The site Bell of lost souls seems to have gone to or run a tournament where the overall winner was an Imperial guard army they nicknamed the leafblower.

This was because in turn 1 it removed 50+% of the opponents army from the table with shooting. A side benefit being no game lasted more than an hour.

Now in Epic I've certainly lost/killed more (normally in a glorious drop from the skies) but even those crazy games both sides were doing stuff. This was just one side firing, one side removing models.

40k is clearly calling out for a different system. The 'I go you go' as Ibeleive its called isn't working.

Thats not to say it doesn't, many good games use it but these I've noticed tend to be characterised by several turns of manoeuvre, cannon and counter battery fire, skirmishes and so on before the decisive turns where the 'battle is joined', or by engagements happening all over the table but in different turns so somethings happening throughout the game. They also aren't 28mm.

It seems the scale (very large models very close together) and the model density (sell more stuff, models even closer together) conspire with the game mechanics such as they are to turn up instances like the above.

So if you were re-doing 40k, what would you opt for?

Personally bearing in mind I want to sell enough stuff so everyone is shoulder to shoulder in line and that the game is stuck with large size models on a small board I would go for an alternating system, but with 'battlegroups'. That is each army can split down into a number of groups and when you activate that group each squad gets to do its thing, before teh enemy replies. The number of groups would be probably set by race and modified by scenario. Complex things like group coherency, sub commanders and such like would be completely ignored as this is after all 40k.

So how would you tackle such a situation - big scale, high model density, small table?

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

Make 40k more like 2nd editiion again. Smaller armies, not these large things/

_________________
Light at the Horizon.

Warp Rift
Project Distant Darkness
Eldar MMS

GothiComp Hall of Fame
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=19176

Sales have just nose dived

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

If you are looking for maximum density of models without mass removal of casulties then I would reintoduce the wound tables and then sell lots of wound markers, say enough markers for three models per sprue and force people to buy lots and lots of sprues to cover their already over sized armies.

_________________
_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk - home of the UK Epic tournament scene
NetEA NetERC Xenos Lists Chair
NetEA Ork + Feral Ork + Speed Freak Champion

The economics and the game just don't fit together when you look at it objectively.

The rule set are really there for a skirmish, a large one maybe, but skirmish none the less.

I always find that up to 1000 points you can have a fun game. Now that will not suit GW as they can't make a profit pushing the game at that level.

So they do what they have to and push for players to get bigger an bigger armies while constantly refreshing the model line to keep players buying the same army year after year.

When you take a step back and look at their continued success you have to almost admire them  

I'd go on an unit by unit basis - admittedly it gives Orks and Tyranids one heck of an advantage, but as long as that is factored into the lists then I see no issue with it.

_________________
Tom Webb
Author Page: http://www.newtonwebb.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/thewebb
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/thenewtonwebb
Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/thenewtonwebb

Actually - on that note, I really liked VOID 1.1, it was 40k 2nd Ed with D10s and alternating activations.

God I loved that game, I could lay awake dreaming of my next session, like an addict you had a desperate urge for your next 'fix' .

Sweet VOID, darling VOID, one day, just one day, maybe it will return to me...

_________________
Tom Webb
Author Page: http://www.newtonwebb.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/thewebb
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/thenewtonwebb
Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/thenewtonwebb

40k is a highly flawed system.  There is a lot of im-balance between armies; I know there are a lot of complaints which is just people whining, but some observations do support this.

I am a player of the current Chaos Marine Codex.  Just look at some of the threads that have popped up on Warseer or Bolter and Chainsword, you'll get a quick picture that players really do not like this Codex!  And I can understand why.

For example, someone recently pointed out that with the new Space Wolf Codex, players can take a squad of 10 Grey Hunters with 2x Meltaguns, a Wolf Guard with Powerfist and Plasma Pistol at almost 30 points cheaper than a Chaos Marine Squad of identical size and load out.  Add to that Space Wolves get a number of special abilities AS STANDARD (Enhanced Senses, Counter Attack, etc), and Chaos Marines have to pay for an extra attack, or bit of initiative, it is really easy to see why so many people complain about 'Codex Creep' and armies being 'Nerfed'.

I recently played a game at my local club with my Chaos Marines against a Guard army.  It was a bit like that 'Leafblower' experience.  Okay, I will acknowledge that my army composition was poor, I was experimenting with 2 Defilers.  But I had that similar 'I've just lost ocver 50% of my army and it's only the end of turn two!' experience.  With the special abilities that Guard get now (their command order that make them better at shooting), and the additions of Advisors like the Master of Ordnance (free battlecannon shot every turn he's alive) and AStropath (makes it harder for opponent to bring on reserves), I can understand why so many players are struggling against Guard now.

Now, Imperial Guard are going to be the last 40K army i ever do, when I've eventually finished my Chaos one.  I think it's great that Guard have now got things that make them really effective in certain areas, and in a way that is appropriate to their background (it's all about the effectiveness of Commanding officers, which is true of many real life armies).

But I came out of that game really feeling that, whilst Guard have got some cool new stuff, my Chaos get exactly, WHAT?  I've alsoe found this army struggles against the current Space Marines, again another Codex that many people complain about being overpowered.

'Codex Creep' or whatever isn't the whole problem (I think often people pick up on it as they seem to have developed a big personal vendetta against specific developers, for some odd reason!); I think that a HUUUGE problem is that Games Workshop chooses to update the main rules-set years before they can finish updating the Codex for each and every army.

That BoLS article Real Chris refers to points out that this new Guard Codex is the first proper one of the new Edition of 40k, in so much as it's the first one released where everyone has had time to get to grips with the rules, and it is the first one developed in it.

I think that this highlights the problem - so many Codexes are developed then released, and then made obsolete or hindered by the updated Ruleset.  Take the Chaos Codex - released 10 months before the new Edition of 40k.  Whilst it is possible to see that the developers had in mind the impending rules changes, there is no way they could have properly worked under them.

So, I think one of the problems with 40k could possibly be mitigated if GW simply waited until EVERY army has been updated in the current edition of 40k BEFORE updating the main rules set.


Other than that, do the rules need a major, huge over-haul, like moving from the 'i-go-you-go' system?

There is a strong argument for that.  However, I can't see it being done without causing a big blowback of player ire when so many have been used to playing in a certain style for so long.

Apparently, Andy Chambers wanted a radical over-haul of the 40k system with the change of 3rd to 4th edition, but GW weren't for it, so he put his ideas in to Starship Troopers - some say that is the game 4th Ed 40k was meant to be.


Ultimately, I have given up on 40k ever being a properly balanced and competitive system in the way Epic (well, Epic Armageddon) almost certainly is.  I approach 40k games from a fun perspective, where telling story is more important than it being a test or demonstration of tactical and strategic accumen (which, again, Epic does far better).

Sadly though, people do look at it that way, and this leads to the sort of players who simply look for every loop-hole that they can exploit to give their army an 'advantage'.  These are the people who have contributed to some of the problems with 40k, not just GW.  Although their business model doesn't help either...  

Many people site the IGoUGo system as the fundamental flaw of 40K, but I just dont agree. I like this system, and if I was restarting 40K I would make two fcore changes.

1. Overwatch. I would keep the IGoUGo system as generally I really like it, but I would introduce an overwatch system that worked. The reason given for it being dropped is that it slows down the game, but that is only due to the focus on WWI-style engagements.

2. Drastically reduce the focus on vehicles. The tank-centric aspect of 40K was introduced to sell more models (as far as I can tell) and because it set it apart from similar sci-fi skirmish games. This emphasis on tanks shrinks the game board considerably, and there is just no point to having tanks in a 28mm game on that sized board. Bikes are just about workable, but tanks cause all sorts of problems that are only there because of the huge number of tanks in the game. The current infantry model count is not so bad in contrast.

If I was really feel adventurous, I may set out an Action Point system, as well but something like Vor.

_________________
https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.

^ good points.

_________________
Light at the Horizon.

Warp Rift
Project Distant Darkness
Eldar MMS

GothiComp Hall of Fame
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=19176

I'm gonna be really contrary here, and disagree with almost every point that's been made above.


Y'see, I'm of the firm opinion that Warhammer 40,000, in order to sell well, must be really simple to play, and be really *strategy heavy* (Ie: the player who wins is the one with the best army list) instead of *tactics heavy* (like Epic) so that kids can understand it quickly, because kids, not adults like us, provide most of GW's income.

So any changes I made would increase the already silly kill rates, increase the ammount of models on the table, and increase model density. I'd ramp up the number of unit types in every army book, until each army offers a huge choice of unit types, so that only an obsessive collector will have enough cash to own them all.

I wouldn't replace the IGO-YOUGO system, as it's excellent for newbies to understand. Heck I'd probably make it simpler, if I could find a way.

I'd introduce even more 'aspirational' large models, like a plastic Thunderhawk Gunship or a plastic Warhound Titan, regardless of how little sense they make in a 28mm game, because giant models are awesome.


In short, I'd do a lot of what GW is already doing, because I think that making Warhammer 40,000 well balanced, and the standard battle size appropriately sized, would really hurt the company.

GW isn't in the business of making balanced wargames, it's in the business of selling toy soldiers to children.

=====

Oh and I reckon BoLS are pretty daft, for treating a game like Warhammer 40,000 (which was never designed as a razor tight balanced rule system like Epic) as a competative sport.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Thats fine for selling for a couple of years, however if you made it a better game I think you would have better retention. As it is once the craze passes what is there left? The games not that hot.

I'm all for small table, high model density, 99mm scale (or whatever it has now reached) and what you add, more silly big models and so on, I just think under that a more addictive game system will keep people for longer. As for kids, considering how many beat me at chess I'd say they can take some changes to the basic 40k structure

Hence my key point of getting rid of you go I go for a modified simple system that keeps people interested and playing the game, not one that finishes them in a turn and turns them off buying more.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

The next batch of up and coming ten year olds, of course.

Churn and burn!



That's just the tournament types on BOLS, the average kid will never encounter that kind of super-tuned army list, only a much more gentle form of it:

"Ooh Timmy has a Land Raider! I can't beat him now he has a Land Raider! I need to get some Lascannons so I can win against him again!"


I mean, that's simple to understand, and simple to see what you need to do to counter your enemy's army list... great for the strategy-heavy Warhammer 40,000.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Prep-painted models is the way to go then I imagine?

_________________
Light at the Horizon.

Warp Rift
Project Distant Darkness
Eldar MMS

GothiComp Hall of Fame
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=19176

Nah, GW has to keep the hobby side of things to make GW gaming acceptable to parents.

Otherwise their kids are just paying hundreds of pounds on a game of toy soldiers.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter