Let's face it: 40K is clunky. As my fellow cynics said in this thread, just fixing point costs isn't enough to "balance" the game. GW's layered edition over edition since Rogue Trader -- which in turn layered over Fantasy -- until the ruleset resembles an archaeological dig or Microsoft software, with any clarity there may have been at the start is lost under an accumulation of band-aid solutions that never fix the fundamental problems.
So burn it down.
If GW asked you to write a new Warhammer 40K ruleset from the ground up, staying faithful to the feel of the old game but without having to keep any individual rule, what would you do? What sacred cows need killing and what should be saved?
Here are my five ideas
1) No more player turns: players alternate moving/shooting/charging individual units
Spoiler:
Instead of "all my units move, all my units shoot or run, all my units charge, now your turn," one player picks one unit to do all those things with, then the other player picks one of his units to do all those things with, and back and forth. (The "leaked" 6th edition ruleset that turned out to be either fake or a wild & crazy GW experiment had this, I recall). This eliminates a lot of waiting around while the other guy takes his turn and you can do nothing. This also makes it much more challenging for assault armies to charge towards the enemy in a single furious wave and much more challenging for shooty armies to concentrate fire and wipe out the enemy one unit at a time, because the targets get to react. You would get a much more dynamic and interactive game. Potential wrinkle: This adds complexity, but what if you could test Initiative to interrupt the other player's unit in mid-action? E.g. "Now I move my tank here..." "No, you don't, I shoot it first. Roll initiative!" [dice clatter] BOOM! Or "My Fire Warriors shoot you to death!" "No, you don't, my Repentia charge you first. Roll Initiative!" [dice clatter] "CHAAARGE!" [Overwatch:] DAKKA DAKKA DAK.... [Eviscerators:] BUZZZZZZZZZ SPLATTER BUZZZ
2) No more "saves": Incorporate cover into to-hit rolls & armor into Toughness
Spoiler:
We have a three-step combat process: roll to hit, roll to wound, roll to save. Let's cut that by 33% -- and make it worthwhile for armored troops to use cover while we're at it. Instead of "to hit" in shooting being simply a function of the firer's Ballistic Skill, with the target getting to (maybe) take a cover save later on, make a chart like the one we already have for melee combat, only it's not WS vs. WS but BS vs. cover. Assuming "normal trained human" BS stays at 3, we can have "normal terrain" count as Cover 3, preserving a 50-50 chance to hit: Even level ground has little dips and valleys where troops can go to ground. A perfectly flat surface -- say a frozen lake or airport runway -- would be Cover 1. A trench system, a battlefield riddled with shell holes, or rubble might be Cover 4 or 5; a bunker, Cover 6. Weapons that "Ignore Cover" now would just reduce it by, say, 2: Being inside a bunker does protect you against being fried by a flamethrower, just not nearly as well as it protects you against being brained by a bullet. Similarly, instead of "to wound" being simply a matter of Strength versus Toughness, with the target getting to (maybe) take an armor save later on, just make armor a straight bonus to toughness -- which your target doesn't get to take if your AP is high enough. This probably requires rejiggering Strength and Toughness values so the average Strength is higher than the average Toughness, because most targets will get a Toughness bonus from armor. Note that this means a unit wouldn't have to choose between taking a cover save OR an armor save, it could benefit from both cover and armor at the same time. Instead of 5+ Guardsmen being desperate to get into those 4+ trenches while Marines might as well stand right in the open and take their 3+ armor save (until someone comes along with AP 2...), it actually makes sense for the well-armored guys to use cover, too.
3) Homebrew Heaven: A point-cost system to price individual models
Spoiler:
Ovion's tried this, but it's hard to model what GW does because (1) they hide what they do from us and (2) they're pretty inconsistent and arguably even slapdash about how they do it. If we could figure out what it'd cost to get any particular set of stats, wargear, and special rules, then the only question with homebrew units would be how to price any new, unique SRs. And having the table out there would (probably) force GW to be more consistent.
4) Bigger tables + more terrain = more tactics
Spoiler:
Big armies tend to crowd the table and end up on top of each other with little maneuvering room. (The Outflank rule doesn't really help much: It just lets units pile in to the traffic jam from another board edge). There needs to be some rule to scale up the size of the board with the size of the army. If tournament organizers don't like it because they can't stuff as many tables into the hall they've rented, FETH THEM. Or they can just go with smaller-points games.... And with your friends? PLAY ON THE FLOOR. People also really need to use terrain more to block line of sight so gunline armies can't just camp and kill everyone from a distance like World War I on the Western Front, because boring.
5) A free dice-rolling app for your phone
Spoiler:
"Ok, so my 50 guys shoot your guys with, um, three shots each.... Hold on, let me get my dice bucket." "No, wait, I got this. 150 shots at BS 3, Strength 4, versus Cover 1, Toughness 3 is -- lemme hit 'randomize' -- ok, nine of my guys are dead."
That's five heresies so far. Only 95 to go to meet our goal!
I have mulled over a similar idea for simultaneous turns. Perhaps an alternate to the unit by unit framework is resolving your turns together but only removing models after both players have acted.
The way it would work would be Player A makes all their actions, including moving, shooting assaulting, etc... then Player B makes all their actions. Models are removed at the end of a game turn.
Heresy Two reminds me of how Flames of War shooting system, using the competency of the unit verses the cover of the target.
Would ward saves just be counted as an armour save or a special thing on its own?
Yonan wrote: Use d8's or d10's to provide for a greater diffentiation between results than is available with a d6. This should also help cut down on dice rolling.
I don't know about dice. To get better differentiation of results, arguably it might be best to expand the unit stat scale, i.e. so instead of most units have S, T, I in the 2-5 range with 3 as the average, have them in a 1-10 range with 5 as the average. Of course then you might need bigger dice to maintain the same level of randomness as d6s with a smaller number range.
There needs to be clear terrain placement as well as fort placement rules to fixs the current shenanigans.
Yes! This! What I SHOULD have said in my Heresy #4 about more terrain.
LordSolar wrote: Would ward saves just be counted as an armour save or a special thing on its own?
I think you could fold saves of all types into either cover bonuses vs. being hit or toughness bonsues vs. being wounded. Deny the Witch, for example, would be a cover bonus vs. psychic attacks hitting you (since physical cover wouldn't matter much there).
Heresy Two reminds me of how Flames of War shooting system, using the competency of the unit verses the cover of the target.
I haven't played Flames of War but unit-by-unit seems to be the new standard. And remember this is how classic games like chess work! "I move all my guys, you move all yours" is a weird fluke of 20th century game design.
You could make it even more dynamic by having this rule instead: 1) Every phase, each player nominates one unit to act. 2) Roll 1d6 for each unit and add that unit's Initiative. Higher total wins. 3) The player of the winning unit may choose either - to move/shoot/etc. his unit first. The losing unit may not act this round, but it may attempt to act in another round. - to make the enemy unit take its turn first. Then the winning unit may act or not act this round, but save its move for another round.
This would allow all a high-initiative army to take several "turns" in a row without the opponent getting a chance to respond OR to force the enemy army to make its moves, see what they're doing, and then react.
I think that shooting with small arms at 8" is very different than shooting with heavy weapons at 39 inches, so firefights have to be "winnable" the same way close combat is and that it probably should not even rely on the same stat as long-range shooting.
I think there is an interesting point in your very first few sentences, about stratified, additive design.
ugh. How many points does a jump pack cost? How many points does a jump pack cost?
How many damn points does a damn jump pack cost?
It is way different if you are a squad of marines, a character, or a bunch of Scourges.
You could say that since so many people think it is a good idea, and have such reasonable points, that it must be a good idea to have standardized point costs. However, there are similar amounts of people who found very reasonable points to the practice in the 3.5 ed Chaos book of having wargear costs that differed between multi-wound ICs and single-wound squad characters.
The interesting point then is that design by institutional creep is the problem, but design by a collection of populist notions that have been lying around since day two is fundamentally the same thing.
So how many points does a jump pack cost? How many points does a heavy weapon cost if I can only buy one per ten expensive models per force org slot, vs six per force org slot per every ten cheap models?
How much does a weapon with Shred cost when it is on an s3 model vs an s4 model? You cannot say that it is an additive difference, because a reroll is worth more to a weaker model than to a stronger one.
See, it is a terrible process for making decisions. It does not matter what is correct or better when it comes to IGOUGO vs alternating activation, it matters that the criteria for evaluating whether these are even questions worth asking are haphazard and emotionally dishonest.
Let's face it: 40K is clunky. As my fellow cynics said in this thread, just fixing point costs isn't enough to "balance" the game. GW's layered edition over edition since Rogue Trader -- which in turn layered over Fantasy -- until the ruleset resembles an archaeological dig or Microsoft software, with any clarity there may have been at the start is lost under an accumulation of band-aid solutions that never fix the fundamental problems.
So burn it down.
If GW asked you to write a new Warhammer 40K ruleset from the ground up, staying faithful to the feel of the old game but without having to keep any individual rule, what would you do? What sacred cows need killing and what should be saved?
Here are my five ideas
1) No more player turns: players alternate moving/shooting/charging individual units
[spoiler]
Instead of "all my units move, all my units shoot or run, all my units charge, now your turn," one player picks one unit to do all those things with, then the other player picks one of his units to do all those things with, and back and forth.
(The "leaked" 6th edition ruleset that turned out to be either fake or a wild & crazy GW experiment had this, I recall).
This eliminates a lot of waiting around while the other guy takes his turn and you can do nothing. This also makes it much more challenging for assault armies to charge towards the enemy in a single furious wave and much more challenging for shooty armies to concentrate fire and wipe out the enemy one unit at a time, because the targets get to react. You would get a much more dynamic and interactive game.
Potential wrinkle: This adds complexity, but what if you could test Initiative to interrupt the other player's unit in mid-action?
E.g. "Now I move my tank here..." "No, you don't, I shoot it first. Roll initiative!" [dice clatter] BOOM!
Or "My Fire Warriors shoot you to death!" "No, you don't, my Repentia charge you first. Roll Initiative!" [dice clatter] "CHAAARGE!" [Overwatch:] DAKKA DAKKA DAK.... [Eviscerators:] BUZZZZZZZZZ SPLATTER BUZZZ
2) No more "saves": Incorporate cover into to-hit rolls & armor into Toughness
Spoiler:
We have a three-step combat process: roll to hit, roll to wound, roll to save. Let's cut that by 33% -- and make it worthwhile for armored troops to use cover while we're at it.
Instead of "to hit" in shooting being simply a function of the firer's Ballistic Skill, with the target getting to (maybe) take a cover save later on, make a chart like the one we already have for melee combat, only it's not WS vs. WS but BS vs. cover. Assuming "normal trained human" BS stays at 3, we can have "normal terrain" count as Cover 3, preserving a 50-50 chance to hit: Even level ground has little dips and valleys where troops can go to ground. A perfectly flat surface -- say a frozen lake or airport runway -- would be Cover 1. A trench system, a battlefield riddled with shell holes, or rubble might be Cover 4 or 5; a bunker, Cover 6. Weapons that "Ignore Cover" now would just reduce it by, say, 2: Being inside a bunker does protect you against being fried by a flamethrower, just not nearly as well as it protects you against being brained by a bullet.
Similarly, instead of "to wound" being simply a matter of Strength versus Toughness, with the target getting to (maybe) take an armor save later on, just make armor a straight bonus to toughness -- which your target doesn't get to take if your AP is high enough. This probably requires rejiggering Strength and Toughness values so the average Strength is higher than the average Toughness, because most targets will get a Toughness bonus from armor.
Note that this means a unit wouldn't have to choose between taking a cover save OR an armor save, it could benefit from both cover and armor at the same time. Instead of 5+ Guardsmen being desperate to get into those 4+ trenches while Marines might as well stand right in the open and take their 3+ armor save (until someone comes along with AP 2...), it actually makes sense for the well-armored guys to use cover, too.
3) Homebrew Heaven: A point-cost system to price individual models
Spoiler:
Ovion's tried this, but it's hard to model what GW does because (1) they hide what they do from us and (2) they're pretty inconsistent and arguably even slapdash about how they do it. If we could figure out what it'd cost to get any particular set of stats, wargear, and special rules, then the only question with homebrew units would be how to price any new, unique SRs. And having the table out there would (probably) force GW to be more consistent.
4) Bigger tables + more terrain = more tactics
Spoiler:
Big armies tend to crowd the table and end up on top of each other with little maneuvering room. (The Outflank rule doesn't really help much: It just lets units pile in to the traffic jam from another board edge). There needs to be some rule to scale up the size of the board with the size of the army. If tournament organizers don't like it because they can't stuff as many tables into the hall they've rented, FETH THEM. Or they can just go with smaller-points games.... And with your friends? PLAY ON THE FLOOR.
People also really need to use terrain more to block line of sight so gunline armies can't just camp and kill everyone from a distance like World War I on the Western Front, because boring.
5) A free dice-rolling app for your phone
Spoiler:
"Ok, so my 50 guys shoot your guys with, um, three shots each.... Hold on, let me get my dice bucket."
"No, wait, I got this. 150 shots at BS 3, Strength 4, versus Cover 1, Toughness 3 is -- lemme hit 'randomize' -- ok, nine of my guys are dead."
That's five heresies so far. Only 95 to go to meet our goal![/spoiler]
You may all be intrigued to know that starting in the xmas hols, I plan to remake the WH40k rulebook (and thereafter, codexes).
These ideas are pretty damn useful pointers
...and I may have a way of solving GWs terrible formatting.
Don't expect much soon though, it'll take an age to complete, as I'm going for a full rework, with modifiability for when new units come out.
chaos0xomega wrote: If you're going for a full rework, then you're also headed for an IP infringement lawsuit, but you know... good luck and everything.
Eh, only if I try to make money from it, or claim their IP as mine...
The OP makes some good points, especially 2,3 and 4. I think that 5 would be open to accusations of cheating/fixing etc. and there is something appealing about rolling lots of dice and then cursing your luck when a disproportionate number come up 1s!
As for 1, my personal view is that a system closer to that used in Epic40k would be better.
Keep the current phases and determine initiative at the start of each phase in some way (dice, drawing counters, rock paper scissors etc) winner would choose to go 1st or 2nd, then play alternates.
So in movement each player would move a unit (or formation/platoon) in turn, then when all movement is done shooting would proceed in the same manner, then assault.
It would keep easily defined turns whilst introducing a certain element of being able to react to your opponent, at the same time there would be an overlying cohesiveness to your army, instead of each unit acting independently of the rest of your army.
As for 2, i'm a fan of cover affecting the chance to hit (i still play 2nd edition, so slight bias there!), as for integrating to wound and to save rolls into one roll definitely makes more sense to me.
And lastly 4, bigger tables and more terrain is preferably but not a realistic proposition for a lot of people, a rules system that scales well from small skirmishes to epic battles would be a better option to aim for.
If it were up to me I'd knock $10 off every model and book, I'd can the production of finecast models and hand them all over to FW, and I'd make FW a bigger part of the game by doing so. I'd step it up and knock prices back, even if it meant having to do it myself.
The prices are way out of whack for what they are; plastic toys and the books are ridiculously over-priced too. In any other book store an over-sized hardcover of about 100 pages is around $12, maybe even $25 depending on subject matter. I would sell codices in bookstores like Chapters, alongside the Black Library stuff. Like... I'm not sure who is running the publishing department over there but it is just all kinds of mixed up.
I would also untie my panties about the whole internet retailers selling my product as well. This was like when Metallica sued Napster, it just doesn't make any sense and it has hurt GW, even if they refuse to admit it. Plenty of online shops that used to carry GW no longer do and it's because they just didn't want the hassle. And a hassle it was! I'm no webmaster but the idea of going through and reworking an online shop doesn't sound easy or fun and everyone who was carrying GW HAD to do it. Doesn't sound like the strategic moves of an intelligent corporation does it?
GW isn't going to revitalize because of a few petty rule changes, in fact I kind of like the mysterious miasma that surrounds the rules. It leaves the game open to interpretation. What will change GW is a shift in values. Once they remember how fun it is to actually play Warhammer maybe then they will take their business seriously.
I played a ww2 game once and it was player 1 moves all his stuff, then he chooses one unit to shoot, then player 2 chooses a unit to shoot, and so on until its player 2 turn to move. Player 2 moves all his stuff then chooses a unit to shoot and then player 1 chooses a unit to shoot and so on. Stopped a lof of issues but other than that ive had no other experiences to draw on. but that way worked fine because it was still clear who did what when kinda thing.
As for 2, i'm a fan of cover affecting the chance to hit (i still play 2nd edition, so slight bias there!), as for integrating to wound and to save rolls into one roll definitely makes more sense to me.
The problem with this direction, that i ran into when trying this in my own custom ruleset, is that that 3 step damage resolution affects so much of the game. Consolidating armor saves and toughness into one stat speeds up damage resolution a ton, but as a result everything dies waaaaay faster, so you have to come up with another change to compensate for this, which results in changes to other systems that have to be accounted for, and it spirals out of control from there and eventually pretty much everything is different from where you started. This isn't even mentioning the loss of diversity that result from the combination, as things like poison, rending, power weapons, etc all depend on having separate steps and components to work on. But im right there with you for wanting a cover system more like 2nd edition, everything i've read about it sounds awesome.
If you're going for a full rework, then you're also headed for an IP infringement lawsuit, but you know... good luck and everything.
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?community=&catId=&categoryId=&pIndex=3&aId=3900002&start=4
GW legal states that custom rules and background is fine so long as you clearly state that it is an unofficial, derivative work based off of their trademark/IP/whathaveyou, and make sure it doesn't look too official. And of course making money off of it will have them knocking down your doors .
On to the suggestions: 1) Make leaders actually feel like leaders. My sergeant should have some way to affect his squad other than slightly improved leadership and an extra attack. Currently, support HQ's are much preferred over combat-oriented HQ's because the latter have a hard time making their points back, and support HQ's provide massive force multipliers. Most of these combat-oriented HQ's are meant to the be the force commanders and tacticians, but just function as expensive beatsticks instead, so give them a way to be act as commanders while still being great warriors.
2) This next one would probably end up tying into making leaders feel like leaders, but give players more tactical choices on the battlefield. I dont want my guys to just stand there and get charged. Maybe they can make a small movement to try to avoid the charger, or meet the rush head on the deny the enemy the charge bonus, or maybe they stand and try to get some last shots in via overwatch. The places where such choice has been implemented have massively improved the game, such as the option to run instead of shooting and going to ground, so lets keep that momentum going.
3) Increase the role movement plays in the game. It seems like GW has realized that having units locked into these 6" movement blocks is extremely limiting, and have been trying to find creative ways around the problem rather than fixing it. Something like the Slaanesh rule that adds D3 to movement distance is good example of this. Also make more interesting ways to enter the battlefield available. Deep strike is just not worth the dangers for the most part, so that needs to be changed so its more of an option, but things like warp rifts for daemons to enter through, gateways like the necron monolith's dark portal, Tyranid tunnels dug by the mawloc and the dark eldar's webway portals are examples of what could be done to make movement on and onto the table more exciting.
4) While i like the way unit-by-unit activations would work, in practice it means lots of counters and record-keeping so you know which units have moved, and when the game turn is over. You also run into the problem of if one side has far more units than the other, say draigowing vs footguard, does the bigger force just get a lot of uninterrupted activations in a row? Does the outnumbered player get to activate a unit multiple times in one game turn? So alternating phases would probably be a better direction. Anything really, so long as we get away from the 3 phase IGOUGO system in place, which heavily favors first turn alpha strike armies.
5) Get rid of randomness from the core rules. It's not fun, its frustrating and is a pretty clear way to avoid having to balance anything. Standardized psychic power lists in the core rulebook would have been awesome if you could pick them, rather than hope you get the one you want, or failing that, one that's actually useful. Random charge ranges need to go. Randomness may fly in the chaos codex's, because they're neck deep in chaos' craziness, but the results still need to be balanced so you can use any of them, not just hope you get the best one or the one you planned for. Something like the Champion of Chaos/Chaos Boon rules might be a good place to look, as while its overly complex and convoluted, its got interesting results in it, such as the chance to turn into a daemon prince or chaos spawn.
6) More interesting ways of building armies. Buying individual units and giving them upgrades and whatnot is wonderful, but something like apocalypse formations would really liven it up some more. Say i want an assault squad, a tactical squad, and a devastator squad for my army. Rather than just buying these three units indivudually, maybe i could buy them as a formation for some change in points (up or down) and they would have some bonus ability or restrictions. Increase the points cost for buying the formation instead of individual squads, they get a bonus ability. Decrease the points for the formation over individual units, maybe they have to stay within 12" of each other or something. Maybe even let there be "Formation upgrades" that let you get around limitations or buy additional abilities or models.
7) Kinda ties into the above but change the FOC so spamming is less favorable, and you can make more interesting armies. If i want to build a Ravenguard army based around assault marines, i should be able to do that easily, not try to hash it with minimal troops, a different codex, and/or unwanted units. We're halfway there already with so many HQ's offering changes to the FOC, we might was well drop the entire premise right now.
8) Increase the diversity in stats, this doesn't necessarily mean changing from a D6 though. D6 are easy to come by, are cheap and easy to read, and rolling a lot of them at once is simple. Changing the way stats interact with each other could increase diversity without having to change dice.
Beyond these, a lot of the other suggestions are good too. Counter-Charging a unit via an initiative test is interesting, and i might play with that in my own ruleset, not only standardizing the costing formula but making it available, better rule wording, generally better balance work, etc are all needed as well.
@Selym im always interested in what changes and modifications people are making to the rules, so id be very interesting in reading whatever you come up with.
As for 2, i'm a fan of cover affecting the chance to hit (i still play 2nd edition, so slight bias there!), as for integrating to wound and to save rolls into one roll definitely makes more sense to me.
The problem with this direction, that i ran into when trying this in my own custom ruleset, is that that 3 step damage resolution affects so much of the game. Consolidating armor saves and toughness into one stat speeds up damage resolution a ton, but as a result everything dies waaaaay faster, so you have to come up with another change to compensate for this, which results in changes to other systems that have to be accounted for, and it spirals out of control from there and eventually pretty much everything is different from where you started. This isn't even mentioning the loss of diversity that result from the combination, as things like poison, rending, power weapons, etc all depend on having separate steps and components to work on.....
Actually, if you just add armor as a bonus to Toughness and keep current Toughness and Strength values the same, wouldn't everything be harder to kill? Anyway I imagine changing the to-wound chart would be the easy way around this.... or better yet junk the chart and say " IF (Strength plus 1d6) > (Toughness plus Armor), THEN one wound."
AP would still be important: It'd just deny targets their armor bonus instead of their armor save.
Rending likewise could ignore armor bonus on 6 or something. Poison, hmm, I'll have to think.
As for leaders who actually lead -- yes, yes, yes, yes, a thousand times yes. If you did roll-off Initiative vs. Initiative to see who got the next turn to move, one big thing would be to roll on the highest Initiative in the unit, which would represent your high-Initiative HQ characters getting everyone to GO GO GO much faster than the lower-Initiative grunts would figure out on their own.
Actually, if you just add armor as a bonus to Toughness and keep current Toughness and Strength values the same, wouldn't everything be harder to kill? Anyway I imagine changing the to-wound chart would be the easy way around this.... or better yet junk the chart and say " IF (Strength plus 1d6) > (Toughness plus Armor), THEN one wound."
Yeah i was working on a ruleset that did pretty much exactly this, and we had all kinds of problems with it. We also incorporated increased diversity in stats and used a significantly modified to-wound and to-hit chart, but it wound up almost doubling how fast models died, essentially turning the fight into who fired first or got into melee faster. We ended up having to double the wounds on every model to account for this, then had to have all sorts of conditions to make sure stuff still played out right, even leading to some weird allocation rules. And if you keep a D6 and increase the roll needed to wound to account for this, almost everything is wounding on a 6, 5, or the occasional 4, with the exception of monsters, special characters and weapons, etc, which was boring and took out a lot of diversity. And the more complicated you make the formula to determins wounding, the slower it is, which kinda defeats the purpose of dropping a resolution step in the first place. Im still interested in working on a system like this, but i've seen the problems it causes and have serious doubts about its viability without major overhauls of the rules based off of it.
Poison, hmm, I'll have to think.
Yeah poison was the one of the major problems we ran into. As for rending and power weapons, the idea of armor bonuses sounds better than the system we were using, but i'll have to work with it some to see if it suffers the same problems, as we were never able to get power weapons to feel right, and rending weapons were always overly complex.
As for leaders who actually lead -- yes, yes, yes, yes, a thousand times yes. If you did roll-off Initiative vs. Initiative to see who got the next turn to move, one big thing would be to roll on the highest Initiative in the unit, which would represent your high-Initiative HQ characters getting everyone to GO GO GO much faster than the lower-Initiative grunts would figure out on their own.
If you're interested in some ideas for this direction, go look at Lanrak's Xenos and Zealots ruleset, he's got some great ideas on leaders and how they could be used more interestingly. One of my favorites was a "Target zone", where your leader (usually a sergeant or equivalent) picks a point, and the unit he controls can fire at any unit within 6" of that point, essentially allowing split-fire without being broken as hell.
Brometheus wrote: I think weight of fire (small or big) should have a negative impact on leadership tests, like melee has with combat res.
Well, in Epic 40k, each formation would recieve a "blast marker" each time it lost a unit or came under fire, something similar could be implemented here, but it would drastically increase gun power, and make footslogging utterly pointless when facing a gunline.
I used to post in these sorts of threads alot, until I noticed one massive underlying trend in the ideas that they come up with;
You can find the majority of them in Mantic's Warpath game.
I know this looks like a plug or whatever, but honestly just go check it out - the rules are free online, and so simple you can learn them in half an hour. Just counts-as 40k gak with mantic unit rules, and since the games in beta, just flat out invent unit entries as needed - nothing different and probably less work than any meaningful 'reboot' of 40k would require, and your immediately good to go.
Warpath is a great base for people who want to actually play an improved ruleset for 40k, rather than just talk endlessly in circles. Use it, change it if needed, and get back to enjoying your damn game.
Some sort of suppression system would be welcome. Definitely would make low strength, low AP, high fire rate weapons useful for once (Cough Psilencer Cough). Maybe make it so having X number of shots fired at the unit reduces is leadership by 1, and forces a morale test. Probably far too clunky of a system to work, but a stepping stone to something better. Maybe a suppression trait for certain guns that would make them more effective at suppression than others.
change the dice used, preferably d10's (mostly because I have a bajillion of the things from playing FFG/WW stuff)
Currently 40k is an addative system for the most part. Your "to hit" is really just comparing your BS+d6 to 7. Do you meet or exceed 7? you hit. Otherwise you miss. "characteristic tests" are pretty much the same. if 7-d6 >= (characteristic), You're ok! [6 = auto-fail]
This works just fine, except that it uses (mostly) a 0-10 stat system. So stats over 5/6 become wonky. BS is handled well, mostly because it allows you to effectively check if 2d6+BS>=7, with toughness being similar 7-(2d6 drop highest) >= you're ok!
Where this system really starts to lack sensibility to me is the To-Wound system, as well as the WS to hit tables. Lucky, the 1-legged blind grot still has a 30% chance to hit Daemon Lord Murderificus The Weaponmaster, Destroyer of Worlds!!!. Now, they use the ambiguation of "Hey, It's the rush of combat, that flailing grot could get lucky!!!" This would be fine if most close combats had 100-200 soldiers fighting at once, but when there are usually at most 20ish actually swinging on BOTH sides, then said daemon would most likely never be hit. Also, to use that same ambiguation, how the heck would Veteran Steve have enough time/lucidity/skill to arm a complicated demolition charge such as a melta bomb, affix it to a 50 foot tall winged daemon (who is murdering him/his comrades) and NOT be hit by the resulting explosion assuming he (by some miracle) managed to do it right?
How would I go about fixing this? Honestly I have no idea. Seeing that 40k holds a somewhat uniquie niche as so far that they are neither a skirmish nor war-scale game, but pulling elements from both. And from typing all of this it has me thinking HOW ON EARTH you could possibly 'fix' this game without a complete re-write... my head hurts... Ow. Ow. Ow. Ow.
Suppression is some serious stuff in real life, and it makes sense to add some mechanics as that gentleman mentioned above.
Just ask any grunt what's more important- Getting kills and looking cool or getting the other person away from you by any means possible. Weight of fire = heads down, or run away/reposition.
Lucky, the 1-legged blind grot still has a 30% chance to hit Daemon Lord Murderificus The Weaponmaster, Destroyer of Worlds!!!. Now, they use the ambiguation of "Hey, It's the rush of combat, that flailing grot could get lucky!!!" This would be fine if most close combats had 100-200 soldiers fighting at once, but when there are usually at most 20ish actually swinging on BOTH sides, then said daemon would most likely never be hit.
Yes the WS system is horribly designed, but you also touched on another good point, in that if you made it realistic, that is to say you have to be within a couple of WS points of that daemon prince, and since you can't fire into melee, all you have to do is get it into combat and it would be immortal against anything but elite melee troops. While realistic, i don't think it would be fun to see one model rip its way through my entire army of guardsmen without me being able to so much as scratch it outside of shooting.
You can find the majority of them in Mantic's Warpath game.
I know this looks like a plug or whatever, but honestly just go check it out - the rules are free online, and so simple you can learn them in half an hour. Just counts-as 40k gak with mantic unit rules, and since the games in beta, just flat out invent unit entries as needed - nothing different and probably less work than any meaningful 'reboot' of 40k would require, and your immediately good to go.
Having just given it a quick run through, i like a bunch of the bits and pieces they use, but I would still prefer a "fixed" 40K over warpath.
PROS -Unit-by-Unit activation system is excellent
-Formation system is way better than 40K's consistency rules, and help focus on the units leader
-vehicle overrun is actually powerful now, probably too much so(D6 hits on every model run over anyone?)
-simple cover and shooting modifiers
-speed as a stat is very nice
-rolling for nerve(Leadership) on a unit every time its shot at feels weird, but would probably work fine, especially if adapted properly
Unfortunately, by stripping out all of the depth and complexity of 40K, warpath is left with a simplistic game of shooting and charging with units that look fairly similar. Melee in particular looks horribly bland.
-Very few choices and opportunities for upgrades
-flamers are boring and seemingly too powerful (10 shots, 12" range, autohit on a 4+)
-If you fail an activation test for a unit, it cannot be used that turn, you could potentially never use a unit in a game if you fail enough 3+ rolls
Ultimately, Warpath feels like a war-game that scaled down to use individual models, instead of 40K's skirmish game that scaled up to use lots of individual models. Id rather keep the depth and variety 40K offers, and focus on reworking the execution and details rather than try to streamline by cutting elements out.
Dakkamite wrote: I used to post in these sorts of threads alot, until I noticed one massive underlying trend in the ideas that they come up with;
You can find the majority of them in Mantic's Warpath game.
Exactly why I decided to port 40k to Deadzone rather than try to fix 40k. A non-broken ruleset made by someone good at what he does is a much better place to work from. No need to design a new wheel to replace your triangular ones when someone has already designed a round one for you.
Dakkamite wrote: I used to post in these sorts of threads alot, until I noticed one massive underlying trend in the ideas that they come up with; You can find the majority of them in Mantic's Warpath game..
Just downloaded Warpath and read it. Wow, it really reads like a streamlined Warhammer -- right down to where they failed to change one reference to "a normal Run move" to their Definitely Not A 40K Clone term "an At The Double! order." In fact it strikes me as streamlined to a fault, e.g. you don't remove individual models as casualties, just track damage to the whole unit abstractly (why have individual models then?), and any weapon seems to have the same chance of doing damage to a particular target based on that target's Defense value.
Also it's stuck with "all my guys move, all my guys shoot, all my guys melee" instead of interactive unit-by-unit, which I find way more interesting.
So fie upon thy Warpath! Fie, I say!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yonan wrote: I decided to port 40k to Deadzone rather than try to fix 40k. .....
I could only find these demo rules for Deadzone. It seems very different from 40K, with a lot of RPG elements, but it's hard to tell much from such an abbreviated version of the rules....
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, suppression rules would be good. Could be as simple as having to test Leadership every time you got shot at and Going to Ground if you fail.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rav1rn wrote: Yeah poison was the one of the major problems we ran into. As for rending and power weapons, the idea of armor bonuses sounds better than the system we were using, but i'll have to work with it some to see if it suffers the same problems, as we were never able to get power weapons to feel right, and rending weapons were always overly complex.
How about Poison always reduces the target's toughness to, say, 2? That gets the same effect as rolling a fixed number to wound in the current game. Of course armor would fact in differently (it'd be a bonus against being wounded in the first place rather than a separate "save" if you are wounded) but I think this would still capture the essence of Poison (poisonous essence?) as something that can bring the toughest enemies down as easily as the weakest.
For a unit/weapon with Rending, how about a to-wound roll of six treats the enemy's Toughness and non-invulnerable Armor as zero (invulnerable armor still works, though). That's similar to is current Rending automatically wounds and has AP 2 to nullify all non-invulnerable armor saves.
Oh, also, vehicles should have Toughness, Armor, and Wounds just like everyone else, not Armor Values and Hull Points. It's silly to have an entirely separate damage system for vehicles, especially when Monstrous Creatures and Walkers look so similar but have such different rules. Presumably a heavy tank's Armor bonus would be higher than any infantry Armor, and things like Melta would just give you crazy high AP to counter it -- and Poison & Fleshbane would just have a "doesn't work on vehicles" clause.
How about Poison always reduces the target's toughness to, say, 2? That gets the same effect as rolling a fixed number to wound in the current game. Of course armor would fact in differently (it'd be a bonus against being wounded in the first place rather than a separate "save" if you are wounded) but I think this would still capture the essence of Poison (poisonous essence?) as something that can bring the toughest enemies down as easily as the weakest.
So poison essentially acts like a power weapon against toughness instead of armor? I think that could work, especially if you made options for something like Poison (1) and Poison (2) to demonstrate that some poisons are more potent than others, so think on how that could work. However,this still doesn't address the main issue of units dying far faster than normal, since they no longer have that second save to keep them alive. So you either need to move to a different die (d12 would be my recommendation as its a simpler conversion from D6 and is much easier to read than D8 or D10) or increase their wounds somehow. This is where we hit a lot of problems in our system, as we wanted to stick to a D6.
As for treating vehicles like normal models, i would argue it would be simpler to treat monsters as vehicles with slightly altered rules similarly to how walkers are implemented, rather than try to force the normal traits to apply to vehicles. Vehicles (and monsters to a lesser extent) are fundamentally different from normal infantry models, so trying to get them to work within that framework requires all sorts of exceptions and special cases, and you'll end up with rules clarifying rules, which isn't any better than what GW does right now.
Yonan wrote: I decided to port 40k to Deadzone rather than try to fix 40k. .....
I could only find these demo rules for Deadzone. It seems very different from 40K, with a lot of RPG elements, but it's hard to tell much from such an abbreviated version of the rules....
Backers have had the rulebook for a while, and the game is arriving for people atm. Yep it's a skirmish scale game so you'll be running ~5-15 individual models in 2x2 games, but it can scale up to 6x4 so can get fairly large games. Has solid campaign rules so your troops can gain experience and equipment upgrades etc. Not a replacement for 40k (that would be warpath) but Deadzone it's looking great so far.
[1] Weapon ranges all reduced so that units shooting across the board was not a common thing. This would bring back more importance to the movement phase.
[2] Change cover to fantasy to hit modifiers but leave my armour save rolls alone. Removing armour saves would also remove a lot of excitement out of the game. Making that 4++ iron halo save against the ID attack is one of those memorable and heart pounding events in the game.
[3] Reign in the invulnerable saves and make them like ward saves in fantasy. This would really help many of those beleaguered TEQ units.
[4] Clarify rules with clear and concise writting
[5] Bring back the 3ed vehicle shooting rules (aka super splitfire)...why do my bolter gunners fire at tanks again?
[6] Either reactive actions (ie don't shoot in your turn allows you to shoot in response to an enemy entering your range) or go Player 1 Move, Player 2 Move, Player 1 Shoot, Player 2 Shoot, etc. Going unit by unit makes the game either incredibly unfair to one side based on number of units and/or extremely complicated.
Needs a big look at weapon ranges and the amount of vehicles vs infantry.
The board size for 28mm is just too small for massive armoured companies to face off and pretend any sort of realism with involving infantry in the battle.
Here is my list of how to make a rule set for 40k...
1) DECIDE what the game is supposed to be in terms of scope and scale.
A skirmish game or a Battle game!Modern warfare or Ancient warfare.
(I would go for a modern battle game where mobility, fire power and assault are all equally important, AND equally represented!.)
2) Determine WHAT elements are going to be included in the game, unit types, scope and scale of intended interaction.
3) Devise the most elegant and intuitive game turn mechanics and resolution methods to deliver the maximum game play from the minimum amount of rules covering all these determined elements.(EG completely opposite to current 40k.)
4)Play test and revise until every one thinks its a enjoyable experience to play the game, (even WAACs vs FAACs!)
My preference would be for an interactive game turn , and using stats directly in resolutions. (NO fething stupid tables, or special rules that are at odds with the core rules!)
Eg The stat is a direct representation of distance or number of dice rolled.OR used in direct comparison/as a modifier.
1) If you reduce weapon ranges, I take it you would NOT reduce movement distances? Trying to think of a simple way to do that.... maybe weapons ranges are in centimeters but move distances are still in inches?
(2) Not sure I agree with you about saves... but maybe invulnerable saves ONLY could work as a separate die roll, to make them really distinctive from regular armor?
(3) I don't know how ward saves work in Fantasy -- I'm literally 16 years out of date on WHFB rules. Can you clarify?
(4) Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.
(5) Make sense.
(6) I really like alternating unit-by-unit, but IS definitely tricky when one army has way more units, because that army is going to get a string of actions in a row no matter what. Maybe the guy with the smaller army gets to choose whether the larger army moves its "extra" units at the beginning of the turn (so you can wait and see what they do) or at the end (so you can preempt)?
Alternating phases would probably be the easiest route to go, but you may have hit on a solution to the outnumbered problem with unit-by-unit system in your original post. You described "reactions" using initiative tests, such as a squad firing at a tank as it moves or counter-charging a unit, so this would be a pretty nifty way of doing things. Something along the lines of:
If one player has activated all of his units, and the second player has more than one inactivated unit remaining, the first player may nominate one unit to make a reaction each time the opponent activates a unit. When a unit attempts a reaction, both units must make an initiative test. If the first players unit wins the initiative test, they are allowed to perform one action at any point in the activated units activation, making a movement, firing their weapons, or counter-charging. Otherwise, the opponents unit activates as usual. All of the first players units must attempt a reaction before any unit is allowed to attempt a second reaction.
Since most armies that would be seriously outnumbered are lower model count, expensive armies that tend to have better initiative, they are more likely to get a reaction against lower initiative, horde armies, so that helps with the uneven activations without it being automatic or overly powerful. Obviously this would need a lot of work, but it's an interesting direction.
Lanrak wrote:There are loads of great rules sets for modern battle game using 6 mm to 15mm minatures.(Epic, Dirtside, FoW, etc.) Why not use these systems as a base then ADD more detail to up scale them to 28mm? I think this would be better than starting with ancient skirmish rules and hacking lumps out...
That is shockingly sensible -- but this is not a sensible thread! The (almost certainly unachievable) aspiration of my first post was to reboot 40K to the almost same degree D&D got rebooted in 4th edition (and yes that bitterly divided the fanbase). I'd actually like something for which you could use current codexes almost unchanged, just with a conversion sheet for how armor saves etc. translate,
Rav1rn wrote:....If one player has activated all of his units, and the second player has more than one inactivated unit remaining, the first player may nominate one unit to make a reaction each time the opponent activates a unit. ...Since most armies that would be seriously outnumbered are lower model count, expensive armies that tend to have better initiative, they are more likely to get a reaction against lower initiative, horde armies, so that helps with the uneven activations without it being automatic or overly powerful. Obviously this would need a lot of work, but it's an interesting direction.
If one thinks IGOUGO is clunky or unrealistic, I don't think unit-by-unit actuation is much better. If both sides had only 3 units, maybe.
No, what is needed is more potential interaction from the defending player during the attacker's turn. An over-watch mechanic more akin to 2nd Ed. would help (sacrificing movement the previous turn but allowing shots at any target during enemy movement), not the brain-dead version of 6th Ed.
However, I could see the Assault Phase being decided by an Initiative roll. That could be worthwhile, so a unit could perhaps 'consolidate' away from a charging enemy if it has a higher roll, or even charge into the enemy giving both sides their attack bonuses.
IGOUGO works pretty well for the most part and it has gotten a bad rep because 40K tends to have such a long turn sequence for each player. I'd rather fix it by adding more interaction, not throwing the baby out with the bath water.
In my experience, unit by unit play is WAAAAY longer to play. You don't have to wait for the other player as much, but the same sized game takes WAAAAAAAY longer. Yuk.
Oooo this looks like fun. i was working on something remarkably similar to your original post :/ now i feel like im plagiarizing.
1) Change to i go you go kinda thing. but give each unit activation tokens that let em do things
(it was going to something like primary/secondary/reaction tokens)
2) Change weapon range to "Effective" range.
(generally keep em the same as current but a unit can still shoot past that range at a heavily modified BS or S)
3) Change cover. I liked zagmans idea of changing cover into a modifier for BS. the math turned out relatively ok.
4) Stream line unit types. make vehicles into high T models with addition rules.
5) balance the point system (god that's gonna take forever)
6) get rid of most of the random. EI:psyker or daemon: "Hur dur how do i warp"
Desubot wrote: 4) Stream line unit types. make vehicles into high T models with addition rules.
I would agree, but there's something tactical about having armour values on vehicles - you have to learn how to position them.
You could give them multiple toughness values though.
On a related note, I've been thinking about ditching the current movement system for vehicles, and replacing it with a movement value. They'll have two values: the first is lower, and allows you to fire everything normally, the second is higher, and causes you to only make snap shots.
SisterSydney wrote:All good ideas. Some wrinkles to work out:
1) If you reduce weapon ranges, I take it you would NOT reduce movement distances? Trying to think of a simple way to do that.... maybe weapons ranges are in centimeters but move distances are still in inches?
(2) Not sure I agree with you about saves... but maybe invulnerable saves ONLY could work as a separate die roll, to make them really distinctive from regular armor?
(3) I don't know how ward saves work in Fantasy -- I'm literally 16 years out of date on WHFB rules. Can you clarify?
(4) Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.
(5) Make sense.
(6) I really like alternating unit-by-unit, but IS definitely tricky when one army has way more units, because that army is going to get a string of actions in a row no matter what. Maybe the guy with the smaller army gets to choose whether the larger army moves its "extra" units at the beginning of the turn (so you can wait and see what they do) or at the end (so you can preempt)?
I would just chop almost every range in half. It is probably less realistic but it would make for far more interesting game play. The biggest problem with 40K is that ~50% of the weapons can cover almost the entire board with their range. You can either increase board size (harder) or decrease range. I would probably do the fantasy movement characterisitic (average 4 for humans 8 for cavalry) or leave it as is so that games feel fast and furious rather than shooting galleries.
Ward saves are a seperate roll after armour saves. If I had my way it would be armour save, ward save, then FnP to kill something. This would make some units reidiculously hard to kill (termies) but if you are conservative with your designs and don't let it go crazy it really makes them special. In fantasy a really good ward is a 4++.
Rav1rn wrote:Alternating phases would probably be the easiest route to go, but you may have hit on a solution to the outnumbered problem with unit-by-unit system in your original post. You described "reactions" using initiative tests, such as a squad firing at a tank as it moves or counter-charging a unit, so this would be a pretty nifty way of doing things. Something along the lines of:
If one player has activated all of his units, and the second player has more than one inactivated unit remaining, the first player may nominate one unit to make a reaction each time the opponent activates a unit. When a unit attempts a reaction, both units must make an initiative test. If the first players unit wins the initiative test, they are allowed to perform one action at any point in the activated units activation, making a movement, firing their weapons, or counter-charging. Otherwise, the opponents unit activates as usual. All of the first players units must attempt a reaction before any unit is allowed to attempt a second reaction.
Since most armies that would be seriously outnumbered are lower model count, expensive armies that tend to have better initiative, they are more likely to get a reaction against lower initiative, horde armies, so that helps with the uneven activations without it being automatic or overly powerful. Obviously this would need a lot of work, but it's an interesting direction.
It could be really awesome but as proved by many games before extremely time consuming and complicated. I think this may become more possible in the post Augmented Reality age where we all have "google glasses" to keep track of it all for us.
I don't think the weapons ranges are as much an issue as the inadequacy of cover. The game is an abstraction anyway, and TLOS does a disservice to certain aspects of game play.
We don't allow LOS to travel through more than two pieces of area terrain nor through terrain with a cover save that is lower than a weapon's AP value. It makes maneuver and positioning a bit more important while sustaining those clear, long shots.
We don't allow LOS to travel through more than two pieces of area terrain nor through terrain with a cover save that is lower than a weapon's AP value.
So how do you fire at models in, say, a trench, or behind an ADL if you are using infantry standard weapons (lasguns, boltguns, gauss flayers etc)?
1) Further reworking of the Vehicle Rules First I'd like to see there just be Penetrating or Non-Penetrating hits, no more glancing, a shot will either penetrate or it won't.
I'd also like to see Crew Stunned become its own thing when being hit by a weapon, perhaps making a Leadership test and treating all vehicles as having Leadership 10 until vehicles all have their own Ld values. When being hit by a weapon, even if it doesn't penetrate, the vehicle must make a Crew Stunned roll on its Leadership value, if it passes nothing happens. If it fails the vehicle suffers from Crew Stunned. Certain types of wargear can reduce the effects of Crew Stunned to Crew Shaken.
Finally Penetrating Hits no longer roll on the Vehicle Damage Table. To me Hull Points are enough, however I don't think the Vehicle Damage Table should be forgotten entirely, instead rework it to a Critical Hit Table. Critical Hits can only be performed by weapons which roll 2D6 or more when rolling for armour penetration. When an attack successfully penetrates a vehicles armour while at the same time rolling doubles, the vehicle has been critically hit with the only results being Weapon Destroyed, Immobilized, or Extensive Damage. Extensive Damage's effect makes the vehicle lose one additional Hull Point and, if the vehicle is destroyed in such a manner, it will explode.
2) Formation Integration I see a lot of potential in Formations beyond what GW is doing. I see them as a tool of encouraging fluffy armies or unit compositions by offering bonus special rules or being able to field something normally not allowed via the Force Organization chart. Of course there should be restrictions and rules, for example only Primary Detachments can take them and only one per Force Organization chart. The Formation itself would also take up Force Organization slots depending on its size and composition.
3) Warlord Traits Not sure if others will agree, but I think we should have some more options here. Not more Warlord Traits, just an option to roll a random one for free OR to be able to purchase one for a points hike.
4) Psychic Powers Like with Warlord Traits, I feel like we should be able to risk a roll or take a Primaris Power for free OR we can select a power for a hefty points hike.
I can't really come up with any new ideas, but I'll chime in on some that have been suggested!
Alternating phases is a great idea, and one that I've actually tried in 6th to great success. Doing it on a per unit basis not only takes forever, but imbalances the gameplay in favor of armies with a lot of units (i.e. Tervigon spam with 10+ gaunt units running amok).
Making movement less complex would be nice. None of this rolling for movement through difficult terrain nonsense, just modify the move (-1" through rough ground, -2" through forest, etc.). Also, bin random charge ranges. Seriously.
Ignoring cover needs to be less powerful. One way to do this would be for the weapon to remove the cover save but make the weapon AP- as a result. My Guardians in a bunker shouldn't all die to a single flamer.
I fully agree with removing armor saves instead moving to a system of modifiers whereby the weapon characteristic (Str) compares to a defense characteristic (T). If S>T then wound is applied. Modifiers that have been suggested are all great including poison modifying the T and Rending or high AP affecting the armor bonus. Both of these mechanics don't redesign the core character stats and thus avoid a major codex rewrite.
Personally I think the terrain placement rules are pretty straightforward and adequate. Not only do you alternate, but there is randomness where it should be.
Psychic randomness needs to go. Having my Flyrant completely vulnerable because I rolled Hemorrhage and Life Leech is a super downer. Of course being able to select powers would make Hemorrhage, Death Mission, etc. never played . . .
Elimination of armor values and hull points in favor of T values is a great idea and condenses the rules immensely.
Lastly, yes, yes, yes to reducing weapon ranges. While I fully take advantage of it, being able to swoosh my vehicle force shield 60" across a table is absurd.
Sorry for not really adding anything new, but I got to thread too late it seems.
Desubot wrote:Oooo this looks like fun. i was working on something remarkably similar to your original post :/ now i feel like im plagiarizing.
Think of it more as "great minds think alike." And, y'know, there being a finite set of other games out there we're all taking inspiration from. I'll try to summarize & synthesize.
1) Less randomness, please, O Merciful Emperor... oh wait He is not merciful never mind
Spoiler:
djm55 wrote:None of this rolling for movement through difficult terrain nonsense, just modify the move (-1" through rough ground, -2" through forest, etc.). Also, bin random charge range..... Psychic randomness needs to go. Having my Flyrant completely vulnerable because I rolled Hemorrhage and Life Leech is a super downer. Of course being able to select powers would make Hemorrhage, Death Mission, etc. never played . . .
Desubot wrote:6) get rid of most of the random. EI:psyker or daemon: "Hur dur how do i warp"
Marik Law wrote:Not more Warlord Traits, just an option to roll a random one for free OR to be able to purchase one for a points hike.... Psychic Powers[:] Like with Warlord Traits, I feel like we should be able to risk a roll or take a Primaris Power for free OR we can select a power for a hefty points hike.
If we're trying not to totally rewrite Codexes, just the core rules (i.e. what GW will do when they make 7th edition), Marik's option is the easiest to implement: You can get choose - take a primaris power or a default warlord trait (whatever that would be; could vary by army) - roll a random power/trait - pay x points to pick your power/warlord trait.
2) Vehicles are people, too
2a) Vehicles get Toughness, Wounds, and Armor Bonus(es)
Spoiler:
djm55 wrote:Elimination of armor values and hull points in favor of T values is a great idea and condenses the rules immensely.
Selym wrote:
Desubot wrote: 4) Stream line unit types. make vehicles into high T models with addition rules.
I would agree, but there's something tactical about having armour values on vehicles - you have to learn how to position them. You could give them multiple toughness values though.
I think the way to make this work is to give vehicles the same Toughness, Wounds, and Armor stats as infantry, monsters, etc., but with the unique wrinkle that, unlike other unit types, vehicles add a different Armor Bonus to their basic Toughness depending on what side got hit.
So, for example, a Predator with Armor Value 13 / 11 / 10 would translate into, say, Toughness 8, representing the sheer structural heft of a tank, and then Armor Bonus of +5 Front, +3 Side, +2 Rear. New system's Toughness plus Armor Bonus equals current Armor Value. And Hull Points translate directly into Wounds: 3 HP current system = 3 Wounds new system.
Marik Law wrote: First I'd like to see there just be Penetrating or Non-Penetrating hits, no more glancing, a shot will either penetrate or it won't.
Yes, I don't think the complication created by glancing vs. penetrating hits is worth it.
2b) Critical Hits for everybody!
Spoiler:
Marik Law wrote: I don't think the Vehicle Damage Table should be forgotten entirely, instead rework it to a Critical Hit Table.....
How about there's a Critical Hit table for everyone: If a model has multiple Wounds, be it vehicle, monster, or independent character, then a really good damage result gets a random special effect like - Stunned: You're alive but stats like BS, WS, & I are down to 1 for a while. Concussive weapons automatically get this result. - Immobilized: Your vehicle threw a track, your hero broke a leg, your flying monster don't fly so good no more. - Weapon destroyed: Your tank's main gun? Kaput. Your hero's Murder Sword? Broken. Giant tentacle monster? Giant monster yes, tentacles no. - Instant Death: You thought your tank/monster/character had Wounds left even after taking this hit? WRONG! (Unless you have Eternal Warrior, fine, fine). Instant Death weapons automatically get this result.
But let's not have things explode and force us to resolve random hits on everything around them, m'kay? Seriously, the ranges in 40K are Not To Scale, the fact that your Space Marine model is 2" from your Predator model doesn't mean the "real things" they represent are within 10 meters of each other.
2c) Ld Stats for vehicles & Suppressing Fire for everyone
Spoiler:
Marik Law wrote: I'd also like to see Crew Stunned become its own thing when being hit by a weapon, perhaps making a Leadership test and treating all vehicles as having Leadership 10 ....[/url]
Brometheus wrote: I think weight of fire (small or big) should have a negative impact on leadership tests, like melee has with combat res.
Rav1rn wrote: Some sort of suppression system would be welcome....
How about: a) no more Fearless vehicles, make them have Leadership stats and checks and the possibility of running away like everyone else. b) Conversely, give all models, including infantry, a "suppressed" result equal to "crew stunned": if any model (vehicle, infantryman, monster, whatever) in the unit takes a Wound, roll a morale check. Failure doesn't mean you run, it just means you're sufficiently shook up that you aren't shooting back next turn.
2d) A move stat for everyone! [spoiler]
Selym wrote:I've been thinking about ditching the current movement system for vehicles, and replacing it with a movement value. They'll have two values: the first is lower, and allows you to fire everything normally, the second is higher, and causes you to only make snap shots.
That sounds like a good idea for everyone, actually. How about give everyone the same movement rules, junk the "Run" rule, and just rewrite Relentless a bit?
Normal infantry: stay stationary and fire at full BS OR move up to 6" and fire snap shots OR move up to 12" and fire nothing at all. Vehicles and Relentless infantry: move up to 6" and fire at full BS OR move up to 12" and fire only snap shots. Fast units -- i.e. what we now call Cavalry, Beasts, and Fast Vehicles: add 6" to the move distances above.
You could in fact have some non-Relentless vehicles to represent ones whose weapons aren't properly gyrostabilized, so they have to stop to fire accurately (like pretty much all real-world tanks until 1944 or so).
3. Range, Cover, & Line of Sight
What people said:
Spoiler:
wowsmash wrote: There needs to be clear terrain placement as well as fort placement rules to fixs the current shenanigans.
amanita wrote:I don't think the weapons ranges are as much an issue as the inadequacy of cover. The game is an abstraction anyway, and TLOS does a disservice to certain aspects of game play....
djm55 wrote:Lastly, yes, yes, yes to reducing weapon ranges. While I fully take advantage of it, being able to swoosh my vehicle force shield 60" across a table is absurd.
Desubot wrote: 2) Change weapon range to "Effective" range. (generally keep em the same as current but a unit can still shoot past that range at a heavily modified BS or S)
So, four things:
3a) Tighten up the terrain placement rules; not sure how.
3b) Kill off "true line of sight."
Spoiler:
Enemy unit in area terrain? It's harder to hit them, they get a cover bonus:
Cover Factor 1: a parking lot. Cover 3: normal open ground (there're bushes and rocks and little depressions ). Cover 6: trenches and shell holes. Fortifications count as stationary vehicles, not cover.
Enemy unit on the far side of area terrain? Can't hit them at all --- unless you're higher up than both the target and the terrain and the terrain is closer than half the range to the target.
3c) Reduce the ranges weapons can fire at full accuracy.
Spoiler:
Your weapon has range 60" in the current rules? Fine, fire 60" -- but the farther away the target, the harder they are to hit. (N.b. this is the opposite of Desubot's idea, but he still gets credit for making me think of it).
BS has to beat the target's Cover Factor and the Range Factor:
Range Factor 0: point blank. You're within 2", any closer and you'd be in melee. Range Factor 1: 2 to 12" Range Factor 2: 12" to 24" Range Factor 3: 24" to 48" Range Factor 4: 48" to 96" Range Factor 5: 96" to 192" and what the hell kind of table are you playing on?
3d) Vehicles and monsters are easier to hit; moving targets are harder to hit.
Spoiler:
Infantry and Beasts are Target Size 0; Bikes and Cavalry are Size 1; Vehicles and Monstrous Creatures are Size 2 and up.
Targets that didn't move that turn are Move Factor 0; up to 6", Move Factor 1; up to 12", Move Factor 2; up to 24", Move Factor 3; etc. Sometimes charging madly at the enemy makes you harder to hit than just camping out in a gunline!
Jink is a further bonus for really maneuverable vehicles, as it is now.
Overall, you junk the current shooting table and compare:
Firer's BS + Target Size + 1d6 Vs. Cover Factor + Range Factor + Move Factor
If the firer's total is equal or less, it's a miss. If greater, a hit. Obviously you don't add all this up every time you fire a shot. You figure out your Attack Total, they figure out their Defense Total, and if you really suck at math then you have a handy cross-reference table to say "ok, if Attack is X and Defense is Y, you need to roll Z or more to hit."
Example:
Spoiler:
We want to keep it so BS 3 has a 50-50 chance of hitting a target in the open at "normal" tactical ranges. So infantry (Size 0) in open terrain (Cover 3) beyond 2" but within 12" (Range Factor 1) who have moved 6" (Move Factor 1) -- or more than 12" but within 24" (RF 2) but stationary (MF 0) -- gets a total of 6. BS3 +1d6 averages to 6.5. So BS 3 still hits in "normal" infantry combat 50% of the time.
But really long-range shots only hit if your BS is high or the target is big, and it's harder than in the current game to get a clear shot in the first place.
4. Alternate phases, not unit-by-unit -- but allow interrupts
What people said:
Spoiler:
djm55 wrote:Alternating phases is a great idea, and one that I've actually tried in 6th to great success. Doing it on a per unit basis not only takes forever, but imbalances the gameplay in favor of armies with a lot of units ...
amanita wrote: In my experience, unit by unit play is WAAAAY longer to play. You don't have to wait for the other player as much, but the same sized game takes WAAAAAAAY longer. Yuk.
ansacs wrote: Either reactive actions (ie don't shoot in your turn allows you to shoot in response to an enemy entering your range) or go Player 1 Move, Player 2 Move, Player 1 Shoot, Player 2 Shoot, etc. Going unit by unit makes the game either incredibly unfair to one side based on number of units and/or extremely complicated.
amanita wrote: If one thinks IGOUGO is clunky or unrealistic, I don't think unit-by-unit actuation is much better. If both sides had only 3 units, maybe. No, what is needed is more potential interaction from the defending player during the attacker's turn. An over-watch mechanic more akin to 2nd Ed. would help (sacrificing movement the previous turn but allowing shots at any target during enemy movement), not the brain-dead version of 6th Ed....
Ok, I'm convinced, unit-by-unit activation is madness. So how about alternating phases -- I move all my guys, you move all yours, I shoot with mine, you shoot with yours, etc. -- but with the possibility to interrupt?
Specifically, if a unit does not move in its own movement phase, then during the other side's movement phase, then - if an enemy unit comes into LOS and shooting range, you can fire a snapshot. After the shooting's resolved, the target keeps moving unless it blew a morale test and ran. - if an enemy unit comes within charge distance, you can charge. Both sides gets the charge bonus since both sides were in motion.
(I like the idea of rolling Initiative to interrupt, but that's too complicated unless you totally design the game around it).
If we give vehicles a Leadership value, I suggest all vehicles automatically get either Fearless or Stubborn, but must still always roll for Crew Stunned when they're hit by a strong enough weapon.
Another bonus to giving vehicles a Leadership value is that Psychic Pilot becomes unnecessary and can be dropped from the game.
Hmm, not sure about Critical Hit tables for everything. Vehicle damage is already a bit of a pain to keep track of, adding it to characters and MCs as well would just bog down the game I'm afraid.
Perhaps, instead, if the result of a To Wound roll is a successful roll of 6 and equal to or greater than double the target's Toughness, refer to the chart below and the weapon gains that special rule for the wounds it caused.
- Energy Type (Las Weapons, Flamers, Meltaguns, etc): Blind/Haywire.
- Impact Type (Auto Weapons, Bolt Weapons, some Missiles): Concussive.
- Piercing Type (Rail Weapons, Power Lances?): AP 1.
- Slicing Type (Shuriken Weapons): Pinning.
Or perhaps, far more simply, have any critical hits versus non-vehicle units improves the weapons AP by 1 or something as if the shooter has hit some lesser protected part of the target's body.
I'm against giving wounds and a Toughness stat for vehicles. This merely compounds GW's already sketchy rules writing, and takes away an important aspect of the tactical (and realistic) positioning of vehicle armor facing.
4th Ed vehicles were too weak, 5th Ed vehicles were too strong, and 6th are a little too weak (with more bookkeeping) again. Swing goes the pendulum. When GW makes a stupid rule, they counter it not by discarding or changing it, they usually just add another stupid rule to compensate for it. I'm sorry, but hull points are really pretty stupid. Adding more hull pts for vehicles seems to be a commonly regarded solution when in fact the vehicle damage chart just needs alteration. The same goes for lots of GW's rules that get more convoluted each edition but people keep trying to fix the latest screw-ups. I say go back to 3rd or 4th Ed, fix the blatant errors and call it good.
I'm in favor of keeping vehicles distinct as well, but there needs to be a lot of tuning in this area. My 250 point land raider should not get one shotted by a 15 point guardsman wielding a Melta-Gun. And if that result must be a possibility, then at least make it not an almost guaranteed event. 2D6 +8 penetration averages out to a value of 15, and with +2 on the damage chart, explodes is half the results, that is way too high for the second most durable non-apocalypse vehicle in the game. So some sort of second armor trait to differentiate the durability of a certain tank would be appreciated. Vehicles are not just defined by their armor, their design and redundancies also come into play, so make sure those are done as such, and yes hull points is far too involved of a "solution" to this problem, which it doesn't even really attempt to fix.
Beyond this, tanks need to become more than just metal boxes with guns strapped to them. Make crew play a bigger role, turn it into a unit riding inside of an armored shell rather than just a metal box. Crew upgrades, system upgrades, etc could all be implemented, and while i definitely don't want the focus of the game to be on vehicles, if they're there they should at least be interesting. More crew based effects for glancing hits would be nice, with penetrating shots killing crew and disabling systems. There's so much potential for improving vehicles since they've always been extremely simplified.
Player give orders to all their units in secrecy, then reveal on initiative steps, with possibility to change order as a reaction to some nerfed one e.g. snapshots, flee or sth.
Full blown overwatch as one of the orders.
Such system would also allow easy modifiers to shoot based on target movement, relative position etc.
Total split fire, you can shoot multple targets from one unit. Maybe some BS penalty with each consecutive target or sth unles you have some fancy USR.
Weapons with unlimited ranges (bar maybe shotguns, meltas etc) with BS droping with distance, -1BS on each 24 with bolter, each 48 with rockets or lascanons (as they seem to hae some kind of scope/ targeting system), no drop with sniper rifles etc
No more forced cinematics. The battles are cinematic because they are battles, do not need additional roll d6 to see something awesome.
Top of my head. Also I agree with someone above that IGOUGO is better than alternating units, assuming you introduce real overwatch to the former. I also love my d6s, AP system and separate S vs T and save throws.
I agree that weapon ranges are too long. Artillery as a whole does not make sense in the skirmish game that is 40K. Apocalypse or something, sure. But not intercontinental artillery in a small battle between a few units.
72" weapons such as a LRBT just feels too much. Why not just give it unlimited range outside of apocalypse if so? Outranging weapons and putting the right thing within range/LOS is a part of tactics. Massive range weapons (Anything above 48" IMO) removes some of these tactics and makes the game a little less about clever movement and positioning, and a bit more about listbuilding and getting the 1st turn. The game has enough of that already.
Points well made, but I'm leery of rewriting unit stats, as is GW when it issues new editions. I'd rather change the Shooting rules to make long-range shots much less likely to hit.
Under my rough system above, a Leman Russ firing at 72" would effectively be firing at a Ballistic Skill of negative one: It could hit other vehicles (which give +2 for their size) but not infantry or bikes.
That said, you might want to give the Russ the option of just doing area bombardment with Blast and hoping for the best... but it should still scatter like hell given how hard individual infantrymen are to see at long range, which makes targeting even a whole squad of them difficult.
Rav1rn wrote: I'm in favor of keeping vehicles distinct as well, but there needs to be a lot of tuning in this area. My 250 point land raider should not get one shotted by a 15 point guardsman wielding a Melta-Gun. And if that result must be a possibility, then at least make it not an almost guaranteed event. 2D6 +8 penetration averages out to a value of 15, and with +2 on the damage chart, explodes is half the results, that is way too high for the second most durable non-apocalypse vehicle in the game. So some sort of second armor trait to differentiate the durability of a certain tank would be appreciated. Vehicles are not just defined by their armor, their design and redundancies also come into play, so make sure those are done as such, and yes hull points is far too involved of a "solution" to this problem, which it doesn't even really attempt to fix.
Beyond this, tanks need to become more than just metal boxes with guns strapped to them. Make crew play a bigger role, turn it into a unit riding inside of an armored shell rather than just a metal box. Crew upgrades, system upgrades, etc could all be implemented, and while i definitely don't want the focus of the game to be on vehicles, if they're there they should at least be interesting. More crew based effects for glancing hits would be nice, with penetrating shots killing crew and disabling systems. There's so much potential for improving vehicles since they've always been extremely simplified.
Agreed. Here's our current Vehicle Damage chart we use. No hull points. Vehicles can target multiple enemy units. Shooting is still limited by excess movement. Charging a moving vehicle counts as moving into Dangerous terrain. In our version, you can shoot passengers in open-topped vehicles. Assaults against vehicles are against the armor facing the attacking unit reaches, but a unit is allowed to continue moving around the vehicle to find thinner armor as long as movement remains. Vehicles classified as Tanks all have a 6+ Invulnerable save.
VEHICLE DAMAGE TABLE
D6.. Result............................................Table Modifiers
0... Shaken (no shoot, ½ move)........ Glancing Hit.........................-1
1... Stunned (no shoot or move)........ Hit by AP - Wpn..................-1
2... On Fire!......................................... Hit by AP 1 Wpn.................+1
3... Weapon Destroyed*.....................Open-topped in Assault.....+1
4... Immobilized*.................................AP roll is 3 > Armor............+1
5... Wrecked ........................................Blast Center Off Target.......-2
6... Explodes! (S4 rending)^
7+. Annihilated! (auto wounds)^....... Tanks ~ 6+ invulnerable save
Put a marker on a vehicle for each On Fire! result (max 5). At the start
of the vehicle's turn, roll a D6: if the roll is = to any # of markers, remove
them & roll on the table. If not, add a marker. Any 6 extinguishes the fire.
*A Penetrating hit always causes a Shaken result in addition to any other
effect. Ordnance weapons roll 2 dice and use the highest result.
^An Explodes! or Annihilated! result affects all (+ psgrs) within D6" of the
model's hull. Wrecked & Explodes! results leave the wreck in play but
Annihilated! removes the model & the area is treated as difficult terrain.
P.S. Also, a vehicle may opt to use defensive fire (assault or rapid-fire weapons) against units assaulting them as long as the units are in LOS of the weapon. This is at full ballistic skill, but in so doing the vehicle may not shoot that weapon during its next turn.
I would like higher Initiative values to actually have meaning. Necrons are slow and clunky, so why wouldn't my genetically enhanced Space Marines be able to smack 'em twice?
I feel that if a models Initiative is twice that of majority, he goes twice. Once at full Initiative, with all bonuses, second with just the Attack statline and CCW if it has it.
So here's a scenario: 5 CCW Black Templars charge 10 Necron Warriors. On the charge my Templars would get 3 dice/model. And since they have Initiative 4, they're twice as fast as the Warriors, they would go again at half Initiative because the Warriors are Initiative 2, except they would lose the benefit for the charge.
I thought of this while playing against Necrons and we were having a hell of a time keeping them down, due to Reanimation Protocols. However, Necrons would be able to benefit from this also, against units going at Initiative 1. So, Powerfist wielding Termies, or even that pesky Thunderhammer carrying Captain.
So an Initiative 7 would go at step 7 then again at step 3. Half Initiative rounded down. Same with all odd numbered Initiative values.
There's probably a lot of flaws with this, but it's something that has kinda been bugging me. Just my two-cents.
Templar_Grist wrote: I would like higher Initiative values to actually have meaning. Necrons are slow and clunky, so why wouldn't my genetically enhanced Space Marines be able to smack 'em twice?
I feel that if a models Initiative is twice that of majority, he goes twice. Once at full Initiative, with all bonuses, second with just the Attack statline and CCW if it has it.
So here's a scenario: 5 CCW Black Templars charge 10 Necron Warriors. On the charge my Templars would get 3 dice/model. And since they have Initiative 4, they're twice as fast as the Warriors, they would go again at half Initiative because the Warriors are Initiative 2, except they would lose the benefit for the charge.
I thought of this while playing against Necrons and we were having a hell of a time keeping them down, due to Reanimation Protocols. However, Necrons would be able to benefit from this also, against units going at Initiative 1. So, Powerfist wielding Termies, or even that pesky Thunderhammer carrying Captain.
So an Initiative 7 would go at step 7 then again at step 3. Half Initiative rounded down. Same with all odd numbered Initiative values.
There's probably a lot of flaws with this, but it's something that has kinda been bugging me. Just my two-cents.
It makes some sense, but it means that Slaanesh and Khorne units would be utter rape machines.
And Daemons Princes with Black Maces would be way overkill...
Yeah, like I said there would be some flaws with it. Maybe Relic weapons would have a provision against' gaining the double Initiative benefit, to help with OP Daemon Princes with Black Maces
Templar_Grist wrote: Yeah, like I said there would be some flaws with it. Maybe Relic weapons would have a provision against' gaining the double Initiative benefit, to help with OP Daemon Princes with Black Maces
Hardly Op when they get taken out by lascannons on turn 1/2
It would be great to make initiative more useful -- extra attacks, chances to interrupt enemy moves, whatever. It would also be great to revise all the range values. But both those things require redesigning and recosting every unit in every codex, which is a bit radical even for me: then you're talking something on the order of rebooting D&D in 4th edition, not just a complete overhaul of the core rules. A bit much even for me....
It would be great to take initiative beyond simply deciding who goes first in melee, it's kind of pointless to have a stat for something that simple, so expanding it out to shooting or reactions would be a good direction to go. Changing range values i'm not so sure about. I'm sure it works great for smaller skirmish games, but in 40K you can have multiple 30+ man squads shooting and charging at each other, even at 1000 points. shrink the ranges too much, and you'll not only give too much of an advantage to melee units, but the board will become a cluttered mess since you can only fit so many bases in an area. Dropping the ridiculous maximum ranges is needed though, if you can hide out of range of anything else i can field (I'm looking at you basilisk) then i can't do anything about it. It's not tactical, its not fun, its just me getting slaughtered. 48" should probably be the max, and even thats pushing it, so reserve that for the artillery.
But both those things require redesigning and recosting every unit in every codex, which is a bit radical even for me: then you're talking something on the order of rebooting D&D in 4th edition, not just a complete overhaul of the core rules. A bit much even for me....
Well, you said burn it to the ground . These changes were never going to be simple patches, there's too much to fix for a simple solution.
Let the record show that I have never claimed to be rational, let alone consistent.
I'd solve the Basilisk problem not by cutting its maximum range but by making long-range shots increasingly inaccurate (i.e. penalizing BS).
Making long-range shots harder rather than just cutting all the ranges also means the game plays much as it does now within 12" and even 24", without charges dominating too much or too much need to cram all your bases together to get in range.
Of what i did see in this thread is that people want 40k to go back to 1st and 2nd Ed type of rules; for each action you take you have 15 different subphases with each time a test to make...
Bs Vs Cover + the equation of the undies of my sister; NO!!
You roll to Hit, you Roll To Wound, your foe gets to roll to save, whats so complicated with this?...
Maybe a modificator given thetype of terrain and if you see more or less the model, but not of that nonsens, i see allready everyday players who can't remember wivh cover save is a forest or a ruin and be mistaken each time, so with 15 kind of stats and modifiers just for a cover save, Nope, bad idea.
The idea to break away from the turn based isn't bad, but it isn't new either.
Simply do it unit by unit, by following the Initiative of the Models.
If units as the same Initiative, roll a D6 and add it.
Or add a new charac to the army in general; "Chain of Command" or "Strategic value", where for each full fraction of 4 you get a +1 on your Init, during the activation phase.
And if the units in the same player are of the same Strategic value, the player decide the order.
I want to be able to run troops over, not just make them run like tank shock. So similar to the ram, but without the damage to the actual vehicle and directed at troops(squishy boyz aren't going to slow down an angry land raider are they?). Also with bikes and cavalry they can run troops over, but there is a chance they will get thrown off (Not so sure on this rule, as soMe riders are only available riding the mount. Perhaps they just die instead) also with flying stuff (can't remember the term, jetbikes and landspeeders etc.) should be able to dive bomb, (or maybe just kamikaze, killing everyone in the explosion) I'm not sure if there is a rule that covers this, please tell me if there is.
If there is unit by unit turn system I think there should be some sort of over watch system like with charges, but shooting at a unit moving into line of sight. What I mean instead of shooting (or doing anything at all, not sure which is more appropriate) a player can declare over watch. So if a trukk comes rampaging towards your tactical squad, they can dodge out the way, and your over watched snipers can lay some covering fire.
Slayer le boucher wrote:Bs Vs Cover + the equation of the undies of my sister; NO!!
You.... clearly feel strongly about this. I personally preferring adding up a few single-digit numbers to making 33% more rolls, but I can understand some people hate math.
Rory1432 wrote:I want to be able to run troops over, not just make them run like tank shock. So similar to the ram, but without the damage to the actual vehicle and directed at troops(some tiny tyranids aren't going to slow down an angry land raider are they?). Also with bikes and cavalry they can run troops over, but there is a chance they will get thrown off....!
If we go towards "vehicles are people too," we can replace both the Ram and Tank Shock rules with Hammer of Wrath, as already used by Bikes, Cavalry, and Chariots. Then maybe all tanks should get "hit and run" to reflect the fact that, no, your 7" Space Marines are probably not going to lock the 80-ton main battle tank in close combat if it wants to move on -- but there's always a chance.
Slayer le boucher wrote:Bs Vs Cover + the equation of the undies of my sister; NO!!
You.... clearly feel strongly about this. I personally preferring adding up a few single-digit numbers to making 33% more rolls, but I can understand some people hate math.
.
Its not that i hate Math, its just that there is allready enough things to take into account and keep track of, not only for you, but also for your opponent, so making the Shooting phase Heavier then it allready is.
Sometimes i simply don't have my mind into keeping track of all of this, for different reasons( many loud and noisy people, or an opponent with wich its difficult to not argue with on everything etc etc).
Now i don't say that the rules should be something Mindless and automated, but it shouldn't be something overly complicated that you need each time to refere to the rules, only to be sure that you did not make a mistake.
there should be a balance, the Shooting phase rules should be tweeked, yes, but i don't think that this is the way.
Don't forget that this is more of an arcade type of game, if it becomes too much a Simulation game, there is a lot of people who will loose interest.
Its not that i hate Math, its just that there is allready enough things to take into account and keep track of, not only for you, but also for your opponent, so making the Shooting phase Heavier then it allready is.
Here's the thing though, the current cover system is a broken piece of garbage. For unit with a 4+ or better save, cover has no purpose beyond protecting from the occasional high AP attack. For anything with a 5+ or worse save, cover is a godsend, because it means they are almost never denied their save so long as they stick to cover. This problem is a result of tons of factors (AP5 being the default for troop weapons making 5+ all but useless is the biggest) but it mostly doesn't make sense that cover works the way it does in the game. So changing to something like light cover = -1 BS and heavy cover = -2 BS would make more sense, as cover is now a constant benefit to everyone. So yes, the math part kinda sucks, but having cover be terribly implemented is not a worthwhile tradeoff.
As for having BS be altered by range, and weapon ranges being changed to indicate what range increments the BS penalties for that weapon are applied, its an extremely cool idea, and would allow for some epic cinematic moments, but i'm not sure the added layers of complexity are worth it. While it wouldn't be too difficult, particularly once people have gotten used to working the calculation into the pre-measuring (If pre-measuring would even be allowed in this system?), having potentially 2 (or even 3 with a movement penalty) BS modifiers is starting to stretch past the point of acceptability. Instead of them being cumulative, maybe make it only the highest BS penalty is applied, so if you moved out in the open, firers get a -1 penalty for shooting at you, but if you moved while in heavy cover (-2 penalty) the firers still only get the -2 penalty, not -3.
Interesting. In game mechanics terms, that's treating cover like armor... which suggests some forms of "cover" should both make it harder to hit and harder to wound -- maybe Aegis defense lines -- while others just marke it hard to hit because you can't see the target as well, but if you hit it doesn't offer much protection -- eg most trees. (In fact trees have a nasty tendency to explode into splinters if hit by artillery, as many US troops discovered in the Ardennes during the Battle of the Bulge, but let's not even try to model that).
Thing is, this adds a whole layer of complication without necessarily adding realism. If your soldier is under cover because he's in a trench, a melta blast goes low is going to hit dirt, and depending on the angle, it may be going through meters of dirt, which is going to stop it as effectively as any tank armor. (The protective power of dirt in sufficient quantities is why troops in trenches survived days-long artillery bombardment in World War I.)
2. You're right, I'm adding too many modifiers -- let's strip some out
Spoiler:
My hastily sketched out system needs refinement, no surprise.
I was thinking about this last night and realized the whole scale of modifiers for target speed can go. Why? A unit moving at high speed doesn't get as much benefit from cover, because it's just barreling ahead over the terrain instead of taking careful advantage of every dip and rise to shield itself from incoming fire. Conversely, a slow-moving or stationary unit isn't as hard to keep your weapon trained on, but it's harder to see in the first place because it is able to take full advantage of cover. For simplicity's sake, let's just say these two factors cancel out! (Really agile vehicles still get Jink).
Note this also lets us get rid of the whole "go to ground" rule. Basically, imagine a unit that goes to ground gets +1, but a unit that's moving also gets +1, so everybody gets +1 unless they are standing up, stock-still, in open terrain like a bunch of idiots... and the only unit in the entire game dumb enough to do that is probably Servitors. So let's just build that +1 into everybody's basic Cover.
I still like the range modifiers, though, they just need some simplification.
So, revised to-hit modifiers!
Spoiler:
If you're firing at infantry within 24", then
IF Ballistic Skill +1d6 is greater than Cover, THEN you hit.
To keep BS3 at a 50-50 chance of hitting, clear terrain needs to give you Cover 3.
(Again, you've got those little dips and rises, rocks and bushes, that give troops and even vehicles somewhere to take cover even on "level ground." Only concrete runway or ice skating rink is going to be Cover 1.)
For targets larger than regular infantry, cavalry, bikes, etc., the firer gets a Target Size Bonus. As a rough start
Infantry etc.: 0
Monstrous creatures & vehicles: +1 per Wound (or Hull Point)
At ranges beyond 24", the target gets a Distance Bonus:
Range is greater than 24" but less than 48": +1
Range > 48" but < 72": +2
Range > 72" but < 96 ": +3
Range > 96' " but < 120": +4 and you're playing Apocalypse on your living room floor now, aren't you?
So the full formula is
IF Ballistic Skill + Target Size + 1d6 is greater than Cover + Distance, THEN you hit.
So infantry firing at infantry within 24" have the same odds as they do now. Anyone firing at vehicles is getting, in effect, a bonus to BS anywhere from +2 (Land Speeder) to +4 (Land Raider). Anyone firing at targets beyond 24" is getting, in effect, a penalty to BS, so that Leman Russ Battle Tank firing at maximum range of 72" is effectively firing at BS 1 -- it's not impossible to hit infantry in the open, but it's hard; infantry under cover is impossible, while other vehicles are distinctly hittable.
I think this thread has proved one thing beyond doubt.
Trying to improve 40k while making it backward compatible , leads to over complicated and confusing rules, leading to counter intuitive and restricted game play.(Well we knew this after 15 years of GW 'game development'.. .)
It is my opinion that a complete re-write from the ground up is the only way to get a well defined rule set in synergy with the 40k background.That has maximum game play and minimum fuss.
However, if you JUST want to make a few changes that make massive improvements...
I would suggest.
Using a more interactive game turn, preferably alternating phases like LoTR.(Or you may want to add order counters like ESM.)
Let cover give 'To hit modifiers'.Soft cover +1 to hit, Hard Cover +2 to hit.
Use LOS rules from Flames of War.
Use the SAME stat line for all units.(Convert vehicles to M/Cs stat lines.)
IF you are ok with slight tweeks in AP values and costings I would suggest a simple proportional resolution change for the AP system.
The AP value ignores NATURAL armour save dice rolls of the same value or higher.
This gives the same interaction as save modifiers without the maths.
EG
AN AP 5 weapon;-
Automatically penetrates units with AS 5 or 6.(As saving roll results of 5 or 6 are ignored.)
BUT units with AS 4+ ONLY save on the roll of a 4.(5s and 6s are ignored!-2 AS.)
Units with AS 3 +ONLY save on a roll of 3 or 4 .(As 5s and 6s are ignored.)
Units with AS 2 + ONLY save on rolls of 2,3,or 4.9As 5s and 6s are ignored.)
However you will probably end up with about 20 to 30 pages of rules adjustments to ADD to the hundreds of current pages of rules.
(My current NEW rule for 40kWIP set is less than 20 pages and covers ALL the core interaction of 40k.I would expect it to be less than 40 pages when finished.)
Rory1432 wrote: I quite like the vehicle damage system, but I don't like hull points
I'm the opposite way on this.
It makes sense that vehicles gain progressivley increasing amounts of damage, and after a point, just fall apart, but after penning, there's a 1/6 chance of suddenly having a gun fall of, and an equal chance of detonating.
And in 5th, I had my Land Raider (due to lucky rolling) spend six turns being shot at by three las preds and loosing all it's guns, getting immobilised and being stun locked, but never getting destroyed.
The gun dosent fall off, a well placed shotgun could take out a gunner, "destroying the weapon" or a melta shot could just obliterate it. Most of the vehicle damage table only really make sense if you fired a missile at it.
The predator gunners were drunk, that's why they missed.
Rory1432 wrote: The gun dosent fall off, a well placed shotgun could take out a gunner, "destroying the weapon" or a melta shot could just obliterate it. Most of the vehicle damage table only really make sense if you fired a missile at it.
The predator gunners were drunk, that's why they missed.
They were hitting, the triple lascannon setup made sure of that.
I see what you're saying about taking out the gunner, but on a vehicle with proper armour plating (almost all IOM vehicles), it makes no sense for the gunner to be taken out by infantry-standard weaponry, rear armour or not. Now, arguably, you may have shot the gun out or broke a component for the gun (which would generally be next to/on the gun anyway, but when you look at the main guns on most IOM vehicles, or the sponsons of a LRBT, it makes little sense for that to happen with no significant damage elsewhere (5th ed).
The AP value ignores NATURAL armour save dice rolls of the same value or higher.
This gives the same interaction as save modifiers without the maths.
EG
AN AP 5 weapon;-
Automatically penetrates units with AS 5 or 6.(As saving roll results of 5 or 6 are ignored.)
BUT units with AS 4+ ONLY save on the roll of a 4.(5s and 6s are ignored!-2 AS.)
Units with AS 3 +ONLY save on a roll of 3 or 4 .(As 5s and 6s are ignored.)
Units with AS 2 + ONLY save on rolls of 2,3,or 4.9As 5s and 6s are ignored.)
But, I suppose, if you want something done properly, DIY.
I'm following that proverb, and am researching people's opinions on game mechanics to make my own ruleset.
Rory1432 wrote: At the rate people are going "aw screw it I'll make my own rulebook" no one will be sure of the rules in a year
We're not even sure of the rules now
Imagine introducing a new player, and he asks "What are the rules for WH40k?"
You're gonna have to explain that for full comprehension he must buy and read:
1 fatass BRB that contradicts itself every other paragraph
1 Apoc rulebook
3 Apoc Warzone rulebooks
9+ supplements/additional codexes (I've lost track now)
15 Codexes of extremely varying power levels, some of which will be replaced within the year
Alan Partridge in a pear tree..
That's at least 29 rulesets and costs £100's...
And they are full of contradictions, FAQ+Eratta needs, oversights, occasional cheeses
In the early morning hours, I had a vision, like unit a dream: we don't actually need separate Movement and Shooting phases. Or separate rules for moves and charges, for that matter.
Basically, a unit can move on your turn, or it may shoot if it didn't just shoot on your previous turn or during the enemy's turn on overwatch. If a unit neither moves or shoots on your turn, it's on Overwatch during your opponent's turn and can shoot at or charge his models as they move. If a unit moves into contact with an enemy unit, it's considered a charge.
So instead of running/turboboosting/moving flat out in your Shooting phase, you would just move two turns in a row.
The new cool option this allows is on any given turn, some of your units can fire and some can move (or charge), in any order.
In more detail:
Spoiler:
On your turn, each of your units can move or shoot.
BUT a unit may not shoot if it shot during your previous turn or your opponent's previous turn.
If a unit moves so that any of its models is within 1" of an enemy model, it has charged that unit. Resolve this close combat at the end of the turn.
If a unit neither moves or shoots, it is on Overwatch during your opponent's turn and may fire Snap Shots at an enemy unit that moves into its weapons range or charge (move into contact with) an enemy unit that moves into its movement range. A unit on Overwatch may only shoot (or charge) at one enemy unit during your opponent's turn.
If a unit moved during your previous turn, it may only fire Heavy weapons as Snap Shots, and it not fire Salvo or Ordnance weapons.
If a unit fired any weapon EXCEPT pistols or assault weapons during your previous turn or your opponent's most recent turn, it may not charge (move into contact with) an enemy unit on your turn or during your opponent's turn on Overwatch.
A unit with the Battle Focus special rule (i.e. most Eldar) may move and shoot in the same turn -- but, like other units, it still may not shoot if it shot in your previous turn or your opponent's most recent turn.
I'm not sure whether or not my over watch idea helped bring this plan to fruition or not. Overall it seems a bit complicated but it would just take a few games to learn (like regular 40k)
@SisterSydney.
Are you familiar with the alternating phases used in Epic Space marine, and other war games?
As your idea seems to be based on these types of game turn mechanic.
Here is a basic out line.
Optional Command Phase, pick what 2 actions your units will perform this game turn.
Player A takes 1st action.
Player B takes 1st action.
Player A takes second action.
Player B takes second action.
Resolution phase.
Actions are Move, Ready, Shoot ,Assault.
If you want to use more tactical decision making , simply let players pick the 2 actions they are going to use at the start of the game turn in the Command Phase.
(By placing an order counter next to each unit.)
Order Counters could be ...
Advance, (move then shoot.)
Charge, (move then assault.)
Double time,( move then move)
Evade, (shoot then move.)
Fire support, (ready then shoot to full effect).(Heavy /ordnance weapons .)
Infiltrate, (ready then move).(Unit counts cover +1.)
I've seen rules systems like that. I'm not fond of putting order counters on units (or writing hidden orders) in advance, though. I'd rather players be able to decide what a unit should do on the fly: "ok, that Exorcist didn't take out his Hive Tyrant, I'd better fire this one at it too, okay that worked, now I can charge those Gaunts with my Arco-Flagellants, and that means my Retributors can advance without getting bit by overwatch fire...."
Just allow the vehicle to function even if he has 0 HP, BUT, once he hit 0hp every Glancing or Penetrating hit, roll on the damage chart.
Fluff is full of stories of Vehicles doing their job even when nearly destroyed and that was only left with the chassis and a part of the hull, has long has it could still move/ shoot.
I personnaly don't see the logic behind how HP function, "the armor is breached, but the engine and systemes and weapons are still operational, ok its busted"...
The hull is only the outside of the vehicle, its only its protection, even if the hull is hole-drilled has Swiss cheese, it doesn't mean an automatic destruction.
But seeing that its protective armor is obliterated, the littlest shot could very well hit something important easier.
No more HP?, always throw on th damage chart, no matter what the Pen result is.
Hi Sister Sydney.
That's why I put the Command phase as optional.(Lots of 40k players do not like tactical planning,hence 40k heavy strategic focus.)
You can just take ONE action with all your units , then your opponent takes ONE action with all their units, then repeat.
And after both players have taken both actions with all their units that turn, use the resolution phase to tidy up ,before the start of next turn.
The ONLY problem with 'unstructured turns' like this is it is easy to lose track of what units has done what. That is why all the battle games I know of have specific phases, or order counters/dice.
Are you saying having ONE counter next to a unit is too much book keeping for you?(The order counter could be replaced with a morale damage counter when the unit becomes suppressed or routed if you wanted to add more variety to unit status.)
Oh, no, I'm not against counters. Given the system I've proposed, in fact, that's probably easiest way of keeping track of which units have fired (and therefore can't fire again yet), which units have moved (and therefore can't use use heavy weapons at full BS), which units have done neither (and can therefore fire Overwatch).
I just don't like systems that require you to give orders to all your units in advance, before the first one acts -- that's what Epic sounded like to me, tho I've never played and may well have gotten that wrong.
Anyone taken a look at Dust Warfare rules system? I am fairly certain that they have a phase system which seems good. I've been wanting to try the game out for awhile now.
I don't know about its phase system, but dust warfare's suppression and reaction system is very cool, and adapting it to 40K could produce some interesting results. As for changing the turn system away from the move / shoot / assault phases, changing this means a significant change to the feel of the system, because so much of the game is dependent on the interaction between these three phases. The concepts behind many armies would have to be re-thought as well, since if a unit can perform only 2 of the three current "Actions" (Move, Shoot, Assault), it seriously weakens armies that are meant to be good at all three. Alternatively, if you let them perform 3 actions, then there's either no change from the current system, or units can repeat an action, which would make them far more powerful. If i can shoot with my Imperial Guard / Tau instead of assaulting, you can bet that i'm going to do so.
So far as counters being bad, they can be frustrating, and id prefer to have no more than 1 or 2 counters on any unit at a time (it can quickly turn into a mess otherwise), meaning the effects that require counters should be severely restricted. Things like pinning / suppression, wounds, or a leader's remaining orders should get counters, not base functions of the system like showing a unit has moved or fired this turn.
Well, as I've tentatively outlined the system above (much much much work to do), a unit could
-- charge (i.e. move into contact), either in on its own side's turn or on overwatch during the other side's, win the combat, and, when its side's next turn came up, charge again.
-- move on its turn, wait out the enemy's turn, move again. (Equivalent to running/turboboosting/moving flat-out now).
-- move on its turn, wait out enemy turn, shoot.
--shoot on its turn or during enemy's turn on overwatch, then move.
So you could actually charge more often than in the current system, I think.
The one thing I don't allow is shooting on your turn, waiting out the enemy turn, and shooting again. But maybe we should?
So far as i can tell, the only two differences between this and the old phase system is the ability to consolidate into combat (kinda), and shoot then move instead of move then shoot. For the first, yeah, lets get some ability to consolidate into combat into the game, it would definitely help to bring Melee back, but there need to be restrictions on it. For the second, I'm not a fan of it, beyond the Eldar's rule that emulates this. You need to not move to fire heavy weapons to full effect, as that trait is dependent on having movement being before shooting, so if you allow shooting before movement, players might accidentally fire the heavy weapon in the shooting phase, and then not be able to move when they planned to. This isn't a big deal on Eldar, since almost all their infantry weapons are assault weapons, and they needed something to make them feel faster and more nimble than they would be otherwise. I'm also leery of having to choose what you do spread across 3 "phases", it seems like it would be confusing as players could forget what action they chose 2 "phases" ago.
The biggest problem though is that this system does not allow for moving, shooting, then assaulting. That combination is key to so many units' design and tactics that getting rid of it will effectively cripple them, and eliminate the entire reason for the assault weapon type, so armies like eldar, orks, grey knights, and tyranids are going to take a massive hit.
Ok so enough critique, hows this sound for a way to combine making leaders feel like actual leaders, as well as out of turn reactions? The basis of this system comes from Lanrak's Xenos and Zealots thread, and yes, such a system would likely require some changes in points costs.
---Leaders (Sergeants, HQ's, etc) have 2 command traits: Command Points and a Command Range, and regenerate their command points every game turn
---You can spend a command point to issue an order to any unit within your command range (Command range of 0 restricts orders to the leaders attached unit)
---Typical sergeant has command range of 0, and 1 command point whereas a space marine captain would have 2-3 command points, and a 12" command range
---Initiative tests always taken on the initiative of the model who issued the order
Orders Fall Back: Reaction to being charged. Both units take an initiative test, if won, the reacting unit may move D3" . Might add some sort of initative or attack penalty for this as well, playtesting very much needed
Stand Ground: Reaction to being charged. Both units take an initiative test. If won, the reacting unit performs one round of shooting at full BS. Again, some sort of initiative or attack penalty is likely needed.
Counter-Attack: Reaction to being charged. Both units take an initiative test. If won, the reacting unit may move into base-to-base contact with the charging unit. Neither unit receives a charging bonus (Counter-Attack USR gives counter-charger a charging bonus). Probably needs another penalty.
Go to Ground: Reaction to shooting (can still be done without a command point in your own turn). Both units take an initiative test. If won, the reacting unit goes to ground.
Overwatch: Reaction to movement: Both units take an initative test. If won, the reacting unit may fire at full BS at any model that has moved.
Guidance: Allows any model in the unit to re-roll one die in that phase. Additional Penalties?
Run? maybe, im not really sure about changing run from a free option to requiring a command point. It makes sense, but may not play well.
Designate a Target Zone: place a small blast marker anywhere on the table. The unit may fire at any unit with a model under the small blast marker. Allows a unit to split-fire without being excessively powerful.
Your command point & range system is intriguing, though it's another trade-off between making the game more interesting and making it more complex. It'll take me a while to ponder.
I can respond intelligently off the cuff to your good critique of my system
Rav1rn wrote: I'm also leery of having to choose what you do spread across 3 "phases", it seems like it would be confusing as players could forget what action they chose 2 "phases" ago....You need to not move to fire heavy weapons to full effect, as that trait is dependent on having movement being before shooting, so if you allow shooting before movement, players might accidentally fire the heavy weapon in the shooting phase, and then not be able to move when they planned to.
Good point. I think that's where counters would come in handy. In particular, it would make it much easier to keep track of whether or not you could fire your heavy weapons at full BS -- and for that matter whether you were about to do something, i.e. move, that would prevent you doing that next turn: Putting the "I moved" counter down would be a reminder.
Rav1rn wrote: The biggest problem though is that this system does not allow for moving, shooting, then assaulting. That combination is key to so many units' design and tactics that getting rid of it will effectively cripple them, and eliminate the entire reason for the assault weapon type, so armies like eldar, orks, grey knights, and tyranids are going to take a massive hit.
....
I think the solution to assault weapons is to give them a special rule allowing them to shoot & then charge in the same turn. Every other kind of weapon would require you to shoot one turn, then wait for the next to charge.
Another potential heresy: You never shoot on your own turn. My turn to move is your turn to shoot, your turn to move is my turn to shoot, so all firing is effectively overwatch... and when you say, "ok, I'm not moving any more units," then any of my guys that haven't fired get to shoot. This means units that move are much more likely to get shot at than ones that stay put, which is actually pretty realistic, since they'd attract more attention.
It may be worth your time to review the "Orders", "Pushing", and "Formation" rules for MechWarrior Clix. http://sarna.s3.amazonaws.com/docs/products/mwda/rule_book.pdf I always found them to be very usable for a fast paced game, adaptable to preference, and representative of the simulated actions.
Also research armored vehicle combat. There is plenty to learn about how and why vehicles sustain damage or not and what that actually means for the vehicle in combat. There are shockingly good reason why Melta-Guard can annihilate your landraider. Like how the Panzerfaust annihilated U.S. Shermans in WWII. Or how modern anti tank rounds destroy tanks today. (Hint: its the same basic technology) I'm no expert myself but it seems to me it'd be a good idea either way.
Lastly, as a game design consultant (woo, big useless title now, hehe ) I always urged designers to create core mechanics before considering special rules (or as I refer to them, "Breaks"). Like in 40k Stubborn, Hammer of Wrath, etc. Its like trying to put flashy rims on a car when your still putting together the chassis. This keeps your core design free of flaws by forcing them to stand on their own before other rules integrate them selves in to the core like impromptu crutches. This means later when the special rule gets changed, it has no impact on the core mechanics functionality, after all it was only a way around the rule, not an inherrent part of it. Just something to keep in mind.
The main reason I suggested Dust Warfare is because it has a lot of stats and variables that could easily translate to 40k, aside from psychic powers. Not sure how one would do those.
Warpath feels overly basic, and I just taking a look at its rules it seems to me like there isn't a whole that would transfer over easily, one example is that warpath doesn't have individual casualty removal and the system isn't really built around it.
I think the solution to assault weapons is to give them a special rule allowing them to shoot & then charge in the same turn. Every other kind of weapon would require you to shoot one turn, then wait for the next to charge.
But then you have something like 1/3rd of the guns in the game essentially ignoring the action system, since they can perform 3 actions in one turn instead of the usual 2.
As for Mechwarrior clix's system, i'm not really sure how much of that can translate over. Those rules seem fairly entrenched in the low model skirmish mindset. The formation system is interesting, but you'd have to butcher it to get it to fit the 40K mold. Having three 5-30 model units work in concert is a much more complex situation than getting 3 single models into BtB contact. It could give some interesting tactical flexibility though...food for thought. As for tank warfare, do you mean the modern sabot round used as kinetic penetrators? Or the older rounds that did things like use vibrations to send shrapnel from the tank's inner armor walls into the cabin or try to melt through the armor similarly to an RPG? Because yes a meltagun should be very effective at bringing down vehicles. Should a 15 point model be able to essentially auto-penetrate the heaviest armor in the game and then have 50% of the results instantly destroy a 250 point model? Probably not.
As for using other systems, id rather try to make 40K play as you would expect something in between a skirmish and battle game to play, rather than just use another game's rules. Right now, i would say 40K is a little too close to the skirmish side than the battle side, considering how rules havent changed significantly while points costs have been dropping left and right. So take the best both styles have to offer. Take the simplified rolling "stats" that battle games use (such as 4+ to hit instead of BS 3), then use modifiers to bring back the depth that skirmish games have, such as armor and toughness being a modifier to a To-Wound roll, and cover modifying To-Hit rolls. Making the game faster without sacrificing depth would be a good goal to aim for.
Ultrimenta, any way to get Dust Warfare without paying $20 US? There doesn't seem to be a demo or preview PDF anywhere....
There's some nice youtube videos that walk you through the game and rules.
Rav1rn wrote: Should a 15 point model be able to essentially auto-penetrate the heaviest armor in the game and then have 50% of the results instantly destroy a 250 point model? Probably not.
On the contrary, probably yes. It is a common aspect of any strategy game for the value of a unit to be disproportional to its opponents, unless given the right situation. Consider the Pawn to the King in Chess or Shogi, a normal checker to a crowned one, the 'aji' of a weak isolated stone on a Go board when it becomes a ladder breaker in the mid to late game. Recall Stratego, with its value-to-strength system, or Axis and Allies where a lone $15 Bomber attacking over a territory defended by a $5 AA Gun was a question to be thoroughly debated. If you play Magic consider the Mox Jet, going price on TCGplayer.com $1700, is easily put down by 'Annul' which costs a mere 12 cents, or Emrakul cost 15 mana to cast, which if named by a Nevermore, 3 mana, can't be cast in the first place. These David and Goliath conflicts are essential to a thought provoking and entertaining game. The question I'd have is why did you let that Guardsmen get so close to your Land Raider? It didn't look nearly as intimidating when it was out of range.
As for clix rules, consider: You bump the order/points ratio up to say one order per 500pts. Then you say a formation order can be taken by up to three units of the same type (infantry, vehicle[tank], etc) so long as the units start and end their action within six inches of each other and can do this as long as their is a character in one of the involved units? Now roster organization even becomes more interesting. Players could in theory move their whole army but only if built to do so and as long as the chain of command is upheld. Something to ponder.
These David and Goliath conflicts are essential to a thought provoking and entertaining game. The question I'd have is why did you let that Guardsmen get so close to your Land Raider? It didn't look nearly as intimidating when it was out of range.
I'd agree that having such disparity in cost vs effectiveness is important, but there is a limit before it becomes too much. A meltagun armed guardsman will kill a landraider, a model that costs almost 17 times as much, more often than a space marine will kill another space marine (.146 vs .111), and that's just killing it, not including results like weapon destroyed or immobilized. And i would agree with you about "why did you let it get so close" if getting close wasn't the entire purpose of the Land Raider being a heavy assault transport. Beyond this, getting close isn't terribly difficult with methods such as deep strike, transport flyers, etc allowing rapid movement and approach. Melta-weapons help to remove the incentive to take the high strength, long range AT weapons that would normally be used to deal with tough vehicles, because i can move and still fire a meltagun for great effect, and i can mitigate the effects of cover, as my anti-tank power does not have to remain stationary and hope the enemy doesn't utilize cover. This is what meltaguns should do, but the fact that they're more effective, as armor facing doesn't come into play as much, since the normal penetration value at half range is 15, are more available, and are far less expensive is where the problems come from. Yes, there needs to be a strong, mobile, short-ranged option for anti-tank, but in its current state it is too powerful, particularly against the big expensive vehicles. Think back on 5th edition, when vehicles were tougher than they are now, how many Lascannons did you see, compared to Melta-weapons, or missile launchers, which can't even penetrate AV 14? The entire vehicle damage system could use work, but Melta really does need to be toned down.
As for clix rules, consider: You bump the order/points ratio up to say one order per 500pts. Then you say a formation order can be taken by up to three units of the same type (infantry, vehicle[tank], etc) so long as the units start and end their action within six inches of each other and can do this as long as their is a character in one of the involved units? Now roster organization even becomes more interesting. Players could in theory move their whole army but only if built to do so and as long as the chain of command is upheld. Something to ponder.
Some sort of tactical, in-game way to have friendly units interact with each other (outside of independant characters) would be exciting, but there are units in 40K that are not meant to be meshed with anyone else, such as devastators, genestealers, scout marines, any infiltrating or semi-static fire support unit really. So can you give some examples or sample rules to evaluate and build off of?
Rav1rn wrote: I'd agree that having such disparity in cost vs effectiveness is important, but there is a limit before it becomes too much. A meltagun armed guardsman will kill a landraider, a model that costs almost 17 times as much, more often than a space marine will kill another space marine (.146 vs .111), and that's just killing it, not including results like weapon destroyed or immobilized. And i would agree with you about "why did you let it get so close" if getting close wasn't the entire purpose of the Land Raider being a heavy assault transport. Beyond this, getting close isn't terribly difficult with methods such as deep strike, transport flyers, etc allowing rapid movement and approach.
Ugh mathhammer, cant stand it personally, lets leave as much math out as possible for now, eh? While the role of the land raider is as you describe, it was the role of the commander to see to it that the unload point was safe-ish. If you consider that there is a compliment of 10+ Terminators mounted as its primary offensive power, you have little excuse to allow a guardsmen within six inches of such an impressive defensive screen of Storm Bolters and Power fists, if they had been deployed first. It is not uncommon for a shrewd commander to leave even his best equipment in rear reserve if he cant be sure that it will protected enough to account for its exposure to enemy action. By all means if it accomplishes a strategic goal throw it at the enemy, but sometimes it may be better to hold it back. Also remember, your opponent is trying to destroy you too, no complaining if he swoops out of the sky and drops Guards out of a Vendetta and Meltas your Land Raider. You were going to use it to crash into his trenches and vomit death from it too. Fair is fair. It is a poor soldier who blames his inability on his weapon.
Melta-weapons help to remove the incentive to take the high strength, long range AT weapons that would normally be used to deal with tough vehicles, because i can move and still fire a meltagun for great effect, and i can mitigate the effects of cover, as my anti-tank power does not have to remain stationary and hope the enemy doesn't utilize cover. This is what meltaguns should do, but the fact that they're more effective, as armor facing doesn't come into play as much, since the normal penetration value at half range is 15, are more available, and are far less expensive is where the problems come from. Yes, there needs to be a strong, mobile, short-ranged option for anti-tank, but in its current state it is too powerful, particularly against the big expensive vehicles. Think back on 5th edition, when vehicles were tougher than they are now, how many Lascannons did you see, compared to Melta-weapons, or missile launchers, which can't even penetrate AV 14? The entire vehicle damage system could use work, but Melta really does need to be toned down.
In general, I would disagree. I think it fits its niche nicely. High risk, high reward. Cinematic. Encouraging thoughtful tactics offensively and defensively. These are all things I would use to describe the Melta. I would rather the longer range options be increased in effectiveness. A predators TL Lascannon should have some kind of bonus to pen tanks. A Tau Rail Gun should chuckle when it encounters enemy Armor. Six, one half dozen of the other. Agree to disagree and move on.
Some sort of tactical, in-game way to have friendly units interact with each other (outside of independent characters) would be exciting, but there are units in 40K that are not meant to be meshed with anyone else, such as devastators, genestealers, scout marines, any infiltrating or semi-static fire support unit really. So can you give some examples or sample rules to evaluate and build off of?
I believe this would be diving into the realm of those 'Breaks' I mentioned earlier. IF, IF, if we assume that the order/300 system above is our final action assignment Core System, (lets call the system "Spartan" for the 300 reference. ) Normally you would spend more time editing for clarity and completeness, but much like you would have probably done I would write it out according to its baseline parameters first, its CORE. I prefer writing in a old BASIC style to organize things:
Spartan Order Assignment System CORE: 10:On a players active ACTION PHASE, they receive one ORDER to issue to one UNIT or one GROUP, for every full 300pts/player in the scenario. 20: During the ACTION PHASE, each ORDER is issued and resolved completely through, step by step if called for, then proceeds to the next ORDER. 30:A player is not forced to use any or all of his ORDERs in his active ACTION PHASE. Unused orders are wasted, and are ignored for the rest of the game. A active player will receive new ORDERs to issue the following active ACTION PHASE. 40:When a UNIT has begun its ORDER, mark it with a visible token clearly. If during an ACTION PHASE a UNIT does not perform an ORDER, but has a placed token from a previous ACTION PHASE, remove the token at the end of that phase. 50:When a player has resolved his last ORDER for each ACTION PHASE, or chooses and declares to not use anymore, proceed to the next PHASE.
Capitalized words are keywords I need to make sure to keep track of as they will be the 'docking ports' that the other core pieces will attach to eventually form the framework of the system. Next I would very loosely pen in the margins my immediate thoughts for 'Breaks' that I'd come back to and explore much later after fitting together all the COREs. My notes probably look like this with your specific request in mind... 'Fire-support= This unit can group "fire" with any unit on the table. (Pay attention to communication method, and sighting concepts, decide on order types, if their are more than one)!.. Recon= This unit can group "move" with other friendly units within 12 inches...(A quality of a unit or special order type?) Command= Grants extra orders. Maybe acts without orders... Psycho WF= Places order tokens on enemy units... Lazy, Independent, Reckless, A faction with higher or lower order ratio to represent its lesser/greater communications abilities...This would be added to often
After the CORES are assembled into a framework, the 'Breaks' are written to reference back to those keywords we capitalized earlier. Often overwriting rules as long as they are in use or short-circuiting an instruction line and replacing it with a different instruction or re-routing you to another portion of the rules to continue. This process I'm sure you are persuing yourself, personally I could spend a week with this "Spartan" core working it along side its future sister cores. May have been more than you asked for, hope it helps. If not I'll try and be more clear.
DUST Warfare is an amazing set of rules. Utterly brilliant and simple (but not as simple to a fault as Warpath, IMHO).
However, if you were trying to convert those rules over onto 40K, it would have major limitations when it comes to unit diversity. For example, special weapons in that game tend to give the firing UNIT a bonus (as there is no easy way to separate out individual model's shooting in that system).
Also, the idea of like an Exarch in a unit having a better 'save' than the other members of the unit wouldn't really be possible either.
It is truly a squad-based game using individual models, which although I love, would be quite 'painful' to most players if you applied it to 40K as a lot of the customization throughout the unit would have to be thrown out or drastically simplified.
And if you're a fan of rules, then do yourself a favor and pay the money to buy the DUST book. Even if you never play a game, it is just a great read if you're a fan of elegant rules.
I like the idea of adding functions like Warzone had in its First Edition, with the ability of models to 'hide and wait' to fire when something presented itself. It meant taking a shot always meant you could get shot.
Brometheus wrote: I think weight of fire (small or big) should have a negative impact on leadership tests, like melee has with combat res.
Well, in Epic 40k, each formation would recieve a "blast marker" each time it lost a unit or came under fire, something similar could be implemented here, but it would drastically increase gun power, and make footslogging utterly pointless when facing a gunline.
I don't remember these 'Blast Markers' in Epic....oh wait...it's because I played Eldar. :-P
I'd bring back 5th edition, keep the hull point system from 6th but add 1 hull point to everything across the board, keep the new flyer and AA rules and keep the overwatch rule.
I would keep an allies chart but significantly revise it from it's current makeup.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: I'd bring back 5th edition, keep the hull point system from 6th but add 1 hull point to everything across the board, keep the new flyer and AA rules and keep the overwatch rule.
I would keep an allies chart but significantly revise it from it's current makeup.
I would like that, and to have my CSM dex revised - I get roflstomped until I bring out zombie hordes and/or heldrakes, and then I get accused of being WAAC/spam-master/cheesemonger.
yakface wrote:
DUST Warfare is an amazing set of rules. Utterly brilliant and simple....And if you're a fan of rules, then do yourself a favor and pay the money to buy the DUST book. Even if you never play a game, it is just a great read if you're a fan of elegant rules.
Argh, I already have so many sets of rules I read but don't play.... but now I can't resist.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:I'd bring back 5th edition, keep the hull point system from 6th but add 1 hull point to everything across the board, keep the new flyer and AA rules and keep the overwatch rule....
But wasn't 5th edition even more of a mess than 6th?
I agree that the current attack/save system is jacked. The rest of the OP suggestions are meh.
One idea to change shooting/cc would be: 1. Determine to hit roll. You start with the BS then modify it for cover, if any. I'd still allow cover ignoring weapons. Then take the roll. Cover as it is now is silly; it shouldn't be a save.
2. Next, I'd get rid of regular armor saves entirely. Instead, armor would be a T modifier. Compare the weapon/attacker S to T and see if it wounds.
3. Invuln/FNP saves would now be taken. Although I'd combine the two types into one. If they don't have a save like this, then a wound is lost.
---- Next, I really don't like alternating between each side for moving/shooting with a single unit at a time. Most games have an unbalanced number of units and this will just lead to players capitalizing on that fact. For example, if I have 10 units and you have 5 then I'll keep my important units back and only move them into range once all your unit actions are done. Then the next round I'd move them first... Point is it's easily gamed. Firestorm Armada 1.0 uses this mechanic (haven't seen the 2.0 rules yet) and it was unilaterally the one game mechanic my group didn't like. I really hope they changed it.
A different thought that I like would be that we roll each turn for initiative; maybe even add the warlords init to each roll. The winner moves, then the loser moves. Then ALL shooting happening simultaneously. That would completely eradicate alpha strikes and radically impact a lot of strategies. I might see if a few others want to try this out.
Folks have actually convinced me that alternating sides unit by unit is too much. But after tossing out several half-baked ideas and having them baked by some constructive criticism, I think I have a way to make the game much more interactive without alternating by unit.
In essence, my movement phase is your shooting phase. When my units move, you can shoot at them. When my move's over, any of your units that haven't yet fired can shoot any of my units, whether they moved or stayed put. Heavy units can't shoot at full BS if they moved in the preceding phase, and units can't charge (move into contact with an enemy unit) if they fired anything but assault weapons in the preceding phase.
The tricky bit I'm still wrestling with is exactly how much shots at each unit and when to allow them. Options for y'all to consider:
Who gets to shoot:
1) Only one of my units gets to shoot at each of your units during its move. (At the end of the turn I can have all my units that haven't shot yet fire at a single target if I want).
2) All of my units in LOS can shoot at a single unit during its move. (But my units still only get one shot per turn).
When you shoot:
A) You only shoot at a unit at the beginning of the move and at the end -- which means units can dash across open ground and get under cover without being mowed down on the way, which makes movement relatively more powerful and shooting less.
B) You can shoot at a unit at any point during its movement, as long as you have LOS. This makes crossing open ground under enemy fire nearly as deadly as in real life, which makes movement much trickier and probably discourages moving at all in a lot of cases.... probably not a recipe for an exciting game.
I think combination 2B (everybody can shoot at any point during the move) is way too powerful and would cripple movement, while combination 1A (one unit can shoot at the beginning or end of your move) is pretty weak. So I'm mostly looking at 1B (one unit can shoot, but at any point) and 2A (multiple units can shoot, but only at the beginning or end of the move).
You could also finesse this with Initiative roll-offs to see whether I got to shoot you before you got back under cover, but that really complicates the system... and hurts backwards compatibility with existing Codexes because Initiative suddenly becomes much more important to points value.
Hows this as a system for suppression, to riff off of dust warfare to a degree. Whenever a unit is fired at, it receives suppression tokens (represented by the number face of a die placed next to the unit). The number of tokens received is determined by the rate of fire of the majority weapon of the squad. For instance, a squad of space marines wielding boltguns apply 1 suppression token to the target, but a squad of Eldar Guardians wielding shuriken catapults apply 2. Pistols do not apply suppression tokens. Flame weapons and blast weapons apply a number of suppression tokens equal to the number of models under the templates when firing. Weapons with the suppression special rule apply additional suppression tokens equal to their rate of fire. For example, a heavy bolter would receive the suppression special rule, and would apply 3 suppression tokens to the target unit. If the number of suppression tokens exceeds the remaining number of models in the unit at the end of the turn, they are forced to go to ground, unless they are immune to morale effects through special rules such as fearless or the orks mob rule. All suppression tokens are removed at the end of the turn
I'm not entirely sure about the effect, as it seems like leadership should play a role, but to do so would seriously weaken the effects. Hopefully the suppression special rule would breathe new life into the weapons that are typically overlooked or overshadowed (That's right Psilencer i'm looking at you), as well as make fire-support units more viable (Such as devastators) because they can bring a large number of suppression weapons and suppress enemy units without aid. I'm also not happy about the necessity of such a high number of tokens, but i cant think of any way to represent the effects of high rates of fire without them. I'm not entirely sure how this would work with monstrous creatures or single model units. I'd also like to give a similar system for more moderate strength anti-tank weapons (such as an autocannon) a way to suppress vehicles, to show weapons that aren't really powerful enough to penetrate the armor, but powerful enough and with a high enough number of shots to shake the crew, damage systems or sensors, etc.
Lets back it up a bit and take this to a valuing system. What if you separated it by say three states: Lightly suppressed, Suppressed, and Heavily suppressed. Then give each state a penalty that stacks. something like...
Light Suppressed = Only half the squad can fire.
Suppressed = above and must fire as snap shots.
Heavily suppressed = Above and cant move during movement phase.
At your option you can ignore the effects of the suppression but doing so causes the unit to take a wound with no saves for each level of suppression. Combine this with rav1rn's idea somehow
3 levels feels a bit too stratified, maybe make it 2, one for "under fire", the other for "suppressed". So if a unit takes fire from 2 separate units in the same turn, it has the "under fire" status, and it has to make a leadership test or become suppressed or suffer some other effect. Maybe make it so for every enemy unit firing at the unit beyond the 2 needed to apply the "under fire" status, a -1 leadership effect is applied to the "under fire" leadership test? This way suppression is still a serious effect, but there is a lesser version of it that's much easier to apply? I don't really want to add additional tests into what will likely be a pretty common situation, but leadership/morale should play some sort of role in a suppression system, as the chaos cultists are going to panic and duck long before the veteran space marines. How do the weapon's suppression characteristics seem?
At your option you can ignore the effects of the suppression but doing so causes the unit to take a wound with no saves for each level of suppression.
Interesting...it's kinda like a ranged version of No Retreat!, but voluntary and with tactical choice. Definitely worth exploring. The no saves thing seems a little odd though, because a stray round is going to bypass an Ork's "armor" much more easily than a terminator's.
Understand that this is all VERY exploratory. If I were to step back from design and into player mode. I'd immediately realize that when I build the army I want as many small units as possible to pin enemies. But then depending on how the suppression system works relative to squad size that may just dissolve into rock paper scissors, we don't have the whole picture yet, this would just be another very small Core dedicated to suppression. Often this minute of an observation is difficult to figure out at what point of design it should be developed and integrated. The two level thing would be a good idea. And the taking wounds thing was another steal from WizKids Clix games, "Pushing" in this case.
Also, was intrigued by the I-Shoot-While-You-Move idea. Not sure what to make of it yet but certainly intriguing.
For suppression effects, MSU is actually quite a liability, since they often don't get access to the heavier weapons that would give additional tokens, and are easily suppressed themselves. A dreadnought with a suppression assault cannon would be able to suppress a 5 man unit by himself, and a minimal cost devastator squad with 4 heavy Bolters could suppress 10 man units from 36" away (almost certainly needs balance work, but makes sense considering their role). The lower level "under fire" direction is where the MSU strength really starts to take over though, but it's both an early idea, and could be solved with other systems. The need to fail a leadership roll first is already a decent barrier, and to make it even more so, maybe take the command traits idea i posted a while back and let a command point be used to reroll or modify this test somehow. The effect also doesn't need to be nearly as severe as full suppression, so there's room to reduce the impact there as well, as well as just changing the idea completely.
For the new turn idea, I think the option to forfeit shooting in your turn to fire in reaction the opponents movements is a cool tactical option, and helps solve the waiting around for my opponent to finish problem quite nicely without resorting to unit by unit activation. I don't think only shooting in your opponents movement phase is the best direction though, because then every movement they make is getting interrupted and slowed, since you're essentially doing two phases in one. So a mix of the two would likely work best, I can shoot in my own turn like we always have, but I can place units in a true overwatch instead of firing then and there, so I can fire reactions in the opponents turn. Almost certainly going to need some sort of limitation or consequence for doing so, to prevent just over watching everything and having the board stagnate, but a neat direction to look into. And again, don't be worried about backward compatibility, ideas are flying left and right and I'll take interesting and exciting over easily convertible any day of the week.
I definitely want this in the revised 40K, but I'm leery of creating a whole new mechanic, especially one with counters and/or bookkeeping. I'd much rather make it another kind of Leadership/Morale test -- and make morale much more important by having fewer units ignore it with Fearless and the like.
2) I shoot while you move?
"I shoot while you move" certainly has some pitfalls I'm still pondering, but it has a certain simplicity that is missing in "I can either fire on my own turn or overwatch during yours," let alone "I can roll initiative to interrupt your turn."
I like your 2B option the best because it's the most intuitive, but like you say it might be too powerful. Maybe this is where a suppression mechanic can be introduced, though it might make things a bit more complicated:
Player A shoots. Player B takes leadership checks based on casualties which may suppress their shooting this turn. (Ex. Space Marine squad with Ld 8 loses 2 guys, must roll a 6 or less or it can't shoot during the other player's movement.)
Player A now moves any unit that didn't shoot, stopping the first model at any point along its path when declared as a target by Player B. Player A moves rest of unit into coherency and Player B resolves shooting. If the unit survives and passes its Ld checks, it may continue its move. Player B may shoot at the unit along its path with any of its own units in LOS, but once another unit starts its move the previous unit may no longer be targeted that turn (to prevent unrealistic coordination of defensive fire on the fly).
Units that are suppressed aren't really broken, they just can't shoot during the other player's movement phase. Maybe assault weapons can be used by Player A at any point during his turn (either before or after moving).
My biggest concern with all of this is how it might slow down the game.
Yes, slowing things down is always the issue -- though if people don't have to wait passively through their opponent's turn before they get to do anything, they might tolerate a longer game overall.
Your thoughts about integrating suppression in the core move & shoot mechanics are interesting ones. I shall ponder.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Now here's a thought: you can only shoot at moving units if they break cover, ie if they are not only in LOS but also aren't in terrain that gives a bonus to cover. Not sure about that, but would love y'all's thoughts.
Units that are suppressed aren't really broken, they just can't shoot during the other player's movement phase. Maybe assault weapons can be used by Player A at any point during his turn (either before or after moving).
Now here's a thought: you can only shoot at moving units if they break cover, ie if they are not only in LOS but also aren't in terrain that gives a bonus to cover. Not sure about that, but would love y'all's thoughts.
Crazy thought, but if we moved shooting before movement, wouldn't that help these ideas along? I shoot, and any unit that is "under fire" or "suppressed" after my shooting cannot take reaction shots against me when i move my units. Then my assault phase, then my opponent can shoot, and any of my units that are "under fire" or "suppressed" cannot take reaction shots at him while he moves, then his assault phase, then the next game turn. It might help avoid some of the overwatch stagnation that would result from this direction anyways. It'll probably slow down the game somewhat, but there have been other ideas proposed that could speed it up, so hopefully those would help offset it.
Btw how would people feel bringing in warpaths system for buying units, where rather than buy individual models you buy one size of a squad? For instance if I wanted a tactical squad, I can chose a 5-man combat squad with just the combat squad options, or I can buy the full 10 man tactical squad with both the special and heavy weapon options? I rarely hear of people taking squad sizes other than the usual increments of 5 or 10, since these are usually the numbers the additional weapon options are available at, so buying individual models but having weapon available in increments seems a bit counter productive. Having squad sizes be set for purchase could also open up some interesting option for army construction and composition, so long as the depth of the current upgrade system is maintained.
Btw how would people feel bringing in warpaths system for buying units, where rather than buy individual models you buy one size of a squad? For instance if I wanted a tactical squad, I can chose a 5-man combat squad with just the combat squad options, or I can buy the full 10 man tactical squad with both the special and heavy weapon options? I rarely hear of people taking squad sizes other than the usual increments of 5 or 10, since these are usually the numbers the additional weapon options are available at, so buying individual models but having weapon available in increments seems a bit counter productive. Having squad sizes be set for purchase could also open up some interesting option for army construction and composition, so long as the depth of the current upgrade system is maintained.
Plague marines are often taken in sevens, as it's both Nurgle's number, and it gives them maximum TT efficiency.
That and:
1) Sometimes you'll be something stupid like 2-10 points under the points limit and have run out of wargear upgrades, and then decide to make up that gap with a single model.
2) Units like CSM cultists/zombies can go up to 35 models/unit. That'd result in a lot of increments to put into a codex (6 or 7 in this case).
Units that are suppressed aren't really broken, they just can't shoot during the other player's movement phase. Maybe assault weapons can be used by Player A at any point during his turn (either before or after moving).
Now here's a thought: you can only shoot at moving units if they break cover, ie if they are not only in LOS but also aren't in terrain that gives a bonus to cover. Not sure about that, but would love y'all's thoughts.
Crazy thought, but if we moved shooting before movement, wouldn't that help these ideas along? I shoot, and any unit that is "under fire" or "suppressed" after my shooting cannot take reaction shots against me when i move my units. Then my assault phase, then my opponent can shoot, and any of my units that are "under fire" or "suppressed" cannot take reaction shots at him while he moves, then his assault phase, then the next game turn. It might help avoid some of the overwatch stagnation that would result from this direction anyways. It'll probably slow down the game somewhat, but there have been other ideas proposed that could speed it up, so hopefully those would help offset it.
You guys are definitely making a convincing case for suppression, because it works beautifully with overwatch/"I shoot while you move and creates a whole new dimension of tactical play. Just as in real life, it would be crucial to suppress enemy units before you move out of cover so they can't gun you down.
This would probably require adding some ranged suppression attacks to psychic powers and even Fear (all units in 12" must roll Ld to avoid being suppressed?) to let melee armies without much fire support (e.g. Daemons) still close with the enemy without getting shot to pieces.
This would also, as you say, require either changing the turn sequence to put shooting before movement or going to "your movement phase is my shooting phase," because then you suppress enemy units during their move phase so they can't fire at you during yours. One interesting wrinkle of suppression plus "you shoot while I move" is that you probably do not want to get the first move because then your guys are advancing before you can suppress any of the other sides' shooters.
Agree that the biggest problem is the clunky turn system, especially when there are more than 2 players [which is the majority of my games]
What about a turn system like in X-Wing, where the unit with the highest initiative gets to move last, but then take actions first? Players take it in turns to move each unit, with the lowest initiative first. Once all initiative 1 models have moved, on to initiative 2, etc. Then once everyone has moved, highest initiative unit gets to shoot/run/run and shoot/charge etc. Psychic powers/special characters could give additional actions.
Edit - also, was just having a look through 2nd edition rules. I like the cover rules in that edition, where the 'to hit' roll is modified by the type of cover the model is in. 'Soft' cover equates to a -1 to hit etc.
Plague marines are often taken in sevens, as it's both Nurgle's number, and it gives them maximum TT efficiency.
That and:
1) Sometimes you'll be something stupid like 2-10 points under the points limit and have run out of wargear upgrades, and then decide to make up that gap with a single model.
2) Units like CSM cultists/zombies can go up to 35 models/unit. That'd result in a lot of increments to put into a codex (6 or 7 in this case).
But that's exactly my point, you could make it so you buy the cult troops in the numbers of their patron god, with the appropriate amount of special weapons and other upgrades available, not just sticking to the rigid 5-10-15 etc that's in place now. For the really large units like gaunt swarms, ork Boyz, and cultists, a case could be made for purchasing them in sets of 10 rather than 5, and even if that direction wouldnt work too well, there no reason both styles have to be mutually exclusive. I can think of a couple units that really should be bought as individual models, namely most of the tyranid elites (zoanthropes, hive guard, lictors, etc) because they're a max of 3 units to a slot, so it makes sense to buy them individually in that small of a unit.
This would probably require adding some ranged suppression attacks to psychic powers and even Fear (all units in 12" must roll Ld to avoid being suppressed?) to let melee armies without much fire support (e.g. Daemons) still close with the enemy without getting shot to pieces.
Ooooooh thats a fun idea, i definitely want to play around with that. One of the ways i was looking at getting around problems like this is giving character models (both regular and independant) a rule where their shooting attacks count as having the suppression rule, even if their weapon doesn't. This way, its doesn't require some ridiculous number of minimal units to "suppress" a unit without access to suppression weapons, and to allow for situations like this. Plus it helps solve the problem of storm bolters making almost no sense as a weapon option for Space Marine and other imperial characters to take, because it didn't carry any of the bonuses a combi-weapon or pistol brought, nor was it so powerful or cheap in being a bolter that you could justify its use. Now it would give an additional suppression token that isn't possible with the other weapon options, finally giving it some sort of advantage that nothing else can bring. This idea isn't totally thought out yet though, so im sure there's going to be tons of holes and flaws.
This would also, as you say, require either changing the turn sequence to put shooting before movement or going to "your movement phase is my shooting phase," because then you suppress enemy units during their move phase so they can't fire at you during yours. One interesting wrinkle of suppression plus "you shoot while I move" is that you probably do not want to get the first move because then your guys are advancing before you can suppress any of the other sides' shooters.
I still think having a true overwatch as a tactical option is a better direction than shooting while i move, because i feel like we're going to keep running into situations like this where something is confusing or seems off with the interaction with other game mechanics. It's such a huge departure from the current game system that i don't know what will and won't work with it. Plus i'd rather add in tactical choice instead of just trading one restricted shooting system for another (albeit more interactive).
Plague marines are often taken in sevens, as it's both Nurgle's number, and it gives them maximum TT efficiency.
That and:
1) Sometimes you'll be something stupid like 2-10 points under the points limit and have run out of wargear upgrades, and then decide to make up that gap with a single model.
2) Units like CSM cultists/zombies can go up to 35 models/unit. That'd result in a lot of increments to put into a codex (6 or 7 in this case).
But that's exactly my point, you could make it so you buy the cult troops in the numbers of their patron god, with the appropriate amount of special weapons and other upgrades available, not just sticking to the rigid 5-10-15 etc that's in place now. For the really large units like gaunt swarms, ork Boyz, and cultists, a case could be made for purchasing them in sets of 10 rather than 5, and even if that direction wouldnt work too well, there no reason both styles have to be mutually exclusive. I can think of a couple units that really should be bought as individual models, namely most of the tyranid elites (zoanthropes, hive guard, lictors, etc) because they're a max of 3 units to a slot, so it makes sense to buy them individually in that small of a unit.
I still feel that the current system works better. Says it all in the fewest words too.
I still feel that the current system works better. Says it all in the fewest words too.
Fewest words? Probably, but one idea I've seen a few times and liked was unit or reference cards that list the major traits of a unit and its associated models, and such a system isn't as achievable using the individual model purchasing system. Several of my friends who play the game very casually don't have unit / weapon stats or the comparison charts memorized, and have to constantly ask what a roll would be or look it up in the books, so such a resource could help get new players into the game faster. This would also open the door to using cards for other things too, like secret mission objectives, so some interesting potential there.
I have to agree with Rav1rn.
Current 40k sells the idea of a great game , and the illusion of game balance.(But fails to deliver either.)
In terms of game balance and under costed-over costed units. Jevis Johnson admits to a maximum 20% imbalance across all possible army choices. (If he admits to this it is probably worse! )
So you may take the extra 2 to 5 points to make your army up to a nominal 2000 pts.
But that 2000 pts could be ACTUALLY worth 1800 pts or any value up to 2200 pts.
So the illusion of getting exactly 2000 pts in 40k, means up to FOUR HUNDRED POINTS imbalance in a 2000 pt game!
Where as games costed at the unit level can achive 2% discrepancy across all army builds. That is within most peoples perception of balanced for competitive play.
Its just this way you can define what constitutes a balanced game, for those that want it.
For those that just want to lay some minis on a table roll dice and tell stories, they can move as far away from balanced as they want.
And the ability to have unit reference cards to reduce hunting through codex/rule books is a massive benefit.
Hi again.
On the topic of over-watch and suppression.
Would you prefer it to be built into the basic game mechanics and resolution methods?
If you allow interleaved 'un-assigned' phases,then over watch becomes a standard 'ready then shoot' sequence.
Using just the 4 simple actions 'move', 'shoot' ,'assault' and 'ready'.
(Ready is a 'catch all' for load/recylce,set up/prepare-aim/hold fire, etc.)
if you use a simple 2 step damage system that allows psychological damage to be represented as well as physical.
Weapons have an ACTUAL armour penetration value (like FOW) and a damage value (like Fow Fire power check.)
Eg damage that penetrates armour but does not wound , suppresses a model.And if the majority of models in a unit are suppressed the unit becomes suppressed.
Then fear can simply be given a weapon effects of range , and armour penentration value with no damage.
(Because a Greater Deamon is far more scary to a guardsman in a flack vest , than one inside a Baneblade!)
Mechanically suppression "should" be directly integrated into the "attack" portion of the rules. Over watch "should" be likewise integrated into moving and action portions. But that doesn't mean it's the final word by any means. I would need more detail to know what your trying to get at Lanrak
if you use a simple 2 step damage system that allows psychological damage to be represented as well as physical.
Weapons have an ACTUAL armour penetration value (like FOW) and a damage value (like Fow Fire power check.)
Eg damage that penetrates armour but does not wound , suppresses a model.And if the majority of models in a unit are suppressed the unit becomes suppressed.
I'm assuming that 2 step damage does not include "To-Hit"? Because if so, while this system is mechanically simpler than the suppression system i proposed, it still suffers from the inaccuracy of representing weight of fire. I don't have to be hit by enemy fire to be pinned by it, if there's a wall of bullets between me and where i want to go, i'm not going to move until it's safe to do so or I'm too brazen to care. Also, I think many people want to simplify down to a 1 step resolution method, rather than have toughness and armor be separate saves, as that would greatly speed up damage resolution and in some regards make more sense.
And on that note, I've been playing around with some of the ideas brought up in this thread and wanted to see what people think of a new system using them. It's still very much in progress, but i think I've got enough wrinkles worked out to bring it up. So this system has a few of major changes:
1) Damage resolution has been consolidated into one step, with Toughness and Armor being treated as modifiers for the strength roll.
2) To keep damage results similar to current values, the dice used was changed to a D12. I'm not particularly happy about this, i would have liked to keep the D6, but the last time i tried that, it turned into a big mess.
3) Stats such as WS, BS, Strength, etc have been changed from a flat value that is compared to the targets corresponding value to get the dice roll, and cuts out the middle-man. These are now represented by the dice value expected (Such as 4+ instead of BS 3), which is then modified by the targets corresponding stat, such as toughness and armor modifying strength in the case of "To -Wound" rolls.
4) A new stat, Defensive Skill (DS) was added to correct for the fact that the old method of comparing WS values to find the expected dice roll is no longer possible using roll-values. Also allows for some more variety between units, as the more bezerk, aggressive units may not "defend" themselves, and the models that are supposed to be nimble and quick (such as Eldar / DE) have a naturally higher DS to show this.
5) Armor Penetration (AP) reduces the targets Armor modifier by the AP amount. So AP 1 weapons reduce Armor by 1, AP 2 by 2, etc. A models Armor bonus may not drop below 0. Melee weapons have AP similar to 6th edition rules.
6) As the D12 allows for a much greater range of results, more diversity can be injected into stat lines, which while not really shown in the attached photo, are in the works.
7) Cover provides a To-Hit modifier similar to 2nd edition rules (light cover = Modifer of 1, medium cover = modifier of 2, heavy cover = modifier of 3)
8) Increased movement variety is also in the works, represented by the unit type (Heavy == slower, medium == "normal", Light == Fast)
I've attached a photo with a few example stat-lines to show what this system would be like. You may notice that boltguns start at a strength of 4+, which leaves little room for higher strength weaponry to be represented. My current solution to this problem is by having weapons that would meet or exceed a 2+ receive a "Felling" special rule (Ranging from Felling 1 to Felling 4), which lowers the targets toughness modifier by the corresponding value. This serves a few purposes; firstly, if a models toughness is reduced to 0, it suffers from instant death, which replaces the system of "double strength == instant death". Second, it helps weapons deal with monstrous creatures, as the way the modifier system works with toughness, armor, and AP would have made them extremely difficult to kill with these weapons otherwise.
...seems complicated. Interesting, but complicated. The problem with making every stat a die roll (4+, 5+) is you have only five possible levels of stats, 2+ through 6+. Ok for infantry, a problem when dealing with vehicles, monsters, heroes, and anti-vehicle weaponry. Also limits the range of modifiers you can apply.
Also you have to figure out how to add and subtract modifiers, and people's brains don't subtract single-digit numbers as easily as they add them. That's why I prefer using (WS, BS, or Strength)+1d6 versus (defender's WS, Cover, or Toughness+Armor), so you only have to do addition: things that make success more likely add to the attacker's total, things that make success less likely add to the defender's total.
2) Suppression
amanita wrote: Maybe this is where a suppression mechanic can be introduced, though it might make things a bit more complicated: Player A shoots. Player B takes leadership checks based on casualties which may suppress their shooting this turn. (Ex. Space Marine squad with Ld 8 loses 2 guys, must roll a 6 or less or it can't shoot during the other player's movement.).....Units that are suppressed aren't really broken, they just can't shoot during the other player's movement phase. ....
Lanrak wrote: On the topic of over-watch and suppression.... Eg damage that penetrates armour but does not wound , suppresses a model.And if the majority of models in a unit are suppressed the unit becomes suppressed.
I like these ideas much better than adding a whole separate suppression mechanic, complete with tokens, that's based on rate of fire.
To keep from bogging the game down by having units test for suppression every time they're shot at, how about this?
Spoiler:
Suppression 1) After allocating all Wounds caused by Shooting and removing models as necessary, check to see if the unit may be suppressed.
2) A unit that has taken no Hits does not need to check for Suppression: They may flinch at the incoming fire but aren't affected sufficiently to affect their performance in game terms. Units with the Fearless special rule need not test in any circumstances: They don't even flinch. Units locked in close combat never check for Suppression: They are too busy fighting hand-to-hand!
3) If the unit that has taken at least one Hit, even if it did not cause a wound, test its Leadership. Subtract 1 from the roll for each unsaved* Wound the unit took this phase, unless the unit has the Stubborn special rule.
[EDIT: A unit with the And They Shall Know No Fear special rule only must test for Suppression if it has taken at least one unsaved Wound: A hit that does not wound has no effect on such troops. Space Marines and kindred warriors will advance relentlessly as enemy fire ricochets off their armour -- but if one of their number falls wounded, they may halt their attack for a moment, if only to give their fallen comrade first aid or last rites.]
4) If the unit passes the test there is no effect. If the unit fails, it is immediately Suppressed until the end of its sides' next turn.
5) While a unit is Suppressed, it may not
- shoot or charge at any target.
- move in such a way that any of its models comes closer to any enemy model that it already is.
If a unit has the Counter Attack special rule, it loses its benefits while Suppressed.
*If I had my way, there'd be no saves, but I keep this word in for now just in case....]
3) Fear at a distance
Lanrak wrote: ....fear can simply be given a weapon effects of range , and armour penentration value with no damage. (Because a Greater Deamon is far more scary to a guardsman in a flack vest , than one inside a Baneblade!)
If vehicles lose Fearless -- as I think they should -- they should get relatively high Leadership, so a Leman Russ would get Ld 9 or 10, a Baneblade might have 10 or even 11 (this one goes up to 11!).
Then if you keep my Distant Target Bonus system (+1 to your defenses if you're more than 24" away from the guys attacking you, +2 if you're more than 48", +3 for 72", etc.), you can simply add this rule to Fear:
Spoiler:
Fear [snipped: current BRB rules; then add:]
Instead of shooting, a unit with the Fear special rule may attempt to terrify one enemy unit that is in line of sight. This represents anything from a ear-splitting roar of challenge to a single, skeletal finger silently outstretched as if to say "you're next." The target unit immediately tests Leadership, adding a Distant Target Bonus if it is more than 24" from the fearsome unit: If the target passes, there is no effect; if it fails, it is immediately Suppressed (see above).
The target unit may not be locked in combat (they're too busy fighting for their lives to notice).
The unit using Fear may not be locked in combat or falling back.
Edited to add exception to Suppression rules for units with ATSKNF.
Sister Sydney, I like your suppression rules. I think they should be modified by wounds and not hits just as you have it, because it emphasizes the effective quality of incoming fire over the quantity.
I'm not a fan of range modifiers, even if they seem more realistic. We tried to implement them to some degree with little success (they were usually ignored due to inconvenience or forgotten). Also, at the table top ranges depicted a moving target at closer range is often HARDER to hit (target covers more distance in arc of fire, stress of engaging something close by, etc.). We instead use the following modifiers:
-1 to shoot moving skimmers, jump infantry or swarms
-1 when shooting defensive weaponry from a vehicle
-1 when throwing a grenade
+1 when shooting at a stationary vehicle or building.
We also gave all vehicles a Leadership of 10 in situations when they must test for something akin to over watch, but that's another story!
Quick idea though id like to ask. I want to take out any instances of templates/blast/large blast/ as i find that those waste the most time in my games.
i was thinking something along the lines of d3 hits to replace the small blast, d6 for the large and something else for templates.
though something needs to be done with deep striking as well. perhaps they should land normally but with a DT, however rolling a d6 before hand to see if they will meet a terrible fate (the roll modifies a dangerous terrain test)
Getting rid of templates etc would definitely streamline play, but it takes away a significant dimension of the game, namely that clumping all your models together is no longer begging for a clusterfeth...
amanita wrote: Sister Sydney, I like your suppression rules. I think they should be modified by wounds and not hits just as you have it, because it emphasizes the effective quality of incoming fire over the quantity.
Huh. That's what I was trying to convey actually, just maybe not clearly enough: if you take any hits, you must test for Suppression, but then you get a -1 penalty to the roll for each Wound you actually took, a bit like close combat resolution.
I'm not a fan of range modifiers, even if they seem more realistic. We tried to implement them to some degree with little success (they were usually ignored due to inconvenience or forgotten). Also, at the table top ranges depicted a moving target at closer range is often HARDER to hit (target covers more distance in arc of fire, stress of engaging something close by, etc.).
The modifiers are mainly there to keep long-range weapons from sniping you across the board (there was a lot of discussion of this above): they only kick in at ranges above 24".
As for moving vs static targets, I played around with that for a while, then realized that static units could make better use of cover than moving ones, so basically everybody should either get +1 for moving or +1 for going to ground... which is a wash.
Long range weapons should be fairly accurate, it's just that TLOS in its current form is much too reliable for shots against distant targets between terrain pieces, especially when considering the targets are probably moving.
Our modifiers are based more on ease of targeting than necessarily movement...a static vehicle is large and obvious, individuals in a swarm are small while an airborne unit on the fly low to the ground presents its own problems. But I see your point.
As for grenades, we didn't want them to be just as accurate as a pistol, for example. Even a direct hit tends to bounce around, depending on its fuse.
...seems complicated. Interesting, but complicated. The problem with making every stat a die roll (4+, 5+) is you have only five possible levels of stats, 2+ through 6+. Ok for infantry, a problem when dealing with vehicles, monsters, heroes, and anti-vehicle weaponry. Also limits the range of modifiers you can apply.
Also you have to figure out how to add and subtract modifiers, and people's brains don't subtract single-digit numbers as easily as they add them. That's why I prefer using (WS, BS, or Strength)+1d6 versus (defender's WS, Cover, or Toughness+Armor), so you only have to do addition: things that make success more likely add to the attacker's total, things that make success less likely add to the defender's total.
Yeah its got some complication in it. Also its not just the 5 possbilities, thats the point of using the D12, you can have a 2+, or a 9+, or a 12+. Vehciles and monsters are still being worked out, as are heros (though admittedly these are the more problematic of the bunch), and it still in the works, Plus the only subtraction going on is for AP and Felling, everything else is addition. 4+ strength weapon and the opponent's toughness and armor modifiers add up to 4? (4 + 4 == 8) i need an 8+ to wound.
Getting rid of templates etc would definitely streamline play, but it takes away a significant dimension of the game, namely that clumping all your models together is no longer begging for a clusterfeth...
Agreed. They're a bit slow, but both sides need to think about how best to use and defend against them, so i'd say its worth it.
As for the proposed suppression system, i still don't think it represents the effect accurately, plus it has the awkward effect of a single model being able to suppress a 20 man unit, because if he scores even one wound (regardless of whether or not it's unsaved) against, say, a 20 man group of sororitas, if they fail the test, they are now suppressed, which is a bit silly.
We currently use a suppression mechanic, but it only applies when a unit passes its moral check by the exact minimum number required. It works, but we are always looking for improvements and I like some of the ideas proposed on here.
I'd agree SisterSydney, that grenades don't have to be as precise but there are too many variables when throwing one. If it's an impact fuse it has to hit just right, and though they have a blast they also can bounce a fair bit away from their intended target, they can be seen (and thus avoided somewhat), and they can easily fall behind something that will direct the majority of the blast away from the target.
Hi folks.
As there has been some great discussion on how to model suppression in a game, could we refine it a bit?
I think a lot of over complication comes from trying to express suppression in terms of rules people already familiar with.And maybe if we discussed the effect directly it may make it easier to arrive at a simple mechanic /resolution method?
Some ideas...
1)A Suppression mechanic is basically just measuring the difference between unit confidence, and level of perceived threat.
If the threat is high enough the unit with act with more concern for self preservation, (simply reduce to one action per turn.return fire, or move to cover.)
After being suppressed , better trained units will return to normal operation faster than poorly trained /conscripted units.
2) Determining the level of unit INITIAL unit confidence could be simply the level of protection they have, AND the number of troops in the unit.
Its harder to suppress a hoard of 200 than it is to suppress a squad of 12
The speed and frequency of shaking off suppresion is simply passing their Ld (morale) test.
3) The level of perceived threat can be presented as total weight of fire.(EG number of shots on target.)
But just using this method allows heavy armoured vehicles to be suppressed by tons of small arms fire .Detailing this method can model suppression very accurately BUT can get very complicated very quickly.
The alternative is to ONLY count weapon hits that COULD threaten the target, EG ones that can defeat their armour .This is NOT a perfectly accurate representation of suppression , but for game purposes, it keeps it simple AND proportional.
These are just my basic ideas.
I can go into more detail with a full run through of how my new system would actually work in a game, if this would help?
(I have got my new (40k re write,) rules half way through Alpha test.)
Lanrak wrote:Hi folks.I think a lot of over complication comes from trying to express suppression in terms of rules people already familiar with....
Its harder to suppress a hoard of 200 than it is to suppress a squad of 12....The alternative is to ONLY count weapon hits that COULD threaten the target, EG ones that can defeat their armour ....
Rav1rn wrote:As for the proposed suppression system, i still don't think it represents the effect accurately, plus it has the awkward effect of a single model being able to suppress a 20 man unit, because if he scores even one wound (regardless of whether or not it's unsaved) against, say, a 20 man group of sororitas, if they fail the test, they are now suppressed, which is a bit silly.
Good points.
1) I should've said "only shots that could actually penetrate and wound," not any hit. I think that actually should be in the initial shooting rules: you can't attack something you can't possibly hurt.
2) I'm not sure that one shooter being able to suppress a horde as easily as a 5-man team is actually inaccurate. Remember that in real life a single sniper can make any number of soldiers hit the dirt -- and by "sniper" I mean "any idiot with a gun who shoots at you when you didn't expect it." The psychological effect is "holy crap, Bob just got shot, I'd better hit the dirt," not "Bob just got shot, but, y'know, there are still 19 of us left, so I feel pretty okay about that, actually."
Now y'all point it out, I certainly see how this could make blobs less powerful -- but as a practical matter, if you're putting that many models together and don't have a Commissar, Priest, Canoness, etc. to make them Fearless or at least Stubborn, you're already begging for trouble even in the current system.
Also units don't get bonuses for size when they face pinning or fear in the current system -- although as Lanrak said, we shouldn't feel confined by the current mechanics. You could conceivably institute some form of "mob rule" for all armies, though that might make blobs overly powerful.
I'm leery of creating entirely new mechanics, but if anyone has an idea for a simple way to modify leadership for unit size without a lot of fiddly addition and model-counting, I'm all ears.
Suppression... Interesting. When I first heard it mentioned here I thought you were referring to the rock-paper-scissors system in DoW2 (Assault Marines > Heavy Bolter > Slugga Boy horde > Assault Marines ad nauseam) but this seems good.
2) I'm not sure that one shooter being able to suppress a horde as easily as a 5-man team is actually inaccurate. Remember that in real life a single sniper can make any number of soldiers hit the dirt -- and by "sniper" I mean "any idiot with a gun who shoots at you when you didn't expect it." The psychological effect is "holy crap, Bob just got shot, I'd better hit the dirt," not "Bob just got shot, but, y'know, there are still 19 of us left, so I feel pretty okay about that, actually."
I would agree, for things like sniper weapons and barrage, attacks that fit this description. But one random guy charging across the battlefield brandishing a pistol? I can see Sly Marbo getting away with this, but beyond him, not so much. Trying to determine whether or not a shot is "unexpected" might be interesting. Some sort of flanking or rear attack bonus... Probably way too fiddly though.
If the one guy with a pistol actually hit somebody? Yeah, that's a morale check, even if it didn't penetrate. Marines should be immune (I edited my proposed rule above to exempt ATSKNF units from suppression checks unless they actually take unsaved wounds), but Imperial Guard?
"Jeez, look at that idiot running straight at us screaming and waving his little stubber like some kind of OWWW! [hits dirt by reflex] He fething hit me, man! That fething hurt!"
I always wondered if somebody in the community could write a solid set of rules for 40k that were superior to GWs. I am half tempted to try myself, and I definitely think rewriting from the ground up would be the best way to go about it. I think two principles are in order for rewriting 40k rules:
1.) KISS (keep it simple stupid) - if a rule, maneuver, or piece of equipment is not really adding anything to the game, omit it. Consolidate rules when possible. I also would avoid adding anything unless absolutely necessary.
2.) Eliminate Unnecessary Die Rolls: Dice still need to be part of the game, but every die roll is a chance for the dice to be cocked, slip, or fall off the table and travel halfway across the room. If a die roll is not necessary for a certain mechanic, omit it.
That being said, here are some of the things I would do:
1.) Abstract LOS: No questions here, make LOS easy and unambiguous to establish while increasing tactical depth.
2.) 4e Wound Allocation: Really can't improve upon this, the problem was already solved perfectly.
3.) Make cover a BS penalty: Cover now provides the same benefit for everybody.
4.) Fix Leadership: Moral test should be a major risk for the majority of the armies out there, rather than just a few.
5.) Consolidate Movement Rules: Give each unit a A/B movement stat. A is the movement distance, B is the assault distance. Units can move at 2A if they forfeit shooting and assault. All units in the game including vehicles now operate off the same set of movement rules, yet they can still be diverse. Special rules only needed for things like jump packs, jet packs and skimmers.
6.) Fixed Difficult Terrain Movement: Move at some fraction of total movement when moving through difficult terrain rather than roll.
7.) Cut the Fat - There are currently way too many rules that do little or nothing for the game that ought be scrapped:
7a.) Snapshotting - Don't waste time rolling for shots that probably won't hit
7b.) Overwatch - See 7a.)
7c.) Run - Covered in consolidated movement rules
7d.) Warlord Traits - No rolling for random benefits that may not even matter
7e.) Mysterious Terrain/Objectives - Just no
7f.) Challenges - Just needlessly complicated
7g.) Vehicle Damage Table - Just have them use wounds. I would still keep the directional armor though, as well as make them vulnerable in cc.
7h.) Dangerous Terrain - Rarely comes into play except with vehicles.
7i.) Probably a lot of things I missed
8.) Fix psychic powers: Not sure how, but they could use a rework.
9.) Arithmetic Checks: Eliminate most tables in the game by making most checks a matter of simple arithmetic. Four instance, the check to wound would just be strength + d6 >= toughness. Weapon values would need to be adjusted, but now the same effect could be obtained with no tables.
I probably missed a lot of other areas that could be improved, but I really think you could make a tight, unambiguous and smoothly running version of 40k that would still retain the flavor of the game.
Hi again.
Just to clarify.
I was going to simply suggest the following.
A model has 3 states in game.
Operational , suppressed, removed as casualty/damaged.
A MODEL is suppressed when it fails an armour save.
When a UNIT has OVER HALF its models suppressed or removed as casualties, it has to take a Ld test.
if it fails this test the UNIT become suppressed.
Suppressed units may only return fire on nearest enemy unit, OR move to cover.(Infantry can go to ground, and vehicles/MCs can turn to face instead of moving to cover.)
Lanrak wrote: A model has 3 states in game. Operational , suppressed, removed as casualty/damaged....When a UNIT has OVER HALF its models suppressed or removed as casualties, it has to take a Ld test. if it fails this test the UNIT become suppressed.
Well, I guess there's only one additional state to keep track of per model (suppressed), but tracking by model seems unduly complicated.
Phanixis wrote:
There are some of the things I would do:
[snipped: list of smart things]
I agree with all of these except maybe eliminating overwatch -- though I'm trying to work it as regular shooting rather than a special rule, specifically that any unit moving can be fired upon, not just a charging unit getting fired upon by the unit being charged.
Phanixis wrote:4e Wound Allocation: Really can't improve upon this, the problem was already solved perfectly.
How DID wound allocation -- and LOS for that matter -- work in 4th? I don't know that edition.
SisterSydney wrote: If the one guy with a pistol actually hit somebody? Yeah, that's a morale check, even if it didn't penetrate. Marines should be immune (I edited my proposed rule above to exempt ATSKNF units from suppression checks unless they actually take unsaved wounds), but Imperial Guard?
"Jeez, look at that idiot running straight at us screaming and waving his little stubber like some kind of OWWW! [hits dirt by reflex] He fething hit me, man! That fething hurt!"
On the subject of things relating to ATSKNF, CSM should have that rule, too.
Traitor chapters don't suddenly become cowards, do they?
And then maybe a tactical CSM would be worth taking...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phanixis wrote: I always wondered if somebody in the community could write a solid set of rules for 40k that were superior to GWs. I am half tempted to try myself, and I definitely think rewriting from the ground up would be the best way to go about it. I think two principles are in order for rewriting 40k rules:
1.) KISS (keep it simple stupid) - if a rule, maneuver, or piece of equipment is not really adding anything to the game, omit it. Consolidate rules when possible. I also would avoid adding anything unless absolutely necessary.
2.) Eliminate Unnecessary Die Rolls: Dice still need to be part of the game, but every die roll is a chance for the dice to be cocked, slip, or fall off the table and travel halfway across the room. If a die roll is not necessary for a certain mechanic, omit it.
Heh, if GW had followed those rules, we'd not have 50% of the current ruleset
On the subject of things relating to ATSKNF, CSM should have that rule, too.
Traitor chapters don't suddenly become cowards, do they?
And then maybe a tactical CSM would be worth taking...
I feel like thats the relatively excessive power of ATSKNF, and the needless complexity of the current regroup and falling back rules. Why not just have every unit be able to regroup, without all these conditions? Then have ATSKNF offer the kind of bravado and thick-headedness it's supposed to, rather than just sidestepping large portions of the morale system.
If the one guy with a pistol actually hit somebody? Yeah, that's a morale check, even if it didn't penetrate.
Exactly, this situation should be applied to the morale / losses system. Is that loss enough to cause the squad to break? No? Ok they're fine then. Suppression should be about unexpected attacks (snipers and barrage), and massive firepower, not damage or losses. There's already a system in place to take care of how units react to taking damage.
Oh, I'm not saying the one hit should cause a test to see if the squad breaks, I'm saying it might justifiably cause a test to see if the squad instinctively goes to ground, i.e. gets suppressed.
But clearly a lot of folks thinks that way overpowers a single shot; I'll ponder alternative triggering conditions. Maybe you check for suppression if you're attacked by people firing more shots than there are people in your unit, or if a template hits you even if it doesn't cause casualties?
Rav1rn wrote:I would agree, for things like sniper weapons and barrage, attacks that fit this description. But one random guy charging across the battlefield brandishing a pistol? I can see Sly Marbo getting away with this, but beyond him, not so much. Trying to determine whether or not a shot is "unexpected" might be interesting. Some sort of flanking or rear attack bonus... Probably way too fiddly though.
The issue with "sniper" type weapons in 40k is that, in the battle you're playing out, whether a guy is shooting from concealment with a silenced weapon or not should be almost irrelevant from the target's point of view. There are lots of enemy units relatively close to you, you could be taking fire from a whole squad of enemy machine guns, but the one sniper weapon is what causes you to put your heads down?
The whole morale system is piss poor, honestly. There should be a natural progression from "Ready" to "Broken" with various states of combat effectiveness in between. Pinning is a bandaid on 40k's very binary morale system, and we'd be better served with a generic suppression mechanic that applied to all shooting, with sniper and barrage weapons getting bonuses toward that end.
----
SisterSydney, I'm actually digging your suppression mechanic. I've been thinking on and off for a long time about how to integrate suppression into 40k in a relatively seamless way, and your method makes a lot of sense.
I think the "one random guy with a pistol" scenario is an outlier that we would have to live with, as I wouldn't want a single shot from a heavier weapon to not affect a unit, and I wouldn't want massed pistol fire to not affect a unit either.
Good points -- especially the ones where you agree with me, of course! Maybe the "one guy with a pistol" is one of those "hard cases make bad law" situations where trying to rule out all extreme possibilities means you have rules that don't work well for the things you'll probably deal with most of the time.
4th Ed. wound allocation was done simply by letting the defender choose ANY model from a unit as a casualty. Only when wounds surpassed the models remaining in a unit could the attacker declare a a specific model to make a save. The issue was that wounds seldom exceeded models in a unit and it lead to abuse when the special/heavy weapon was always the one remaining, even if that model was the only one exposed to fire. Instead of tweaking the system and allowing for a way to occasionally target specific models in a unit, GW threw the baby out with the bath water and designed a totally lame, counter-intuitive and corrupt wound allocation mechanic for 5th Ed. That along with the rigid TLOS really blew any chance for 5th to be any better than 4th. 6th Ed simply changed wound allocation to another inferior method, though many do seem to like it.
@ Sister Sydney.
I should have said that we simply lay the model carefully on its side when it fails its armour save.
In my new rules I have tried to resolved shooting in a more straight forward and logical way.
Roll to hit. based on target units Stealth value.
Eg If a Model/Unit has a Stealth value of 4, the enemy need to roll 4+ to hit it with ranged weapons!
(This is modified for :- cover, long range ,etc.)
Roll armour save.
Roll a D6 an add the models Armour Value. If this total is equal to or higher than the enemy weapons Armour Piercing value the model takes no damage.
If the total is less than the enemy weapons Armour Piercing value the model becomes suppressed.
Roll for Damage to models that FAILED their armour save..
Every weapon has a damage value .If the weapons damage value is 3, it wounds on a 3+
This is modified by the targets Resilience value .Eg add the models Resilience value to the Weapon Damage score.
(All current T3 models have Resilience of 0 , so use basic weapon damage values.Current T 4 models have Resilience of 1)
EG Las pistol has damage value of 4. A Ogryn has a Resilience of 2, so the las pistol needs to roll 6 on the damage roll to wound the Ogryn.
No need for tables and charts !
Can any one see any potential problems with this resolution process.(it works for the basic 40k units we have been units for Alpha play testing.)
Ill post up a my alternative casualty removal sequence next if you like ?
Any ideas on what to do about the FOC? I feel like it introduces restrictions that don't really need to be there, if i want to play an all terminator army i shouldn't have to compromise and use grey knights or dark angels. We're halfway there anyways with all the FOC changing HQ's coming out. In a perfect world, with everything properly balanced, you could just choose any units you wanted, maybe purchasing a scoring trait or something to let armies without scoring units have a chance in objective missions. However, this is at best a long way off, so what other ideas are out there?
Lanrak wrote:....Roll to hit. based on target units Stealth value.....Roll armour save.....Roll for Damage to models that FAILED their armour save...
Some of the individual steps are simpler this way, and you've made cover a part of the to-hit roll, but you're still taking three steps, instead of combining Toughness and Armor into one thing so you can get rid of a separate armor save step -- you've just changed the order.
Ill post up a my alternative casualty removal sequence next if you like ?
Please!
Rav1rn wrote: In a perfect world, with everything properly balanced, you could just choose any units you wanted...
Sigh. Yes, in a truly well-crafted game, the rules wouldn't have to require you to take a reasonably balanced combined-arms force, they would just make sure that if you spam one kind of super-unit you lose, because everything should have some vulnerability it needs another type of unit to cover. Unfortunately, 40K is so patchwork and has suffered so much escalation/codex creep over time that there are overpowered units you can spam and win.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Desubot wrote: I think an easy way to remedy it is to just make the infantry type scoring and remove Force org. I dont get how stern guards are like "nope. dont want to pick up that relic to busy" ...
That honestly makes a lot of sense. No infantry, can't hold ground -- it's true in real life, why not in 40K?
Mind ya my alt also has it so you can wreck ruins further to make upper areas inaccessible so it would be dangerous to camp.
Seem's like a dangerous route to take. "camping" isn't really as relevant in 40K as other games, because for one it's turn based, and secondly there are are only 5-7 chances to move in the game. Add onto this the fact that heavy weapons make firing after moving impossible, and creating a situation where its "dangerous to camp" could seriously hurt less mobile units. That being said, destructable cover would be very exciting, its just a question of whether or not the mechanism of doing so was simple enough to not get in the way. Maybe take a page from cities of death, and treat ruins like vehicles, with armor values, give them hull points equal to the number of floors, and each hull point lost takes out a floor. Some sort of critical hit / "Collapse" effect would be worthwhile as well. Making blast weapons literally destroy single level cover like chest high walls might be interesting, but i'm a bit hesitant to give blast weapons more power than they already have.
and being higher up on a level (3") +1
This would be very nice as a component of a system to replace TLOS. Abstract height bonuses / penalties relegated to "floors".
That honestly makes a lot of sense. No infantry, can't hold ground -- it's true in real life, why not in 40K?
This works, but i'm not so sure there's not something better out there, because even though they're all infantry, it makes sense that the more elite units are unable to score, because they cannot stick around to defend objectives like a troops squad could, their numbers are far more limited so they need to go to other areas of the battle where they can make more of a difference. This is one area where fluff and crunch collide though, since they're there now, they should be able to take it for the length of the "battle", so who knows.
Well what i ment by camping is heaving some heavy weapon on top to rain hell all day while sitting there taking cover forever. or even troops.
i want there to be a risk for the benefits of precision shots. (if the thing is wrecked you take a fall test and stuff.)
I think the armor and hull points work great. probably along the lines of av10 or 11 with lv hull points. i dont have CoD, what do you think would be comparable?
After its wrecked though, id like to keep it so that you can still use the piece, as it still BLOS and the bottom level is still usable. just put a token marking the piece as "unstable".
Just some thoughts (sorry it there's overlap, just got to this thread and can't read it all from week)….
If we're going to keep the 2d6 rolls for Charges, how about making the difference some kind of added bonus. E.g., a target unit 5 inches away and you roll and 8, you get 3 free Hammer of Wrath hits or something. As it is, the roll only punishes for falling short, yet does nothing to reward a high roll/careful calculation. You can argue it being combat momentum or as a rallying war cry that especially riled up the blood of the chargers. That could open a whole slew of abilities/USRs based on modifying Assault Charge rolls.
Shotguns. Oh for the love of gawd, make them hit on a 5+ on Overwatch or something. As it is, they just a useless weapon that are outclassed by everything else.
There's more on the tip of my brain, but that's would I'd like to see addressed for the time being….
Another option being your regular movement + a d6. that way its more reliable.
then drop it to 2d6 for difficult terrain and stuff. 3d6 for bikes? it never made sense that a bunch of guardsman can suddenly move as fast as a 60mph bike.
Desubot wrote: Another option being your regular movement + a d6. that way its more reliable.
then drop it to 2d6 for difficult terrain and stuff. 3d6 for bikes? it never made sense that a bunch of guardsman can suddenly move as fast as a 60mph bike.
I would so welcome this as well. Makes sense that Difficult Terrain would impede movement to something unpredictable. A fixed value +d6 makes it random enough but far more reliable as a tactical decision . No one ever plans to gamble on a 12" charge, that's asking to get shot in the face. And coming up with a 2" (which I've heard happens more often than one would expect) falling short is not "creating a narrative", it's needlessly crippling a player where it's not even comical. Take models, flush them down toilet….
i don't know 6" + D6 is a huge charge range for normal infantry, thats an average of 9.5", or more than 150% of the current movement distance. 3" + D6 might be a bit better, even though the average is less than it is currently. Ideally we could just have different movement speeds for models, then have the charge distance adjust itself accordingly, and even then i'm not convinced random charge distances are necessary. We have standardized movement distances, and i don't really see how the added randomness improves the game. Ditto with running.
Setting aside the added complexity of rolling instead of just having a set number, it makes movement much too random: As others have noted, if you roll 20 dice to see if your attacks hit, the results will form a reasonably tidy bell curve where the extremes cancel out, but if you have to roll to see if you can make a charge, then two dice rolling low can deny you the opportunity to attack at all (or may get stuck in difficult terrain or whatever).
Also, death to charges as a separate set of movement rules!
My very simple alternative is that a charge is simply a double move that brings you into contact with enemy models. Period.
So, in your movement phase, you can 1) move normally and be able to fire later 2) not move and be able to fire heavy weapons at full BS 3) move double your normal distance, but not be able to fire anything later (equivalent of running, turbo-boosting, or going flat out today) 4) move up to double your normal distance until your models are in contact (1") of enemy models, at which point you get as many of 'em in contact as you can and are locked in combat until one side dies or runs away.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, death to the wound allocation rules!.
Returning to 4e but adding precision shots/strikes seems to me by far the best way. To pull together several posts (starting here) from the death to TLOS thread:
Phanixis wrote:
SisterSydney wrote:What were the 4th edition rules that folks like so much? I don't have that edition.
Rules were incredibly simple. You established a majority armor/cover and toughness save for the unit, and then just rolled all saves as a single batch. Failed saves were removed as wounds at the opponents discretion, although spreading wounds over several multiwound models was forbidden.
For example, say I inflict 6 bolter wounds and 2 plasma wounds on a tactical marine squad with an attached IC with a 2+/5+. Because the majority of the models are just tactical marines, my opponent would have a majority armor save of 3+ and no invulnerability save. So he would roll 6 3+ saves and remove the failed saves as casualties. If he failed two armor saves in this example, he would have to remove four models total of his choice from the squad as casualties. This made armor saves very easy to resolve and their was no way to exploit the system, so no tanking wounds and no wound spreading.
It had a single drawback in that your opponent had complete control over the order in which casualties were taken. This meant for your standard tactical squad, typically the sergeant, the heavy weapon marine and the special weapon marine would be the last three to die. However, compared to the problems 5e and 6e created, this was nothing, especially because those units that tended to benefit the most from this kind of wound allocation tended to be the weakest in a power gaming environment. Compare, for instance, a tactical marine squad to the Nob Bikers and Paladin Stars mention by Deuce that benefited from 5e wound allocation. Which units would you give an edge through the wound allocation rules?
SisterSydney wrote:Sounds like adding 6th edition precision shots & strikes to the 4th edition system -- i.e. the occasional chance for the attacking player to pick the victim -- would solve 4e's only real problem and make a near-perfect system.
That is pretty much the case. Although I never really felt and overwhelming need for precision shots back when I was playing 4th. Honestly, even in 4th edition playing against the likes of a tactical marine squad was a treat. It meant you weren't going up against Nidzilla, or holofalcons, or double lash, or Tzeentch bikers, or 3x3 obliterators (notice how wound allocation has no effect on any of these units).
Hi Sister Sydney.
A three stage damage resolution process is pretty much standard across most war games.(And many use this resolution to include a simple supression mechanic.)
(IF you just use roll to hit then roll to damage , then it can get incredibly complicated to introduce suppression in a reasonably realistic way.)
What actually slows the damage resolution in 40k is all the exceptions to the core resolution process, and constantly having to look at charts tables and double checking rules in the rule book.Not to mention all the additional dice rolling for no real reason!
Both Kings Of War and Flames of War use three stage resolution process, but play much faster than either Warhammer game.
I think its important to keep the rules straight forward, and define things in an intuitive way.
As far as casualty removal goes, here are the basic concepts I would use.
After declaring the intended target for shooting.
Determine if any models in the targeted unit are in cover.
IF any models are in cover,they can only be hit by shots that roll high enough on the to hit roll.
EG an IG tactical squad has 4 models in area terrain counting in cover, and 6 models in the open.
The CSM unit shooting at them needs to roll 3+ for the models in the open.And 4+ for the models in cover.
After rolling to hit, the dice that ONLY rolled high enough to hit the models in the open are separated out.
Apply all these ( 3+) hits to the target models in the open ,closest to the attacking models first.Resolve these hits.
Then resolve the remaining (4+) hits on the target models closest to the attacking unit in the OPEN first,then on the models closest to the attacking unit in cover.
You MUST apply damaging hits to the closest model to the attacking unit , until it is removed as a casualty , BEFORE applying hits to the next closest model.
MIXED UNITS.
If a unit has multiple model types ,ignore the models that are harder to damage until ALL the models that are easier to damage have been suppressed or removed as casualties.(Attacker may choose to apply hits to either model type after the ALL the easiest models to damge have been at least suppressed.)
EG a mixed unit in Terminator armour and Power armour.
Apply all hits to the power armoured models until they have ALL been suppressed or removed as casualties , BEFORE the models in terminator armour have hits allocated against them.
Special models.
Unit leaders and Characters.
(To replace the 'look out sir' type rules)
Duck Back. The more skilled warriors have a sixth sense when in danger, and always seem to be in the right place at the right time!After a SHOOTING attack has been declared, but before the to hit rolls are taken .A unit leader or attached character model MAY swap places with any other model in their unit , IF they pass a ld test.
Specialist weapons. The models carrying the specialist weapons in a unit can be removed as casualties from shooting .However, in the targeted units next game turn , the weapon MAY be picked up by other unit members.(Simply swap the specialist weapons model for a normal model at the rear of their original unit at the start of the next game turn/resolution phase..)
My attempt at Cover rules.
40k models and terrain are not all to true scale so they are ABSTRACT representations.
So cover falls in to 2 types.
Area Terrain and Obstacle.
Area Terrain is a represents a large area where models can hide.Like woods, long grass, rubble -ruins, etc.
Models inside area terrain , within 2" of the edge of area terrain can claim cover from it.AND can see out and be seen by models outside the area terrain.
Models in the SAME area terrain can see each other up to 4" through the area terrain.(And count as in cover.)
IF there is more than 4" of area terrain between models they can not see each other the area terrain block line of sight.
Obstacles, represent walls ditches, single buildings and large KO vehicles etc.
A model may claim cover from an obstacle if it is at least 1/2 the height of the full height of the model.Or it is equal or higher than the model and it obscures at least HALF the models width from the attacking models view.
PS I total agree that you should decide what the unit is going to do at the start of the turn, to determine what movement (and other) actions the unit takes.
(Rather than move in the movement , shooting and assault phase!)
Eg.
Stand still (Ready) then shoot to full effect.(fire heavy weapon ordnance/Over-watch.)
Move then shoot.(Or shoot then move.)
Move then move again
Move then move to assault.
(Optional Ready then Move with +1 to stealth.)
Lanrak wrote: Hi Sister Sydney.
A three stage damage resolution process is pretty much standard across most war games.(And many use this resolution to include a simple supression mechanic.) (IF you just use roll to hit then roll to damage , then it can get incredibly complicated to introduce suppression in a reasonably realistic way.) ....Both Kings Of War and Flames of War use three stage resolution process, but play much faster than either Warhammer game.
I don't know the Kings/Flames of War games -- what are their three steps?
And I guess the system I'm proposing (err,and constantly changing based on y'all's feedback) is 3-step: roll to hit (factoring in cover), roll to wound (factoring in armor), roll leadership for the whole unit to see if its suppressed or breaks.... Hmm, that third step is an opportunity to consolidate our proposed suppression mechanics with the current morale rules, isn't it?
Whereas Warhammer 40K right now has
- roll to hit
- roll to wound
- roll armor or cover saves
- roll leadership if casualties exceed 25% of the unit
So that's four steps and still doesn't factor in suppression.
IF any models are in cover,they can only be hit by shots that roll high enough on the to hit roll.
Hmmm. Doesn't this make it too easy to hit the models in cover? All the best to-hit rolls are automatically allocated to them....
So cover falls in to 2 types.
Area Terrain and Obstacle.....
Hi again.
The basic 3 step damage resolution most games use is ;-
Roll to hit.
Roll for armour.
Roll to damage.
If we run with this order, we get an intuitive stage by stage resolution as we go a long.
Did the attack hit? No, take no further action.
Yes, continue and resolve weapon hit effect .
Does the weapon penetrate the targets armour ? No, take no further action.
Yes,the model becomes suppressed, continue.
Does the penetrating hit cause physical damage to the target? No , take no further action.Model remains suppressed.
Yes, apply physical damage effects.
If we then set a simple , condition , EG when over half the models in the unit are suppressed or removed as casualties, the unit becomes suppressed.
We get a very straight forward damage system that includes the effects of suppression.
(If we run with a command phase, action phase, action phase , resolution phase type game turn.We can say players have to wait until the resolution phase to attempt to rally perhaps.)
THE ONLY reason to separate out the hits that were only good enough to hit models in the open, was to ONLY APPLY THESE HITS TO MODELS IN THE OPEN .BEFORE resolving the hits that could hit ALL models including those in cover.
Rather than give a unit of 30 orks a blanket cover save because some models are in cover.
We simply resolve the hits that were only good enough to hit models in the open first, then apply the hits that COULD hit models in cover AFTER all the models in the open have been removed!
If the attacker needs 3+ to hit the Orks in the open, and 4+ to hit the Orks in Cover.
And the attacker rolls 2,2,3,3,3,4,4,5,5,6.
The two dice that rolled 2 are discarded.(Missed.)
The three dice that rolled 3 are resolved against the closest models in the open first.
Then the dice that rolled 4,5,and 6 are resolved against the models in the open, then models in cover after ALL the models in the open have been removed as casualties.
The alternative is to only count shots that would hit the models in cover,(4+),and / or only allow cover saves if ALL models in the unit are in cover.
The method I suggest allows intuitive resolution of shots on units partly in cover , without unnecessary abstraction/restriction.
I hope that makes it easier to understand what I was trying to illustrate.
THE ONLY reason to separate out the hits that were only good enough to hit models in the open, was to ONLY APPLY THESE HITS TO MODELS IN THE OPEN .BEFORE resolving the hits that could hit ALL models including those in cover.
Rather than give a unit of 30 orks a blanket cover save because some models are in cover.
We simply resolve the hits that were only good enough to hit models in the open first, then apply the hits that COULD hit models in cover AFTER all the models in the open have been removed!
Yes please. This could create some confusion with a more abstracted cover/LOS system, but it shouldn't be too difficult. This plus precision shots are two solid elements that should be carried over into a Cover/LOS/Allocation system.
Did the attack hit?
No, take no further action.
Yes, continue and resolve weapon hit effect .
Does the weapon penetrate the targets armour ?
No, take no further action.
Yes,the model becomes suppressed, continue.
Does the penetrating hit cause physical damage to the target?
No , take no further action.Model remains suppressed.
Yes, apply physical damage effects.
My main concern with this is that its going to buff large units too much. A 30-man Ork Boy squad is scary enough without the added threat of them suppressing my unit before charging and crushing them even more than they would have normally. Yes, it's realistic that such a large unit's shooting would make someone duck for cover, but i don't think it would be particularly enjoyable to play against. Beyond this, it doesn't seem to offer enough incentive to take high rate of fire / low strength weapons, since the worst case with high damage weapons is that they cause suppression. Yes higher rates of fire with lower strength means there will likely be more models suppressed, but when i can take a high damage weapon to a similar effect, it seems a bit off.
(If we run with a command phase, action phase, action phase , resolution phase type game turn.We can say players have to wait until the resolution phase to attempt to rally perhaps.)
Again, this system runs into the problem of executing move-shoot-assault in 1 turn. A nice middle ground would be a unit can either do a movement or shooting phase first, then the other, then the assault phase before going to the other player, but such a system plays havoc with any attempt to create a true overwatch/"Shoot while i move" system. Maybe you can only shoot at units that choose to move before shooting?
Hi Rav1n,
I do seen to be able to mess up my explanations with out even trying,lol.
The more straightforward cover definition I proposed, for Area terrain and Obstacles works cleanly and quickly with the proposed shooting in to cover method.
(And remember the simpler resolution I suggested helps this too!)
The sample damage resolution was just showing the GENERAL lay out that most games use, and the reasons most game use this type of damage resolution.
It is the system I use in my new rules for 40k.
IF you are re-writing, developing NEW rules then it is MUCH better to develop a solid system THEN port units over to the new system.
Rather than try to bend and twist a system to fit the existing unit profiles.This usually breaks the system and needs lots of additional fixes.
(This is what went wrong with 40k development from 3rd to 6th ed IMO.)
Lets look at your area of concern a 30 strong ork Boys mob.
3 Orks COULD have a Big Shoota, range 36".
Thats 9 shots at BS 5.
That is most likely only 3 or 4 hits , NOT enough to suppress ANY unit is it?
The shootas that make up the BULK of the Orks shooting only have a range of 18".
Here is MY proposed game turn.
Command Phase.(issue orders to operational units , call in off table support.)
Primary Action Phase.(Player A takes ONE action with ALL units.Player B takes ONE action with All units.)
Secondary Action Phase.(Player A takes ONE action with ALL units.Player B takes ONE action with All units.)
Resolution Phase. Plot arrivals of off table support, attempt to rally units on poor morale.
Actions , Ready, Move, shoot , Assault.
Orders.
Advance, Move then shoot.
(Break , Assault, then move, can be used depending on assault resolution ?)
Charge , Move then Assault.
Double , Move then Move.
Evade , Shoot then Move
Fire support, Ready then Shoot.
Infiltrate, ready then move.
If we assume the Ork Mob is moving up to charge an IG line, they would be given Advance,(Move then shoot) or Double (Move then Move ) orders .
I use movement rates from 2nd ed in in my rules as a starting point.(As it allows more TACTICAL manouvering and shooting !)
So the first game turn the Orks can move 4" and shoot their Big shootas , OR move twice and hope to get some cover from some where!
(Not supressed any of your units yet!)
IF we assume the IG have put heavy weapons on fire support, there are lots of heavy weapons blasting away at the advancing ork line in the second action phase!
Having used our 40k minis in other games for about 8 years, we found they seem to fit much better with games written for modern warfare.That why Epic is such a good Game IMO.
I have put the best fit of mechanics and resolution methods I am aware of in my new rules .
Its still a WIP, (hence the different coulured text, and the art work used to block out the layout.)
But the core system works well in our Alpha testing .
However, we still have not finalized all the unit stat lines..(Real life keeps getting in the way!)
(I have attached a PDF of the lastest WIP document if you are interested?)
I am hopeing to use a more thematic FoC, and random senario generator.
You MUST Select a minimum of 1 HQ unit.
You Must Select a minimum of 2 and a Maximum of 8 Common units.
For every 2 Common units you MAY select a Specialized unit.
For every 2 Specialized units you MAY select a Restricted unit.
Current Elite, Fast Attack, Heavy Support and Troops definitions ARE TOTALLY FORGOTTEN!
An IG leman Russ tank is COMMON in a Armoured Company, Specialized in an Armoured Infantry Company and Restricted in a Re-Enforced Infantry Company, and completely missing from a Planetary Defence force.
This way we can get thematic lists using just the HQ to determine what units fill what slots.
I was hopeing to develop 6 attacker mission cards and 6 defender mission cards.
Combined with 3 basic table set ups, to give 108 random senarios...
Increased diversity in movement speeds? Yes. Movement as a stat? No. Because really, does a unit moving 7" instead of 6" feel or play any different? It's just another factor to overlook or get in the way. Doing something for infantry like Heavy (Slow and purposeful, 6" movement), Medium (6" movement), Light (9" movement) would be nice though. There are just too many rules in place trying to make units feel faster when they could just be faster (Fleet, the Slaanesh movement bonus rule, etc). However, you can't really cut a units movement speed below 6", lest they become unplayable since they will never be able to get anywhere.
Building off of this, there needs to be more interesting ways of entering the table available, and deep strike needs a complete overhaul, it's basically unusable without an army specific special rule. When there is an entire mechanic being largely ignored by your player base, it time to go back to the drawing board. Scatter, mishaps, inability assault out of deep strike, and having to roll for reserves makes deep strike virtually useless beyond suicide shooting units that are downright infuriating to play against. Things like the necrons gate of infinity or the dark eldar webway portal are interesting ways to enter the table, and if refined and expanded some more, would be a force to be reckoned with. I could also see some sort of warp portal for chaos daemons/CSM to enter the table from. Making tyranid tunnels a deployment method rather than a special rule for the Trygon would be exciting as well.
Hi Rav1n.
IF you just put movement rates into the current game of 40k, it would NOT really make that much of an improvement.(JUST remove some clutter of special rules.)
Why do you think NOT having a stat for one of the corner stones of modern combat,MOBILITY , fire power and assault is a good idea?
Why bother with numbers on the stat line at all?
Why not just use words to describe ALL the unit stats?
And then remember what words are associated with the values?
IF the stat line covers ALL the unit interaction in the game , (AND its on a handy unit reference card, along with any special abilities.)This makes for faster game play!
Less looking up rules and more playing the game !
Ever ask WHY would lower movement rates not work in the current 40k game?
Because it is WHFB rules with shooting so over powered it unbalanced the game.And so GW had to put cack handed fixes in rather than address the core problem.
Because of the upped the model count , (reducing space between the minatures and ability to manouver.)AND removed modifiers from WHFB.
Models would die in droves before they got into combat.So they upped the movement speeds and put in artificial leadership bonuses to let the mass punch up in turn 3 still occur...
BUT in a new rule set where ALL the in game interaction was covered by the Stat line, movement rate is a primary requirement for the game IMO.
3 speeds for infantry ,.(3,4,5 as 2nd ed. OR 4, 5,6.)
3 speeds for vehicles beasts and MCs ,(6 ,8,12.)
JUMP ability gives the unit a movement of 8". (That can jump over interveening obstacles, area terrain.)
IF we allow the choice of 3 movement states, no movement maximum fire power.Normal movement with normal fire power, and double movement and no fire power.
Then units charging across the battle field for 2 turns would have quite different rates of covering the ground.
A SAP unit would have moved 12" a standard infantry unit would have moved 16" and a fast infantry unit would have moved 20" (Using 2nd ed movement rates.)
I agree about deep striking units , BUT I do not think resorting to special rules is the way forward.
Like most of the problems with 40k.IF you replace the bodged WHFB rules with the most appropriate rules, the solution can be found elegantly.
(Just 4 entry point markers and 2 dice rolls can work very well for ALL off table support..)
I suppose I am not a fan of WHFB in Spaaace with overly complicated rules , and poor game play.
I think 40k would work better with a modern battle game rule set, developed specificly for it.
I can see it in larger games yes, at which point my not make it scale with size, say for ever 500 points past 1000, they move 2 units per instead of 1.
IF you just put movement rates into the current game of 40k, it would NOT really make that much of an improvement.(JUST remove some clutter of special rules.)
Why do you think NOT having a stat for one of the corner stones of modern combat,MOBILITY , fire power and assault is a good idea?
Why bother with numbers on the stat line at all?
Why not just use words to describe ALL the unit stats?
And then remember what words are associated with the values?
Because under current rules a difference of 1", even 2" isn't enough to make a unit play differently. When 18"-24" is considered the start of the standard infantry engagement range, 1" extra per turn cannot make enough of a difference. This is also why 3" movement wouldn't work under current rules, it's all relative to the other components of the system. Now if you wanted to go about changing everything that is dependent upon some sort of distance (that is to say weapon ranges, scatter, movement speeds, charging system, and just about everything else) then yes you could change it to have 1" differences in movement speeds. However, this has the risk of not playing well with 40K's 28mm scale, and honestly, if you're going to do all that work, there are undoubtedly systems that could be ported over that would play better with significantly less effort.
Alongside this, one of the main reasons so many Melee units suffer is that they need some sort of delivery system to be effective,as they are too slow without one and/or get shot-down too easily on the way over. Giving them that extra 3" (6" if running) really could make a difference, so it's not just about getting rid of clutter. As for why use words rather than a stat, look at unit types like jump infantry or bikers. Do I need a big block text or a movement stat on their unit listing telling me they move 12"? No of course not, and that one element neatly wraps up all the necessary information about their speed and terrain interaction. Having a stat depicting movement under current rules would only serve as a temptation for us as designers to make full use of the new diversity available, even though doing so would often add no real benefit for the additional complexity. Modifying unit types as such would allow us to inject an effective amount of diversity without additional clutter or unnecessary complexity. It's not about words vs numbers, it's about the right tool for the right job. Again, a different system could greatly benefit from the increased stratification that a numerical stat would bring, but the current system of 6" jumps would not need to be able to show that 1" difference.
IF we allow the choice of 3 movement states, no movement maximum fire power.Normal movement with normal fire power, and double movement and no fire power.
i think that this is an interesting idea, that the heavy weapon type inexpertly attempts to address. But this has a big risk in that armies that are shooting focused (guard, tau, etc) have no reason to move, you would put them where you want them to be and never touch them again, and parking lot games don't seem like much fun. However, this idea could help develop a system where standard infantry weapons are actually useful, rather than just necessary bodies to buy the truly effective weapons (specials and heavies), which I am 100% in favor of.
I agree about deep striking units , BUT I do not think resorting to special rules is the way forward.
Like most of the problems with 40k.IF you replace the bodged WHFB rules with the most appropriate rules, the solution can be found elegantly.
(Just 4 entry point markers and 2 dice rolls can work very well for ALL off table support..)
I didn't mean special rules, i meant refined and standardized entry methods, that some armies would or would not have access to. Can you explain what you meant by "4 entry markers and 2 dice rolls" and give us some examples? It sounds promising
SisterSydney wrote: Let's face it: 40K is clunky. As my fellow cynics said in this thread, just fixing point costs isn't enough to "balance" the game. GW's layered edition over edition since Rogue Trader -- which in turn layered over Fantasy --
4) Bigger tables + more terrain = more tactics
Spoiler:
Big armies tend to crowd the table and end up on top of each other with little maneuvering room. (The Outflank rule doesn't really help much: It just lets units pile in to the traffic jam from another board edge). There needs to be some rule to scale up the size of the board with the size of the army. If tournament organizers don't like it because they can't stuff as many tables into the hall they've rented, FETH THEM. Or they can just go with smaller-points games.... And with your friends? PLAY ON THE FLOOR.
People also really need to use terrain more to block line of sight so gunline armies can't just camp and kill everyone from a distance like World War I on the Western Front, because boring.
quote]
I have to speak out here and be honest, personally I feel that 28mm scale games really do not work at being large scale battles, you cannot put sensible ranges on weapons without having the ability for units too camp in a corner of the board and shoot everyone at any range, also tanks and other vehicles let alone flying craft just really look out of it at that close of range . The solution for your game I feel is not making the board larger, which no one would play on as many gamers already have hard enough time with 4 by 4's from what I hear , let alone 6 by 4's!. The scale just doesn't work, 28mm is great for painting infantry and playing skirmish / RPG style games. However large scale wargaming I honesty and I am fine if you disagree , however I will say this, is better at 15mm scale or smaller, 28mm is just too large of a scale for it. Way too much terrain is needed and everything goes way out of scale, and nothing takes away any depth of any mobility and movement on the table like having units lined up on each side like world war 1 or the Napoleonic wars.
I just wanted too comment on that, it seems a rather un-balanced view on table sizes, you wont find most people playing on a 8 by 8 table or anything of the sort .
Hi folks.
Just like to thank Sister Sydney for starting such a cool thread!
The ONLY reason I would not suggest alternating unit activation in 40k is;-
The massive difference in unit size and effectiveness.
A 500 pt Death-star unit moving shooting and assaulting could be devastating.(Not as bad as 2000pts moving shooting and assaulting but it is still a problem.)
And at the other end of the scale we have the MSU swarms.
This HAS to be addressed in some way.
Usually some form of reaction mechanic, to break the action sequence up.OR re structuring the way armies are defined.
This leads to having to use lots of extra pages of rules.IF you are attempting to arrive at a clear concise intuitive rule set, why pick a more complicated game turn than necessary?
@ Rav1n.
I agree that movement rates do not really make sense in current 40k rules .As the 6th ed rules are just a random selection of cool ideas poorly implemented and presented.
I have used 40k minatures in some excellent rules , Stargrunt II, No limits,Tomorrows War etc.
However, I believe the BEST option is to write a new rule set specific to the 40k. Game play (The WIP Xenos and Zealots is our attempt..)
A rule set that uses direct representation in the stats and unit cards to make fast fun game play.
If you want to show more detailed terrain effects than no effect-unit /destroyed.Movement rates allow units to be slowed by different types of terrain , and LSM show damage by loosing movement rates.EG a Carniflex hit in the legs might only move 4 " instead of 6"
In the last 15 years we have tried to improve 40k rules by adding to them.it JUST adds more rules bloat.(As 3rd to 6th ed has done.)Without improving game play that much.
So we strongly believe a new rule set is the best option.
The Off Table Support rules I have been play testing .
Each army has 4 'entry point ' markers. 1 real , 3 dummy.
In the command phase the owning player places the entry point markers anywhere on the table .
HOWEVER!
A Real ground attack /deploying air craft entry point HAS to be on the owning players area edge.
The Real artillery bombardment marker has to be placed within LOS of a freindly unit.
A Real deep strike drop zone HAS to be within friendly LoS and X " from enemy units.
At the end of the game turn ,in the RESOLUTION PHASE the owning players roll a D6 (or 2 D6)to see if the support arrives.Based on command value (LD)
Roll for scatter, artillery and deep strikes roll scatter for entry point.
Air craft ALWAYS arrive at their entry point.The player then places the exit point for ground attack , or DZ for deploying air craft.Then roll for scatter for the intended exit /deployment point.
ONLY ONE enemy unit on the ground attack aircrafts flight path may be attacked.
This looks more complicated than it is written down...
If you want to show more detailed terrain effects than no effect-unit /destroyed.Movement rates allow units to be slowed by different types of terrain , and LSM show damage by loosing movement rates.EG a Carniflex hit in the legs might only move 4 " instead of 6"
I'm not sure how necessary extra terrain effects are, it seems a bit micro for 40K's scale. Having open, difficult, dangerous, and impassible terrain seems to cover all the necessary groups fairly well, though the implementation of difficult and dangerous could use some work. I see such a change kind of like giving Kroot move through cover (Forest); Yes it's extra depth and detail but it's a bit arbitrary. As for having effects like damage slowing monsters, it seems like this would be something better shown in the monster rules rather than the overall movement rules, though the idea is pretty cool.
The Off Table Support rules I have been play testing .
Each army has 4 'entry point ' markers. 1 real , 3 dummy.
In the command phase the owning player places the entry point markers anywhere on the table .
HOWEVER!
A Real ground attack /deploying air craft entry point HAS to be on the owning players area edge.
The Real artillery bombardment marker has to be placed within LOS of a freindly unit.
A Real deep strike drop zone HAS to be within friendly LoS and X " from enemy units.
Seems like this would lend itself fairly well to a Cities of Death style Strategem system, especially since the idea of using cards is already being explored for other things. Having commander's influence when reserves come in is how it should have always been. Using Lanrak's command point / range system, two ways you could run this is using a command point to increase / decrease the reserves roll by 1, or even just using 1 command point to bring in one unit from reserves, depending on what playtesting says. However, using all these markers seems problematic if they are only for deep striking, because the enemy can decide to camp them, and when your unit comes down, it mishaps. There needs to be more risk to getting close to these things, which is where a Strategem system might come in use. If that marker could be for an Orbital Strike, or an Artillery Barrage, or a Bomber Strike, or any number of other effects, camping them looks less appealing than knowing for certain that a unit is going to come down on one of them.
Hi Rav1n.
The point I was trying to make is the game mechanics stats and resolutions you use define how much detail you CAN cover with core rules.
IF you have a Movement rate for ALL units .
It allows more detail in terrain interaction .
EG Legs Wheels Tracks , Hover , movement types would get different bonuses/penalties from hard flat ground, broken ground/rubble and woods for example.
(Just +/- X ")
This covers ALL unit terrain interaction in detail IF you want to include it, without HAVING to add on special rules .
As 40k has 2 unit types.
Multiple model units that loose models to show damage.
Single model units that record damage separately.(M/Cs and vehicles.)
With a movement stat , you can reduce a M/Cs/ vehicles movement when it looses Mobility wounds/structure. And Attacks when they loose Armament wounds/structure.
This way ALL large model units can loose combat effectiveness slowly over time.
Covering Vehicles and M/Cs in the same way makes sense, as they cover the similar roles in game .
As all other aspects APART from how damage is recorded in game can be covered in the same way FOR ALL UNITS .Why do we not do this?
(I have done this in my new rules.)
I think the main problem with Current 40k rules is they use 'exclusive' rules to make new releases more appealing.
Which is the exact opposite to the inclusive rules writing needed for clarity and brevity found in the best games.
All the mechanics and resolution methods I used in my new rule set, were chosen to allow expansion of the detail in the interaction .(For advanced rules, or just using single model rules in a scaled down skirmish game.)
The reason for having 4 markers is its the sweet spot from play testing. its enough to keep the opposition guessing without cluttering the game area.
The markers are to depict ANY possible off table support.(Three dummy one real.)
There is not different ones for each type of attack .
As long as forces with deep striking units ALSO has some form of artillery strike , it is a MASSIVE deterent to stop folks camping around markers!(As you pointed out.)
Air strikes /landings are harder to defend against .
As the Aircraft travel along a flight path along the table.
The 4 possible entry points are known, BUT the exit points and the flight path is NOT Known until the aircraft arrives!
Aircraft flying over the battle at low altitude attacking ONE unit , or landing and dropping off ONE unit along its flight path.Is much more in keeping with the scale of the 40k game , than 6th ed aircraft rules IMO.
The 4 marker system also allows for more detailed strategic 'intel intercept'.
In advanced rules force commanders with Communications Specialist skill, can attempt to 'steal' a dummy marker from their opponent,so they get 4 dummy markers and their opponent is left with just 2 dummy markers. (for example.)
(I think having force commanders with one special skill ,selected from a range like Communications ,Mobility , Ranged and Assault to give slight buffs in certain areas to the whole force.Is preferable to the Warlord Traits 6th ed has.)
All interesting stuff. How do your rules handle infantry with multiple wounds, especially characters? It seems like degrading their abilities every time they took a wound would add a lot of complexity, especially for armies with multi-wound models that aren't characters , eg Ogryn.
Hi Sister Sydney.
I was referring to Vehicles and Monstrous Creatures having degrading abilities in the current battle game format.(Large multi-wound single model units need more detail IMO.)
So walkers and MC/s behave similarly, just one is mechanical with Structure points and the other biological with Wounds.
(The only difference is some weapons are better at damaging mechanical targets and others at damaging organic targets.
(Haywire, EMP, etc vs poison and BMC etc.)
The unit cards for non vehicle /MC s express the Number of models per unit , then wounds per model.
EG
IG Squad
Wounds 10/1.(10 models 1 wound each,)
Ogryn Suad
Wounds 5 /2(5 models 2 wounds each.)
In WHFB most units end up in close combat.(As the game is ALL about manuovering to get the best close combat match ups with ranged attacks in a supporting role.)
So in WHFB all unit leaders and characters experience in fighting can be represented by an extra wounds to keep them in close combat for longer.
However, in a modern battle game , there are many more ways a unit leader/character can influence their unit/nearby friendly units/ force abilities.
Commisar Yarrick is an eighty year old IG legendary force commander, with masses of tactical and strategic knowledge and knows how to get the best out of his units with inspirational speeches...
Current 40k can ONLY show this frail old man as a 2 dimensional close combat monster.
Where as IF we give unit leaders and characters A Command Value , expressed as a number of re rolls per turn , and a range of effect.
Then these can cover a wider range of leader abilities and effects.
EG Yarrick could have a Command Value of 4 at a range of 12".
This means he can influence the actions of ANY IG unit within 12" radius , the 4 re rolls per turn representing him lending years of experience to his units.
The players can then decide when Yarricks tactical brilliance would shine through.
(Re rolling off table support requests, re rolling off table scatter , re-rolling to hit, etc.)
Unit leaders can only use their Command re rolls for their own unit.(0 or 1 usually.)
Characters have a number of re rolls and ranges .
1,2 or 3 at 6",9" ,12"
(Special characters may have higher values.)
I probably did not explain this too well, sorry.
I am gak at explaining ideas, particularly when I have been partaking of Christmas spirit.(Jack Daniels has a lot to anwser for...).
Hi amanita.
IF a character joins a unit they take over from the unit leader.Improving the units Morale(Ld) value .(And replacing the unit leaders re rolls if they have any.)
IF 2 characters are present in a unit , the unit ONLY uses the HIGHEST Command Value.(It does not get to use ALL the Command Values together!)
A dice can only be re rolled ONCE.
A re roll can only effect ONE dice.
A dice can only be re rolled ONCE.
If we assume 2 HQ are within 12" of each other,(thats the force commander with 3 re rolls, and a hero with 2 re rolls.)
So over the entire course of the turn , they can re roll 5 dice.
So that covers,
Command Phase. (Strategic command roll off, if using advanced rules.)
Rolling for Off table support requests.
Primary Action Phase Rolling to hit.
Rolling to save.
Rolling to Damage
Secondary action Phase Rolling to hit
Rolling to save
Rolling to damage
Resolution phase, Rolling to rally suppressed routing units.
Rolling for scatter.
if we assume an army has a force commander 3 other characters and 6 veteran unit leaders for a total of 15 re rolls.
So out of the total of the 50 to 100+ dice rolls per turn in an average game , you may PICK A SINGLE DICE, a MAXIMUM of 15 times, during the game turn, and re roll that SINGLE DICE ONCE.
And considering under the new rules we are NOT rolling for the 'randomness' of 6th ed 40k.
Making ANY re roll due to tactical expertise of the army leaders, or 'LIMITED special abilities,' under the new rules.
Seems to make more sense IMO.
Not to mention giving the armour a chance to prevent damage , before you roll for damage.(WITHOUT resorting to additional resolutions.)
makes A LOT more sense.
However, the amount of Command re rolls and range of effect can be adjusted during play testing if it becomes intrusive.
I am just putting forward some alternative ideas that may be more suitable /in synergy with the 40k background and our expectations of in gem representation.
I apologize about not explaining things too well.
I know this is going to make me a lazy git but I got about 3 pages in before deciding to post, call it sudden inspiration (or is it mental constipation?).
Instead of you go, I go. I propose the following:
1. Winner of initiative moves all forces then opponent moves all forces.
No random moves except through terrain or other obstacle or other inhibitor.
2. Shooting phase, winner shoots first followed by opponent.
BS of firer is reduced by 1 for each of the following conditions; target moved (moving targets are harder to hit), target is greater than 1/2 weapon range away from firing unit (not model, unit), target is in light cover (additional -1 for hard cover). Rolls of 6 always hit if target is within weapon range.
Types of shooting:
-suppressing fire
Units that contain weapons with the "suppression" profile may choose to suppress an enemy unit instead of damaging them. The firing player rolls the number of dice indicated in the weapon profile at full BS, regardless of other modifiers. Any "hits' are not resolved as damaging hits but are modifiers to the opposing unit's LD characteristic. At the end of the shooting phase, any unit which is subject to "suppression" must make a leadership check minus the number of "hits" that turn. If they fail, they may make no action the following turn; if they pass, nothing untoward occurred and they may act normally their following turn. Suppressed units are counted as being in hard cover on the turn they lose their ability to act.
3. Assault moves are made by both sides and assaults are worked out. No random moves except through terrain or other obstacle or other inhibitor.
Assaulted units choose a reaction. Overwatch, brace for melee or tactical withdrawal. All bonuses and penalties are for the initial round of assault only.
-Overwatch may only be chosen if the unit did not fire during shooting phase (tactics! you thought I was going to charge you but it was a feint!). Overwatch shots resolved as full BS -1 BS for each modifier that applies (-1 for target moving, etc.) Units with assault grenades count as being in light cover (so -2 BS to hit charging units with assault grenades). 6s always hit. Units who opt for overwatch are -1 WS in the ensuing assault. A unit that is reduced by 1/2 by overwatch fire from the number of models or wounds it started the turn with must make a LD check after the assault move or be -2 WS in the ensuing assault. Destroyed models from overwatch shooting don't count for combat resolution.
-Brace
Unit prepares for close combat; affixes bayonets, draws CC weapons, prays, etc. Units with defensive grenades are +1 WS in the ensuing assault if the Brace reaction is chosen.
-Tactical Withdrawal
Assaulted unit rolls LD check vs. highest leadership in the unit and subtracts 1 from the roll for each casualty received from this turn's shooting phase (Hey, it's not hard to convince a mauled unit it's time to back out). If the roll is not successful, the unit is disorganized and unprepared for the assault; the assaulting unit will receive a +1 WS bonus for this assault round. If the roll is passed, the unit makes a hasty but organized withdrawal; the defending player rolls 2d6" and moves the unit that number of inches directly away from the assaulting unit. The assaulting unit rolls 1d6 and adds this amount to their charge range; if the roll is enough to bring the unit into btb with at least 1 model from the defending unit, a normal close combat phase will occur (no bonuses or penalties to either side) but the defending unit can not win combat or otherwise force the assaulting unit to make a moral check, even if they somehow win combat numerically, the best they will achieve is a stalemate for that turn.
4. Repeat but on subsequent turns 1 reserve unit may enter the field per turn. (people have radios in the future, why can't they decide who's arriving or when?) Some abilities may inhibit or confuse reserve arrival.
Leaders:
I agree with the concept of leaders actually having some game impact other than generally providing an extra attack and a LD. Only one roll may be rerolled per turn.
- Sergeants.
Once per turn, a unit that contains a sergeant may reroll 1 non-combat roll. (i.e. leadership, moral, movement through terrain, etc.) If a sergeant dies, choose another model in the unit to receive a field promotion (but without any stat increases).
- Lieutenants
Once per turn 1 unit within 12" of the lieutenant may reroll one combat roll. (to hit, to wound, to save) If a lieutenant dies, all friendly units within 12" are -2LD but +1WS and +1BS vs. the unit/model that caused the lieutenant's death the following turn. No battlefield promotion possible.
- General
Uses warlord table. If the general dies, the entire army receives -2LD for the remainder of the game. No battlefield promotion possible.
Here's some ideas im toying with, having seen lots of talk about modifiers being used as a replacement for cover, jink, flyer rules, etc. Note that these are meant to be used in a system with D12 dice, so a modifier of 1 can be thought of as a half step on a D6 die. Only the highest adjustment to the units Cover Rating is applied. For example, if a unit moves 12" (increasing its cover rating by 2 for movement) but is on height level 3 (increasing its cover rating by 3), only the height modifier is applied. This is to keep these modifiers from mushrooming out of control, and to keep units from "dancing" behind cover to artificially increase their cover rating. A unit's cover rating may not drop below 0 under any circumstances. The unit's cover rating is a modifier for the firer's BS.
Height Levels --There are 4 height levels above the table surface. Each height level is 3" high
--Moving up or down a height level reduces the units maximum movement by 3"
--May move up or down multiple height levels in one turn
--May not move up a height level unless the models may rest there unassisted, with the exception of flying models, who instead place a dice next to the unit, the top face of which indicates their height level
--For each height level above the firer, the target unit's Cover Rating increases by 1
--If a unit charges a unit that is on a higher height level than itself, the charge becomes a disordered charge. Non-Flying units may not assault a Flying unit unless both units are on the same height level
--If a unit of Jump Infantry or Flyers declares an assault on a unit that is at least 2 height levels below them, and can move into Base to Base contact with the associated movement penalty, they gain the Hammer of Wrath Universal Special Rule (More of a fun idea than a solid rule)
Cover -Soft Cover (Fences, Bushes, Smoke) increases a unit's cover rating by 2
-Hard Cover (Ruins, Walls, Craters) increases a unit's cover rating by 4
-Area terrain might be placed between soft and hard cover, increasing the unit's cover rating by 3 (Very TBD)
-A unit's cover rating increases by 1 for every 6" that unit has moved this turn
-For units with models that have different Cover Ratings, split the unit into groups of models with identical Cover Ratings. The Cover Rating of the group with the highest number of models in it is applied to the entire unit for the purposes of batch rolling. Wounds must be applied to models with lower Cover Ratings first
Two very experimental ideas are range bonuses to Cover Ratings, and model sizes.
Size Small (Gretchin and Ratlings) +1 to Cover Rating
Medium (Normal Models) No Change to Cover Rating
Large (Rhino, Chimera, maybe Crisis Suits?) -1 to Cover Rating
Huge (Hive Tyrant, Dreadnought) -2 to Cover Rating
Massive (Tervigon, Land Raider) -3 to Cover Rating
Hi Rav1n.
Totally agree with your ideas!
Having some form of 'height level' is important. I was going to use a value to represent a 'floor height ' in a tower block(apartment building .)3" high is about right!
Having a standard movement penalty for INFANTRY to climb/desend each level is also important.
However I would allow 4 height levels for buildings and an extra level above this for low flying air craft.
Although I agree with the ideas you have for cover and unit size.There is a much simpler method to implement them.
If we give units a Stealth value. This is the dice roll needed for ENEMIES to hit them with ranged weapons.
This allows the chance to hit to be based on the size, skill and disposition of the target.(Same as FoW.)
Stealth values from 2+ to 6+ on a D6 (or 4+ to 10+ on a D12 )
This represents unit size ,agility and basic battle field skill in not getting shot!
Soft cover adds 1 to the targets Stealth value.(As the target is harder to see and so more shots would miss.)
Hard cover adds 2 to the targets Stealth value.(As the hard cover can deflect some of the shots, as well as making the target harder to see.)
Now if we use a stat line for the unit+weapons on the unit card to show the units direct in game effect.
We can cover the skill and disposition of the attacker AND size and skill and disposition of the defender when resolving ranged combat in simpler way than 6th ed that ONLY uses attacker skill!
Attacker checks to see if target unit(s) are in effective weapons range.Y/N N ( attacker looses attacks that are not in effective range.)
Y attacker rolls to hit bases on targets Stealth value .(Modified for cover.)
Defender rolls armour saves.AV + D6 vs attackers weapon hit Armour Piercing value. (EG Ork Boys AV 2 need to roll 5+ to save vs bolt gun fire AP 6.)
Models that fail the armour save are suppressed.
[b]Attacker rolls to damage targets that failed their armour save. (Roll equal or over the damage value of the weapon, modified by the Targets Resilience.)
EG the damage value of a Bolt Gun is 3+, BUT the Ork Boys have resilience 1, to this means the SM player has to roll 4+ to damage the tougher Ork boys
Yes this is very similar to 40k current range resolution.
BUT it introduces suppression, proportional results to armour saves, and incorperates cover into the basic resolution process, and can be used on ALL unit types.
(Vehicles and Monstrous creatures just have more detailed damage , as prevously discussed.)
And it also resolves the interaction in a more intuitive way, to hit , armour save , to damage.it Also removes the need to use 'charts and tables' and spend ages looking up redundant special rules...(If we use unit cards instead.)
@Sister Sydney.
We have been trying out some new ideas to make unit leaders and characters more important.
We tried using the Command range as the unit coherency range from the unit leader, or attached character for their unit.
This made model movement faster (no checking model to model coherency,) and allowed more flexibility in the placement of models when higher command characters took charge of units.
We also used the unit leader /attached character to chose targets making them the focal point of the unit and directing the unit.So target selection was made a bit faster too!
However I would allow 4 height levels for buildings and an extra level above this for low flying air craft.
My original plan was to have 6 height levels, but the modifiers started getting too big, and the only way to prevent flyers from staying at height level 6 the whole game was to make it so strafing runs (regular flyer behavior) could only take place in the first 4 levels, while bombers could operate at up to the 6th level. Not a bad idea, but i'm not totally sold on the direction yet.
If we give units a Stealth value. This is the dice roll needed for ENEMIES to hit them with ranged weapons.
This allows the chance to hit to be based on the size, skill and disposition of the target.(Same as FoW.)
My early attempts at making a stealth value didn't end well. To keep damage levels similar current levels, stealth values started to be almost identical on 90% of units. It might be more achievable with a D12 though.
Also, if we alter Lanrak's proposed Suppression system a bit, it would work really well with changing vehicles to toughness/armor instead of the current system. If a shot "wounds" the tank, it receives some sort of suppression value or is glanced or something. Then, if the tanks armor stops the shot, no more damage is recevied, but if it penetrates, then additional damage is dealt, whether this is a damage chart, killing crewmen, or whatever.
Any idea's on what could be done with the AP and armor value system? The current system works decently and is fast, but it's lacking in depth and makes lower armor saves all but worthless, but going back to modifiers over-complicates things, especially with the higher AP value weapons. Something completely new would probably be best, but i have no idea what it is.
Hi Rav1n.
Why not just give a natural height bonus, EG you get a better LOS over interveening obstacles etc when higher up.Rather than trying to put in a forced to hit bonus?
This way low flying aircraft are considered to have the best view of the battlefield as they fly over it.
I was proposing the Stealth value replaced the 'BS system' to determine the chance to hit .
EG (Assigning values to units on their unit cards something like this.)
Target Unit Type/Stealth Value(D6 roll needed to hit.)
Individual infantry model./6+.
Small infantry units /5+.
Small vehicles medium infantry units/4+.
Medium vehicle /MC ,large infantry units /3+.
Large vehicle/MC/2+.
Modifiers to the target Stealth Value :-
+1 Target over 36” away.
+1 Target In soft cover
+1 Target On Infiltrate Orders
+1 Shooting Unit Suppressed
This is not really altering the chance to damage anything, unless I am mis understanding what you meant ?.
If you want to use the basic idea from the new damage resolution for vehicles.
I would suggest rolling the armour save first to see if the shot beats the armour.
If it does the vehicle is suppressed.(Shaken)
Then roll to see if the shot causes physical damage
Roll to 'wound.'
What do you think of assigning structure points to mobility and armament?
Its a simple way to show the DIRECT effects of damage, whether its wounded crew or damaged electrical mechanical systems.
Simply reduce the speed of the unit when it takes mobility hits, or loose weapon attacks when it looses armament hits.
Why not just give a natural height bonus, EG you get a better LOS over interveening obstacles etc when higher up.Rather than trying to put in a forced to hit bonus?
The more work i put into this, the more i realized having height reduce cover made it too complicated. If you want to treat all cover the same (area terrain, walls, craters, smoke, fences, etc) having height reduce some of them makes sense, others not so much, and having modifiers that modify other modifiers is a little too complicated for a system that should be fairly quick. So far as why a To-Hit penalty against models on higher height levels, because it is both harder to aim at targets higher up, and they tend to be more obscured by the platforms on which they stand. There are a lot of cool things that could be done with height levels, such as increasing firing ranges, clearing LOS, etc but just increasing cover values seems both the most straightforward, and the least like to drastically alter the game, because it doesn't take much of an advantage to change player behavior.
I was proposing the Stealth value replaced the 'BS system' to determine the chance to hit .
EG (Assigning values to units on their unit cards something like this.)
Target Unit Type/Stealth Value(D6 roll needed to hit.)
Individual infantry model./6+.
Small infantry units /5+.
Small vehicles medium infantry units/4+.
Medium vehicle /MC ,large infantry units /3+.
Large vehicle/MC/2+.
Larger model-count units being easier to hit, love it. Disconnecting the chance to hit from the skill of the model, not so much, unless i'm missing something really obvious.
Lots of interesting stuff here.
1) I particularly like Agnosto's idea of units having different options to react to charges -- could add a lot of tactical fun with relatively little complexity.
2) Lanrak makes the sensible point that single models should be harder to hit than small squads, which should be harder to hit than huge blobs.
3) I also like Lanrak's idea of measuring unit coherency from the leader rather than model to model to model -- could simplify matters a lot, and adds a tactical wrinkle that a low-command-value leader can only control a large unit by bunching them all up, which is a big "come and get it!" to template weapons. (Realistic, too).
I am veeerry leery of height levels, though. It adds a lot of complexity for very little tactical interest or realism: a Gretchin standing on a tree stump is higher up than a Space Marine lying in a ditch....
The only distinction in unit size I'd make is +2 to hit super heavy vehicles and gargantuan creatures, +1 to hit regular vehicles and monstrous creatures, and no modifier for anyone else.
And I'd like leaders to do something more interesting than just grant rerolls. For crying out loud, it seems like 50% of the special abilities in this game grant rerolls, I am rolling too many god damn dice already and do not want to have to roll any of them again thank you very much.
I think generals are still pretty well covered with warlord tables. You could import the fantasy mechanic of extending leadership to x" to benefit units within that range but some faction special characters already have that.
Lieutenants...I was also thinking along the lines of a lieutenant being able to direct fire from one unit per turn that would normally be out of direct line of sight of an enemy but within line of sight of the lieutenant. A unit firing in this manner would count their target as being in hard cover. I like the idea of being able to buy 1 lieutenant for every 2 troop choices without costing a FoC slot. Make them basically sergeants with different gear options and possibly +1 on a given stat and independent character. An intermediary step between a unit sergeant and an HQ.
Hi folks.
@ Rav1n.
I completely forgot to say that a simple way to incorporate natural height bonuses is a simple measuring mechanic.
The unit high up measures distance flat across the table , and all weapon ranges get + 2" per height level.(Actual range increase.)
The lower unit measures directly from unit to unit, EG along the long angle between the two units.(Naturally occuring range decrease without subtracting values.)
Thinking of cover, obstacles , walls fences etc, can be seen over from higher vantage points.Naturally covered by LOS improvement for being high up.(If we set 50% of model to be obscured by obstacles to grant cover from obstacles..)
However, area cover terrain , woods, jungle , ruins etc. still give cover no matter how high the attacker is.
I am trying to think of simple solutions that give intuitive results, they may not be super accurate or complicated.But if we are after a fun fast paced game they shouldnt be IMO.
You were not missing something, I just forgot to post it! If most folks are happy with the basic chance of hitting a unit being set by how hard the unit is to see& hit.(Stealth Value.)
I forgot to mention how the skill of the shooter is represented in the new system .
In 40k the maxumum range of the weapon is used, and the skill of the shooter is represented by a chance to hit any where from point blank to maximum range.
IF we simply say the effective range is the range the unit CAN hit a target at.
So better shots can hit targets further away, UPTO the maximum range of the weapon.
I am not talking about variable ranges!
But each unit has a unit card.And on the unit card the units effective range with each weapon is listed.
For example
An IG white shield (Current BS2 ) only have an effective range of 18" with a las gun
A normal IG trooper (current BS 3) has an effective range of 20" with a las gun
A veteran IG trooper (Current BS 4 ) has an effective range of 22" with a las gun.
(Just examples to show how the system works.)
Its just most units in modern war DO NOT engage until they are sure they are going to be able to put rounds on the target.(They get into effective weapons range.)
Then its down to the skill of the target to avoid being seen -hit.
@Sister Sydney.
Re roll for command bonuses work better in the new system, because it has fewer dice rolls and re rolls!
However, you can substitute command modifiers .
EG Each command value allows the owning player to alter ONE dice by 1 pip per turn , that applies to any dice roll taken by friendly models within their command range.
This is less effective than allowing re rolls.So there is no need to reduce the number of command modifiers in a unit, from multiple leaders/characters.
@Agnosto.
I would prefer a list of warlord traits players could pick from and pay appropriate points for.
The proposed command value and range does perform a similar role to WHFBLD boost.
It also allows players to use command range to allow a network of comms to allow fire direction to units firing indirectly.
But I would prefer indirect fire to be limited to area effect weapons like grenade launchers missile launchers, mortars , artillery etc.
Because normal small arms fire has massivley reduced effect if not fired directly.
Interesting outline, Pyreshard. Some ideas seem to add more complexity than they're worth, but it's hard to tell without seeing the exact rule as written -- do you have a full write up, yet?
Likewise, Lanrak, I really have to read your full ruleset -- I just keep going to Dakka from my iPhone, which can't download it....
Agnosto, I think the current Warlord tables are a mediocre implementation of a great idea. I'd prefer more traits that buff the whole army or all units within x inches, and I absolutely would want to change to "pick one" rather than "choose one." (Same with Psyker powers, actually).
I've added a link to my blog where pretty much all the rules are listed, it's a work in progress..
I'm actually considering going further away from the current 40k rules. I'd love to be able to right up something the community could use and appreciate however.
I think this thread is a very good place to start looking for insight on what gamers actually want.
@IceBayPlanet.
Why do you think the leaked 6th ed rules were fake?
AFAIK, every time there is a new edition of 40k , the game devs TRY to make improvements to the game, and try out new ideas.(Apparently Andy Chambers left GW after corporate rejected his plans for 40k.)
They have some great ideas , they try to make work.BUT are limited to making everything backwards compatible.Which kills some concepts dead, despite being good for the game.
And some require so much revision and addition to get to be backwards compatible, they become over complicated to implement.
Did you not get the feeling that game devs were told to 'stop trying to fix the game play , just bung in some random stuff, and make these kits worth more in game so we can sell them for a higher price!'
Because I did.
I think the ideas expressed in the leaked 6th ed rules were worth exploring.And IF 40k was allowed a complete new rule set , they could have been included with a lot less complication!
@Pyreshard.
I think you are on the same path most people tread when trying to fix 40k.
They start making changes that improve what is in the current rules.
Then eventually realize there is so little right with WHFB in space v 3.4,(40k 6th ed.) they might be better off starting from the beginning and writing a new rule set !
I agree that IF we can get an agreement on what players want in a 40k rule set , we could try to write that rule set!
Basic requirement. Clarity, brevity, and intuitive game play.
Requires proper proof reading and editing , along with a clear design brief.(And lots of play testing !)
Design brief. Define the scale and scope of the game and the intended game play.
Scales. Skirmish game with detailed MODEL interaction .(Infinity, Necromundia,etc.)
Battle game with detailed UNIT interaction .(Epic , FoW, etc.)
If it is to be an intuitive war game, it needs to reference the correct warfare type. 'Ancient' all about manouvering into the best close combat match ups, with range attacks used in support.
'Modern' an equal balance of mobility, fire power and assault.(Mobility to take objectives, firepower to counter enemy movements, and assault to contest objectives.)
I think a MODERN BATTLE game rule set would work best for 40k. Do you agree?
(I think its important to get the basic design brief sorted before we get into the asthetic and personal influences.)
I've been trying to work on this seriously, exploring different ways to make a great game out of it, but its becoming a real headache. It's fun, and I love it, but the biggest issue in my mind is this;
Balancing the gameplay so that it is innovative and still feels as classic 40k at the same time.
I don't want to make a game nobody but myself is interested in, I want the grand majority of the player community to be satisfied with whatever version of 40k they play.
The current official rules in my opinion hide some great ideas and familiar concepts that we all love and should always keep, but are poorly designed in terms of balance for the sake of selling the overpriced kit for the newest OP unit out there.
This kind of design has to stop, as it is corrupting the very spirit of the game and the hobby. It divides the players.
A lot of people tell me; "If you don't like it, don't buy it, don't play it." I do agree on this to a certain extent, but I love the 40k universe, I love the models and all that makes the appeal of the hobby.
Games Workshop's latest decisions in terms of quite possibly everything have sucked the joy of being part of all this from me, so here I am trying to better a game that I do not "own", while quite frankly it is not my place to do so.
I think that what would really be great would be a serious "meeting" thread for all those who seriously want to work on a new ruleset and improve the game for all of us.
(And I agree with you 100% on the modern warfare style.)
Lurking Cloak Devivce (aka the LCD) is currently off line.
One thing you might want to consider adding to your design criterion is how your rules and mechanics portray the setting, in this case "Grimdark". A mechanic that was universal to the game that could portray how insignificant an individual life is in the 40k universe for example. For instance (and don't use this, its an example for a reason) would be "Squads take morale tests when the ARMY has been reduced to half its UNIT strength." Or maybe "Once a unit suffers >/=50% casualties, they cease making morale tests. They have become numb to the horror." Just something to think about.
I disagree that we have to choose between "skirmish" and "Battle" style rules, because as i think as everyone has noticed, 40K doesn't fit into either category. There are element's of depth here that would be unlikely to see in a "Battle" game, but the large model counts and unit-focused gameplay are far from "skrimish" style gameplay. Rather than forcing the game into either extreme, id rather work towards a middle ground that combines the best of both camps. Take the depth that Skirmish rules provide, but work in the streamlining and large-scale unit-interactions that would be found in a Battle game.
Hows this sound as a way to get rid of the FOC and curb overpowered units / Spam.
1 HQ unlocks 3-4 unit selections. However, instead of selecting a unit, the player may choose a "formation", composed of 2-4 units. The units in these formations are preset, and every unit in this formation must be purchased, however, the size of the unit and it's upgrades are left to the discretion of the player. This way, players either must purchase formations to make maximum use of their points, preventing spam, or purchase additional HQ units as a tax to unlock more slots for units. This also allows for some units to be out of balance in terms of strength for cost, but still be balanced as they could only be purchased with other units. For example, if the only way to buy a wraithknight was to purchase a "formation" of wraithknight, wraithguard, and wraithblades suddenly that wraithknight is now much more expensive to field (in terms of limiting options and soaking up points). If a player wants to play a certain style of army, that choice can be represented using formations, and if they like a specific unit, they can still play as many of those as they want, for a price. Other things could be done as well, such as discounting formations vs individual units, or allowing entire formations to purchase upgrades / special rules that would benefit them, etc.
Hrmmm.... that sounds like making unit selection more restricted rather than less...
KnuckleWolf wrote: .....Once a unit suffers >50% casualties, they cease making morale tests. They have become numb to the horror...
Ha!
Automatically Appended Next Post: All: On a much less ambitious scale than this thread, I've proposed some rules for new Sororitas units and wargear and would love your comments:
Just for a change of pace from the big, multi-page rule suggestions, would it make sense to lower the strength of typical non-heavy Plasma weaponry? Because they seem to be the weapon of choice right now (read: Spammed), for good reason. They're readily available, relatively cheap, ignore all armor in the game, easily wound everything but MC's (which they are above average at wounding), are decent at damaging light and medium vehicles, have a standard infantry shooting range, and can be rapid fired. And what is the penalty for this versatility? A very meager Gets Hot penalty? Seems like their role could be refined somewhat to exclusive Anti-Heavy Armor (say STR 4 or 5, AP 2), rather than them just being average to extremely good at everything.
This way, if we look at the other special weapon options, they have nicely defined roles. Flamer = Anti-Light Infantry, Plasma = Anti-Heavy Infantry, Meltagun = Anti-Tank. This leaves monstrous creatures, which Grav-Weapons would fit very nicely (Both fluff and crunchwise), with high fire rates to drop wounds. They likely need some work anyways, to keep from becoming the new Auto-Take weapon, as i've seen them spammed in a lot of lists as well (AP2 and 3 just seems to be a prime sign of potential spamming, oh the wonders of the current AP system). Also why is the Grav effect based on armor instead of toughness? The fluff makes it seem like it would be better represented if it was based on toughness instead, because there's no way a terminator "weighs" more than a carnifex or trygon.
@Sister Sydney .
A more interactive game turn was proposed by game devs for every edition of 40k, from 4th ed on wards.(According to some ex GWdevs.)
However, the corporate response is 'people still buy it, just make it better at driving SHORT TERM sales of minatures.'
I totally agree that a more interactive game turn would be the single greatest change for good, in a new/improved 40k rule set.
@KnuckleWolf.
When it comes to getting the 'feel' of the setting into a rule set.It is much better to do it with subtlety, than trying to shoe horn in SPECIAL RULES to try to fit preconceived ideas ideas into the game in a restrictive/ restricted way.
It is important to get the basics right, when the scale scope and warfare type are clearly defined in the brief.(Determined by the game play 'setting '.)
It is SO much easier to get a wide range of interactions and effects,in a simple way.That can portray the genre and feeling of the setting in an unobtrusive way.
But I totally agree with the point you made!
@Rav1n.
I think on closer examination,you will find 40k is a battle game.(The game is all about unit interaction, single model units and multiple model units.)
The fact that GW force an old skirmish rule set on it for its core game mechanics and resolution methods , and uses skirmish sized minatures .(28mm)
Does not stop 40k being a battle game.it just makes it a over complicated and poorly defined one!
Lots of battle game have just as much if not MORE depth than 40k.(Epic Armageddon, Dirt-side, Challenger, Firefly etc.)
And this is where I want to head.DETAILED UNIT interaction.This may be the point you were trying to make?
Take all the detail from the skirmish game but put it into UNIT interaction.
So we treat the UNIT as a fully detailed 'element ' in a battle game.
In the same way we treat a MODEL as a fully detailed 'element ' in a skirmish game.
I believe using a UNIT CARD , with all the in game info on one side, and the FOC on the other would be a step forward.
I would like to use a proportional FoC based on theme set by the HQ.(The HQ chosen determines if the units are Common Specialized or Restricted.)
For each HQ unit selected,
You MUST take 2 to 8 Common units.
For every 2 Common unit you MAY take a Specialized unit.
For every 2 Specialized units you MAY take a Restricted unit.
This allow theme to be arrived at without the need to use special characters, and negates the need to alter PV to reflect strategic importance.
(A good ranged unit in a assault focused army is NOT worth more PV, just limited in availability.)
And the classification of units Common, Specialized, Restricted , to each theme is a much less restrictive way to deal with game balance.IMO.
I saw an idea on another forum, and it was a more solidified version of an idea i had to replace the current AP and Save system, since it overvalues AP 3 and AP 2, completely devalues 5+ and 6+ saves, and generally doesn't make a bunch of sense. This system does rely on the unit cards a lot more than others might though. My experiments with a 2nd edition style Armor Save Modifier (ASM) system got too complex too quickly, though the additional depth brought to infantry weapons were nice.
Weapon fit into 4 classes(1 more might be necessary to represent AP 6 and AP (-) )
AP 1: Models get their normal save (roughly AP 5)
AP 2: Models get their first reduced save (If available) (roughly AP 4)
AP 3: Models get their second reduced save (If available) (Roughly AP 3)
AP 4: Models get no armor save (Roughly AP 2)
So, for example, a space marines Sv profile might look something like (3+/4+/ - ), whereas a guardsman's would look like (5+/ - / - ). Obviously a lot of work re-balancing would be necessary, but at least low value saves actually show up outside of close combat, while AP 3 / 2 weapons aren't such a massive jump in efficiency. I also like how it opens up the possibility of exploring armor of different qualities in a better fashion. For example, Eldar mesh armor should be massively more advanced than imperial flak armor, but right now, they have the same effect. Under these rules, you could make it so this advancement is shown in the reduced saves. Guardsman flak armor might be (5+/ - / - ), but the Eldar mesh armor could be (5+/ 6+ / - ), showing the benefit of additional technological advancement. Under a D12 system, this works even better, because you can have values between D6 values that help show these differences to a greater degree.
Speaking of armor modifiers, im trying to work on it my self but am having issues coming up with something simple and intuitive. as it is the system works entirely on characteristics test so to have minimal charts.
as it is now its
To hits (cover and other modifiers go here) To pen (id like to change armor from the 2+ 5+ type system to actual armor value so say marines get a (armor value of 4 (which is still 4/6 chance to save (aka 3+)) id like it to be modified by the apposing AP but my attempts (difference = the modifier) grossly helps higher armor (from like a 1.11 wound per hit from a marine to marine, to like .08 if i recall. To wound (same as current)
Perhaps making it so that if AP = AV = -1 to armor while AP > AV = -2 and so on, that way lower armor units still have a better chance at surviving.
Also if this is the case id probably have to make auto pass a thing as to not let certain weapons hurt vehicles.
also making stats go up instead of down lets me add in vehicles walkers and mcs into the same system. im thinking a failed roll on a 6 on the to wound = vehicle or MC damage chart or something. with specific weapons like melta guns giving that a boost to like 5 or 4.
Hi folks.
If we are talking about a new AP system to work with current rules.(With some re evaluating of PV and stats.)
Simply remove the successful save rolls that are equal or higher than the weapons AP value.
EG An AP 6 weapon ignore ALL saving throws that roll a NATURAL 6.
So vs
6+ save NO SAVE.
5+ save only saves on 5.
4+ save only saves on a 4 or 5.
3+ save only saves on 3,4,or 5
2+ save only saves only on 2,3,4 or 5.
(Like a -1 to save , but more intuitive,)
An AP 4 Weapon ignores NATURAL 4+,5+ and 6+ saves .(Like a -3 save modifier.)
3+ saves only save on a 3.
2+ saves only save on a 2 or 3.
Then we can simply say invunerable saves ignore AP modifiers that are higher than the invunerable save.
Roll saves as normal, discard dice that are equal or higher than weapons AP value.
Invunerable saves allow the MODEL to keep the save rolls that are equal or higher than thier invunerable save, no matter what the value of the weapons AP value.
But this only works for non vehicles models.(Unless you want to convert vehicles to use the same stats as all other units?).
The system I use in my new rules is to simply give ALL units a armour value from 1 to 15.
And ALL weapons have an AP value from 5 to 20.
Simply roll a Dice and add the models AV .
If this combined value is higher than the weapon hits AP value , the model makes it save roll.
This allows ALL models to be represented and covered by the same system that give more proportional results.(And much easier to balance.)
It also allows natural invunerability, when a models AV is the dice value higher than the AP value of the weapon , the weapon can not penetrate it.(Eg tanks are not effected by small arms.)
This also means some models get no save vs some weapons.(But a grot being hit by a melta gun should not get an armour save IMO.)
We are currently play testing using a D6.( but may move to a D10 to get a wider spread of results IF we need to.)
Ill attach the latest version of or new rules , (being Alpha play tested.)There are rough conversions to use 40k units in the new system at the end.
We are trying to make sure the core rules delivers the level of good game play with 40k units, as it did with modern factual units .
(We used these rules with WWII and modern battle games to make sure the system worked as a good modern battle rule set.)
Please note these are still WiP , so the sections about organizing a battle and army lists are still being worked on.
If you want to read through it , comment or try out the rules please feel free to.(Please PM me any comments or questions .)
Lanrak, thanks for posting the latest Xenos & Zealots.
I confess I'm confused by all these ways to fix AP without changing the AP scale... I think it may just be simpler to turn the AP scale upside down -- renaming the stat for clarity -- and say
AP (-) => Penetration 0
AP 6 = > Pen 1
AP 5 => Pen 2
AP 4 => Pen 3
AP 3 => Pen 4
AP 2 => Pen 5
AP 1 => Pen 6
If Pen < Armour, then add Armour to Toughness when rolling to wound.
If Pen > or = Armour, then ignore the Armour and add nothing to Toughness when rolling to wound.
I may have something on the leaders being leaders side of things.
assuming we are alternating turns
during my turn I select one unit who will move, shoot, charge I also pre select a enemy target unit that is within range
the primary target unit takes a initiative test before I do anything
if he passes roll a D6 and add the LD of the unit, and consult the following table, if the unit has a character +1 if he is an independent character +2 , if the unit lost its character the unit suffer a -1 penalty on this table as they no longer have a specified commander (ie command goes to who shouts loudest, or is biggest in case of orks) note if you roll higher you can pick everything lower than your result ie roll 14 and you can also use commands 13, 12, 11, and 10. you only get one command so use it wisely
10, fall back
unit can move 6 inches back in after a shooting attack has been resolved, but suffer a -1 LD penalty against any morale tests this unit makes this turn after all you have started running and may not want to stop
11 take cover
if in cover unit gets increased cover bonuses in response to a shooting attack but a suffers a penalty to initiative, as you cant see the enemy
12 counter fire
rather than hide from incoming fire you take advantage of the enemies exposed firing positions. both players resolve shooting attacks in initiative order, both shooting parties suffer a penalty to cover saves
13 requesting fire at....
another unit within 12" of your unit can make a shooting attack against the enemy, that unit then gets a marker while the maker is on that unit cannot shoot, next time the unit goes to shoot at the end of the shooting phase remove the marker
14 form up
in response to enemy movement you may move your models 3" in any direction they spotted hostiles approaching and adjust positions to meet them, guns ready
15 brace for impact
in response to a charge, you may over watch without penalties, or gain +1 to initiative in the proceeding combat
16 into the breach!!
in response to a charge, you charge!, your opponent must pass an initiative check to fire over watch as they were not prepared for your sudden assault
17 tactical brilliance
your unit can use 2 different orders, providing they are not in the same phase
18 inspired leadership
your men trust in your command utterly, even unto death they obey, you may use one order in every phase this turn, in addition they become fearless for the rest of the game providing the character issuing the order is still alive
I will take any suggestions into improving this system as I think its awesome
I stopped playing in Season 2 of WoL, and assuming nothings changed in HotS, every unit (model) has Hitpoints, Armor, and sometimes a penetration value. For instance, a unit (model) with armor 2 reduces all incoming damage by 2, but if the attacker has penetration 1, that defender instead only reduces that attack by 1, and so on and so forth.
In a small skirmish game, this would be amazing. At the scale 40K plays at, I'm not so sure, as you'd have to treat every unit as a collective whole instead of a group of smaller models to avoid excessive counters, or have some really strange wounding rules to account for "damage" rather than wounds. I'd imagine something like a space marine can sustain 3 "wounds" before dying, an ork could withstand 2, while eldar and guardsmen could sustain 1. This would make the current wound system obsolete, unless it changes, maybe to something like they ignore a certain amount of "wounds" before actually losing "health". Thought provoking if nothing else.
However, for vehicles and monsters, this could be a fun system, as well as a way to make some guns more viable than others (Personally, Id much prefer Melta do double effects/damage instead of this 2D6 nonsense that turns AV14 into Swiss cheese). The system I'm working with right now can't represent strength above 5, so i compensated with a "Felling (X)" rule which reduces the targets toughness bonus (and explains Instant Death) instead of just increasing the guns strength, which is a bit like penetration from Starcraft 2. I'm just not sure how well these ideas mesh with the rest of 40K, you'd have to to build from the ground up to make sure this doesn't feel crammed in, though seems like we've got plenty of people starting from the ground up anyways.
PS: Starcraft's been "borrowing" from 40K for so long, I say we give them the same treatment and give Nids a unit based on the Baneling. Nid swarm, with the ability to destroy cover and a reliable method to take down vehicles without supporting monsters/zoanthropes/hive guard...yummmm.
IF a team of professional game developers, can not make 'WHFB in space battle game ' work properly after 15 years.AND ALL the best of the 1000s of 'fixes' provided by the fan base add a similar level of complication when increasing complexity.
And when free of GW plc influence Allessio ditched fantasy in space battle game rules after the 1st year, as 'an idea that just did not work that well'.
Maybe current 40k rules are just not worth the effort to try to fix?
There are lots of good ideas, and well though out alternatives to the current game mechanics and resolution methods 40k currently uses discussed in this thread.
If we try to make them backwards compatible,or fit the current rules.
Are we not handicapping our potential in the same way GW corporate handicap the GW game developers?
Do you agree a complete rewrite would be the best way to get the best rule set for the current game play of 40k?
It may be quicker and more efficient to start from scratch , that try to fix 15 years of failed /poorly applied patches?
As far as damage resolution goes.
I believe most 40k players WANT to keep the 3 stage process. Roll to hit.
Roll armour saves.
Roll to damage.
(As this allows a wider degree of weapon/target interaction than if you add 'armour and toughness' together to get a 'defence' value.)
If we can use a SINGLE appropriate resolution process for each , it would make game play as fast and fun as other games without loosing the depth of interaction.
(Eg loose the special rules bloat, without loosing the detail.)
The only reason I posted this is lots of good ideas may be dismissed as 'not working with current 40k rules '.
Well most of the ideas in the current 40k rule set do not work that well with the rules in the 40k rule set!
So perhaps saying this thread is for a reboot =new rule set, would free up the amount of ideas and concepts discussed?
(I have put the best ideas my group and I can come up with in the Xenos and Zealots rule set WIP.)
But if the folks on here get together they would probably come up with some better concepts and ideas.
My personal model here is the reboot of Dungeons & Dragons in 4th Edition. A lot of people hated it, but it sure streamlined play and got rid of a lot of the problems of the old game (e.g. fighters do the same thing every round, magic-users do a different thing until they run out of spells....).
I've become more focused on making changes work with the current codexes -- which has always been GW's strategy -- but you're right that that may just not leave enough room for real improvement.
Hi again.
The thing is because 40k 6th ed rules are a 'jack of all trades and master of none'.
If you make a new rule set for the current 40k game play, you are not going to be able to please every one.
That is why it is important to get a clear design brief .IMO.Then at least all the people working on the rules know what they are trying to achieve.
Eg A 'modern warfare' based battle game.
Then folks wanting a skirmish game , or a ancient close combat focused game ,will look else where.
When I look at other good modern battle games.Most of them tend to be using smaller scale minatures.(6 mm to 20mm.)
And multiple model units like infantry are mounted on unit bases.
The solution we came up with was making the unit coherency from the unit leader/attached character.This is a 'virtual base area'.That seemed the most appropriate with the larger sized minatures in 40k.(And simplifies /speeds up multiple model unit movement.) (I do not think gluing 40k minatures onto a CD sized base is very practical. )
So far you hit one side of the SC2 mechanics. But the interesting part to damage resolution in SC2 was that there were two sides to it. Notably weapon type versus target type mattered. This is what I'm curious to see you play with. It seems simple on paper, but led to very deep unit interaction. It was easy to forget entirely that there was even numbers attached to the mechanic, or that there were only three types of damage, play just fell to 'okay I need X to counter Y, And A to hit through B and live long enough to kill C'. Enter perfect imbalance...
Hmmm interesting ideas on that front, some of which have been brought up in one form or another (such as larger units/models being easier to hit than others). I did have one idea similar to the marauders concussive shell idea for tyranids, that stranglewebs could reduce infantry's maximum movement by 3". Limit them to gargoyles, and it could result in some really nice interplay between gargoyles and gaunts, as the gargoyles fly overhead, slowing / locking units in place so gaunts can run up and maul them.
There have been ideas floating around about creating a "mechanical" trait that could be applied to necrons to make them immune to poison, maybe expand it out to apply to vehicles as well, perhaps reducing incoming penetration. Splash is sort of in place with blast and template weapons, perhaps a new type could do something like D3 hits for blast weapons that don't deserve the full blast effect, such as the specialist frag rounds on sternguard / deathwatch. Damaging hard cover / ruins , reducing the saves and destroying them outright would be interesting, if it wasn't too complex a system. Having certain weapon types affect "light" units more than "heavy" units seems doable, but I'm not entirely sure how that would work without an appropriate damage system, so 40KsAP system (not the current version, but a better version) seems to be decent at this differentiation.
@ Knuckelwolf.
I like the idea of more detailed weapon and unit interaction.
Could we look at what the basic resolution methods , (roll to hit, to save, to damage.) could allow us to cover?
If we look at the basic unit types in 40k, they range from;-
Units with very light armour protection , that rely on speed/ stealth, or large numbers for them to survive as an effective unit through the battle.
To large single model units with large amounts of armour , that rely on these high levels of armour to survive as an effective unit through out the battle.
This gives us a range of weapon types that are effective vs different types of target.
LOW AP, high rate of fire/large area of effect weapons are most effective vs lightly armoured units that rely on speed/stealth numbers to be effective.
And HIGH AP, single shot /single point of contact make the best 'anti tank' weapons.Delivering a huge amount of damage to a single point on larger heavily armoured targets.
So if we use the STEALTH value to represent the TARGET unit size and skill at remaining hidden form its enemies.
And the comparative armour save , based on the units armour value , compared to the armour peircing value of the weapon hit.
This would give us a basic distinction between those units that rely on armour for protection , and those that rely on agility/numbers.And the weapons effectiveness against each type of unit.Using a single resolution method to cover all units would allow a natural proportional and intuitive weapon and target interaction.
This covers 'normal' weapon hits quite well IMO.
(Basic weapon Damage roll score modified by target Resilience covers different 'soft target' physiology.)
Explosive weapon and chemical weapons 'splash damage' can be represented by current blast and flamer templates.
Concussive weapon types could be represented by weapons that do not roll to beat the armour value , but just roll to suppress the target instead of physically damaging the target.?.Representing units being winded or temporarily concussed , perhaps?
I am assuming as we use models to represent the units in 40k , would allow varied effects on units from different weapons to be generated directly and intuitively.(Removing casualties, or recording incremental damage form large single multi wound/structure model units.)
Perhaps It would be helpful if I used some examples to illustrate these ideas?
I've been toying around with the idea to combine the vehicle damage rules used in 5th and 6th. Would work something like this. These would only apply to non-superheavy vehicles, until I can get a good look at the new apoc/escalation rules.
Roll to hit, then for penetration. Pen/glance happens the same way.
Roll on damage table. Both Pen and glance roll on this. glance gets -2 on chart.
AP2 gets +1, AP2 +2, if vehicle open topped +1, AP- is -1 [along with a few other ideas, not sure on how they would work.]
If you get a 3 or higher on the chart, vehicle loses a HP.
Table is something like this:
1. Shaken (only snap fire)
2. Stunned (Cannot move)
3. Shaken + Stunned
4. Weapon Destroyed
5. Immobillized
6. Wrecked
7. Explosion (S4 ap- to occupants if transport, S3 AP- to outside)
8. Heavy Explosion (S6 AP [equal to best weapon AP] occupants, S5 for those outside, same AP as inside);
Concussive weapon types could be represented by weapons that do not roll to beat the armour value , but just roll to suppress the target instead of physically damaging the target.?.Representing units being winded or temporarily concussed , perhaps?
I like this idea, make them do no/minimal damage, but their effects are what hurt the most. Make them suppressing weapons, and id like to see effects that slow models / treat them as being in difficult terrain even if they don't become suppressed. Thunderfire cannons slowing units to a crawl is fun, as would be things like tyranid mawlocks / trygons emerging from beneath, or Artillery Strikes.
7. Explosion (S4 ap- to occupants if transport, S3 AP- to outside)
I saw this on another thread a while ago and it was the best idea i'd seen in a while concerning vehicle Damage Tables. As it is, i think the best way to treat Monsters and Vehicles would be to create a Critical Damage chart based on the Vehicle Damage Chart, similar to what was used in 2nd edition i think. This way both Monsters and Vehicles can suffer these effects, like blowing arms and legs off of monsters, or hitting the heart or brain. A fun way of running explosions on monsters would be to make it so it stumbles around and falls over, with a scatter die showing which way it falls, and the distance die telling how far it falls. Regardless, it helps solve some of the problems of the current rules, and incorporates some of the ideas Lanrak has suggested.
Now we get back to flavor. I am wondering if you want 'suppression' as a mechanic in the world of Warhammer 40,000. While yes it is a real world tactical phenomenon it doesn't necessarily belong in the grimdark setting. I like looking at the epic art on the covers of the codecies and seeing these epic visceral lethal battle scenes, many do, and want to play the game for those moments. That feeling needs to be prevalent. It may do better to make suppression not a factor and make 'epic future combat' more prominent. Strategic tools like 'effects' are still important of course so you need to find a way to incorporate them still, this is going to be a game after all. In the same vein, a 'stealth' statistic that every unit has might be inappropriate as well. It is a unique unit that bothers overly much to use this in 40k, the ones that do achieve it through special rules. There is so much mechanical space left to be explored. I'm just trying to encourage you all to break out of the box in big ways and really invent, not just innovate. The stumbling monster above is a good move. That's starting to ask big questions about your models and rules together.
Something interessting in the rumors for 5th Ed or 4th Ed back in the day, was a modification of the Ap Vs Armor saves chart.
Technically if an AP was equal with an armor save, the model still had a small chance that the armor was robust enough to withstand the penetration of the incoming shoot.
in substance a model with a 3+ save still could attempt a save Vs an AP3 weapon, but it would only be saved on a 6.
An armor of 4+ Vs an Ap4 could be saved on a 6 etc etc.
of course if the Ap was better then the armor, there was no save at all, since the Penetration power of the shoot was higher then the protective power of the armour.
i've always regretted that there wasn't some kind of rule going like this.
Simply doing it like this for everyone, or implement a new USR rule " Reinforced; models with the Reinforced rule, can attempt a save roll Versus shoots/attacks that have the same AP value has their armor, if the roll give a 6, the model is saved and the attack/shot bounced off the armour, if any other result is given, the armour couldn't withstand the attack/shot penetration force"
KnuckleWolf wrote:I am wondering if you want 'suppression' as a mechanic in the world of Warhammer 40,000. While yes it is a real world tactical phenomenon it doesn't necessarily belong in the grimdark setting. I like looking at the epic art on the covers of the codecies and seeing these epic visceral lethal battle scenes, many do, and want to play the game for those moments....
Lanrak wrote:40k 6th ed rules are a 'jack of all trades and master of none'. If you make a new rule set for the current 40k game play, you are not going to be able to please every one. That is why it is important to get a clear design brief .IMO.Then at least all the people working on the rules know what they are trying to achieve. Eg A 'modern warfare' based battle game. Then folks wanting a skirmish game , or a ancient close combat focused game ,will look else where.
I agree with KnuckleWolf that any reboot needs to capture the feel of 40K -- which means it should not be a "modern warfare" game. It should incorporate elements of modern warfare where appropriate (and already does in many places) but we need to keep the (often literally) larger-than-life elements like heroes who survive hits that would kill an ordinary man and headlong charges into hand-to-hand combat.
Specifically regarding charges, I had a brainstorm about how to make them more feasible in the face of all the additional overwatch/opportunity fire we've been contemplating:
1) You may not move models into close combat with enemy models without declaring a charge against the specific unit or units to which those models belong.
2) When you declare a charge, before you move your units, the target enemy unit(s) must take a Leadership test with the following modifiers: -1 if the target unit is Suppressed. -1 if the target unit has taken one or more Wounds in the previous turn. -1 if the charging unit has more models than the target unit or all the target units combined. The enemy player may choose to deliberately fail this test. Exceptions: Units that are already Falling Back automatically fail this test. Units that have the Stubborn special rule ignore the modifiers listed above. Units that have the Fearless special rule, or that are already locked in combat, automatically past the test, even if their player does not want them to. Units that have the And They Shall Know No Fear special rule automatically pass the test unless their player decides they fail it.
3) If a target unit passes this Leadership test, there is no effect. If a unit fails this test, it may not fire Overwatch and instead immediately makes a Fall Back move. It is immediately Suppressed (if it wasn't already).
4) Move your charging unit twice its normal movement distance. (You must do this even if the target units have all fallen back). If you can move none of your models into contact with any enemy model, the charge has failed: no close combat occurs. If you can move at least one of your units into contact with at least one enemy model, then - if that model's unit is Falling Back, the entire unit is destroyed. Fleeing and unable to defend themselves, the unit's members are either cut down or driven in panic from the field. - if that model's unit is not Falling Back, it is immediately Locked In Combat with the charging unit. Neither side may fire on either unit for the rest of this turn. At the end of this turn, resolve the Close Combat.
Hi folks.
I think I need to clarify, that a battle game rule set BASED on 'modern combat'.
Simply means it is a battle game using units that are SIMILAR to 'units found in modern warfare' EG small(5 to 30 troops) units of skirmishing infantry, supported by (armoured) vehicles , artillery and air craft.(Or 'Monstrous Creatures ' performing similar roles.)
Rather than large blocks of infantry or cavalry in close formation, supported by limited 'ranged attack' units .(As found in ancient warfare.)
And a the GAME PLAY of rule set BASED on modern warfare has an EQUAL mix of firepower, mobility and assault.(All equally important,Mobility to take objectives, Fire power to control enemy movement, and Assault to contest objectives.)
As opposed to game play of a rule set based on ancient warfare, which is focused on manouvering into the best close combat match ups ,and ONLY using ranged attacks in a supporting role.
The game mechanics and resolution methods do not define the flavour of the game .But determine the clarity and brevity of the rules.(As instructions to play the game.)
Epic Armageddon covers EVERYTHING found in current 40k and ALL its expansions, and ALL of E,A,s army lists,(balanced for competitive play,) in just 138 pages of rules.
NO ONE has ever claimed Epic Armageddon was NOT in synergy with the 40k background.Or that it was needlessly OVER COMPLICATED.
(You can not say the same for 40k... )
We live in the real world, and this influences our expectations.IF the rule set delivers game play that follows our expectations we say the rule set is 'intuitive.'
Getting the game mechanics and resolutions that mimic the closest real world annaloge , make the game play 'intuitive.'
This is why I propose basing the rules on 'modern warfare'.(Not restricting the elements allowed in the game to real world limitations, but just making the unit interaction more'intuitive.')
ALL the current units and unit interaction found in the 6th ed rule book would be covered by the new rules.AND there would be more tactical depth in the game play, from more DETAILED unit interaction.SIMPLY because the core game mechanics and resolution methods cover the majority of unit interaction in an intuitive way.
I hope that clarifies things a bit.I am not very good at explaining myself in the written format.Sorry.
@ Sister Sydney.
I totally agree with declaring charges /intended target before moving any models. (it just makes the intended action clear.)
However, running away from an enemy unit that just 'burst into view' , is a VERY BAD IDEA!
(STAND UP AND TURN YOUR BACK on an enemy unit within small arms range? )And it does not fit in with the 'heroic nature' of 40k does it?'
I would rather give the charger a bonus for passing a Morale/Ld test.
I was thinking about a 'Determination test' for the attacker .
If the attacker passes a 'morale'/Ld test , they strike first on the charge.(To represent the charging unit psyching themselves up!)
If they fail, the combat returns to normal 'assault value'/Initiative order.
Give a bonus if
The charging unit out numbers the target unit.
The charging unit causes 'fear' in the target unit.( The most appropriate use of the concept of fear/terror in a modern warfare type game IMO.)
After the unit has been assaulted , determine the state of the looser:-(Using my new rules as an example.)
Routes,(Looser counts as Routed.)
Withdraws from combat, (Looser counts as Suppressed.)
Withdraws in good order,(Looser may act normally next activation/turn)
Note, interleaved actions allows 'Fire support' /over watch to become a natural game turn choice along with 'charge', 'advance', 'double move', 'evade',and 'infiltrate'.
And a less binary morale system removes the need for 'stubborn' fearless' etc,' special rules.'
Is it just me that finds 40k 6th ed rules very complicated, for the game complexity they deliver?
I agree with KnuckleWolf that any reboot needs to capture the feel of 40K -- which means it should not be a "modern warfare" game. It should incorporate elements of modern warfare where appropriate (and already does in many places) but we need to keep the (often literally) larger-than-life elements like heroes who survive hits that would kill an ordinary man and headlong charges into hand-to-hand combat
I'm interested in Suppression as a new vector of tactics more than anything else. Right now the goal of most units is pretty simple. Kill enemy units, and grab objectives, with a few exceptions of true "Support" units like Venomthropes, several Psykers and their associated powers, and the occasional effect like the Thunderfire Cannon's Tremor special rule. Similarly, attacking Vehicles is one directional, my only option is to kill it, or ignore it and try to mitigate damage. A new system for "Suppressing" vehicles would look similar to the current meta (lots of autocannons/plasma), but rather than the somewhat dumb hull points system, which just opens up an easier way to kill vehicles, it would focus on taking them out of action for a turn, through crew effects or minor systems damage. A Suppression system lets units interact in more ways than just killing each other. If i can Suppress a unit with a Devastator Squad, then have an Assault Squad jump on them for additional bonuses, not only do those units become more desirable due to potential synergy, but brand new ways to plan and make tactical decisions open up. So far as it perhaps not being 100% true to fluff, systems like ignoring suppression at the cost of extra damage, the old "No Retreat!" rule, extensive Melee combat, and others could help make sure that the bravery (read stupidity) often found in the 40K universe is represented properly, but still found within a balanced and engaging system. Fluff should inform the rules, not dictate or limit them, this is a game after all.
1) You may not move models into close combat with enemy models without declaring a charge against the specific unit or units to which those models belong.
2) When you declare a charge, before you move your units, the target enemy unit(s) must take a Leadership test with the following modifiers:
-1 if the target unit is Suppressed.
-1 if the target unit has taken one or more Wounds in the previous turn.
-1 if the charging unit has more models than the target unit or all the target units combined.
The enemy player may choose to deliberately fail this test.
Exceptions:
Units that are already Falling Back automatically fail this test.
Units that have the Stubborn special rule ignore the modifiers listed above.
Units that have the Fearless special rule, or that are already locked in combat, automatically past the test, even if their player does not want them to.
Units that have the And They Shall Know No Fear special rule automatically pass the test unless their player decides they fail it.
3) If a target unit passes this Leadership test, there is no effect.
If a unit fails this test, it may not fire Overwatch and instead immediately makes a Fall Back move. It is immediately Suppressed (if it wasn't already).
4) Move your charging unit twice its normal movement distance. (You must do this even if the target units have all fallen back).
If you can move none of your models into contact with any enemy model, the charge has failed: no close combat occurs.
If you can move at least one of your units into contact with at least one enemy model, then
- if that model's unit is Falling Back, the entire unit is destroyed. Fleeing and unable to defend themselves, the unit's members are either cut down or driven in panic from the field.
- if that model's unit is not Falling Back, it is immediately Locked In Combat with the charging unit. Neither side may fire on either unit for the rest of this turn. At the end of this turn, resolve the Close Combat.
Some really interesting ideas here, my biggest problem is the Leadership check before the charge, because even leadership 10 units will fail every now and then, and having an entire terminator squad slain to the man by a gretchin would be quite infuriating. Its a similar problem to what sweeping advance does right now, its an unnecessarily abstract result in an extremely well defined and detailed combat system. Why not just have 1 free round of combat for the victors, rather than completely destroy the enemy? I do, however, love the idea of this pre-combat leadership test being used as a system for Fear. For that matter, Fear itself should probably be fleshed out more anyways, its a really great concept that could influence many aspects of the game, yet is rather limited in its current iteration. As for the changes to overwatch (and snapshots), i suggest just dropping them entirely and looking for a smoother system, as i really hate the mechanics. It seriously supports armies like Ork's who can now move and fire for minimal penalty, while more elite units are treated as being just as bad at firing on the move as less skilled models. Moving extra distances to catch up to fleeing units seems fun, but double the normal movement speed is incredible, bikes would be able to declare a charge from 24" away!
Units that have the Fearless special rule, or that are already locked in combat, automatically past the test, even if their player does not want them to.
This may just be a pet peeve of mine since i love old school Grey Knights, but why do i see Fearless treated as a bad thing so often? I realize its rules used to be terrible for close combat, but done right Fearless should essentially be the full, upgraded version of ATSKNF, its not like they forget about tactics and logic, which is where a No Retreat! special rule would come in handy to pass out.
Lanrak wrote:Hi folks.
I totally agree with declaring charges /intended target before moving any models. (it just makes the intended action clear.)
However, running away from an enemy unit that just 'burst into view' , is a VERY BAD IDEA!
(STAND UP AND TURN YOUR BACK on an enemy unit within small arms range? )And it does not fit in with the 'heroic nature' of 40k does it?'
But in real life people do suicidally stupid things in combat all the fething time.
Lanrak wrote:I would rather give the charger a bonus for passing a Morale/Ld test.
I was thinking about a 'Determination test' for the attacker .
If the attacker passes a 'morale'/Ld test , they strike first on the charge.(To represent the charging unit psyching themselves up!)
If they fail, the combat returns to normal 'assault value'/Initiative order.
....
Rav1rn wrote:my biggest problem is the Leadership check before the charge, because even leadership 10 units will fail every now and then, and having an entire terminator squad slain to the man by a gretchin would be quite infuriating. Its a similar problem to what sweeping advance does right now, its an unnecessarily abstract result in an extremely well defined and detailed combat system. Why not just have 1 free round of combat for the victors, rather than completely destroy the enemy?
[
Either of these would be a good fix. THanks.
Rav1rn wrote:I do, however, love the idea of this pre-combat leadership test being used as a system for Fear. For that matter, Fear itself should probably be fleshed out more anyways, its a really great concept that could influence many aspects of the game, yet is rather limited in its current iteration.
Good idea.
Rav1rn wrote:As for the changes to overwatch (and snapshots), i suggest just dropping them entirely and looking for a smoother system, as i really hate the mechanics. It seriously supports armies like Ork's who can now move and fire for minimal penalty, while more elite units are treated as being just as bad at firing on the move as less skilled models.
Yes, we're really looking at Overwatch using the normal shooting rules -- and allowing you to shoot at any moving enemy, not just one charging you -- with maybe a penalty for firing at a moving unit rather than a stationary one.
Rav1rn wrote: I'm interested in Suppression as a new vector of tactics more than anything else. .... If i can Suppress a unit with a Devastator Squad, then have an Assault Squad jump on them for additional bonuses, not only do those units become more desirable due to potential synergy, but brand new ways to plan and make tactical decisions open up.
Hi Rav1n.
I think we both would like similar things in the revised 40k game play /new rules , but may express them slightly differently.(I am an expert at talking at cross purposes! )
I agree with you 40ks primary problem is it has over simplified the interaction to binary conditions.
100% fighting fit OR dead.
100% fearless killing machine OR running away!
This means 40k relies heavily on special rules to make the interaction less boring/predictable.(Resulting in over complicated rules and clunky game play.)
If we used an interleaved, (Players alternate taking ONE action with ALL their units, move shoot ready or assault.) 2 action game turn.
Command Phase.(Issue commands, request off table support.)
Primary action phase.(Units perform first action.)
Secondary action phase.(Units perform second action.)
Resolution Phase.(Rally units , plot arrivals.)
We could implement suppression, by saying a suppressed unit may ONLY MOVE OR SHOOT in a restricted way in the Secondary action phase.
(Suppressed units can NOT launch assaults!)
Move (up to movement value) towards cover OR away from enemy units, (or turn to put highest AV towards enemy, if vehicle /MC?.)
Shoot at nearest enemy unit, or return fire on enemy unit that shot at them last.
(Suppressed units count as having moved before shooting , and are ONLY able shoot at enemies in effective weapons range obviously.)
I totally agree with you how having suppression as an intergrated part of damage resolution,, and a more developed morale system for 40k, would open up a massive amount of options in the game play.(Reducing the need for 'counter intuitive' special rules.)
IF the new core rules cover 90% of the intended game play in an intuitive way.And you just need a few special rules to add the 40k flavour to the other 10%, thats pretty much what I think would be optimal.(As you put it 'allow all the options for over the top stupidity/bravery'. )
I also agree that a LD check to stop units fleeing from a charge is a bit counter fluff/counter intuitive.
What do you think of the test for a' charging unit bonus' ?
The concept of 'Fearless' units seems to be able to be implemented in a simple and intuitive way in most other war games I play.
Only 40kdevs could produce something that sounds cool , but generates such counter intuitive game play .
I don't know about a full homebrew heaven, but bringing back the Vehicle Design Rules would be very welcome. They were a fun, easy to use, easy to understand system that added a lot. Given that building something exactly the same as a codex model tended to make it cost a little bit more than the base model kept it from being to abusable.
I would also second the D10 system. The Firewarrior should shoot better than the average guardsman, he's evolved to be a highly skilled rifleman.
Desubot wrote: Has it been suggested to use the DOW 2 system mechanics?
It seems easy enough to do.
Which mechanics, specifically, do you refer to?
DoW2 can balance it well, since Tactical Marines effectively have 330 wounds in that game (And Termagants 80, and so on) and Bolters do 14.58 wounds per second. And there's a helluva lot of turns in that game.
Cover which is a accuracy mod Suppression which would need to be worked but works with moral points. Weapons and armor having resistance and damage modifiers which could be percentaged out.
I think suppression could be added in very easily by making certain weapon or conditions that remove points from your Ld. eventually if you hit 0 you are auto pinned or something of that nature.
I wouldnt add in the health/heroic nonsense, just the base mechanics.
@Desubot.
I agree with including MANY of the concepts from DoW and DoW II.
(Modern warfare based interaction.)
However, most of the resolution processes in these games are 'number crunching' based and handled by the processor not the players.
In a table top minature games we can get much more 'user friendly' interaction.(Using unit stats directly ,with appropriately applied dice rolls.)
Lots of good games simplify the resolution of the process without distorting the process.This is the direction I would prefer.
If we use modifiers,
Things that make the action harder add to the target score required.Things that make the action easier add to the dice roll score.
EG a Unit has a Stealth value of 4+
It is in cover (+1) and over 30" away(long range.) (+1)
The attacker needs to roll over 4+1+1 =6 to see/hit the target.
However,if the Attacker has 'targeting equipment', (+1 to hit enemy at long range.)
So can see/hit the target on the roll of 5+(Add 1 to the dice roll score.)
(No need for PLAYERS to work out percentages for anything . )
Suppression can be covered with simple proportionality.(If we use armour value , as a simple indicator of confidence to threat level.)
Weapon and armour interaction can be a simple comparison to give a proportional (intuitive ) save value.
Weapon damage to the soft target behind the armour can be a base value modified DIRECTLY by the targets resistance to damage (resilience.)
I agree with concepts from Dow games being in the new 40k rules.But would prefer as straight forward resolutions as possible , to deliver intuitive game play, without bogging the game down in uneccessary complication.
@Sister Sydney.
The vehicle design rules from GW were fun to use, but not very good at resulting in balanced designs with accurate cost in PV, unless players put in quite a bit of work(A bit like 40k. )
@ Rav1n.
After you ideas for special rules to allow the lunacy /bravery of 40k into the game. I intend to try out a special rule , at the next round of play testing.
Iron Will. Units with or lead by a character with this Special Skill, can ignore the effects of suppression for the rest of THIS game turn.
Place An Iron Will counter on top of the unit suppression counter.
Next turn the Unit puts the Iron Will Marker UNDER the Suppression marker.The unit will be suppressed this turn , AND CAN NOT be Rallied.
In the following turn remove the Iron Will Counter, the unit remains suppressed but can be rallied normally in this turns Resolution phase.
Basically ignore suppression this turn, but then remain suppressed for the next 2 turns instead.Delaying the effects, means the effects last twice as long when they take effect.
.
... and a more developed morale system for 40k, would open up a massive amount of options in the game play.(Reducing the need for 'counter intuitive' special rules.)
Can you give us an example of a replacement system for morale? Because I actually rather like the current morale system. The stats don't stick out too much on the statline, its a fairly straightforward 2D6 roll with the necessary bell curve for proper probabilitiy, and the 3 main morale USR's (Fearless, ATSKNF, and Stubborn) are set in solid increments with good mechanics, though ATSKNF definitely needs some work. Add in a No Retreat! USR that can be handed out and i'd be pretty happy with the system, though many of the particulars built off of the mechanics need work (sweeping advance, regrouping rules, etc).
Iron Will. Units with or lead by a character with this Special Skill, can ignore the effects of suppression for the rest of THIS game turn.
Place An Iron Will counter on top of the unit suppression counter.
Next turn the Unit puts the Iron Will Marker UNDER the Suppression marker.The unit will be suppressed this turn , AND CAN NOT be Rallied.
In the following turn remove the Iron Will Counter, the unit remains suppressed but can be rallied normally in this turns Resolution phase.
Basically ignore suppression this turn, but then remain suppressed for the next 2 turns instead.Delaying the effects, means the effects last twice as long when they take effect.
Seems like an unnecessarily complex way of sidelining Suppression, as it's spread out over 3 turns, or half of a average length game! Also seems like it would only be useful to melee units, because if they can make it into assault before the iron will penalty kicks in, then they're golden. All others would likely never use it, since there's very little that a unit can do in one turn that would make up for 2 turns of inoperability. I like the system knucklewolf suggested way back when about allowing a unit to "Ignore" suppression at the cost of additional hits, sort of like a ranged version of No Retreat!. Same idea of 40K level tactical crazyness, but much more immediate effect that doesn't need to be accounted for over multiple turns.
Though you could do something like spending a command point to allow a unit to act as if its under a lessened version of Suppressed for the turn (say make snapshots instead of no firing), though there would need to be some other way to use that command point to overcome suppression to make sure that players wouldn't just use that order anytime their unit became suppressed. Maybe an order that allows a unit to slowly move while suppressed, and another that lets them try to overcome suppression? I'm not sure, things to think on.
What do you think of the test for a' charging unit bonus' ?
As something standardized in the morale rules, im not a fan, but it would be a fantastic option if brought into your Command System. A Sergeant / Leader uses his command point to pump up his troops, getting them ready to charge into assault. The main strength of your Command system is the variety of effects it allows for, yet still keeps them relatively balanced due to the extreme opportunity cost of holding onto them for most of the turn, because then your'e not re-rolling that critical die, or making reactions, or doing any number of other things the system provides for.
@Mania_nmt
I would also second the D10 system. The Firewarrior should shoot better than the average guardsman, he's evolved to be a highly skilled rifleman.
I highly recommend a D12 over a D10, as it's a far simpler conversion for D6 and still allows for the same advantages of the higher number dice. They're also more stable and thus less likely to move during dice removal. I've been running D12 in the rules im working on and i've been very pleased with the results.
Also, i had a really out there idea of a way to play 40K with minimal dice rolls, but it uses more modifiers than might be preferable, and is a much higher "View" of 40K than is currently in use. Basic idea is for every group of 5 models in a squad, you get a D6 on the roll (1-5 models is D6, 6-10 models is 2D6, etc). Then the unit's stats such as WS, BS, S, etc are added as modifiers to every dice in the relevant rolls (multiple attacks/shots just add multipliers to the number of dice thrown). So for example, a full Tactical Squad shooting would roll 2D6 to see how many hits there are, then would add their BS bonus (say 3) to each die (for a total bonus of 6 + 2D6). This determines the number of hits. Then the defending unit, say 20 Ork Boyz, would roll 2D6 (the same number of dice as the marines threw) and add their toughness bonus (they get no armor bonus due to AP), and the difference between the number of hits and the number of saved wounds detemines how many die. Obviously this system is far from solid and has tons of problems, but thought it up an hour or two ago and figured i'd put it out there.
@Rav1n.
I would prefer to split the morale system into the 'units will to fight on' (Morale Grade) and the ability of the unit leaders/characters to inspire near by units.(Command value.)
Units simply have a Morale Grade,
Fearless 1+
Elite 2+
Veteran 3+
Trained 4+
Conscripted /mindless 5+
To pass a morale test simply roll equal or over the units morale grade.
This is modified by,
Being :- Suppressed, out numbered in assault ,out of command,(coherency,)charged by units that cause the target unit Fear. etc.
Add 1 to the units morale grade ,(Making it harder to pass the morale test) for each condition that applies.
Leaders/ Characters with Command value MAY add their Command value to their OWN units morale tests.(Use highest if multiples apply.)(May not have put this in my rules write up. )
This is just the basic system , each race can have slight variations to get them in synergy with the background .
The problem is I am posting ideas for my new trial rules set, not 40k 6th ed.
in my game turn units only take 2 interleaved actions and most games run to about a dozen turns.(Faster game turns but more of them!)
If you want to fire to full effect, move to full effect or assault, Suppression WILL NOT LET YOU.
IF you use Iron Will to get into Assault,you will NOT be able to launch another assault for 2 turns.And you will give any enemy a bonus to assault you .
I do not see this as 'golden'.
I will see how it works when we get to play testing .(If its too fiddely I try other methods.)
An alternative might be the unit can not use any bonuses from friendly command Values when they become ''Stressed'' from ignoring suppression.
The length of time a unit is 'Stressed' for depends on morale value.
Fearless/Elite 1 turn.
Veteran /Trained 2 turns.
Conscript 3 turns.
I am a bit unsure about 'fixed' physical damage penalty though.
It may work for IG /Orks where a trooper is shot by the leader to 'inspire the rest of the unit to get on with it.'
But other races /armies not so much.(SM , Eldar etc.)
(We are using D6ATM. Unlike 40k we are not using them is such a limited binary way.But may move to D12 for unit rolls if needed.)
IF you use Iron Will to get into Assault,you will NOT be able to launch another assault for 2 turns.And you will give any enemy a bonus to assault you .
I do not see this as 'golden'.
Ah the only effects i saw you list for suppression was unable to move and shoot, not any melee effects other than being unable to charge. And without a system for consolidation charges, either the unit gets stuck in melee long enough to avoid the iron will problems or it wins and then can't assault again anyways, so it didn't seem like much of a problem.
This is modified by,
Being :- Suppressed, out numbered in assault ,out of command,(coherency,)charged by units that cause the target unit Fear. etc.
I like these conditions, but does your system allow models to be out of unit coherency? I think there was an idea a while ago that higher level command models would allow the units to be more spread out than lower level command models? Did you put this into practice because id like to hear about it.
Lanrak wrote: If we use modifiers, things that make the action harder add to the target score required.Things that make the action easier add to the dice roll score.
Yes, this is the way to do it. Death to subtraction!
Lanrak wrote: Suppression can be covered with simple proportionality.(If we use armour value , as a simple indicator of confidence to threat level.)
Weapon and armour interaction can be a simple comparison to give a proportional (intuitive ) save value.
Okay, this I'm not sure I understand at all. What number is proportional to what other number here?
As a middle ground between 4th and 5th edition scoring rules, how about any unit can capture an objective, but if an objective is captured by a troops unit, the owning player receives an additional victory point?
Hi folks.
Thanks to the ideas, and comments on this thread.I have been re thinking some game mechanics .
I do seem to fail to explain things very well some times, sorry.
After more consideration,(slow day at work.)I agree that Iron Will idea is too much faffing about with counters.
(And I want the rules system to be clean, ONLY a maximum of one counter next to each unit.)
So I got to thinking about a revised morale-command system that includes , unit morale, leader/character inspiration, and heroic acts of leadership .
To pass a morale test simply roll equal or over the units Morale Grade.
This is modified by,
Unit suppressed.
Unit out of coherency
Unit out numbered.(More enemy unit within 12" than friendly units.)
Unit is fighting a unit that causes them Fear.
Add +1 to the units Morale Grade for each effect cumulatively.(Making passing a morale check harder.
EG an Ork Boys Unit has a Morale Grade of 4+.
However after an artillery bombardment the unit is left suppressed (+1)and out of coherency(+1)
And so now need to roll a 6+ to pas its morale test.
Command Value.
This is expressed as a Command range, eg 4" 8", 12".
This is the command range of the units leader, or character.
Models MUST remain within this distance from the unit leader, or Attached character.(Use the highest value if multiple characters are attached to a unit.)
This determines the 'coherency range' of the unit.(We have a option for transposed coherency for Nids.)
EG if the unit is lead by a Sgnt, the unit may only have a coherency range of 4".(All models have to be within 4" of the Sgnt model.)
However, if a Captain joins the unit ,Command Value 8"/2 the unit CAN use the Captains 8" coherency range!
The Command Value is the amount of influence the unit leader/attached character has on units within their Command Range per game turn.AND the mount of times the modifier can be applied.
Unit leaders can only use their Command Value on their own unit.Characters can effect their own units , and unit within their Command Range.
EG IF a Captain has a Command Value 8"/ 2.
The Captain can add 2 to 2 Morale dice rolls of units within 8" of the Captain model per game turn.
We have decided that VETERAN unit leader,and character re rolls might be better off as;-
[b']Battlefield Skills.'[/b]
This would be listed under special skills on the unit card.
And give veteran leaders and characters a set number of re rolls they can use in set situations.
ALL Battlefield skill re rolls can be used to Dodge, (force opponent to re roll successful roll to hit on the owner of a Battlefield skill .)
Bathed In Blood , the owner can re roll one dice, (per level,) in any Close Assault, (roll to hit, opponents roll to save,roll to damage.) Applies to owning character or attached unit.
Honed by Hell-fire. , the owner can re roll one dice , (per level) in any Ranged Combat, (Roll to hit, opponents roll to save, roll to damage.)Applies to owning character or attached unit.
Characters only.
Forged in Battle , the owner can re roll one dice , (per level, ) in any request for off table support, or morale test for his own unit.(This is the option that is the alternative to ignore suppression mechanic.)
(We were thinking about this skill allowing a strategic roll off to gain one of opponents dummy arrival markers for off table support perhaps?.)
Note ;- opposing re rolls cancel out each other out.
EG the SM player wants to use his Battlefield skill to force the Ork Player to re roll a save roll.The Ork player uses his Battle field skill to cancel this out and leave the result as it stands.
@ Sister Sydney.
I was using 'general terms' and 'short hand' for general game mechanic options.
1)A brief look as what suppression is and how we could cover it in game.
My view ...
Suppression takes effect when the unit feels under enough threat to prioritize self preservation over carrying out tactical objectives.
.(EG go to ground, find cover, panic shooting at nearby enemy units etc.)
So in its simplest terms a Suppression mechanic is a comparison of unit confidence, to the threat the enemy units puts them under.
Unit confidence is generally a sum of protection, experience, and weight of numbers.
Threat level is generally amount of 'hazardous' effects placed on the unit.
(Weight of fire that can cause damage to the unit. LMG fire may suppress infantry, but NOT a heavily armoured tank for example)
We could try to represent all these factors in one go , and have detailed charts and tables working out % threat to % confidence reduction.
However, we could resolve it in several 'simple steps' instead .
If we only count shots that could potentially damage the unit .(By counting the shots that beat the armour save of models in the unit.)
And say this number has to be greater than half the number of model in the unit.(This covers weight of numbers.)
This only leaves experience, which we can cover with a morale test to remove effects of suppression at the end of the game turn.
(All units take evasive action , experienced units recover faster than inexperienced units.)
We can cover quite a complex effect in simple easy to understand stages.
Individual models become suppressed if they fail their armour save.(Simple way to gauge threat level per model.)
A unit becomes suppressed if over half the models in a unit become casualties/suppressed.(Simple way to account for number of model in the unit.)
A unit looses the suppression effects if it passes a Morale Test in the Resolution phase.(Simple way to account for units will to fight on/battle experience.)
2)Proportional results from simple comparison resolution method.(In detail.)
If you give all units Armour Values from 1 to 15 for example.(Extend AV to cover non vehicle units.)
And represent weapon AP as a direct numerical value also.(5 to 20 for example.)
Then state a model passes its armour save, IF a D6 score Added to its AV beats the weapon hits AP value.
Then a SM wearing Powered Armour with an AV of 4,
Needs to roll a save of
2+ against weapons with AP 5.(Las gun.)
3+ against weapons with AP 6 (Bolt gun)
4+ against weapons with AP 7 (Heavy Bolter.)
5+ against weapons with AP 8 (Gauss cannon.)
6+ against weapons with AP 9.(Plasma gun)
No save against weapons with AP 10.
An imperial guardsmen with AV of 2 needs to roll 2 higher on all save rolls vs all weapon AP values.
EG needs to roll 4+ vs las gun, and 5+ vs bolt gun.
And gets no armour save roll against AP 8 or higher weapons.
This means the armour saves are proportional to the diffeence between the targets AV value and the weapon hits AP value.
Aha. I see what proportional means now. For ease of reference, I'd definitely need to have that in a table: cross index AP and AV to get the number you must roll to save. (Although I still like testing armour and toughness in a single roll...).
And I like your suppression system more the more you explain it. I'd still suggest that a model becomes suppressed once it is hit by a weapon that could wound it , not only when it fails an armour save. For many squishier units, e.g. Guard, a failed armour generally equals death - so suppression would become a moot point precisely for those units for which it should be most important.
Speaking of Moral systems. after thinking about the DOW2 system here is my WIP so far.
DOW2 Suppression system: can be plugged into current 40k for now. gauges a units moral and combat effectiveness. In the Vida game, units have a courage bar that once depleted become suppressed. Table top i propose a units highest LD is the total courage avalible, taking unsaved wounds (or perhaps removed casualties) causes a unit to take suppression points against the LD. if a unit has 25% of there LD rounded up, there movement and BS is quartered rounded up, at 50% its reducied to 50%, at 75% and so on, at 100% they are pinned and cannot move or shoot.
Taking hits (not wounds) from a heavy weapon, also adds suppression. at the end of the phase or turn (haven't decided) they can take a LD check. and remove the amount of counters = to the amount passed by.
If the unit Flees for other reasons (25% model check) it breaks suppression.
Simple add, Moral from an IC should be 6-12". characters like sergeants should only effect there own unit.
For now ATSKNF: removes the 25% suppression point. Fearless: ignores all suppression.
To pass a morale test simply roll equal or over the units Morale Grade.
This is modified by,
Unit suppressed.
Unit out of coherency
Unit out numbered.(More enemy unit within 12" than friendly units.)
Unit is fighting a unit that causes them Fear.
Add +1 to the units Morale Grade for each effect cumulatively.(Making passing a morale check harder.
This looks interesting, but I think we'd lose some of the grading in 40k. But, then again, this does remove some random, and it's a straight 1D6, rather than an obscure 2D6 mechanic.
That 2D6 is actually very important as a mechanic, because it ensures that results are normalized, and actually less random than they would be on 1D6. 2D6 makes sure that the extreme results are less likely, which makes sense, as extreme morale reactions should be far less likely than the "usual" ones (say the range of 6-8). It seems out of place because 2d6 isn't really used anywhere else in the rules except scatter (though you could argue it should be used more often).
@ Sister Sydney.
There really is no need to use tables.
Just roll OVER the weapon hits AP value on a D6 .Modified by the target models AV.
To make an Armour Save roll on the new system.
Roll a D6, and ADD your models AV value to the score.
Eg if you roll a 3 and add AV 4 for your Sisters of Battles Power Armour.Total armour save roll =7
If the weapon hits AP value, (on the attacking units 'Unit card' ) is less than you total armour save roll( 7 )you save that hit.
If the weapons hits AP value is equal or over the total armour save roll ( 7), you fail the armour save.
It really is very easy to do when you play the game .(With units cards.)
(This is just simple comparison of 2 values , to determine the proportional chance of success.Much better than fixed results.IMO.)
The new rule set you roll for armour save before you roll to wound.So a weapon hit HAS to beat he armour before it can possibly cause any physical damage to the soft target behind the armour.
So for the new rule set letting failed armour saves determine model suppression is the simplest and most intuitive method we could think of.
@Rav1n & Selym.
IF you are ONLY using a 2 D6LD test to cover ALL morale resolution effectively, Then that is absolutely fine.(Some systems JUST use this and a few limited modifiers.)
However, 40k seems to need lots of special rules , Mob rule, ATSKNF, Fearless , Synapse , etc.As well as 2D6Ld values.(Which are often ignored because of these special rules!)
I understand a straight D6 roll has not got a bell curve like 2D6 has.
But this bell curve gives more unequal changes , the further away from 7 you go.(Moving from Ld 7 to 8, 8 to 9,9 to 10, 10 to 11 is NOT equal improvements in game effect, is it?).
However a simple D6 roll with a few SIMPLE modifiers, can cover a similar diversity , but with EQUAL efficiency jumps between each 1 point increase in morale grade.
And the simplest systems , are much easier to adjust to cover special abilities with slight adjustments...In my experience.
Please note;- we just wanted to see IF we could devise simple resolution methods using D6s that would cover 40k current game play.
What we have is NOT perfect or 100% finished.
But it does appear to be getting closer to the game play of 40k without the level of complication GW plc seem to need.
Hi all.
What do you folks think about allowing grenades to be a thrown weapon type again.(With a range and effect based on 2nd ed.)
HOWEVER, a unit may ONLY throw ONE grenade per turn .
This represents the limited number of grenades troops carry.(usually a couple each.)
So only ONE model in the unit may throw a grenade in a shooting action instead of firing their gun.
Lanrak wrote: Hi all.
What do you folks think about allowing grenades to be a thrown weapon type again.(With a range and effect based on 2nd ed.)
HOWEVER, a unit may ONLY throw ONE grenade per turn .
This represents the limited number of grenades troops carry.(usually a couple each.)
So only ONE model in the unit may throw a grenade in a shooting action instead of firing their gun.
Does this sound OK?
What was 2nd ed effects like?
I think all models in a unit should be able to toss grenades.
It never made sense to me why only one in a unit of 10-20+ would chuck a grenade.
It would certainly make wyches and EMP grenades far more useful.
I read a battle report where someone misread the 6th ed rule and had everyone in a squad chucking grenades at once: They were bringing down fliers and basically never needed to fire any other weapons.... a trifle OP.
It's in part a problem of scale. Modern infantry survive against grenades by taking cover and spreading out, but 40K infantry can't spread out enough to get out of the Blast template.... Grenades really need a smaller-radius form of Blast.
@Desubot.
The reason we do not let ALL models throw grenades, eg 10 x 3" blast templates.
Is because in 40k it is too over powered .(Like it was in 2nd ed!)
In reality only one or two members of a squad lob grenades , while the rest give covering fire.(In modern warfare.)
As soldiers generally only carry a limited amount of grenades.Everyone throwing them all at once just means a limited tactical option is wasted in overkill.
And IF we mimic this in 40k, and just show the effect of 1(or 2) grenades.It reduces the effect of grenades to a more appropriate level for the game.
If we use coherency from the unit leader/(attached character.)This allows units to adopt more tactically flexible positioning.(Under the new rules.)
I was going to use these values in the new rules.(Only one grenade per unit per turn maximum.)
Grenade type.
Frag= Range 8" 3" blast AP 5 Damage 4+ (Only useful vs light infantry.)
Krak= Range 6" 1 AP 13 Damage 3+
EMP= Range 6" 1 AP - Damage 4+ Concussive vs mechanical targets.
Stun = Range 8" 3" blast AP - Damage 4+ Concussive vs organic targets.
Smoke/Blind = Range 8" 3" blast AP- Damage - Block LOS.(used in close assault.)
Melta/Plasma range 2" 1 AP 17 Damage 2+ (These have to be placed on target model from close range.)
Hi KnuckleWolf.
I think the implementation of Tau having grenade launchers under their carbines is a great idea.And the values you proposed seem about right for current 40k.
However, I would be wary of letting half the unit use grenades in the same shooting phase, as this could make them over powered IMO.
(Have you play tested this idea? Would you try just letting 1 or 2 fire grenades as a comparison?)
I could be very wrong, but most people seem more open to thinking about game design in a more concrete way.
(EG here is a problem, how could we fix it?)
There are no 'wrong answers' in game design.
ANY group of ideas put together can result in a game people COULD enjoy playing.(Just look how inventive people are in general at making up stuff to have fun!)
However, there are some 'answers' that work better together to deliver a well defined concise and intuitive rule set.And these are the ones MOST players prefer.
Having a CLEAR design brief on what the end game play is supposed to be, helps to hone the end rule set into a well defined concise and intuitive one.
You are absolutely right there are literally HUNDREDS of ways to cover the current game play of 40k BETTER than the 6th ed rules do.(In terms of clarity brevity and elegance.)
The problems seem to be some 40k players have got attached to the 'GW ' style of rules writing.And so judge ANY idea against the current GW rules style.
Many seem to think you NEED complicated rules to get complex game play.And we know this simply is not true.
If you were going to do a re write of current 40k rules, what design brief would you use, as a matter of interest?(Scale and scope of game play , type and level of interaction etc.)
If you want to play 40k as a skirmish game there are loads of great options already available .(2nd ed battle bible ,Warpath II, No Limits, and Stargrunt II for FREE downloads to start with!)
if you like making up you own narrative and rules FUBAR one page rules are great jumping off point for skirmish games!
This is an idea i had to make the boltgun a bit more...interesting... since so many of the other standard weapons outshine it. Ork and Guard have volume of fire, Necrons have Gauss, Tau have increased weapon stats, Eldar have Bladestorm etc, but the boltgun isn't particularly excitng, so i had an idea to give it it's own little trait. Bolt weapons are supposed to be brutal weapons, even by the standards of 40K, as it can literally spray everyone in he vicinity of the victim with whatever's left of him. Unlike lasers or plasma which would cauterize wounds, gauss weapons that dissolve matter, shuriken weapons that are lethal but in a very refined manner, being covered in whats left of your squadmate would likely be pretty traumatic, not to mention the concussive force of the blast itself.
Bolt: If a model in a unit is killed by a weapon with this special rule, the unit receives a -1 penalty to their morale for the remainder of the game turn.
Not a game changer to be sure, but there's very little that can be done to the boltgun itself (barring DA banner buff style, which i am a huge fan of) to make it more unique or interesting without it becoming overpowered. Thoughts?
Also, i've run into a problem with my rules, in that i can't decide how to represent stats. The system itself is fine, but representing them on the statline/unit card is tricky. For reference, I use a D12 and cover / movement provides a penalty on the "to Hit" roll of shooting. I'll rank them based on what i think the more preferable option are (lower is better), let me know what you think/ prefer/ propose.
Option A) Represent stats as the roll necessary to pass (IE 2+, 5+, 9+ etc)[Ranked 2] PROS --Easy to read, modifiers are added instead of subtracted,
CONS --Stats above the equivalent of current strength 5 cannot be represented in this system without additonal rules/complexity, lower values indicate higher skill, which is confusing, also vehicle are difficult/impractical to make work with these rules
Option B) Values represented as they are currently, where you subtract the skill value from a set value to find the necessary roll [Rank 3] PROS --Higher numbers indicate higher skill
CONS --Limited range of results, as seen in current rules where exceeding BS 5 means you need to reroll, slowing things down, modifers are subtracted from the skill rather than added, complex system of calculating necessary roll (means unwanted reference charts)
Option C) Values are indicated as the value you need to roll equal to or under (similar to current Ld checks, but not on 2D6) [Rank 1] PROS --Allows for very high values that don't require rerolls (they stick at an 11 or lower [2+ equivalent] until modifiers bring their value down to the necessary level for a 10 or lower ), higher stat values indicate better skill
CONS --modifiers are subtracted instead of added, could be strange to players as higher roll values indicate worse results
Option D) Instead of the value itself indicating success, you roll to beat the targets defensive component of the roll, and add your models relevant skill value to your roll (think current vehicle rules applied to infantry) [Rank 4] PROS --Higher stat values indicate better skill, doesnt require modifiers on the attackers part, as the modifiers are instead added to the relevant value of the defender
CONS --Stat values for defenders are very large (Especially on my D12), defensive stats start looking very samey and add unnecessary complexity
Option E) Do something similar to current S vs T values, where the comparison between the two values indicate the necessary roll[Rank ?] [I literally thought of this while writing this post, so i haven't had time to explore it properly]
Rav1rn wrote: ... the boltgun isn't particularly excitng, so i had an idea to give it it's own little trait...
Aieeee! Don't add any more special rules to this game, IT WILL FETHING EXPLODE. We're trying to get rid of special rules and exceptions!
Rav1rn wrote: For reference, I use a D12....
Option A) Represent stats as the roll necessary to pass (IE 2+, 5+, 9+ etc)[Ranked 2] PROS --Easy to read, modifiers are added instead of subtracted,
CONS --Stats above value 5 cannot be represented in this system without additonal rules/complexity, lower values indicate higher skill, which is confusing.
Wait, I'm confused about something else: If you're using a d12 and give 9+ as an example stat, why can't you represent values above 5? Or is that a typo for "11"?
Rav1rn wrote: Option C) Values are indicated as the value you need to roll equal to or under (similar to current Ld checks, but not on 2D6) [Rank 1] PROS --Allows for very high values that don't require rerolls (they stick at a 2+ until modifiers bring their value down to the necessary level for a 3+), higher stat values indicate better skill....
Maybe I'm too tired to be doing this, but I don't get this one either. Do you mean "stick at a 12+" instead of "2+"? I can see how a stat of say, 15 is functionally equal on a d12 roll-stat-or-below system to a stat of 12, but the 15 is more resistant to negative modifiers.
Also, if low # = good stat is too confusing, why not just saying rolling LOW is good? Lots of games do that....
Wait, I'm confused about something else: If you're using a d12 and give 9+ as an example stat, why can't you represent values above 5? Or is that a typo for "11"?
Equivalent of current value of 5. For example, a boltgun might have a strength of 4+ (the system had toughness modifiers to bring this back up). So working down, the lowest roll i could assign was a 2+, but the way the system worked that was equivalent to a strength 5 weapon. With no room to go lower, a new weapon trait that lowered the targets toughness modifier instead of increasing the weapons strength was introduced. I actually really liked the system, and it was a cool way of doing instant death (instead of double your toughness, if your toughness modifier dropped to 0, it caused instant death), but the point of testing is you find where the system breaks down, and it unfortunately did that at the higher skill level HQ's and characters. Things like assassins, greater daemons, many Xenos HQ's, etc all couldn't be represented properly (offensively anyways, i experimented with some defensive changes to have a similar effect, good direction, not quite the result i wanted though). To represent them right i'd have to inject either another system or special rules to compensate, neither or which i was too keen on doing.
More importantly, with strength being represented this way, getting vehicles to work would involve twisting their rules into unrecognizability, giving every weapon a secondary "Anti-vehicle" value which would be messy and strange, or treat them as 100% monstrous creatures (which would involve truly massive modifiers, were talking modifiers in the 8 or higher region for something as simple as a rhino).
Maybe I'm too tired to be doing this, but I don't get this one either. Do you mean "stick at a 12+" instead of "2+"? I can see how a stat of say, 15 is functionally equal on a d12 roll-stat-or-below system to a stat of 12, but the 15 is more resistant to negative modifiers.
Also, if low # = good stat is too confusing, why not just saying rolling LOW is good? Lots of games do that....
Whoops let me correct that, and because the player base of 40K (in other words people most likely to look at this project) would be used to the opposite. It works perfectly fine, i'm just not sure how well received it would be. Also, modifiers under those rules would involve subtraction rather than addition, which isn't ideal.
Hi Rav1n.
I do like the list of resolution methods you posted with pros and cons.
If we assume we use direct representation , (maximum distance unit can move , range of effect in inches, and number of dice rolled.)As a matter of course.
I do not think using just ONE other method would cover the game play of 40k..(But it does not need the 7 40k currently uses!)
Maybe using a COMBINATION of TWO other resolution methods should be flexible enough to cover the 40k game play .What do you think about this ?
If we use a target roll as a stat, (eg 3+) with a list of simple modifiers, it can cover quite decent range, even just using D6.(With a D12 it doubles this obviously.)
(Eg the chance of hitting the target in close combat , and at range as a target score stat works great in other games.)
And if we just say things that make success harder JUST add to the target score. And things that make success easier add to the dice roll score.Its is a lot clearer and intuitive!
' Units in cover adds 1 to their Stealth Value'
Is much clearer /intuitive than 'unit in cover gets -1 to hit'
And using the opposing stat as a modifier is much easier than using tables.
(Although tables are often used to limit range of results ,but we want to avoid this IMO.Resolution charts have their place.Mainly in DETAILED complex resolutions covering lots of factors.NOT really 40ks current game play though.)
EG list the value on the 'str vs T table' vs Str 3 as the Weapon Damage BASE SCORE required.
Then models Toughness score is just a damage modifier.(T 4 becomes +1 Resilience for example.)
My weapon hit NORMALLY wounds on a 3+, but your model has 'Resilience +1' so I need to roll a 4+.No need to look up the result on a table! (If you can not add 1 or 2 or 3 to a base score, then you should not be allowed to play a war game IMO. )
I agree this resolution method has its limitations , and where a HIGH degree of difference is found in an interaction range , it may not be broad enough to cope.
That is why I suggested we use another resolution method.If we look at the scale of factors in 40k.
Most things seem to look like they would work well with target score(d6 or d12) and limited modifiers.(If we use direct representation for movement value and weapon ranges an attacks/shots.)
The only thing in 40k that does not fit is weapon and armour interaction .The range of weapon AP and armour values is far to wide for d6 or d12 to cover IMO.
Thats why I would suggest using 'free values'(not ties to the number of sides on a dice.) in direct comparison.With the dice roll as the variable that determines success of failure.
So instead of armour saves, invunerable saves, and AP,USRs and special rules (EW, ID etc.)
We simply list a range of armour values that covers the wide diversity of units found in 40k. (1 to 20 or 1 to 100 if needed!)
And list a range of armour penetration values , that are in relation to these Armour values.
So the target player rolls a Dice and ADDS their Armour Value. This Armour Save Roll Value .
If this is HIGHER than the Weapon Hit Armour Penetration value , the model passes its save roll.
In short we use the dice as the variable , to cover the difference in armour thickness in near vents visors etc , angle of strike , target movement etc.
I know this means some armour is ACTUALLY invunerable to some hits.And some armour is automatically penetrated by some hits .
But that IS how weapon and armour interaction actually works.(I should know , given my past employment in weapons development .)
I think there is a prejudice against using D6, because of the way 40k resolutions use them in a limiting , binary way.
Lots of other good rule sets use the humble D6 to much better effect.(KoW Warpath II, FoW, Epic SM, Epic EA, etc.)
However, if there is an actual need to use a larger sized dice, (D10 or D12) proven by play testing , that is fair enough.
@Lanrak
I may just be reading your post wrong, but it looks like you're advocating the use of 3-4 different systems. My main concern with using cover as a "+X to the targets ranged defensive stat" is that to make the shooting values work out similar to current values, everything's base ranged defensive stat would be identical (using a D12 allows for slightly more variety but ultimately the same result), which seems like a waste and a somewhat unsightly system. So we either have to roll to beat the defensive score (which means HUGE numbers which stick out on the statline and arn't fun to compute), or you do it similar to the current S vs T system, which has similar (though admittedly lesser) problems.
I have similar problems with your proposed changes to the AP and Armor system, yes the additional depth is nice, but how much do we really need? Does it really matter that the an ork slugger is 1 point lower in strength than a boltgun when the scale is 1-20? And yes having some non-vehicle units literally immune to damage is not a good idea, just look how badly received the 2+ rerollable save is right now, where damage is at least possible.
I think there is a prejudice against using D6, because of the way 40k resolutions use them in a limiting , binary way.
Lots of other good rule sets use the humble D6 to much better effect.(KoW Warpath II, FoW, Epic SM, Epic EA, etc.)
However, if there is an actual need to use a larger sized dice, (D10 or D12) proven by play testing , that is fair enough
I don't have anything against D6, but i wanted to try a system with higher resolution and got hooked. I highly recommend anyone writing rules to consider at least trying the larger dice, the additional options are wonderful. A great example is "cover" bonuses provided by movement. With a D6, putting movement bonuses into 12 inch "blocks" would be easiest, but slight increases in movement speeds don't really come into play (a unit with movement speed 6" will earn at most a +1 to cover, but so will a unit with 9" movement" who can go 50% "faster").On a D12, however, you can have values "Between" D6 values, so you can have movement bonuses based on 6 inch movement blocks, so that unit moving 50% faster can actually get 50% more cover. (+3 max vs +2 max for a 6" unit)
@Deuce11
I love a lot of the ideas on your thread, such as firing pistols in close combat, consolidating into close combat, changes to challenge rules, etc, but its like putting a bandage on a bullet wound rather than taking them to the hospital. It helps, sure, but its neither a long term solution nor does it fix the underlying issues.
One idea i've been toying with for a while is "dual stats", to represent things like snapshooting. Rather than a flat "hit on a 6+" which is neither balanced nor realistic, if a unit wants to fire a snapshot, they fire using their snapshot BS, which is typically 3 worse on a D12 (for example an ork might have BS 9+ / 12+ to show their regular BS and Snapshot BS easily). Another way to use this while focusing the game more on that 24" sweet spot rather than units 36+ inches away blasting away at each other is an idea i had inspired by 2nd edition (who would have guessed?), is that if a unit wants to fire past 24", they have to fire using a reduced BS (whether or not this would stack with / use snapshoting penalties, or prevent snapshooting altogether is still up in the air).
I've considered how to apply this idea to different values, like strength to represent the difference between a "charge" value and a "regular combat" value to replace furious charge, the difference between "offensive" WS and "defensive" WS, etc. In particular, i love the idea of separating WS into offensive and defensive components, because many units just aren't going to concern themselves with protecting themselves as much (Khorne Bezerkers, Orks, Gaunts, etc), and it means they can be further defined into their roles as heavy offensive units, since points that would otherwise be dedicated to defending themselves can now be exclusively assigned to their offensive power, rather than one stat awkwardly defining both elements.
Oh, if I just wanted to nuke special rules, I'd go to another system altogether. The challenge here -- the design brief, I believe Lanrak called it -- is to make something that captures the feel of 40K, including the glorious diversity of units that SRs make possible, but in a much more streamlined way that does not REQUIRE special rules to band-aid problems in the basic mechanics.
Diving down from that high level into actual mechanics:
I'm with Lanrak (I think): don't cap your scales. "IF stat + die roll > difficulty, THEN success" allows you to deal with as large a range of numbers as you want without being restricted by the number of sides on your dice.
Oh, if I just wanted to nuke special rules, I'd go to another system altogether. The challenge here -- the design brief, I believe Lanrak called it -- is to make something that captures the feel of 40K, including the glorious diversity of units that SRs make possible, but in a much more streamlined way that does not REQUIRE special rules to band-aid problems in the basic mechanics.
Diving down from that high level into actual mechanics:
I'm with Lanrak (I think): don't cap your scales. "IF stat + die roll > difficulty, THEN success" allows you to deal with as large a range of numbers as you want without being restricted by the number of sides on your dice.
I think incorporating many of the special rules into the main mechanics could result in worse gameplay, despite resulting in a cleaner system, because even with the problems mechanics like Feel no Pain and Invulnerable Saves have, they do at least involve the other player. I'm not just sitting there taking models off the board, which is another reason why i'm hesitant about combining Armor and Toughness into one save, rather than keeping them separate. I saw an idea recently about ditching armor for most of the non-special Ork models altogether, and replacing it with a system of varying FnP saves, which i thought was a wonderful, fluffy idea that wouldn't be the same otherwise. While it would be relatively easy to make FnP part of the normal damage resolution (say adding a value to the models toughness for determining wounding that does not affect Instant Death), having it as a separate save ensures that i have a say, no matter how small, in the fate of my models.
That being said, doing something along those lines with "on the roll of 6" rules would be great. Something like the Deathwatch RPG system of "Degrees of Success" would be welcome, assuming it wasn't too complicated. Take rending for example. Instead of "on the roll of 6, you ignore armor saves" it could be " for every degree of success, the AP of this weapon improves by 1". Admittedly this could cause problems, particularly in a system of armor saves that vary based on AP, but its no longer a binary, odd result, where the weapons are regular most of the time, then suddenly jump in effectiveness against everything. I could just be biased in this regard though, because "on the roll of 6" rules are causing problems in my D12 system, since they either need to be "on the roll of 11 or 12" (which feels weird), or just sit at 12 and are severely nerfed since their effects are now twice as uncommon.
-------------------------------------
Also, i may have found a way to sidestep some of the problems with unit by unit activation, though it involves some hefty changes to the FOC and requires that the purchasing of HQ units be as regulated as points cost limits are. So units are classified into 4 groups (Troops, Support, Specialist, and HQ). For every HQ unit you buy, you unlock 4 (maybe 6, still deciding) "slots" that can be filled with any unit purchase, or with a formation of units. A formation is any group of 2-3 (maybe more, still in progress) units that includes at least one Troops unit. You must have at least 2 Troops units and one HQ unit in your army. You have as many activations per game turn as slots filled, and players alternate activating one "slot" each, whether this contains a single unit or a formation, until all "slots' have been activated, at which point the next game turn begins. All units in a slot go through the 4 phases (Movement, Shooting, Assault, and Resolution), after which the opposing players activation begins.
This means that players who chose to put only single units into each slot will have very "reactive" armies, that don't have to act until the controlling player decides it is most advantageous for them to. However, losing these units means losing an activation, which means your opponent will have activations that you cannot react to. Additionally, if you place many key units that would interact into a formation, your opponent cannot react to them until all of them are done, allowing units to chain effects and results together more effectively, though hopefully reducing the effectiveness of Alpha Strike strategies as the entire army cannot act together to wipe the opponent off the board. This also helps reduce the problems caused when one side has significantly more units than the other side, as both player have the same number of activations, but their units will be grouped together differently. This is why HQ's would have to be more tightly regulated, or have some sort of compensation system in place, because if one side takes 2 HQ's and the other side takes only 1, the first player will have many more slots, and therefore activations, than the second player.
Hi Rav1n.
I am great at totally messing up my explanations. Ill have another go!
IF you do not count 'direct representation' as a resolution system.(Eg distances in inches and number of dice rolled as stats.)
If we use the addition of ' the Base Score required for success is also a stat'. (EG 3+).Many developers think the 'score required for success' is direct representation too.
(Direct representation is using the stats directly, NOT looking up charts or subtracting them from seven , etc.)
This means we are using NO resolution methods so far , JUST DIRECT REPRESENTATION.(The unit does exactly what it says on the tin! )
And we can use simple modifiers to these base (score )values to get the proportional diversity 40k needs.
(That add to the base score required to make success harder,OR add to the dice score to make success easier for example.)
The modifiers can be for situation or ability .
I was trying to say how using a simple D6 (or D12 ) ONE resolution system (direct representation with simple modifiers.) could cover MOST but Not ALL of the game play in 40k.
The ONLY thing that it would struggle with is the weapon and armour interaction IMO.
I want to use ONE ADDITIONAL RESOLUTION method to cover ALL units and weapons interaction .(Use the Armour Value stat as a dice modifier, compared to the weapon hit AP value.)
Because it has to cover Armour values representing a 'tee shirt' all the way up to a 'Titan',And weapons from a Got blasta all the way up to a Planetary Defence Laser and Orbital Bombardments!Allowing us the freedom to use values that are most appropriate , rather than limited by the dice size we use,Is ONE logical solution.(Not the only solution but the one I like best!)
Allowing natural automatic penetration , and natural invunerability in this proportional resolution is intuitive.
A las pistol AP 5 is never going to burn through the side of a Land Raider, AV 14.That is why there are lascannons AP 17 to deal with heavy armoured targets!
And an IG flack vest AV 2 is not going to stop a melta AP 15 hit is it?
The most numerous targets in 40k,(Light and meduim, infantry.)Can be delt with using the most frequently carried weapons , small arms and ccw.)
The number of HEAVILY armoured targets is a small fraction of the most numerous targets , and so the weapons needed to deal with these are limited in number.
So each 'level of armour', has a corresponding 'set of weapons' to deal with it. And we also have the option for specialist weapons that partially ignore armour, that JUST suppress the target, (EMP, concussive blast.)etc.
And the wide level of tech found in 40k weapons and armour types adds a lot of the character 40k has.The fact the 40k 6th ed rules HAVE to use additional vehicle AND USRs AND special rules because of poor choice in Game Mechanics and resolution methods , does NOT mean we have to.
I am talking about ideas in the context of a complete re write where we will be using a more interactive game turn .(No waiting around for hours to get your turn!)So players are much more involved in the game anyway.In this setting FNP , USRs in general, Inv saves, additional vehicle rules, etc, JUST add unecessary complication.
I do agree that a 3 stage damage resolution process is better choice for 40k than a 2 stage one.(40k needs the more detailed interaction options because of the wide tech levels and variety of operation.IMO)
Unit by unit activation would only work in a heavily modified version for 40k.
Either some organisation based restrictions ,(similar to your proposal,) or order sequencing , like Epic SM.Or introducing some form of ' limited reactions'.
(And as the game turn is supposed to deliver the player and unit interaction cleanly and simply as possible , I would rather use interleaved phases. )
@Sister Sydney.
Would you like to keep this thread for ideas for a complete re boot/re write.And use the other one for listing 'patching with alternative /additional rules?'
I'm happy with individual heresies in this thread, as long as they overturn some established aspect of 40K rather than just try to patch it. That's a subjective call, of course, and there'll be inevitable overlap between threads.
Ideas for a complete rewrite/reboot are great, but hard -- remember my own original post was a list of ideas for overturning specific aspects of the game (e.g. IGOUGO) rather than even the outline of a coherent system.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Basically, if your idea requires throwing out a chunk of the existing rulebook, put it here.
If your idea can be added as a special rule or patch to the existing rulebook, I'd prefer you post it in that other thread.
If you and your opponent can't agree which thread your post belongs in, roll 1d6!
I prefer patching, simply because it is realistic. I may be able to threaten, bully and convince my local meta to accept a large amount of fixes, but an actual major overhaul is probably a bit much.
@ BrotherHaraldus.
I agree it is easier to patch up the game a bit with house rules.if you are playing in a friendly group that can agree on what to patch!
But unfortunately the current 40k rules are so 'diffuse and holistic' its is very difficult to 'correct' anything without it impacting other areas of the game.(Even if it is JUST perceived buffs and nerfs to particular units.)
And the significant types of change Sister Sydney is referring to , where you change out a game mechanic or a resolution process, can have massive implications elsewhere .
In short you 'fix something' , and some thing else goes further out of whack, so you 'fix that' and then you notice something else , etc etc. (The sort of cycle the professional game developers at GW towers appear to be locked in. )
I think our last attempt at trying to patch 40k ,( 4th ed,) ran to nearly 60 pages of amendments! (No points adjustments , just re definition and clarifications!) (And yet complete new rule sets only seem to need 30 to 40 pages.)
I honestly believe a re write is the most efficient option.
As game mechanics and resolution methods effect much bigger changes , faster than altering or adding rules one at a time.
Game mechanics are like the chassis engine transmission steering and suspension of a car.If you get these right ,the driver gets enough feed back to make it an enjoyable drive.
Get it wrong and you have to add in lots of additional systems that try to correct the basic flaws in the mechanics.And this just leaves a massive disconnect between the driver and the car.
(This is the best analogy I could think of. )
How does this sound as an idea to create a suppression system for vehicles, giving armies that traditionally lack a way to affect vehicles (Orks, Tyranids, etc) a more reliable way of doing so, as well as opening new ways to build lists with anti-tank elements, while avoiding some of the problems hull points introduced. Reduced BS is the working name for the system replacing snapshooting (instead of hitting on 6's, its now just a lower BS value). It also helps incorporate some of the elements of making vehicles more like Monstrous Creatures.
------------------------------------------
All vehicles have a number of Crew. Each game turn, the vehicle receives a number of Crew Points equal to the number of remaining Crew. These Crew Points may be spent to have the vehicle perform actions. Moving Combat Speed costs 1 Crew Point, and moving Cruising Speed costs 1 additional Crew Point on top of the Crew Point necessary to move at Combat Speed. Firing a Weapon requires 1 Crew Point, while firing an Ordinance Weapon requires 2 Crew Points, as these weapons are so large they require a loader to assist in operating the system. A Defensive Weapon may be fired without using a Crew Point, however, it may only fire at the vehicle's Reduced BS if chosen to do so.
A vehicle may fire at full BS with Primary and Secondary Weapons if stationary. A vehicle may fire their Primary Weapons at full BS at Combat Speed, however, Secondary Weapons must fire using the vehicles Reduced BS. At Cruising Speed, all weapons must use the vehicles Reduced BS.
For some examples, a Rhino might have 2 crew, with the Storm Bolter being a Defensive Weapon, while a Razorback still has 2 crew, with the turret weapon being the vehicle's Primary Weapon. A Predator might have 4 crew, with the turret weapon as a Primary weapon, but the sponson weapons as Secondary Weapons. A Landraider, meanwhile, might have 6 crew, with both sponson weapons as Primary Weapons, and the hull mounted weapon as a Secondary Weapon. Similarly, a Leman Russ might have 5 crew, with the turret weapon as a Primary Weapon, and any hull or sponson weapons as Secondary Weapons (note that this system allows for the special rule allowing the Leman Russ to move 6" and still fire all weapons to no longer require a special rule, as the Crew System fully represents this).
All Vehicles have a Toughness value, as well as the traditional Armor Values to keep that tactical element in place. When attacking a vehicle, first roll to wound the vehicle, representing whether or not the attack has enough power to cause damage. For each attack that "wounds" the vehicle, the vehicle either loses that many Crew Points, or receives that many fewer Crew Points during the next game turn. For every attack that "wounds" the vehicle, then roll for penetration, with the weapon's AP Value to beat the vehicles Armor Value. For each attack that penetrates, roll on the critical damage chart.
1-3 Crew Killed
4 Weapon Destroyed, per current rules
5 Mobility Damage, Movement Speed decreased by 3"
6 Wrecked
7 Explodes!
-----------------------------------------------
This system also opens the doors for new vehicle upgrade options, such as a commander upgrade that might allow the vehicle to receive 1 more Crew Point per turn so long as at least 2 crew members are alive, or a mechanic / technician / techpriest upgrade that allows for a weapon destroyed or mobility damage result to be ignored or repaired. Extra armor could allow the vehicle to ignore the first "wound" each turn, so they don't lose a crew point for that first hit, unless the attack penetrates and actually kills a crew member, etc.
Hi Rav1n.
Is this proposed system more like giving vehicles an amount of 'wounds'.
And so as when crew get 'wounded' they can not operate the vehicle system/equipment they are crewing.
So the vehicle unit loses in game effectiveness slowly , in the same way other units do.
(EG rather than a group of models in individual armour and carrying individual weapons, the group of models share a big armoured shell that has fewer but more powerful weapons.)
This could be represented by points in armament and mobility.(Weapons and speed.)And these could be applied to Monstrous creature wounds too?
So each loss stops a weapon from working, or slows the unit down.
However, if you just let the vehicle be wounded , without counting the armour save.Wont this make the vehciles very fragile.(Or have I got that wrong?)
Would it not be better to allow some weapons suppressive effect.(EG suppressed vehicle can only move D6" or shoot at nearest enemy unit.)
EMP, psychic scream, concussive weapons automatically bypass armour , but ONLY cause suppression on a 5+.
(This way we can give some units the ability to reduce the effectiveness of vehicles without physically damaging them.)
I certainly think these basic concepts are very good and is worth discussing further.
Has anyone tried this simple game turn alternative with the current rules?
Player A moves.
Player B moves.
Player A shoots.
Player B shoots .
Player A assaults.
Player B assaults.
In the movement phase, players declare if they are charging into assault , or moving at double rate (No shooting.) or moving at normal speed and shooting , or remaining stationary and shooting at full effect.It may work with little in the way of adjustment needed.
it allows more interaction in a straightforward way..
Hi Rav1n.
Is this proposed system more like giving vehicles an amount of 'wounds'.
And so as when crew get 'wounded' they can not operate the vehicle system/equipment they are crewing.
So the vehicle unit loses in game effectiveness slowly , in the same way other units do.
Yeah that was pretty much the idea. The idea behind Hull Points is really solid, I dont have to break the vehicle's armor to cause non-insignificant damage. Just rocking the tank could throw crewmen out of seat, force computer systems to reboot, etc. However, killing a vehicle in so few hits was a shift too far in the other direction.
This could be represented by points in armament and mobility.(Weapons and speed.)And these could be applied to Monstrous creature wounds too?
So each loss stops a weapon from working, or slows the unit down.
That was why it was a "Critical Damage Chart" rather than a "Vehicle Damage Chart". You can take the arms and legs off of a monster just like you would a tank, for similar effects. Other things like wrecked == killed or Explodes! == falls over onto other units would be good comparisons as well. I don't really have a good plan for how to implement "crew killed" on monsters though, im thinking it just takes off another wound to represent a particularly grievous injury, but that would result in monsters dropping like flies, unless their wound counts are buffed considerably to compensate. Otherwise just ignore results 1-3? Ideas would be appreciated for what these lesser effects could be.
And so as when crew get 'wounded' they can not operate the vehicle system/equipment they are crewing.
So the vehicle unit loses in game effectiveness slowly , in the same way other units do.
(EG rather than a group of models in individual armour and carrying individual weapons, the group of models share a big armoured shell that has fewer but more powerful weapons.)
...
However, if you just let the vehicle be wounded , without counting the armour save.Wont this make the vehciles very fragile.(Or have I got that wrong?)
I'm not porting over the idea of using "armor saves" like infantry and monsters have for vehicles. Treating vehicle armor like infantry or monster armor leads has weird results, so i'd rather stick to the current method of rolling a die + the weapon value to beat the vehicle's AV (or something like the S vs T system but using AP and AV). The only difference is that the weapons AP value is what determines how well it penetrates (as it logically should be?), though this requires a significant departure from current AP rules.
Would it not be better to allow some weapons suppressive effect.(EG suppressed vehicle can only move D6" or shoot at nearest enemy unit.)
EMP, psychic scream, concussive weapons automatically bypass armour , but ONLY cause suppression on a 5+.
(This way we can give some units the ability to reduce the effectiveness of vehicles without physically damaging them.)
The idea is you can do this using the Crew System (just hit it enough times to where it loses all its crew points for the turn, or doesn't get any the next turn). The catch is that since hitting the tank hard enough to take out a Crew Point would be much easier than penetrating to get a serious effect on the Critical Damage Chart, you can't just take one weapon which automatically applies the "suppression" effect, you have to hit it several times to take it to that level of reduced effectiveness. Lower Strength weapons (5-7 instead of 8-10) with a higher rate of fire are what would be ideal for this purpose. The Higher strength weapons typically have a lower AP and rate of fire, which means that you aren't trying to "suppress" the vehicle for a turn or two so you can maneuver around it or prevent it's firing, you're trying to kill it outright.
That being said, a concussive effect from blunt force weapons, things like thunderhammers, powerfists, etc, would be great. A simpler implementation might be they just take off an additional Crew Point if they "wound" the vehicle.
Has anyone tried this simple game turn alternative with the current rules?
Player A moves.
Player B moves.
Player A shoots.
Player B shoots .
Player A assaults.
Player B assaults.
I'm not sure how much testing would really be necessary, but I don't see alternating phases being the best direction. There's two problems with 40K's turn structure: Interactivity, and Alpha Striking. Solving one will improve things, but solving both should be the goal. Alternating phases solves the problem of interactivity, without solving the problem of Alpha Striking. Unit by Unit interaction solves both, but has it's own problems in regards to game-speed , so a serious altered version might have to be devised. Similarly, "reactions" can solves both, but again has a negative impact on game-speed.
Welp Reworking my rough draft so i can re plug in numbers, so far at: IGUG low to high characteristics system for all stats including ap and armor. Auto pass and fail is possible. each unit performs a set amount of actions per turn: Primary (moving shooting assaulting) Secondary (running, alert, suppressive fire) Reaction (snap shots, gtg, fall back)(requires test like Initative and can be done during opponents turn within LOS and stuff)
Shooting: shooters BS test> opponents armor test> wound against T. cover is integrated into BS test as modifiers. AP to Armor as well perhaps. Moving: Difficult reduce speed in fractions depending on type, Dangerous: Failed causes concussive no wound (thats dumb i fall on rock and now im dead hurp durp) Assault: move + d6 for the charge, the rest im not 100% sure
4th style wound allocation but add in precision strikes + i like the higher terrain lv idea (every 3inch = +1 to PS)
4th style model classification, small +1 cover, med nothing large -1 cover, very large -2 cover and so on.
Vehicles gain T and armor save, like MC against them natural rolls of 1 or 6 dunno which way yet causes a critical hit. roll on table. rear armor on vehicle gives +1 to critical chance or some flavor of that as does the AP of the weapon OR weapon type like melta or armorbane.
Moral: DOW2 style suppression system: Taking casualties or getting hit by certain weapons like heavy bolters goes against your highest LD, at certain % your BS/Move is cut by a % eventually at 0 you flee or something.
The numbers need to be heavily worked on.
but i think it can work in the majority of game scales. as well additionally at higher value games you can move 2-3+ units per turn to speed it up.
Hi Rav1n.
So just to re -cap on what we both want on the new vehicle damage system.
Vehicles/Mcs have damage points (structure/wounds ) assigned to weapon attacks and movement.
This brings these units into line with other units that lose in game efficiency as they take physical damage.
And some attacks can just bypass armour and temporarily suppress the units not cause any permeant physical damage.
Could we not use this instead of a damage table when the armour is breached?
Eg attacker rolls a D6, 1 to 3 target looses a armament wound/structure, on a 4 to 6 target looses a mobility wound /structure .
When the vehicle -M/C looses all its armament it takes mobility hits.
After a unit looses all of its armament attacks , it has to take a morale check or route.
When a unit looses all its mobility points , it has to pass a morale check or counts as destroyed,(Abandoned /it or crew died from wounds.)
Just a simple alternative we could use...
This is a good way to track physical damage and brings all units into line in terms of loss of efficiency through the game .
I am not sure about temporarily loosing crew points and then putting them back .It seems a bit too much faffing about!(IMO.)
If the effect is only tempory could we not just list the end result, without removing damage points and putting them back.
Eg equal the armor value , or make a successful suppression roll with a special weapon.the target vehicle or M/C can only chose between 2 limited actions.(Move or shoot in a limited way.)
Could you please explain what the 'alpha strike' problem is ?I take it to mean when one side gets to attack with all of its units before the opponent gets to respond.
Both alternating unit activation and alternating phases address both problems.
I see we have 2 options to improve on the Alternating Army Activation Game turn.
1)Reduce the amount of elements acting to the unit level to make it alternating unit activation.
Where one unit moves shoots and assault while the other units stand around and watch.You still allow a 'temporal shift' but it only applies to one unit , rather than an entire army.
(Which needs some form of reaction mechanic , or severe unit restriction to work with current 40k units.)
2)Reduce the amount of actions units can take , before the opponent responds.Alternating phase.
This is like looking at one army to see what they are doing over a few seconds , then looking to see what the opposing army did in the same time.
This is the simplest way to approximate concurrent actions.(IMO.).
Rolling off to see who goes first, in each method is preferable.As well as adding order counters allows a freedom of choice in the actions you can take and the order you take them .
@Desubot.
Here is just a basic comment on your outline.
Do not use current game turn.(Alternating phases and Alternating activation are much better!)
Using a stat range that cover ALL units is a good idea.
Auto pass and auto fail are intuitive!
Fixing the amount of actions per game turn is a good thing.
If the basic actions are the same ,but their effect is dependent on the phase they are used in, I would look at alternating phases as a prefered game turn mechanic.
EG
Command phase.
Primary action phase.
Secondary action phase
Reaction phase.
Cover modifies the chance to hit , how it should be!
Armour modifies the effect of the weapon hit, not the other way around.(This removes the need for modifiers , as armour value becomes the modifier.)
Terrain alters movement rates, rather than killing units , how it should be.
Assault rules in 6th ed 40k are to diffuse for me to make a coherent argument how to improve them.(I would just start again from scratch!)
Wound allocation and model classification I would again start from scratch ...
Making vehicles like other units with T and save is one way to improve the system to remove unecessary complication.
(The other is to re write the entire system using Armour values for everything.)
I prefer to handle morale in stages rather than try to model it all in one go.(Because looking at the interaction a bit at a time makes it easier to include and gets more intuitive results in my experience.)
Now that I've had at least half a good night's sleep...
We playtested a ruleset we call 40k Potica Edition. So far it's more or less a 10 page errata for 6E. To summarize:
1) Movement phase:
A unit can do either a Guarded Move (that's the normal type and is not slowed by terrain), a Rushed Move (usually double speed, cannot go through terrain, can't do anything else that turn) or go on Overwatch.
There are no random movement distance rolls ever.
2) Shooting phase:
The unit can either Regroup (removes suppression), Snap Fire (max range 24", no heavy weapons) or Aimed Fire (requires unit to be on Overwatch, which ends; fires any weapon, may split fire).
The deal with needing Overwatch to fire at full effect is just so that you have an overwatch marker on the unit to remind you it hasn't moved and is eligible to aimed fire. Or it can keep its Overwatch status to actually shoot during the enemy turn.
When you declare a shooting target, one of the target units may attempt a reacion. This is done by taking an initiative test, if successful it can do one of the following:
Snap Fire back (resolved simultaneously), Fall Back (make a Guarded Move away from aggressor and become suppressed) or Go To Ground. Only one reaction per unit per turn.
Rolling to hit: Compare BS to Initiative on the Weapon Skill chart. Apply modifiers:
+1 to hit with rapid fire weapons at close range
-1 to hit if target has soft cover or Jink
-1 to hit with reaction fire
Casualties must be taken from within range and LOS.
Blast and template weapons do not scatter. Instead, make as many to hit rolls as there are models under the marker.
3) Assault phase:
Charge range is the same as your Guarded Move. When you nominate a charge target, it can try to react, as above. Other possible reaction includes Countercharge (after attacker moves you pile in and also count as charging).
Charging out of vehicles is allowed but unless the vehicle is stationary or an Assault Vehicle, you lose the charge bonus.
Charging is also allowed after Outflank or Deep Strike as the enemy gets reactions anyway.
Tank Shock is done in this phase and also covers walkers and MC charges. You push lesser models out of the way, any model that needs to move takes a hammer of wrath type hit. In the case of a walker or MC, if any models remain, you are engaged.
4) Morale:
The current rules are scrapped entirely and replaced with a suppression system. I'm not totally happy with how it played out, so I'll skip this part for now.
5) Characters:
Challenges and Look out Sir are gone. Characters add a bonus to reaction and regroup tests.
6) Vehicles:
Converted to the Toughness and Wounds system (but keep facings), get normal armour saves based on front AV. A Predator would be T9/7/6, 3+ save.
AP negates saves as normal, no bonus on damage rolls.
MCs also make rolls on the damage table when they lose wounds. Reduction of Strength and Toughness added to table.
7) Cover:
Soft cover is -1 to hit.
Hard cover negates weapon AP.
No cover saves.
Then there's a bunch of USR changes to accommodate all the above, like the Jet subtype allowing you to Fall Back voluntarily without being suppressed.
It plays very differently, you really need to watch out for reactions and force your opponent to use them up before you declare the really important attacks or else your targets can just waltz out of range.
Yeah, there'd be a lot more tactical depth involved in "what do I move/shoot next?"
I like your move and shooting options. The reactions to reactions -- ie the different things a unit can do when its move is interrupted by overwatch fire -- strikes me as complicated: how the complexity added balance vs the fun added?
How did the vehicle vs monstrous creature balance change? Monsters have a Damage Chart and vehicles have an armour save are big changes to tone down MC and toughen the tanks.
We had an Avatar, War Walkers, a Dreadnought, Land Speeders, Predators and Whirlwinds on the table. We felt their survivability was appropriate, but having 4 rolls to resolve each shot was a bit much (hit, wound, save, damage).
Turns obviously take longer what with reactions and all, but with the increased movement rates (no random difficult terrain, run as a double move is MUCH faster than +1d6, option of moving as a reaction) things start happening sooner so you can shave a turn off the normal game length.
I'm curious what people think of Tarrasq's Fog of War idea? Seems like a good way to focus the game in on the 24" range, while also helping units (particularly infiltrators) be more useful.
BrotherHaraldus wrote: If they had designed 40K with D20s or at least D10s to begin with everything would have been so much better.
At this point, I doubt I'd manage to convince my meta to buy hundreds of D20s in order to keep using their Green Tides, should we try a D20 system.
I really dont think D20s will work, at least not in the numbers needed. d20s are great in skirmish games where you dont really need to roll that much like infinity. (which if i had too id play that system instead)
Imagine the mess of throwing 80 D20s on the table every time you get into double tap range of a 12man fire warrior squad with a ethereal and fire blade.
.
.)
![[Disk]](/dakkaforum/templates/default/images/icon_disk.gif){kind=icon}
)
(The sort of cycle the professional game developers at 
