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

In reality there really shouldn't be many more steps, it just sounds a lot more complicated right now because it is all basically vomited onto a screen.

This weekend is when I'll hopefully have a version 0.1 done and able to send to anyone who wants it. That should at least be much easier to read. The version after that will hopefully have some pictures to make it much easier to understand.

HI folks.
As I am throwing out ideas, to see what you guys like the sound of.
I may not be explaining myself that well..

Just to be clear, rather than have a FIXED BS of 4+.
ALL units with the same BS would have the same effective range for each weapon type within a codex.

EG rather than write BS 4 umpteen times for all space marines.And then write all the ranges for the weapons they use ..
We simply write the effective range of the weapons for EACH unit on the unit card...
I hope that makes it clearer.

Eg a heavy bolter would have an effective range of 40" for all Current BS 4 marines.
ALL BS2 Orks firing Big shootas would have an effective range of 30"
(Actual effective weapon ranges would be fine tuned by play testing in 1" increments.)

So the effective range simply uses the combination of current BS and standard weapon ranges, displayed in a different way.
(The cost for the upgrades from 'standard load out' would be listed on the back of the card along with the rest of the army composition data,as current rules.)

I prefer to use stats directly rather than look up results on tables during a game.
Example...
(Roll to'aquire' instead of 'hit')
What do I need to aquire that unit.
Base Stealth 4+, they are in cover and over 36" away, thats a 6+ Ill need.
Feth that, I might miss!
Ill blast the nearby behemoth, base stealth 3 + 10" away +1 to aquire...
Only need 2+..
'Large Zenos beast 60 yards,200 rounds rapid fire!!!!'


This simple aquisition mechanics adds tactical depth to target selection. You make chioces based on chance of engagment vs threat level.(A bit like real war...)

And damage resolution is...
(Roll to save.)
You have 6 targets in effective range of my bolters AP 5.
And 3 targets in efferctive range of my heavy bolter AP6.
You are AV 2, so you need 4+ to save the 6 bolter hits.
And 5+ to save the 3 heavy bolter hits.

(Roll to wound.)
You failed 3 saves from the bolter fire (Dam 1), so I need 4+ to wound your RV 4 models.
You failed 2 saves from my heavy bolter fire ,(Dam 2) so I need 3+ to wound your RV 4 models.

Similar 3 stage process ,but far more detailed and intuitive , WITHOUT TABLES AND CHARTS.Just using the stats on the unit cards...IN A MORE INTUITIVE ORDER!

Anyhow..
A slow day at work allowed me to think about a game turn mechanic that may be popular.(Similar to the old Epic game turn..)

As the allocatiton of order counters seemed to be acceptable..And we want to define /shedule action/events..

We have the orders.

Fire support. The unit focuses on firepower, and DOES NOT MOVE.Shoots in the fire support phase,(the ONLY phase , heavy/ordnance can fire.) and the END of the advance phase with rapid fire weapons.

Special Movement. The unit will not shoot but moves up to 2X speed.OR Moves into cover. OR moves into close combat.
(Some heavy/ordnance weapons can only move using this order.Large units can only claim cover if they use this order.)

Advance.The unit may move up to 1X speed, and fire non heavy/ordnance weapons.

Game turn.

Command Phase.
Players place orders next to their units on good morale face down.
Players request off table support.(Artillery /air support and reserves.)

Primary Actions Phase.
1)Fire support shooting.. (Players alternate firing with units on Fire Support orders.)
2)Special movement . .(Players alternate moveing units on Special Movement orders.)

Secondary Actions phase.
1)Advance move and fire..(players take turns moving and shooting with units on Advance orders.)
2)Fire support 'rapid fire' shooting.(Players take turns 'rapid firing', with units on Fire Support units.)

Resolution phase.
Rally units on poor morale.
Plot arrivals.

I think this might be a good starting point .Opinions welcome.

As reguard to army composition lists.We will have to rewrite them for a new rule set anyway.So the more straightforward and intuitive the rules we use the better.
(This is why I like to use simple mechanics like beating a stat score, or comparing stats directly.As simple integers scale uniformly.)

Lanrak,

I really like your suggestion for To Hits and To Wounds now. However, that is for ranged combat.

I'm in favor of some of current 40k's rules when it comes to close combat. These are:
-Locking units
-Seperate skill category (BS vs WS)
-Varying number of attacks


To incorporate some of this, I think the new statlines should be:

Ac - Accuracy: the new version of BS
Dex - Dexterity: the new version of WS
Dam - Damage: the new version of S
RV - Resistance Value: the new version of T
W - Wounds
I - Initiative
S - Stealth
At - Attacks
Ld - Leadership
AV - Armor Value: the new version of Sv



Ranged combat is simple:
Accuracy vs stealth
Damage (ranged weapon) vs Resistance Value
AP (ranged weapon) vs Armor Value

Close combat is a little more complicated.
Dexterity vs average of Dexterity and Initiative
Damage (melee) vs Resistance Value
AP (melee) vs Armor Value


Obviously still needs a lot of work and fleshing out/play testing. This allows for a distinction between "fast" melee units and "skilled" melee units. A fast melee unit obviously is going to be harder to hit, but doesn't necessarily mean they are very accurate. An incredibly accurate melee unit also can be easier to hit because they are using an unwieldy close combat weapon.

Units still go in a kind of initiative order as well, but I haven't thought that through yet.




Your turn order idea still has me confused though. How are the counters assigned? Does the unit determine when they would go or does the commander? What happens if one player has vastly more units than the other (e.g. player A has 5 units player B has 8)?

I'm in favor of giving the orders to a unit, as far as having 4 actions to choose between and giving 2 in a certain order. Making it so you can move-move, move-assault, shoot-move, move-cover, shoot-cover, etc. That's an idea I'd like to move forward with. Breaking it down into primary action - secondary action might be better, but incorporating that into the turn might make it a bit more difficult.

Perhaps each unit has 2 different phases of actions to choose between?
Maneuver phase - Move, Brace, Cover
Action phase - Shoot, Assault, Run

Assaulty units would likely Move - Run until they were close enough, then Move - Assault.
Tactical units would likely Move - Shoot or Cover - Shoot.
Heavy gunner units would Brace -Shoot (letting them rapid fire weapons or shoot heavy weapons)
Scouts could Cover - Run to move stealthy, or Cover - Shoot to snipe, or even Cover - Assault for things like a Lictor.

As allot of the ideas I am suggesting are far from current 40k rules, I do need to explain things better...

I think the ranged combat proposed covers the current ranged combat requirements quite well.
(Adding an accuracy skill may add more complexity without adding meaningful resolution.Could we add more stealth/aquisition modifiers and achive similar results?)
Using a D10 or D12 or D20 would give aquisition rolls higher definition, and as its UNIT to UNIT, not a roll for every model in a unit, it can have more detail -modifiers perhaps?

I agree a bit more detail may be needed for the close combat resolution.
However...
I was hoping the unified weapon stats , would go some way towards defineing close combat ability.

Eg the number in the 'Effect value' shows how many 'hits' the weapon/user inflicts,(or the area of effect for blast/template weapons.)
I wanted to use common stats for all weapon types.(And common stats for all unit types.As this reduces the amount of rules we need to use.)

Models with better agility have higher value in Effect(Hits)

Models with higher strenght inflict higher damage,(brute force).
And those with higher WS have better AP values.(Find weak spots.)

Eg several models are equipped with a 'close combat weapon'.

Grotz have AP 3, Dam 1/ effect 1

IG have AP4 Dam 1/effect 1

Assault SM have AP5 Dam 2 Effect 2

Banshees have AP4 Dam 1 Effect 4

Because we can adjust the AP,(WS) Damage(St) and amount of effect(hits) depending on the user.I though this would cover current skills in 40k ,by a simpler method?

I probably did not explain the unified weapon stats that well...

I agree units should be locked in close combat untill resolved.
Skills are already covered....
BS - effective range of weapon, WS is AP of Close combat weapons, St is damage of close combat weapons, and effect is Attacks with close combat weapons.

However, an 'assault value' may be a good idea , to determine the order the units fight in(Initiative replacment ?)

The game turn...
In the command phase the force commander(player) tells the units under their control what they want them to do by issueing orders.
Placing the relevant order counter face down next to their units.

This makes the players think about what units should do, and in what order...taking into account the likely actions of the opposing units.

Because units are activated in order sequence, fire support then Special movement, then normal moving and shooting.Assigning orders is where tactical decision making comes in.

Eg
Alan activates one of his units on Fire Support , then Bob activates one of his units on fire support.
After all the units on fire support have been activated, (fired ranged weapons.)

Alan activates one of his units on Special Movement orders, then Bob activates one of his units on Special Movement orders .
After all the units with Special Movement orders have been activated..(Made special movements..)

Alan moves and shoots with one of his units on advance orders, then Bob moves and shoots with one of his units on advance orders.
When all the units on Advance orders have fired and moved..

Alan fires rapid fire weapons with one unit on Fire Support orders, then Bob fires rapid fire weapons with one unit on Fire Support orders..
When all units on Fire Support have fired ....

Resolution phase...

If you think vastly different unit numbers is going to cause imballance, then Alternating phases could be preferable to you?

I am happy to explain any ideas in more detail if needed..

Still a little unclear as far as turn order, but the unified combat rules are starting to make some more sense.

I do tend towards a D6 system because... well I have a ton of D6 and not really any others because although I have quite the depth of gaming knowledge, my breadth is lacking.


Now, back to the game turns.
So I understand that at the beginning of the turn, each player puts down a counter saying what each unit is going to do. After this is where I tend to get a little lost.

Who goes first? Is it a roll off or is it defined in some other way. I'm heavily against rolling off, because some armies almost press an "I win" or "game over" button depending on what they roll.

In what order are the units activated? Does the owning player just pick which unit to activate one at a time, or do the fire support units go first, then advance units, etc. This is a little more like what I was planning.


I do favor the initial activation system that I was thinking, but I really like what you were saying on the different actions. I was hoping to get your opinion on merging the two via the maneuver phase and the action phase.

In my system it'd go:

Reserves arrive
Maneuver phase
-start at activation step 20 and work down
Action phase
-start at activation step 20 and work down
Resolution phase
-resolve assaults and morale checks

Though it looks like it would take a while, in reality it wouldn't. It'd take roughly the same amount of time it does now. It'd also eliminate any chance at imbalance due to MSU armies potentially having significantly more units, which seems like an advantage with your system.

 rabid1903 wrote:

Reserves arrive
Maneuver phase
-start at activation step 20 and work down
Action phase
-start at activation step 20 and work down
Resolution phase
-resolve assaults and morale checks

The problem with this is that there is little reason to choose to go at a higher activation step in the Maneuver phase. I think that the maneuver phase and the activation phase should just be lumped together, as the 20 steps seems useless if there is no tactical decision involved.

Overall, I like the core idea of this ruleset.

I'd still like to keep them in two separate phases if at all possible, but am very willing to change my stance on this.

A way we might be able to do that is forcing them to act at the same activation step in the maneuver phase and the action phase, with maybe the exception of the warlord and the unit he has joined. I like the idea of a warlord, I just think that GW went about it the wrong way (i.e. it should never be random, it's supposed to represent the player on the field).

Hi rabid1903.
How about the player that picks deployment area is the 'Defender'. And the other player is the 'Attacker' and activates first.
Would that be ok?.(Or dice off to see who attacks and defends if you can't decide...)

Ill have a go at explaining the game turn again.(It is so much easier with actual minis , counters and a tabletop.. .)

The players take it in turns activating units , ONE UNIT at a time.
EG Attacker then Defender then Attacker then Defender then Attacker ...etc.

The orders given to units determine activation priority..
Fire support shooting ...followed by specialised movement,... followed by normal moving and shooting ,.. followed by additional shooting from fire support.

If we allocate colours to the orders.('traffic lights' to give an intuitive order?)

Fire Support is Green,

Special Movement is Amber,

Remaining Actions.(Move and shoot a bit.) Red.

Then the order is:-
Attacker Green , Defender Green , Attacker Green, Defender Green ,untill all units with green counters have fired.
THEN
Attacker Amber, Defender Amber , Attacker Amber, Defender Amber , untill all units with amber counters have moved.(Double speed or into cover or into assault.)
THEN
Attacker Red, Defender Red, Attacker Red, Defender Red, untill all units with Red counters have moved and fired.
THEN
Attacker Green, Defender Green, Attacker Green , Defender Green , untill all units with Green counters have fired second shots ( if applicable).

This game turn allows players to prioritize shooting for some units, movement for others, and let some units move and shoot in reaction to the opponents priority moving and shooting...

The idea is that different amount of units on each side is mitigated by order counters sequencing the action.

The actual choices a player makes in current 40k are replicated here.
Stay still and fire to full effect.(Fire Support.)
Move as much as possible to get into assault/take objective.(Specialised Movement.)
Move a bit and shoot a bit .(Remaining Actions.)

But rather than one army moving then shooting (or running) then moving again into assault.4 actions in total, unopposed.

The units activate one at a time taking 2 actions per game turn.
Shoot to full effect,(2 shots split into 1st and last phases to limit overpowering effect,)
Or Move twice, (or move and assault/find cover)
Or Move and Shoot./Shoot then Move

The counters keep a tally of whats unit have done what.
Placed during Command Phase,turn over as units are activated, then removed after ALL actions completed.

Also if a unit becomes supressed,(shaken) neutralised(stunned) or routed, it replaces the order counter with a morale damage counter.
(White for supressed ,blue for neutralised and black for routing perhaps?)

EG.
Suppressed units can return fire* OR retire at full speed* OR move to cover at normal speed, in the Remaining Actions phase of game turn.

Neutralised units can not move or fire until rallied.(But may fight back in assaults at half Effect.)

Routed unit MUST retire at full speed.

* Returning fire, the unit must fire at the unit that suppresed them or the closest enemy unit.(Only weapons that are not Fire Support(move OR fire ) can return fire.
*Retire at full speed, the unit moves at 2x speed away from all enemy units , and towards the nearest battle zone exit.

I want to give more control back to the players in game.And make the interaction more detailed...

I hope thats a bit clearer.
I can do an actual example game turn if needed?

Thank you, that really helps to explain what you were saying.

I like basically all of it, but what I don't like is pretty hard for me to get over. The advantages of being the attacker vs defender aren't very equal. Which means it will almost always come to a dice-off, making it just like it is now. Granted, it isn't as significant as it is now because units are alternating. However, it is still something I'd really like to get away from.

The counters idea is great, and I plan to incorporate that.

The command phase can be assigning counters (done with a hidden counter, like a base with a color on the bottom), reserves arrive, and any special effects (like weather) happen.

The action phase is next, where units can be activated similar to what I was saying before. However, if there is a tie (which will be very common) it goes based on the action decided during the command phase vs. a dice-off. If there is a further tie, then dice-off and alternate as normal.

Finally is the resolution phase. Assaults are conducted, morale checks are made, the different kind of morale conditions have their effects, etc.



This method leaves as many tactical decisions as possible to the commander, and out of the hands of dice rolls.


Here's a quick example (using semi-accurate values):

Armies:

Marines:
-Captain (Ld 10, I 5)
-Tactical Squad (Ld 8, I 4)
-Assault Squad (Ld 8, I 4) (In reserves)
-Devastator Squad (Ld 8, I 4)

Orks:
-Warboss (Ld 10, I 4) (joined the Nob Squad)
-Nob Squad (Ld 8, I 3)
-Boyz Mob (Ld 7, I 2)
-Lootas (Ld 8, I 2)



Command Phase:

Assault squad deep strikes in, Initiative dropped to 0 for activation step.

Marine player assigns counters as such:
-Captain - Amber
-Tactical Squad - Red
-Assault Squad - Amber
-Devastators - Green

Ork player:
-Warboss/Nobz - Amber
-Boyz - Amber
-Lootas - Green



Action Phase:

Step 15 – The Captain is activated. He shoots at the Nobz, then moves to be within 6” of the Tactical Squad.
Step 14 – The Warboss is activated with his squad. They double move to close the distance.
Step 12 – The Devastator Squad and the Tactical Squad are activated. The Devastators are green, so they go first and shoot at the Nobz. The Tactical Squad follows by moving and shooting their rapid fire weapons at the Nobz, and joining with the Captain.
Step 10 – The Lootas are activated. They shoot using fire support and shoot at the Devastators.
Step 9 – The Boyz mob could be activated. However, they are not going to be within assault range now and think the Assault Marines are going to charge the Lootas. So they pass on step 9.
Step 8 – The Boyz mob waits a second step to see what the Assault Squad does. The Assault Squad is activated. Just like the Ork player thought, they charge the Lootas.
Step 7 – The last step the Boyz can be activated at. They are activated, and charge into combat with the Assault Squad.



Resolution Phase:

The Assault between the Lootas, Boyz, and Assault Marines is conducted. We’ll say the Lootas are eliminated, the Boyz suffer X casualties, and the Marines suffer Y. X > Y so the Marines take a leadership test and fail. They are now Routed and must flee combat.

The Devastator Squad then takes a morale check because they took 25% casualties to see if they are suppressed. They pass.

The Nobz Squad then takes a morale check because they took 50% casualties to see if they are neutralized. The Warboss if fearless so they auto pass this test.



End of game turn.

I feel like given the two armies and the situation, this is how it *should* work in a real battle. Though granted, this is only one example.

But most importantly, the order in which things happened was at no point random. Each commander picked exactly what he wanted his army to do, and when they were going to do it. They were restricted on certain things, but the commander always had some kind of choice in the matter, even if none of the options were to their liking.

Hi again.
I know you want some sort of 'numerical count down' , to sequence unit activation.

The problem with this is if units have a massive difference in 'LD and In values'
This could lead to some armies taking lots of activations while the opponent just waits and removes casualties...a bit like the current rules.And I realy want to move away from this.
(Unless I miss-understood?)

What is wrong with letting the players chose the order they activate their units in the Fire Support, Special Movement , and Remaining Actions phases?
This gives players more tactical control, they decide what actions the units take , and what order their units activate in...

I don't see the value in making Attacking or Defending the prefered choice.Leaving it up to player preference would ideal IMO.

(I think a lot of preconceptions from the current 40k rule sets heavy strategic focus, no longer apply to a more tacticaly focused game.)

.

I kind of see what you are saying, but obviously there is going to be some things lost in translating it to text that at best gets a response in a few hours.

I think that the Ld and I values are close enough between armies that there won't likely be an alpha strike army in every game unless a player specifically designs an army for that. In addition to that, this allows for certain modifiers that will really help avoid it being so one-sided.

Primarily where an advantage can be taken is with shooting. That is where one player just sits there while the other takes off casualties. This can happen in assaults as well, but likely won't until roughly turn 3 (turn 2 with a few cases and turn 1 very rarely).

To avoid this, these modifiers will really help.

1: Vehicles are obviously going to have a low initiative. Though they are fast, they can't just turn around and react instantly like infantry.
2: Heavy weapons will reduce initiative and can only be fired with a fire support action. Not a dramatic change, but enough so a vanguard unit is a little faster than a support unit. It's not game breaking by any means.
3: Rapid fire weapons are already going to be lowered a little in power because they can't move and shoot unless they use a red token.
4: Deep striking knocks your initiative to 0 for activation. Certain special units will retain their initiative (like lictors, vanguard vets, etc.)
5: To balance assaults with shooting, there is only one assault phase that is shared between the two players. This also helps reward units that bulldoze through instead of becoming too good at assaults and getting shot up in your opponent's turn.



I was actually saying the opposite of what you thought I said. I think attacking and defending should be equally preferable. Right now, attacking let's you go first when alternating. Defending just lets you pick which side to deploy on. The choice seems obvious to me which one players will want.

I think we may have been talking at cross purpouses a bit.

I can NOT see the need for the addition of numerical sequencing to the turn structure.

Having played similar systems , (Epic Space Marine/Net Epic for a better known examples.)

Allowing the players the control the order of activation of their units, simply allows them more tactical flexibility , in the slightly more ridged order counter/phase structure...

An example .Allan has An IG force, and Bob has an Ork force.

Allan(Defending )..
Assigns Fire support (Green ) orders to his ,Heavy Weapon squad , and 2 Leman Russ battle tanks.
Assigns Special Movement (Amber) to his HQ unit , Sentinels and Iron Fist squad...
And leaves his other infantry platoons on Remaining Actions.(Red.)

Bob.(Attacking.)
Assigns Fire Support (Green) to his Big Gunz and Lootaz mobs.
Assigns Special Movement to his HQ (Nob Bikers,) and Trukk Boyz mobs
And leaves his other boys and grot mobs on Remaining Actions ,

Fire Support Phase...
Bob can pick between his Big Guns and Loota units to activate first, depending on what targets are in range, and what threats are apparent..
(Slow Allan's advance toward objectives, or try to prevent one of his units units returning fire, or allow his units to move into an area with less risk.)
He decides to fire his Big Gums on the Heavy Weapons squad,(lots of heavy bolters would threaten his units moving down that flank.)

Allan can now respond in kind ,his Heavy Weapon Squad was supressed by the fire of the Big gunz, so he chooses to fire the Battlecannon of the Leman Russ as a pre-emptive strike
on the Ork HQ Unit , (causing a couple of casualties , but no supression.)As this HQ unit is a real threat to ALL of his units!

Bobs lootaz now pepper the Iron Fist Squad 's Chimera with fire , but fail to damage or suppress it.(Massive sigh of relief from Allan !)

Allan slightly panicked by the volume of fire from the lootaz, decides to sent a Battlecannon shell in their direction with his last unit,(Leman Russ ) on Fire Support order...

Bob decides to move one Trukk mob into the cover of a wood, (no units in charge range!)

Allan gets his Sentinels to move at double speed towards their objective.(Hopefully slow the zenos infantrys approach down some what.)

Bob moves his HQ towards Allan's lines, (hopefully assaulting next turn...)

Allan Backs up his Sentinels with the Iron Fist Squad ....(Hoping to deploy and defend the objective next turn....)

Bob diverts a Trukk mob to try to delay the Sentinels ...

Allan then picks his infantry platoon to move to act as a speed bump between the advancing Orks and his HQ.

Bob moves his Boys Mob up...

Allan decides to take a pot shot at a Trukk with a grenade launcher , just in range...

Bob moves his last Boys mob up towards the IG lines...

Allan has no units in weapons range at this point..

Bob fires both his Mobs Big -shooters , but fails to achive anything ...

I know this may not be that accurate to the current rules ,(I have not played any GW 40k rules since 3rd ed...) But I hope it gives you an idea of how it runs.

It does, and we may be at a stalemate until I can do some play testing.

I feel that making it like the system that I said will help add certain flavors to certain armies. (e.g. changing it so there is a major difference between horde Tyranids and horde Orks who can feel very similar). However, I know that my breadth of experience is limited so I will try to play test it with both methods and see which one is more enjoyable to me.

I think I understand everything that you are saying, and I definitely see where you are coming from. You're right, more tactical flexibility is in the hands of the commanders with your method. However, with my method the force that a commander brings will make a massive difference on their tactical capabilities. I have a hard time accepting that a LRBT is going to be as quick on its feet as a Tau piranha, and am trying to make them play as such.


I feel that this is as far as we can probably go until I play test. On that note, are you willing to continue on to other rule changes?


Next up I was feeling was movement, shooting, and wound allocation. I'll keep it in this thread, edit the first post, and change the title. I don't want to push other threads off the Proposed Rules section.

The command decision making process is pretty much identical in reguards to time taken for most races IMO.
The difference in performance should be represented by the unit characteristics /stats.IMO.

There are other game turn mechanics where the units 'command value' is more important .
EgRoll a dice and add their CV to the dice roll.
If the score is..
Under 6 they can not perform any action.
Over 6 they can perform one standard action.
Over 8 they can perform two standard actions
Over 10 they can perform a special action set.
Over 12 they can double attacks!!

(Morale loss is represented by negative CV modifier , making it more difficult for the unit to perform actions.)
Anyhow next topic...

Movement.
Can we use the simple intuitive and popular method of simply listing the maximum distance the model can move in a movement action?

EG (Values based on 2nd ed 40k.)
A unit that is currently;-

Slow and purpouseful 3"(Ignore difficult terrain)
Normal Infantry 4"
Fleet of foot infantry 5"
Vehicles 6"
Jump packs/jets 8"(loose 2" for every height band jumped over.)
Fast vehicles/cavalry 9"
Bikes 12"

Interaction with terrain.

We can list terrain as ;-
Open , no penalty.
Difficult , -2" from movement rates.
Impassible , can not be moved through .

OR
We could list mobility types.
Legs, Wheels, Tracks , Hover(A symbol for each, and the relevant symbol on the unit data card followed by the unit speed value in inches.)
And have a 'terrain table' listing the modifiers for each mobility type.This means wheeled vehicles get bigger bonuses from roads,and bigger penalties from rubble and light woods.

Eg
Roads..Legs +1",Wheeled +2", Tracked +1" and Hover +0
Rubble..Legs-1",Wheeled -2" , Tracked +0 and Hover +0

Ill leave it there for your comments and ideas...

At first I was hesitant about the mobility types. Then I read your example and it really reminded me or Advance Wars. I love that game and never would have thought about incorporating it.

It's pretty late right now so I can't think too much into that, but tomorrow if I get bored at work I'll give a lot more comments.

Basically though I was going to break it down as such:

Infantry
Beast
Vehicle
Hover

Infantry covers all infantry and walkers.
Beast covers beasts as normal, infantry riding beasts (cavalry), and monstrous creatures.
Vehicle covers all ground based vehicles with the exception of walkers.
Hover covers all skimmers, flyers, and jumping infantry/monstrous creatures.

Fleet adds a flat distance to movement.
Move through cover halves the negative modifier of terrain.
Fast/Lumbering/Normal vehicles have set values for their movement.
Slow and purposeful has a set reduction in distance, or affects their initiative for activation steps depending on which method I think is more fun.


I'll think more tomorrow, but these are the first things that come to mind.

The current 40k rules seem to add pages and pages of rules, due to having lots of seperate rules for each different type of model.(Exclusive rules writing.)
To reduce the rules bloat, we need to write rules to cover ALL units in the game, in the most straightforward and intuitive way possible.(Inclusive rules writing.)

Currently from a game mechanic point of view there are 2 types of unit in 40k.
Those that remove models to show casualties, and those that record damage seperatley.

Yet GW seem to be able to create 14+(?) artificial unit types.

Most of these artificial differences are down to mobility.(And using seperate damage resolution for vehicles and other units..)

These are easily covered with a stat that shows the maximum distance the unit moves when takeing a movement action .
How the unit moves.
And LIMITED SPECIAL ABILITIES!!!

E.G.
Amphibious,(A) The unit ignore movement penalties for water features.

Difficult terrain modification,(D) The ingnore movement penalties for difficult terrain ,( rubble , light woods, built up areas,) etc.
Can be a Bulldoser bade on a vehicle, lighter equipment on a scouting units, or the bulk of a large monster simply bashing/stomping through...

Jump Jets/packs (J) , The unit can 'jump' over terrain and obstacles, but lose 2" of jump lenght per height band .Jump jet equipped vehicles may make 'pop up attacks' if stated in units notes.

Chimera (T) 6" (A)
This vehicle moves as a tracked unit, up to 6" per movement action.And ignores movement penalties for water features.

Dreadnought (L) 6"

Space marine (L) 4"

Eldar Ranger (L ) 5" (D)

Tau Battlesuit, (L) 4" (J)

Carniflex, (L) 6"( D)

Ork Bike (W) 12"

Eldar Jet Bike (H) 12"

Rough riders (L) 8"

We could use a simple stylised symbol for the Mobility type and mobility special abilities on the unit card.To better define the information presentation...

If we did use the terrain type /mobility type movement modifier table, it would give a reason for choosing many different types of vehicle..Eg Warbuggies and bikers take roads and hard ground route to target.(+2 to movement value.) And the Wartracks and Deffcopters cope better with rougher ground /difficult terrain..

Anything to help define units 'character in game' and have a wider range of tactical reasons for unit choice , is good IMO.

I see what you're saying, and I think certain things can be combined in order to give units the same type of feel they have now.

Every unit fills in these categories:
Movement type
-Legs
-Tracks (including beasts)
-Wheels (including cavalry)
-Flying

Size
-Small (swarms)
-Infantry (Most single wound models)
-Large (Most multi-wound models, small vehicles)
-Monstrous (Monstrous Creatures, Vehicles)

Type
-Biological
-Mechanical (includes Necrons)

This effectively gives you 32 different unit types depending on these combinations; however, it still makes the rules super simple.

Here are examples of each (or at least the ones I can come up with, help would be appreciated haha).

Mechanical
---Legs
------Small – Scarabs
------Infantry – Necron Warriors
------Large – Wraiths
------Monstrous – Dreadnought
---Tracks
------Small –
------Infantry – Ork Warbuggy
------Large – Rhino
------Monstrous – Land Raider
---Wheels
------Small –
------Infantry – Bikes
------Large – Ork Trukk
------Monstrous –
---Flying
------Small –
------Infantry – Necron Destroyer
------Large – Stormtalon
------Monstrous – Stormraven
Biological
---Legs
------Small – Gretchin
------Infantry – Marines
------Large – Ogryn
------Monstrous – Carnifex
---Tracks
------Small – Rippers
------Infantry –
------Large – Raveners
------Monstrous – Trygon
---Wheels
------Small –
------Infantry – Rough Riders
------Large – Herald on a Chariot
------Monstrous –
---Flying
------Small – Sky-Slasher swarms
------Infantry – Assault Marines
------Large – Tyranid Shrikes
------Monstrous – Harpy


Incredibly rough right now, but gets the point across.

Most don’t even require a rule given that each unit has a movement value. All it will need is a table that can summarize everything. Plus certain weapons will be more effective vs certain types. For instance, a Railgun is absolutely devastating to vehicles but in reality wouldn’t damage a Trygon as much. On the other hand, flamers wouldn’t do a whole heck of a lot to a necron warrior but should be a Termagant’s worst nightmare (if they slept).

This would also help significantly with creating the new rules for each unit. For instance, you look at a Tau Fire Warrior and can tell it’s biological, legged, and infantry sized. With that, a certain range of values is a given, and it should be in a certain point range.

The basic concept is the units characteristics/stats, tell the story.

A player can simply look at them and know EXACTLY what the unit is how it works and how it interacts with other elements in the game...(I do not want to rely on any 'extra special ' rules, like 40k does.)

Here is a rough outline of the Unit data card I am thinking of..

Unit name.

Mobility (How the unit moves and the maximum distance the unit can move.)

Armour value.(How well protected the unit is .)

Resistance value.(How hard the init is to damage

Stealth value.(How hard the unit is to spot on the battle field.)

Wounds /Structure points (How much damage the unit can take.)

Assault value (Used to determine who strikes first in close assault.)

Morale value of the unit (How willing the unit is to fight on...)

Command value of the unit leader( Or Character/monster.)

Simply by looking at the unit card
You can tell if -
The unit is organic(has wounds ) or mechanical (has structure points )
Is infantry (Legs and a movement rate of 3 to 5")
Is cavalry/beasts (Legs and a movement rate of 8")
Is a bike (Wheels and movement of 12")
Is a Jet bike (Hover and movement of 12")
Is a walker (Structure points, Legs Movement rates of 6")
Is a Tank (Tracks Movement of 6" high Armour value.)
Is a Monsterous creature (Wounds high resistance and a movement of 6 -8")


All the stats are the same type across all units.So you can compare units to units easily .
Because the stats are a simple numbers we use directly in the resolution.
The weapons profile for the units tells you how the unit is armed and how good they are with those weapons.By listing the direct effect in game.

I agree this should make 'defining and balancing ' units easier .

Here is a rough outline of ranged combat...

The unit leader (or attached character) or model if a single model unit, is the model that chooses a ranged target.
All ranges are measures from this models base or hull, closest to the target.

After declaring the intended target point all units within 6" of the target point are available to aquire.
The attacker rolls dice equal to its command value , and rolls that beat the modified stealth value of the target unit(s) sucessfully aquire the target units.

ALL attacking models in the attacking unit may fire on models in the AQUIRED target unit(s) if they are in weapons in range.

Eg.
A Space marine vet Sgnt (CV 2) trys t aquire a large mob of Ork boys (St 5) with a KillaKan Mob (St 4) next to them.
The SM Vet Sgnt picks a target point so the Killa Kanzz And Boysz mob can be aquired.

The Vet Sgnt rolls a 6 and a 5 , and aquires both target units.

The Sm with the lascannon (Er 42" AP 16 Dam 2) is in range of the Nearest Killa Kan AV 11, Rv 5 Sp1 each)
And the Killa Kan takes a save roll needing 5 or more to save .(AV 11 needs 5 + to beat AP of 16)
And fails, the Sm then tries to damage the Killa Kan , needing a 4+ to cause damage (2+4 or higher is greater than RV of 5)

The 4 marines Including the Vet Sgnt that are in bolter (Ap 6 Dam 1)range of the Ork boyz mob(Av 1,Rv 4 W1 each ) unit open fire.
The Orks need 5 +to save , and make 2 saves.The Sms then roll 2 dice to wound the boys needing 4+

Allowing a radius of 6" around the target point allow the unit to split fire between nearby enemy units, in a straightforward way that s not to over powering .IMO.

Ye that sounds good it seems more confusing than now.

 rabid1903 wrote:
Every unit fills in these categories:

(Stuff)

This would also help significantly with creating the new rules for each unit. For instance, you look at a Tau Fire Warrior and can tell it’s biological, legged, and infantry sized. With that, a certain range of values is a given, and it should be in a certain point range.

This is great. It would really help streamline the game, and delete exceptions, and exceptions to exceptions...

Hi guys...
The problem is with any new ideas expressed JUST in the written format, it can make them look complicated ..(And I have the nack of mucking up my explanations.. )

Here is a comparison between the (C)current shooting and (P)proposed shooting so you can see the actual differences..
(Ill call aquisition roll the targeting roll as it may make more sense to more people.)

(C) Attacking unit picks a target UNIT in range and declares a Ranged attack.

(P) Attacking unit leader picks a TARGET POINT and declares an attack.(Targeting an area of battle field with enemy units in.)
(This allows a unit to engage multiple units within a reasonable distance of each other.Allowing splitting of fire without special rules.)

(C )The attacking player rolls to hit with every weapon in range. based only on BS.

(P) The unit leader rolls to TARGET enemy units units around his targeted point.(Less rolls but more detailed resolution.The size disposition and distance to the target are taken into account without multiple special rules.)

(C) models that are hit , have damage rolls made against them.
Weapon strenght vs target toughness using a seperate chart.OR if they are vehicles compare modified weapon St vs AV .

(P) Models in a sucessfuly Targetted unit that are IN RANGE OF WEAPONS of the attacking unit, take an armour save roll.(AV +D6 vs weapon Ap value used directly .) (The same for ALL units.)

(C) wounded models take an armour saving throw, Or a cover save,Or a invunerable save,OR roll damage table roll if they are a vehicle ,and can apply several special rules during or after normal resolution.., FNP, or WBB etc...(How many resolution methods in total?)

(P) Models that fail the saving throw are supressed. If the attacker beats the models resistance value (weapon damage +D6 vs RV.) the model takes the amount of damage the attacker beat the AV by.

NOTES...
They are both 3 stage resolution methods.
Targetting . saving rolls and rolling to damage.

The proposed rules are better because ..

Resolve the process in a more intuitive way.
Target, armour saves then wounds.
As Opposed to
Target, wounds then saves.

Uses the same resolution methods across all units.(So is simpler to learn and easier to use.)

Also allows for more definition in the targeting of units, as there are fewer rolls(one per unit rather than one per model)And so can have modifiers without getting too time consuming.

And allows free choice to the player , take a risky long range shot with a lascannon, or let rip with a storm of bolter fire at a nearby enemy infantry unit. WITHOUT artificial targeting restrictions...

And remember all the info for your units is on an easy to read and use reference card, no need to flick through codex books looking at umpteen poorly defined special rules ...

I hope that explains the new shooting rules a bit better...

SUMMARY.
Target ;-Roll over target units stealth value.(With modifiers.)

Armour save, roll a dice and add your models AV. If its equal of higher than the weapon damage you make your save!

Damage roll.Roll a D6 and add your weapon Damage Value. If its over the target models Resistance Value , it takes damage equal to what you beat its RV by.

This is not overly complicated is it?

I don't really like that method personally. It works well for certain situations, but not for others. For instance, what would a gaunt brood use as their sergeant? Also, it makes it much more all or nothing. All or nothing works well for low shot weapons/squads, but what about a guardsmen blob? Either you roll 60 dice this turn or 0, and the point of taking so many shots is for consistency.

I think just making it so each unit uses their BS vs enemy's stealth skill is just fine. It makes it really simple, and modifying for excess range, cover, etc. is super easy.

I think that targeting an area is a good idea, it negates the stupidness of multiple small unit strategies.

I am with rabid that the acquire target rule might be a bit too variable.

I like the movement types idea. Could I suggest that legged things can move over obstacles shorter than their legs without penalty, and then some sort of penalty kicks in later. (this means that something like a defiler or hive tyrant would step over walls that might slow a gaurdsman) .

When you have modifiers, like wheeled unit moving faster on a road, under what circumstances does the modifier apply. It could be:
-unit moves entirely on road (or whatever) this turn
-unit moves mostly on road this turn
-unit moves a x inches on road this turn
...
Which were you thinking off?

Hi Dast.
I was thinking of the majority of a models movement would determine bonuses. EG A bike moves 2" onto a road then 10" down the road it gains the bonus 2" movement.
But any difficult terrain inflicts penalties even if the unit spend 1" of their movement moving across difficult terrain.

Using common sense to determine unit terrain interaction is neccissary.Your example of a long legged walker simply stepping over a low fence is a great example . I have found talking about the battle field terrain before hand and sorting this sort of thing out is much better than trying to write a comprehensive list of unit and terrain interactions...

My reasoning for the new targeting was making the 'unit leader' more important.As most units in 40k have a unit leader.This would be a good idea IMO.

In the case of Tyranids, we simply explain the slight difference by saying a brood has a brood leader, the gaunt that recives the hive mind instructions and chitters the commands to his fellow gaunts ..and whos sensor y synapse responces are monitored by the hive mind.

I can totaly understand the reservations about using the proposed targeting rules as they are significantly different 'This type of mechanic is used frequently in large battle games , but usualy with smaller scale models .(15 to 6mm.)And in these games the large number of units may make it more practical.

I thought it may be suitable for a game of 40k size but on reflection it probably needs tweeking...

rabid 1903.
You make a valid point.

How do you feel about this modified system...
The attacking 'unit leader' picks the 'target point' as before..And the attacking models in the unit EACH roll to target the enemy models within 6" of the target point and within their weapons range.

This allows targeting multiple units, splitting fire , but gives you more granularity of result similar to the current rolling to hit.

I would like to use 2 resolution methods.(Direct reading is not included, e.g. how many inches you can move or how many dice you roll.)
1) Compare Stats to determine dice score required.
2) Modified target stat to determine dice score required.

If we are going to use a modified target score for targeting.Comparing stats (BS vs St) AND modifying seems to be too complicated.
We could simply add modifiers for things like targeters, marker lights , gitfinders.(eg the slight variation that using BS in a comparative way would achive.)

Are you O.K. with the proposed armour save and damage resolution ?(AP vs AV+ D6 and Dm +D6 vs RV)

I can offer more alternatives if necissary.
I try to start with the simplest solutions I can think of, and add to them if and when required.

Excellent input of ideas and comments so far IMO .

I'm trying to think through one thing at a time, so the new damage resolution I'll get to in a bit.

I haven't heard any good reason why not to use the movement rules I set out before, so I'm going to roll with that and now we can start working on making the rules/table for that. Difficult terrain obviously is an immediate modifier, and every 6" after that also reduces. Beneficial terrain is the opposite: after 6" you get the benefit.

Here's an example of a biker that move 24" (not sure how, but go with it haha).

Grass (no pen) Woods (-2 for bikes) Road (+3 for bikes)
Bike|-----------6"------------|-------------10"-------------|-----------8"--------"


There are the 24" the model moves; however, he doesn't actually move 24".

He starts by moving 6" as normal.
(6" moved, 18" left)
Hits the woods, and loses 2" of movement.
(6" moved, 16" left)
After 6" of woods, he loses another 2" of movement.
(12" moved, 8" left)
He then hits the road, moving another 6" and gaining an extra 2".
(18" moved, 4" left)
Then he finishes the move.
Total move 22".




On to shooting!

I do agree there needs to be some sort of counter to MSU. Two guys standing next to each other should be the same as one squad of two. To counter this, I think it should go to a spill-over type system. The commander can choose to have shots spill over into the neighboring units, but doing so reduces BS by 1 and the highest toughness and stealth values are used. Any squad can be spilled over into so long as they are within 6", and the shooting player picks the order they are spilled into.

Squad A shoots at squads B with a spillover into C.

Squad A has 20 bolters in rapid fire range, at BS 4.
Squad B has 5 models, Stealth7, T 3.
Squad C has 10 models, Stealth 6, T 4.

Squad A then rolls to hit, using their own BS of 4 vs the highest stealth value of 7. Additionally they are -1 to their own BS.

20 hits (4-1 + D6 >= St 7)

20 hits at Strength 4 vs Toughness 4 now.

10 wounds

Squad A then rolls batches of armor saves similar to differently armored units now. After rolling 5 dice, he fails 3. Then he rolls 2 dice, failing 1 more. Then he rolls 1, passing; again, failing.

So now 8 dice have been rolled for wounds. Squad B then takes their spillover saves. They roll 2 dice, and remove casualties.

A bit more complicated, and limited in it's uses. But man would it wreck MSUs. Two squads of 5 units is not much more survivable than 1 anymore, and has the chance at giving up extra kill points. However, trying to game the system and shooting at gaunts with a spillover into a Hive Tyrant won't end near as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also,

Lanrak, did you get my PM by chance?

I feel like you'll a better job summarizing it than I will, and I can put it in the first post to help people comment.

Hi rabid1903.
I like your idea for movement resolution
I think the only problem with having to move 6" before you get the bonus is if the unit has not got a movement of 6"...
Slight modification on you exellent idea...

How about the penalties and bonuses are applied as soon as the unit hits the edge of the terrain .
But bonuses only apply if they remain in the terrain that gives them bonuses , or spend at least 3" of movement in that bonus giving terrain.

Bonuses do NOT stack and are only applied once.penalties are applied every time and do stack.

EG a bike unit moves
Across open ground for 4"(+0).
Then across a road for 6"(+2)
Then across difficult ground for 2"(-2")
Then across open ground for 4"(+0)
Then across a road again for 4"(no modifier for this as its been applied already.)
Then across open ground for 4".

The only reason I suggest this is that if you apply bonuses every time the unit is on a road, TFG will just hop on and off the road to stack movement bonuses.
(We all know some Asshat will always find ways to abuse the best intentions of the guys writing the rules...)

The reason I went with a target point /area, is so units with low model count (and invariably better training,)can split fire as well as units with high numbers.
And from a concept point of view is a bit cleaner..(iMO.)

You method of spilling over appears to be engineered current to rules to stop current type rules form being taken advantage of by MSU.

Just read your PM, sorry .

Ill do a full explanation of the proposed game turn and its benifits next time I post...

I beleive you misunderstood Rabid's suggestion. In his example the -2 inches for the woods was applied as soon as the bike entered. It was applied again after every 6 inches more.


You make a good point about the hopping on and off the road.


Perhaps to counter msu:
Overkill- If you wipe out a unit with shooting, and their is an overkill number of wounds x, then x models of the same type are removed that lie within line of sight and range. (chosen by the player being shot at).

This still doesn't help with the hive tyrant and gaunts, but I think its neater with multiple units of the same type.

Alternatively:
If their is an overkill of x, then all units in x inches of the wiped out unit must make leadership tests.

Ahh, I probably did mis- understand.
This is the problem with communicating in the written word.(If we were round a games table we could thrash stuff out in a couple of afternoons! )
Ok so..
Movement penalties are applied as soon as the unit moves into the terrain feature. And for every distance of 6"(or movement speed , which ever is lower.)moved in the terrain feature.

Movement bonuses are applied as soon as the unit has moved at least 3" (or half their movement speed which ever is higher,)in the terrain feature.And only apply once per movement action. (Irrespective of how far or how many times the unit moves onto a terrain feature that give movement bonuses, only the largest bonus is applied once.)

As reguards targeting ...

What is more in synergy with the 40k background...

Devastator marine squad , Sgnt 2 heavy bolters and 2 lascannons,
The sergeant detect zenos on his auspex, a mob of Ork Boys and supported by a mob of Killa Kans on its right flank...

Sergent Barks out the orders...
'Raiziel and Argonus, purge the ravening hords of zenous scum with heavy bolter shells, Asriel and Guis, turn those mechanical abominations in to a smouldering testiment to the emporors wrath!

OR..
Well I know we could fire at different units with different guns, but I dont think its very sporitng, do you?Which of you nice gentle men would like to shoot now..
Oh how kind, But I belive we shot last shooting phase its your turn now.
But you are closer, please take your shots now we dont mind honestly
Well if you are sure then.... ?

Allowing a unit to split fire on nearby target units ,just seems sensible to me.As it allows hits/saves and wounds/damage to be allocated on the seperate units from the start.
Rather than calculate wounds on one unit then try to transfer them to a unt that may be vastly different ...

Causing panic in nearby units is a bit arbitary.
Using you own argument about my original targeting idea.You either cause panic or you dont, its a bit all or nothing!

If we let the 'unit leader' pick a target point and let models in the attacking unit in weapons range target the enemy units in the target zone.(Within 6" of the target point.)
It just allows more flexibility than pick a specific unit then roll to hit models in that unit.

Anyhow moving on...

I would like to give players a higher level of involvement in the game play, by letting them make decisions on multiple levels .(More tactical thought then current 40k.)

Strategic level
Pick the units and load out for your force.

Then draw a random mission, from the mission deck of cards.

Deploy your force as you see fit.

Tactical interaction.
Every command phase players issue orders (place order counters face down ,) to units on good morale .
This represents the CiC telling the units under his command how he wants them to deal with current actual and percieved threats.
And the unit leaders giving tactical commands to their unit for the next burst of fighting.

Knowing that opposing units can act and re-act to your forces actions , makes the game more involving and dynamic..(Rather like the background of 40k reads..)

While this activation of orders is happening the players STILL retain control of the order they activate units in.
This represents the CiC timing an attack, linking units to support each other, of worldly wise unit leaders waiting for the right time to strike.
(Something that would be lost if activation was purley controled by an arbitary value like initiative.)

The current action options of 40k are still represented , but are decisions made at the start of the game turn and opposed directly by enemy activations.
Rather than made up as you go along unopposed in a very counter intuitive way like current 40k does.

The orders are ..(Traffic light colours used to sequence actions.)
Fire Support (Green.) The unit does NOT move but concentrates on making ranged attacks.(Direct fire, calling in a bombardment, or making ranged psychic attacks.)
(Odjob Da mek sayz 'Green for gunz!')

Advanced Movement,(Amber.) The unit does NOT make ANY ranged attacks but , moves at up to double speed, or moves into cover or moves into assault.
(Odjob Da Mek sayz 'Amber for Assault!)

Reserved Actions.(Red.) The unit may move up to its normal speed , and fire weapons.(Apart from Fire Support Weapons which can not move and fire.)or may shoot then move.
(Odjob Da Mek sayz, Red is for Right you lot get a Zoggin move on!)

During the activation phase players take turns activation units.
They MUST activate units in this order..
Fire Support orders first.
Then Advanced movement
Then Reserved Actions.

ALL units on Fire Support must be activated before units on Advanced movement orders.And ALL units on Advanced Movement must be activated before units on reserved Actions .
If a player has more units on Fire Support orders than his opponent, he activates all the units on Fire support , then the opposing player activates their units on Advanced Movement first.
ALL units on Reserved Actions must be activated before the last shots of fire support.

EG
Command Phase.
Issue orders,and call in *off table support.(Request *reserves/air /artillery support.)

Activation Phase
Players take it in turn activation units on
Fire support orders,
Then Advanced Movement
Then Reserved Actions.
Then last shots of fire support .(Non Fire Support weapons only.)

Resolution phase.
(Resolve close assaults(if necissary), Rally units(if required.), *plot arrivals(if applicable..)

If reserves and air/arty attacks have been sucessfully requested.(Rolled high enough.)
Their intended point of arrival is plotted(4 markers 3 dummies one real) or unit placed on the table.This allows ther effect to start at the start of the next turn .Which doesnt disrupt the flow of the game as much as out of sequence events...

A long post ..Ill stop there for ideas and comments...

Hopping on and off the road actually would be a detriment to TFG.

Beneficial effects on take place AFTER 6", not as soon as they enter. So if TFG hopped on and off he wouldn't get any bonuses because he'd never spend more than 6" on the road.



Dast I really like your alternative. Here is my take on it, let me know what you think.

Unit A shoots at unit B, with unit C within 9" and unit D within 12" (of B).

Unit B suffers 12 unsaved wounds, and there are only 7 models in the squad (x = 5).

y = x * 3", every squad within y takes a morale check. For every excess 6" the squad is -1 to their leadership.

So in this example, y = 15. Unit C would take a morale check at -1 to their leadership, unit D would just take a morale check.

This isn't likely to be game breaking, but would provide a disadvantage to MSU besides extra kill points. It also still lets the commander use an economy of force and not try to overkill the crap out of a unit, because that doesn't result in more casualties than if a smaller unit took out the remaining models.

Hi rabid 1903.
I mentioned the actions of 'TFG' in respect to my reasons for the capping of bonuses in my alternative,using smaller movement distances.
So units with lower movement speed than 6" could qualify for movement bonuses.(3" to 12" movement speeds.)

Using a 'panic in nearby unit' mechanic , works for the 'over kill' of a unit ,if you use the restriction a single target unit per ranged attack.
But is this not more complicated than simply applying hits to the models targeted by the attacking models?(All enemy within a 12" frontage ,including enemy models of different units.)

I am trying to use the rules that represent the action in the most straight forward way.As to allow for minimum pages of rules and maximum game play.

If you use a panic mechanic, then you may have to write rules for units that ignore panic in lesser units.(Eg Ork Boys ignoring Grot panic,Nobz Mobs ignoring Boyz and grot units panicing, etc.)
Otherwise a weak unit panicing ,could cause much stronger expencive units to panic unrealisticaly?

Where as direct damage automaticaly adjusts for the unit types(models) actualy hit by ranged fire.

Are you OK with using movement speeds of 3,4,5,6,8,and 12" ?(Based on 2nd ed Movement .)

Or are there a different range of values you want to use?

I had currently planned on making the minimum movement 6" for all units. Then Slow and Purposeful could potentially reduce it past that, but ignore terrain or something. I'm not familiar with the 2nd ed movement ranges, but these were the ones that I had in mind.

Legs - 5-7"
Tracks - 8-12"
Wheels - 12-20"
Flying - 12-30"

Fleet - add 2"
Slow and Purposeful - subtract 2"
Move through cover - negative terrain modifiers are halved, no dangerous terrain tests.

Each unit will have their own movement characteristic, but can go outside of that by gaining special rules as noted above. Most units that have these rules now will lose them (like a Trygon) because they're movement characteristic is covered by the ranges above. However, this allows for things like a WAAAGH! adding fleet, so every unit moves 2" farther.


A panic system will require some more brainstorming, but I think it is still the best way to go. Also, with two blanket rules we can solve a lot of the panic problems:
-Fearless units never panic.
-If the size of the unit (swarm - infantry - large - monstrous) is larger than the unit that was wiped out, they don't panic.



On another note, I didn't end up having the time to play test the new phases this past weekend. Hoping for this weekend! My play time is always really limited because of my schedule, so if anyone on here is willing to play test it would be immensely helpful. The way I was planning on donig it was making a quick survey to answer after each game.

Hi rabid 1903.
If we are going to put a units movement speed as a characteristic.
Why not just use the net value ?
Rather than say is 6" -2" for a special rule...just say its 4"!

In 2nd ed, Movement stat was used the same as WHFB.(Move up to M stat in inches, per movement action.)
Do not move and shoot with 'move or shoot' weapons, move and shoot , or move up to double speed , (march) or up to double speed into assault(Charge.)
This meant ALL movement happened in the movement phase,(Intuitive.)Not movement phase, shooting phase (run,) ,and assault phase(move into assault)...

3rd ed 40k said every thing moves 6" or D6" in difficult terrain.
And then bloated the rules with all the extra rules to put the variation back!

Mobility type and speed are totaly seperate features. And do not need to be linked.As this can artificialy restrict unit profiles..
(Are we are going to allow Unit Creation rules and Costing criteria like AoA...)

Special Movement Abilities can be covered by 'Ignore One Condition' mechanic.
EG Jump Jets, Dangerous terrain mod, Amphibious, etc can be applied as required to units profile , displayed as a suffixed symbol.

I realy do not like blanket rules that apply finite conditions.
As this is the problem with the current 40k rules , they define rules as finite , then have to list all the exceptions as USR , seperate Vehicle Rules , Codex Special rules etc.
(Leading to massive rules bloat...)

Morale effects including panic(route) shaken(suppressed,) stunned (neutralised.)
Rather than say Fearless units are immune to some morale effects.
Simply give them a Morale value high enough to make it unlikely for them to panic.

EG roll a D6 and add it to the units (Modified) Morale Value,
If the total is 10 or over the unit is on good morale .OK.
If the total is 7 to 9 the unit becomes supressed.
If the total is 5 to 6 the unit becomes neutralised.
If the total is 4 or less the unit routes.

This way fearless units can have Morale value of 9.
So normaly they automaticaly pass morale checks...(9+1 = 10)
BUT if they have suffered over 75% casualties , (-3 to morale value,) are outnumbered (-1 to morale) and out of command range (-1 to morale )
They become suppressed on a roll of 3 to 6,neutralised on a roll of 1 or 2.

They never 'panic and route' , but are not immune to all thats happening to/around them..

Where as Grots on Morale value 6, normaly need to roll a 4 to pass a morale check!
And if in the same condition as the unit above.(-5 to morale.)They need 4+NOT to panic and route, and a 6 to 'get away' with being suppressed !

I think we need more morale states than the current OK or dead/running away..
If vehicles units can be'shaken' and 'stunned' , why not other units?

I probably need to explain that a bit better ...

You're doing a good job explaining things for the most part, some things are just really hard to explain without showing someone with plastic dudesmen.

I don't want to get rid of all the special rules, just condense the vast majority of them and make it so the game doesn't run on them.

With that said, Fleet and S&P are things that can be gained with wargear, one time events, etc. They will be taken out of the profile and replaced with a set value instead of doing it like 6 - 2".

About to head home from work, I'll try to put some more stuff up tonight.

Let's see, where did I leave off.

*Quick note: When we redo the codices, I'd like to try to condense the special rules but not totally eliminate them. For instance: furious charge, counter-attack, and crusader can be consolidated. I don't have a rulebook with me, but there are more examples.


The range of values given for each mobility type are there as a reference for when we start redoing the codices. You can basically ignore them for now, they don't mean anything significant.

I actually disagree with you on fearless. Some things literally do not know fear, while others are just hard to make flee. A good example is a Necron Warrior vs a Tyranid Termagant in synapse. The Termagant knows nothing else besides move forward, there is no retreat and there never will be. A Necron warrior is not fearless, but won't flee unless something significant happens.

Fearless to me means they will never run, never cower, never surrender, and all they know is to fight. A mob of Ork Boyz, Termagants, Daemons, etc all fall into this category.

This also really helps differentiate "fearless" units from "intelligent and battle-hardened" units. That difference is especially important if we end up using my turn system vs yours, because a fearless unit doesn't mean they know what they are doing.


I like there being multiple levels of morale checks (suppressed, neutralized, routed). How to go about this can be as simple as a testing as normal and if you fail by a certain amount you'll break. Or it can be much more complicated. Seeing as how we're trying to go with as simple of a rulebook as possible, I'm leaning heavily towards the former.

Leadership remains a 2D6 test.
If you pass, proceed as normal.
If you fail, you are suppressed.
If you fail by 3 or more, you are neutralized.
If you fail by 5 or more, you are routed.

A test is taken in the resolution phase if you suffered any casualties.
-1 Ld for 25% casualties that turn.
-3 Ld for 50% casualties that turn.
-5 Ld for 75% casualties that turn.

Weapons with the pinning rule bypass suppressed, meaning that if you fail your leadership you are neutralized and if you fail it by 5 or more you are routed.

Close combat bypasses suppressed and neutralized, going straight to routed. This means that if you fail your leadership after close combat you flee, just like now. This also makes it so close combat is a major morale game.




Hopefully this all makes some sort of sense.

Hi again.
I appear to be a bit confused as to what you want to do..

Just a revised version of the current rules, to reduce the amount of 'special rules bloat'..
(Previously done by Big Squig,to great effect.)

Or a complete re write focusing on game play and using the most straight forward synergistic and intuitive mechanics and resolution methods...

Eg writing core rules that cover everything , not just standard infantry units like 40k does...

I have played lots of rule set over the last 20 odd years.
And there are loads of of ways to deliver the game play 40k currently has without as much complication and ambiguigity as the current rules have.

Eg simply explain how the game works.Rather than how WHFB works, then how 40k is different to it.(Special rules.)

Can you let me know what rule sets you are familiar with , so we get some common ground to work from?

Honestly the only rulesets I am familiar enough with to pull from and discuss with any sort of intelligence are 40k (3-6th edition).


The goal of this is basically a mix of a rewrite and a consolidation.

It is a rewrite in the core rules. There is going to be a totally new turn order and many other things. The game will play a little similar to now in the fact that it will look like 40k on the board; however, the players will think through things much different. So basically it is going to look like 40k, but not play like 40k (if that makes any sense).

It is also a consolidation of the special rules. I'm at home now and will create a list of rules I plan on consolidating as an example, but lets avoid discussing those until we've hashed out the core rules. The point of this is to make it significantly easier to rewrite the codices. I'm no codex author and trying to balance over a dozen codices is going to take some serious work.

The current plan that I have is to take each codex, make the new unit profiles, and apply the new special rules. After that is accomplished I can give some sort of attempt to balance them. Granted, I don't know if I'm going to have the motivation to do that unless I get some help or the Dakka community loves it (I enjoy what I'm doing, but the work of balancing codices isn't going to be worth it unless people play).

I'll take a look at what Big Squig did, as I'm not familiar with it. If I like what I see, I'll contact him/her and ask their permission to use it.


Let me make another post after I've thought through the special rules. Hopefully what I've said makes sense, it's really difficult to take what I'm thinking and tell someone about it (and even more so to do it through text).

Hi rabid1903.
I did not mean to come across as negative in my last post.

The problem is if you have only been exposed to 3rd to 6th ed 40k rule sets.It can be a bit difficult to make objective decisions about how to proceed as reguards to re-writing the rules to cover the desired game play.

Its a bit hard to explain...
Imagine every one you talk to swears all the time on every other word. ''...Another 'kin' day,another 'kin' dollar..''

When some one speaks without swearing it sounds strange...all the information is there , in a more concise format.But you are used to the 'noise' of the swearing.

Special rules in 40k are like frequent swearing .Lots of gamers expect them even though often they add no actual value to the rule set.

It is possible to write a rule set that covers all the game play of 40k without 'special rules' that subvert, replace, add on to the core rules in a counter intuitive way.

MOST good games allow 'special abilities'
They, modify the dice roll. OR They allow a re-roll, OR They ignore ONE condition.

A rule set without 'bad' special rules is far easier to balance and tweek.

I would prefer to use the most straightforward mechanics and resolution methods first.Then add special abilities (rules) IF NEEDED.
Not start by including 'special rules' out of a sense of familiarity.

I am aware of how difficult it is to convey complex ideas in the written format.But we have lots of time ...

If we use the most suitable game mechanics and resolution methods , we should be able to keep special rules to a minimum.
(3rd ed removed the movement stat and added 7 times the pages of rules to explain the 'simpler' movement with ' special rules' )

I didn't think you were being negative at all, and even if you need to be in future posts you don't need to worry


I see what you are saying (that analogy was hilarious and perfect).

Let's ignore special rules for a while then, but not totally rule them out (not saying you are). For instance, let's design the morale system now. When we get to part 3 and are doing special rules, we'll come up with some or incorporate them (like fearless) for the new system.



So, let's try to reel this back in to the topics at hand.

Part 1 is done to the point of needing play testing. I've got another shot at doing that this weekend, let's hope I can do it and make a decision.

Part 2 is what we're working on now.
-Movement is done
-Shooting needs some work. The two directions we're coming at differ so much that I think we should hash more of it out before I try to play test the two.
-Wound allocation we haven't even touched on.
-Morale we've done a good amount on, but it's in a similar situation to shooting.

Part 3 we shouldn't even start discussing yet. It includes assaults and special rules. These will be where we can really start giving new unit profiles because we will have all the previous stuff taken care of.




With that said, let's try to sum up what we've thought for shooting.
Option A (what I'm thinking).
Roll a D6 per shot (similar to now).
BS + D6 => Stealth value
Both BS and Stealth values can be modified (think like pokemon you could lower oppenent accuracy or increase your evasiveness, or vice-versa).

Advantages:
-Allows for a lot less all-or-nothing scenarios, and more average rolls.
-A squad's sergeant doesn't make the rest of the squad more likely to hit.
-Similar to the game now, and easy to pick up.

Disadvantages:
-Not incredibly intuitive.
-Will take longer than option B, especially when calculating modifiers.


Option B (Lanrak's ideas, let me know if these are right)
Pick a target point.
Roll a D6, add ballistic skill and subtract opponent's stealth.
Any units in the target bubble are targettable to full effect.

Advantages:
-Splitting fire without any excess special rules.
-You know what to roll every time.
-Intuitive.

Disadvantages:
-Potential to be broken.
-Tendency to be all-or-nothing.



These are what I've gathered so far, please let me know if there is anything I should change/delete.

Ill just re state my version of ranged shooting.
You made a valid point about ALL models shooting individualy being important for 40k and I agree.(I modified my original suggestion.)

The Unit Leader/Character picks a 'Target point' .
The models in the attacking unit may EACH 'Target' enemy models within 6" radius of this point.IF they are in effective weapons range.(Roll to 'Target' instead of roll to 'hit'.)

The Targeting roll is simply based on the targets Stealth value.(Modified for distance and disposition of units.)
(Comparing BS to St and modifying both values is more complicated and gives similar results to just modifying ST.)

I wanted to represent BS with the NET effective range.(Better shots hit things further away.)

This way the unit leader decides where the unit shoots and the individual models select their targets.

Models are targeted starting with the models closest to the attacker.Models in the open are targeted before models in cover/obscured.

Damage Resolution.

Weapon and Armour Interaction.

If a model is Targeted sucessfuly .It is automaticaly 'hit'.(Targeting rolls replaced rolling to hit.)
So the next stage is for the targeted model to roll a saveing throw.

Roll a D6 and add the models Armour value (AV)
IF this value is higher than the weapons Armour Penetration (AP) Value the model takes NO damage.

IF this value does not beat the weapons (DV), the model it MAY take damage.

The new saving throw is proportional to the targets (AV) and the attackers weapons (AP). (Not fixed.)

IF the target FAILS its SAVING THROW, it MAY take Damage.

Resolving Damage to models after armour is penetrated..

The Attacker rolls a D6 and ADD their weapons Damage value.
If this value is HIGHER than the targets Resitance Value, the target takes damage .(the damage is equal to what the attacker beats the targets Resistance value by.)

I think we can use the AV vs AP & Damage vs Resistance to resolve damage in ranged and close assault , covering ALL weapons and units.

I hope this explanation is a bit clearer.

Just a quick post.
In the resolution of ranged combat above, I wanted to keep the basic 3 step interaction that is used in current 40k.

Roll to hit,
Roll to wound,
Roll to save.

But refine it to cover all unit weapon interactions , add MORE detail, and make it more intuitive.

Roll to hit.(Fixed X+ roll, that ignores all elements apart from attackers BS.Which IS BS IMO. )

Is replaced with Targeting roll.
This is based on the targets Stealth value .
The higher the Stealth value of the target the harder the unit is to target.(Spot identify bring weapons to bear.)
Simple modifiers , are used to modify the chance of successfully targeting the enemy unit, like distance to target, cover, special equipment etc.

So this is more detail in the first roll of the 3 stage resolution.(But does away with all the extra rules 40k uses for cover, vehicles, and some USRs etc.)

I belive its more intuitive to roll the armour save first.
If the hit bounces off your armour , no need to roll for damage.
A direct comparison between the damage of the weapon hit and the targets armour value , gives scalable proportional results.(More Intuitive.)

The damage roll , uses the same mechanic of direct comparisons of stats.

This system is more intuitive, and allows more tactical game play.
With the added bonus of constant graduated scaling.(Which makes improving game balance much easier. )

is there anything that is unclear , or any problems you can see?

I think I see what you're saying about the new aiming process, but I feel that it is substantially more suited to lower point games/lower model count.

Additionally, I meant to put this earlier but what happens if you just want to target a single unit. You'd be guaranteed to hit if you put the "target" directly on a model, because even if you roll atrocious and have a 0" bubble to target you will still have that unit targetted.

If you changed it so only models in the target bubble can be hit than you can snipe models out of a unit incredibly easily, and units that have a huge number of shots will be limited on what models they can kill.


I'm having a really hard time being swung to that system vs the system that I was saying.



Now, onto doing damage.

I agree that it should go:
hit - armor - damage

For armor, I think simply making it so the defender rolls similar to what you're saying will be very easy and intuitive.
Armor + D6 > AP of the weapon (1 on D6 always fails).

*note: this also makes it so a simple conversion can be made from current 40k stats.

This allows the defender to "save" units. I like that when my units are being hit, I feel like I actually have a shot at defending them.

After the armor roll has been made, we go to a damage roll.

The chart I made earlier in the thread is what I was planning on using.



Now then, with those changes a few things happen:

-There is a difference between heavy armor and tough units.
-Weapons can be geared towards different units incredibly easy. For instance, a melta gun can have very high AP to make it punch through any armor; however, it can now have lower strength to show that it isn't the ideal weapon to take out a monstrous creature. A Nob's Big Choppa isn't exactly an ideal anti-tank weapon; however, it makes hurting infantry a cake walk.
-The defender still has the feeling of "saving" their units.
-Easy conversion of stats from current 40k.
-There is always the chance of something failing, but things should generally perform how they are designed.
-I also planned on keeping instant death in the mix. I think it's a good addition personally, and a great way to counter multi-wound models.


Just like you said; the same process can be used in close combat, just using a different process to hit.



Here are some example values that I briefly came up with:

conversions:
RV = T or T + 1 (for MC) or current side armor - 8
AV = 7 - Sv or current front armor - 7

Trygon (decently armored, but very tough)
RV - 7
AV - 4

Tau Fire warrior (average armor and toughness)
RV - 3
AV - 3

Terminator (fantastic armor, decently tough)
RV - 4
AV - 5

Rhino (lightly armored vehicle)
RV - 2
AV - 4

Land Raider (the heaviest armored vehicle out there)
RV - 6
AV - 7

Leman Russ (very heavy armor, second only to the Land Raider)
RV - 4
AV - 7



As for weapons, they can then be balanced around what they are supposed to do. For instance, a melta gun is the premiere anti tank weapon. It would have a very high AP that would go straight through most armor (say 9). However, it would only have an above average strength (say 6).

Against a Land Raider, the defender could save on a 3+. Realistic to me if they were at range, but say they were in currenty "melta" range. If that were the case it could be something as simple as making them reroll.

Assume the defender failed. Now with a strength of 6 the roll to damage is now a 4+. If we just keep the # of hull points that we have now and translate them to wounds, then mision accomplished.


Here are some sample special rules that help things fit into their category:
Armorbane - Mechanical targets must reroll their armor save
Fleshbane - Biological targets must reroll their armor save
Tankhunter - +1 St vs Monstrous Mechanical units
Monster hunter - +1 St vs Monstrous Biological units
Poisoned - Reroll to wound vs Biological units
Melta - Reroll to wound vs Mechanical units

These are all incredibly simple modifiers that take no time at all but show what a weapon is meant to do.



Obviously this still needs some work, but it's the general idea.

HI rabid.
As reguards the damage resolution that was the direction I was thinking of...
(As we can simply alter the values to suit the way we want the unit /weapon to behave.+1 modifiers seem a bit redundant?)

All the 're-roll' ones are great !

NEW!Chemical Weapons .(Flame/Acid throwers.) Ignore cover modifier, (bonus vs open armour type perhaps?).

Armour bane, Vehicles must re-roll successful armour save rolls.

Flesh bane , Large Creatures must re roll successful armour save rolls.

Poisoned. Re-roll failed to damage rolls vs biological target.

Haywire Re-roll failed to damage rolls vs mechanical target.

I agree the targeting rules need defining better.
The 12" frontage for targetting allows the attacker to spread their fire.This just sets the maximum.

You are right I need to write the rest of the targeting rules.( )

Attacking models take it in turn targeting an enemy model.(Player picks the firing order and targets.)
Each attacking model/weapon must target the nearest non targeted model in weapon range.
When ALL models in the target zone and weapons range have been targeted.
The closest targeted model can be targeted by another attacking model.

Is this enough?
Or do you want to include ...

Duck Back.
Special models , leaders characters, and models carrying support -heavy support weapons are classed as 'special' where targeting is concerned.
THESE models MAY swop places with a 'normal' member of the unit AFTER the attack is declared. BUT before the targeting starts.
This represents the leader/characters 'sixth sense', stopping them getting caught in the crossfire.
And weapons being picked up by other members of the unit from the wounded.


I was thinking of these for basic targeting modifiers.
Target over 36" away +1 to Stealth value.
Target In cover +1 to Stealth Value
Target using Stealth equipment +1 to Stealth value.(Smoke, Blind , Holo, Camo, etc.)

Target Within 12" +1 to Targeting roll.
Attacker is a 'Scout' Unit +1 to Targeting roll.
Attacker using targeting Equipment +1 to targeting roll.(targeter marker lights , Git-finder.)

These are similar to the to hit modifiers found in most games.
The only difference is the base score is set by the TARGET not the attacker.
(Hitting a Rattling Sniper should be harder than a Land Raider.IMO.)

Original BS is presented on the weapon data as the effective range.
EG Rifle type weapons..
BS 2 18"
BS 3 21"
BS 4 24"
BS 5 27"
BS 6+ 30"

The targeting rules I am proposing use the following ideas.
Better shots hit things further away.
Smaller targets are harder to see.

I think our ideas are pretty similar, but there were a few things I was leaving out until we got to wound allocation. Let me throw those things in now and see if we can narrow this down to one or two similar ideas.


First off, I want to use a new universal chart. I've thought about it a couple times and I feel that this chart would solve a lot of problems.



It's the same chart as before, but instead of S vs T it will simply be rolling player stats vs enemy player stat. The trick to remember the chart is simple:

(For AP vs AV, S vs T, BS vs Stealth, and hitting in assaults)

If the two stats are equal, there should be an equal chance to go in either player's favor (hence 4+)
If the attacker has an advantage by 1 (say S 5 vs T 4), the odds should be slightly in their favor (hence 3+)
The opposite is also true (hence 5+)
Continue this trend until you either are a 6+ a second time (past that you can't hurt them) or are past 2+/2+ because you are so far above its auto.



I think that Template weapons never roll to hit, so cover actually would be ignored for this already

Simply taking BS vs lowest stealth value of target is the way I'd like to go (just because you're a world class assassin doesn't mean bob the new guy next to you won't reveal your position).

With that said, I say that there should be both BS modifiers and Stealth modifiers because different thing obviously effect different stats.

Here are the ones I was thinking of:
BS +1 (for the to hit roll, not effective range) for these things:
--24" excess range
--Markerlights

Stealth +1 for these things:
--Cover (and anything that currently gives it)



Rerolls I think will suffice for making something better or worse at killing what they are meant to. I don't know if I want to make it so things can be rerolled multiple times though.

These were the basic rules I was thinking:
___ bane: reroll successful armor saves
___ blight: reroll failed damage rolls


With the combination of those things, we can represent current rules.

e.g. Tankhunter = monstrous mechanical bane and monstrous mechanical blight
-the defender must reroll their successful saves and the attacker can reroll their failed damage rolls.


Things that currently have stealth, shrouded, etc. will simply have their Stealth values be high enough to represent it.




Now, onto wound allocation. I think it should be a modified form of the current system.

-Models are removed from the front.
-Models are removed from under the template and blast markers.
-Look out sir rolls remain.

On the following turn, using a red counter a unit can do a "recover casualties and move/shoot/charge"

This allows you to pick up any lost weapons, but also represents the chance that another model took the damage instead. You simply replace any of the models that you have with models that you lost, with an equal number of wounds done and no more than the number of models in the unit prior to recovering casualties.

Obviously a fleeing unit can't do this, meaning that their casualties remain. This is appropriate.
When targeting a unit, you're going to aim for the heavy weapon and probably kill that. This is appropriate.
If most of your unit is wiped out, you can still go and pick up the weapon you want and return fire. It's going to take some time though. This is appropriate.
Look out sir means that your sergeant had a brave soul sacrifice them self to protect you, meaning that you can act as normal in the next turn. Now said person might have sacrificed them self, but did it slower meaning you have to pull their corpse off you and will act slower next turn. If you're retreating you won't have this chance and it's less likely that someone would make the sacrifice.


What do you think?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'll post a detailed battle report soon, but option A has been play tested and this is the survey we took afterwards. I played against one of my best friends who unfortunately is not on Dakka.




Better/Worse than current 40k
Random vs In control (1-10)
Static vs Fluid (1-10)
More/Less tactical than current 40k
How "into" the game were you (1-10)
Suggestions:


Friend's responses (played Tau)
Neutral
2
8
Neutral
3
Roll for attacker/defender every turn.

Tyler's responses (played Orks)
Neutral
3
9
Less
6
Choices were frustrating, but not because I was choosing between two potentially bad outcomes. It was frustrating because there wasn't any consistency, and the game didn't feel like it was as good as it could be. Instead it was just "well I want to shoot before him, guess my deffkopta will have to be green this turn and I hope he makes it to next turn".

Well if you think a chart is required.Then a universal chart is the way to go!
(Simply adding a D6 to one stat , to beat the opposing stat, negates the need for a chart though.)

The chart you use is similar the the chart used for S v T, and to hit in 2nd ed.

IF the to hit roll was JUST comparing relative BS to Stealth, then I would use this method, as it is the same as the save roll and damage roll resolution.
But as we are going to use modifiers.....
Using Stealth as a base target score , and modifying it makes it the same as the morale resolution.

We need to keep the resolution methods to a minimum.(IMO.)
Ignoring direct representation, (movement distances,ranges, and number of dice rolled.)

A)Direct stat comparison B)Modified stat and target score.
Are the ones I would like to use...

This is the reason I went for Stealth as a base value modified , to give roll to Target. (Similar resolution as my revised morale system.)

I wanted to transpose BW to effective range , so Models chance to hit is directly effected by their effective range (BS modifier).So models with high BS can pick target further away...
Eg the troopers shoot at the nearest models but the character with higher effective range (BS ) can target a model further back in the target unit.

As I forgot flamers/chemical weapons were covered by templates( ).

I would like to suggest PINNING, cancels out any movement in the target unit during the attack.(NO 'look out sir',or 'Duck Back'.)And ANY model removed as a casualty ,CAN NOT be substituted with another model in the same unit, if the unit is PINNIED during the attack.

This gives sniper rifles and HE bombardments, etc, a special effect, that is completely different to Suppression.

I like your suggested rules of 'bane' and 'blight'.To make weapons better vs specific target types.
I don't think allowing re-rolling re rolls is a good idea.(...'it adds nothing but time wasting , complication, and arguments'...)

Allocation of hits we agree on.(Only you want to use 'look out sir' and i would change it to duck back.Minor difference in terminology/execution..)

The pickling up of support weapons and general sorting themselves out after an attack , could be included in the 'rallying step 'in the resolution phase perhaps?
ADDING the option for 'Re-organising' units that have lost casualties,or out of unit command distance.(Coherance ?what ever its called in 40k.)

SO rallying covers dis-organised units, supressed, neutralised, and routing units. (Pass a successful morale check to rally.)
This way at the start of the next game turn all units states have been resolved, and the players simply make decisions based on what they start with in the command phase.
(I think its a cleaner way to cover this.)

There are lots of ways to arrive at the end game play of 40k.

I think we are headed towards the same destination, but from different starting points.
You start from 40k 3rd to 6th ed, removing over complication..

I start from FoW, Net Epic, Dirtside,etc, adding detail.

I am sure we will meet on common ground, and arrive at a great rule set.

Both of you seem to be very certain on the 3 step damage resolution method. I haven't got a good alternative for 40k (yet) but in other games I have contributed (noticeably simpler ones) I have made 1 step systems that I felt were very successful. (They don't have enough degrees of freedom for 40k though).

Hi Dast.
The only reason I kept the 3 stage resolution, is because it is familiar to current 40k players.
And it allows the current differention between armour saves and toughness.(Ap values and strenght.)

It is quite possible to reduce it to 2 step.(Combining Armour and Toughness together/ AP and Damage values together.)
But in trial games most 40k players wanted the extra step to 'add detail' back in.

Most 'battle' games use smaller scale minatueres.(6mm to 15mm.)And oddly enough 1 and 2 step damage resolution feels fine in these games .

I belive its just a psycholgical barrier with 40k using individualy based 28mm models.Players seem to want skirmish levels of detail in the damage resolution.

My solution was reducing the resolution methods to 2 types.This means we can drop the 'clutter', while keeping the detail high.

I belive the goal is to simply let the core rules cover all the interaction.So the game play increases, while the number of pages of rules falls.

The current level of game play detail is not that high.Its just the awful level of over complication makes it look higher than it actually is.

Sorry, had some stuff come up and didn't have the time to reply.

Anyways, Lanrak.
I am opting for the chart system because it makes it so stats don't need to have a curve to them. If you think about it, every stat has a range from 0-10. If one stat is simply a D6 away, then it must be lower for there to be any sort of value in its meaning. Versus if every stat is 0-10 then there is a lot of versatility, and the range of guaranteed success or failure is much smaller.

If you look at the chart that I made, there are only 21 scenarios where you are doomed to failure. These all make sense because some weapons have no chance at hurting their opponent.

On the other hand, there are only 3 scenarios where you are guaranteed success. They are rare for a reason, and would represent things like a railgun hitting anything not very tough or armored or an earthshaker round hitting spore mines.

It allows certain ranges to consistently mean certain things:
1: trivial
2: below average
3: average
4: above average
5: significantly above average
6: outstanding
7-10: legendary



I do want to have both BS and Stealth be modified because it lets you control both aspects of your units. You'll have to make the choice between moving up to gain extra BS and pump out some more firepower, or moving to/staying in cover to increase your stealth value and take less damage. The game needs to be about tactical choices.

Also by making it so there is the universal chart, we have a massive range of values to use for stealth. For instance, certain units (like the Vindicare, Tau Stealth Suits, and The Deathleaper) should have outstanding stealth values (6-10) because that’s what they’re meant for. However, a Land Raider is not a stealthy vehicle and would have a trivial (1) stealth value. A Guardsman would have a stealth value of 3, meaning that a guardsman shooting at a guardsman would hit on a 4+. But if a Space Marine shot at the guardsman they’d hit on a 3+.

Most every unit would have a stealth value of 3, with small vehicles having a stealth value of 2, large vehicles 1. However, if a unit is in cover, that is increased by 1. If they have the stealth special rule, it is increased by 1, shrouded is 2, both would be 3. Of course stealth and shrouded are going away, but these are just the conversions.

This also allows for certain boisterous infantry to have a lower stealth value. For instance, make Orks have an immensely powerful charge when they WAAAGH, but lower stealth values because they aren’t going to hide or try to use cover effectively.


I think once people learn a trick for the chart, it’s going to be incredibly easy to follow and use quickly. I already have a trick for it, and have shared it already. When it comes time to wound in games I never have to look at a chart and my games move quickly.


Now, onto wound allocation. Specifics I prefer to wait on, and sort those out with special rules. I do plan on having a sniper special rule though that allows a player to pick the target or something like that.

Look out sir (or duck back) I do think should be reserved for characters. Personally I like the addition of characters, I just think they over did it a little bit. Get rid of precision strikes, random warlord traits, and some other things I’m not currently thinking of and I think it will do wonders. Keeping look out sir and changing challenges up a bit I think would be nice. We’ll address those in the next section though.

I like your idea to change it so you can recover casualties in the resolution phase instead of the following turn. I think it might slow the movement down too much if it forced them to stay still. I would like there to be some kind of consequence for doing it, but can’t think of a good one so I’ll drop it.

However, this would be very easy to break if we don’t put restrictions on it.
1. Must have no more models at the end of the resolution as before (e.g. can’t start with 4 models and end with 5.)
2. Must have no more wounds at the end of the resolution as before.
3. Models must remain in original locations, but may be reorganized (think switching models with each other.)
4. This cannot be done if suppressed, neutralized, or routed.
5. This cannot be done if locked in close combat.

I think these are all reasonable restrictions that make sense and will really help avoid breaking the system (e.g. reorganizing to be closer to a unit you want to charge).

Wounds are dealt to the models closest to the firing unit, in range, and in LOS. They are resolved in order chosen by the firing player, but each weapon cannot wound farther than its maximum range (e.g. a bolter can wound up to 24” away, and a rocket 48” away, but the presence of a rocket doesn’t double the range of the bolter.) The firing player elects all the weapons that will be fired, then goes through each group of weapons-checking range, rolling to hit, armor save, and to wound before moving onto the next group.

Here’s an example:
-10 man marine squad shoots with 7 bolters, 1 bolt pistol, 1 flamer, 1 plasma cannon.
-Marine player elects to resolve the flamer first.
-Next are the bolters that are currently in rapid fire range, finishing off the squad. Rapid firing does not limit the range of the weapon, it is a bonus shot if within half range that can still wound out to full range.
-Next is the bolt pistol that is no longer in range.
-Finally is the plasma cannon, which must roll for overheat because it is assumed to have fired but dealt no damage. If the player had not elected to fire the plasma cannon at the start, the overheat roll would not be necessary.



I know this is a massive wall of text; it’s over 2 pages in word haha. I hope it all makes sense, because it seems very intuitive, realistic, and easy to incorporate on my end. If this all makes sense we actually have completed part 2! Part 3 is just knocking out assault rules, then creating special rules for certain circumstances. I still need to finish play testing the new turn order, but that is almost done. After that’s done I’ll play test part 2 while we work on part 3. I still really need more people to play test it, because how much I like it is a moot point. I would really like for this to be a ruleset that the community can pick up and play if they feel like it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, here is a current stats conversion:

BS --- Same
S --- Same
T to RV --- Same
Sv to AV --- 8 - Sv = AV
Vehicle Armor Value to RV --- Rear Armor - 7 = RV
Vehicle Armor Value to AV --- Front Armor - 5 = AV
AP to AP --- 8 - AP = AP (current value of - means new AP 1)



I'm not happy with the AP vs AV from infantry. AP vs AV from vehicles is exactly where I want it though. If anyone has any ideas that'd be a huge help.

The reasons I prefer direct comparison over a chart.are...
Its simpler.No need to look up results , just be able to do simple subtraction and addition.

And it does not allow results to be 'fudged'.

Using compared stats,everything scales evenly.

Using tables there is a tendancy to sway results to the developers own personal preference.(it happened in 40k when they reduced the results in the to hit table.)

In direct comparison,every case of a result of 1+ is an auto pass.Every case of a 7+ is an auto fail.
It is not restricted (artificialy,) to any set amount.

The ranges of value already have direct meaning if when in a comparative way. That is what defines a comparative use resolution .

Using BS vs Stealth with modifiers, is more complicated resolution that I would like.
But it works well enough.(And fits with the comparison of stats in the other parts of the damage resolution.)

I am just a bit reluctant to over complicate the core rules at this early stage.

You basic outline for stealth values are a good starting point.

I want the characters to have their abilities represented by their command value.(Command Range, Number of Re Rolls.)
The command range shows the range of effect the character has.
EG.
0/1 means the Model can re roll one dice roll for themselves ONLY.
6"/1 means the model can re roll one dice for themselves or ONE model within 6"

The ranges I was thinking of was , 0",6",12",18",24".

The command values of 1,2,3 and 4 for very rare special characters.

These re-rolls allow characters to use their experiance(limited re roll once per game turn) to stop the army from suffering set backs....
Eg
A)Re roll a failed fire support request.
B)Re roll a Targeting roll for a squad member.
C)Re roll a failed Damage roll
D) Re roll a Failed Save roll.
E)Re roll a failed rallying roll.
F) Re roll a personal failed morale test.
G) Re roll a nearby units failed morale test.(If in command range.)
etc.

This adds a tactical dynamic of when to use your characters abilites, and which characters to utilise for the re-rolls you think are neccissary.

When I called for re-organising , during the resolution step as an additional Rally option.

I simply meant moving the models into a coherant effective fighting force.
A)Picking up support-heavy support weapons off the units casualties.
B)Removing individual suppresion from models .(If the unit was not suppressed. )
C)Moving models back into into unit coherancey.(After 'Pinning' -casualty removal has disrupted normal unit coherancy.)

However, it could be used for allowing 'medics' to attempt to recover lost wounds, and mechanics to attempt to repair vehicle damage.As you suggested with the restrictions you listed.

The only dis-advantage of failing a re-organisation roll, is the unit has to use some of its next movement action to regain unit coherancy and recover weapons.
OR fight in a dis-organised state , without weapons lost to casualty removal.

I meant vehicles and Monstrous creatures to have F/S/R AV values!

Infantry AV simply allow the same mechanic to resolve all damage resolution.I was working on AV = current saving rolls ' pips' as a rough starting point.

Eg
6+ = Av 1
5+ =Av 2
4+ =Av 3
3+ =Av 4
2+ = Av 5

Current Inv saves add to the base Av.(to give values up to Av 8 for a Terminator Chaplin perhaps?))

This leaves vehicles with Av of 9 to 10 for light vehicles.Av 11 to 12 for medium vehicles , 13 to14 for heavy vehicles, and 15 to 17 for super heavy.

If we put AP values at +2 on current str values for non AT weapons.(AT weapons will need a bigger boost to account for the current dice bonus to penetration)

Eg some rough values...
Laser pistol/rifle. AP5
Bolt pistol/rifle AP 6
Heavy Bolter AP 7

AT weapons Str+ 7 for a starting point perhaps?(an extra +4 for 2 D 6 pen.)

Las-cannon AP 16
Rail Gun AP 17
Melta gun/cannon, AP 15 At under half range AP 19


TTFN

Wow we had some major differences that I didn't see before haha!

Alright, so these are the big ones that I saw:
-Command stat
-F/S/R armor values
-Invul saves
-AP conversion

We'll tackle those first before we move on to some more specifics.

So, first up is the command stat.
I think this can best be covered by a warlord trait, not by a stat. I think if we add a stat it is only going to overly complicate things. However, by simply making it so a warlord can choose a trait for every 500 points means every player can have the commander they best feel represents them (as a warlord is supposed to do).

Here are some ideas:
-Bold: Every counter revealed to the opponent allows a single reroll that turn.
-Inspiring: Units within 6” may use the commander’s leadership.
-Stalwart: Models within 6” of an objective may reroll all 1’s for armor saves.
-Ravenous: The commander and their unit may add 1” to their charge distance.
-Cunning: The commander may redeploy either 3 friendly units 6” or 1 friendly unit 18”; remaining in their deployment zone.
-Clairvoyant: May look at a single enemy counter at the end of the command phase.
-Judicious: Units within 3” of an objective may reroll all 1’s to hit.
-Tenacious: The commander may redeploy either 3 enemy units 4” or 1 enemy unit 12”; remaining in their deployment zone.
-Unyielding: The warlord is scoring.
-Relentless: The warlord gains +1 Initiative when in the enemy’s deployment zone.
-Bloodthirsty: The warlord earns 1 victory point for every enemy character slain in a challenge.
-Sly: The warlord and their unit gain +1 stealth.

Obviously these aren’t a final version deal, but they allow the player to create themselves on the battlefield.


F/S/R armor values are next.
I don’t have a problem with these. I think we should keep the same RV regardless of the facing, but make it so the AV changes. Monstrous creatures will simple use the value they have now for their side, add 1 for the front, and subtract one for the rear. I think this is the easiest way to go about things.


Invul Saves I’m pretty set on.
I don’t want these to modify anything or be modified by anything (barring extenuating circumstances.) They are a save that can be taken after a wound is done (or after armor saves, either work). These are done in addition to armor and represent extraordinary equipment/toughness/faith/whatever. I really don’t want to see them lumped in with the armor save.

Finally, the AP conversion.
The plan I had been going with was to move everything to the 0-10 stat range. I like that range because it provides great comparisons and can be used with the universal chart I created. If we move into the 11+ category stats begin to lose some of their meaning. Suddenly terminator armor that would be a 5 by your system would be trivial compared to a trukk. Terminator armor is better than a trukk’s.

After thinking more about it, and looking at the chart and where things should lie I’ve come up with this.

Instead of it being 7-current AP, it will be this:
Current --- New
1 --- 10
2 --- 9
3 --- 8
4 --- 6
5 --- 4
6 --- 2
- --- 1

Vehicles will be AV -4 if we assume they will retain their facing values.


Example below is a Hammerhead with Railgun vs Land Raider
Railguns are now AP 10.
A Land Raider is AV 10.
Using my chart, this is a 50% chance to be saved.

Railguns are St 10
A Land Raider is RV 7
Using my chart, this is 2+/6+ (or an 86% chance to damage.)

Add in the reduced stealth value and BS 4
New to hit roll is 2+/6+

Current 40k, a Hammerhead has these odds to damage a Land Raider.
66% chance to hit * 50% chance to damage = 33% chance to damage
New version, a Hammerhead has these odds to damage a Land Raider.
2+/6+ to hit (86%) * 50% through save * 2+/6+ to damage (86%) = 37% chance to damage.


These are very close, but it is now a little higher. After all, a Land Raider is exactly what a Railgun is going to aim for. Some of these are going to break down, hence adjusting scores.


Example below is a Marine taking damage from various weapons
Melta gun – 0% chance to save
Plasma gun – 0% chance to save
Ion cannon – 0% chance to save
Heavy bolter – 16% chance to save
Bolter – 50% chance to save
Slugga – 83% chance to save
Environment – 86% chance to save

Example below is a Guardsman taking damage
Melta gun – 0% chance to save
Plasma gun – 0% chance to save
Ion cannon – 0% chance to save
Heavy bolter – 0% chance to save
Bolter – 16% chance to save
Slugga – 50% chance to save
Environment – 66% chance to save

Example below is a Terminator taking damage
Melta gun – 0% chance to save
Plasma gun – 0% chance to save
Ion cannon – 16% chance to save
Heavy bolter – 33% chance to save
Bolter – 66% chance to save
Slugga – 2+/6+ (86%) chance to save
Environment – 2+/5+ (89%) chance to save

Example below is a Fire Warrior taking damage
Melta gun – 0% chance to save
Plasma gun – 0% chance to save
Ion cannon – 0% chance to save
Heavy bolter – 16% chance to save
Bolter – 33% chance to save
Slugga – 66% chance to save
Environment – 86% chance to save


In another thread (actually the one that made me decide to do this); it was mentioned that the armor system should be redone. This makes it so there isn’t some magical barrier between AP values; where all of a sudden it just goes through armor. Although that’s very simple, it never really sat well with me. Now you really have to think about which guns to shoot with. It’s no longer “well he’s got a 2+ save, unless I’ve got plasma I’ll just shoot every horrible AP gun at him until he dies.” Now it’s “well he’s got a 2+ save, I can either use that heavy bolter to reliably kill 2.5 of his friends or shoot at him and only do 2 wounds; which do I need more?”

This is just the next iteration of course, but I think it mimics the game pretty well. Horrible AP weapons will have an immensely difficult time getting through things that have a save, but decent AP weapons have a chance at putting the hurt on enemies.

The only area I see this breaking down is in close combat, but we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it. Who knows, maybe we’ll do Strength = AP or something.

Hi.
I wanted to cover the current game play in the simplest way possible.
Eg use simple values and resolutions to get the interaction in the most straight forward way. 40k is the direct opposite of this.It is written to promote the sale of GWs toy soldiers .

COMMAND VALUES>
Rather than a range of values that are easily read and understood by all.
Why do you want to add a seperate list of effects,( tied to named abilities) that do not allow for comparative assessment ?
This seems to be over-complication just for the sake of it.(Essence of 40k. )

Eg Judicious, is incredibly overpowering for large units ,hovering near objectives, with high rate of fire.Where as it is totaly usless for units with low fire output, far away from objectives.

Where as a defined range and number of re rolls. IS comparable, as it can be used BY ALL UNITS IN MANY SITUATIONS.

IF you want to restrict the re-rolls to specific functions to add character.Then we could them break them down into Assault ,(close combat oriented rolls only.)Fire power,(ranged attack oriented rolls only,)
Tactical decision.(Calling in off table support , rallying units etc.).

AV and RV.
I agree RV remains constant from all facings.(It represents the softer target area behind the armour.)
F/S/R on all large target units/models, to allow for tactical movement advantages.
We both agree on this.

INVUNERABLE SAVES&SPECIAL RULES etc.
Invunerable saves, FNP,WBB, etc were added to the game of 40k to make up for the poor range of results the deterministic use of a D6 gives.AFTER modifiers were removed.

They are counter intuitive and do not allow for proportional results .
(Remember 40K is written without ANY concideration for game ballance.I would like to be able to ballance our rules to be suitable for ballanced competative play. )

MY objection to inv saves are the weapon that reduced heavily armoured vehicles to smouldering hulk, simply bounce off terminator armour, 1 out of 3 times!
INV saves allow models to survive the effects of attacks that simply should NOT be able to survive.

MY take on this is that Anti tank(anti Monstrous creature ) weapons are only usable vs LARGE TARGETS(Low stealth values.)
So an Ork Trukk Stealth 2, CAN be targeted by a rail gun, multi-melta missile launcher etc.

But a Terminator Squad Stealth 3 can NOT be targeted by Anti tank fire support weapons.
(Smaller more agile units are too hard to target, this make more sense than just ignoring 1 in 3 hits.IMO)

This simply follows the real world use of weaponry.Hard targets tend to be large and easier to hit.(Tanks Bunkers, ect.)
So they tend to deliver ONE high powered shot .(Long set up -aiming times,not practical to use vs infantry.)

Anti personel weapons tend to spray an area with lots of lower powered shot.

This way weapons are effective vs a specific target type.(And so armies NEED to use combined arms to be successful!)
The 'Spamyness' of 40k is not found in better balanced games.

As reguard to actual values, as long as the results are similar enough to current results overall.And acceptable to the players , I am happy to use what ever method/values works best.

I would prefer to get the basic frame work of the game play covered with the minimum of fuss.(Just unit stats and their interaction.)

However, you appear to want to put some '40K esk' over complication into the rules at the beginning. I do not know why you want o do this?

I think invulnerable saves do have some merit, they represent force fields, energy shields or the like. They would naturally need a different response than metal armor. Weapons intended to pierce material armor may be useless on shields (depending on your fluff).

I think that if invulnerable saves went it might be nice to put something else to take the role of force field thing.

I'm really not trying to overcomplicate things.


I found what you were saying about command stats to be more complicated personally. The main reason for this is that it is another stat to add onto the profile.

If we added command stat to the stats we already plan on adding a unit's profile would look like this:

Movement
Movement Type
Body type
Body Size
Ballistic Skill
Stealth
Weapon Skill
Strength
Resistance Value
Wounds
Initiative
Attacks
Leadership
Armor Value
Side Armor Value (monstrous sized units)
Rear Armor Value (monstrous sized units)


Granted, this eliminates tons of special rules; however, that is already so many stats that it makes me a little uncomfortable. Adding any more just seems like we'd be shotgunning players with number after number, and I feel it will deter players from even play testing.


The command traits I mentioned were a VERY rough idea, I plan to work them out before I even put them in the first post as an idea.

What they allow the player to do is better represent themselves on the battlefield through their commander who, after all, is supposed to represent them. I favor the method I put because it makes it customizable, versus picking from a list of characters and saying "well that one is kind of like me."

I'm fine with totally scratching the rules that went with the names I put above-I have no attachment to them. But I really don't want to have a command value and command range. We could simply make it so there are 5 choices you get when making your list, with a blanket reroll being one of them. Or anything for that matter, I really don't care. Hell, we could even make it so it is optional and in a competitive setting the TO can just disallow it.



I'm with Dast on invulnerable saves. They are supposed to represent things outside of armor protecting the user (e.g. faith, force fields, shear mass, etc.)

We would need to find a suitable replacement for this, and I can't think of something better than what is currently used.


Changing a weapon to be anti-monstrous sized targets I'm definitely willing to hear out. I'm a little worried about it though, because it is limiting the player's choices instead of opening them up. Giving the player more choices on tactics is what the goal of this is.

The reduced chance to hit compared to large targets I felt would be a good enough indicator of what single shot anti-vehicle weapons should be aiming for, but not making it so if the opponent doesn't take any monstrous sized targets the unit isn't totally useless.

Hi .
Sorry I should have said, my proposed stats would be.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(Unit name ).

Mobility.(Symbol for type of movement/ max distance moved in inches.)
Armour value.(F/S/R for 'large targets'.)
Resistance value.(toughness replacement)
Wounds/Structure points.(Number of models/amount of 'hits' per model.)
Stealth.
Morale value.(Ld replacement)
Assault value.(Initiative replacement,for assault sequencing.)
Command Value.(Range of effect/ number of re-rolls.)



(Weapons.)
Name/Effective Range/Damage /AP/.Effect/Notes.

Effective range , Damage and Effect takes BS-WS and A into account.(Net effect of weapon and user skill.)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

This gives us 8 stats.(3 double values)
Current 40k has 9.(Not including the vehicle rules!)

We could add a Targeting value to replace current BS if you think it is absolutely needed.
The catch all 'Stealth value' takes model sizes agility and training in to account.(The footprint of the unit determines interaction on the table.)

I do not mind having a range of different protection and weapon types/effects , that interact differently .But just a fixed value vs everything is just bad game design from a balance P.O.V.

I have no problem with some units being invunerable to some weapons.
But being invunerable to ALL weapons some of the time is just not intuitive.

40k only deals in physical damage.And all weapons can shoot at all models.And the basic save is 2,3,4,5,6+ fixed.(unless its a vehicle..)
So the whole galaxy of creatures is covered by JUST 5 results , that are fixed.So inv saves, FNP,WBB, etc are used to get variety back.(And different rules for vehicles etc etc.)

Using opposed stats lets the Dice roll become a variable modifer in a proportional relationship resolution.
So variable save rolls depending on the armour of the target and the Ap of the weapon.
And variable damage rolls depending on Resistance of the target and Damage value of the weapon.

If we look at the units in 40k.
They range from lightly armoured units that rely on weight of numbers, or stealth to see them though.
Up to massive armoured behemoths that rely on superior protection, as they are too large/rare to deploy in numbers or use stealth.

So there is a trade off between Amour v and Stealth/number of models in the unit.(A bit like modern warfare.)

So weapon design is also as varied.
Low power wide area of effect, vs lighter numerous, stealthy targets.
Up to
High powered single shot to defeat the thickest armour of the largest (monsters-)vehicles.

I propose using the new stats to display 3(4) types if invunerability!.(Varied upon weapon and target type.)

A) Higher stealth, invunerable to Anti tank type weapons that are ONLY effective vs Large targets.

B) Higher Ap values, invunerable to weapons with lower Ap .(No matter how much damage the weapon does.)

C) Higher resistance values ,invunerable to weapons with lower damage .(No matter how high the weapons AP value is.)

(Higher Assault values could give invunerablility to certain assault attacks perhaps?)

We have invunerability, but it is applied in a more intuitive way becuase its built into the basic game resolution.
(I may need to explain that a bit better?)

This model is invunerable to that weapon attack because ;-
Its too agile,or too tough,or too well armoured, or too well hidden.

Makes more sense to me than ...
That weapon fails to work 1 in 3 times vs some models , and not on others, because we say so.

Hi again.
I appear to have either not explained myself too well or put down something so far from current 40k rules.You dont have a frame of reference for objective critisism?

As I said before , I want to get to the game play of 40k with the minumum of fuss.(Less than 40 pages of rules, including diagrams /pictures.)

And to my mind the current 40k rule set has rules bloat for one main reason.
The core rules tell you how to play W.H.F.B.Then have lots of additional rules to cover the extra game play and units of 40k.(vehicle rules added on , movement rules added on, unit types added on USRs added on, special rules added on....)

I was looking at rule sets for modern warfare battles.(Epic Armageddon, Net Epic, F.o.W, Dirt-side, etc.)
And as these use in smaller scale minatures in larger battles than 40k.
It seemed easier to ADD definition and detail to a solid battle game rule set.Rather than try to unravell the holistic mess the current 40k rules have developed into...

Here is the profile for a SM tac Squad .See if my proposed stats are easier to understamd?

SM Tac Squad Unit card.

Tactical Squad. Basic PV ***
(L) 4"
(A) 4
(R) 4
(W) 10/1
(S) 4
(M) 8
(As) 4
(C1) 6"

SPECIAL NOTES. Combat Squads(can split into 2 x 5 man sections.)etc.

The letters in the () represent the symbols we use on the unit cards.(A picture paints a thousand words.And also means easier translation to other languages.)
Double stats explained...
The legs symbol means the unit moves on legs! upto 4 " per movement action.

The Wound symbol means the unit is considered to be an ORGANIC target.(If the unit has a (S.P) symbol it means it is considered to be mechanical)
The 10/1 means the unit starts with 10 models with 1 wound per model.(Unit leaders get re rolls instead of extra wounds, as they can be more useful!)
Creatures with more wounds like Ogryns, 5/2 , simply have a higher base number of wounds as now.


The Command value is represented by a chevron symbol.(like ' stripes' used in military rankings..)
1 chevron-1 dice re roll.
2 chevron -2 dice re rolls.
3 chevron-3 dice re rolls
Star Special Character with 4 of more re rolls.
Followed by a range of effect in inches.

Any special abilities would be noted under the unit stats.

Then we get the units weapon profile..

Standard Equipment
CC weapon/0-2"/1/4/1/Close Combat only.(Its not a throwing knife! )

Bolt pistol/0-6"/1/5/1/One handed Small arms.

Bolt Gun/6 to 30"/1/5/1/Small arms.

Support weapon(1) .
Flamer /Template/2/5/Template/Ignores cover.(Standard.)

Meltagun/12" /4/10/1/ 'Melta' (+4 AP at under 1/2 range).(Upgrade PV**)

Plasmagun/30"/3/9/2/ 'Gets Hot'.(Can only fire alternate turns.)(Upgrade PV**)

Fire Support Weapon(1).
Missile launcher /46" /1:3/5:8/3" Blast:1/Pinning;Large targets only.Stats for Frag then Krak Missiles.(Standard)

Heavy Bolter /40"/2/7/3.Pinning.(Down grade.PV **)

Lascannon/46"/4/11/1.Large target only.(Upgrade PV **)

Plasma cannon 40" /3/9/3.Gets Hot(Upgrade PV**)

Multimelta 30"/4/10/1/Melta .(Upgrade PV**)

This may confuse you even more. .

My apologies, I have been reading but haven't had the time to put together a good reply.

Here are a couple quick thoughts:

The command stat with your example makes infinitely more sense now. What I had thought you were saying was that it was for the warlord only, NOT as a substitute for a sergeant. I'm still a little up on the air as to what I think, and will know for sure once I get the chance to play test the turn order I brought up earlier. The command stat could be the perfect substitute for initiative if that is the case.

Your stats make much more sense now, especially with the second post. This whole next week I'm going to be pretty busy, but I'll try to at least have a short reply each day. My hopes are to have part 2 done by this next weekend, so we can start on part 3 when I'm done with training on the 11th.

Ultimate goal is to have v0.1 done by the end of the month. Then I'll start really trying to get people to play test, read and revise it, etc.

This may over-complicate things but I thought it might be nice if their were damage types. (They could be represented by little symbols next to the damage of weapons).

This would allows some flexibility, but perhaps at the cost of too much complexity.

Some damage types could be:
Kinetic
Thermal
Sonic
Mental
Poison
(Gas?)

Some weapons might have more than 1 type (for example lasers might be thermal and kinetic. Or poisoned projectiles might be both kinetic and poison). Tesla weapons would probably be thermal (best approximation), or their could be an electrical type i suppose.

A units resistance could be given by a number, potentially followed by one or more additional numbers next to damage symbols:

for example an avatar of Kain might have:

resistance: X + Y (symbol for thermal)

(additionally resistant to thermal, using X+Y).

A "-" sign could be used to put weaknesses if desired.

@rabid1903.
it is a bit difficult to discuss new ideas just in the written format..And it is very easy to mis -understand what people are trying to explain.

I posted up my proposed stats , to outline the basic format of a unit card, and see if they covered most of the interaction .
And hopefully show the ideas I had on representing the in game interaction.

@Dast.
I like the idea of different weapon types and armour types.

I would like to keep it fairly straightforward though.
(To borrow slightly from CBT.)

Weapons.
Kinetic, Energy,Thermal/(chemical .)

Armour types.(Units have ONE type of armour.)
Ablative , Reflective or Ceramic..

Ablative armour gets to re roll failed saves vs Kinetic hits.

Reflective armour gets to re roll failed saves vs Energy hits.

Ceramic armour gets to re roll failed saves vs Thermal/(chemical.) hits.

This allows different armour effects without too much over complication , IMO.

As reguards non physical damage.(Eg by passes normal armour types.)
We could make them low damage (1) but need to pass a (skill) morale test to use them, eg any psychic/sonic attacks perhaps?

Having composite armour types and multiple damage resistances is fine for detailed skirmish games.But for 40k battle games, they may be too complicated/fussy to use?

We have to be careful about the level of complication at this early stage IMO.
I would like to get the basics running right , and add the detail in later, as an when needed.

Lanrak I think your suggestion for how to do different damage types is a very good one, considerably less complex than mine. I would add that for sake of simplicity that models with different armor types should be kept from being in the same unit.

You system should also be robust to the inclusion of occasional exceptions when unusual unit abilities are introduced.

Ion, plasma, fusion and melta are at various points on the spectrum between energy and thermal. (I have put them in the order as I see it with the most energy-like first). Where do you think the cut should be? (I am struggling with plasma, I think it should be thermal, but would like to differentiate it more from melta).

The armourbane and fleshbane and bane things above make you re roll successful saves.
Having the correct armor type allows you to re-roll unsuccessful ones.

Presumably the simplest way of having both would be that they cancel and you don't re-roll anything.

(If you wanted to you could roll all of your saves, then pick them all up again (successful and not), and roll them again. As you can only re-roll a dice once that would be it. So you are back to just one roll, as the first makes no difference at all).

Dast,

Just eliminating the reroll is what I had been planning. It is by far the easiest route to go if both players have something that affects the roll.

Different weapon types and different armor types I do find very interesting and I really like the idea; however, I worry that the execution will be over complicated and lacking compared to what we want it to be.

Something like 75% of all weapons should be kinetic. Everything from a slugga to a Railgun are kinetic weapons.
The difference between thermal and energy is minute in reality.
All weapons do damage based on energy, but the type of energy is what differs. It will be one of 3:
-Kinetic - it will hit its target and transfer momentum or penetrate.
-Thermal - it will burn or melt its target (think the airborne laser used to take out missiles)
-Chemical - it is going to corrode its target or poison it (think an alien's blood from the movies)

This does get rid of your debate though


As for the armors, I don't think giving out blanket armor types is the way to go. If that was the case, 90% would be using anti-kinetic armor because that's what 90% of all armor is designed around. Instead I think we should make these special rules (we only have 2 so far).
-Reinforced - Reroll armor saves against kinetic weapons
-Ablative - Reroll armor saves against thermal weapons
-Coated - Reroll armor saves against chemical weapons


So to recap:
-Every gun gets a type.
-Not every armor gets a type.
-We should make it so armors can have multiple types.


With that, I'm off to training. I'll see if I can comment more tonight.

HI Guys.
I agree that 2 special abilities that give 'opposite re -rolls' should just cancel each other out.

I posted up the example based on 'CBT' weapons and armour types.Just to show it is possible to have 'flavour' in the game using straightforward easy to use /remember rules.

I think it would be a good idea to get the basic core rules sorted out.
And leave the 'thematic flavour' and 'tweeks' to the core rules until a bit later...(But all the weapon armour ideas so far are great,IMO.)

But as we are on this topic.

Here is a summary of where I think we are...
All weapons are assumed to be kinetic types unless other wise stated.
All armour is asumed to be Ablative/Reactive.The standard armour that disapates kinetic energy , unless other wise stated.

I think vehicles/monsters and some characters could pay to add a SINGLE extra layer of specialised protection.
Eg
'Ceramic coating' to combat chemical /thermal attacks.(Melta flamer acid thermal lance etc.)
Or
'Refractive coating' to combat energy weapons,(lazer, conversion beamers, particle projection,etc.)

Allowing a model to have all 3 types is a bit overpowering IMO.

This gives us 3 basic weapon and armour types for physical damage.
1 standard for each, and 2 special for each.(9 different interaction types in total, should be enough?)

Alright, so I'm realizing that we've come up with fantastic ideas but I honestly don't know exactly where we're at right now.

So let's reel this in again haha

Turn order
-Roughly half way through play testing, will hopefully have a decision made soon.

Unit Type
-Done, covered in first post

Stats
-Most of the way done. I think we are at a point that we’ll come back to this after Assaults are done.

Movement
-Done, covered in first post.

New Universal Table
-Done, covered in first post.

Rolls to Hit (Shooting)
-I think this is done, but to make sure please review the first post.

Wound Allocation
-I think this is done, but to make sure please review the first post.

Wound Resolution
-We haven’t talked much about this, but I put up my opinions in the first post.

Running
-Haven’t started on this, but it will go quickly. We’ll cover it in the Assault section.

Charging
-Haven’t started on this, but it will go quickly. We’ll cover it in the Assault section.

Rolling to Hit (Assault)
-Haven’t started on this. We’ll cover it in the Assault section.

Morale
-We’ve covered a lot of things, but nothing conclusive yet.

Universal Special Rules
-This will have small things added along the way, but not fleshed out until everything is done.

Warlord Traits
-Very briefly mentioned, but we need to save this until just before the USRs.

Psychic Powers
-Not mentioned at all, we’ll cover it after the Assault section but before Warlord Traits.



So to recap, this is the order we need to take care of things.
1. Double check the first post and make sure the things I pointed out already are good to go.
2. Wound Resolution we should finish up. It shouldn’t have too much left if you guys agree with my post.
3. We’ll take care of Running and Charging in one go.
4. Rolling to Hit in Assaults would follow.
5. Morale would logically follow.
6. Psychic powers.
7. Warlord traits.
8. USR’s would be last.

I think the energy damage type was added largely to cover the weirder things, such as Gauss weapons D-cannons or Conversion beamers. But making them type-less is a minor change on that.

I think that perhaps command points should not give a couple of re-rolls, and instead should be spent in order to allow a friendly unit (potentially within a limited range) to be activated outside its usual initiative window. (same number of activations per turn, just earlier/later in the turn).

I don't realy think all amour would help kenetick or any of the others.
How dose miror plating sound because most energy wepons use infa red and a mirror would stop it they all use kentic energy as it moves and loses power even wepons like lascannons use kenetic energy other wise I would not hit.

I don't think any of the las weapons use kinetic energy actually.

Kinetic is what all modern day armor is designed to stop, so granted that may change in 39,000 years.

However, in 40k the majority of weapons are still kinetic so logically the armor would be designed to counter that.


But like I said we really need to reel this back in and talk about the core rules.

Please review the first post and tell me if there is anything you don't like/agree with. After we make sure everything so far is good, we can move forward.

Hi rabid.
Just read your revised summary at the start of the thread.

Here are my comments...

The game turn.
Having 3 order sets Green Amber and Red, is to let players decide how to use their units in the following turn.

Green orders is focusing the unit on ranged attacks.(NO movement !!!)Shooting,psychic / ranged attacks ONLY.(Shooting ordnance-heavy weapons ,before Amber orders.And small arms/light support weapons twice.Once before Amber orders, and once after Red orders.)

Amber orders are focusing the unit on movement.(NO ranged attacks at ALL)

Moving up to 2x movement value (Running!)
Moving up to 2x movement value INTO ASSAULT!!(Charging.)
Moving into/through terrain up to movement value making the most use of cover.(Increase stealth value of unit.)

Red orders is letting the units react to the battle field situation.Move up to movement value, and fire small arms/light support weapons ONCE.Or shoot then move.
Can not launch an assault , if units move into contact on Red orders .They are kept 1" apart and can only have a short range fire fight.

The game turn covers ''running'' and ''charging'' , so they do not need extra rules!

Making tactical decisions in the command phase is important IMO.And so clear defined choices is important to help players form a tactical plan in the command phase.

Unit type.
IF we use the right stats, the unit will be described by the stats!
We will not need to write out extra descriptions.

Even if the unit name .Leman Russ Battle TANK.
Fails to tell the player the unit is a friggin' TANK.

The fact it moves on TRACKS, is a MECHANICAL CONSTRUCT with Structure Points, and is HEAVILY armoured ,and carries a large battle cannon in a TURRET.Might sort of give them a clue...

The ONLY reason 40k artificialy labels unit types, is to make the models seem more special with exclusive rules writing.As GW are all about selling toy soldiers.

IF however we want to list units types , so that we can cover them all in the basic rules I have no problem with that.

But telling players that a Plasma pistol is a pistol, or that A Space Marine Bike is a bike, and a Leman Russ battle tank is a tank, sees a bit pointless IMO.

Body type.
Models /units have their physical presence on the table defined by ACTUAL physical size of foot print, base/hull size.
And in game by the stealth value .

I do not see the point of this extra definition?Unless its to let us define stealth values for units?

USRs .
I prefer the term Special abilities.As Universal Special Rules is an oxymoron.If something is universal it means it applies to everything.Special means it is applied to a few special cases.

Could you list the stats you want to use, and how they interact (resolution methods) ?
(And go over the universal resolution table again , I have forgotten how it works... )

So we can start refining them.. .

Haha, alright so I definitely had the turn order wrong. Good thing we did this double check!

Although it is super obvious when the model is on the table, it isn't obvious for things that don't have a model. Rather than playing the "well the name is this" game and having people be able to rules lawyer and break the game it is much simpler just to say "Large, Biological" for unit type rather than assuming the player knows that a Tyranid Warrior would be Large and Biological. It may seem obvious to most, but some might not agree.

After thinking more about the movement type, I think we should just rename them as such:
-Slow
-Agile
-Fast
-Flying

Slow is standard infantry movement and will cover the majority of models.
Agile covers tracked, beasts, and especially fast infantry.
Fast covers wheeled, cavalry, and really fast tracked vehicles.
Flying are jetbikes, flyers, and flying monstrous creatures.

Ignore Terrain allows for skimmers, jump infantry, jet packs, etc. noted with their movement type.
Here is a super fast example of each, with (IT) meaning they have the special rule Ignore Terrain.
Slow - Space Marine
Slow (IT) - Monolith
Agile - Hormagaunts
Agile (IT) - Crisis Suits
Fast - Rough Riders
Fast (IT) - Swooping Hawks

Flyers have enough different that I'm just going to cover them in a separate section on the front page. Here are my initial thoughts:
-The Hard to Hit rule is replaced by a high stealth value. These are covered in a table in the first post.
-Immune to templates and blast weapons I'd like to incorporate in some way.
-Instead of a 90 deg pivot at the beginning of their move, it should be at the end. Aircraft aren't maneuverable, helicopters are. Aircraft are just stupid fast and bring a ridiculous amount of firepower.
-Strafing run, hover strike, all that crap needs to go.
-Multiple movement types will be noted with two values. This covers "Hover" and "Flying Monstrous Creatures."

Here are two very quick examples of Unit Cards that I plan to use.



Some conversions I haven't covered:
-Com I just took as rank. 1 is standard infantry, 2 is trained infantry, up to 5 which is the Hive Tyrant.
-A Flying move is between 2x and 4x your movement value.

I think that covers them.


Running has it's own section to help the transition from current 40k to the new rulebook. That section I had planned on saying "Running is treated identical to moving, and may be done instead of shooting or charging." I don't know what else we'd really put there, but I reserved the section just in case. Granted, it can be covered in the movement section just as easily; however, same as before I just wanted to have the space available.


Changing USR to Special Abilities is fine, but I felt the more terms we keep from standard 40k the easier it is to understand. We have to dance between making it easier for current 40k players to transition and making it an easy game to learn from scratch. USR makes enough sense for both, hence why my plan was to keep it.


The Universal resolution table is pretty simple:
y axis - rolling player's stat (BS, Strength, WS, AV)
x axis - non-rolling player's stat (Stealth, RV, WS, AP)
Then you just consult the table to see what you need to roll. There is a simple way to memorize it that I mentioned before, and will stress in the actual document as well. Memorizing a single table makes the game play significantly faster.



I'm sure there are tons of things that I missed or don't make sense, but any information I can put on here that expresses what I'm thinking I hope will help.

I still have a really hard time trying to visualize what you are saying for the turn order, and had an idea.

Do you by chance have an Xbox with a gold account? A few weeks ago I did the play test through Xbox live. I have a Kinect so I was able to give a tour of the battlefield whenever it was needed, and he always knew what was going on. Additionally, it was real-time chat vs. waiting for each other to reply with multiple-pages of text haha.

Hi rabid.
(Sorry no X-box ..only PC.)

Well to expand on the game turn I proposed, it is based on Epic Space Marine,(GW 1992 to 1998,) And fan supported Net Epic (1998 to present day.)
(Play tested for 21 years is good enough for me! )

In the command phase, the players decide how their units(on good morale)are going to act in the next game turn. (Tactical command decisions.)

GREEN Order Counter - Fire Support..NO MOVEMENT!!!!
To remain stationary and fire to full effect and give the other units 'Fire Support'.(Stand still and shoot 'current heavy-ordnance weapons'.)

And weapons that can not move and fire are called 'Fire Support' weapons.This classification is based on the UNIT carrying the weapon.A Heavy Bolter in a IG squad is classed as Fire Support.(Can not move and fire.)But is a Support weapon on a Leman Russ tank.(can move and fire!)

AMBER Order counter-Special Movement.(NO RANGED ATTACKS!!!!)
Move up to 2x movement value (RUN.)
Move up to 2x movement value into close assault.(Charge.)
Move up to 1x movement value but maximum use of cover.(Move carefully to improve stealth value.)

RED Order counter -Responding to other units.
After units on Fire support have taken their first shots, and units have made all their special movement.
The units on RED orders;-
Can move up to 1x movement value, and fire NON Fire Support Weapons once.
OR
Fire non Fire support weapons once then move up to 1x movement value.

Players alternate activating units,(turning over order counters and takeing appropriate actions.)
Units on GREEN orders (Fire Support ) are activated first.
The units on Amber (Special Movement ,)order counters are activated after ALL units on Green orders have been activated..
Then units on Red order counters are activated ,AFTER ALL units on Amber orders have been activated..

Is this any clearer?

If the units stats tell the player how the unit performs in game .(Eg how good games use stats.)
Coupled with the unit name , we should not 'have' to describe the units seperately..

A large units have a LOW stealth value , and if it is biological it has WOUNDS not Structure Points.

I realy can not see the need to tell a player what a unit is, if the stats do the job properly.(40k stats are awful at describing units, thats why 40k use so many pages of extra rules....)

If you want to use descriptors for movement, we could end up with lots more than the 4 you posted.

Slow infantry , infantry, fast infantry, jump infantry,Slow Wheeled, Wheeled, Fast Wheeled, Tracked , Fast Tracked,Slow hover ,hover ,Fast Hover , Flyer.Etc.

Simply having a symbol for movement type followed by speed allows more flexibility with a simpler resolution.

Unless you want to artificialy restrict movement to 4 fixed values for some reason?

FoW gets away with describing movement types as there are less varied units in WWII.
(But uses 5 basic vehicle types with 6 special rules,and 5 support weapon types , based on standard infantry units all moving at the same rate. )

So to cover 40k properly we would be looking at a minimum of about 14 NAMED movement rules..

My only hesitation to use the term USR is it is an oxymoron>And some existing gamers MAY expect the excusivity of the current USRs?

'Flying' models are realy 1 of 3 types.
Models that JUMP short distances, (like flying M/Cs.)Jump Jets /wings.

Models that can hover and move , and are very varied in speed and agility, Eldar grav weapons platforms , to monoliths.. (Helicopter type mobility.)

Models that represent off table support type aircraft , that are used to drop off units/ or make ground attacks.
We only realy need to treat these as hover vehicles on table, with mobility restrictions like limited turning as you suggested.

Why not just improve the stealth value of fast moving flyers?As 'Stealth' represents how hard the unit is to target effectively?
(A summary of unit size, agility/speed and experience etc..)

If we are to make a streamlined rule set that increases game play and reduces complication, we have write rules directly opposite to the way 40k 6th ed was written!

Just a quick comment on the unit tables.

Why not put Movement type and movement value together under 'M for Mobility'?
EG
L 6", W 12", T 6", H 12" etc.(Use a symbol for movement types.)

This seems a lot easier to use than , 'Movement Name'' and then lots of additional special rules to put the variety back like 40k does...

Lanrak,

What you’re saying is beginning to make much more sense, but there are two questions that I have:
-Is there a difference between assault and rapid fire weapons? I like the difference in the current game hence why I kept it in amber instead of red.
-If one player has green units left, but not the other, do they finish their green units before the other player can start activating amber units? (e.g. if one player has all green units, the other all amber, does the amber player have to wait until the green player is done to start doing anything?)



No problem, we can keep doing this instead of video stuff. I just thought I’d ask



Honestly I found my movement stuff very simple, and I think you’re misinterpreting what I’m saying (or I’m really out of touch with simple haha.)

I do want to restrict it to 4 movement types (or mobility types), but that bears no restriction on their movement distance. I put slow-agile-fast-flying as placeholders until we come up with better names for all of them (slow is legged, but I attempted to avoid confusion by changing the name to a placeholder… whoops)

So let’s go back to the terms before:

Slow = Legged
Agile = Tracked
Fast = Wheeled
Flying = Flying (not to be confused with ignoring terrain!)

Ignores terrain is a single rule that makes a movement type ignore terrain. It only gets a little complicated for things like current Flying Monstrous Creatures that can land and walk.

Flying units cover actual flyers, and flying infantry (like gargoyles). These are meant to be things that don’t even have legs to land, not represent skimmers/jump infantry/etc. If they do have legs to land, they’ll have a second movement type like I mentioned earlier.

Now, the MOVEMENT VALUE (not type) is NOT dependent on the movement type. I really want to make sure that point gets across. I used standard values on the example cards, but these are just examples.



Here are some ways the above will be incorporated:
Legged, Tracked, and Wheeled all follow these rules (regardless of if they have the “ignores terrain” rule.)
-Move = move up to their movement characteristic
-Run = move up to double their movement characteristic
-Charge = move up to double their movement characteristic, must be into close combat.

Flying follow these rules
-Move = move between 1-2x their movement characteristic. May turn up to 90 deg at the end of the move.
-Run = move between 2x-4x their movement characteristic. May turn up to 90 deg at the end of the move.
-Charge = move up to double their movement characteristic, must be into close combat. May turn up to 90 deg at the end of the move.


Of course these are going to be balanced; but as you can see flyers aren’t dramatically different, just more restrictive.



Like I was saying before, 80% of units are very simple when it comes to the unit type. However, if there is even 1 unit that isn’t we need to accommodate that. Best example are units that don’t have a model, or units that are on the border.

What would a Zoanthrope be considered?
What about a Terminator?
Or an Ogryn?

They’re all on the same sized base. They’re all much larger than a standard infantry model. To me, a Terminator is still infantry sized but a Zoanthrope or Ogryn are not.

There is just too much up in the air, and rather than let people rules lawyer it I want to be able to point to a profile and say “there it is, it’s a ____.” You may think I have too little faith in the player, but I just don’t want to leave anything to chance; especially when everyone starts introducing converted models.


I hope everything made some sense and was clear, but that would be atypical now wouldn’t it

I think we are both having similar ideas, but express them using different words and terminology.
And get a bit confused as a result.

I like the range of weapon effects in 40k. But I think the way they are described in the rules is not that good.

What are the current definitions of 'rapid fire' and 'assault'?

Last time I looked.
'Rapid fire' move and shoot once.Remain stationary and shoot twice.

'Assault'. Can fire at full effect if the model moves or not.

The proposed rules already cover 'rapid fire',Non Fire support weapons fire twice if on Fire support orders,(Green.)And once on Reaction orders(Red)

Current assault weapons that are not special weapons (Which will be transfered to support weapon, classification.)Are called Small arms along with the pistols and rapid fire .

Add this note ;- Non Fire support weapons with an Effect(shots) value of 2 or more do not fire twice on Fire Support orders.

This gets the same effect as current rules I think?.

My definitions for weapons.

Close combat...(Only used in close assault)

Small arms..(Pistols rifle smg type weapons.)

Support..(Specialised weapons , flamers, grenade launchers etc.)

Fire support.(Can not move and fire.)

I may need to go over than again when I am not so tired.

As reguard the order sequencing..We will have to play test it .
In Epic all the units on First Fire shot before any units on Charge orders moved.(But there were huge armies and loads of units...)

However, with this new game it may be over powered, so to let the opposing player activate units on Amber orders, if they Run out of Green orders may be preferable.
(Other wise an gun line army might decimate an assaulting hoard?)

BUT ALL units on Green AND Amber order counters HAVE to be activated before any units on Red order counters are activated.

The idea is units that take decisive actions , activate before units 'reacting ' to events.

I did mis understand you idea for mobility.

Describing the way a unit moves and the distance it can move up to when taking a movement action is fine.
Can we use (L) (W) (T) (F) untill we get some cool legs , wheels , tracks and flying movement symbols?

I would prefer to be a bit more specific with 'ignores terrain'.

I would like to use Movement Special abilities of;-
Jump jets/ Wings.Unit can fly over interveening terrain. 8" for jump jets and 12" for wings.

Difficult terrain mod/Dozer blade,The unit counts light woods and rubble as open terrain.

Behemoth, the unit can use its bulk to smash through vertical obsticles like woods buildings walls etc.(Requires a momentum check?)

[b]Amphibious the unit counts water features as open terrain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Some more ideas...
After play testing , we might revise the game turn to something like this...

Command Phase.
(Place orders counters face down.)

Priority actions.(Green then Amber.)

Reactive actions ,(Red )

Resolution phase.
(Resolve assaults,rally units on poor morale , place arrivals , reserves and artillery /air strikes.)

The more I think a bout Epic the most obvious difference is the scale (10mm).Which allows a lot more movement into weapons ranges.
(Units on Fire Support orders will not be in range of some units.With 40k tables being more crowded this might be a big problem )

Anyhow I have managed to find an old copy of 5th 40k.(We have a common reference point , Yay!)

Weapon types
OLD..................................................................................New any changes...

Pistols can be used in close combat.................................No change.

Heavy (inf) and Ordnance. Can not move and fire.............Now called ''Fire support weapon'' , and needs a Fire Support order (Green ) to activate(Can not move and fire.)

Special weapons & Heavy weapons in units that can move and fire.....Support weapons (Name change only.)

Standard rifles and guns etc.................................................Catch all term of Small arms .(Name change only.)

The proposed rules cover assault weapons (fire Their number of shots(Effect.) if moving and shooting or stationary.)
And Move OR Fire weapons.(Fire support.)

If we class Rapid Fire in the weapon notes as...''Rapid Fire, the weapon can halve its number of shots and double it effective range on Fire Support orders.''

Bolt gun ER 12"/AP 5/ Dam 1/Effect 2/ Notes;- Small arms. Rapid fire.

This means running or charging a model armed with a Bolt gun can not shoot.

On reaction orders,( Red) they can move and fire 2 shots up to 12".

On Fire support orders, (Green) they can fire 2 shots up to 12" OR 1 shot up to 24" away.

Other special weapon rules like 'get hot' 'melta' 'lance' etc can be added to the weapon notes as neccissary...

I hope this clarifies how I would like to proceed with weapons profiles?

I realy find it difficult to understand how players can take advantage of making up the wrong name for a model, if the game play is defined by the rules clearly.

[b]Base or hull size.(This sets the PHYSICAL way the model interacts on the table.)

Mobility. this tells the player how the model(s) moves and how far it moves.

Armour value ,This tells the player how well protected the model(s) is(are).

Resistance value , This tells the player how hard the model(s) is(are) to damage.

Stealth value , this tells the player how hard the model(s) is to target.

Assault value , this tells the players how good the model is in close combat.

Morale value, this tells the player how willing the model is to fight on...

Command value, this tells you how good the model is at battle field command.

What is not clear?

In 40k , the following is NOT covered by the stats.
Mobility , how does the models move, how far can it move?

Stealth , how difficult is the model to target?

Unless you are told the unit is a Beast or a Bike or a Walker or a Fast vehicle or a Skimmer, you have NO IDEA how the unit moves...
And depending how you build/ model the minature determines how hard it is to hit and make ranged attacks !!!!

In the new rules calling a model a creature, beast ,abomination, monster, behemoth, makes NO difference to how it works in game.(Unless we have 'special abilities' using these names in the 'notes' of the unit/ weapon, which may be comfuseing to some, so should be avoided... )

The STATS (and weapons profile,)tell the player what the models do in game .
The model name is just a cool descriptor, is does NOT effect the game play.

TTFN

I think we have probably one of the strangest disconnects when it comes to unit stats haha.


Let me see if I can clarify my position.

I think we should define everything about the unit in their stats, and not leave anything up to the player to figure out.

The unit card I put up above covers all the stats I thought we needed.

Type: The first character is their size, the second is their type. So I/B means infantry/biological. M/M means monstrous/mechanical (there is a typo in the cards.)
M: This is the Movement characteristic we were talking about.
MT: This is the Movement type, and I separated it from the movement characteristic so we can have multiple movement types. The Winged Hive Tyrant is the best example of this.
BS: Ballistic Skill
S: Stealth
AV: Armor Value
RV: Resistance Value
WS: Weapon Skill. I'd like to keep this, I think it is a good stat.
Ld: Leadership
Com: Command Value


We'll get to the weapons section soon, but lets knock this out first.


With just these, what do you agree/disagree with? Most we have been over already, but please let me know if you have any questions.

Similar ideas expressed slightly differently.
I used different names for stats on perpouse. (As I dont want GW C&D to raise their ugly head if this development gets off the ground.)

My idea for 'mobility' displays the same info but in listed in a slightly different way.
Mobility.
(First symbol BASIC movement type),( then distance moved) , (then Special ability symbol).
EG
Winged Hive Tyrant.
(Legs) 6" (Wings)
So the basic movment is walking 6" BUT the special ability of Wings allows it to fly 12" over terrain features etc(is that how far they can fly?)

Chimera.
(Tracks )6" (Amphibious.)
Moves on track up to 6" AND counts water features as open ground.

This incoperates all elements of mobility, how they move how far they move and what IF ANY special abilities they have.

It would look a lot better with cool symbols rather than (writing ) Number (writing).
I am just trying to arrange the information to make it easier to read and use.I understand its just down to personal preference in presentation.
Some people like things spread out, other like to read it sequentialy in a line.(Guess what I prefer.. )

Stealth, Armour value .Resistance value ,WS (Assault value.) Ld (Morale value ) Command Value.
I think we ll agree on .
Battlefield Skill.(BS) used in opposition to stealth to dertermine targeting (to hit) I can see the merit in.

However you appear to have missed out the number of hits the model can take and how many model in the unit.Starting strength & Wounds/Structure points .

Along with the mobility information it should define the unit enough to drop the unit type perhaps?

EG
SM Tac Squad.
(Legs symbol) 4"
(Standard Infantry move 4")

(Wounds symbol) 10/1
Ten models 1 wound each.

Land Raider
(Tracks symbol) 6"
(Standard tank, move 6")

(Structure point symbol) 1/ 4
One model with 4 structure points .

Its just sorting out the fine detail IMO...

I was thinking this morning after I wrote all that up, and came up with something that might help.

No unit has more than two methods of moving, so why not have just Primary Movement, and Secondary Movement.

Most units would have just 1, but some have 2 (like the Hive Tyrant, or most Jump Infantry.)

Then it could be:
(movement type symbol) (movement value) (1 special rule with it)

The special rules that I can think of are:
Amphibious - like you were saying
Ignore terrain - ignores terrain like current jump infantry/wraiths/etc.
Move through cover - we'll come up with those rules eventually

Amphibious is definitely the most special, but ignore terrain and move through cover are pretty run of the mill special rules and are seen all over the place. Simply representing them by a symbol will make it much easier and not take up much space.

That really just leaves our difference on unit type.

I'm still in favor of what I put above (type/size.) The reason for that is not because most units are obvious; it is because there are some that are not obvious.

Tyranid units are a great example where the name of the unit doesn't necessarily make it obvious as to what size it is (they are all obviously biological.)

Additionally, I plan for the cards to be as universal as possible. I don't want some to say wounds, some structure points, etc. Personal preference, yes, but if anyone that plays this wants to use different terms/symbols they are more than welcome to. Also, I think combining unit number with wounds isn't the best move. It makes at home spreadsheets a lot harder to make, and I don't think it's necessary when unit sizes are variable.

Bottom line is I don't see a good enough reason to not do it compared to my reason of "I don't want there to be any sort of question as to what this unit is." I feel that assuming the player knows what it is supposed to mean, no matter how obvious, is how 80% of the threads start in YMDC.


I think that pretty much covers the unit stats though.


On to weapon stats:
I made the 5 columns up above (besides name, number, special, etc.)

Type - Weapon type (Ordnance, heavy, rapid fire, assault, pistol, close combat, or any of the psychic powers)
Range/I - Range, or Initiative step if Melee
Strength - Strength of the weapon or swing
AP - AP of the weapon or swing
Attacks - Number of shots or swings

Disregarding psychic powers until we get to that section...

I planned on having these weapon types mean these things:
Ordnance - vehicles must remain stationary to fire, infantry can't fire.
Heavy - vehicles may move and fire, infantry must remain stationary to fire.
Rapid - vehicles may move and fire, infantry may move and fire but it slows them down.
Assault - vehicles may move and fire, infantry may move and fire.
Pistol - vehicles may move and fire, infantry may move and fire in addition to this counting as a close combat weapon.
Melee - pretty self explanatory.

I strongly believe assault weapons should not slow the unit down besides preventing them from running. Rapid fire weapons are different. They are meant for standard infantry, for long range, and with a firing stance (think M16 vs P90.) Assault weapons are meant to be fired on the move, from the hip.

That's all I have time to write now, and this weekend is pretty busy for me. Expect the pace to pick back up on Monday though, and hopefully we can have a version 0.1 typed up by the end of the month

Well if you think using named unit types would help 40k players cross over to the new rule set.
What about having it in () after the unit name.
EG.
SM Tactical Squad.(Infantry.)
War-track(Vehicle)
Hive Tyrant (Monster.)

This would leave the unit stats 'cleaner'.
I totaly agree with the (movement type),( movement value) ,( special rule, if applicable.)

On to weapons ...here is my prefered layout , covering ranged AND close combat weapons...

Name - what the weapons is called.

Effective range , maximum (and minimum) range the weapon can engage enemy models.

Armour Penetration, how good the weapon is a defeating armour.

Damage (strength replacment) , how much damage the weapon does to the soft target behind the armour.

Effect - how many models/hits the weapon effects have.(template, small /large blast, 1,2,3,4,5,6, etc.

NOTES- weapon type , and any special rules ..

Is this ok for you?

Weapon types.

Melee only used in close combat.(yup no problems.)

We assume ALL ranged weapon can move and fire unless other wise stated.(Red orders move and shoot or shoot and move)

Pistols may be used in close combat.

Rifles and guns- standard ranged weapon of the unit.(This assumes all weapons are current 'assault' weapons,can move and fire )

Support weapons , special weapons for dealing with specific target better than standard weapons can.(Flamers, melta/plasma guns.etc.can move and fire )

If a weapon can not move and shoot, why not call it a 'Fire Support' weapon .As it can only be used if you put the unit on Fire support orders(Green)?
(Heavy weapons carries by infantry without special rules to counter act the no move and fire, and Ordnance.)

Special rule for Rapid fire.
Weapons that have rapid fire MAY fire ONCE (Effect 1)up to DOUBLE their effective range.(ER x2) when the unit is on Fire Support orders.(Green)
Representing the models taking careful aim rather than shooting from the hip on the move.

But will fire twice (Effect 2) at their effective range , when the unit is on Reaction orders.(Red)

Land rader should be anphibious. As it has sealed hull and tracks allow it to travers river beds. C:SM land rader page.

Hi wargey.
Yes, we can make a land raider amphibious , if it fits the background and design of the vehicle.

The point I was trying to make is that 'ignore terrain' is a bit to 'catch all' IMO.

The wide diversity of units found in the current 40k game .I think deserves more definition.

How a unit moves across the battle field is a very important characteristic , which is covered by lots of special rules in 6th ed.(ONLY standard infantry are covered in the core rules.)
I would like to include this information in the stat line .

I would like to cover ALL units with the 'core rules' .(Special abilities are part of the core rules , not '..special rules 'nailed on' as an after thought...' R.P.)

And I think , 'movement type',' distance moved','special ability' is a better way to define units mobility than clump them together in groups with exclusive rules.

Here is an example of some special movement abilites....

Movement Special Abilities.
Amphibiuos. Treats water features as open ground.

Behemoth. So large it uses its bulk to crush and bash its way through!
Treats all woods, and built up areas as open ground.But counts soft ground as impassible due to its massive weight.

Jump Jets , Can jump over terrain features up to 8"

Dozer blade.Can use its bulk or special equipment to bash through light woods or rubble, and treats this type of terrain as open ground.

Wings.Can fly over terrain features up to 12"

Terrain is classed as ,
Open ground.(No movement modifier.)

Impassible.(The unit may not enter or pass through this feature.)

Other terrain types modify movement rates in some way.(+/- 1" or 2")

Wheeled vehicles moving down a road get +2 movement .But -2 when moving through woods and rubble.

We could use a terrain chart , showing movement types vs terrain types and list effects...

Putting all the information on the unit reference card, rather than in pages and pages of rules in the rules book.Makes playing the game much easier for older folk with poor memories like me.

What differance will a seige shield do because dozer blade is pretty much the rules for a seige shield.

I agree with rabid that things should be made explicit. I would have liked to think that people could be trusted to make use of simple logic and common sense, but "You make da call" is perfect evidence that a large number of people read the rules in "machine language" and ignore all the advantages of conversing in a human language in which some ability to deduce intended meaning is assumed. (Discussions over whether chaos spawn can operate quad guns are the sort of thing that dominate,). In summary, YMDA is chilling evidence that huge numbers of Warhammer players are happy to "play stupid" suspend all logic and reason, in some pointless quest to obey the letter of the rules, while spitting in the face of their spirit.

Sorry, rant over.

Vertical (walls/cliffs)
Road/paved Open Soft Forested Rocky H<Unit H>Unit
Legged F F F F F D I
Wheeled B F F I D I I
Tracked B F F D D I I
Hovering F F F F F I I
Flying F F F F F F F

Above is a vague stab at how the movement table might work .Their is certainly lots missing from this one. The key is that F=fine, B=benefit, D=difficult, I=impassable. I have no idea if the table will be displayed properly, I have just pasted it in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
No, table didn't work. Rabid, how did you put tables into your posts?

Here it is, I was going about this in completely the wrong way.

Nice table Dast, very clear

Did you do yours through excel -> print screen to paint -> photobucket -> Dakka? That's how I normally do it.


Anyways, just a quick update before I make my wife too mad at me for checking Dakka on vacation


Our ideas for weapons are very similar, so I think I'll just combine a few of the things you said that I liked into what I already had. Expect to see that in the first version of the rulebook vs in the first post (it's too nit-picky to warrant it.)


I'm really liking the chart that Dast put up, and I think that covers most everything. Here is a new version, based on that, to take a look at.




Some of what you said I disagreed with, and I added actual values.

I'll create a special rules chart after we decide on all the mobility special rules. I'd like to keep it to a total of 6, and these were the ones I had in mind:

Move through cover - halve negative terrain modifiers.
Climbing gear - no negative vertical modifiers.
Urban vehicle - ignore rubble modifiers.
Dozer blade - ignore wooded modifiers.
Amphibious - ignore water modifiers.
Ignore terrain - ignore all terrain modifiers.


Now, to stop the glaring I should get off

@wargey.
Anything I post at the moment are just examples of how concepts could be applied.Names and values are just to show how it could work in the game.
Please do not think these examples are written in stone and are what will be.
(Also I have no idea what nomenclature and classifications are used in 6th ed, as I gave up on 40k in 4th ed, and used Warzone, Stargrunt II and FaD rules instead... )
Ill let those more familiar with current 40k descriptors and classification to put me right.

@Dast.
I agree that rules should be written with clarity brevity and elegance.
Marketing pamphlets should be written with the most inspiring hyperbole possible to promote short term sales of new products.
40k 6th ed has far more in common with a marketing pamphlet than a rule set. YMDC sort of proves this...IMO.
'..hyperbole leads to poor definition, and 'enthused' interpretation...'

Actually 40k serves as an great example how NOT to write a rule set...

Writing rules using consistent terminology and phrases helps, along with telling the players if the rules are written as;-
Enabling, (If it does not say you can do it.You can not do it.)
OR
Prohibitive,( You can do it unless otherwise stated.)

And then being consistent in application and design.Removes the bulk of confusion between RAW and RAI.(In my experience.)

A decent set of designers notes helps with rules interpretation.(Spirit of the rules.)
Many rule sets seem to cover far more complex and involved game play , without the problems of interpretation and execution 40k has.(And I was basing my ideas on these rule sets...)

@Dast and rabid.
The terrain -movement chart ,for legged/wheeled/tracks/ flying vs open paved, wooded, rubble, water, soft. etc, is exactly the sort of thing I was thinking of!
Just as a rough guide to help gamers to classify their own terrain before the game starts.

The size of linear terrain vs size of units and how they interact is the sort of thing I would expect players to agree on before the game starts.
Maybe using a 'rule of thumb' guide like..
Models with limbs..
If the linear terrain is;-
Up to the models hip it may move freely over it.(No penalty.)
Up to the the top of the model it may climb over it, -2" to movement.
Over the top of the model ,it is impassible unless there is a means of scaling.(Stairs, ladder etc.)
Where climbing is permitted ,climbing up one level costs 2" of movement.

Models without limbs , can only 'bash through' linear terrain if agreed upon,(taking special abilities into account.)

I think we should define the 'special movement abilities' after we finalise the movement table.So we know what terrain effects the special abilities can ignore!

I agree if the special movement abilities should be limited to about 5 or 6.And applied sparingly..

At this stage we are just doing the rough outline of resolution and mechanics.

We can refine and define in detail , after the core game is established..

Very nice table rabid, I was wondering how to bring size into it without making the table too complex. The modifier table does it very neatly.

I believe you that their is a typo for infantry, currently "high terrain" is impassable, whilst "sheer faces" are simply a 2' penalty.


In the size part of the table I think it might be appropriate to replace the word "infantry" with the word "medium". The word infantry implies that the unit is legged and biological, neither of which is necessarily the case. (For example a dalek style robot might be in this size category, but would be (old daleks) wheeled or treaded.) The only 40k units I can think of that would care about this distinction are grot tanks, but their are probably others.

Enjoy your holiday!

Hi again.
As the mobility type and terrain type chart seems to cover most area terrain types and mobility adjustment very well.
And Special Movement Rules, for Amphibious, Jump jets, etc to let certain models ignore the penalties for some terrain.

It just leaves model 'size' vs terrain 'size' for working out what walking units can stride or climb over what types of linear terrain.
As the vertical scale of terrain and models can be very abstracted,(worse in 40k,than in 10mm games.)

Then some way of classifying units and terrain 'height' is a good idea in a game like 40k.

So we have naming heights ,' low, medium, high, very high'.
And units 'swarm, small , medium , large , very large.
Which can be put in a chart like the mobility -terrain type chart.

Or we could just give units and terrain a height value 1 to 5?

This could also be used to define what (linear) terrain features give cover to units.

Eg a low wall (Size 1) would give cover to a size 1 and 2 unit.(Swarm and Grots.)
But would not realy benifit a large (size 4) model like a Monolith, and barely cover the feet of a Gargant or Titan!(Size 5).

If we used size values of 1 to 5, we could simply state:-
If the unit/model size is up to 1 higher than the terrain feature it may claim cover.
If the unit/model size is 2 or more higher than the terrain feature it can not claim cover from it.

Models with (Legs) movement type and linear terrain .
If the unit/model is smaller than the terrain , they class it as impassible.
If the unit/model size is equal or 1 higher than the terrain they may 'climb' over it with -2" movement modifier.
If the unit /model size is 2 or more higher than the terrain , they can 'stride' over it with no movement penalty.

If a terrain feature is going count as 'scalable' (eg models can climb up it) , then this is decided before the game.
EG a large fuel tank has ladder on the side, a tower of a building that is intact could have a staircase inside.

Just some basic ideas for discussion....

I like the idea of making it simply a guide and letting the players decide how they're going to apply it. If I say "X terrain does Y, and this is exactly what X terrain is and you have to have Z amount of it and blahdy blahdy blah" things are going to get old quick.

The table I made is just a very rough guide, and would in general be the standard for a game. Rather than saying "if it has limbs it can climb" it will be "that is Wooded and Medium Terrain."
Making those rules are perfect for house rules and friendly games. They make things much more cinematic; not the lazy GW rule-making version, but the actual more cinematic version. In the rulebook I will put a very important note saying that these are just guides for terrain and it is encouraged to modify it.
However, in a competitive situation there needs to be cut and dried rules that the players can look to and have no question as to what's going on. That is where the table is law.



@Dast,
Honestly that wasn't a typo, but I can't come up with why I did it in hindsight haha.

There really isn't a difference between high terrain and a sheer face. I'm thinking about dropping the sheer face column, but calling the high terrain sheer face. Also making it a -2 for infantry. I can't make the new chart (back at work :( ) but hopefully that explains it well enough.


Changing the term from infantry to something new I'm okay with, but using a term that starts with S, L, or M will make the unit cards a little more complicated haha.




It was brought up in another thread, but the next thing we should work out is how cover is going to work.

I had planned on there being 2 types of cover, plain and simple.
Light cover - trees, other things that don't stop bullets (current 40k gives 5+ cover)
Heavy cover - ruins, craters, other things that do stop bullets (current 40k gives 4+ cover)

Both types of cover are +1 stealth
Heavy cover is -1 to the AP of the weapon.

A unit is considered in cover if it is:
-In area terrain
-More than 25% is not visible
-The shot is fired through >2" of area terrain

*NOTE: only one condition needs to be met to grant cover, and fitting multiple does not help.

Finally, the last rule that I wanted was a "deep in cover" rule. This would double the effects of the cover, and would be granted if the shot is fired through >6" of area terrain. This is the only way cover is cumulative, and works in both directions.



These seem simple enough to me, but what do you guys think?

Hi rabid.
The way I see it , in 'friendly' game the effects of terrain is agreed upon before the game by the players.

In a tournament setting the terrain is classified by the organisers/ umpires , and the players are informed before the game.

All we need is a good 'guide line' for the readers to use as a reference.The table you posted up is the sort of thing we should use.
There is so many different types of terrain used from 'book' hills and 'tin can' towers,to finely sculpted detailed terrain.I agree trying to classify everything precisely would be a bit futile.

Totally agree with the cover rules!

I am a bit unsure about the 'deep cover' rule though..

I would class that a unit/model that is that deep(6" or more,)in cover would be 'out of sight' and not able to fire out or be shot at...

To stop players with high BS units 'abusing' cover.(You know they will camp a High BS unit deep in cover and shoot the snot out of opposing units that can not fire back effectively. )




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here is my basic thoughts on war games terrain .

Terrain has 3 types.

Linear.(Long thin obstacles.)
Walls , fences, ditches etc.

Area .(Areas that effect units movement through it.)
Woods, marshes, rubble,etc.

Interactive.(Features that units can move into climb.)
Buildings, Fortifications,Hills, etc.

Area Terrain definitions.

Open terrain , no effect on movement at all.

Hard Ground.May improves some units movement .
(Roads,runways, compacted sand, frozen flat land.etc)

Soft ground.(May slow some units movement.)
Wet land, soft sand, deep snow, muddy ground etc.

Light woods-Scrub-land.(May slow some units movement.)
Low bushes , intermittent vegetation, sparsely spread trees.

Heavy woods -Jungle (May be impassible to some units.)
Dense undergrowth, thick vegetation, and high trees density.

Rubble/Rocky ground.(May slow some units movement .)
Broken ground , low ruins , piles of rubble.

Water Features, (May be impassible to some units.)
Lakes ,ponds, rivers, streams etc.

Just a basic outline...to start with..

@Lanrak,

It looks like for once we are totally on the same page except for the the "deep cover" rule.

I don't want things to vanish from LOS when they hit this magical barrier. That was something I really hated about 3rd edition.

Instead, by having a "deep cover" rule you can still shoot at the unit but the cover is making more of a difference. Also, it works in both directions. So although being deep in cover makes you harder to hit and more likely to have the bullets go through something to stop it or slow it down.

Most units that can abuse that system are basically designed for that. Like Eldar Pathfinders; they're designed to strike from cover effectively but not really be able to be shot back at. The best way to flush them out is with artillery and flamethrowers.


Speaking of artillery and flamethrowers...

How are we going to incorporate that?
-Maybe doesn't suffer from AP penalties?

We probably should work out blast weapons and ignores cover weapons in one go.

My idea is this:
-Place the blast template anywhere
-Roll to hit
-If you hit, the marker stays in place
-If you miss, roll the scatter die a D6.
-If you roll a hit with the scatter die, it scatters D6"
-If you roll a miss it scatters D6 x 2"

Barrage weapons do the same thing, but D6 x 2 and D6 x 3"


Just a first draft, what do you guys think?

Have I broken something?
Everytime I click 'post reply' I get Dakka Server down screen?

If we are using BS vs Stealth= targeting roll required.(As you suggested.)

And allow units to 'go to ground-hull down ' with a special move.(Run or Charge or Go To Ground/Hull-down.{Amber})
(+1 stealth bonus.)
As I suggested.

This means units visibility is quite graduated anyway.
(Unlike current 40k.)

But a unit wanting to maximize the use of cover have to give up a round of ranged attacks to do so.
I prefer this to 'complicating' the cover rules.

Could we just leave 'Deep cover' to be decided by play testing , include if needed?

I agree template/blast weapons should ignore cover.
(Ignore AP modifiers for cover .)

Place teardrop template with small end touching the muzzle of the firing weapon.(Roll to target models under template.)

Place blast template anywhere in weapons Effective Range and LOS.

(LOS of any friendly unit, if the weapon has the Special Ability Indirect Fire..)

If the targeting roll is passed (to hit) the template is on target and stays where it was placed.

If the targeting roll was failed , roll for scatter.
Roll the scatter dice.
The blast template moves in this direction , the number the Targeting roll failed by x 2"

Barrage weapons scatter , the number the Targeting roll failed by x 4".

This way the difficulty of the targeting determines the amount the Blast/Barrage misses by.

This is intuitive as a 'near miss' (fail by 1 or 2) means it only scatters 2-4 inches.A wild shot (failed by 4 or 5 ,) scatters 8-10 inches...

Just an alternative for discussion.

Good call on waiting for "Deep Cover," we'll play test that and see if it adds to the game at a later date.


I will say that I don't want the teardrop template to scatter if it is something that stays in base contact. If it has the current "Torrent" rule where you set it out 12" then it should scatter.


Going to ground will add +1 to stealth, and would make it so a unit can no longer act that turn. A unit cannot go to ground if it has already acted, but can elect to at any time.


Here is the consolidated version of what I'm thinking for scattering:


I like this because it covers the whole spectrum and is very gradual. If nothing in the army has LOS, you're going to have a really hard time hitting the target. If you have LOS, you should have a pretty good shot at hitting where you are aiming.

The other thing is if you look at the chart it is incredibly easy to follow. It won't take long to memorize it, maybe 2 or 3 games.

Anything not placed in contact with the firing model will follow these rules.

Does this all make sense? If so I think that wraps up all of the shooting stuff. We can move on to morale and wrap that up next.

I think that the teardrop type template should only be used to show the gout of flame/chemicals sprayed from the muzzle of a weapon.(No roll for scatter as you say.)

If a flame or chemical weapon is fired over distance I would prefer to used a standard blast marker.
(As the flame /chemicals are fired upwards tend to 'ball' on return to the ground.)
And it makes it a standard 'area effect ' weapon , like other missiles and shells.

I would prefer to simplify your suggestion to.

Weapons need line of sight to attempt to target a enemy unit.

Exception, weapons with Indirect Fire ability, only need a friendly unit to have LOS to the intended target before they can make a targeting attempt.

If a targeting attempt fails with direct L.O.S. it scatters the amount the target roll failed by x 2" .

If a targeting attempt fails with indirect LOS, it scatters the amount the targeting roll failed by x 4".

This limits 'speculative shooting' to a more 'sensible and realistic ' way.IMO.

I would like scouts and recon to actually have an important role in the game.(Like scouting out enemy positions etc.)

I am limited to quick reply to this thread .Any idea why?

Lots of great ideas so far...

The justification I can see for keeping the teardrop template for ranged flame weapons is the fact they will spread out when they hit. If it was lobbed to the target, yes it will hit and go splat. But if it is a straight shot (just with a slight arc) it will spread out disproportionately when it hits. That is always how I interpret the teardrop template for ranged flamethrowers/etc.


I'm in favor of letting barrage units shoot blindly, to match other "no LOS" weapons like the Smart Missile System. However, if you follow the flow chart you can see that it is horrendously unreliable. But if you have a recon team that can see where the enemy is, you become much reliable. I did the math real quick and if you at the point of it being x1 vs x2 because of the scatter die, you have a 44% chance of landing within 4 inches, 77% chance of landing within 8 inches, and 22% chance of landing outside of 8 inches.

So although you can shoot at something you can't see, you're more aiming at a quarter of the board and hoping to hit something. This also gets rid of barrage sniping (which is stupid and counter-intuitive.)


No idea why you can't do an in depth reply, have you tried to contact the admins? Quick replies work for the time being because you can go back and edit, but I understand the frustration.


Also,
Hooray for breaking 100 posts!

I guess using the Teardrop template for ranged area effect is just personal preference.
(If all ranged effects were round blast markers it would be more uniform in application.But some may like to have special templates for this type of attack, even though they have similar in game effects.)

I would prefer 'speculative shooting' was restricted to pre- planned off table bombardment /air strikes.

As most modern rules allow a set number of bounds pre planned fire, to soften up general areas .(EG tree line, town , approach to a bridgehead, etc.)

Troops on the ground wasting ammo firing blind is not so common....

Its easier to restrict on table firing to direct LOS or indirect LOS only.(1 rule, 1 exception.)

Again I dont mind adding firing without LOS in later if its needed after we play test.

Ahh, thinking about it I now remember that scatter dice do have an arrow of a kind on the compas-thing on the "hit" side.

Your proposal makes allot more sense now (in my head you were re-rolling every "hit"). Yes, lots of sense, I like the procedural flow diagram as well. I think the rules will be clearer and more interesting if we do many of them that way. (For example acquiring target, armour saving, wounding, and removal of casualties could be a relatively linear one).

On the subject of units taking losses, how will it work? My preference (and the house rule with my group) has allays been to resolve everything as if units were indivisible items in of themselves. For example if one of their models is in boltgun range and LOS of one of your models then your entire squad may fire bolters at their entire squad. If they then suffer X casualties they remove X models from their unit, in any way they like (all the removed models might be out of range and LOS).

(We all got into warhammer fantasy first, we thought we were playing by the rules when we did this for years).

Hello,

I have made some candidate movement symbols, this image shows a quick example of how I imagine them working. Ignore the actual stats, they arent the point of this.

Hi Dast.
That is the sort of symbols I was thinking of for movement.

I was wondering should we use symbols for all stats, instead of letters-names on the unit cards?

Rather than ...M/BS/WS/S/T/W/I/A/ld/Sv which uses letters that are not relevant in some languages...

Eg
(Movement type symbol)+ distance moved in inches.

(Shield symbol for armour) large models like vehilces and Monsters get a front side rear armour values.

(Heart /Cog symbol for resiliance, for biological/mechanical units.)

(Cloak symbol for stealth)

(Target symbol for BS replacement.)

(Crossed dagger symbol for WS replacement )

(Blood drop/oil drop for wounds/structure points symbol.)number of models in unit/ wounds/structure points per model

(Medal symbol for morale symbol.)

(Arm stripes,(star for special characters.) for command value symbol.

Just a thought...as a picture paints a thousand words.

Your suggestion for casualty removal seem pretty straight forward and in common usage.I can not see the point in useing a more complicated resolution to start with.

TTFN

Hello again folks.
As the rules for the game seem to be developing quite well, lots of good ideas so far.

I was wondering if I could just post up an alternative to replacement the current F.O.C.

If we are using unit cards.
We could have one side with the in game information on(Unit name description, followed by unit and weapon stats.)
And the other side could be used for the army organisation and points values.

My proposal is to use the commonality of unit types, rather than in game function to define units in the force organisation.As this allows the same units to be used in different themed lists.

HQ units.
Core units
Specialized units
Restricted Units.

HQ units set the theme of the army, they determine what units are considered Common , Specialized and Rare in their force.

OPTION we might include...
Some HQ unit may be able to bring 'Limited Support Units (0-1, 0-2 or 1-3)These are particular to that specific HQ.
These are the most 'in theme units' that do not apply to other armies. Eg Blood Angel Death Guard, Snakebite Squiggoths etc.

For every HQ unit you may take;-

2 to 8 Common Units.
(0-3 Support units if we use this option.)

For every 2 Common units units you may take 1 Specialized unit.

For every 2 Specialized units you may take 1 Restricted unit.

EG
Assault Squads are common in a 'Assault' themed SM army.'
Specialized in a 'Tactical' themed SM army .
And Restricted in a 'defender' 'Fire support' themed SM army.

This allows the proportion of units types to scale evenly over game sizes.Allows lots of themed lists with very little complication.

I may not have explained it that well though..
Please let me know what you think , or any clarification needed...

TTFN

Just did the second play test (testing the version I came up with.)

Here are the results to the survey taken before:

Better/Worse than current 40k
Random vs In control (1-10)
Static vs Fluid (1-10)
More/Less tactical than current 40k
How "into" the game were you (1-10)
Suggestions:


Friend (playing Tau)
Better
8
10
More
6

Me (playing Orks)
Better
9
10
More
7
Disembarking reduces your initiative to 0, this made it a lot less “rhino-rush,” and a lot more tactical.


Both of us liked this version more than the other one. So I'm going to make the decision to go with this version instead. The big reason is the game wasn't just a decision of shooting vs moving, making things that are supposed to move (like deffkoptas) play a static role.

I would love to have you play test it as well, but I know it's kind of hard to do.



So now, here is how the activation levels are going to work:

Place your counter during the command phase.
Start at level 20, count down.
Activate your unit in the range of levels determined by your leadership + - command value.
Start of the resolution phase you take care of morale checks.
After that, you resolve assaults.



@Lanrak

Hmm... haven't thought too much about redoing the Force Org Chart. I think we should leave that for a little longer, and knock out the rest of the rules we have laid out first.

Command values have been something that I've been thinking a lot about lately. Here are some of them:

Thinking of Tau is the easiest, because of their obvious command structure.

Shas'la - 1
Shas'ui - 2
Shas'vre - 3
Shas'el - 4
Shas'o - 5

1 is a recruit
2 is a normal soldier
3 is a veteran
4 is a high authority figure
5 is a general


So for Space Marines:
Scouts - 1
Marines - 2
Veterans (incl. sgts and terminators) - 3
Librarians/Chaplains/etc. - 4
Captains - 5

Tyranids:
Rippers - 0
Gaunts - 1
Hive Guard/Carnifexes/etc. - 2
Lictors/Genestealers/things meant to function without Synapse - 3
Synapse Creatures - 4
Hive Tyrants - 5

Synapse could have the nice effect of letting the units in Synapse range use their command value. Units outside of Synapse range could be forced to act at their highest activation level (IB - Feed) or their lowest (IB - Lurk.)

Orks:
Boyz - 1
Nobz/Gretchin - 2
Big Meks/Weirdboyz/special Nobz - 3
Warboss - 4
(Still iffy about this one...)

These are just some examples, and leave room for some really cool and unique army abilities. For instance, Space Marines are naturally going to be higher than most because of the presence of a veteran sgt. Tyranids not in Synapse are going to be hurting, with almost no control over the units; but if they are in Synapse they have flawless execution.

I only did armies I was familiar with, but you get the idea (hopefully )


Soon I'll go to the first post and correct it to the new turn order, which will bump part 1 to 100% (huzzah )

I only mentioned the change to FoC as something to consider later in the development.
Its just if i do not post stuff when I think about it , it sort of gets forgotten about...

Could you please explain the new game turn.And how the command values work?
As I am unsure how adding on numerical sequencing adds more tactical depth, it just appears to take control away from players?

I would like to keep this rule set a concise as possible.(Less than 40 pages.)

Sure thing, I understand that if I don't put stuff in the thread I tend to forget about it.


Alright, so I'll try to explain command values and the game turn as best I can.

Command values are simple:
-It's how versatile the unit is when it comes to making actions. If it has a high command value, it is more flexible and can either act before enemy units or after them depending on what the commander wants.

So let's take a Space Marine Captain as an example:
-They have a leadership of 10, and would have a command value of 5.

This is generally the most versatile you can get, as it allows the unit to be activated anywhere from step 15 to step 5 (which is a huge range.)

Next we’ll have a Tau Fire Warrior Team:
-They have a leadership of 7, and would have a command value of 1.

They are very limited on when they can be activated, with only a range of 6 to 8.
If they had a Shas’ui upgrade though, they would now have a leadership of 8 and a command value of 2.
This changes them to have a range of 6 to 10, and are now much more tactically flexible due to the presence of a veteran leading them.


These all come into play below.




The game turn is broken up into three phases:
-Command Phase
-Action Phase
-Resolution Phase

Let me break down what happens, and in what order, during each phase.
-Command Phase
---Reserves arrive first. Both players will roll to find out which reserves come in, but then alternate when placing them. Who goes first will be decided by the players rolling off.
---The players will place a counter face down by each unit. This counter will have either green, amber, or red. Players can place these in whichever order they feel, and once both players have completed this action they continue to the Action Phase.

-Action Phase
---The action phase is broken down into 20 activation levels. Every unit will be activated during one of these levels.
---Starting at activation level 20, count down.
---Once it hits a number that is in the range of the unit you want to activate, they can be activated. This is where the ranges shown above with the Fire Warrior Team and Captain come into effect. Just to clarify, you only count down once per turn (not once per player) and multiple units can be activated in the same activation level.
---If multiple units are activated during the same activation level, the counter priority comes into effect. Green units will go first, followed by amber, and finally it is finished off with red.
---If multiple units are activated during the same activation level and have the same counter color, the players roll off. The winner can decide whether to go first or have the opponent go first. Then you alternate activating units until one player no longer has units being activated at that same level and with the same color.
---When a unit is activated it will immediately do whatever its counter says it is going to do. Also, the activation level is the priority when determining when units will go. (e.g. if a red-counter unit is activated at level 9 and another green-counter unit at 8, the red-counter unit will go first.)

-Resolution Phase
---Units that have taken damage and require a morale check do this as soon as the Resolution Phase starts. The order doesn’t really matter, but if people nit-pick they can figure out something amongst themselves.
---Assaults are resolved next. We’ll figure out the details for this part soon enough.


I know this seems complicated, but as soon as I figure out how to word it and you get a chance to play it will make a lot more sense. I really hope that I got it this time, but I’m not that confident that I did. It is so much easier to do it in person or even through voice-by the end of the game, both me and my opponent already had it pretty well down (just a few slips here and there.)

If this doesn’t at least make it a little clearer, we’re going to have to figure out another way to communicate. Maybe Skype, or even just smaller posts that we’re quick to reply to?

Hi rabid.
The post is very clear.The command value and leadership are determining the activation sequence.
I see this as ... armies with high LD and Command values activate MORE UNITS before armies with lower Ld and command values?!.

I thought the point of alternating unit activation was to EQUALLY SPACE unit activations.
EG Player 'a' activates one unit then player' b' activates one unit.. a,b,a,b,a,b,a,b,a,b,a,b '

letting LD and command values set activation sequencing could mean, Player A activates several units until the 'activation sequence number' is low enough for player B to activate one unit!!
Which allows the massive imbalance of lots of units doing lots of things while the opposing player waits, (THE PROBLEM with current 40k game turn.IMO)

Or if its just applies to singular sequencing of an army , EG SM army can only activate units near its commander first,(Highest LD and command values.)While Tau can only activate the unit near their commander first.(Highest Ld and command values.)
This appears to just artificially restricts player choice.

I honestly do NOT see why you want to add this?(Could you clearly state the reason why it is needed in your opinion?)

In my proposed stats the 'Command Value' shows how good leaders inspire units PERFORMANCE within command range.(Limited re-rolls of dice within command range to show their POSITIVE effect on nearby units/models.)
Communications are assumed instant and freely made to any unit on good morale.The game turn lets players have FULL control of what units take what actions and when.

The system of Green Amber Red was to let players make tactical decisions on action focus, and sequencing.(No additional numerical sequencing is required in the existing games using it!)

If you want numerical sequencing then 'Activation Points' as used in games like 'Space Hulk' would be my preferred option.
Each action has a cost in AP,and each 'leader' generates a set of Action Points for their force.To show how well they motivate units.
This is the system that would make more sense with 'numerical sequencing' as it takes the other sequencing format out of the game turn.(No need for Green , Amber or Red counters.)

Eg
Move 1 AP.
Shoot from the hip 1AP.
Fire support 2AP
Run 2AP.
Charge into assault 3 AP.
Lift Suppression 1AP
Reduce neutralization to suppression 2AP
Reduce routed to neutralized. 2AP
(Accumulative cost , so routed to ok takes 5AP.)

This method restricts the players to using a set amount of actions, (controlled by action points, ) determined by the 'leaders' in the army.
Its the more detailed but complicated version of the 'order counters' I suggested.

Basic alternating activation.
Player A activates a unit.
Player B activates a unit.
Continue until all units activated.

I simply added choosing the actions the unit would perform, (Green Amber Red,) in the Command Phase to add more tactical thought, and tactical depth to the game play..
(Using 'order counters' is quite common in Alternating Activation game turns for a reason.. )

My point is orders counters AND numerical sequencing is ONE method too many!
We should just decide on ONE.

Morning Lanrak,

So the reason for the activation levels is simple:
-It adds more tactical flexibility to commanders, and allows for more diversity in armies.


The goal isn't necessarily for the turn to go a, b, a, b, a, b, a, b, a, b. Instead, the turns tend to go a, b, a, a, b, a, b, b, b, a, b, a, a, b, b or something like that. They are still mixed, but it isn't so mechanical.


When we did the play test, there were a few things that I specifically looked for to see if they would be a problem. You have actually named several of them, I just didn't put them in my post.
Q - Will high leadership armies dominate? i.e. will a whole army be able to go before their opponent?
A - This actually never was a problem. I played as Orks, so my opponent generally was a higher leadership than anything that I brought to the table. However, it allowed me to go after him for my movement and force him to target the things that I wanted him to. So after almost making him waste a turn of shooting, I would start to go at my higher activation levels to get up in his face as soon as possible.

Q - Can't a deathstar unit dominate the board if they have a high command value model joined to it?
A - Certain deathstar units were definitely able to pack a punch due to the flexibility of going at a lower activation level for movement and a higher activation level for assaulting. However, by reducing their command value to 0 if they were disembarking or deep striking it really helped balance things.

Q - Shooting seems to have a distinct advantage because of the counters and their priority. Would they actually dominate the board?
A - Although the games were very bloody in general, it was equally from shooting and assaults. Because you could lock units in close combat before they could shoot, it could be used to really mitigate an opponent’s shooting capabilities. Additionally, if you had a unit that could wipe the enemy in assault they would be free to move and assault another unit the next turn. This meant that assault units didn't cross this magical "too good" barrier that would result in them performing worse because of how good they were.

Q - Will the addition of activation levels actually add to the tactical flexibility of the commander, and make them feel like they were in control?
A - Yes, oh god yes it did. I felt like I had total control of what was going on with my army. I never felt like I should just leave the room and let my opponent finish with their stuff. The game was incredibly fluid. We ended up taking like 3 hours for a 1,000 point game, but that was because we were learning it as we were playing it, and besides that it didn't feel like it was dragging on at all. Previously, when it was just done with counters it strongly favored shooting. If you had to decide between shooting and moving, where one would do damage and reduce incoming damage, the choice is obvious. Maybe with the change of being able to do amber and green at the same time it would help, but then we should almost just make it so that each player takes turns activating a unit because 90% of the units would be green or amber.


I know this seems complicated, but after play testing the choice was obvious to me. I'm thinking I may try to figure out a way to record a game so you can see exactly what I'm talking about, and how fluid it makes the game. However, I'll only do that if you think it's worth it (because that's a lot of work )

Hello,

I like the new version of the 20 steps initiative system. However I do have a question that I'm not sure has been covered (perhaps it has and I missed it though).

Do both players have to simultaneously reveal everything they intend to activate this step, or do they only set the step when the unit actually activates? Do I have to tell you that my bikes and my tactical squad are moving this step, or just the bikes, see how things go, then reconsider the tactical squad. (Say the bikes got lucky and gunned down the only other squad currently in shooting range of the tactical, the tactical might as well wait to see if something ventures closer in the next step rather than shooting the air).

Dast,

The way we had played it was everything reveals at the same time. This worked fine when we did it, and only a few times did a unit end up a little stranded.

In a tournament scenario, a rather dickish player could wait to have their opponent reveal all of their units before deciding which units to activate. We can come up with something to mitigate this if we think it'll be a problem.

So in the scenario you mentioned, a few things could happen:
1 - The commander really wanted a certain squad dead, and decided to use a green counter for both the bike and tactical squad. If the bike squad wipes them out, then it would mean that there was overkill and the tactical squad shouldn't be given the opportunity to change their mind.
2 - To play it safe, the commander wanted their units to be able to move so they were assigned a yellow and a red counter. The bike squad goes first because they are yellow, and end up wiping out the target. The tactical squad had a red counter, meaning they can still do a normal movement afterwards (maybe even being able to target a new unit.)

There are plenty of other things that could end up happening, but the decision was made during the command phase as to what stance the unit was going to take. This perpetuates through the whole turn, with whatever benefits or penalties come with it. A good commander will use serious economy of force, and will be rewarded with it. Two equally powerful lists will come down to whichever commander made the fewest mistakes.

I can understand how moving from 40ks alternating game turn.That ANY level of interaction adds tactics , and deeper game play.

I still feel the numerical sequencing only appeals to you due to the 'over complication expectation' 40k generates.
And it IS open to abuse by more competitive players.(A few friendly play tests wanting it to work , is not a robust enough test.IMO.)

If you did NOT want ALTERNATING unit activation,(a,b,a,b,a,b,a) why not use another game turn mechanic?

Alternating phases, or action point allocation, or even variable game bound...I am happy to discuss alternative game mechanics if you want ?

Unfortunately I don't really have the resources to do extensive play testing like a gaming company could do.

I think it's a lot less complicated than what you are envisioning. I highly suggest finding a way to try out what I'm saying.

I'm willing to discuss other ways to do game turns. Although it is easy for things to become more tactical than current 40k, I think what I came up with is more tactical than most other game turn systems. Though I know that is only 2 people's opinions so far, so I'm willing to hear criticism of it.

Thanks for explaining that Rabid.

I think Rabids system is really quite good, it allows the better organised factions (Space marines, eldar) to actually make decisions either before or after their opponents (Orks) and really brings out the flavor. It also applies unit by unit, so even two armies of the same faction could have quite different in terms of flexibility of activation.

I haven't had a chance to play-test rabids idea yet (probably wont do for a few months), but the theory of it really appeals.

Even if that might sound weird, I find that the "a, b, a, a, b, a, b, b, b, a, b, a, a, b, b" scenario is the best way to equally distribute turn orders. Armies doesn't have the same numbers of units and if I take one of my friend army that have just 4 units in a 1500pts game. Making it 'even' would quickly become "a,b,a,b,a,b,a,b,b,b,b,b,b,b,b,b,b,b,b,b,b,b,b,b,b,b" against an imperial guard player, not really solving the problem of the same player activating 2 units back-to-back anyway. But that's just a my quick grain of salt in that discussion...

What I really wanted to discuss was the method of tie resolution that seems to be used. There can be a LOT of ties in that systems (Especially with similar armies, like Space marines) and rolling to break that tie each time might break the flow of the game... So to solve that (somewhat small) problem, let me introduce the Tie-Breaking-Token-Of-Doom-3002™. (could be sold at any good hobby shop for the small price of 40$)

Tie-breaking-Token Rules:
1. The first player who deploys all his units on the table get the token. (Or choose any other way to determine who begins with it, that's not important)
2. When a Tie occur, the token owner solve that tie how he wishes. After that, he gives the token to the player at his right.
3. If the token is soft enough, it can also be thrown at any cheese-abusing player.

Anyway, until now, I find your project really promising and I really hope that it will see it's completion and be accepted/used by a lots of players, good luck!

Hi folks.
If you dont want to alternate unit activation, then dont pick alternating unit activation as your game turn mechanic!

I can now sort of see why you wanted 'limited multiple activation' to show armies with better leadership.

I was to busy worrying about the 'over complication' and possible abuse of your proposed method to see the reasoning behind it.
You want units close to the 'character-leaders' to act 'as one' in a 'decisive way', yes?

Here is a possible alternative that allows for multiple units to act together under an 'heroic leader' (Command value 2 or more).While sticking to the alternating unit activation ethos...

Combat Attachments!
A leader with a command value of 2 or more, MAY bring more than one unit under their control.
They can take control of a number of units equal to their command value,(Include any attached units /retinue in this calculation.)
The group of units under a single controlling leader is called a UNIT GROUP.
The UNIT GROUP now counts as ONE unit for the perpose of orders and actions.(Place orders by the leader model of the UNIT GROUP.)

Restrictions,
Units in the unit group have to stay in command range of the unit group leader.
The leader of the unit group looses 1 command (re roll ) dice per units controlled over 2.
If the leader of the unit group suffers any morale damage it applies to ALL units in the unit group.
Combat attachments are formed and disbanded in the COMMAND PHASE ONLY!

This leaves sequencing as basic order sequence.(No additional sequencing required.)
BUT give player the CHOICE of making combat attachments , to make a larger unit under the control of a good leader.And has reasonable limitations to curb abuse...

Eg if a MSU army is up against a Deathstar army.They can use Combat Attachments to even up the combat match ups a bit!

Anyhow...

IF you are concerned about the imbalance in the number of units across armies in 40k.
You can say multiple small units have more activations, but are easier to damage, so that is fine!.

OR go for Alternating Phases.(Imagine looking at one army for a few seconds to see what they are doing, then looking back to see what their opposition has done in the same amount of time .)
('Tennis mach view', command phase.. .attacker, defender, attacker, defender,....resolution phase.)

Command Phase as before.

Player A takes ONE action with all their army.
Player B takes ONE action with all their army.
Player A takes ONE action with all their army .
Player B takes ONE action with all their army

Resolution phase as before.

Orders.
Advance, move then attack.
Double-time (run), move then move.
Evade, Attack then move,
Fire support , ready , then fire.
Infiltrate , ready then move

Actions.
Move , move up to movement value,( modified by terrain )
Attack attack enemy units within weapons range, ( resolve in this order, close combat then small arms then support weapons.)
Ready, prepare equipment for stealthy movement, set up fire support weapons 'move or fire' etc.

Command phase. Place order counters face down next to unit.(Units can have different orders as before.)
Primary action phase, flip order counter over and take FIRST ACTION ONLY!!(One unit at a time.)
Secondary action phase, take second action of order, and remove order counter.(One unit at a time.)
Resolution phase, plot arrivals rally units on poor morale..etc.

TTFN

@Dast

When you get the chance to play test (even if it's not for a while) please let me know. I'm really hoping to get a couple dozen games, with a dozen or so different players. So even if it's just a single game near the end when we are on v0.9 it is going to be immensely helpful.


@Static-Cat

By the way, I saw that this was your first post and welcome to DakkaDakka!

I'd never thought of the tie-breaker token, and it sounds very interesting. I'm willing to play test that next chance I get. Just to make sure though, you know that it is once per color that the two players roll correct? Granted that could end up being like 2 or 3 dozen rolls over a 6 turn game. But in the play test that I just did it actually didn't end up slowing down the game really at all.

Both methods should really be play tested, and more methods are highly encouraged in case anyone comes up with more.




Moving forward though.

Let's finish up wound allocation.

There are two methods that I can think of, with one being more realistic and the other being simpler.

More Realistic:
-Break it up into common weapons (bolter, missile launcher, meltagun.)
-Resolve the weapons in this order:
---Templates
---Large Blast Markers
---Small Blast Markers
---Shorter range to longer range for all remaining weapons
-You can only kill things in range of the weapons, and having a longer range weapon in the squad doesn't do anything to benefit the shorter range weapons.
-By resolving, it is everything from rolling to hit to actually removing the casualties. Casualty removal is done from under blasts and templates (if applicable) and from the front.


Simpler method:
-Roll to hit with every gun simultaneously, placing templates and blast markers (and scattering) prior to moving on.
-Roll all the hits for armor penetration, grouping identical AP weapons.
-Roll all that made it through armor for wounding, grouping identical Strength weapons.
-Remove casualties from the front.


I know a lot of people play both methods, I generally prefer the first but I know that it is more complicated. The realism is nice though and something that I like to have; however, I know that a lot of people like simplicity and quicker games.

With all that in mind, what do you guys think? Once we answer this question, we can proceed directly to morale.



We mentioned it before, but I'm in favor of having "overkill." Overkill means that however many extra wounds that are dealt to a unit through shooting are used to force morale checks on nearby units. For every extra inch the unit is -1 to their leadership.

This means that say a unit has 5 members, and they suffer 12 casualties. An overkill of 7 is then present. This means that all units within 7 inches will take a morale check. If another unit was within 4 inches of the unit that had an overkill of 7, they are -3 to their leadership for the morale check.


To go along with this, we can use the new command stat to really help mitigate overkill.

For every command point you can get rid of some of the penalty for being close to a unit that suffered overkill.

Continuing the example from above. If it was a a Tau Fire Warrior squad with a Shas'ui upgrade, his command value of 2 will reduce it so they are only -1 to their morale check.


Also, Lanrak you mentioned this before and I really liked it. There are three levels to failing.

If you fail your leadership, you are suppressed.
-Suppressed units cannot run or charge, and if not firing at the closest target must use a red counter.
If you fail your leadership by 2 or more, you are pinned.
-Pinned units cannot move, their command value is reduced to 0, and to make any action they must use a red counter.
If you fail your leadership by 4 or more, you are routed.
-Routed units must retreat at 2D6", their command value is reduced to 0, and to make any action they must use a red counter.

A total of 5 special rules I can see affecting morale:
ATSKNF - ATSKNF units ignore panic and pinning weapons for shooting.
Stubborn - Stubborn units never suffer negative modifiers for morale checks.
Fearless - Fearless units ignore all morale checks.
Panic - If something causes panic, units are routed if they fail their leadership instead of being suppressed or pinned.
Pinning - If something causes pinning, units are pinned if they fail their leadership instead of being suppressed.

Hopefully these aren't too complicated. It covers any possible morale situation that I can think of in a few simple special rules.



Quite a bit to digest I know, but it's an all-encompassing post for morale. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.

As far as weapon resolution orders goes I agree with you rabid .
Area effect first.(templates and blast weapons .)
Then shortest to longest range weapons.

I think there should be allowance for expressing 'volume of fire on target' causing supression /pinning.
There are other ways more in keeping with modern warfare than WHFBs 'overkill' .
(Which makes sense in the context of WHFB 'our hero was turned into red mist by that big gribbly ..LEG IT!!!)

My prefered method would be letting the AV represent the value where the model is 'shaken by volume of fire'.(Fail armour save.)
And only becomes a casualty if the attacker makes a successful to wound /damage roll.

A unit becomes suppressed if the more than 25% of the unit become shaken.(Fail their Armour save.).
A unit becomes neutralized if it takes more than 25% casualties .(Attacker rolls successful wounds/damage rolls.)
A unit routes if it falls below 50% of its starting strength and fails more than 25% saving throws.

I would replace normal orders with 'MORALE counters, to show the unit is out of normal command.

Suppressed,The unit may withdraw, OR move to intervening cover at normal speed OR Fire at nearest enemy unit.(Only take ONE action, counting as being on RED orders.)

Neutralized. The unit will not take any actions , other than fighting back if assaulted.

Routed.The unit MUST attempt to withdraw from the field of battle at double speed.(Move towards nearest friendly unit-edge of playing area, free from enemy units.)

TTFN

rabid1903 wrote:@Static-Cat

By the way, I saw that this was your first post and welcome to DakkaDakka!

Thanks!


Personally, for the two weapon resolution, I don'T have any preferences between the two...

However... The Template->Blast->Short Range->Long Range solution seems to seriously limit the potential of your 'Overkill' rule, no? If my two flamer killed all of the units... How do I calculate my 7 remaining Bolter shots for the Overkill?

If the overkill idea is implemented, I think that the "roll all at once" option should be used.