Design Ideas: What do you want in your 28mm Wargame?

[Vykes]

The apocalypse mechanic is definitely going to be something of interest going forward (and I'd say to a degree the shift towards at least investigating unique dice in the more recent market probably started as far back as Calth with their D6's)  That said, don't say that too loud or Nottingham will heaaaaaar you, Kite Senet :P 

 

FFG may have got them thinking about it:

   

 

faction themed dice sets with different unique coded abilities and variables hard-coded into them via dice faces.  Theoretical Black Legion dice that have 'Death to the False Emperor' on 2 sides rather than Chaos 'standard' but give up a 'moral damage' icon or a 'single damage' icon ... Not... sure how I feel about this in any way.   

[Tichinde]

I haven't played much 8th but I'd quite like to see the side/rear vehicle rules back. and being able to fire every weapon 360, while good from speeding up the game, takes a little of the tactical positioning element out of it (you can't sneak round the back with a melta bomb anymore...)

[sarabando]

I like smaller games with lots of terrain I also like customisation so I can let my modelling side go wild. I hate meta gaming and cookie cutter set ups. To me 40k is in the wrong scale it's a.game that should be 15 or 6mm

[Kite Senet]

I haven't played much 8th but I'd quite like to see the side/rear vehicle rules back. and being able to fire every weapon 360, while good from speeding up the game, takes a little of the tactical positioning element out of it (you can't sneak round the back with a melta bomb anymore...)

 

I'd agree with this. I do prefer the simplicity of the new rules over the complexity of the old directional rules, but especially in the very small scale games I enjoy playing, this simplification tends to de-emphasize the movement phase to near pointlessness. I also started wargaming with Kings of War, where flanking and positioning were huge, so swapping over to Warhammer 40,000's unit blobs was quite a culture shock; it'd be nice to have the movement phase matter again.

 

I'd suggest, as a simple implementation of this idea, the following rule: Give a vehicle model a "facing" direction, to be represented by the model's general "front" direction. Let us say that a unit flanks a vehicle model if any part of any model in the unit is strictly behind that vehicle's model (omitting ornamentation) according to its facing direction. (In a multi-vehicle unit, if any vehicle model is flanked, the vehicle unit is flanked.) Then if a unit attacks a vehicle unit it flanks, it simply utilizes different (presumably lower) saves (and maybe toughness).

 

To explicate:

In this case, the Khorne Berzerkers would not be flanking even though the uppermost Berzerker can see the side of the tank, the (red) Grey Knights would be flanking (every model in the unit is behind the Chaos Vindicator) and the Plague Marines are flanking (because at least the one model on the far left is flanking). We'll ignore the ammo carrier thing on the back of the Vindicator since it's just ornamentation.

I don't think rules to encourage good positioning need to be very complicated; even a relatively small change like this would make the movement phase much more relevant in my games.

 

The apocalypse mechanic is definitely going to be something of interest going forward (and I'd say to a degree the shift towards at least investigating unique dice in the more recent market probably started as far back as Calth with their D6's)  That said, don't say that too loud or Nottingham will heaaaaaar you, Kite Senet

 

FFG may have got them thinking about it:

   

 

faction themed dice sets with different unique coded abilities and variables hard-coded into them via dice faces.  Theoretical Black Legion dice that have 'Death to the False Emperor' on 2 sides rather than Chaos 'standard' but give up a 'moral damage' icon or a 'single damage' icon ... Not... sure how I feel about this in any way.   

 

Ugh...the worst part is I could almost see this happening. And it'd be plenty ironic for me, since I jumped Mantic Games' ship for Warhammer 40,000 when I learned that Warpath would be using their own silly proprietary d8 dice; the difference is, unlike Mantic, GW probably has the clout to actually force it to happen.

[General Strike]

So, Im mostly absorbing this information because I plan to make a modified rule set for games of city fight/ zone mortalis with the largest vehicle being a dread equivalent. It's a passion project to keep me in the hobby. So thats what a lot of this feedback will go towards.

[Captain Idaho]

I wouldn't worry. GW won't move away from the D6 concept as their core.

 

It's more accessible to casual gamers and newbies.

[Vykes]

I'd only counter with 'X-wing', Captain Idaho.  

 

I'm definitely not saying that D6's are an aged and dying relic, when you think dice the humble D6 is still exactly what almost everyone seems to think about.  But, I think with so many more novel and unique systems, kickstarters, and casual games entering the market these days, seeing proprietary dice or the like is getting to be pretty common. 

[Bryan Blaire]

First, I want a war game to figure out whether it wants to be a simulation or an abstraction.

 

For 40K, this would mean either dropping True Line of Sight or bringing back facings and other interesting complexities, but the goofiness we have now where you have a simulationist line of sight, yet 360 degree weapon firing and no vehicle facings (or even infantry facings, etc.) makes the argument that they are trying to be more abstract invalid.

[Trench]

I can see GW potentially switching to bigger dice then D6's, as for new players it would just be the norm, they would not care and it would give GW a chance to sell a lot of us army specfic dice again. 

 

It would require a change to the mechanics of the game though as armies like Orks rolling dozens of D6's at a time is one thing but turn those in to D12s and it is a real hassle. 

[Noserenda]

Tbh 8th is pretty spot on, it just needs some good terrain rules and a +1 Damage for shooting vehicles in the back.

[Captain Idaho]

Gamers and newbies are definitely two different things. Most people aren't familiar with dice that aren't D6, it's only us experienced nerds who get the full exposure ;)

 

Whilst X-wing is definitely an exception due to popularity, I'd point out the wider audience exposed to Star Wars and combine that with prepainted models as the factor those games took off. (See what I did there?)

 

Warhammer is still pretty unknown. At work I occasionally mention it and 9 times out of 10 my customers have no idea what it is.

 

And it's the "we don't know" crowd GW draws it's new recruits from, all of which are familiar with monopoly and the likes that use D6.

 

AoS and parts of 8th, including the new flagship releases are definitely proof that GW is marketing for a simpler and easy to understand product. Not bad in itself, (actually worked out that they are the first bit of exposure to the worlds of geekdom for many of us so it's actually a great idea) just a different product to what many veterans expect.

 

[i actually think GW has us covered and we will see many new rules coming out in the future which heighten the complexity of the core game systems)

Edited July 6, 2019 by Captain Idaho

[Exilyth]

When you think about 40k, Horus Heresy, and all the wargames you love. What do you want in the rules and miniatures?

 

(This post turned out rather dry as I'm talking purely rules & mechanics without going into fluff - prepare your shelf)

 

For the rules:

 

Most importantly - the game should be playable. If the rules don't work due to e.g. conflicting rules, it's not much of a game. For a fun read of dysfunctional game systems, see e.g. https://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/Worst_RPGs_ever [text only, but still NSFW]. But back to rules.

 

The rules should be:

• consistent: all actions should have a well defined term and mechanics should be similar to each other. E.g. a charge should be a charge and work the same  most of the time, unless a unit has a special rule making it work different (e.g. "Kraklances - when this unit charges, after moving the units into contact but before rolling for meelee attacks, make a strength 8 attack with eatch model in the unit.").
• tight: a tight does not leave much/any room for interpretation. Such a ruleset (tries to) goes into detail and explains what is permissible and not permissible in each situation (e.g. "players can declare a charge only at the beginning of the meelee phase, unless a units special rule .
• balanced: 100% balance is impossible, but the ruleset should not favour any tactic/strategy. It is okay if there is a slight mismatch in balance amongst units, but balance should be as close as possible.
• modular: It's always good when the rules are written in a modular fashion, e.g. having a list of universal special rules and having unit stats refer to that list of rules makes the life of players easier: "This unit can fly, ." is short, simple and tells you exactly which rules to look up if you forgot them.
• have references: A lot of looking up rules during play can be avoided by printing quick reference tables in the back of the book.
• support (or at least not contradict) the fluff: If murderconqueror the destroyer rides a bear and juggles chainswords while doing so, that should be reflected in the some way, e.g. through a mount, meelee weapons and special rules. This does ofc. go both ways, e.g. the fluff should be consistent with the rules. That optional rules like the 'movie marines' variant exist tells us that this is not always the case in 40k.
• support immersion: Logic holes in the rules and unnessesary complexity can be detrimental to player immersion.
• support customization: It's perfectly fine for basic infantry to have no or only one option, but (generic) character/leader models should have access to most of the armoury.

 

Further reading (if you're interested in game rules/mechanics in general):

• Magic the gathering is a trading card game, but has one of the tightest, consistent and modular rulesets I've seen so far: https://magic.wizards.com/en/game-info/gameplay/rules-and-formats/rules
• "Design patterns of successfull role playing games" looks at conflict resolution mechanics in role playing games. It is available for (free) download on http://legendaryquest.netfirms.com/

 

For the miniatures:

 

Ignoring for a moment that we're spoiled by GW miniatures as far as quality, modularity and ease of assembly go, miniatures should be:

• come with assembly instructions: The higher the parts count, the more necessary this is, e.g. Mr. Singlepart McCharactermodel can do without instructions in his blister/clamshell, but anyithing with more than three to five parts should have illustrated instructions. Also, parts should be numbered/lettered on the sprue and in the instructions.
• be consistent (material): All miniatures in the range should be made from the same material (unless the company is upgrading the range to a better material). I prefer plastic (since it's easier to work with than e.g. resin & metal) and tend to skip producers who mix different materials in the same kit.
• be consistent (quality): Quality should be consistent across the range.
• be consistent (design): I could write a few pages about consistency in world building here, but I won't.
• be consistent (sculpting): While I
• multipart & multipose: Each pair of legs in a squad box should be posed slightly different. Separate legs and torsos. Arms posable at the shoulder. All kinds of small steps which help make squads less monotone.
• interchangeable parts: I really like kitbashing, so if e.g. arms & heads can be put on different infantry, that's a big plus. The best character models I've seen have been put together by the players themselves, sourcing parts from various kits.

 

 

What system attracts you the most, and what changes would you make?

 

edit:

Oops, just saw that this was exclusively about 28mm scale - classic battletech is 6mm scale. But since most mechs are roughly equal in size to a 28mm human, I'll still leave the following paragraphs here.

 

 

 

That would be classic battletech (see https://bg.battletech.com/ ).

 

It's quite heavy on rules and so most games are fought with only 4 units vs. 4 units, but I've yet to find a (set of) rule system(s) which does combined arms warfare on various scales (from infantry vs. infantry up to space battles and even up to risk-style interplanetary reign vs reign) in such a balanced fashion. Except for inner sphere tech vs. clan tech (different technology bases used by units) and some outliers, like target computers + pulse lasers or PPC spam, the ruleset is balanced enough that two players can set a BV (battlevalue - the equivalent to points), grab a bunch of units and have game be mostly up to skill.

 

What I would change about it?

 

Tough question. While only the 'battlemech manual' is required to play mech vs mech battles, classic battletech has 35 years of fluff behind it. There are 5-6 optional bound rulebooks for the various scales of conflict (And of course the tech manual for building custom units). There are rules for almost anything: from basic rules like buildings collapsing upon being destroyed, over advanced rules like starting fires and drifting smoke up to experimental rules for e.g. all kind of single purpose equipment, like mobile structures armed with subcapital missiles. There are campaign rules for running your own mercenary unit, rules for logistics, field hospital use and all kinds of stuff more.

 

If I could make one change, I'd try and reduce the difference in power between clan and inner sphere technology so that clams would be balanced without 'zellbrigen' (clan honor rules for combat, see https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Zellbrigen )

 

 

Also plastic miniatures.

*fetches coat and runs before the metal mini purists find this thread*

Edited July 6, 2019 by Exilyth

[sarabando]

^ This nothing has angered me with recent GW (except the lctb) like the move away from the multipart marines, the old tactical, devi, assault etc all being cross compatible was the best, it meant i could make anything i wanted. New Primaris kits are impossible to kitbash, also why are they all so static? why no kneeling or running legs?

[Volt]

 

If we're talking about fixing 40k, you've got to throw the baby out with the bathwater and start fresh completely. 40k's core problem is that it's old, really really old as game systems go and ought to be completely overhauled to modern standards as seen in the historical scene or other games such as Infinity.

 

1) Throw out all of the dice volume nonsense, Apoc has the right idea (or Lion Rampant) with a unit having two values, full strength and half strength. The amount of attacks goes down after the unit sustains 50% losses/was deployed at half strength, and that attack value in of itself should be very small as well, just a couple D12's or more ideal, multiple 2d6 rolls to introduce proper bell curves into 40k statistics.

 

2) Get rid of the armor save nonsense - why the hell is armor a save in the first place? It's armor. Either something has the penetrative force to blow through it or it doesn't; to hit modifiers should decide glancing simulation. Everybody gets flat armor saves with weapons flatly penetrating or not. Space Marines for example would have an armor value rendering them literally impervious to taking casualties from small arms fire, but I'll get onto why that wouldn't be OP as all hell later. This is also cuts down the amount of dice ruling and helps speed up the game dramatically.

 

3) Alternating staggered activation, a system similar to bolt action is ideal with a random grab bag of color coded die for each army (or just tokens) to choose who gets to be activated. Not only does this prevent one army from blowing one clean off the board like as of now, but it also makes activation chaotic so you can't simply depend on a give-and-take activation system. The enemy could get to activate 3 units in a row, so maybe you should activate that squad in a vulnerable spot to get them out of harm's way.

 

4) Cover for everyone! Not only should terrain be mandated as part of the ruleset, but it needs to be valuable. Cover should reduce odd to get hit, not boost your armor save or other such nonsense.

 

5) Differentiated targeting rules for monsters/vehicles and infantry. It should be a lot harder to use a lascannon to smoke a guardsman than hitting a large slow moving target, and that should be represented in the rules. Heavy anti-tank weapons like lascannons, dark lances, krak missiles, or multi-meltas should struggle to hit a small moving target, but likewise get a buff when targeting monsters/vehicles.

 

6) Shove all aircraft into their own aeronautical wargame (or apoc) a bit similar to X-Wing in design, but with full scale models. Aircraft in a normal game of 40k make no bloody sense due to how fast they are and are better represented as special abilities such as blast templates simulating strafing runs or bombs being called down on enemy positions. It also removes the headache of having to balance aircraft against infantry and tanks in a wargame that doesn't become completely asinine.

 

7) Add suppression mechanics, pinning, more brutal morale phases, and bring back something similar to sweeping advances. This is how you kill things you can't actually penetrate the armor of; by simply vomiting so much firepower on them that they are forced to make morale checks and, should they fail them, the unit becomes pinned and is incapable of accomplishing anything. And, should any unit perform a 'sweeping advance', it automatically wipes out that unit - either by blasting them out by frags/routing them from the battlefield/literally smushing them with tank tracks/etc. This is also why cover should be imperative, making it harder for units to get hit and become pinned and get decisively wiped out.

 

8) Bring back blast templates, but remove severe scattering and introduce AP/HE firemodes for tanks and monsters. AP shells should be resolved as normal attacks, a shot with a devastating AP value able to shred most units, while HE is a blast template with a low AP value to be used against infantry targets or light vehicles.

 

9) Bring back armor facings on tanks, and add them to certain superheavy infantry models and monstrous creatures. No modeling for an advantage nonsense, just a simple declaration of 90 degree facings with no care given to how the model is posed or if a conversion is used.

 

10) Bring back meaningful grenades from 2e. Not only improve the utility of frag and krak (such as allowing infantry squads with no AP weapons to potentially damage tanks with krak grenades), but allowing you to mask movement in the form of deploying smoke grenades which act as LOS blocking or flashbangs to specifically disable a targeted infantry unit from firing back at you. And bring back vortex just for the lulz, it's not like a weapon that can potentially wipe out your army or the enemy's is a potentially OP piece of wargear when it's as much a threat to you as to your rival.

 

11) Resolve melee immediately. Whatever unit loses a melee engagement is routed and immediately disenages from the melee and, if it fails a morale save, completely abandons the battlefield then and there. If it passes, then it gets pinned for the duration of that game turn. No more long-arse slogs, make it fast, brutal, and efficient to give melee a proper role of flushing enemy units out of cover.

 

 

 

[RandyB]

Verisimilitude.

 

1. I want a wargame, not a "_____ Battles Game."
    
2. I want army lists that reflect off-table logistics, not bespoke units with bespoke weapons loadouts.
    
3. I want units that have a battlefield role, not a game role.
    
4. I want stats that reflect the lore that is published in the same book as the army lists.¹
    
5. I want wargame scales properly understood and implemented.
   • Skirmish scale is "one combatant per base, each combatant moves and acts individually"².
   • Squad scale is "a squad moves and acts together."
   • Larger scale is a matter of larger unit sizes (platoon/company/etc.) moving/acting together.

 

 

¹ Novels, films, video games, etc. are "unreliable narrator" and thus not authoritative for defining the lore of the factions and units in the wargame.

² And nothing else. Any kind of units can be in a skirmish game.

Edited July 28, 2019 by RandyB

[Slasher956]

My main one is game play balance... and by that I mean where two people can pick up an army built to their tastes and have a nice game that lasts 6+ turns / couple of hours...

 

Not one player looks at the others list and goes yeah I'm not going to bother unpacking my models.... ps 40K is not alone in this :(

 

& if to do that you have to group models in to catergories to be arranged then do so!  Ie supersonic flyers- allow or not, super heavys - allow or not etc etc

 

 

Try playing against a guard super heavy list with Sisters of Battle.... (nothing longer ranged than 48"... and thats on degrading vehicle profiles)... is it possible do compete, yes it is but with a standard pickup list? & is it fun?  

[Haywire]

I personally want to see more options to help customise 'generic' characters. It's hard to get attached to your HQ, for instance, when you're only allowed a fixed wargear selection that GW provides models for. The system as-is (Excepting IA) is far too restrictive for me. For me, the game is about making a story, yes... and a good story needs good characters, not generic Space Marine Captain #3427276 as we've so often seen in Black Library novels.

 

The next thing I'd like to see is more of an aesthetic thing. I used to be absolutely sold on Warhammer Fantasy and the fights between massive armies therein. Then it changed to the crowd that just wants AWESOME. I'm not saying I wanted it hyper-realistic, but I got a lot of mileage from the image of larger armies fighting it out on an open field. When it was a bit more grounded. Then along came massive monsters and flying chariots, and suddenly the game was more about these monsters than a wider army. Everything had to do something AWESOME and had to be AWESOME. Would be nice to have seen it gone back to be more grounded so that when these AWESOME things turned up, well.... they would then actually feel awesome. To a point. The same goes not just for the 'theme' of these AWESOME units but also for the actual models, too. Over time, models started looking like something from Blizzard more than Games Workshop.

 

Now, what does this have to do with 40K? It's simple. I'm seeing 40K going the same way. The Primaris marines are a prime example of this with units that are, to my mind, ridiculously stupid even by the standards of the 41st (42nd now?) Millennium. Again, this is something that I saw creeping in with the advent of Centurions and, heck, even the Dreadknight. Now we have things like jetpack Space Marines with massive boots while wielding oversized guns akimbo, for instance. Or hovertanks that have far far far more guns than its volume would allow the supporting elements for (To say nothing of proportion). I'd just rather have seen things be more grounded with SOME exotic elements, and that's what I'd love to see more of. More of these 'grounded' grand-scale battles. The ability to forge a narrative with actual characters rather than cardboard cutouts. Less 'AWESOME' and Blizzard-looks, and more, "I could see this actually fitting in the universe".

 

But that's just me, really. All my opinion at the end of the day.

[chapter master 454]

So I don't think we need to move to new dice. Seriously, we don't need D12s or D20s. Besides personally, D6s are just easier to handle...I don't want to have to hyuck 20 D12s onto the table and have to go through each, finding the right numbers. D6 is fine for 40k.

 

We do not need to chuck the baby out with the bathwater. 8th edition was a massive fundamental overhaul of the game and is actually a good basis to build from and add to. We can in reality re-add mechanics for tanks AND monsters (screw you you fat boys, time to play by the rules...oversized infantry if they don't). We can re-add things as we need to as the current 8th edition really to me feels like a first version of a new fighting game like street fighter 4, really meh but when they got to ultra street fighter 4 by adding things in we got a game that was awesome.

Maybe GW needs to make their "Warhammer 40k 8th edtition Super" (basically 9th edition).

 

Again, adding in concepts such as tank/monster turning and facing isn't hard but would likely relegate tanks to being trash...oh WAIT they already are.

 

Another thing I would like to see is removal of certain absurd things occuring or for more of mitigating of damage rather than negating. Sorry...you just took a volcano lance to the face, you are taking damage in some form. Some consideration of auto-passes for wounding would be nice (like if a weapon was triple the strength of a targets toughness, you are wounded automatically, no question) and vice-versa (toughness triple of the strength can't be hurt) however that would require actually making stats worthwhile and work with the 10 cap removal idea.

 

Just in case people aren't aware or need something to laugh at.

Guardsman is strength 3, this would be considered "military" fitness. Pinnacle of human strength is actually Catachans at strength 4, who represent the most powerful humans due to how deadly their world is.

Now, we have marines who are Super-Human, Pinnacle of science creations so you would think already stronger than a catachan and then you get told their armour FURTHER augments their strength. How strong are they? 4. Yes. strength 4. Someone earlier said the right number, 6 is correct for marines imo with 5 for scouts. Custodes would be 7 as would be terminator marines (allarus terminators I would make strength 8). These numbers are getting high but that's because we need to use the new wiggle room. If we did that we wouldn't have people clamouring for D12s.

 

That's my biggest gripe. I want stats to be overhauled heavily.

[Redcomet]

Make things harder to kill, either by upping their defences, or toning down weapons.

 

Add more detailed vehicle rules. Bring back vehicle speeds, turn rates, weapon arcs. Maybe even a hit location table.

 

Expand the types of dices used. Would make for a much more interesting game, and for more diverse weapons and units.

[alfred_the_great]

Sounds like a lot of people want something that resembles late 1e/2e...

[Trevak Dal]

I have to say, after watching a few Apocalypse battle reports on YouTube that it's an interesting concept.

 

40k seems to still basically be a skirmish game where the company is attempting to sell you Company+ numbers of models. We could have a Patrol detachment of each major faction in the game instead of thousands of points of Ultramarines or what have you, and play with the standard 40k rules, with multiple detachments and anything over say 2000 points being Apocalypse games of Abstraction Warhammer as that's more about moving blocks of units around a board than a higher than kill team level fight.

[Vermintide]

In general, I'd like more emphasis on the intention of rules, and what they are supposed to represent. Some parts of it just feel way too gamey when people interpret them totally literally- Things like assault phase shenanigans, positioning your guys to "trap" units and so on... I don't like it, although I can't offer a constructive way to improve it. Stuff like people have mentioned about line of sight and cover rules come under this too. There needs to be some kind of common sense clause- Is that wave serpent really able to fire every gun it has from the tip of one wing?

 

The current incarnation is also far too shooty I think. In general, 40k has always felt strongly... Napoleonic. The tactics and the way the rules work are essentially representative of a late-19th early 20th century style of warfare where you advance on the enemy, exchange fire, and eventually close into combat to break and rout the enemy. I mean the guard have rules like FRFSRF and fix bayonets that are straight from that era of warfare... Yet most of the time it's more optimal to just out-gun your enemy, and armies that do that better perform better.

This is probably due to the fact that there is no real morale/routing mechanic now. So I guess that's something I'd like to see return. There's a lot of things we've lost in order to streamline the game, but I think some of them would definitely improve aspects of balance, even if they returned in a simplified form.

Here's an idea: Have Beginner and Advanced modes. Similar to narrative vs matched play. Beginners can play with the core 8th rules as we know them today. Advanced mode could have things like pinning, sweeping advance, tank shock, for example.

Edited August 24, 2019 by Vermintide

[sarabando]

 

If we're talking about fixing 40k, you've got to throw the baby out with the bathwater and start fresh completely. 40k's core problem is that it's old, really really old as game systems go and ought to be completely overhauled to modern standards as seen in the historical scene or other games such as Infinity.

 

1) Throw out all of the dice volume nonsense, Apoc has the right idea (or Lion Rampant) with a unit having two values, full strength and half strength. The amount of attacks goes down after the unit sustains 50% losses/was deployed at half strength, and that attack value in of itself should be very small as well, just a couple D12's or more ideal, multiple 2d6 rolls to introduce proper bell curves into 40k statistics.

 

2) Get rid of the armor save nonsense - why the hell is armor a save in the first place? It's armor. Either something has the penetrative force to blow through it or it doesn't; to hit modifiers should decide glancing simulation. Everybody gets flat armor saves with weapons flatly penetrating or not. Space Marines for example would have an armor value rendering them literally impervious to taking casualties from small arms fire, but I'll get onto why that wouldn't be OP as all hell later. This is also cuts down the amount of dice ruling and helps speed up the game dramatically.

 

3) Alternating staggered activation, a system similar to bolt action is ideal with a random grab bag of color coded die for each army (or just tokens) to choose who gets to be activated. Not only does this prevent one army from blowing one clean off the board like as of now, but it also makes activation chaotic so you can't simply depend on a give-and-take activation system. The enemy could get to activate 3 units in a row, so maybe you should activate that squad in a vulnerable spot to get them out of harm's way.

 

4) Cover for everyone! Not only should terrain be mandated as part of the ruleset, but it needs to be valuable. Cover should reduce odd to get hit, not boost your armor save or other such nonsense.

 

5) Differentiated targeting rules for monsters/vehicles and infantry. It should be a lot harder to use a lascannon to smoke a guardsman than hitting a large slow moving target, and that should be represented in the rules. Heavy anti-tank weapons like lascannons, dark lances, krak missiles, or multi-meltas should struggle to hit a small moving target, but likewise get a buff when targeting monsters/vehicles.

 

6) Shove all aircraft into their own aeronautical wargame (or apoc) a bit similar to X-Wing in design, but with full scale models. Aircraft in a normal game of 40k make no bloody sense due to how fast they are and are better represented as special abilities such as blast templates simulating strafing runs or bombs being called down on enemy positions. It also removes the headache of having to balance aircraft against infantry and tanks in a wargame that doesn't become completely asinine.

 

7) Add suppression mechanics, pinning, more brutal morale phases, and bring back something similar to sweeping advances. This is how you kill things you can't actually penetrate the armor of; by simply vomiting so much firepower on them that they are forced to make morale checks and, should they fail them, the unit becomes pinned and is incapable of accomplishing anything. And, should any unit perform a 'sweeping advance', it automatically wipes out that unit - either by blasting them out by frags/routing them from the battlefield/literally smushing them with tank tracks/etc. This is also why cover should be imperative, making it harder for units to get hit and become pinned and get decisively wiped out.

 

8) Bring back blast templates, but remove severe scattering and introduce AP/HE firemodes for tanks and monsters. AP shells should be resolved as normal attacks, a shot with a devastating AP value able to shred most units, while HE is a blast template with a low AP value to be used against infantry targets or light vehicles.

 

9) Bring back armor facings on tanks, and add them to certain superheavy infantry models and monstrous creatures. No modeling for an advantage nonsense, just a simple declaration of 90 degree facings with no care given to how the model is posed or if a conversion is used.

 

10) Bring back meaningful grenades from 2e. Not only improve the utility of frag and krak (such as allowing infantry squads with no AP weapons to potentially damage tanks with krak grenades), but allowing you to mask movement in the form of deploying smoke grenades which act as LOS blocking or flashbangs to specifically disable a targeted infantry unit from firing back at you. And bring back vortex just for the lulz, it's not like a weapon that can potentially wipe out your army or the enemy's is a potentially OP piece of wargear when it's as much a threat to you as to your rival.

 

11) Resolve melee immediately. Whatever unit loses a melee engagement is routed and immediately disenages from the melee and, if it fails a morale save, completely abandons the battlefield then and there. If it passes, then it gets pinned for the duration of that game turn. No more long-arse slogs, make it fast, brutal, and efficient to give melee a proper role of flushing enemy units out of cover.

 

 

 

so make 40k into Bolt action? im 100% behind this XD

[Volt]

 

 

If we're talking about fixing 40k, you've got to throw the baby out with the bathwater and start fresh completely. 40k's core problem is that it's old, really really old as game systems go and ought to be completely overhauled to modern standards as seen in the historical scene or other games such as Infinity.

 

1) Throw out all of the dice volume nonsense, Apoc has the right idea (or Lion Rampant) with a unit having two values, full strength and half strength. The amount of attacks goes down after the unit sustains 50% losses/was deployed at half strength, and that attack value in of itself should be very small as well, just a couple D12's or more ideal, multiple 2d6 rolls to introduce proper bell curves into 40k statistics.

 

2) Get rid of the armor save nonsense - why the hell is armor a save in the first place? It's armor. Either something has the penetrative force to blow through it or it doesn't; to hit modifiers should decide glancing simulation. Everybody gets flat armor saves with weapons flatly penetrating or not. Space Marines for example would have an armor value rendering them literally impervious to taking casualties from small arms fire, but I'll get onto why that wouldn't be OP as all hell later. This is also cuts down the amount of dice ruling and helps speed up the game dramatically.

 

3) Alternating staggered activation, a system similar to bolt action is ideal with a random grab bag of color coded die for each army (or just tokens) to choose who gets to be activated. Not only does this prevent one army from blowing one clean off the board like as of now, but it also makes activation chaotic so you can't simply depend on a give-and-take activation system. The enemy could get to activate 3 units in a row, so maybe you should activate that squad in a vulnerable spot to get them out of harm's way.

 

4) Cover for everyone! Not only should terrain be mandated as part of the ruleset, but it needs to be valuable. Cover should reduce odd to get hit, not boost your armor save or other such nonsense.

 

5) Differentiated targeting rules for monsters/vehicles and infantry. It should be a lot harder to use a lascannon to smoke a guardsman than hitting a large slow moving target, and that should be represented in the rules. Heavy anti-tank weapons like lascannons, dark lances, krak missiles, or multi-meltas should struggle to hit a small moving target, but likewise get a buff when targeting monsters/vehicles.

 

6) Shove all aircraft into their own aeronautical wargame (or apoc) a bit similar to X-Wing in design, but with full scale models. Aircraft in a normal game of 40k make no bloody sense due to how fast they are and are better represented as special abilities such as blast templates simulating strafing runs or bombs being called down on enemy positions. It also removes the headache of having to balance aircraft against infantry and tanks in a wargame that doesn't become completely asinine.

 

7) Add suppression mechanics, pinning, more brutal morale phases, and bring back something similar to sweeping advances. This is how you kill things you can't actually penetrate the armor of; by simply vomiting so much firepower on them that they are forced to make morale checks and, should they fail them, the unit becomes pinned and is incapable of accomplishing anything. And, should any unit perform a 'sweeping advance', it automatically wipes out that unit - either by blasting them out by frags/routing them from the battlefield/literally smushing them with tank tracks/etc. This is also why cover should be imperative, making it harder for units to get hit and become pinned and get decisively wiped out.

 

8) Bring back blast templates, but remove severe scattering and introduce AP/HE firemodes for tanks and monsters. AP shells should be resolved as normal attacks, a shot with a devastating AP value able to shred most units, while HE is a blast template with a low AP value to be used against infantry targets or light vehicles.

 

9) Bring back armor facings on tanks, and add them to certain superheavy infantry models and monstrous creatures. No modeling for an advantage nonsense, just a simple declaration of 90 degree facings with no care given to how the model is posed or if a conversion is used.

 

10) Bring back meaningful grenades from 2e. Not only improve the utility of frag and krak (such as allowing infantry squads with no AP weapons to potentially damage tanks with krak grenades), but allowing you to mask movement in the form of deploying smoke grenades which act as LOS blocking or flashbangs to specifically disable a targeted infantry unit from firing back at you. And bring back vortex just for the lulz, it's not like a weapon that can potentially wipe out your army or the enemy's is a potentially OP piece of wargear when it's as much a threat to you as to your rival.

 

11) Resolve melee immediately. Whatever unit loses a melee engagement is routed and immediately disenages from the melee and, if it fails a morale save, completely abandons the battlefield then and there. If it passes, then it gets pinned for the duration of that game turn. No more long-arse slogs, make it fast, brutal, and efficient to give melee a proper role of flushing enemy units out of cover.

 

 

 

so make 40k into Bolt action? im 100% behind this XD

 

More like an ungodly fusion of Epic, Bolt Action, Lion Rampant, Saga, and Kill Team.