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.

I've been working on implementing some of the changes we got out of the thread at http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/566430.page into a ground-up rewrite of Warhammer 40,000; it's not in complete form yet but it's been tested out in several games and it's at the point I need more input and more testing to get it playable more than sitting and staring at it more.

To clarify first at the beginning: This is a complete and total rewrite of the core rules, no content from official publications is even remotely compatible with these rules. The miniatures are the same, the lore is the same, the dice, templates and rulers are the same, but that is all.

The core rules are up at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gVCOcSUQz15oDa0Vqnm8FBjJW6iVx91-Ixxy5toQxCI

The Space Marines rules (intended to be able to simulate all content found in Codex: Space Marines, Codex: Blood Angels, Codex: Dark Angels, and Codex: Space Wolves) can be found at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1V487wb3fpSvHnAkojySvRGb6odLQVITvxN9oi3YWBjo
Points costs are not yet in the document, the Chapter customization rules are not yet completed, the platoon organization charts are tentative, and the available superheavies and unique formations are not in place, but model and weapon stats and restrictions are in place and functional. Psykers are not fully complete, for now Librarians know all the common psychic powers listed in the core book.

A development blog explaining what has been done and why is up at http://knightofthegrey.wordpress.com/ to provide quick and basic answers to some of the simpler questions of what I did and why.

Further rules will be linked to within this post as they become available. Comments, questions, reports on how the rules work in practice, suggestions, and requests for what army book gets put up next are all encouraged.

Hi AnomanderRake.
Just had a quick look through the rules..

Just some quick comments.
How do you feel about including movement type as a symbol next to movement value.(legs, wheels, Tracks, skimmer.)So different terrain type effect different movement types.
Just adds a bit more detail , and a reason to take the different vehicle types in 40k.

Why list model strength on its own, in the model profile , when it is modified by the weapon type the models carries.
Why not just list this value under the units weapon stat line?
To save listing a value, then listing the modifier(s) seperately just list the net result.

Why not put the Command value in the unit profile.So units without 'characters' can still be lead by the unit leaders.(Sergeants etc.)And when a character attaches to a unit , it uses the characters command value.

In respect to the game turn .

Why not;_
A Moves.
B Attacks.
A Reacts,

B Moves.
A Attacks
B Reacts.

As this allows players to attack after enemy movement in the first turn .(Rather than A moving then attacking unopposed in the first turn , followed by B doing the same.)

Also this allows A to 'React' to B s attacks , OR wait untill B has moved before carrying out an attack.

I am slightly concerned about the number of special rules you have, considering all the interaction appears to be opposed values, with a D 6 covering the modifiers.
(This should cover all the variables, and therefore keep special rules to a minimum, (about a dozen).If you intend to use 20+ special rules why not use simpler resolution methods?)

I apologize if I have miss read/ understood the rules you have written.(Its my age you know,lol.)

Over all there appears to be lots of good ideas that are well presented.

I am just trying to be objectively critical to see if there are areas that can be refined / tweeked a bit.

A symbol for movement type is definitely an option; this is an unpolished early draft, not a final product, I'll put that into the setup.

Model strength on its own exists because one weapon is supposed to have different effects depending on who's carrying it; a Space Marine Terminator with a power fist and an Imperial Guard sergeant with a power fist don't hit at the same Strength. It's something I might consider except I'd need a completely different power fist/chainsword/whatnot for every single different unit that can use it; model Strength is a shortcut.

Character-rule values in the unit profile is something I hadn't thought of, it would make reading everything somewhat simpler. I'll do that in the next draft.

As to turn order switching the Reaction Attacks phase and the Combat phase wouldn't actually change how things work much seeing as they play out pretty similarly; the intent is for Reaction Attacks to be possible in the first turn, I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear (it also provides an incentive to take the second turn since in the first turn none of your units moved or attacked in the prior turn so you get full-effectiveness Reaction Attacks from all of your units).

The forty-odd special rules exist because I'm trying to simulate the 40k universe and everything in there is in some way necessary to do so. I will concede that it could easily be organized differently; most of those rules are either properties of weapons or modifiers onto move types, which I could rearrange into different sections; the catch-all "special rules" category exists right now because it's a quick place to put things. I'm also trying to minimize special rules as a whole by cutting unique special rules from different army lists in favour of core-book special rules and combining some set of things that do mostly the same thing (off the top of my head Lance and Melta in 40k are both approximated by a Haywire value under Aegis, Rhinos' auto-repair, Tyranid creatures' regeneration, and Chaos Daemon Engines' It Will Not Die is covered under the Regeneration rule, and all the disparate Blessings of the Omnissiah and equivalents are covered under the Tech character property), which means the core-book special rules section is going to be bigger than it might otherwise be.

Thank you for your suggestions, I hope I was able to answer your questions.

HI again.
I was assuming the weapon profiles would be listed under the unit stats, and be particular to that unit.
Rather than just list the weapon the model carries by name , then having to look up the modifiers in the rules , then apply them .

EG
The unit stat line .
The list the weapons the units carries and the NET EFFECT stats for the weapons.

Either on a army list , or unit cards for easy in game reference.

The only reason I suggested changing the sequencing of the game turn, is it allows a unit to 'hold ' their attack until later.

EG After A moves, B units can attack now, OR hold on the the action and perform it as a reaction after A has attacked,(Eg enemy units out of range LOS.)
This sort of covers 'over watch' but without all the complicated conditional rules.

This order is more intuitive IMO.

The ONLY reason 40k 6th ed has so many special rules, is because it is using WHFB game mechanics and resolution methods.
I you are writing the rules to cover the current game play ,a modern warfare battle game.
And use rules appropriate to this type of game , you should only need special rules for special abilities.

As using opposed values and a D6 to cover the variables is ONLY preferable to a target value with modifiers, IF all the interaction can be covered in the resolution.

If you need to have special rules to alter the dice roll, or the values used in opposition.Then using a straight target score with modifiers makes more sense.

I may need to explain that better...

Lanrak wrote:
HI again.
I was assuming the weapon profiles would be listed under the unit stats, and be particular to that unit.
Rather than just list the weapon the model carries by name , then having to look up the modifiers in the rules , then apply them .

EG
The unit stat line .
The list the weapons the units carries and the NET EFFECT stats for the weapons.

Either on a army list , or unit cards for easy in game reference.

This could easily get long and byzantine, not to mention in some cases it would increase the number of weapon profiles by a fair bit since I'd need (counting...) six or eight different power fists, at least. The other consideration here is I needed model Strength to reference for grav-guns (since the grav-guns in the current SM Codex would be horribly broken lifted straight into my rules I appropriated the Horus Heresy book's ideas), and I might need it for other things. I also like the transparency inherent in telling people where the stats come from, it helps with consistency.

The only reason I suggested changing the sequencing of the game turn, is it allows a unit to 'hold ' their attack until later.

EG After A moves, B units can attack now, OR hold on the the action and perform it as a reaction after A has attacked,(Eg enemy units out of range LOS.)
This sort of covers 'over watch' but without all the complicated conditional rules.

This order is more intuitive IMO.

The Reaction Attacks and Combat phases function almost identically, the names are the way they are because I thought it made more sense that you'd want to 'react' to enemy movement instead of enemy attacks. Switching them would have pretty much no impact on how the game actually played out.

The ONLY reason 40k 6th ed has so many special rules, is because it is using WHFB game mechanics and resolution methods.
I you are writing the rules to cover the current game play ,a modern warfare battle game.
And use rules appropriate to this type of game , you should only need special rules for special abilities.

As using opposed values and a D6 to cover the variables is ONLY preferable to a target value with modifiers, IF all the interaction can be covered in the resolution.

If you need to have special rules to alter the dice roll, or the values used in opposition.Then using a straight target score with modifiers makes more sense.

I may need to explain that better...

Actually 40k has way more special rules than WHFB; the problem isn't in the fact that we're using a non-modern ruleset as a basis and more in the fact that we're dealing with more different weapons than exist in the entirety of WHFB in every single army book. The issue is inherent in the fact that we're dealing with grossly asymmetrical technology here; most wargames don't have to deal with universes where at least four different groups of people (Humanity, the Tau, the Necrons, and the Eldar) developed their weaponry along divergent technological lines and ended up with 100% unique arsenals, or even with six different kinds of heavy weapons and four different kinds of special weapons available to a single Tactical Squad.

I've cut 79 USRs and a fair bit of the information GW covers under unit types and weapon types down to 49 special rules, but I honestly don't think it's getting any smaller if I want to stick with my original design goal that every single model and unit in 40k today is going to be included in Aegis. I get where you're coming from on special rules that simply alter the die roll being more simply and easily replaced by just changing stats, but the problem arises when you want situational benefits (I may not want this unit to have Strength 8 all the time but I do want it to have Strength 8 when attacking a tank, for instance); every special rule that remains is situational and can't be simply and easily removed. I can reorganize some back into weapon properties and characteristics of unit types but at the end of the day if we want to be able to simulate a game that's got ballpark two hundred and fifty different units produced by GW and another several dozen produced by Forge World we can't make them all distinct without some number of special rules.

Leaf on the Wind...

Loving the reference, but 'Crazy Ivan' Might be more apt :p

 spartanghost wrote:
Leaf on the Wind...

Loving the reference, but 'Crazy Ivan' Might be more apt :p

References are a quick and dirty way to come up with semi-appropriate working names. There's a chapter in a piece of fiction set in 40k I'm working on entitled "Triumph of the Echo", but people are less likely to get that one.

I like the idea, but I actually think the pen mechanic will really hurt marines, I think for the 40k setting the apx mechanic games workshop has is better, or if you want to make it really complicated make it apX penY, the pen only effects armor above the weapons ap, because otherwise weapons like blotters that deserve some AP either become marine killing monsters or vastly underpowered. If a weapon has pen-1 than a marine suddenly has a 4+ save while a guardsmen has 6+, which army suffers more? Maybe a good way of dealing with it is that some weapons have an ap and some a pen, or a weapon with an ap 1 point above the armors ap gives a -1 to saves, so a bolter with ap 5 will give -1 to saving rolls for 4+ armor.

I like the evasion mechanic as that allows for much more realistic depiction of a units skills, I would suggest making a

One thing that I would like to see is better suppression and morale mechanics. There's a system called "Sharp Practice" by Too Fat Lardies for Napoleonic era which uses "shock points" which units accumulate as they are shot at, shock points effect the units combat effectiveness by giving movement and shooting penalties. I'm currently doing a homebrew skirmish ruleset for renaissance Europe loosely based on 40k, we changed around the order in which the saves are taken, so first armor save than wounding, any failed save incurs a shock point, therefor heavily armored opponents can walk into a hail of fire without a second thought but light infantry will fall back.

In "Sharp Practice" for every two points of shock a unit looses an attack and a inch of movement, when the unit has more shock points than surviving models the unit breaks and must be rallied. Depending on the quality of the unit the unit can ignore more shock. We are toying with the idea of replacing the linear accumulation of shock points with a morale ladder, ranging from under fire, to pinned, to retreating and finally headlong rout. The advantage of the linear shock system would be that it would be easy to calculate and you could say say that elite quality troops only take a debuff every three shock points and can tolerate up to 1.5 times their number in shock points.

How we're thinking of dealing with it in our system is that different qualities of troops are required to take pinning tests at different percentages of hits, say conscripts take a leadership check when they suffer 15% shock points worth of their model count, and stern guard at 75%, it's still a bit clunky but it's in the works. A sensible pinning mechanic encourages using realistic tactics to make sure that the enemy is suppressed before you assault.

I like the to hit modifiers, I might suggest saying that the standard to hit with no modifier (stationary unit in the open against stationary unit in the open) is a 2+ or 3+ as if you start with a 4+ you're already hitting on a 6+ if both units have moved that turn. When shooting at elite units you get a -1 to hit (as they can use cover better and are more experienced), maybe they can also ignore one negative modifier.

Hi again.
In regauard to the weapon profiles.Are you going to list them for each army as 40k does.
And then apply modifiers and special rules scattered about the rule book.

So for example you want o find out what attacks a Space Wolf Terminator has.(It ONLY states the terminator is armed with a power fist and storm bolter..)
So then you have to look the the standard weapon profiles for both weapons.
Then apply modifiers , and then find out any special rules that apply.(True Grit for example.)

Then finally you know what the termionator attacks actually are.

How the heck is this better than JUST reading the attacks off the weapon profile under the unit?

EG
Power fist, 0-2", AP '£' Dam'$' Attacks 2 Note close assault only ,strikes at init 1.
Storm Bolter.0-24" AP'@' Dam'!' , Attacks 2 Note.may fire into own units close assault.

Strength makes sense for WHFB where most weapons are propelled by the user, I would prefer to use the term damage in 40k.
(Symbols are to represent actual values , but I can remember what they were from your revised codex .

The idea is all units have a unit card with their survivability stats first.

Mobility,
Armour value.
Resilience (T(replacement)
Hit points
Assault (WSreplacement)
Stealth (BS replacement)
Morale
Command

Then the units offencive profile.
The weapons profiles.
Name / Effective Range/ Armour Piercing /Damage/Attacks /Notes.

So dont bother listing standard weapons in all the codex books.JUST list the units weapon effects under the units stat line.(On a unit card, like DW perhaps?)

Just an idea to speed up play.(use the unit cards for ingame reference, rather than looking through rule and codex books.

I always thought that we should have a willpower characteristic specifically for using an resisting psychic powers. You can not be good at leading and be a strong psyker and vice versa.

Ulfrik Snowfang wrote:
I like the idea, but I actually think the pen mechanic will really hurt marines, I think for the 40k setting the apx mechanic games workshop has is better, or if you want to make it really complicated make it apX penY, the pen only effects armor above the weapons ap, because otherwise weapons like blotters that deserve some AP either become marine killing monsters or vastly underpowered. If a weapon has pen-1 than a marine suddenly has a 4+ save while a guardsmen has 6+, which army suffers more? Maybe a good way of dealing with it is that some weapons have an ap and some a pen, or a weapon with an ap 1 point above the armors ap gives a -1 to saves, so a bolter with ap 5 will give -1 to saving rolls for 4+ armor.

This is mitigated, at least in theory, by increasing pretty much everyone's save by a point in the weapon stats (so against an AP-1 weapon a Space Marine still has a 3+ save, and he's got a 2+ save against no-AP weapons), by widening the range of Dur stats (a Space Marine has Dur 5, a flak-armoured Guardsman has Dur 3), and by the multiple-Wounds structure (Space Marines have three Wounds, most lighter infantry have two). Typically the odds of killing someone with small arms don't change a lot, but the goal was to make the AP stat not a waste of paper in a large percentage of matchups and make low-AP weapons less useless.

I like the evasion mechanic as that allows for much more realistic depiction of a units skills, I would suggest making a

One thing that I would like to see is better suppression and morale mechanics. There's a system called "Sharp Practice" by Too Fat Lardies for Napoleonic era which uses "shock points" which units accumulate as they are shot at, shock points effect the units combat effectiveness by giving movement and shooting penalties. I'm currently doing a homebrew skirmish ruleset for renaissance Europe loosely based on 40k, we changed around the order in which the saves are taken, so first armor save than wounding, any failed save incurs a shock point, therefor heavily armored opponents can walk into a hail of fire without a second thought but light infantry will fall back.

In "Sharp Practice" for every two points of shock a unit looses an attack and a inch of movement, when the unit has more shock points than surviving models the unit breaks and must be rallied. Depending on the quality of the unit the unit can ignore more shock. We are toying with the idea of replacing the linear accumulation of shock points with a morale ladder, ranging from under fire, to pinned, to retreating and finally headlong rout. The advantage of the linear shock system would be that it would be easy to calculate and you could say say that elite quality troops only take a debuff every three shock points and can tolerate up to 1.5 times their number in shock points.

How we're thinking of dealing with it in our system is that different qualities of troops are required to take pinning tests at different percentages of hits, say conscripts take a leadership check when they suffer 15% shock points worth of their model count, and stern guard at 75%, it's still a bit clunky but it's in the works. A sensible pinning mechanic encourages using realistic tactics to make sure that the enemy is suppressed before you assault.

Right now the intent with my morale system is that a unit must make a Tenacity test whenever they're attacked with the number of Pinning markers (one per unit attacking them, one per unit that inflicted casualties, and one per unit that attacked them with a Pinning weapon) as a penalty to their Tenacity value, using Command to mitigate this by lowering the number of Pinning markers. The intent is that you'll fail a lot more Morale tests than you would in 40k but the consequences of failure will be significantly less punishing.

I like the to hit modifiers, I might suggest saying that the standard to hit with no modifier (stationary unit in the open against stationary unit in the open) is a 2+ or 3+ as if you start with a 4+ you're already hitting on a 6+ if both units have moved that turn. When shooting at elite units you get a -1 to hit (as they can use cover better and are more experienced), maybe they can also ignore one negative modifier.

The issue with this suggestion is it's not granular enough; a Space Wolf Long Fang shooting at a stationary unit in the open is going to have a better chance of hitting than an Ork Boy shooting at a stationary unit in the open. In practice Evasion stats are two to three points lower than Marksmanship so you will usually be hitting a unit of equivalent quality on a 2+ or 3+ when stationary and in the open; but keep in mind also the resolution table in this is slightly different, a -1 penalty to Marksmanship is a -1/2 (round down) to the roll in most cases.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I always thought that we should have a willpower characteristic specifically for using an resisting psychic powers. You can not be good at leading and be a strong psyker and vice versa.

The theory is that Tenacity represents some baseline value for both attributes and Psyker levels/the Blank quality (which isn't implemented yet since the Necrons and the Inquisition haven't been worked on)/potentially other rules help against psychic powers while Command levels help with leadership, so this is actually already the case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Lanrak: I'm not going to quote the whole post since it's all one issue; the idea of unit cards to speed up play isn't a bad suggestion and most people I know who play 40k have manually constructed a printout of what everything does for quick reference already, but I'm going to leave everything as it is for now for two reasons: first, to save on time and energy thrown into formatting and making things pretty before I've finished generating all the content, and second, because I'm going to need the records in the form they're already in to help me make sure everything's consistent (so that a power sword does the same thing across all armies, that sort of thing). A unit-quick-reference section in the back of the book formatted in the fashion you're suggesting isn't beyond the realm of possibility but it's not going to replace the compute-your-own setup entirely and it's not going to happen immediately.

@AnomanderRake.
Do you agree that 40k should have the game play of a modern battle game?
And as such the game play should focus on unit interaction?

If so , could I invite you to think of the unit function in the game play, and how it is described to the players than that respect.

Rather than list separately the umpteen elements that make up the unit, and then ask the players to combine them to determine the units in game effect.

Maybe taking this approach may allow you to get new perspectives on the game development ?

I though this may be helpful to you as a general suggestion.

Lanrak wrote:
@AnomanderRake.
Do you agree that 40k should have the game play of a modern battle game?
And as such the game play should focus on unit interaction?

If so , could I invite you to think of the unit function in the game play, and how it is described to the players than that respect.

Rather than list separately the umpteen elements that make up the unit, and then ask the players to combine them to determine the units in game effect.

Maybe taking this approach may allow you to get new perspectives on the game development ?

I though this may be helpful to you as a general suggestion.

It'd help if you explain what you mean by "modern battle game" and "unit interaction"; based on the definitions I'd use for the two I'd have to say no to the first (40k is a very different setting from modern Earth with very different technological, cultural, and environmental constraints and as such trying to make things make sense from the perspective of modern militaries is doomed to failure), and absolutely yes to the second (which was the goal behind pretty much everything that went into the character mechanics under these current rules).

The question of listing separately the elements that make up the unit and asking players to combine them as opposed to putting everything in one place is a question of presentation, not content; if you hadn't noticed from the plain and unadorned documents that exist now I'm working on getting the content working before I worry about the subtle details of presenting them to people who aren't already somewhat familiar with the baseline. I'm trying to get people who already play 40k on board with this, which is pretty much the sole mover behind how everything is organized; I don't want to get bogged down trying to figure out how to make stuff I don't have written yet readable before I have the stuff written. I appreciate your input on formatting and presentation and some of the ideas presented here may well make it into the final setup but I'm just not far enough along to be worried about formatting at this point in time, I'd rather have enough content first.

As a further sidenote to the idea of unit cards I would like to observe that the game I know of that organizes things that way (specifically WARMACHINE) has fewer stats, fewer special rules, smaller armies, and a narrower spread of different sorts of weaponry than 40k does; the final form of these documents is more likely going to look like Apocalypse datasheets in terms of a single page devoted entirely to the statlines, arsenal, and options of a given squad than WARMACHINE reference cards, and the space-saving convenience of having a "heavy weapons list" I can refer Tactical, Devastator, and Sternguard models to (for instance) isn't likely to go away. One of my design constraints is that I want people to be able to use any and every currently-existing 40k models using these rules, which limits how much content I can actually outright cut.

Hi again.
Here are the basic types of game play as I tend to class them.

Ancient warfare battle game.
Main focus mobility and assault with ranged attacks used in a supporting role.

Modern warfare battle game.
Equal blend of fire power mobility and assault.

Naval /ship warfare battle game.
Main focus on mobility and fire power,with assault used for limited boarding /capture options.

The reason I asked you yo think of unit as a single entity with abilities , rather than a group of elements with special abilities and synergistic bonuses.
Is because it is helpful in focusing on function , rather than ' GWs sales pitch'.

GW plc rule want to sell you models , so their rules focus is on models and individual weapons in the units.
This leads to inbuilt over complication and imbalance.

it is not just presentation that is effected.But the ability to develop the game effectively .

Eg if the units stats are totally representative of the unit in game function, you can alter them to arrive at the balance level you need without having to add special rules in every case..

Eg IF you want Eldar to be slightly faster than Marines.
Then they can move 1" more per movement action.

If you want veteran IG to be better at shooting than normal IG .
They can gain 2" on their effective ranges with las rifles etc.

So if the units in game function is covered by the stat line.Then only special abilities are needed to be covered by exceptions .(Eg chemical weapons ignore cover.)

Its the difference between .

Attacks =read rule page 28, 31 and 59.At Strength =(read rule on page 6,39,42,91.

Compared to ..

Attacks = 9 at S 4 and 2 at S 9 .

I suppose I am asking if you think 'direct representation' would aide clarity of the rules and the flow of the game ?

I'm honestly not sure what your point is anymore; I'm perfectly on board with the idea that a special rule that says "add X to stat Y" is clutter. If you could point to a specific special rule that you think is clutter under my rules (I can find one rule that does nothing except for change base stats but that's there because I'd have to approximately double the number of weapon profiles otherwise) I'd love to tell you why that needs to be its own thing but as-is I'm confused. Right now the only things that aren't covered by the statline are those that would have to be stats that 95% of units would have a "0" or "no stat" in.

I know that GW wanting to sell models is imposing constraints on how they develop their rules but from an in-universe perspective, a general logic perspective, and a balance perspective mixed-weapon units with distinct squad leaders all make a lot more sense than trying to lump the squad leader in with his unit and giving everyone in a given unit identical weapons. There's also the aspect that one of my design goals here was to make the non-heavy-weapon guys less required and more useful, you may notice the platoon organization charts aren't written around having mass quantities of Tactical Marines or line Guardsmen.

I'm not entirely sure what your objection to the way these rules are set up is beyond that you don't like needing to reference multiple parts of the rules to know what a unit does, which is something that's easily solved with alternate formatting later on.

Hi AnomanderRake.
I do apologize as I am awful at explaining things ! .

I understand what you are trying to achieve.I was trying to offer a bit of helpful advice, to you to help refine you rule a bit more .
But completely messed up the explanation.

Long a go when I was talking with Jake Thornton, he said to treat WHFB Goblin units like a 'character with lots of wounds that is not that good at fighting.'

So the 2nd to xth Goblin ranks were just wound markers , and the front rank determined the effective fighting ability of the 'unit'.

Ever since then I have always though of units as 'a synergistic whole' rather than 'multiple disparate elements lumped together'.

EG what is the total effect of the entire unit in game , rather than the composite of the in unit elements effects.

40k tends to focus on the individual models and weapons in each unit, rather than the over all effect.

I agree that the mechanics of the change I propose is just 'format change'.

BUT the resulting reduction in complication early on can help the development process.And this was the point I was trying to make.

Also IF you are going to add modifiers to the resolution , then just use a base target score and modifiers.

If the opposed values and a Dice roll covers ALL the resolution , so modifiers are not needed.(EG AP and armour interaction.)
Then this is the ideal use of opposed value resolution method.


Using opposed rolls AND modifiers is over complication.(Only slight over complications at the start , can lead to quite sever rules bloat later.)

Ill have a detailed read though the work you have done so far, and give you some more detailed feed back.As this would probably be more useful to you...

First off the idea of treating the unit as one entity is infinitely more feasible in Warhammer Fantasy since unlike 40k the back ranks don't make attacks and units are actually composed of identically-equipped models. I need to be able to treat individual models separately to handle characters and diverse wargear. I don't want to have to deal with models that are just ablative wounds, but I took the route of buffing small arms to be more playable rather than having extra models that do nothing but get pulled from the table.

As to a "base target score and modifiers" it's just not granular enough. The smallest possible increment in that case is +/- 17%, I wanted to be able to have subtler changes to avoid the problem 40k has today with anything that's not a character, a monster, or a vehicle having every stat in a tiny range of 3-5. I'm controlling complication by strictly controlling the number of things that can actually modify anything (rolls to-hit are modified only by Unwieldy weapons in melee and by cover, target's speed, multiple shots, and extreme range at range, nothing unique to a given model or weapon is going to modify either further).

General suggestions taken independent of whether you know what I've done or not are sort of helpful broadly but long arguments over very subtle distinctions of semantics really aren't, true.

Hi AnomanderRake.
I believe it is my failure to explain myself clearly that is the issue.
Lots of other battle games manage to deliver masses of tactical depth in diverse game play with the' target score and modifiers' resolution method.

In fact all of my favorite battle games deal with 'units' and 'unit interactions', in a simple way.So I am probably biased towards this style of fun fast game play.

Which is the complete opposite of 40ks near complete focus on strategic options , eg having specific models /weapons to deliver a single specific function in a single specific unit.
And the rules are written exclusively for each element, which leads to rules bloat.

If in 40k each member of a Squad could fire at independent targets, like in a skirmish game.And each models position was recorded and actual true LOS was used.(Model to model)
Then each model would be more than a 'wound/attack counter,' to represent the units current condition.

Ok lets see If I can do a direct comparison to illustrate.
The use of comparison stats for weapon AP vs target Armour , covers ALL the interaction, as the dice roll covers all the variables /modifiers.

If you use opposing stats for the to hit roll.Shooting skill and Evasion skill.

So you use the difference between these to determine the dice roll to hit .And either of these values can be modified.

This still leaves you with 16.667% efficiency jumps, from the values of 1,2,3,4,5,6 on a D6.

How is this different to using a direct target score of 1,2,3,4,5,6. along with modifiers?As the shooter skill OR evasion skill can be a modifier to keep it included.(Depending if you want evasion/shooting as the primary stat.)

Eg if a unit has a shooting skill of 4+ and the target has an evasion skill of 1, the shooter now needs 5+ to hit .
This just makes it simpler as the resolution is base score and modifiers.(


This is the reason I suggested adding a weapons profile is to allow slight mods to net weapon effects.(To allow smaller changes in effect.)
But this means each unit has its own net weapon profile.

If you describe a Heavy Bolter like 40k does..
Rnge 36" S5 AP4 Heavy* 3.(attacks)

Then you have to give units that carry the HB without the 'heavy ' rule 'special rules' to counter the heavy rule.(vehicle rules , USRs ,special rules etc.)
And special rules for units that have other range. strenght or AP value.(Make up special rules rules for special ammo, etc.)

However, if the profile for a heavy bolter is displayed for each unit that carries it.Then the units abilities with the weapon can be described directly by the stat line on the unit card.

So units with SLIGHTLY better shooting skill ,may increases the effective range to 38" or 40"
Rather than increase the shooting skill by 1 (17%.)

Allowing a units 'special abilities' with weapons to be represented directly on the stat line.

Have I explained that any better?

Your theories have come across a little better, but they're not any more convincing. First off I've tried treating individual models or portions of units separately, it doesn't add to the tactical complexity of the game at all and it doesn't scale, it slows down gameplay to no effect.

Secondly if you'd read my rules you might notice the resolution system is set up so that a stat difference of one point changes the roll by half a point (rounded up for actual resolution), which is designed to allow a wider range of representative stats and modifiers. As to switching everything to target score/modifiers the issue is you're tying yourself absolutely to a smaller range of stats, which is going to seriously impair granularity. With compared-stats I can have either stat at any value I want with no limit on the range of values, with roll-modifiers the primary stat has to be between one and seven and the modifier stat really can't be much greater than three for balance purposes, which means we've suddenly cut stats down to a smaller range than 40k today, which in my experience isn't really granular enough.

For the issue of slight modifiers to weapon stats instead of to the marksmanship stat that's a matter of consistency more than anything else, I think it'd rapidly get exceedingly confusing if I include twenty-seven different Heavy Bolters with slight variations on range, strength, rate of fire, whether it's Heavy or not, AP value, et cetera, I'd rather have as few weapon profiles as I can get away with so I can tell the player "This is a heavy bolter" and they know exactly what it does. Seeing as there aren't special rules that say "this unit has +2" range!" writing down the profiles separately wouldn't actually get rid of any complexity in the special rules.

You've explained yourself a little better, yes, but all the changes you're suggesting either are unnecessary with the way these rules are set up or sound on paper but not suited for an adaption of 40k in practice, as far as I can tell. Please keep in mind that one of the design constraints I stuck myself with is that I want to be able to simulate everything you can do in 40k today, there are things in your suggestions I would totally make use of if I were designing something from scratch but aren't suited to the constraints of this project for one reason or another.

Aha.
This is where the difference is then.
You want to re write 6th ed 40k to make it a cleaner rule set.This means keeping a high level of focus on the strategic elements.(Lists building and exclusive rules writing.)

As the current lack of restrictions , reduces the natural in game tactics.So the rules have to have lots of rules to add the strategic complication to make the game interesting at the front end.

Where as I would prefer the loading to be more on in game tactical interaction.(Similar to Epic SM and E.A.)

I will adjust my view point and re read the rules and see if I can make suggestions along these lines...

Hi again.
Are you still using the universal resolution table idea for everything but tenacity/moral?
Why not just roll one dice for Tenacity?Tenacity values of 1 to 6.Roll under the units Tenacity value to pass the morale check.Barrage markers add to the dice roll making the test harder to achieve.

Would you consider dropping the table, and using the stat line directly , or is that too far from current 40k ways of doing things?

Because making all interactions consistent , in terms of dice rolled and resolution methods , makes learning the rules/playing the game much easier.
And having 'X+' as a stat to show the base dice score required to succeed is intuitive, and faster to resolve than referring to 2 separate values and looking up the result on a table.

(Stats can be direct representations of distances, or dice rolled.Target score or modifiers to the target score.This can cover all 40k interactions.)

Tenacity is the way it is because I wanted a more reliable probability distribution and I wanted the ability to apply more modifiers to it; 1d6 for morale is something GW incorporated into the Lord of the Rings game, where it's pretty much the entire point of the game, I didn't want it to be that central to this.

In terms of using the statline directly I actually tried that initially but I found I'd need to add several more stats since you can't easily have a stat that's both offensive and defensive that way; strange as it seems, the current system is actually faster.

Hi again.
Using a D6 for a morale check does not automatically let it dominate the game.How you determine the effects of a morale test decides how important it is.
If a failed morale test meant the unit automatically routes and counts as destroyed,it would dominate the game.BUT if the failed morale test just mean the unit was suppressed (limitation to actions ) for the turn it would not.

If you want to have irregular / disproportionate distribution of results by using SDT of 2 D6, instead of linear and proportional results of 1 dice results for morale , because 40k does fair enough.

I agree its better to separate offensive and defensive stats.
That is why I wanted to use the units weapons profile to list the 'offensive stats' of the unit and the unit profile to show the 'defensive stats'.
(This way we include the units abilities in the 'effective range',' Ap','damage' ,'attacks' profile of the weapons they carry.As strength is only used as a base to determine weapon damage , why not just list weapon damage directly?)

I find it hard to believe looking up 2 values, THEN looking up modifiers that may apply to BOTH these values, THEN comparing them on a chart, to find the roll required for success.

Is faster than looking at a target score immediately ,(and using it straight away if no modifiers apply.)And just adding modifiers to the target score/ dice roll as required.

EG
What do I need to hit?

I have a shooting skill of X, what is your evasion stat?
Oh its Y.Are there any modifiers?
I have targeters, that +1 to my shooting skill at long range , you are in cover and over 36" away.Thats + 2 to your evasion stat.
What is X=1 and Y + 2 give us on the chart?
Ok I need Z to hit.

Compared to ..
What is your Stealth skill? 4+.
What are the modifers?You are in cover and over 36" away, thats 6+ to hit.(4+,+1,+1.=6+)I have targeters,(+ 1 to dice to hit at long range) so I get +1 to my dice roll.
I hit on a 5+

If you want to use charts and tables because 40k has them , and so this is more familiar to 40k players that is fair enough.

This is the only reason I can think of to use them instead of using the stat line directly.
As dice results and modifiers have the same effect in both systems, and the same level of granularity.

Using the statline as you've described it requires stats to be constricted to a tiny range, requires splitting up Combat Skill into two new stats, and it doesn't actually change complication with regards to the number of modifiers except that it makes any modifier gigantic, which is part of what I'm trying to avoid.

I've tried both systems. I stuck with the one that worked better in playtests. I don't know if it's in theory simpler, better, or more efficient but I do know that it works better in play and it's much, much better for unit granularity.

In general, I think that your rewrite of 40k might be a little too complete. It may not be a perfect system, but 40k exists in 2 phases (the core rules, and the codexes). I was hoping for a core-rule rewrite that didn't require a complete rewrite of all of the codexes as well. I understand that you made the intentional choice to not do that, and I understand that choice, but it makes your job much, much more difficult.

Attempting to judge your rules without extensive playtesting. I have some feedback.
1) I would prefer an activation methodology where players take turns moving/attacking one unit at a time.
2) Command radius: I don't like this mechanic. I prefer 40k's current coherency model.
3) I love your AP mechanic, but I think that the effect of ward saves isn't great. I suggest that you compute armor saves like this:
Max ( Base Armor save - AP of attacker + Warding of defender, Base Armor save)
So an armor save can never be better than the Base Armor save. AP still reduces armor save, but warding saves are replaced with a factor that cancels out AP. This preserves the ability to have something like demonic invulnerability, and also increases the importance of AP, but you still only get to roll one save. A demon could have the stat Armor: 5+, Warding:10. A space marine could have Armor: 3+, Warding: 1. A terminator could have Armor: 2+, Warding: 2.
4) Because you are pitching these rules to 40k players, I would add a aka to each of the stats where described at the top. I agree with your terminology being superior, but because many of the stats match up 1-1 it would be good to have that. For Example: Marksmanship (Ballistic Skill)
5) I don't like your Pinning mechanic. It requires too much book-keeping. Because units tend to run into each-other keeping pinning markers separated is a problem. If a pinning mechanic is important to you, then I suggest a binary state. A unit is either Pinned / Not Pinned. Pinned = -1 Marksmanship.
6) Medics have a very uneven effect. If a large squad is attacking a small squad they don't have a lot of impact. If a small squad is attacking another small squad they have too much impact. Therefore I suggest that Medic be a USR like this: Medic (5+). Which means for each wound the medic can heal it / cancel it out on a 5+. I understand that this is essentially exactly like the 40k mechanic of Feel No Pain, but I think that works ok.
7) Equalizing wounds is needlessly complex in its wording. It seems like you are trying to take the grunts first before characters. If that is the case then call it "Wound Allocation", and say "Wounds are allocated to the cheapest model in the unit. If there are multiple models at the same cost then allocate to the nearest to the source of the attack.
8) Moral Tests. You are essentially saying that moral tests = Tenacity - # of units who shot at them - # of wounds + Leadership >= 2D6. I don't think you need this mechanic. If you want it, I think you should simplify the wording, and perhaps remove modifiers. Perhaps a simpler modifier would be one based on remaining unit size. If 1/4 of unit is gone Tenacity - 1. If 1/2 of the unit is dead Tenacity - 3 If 3/4 of the unit is dead Tenacity - 5.
9) Leadership. I would drop your Leadership mechanic, but if you want to keep it I would change it to "Inspiration" and make it a special rule. And grant the "Fear (x)" special rule to certain units. If in the combat range of a unit with Fear(2) then you have to take a tenacity test -2 or flee. Inspiration gives you a bonus to these tenacity tests. For instance, Walkers could have a Fear(2). Hive Tyrants could have an Inspiration(10) to simulate the Hive mind's willingness to sacrifice cannon fodder without regret.
10) Compute to Hit. This is way, way too complicated. Too many modifiers. Consider applying Cover as a modifier after you've done the to hit calculation. Marksmanship:4 vs Evasion:3 = 3+ -1 for soft cover = 4+. Skimmer/Flyer movement could be cover.
Honestly I don't know how to simplify this sufficiently.

Anyways, there are some initial thoughts.

tag8833 wrote:
In general, I think that your rewrite of 40k might be a little too complete. It may not be a perfect system, but 40k exists in 2 phases (the core rules, and the codexes). I was hoping for a core-rule rewrite that didn't require a complete rewrite of all of the codexes as well. I understand that you made the intentional choice to not do that, and I understand that choice, but it makes your job much, much more difficult.

Attempting to judge your rules without extensive playtesting. I have some feedback.
1) I would prefer an activation methodology where players take turns moving/attacking one unit at a time.
2) Command radius: I don't like this mechanic. I prefer 40k's current coherency model.
3) I love your AP mechanic, but I think that the effect of ward saves isn't great. I suggest that you compute armor saves like this:
Max ( Base Armor save - AP of attacker + Warding of defender, Base Armor save)
So an armor save can never be better than the Base Armor save. AP still reduces armor save, but warding saves are replaced with a factor that cancels out AP. This preserves the ability to have something like demonic invulnerability, and also increases the importance of AP, but you still only get to roll one save. A demon could have the stat Armor: 5+, Warding:10. A space marine could have Armor: 3+, Warding: 1. A terminator could have Armor: 2+, Warding: 2.
4) Because you are pitching these rules to 40k players, I would add a aka to each of the stats where described at the top. I agree with your terminology being superior, but because many of the stats match up 1-1 it would be good to have that. For Example: Marksmanship (Ballistic Skill)
5) I don't like your Pinning mechanic. It requires too much book-keeping. Because units tend to run into each-other keeping pinning markers separated is a problem. If a pinning mechanic is important to you, then I suggest a binary state. A unit is either Pinned / Not Pinned. Pinned = -1 Marksmanship.
6) Medics have a very uneven effect. If a large squad is attacking a small squad they don't have a lot of impact. If a small squad is attacking another small squad they have too much impact. Therefore I suggest that Medic be a USR like this: Medic (5+). Which means for each wound the medic can heal it / cancel it out on a 5+. I understand that this is essentially exactly like the 40k mechanic of Feel No Pain, but I think that works ok.
7) Equalizing wounds is needlessly complex in its wording. It seems like you are trying to take the grunts first before characters. If that is the case then call it "Wound Allocation", and say "Wounds are allocated to the cheapest model in the unit. If there are multiple models at the same cost then allocate to the nearest to the source of the attack.
8) Moral Tests. You are essentially saying that moral tests = Tenacity - # of units who shot at them - # of wounds + Leadership >= 2D6. I don't think you need this mechanic. If you want it, I think you should simplify the wording, and perhaps remove modifiers. Perhaps a simpler modifier would be one based on remaining unit size. If 1/4 of unit is gone Tenacity - 1. If 1/2 of the unit is dead Tenacity - 3 If 3/4 of the unit is dead Tenacity - 5.
9) Leadership. I would drop your Leadership mechanic, but if you want to keep it I would change it to "Inspiration" and make it a special rule. And grant the "Fear (x)" special rule to certain units. If in the combat range of a unit with Fear(2) then you have to take a tenacity test -2 or flee. Inspiration gives you a bonus to these tenacity tests. For instance, Walkers could have a Fear(2). Hive Tyrants could have an Inspiration(10) to simulate the Hive mind's willingness to sacrifice cannon fodder without regret.
10) Compute to Hit. This is way, way too complicated. Too many modifiers. Consider applying Cover as a modifier after you've done the to hit calculation. Marksmanship:4 vs Evasion:3 = 3+ -1 for soft cover = 4+. Skimmer/Flyer movement could be cover.
Honestly I don't know how to simplify this sufficiently.

Anyways, there are some initial thoughts.

Part of the motivation for this project included the observation that there are holes in the core rules too large to solve by patching the Codexes or patching the core rules in such a way as to make the Codexes valid, I didn't want to do this by half measures.

Point by point:

1) The issue becomes rewarding players for having fewer units than their opponent here, if I have one gigantic deathstar worth a thousand points and you've got five little units worth two hundred points (numbers are gibberish pulled off the top of my head) I get to attack with a thousand points of guys before you get to attack with more than two hundred points of guys. Alternating activation works in symmetrical or near-symmetrical games but in 40k the potential spread of number of units is way too big for this.

2) It exists because the current coherency model is hard to explain and hard to keep track of on the battlefield; it's simpler, more visible, and shorter to check in practice.

3) The first incarnation of these rules did have a system not unlike what you suggest here but it ended up being essentially a linear one-number scale with two numbers and added extra complication to no purpose. As to the effect of ward saves right now they cancel between 17% and 50% of all wounds that get past armour, mathematically they've got a pretty significant effect on gameplay.

4) Presentation suggestion acknowledged, that may make it into a future draft. Not using GW's names for stats is mostly there as a way of distancing my rules from theirs.

5) The point of the Pinning mechanic as it exists there is to make command models (Sergeants, Captains, the like) more relevant to gameplay than merely beatsticks. Right now the mechanic seems to work without overmuch bookkeeping in play but that's mostly because the largest test I've done is one-Platoon-per-side with about thirty models a side on the table so I don't know how well it scales; I'll get back to you on this one.

6) The way medics work in 40k right now the capability/attention of a given medic scales with the size of the unit he's in which doesn't make a lot of sense to me; I wanted Medics to have a flat effect regardless of unit size to go along with the implementation of advisers as Independent Characters so a Medic giving an entire fifty-model Conscript blob FNP is less ridiculous. I'm slightly confused about your assertion that they'd have an "uneven effect" as is; seeing as Medics act once per phase instead of once per time the unit's attacked they don't have an easier time blocking fire from multiple small units than they do blocking fire from giant units. Could you clarify?

7) Wording is not final and immutable by any means; the intent is to allow the defender to pick who goes down to represent models grabbing their squadmates' kit and to keep a Sergeant in play as much as possible so all the other rules dependent on having a squad leader still work. I acknowledge it may not make a lot of sense worded as is and will flag it for grammatical revision posthaste.

8) See #5, add to that a remark to the effect that a flat Tenacity test modifier for the Space Marines getting shot at by one squad with lasguns as opposed to the Guardsmen squad under fire from half a Space Marine Company doesn't make a lot of sense. In tests this has been intuitive and functional, though as in #5 I don't know how well it scales yet so it may well change.

9) I'm not sure what to say here that hasn't been covered in #8 and #5.

10) See long arguments with Lanrak above for an explanation as to why the resolution mechanic is the way it is; yet again this has worked fine in small tests but I have no idea how well it scales. Almost everything in there is there because it is (weirdly enough) the simplest way I could work out to do something; the only thing that's easily cut without needing to write in a whole new subheading of the rules to cover some situation I wanted to simulate more simply is probably the higher ground bonuses to melee.

Thank you for the comments; I hope I was able to explain myself effectively.

A few quick clarifications and responses

 AnomanderRake wrote:
1) The issue becomes rewarding players for having fewer units than their opponent here, if I have one gigantic deathstar worth a thousand points and you've got five little units worth two hundred points (numbers are gibberish pulled off the top of my head) I get to attack with a thousand points of guys before you get to attack with more than two hundred points of guys. Alternating activation works in symmetrical or near-symmetrical games but in 40k the potential spread of number of units is way too big for this.

A solution that I stole from Bolt-action or another WWII game. Get tokens of 2 colors one for each player. That player places the number of token in a bag equal to the number of units he has on the board. Draw a random token from the bag, and allow whoever owns that token to activate a single unit. That Way if I have 20 units, and you only have 7, then I'm going to have a much higher chance of activating my units first.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
2) It exists because the current coherency model is hard to explain and hard to keep track of on the battlefield; it's simpler, more visible, and shorter to check in practice.

I don't think the current coherency model is hard to explain or keep track of at all. Certainly not as hard as a radius around a special character in every unit, forcing the unit to move in a blob or circle. But YMMV

 AnomanderRake wrote:
3) The first incarnation of these rules did have a system not unlike what you suggest here but it ended up being essentially a linear one-number scale with two numbers and added extra complication to no purpose. As to the effect of ward saves right now they cancel between 17% and 50% of all wounds that get past armour, mathematically they've got a pretty significant effect on gameplay.

By making warding a separate save it makes you roll more dice, and triggers everyone's fears of a 2+ rerollable.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
6) The way medics work in 40k right now the capability/attention of a given medic scales with the size of the unit he's in which doesn't make a lot of sense to me; I wanted Medics to have a flat effect regardless of unit size to go along with the implementation of advisers as Independent Characters so a Medic giving an entire fifty-model Conscript blob FNP is less ridiculous. I'm slightly confused about your assertion that they'd have an "uneven effect" as is; seeing as Medics act once per phase instead of once per time the unit's attacked they don't have an easier time blocking fire from multiple small units than they do blocking fire from giant units. Could you clarify?

So imagine my unit of hormagaunts with a little bug medic (4) has been attacking your unit of marines with a medic (5). At first when there are 30 HGaunts and 10 marines, there are a lot of wounds in the wound pool (15-20). So the medic has relatively small effectiveness. Now after a few rounds it is down to 10 HGaunts and 4 Marines. Now we are talking 6 or so wounds after each attack. The medic has a much larger effect. But, lets imagine that we are down to 2 HGaunts + medic bug vs 1 marine + medic. These two forces essentially can't hurt each other, because any wounds inflicted are healed by the medic. The medic is critical at this level because it is making the combatants invulnerable from damage.

tag8833 wrote:
A few quick clarifications and responses

 AnomanderRake wrote:
1) The issue becomes rewarding players for having fewer units than their opponent here, if I have one gigantic deathstar worth a thousand points and you've got five little units worth two hundred points (numbers are gibberish pulled off the top of my head) I get to attack with a thousand points of guys before you get to attack with more than two hundred points of guys. Alternating activation works in symmetrical or near-symmetrical games but in 40k the potential spread of number of units is way too big for this.

A solution that I stole from Bolt-action or another WWII game. Get tokens of 2 colors one for each player. That player places the number of token in a bag equal to the number of units he has on the board. Draw a random token from the bag, and allow whoever owns that token to activate a single unit. That Way if I have 20 units, and you only have 7, then I'm going to have a much higher chance of activating my units first.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
2) It exists because the current coherency model is hard to explain and hard to keep track of on the battlefield; it's simpler, more visible, and shorter to check in practice.

I don't think the current coherency model is hard to explain or keep track of at all. Certainly not as hard as a radius around a special character in every unit, forcing the unit to move in a blob or circle. But YMMV

 AnomanderRake wrote:
3) The first incarnation of these rules did have a system not unlike what you suggest here but it ended up being essentially a linear one-number scale with two numbers and added extra complication to no purpose. As to the effect of ward saves right now they cancel between 17% and 50% of all wounds that get past armour, mathematically they've got a pretty significant effect on gameplay.

By making warding a separate save it makes you roll more dice, and triggers everyone's fears of a 2+ rerollable.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
6) The way medics work in 40k right now the capability/attention of a given medic scales with the size of the unit he's in which doesn't make a lot of sense to me; I wanted Medics to have a flat effect regardless of unit size to go along with the implementation of advisers as Independent Characters so a Medic giving an entire fifty-model Conscript blob FNP is less ridiculous. I'm slightly confused about your assertion that they'd have an "uneven effect" as is; seeing as Medics act once per phase instead of once per time the unit's attacked they don't have an easier time blocking fire from multiple small units than they do blocking fire from giant units. Could you clarify?

So imagine my unit of hormagaunts with a little bug medic (4) has been attacking your unit of marines with a medic (5). At first when there are 30 HGaunts and 10 marines, there are a lot of wounds in the wound pool (15-20). So the medic has relatively small effectiveness. Now after a few rounds it is down to 10 HGaunts and 4 Marines. Now we are talking 6 or so wounds after each attack. The medic has a much larger effect. But, lets imagine that we are down to 2 HGaunts + medic bug vs 1 marine + medic. These two forces essentially can't hurt each other, because any wounds inflicted are healed by the medic. The medic is critical at this level because it is making the combatants invulnerable from damage.

I'll have to do the math on the alternating unit activation setup you suggested but I don't like that it's a setup I'd have to do more math on in the first place; I tried to break up A goes/B goes by interspersing phases better, I don't know how well it scales (I should come up with a shorthand for this, I seem to be saying it so much) but in tests I've done it seems to keep both players engaged during the other guy's turn fairly well.

On the subject of unit coherency it's easier to visualize at a glance and in practice a coherency circle of 8" for most armies is going to be two hundred square inches of space for ten square inches of model base area in a ten man squad so formations are fairly flexible; it hasn't been tested with many horde armies today but Guard do multiple small units rather than giant squads, Orks' individualistic tendencies and lack of a formalized command structure might lend itself to a larger command radius, and it's not hard to assume Tyranids would have some sort of Synapse upgrade to pump command radius, so I don't see it being too much of an issue. The goal here is less to restrict model formations and more to force people to move a little more intuitively as opposed to Kroot conga lines and other silly things of that sort possible in 40k. My biggest worry is that it'll make blast weapons useless since models can move further apart; it may get reverted back to something that looks more like 40k at some later point but it hasn't seen enough testing to say at this point.

As to fears of a 2+ rerollable I've hardcapped Ward saves at no better than 4+ (in no army book anywhere is there or will there ever be a way to get better than a 4+ Ward save) and I don't use rerolls to quite the same level 40k does, so that shouldn't be an issue.

On medics and wound allocation it's not going to make the unit invulnerable in practice since you can allocate more wounds to the unit than there are models that can be removed in the unit but I do understand your concern; it hasn't been a problem to date since access to medics is fairly limited but we also haven't had any Red Scorpions armies in the test pool to date; I'll see what I can come up with.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I'll have to do the math on the alternating unit activation setup you suggested but I don't like that it's a setup I'd have to do more math on in the first place; I tried to break up A goes/B goes by interspersing phases better, I don't know how well it scales (I should come up with a shorthand for this, I seem to be saying it so much) but in tests I've done it seems to keep both players engaged during the other guy's turn fairly well.

You know, as I've ruminated over this, I'm starting to come around to your way of thinking here.

If I have a 1000 point death star, that is always going to be the first unit I activate. So even if my opponent gets to activate 2 or 3 units first, I'm always going to have a firepower advantage. Now, I am not a fan of massive deathstar units. I was about to say that the community at large rejects 6th edition deathstar mania, but perhaps I should say instead that it is very divisive.

That leads me to a suggestion I have.

Limit the number of IC's that can join a unit to 1. That would nip most deathstars in the bud. You could still join one IC to a huge unit. For Instance a Tyranid prime with upgrades (200 points) could join 3 Dakkafexes with Adrenal Glands (495). To produce a nearly 700 point deathstar of a sort, but that is mild by comparison to something like Seerstar or Ovesastar.

I generally think that 1 IC per unit is a reasonable limit in most scenarios.

tag8833 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I'll have to do the math on the alternating unit activation setup you suggested but I don't like that it's a setup I'd have to do more math on in the first place; I tried to break up A goes/B goes by interspersing phases better, I don't know how well it scales (I should come up with a shorthand for this, I seem to be saying it so much) but in tests I've done it seems to keep both players engaged during the other guy's turn fairly well.

You know, as I've ruminated over this, I'm starting to come around to your way of thinking here.

If I have a 1000 point death star, that is always going to be the first unit I activate. So even if my opponent gets to activate 2 or 3 units first, I'm always going to have a firepower advantage. Now, I am not a fan of massive deathstar units. I was about to say that the community at large rejects 6th edition deathstar mania, but perhaps I should say instead that it is very divisive.

That leads me to a suggestion I have.

Limit the number of IC's that can join a unit to 1. That would nip most deathstars in the bud. You could still join one IC to a huge unit. For Instance a Tyranid prime with upgrades (200 points) could join 3 Dakkafexes with Adrenal Glands (495). To produce a nearly 700 point deathstar of a sort, but that is mild by comparison to something like Seerstar or Ovesastar.

I generally think that 1 IC per unit is a reasonable limit in most scenarios.

The issue with this is we're starting to get into writing rules with a hole and then patching the hole after-the-fact with an otherwise arbitrary restriction. I'd prefer to make deathstars non-viable through the base rules (as it stands the rule dictating a unit can't get healed by more than one medic in a turn means a deathstar can get focused down more easily than a number of units) rather than make rules that reward deathstars and put "By the way, no deathstars" in the rules.