from units and having them walk around separately doesn’t make a lot of sense.  But it also doesn’t make a ton of sense to have one guy grant a plethora of rules to a unit that wasn’t designed to use them.  These sort of things need to be looked at and evaluated.  Of course if IC’s could only join up with their own Faction a lot of this will be moot as it isn’t nearly the issue anymore.

simplify2

Simplify Simplify Simplify

I think once they settle how to build armies the next thing to look at is ways to simplify the game.  Movement is extremely easy in AOS – terrain is ignored and mostly a benefit if you are within it wholly when attacked.  There are some interesting interactions with mysterious terrain and the rules feel actually fun instead of a chore like it could be in 40k.  I don’t think we need a wholesale removal of the charts and abilities – but some ways to clean it up would be a heck of a lot better.  If you ran in the movement phase – while hurtful to how the Eldar worked – it would help make the game move faster.  There are too many armies that utilize all the phases of the game to move, jump, and slash your opponent to death.  This is an area that could be easily cut down, reworked, and made faster.

I think some of the random nature of army development needs to be looked too.  A simplification of the Warlord traits, abilities to pick options instead of having to roll, and even locked in psychic powers will help a lot.  The players would have a better set up on how to get their armies to work as well as the opponent would know what to expect a lot more.  Gone would be the games where you rolled the perfect psychic combo and crushed your enemy or didn’t get anything good and felt like your army couldn’t do anything.  I know a lot of armies would have to be completely reworked (Daemons) but if we are looking at wholesale move to free rules it wouldn’t be out of the question.  It really depends on how much GW wants to but in work and if they feel the benefits they gained by the freemium of AOS is worth a rework/refresh of their flagship game.

chaos-sorceror-horz

Hey don’t blame it on me – I’ve only been good for a few months…

There needs to something else to help deal with some of the inherent too hard to kill options in the game.  I like the Rending mechanic in AOS as it feels like with a bit of Rending you can kill anything.  It becomes a bit complicated but you can look at the basic Bolter and start that at Rending -1 and go from there.  After that I really do think we need the Mortal wound aspect to come back.  It shouldn’t be like D where a 6 causes instead explosions but it should be something that would just say – stop all your rolls and rerolls and take a wound you jerk.  This little thing would mean investing in a big unit who can easily get torn apart by massed Mortal wounds would be a thing.  It is one of those simple rules that helps speed up the game (no need for further rolls once the mortal wound is caused) and lets armies deal with rough enemy units.

The psychic phases and assault phases are other things that feel off with this current edition.  Every edition of 40k attempts to tweak these phases.  You either have phases that are too powerful (Rhino Rush and assaults moving from unit to unit) or have issues with interactions that feel worthless (Psychic armies vs non psychic armies).  I am not sure the proper way to fix this as while I do like the AOS system – it still needs some work.  There needs to be some way to let both players feel like they are interacting.  It is one thing to give too much counter power to an your opponent but they also do not need feel like they are left to the whims of your dice rolls.

ogryn-03

One day I’m gonna be badass… one day.

The assault phase is also needed some kind of refresh.  The back and forth interaction of AOS is awesome for that game – but I don’t think it works in 40k.  I do like the nature of “engaging” enemies and pulling them in but with AOS’s rule of allowing firing into combats it makes it the shooting galleries that is 40k to strong.  There was a lot of tactics involved in locking and keeping your opponents offensive might held down.  A mixture of sorts might be needed but it is very hard to get something working.  There should never be a system set up where an assault unit can hope from unit to unit in an assault phase and leave your opponent wondering how they can have any hope to get out of this chain of murder.

simplify6

I think as a whole 40k is ok – it just needs some serious pregame work to get flowing right.  It feels like they gave us a way to complicated tool box to try and develop our own games and stories with.  A bit of structure, some reworked ideas, and an idea of movement towards balance will do wonders for the game.

~What do you think 40K could learn from Age of Sigmar?

  • vlad78

    Alternate activation is the very first thing to include.

    • ZeeLobby

      While I love it, I imagine IF it ever comes, it’ll be years down the road…

      • vlad78

        They could do it right now with really few changes to the entire ruleset.
        I know because I tested it and it works while keeping 95% of the rules.

        As an illustration of how easy it is to implement, you just have to restrict any unit to 2 hth attacks a turn, no matter if they charge or not. (like now 1 shooting attack, and 2 hth attacks)
        If they are engaged in close combat by more than 2 units, they can’t retaliate because they are overwhelmed which keeps the current balance between shooting and melee.

        You allow psyker to use their powers at any time during their activation (before, after movement and so on)

        The list of things to change is really short and would be included mainly in the turn sequence and a few rules here and there to prevent players from abusing the alternate action.

        The changes needed are really easy to include in the ruleset, it’s all a matter of choosing the most cinematic and simple rules and keep balance.

        And from there you can even restore the old rule of overwatch because alternate activation prevents it from being too powerful. No more alphastrike, no moreOP army allowed to bury its opponent before it can even move.
        With alternate activation, Eldar and Tau have to find covers, even assault army can mitigate the superiority of shooting by using their few shooting units to cover the advance of their buddies AND they won’t have to suffer their whole opponent’s firepower before being able to make a single step toward him.

        Alternate activation really makes the 40k ruleset shine imho.

        • ZeeLobby

          Oh. I agree. But it’s not the rules that’s holding them back. It’s their fear of losing profits. Because of it they’ll never make large changes. It’s like a giant oil tanker. It’ll take years to turn.

          • DeadlyYellow

            The multiple format approach would work wonders if the underlying game wasn’t so outdated.

          • ZeeLobby

            Agreed.

        • ZeeLobby

          That said, AoS was a large change, but I think 40K would have to sink to that level of profit loss before they took those steps.

        • Davor Mackovic

          When I tried to get my son to play 40K I had to use a bit of Lord of the Ring rules mixed with home made rules.

          You are correct. It can be done and work.

    • Please no. I much I Go U Go. There are plenty of games that alternate activation. Its good to have variety and not have every game the same.

      • ZeeLobby

        Then they need to streamline, cause waiting for your opponent can get very tedious. Personally I find very little pros as to I Go U Go, outside of being able to go get a drink, and some food, while I wait for them to move their 300 models.

        I think it’d work a lot better if everything also couldn’t shoot everything turn one. I mean that’s the real issue now. With how deadly and long range every weapon is in the game, if you don’t get that first turn it can feel like a lot of just picking your models up off the table.

        • petrow84

          This.
          Also, if they stick to IGoUGo, the scenarios should support it, like in WM/H (extended deployment zone for player 2, scoring form the second player’s second turn, etc.).

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah. There needs to be some boon for going second above and beyond getting last turn at this point. The advantages of going first are massive by comparison.

          • nurglitch

            I think having shooting resolved like close combat would be an idea; letting units shoot back at an aggressor would be neat.

          • Karru

            That could work actually. Allow all non-heavy weapons to fire back for example. Maybe with reduced ballistic skill like -1 or something. Of course, vehicles should be excluded since those things usually bear very heavy weapons and it would make them a bit too powerful.

            This system would force people to choose their targets more carefully.

          • nurglitch

            In Epic Armageddon everything has a Close Combat value and a Firefight value. When initiating an Engagement, you can move stuff into base contact and use Close Combat value (skimmers can use Firefight…) or just move within 15cm and use the Firefight value. The game doesn’t do this for shooting, but I really like how it works.

          • petrow84

            Force on Force is the game you’re looking for then.

          • nurglitch

            No, Epic Armageddon is the game I’m looking for. Warhammer 40,000 is the game I love.

          • petrow84

            There were some attempts to make 40k in FoF system, however, I don’t know any that became widespread. Pity, as it really gives back the lore, like, a Marine can really fight 10 cultists at once, and emerge victorious.

          • euansmith

            I would need a bit of a rethink of the forces, or else no-one would ever shoot at Tau, for fear of their reaction fire 😉 But that seems like it could be a fun game mechanic.

          • nurglitch

            So long as we maintain the notion that each unit gets to shoot once per turn, then the defending player would still need to decide to shoot back at the attacker prior to casualties, or try to tank the casualties in the hope of a better target opening up.

          • John Bower

            That would be more or less bringing back overwatch, and you want the rules simpler?

            If you make it alternate activation what do you do with the psychic phase? I know it is a bit of a clustercluck at the moment with so many rules scattered about, but the game in and of itself is probably the best ruleset yet for 40k, I certainly hope they don’t do the AOS treatment with it.

            Treating terrain as non-existent for movement is silly. Terrain does affect how you move IRL, and should in the game. I’d like to see rules for weather included; fog, rain etc. And more rules for unhealthy atmospheres such as a game I played the other day where ‘lethal radiation’ meant both sides were dropping like proverbial flies during their own turn.

          • nurglitch

            Actually Overwatch is a separate action in Epic Armageddon. You pass an initiative test and if passed you put the unit on Overwatch. That means it can shoot at a unit after that unit has completed a move. A move is a component of many actions in EA, with a March action allowing a detachment to make three moves. As you can imagine, being able to shoot at a unit after that first or second move can make a huge difference. I would make the manifestation of psychic powers an action, combined with a move. Dice would be either for manifesting, or denying, as if the psychic phase lasted the game.

            Don’t get me wrong, I’m actually okay with 40k the way it is, and the direction it’s been going since 5th. I’m just in love with Epic Armageddon, and I like the way that 40k has been moving in that direction for a few editions now. The 5th edition wound allocation, for example, was straight out of the Epic Armageddon rulebook. The 7th edition wound allocation works better for 40k at its scale. Certain things like the AoS treatment of large models would be welcome, particularly for units like Monstrous Creatures.

          • John Bower

            It was also used back in 2nd ed 40k. 🙂 You got to shoot at a unit when they moved into your LoS if you put a unit on Overwatch.

          • nurglitch

            Yes, it was. It was more codified in Epic Armageddon, allowing target formations to complete a move before resolving the attack.

        • I’d say the wait is more to do with the size of the game. 40k was a platoon scale game with maybe 30 minis a side. With smaller numbers any wait was a fraction of the time it would be now. The time you had when your opponent took their turn was spent calculating what you’d do to respond to the pressure they put you under.

          No one enjoys watching people move 300 minis. I once played a game against a Tyranid player who just pushed piles of gaunts round the board. Boring.

          • ZeeLobby

            Haha. Yeah, but this is the game the GW sells us. I mean heck, the newer formations don’t even fit under the 1850 pt cap. D weapons, super heavies, GMCs, fliers, etc. They’re building a game for bigger battles. If they rebalance in 8th it’ll be for those bigger battles. While I have played smaller sizes of 40K before, they’re just not as interesting or cinematic as the big ones. I think with some rules streamlining they could move at an equally exciting pace, even with larger armies.

          • 😀 See I’d say they are just cinematic in a different way, I like to ‘feel’ the death of every trooper. I’m thinking smaller games are like the end battle of Saving Private Ryan while big games are the Normandy battle of Saving Private Ryan.

          • ZeeLobby

            Can totally get that. Personally individual troopers just don’t have the depth to make things cinematic. It could be because I’ve moved on to other games like Infinity, or remember Necromunda, but in those you could have them do a crazy action (jumping down from a vantage point to knock an opponent out), or use some unique wargear. At smaller games it just seems to take longer to kill things in uninteresting ways. It’s part of the reason I have no desire to play GW’s official Kill Teams (Though the heralds of ruin version offers a lot more).

          • Necromunda was based on 2nd ed 40k, both great games. As a fan of Necromunda I’ve got my fingers crossed for Gangs of Commorragh.

            My ideal 40k would start with maybe a dozen minis a side up to a max of 30. That should be small enough to allow for actions like climbing and whatnot though probably not quite to the depth of Necromunda.

          • euansmith

            Mantic has come up with a nice idea with Deadzone (a handful of minis), Fire Fight (sort of old 40k sized fights) and Warpath (Apocalypse from the man who originally pushed for massive games at GW).

      • vlad78

        You know why there are so many new games with alternate activation? Because it’s far superior, it allows quite alot more of tactical thinking and prevents most of the gamey mecanics of 40K and is much more cinematic especially in a sci-fi setting. 40k ruleset is totally obsolete.

        • It can also be restrictive; I would imagine that military attacks happen in waves with multiple units coordinated to attack simultaneously, you can’t do that with alternate activation unless if you permit exceptions due to special rules or whatever in much the same way that 2nd ed overwatch allowed you to shoot in your opponents turn.

          Again, neither mechanic is perfect they are just different.

          • vlad78

            I disagree, by carefully selecting your order of activation you can almost replicate a combined arms approach but your opponent can react at the same time. What 40k does atm is just to reproduce 17th century warfare ike the battle of Fontenoy = one side shoots everything then the other.
            With alternate activation, you can actually silence enemies heavy weapon before one of your suad breaks from cover. You can make feints, gambits, disrupt enemy LOS quite more realistically.

            No system is perfect but man YougoIgo requires so much tweeking of the rules just to make it palatable it ‘s become ridiculous.

        • Karru

          This is once again a matter of opinion and the game in question. Vast majority of the games that use alternating activation have very limited amount of models on the field. There is also the thing that those games most likely were build from the ground up to support alternating activation. 40k would require massive changes to many different aspects of the game that would make it not 40k any more.

          Some armies would have to redesigned almost completely, many mechanics would have to be outright removed and so on. It’s not that simple and I’d much rather keep the old system because at least we have hope that the game doesn’t become unrecognisable.

          • vlad78

            I strongly disagree with that. Very few mechanics would have to change completely. In my experience most armies work exactly the same way if not better. The only things a bit tricky to pull are the like of the dark angels land speeders who cloak the troops behind them. But again it’s just a matter of finding the correct balance and the most simple and cinematic rule.

      • mugginns

        Alternate activation is objectively the best. Blowing your opponent off the table is never ever fun.

        • It’s not the best, nor is IGoUGo. They are both perfectly valid, each with their own pros & cons.

          The reason IGoUGo has such problems now in 40k is the game has grown too big, there are too many minis on the table. It was originally more of a platoon level game with maybe 30 mins a side but thats bloated to a company level game. That’s why players end up sitting twiddling their thumbs.

          Thats why the relationship between 40k & EPIC worked well; you want intimate skirmishes then play 40k, you want the big games then play EPIC.

          • euansmith

            I-Go-U-Go with the ability for targets to return fire or otherwise react to the current player’s turn could be fun.

          • Yes, yes, yes! This option please. I think the real tactical choices come with the exceptions to the mechanic (like reactions) rather than the actual mechanic itself (IGoUGo).

          • Karru

            They’d have to keep them pretty simple. Right now we have the Gone to Ground rule and Jinking which are quite simple. One nice thing could be to make Smoke Launchers work as a reaction thing. If you get shot, you could pop your smoke.

            With Infantry it could be something like if the unit didn’t shoot or move in the previous turn, they count as being entrenched, increasing their Cover Save by +1. This would help second player survive the Alpha Strike much better as it would apply automatically to them. You could also use this for your objective holder units.

            I believe that the biggest issue with the IGoUGo system is the Alpha Strike that people fear. I do agree that it is extremely annoying and can break entire battle plans right on their track.

          • More line of sight blocking terrain helps to stop that happening.

            Pretty much all GW terrain is terrible for blocking line of sight but you can’t go wrong with piles of boulders. 😀

          • vlad78

            It’s not enough. More blocking terrain also add diversity and tactics in any game why adding those just ot make YOugoIgo work, it maker alternative activation games better too.

          • euansmith

            Smoke markers that block line of sight, and supressive fire could go a long way towards making 40k feel like an actual fight.

          • vlad78

            The problem in my opinion is the tons of special rules you have to include to mitigate yougoIgo alphastrike. Furthermore all those rules don’t have to go and work perfectly in an alternate activation ruleset.
            Go to ground = it works
            Entrenched = could work
            Jinking = it works

          • Karru

            Actually, you don’t really need include that many special rules to migitate the IGoUGo Alpha Strike. All you have to do is make Night Fighting a thing again. Make Night Vision only remove the Cover Save bonus. Night Fighting gives Stealth to units that are over 6″ away, but within 12″. Shrouded instead if they are over 12″ away but within 24″. Targets outside 24″ are untargetable. This makes the first two turns more forgiving, as both players can’t nuke each other and armies like Orks or Tyranids can manoeuvre around the board the first turn.

            Then you make shooting less powerful. Remove a lot of the massed Strength 5-6 from the game, make Rapid Fire what it was before 6th edition and make Super Heavies suffer Damage Table results. Also, bring back Glancing Hits doing Damage Results.

            I’ve played a lot of 5th edition recently and these are all things that made the game’s first turn a lot less painful. I always wondered what changes happened so that armies on foot couldn’t survive past two or three turns. These are it. 6th/7th made shooting way too powerful and it needs to be addressed.

            In 5th edition objectives were harder to obtain. Only Troops were able to hold them, so you had to move something on them to make sure you got them. Most armies had to start moving from the very start if they wanted to get the majority of the objectives since they had only Infantry as Troops. Troops usually carry Rapid Fire Weapons, which meant that they couldn’t fire those weapons if they moved towards objectives on the first turn due to range limitations. Heavy Weapons also lost their shots if any model in the unit moved.

            This is quite significant after we reach the second problem, army building. Since Troops were made irrelevant due to everything being able to score, moving units to objectives in the early game became a useless tactic. It was much more efficient to spam CADs and your stronger, more powerful units in order to wipe out the enemy and then grab the objectives on the last turn. In 5th edition, people usually had 4-6 Troops that were nearing max strength with most armies and the remaining slots usually had 1-2 units in them. Now its 4-6 minimum Troops and usually one of the extra sections filled with the same unit(s).

            Troops choices rarely have massive amounts of firepower. Only Tau Fire Warriors have with their Pulse Rifles, but outside that most Troops are equipped with very basic, mid range weaponry. Now that people no longer required Troops to acquire objectives and they saw what Guard was able to do with the Leafblower, everyone started doing it.

            The way to get away from it is to make the changes I said at the start of the post, make Troops the only unit able to Score Objectives and in standard games make CAD the only Army Building method. This helps the game be more balanced. Of course it won’t get rid of all problems like Assaulting being nigh useless but those are not part of the Alpha Strike discussion here.

          • euansmith

            Especially if the reaction has a cost; like, if you react in your opponents turn, you lose your action in your turn.

            Playing Infinity, I was quite surprised that there was no cost to reacting; but then quickly realised that the balance came from a weak response to a strong attack.

            However, adding a price to the reactions would add wait to the players’ choices.

          • Keeping track of that could be a pain from one turn to the next, what about if you react then you’ve kinda highlighted your threat to the enemy and so they gain a bonus for shooting at you.

            e.g. Nid turn, one unit moves up and a marine unit reacts opening fire (possibly -1 to hit). Any Nids now shooting at the marines gain +1 to hit.

          • euansmith

            I’m thinking it could be done with activation markers, so that , whenever a unit acts or reacts, its gets an activation marker, and these are removed at the end of the game turn.

          • Is this with alt activation?

          • euansmith

            Yep; though “alt activation” sounds like some right-wing pressure group 😉

          • vlad78

            Exactly that. Now I’m still searching for beautiful token, not too big and not too small.

          • Brettila

            Except that one of the things that makes 40k better than other games is the lack of cards and markers all over the table.

          • vlad78

            Yes, but it’s a matter of taste, you already have to keep track of wounds, vehicles speed and breakdown, psykic powers, routed units, pinned units, units gone to ground… The time when 40k had no markers has long gone even if GW seldom provided good tokens at all.
            I think the benefits would far outweight the costs.

          • Again that highlights 40k origin as a platoon level game where you only had a few units to keep track of.

          • vlad78

            That’s what counters are made for. you only need one counter by unit which you would remove at the end of the turn. KOW already works with quite a lot of counters and 40k also.

          • MClay01

            Halo Ground Combat uses a mixed bag of reaction mechanics. If a unit has not activated that turn they use one value of reaction (think of it like a leadership, initiative, or a combination of thoses) from their stat line that is higher and easier to pass. If the unit has reacted or activated that turn they instead use a much lower reaction value. This allows units to react quickly to their first target in the game if they haven’t fired already, but still allows that same unit to attempt multiple reactions after firing the first time (representing the distracted nature of multiple targets appearing and the stress it must cause to react to multiple encounters in a turn). It is a very good mechanic…But some models are definitely better at reaction than others Spartan is BOSS. The balancing factor to the two reactions and normal actions of a unit is that the normal action requires no test to move, fire, or melee; the reaction of a none activated unit gets a higher probability to react to a high threat target but must sacrifice it’s normal activation to react (meaning no movement); the reaction of a unit that already has a activation (from previous action or reactions that turn) will use a number to react that is sometimes impossible to roll, but no further penalties are given to this unit if the harder reaction attempt is made and failed. It makes for a awsome game mechanic.

          • euansmith

            Neato!

          • V10_Rob

            Really, just something to keep the inactive player involved in the game. And just rolling save dice doesn’t count, they need to be making decisions that influence the battle.

          • euansmith

            Indeed, player decisions are so much better than just some random stuff.

            The Apocalypse World family of RPGs often give the player the chance to chose one, two or three options from a list based on their die roll; so a player might be forced to chose between defeating an opponent and avoiding injury.

            Going to Ground is a step in the right direction, I think; but more options could be more fun. Options for falling back or returning fire could really spice up the game.

          • vlad78

            But you can do both.

          • nurglitch

            I figured Epic Armageddon Engagements were the model to follow.

          • What were they?

          • nurglitch

            Somewhat equivalent to 40k assaults, except that everything, barring some eldar-centric first strike rules, attacked simultaneously. The attacker had the advantage of choosing the fight with movement.

          • vlad78

            I think the abstraction went a little bit too far.

    • I’d very much like that. In games up to 1000 points it’s alright but over that and it’s really awful waiting for half an hour for your opponent to finish their turn.
      IGoUGo urks me. Only Infinity gets away with it – with only a handful of miniatures in play and the Reaction system it’s more interactive.
      Alternating games like X-Wing or Firestorm Armada have a much nicer flow of play.

      • Red_Five_Standing_By

        Even AoS’ halfway version of alternating activation (during assault) is more exciting.

        • ZeeLobby

          Yeah. I just don’t like the randomness attached. Was that ever worked out?

          • Davor Mackovic

            What do you mean by randomness? By rolling the dice? I never saw an issue with that, especially in Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit game. Works quite well.

          • vlad78

            It’s adding more randomness to an already random game. I prefer to roll initiative every round.

          • Davor Mackovic

            Oh I thought you ment rolling the dice was the random part you didn’t like for every turn.

          • vlad78

            lol
            It depends on how many times you roll the initiative, once a turn is a good thing imho because it keeps the interest of all the rules and special rules written in so many codicies concerning that part of the game.
            My intend is to change as few rules as possible.

            You can’t decently do less than that unless you want to automatically give the initiative to the side with the best initiative average. Eldars are broken enough. ;p

    • petrow84

      Alternate activation, BUT with the option to pass.
      Forced over-activation with cheap, chaff units killed EPIC for me.
      Deadzone has an elegant solution; if the enemy has more units left to activate, you can pass the initiative back to him.

      • vlad78

        It’s a question of balance. If you can pass the whole time what prevents you from waiting for your opponent to move everything before going out of cover or reserve to blast him or take the objectives? (genuine question)

        • Red_Five_Standing_By

          That is the danger with a pass system.

        • petrow84

          If you have the same number of units left to activate, you cannot pass. Also, letting the enemy completely outflank you is often a bad idea. At least in Deadzone.

          • vlad78

            That is not a bad idea actually.

      • V10_Rob

        WarmaHordes Unbound rules seems like a decent compromise, too. Instead of moving your entire army on your turn, you activate 1/3 or 1/4 of it. Then your opponent activates a portion of theirs. And back and forth until everything in your respective armies has activated once, at which point the round ends.

        Shorter downtimes, and it better simulates reacting to enemy movements.

      • vlad78

        I prefer to force the deployment of units which can deep strike before other units.

        Furthermore in my ruleset, I consider units who have to disembark just like Space marines coming in a drop pod or genestealers coming in a spore as one unit only requiring one activation because otherwise they would be shot down before being able to do anything. (they have to disembark and do not have the protection of the assigned vehicle)
        On the other hand, they have to deploy first.
        This is the only instance imho where delaying activation would be a gamey move.

        For other units, in the 40k ruleset, I think being able to deploy before your opponent allows you to shoot first and to occupy objectives which can be very important in maelstrom. Then using chaff is a trade off which can cost dearly.

    • Peripheral

      Blend Igo,Ugo with alternate activation. One Player moves, then the other Player moves, one player shoots, then the other shoots, one player assaults, then the other player assualts. Game turn ended. Order within phases for next turn either flips, is determined by “initiative” or determined randomly.

      • Insert_nickname_here

        There was a scenario on the old GW site which suggested swapping shooting phases (so player 1 moves, player 2 shoots them, then player 1 assaults).
        I never tried it, but I always thought that sounded interesting to play.

      • vlad78

        Why not do the whole thing, What would we gain to divide units activation between several phases? Wouldn’t that be the worst of both world? Wouldn’t that require to remove the activation tokens several times a turn instead of only one?

      • I’d like to see charging as part of movement then have minis attack simultaneously in assault. I’d like to see double KOs.

    • silashand

      Agree completely. This is one element that has been needed for years.

    • Carey_Mahoney

      Yeah!

    • LordKrungharr

      The alternating deployment in AoS is also good.

    • Ghaniman

      IGoUGo on phases, so I Movement, U Movement etc. rather than playing one unit through (Movement, Psyk, Shooting etc.) at a time. This would allow for minimal changes to the rules, more tactics and greater attention from both players during a ‘Turn’.

      Additionally may be even having the losses of Shooting phase only apply after both sides have shot, to show the ‘at the same time’. Same could apply to the Psychic phase.

    • Bigalmoney666

      Ah, add another layer of confusion/complexity to the game. Just keeping track of what unit is still available for an action seems like it would turn into a nightmare. It sounds like the exact opposite of the direction they should take,

      • vlad78

        When you get use to it, it’s really easy. No confusion, all actions are logical.
        Not including it in the first place was really a mistake imho.
        YougoIgo makes of 40k a really bad game.

  • TimW

    Weird that people still play 40k…I was a hard-core player and believer in 40k up until the end of 5th edition. Since then I have a had a difficult time getting enjoyment out of it. This is because the armies I like (Tau and Dark Eldar) are either boring to play (Tau) or weak compared to what my friends are playing (Dark Eldar). But thats not the only reason I don’t play 40k…the main reason being that quite simply, the game is a slog. It’s so slow, clunky, and boring. If my opponent has psykers, I have to add another 1 hour of my life to the game. No thanks.
    In my ideal world…GW completely throws out ALL of the old rules and makes an entirely new and innovative ruleset.

    • wibbling

      Like Age of Sigmar?

      The game is complicated, and there’s a lot of interlocking/dependent rules.

      Tau are not boring to play and Dark Eldar are not underpowered. There are a lot of blogs that will help you to improve your game.

      • ZeeLobby

        According to wibbling, you should be winning tournaments in no time. It’s never the games fault. It’s YOUR fault!

        • grim_dork

          He didn’t say anything at all about winning tournaments.

          • ZeeLobby

            But you should be able to. It’s easy! You just gotta be better. That’s all.

      • vlad78

        Age of Sigmar is almost 40k light on a tactical level, no flank move, no incentive to attack the enemy from the rear, the only goal of the game is to optimize your attacks. It’s much too simplified AND yet they found the way to still add tons of special rules in the warscrolls which will make a mess of that game sooner or later.

        • SupPupPup

          There are light flanking manoeuvres you can do (exploiting the way large blocks/blobs of infantry pile in)

        • Xodis

          Again, try playing the game before judging it incorrectly.
          While you are correct there is no “mechanical rule” benefit to flanking or attacking someone’s rear, there is still a strategical advantage for everything you listed.

          TLDR: No Rules =/= No Incentive

          • vlad78

            Then enlighten me because beyond the fact that the more units you have in contact the more attack you can use on one single target, I don’t see the benefit of flanking.

          • Xodis

            What is the benefit in a real battle other than removing any of their potential cover and getting more shots/attacks off on the unit?

            Flanking is a limited maneuver but comes in handy when a General uses his Lines of soldiers to hide valuable combat assets behind their protection.
            Example: Stormcast Judicators (the guys with bows) standing behind a line of Stormcast Liberators (the ones with Shields) free to unleash death on most enemies without fear of being engaged. Flanking this unit would allow you to drag them into the combat and cut them down, otherwise you need to deal with the tougher Liberators and take the rain of arrows while you chop them down.

            As to the original question I posted, any intervening terrain is going to suck as far as ranged attacks are concerned giving the target cover. Flanking a ranged unit can eliminate that cover (as long as it’s not just area terrain) giving you a better chance to kill your target.

            Saying there is no reason to Flank in AoS is just like saying there is no reason to Flank in 4oK (excluding vehicles), I’m sure that would meet with just the same amount of opposition as well.

          • Karru

            AoS doesn’t have flanking in game mechanic sense. I believe this is what most people refer to when they say there is no flanking. In 40k you can flank the enemy so they don’t get cover for example or you hit vehicle to a different facing.

            In AoS there is only the tactic of flanking just as you pointed out. It doesn’t mechanically give you anything. In Fantasy it made units lose their Ranks and suffer LD penalty.

            Now, I am not trying to start a fight here nor saying you are absolutely wrong. This is genuinely what I think is the case here when people mention “there is no flanking in AoS”.

          • nurglitch

            I refer to flanking in 40k and AoS as ‘organic’ as in the rules naturally make this a tactical option, rather than requiring an additional superstructure of bonuses to make players even consider it.

          • Karru

            That’s kinda what I meant as well. I believe it’s the remnants of Fantasy rules that people still refer to when they discuss about Flanking. Flanking doesn’t give you anything in terms of pure rules, it just works as a tactic.

          • Xodis

            I agree there is no real mechanical bonus, but like I pointed out No Rules =/= No Incentive to flank.

            Also the basic rules only cover area terrain, and we both know there is terrain other than that so common sense or even 40Ks rules should be used. A barrier in your way should give a unit cover and no barrier means no cover, which is where flanking would be useful once again.

            I understand that there was Flanking rules in old WHFB, which made sense since it was phalanx styled combat….this is guerrilla combat though, and as seen with current military tactics is still a very important tactic.

          • vlad78

            Absolutely not. There’s no reason to flank in 40k. You charge head on. The only reason there might be would be to try to avoid a special character in a big unit by keeping your soldiers too far for him to attack, but that’s absolutely all of it.

            As for your example, you just illustrate my point. The flanking you’re talking about is just a matter of selection of target, nothing more.
            In real life, attacking a unit from the flank or the rear had a very real impact, phalanxes were almost impossible to beat head on but once surrounded, they were easy to break.
            AOS rules have just thrown centuries of battlefield tactics to the bin. You have almost no reward for breaking your opponent battle line. At least nothing which could be even remotly accurate or comparable to real medieval or ancient battles.
            Your liberators will be as tough no matter if you attack them from the side or from the rear.

            40k has been suffering from the same sin since 2nd edition when the reward for attacking from the rear was removed. Yet it is less important because in modern wars or sci-fi setting, there are no ranks and files, almost all soldiers fight like skirmishers.

          • Xodis

            “Absolutely not. There’s no reason to flank in 40k. You charge head on.” How does that work out for you? I assume not very well, but its probably the least strategic thing you can do in melee despite the 40K CC rules being garbage.

            “In real life, attacking a unit from the flank or the rear had a very real impact… ” Yes which is why the Flanking maneuver is STILL used today in guerilla warfare (which proved Phalanx warfare to be inferior). As illustrated in my second example the flank still has merit because it removes obstruction. There is no need attacking an enemy you can’t kill, and how is flanking a unit to remove their cover saves a matter of target selection? My first example was, that’s true, but the second example clearly is about negating a battlefield terrain advantage….which is what happens in the real world too. Negating an advantage of the enemies seems like a real boon, especially since it requires no points or abilities and just is.

            “Your liberators will be as tough no matter if you attack them from the side or from the rear.” True, but they are not as useful as they should be if they don’t stop you from killing their more powerful support options behind them. Its synergy and without support they are alone to their devices, with support their staying power is increased tremendously.

            40K suffers from a lot more than no bonuses from attacking from the rear, but even still it makes no sense. In a world where entire battlefields are constantly monitored and evaluated and characters either have super human senses or the technology to mimic them, bonuses from being charged from the rear make no sense, because they knew you were coming more often than not. Those with abilities like Genestealers to “sneak” up on their prey have abilities that simulate that kind of hidden approach (despite there being a problem with the points/effectiveness).

          • vlad78

            You’re talking about the positioning, I’m talking about the reward of such positioning.
            If the phalanx was included in AOS it would be unbreakable (or really tough to break) no matter from what side you’re attacking it, just like your liberator.
            Just removing a save is really poor for something which should ensure victory, nothing less.

            So yes there’s still a modicum of tactics which lies only in avoiding terrains which could protect your target and target selection, give me a break, those are almost the only tactical things which remains in AOS (and maybe the weapon selection). If you can’t see how much has been lost compared to a real wargame or even WFB, there ‘s nothing more to talk about.

            BTW in 40K it’s not the flanking which is important, is the concentration of strength and the optimization of your attacks. Everything else has been removed except the taking of the objectives which regenerated a little bit the tactical interest of the game.
            Rulewise, attacking a unit form the side or the rear gives you zero advantage if you’ve not already optimized your attacks. And just like you said, even today it should give you the edge IRL. It just doesn’t in GW games.

            It used to in the 40k rogue trader edition, you couldn’t retaliate in Hth when attacked from the rear and arcs of fire were important. 2nd and 3rd editions removed that in order to streamline the game. (and stop the constant nitpicking and whining of players which wasn’t necessarily a bad thing)

          • Xodis

            A Flanking maneuver should never “ensure” victory. It has a benefit but it is not an “Ace in the hole”, it is helpful and is what is simulated in AoS and 40K. Positioning rewards itself and is a critical part of warfare.
            “So yes there’s still a modicum of tactics which lies only in avoiding terrains which could protect your target and target selection, give me a break, those are almost the only tactical things which remains in AOS” Those are the only tactical things which remain in AoS in regards to Flanking, again quit making assumptions when you don’t know. Also this is a classic case of you arguing against a point completely and (after editing your response)have started arguing that it’s not enough, quit moving the goal line. Yes Flanking was more powerful in WHFB because of phalanx combat, sometime that proved to be completely inefficient against guerrilla warfare, which makes sense that in a world that does not advance in weaponry would at least evolve in tactics.
            Flanking is enough currently because its realistic. I’m not sure where you got the impression that a flank maneuver in a guerilla combat situation should ensure victory, but its completely wrong, its a move to assist just like it does in Aos/40K.
            “…is the concentration of strength and the optimization of your attacks…” Yes because the game has gotten ridiculous with ignoring cover and using weaponry that ignores most armor saves anyways….a flaw in the game design and rules does not equal a flaw in a maneuver.

          • vlad78

            My dear fellow gamer, you should know that in a historical battle, more often than not a flanked phalanx was almost as good as dead because the soldiers in it were forced to break ranks and would lose all the advantages it provided which is exactly why the roman maniples was far superior, it could manoeuver more easily and avoid frontal assault. There goes your argument against flanking. Even if charging a foe from its side or rear did not always bring victory, it always was stunnigly advantageous which is not shown by AOS rules. (nor 40k)
            You do not realize not rewarding flanking does change a lot the tactics viable in that game.

            And no, in a world which does not advance in technologies, without machineguns and rapid fire rifles, no one with a sane mind would adopt skirmisher tactics everytime which is exactly what AOS is doing.
            BTW AOS is not guerilla warfare, at least not in the fluff.

            And I don’t make assuptions about my knowledge of AOS, I’ve tried and seen enough games to understand it is a lightweight version of 40K with some specific rules. Please stop throwing that to people no liking that ruleset.
            It can be quick and fun but that’s all of it. might be enough for some but not for me.

            “Yes because the game has gotten ridiculous with ignoring cover and using
            weaponry that ignores most armor saves anyways….a flaw in the game
            design and rules does not equal a flaw in a maneuver.”
            Well if the manoeuver does not bring anything special like it should, it is irrelevant.

          • Xodis

            No my argument didn’t go anywhere because you failed to address what I actually said and went on some tangent about phalanx’s when AoS is CLEARLY a game of guerrilla warfare. We are discussing AoS and tactics, not WHFB which I already stated made sense that flanking was more powerful… “Yes Flanking was more powerful in WHFB because of phalanx combat”. So either read/comprehend what I type in its entirety or just stop because you make no sense at this point.
            AoS IS a skirmish/guerilla type game, and the lore goes back and forth between it and the Phalanx. Stormcast use the Phalanx on occasions, but it generally devolves into scattered combat (see Game of Thrones). It also DOES make sense to evolve past the Phalanx seeing as how what the armies currently lack in modern weaponry is more than made up for with magic, beasts, etc.. You don’t need modern firearms when you have magical Bows or Flying Hammers and spells which take out swathes of troops (a point I found silly in WHFB) not to mention a giant monster with teeth that will run over your Phalanx like it doesn’t exist. Also just because the fluff is one way doesn’t mean the game is…see 40K.
            Make up your argument, does Flanking have a purpose or not? Because every post of yours goes back and forth. I stated from the very first reply that Flanking in AoS did not have a mechanical benefit, but that doesn’t mean it is useless. You have even stated that it is useful as a positioning and target selection tactic, yet once again have gone back to the “its useless” argument. Seriously quit making strawmen and pick a point. Honestly I already know it’s useful, and doesn’t need to be mechanically superior to be a good choice.

            You are making assumptions or you didn’t learn anything watching those games…it’s your call. I didn’t throw that allegation at someone who doesn’t “like” the rules, I threw that allegation at someone who made false statements about the rules…that’s the difference. Plenty of people don’t like the rules, but they usually express an opinion and not try to state false facts as truth.

    • Victor Hartmann

      I’ve only found it a slog rules-wise when people don’t know their rules. Maybe I’m just lucky but I’ve rarely had games where people didn’t have a solid grasp of the rules.

      Really, amongst competent and reasonable people, the rules are mostly fine.

      They could do with some cleaning up, no doubt. I’m cool with some major changes such as alternating play. But I’m not on board with “throw it all out, start over”. GW did that with Epic. That was a fun game with alternating play. Then they created a new edition with all new rules and killed it. If they ever release it again, I hope they go back to the old rules set. Otherwise it’s a waste of time and resources.

      • vlad78

        I heard they said they don’t want to make of the new epic an alternative to 40k. ATM it’s restricted to titans.

    • Talos2

      Tau are weak in relation to dark eldar? You really are a coupl editions behind

      • euansmith

        He was saying that Tau are boring and Dark Eldar are weak.

    • Defenestratus

      A game is what you make of it. If you let the “rules” get in the way of having a good time, then the problem is with you, and not the game.

      • ZeeLobby

        You do realize that for some people the rules of a game are what make it fun right?

        • Farseerer

          This is a game where we push around plastic figures that we have assembled and painted around a mocked up battlefield of a fantasy universe.

          Attitude has to be more important than the rules.

          • ZeeLobby

            But they’re not connected. Why not have good rules and a good attitude? I’m sorry, but what you said doesn’t change the fact that good rules would help the game for ALL players.

          • Farseerer

            Of course better rules mean a better game. Having said that, I have no doubt that whatever the changes or improvements that are made to the game in 8th edition, there will be:

            A. People whining
            B. People playing and enjoying the game
            C. People who stop playing 40k in outrage
            D. Some combination of A, B and C.

            What category you end up in and how much enjoyment you get from this game will always be hugely connected to your attitude. What category you end up in will not depend on what your favorite faction is and whether they got ‘buffed’ or ‘nerfed’. To suggest otherwise is naive, regardless of how vehemently you push a narrative that you are a victim of some great injustice because the rules of a board game are not to your taste.

          • ZeeLobby

            I’ve seen the most diehard narrative player get tired of having his head beaten in. To assume that attitude will override all for even a slim majority of players is probably a stretch. People complain because they like aspects of the game, but want changes in others. It’s not always in their best interest to quit, or stop complaining or just readjust their attitude. GW have been known to listen before (see wound allocation). So it’s a mistake to place enjoyment purely on attitude imo.

            Poop tastes great if you adjust your attitude towards it, doesn’t mean that it’s actually good food. It especially doesn’t mean that those who don’t like eating poop just need an attitude adjustment.

          • Farseerer

            If you have to equate this edition of 40k to eating human excrement to help back up a point you’re making, you’re not really saying much.

            This is the kind of useless hyperbole that you’ve spent hours of your life and thousands of posts, doing your damn best to turn the comments section of this site into pointless vitriol.

            The irony is that you believe the current 40k ruleset is the problem.

          • ZeeLobby

            Aw. And there’s the truth. Your just angry. That’s OK buddy. Lol. Go fight your internet battles! I had hoped you were actually trying to have a discussion.

            It’s pretty funny how literally you took my example just to avoid refuting it. Replace poop with uncooked food. Bad food. Etc. It all works.

          • Farseerer

            You can decide that I’m angry if you like, there’s not much I can do about it but it certainly doesn’t make it true.

            The Irony here is astonishing. You need only look down this comment section so see that a huge proportion of the comments on this article alone are just you pounding the same broken record that you have been on this site for as long as I can remember. And apparently I’m here fighting my internet battles.

            Have a read through your comment history for the last couple of years. Think about how many months of your life you’ve spent flogging your particular dead horse. What have you achieved? Your lack of perspective and your love of the keyboard has been stifling good discussion on this site for a long time.

          • ZeeLobby

            “This is the kind of useless hyperbole that you’ve spent hours of your life and thousands of posts, doing your damn best to turn the comments section of this site into pointless vitriol.”

            useless, damn, pointless – Tend to kind of imply an underlying anger. If not then I’m sorry I read them that way. You seem heated, all I’m saying.

            You seem to be operating under the delusion that I’m “out to prove something”. I’m just commentating for fun, and sharing my opinion. Discussing it with friends, and sharing our experiences. Just because my view isn’t congruent with yours doesn’t mean I have some nefarious agenda.

          • euansmith

            Pew! Pew! Pew! The sound effects are important too. 😉

      • TimW

        There are multiple things that make a game fun or boring. Player demeanor and attitude are very important, as are the rules. Its not one or the other. But for me, the rules just don’t make it a game I want to play.

    • Farseerer

      5th edition? So what you’re saying is that you haven’t enjoyed 40k in close to 9 years? Really?

      There are clearly many, many people who still enjoy this game. Nobody is forcing you to play or purchase anything so how about you just stop playing and save yourself another nine years of self inflicted misery.

      • Coltcabunny

        I think you need to check on your dates there. He said played until the end of 5th ed., which was up until June 2012. Last I checked 2012 was just over 4 years ago.

        • Farseerer

          Fair point. My mistake.

        • ZeeLobby

          It’s funny that those 4 years also coincide with GW’s continual decline in sales. Though it looks like AoS may have got them out of that rut.

      • Malisteen

        This is a game with massive investment, typically several hundred if not over a thousand dollars. Investment that is extremely difficult to turn over for even a fraction of what was spent.

        Maybe they did stop playing. I know I have been playing progressively less and less over the same period of time. That doesn’t mean we won’t still follow the game hoping for a ‘righting of the ship’ that might make those thousands of dollars of miniatures and hundreds of hours of hobby time sunk into our armies worth pulling out again.

        I can’t speak for the other poster, but in my case I’m still very much into the setting the characters, everything about 40k. The only thing standing in the way of me enjoying this game isn’t other players, or their attitudes, it’s the rules of the game itself. The slow, clunky, boring, hasslesome, byzantine, lopsided rules. The rules are why this game sucks as a game, and has sucked as a game for ages now.

        It’s be nice if one of these periodic edition changes made things better instead of worse.

      • TimW

        I’ve played 6th and 7th just not as a “hard-core” gamer. Just to clarify that.

    • nurglitch

      So what you’re saying is that despite not having played 7th edition, you don’t get why people might enjoy it?

      • TimW

        I’ve played 6th and 7th just not as a “hard-core” gamer. I can see why people enjoy it, but I don’t think its a good ruleset by any means.

    • Karru

      It could be that a good amount of people do enjoy the core rules when modified to suit their needs. It is still the only game in the market that offers large scale 28mm games with high quality models and constant updates. This might be something that a good amount of people seem to forget. Many games they enjoy greatly suffer from one thing or another. Mantic Games bring out a lot of content but their delivery and supply is abysmal, not to mention their bad quality of models. Corvus Belli suffers from the supply and very difficult models. X-wing suffers from drastic meta changes with every release usually since new cards and combos are introduced.

      40k might be in a bad shape, but GW has the resources to keep up with demand and releases new products with a regular schedule.

      • TimW

        Corvus Belli’s Infinity is fun but I don’t play it very often because of rules-bloat, the fragility of the units in the game, and the terrain-requirements. Visually the game suffers as well. Its like you barely get to see your opponents figures because they’re hiding in like nooks on the board all the time. Even at tournaments, when I cruise the aisles between games no one displays their armies because they are afraid people will figure out their lists. And that’s just lame, IMO.

  • I wish GW would improve the game with a new edition rather than re-invent the game.

    • TimW

      What do you like about the game’s rules as they are now?

      • Ahh I don’t think I made myself clear as I’m not a fan of current 40k.

        But, with each edition GW have focused on players putting more and more minis on the table and the rules have been tweaked to encourage and allow this. I think my two favourite editions, in terms of the core rules, have been 2nd & 5th. I would have liked them to actually refine either of those editions rather than focusing on pushing for bigger games.

        Of course what I’d really like them to do is design two editions of the game, platoon level with 30 minis aside and a company level game with 100+ minis aside. Players could then use either level to play games in-between, depending upon their preference. The company level game should have a more streamlined approach to facilitate the larger games and stop them getting bogged down. At the same time, the platoon level game would allow players to go into more depth and detail.

        Either way games design should focus on encouraging players to have a range of minis fit for different roles that encourage players to play different missions much like the force organisation chart was intended to do. So player A is attacking an enemy artillery column so they should be 3-6 FA choices (0-3 Troops & 0 HS) to reflect their light but fast force while their opponent should be 3-6 HS & 0-3 Troops. If missions were broken down into categories players could easily turn up to games night with a list for each mission category safe in the knowledge that they aren’t going to loose before they start.

        Of course if players want to throw down everything then thats cool too.

        • John Wellington Wells

          3rd edition had mission-specific FOC’s. They didn’t get used a whole lot though since most people collected what we’d now call a CAD, and either didn’t want to leave their favorite unit out or didn’t have the models in their collection to fit the alternate FOC.

          • I don’t remember them in 3rd but I do remember them in 4th. I think there is a lot of perceived value in specific units and players do not always recognise that value can change if used in a different mission.

            I think a solid number of standard missions like in 5th then expand this in supplements based around a campaign maybe. So, by placing a lot of emphasis on the difference players may be more inclined to try something new.

            Also, there is more money around nowadays so I’m sure more players have a wider range of minis now from across the FOC.

    • petrow84

      I guess, that’s what the did between 4th and 6th ed.

      There were some nice changes, like vehicles became useful, wound allocation has been simplified, and a few things have been simplified (like morale rules).
      There were also some points, which were not to my liking (allies chart, or true LOS, for example), but each on their own.

      And I feel, it was about after that time, that they completely lost control, and started churning out the beefiest, cheesiest formations and supplements they could. I don’t deny that there were cheese before (played against nidzilla, and 3,5rd CSM), but now the situation is that you don’t pick the strongest units from your codex, you pick it from the entire game. So yeah, in my opinion, fine-tuning won’t undo it. It requires a thorough restart.

      • 5th was fun. Not quite as detailed as I’d like (with smaller games) but fun nonetheless. They should have refined that then sorted out balance between the factions.

        I still don’t get the whole formations thing, I’ve not been playing for a while, and only see them as a thinly disguised attempt to SELL, SELL, SELL!

        I can appretiate that GW want to make money and thats cool, it helps them to push the ranges into plastic etc. But, I’d like to see them encourage a wider diversification for forces by offering a range of missions reflecting different tactical situations rather than just going for maximum minis all the time.

    • Malisteen

      you can’t improve your way out of the mess that 40k is right now. You’re not fixing things without throwing out the existing codices, campaign books, and other supplements. The problems are there as much if not more than in the core rules. A core rule update that leaves the rest intact isn’t going to do it.

      • I agree in regard to the current edition. GW have gotten too carried away with the sell tactics. I was more referring to previous good editions, I liked 2nd & 5th particularly. Neither of them were perfect but could have been refined to make a great game. Faction balance is a whole other kettle of fish.

  • Old zogwort

    I love how often what “you want” is confused with “what 40k needs”.
    Army construction for sure isn’t above my mental capacities, it isn’t hard at all really selecting the right ingredients for a cake is harder than piling on some detachments. ; ) And simplification sure sounds cool and all but are random generated warlord traits, mysterious objectives and psypowers really the biggest issue about the 40k rules.

    • ZeeLobby

      I’d add over-proliferation of special weapons and too many unit types as well. It was fun when it was rock paper scissors and take all comers was an option. Now it’s rock paper scissors lizard Spock, and it’s far to easy to run into an opponent who just steamrolls you.

      Honestly 5th was good times. We could just go back to 5th. Hehe.

      • Defenestratus

        No thanks. I still can’t find games with my grey knights because people are so butthurt over 5th edition.

        • ZeeLobby

          Lol. GW breaking an army doesn’t mean that the ruleset was bad. Just remove psybolt ammo or change it to its tamer current iteration and it solves issues. God, I hope GW doesn’t make decisions based off of ancient fears.

          • Defenestratus

            well I can’t get games with my Eldar either because of the misconception that every Eldar army is a beardy instant “I win” button.

            I still have lost more games with my Eldar than I have won but that doesn’t matter to people whose only source of enjoyment of the game is winning.

            I hope GW doesn’t sanitize the game like they did with 3rd edition. If everything acts the same on the battlefield, then a huge amount of the cinematic enjoyment I get from it will be lost.

          • ZeeLobby

            Right, I just don’t think having good rules has to mean sanitizing anything, and shouldn’t have an effect on narrative gameplay. 5th had great gameplay, and great cinematics, and a strong core rule set. GW broke some codexes, but that has more to do with their inability to point-cost things appropriately more than anything else.

            As for your opponents not wanting to play your Eldar, I don’t know how to really solve that. I think with every new edition people are willing to give it another shot, so maybe with 8th you’ll find more luck. I mean you could also hope GW just don’t break your next codex as well, though that’s always up in the air.

          • Heinz Fiction

            Yeah 5th edition was a very solid set of rules. There were some minor issues like wound allocation exploitation, but nothing serious. Codex balance was off of course but that has always been the case in any edition.

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah. That’s the thing, some small tweaks of 5th, and 6th would have been amazing. They did change wound allocation, but then they added 50 new things. I think the issue is you have a rules design staff that you’re paying, so they need to do something. Rather than reaching a point where you say, OK, these will be our rules going forward because they’re great, you end up just making changes for the sake of having work to do…

            You see it in hardware companies that have software development teams. The new X phone comes out, and here’s 10 new features, half of which no one really asked for, because our team needed to do something, haha.

          • SupPupPup

            …maybe if people don’t want to play you…

          • grim_dork

            I couldn’t agree more.

          • Malisteen

            I can pretty confidently say that GW constantly makes decisions based off ancient fears. It’s been over a decade since the 3.5 book died, and CSM players are still paying for its sins, though change may finally be in the air.

          • ZeeLobby

            Eh. But those changes were immediate. I’d say any lack of current attempt at bringing them back is just laziness. It’s unfortunate they got nerfed right before GW decided they make collectors models, not games. There return is mostly likely due to the changes that came with that changing of the guard.

  • Defenestratus

    I guess I really don’t give a sh*t if my opponent’s list “seems off”. I have told more than one opponent “hey I get it, but I don’t think that would be a fair game, you think you could change it up somehow?” and sometimes it works, sometimes they decline. It’s up to me whether or not to play against that person.

    • SupPupPup

      One of the better results of no points AoS was the pre game discussion.

      While you do need strong systems in place to prevent exploitation, Warhammer is more of an conversation than a battle when it comes to having an enjoyable game.

      • ZeeLobby

        I just wish we could have both. I used to have these same discussion back in the day, but it usually involved limiting a single model, not entire factions, haha. It’s not like GW’s rules have ever been infallible.

        • Aye, I don’t know where the “no discussions” talking point is coming from. That pre-game talk has always seemed like an integral part of the game to me and it is hardly something unnatural. You prepare for the game, you talk about your expectations for it.

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah, definitely when playing with friends. I do think things could be done to reduce the need to have these discussion. Although there is no discussion for tournament games, I’d imagine those same changes would reduce saltiness towards playing against cheesey lists as well.

          • I agree, a reduction of necessity is important, but at some point it seems people forgot it was ever standard procedure and are now praising an absence of structure for bringing it back. Weird.

            At its best, the rule system / army selection rules would reduce the pre-talk necessity to a minimum but I wouldn’t go without it at all. Even just communicating about the pace/timeframe or general goal of playing (victory, fun, fluff etc) help fostering a good atmosphere at the table. While tournaments make a lot of that obsolete, good sportsmanship comes with communication, too.

          • SupPupPup

            I’ve been playing this game for 20 goddamn years, and by the end of 8th There was little more than a grunt before starting a fantasy pick up game.

            While with friends its always different, 40k at least in my meagre experience has started to share the problems fantasy developed.

  • Horus84cmd

    Ergh. Another article on what needs to change in 40K…..we get like one of these a month! They always say the same things…

    • ZeeLobby

      People are just anxious/excited about what 8th may bring, and for good reason.

      • Horus84cmd

        Yet, anxious/excited does not have to mean 10 articles saying the say things in a slightly different order.

        • ZeeLobby

          Well this it is this site, did you expect any less? 😀

          • SupPupPup

            I EXPECT ONLY THE BEST.

            (so I only come here for the comments)

          • ZeeLobby

            Haha. I love that you tend to find more logical and tactical discussion in the comments then in the articles. Not to mention the lore that’s corrected (when not copying and pasting it), the ways to correct the illegal posted lists and/or the correct identification of spoilers. I love you guys!

          • SupPupPup

            The comments on BoLS have to be some of the most vapid, abusive, generally ill conceived wargaming thoughts out there.

            And yet, they are easily the most consistently entertaining reading I’ve found.

            I aim to support this tradition with my own content.

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah, but for every slap-fight, there’s also some good discussion to be found. Most of the regulars fall into that category. Then you have your one-and-dones who post things for shock value. They’re littered throughout.

          • SupPupPup

            I think that’s the brilliance of it.

            Just occasionally you will find a really well thought out discussion on tactics or a meta breakdown of the communities reaction to an event.

            So while I will say BoLS, you are absolute garbage, I still love you.

          • ZeeLobby

            Haha, true. My favorite is when you initial respond to someone who’s been driven to a frenzy and the conversation ends in mutual respect and understanding. Haha. Sometimes commentators eyes go red and they attack like cornered beasts!

          • Karru

            And then there is me who ends up posting longer comments than the article itself and make everyone fall a sleep after having to read 20 pages worth of random thoughts I just wrote because I was waiting for my washes to dry.

          • ZeeLobby

            Hey now. Everyone needs a hobby, and you can’t always play Warhammer! 😛

          • Karru

            I just feel so bad after each of my comments. Person answered with maybe six sentences and I argue back with an essay. Half of it is usually the same thing repeated multiple times and the other is pure nonsense! It’s no wonder that so many just decide to stop commenting on my posts after they realise that they could have spent the last hour or so doing something creative instead of reading my answer to their question how my day was.

          • ZeeLobby

            🙁 … I’ve avoided commenting on your comments before because of that… DON’T HATE ME!!!

          • Karru

            I promise I always say to myself “okay, this time I’m going to make a small 3-5 sentence comment”…

            And after 30 minutes of proof reading and checking my sources I am ready to turn in my essay about why painting the casing of a bolter round with specific shade of gold is important.

          • ZeeLobby

            Hehe. Well I appreciate the effort, sometimes I just don’t have time to read it. LoL.

          • Xodis

            If its any consolation I enjoy our conversations and read it entirely.

          • Noah Jerge

            So true…

          • Horus84cmd

            well touche!

  • Master Avoghai

    Army construction is not THAT a mess… multiple sources is not a problem as long as those units/formations/detachments doesn’t have a trizillion special rules that interact with each other.

    What make me think that my opponents army list felt off is that it contains so many special rules that it is impossible to remember and have an idea of how to fight aganst…

    Have you ever tried to explain an admech battle congregation to someone who never played against admech?

    “ok s first this army list is out of 3 different codex.
    everybody is intractable
    it’s the skitarii, the guys have fnp 6+
    Those here are the vanguard, they have a gun that makes 2W on a 6 and they make you -1T if you’re within 6″
    the rangers herlooks the same but they don’t have those special rules.
    Those are infiltrators they add 3″ to all their movement they have a pistol that fire 5 times and you lose -1WS and have S6
    Those who looks the same are russtalkers, they have a sword that is AP2 on a 6 to roll at 1st round and for every A on every turn.. oh and they add 3″ too.
    The walker here has a gun who makes -1 cover and a lance that double the number of hits on a 6 to hit (not to roll) …ho and actually I’ve forgotten but the infiltratrors have it too… and it add 3” too, and a 5+ cover save..
    And those have protocoles that modify their behavior each turn…

    and now we’ll pass to the cult mechanicus… gah…

    and you have the formations bonus

    and the mega formation bonus…

    ONE special rule per army

    ONE additionnal special rule per unit max

    TWO for an elite or special HQ

    No special rules for formation except the core one. thi special rules has to be objective secured or a USR (no race specific new rule)

    Simple, fluid and enough to differenciate…

  • Farseerer

    These types of changes must be coming. AOS tested the water with the streamlined style army building and the folding of multiple books into Grand Alliances with great success.

    New editions of 40k, as far as I can remember have always been in the early summer so there isn’t a whole lot of fundamental changes going to be happening before then.

    If people could rein in the wild, pointless speculation until then, maybe the comment sections on this site wouldn’t constantly devolve into grown men throwing their toys out of the pram because their specific type of plastic men don’t have as good a set of rules as somebody else’s.

    • kloosterboer

      Bonus points for using the word “pram”.

  • charlie

    Dude, proof read your work!

    I agree with your point though 🙂

    • Manwiththedogs

      Yeah, driving me insane reading ‘will’ instead of ‘we’ll’. AARGGGHHHHH.

  • V0iddrgn

    It’s obvious that 40K needs some changes to really make it more enjoyable/playable especially for those of us that like to play casually and bring TAC lists as our disposable income is somewhat limited. These changes needn’t be “major”, e.g. removing Battle Brothers and putting a points limiter on bringing GMC’s, SHV’s, and LoW’s fix a load of problems right there. I personally am praying that the new edition makes the game faster to play.

    • Farseerer

      I think allies are here to stay mate. If you stop Battle brothers from different factions joining each others units then you take away a lot of the bs that comes with it.

      They may have indicated that this is the direction they intend on when they stopped the Flesh Tearers/Dark Eldar taxi service.

      Otherwise, people are unlikely to bring Come the Apoc type allies to casual games and if you’re going to a tourney that allows it then you know what you’re getting into.

      • V0iddrgn

        I never said that Allies needs to go away, just Battle Brothers.

  • Xodis

    5e rules + 6/7e options + Internal Codex Balance + Universal Codex Balance = FUN!

    Its an easy equation.

    • ZeeLobby

      See. that sounds perfect to me. I mean even accomplishing one of those would make the game better.

  • Red_Five_Standing_By

    What 40k needs is an app, like AoS or Warmachine. It’s cool to have all the rules for your army’s units spread over 5 books but there needs to be a central house where all of the rules exist.

    Lots of other changes are needed but we’ve all discussed those in other articles.

  • Curtis Cunningham

    The real reason Cadia fell. GW IG molds are starting to fail. Last batch of guardsman I got had all sorts of terrible mold lines and flashing problems.

  • Prisoner 42

    Definitely for Shooting into combat how many wars are fought with with swords when you have guns? once melee units get close they hammer units balanced only for range and it makes it all last too long. just give them shrouded while in combat. Rending seems like a good mechanic. I just think the huge formations are a waste because there isn’t any flexibility I’d rather small detachments that get special rules.

  • Carey_Mahoney

    Can’t you grammar-check your article before posting?

  • Carey_Mahoney

    I’d only change Random Charge Range.
    The others rules that don’t work do so because they’ve been invalidated by the meta…

  • Darth Bumbles

    I’m all for a change to the rules that says “you may field X points, picked from anywhere in the codex” rather then the hard and fast “HQ, at least two Troops etc” rule.

    So in a 300 point game I might field 15 odd Smurfs, a mate might have 5 Termies and another a sped’d out HQ. All at around 300 points, we then play using the usual 40k structure.

  • 6Cobra

    Goat, please have somebody else just read your columns before they “publish.” I know you’ve been through a lot recently, but some of this column is so poorly written and edited that it was uninteligible.

    For example: “There was a lot of tactics involved in locking and keeping your opponents offensive might held down.” I know 40K, and I speak and write English for a living, but I actually don’t know what that sentence means, even within the context of the column and paragraph.

    Again, you could make a good column great simply by having somebody/anybody else read it through once with an eye toward read-ability. 🙂

  • Graham Roden

    I keep saying, give people the option of alternate activation in the rules. I was playing 30k at the weekend and the most glaringly obvious thing wrong with the system is the assumption that you know all of the rules. Let’s assume that there are casual players who enjoy rolling dice and having a friendly chat, offer up a nice simplified rule set that we can use along with absolute beginners, then provide a deep and convoluted set of complicated rules for those wishing to use them.

    The basics of shooting and close combat work really well, it’s just when the special rules get lobbed into the mix that the game starts to bog down. Give us some useful gaming aids like a printed core rules card, unit data sheets and a weapons table. Put weapons back into core categories.

    The most obvious issue I can see is that many of the rules are duplicated from nearly 20 years of constant building on 3rd edition.

  • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

    More “not psychic powers but psychic powers” abilities, particularly more Conjuration-style effects, for armies that rely on numbers to work but don’t emphasize psychic power. Hard capping powers at 2 per turn per psyker is reasonable, as is limiting summoning based on the models you have. Simpler Vehicle rules that are still fun to play with, the way AoS handles monsters, would also be great.

  • A combat system like AoS would be fantastic. No more standing around waiting for inish 2 and 1 to come up. Way more cinematic and way more fun.

  • flyingtam

    Can I post now, or are all my posts still awaiting moderator approval? LOL

    • flyingtam

      Apparently you can’t be critical of the authors’ writing mechanics and suggestions on how to write better. What a wonderful place we are in now, where the mechanics of the message can be garbage, but as long as we can sort of understand the content, it’s OK. 😉