Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

A note to readers: Please do not feel obligated to read the entirety of this thread. Instead it is much more valuable to read the rulebook and jump to the last couple posts. This thread has been a giant pool for brainstorming and as such is very difficult to keep up on and it is not expected of you to do so. If you have any ideas or feedback, simply reply to the thread!

Note 2: I can't change the attachments in this post anymore. Please go to http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/538310.page#5820195 to check out the attachments.

I have finished typing up everything that we have talked about so far, and put it in the rulebook below. Though be warned, it is very rough so any and all advice is much appreciated. Yellow highlighted areas are not complete (it'll be obvious) so bear with me on those.

I am in dire need of play testers. The first draft of the Space Marines, Tau, and Daemons codex is complete; and the second draft of Tyranids is complete. The codices in work are Orks, Imperial Guard, and Necrons. As a warning, all codices so far are very rough. They are in dire need of balancing, with what I have done now mainly being a document of all the ideas that I have. Point values and stats have been assigned, but that doesn't mean they are all in their final versions.



Special thanks to Lanrak and Dast for significant help so far.

Thanks
-Rabid

This sounds a bit more complicated then the current method, people may have a hard time remembering all of the initiative steps that they could act at, especially once leaders start dying off and the value starts changing.

But all in all, I think that it is a good change.

Would work best where games had fewer models. Also what about vehicles? When would they act?

Vehicles are something I'm currently trying to figure out. My hunch is to go off the crew's values but I just decided to do this today haha.

Yes, I feel like it might make the game more complicated. However, the plan is to make the optimal sized game something that varies based on experience.
For instance:
-When a player is first starting out, they should really gravitate towards 500 points. At 500 points they will likely have 4 units, which is enough to make them think and get them used to the system.
-After a player has experience, they will likely start using 1000 points. This is roughly 8-10 units, and is much more difficult than the previous 4. However, this allows for a lot more tactics and begins to stratify players.
-After a significant amount of experience, 1850 enters the realm of possibility. This is somewhere around 12-15 units generally and really allows for better players to shine in tournaments.


As for leaders dying off, that really shouldn't affect the game a whole heck of a lot. They only change the unit they might be in, same as a sergeant. Also, this system makes sergeants much more valuable as most increase the leadership of the unit and would let them act sooner.

While I like the idea, I think you have to be clear if this is a change to the existing rule set, or an entirely new ruleset with no resemblance or bearing to the current one. I understand its different, I just want to know by how much.

I've always preferred unit by unit activation anyways, keeps both players more in the game as each person doesn't have to wait 20+mins for their turn to come around again.

It is a total redo of the rules.

Think of it like a new edition. Eventually I'll get around to re-balancing the codices, but that is a little ways down the road and I'll need a lot of help with it. I mean, I only consider myself good enough to balance Tyranids and maybe Space Marines and Tau.

Interesting, will you be using the same basic statlines for most units and weapons?

That's the plan.

Though I do plan on updating codices so they make sense with the new rules, and if I can get enough help from the community I'm willing to change some things like points and maybe a few stat lines.

For example:
Vect would make it so every unit's activation step is 1 higher due to him being able to seize the initiative easier.

Hmm, its certainly a daunting task, and one that will require a lot of patience if you genuinely want help from the forums to make it. The number of varying opinions of what is balanced and what isn't is staggering. You'd almost be better off writing up a bare bones layout of the rules you're proposing, and then posting it here for critique, rather than some kind of collaboration.

Also, I'd personally find it hard to adapt the essence of 40k into something significantly different, yet still close enough as to be recognizable by the average player.

If I were to do something like this, I'd be more inclined to start from scratch and build a rule set using ideas and concepts I've gathered from other games. But that would all be assuming I had free time, something I don't have much of these days.

I will watch this thread and add my 2 cents every so often if that works.

The plan is almost exactly what you are saying. Though I was planning on posting each section up at a time rather than shotgunning the forums with a single 40 page document. I've gathered that tends to scare people away.

Getting this very first part done will really determine the rest of the book, or at least the order of it. Once I can get this done, which I'd like to as soon as possible, I can create the skeleton.

I summarized the 5e rules in 6 pages once, but that didn't include the USR section or the Codexes.

It's an interesting plan.

Huh, I actually just spent all week doing pretty much this exact thing.

I chose a slightly different approach to modifying the activation system. I think mine might be a little more simple. It borrows from the Ambush Ally/Conflict of Heroes games.

Essentially one player activates Unit by Unit but the reactive player may interrupt any activation with his own Unit within LOS.

Uses same stats and codexis but encourages a much more interactive experience. I also included Kill Teamesque rules for optional skirmish sized battles (<500pts).

I got it down to 12 pages but it doesn't include many topics.

I am working on typesetting it to look as close to professional as a I can. My gf is a graphic designer so she has been helping me.

If you'd like to work with me on it shoot me a PM.

Otherwise, I've been working on this ruleset for about a year but the latestest iteration has only been play tested twice. So if anyone wants to playtest via Vassal40k please let me know.

Ooopps not ment to be a highjack... just opportunity for collaboration.

I also would like to join in on this. I like the initiative steps activation allot, however I would have it based entirely on initiative, not on leadership. (which has other uses).

It would require vehicles to be given an initiative stat.

I would also propose that a unit "activation" is one of: shooting, moving or making close combat attacks (not more than one). (so if you moved into combat this activation you won't attack until your next one). I think this keeps things simpler.

Thanks for all the input, I'd definitely like to take a look at what you have done Panda.

I like to include leadership on this, because bottom line is it represents battle experience and mental fortitude. Both of those are absolutely critical for a rapid response in battle.

Initiative I've always thought of physical speed and mobility. In close combat, it's a perfect stat because faster units will strike first. However, just because you're slow in combat doesn't mean that you think slow and can't make decisions. Necrons are a perfect example of this.


Also, in my version Dast I have it so a unit goes through Moving-Shooting-Assaulting in one go. However, no blows are struck for assault until Initiative step 0. So all the units can charge into combat in their activation order, but no damage is done until the end of the turn. This solves a glaring problem I've had with the game in recent editions, where a close combat unit can wipe out a unit and proceed to get shot up. With this version, if a unit just roflstomps another it means that on their next turn they are able to charge into another unit vs being forced to weather a whole turn of shooting.




The ultimate goal of this is for anyone (not just 40k players) to be able to pick up the rulebook and play. Make it a little like skiing--pretty easy to learn how to do, but you have to put in a lot of work to progress to more difficult slopes. Ambitious, yes; doable, absolutely.

Definitely very interesting.

As I am taking a page from wargaming books I can appreciate the importance of Ld in unit activation.

Right now my Initiative Contest Roll is:
Highest Ld + Highest I + 2d6 - # of failed moral tests.

Units activate by making a Initiative Test, i.e. roll equal to or under their Initiative on a d6. However, your explanation of the imporatance of Ld has got me thinking. May activation should be 2d6 < Ld + I.... would be a better curve due to 2d6 and would have multiple factors. Also could have rules about borrowing Ld from nearby Units, to satisfy beardy wargamers about Chain of Command and logistics...

I have the exact same ultimate goal.

I'm afraid I've ruined one friend because hes only learned "40k" "my way".... hahaha

Able to shoot in to cc. And I like the I order if you go to ground have your bs go up by 1 as you are all most sniping

Enles you move then you hit on snap shots

Hi folks.
If we are to do a complete re-write of 40k, KEEPING the game play and hopefuly enhancing it !
BUT REDUCING the amount of pages of rules to a more managable amount 40 pages.

Then the best place to start is sorting out the most suitable game mechanics to use.(Can we leave the current 40k game mechanics back in the 1970 where they belong! )

I would like to propose a more inter active game turn.
Alternating unit activation, OR alternating phases.

We can control activation and action selection with simple mechanics...(Dice roll vs scaling target score,player choices useing cards/markers if necisary etc.)

I would like to use a simple damage resolution across ALL unit -weapon types.

ALL weapons have an AP rating, and a Damage rating.

ALL models have an AV (armour value) and a (RV)resistance value .

When a model takes a hit , it simply rolls a dice and adds it to its AV .
If this combined value is greater than the weapons AV , the hit does NO damage!
(Add the save roll to your AV).

If the weapon AP is greater than the combined save roll + armour value .
The atacking player rolls a dice and adds it to the weapons damage value.(Roll to damage)
If this value beats the targets RV, it takes the amount of damage the combined damage value beat the RV by.
(if RV is lower than total damage

If the weapon fails to cause damage the model counts as supressed.

Allowing us to use ANY value we see fit for AV, RV, AP,and Damage, means we can get the diversity of results the 40k universe needs IMO.And removes the tables that limit results unecissarily , making additional systems necissary.


I could post up some examples of a game turn , and combat res if you are interested?

Please remember current 40k has to add on tons of rules because its game mechanics are not realy suited to the game play.
if we get the game mechanics right , we can cover all the action with core rules and a scattering of special abilites for deeper character.

Should we define the game turn mechanic first?

Interesting, I'd never really thought about making it so armor/resistance was across the board.

The only reason I'm hesitant about diverging from the basic stats is because play testing it is going to have so many variables. At least two codices will need to be redone before we could possibly hope to test the new rulebook.


As far as game turns, I think I've covered it but I'll summarize it here.


Turn begins
Starting with activation step 20, work your way down to 0.
Reserves come in on step 20
Units are activated on a step that is Ld + - I (max 20 min 1)
When activated the unit can move, shoot, and charge into combat.
All assaults are resolved on step 0.





Some things that I've thought about and plan to include:
-Cover reduces ballistic skill.
-Invul saves are taken in addition to armor saves (akin to fantasy ward saves)
-AP reduces armor across the board vs just punching through it or not.
-If a unit wants to shoot a heavy weapon and still move/assault they are treated as initiative 1 for the turn. This includes activation steps and close combat, but no other restrictions.
-No more pre measuring.
-No more random charge lengths. But charge distances are modified.
-Hull points are modified. Every vehicle is treated as having 3x their current hull points. Glances remove 1, Penetrating hits remove 2. AP 2 removes an extra one, AP 1 removes an extra 2.
-To wound charts expanded similar to To hit (shooting). Starts with S = T being 4+ as normal. If S = T + 2 it's a 2+ like normal. If S = T + 3 it's 2+, with a 6+ reroll. S = T + 4 is 2+/5+. This pattern continues until S = T + 8 or 9 it is automatic. Poison keeps it's rules from this edition.

*edit: Thought that the new To Wound chart might be confusing, so here is a graphic version.



These all are pretty far into the future, but just giving you guys an idea of where I plan to go with this.

HI rabid1903.
Well the thing is, IF the resolution method is universal, and give scaleable 'intuitive ' results balancing is much easier.(And takes up far less pages of rules too!)
40k uses multiple resolution methods for damage ,THIS makes balancing current 40k so difficult.

(The rules can be written with direct conversion for new stats . EG AV = 1 pip of current save or current AV of vehicles...)

Here are the game turns I propose.
(Simplest variations to make understanding concept and seeing game play implications easy.We can develop them as necissary.)

Alternating Phases.

Command Phase.
Both players place 'order counters' face down next to their units on good morale.
Both players request off table support.

Actions phase.
Attacker turns over order counter and takes first action of order with all units one at a time.
Defender turns over order counter and takes first action of order with all units one at a time.

Attacker removes order counter after taking second action of order, with all units one at a time.
Defender removes order counter after taking second action of order, with all units one at a time.

Resolution phase.
Players attempt to rally units on poor morale.
Players plot off table arrivals.

Order counters contain 2 actions.
Move, attack or ready.

Giving orders of...

Advance- Move attack,
Double - Move move
Evade - attack move
Fire support- ready attack.(Able to fire 'move or fire' weapons., and fire all weapons to full effect.)
Infiltrate - ready move(Increases stealth value by 2)

(When units become supressed , neutralised or routed they have the order counter replaced with the appropriate counter.)

ONE counter per unit ( placed/ flipped/ removed,) to keep a track of all unit status and actions ...not too bad IMO.

Alternating unit activation.

Command Phase.
Request off table support.

Action phase.
Attacker 'activates' a unit.
Defender activates a unit
(Until all units have been activated.)

Resolution phase.
Attempt to rally units on poor morale.Plot arrivals.

Morale damage can be noted with counters as above.

Activations can be set at 2 or 3 actions.
Uneven number of units can be compensated for by 'increasing' risk' for multiple activations per turn .Or using cards /activation points.(Set by over all level of command perhaps?)

Because of the increased level of interaction, overwatch is not required.
Because of the more detailed (but simpler ) weapon definition , NO ARTIFICIAL differentiation between ranged and assault needs to be made.
Simply resolve weapon hits in this order, close combat ,small arms ,special,move or fire.
(Close combat weapons have a max range of 4")

I belive the goal is to write simple well defined rules that allow get to the game play with a minimum of fuss.
And I hate tables and charts......

I prefer to use the stats directly ..like game developers have been doing for the last 20 years ...

Trying to get to 40 pages of well defined intuitive rules using current stats and resolutions is not possible.

And besides if the new rules are just 'suitable for use with sci-fi minatures' .Rather than a 40k clone.
GW plc wont come knocking with C&Ds....

Sorry about the long post.
Ill show some basic proposed stats and resoltion methods next time...

Lanrak, I really like your order counter idea.

Generals with special rules allowing you to place two counters then decide which to use at activation would be practically inevitable.

The order counters being resolved unit by unit in the way rabid suggested strikes me as a really nice turn structure.

Something I think should be done is removing the ability of units to move further the turn they charge into close combat, it just doesn't make any sense.

For "to hit" rolls I think the fantasy system is much better. Some sort of to hit modifyers like:
-1 if target is partially hidden/in cover
-2 if target is hidden in a building
-2 if target is flying
+1 if target in 12 inches
+1 for large targets
...

Hey man, I saw this and would also like to contribute.

First off Lanrak is a badass, he helped me with my ruleset as well.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/57594130/Pirates-of-the-Crimson-Galaxy

It's vaguely a 40k clone but harkens back more to the days of Rogue Trader. It is also a D12 system instead of a d6 system, though I'm sure that you could modify it to be a D6 system but you'd lose a lot of granularity in the process.

Hi
(Vlad. thanks for the complement...)

As we all seem to like the more interactive game turn mechanics.
(Alternating unit activation /alternating phases, have been used to great effect in many modern games since 1981.)

I am sure we can develop an interactive game turn mechanic we all desire for our games of 40k.(No need for overwatch! yay!)
I think if we start with the simplest elements and work up we cant go far wrong...

As allot of games use a unit reference card (Playing card sized crib sheet.)
I thought it might be good to have tactical information (in game profile) on one side.
And Strategic information (army composition information on the reverse.)

Here is a basic outline of stats as a starting point..(High values are good.)

Unit profile.
Speed.(Sp) How far the unit may move up to when taking a movement action.
Armour value (Av) how well protected the unit is.
Resistance Value (Rv) How hard it is to damage the unit.
Wounds/Structure (W)(S) how much damage the unit can take.
Stealth value (St) how hard it is to spot the unit on the battle field.
Morale Value(Mv) how much fighting spirit the unit has
Command Value(Cv) How well the unit leader /character influences the models /units around them.

ALL weapons will be listed underneath the unit profile.As weapons are only as effective as the end user.I thought we could simply list the net effect...
Name /Effective range / Armour pen/ Damage /Effect/Notes
EG.
Combat knife /0-2"/5/1/1/Assault.

Las Pistol / 2-8"/5/1/1/ Small arms.

Flamer/template/5/3/template/ support.ignores cover.

Lascannon/4 to 42"/18/4/1/Fire support. Anti tank.(target (St) 3 or lower only.)

This way units with better ranged abilities simply get enhanced effective ranges.
(Better shots hit things further away!)
And models that are stronger get higher damage with close combat weapons.Models that are more agile get higher effect number in close combat, as they strike faster and can land more blows.

Rather than have seperate stats that are only used in close combat , I thought it would be better to have universal weapon stats and resolution .As this allows far more detail in interactions and profiles.

Moving from fixed values like 'ALWAYS saves on 4+', to variable results defined by profiles.keeps the simplicity but allows far more granulariry of results.

EG if we give Space marines Armour value of 4.
They save on a roll of
2+ vs AP 5 weapons .(2 +4=6 6 beats 5)
3 +vs AP 6 weapons
4+ vs AP 7 weapons
5+ vs AP 8 weapons
6+ vs AP 9 weapons
And auto fail vs weapons with AP of 10 or over.

Ill stop there. I can go over any ideas in more detail,as I may not have explained them very well...
I can give examples of the resolution methods if that would help?

Rules look good if you shoot into cc you have a -2 to your balistic skill and the enemy have a 5+ close combat save depending on size mostrus creturs have no close combat save and -1 bs insted of -2

What about if the unit moved/shot/assaulted at 3 different initiative steps

E.G.
Gun drones (IS 3-11) decided to shoot first at IS11 but didn't move until IS 3 when they saw what the opposition was doing.

I thnk this would make the game more tactical


Automatically Appended Next Post:
^or have each IS divided into 3 sub steps like phases now

Sounds good like I could use my scouts as cannon fodder then right at the end tp my termies 3 inch from ther best unit whith baliel presiction strike then crush them

If we did replace BS with the same guns having a longer range in the hands of better marksmen it might make sense if "surplus range" helped your to-hit roles. (If we have to hit roles).

One advantage of the current system where weapons and the troops bearing them are seperate is that unit options can just casually say things like "may take an X for ...pts". With your system these options would become clunkier.

Hi
The system I propose is based on rolling to Aquire the target.(Spot identify and bring weapons to bear.)

The unit attempts to Aquire an enemy unit.(Roll over the enemy stealth value, modified for range and cover etc.)
E.g
Target closer than 18" + 1 to aquisition roll.
Target in cover +1 to stealth value
Target over 36" away +1 to stealth value
Attacker is a scout +1 to aquisition roll.



When a unit is sucessfuly aquired , the attacker simply makes attacks with all weapons in range.(Close combat then small arms then support then fire support.)
Longer ranges allow you to engage targets further away.

If we look at a basic rifle type weapon..

Poor shots may have an effctive range of 18"
Average shots could have an effective range of 24"
Good shots could have an effective range of 30"
And snipers could have have an effective range of 36"

The good thing about effective ranges is you can make small adjustments,(1" increments if you want to.)
Something 40ks BS doesn't realy allow.

I fail to see how combining weapon data on a unit card is going to effect pts cost?
All the options for the units would be on the card.

The point of this is the point values are allocated for ACTUAL unit effectivness.
Rather than the average PV for the weapon across a codex , with users of different stats.
Listing the weapon stats and PV on a different page seems more counter intiutive than on a unit data card.But that could just be my personal preferance.

If you want to shoot into close combat, then just let the models on the 'line of fire' roll off to see who is hit?

I think I didn't explain well. What I was trying to say is that currently a units options section just needs to list a bunch of weapons and their costs. With this change a full table would be needed giving the effective ranges of those weapons. I am not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, I was just pointing it out.

I think when shooting into close combat that hits being split in a way so that on a 4+ they are on the enemy and 3- on your own side sort of makes sense, its relatively simple and could be done in bulk.

I like the idea of the acquiring target rules. Replacing a handful of dice with one is nice, but you do loose some statistical stability, and gain a bit more fluctuation.

Perhaps it might be nice to add this to the acquiring target rules:
If you fail to target your fist choice you may make an attempt to target an enemy unit within 6' of them.

(6' is probably too much).
This would soften the fluctuations slightly, and make troops more accurate when firing at bunched up enemies.

Shooting might be better worked out with a percentage system, or a table.

Here is my take on it:



Yes it adds another table, but in addition to tables I really feel that the equation and a trick to remember it would go a long ways in making it easier to memorize.


I like the idea of acquiring targets, I think that is a better representation than it not mattering if it's point blank or across the map. I'll brainstorm some more on my end.

Soon I'm going to actually be putting this all into a document. My wife is much better at writing stuff up than me, so she'll be doing that part haha.

Looking good I would raver play it than normal 6th ed 40K as it looks eseyer have like spot role then initive to see if they soot befor they move
At the moment you would have to make meny more codexs