In this post are all the documents for the new version of 40k called Grimdark that Dast, Lanrak, and I have been working on. The rules for 40k were becoming unwieldy and didn't represent combat the way we felt it should. This is a total redo of the rules from the ground up. The goal is to be totally independent of the 40k rules, so please read in a vacuum. Be warned, it is rough and I am sure I have not caught all the typos.
Previously, the rulebook was titled 40k in 40 pages. This is not a lengthy rulebook at all, and neither are any of the codices. Rest assured, they are filled to the brim with rules that are intuitive (e.g. the daemons codex has rules for 26 units in 15 pages, and all rulebook special rules are covered in a single page.)
Please feel welcome to comment in either post, we will frequently check both and any input will help. Play testing is especially appreciated, with the goal of being a balanced and fun game.
Vassal only provides sprites; everything else is up to you. There's lots of tokens and counters that can be used, as well as a 'secret' notepad you can reveal to your opponents.
I'll have to give it a shot here soon, I'll download it but I don't think I can play today. However, I do have a couple buddies who'll be very interested in this.
I'm working on a system for a d1040k conversion, and also trying to come up with a universal valuation scheme for points.
I like the idea of defensive and offensive stats being separate values.
One of the idea's I'm kicking around is to remove defensive stats entirely to speed up gameplay. How has your comparative defensive statistic affected game speed in combat resolution?
Comparing people learning this new system to people learning normal 40k, it is considerably faster. If not actually taking less time, the game flows much faster as you are always doing something.
It'll take a few people who are very familiar with this to play test it enough times before I can give you a really good answer. My hunch though is it will continue to speed up. Once people have learned their armies and the tricks to speed rolling combat can be resolved very quickly.
The first draft of the Space Marines codex is done! Obviously it is going to be very rough and be quite different from the 40k version, but let me know what you think.
I've been trying to find a good tutorial for Vassal, but no luck. I've got the whole day tomorrow; if you're willing to hop on Skype we can definitely play.
There's so much in this codex that balance is going to be very very difficult. I hadn't thought about the combination of Machine with Terminators. However, I'm not sure how much stronger they'll actually be. Terminators die easier in this version than normal 40k; though so does everything else (this is a very bloody game.)
Thank you for pointing those out, I've spent so much time working on these that I can't catch typos anymore haha.
I'll fix those real quick.
So do you think that I should remove the AV bonus, and instead put something like they're immune to Bane (Mechanical)?
Lastly, which armies would you like to test tomorrow? I'm game for any of them and am curious if you have any preferences. I think we should play with 1500 points, as that is what I'm trying to balance it for.
if I've got that right, it gives me 2 scoring units, 6 deepstriking bastards that should be able to slap down most of a squad each per turn, and 2 big units of mop-up. This list might struggle with horde, but I should be able to JSJ and Zephyr my way out of any difficulties, especially with Mv 8 on the suits.
I lied. I'll be taking Space Marines, with a Commander and 8 units of Devastators, full of Plasma Cannons - with the no-gets-hot-+-accurate rules.
tl;dr I think Plasma and Melta are now severely undercosted for what they do. Having a meltagun makes you the boss, and Crisis Suits can be taken in spades, with tonnes of meltaguns.
Rabid and I managed to get part-ways through a game, which will continue sometime soon.
The game is anyone's at the moment - I'm unable to truly damage his GORRAM psykers because of their Last Chance saves - 4+ has succeeded for him 10/12 times so far.
My initial reaction is that shooting and assault are both far more deadly - ESPECIALLY when you've gotten the charge, which grants Strikes First. Shooting - especially Melta shooting - is preposterously powerful. Crisis Suits with 2 meltas come in at 60 points, and can reliably disintegrate most enemies.
The Ethereal in particular is an amazing snag. I think I'll be running an army with 2 in a future game to try out some tactics.
A few small rules glitches and issues to be worked out arose, as well as some missing rules for topics. The game plays a lot faster-paced and a lot more dynamically than regular 40k, and it feels much more interesting overall.
Chrisrawr is going to be putting up the final battle report soon, but here are some conclusions from the play test:
1. Holy crap melta is strong. Waaaaaaay too strong. It's been toned down from Multi-Wound (3) to Multi-Wound (1).
2. Shooting in general packs more of a punch, but movement is much faster--leading to more frequent assaults (2nd turn is standard.) The real damage in assault comes from Morale, which brings me to:
3. Morale I think is working very well. It is very easy to fail leadership checks, and being routed is painful due to acting very last.
Next up, I'm going to be running Marines. I'm not sure what type yet, but I have a pretty strong hunch on it. I'll post the list that I used for my Tyranids soon, it was a pretty fluffy list.
Something I'm strongly considering is adding a "chosen" ability to each of the Traits of the Primarch. These would be used in order to make your commander into the special characters that are currently in the codex.
For instance:
Raven would give +1 to their Stealth value
Blood would give +2 MV
Knight would make Thunder Hammers Str 10
Flame would move the +3" template range to this instead of being default
Stallion would give Outflank
Those are just some examples I was thinking of for the loyalist side of things. Chaos might be a bit harder, but I have some thoughts there too:
Heretic trait would change to allowing any marine unit to become Chosen. The Chosen trait we'd have to come up with though.
Plague would add Bane to all close combat attacks.
Terror would allow charges in Green.
Siege would allow Devastator weapons to be bought.
Berserker would remove Always Strike Last from chain axes and power axes.
Sorcerer would add an additional +1 Psyker Level.
Fanatic would grant Last Chance (5+)
Trickster would gain +2 to their Deny the Witch roll.
Not sure, kind of just vomiting information onto the computer so I remember it later.
Those should all be explained pretty well in the rulebook. Look in the Planning Your Army section.
If I need to explain rules on the forums, that means the rulebook is faulty. So if you have any questions as to what things are, please let me know and I will edit the rulebook.
The "Traits" area was found quite easily in my case, but due to the importance of armybuilding, that section could come first in the rulebook.
I've been playing some abuse-cases off against myself in the meanwhile, and I definitely think that some psyker powers should require the use of green/yellow/red activations.
Most notably, the Pavane of Slaanesh; with a greater daemon and 2 princes, the Pavane can be cast on 6 units a turn; automatic routing from turn 2 forward followed by 3 large, scary monsters running right into the front lines of whatever's left. Yikes.
Something that I've pretty strongly considered doing was making malidictions require a Red Counter, with their effects lasting until the end of the next Action Phase. This would simultaneously allow your units to move into position and use it on the targets they want to hit most, but also need a counter to use.
Stallion Bike units gain +2 MV. Unit gains Outflank, rolling two dice and choosing between them on which side they arrive on.
Wolf Night Vision and Furious Charge. Bike units may become Tracked and Biological, gaining +1 MV and RV and +1 Attacks and Strength to melee weapons.
Knight Stubborn, Bolter weapons gain Accurate. Storm Shields become Last Chance (3+) and Power Lances gain Accurate.
Blood Furious Charge, Mechanical models go from Tracked to Wheeled. Gain Extra Armor and all Melee weapons gain +1 Attacks.
Machine All Infantry and Large models become Mechanical and gain Extra Armor. Repair attempts may be rerolled and you may attempt to repair any lost wound instead of just 1.
Legionnaire Automatically rally and may choose to fail any morale test. May choose to pass or fail any Morale test. Units within 9" of an Independent Character also benefit from this rule.
Flame Flame weaponry gains Bane and +3" Range. Treated as +1 RV when targetted by any template weapon, Thunder Hammers become Strength 10.
Raven Infiltrate, units already with Infiltrate gain +1 Stealth. Lightning Claws gain Accurate. Stealth increased by 1. Lightning Claws gain Slayer.
Traitor (also gain Fearless)
Spoiler:
Fanatic Strike at +2 Dexterity level in close combat (to hit rolls remain at normal Dexterity) Last Chance (5+) or +1 to the roll if the model already has Last Chance.
Siege All Monstrous sized units with the Tracked MT become Common. Devastator weapon options may be purchased.
Terror All weapons gain Suppressive. All weapons gain Panic.
Berserker All melee weapons have +1 Attacks. May trade any Chainsword for a Chainaxe, gaining +1 Str, AP, and Always Strike Last. Chainaxes and Power axes lose Always Strike Last and gain Bane.
Plague All Infantry and Large models gain +1 RV and are -1 MV. Last Chance (5+) or +1 to the roll if the model already has Last Chance.
Sorcerer All bolter weapons gain +2 AP. Psyker level +1. If not already a Psyker, the model becomes Psyker level 1 (2).
Heretic All units are +1 leadership. Captains and Heroes are +1 CV. Scoring.
Apostle Deny the witch rolls are +1. Furious charge and melee weapons are +1 Attacks and Accurate if the unit charges.
Trickster May Scout move D3 friendly or enemy units per Force Org chart. Deny the witch rolls are +3.
Unfortunately I haven't had the time to get back into this recently. Don't worry, I haven't forgotten about it or abandoned it.
Codex rebalance my biggest speed bump now. I'm going to dial it back and focus on a few codices. First up will be my Tyranids, followed by Tau, then Daemons, and finally Marines after their new codex comes out.
I really need at least one other person to do some serious scouring of each codex and point out the things that seem unbalanced or any combinations that would be broken. That's a pretty tall order to ask of someone that's not as invested in the game as myself.
I was just making sure it wasnt dead; I'm going to be playing some small IRL battles with my girlfriend and her sister over the next couple weeks, so we'll probably use this; I just need to start on an Imperial Guard codex for it.
Just uploaded a PDF version of the rulebook for your reading pleasure.
Chrisrawr, I actually had a pretty solid chunk of time open up for tomorrow evening. I haven't had the chance to really go through and make a lot of the adjustments we had talked about though. I think we should do Tau vs Tyranids again if you're up for it.
Yes If I can, I'll be there. Skype me - we might have to save and break it into chunks like last time, but that shouldn't be too much of a problem. I might be going on a 14 hour work-related-road-trip literally at any time (could be 3am and I'd be told to grab a timmies and suck it up) - so that might interfere.
This time we need to not forget to use objectives haha.
Also, here is a change to deployment that will make it much easier:
-Defending Player chooses their deployment zone
-Deploy in order of Command Value
---Use the highest in the squad
---Independent Characters may join a squad prior to deployment
-Start with a CV of 1, and move up
---All units from both players of a certain level deploy before moving to the next.
---Players alternate deploying units, with the defending player deploying the first unit.
---The owning player may decide any order of units with the same CV.
So with me starting my masters degree, the time I have available to play test this is nearly 0. I would love to continue this project, and I occasionally have time to work on the documents.
There are a few major changes that I'd like to look at doing. The largest of which is the damage chart is going to be revised. Right now things get stratified too quickly and some units are hopelessly outmatched in certain areas. I'm going to reel this in and the chart can be read like so: If the two stats are within 1 of each other, it's a 4+ If the two stats are 2-3 away, it's either a 3+ or 5+ depending on the direction. If the two stats are 4-5 away, it's either a 2+ or 6+ depending on the direction. Past that, it is automatically a pass or a failure.
Beyond the revisions I plan to do, I am in desperate need of play testers now. There is just no feasible way for me to play test anymore, so now I need a few people to take the reigns on it and provide feedback to me. Unfortunately though, this means that if I can't find a group of play testers this project will fall by the wayside for I don't know how long. I'm going to hold off creating another codex until I know for sure one way or the other. However, I'll still add occasional revisions to the already created documents.
Interesting that you brought this up, I was actually just considering reviving it.
The biggest thing I need to play test right now is finding a way to do a truly simultaneous turn. I'll try to explain what I mean.
Say there are three units on each side with the following counters (their color):
Side 1:
-Tactical Marine Squad
-Assault Marine Squad
-Command Squad
Side 2:
-Tactical Marine Squad
-Devastator Squad
-Command Squad
(Reminder: Green = shoot to full effect, Yellow = run or charge, Red = move and shoot to reduced effect)
Side 1 is the defender, side 2 is the attacker and activates the first unit each turn.
--Side 2 uses their Devastator Squad to shoot at Side 1's Tactical Marine Squad. They choose to react to the incoming fire. They take a command check and fail, meaning they do not get to react.
--Side 1 uses their Tactical Squad to shoot at Side 2's Command Squad. The Command Squad chooses not to react.
--Side 2 uses their Tactical Squad to shoot at Side 1's Assault Marine Squad. They choose to react to the incoming fire, and pass their command check. This allows them to immediately make their charge move towards Side 2's Tactical Squad. Side 2 then resolves their shooting attack even if Side 1 was successful in charging.
--Side 1 uses their Command Squad to move up and shoot at Side 2's Command Squad. They choose to react and pass their command check. This allows them to use their tactical movement to move to cover and return fire.
I'll try to get a full blown battle report on here soon. I've gotten pretty decent at using Vassal so I can even include pictures
I'm taking a look through this, first-impressions-wise I don't think stats are quite granular enough on a hardcapped 1-10 scale, and I think the order of play is a bit byzantine, but I haven't read into depth much.
@Rabid.
Would you consider interleaved player actions as an alternative game turn mechanic?
EG
Command turn
Place orders next to units on good morale.
Request off table support
Primary actions.
Attacker turns over order counters one at a time and performs 1st action of order.
Defender turns over order counter one at a time and performs 1st action of order.
Secondary actions
Attacker removes order counters one at a time and performs the second action of the order.
Defender removes order counters one at a time and performs the second action of the order.
Resolution phase.
Plot arrivals of off table support.Attempt to rally units on poor morale.
Orders are 2 action sets , made up of move attack or ready actions.
I would really like some elaboration and examples as to what you mean. The 1-10 system I'd like to stick with as it is familiar to the tabletop community and stats that allow for smaller steps become unwieldy as soon as the game scales up.
As to the overcomplexity of the rules, I'm actually quite surprised you are saying that. Most of the rules are intuitive, and the ones that aren't I have attempted to word in a way that is easy to read. Any rules in particular that pop out at you?
Lanrak,
I really like your idea, but I feel it would be better suited for small games. I feel scaling this up would cause the game to slow down exponentially.
I'm hoping to get a play test in soon to see how feasible my new game turns are, but I have high hopes for it. There will be some pushback from the 40k community because of how complex the system appears on paper; however, once I find a good way to explain it I'm sure that opinion will change.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, another major change I'm doing is moving away from TLOS. I used to think it was beneficial to the game but my experience is leading me away from it. I'll be uploading the new rulebook soon and will be sure to let you know.
Hardcapping stats at 1-10 is the problem, I think; if the absolute best possible insane crazy thing has a 10 in a stat, you have to confine most units to the 3-5 range and one more point in a stat is too big of a change. I've been working on a revision of my own and I've allowed things with stats over 10 which means I can have a wider scale into which the 95% of models that aren't Monstrous Creatures can fall (2-7, usually). I also don't agree with some of the decisions you've made on stats; if you're going to keep Initiative order in melee tying Initiative to Weapon Skill shuts out a lot of granularity in unit profiles.
I'm complaining about the turn order more than anything else; first off alternating activation of units gives a massive advantage to the guy with fewer units on the board since he gets to unload his entire army's firepower while the other guy gets to unload some fraction of his army's firepower in the same period. This system would work fine if the two sides are playing similarly-sized armies but this is 40k, not a WWII simulation, and there's going to be a massive disparity in model count in many matchups. The green/yellow/red order counters are a nice idea but it's more words and more counters tacked on top of the weapon type system that seems to work reasonably well in 40k today. Simultaneous play during all phases isn't actually necessary to increase the number of things the defending player has to do; I interspersed phases such that the player who's turn it is moves all his guys, the defender makes any reaction attacks, and then the attacker makes standard attacks; coupled with the streamlining of the attack resolution system I'm hoping (short on tests right now) this will keep the defending player engaged without having to worry about how you'd balance armies with a different number of units.
As to the advanced action phase this is a system that I personally view as entirely too complicated when it appears in tabletop RPGs where everyone who isn't the GM is controlling exactly one person each; it's slow, clunky, and favours models with higher Ld to an unnecessary degree.
Your universal resolution chart looks like a reasonable idea on paper but if you run through the math the bell curve is too steep in the middle and too shallow out on the ends; the difference between no advantage and an advantage of two points is a whopping 33%, the difference between an advantage of two points and an advantage of three points is all of 3%. I agree that there should be a universal table for all things and that impossible/automatic values should be there, but the reroll isn't the way to do it. My table slows down the progression between stat levels such that if the attacker's value is equal to the defender's you get a 4+, if the difference is one or two points you've got a 5+ or a 3+, if the difference is three or four points you've got a 6+ or a 2+, and if the difference is five or more points it's automatic or impossible; this makes a single stat point less relevant and lets me have a wider range of stats and subtler distinctions between models.
You've added a lot of special-case and subtle distinction rules, not to mention a few that don't make a lot of sense (why does being at extreme range with small arms make the target easier to hit?), Heavy Cover having a different effect on top of Light Cover may be 'realistic' but it doesn't streamline the game well.
Beyond that most of my concerns are style/editing-related; I'd strongly encourage you to look up the usage of adverbs, you're using adjectives to describe verbs everywhere and it's giving me a headache (when in doubt add the "-ly" suffix).
Overall it looks like you're too concerned with realism and not concerned enough with playability; there's entirely too much here that's some mixture of slow, clunky, redundant, or unnecessary.
@ rabid.
I have been play testing the alternating actions game turn with up to 18 units per side.
It is just the next level up from interleaved phases.
Eg(From LoTR SBG)
Player A moves.
Player B Moves.
Player A shoots
Player B shoots
Player A assaults
Player B assaults
When you add order counters,units can perform any actions in any order.Having just 2 actions per game turn means the resolution is faster than the 3 fixed phase game turns.
In my experience the game turn I proposed scales fine.(We even used it for some 300th scale WWII games!)
What do you folks think of using stats directly?
EG when resolving assault , the WS is the score you have to roll over to hit the model.
So a model with a WS of 4, is hit on a 4+.A model with a WS of 2 is hit on a 2+
And models strike in WS order, highest first.
If we list weapon effects of the unit under the unit stats, we can cover all weapons with a simple stat line...
EG
Name , effective range,armour piercing , damage,attacks , notes(Type of weapon, assault, small arms , support, fire support,and any special abilities,like ignore cover, parry , armour bane etc.)
Lanrak wrote: What do you folks think of using stats directly?
EG when resolving assault , the WS is the score you have to roll over to hit the model.
So a model with a WS of 4, is hit on a 4+.A model with a WS of 2 is hit on a 2+
And models strike in WS order, highest first.
For starters you're still tying WS to Initiative, which doesn't always make sense; secondly you're chopping off a whole slew of unit granularity. Where in 40k you had potentially a hundred different combinations of WS and I permitted within the rules you've slashed that down to five. Not to mention the logical problem of a Space Marine Terminator and a grot hitting their target on exactly the same value.
Sorry about my general absence. I promised an Imperial Guard codex ages ago. I am sorry about that, I started a new course and have less time generally. I have also been pressed into doing a lot more play-testing of a space-ship system I was working on.
Hello Andomander(nice to see other Malazan readers),
On another thread you were describing how close combat would work in your system. If I remember correctly it amounted to a minimum range on ranged weapons, and a small finite range on close combat weapons. (So within 6 inches you cant use your bolter, but can use your chainsword.) I really liked this idea.
In terms of:
-the unit activation system
and -the universal resolution table
I think that both are an improvement on regular 40k, but that both could, in principle be better.
For unit resolution I believe alternating turns can be boring, and that the traffic light system does improve on it, without being too complex.
[On a side note (but related) I have been thinking that a house rule I might adopt for doing unit activation would be to have a card for every single unit in the game (excluding those in reserves) shuffle them all up. Then activate units in the order the cards are dealt. (In principle they could go largely before you, bad luck). I like things to be a bit random and crazy.]
For the universal resolution chart I would say that having a universal one is a definite step in the right direction. The re-rolls is a result of the fact that dice just dont have enough sides to properly capture all of the power levels in 40k. Their are many possible approaches, D12's etc is one (but silly in so many ways). Additive D6's prohibit simultaneous rolling. (which one pairs with which?). Numbered cards or random number generators are a bit too zany.
Re-rolls seem the best (or least bad) member of the set, although I wouldn't rule out their being something better we haven't thought of.
On another thread you were describing how close combat would work in your system. If I remember correctly it amounted to a minimum range on ranged weapons, and a small finite range on close combat weapons. (So within 6 inches you cant use your bolter, but can use your chainsword.) I really liked this idea.
You actually can use your bolter; most small arms will have a 'melee' profile in addition to their ranged profile to get around the problem of 12"-range ranged weapons not being especially useful with a 6" ring around your guys where they can actually be used. This has the additional advantage of giving me a good reason why classically crap-in-close-combat armies should have a unit that can handle themselves up close (Tau, for instance, don't do running around punching people but they would do short-ranged firefights) and allowing me to make certain small arms a little more useful (most purpose-built rifles aren't as good in close range, but optimized short-range things like shotguns, pules carbines, and meltaguns don't take the penalties a bolter or a pulse rifle would).
In terms of:
-the unit activation system
and -the universal resolution table
I think that both are an improvement on regular 40k, but that both could, in principle be better.
For unit resolution I believe alternating turns can be boring, and that the traffic light system does improve on it, without being too complex.
[On a side note (but related) I have been thinking that a house rule I might adopt for doing unit activation would be to have a card for every single unit in the game (excluding those in reserves) shuffle them all up. Then activate units in the order the cards are dealt. (In principle they could go largely before you, bad luck). I like things to be a bit random and crazy.]
For the universal resolution chart I would say that having a universal one is a definite step in the right direction. The re-rolls is a result of the fact that dice just dont have enough sides to properly capture all of the power levels in 40k. Their are many possible approaches, D12's etc is one (but silly in so many ways). Additive D6's prohibit simultaneous rolling. (which one pairs with which?). Numbered cards or random number generators are a bit too zany.
Re-rolls seem the best (or least bad) member of the set, although I wouldn't rule out their being something better we haven't thought of.
Hope you are all well,
Dast
I'm not challenging the idea of a universal resolution chart, merely the implementation. A universal resolution chart would be a massive step in the right direction. The issue with the table as written in these rules is that beyond a difference of two points either way between the attacker's stat and the defender's individual stat points stop mattering. WS6 and WS5 are almost identical when attacking WS3, where there's a massive jump between WS4 and WS5; I haven't done all the math to back this up, but it's weird and fuzzy to me. d12s are too hard to store/transport and nobody has many of them, I tried additive d6s briefly with the idea of multiple colours of dice but that turned out to be too clunky for games larger than about five models a side, and random number generators would require too many peripherals. I kept with the semi-linear system in the rules today but spaced it out more, that keeps the universal resolution system while allowing for a wider spread of stats and remaining easy and simple to manage.
I think there is an older version of the rules up. Let me attach the newest one here.
I can't do a full response tonight, but I should be able to dedicate a significant amount of time tomorrow to this and can give detailed responses. I really appreciate all the feedback, please keep it up!
Note: I am in the process of rewriting the rulebook with quite a few revisions. This will cause some disconnects in the rulebook that I will hopefully have remedied tomorrow.
Edit: Please see my most recent post for the most up to date version.
Differing armour stats for different types of attacks seems way too in-depth for a wargame where we're expecting dozens of models on the board at once.
@AnomanderRake.
I did not explain that idea too well.I just put the value that would be on the stat line.
This value is MODIFIED, NOT FIXED LIKE 40k.
In 40k the chance of anything hitting anything else is JUST 3+,4+,5+ fixed.
And the order of fighting is fixed!
Eg Tau have a Assault value (new WS value )of 2.
However, they gain =+2 from charging into assault, +1 for charging a suppressed enemy.
Now they have an assault value of 5 for that round of assault. (Which makes assaults much more survivable!.)
Weapons options can alter Assault value, and some may just alter the striking order.
I find direct use of stats, with sensible limited modifiers works very well!(KoW, Warpath, FoW etc.)
Alright, so let's see if I can address everything that came up:
Advantage to having a few large units over MSU: -This system actually makes it a balance between the two. Yes, large units will generally get to act first and that gives an advantage to players who take them. However, MSU gives many other advantages that we already witness in 40k. Currently the only reason not to take MSU in 40k is the potential to give up more kill points (1/6 of missions) and the Force Org limitations. This system balances them out.
Tying in Initiative and Weapon Skill: -This is remedied a bit in the newest version. Agility takes the place of Initiative and Dexterity takes the place of Weapon Skill. Agility shows the order of hits in close combat and the chance to dodge while Dexterity is your ability to hit in close combat (so hitting is Dexterity vs Agility.)
The Universal Resolution chart not scaling well: -I had the exact same realization as you actually, and there is a different resolution chart in the newest version. It is very similar to the one you propose actually.
The Advanced Action phase: -Totally removed due to the reasons you pointed out. I realized actually that any rules that I marked as Advanced needed to either be integrated or removed. This is all in the newest version.
Rule peculiarities: -I don't recall weapons being easier to hit at long range vs short, but I'll read through and try to find that. Cover is actually one of the main things that I am reworking today. I'll post my ideas below outside of this summary as to make sure they don't get lost in it.
Ammo Types and Armor Types: -This was actually the single most requested rule by people, and I think I have found a good way to implement it. I plan to keep this, but am willing to hear out other ideas.
Writing style and overall concerns: -I will admit that my writing style needs work, especially when the document gets to be more than a few pages. Luckily, I married a librarian Once all the rules are complete I plan to hand it to her and let her revise it. As to the overall concern with realism vs playability. When I started this, I will admit that the main motivation was the horrendous lack of realism in 40k; however, as time went on and I got more experienced with writing rules I started seeing what you are talking about. I highly recommend reading through the newest ruleset, as I think you will be pleased with it. If you wait until later tonight it should even have the new cover rules in it.
Dast,
Welcome back, it's great to see you again Don't worry, I know the feeling about classes overloading a schedule. That happened to me last semester, and I'm trying to knock out as much as I can this time around just in case it happens again soon haha.
Lanrak,
I'm glad to hear that it scaled so well, and am genuinely surprised because I haven't seen games like that work so well. The ones I tried were all homebrew, so that likely explains why they became such a charlie foxtrot when the games got larger.
Please read through the Action-Reaction system in my new rulebook though. I know it needs work still, but the core of it I find to be pretty solid. Hopefully I'll get a play test in with it shortly and can give a good analysis on how it actually plays out.
Ultimentra,
Welcome to the thread, I look forward to getting your feedback
Automatically Appended Next Post: Actually finished it faster than I thought I would. Taking a break for lunch and will pick this back up this afternoon. Next I plan to start adding the examples.
Edit: Please see my most recent post for the updated rulebook.
Much improved over the last draft. My only serious complaints here are that drawing the mission after deployment makes deployment irrelevant and grants too much of an advantage to faster armies, and that the funny circly thing profiles are really hard to read at a glance.
Very good point on the set up order. I'm trying to find a good way to structure that but the summary is:
1. Determine deployment type and choose sides.
2. Determine mission type and set up mission.
3. Deploy forces.
Also, I've been on a roll today and here is the most recent version with examples included and quite a bit reworded.
@Rabid.
There are excellent concepts in your rules!
However, I feel the way they are expressed could be simplified a bit.
I think you may get on better splitting the rules in to basic rules, and advanced rules .
To get the core interaction sorted before you add in the 'fine detail.'
I am not going to go into specifics , as I will put my own bias on everything.
However,I do feel there are features that you have ported straight over from 40k , that need to be justified before inclusion.
(I tend to have the opposite approach and refuse to use ANYTHING from GW40k rules unless I can not find a better alternative. )
I am trying to be objectively constructive without trying to influence your decisions too much by including how I would make the changes.
It is possible to create a massive and diverse amount of game play from simple concepts applied efficiently ,(X -Wing,for example.)
I believe you have the core of a great game , but are shoving in unnecessary 'detail/complication' simply because GW40k has it to make up for the lack of good game development.
YOU DO NOT NEED TO.
The core of your game is better than that.It needs careful refinement not drowning in ' chrome' IMO.
I'm going to do another read through of my rules today and try to find anything I think is extraneous. Although there are some advantages to splitting it into basic and advanced rules, the community with which I can play Grimdark I know will be exceptionally small. Splitting what is already such a small community is a risky decision.
The intent behind splitting it up I feel I am accomplishing though. All of our debates so far have been on what would be considered basic rules. These are also what I've been play testing. Once these have been nailed down, we will be moving to more and more advanced things.
I really appreciate your criticism, and use it to look at my rules from other perspectives. My apologies if this response sounds like I'm shooting down everything you're saying; however, I assure you I am not.
@Rabid.
What I meant was get the core rules running right before you add more detail in.
EG establish the best function you can , then add chrome.
I did not mean to present them as 2 separate rule sets.But clearly separate your ideas into core rules and advanced rules.if the core rules are good enough they do not need the advanced rules .The advanced rules just add another layer.
There are no bad ideas in game development , just bad places for them to be.
I just would like you to look through the options you have , and see if any are a better fit, than the resolution methods/game mechanics you are using.
Could you list your design brief as a set of bullet points?I find this really helps focus on efficiency and elegance, and getting the right ideas in the right place.
Here is my design plan:
-Design a draft turn system
-Come up with rules for assault and ranged combat
-Refine stats
-Refine turn system
-Refine rules for combat and stats
-Design a few codices to play test with
-Refine rules for combat and stats again
-Refine turn system again
Those have all been accomplished, here is what is left:
-Continue play testing
-Refine individual stats and make minor rule changes
-Add mission and deployment rules
-Play test missions and refine them
-Add chrome rules (like duels, flying units, etc.)
-Final play test and refining of core rulebook
Afterwards I'll be focusing heavily on completing the remaining codices.
Does this help or were you looking for something else?
MSRC27,
Fantastic! Thank you very much and please let me know what they say.
Hi Rabid.
What you posted was a organised list of functional requirement for 'a war game'.
Which is important .
However, the design brief pullet points I was looking at would be something like this...
Define the game play!
1)Type of warfare.
a)Level of interaction,
b)Balance of mobility , fire power and assault requirements.
c)How many types of unit are in the game , how do they interact,etc.
2)Size and scope of game.
a)Range of number of elements in the game .(How many units per side.)
b)Scale of the playing pieces and representative values.(Eg 1 to 1 or 1 model to 10 actual men..)
c) level of detail/abstraction, etc..
I am not saying you did not look at these things.But if you 'step back' from the 'nitty gritty' , some times an overview of the game play, can let you see a clear way forward.
Maybe looking at you game development focusing on game play, rather than the detail in the resolution etc, may help?
Looking at it I believe that your "zoomed out" view is a very usefully one in general when designing games.
However I think it is less relevant to what we are doing here, making a game that attempts to fix warhammer 40k. This means that what sorts of units exist has already been established (by the models that exist). It has also already been established that things like tanks, monsters and infantry are all going to be relevant, we even have pre-conceived ideas as to what factions will exist and what their strengths and weaknesses are.
We can be a bit more flexible with things like scale and number of units in the game,but it wouldn't really be a re-boot of 40k if a typical army contained 5 unit (...well, unless they were knights), it would be more like necromunda.
I think that most of us here probably actually quite like the answers 40k gives to the above questions. That's not what is wrong with it. The problem with 40k's rules is basically one of execution, not intent.
Hi Dast.
I agree that the game size and general arrangment of forces are going to follow what has gone before.
However, GW plc's version of 40k has such poor implementation because it does not write rules for the intended game play.
But uses ancient warfare rules with lots of 'exceptions and additions' bolted on .This leaves convoluted over complicated rules.
And if Grimdark is veering towards being over complicated, then a clearly defined definition of the intended game play may help focus the development process.
IMO40k is a modern warfare game , using modern warfare units with a sci-fantasy veneer.
So establishing a well defined intuitive rule set for modern warfare first ,then adding the 40k flavor /chrome afterwards is possibly a better idea.
Than writing a rule set for GWs40k when no one can define what GWs40k is supposed to be.
A large skirmish / battle game with model /unit focus that is played in narrative/ competitive environment , with friends at home/ strangers in a store. Is 40k, WHFB in space, or near sci fi , or far sci fi , or just cool ideas chucked in a book ?
I agree that a lot of this is going to be defined already, but I see where Lanrak is coming from. Honestly I think that's part of the reason 40k has gotten to this point: it lost its vision.
Lanrak,
Is this better:
Purpose:
-Simple game that can be learned in a few hours
-Required items: D6, tape measure, 3" blast, 5" blast, scatter die
-Balanced > themed
Scope:
-Average games between 30-100 models
-Army size looks natural on 4x6 board
-28mm scale
Setting:
-Near future science fiction
-Narrative games encouraged, but competitive possible
-Abstraction is needed (example is moving away from TLOS)
Core goals:
-Simultaneous and interactive game turns
-Balanced rules allowing diverse choices
-Simple rule set so anyone can jump in
Is that more what you're looking for?
All,
I am working on another revision to the Space Marine codex. Expect a significant jump in points to move away from GW's "buy more crap" rule trend. Space Marines will also have more stat variation (e.g. Assault marines will lose armor but cost the same number of points.) My midterm is coming up so it may not be complete for a little bit.
Some times its too easy to get caught up in the detail,and sort of lose focus on what you wanted to achive......
Rather than stand back and say, well that is good, but it is it good enough to do all I want it too?
You have some excellent core ideas in your rule set.But I felt you got a bit bogged down in the detail some what, and it went a bit 'fuzzy'.
May I suggest you start with 'bog standard human' as a reference point.As we all can relate to them . because we are bog standard humans!
IMO the balance goes wobbly when you make superhuman elites as the 'standard ' all other armies are measured against.
If you start with IG (infantry hoard,) as the base line, it also helps you keep the game size in check.
Lanrak wrote: @Rabid.
Yes that is the sort of thing.
Some times its too easy to get caught up in the detail,and sort of lose focus on what you wanted to achive......
Rather than stand back and say, well that is good, but it is it good enough to do all I want it too?
You have some excellent core ideas in your rule set.But I felt you got a bit bogged down in the detail some what, and it went a bit 'fuzzy'.
May I suggest you start with 'bog standard human' as a reference point.As we all can relate to them . because we are bog standard humans!
IMO the balance goes wobbly when you make superhuman elites as the 'standard ' all other armies are measured against.
If you start with IG (infantry hoard,) as the base line, it also helps you keep the game size in check.
Where the "baseline" is doesn't really matter a lot when you're trying to write stats that only matter relative to each other.
@AnomanderRake.
If you want to set the size of the game between 30 and 100 models a side.
Then getting the force with a 100 model infantry hoarde , first helps keep the rest of the forces to scale.
When 40k started making Space Marines the 'standard' army.(So they could get 100 model infantry hoard in SMs to boost minature sales.)
IG and ork foot slogging hoards became too expencive to buy and we started fighting on very crowded tables.
You can start with the uber elite armies, but its hard to project where the other forces will end up.
And we have a much better understanding of normal human capabilities, because we are human.
That way an elite units that is 8 times better than a human unit , has reference we can relate to.
Where a unit that is 0,38 the effectiveness of a Superman unit, is harder to visualize...
Automatically Appended Next Post: Stealing a post from over on /tg/,
"Dropzone Commander deals with this by splitting armies into battlegroups made of more than one unit. You activate one battlegroup at a time, and each player will have the same number of battlegroups even if they contain different numbers of units.
This does potentially make it complicated though- it helps to have some visual marker of who's in what battlegroup.
Also Dropzone's factions are (at least at the moment) fairly similar in their basic units, so they won't get too different anyway. 40k is more varied."
Is anything like this being thought of? We could have Control Zones based off middling commanders (HQ Commander -> Subcommanders -> Unit Leaders).
Would work especially well with Tyranids and Synapse, where you can add some dimensionality to their tactics by altering control groups each turn based on synapse.
I'm in the process of doing a major rebalance and renaming of the Space Marine codex and actually have started on the Imperial Guard codex too. Here's a sneak preview of what I have in store, you can probably guess the units they're replacing:
-Three traits: Conscription, Armored Company, Air Cavalry
-Commanders: Commissar, Tank Commander, Wing Commander
-Scoring units: Concripts, Lynx transport w/ Guardsmen, Stormtroopers
-Other core units: Heavy Weapons Team, Special Weapons Team, Tiger Battle Tank, Cheetah Recon Vehicle, Pelican Transport, Hawk Fighter/Bomber
-Rare units: Psyker Battle Squad, Command Squad, Panther Stealth Tank, Lion Ordnance Vehicle, Falcon Fighter, Eagle Bomber
IG will in general move away from a wave of bodies (unless you want it) and more towards modern day forces. Space Marines will stay as hyper elite human forces.
Anomander,
I can see where Lanrak is coming from. It was a piece of advice I didn't follow when I was working to make all the codices, so it's resulted in improperly stratified stats. I'm doing the rebalance now to remedy that.
Chrisrawr,
Once the rebalance is done, we'll get a game in over a couple days. Each day we'll knock out a turn and post the battle report on here. This way even when I get crazy busy we can keep it going.
That system I think would work well in a modern day combat system. We haven't really discussed it, but I'm not sure how well it would transfer into a hugely varied universe like 40k.
Hi Rabid.
How do you feel about simplifying the stat lines a bit?
I am referring to present the info in a slightly different way to improve definition?
Maybe use symbols and combine the values in some cases?(Keep all the values , just present them differently..)
Sorry it's been so long, had a lot going on that I had to take care of. Anyways...
I'm glad you all like it, and I've considered using pictures instead of text but have not had any luck finding good pictures to use. Some are easier than others, but I don't want to half-ass it and not deliver what everyone deserves.
So here's a full unit card template, and it is a full codex template to work within if anyone is feeling bold.
I'm going to spend a good portion of today knocking out an Imperial Guard codex (anticipate new named units.) The tone is going to be different than 40k's IG, in so far as guardsmen are not to be trifled with. They are going to be an average sized force, but have conscripts as a theme so you can still capture that if desired.
*Edit: Here's what I've managed to get done on the Imperial Guard Codex, lemme know what you think
I agree that a lot of this is going to be defined already, but I see where Lanrak is coming from. Honestly I think that's part of the reason 40k has gotten to this point: it lost its vision.
Lanrak,
Is this better:
Purpose:
-Simple game that can be learned in a few hours
-Required items: D6, tape measure, 3" blast, 5" blast, scatter die
-Balanced > themed
Scope:
-Average games between 30-100 models
-Army size looks natural on 4x6 board
-28mm scale
Setting:
-Near future science fiction
-Narrative games encouraged, but competitive possible
-Abstraction is needed (example is moving away from TLOS)
Core goals:
-Simultaneous and interactive game turns
-Balanced rules allowing diverse choices
-Simple rule set so anyone can jump in
Is that more what you're looking for?
All,
I am working on another revision to the Space Marine codex. Expect a significant jump in points to move away from GW's "buy more crap" rule trend. Space Marines will also have more stat variation (e.g. Assault marines will lose armor but cost the same number of points.) My midterm is coming up so it may not be complete for a little bit.
Seems good, I admire your in-wait a minute.
rabid1903 wrote: Purpose:
-Simple game that can be learned in a few hours
-Required items: D6, tape measure, 3" blast, 5" blast, scatter die
-Balanced > themed
Scope:
-Average games between 30-100 models
-Army size looks natural on 4x6 board
-28mm scale
Setting:
-Near future science fiction
-Narrative games encouraged, but competitive possible
-Abstraction is needed (example is moving away from TLOS)
Core goals:
-Simultaneous and interactive game turns
-Balanced rules allowing diverse choices
-Simple rule set so anyone can jump in
rabid1903 wrote: Setting:
-Near future science fiction-Narrative games encouraged, but competitive possible
-Abstraction is needed (example is moving away from TLOS)
I think I have a much clearer picture of what you're saying now. I'm going to finish writing the guard codex, but I do think your style is going to be much more appealing and streamlined so I will adjust the codex layout for future codices.
Kain,
I assure you that was no goof and I knew what I was doing
At this point, 40k is just an inspiration for Grimdark. Futuristic sci fi is what I was going for, but I decided on a near future because I felt I could more accurately create a game in that era. I'm an engineer by trade, so to me far future seemed like extrapolating a data set out much too far to be comfortable.
Oh boy, so I've made a ton of progress on this codex. The only thing that is left are HQ units. No way it is balanced right now, but it gets the point across and demonstrates what a full codex looks like.
Hi all.
Just to quickly mention that 'near sci fi' is how the rules work.(Eg based on modern combat but with the fluff allowing higher tec options/variants.)
So a 'far future' war setting , could revert back to ancient war,after 'modern technology' is completely lost.
Where ranged weapons are only used in a supporting role and mobility and assault are the core of the game play.
Or it could follow the natural progression of modern warfare, 1940s to the present day.
This is often called 'modern warfare', or ' near future sci fi.'
Its just how the rules deliver this type of game play.
It does not have anything much to do with the game setting.( 2085, or 39, 999.'near' or 'far future' setting.)
But what type of warfare is being represented .
@Rabid.
How do you feel about using simple symbols for the stats on the unit profiles?
(It just makes them easier to reference )
I do plan to use symbols for stats, but I want to have a working codex before I make that transition. Getting it to a play-testable version is critical right now, because I can go no further without play testing again.
Just finished the HQ section of the book. This is not my best work and I want to add a lot more flavor to it, but it gets the army off the ground and into a play testable state. Chrisrawr, if you have the time in the upcoming weeks I would love to get a game in on Vassal. Just let me know when works for you and I'll adjust my schedule as best as I can.
You have re-interpreted the imperial guard a fair bit, (well, depending on regiment). Yours are very much modern military force with some changes because its the future. (As opposed to the normal 40kIG who I would say are world war one soldiers in the future). I think the re-emphasis makes sense from a game balance point of view. The rules-glut of 40k is probably largely attributable to the fact that many armies are allmost trying to play different games against one another.
to me far future seemed like extrapolating a data set out much too far to be comfortable.
He, he, he. I know what you mean. Depending on context far future war can mean all sorts of things. Sometimes it means "they basically have magic alright" (star treck/star wars/stargate/doctor who), sometimes it means "scientific knowledge hasn't been revolutionized, they have just uber-optimized their technology', and thus nanites dominate (Alistair Reynolds books).
I am really impressed at how much you managed to compress the IG codex. It seems to take up so little space, and as far as I can see the only things removed were the abhumans.
On a balance note, it seems that I could, in principle take nothing but a tank commander and lots of Tiger tanks. (Maybe throw in another unit to fill up any remaining pts). No matter how well balanced Tiger tanks are individually this is probably something to think about carefully. It is a well known problem with current 40k that take all comers armies can really struggle against some mad focus. (They basically just saturate your counter to whatever it is they focus on.
I don't really have an answer for this, its just something that has been bothering me.
The main problem they would run into is having no scoring units and would nearly guaranteed lose any mission. Unfortunately we run into the same problem as 40k because who's to say they don't just wipe out the other force.
I think a good idea may be to slim down the force org chart pretty considerably. What would everyone think about halving it (4 core/2 support/1 rare?) Force org charts should fill out around 1500 as that's what I'm balancing around.
@Rabid.
It just depends how you are most comfortable with structuring armies.
Do you prefer smaller controlled chunks , to allow multiple theme options at 'normal game size'.
Or more relaxed themes that constitute a single option for 'normal game size'.
if you think 4 2 1 would get to 1500pts easily then that sounds like a good plan.
(You can always increase unit size of cheaper options , eg only allow mobs of 30 grots for example.)
Sorry it's been a while, I've been really busy so finding time to hop on and chat has been difficult.
Anyways, I'm strongly leaning towards a 4-4-1 force org chart. This ends with 10 units total, where at least half are themed around a trait. The other half can then be used to balance out the army or add some unique flavor to it so there aren't so many identical armies out there.
The final for my class is in two weeks, so after that my free time will go up significantly. If anyone is up for play testing over Vassal that would be great.
I've recently been tinkering with a dual-resource force org instead of hard limits; Core troops cost regular points, while upgrades and other force orgs also draw from a secondary points pool - this lets the players pick how many non-core units they'd like to play with, within the scope of the original game.
Right now "core" is determined by faction - I don't have my factions' fluff very in-depth yet so I have yet to start altering points-costs by commander, but that is an eventual goal (e.g. swarmlord making warriors cost less, parasite making rippers cost less, etc.).
A typical game would be a split of 100 normal points and 50 support points.
So for example, I've got "Regular modern humans" as a faction, with an all-purpose Infantry Unit costing 10 'normal' points. Buying special weapons or upgrades for them costs between 1 and 5 support points - so I could have a unit of snipers or artillery or veterans, etc.
From here, I'm between two schools of thought on the matter:
Do I create a "core" Infantry, Tank, Flier, Fast, etc., Unit be the 'base' that players can simply tailor through upgrades? This option is the easiest to directly compare opportunity costs, but comes with a whole boat of special rules that have to be added or replaced - unnecessary clutter.
The other is to create 2-3 units for each category and keep their options fairly linear - for instance, an artillery unit might still get access to sniper rifles, but they would cost extra on top of the small support points cost required to purchase the unit itself; a light tank might upgrade its main gun to a larger tanks' gun, but it would be less efficient (if less costly overall) than buying a larger tank.
This option is easier to implement and requires less special rules and clutter overall, but balance might be difficult to ascertain with the amount of iterating I'm doing right now.
Of course, players get to choose how many points they'd like to play with - The game is going to be 'balanced' for a range: between 50/10 (3-5 units with a few special weapons) and 500/500 (20 or more units with swagtastic loadouts). This is roughly equivalent to a 3000 points warhammer game.
I'd also like to include Support Units that cost more support points than Normal - similar to the Science Vessel or High Templar in Starcraft.
edit: sorry for slight derail rabid, I got excited :v
So right now I'm playtesting 50/10 games as they're really easy to pick up and only last about 20-30 minutes once the learning is out of the way.
The two factions I've got so far have 3 units each simply because I haven't made more yet; Infantry, Artillery, and Jeeps on one side, Shamans, Horde, and War Hounds on the other.
Infantry are fairly standard; they can buy a few basic upgrades (more grenades, better weapons, special training) for a few Support points.
Artillery are slow, lightly-armoured Infantry with longer-ranged weapons. I'm using "Guess" ranges for this game, as I intend to have Scouts and other units give rangefinding options. As well, players can reposition guess-range artillery by sacrificing Ranged Capability, meaning they do less damage but might actually get a hit.
Jeeps are low-cost, fast units with comparatively high armour and evasion - but if you want to put a machine gun on them, you're sacrificing a lot of support points (3 out of 10). Still, they're a good platform for it in small games, and in larger games the points cost won't be as punishing.
Shamans are the de-facto leaders of the Horde; think Orc Warlocks from Warcraft 2. Support points can buy battlefield-wide aura spells to protect your allies and demoralize enemies, but are otherwise 'human' in stats - it's important to keep them out of range and sight.
Hordes consist of Chieftains and Berzerkers - Stronger and meatier than regular humans, but with less armour. The basic Unit costs the same as an Infantry squad, but additional models can be added - Chieftains cost 3 support points. Without chieftains, the unit falls to morale quite quickly; chieftains gain power by absorbing the souls of fallen enemy units. In this way, the unit is fairly dynamic based not only on how it's set up and deployed, but on what opportunities are presented to it throughout a game.
War wolves are a powerful fast-attack Unit that costs support points in upkeep - support points can be gained throughout the game by capturing objectives and destroying enemy units. Not paying it, or not being able to pay it, causes them to flee - attacking any units in their path.
The first step to use this kind of system in Grimdark would be to remove all FOC restrictions and rebuild some units (Non-unique commanders etc) around the idea that more can be bought if the support availability is there for it.
Then would be the re-costing of each Unit, based on what it has WITHOUT any upgrades. Some units, like Crisis Suits and Gaunts, may need to be given a default weapon and costed with it in mind.
Finally comes assigning a secondary cost to each unit, and to each option or upgrade. As I'm familiar with Tau, using a 1500/500 'base' (arbitrary example) you could do something like
"Commander: 100 P / 100 SP - 2 burst cannons
Can have 2 bodyguards, 50/20 each
Everyone can upgrade BC to (gun options) for (gun points), and buy (drone options) for (drone points)."
Want 4 tricked-out commanders? Great, you still have points left over for fire warriors that have no upgrades.
Hi chisrawar.
My only concern with your system is the use of points for determining army composition.
Are these going to be in addition to the 'standard point values of units ' , or replace them?
I am not a fan of a 'single point value set' as the only control of army composition.As a single level restriction using costings has to be very 'mutable' to cover synergistic composition.
(If you have to 'fudge/fiddle' point values to arrive at balance at higher levels to allow for synergistic bonuses.What is the point of allocating accurate point values in the primary costings?)
I would prefer the standard PV to determine in game effectiveness as accurately as possible.
And the method of force organization to limit the frequency and combination the units can be used in.(Based on theme availability.)
You appear to be costing based on in game effectiveness , which is great.
However, I am not sure the way you want to use the point values would give enough control to counter synergistic bonuses.
I am looking forward to see how your idea develops with great interest.
In my case, the only other differentiation between units is how many points they can score on objectives each turn - this is how I'm addressing the lack of hard limits on synergistic strengths.
Normal points are fairly indicative of a Units' straight stats - health and damage output per turn. In a 150 point game, each side will have 8-12 units with overall numbers within an order of magnitude of each other.
Units that are normally considered 'core' - regular infantry, small fast attack craft, most commanders - tend to score more points on objectives each turn; they make up for a lack of synergy by improving your teams' overall score. Since they cost less Support points, your army may even start off far in the lead with regards to score (as the secondary points are, again, used to keep track of scoring as well!)
This means that, although a more synergystic army should be able to contain and pin your army, whiping it out completely is still about as difficult as it would be to win through any other way - which is how it should be.
When you talk about 'objectives', I assume you mean physical objectives on the playing area?
I am happy with a less 'finite and fiddly pv allocation'.
But a more direct restriction on composition , in the form of proportional control (4,4,2 for example)might be needed?.
I was also thinking another way to allow less granularity in composition would be to make a wide and varied range of game types.
EG 6 attacker missions and 6 defender missions , and 3 table set ups.These are all randomly generated to arrive at 108 possible 'scenario' combinations.
I am not sure if you can get this level of diversity just from on table objective driven games.But I could be wrong...
I am just trying to offer some ideas and concepts that may be useful to you.
Just using PV may not prove adaptable enough , and so its worth looking at other supporting concepts that could be used in conjunction with them if needed IMO.
I definitely agree, but so far I haven't statted enough units to need anything else.
Objectives are rolled for at the start of the game - in number and in type. Some are physical tokens that you collect points for being close to, such as mines or satellites. Some are actual objective goals, like "Destroy three units on a single turn" or "Hold 2 other objectives for the entire game" - each assigned a points value. Players also get a small number of points for killing other units.
Deployment scenarios are done similar to 40k where there are a number of ways to arrange the board and terrain before hand, a number of ways to place token objectives and a number of ways to pick table edges or corners for units to arrive or begin on.
Back to points and FOC however, the intent is that a player over-tweaking his list for 'synergies' is either giving up the ability to score as well, giving up board presence, or giving up health//damage per turn. Instead of "I'm going to take 3 Riptides because that's FOC allowance," I would prefer "I'm only going to take 3 Riptides because I need to equip my firewarriors with shield drones."
Edit: I would also prefer "I'm going to take 8 riptides because I have the models and it fills out all my points" over "I'm going to take 8 because the FOC is 8."
The number of riptides is similar, but the reasons and the options available aren't - and sometimes intent and availability are what makes armybuilding fun.
Aha that makes much more sense!
And I can see we are thinking along similar lines with objectives missions /deployments etc.
However, current 40k rules are written to drive people to have to buy new models/units to get the most effective synergies/points cost effectiveness.
With the new rules I believe this would be minimized, and players would be collecting armies based on prefered themes and play styles.
An that maybe a little bit of restriction that forces decision making in army composition might be a good thing?
Restriction is by player choice - if you want to play a more 'normalized' game, simply request fewer support points for it.
The end goal of the game, once the core rules and a few factions are fleshed out and confirmed for fun, is that I intend to flesh out multi-battle campaigns; this is why support points and points from gameplay are going to be tied in together.
Basically, I want to release playtested sets of overarching objectives and goals, where points earned in battles can be used to purchase new units and upgrades in between each battle.
It's going to use some "Risk" board logistics, where players move tokens representing different parts of their armies, and have to split their forces to move them around cleverly outside of battles - something like "each player gets 1000/300 points to start begin placing them on the board now, here's cards representing your deployment zones."
This will also (hopefully) make fast units and abilities like deepstrike, flying, and infiltration more interesting as borders won't be the only things to defend anymore.
![[Disk]](/dakkaforum/templates/default/images/icon_disk.gif){kind=icon}
?
