I would like to preface this by saying that I love 40k, but I hate it as well. This game has the most epic, convoluted, and absolutely rich storyline of anything I've ever been curious enough to get into, but the tabletop itself is frustrating. I don't mean "Oh, I'm salty because I've lost a few games and I hate the game". I mean I'm more frustrated because this game is absolutely unbalanced and in order to win you have to choose specific races and formations and you can't take what you want because it might get slaughtered. It's just not fun to get wrecked as an Ork player, nor is it fun to auto-win when you play Eldar. I believe that skill and strategy should be the only things preventing you from winning the game, and if there's a way to blatanly exploit the game so you can automatically win or have a huge advantage over your opponent, then the game ceases to be fun.

I know that there are like, ten million rules in 40k. I have a bunch of the codexes but to be honest, I don't have them all nor do I care about some of the armies available. As a result, I only know the rules for my own armies and some general rules (I have to flip back and forth sometimes). What I was hoping to do was to get together with a few like-minded people and start up a project: create a sort of 7.5th Edition codex for 40k. It's necessary (now I know) to redesign the rules for 40k. For example, the turn structure sucks. Player 1 will always have an advantage over Player 2. You have no idea how many 1 turn games I've seen where players just build an army like a glass cannon and go for that first turn kill. It's ridiculous. There are more problems here like exploits and high costs and unnecessary rules and really complicated resolution methods, so we'll just trash the old system and work on a new one from the ground up. Don't worry, though- it actually might be easier than trying to fix the completely fethed up rulebook GW gave us and then testing it out to see if it works slightly better. By building it straight up we get to have control over what we fix and prevent problems from ever appearing.

This is a totally voluntary and free project- I don't expect to make money (obviously GW would excommunicate me out of everything I own) and its definitely not a job. I recognize we're all busy people so this will be handled like a videogame mod- it may take a while to finish, but we'll do things right and finally balance this game.

-------------------------------

Alright guys, here's what I've done so far. More rules and junk will come later in the form of a downloadable Word doc- I'll provide a link to a Dropbox so all of you can read them. They'll have different version numbers and junk so you can know what we're talking about when we say "according to the new rules", etc. Hope you like the new rules!

First up. Turn order.[/u][/b][/color]

A single turn will encompass gameplay for both players through a system of interwoven phases. Before, you had the running phase, the shooting phase, the buttering your toast phase, etc, but not anymore. I'm done with that. I don't particularly care for restricting players and I know that if you want to shoot before moving, you should get to. Therefore, I'm giving each and every unit in a player's army two actions per turn. Just two, but you can do a lot with those two. One action can consist of moving, shooting, whacking someone with your weapon in melee, setting up a heavy weapon, using a psychic power, etc. You can only do one of these actions per phase. So with that in mind, here's the actual turn order:

Command Phase: Psychic powers that affect unit movement or deployment happen here. Reinforcement happens here. Suppression and leadership morale tests happen here. I know it doesn't make much sense and its ambiguous, but we need this phase. Ignore it for now, but keep in mind its here.

Action Phase 1: Here you get to do anything you want, but only one action per phase. Player 1 goes through AP1 first, and then Player 2 goes through AP1.

Phase Resolution 1:[/b] All the actions you took during AP1 are resolved here. Did you shoot someone? Move somewhere? Did you call an Ork Warboss' mother dirty in a challenge? All the dice rolls and resolution stuff will be here in order to emulate things happening simultaneously. Two squads line up in their respective AP1 and shoot, and during this phase their combat plays out. That way nobody complains about how "he went first, of course he won" or "my units would have trounced yours if you hadn't gotten lucky and gone first". Enough of that. Actions get resolved [b]simultaneously.

Action Phase 2: Same as AP1.

Phase Resolution 2: Same as PR1.

End of Turn: Everyone take a breath, because now it's time to do this alllll over again.

That's it- your turn is no longer composed of 3/4 phases where you're locked into doing something you might not want. You get to do whatever you want, see it play out in front of you, and then the next turn rolls around. Period.

Stats:

Everyone is gonna be confused about what to call what, and since I haven't received any suggestions as to what to call the skills I'll invent my own. This is what we'll be using when we discuss stats. Not AP, not Assault, not any of the current 40k stats. We use these so that nobody gets confused and starts talking about rules that we're not using.

Melee: This stat gauges how awesome or crap your unit is at hitting stuff. A Guardsman will be weaksauce compared to a mighty morphin' Banshee. Scale of 1-10, 1 being the weakest.

Dexterity: Can your unit catch a sword with their own weapon and prevent their untimely demise? Well, this stat will tell you. This gauges how good your unit is at either dodging Melee strikes or at parrying them. A CSM is supposed to be good at parrying since he's a couple millennia old, and a Banshee is good at being annoying and darting all over the place, so expect both of these units' Dexterity to be high. This directly counters Melee, so if your Dex is higher than your opponent's Melee, your unit will either dodge the blow or catch it like the ninja it is. Scale of 1-10, 1 being the slowest.

Accuracy: Can your unit hit the broad side of barn? This stat obviously gauges that, so units like Grots will suck at it and units like literally anything the Tau have will be great at it. It will gauge if your shot lands the target or if you missed. Scale of 1-10, 1 meaning that you should turn your lasgun in and sacrifice your life for the Emperor.

Evade: Gauges if your unit can dance around enemy fire and not get hit. Banshees and fast units like the Harlequins will have an insane amount of Evasion, so don't expect to hit them that often as, say, an Ork Boy. This counters Accuracy, meaning that if your Evade is higher than their Accuracy, you stand a good chance of maintaining structural integrity of your body.

Armor Rating: Is your armor good, or should you have spent a bit more on not dying? This stat will show just how bad or good your unit's armor is. Grots will have low armor, but a Meganob will have an ungodly amount of it. Scale of 1-10, 1 being laughable.

Weapon Damage: How powerful your weapon is. Whether is a pitiful lasgun or a formidable Power Fist, Weapon Damage will go against your opponent's Armor Rating. If it's higher, your opponent had better get used to the new hole they have in their face. If your weapon is lower, you stand a very good chance of your weapon glancing off their armor. Should have brought a bigger gun. Range of 1-10, 1 being the worst damage.

Health: How healthy and hale is your unit before you send them off to their inevitable deaths? Units like Ogryns will have 2 or more Health, symbolizing the ungodly punishment they can take before dying, and Guardsmen will have one to symbolize the way they fold like wet tissue paper when they're shot at. If your enemy succeeds at a Weapon Damage roll versus your Armor Rating, one health is subtracted from your unit. No ifs or buts, its happens. Scale of 1-10, 1 being pretty normal for the average bear. 10 meaning you'd better have a lot of pointy sticks.

Range of Movement: How far your unit can move. Values can vary between units and different terrain types can affect your movement. I'll talk more about this later.

Weapon Range: This will be described along with whatever weapon you choose, next to the Weapon Damage of that weapon. It shows how far it can shoot. If its a melee weapon, it has no range. Why would you throw a Power Klaw?

Leadership/Morale: This shows how courageous your unit is. Is it cowardly, like a grot, or brave like a Terminator? This stat affects such things as squads taking casualties (take too many and you have to do an instant morale check. Fail and go into instant retreat.) and being under suppressive fire. If your unit isn't particularly courageous, expect to be suppressed for a long time. Scale of 1-10, 1 being a wuss, 10 being fearless and as such, immune to suppression and morale breakdowns.

AAAand that's it! Those are all the skills we'll be using because at this point we have a lot. Add any more and we risk turning into an RPG. On to the next thing on our list: Special rules.


I've decided on two things for ranged units. Right now they're pretty good if your weapon can do more than tickle your opponent, but not if you're a humble Guardsman. So what do we do help out the lasguns and the grot blasters of the world? We give them the ability to suppress and do concentrated fire. The first one is kind of complicated. Here's what's up:

Any unit that can shoot can also suppress. If you see your unit isn't doing jack to kill that squad of Ogryns charging at you, and you'd like to not die, why not suppress them? This will be a separate action, like shooting to kill or melee, which means that (per phase) you can either suppress or shoot to kill. If you choose to suppress, here's how it's resolved. You shoot normally and do an Accuracy roll. If you pass, your target goes on to make a Morale check. If it fails, great! You've succeeded and your target is now suppressed. What this process is meant to simulate is that your unit shoots at the enemy, right? Since there's a volley of fire coming at it, your target decides whether its brave enough to stand in front of it or dive for cover. If it chickens out, it becomes suppressed.

When suppressed, units have half Range of Movement and take a -2 to Accuracy, meaning that assault units can't move as fast as normal and shooty units are essentially firing blindly from cover. However, all's not terrible for the suppressed units. Since they've technically gone to ground and dived behind cover, they get a +1 to Evade. That doesn't prevent your melee units from getting in there and roughing them up, though.

Remember the Command Phase? Yeah, at the beginning of every turn you roll for Morale for every suppressed unit you have. If you fail, they stay suppressed. But if you succeed, they automatically snap out of it and aren't suppressed anymore. Another thing to keep in mind is that the unit suppressing cannot do anything other than move, but they cannot move farther from their target than their weapon range will allow. What this means is that if you have an IG Guardsmen squad suppressing some Ork Boys, and there are 15' between you, you can move away from them. Lets say that the lasgun's range is 30. That means that the Guardsmen can only move 15', because they're still suppressing the Orks. If the Guardsmen move out of weapon range so that they're not in range of the Orks, they stop suppressing the Orks and the Ork BOys immediately stop being suppressed. The same happens if the Guardsmen decide to take another action, like shooting or setting up a heavy weapon. It immediately diverts the squad's attention to the new action and the suppression order is cancelled.

Alright, that was long. On to concentrated fire, an easier topic.

Guardsmen (I love IG, sue me) have terrible weapons, the lasguns. Not terrible as in good, but terrible as in "we could play laser tag with these". Therefore, I give you weak players another weapon in your arsenal: concentrated fire. Unlike suppressive fire, this actually kills things. Do you see that Nob over there? Yeah. Using your combat training, you order your Guardsmen to shoot and concentrate their fire at a single target- the Nob. This limits the number of attacks they can make to one quarter (If you had 10 Guardsmen, you can only make 2 of these shots since 10 divided by 4 is 2.5 and I'm rounding down because this is the grimdark future) but it exponentially does more damage. Concentrated fire gives you a +2 to Weapon Damage since instead of only one lasgun shooting ineffectively at the Nob now you have ten of them shooting at the same spot. So remember kids- if you're weak but you have friends, gang up on the big guys! Concentrated fire is just like Suppressive fire in that its a separate action. Your Guardsmen can do Concentrated fire on Action Phase 1, and then Suppress the survivors on Action Phase 2. Just like that, your puny humans are fixed and now serve a deep tactical function in the battlefield.

Last thing (there are more but this is a summary so whatever). You can shoot into assault.

*Cue hundreds of outraged voices*

Let's be honest. If you're a soldier in the 41st millennium, you shoot to kill. You might also value killing an enemy over saving an ally. Be it as it may, you're a fething trained soldier. Act like it and shoot into that mob of allied soldiers and bad guys duking it out.

A unit can shoot into assault, but will take a -2 to Accuracy (a -2 might be too much, so I'll test it and see if a -1 is needed). A critical failure (rolling a one) means you hit your friends and damage calculation ensues as if you had hit an enemy. Hahaha, guess that's why you don't shoot into assault!

Anyways, that's that. I'll take suggestions and more ideas for new rules that build upon these, and I'll change what I've already written if you convince me that something sucks or is unbalanced or whatever. Remember, I'm here to make this easy, fun, and balanced.

IMPORTANT EDIT: If you're trying to follow the conversation, skip the first page. I edited to post to reflect what I learned and the progress I've made, so reading some of the posts below might be confusing. Just skip to the last page or something.

Good luck sir. Maybe you'll have more success than the other people that have attempted it.

You could give yourself a huge head start by building off of zagman's errata:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/648525.page

I thought he was doing well but it's been like 9 months since he posted anything on the entire forum, but I'm sure he'd be happy if someone picked up his work and ran with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also my general suggestions are:
-remove pregame randomness
-remove instances of time-wasting. (Overwatch, moving a unit in multiple phases, snap shots etc.)
-look at fixing the schizophrenic rules between shooting and assault. The balance should be somewhere in the realm that armies should be encouraged to have at least a counter-assault unit somewhere. No army, no matter how shooty, should be getting out of a game with no casualties.
-kill formations at least for now. An extra force multiplier just makes things even more complicated and unbalanced. Everyone should have tax units (that is, units that score better by being troops, but are a little less functional per point than non-troops.) "Pacific rim armies" shouldn't be a thing.

I'm on dakka quite a bit. I have a lot of experience with the game, both casually and competitive. If you pm me with stuff I can weigh in on it. I support anyone who plays the game trying to fix it.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
Good luck sir. Maybe you'll have more success than the other people that have attempted it.

You could give yourself a huge head start by building off of zagman's errata:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/648525.page

I thought he was doing well but it's been like 9 months since he posted anything on the entire forum, but I'm sure he'd be happy if someone picked up his work and ran with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also my general suggestions are:
-remove pregame randomness
-remove instances of time-wasting. (Overwatch, moving a unit in multiple phases, snap shots etc.)
-look at fixing the schizophrenic rules between shooting and assault. The balance should be somewhere in the realm that armies should be encouraged to have at least a counter-assault unit somewhere. No army, no matter how shooty, should be getting out of a game with no casualties.
-kill formations at least for now. An extra force multiplier just makes things even more complicated and unbalanced. Everyone should have tax units. "Pacific rim armies" shouldn't be a thing.

I'm on dakka quite a bit. I have a lot of experience with the game, both casually and competitive. If you pm me with stuff I can weigh in on it. I support anyone who plays the game trying to fix it.

Oh boy, this will take a while to read lol. Could you explain your suggestions? I agree with the formations being overpowered but what do you mean by the rest?

And yeah, I definitely will. I'll need all the help I can get and, while I may not be able to update every single thing and make the game completely fair, at least getting rid of the crappier rules and balancing unit costs for the most played armies will be my goals for now.

Are you trying to recreate 40k or just straight start from scratch?

I suggest figuring out what is the core concepts of 40k and working up from there in the most simplest way possible

look at multiple editions and figure out the good, bad and ugly and amalgamate what you like.

Oh and prepare to write in legalize

edit: thinking,
core mechanics
movement
unit type
guns
melee
psychic.

after that add in the specifics and special rules that only mess with the core rule.

 Desubot wrote:
Are you trying to recreate 40k or just straight start from scratch?

I suggest figuring out what is the core concepts of 40k and working up from there in the most simplest way possible

look at multiple editions and figure out the good, bad and ugly and amalgamate what you like.

Oh and prepare to write in legalize

edit: thinking,
core mechanics
movement
unit type
guns
melee
psychic.

after that add in the specifics and special rules that only mess with the core rule.

To be honest, that would be a huuuuge undertaking. Like I said, I'd mostly be getting rid of the worst rules and fixing costs so that armies are more balanced. I'll do more if I can, but I'd need people to help me out and it will take a while. I do know that I'd like to fix the worst armies right now- Orks, IG, CSM. By fixing them, players that own those armies will be able to use whatever they want instead of only a certain army build or whatever to even be remotely competitive.

I see. personally i would rather see all the big competitive armies get toned down instead. i personally would rather see the cheese levels come down from salty parmesan to a mellow mozzarella

Id take a look at all the rules being abused by tourny players first.

big things to fix is how allies work (mostly id get rid of any sort of Battle brother except for very specific situations like inquisition and harly)

fix how psychic powers work or balance them

remove decision and unlimited formations.

and stuff like that.

Imho thats at least what i would do.

 urbanknight4 wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
Good luck sir. Maybe you'll have more success than the other people that have attempted it.

You could give yourself a huge head start by building off of zagman's errata:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/648525.page

I thought he was doing well but it's been like 9 months since he posted anything on the entire forum, but I'm sure he'd be happy if someone picked up his work and ran with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also my general suggestions are:
-remove pregame randomness
-remove instances of time-wasting. (Overwatch, moving a unit in multiple phases, snap shots etc.)
-look at fixing the schizophrenic rules between shooting and assault. The balance should be somewhere in the realm that armies should be encouraged to have at least a counter-assault unit somewhere. No army, no matter how shooty, should be getting out of a game with no casualties.
-kill formations at least for now. An extra force multiplier just makes things even more complicated and unbalanced. Everyone should have tax units. "Pacific rim armies" shouldn't be a thing.

I'm on dakka quite a bit. I have a lot of experience with the game, both casually and competitive. If you pm me with stuff I can weigh in on it. I support anyone who plays the game trying to fix it.

Oh boy, this will take a while to read lol. Could you explain your suggestions? I agree with the formations being overpowered but what do you mean by the rest?

And yeah, I definitely will. I'll need all the help I can get and, while I may not be able to update every single thing and make the game completely fair, at least getting rid of the crappier rules and balancing unit costs for the most played armies will be my goals for now.

-pregame randomness: rolling for powers, gifts, warlord traits etc before every game. Note that after you make them not-random, you have to go back and make the bad choices good and the best choices merely good as well. You might be well served by removing a good number of them to simplify.

-time wasting silliness: bolter marines firing overwatch, a mob of 30 ork boys moving and then running in the shooting phase, making you move 30 models twice in a turn. Jet pack assault phase moves also fit here.

-the schizo between shooting and assault rules: A "shooty" unit could deep strike, infiltrate, outflank, or disembark from a standard vehicle and make shooting attacks with no downside. Depending on their firepower and abilities, some of them can easily wipe 1 or more units off the board with no response from the enemy, from significant range away. Effects that cause a shooting unit to be unable to shoot still allow them to "partially shoot" via snapshots.

Assault units (outside some specific formations) are disallowed from attacking if they infiltrate, outflank, get out of a standard transport, even if it was wrecked in the opponent's turn, deep strike, or arrive from reserve in any fashion. They must get to melee range (obviously,) which means they typically cannot deal damage until a later turn unless the opponent is perfectly willing to bring he battle to a melee as well. Once an assault unit attacks, enemies are given a free chance to take snap shots as well as attack in melee against them. Special assault weapons also tend to cost more than ranged weapons with the same statistics. (For example, a multi-melta is 24" s8 ap1 melta, and a marine holding one is 24 points. A marine holding a power fist for one s8 ap2 attack in melee is 39 points.) Any effect that disallows an assault flat out disallows it, period.

Now it's not all bad. Assault units could theoretically sweep the shooting unit after a failed morale test, and if the stars align right, they could be safe from a turn of shooting and finish their combat on the opponent's turn. But there's a very clear difference between the two due to how the core rules work.

 Desubot wrote:
I see. personally i would rather see all the big competitive armies get toned down instead. i personally would rather see the cheese levels come down from salty parmesan to a mellow mozzarella

Id take a look at all the rules being abused by tourny players first.

big things to fix is how allies work (mostly id get rid of any sort of Battle brother except for very specific situations like inquisition and harly)

fix how psychic powers work or balance them

remove decision and unlimited formations.

and stuff like that.

Imho thats at least what i would do.

That is very true, cheese is annoying. I'm not too familiar with all the top competitive armies since I play mostly what I like, so could you tell me some exploits you know? Like, what needs fixing? If it's nothing too bad then I can just fix it at once like, say, a really OP unit being too cheap. And man, that's the second person today that says to get rid of formations. I've only looked at AdMech formations and while they seemed pretty powerful, I thought it was only because they were new and untested. How bad are they?

 urbanknight4 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
I see. personally i would rather see all the big competitive armies get toned down instead. i personally would rather see the cheese levels come down from salty parmesan to a mellow mozzarella

Id take a look at all the rules being abused by tourny players first.

big things to fix is how allies work (mostly id get rid of any sort of Battle brother except for very specific situations like inquisition and harly)

fix how psychic powers work or balance them

remove decision and unlimited formations.

and stuff like that.

Imho thats at least what i would do.

That is very true, cheese is annoying. I'm not too familiar with all the top competitive armies since I play mostly what I like, so could you tell me some exploits you know? Like, what needs fixing? If it's nothing too bad then I can just fix it at once like, say, a really OP unit being too cheap. And man, that's the second person today that says to get rid of formations. I've only looked at AdMech formations and while they seemed pretty powerful, I thought it was only because they were new and untested. How bad are they?

To put it bluntly, formations dialed it up to 11. Some of them allow your army to have 500 or more points worth of free stuff, or global buffs like +1 RP MTC and relentless on an entire necron army. The recent iron hands formation enables you to easily obtain a monstrous character with 2+ armor, 3+ invuln, and 2+ feel no pain. ( and by comparison to other things that are around nowadays, that guy isn't even that bad.)

As for specific units, Eldar have the highest unit quality in the game, trouncing even the other top tier armies abusing their most powerful formations. (As a point of humor, the Las Vegas open this year ended in an eldar vs eldar match in the finals, if that tells you anything.)
Their warp spiders, wind rider bikes, wraithknights, wraithguard, D-cannons, and psychic powers all work together to hold up their codex as the best single book in the land. Necrons are a little below them, but boast their canoptek wraiths and spyders as their champions, while their big formation boosts their army up enough to fight for the top.

Another major issue is that several marine codices can work together to make a nigh invincible unit that has unparalleled speed, being able to abuse one of a couple new psychic powers to assault from ludicrous distances. Although the unit would lose significant power by having formations vanish, as their psychic might comes from the librarius conclave formation, they can still be workable. The power units involved other than the psykers are the thunderwolf characters who bring in pet wolves as spare wounds, and a ravenguard command squad, who have a re-rollable jink save and bring fnp to the giant unit with their apothecary, as well as hit and run.

Any army can abuse psychic powers, invis being one of the key ones. If you have a guaranteed invisibility and a good target for it, you have a top army.

Daemons can get 2+ rerollable invulnerable saves on virtually any tzeentch unit, mostly thanks to the grimoire of true names, but they also have powers to mess with their saves as well.

Grav cannons from the imperials are a bit over the top, and reinforce the situation that units that pay for high armor such as honor guard or terminators, are actively wasting points.

And lastly, and also relevant to the previous, some armies have ludicrously durable monstrous or gargantuan creatures for very competitive prices. The tyranid flyrant virtually carries their codex on his back (the rest of his codex needs some help though,) the aforementioned eldar wraithknight, the tau stormsurge and riptides, including variants...These are all models that are only barely kept in check by the existence of imperial grav weaponry.

There's a lot wrong with the game at the moment, but the above things are the ones that you will see stand out at the peak of cheddar mountain.

 niv-mizzet wrote:

I know that some people from Dakka have been talking about Warmachine and HORDES and whatever whenever the rules question pops up. The crux of the issue with them is that WM feels balanced and every unit can do something to counter another. Counters might be something to introduce here, kind of like the triangle of war: Spears beat cavalry, cavalry beat archers, and archers beat spears. In this sense, we can format our army however we want and still win if we know what we're doing. Battles shouldn't be "pick the best possible army you can that will destroy whatever you throw at it". It should be more like, you choose whatever you like in a way that works for you and then fight with that. Of course, any player should keep in mind that they should always be cautious and keep some counters in their army- that's why the English didn't just pack longbowmen at the Battle of Crecy, they also brought fully armored knights on foot to fight whoever came to harass their archers.

Is there a way we could implement these counters in 40k? You mention that there are a ton of issues with monstrous creatures, junk saves on jetbikes, and cheap units. If we raise the cost for obviously exploitable units and create counters for the rest (for example, making snipers actually good at killing monsters), would that fix things?

On a side note, I'd like anyone who's reading this thread and is interested in helping out to PM me and see what we can do. So far I'd like to start with the most obvious pitfalls of the codexes, create a kind of hotfix for the game while we work on each individual codex. I'm not a rules lawyer either, so I'd need someone to tell me all the problems who's really good with rules. I can't fix the rules if I don't know them all!

@urbanknight4.
What exactly are you trying to achieve?

If you just want to proof read and edit the rules to make them easier ro under stand and to improve the over all game balance.This is already done in the various tournament packs.AFAIK.

If you want to actually arrive at a rule set that is playable directly from the rules as written.Then you do HAVE to tr write the rules starting from scratch.

Define what game play you want to end up with.
Select the best game mechanics and resolution methods to deliver the intended game play.

The current 40k rule set is a monumental mess.Lots of people fail to grasp how far the GW sales department have subverted the actual rules development.

If you look at the actual core rules in 40k they ONLY cover standard infantry in the open.

Everything else needs additional rules, or special rules of some sort.

When a rule set has more exceptions to the core rules, than it has core rules ,its is time to start again!

In short using the stats, resolution methods , and game mechanics from a Napoleonic game.(WHFB,) to try to cover the massive diversity of units found in a large scifi battle game like 40k 3rd to 7th ed.Is doomed to fail.

The ONLY way to make 40k actually playable is not by reverse engineering the horrible mess that is 40k 7th ed.But by actually writing a new rule set from scratch.

Lanrak wrote:
@urbanknight4.
What exactly are you trying to achieve?

If you just want to proof read and edit the rules to make them easier ro under stand and to improve the over all game balance.This is already done in the various tournament packs.AFAIK.

If you want to actually arrive at a rule set that is playable directly from the rules as written.Then you do HAVE to tr write the rules starting from scratch.

Define what game play you want to end up with.
Select the best game mechanics and resolution methods to deliver the intended game play.

The current 40k rule set is a monumental mess.Lots of people fail to grasp how far the GW sales department have subverted the actual rules development.

If you look at the actual core rules in 40k they ONLY cover standard infantry in the open.

Everything else needs additional rules, or special rules of some sort.

When a rule set has more exceptions to the core rules, than it has core rules ,its is time to start again!

In short using the stats, resolution methods , and game mechanics from a Napoleonic game.(WHFB,) to try to cover the massive diversity of units found in a large scifi battle game like 40k 3rd to 7th ed.Is doomed to fail.

The ONLY way to make 40k actually playable is not by reverse engineering the horrible mess that is 40k 7th ed.But by actually writing a new rule set from scratch.

Hm... starting from scratch sounds really labor intensive and complex. I would definitely like a more fluid, intuitive, and ultimately easier to learn system, but designing a system like that that would be competitive and balanced and still encompass all the existing models sounds like something that'll take time and people.

I know for sure that things need to be simpler. The fact that I have to be intimately familiar with the army codexes of the armies I'm facing if I hope to have any hope of making sure my opponent isnt cheating or even understanding what his units do says a lot about the complexity of 40k right now. I hate asking my opponents for explanations and even though its perfectly acceptable to do so, it slows the game down even more. What I'm thinking of is having the more important and basic rules in the main rulebook, and then the individual army codexes would have more in-depth information and unit prices. I don't know what to think about the "Codexes beat rulebook, supplements beat codexes" line, but it makes sense because the rulebook cannot plan for literally everything, I suppsoe.

I also know that I would like a system of counters. Just like in Fire Emblem there is a system of counters, in here there should be something like that to encourage strategic gameplay. Oh, so your brought a melee heavy army? I brought a ranged heavy army. But to counter that, you could add walkers or skimmers or tanks or something that would smash into my ranged units like a battering ram. Of course, that was a very simplified example but you see where I'm going. No longer will Necron warriors be able to blow up Rhinos, nor will a super-slow melee unit be able to transverse a bullet-hell to clobber the shooters.

I'm going to need the help of everyone who's interested in this, then. Rules are complex to fix since you have to not only make sure the fix isn't OP, you have to make sure it fits in with the rest of the rules. Building a new set of rules is another headache entirely. The good thing is that by the end, we'll have a system that not only works, it rewards creative and strategic players over those that simply burn a couple hundred bucks on whatever the meta is.

@urbanknight4.

Writing new core rules is MUCH simpler than trying to reverse engineer 18 years of poor game development that just added complication to a compromised rule set.

IF 40k could be fixed with a few tweeks, then the team of professional game devs at GW towers should have done in the last 18 years.
Instead they asked several times to re-write the 40k rules to suit the new battle game size.

What sort of game play do you want to end up with?

A modern company level battle game , with an equal focus on mobility fire power and assault?

A massive reduction in the complication in the rules and a increase in tactical depth , from more in game decision making?

Direct representation for stats , and ONE other resolution method?
(Rather than the SIX resolution methods 40k currently uses. That STILL needs seperate rules for vehicles , and MORE THAN EIGHTY special rules !)

I could discuss some basic options with you if you like?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hi again.
The problem is there is so much wrong with the current rules , you have to find ways of addressing massive imbalance in the core rules , before you could possibly get the
level of balance close enough for fun random pick up games.(That can be attained by new players quickly and easily.)

Lets list the things that are in the core rules that make game balance impossible when combined like they are in 40k.

The game turn.
Alternating game turns, only work well when opposing forces maneuver into weapons range.
Because most 40k unit are in weapon range in turn 1 , we get the imbalance caused by Alpha strike.

How much is that unit worth,when it could get destroyed before it even takes its first move?

Adding LOS blocking terrain can mitigate this a bit, but them cramps the units into a even smaller playing space!

If you want to keep the alternating game turn , play the game of 7th ed 40k outside!(Like some did with Apocalypse games.)

Or more practically use a more interactive game turn to reduce player down time, and the chance of alpha strike being such a game breaker.
And replace shooting resolution with some thing more scalable and practical.

And on the subject of shooting.

The massive imbalance between shooting and assault.

In WHFB most units were mainly armed with close combat weapons , and ranged attacks were used in a supporting role.
Looking at the WHFB stat line we can see this quite clearly.
M.WS.BS.S.T.W.I.A.LD.Sve.

That is 4 stats dedicated to close combat resolution,with movement rates providing the the meat and potatoes of the tactical maneuver into close combat range that drove the game play of WHFB.

Shooting only has one dedicated stat BS.As most of the targets in WHFB are large blocks of troops.(Representing squadrons of cavalry and batalions of infantry, 100s to 1000s of soldiers in each block .So hitting a massed rank formation is all about the skill of the shooter.
A simple +1 or -1 to denote slighty easier to hit or harder to hit , covers the variation for this SUPPORTING combat resolution in WHFB.

In 40k the majority of units are armed with ranged and close combat weapons.Shooting and close combat should be equally important and dealt with in similar ways IMO.
Shooting in 40k is a flat to hit roll based on the shooter.

Close combat in 40k is an opposed roll, taking the enemy skill into account.

So shooting has the massive advantage over close combat.(No manuever to get into base to base combat, and no opponents skill modifying the chance to hit.)
Added to the fact that BOTH type of attack are competing for the same limited function of killing stuff.

If shooting included a simple suppression mechanic, to control enemy movement, (naturally occurring and proportional pinning.)

Then shooting and assault would have different tactical functions.(As well as killing stuff obviously.)

Multiple resolution methods for combat resolution.
WHFB , was based on the old Napoleonic type combat resolution methods that were popular back in the 1970-1980s.

Unfortunately, even though being complicated this set of resolution methods can not cope with the massive range in species , and technology found on the 40k battle field.

So using one resolution method for all combat resoluiton that covers the wider range of species and tech is preferable , to 6 resolution methods that do not.

Ill stop there as It would takes a few pages the cover everything wrong with 40k rules, from a technical point of view.

Lanrak wrote:

Here's what I picture 40k to be: yes, there are ranged units and there's a huge amount of them, but assault has to be important. Vehicles have to be important. Transports specially- you can't just ignore the tactical importance of transports in a game like this. It completely undermines the effectiveness of assault troops if the transport they're using is blown up before they can even get to their target. Skimmers and jetbikes could act as shock cavalry, get a charge bonus and have stronger frontal armor but weaker side armor so that prolonged melee hurts them. Maybe assault troops could get a movement bonus so that it reflects their need to run towards their targets.

All of this doesn't mean much, though. With all the options and content 40k has, its hard to tell what kind of game it could be if its balanced. I liked the squad-based mechanics of 40k because it makes things personal, and the ideal game would have strategy and thought along with the squads you choose. I want to make it so that you could theoretically win with any army setup as long as its not stupid and has counters on it (For example, an only assault army would definitely get slaughtered by the Tau). This game would have to have a strong rulebook with a grand majority of the basic rules in it, but still make it easy to understand the game if you're a new player. I want to implement intuitive rules that make sense no matter what army you're playing. I'm not sure what kind of game specifically I should be running, though. Would you run down the basic ideas you had with me?

For example, the Fallout combat system makes sense for ranged combat. In order to gauge whether a shot lands, you look at the shooter's Perception. If his roll fails, the shot misses. If it lands, it goes to the target's Agility to see if the target is agile enough to evade the shot. If its agility is high enough, the target moves out of the way (but stays in the same place on the tabletop) and the shot whizzes past. If its agility is lower than the ballistics of the shooter, the target is hit and the next roll is for armor. If the shot is too weak to penetrate the target's armor, it dissipates harmlessly and causes no damage. If it makes it through, the shot then resolves for damage against the target's vitality, which subtracts health from the target.

That seemed complicated and it's gonna be a nightmare to make three different decisions for every shot fired on a tabletop if we keep the system intact, but it makes more sense than using ballistics skill and then using whatever roll is best for saves while the target stays there, taking the shot. This also makes ranged attacks have a reduced success margin- if your shots can now be evaded and armor always plays a part in ballistics, you'll kill less people with a volley because their armor is actually working.

That wasn't the greatest example, but I hope you know what I mean. 40k combat is kinda weird in that you have to choose a save and the AP system is kind of confusing. Weapons should have a strength rating, armor should have a defensive rating, and the only thing the characters provide will be ballistics to determine ranged accuracy and agility to move out of the way. Weapon strength is directly related to armor rating- if it's higher, the shot does damage. If it's too low, the armor absorbs the shock. That's a lot more simpler than the inverted AP system.

I like your suppression idea, it makes perfect sense. Maybe even if the shots don't make it through armor, it can roll for a suppression fire? This would cut a unit's speed by half of something, I dunno. There has to be a balance so that ranged units can't just shoot volleys after volleys and effectively make assault troops useless through suppression or straight up ranged damage. One thing I thought of was concentrated fire for elite units or units with combat training. The whole unit trades in their individual ranged shots and instead shoots a single high power shot that simulates the entire squad firing at one target. This would make Guardsmen actually viable at killing things and make other disciplined troops more effective at taking down stuff.

What are these resolution options? I don't quite understand what you mean by that. How would you reduce it to just one?

Also, what do you think about the counter system? So far I've thought of this:

Ranged units beat: melee units from far away, anti-tank units, other ranged units.
Melee units beat: ranged units in CC, anti-tank units, cavalry in prolonged CC, and armor in CC.
Cavalry units (like jetbikes and AdMech Dragoons) beat: ranged units, melee units, anti-armor units.
Armor units (like Leman Russ tanks and Rhinos) beat: ranged units, melee units from far away, cavalry.
Anti-armor units (like Tankbustas) beat: armor and heavy units (like Mega Nobs)

Not sure what to do with this counter chart yet. I want to give each class an inherent advantage over the classes it beats but I'll need to think about it. If you need me to explain anything, ask away!

@urbanknight.
Sorry about the late reply.(I had to bring some work home with me over the week end to get it finished in time for an audit.)

I think you have some good ideas for concepts that would fit well in a new rule set for 40k.

However, if we are to do a complete re-write of 40k rules, we need to make sure we do not get blinded by all the 'chrome', or deafened by the 'fizz' from the 'kool aide'.

So as with any project we need to 'focus on function first.'

The function of a rule set, is to inform the players how the game is played. (If I want to read a inspiring story Ill by a novel. )

And so the first thing is to decide on the scale and scope of the game play.

Here are some simple questions to help define the game play we want to end up with, in the new rules.

Is the game competitive or co-operative?

In a competitive game players have opposed objectives.(Eg they want to reach their objectives while preventing their opponent from reaching theirs.)
All the war games I have played over the last 30 odd years have all been competitive.

Co-operative is where the players work together to reach a common objective, eg the players beat the game , not each other.

Communicating properly with each other and not being a 'gakker'/'asshat' about things , is considered to be a pre requisite of all games.
(It does not excuse , and should not be used as an excuse for poor game development. )

As we have established 40k rules are a competitive war game.Then we have 3 basic game play types , that are used to base all war games on.

1)Ancient warfare, with the focus on mobility and close combat.With shooting used in a supporting role.(EG all warfare from 500BC to 1900AD, and fantasy war games using similar units of big block of infantry /cavalry in close formation.)

2) Naval warfare, with the focus on mobility and fire power,.With close combat being used in a supporting role.(Boarding actions on crippled vessels,etc.)

3) Modern warfare , with equal focus on mobility fire power and assault.(Mobility to take objectives, fire power to control enemy movement. and assault to contest objectives.

Simple exercise.Pick 1500 pts worth of stuff from an army in 40k.Now put it on a table and look at it.What does it closest resemble?(You can just imagine it if you like.)

Does it look like the massed formations of 'ancient warfare'.Large block of 100s of infantry and cavalry in close formation?

Does it look like the naval formations found in 'ship combat'?Large heavily armoured units, with long range guns, found at sea or in space?

Does it look like the squads of skirmishing infantry,with armoured vehicles , artillery ,and air support , found in modern warfare?

For the game size.(My approximate definitions in model numbers)
A battalion sized game , has 2 to 4 companies a side, (100 infantry or 12 vehicles in a company.)

A company sized game is one where an all infantry horde army has about 100 to 120 models ,(Approximately a size of an infantry company.)

A platoon sized game has about 30 models aside.

A Squad sized game has about a dozen models a side.

I believe that a 40k rule set written for the game play of 40k should be a competitive, modern ,company level ,war game.Do you agree?

If you, do we can look at game mechanics, (that determine how players interact.)
And resolution methods, how the in game interaction is resolved.

A quick note on resolution methods.
Lots of game released recently have used 'direct representation' as their main and some times only resolution method.

EG
Distance in inches/cm for weapons max range and units max move.
The number of dice rolled.
The score on a dice required for success.

All war games use direct representation resolution as it is the easiest ones to learn and remember. And then add on more resolution methods if required.

The current 40k rules have inherited lots of resolution methods from its WHFB backward compatibility.

1)Stat subtracted from 7 for shooting to hit.

2)Stat vs Stat on a chart for close combat to hit.

3)Stat vs stat for on a different chart non vehicle damage.

4)Stat cancels out function if less than opposed Stat.(Armour Saves and AP.)

5)Roll under stat on 2 D6 for LD.

Then we have different resolution for vehicles

7)Stat + D6 vs stat , for vehicle armour.

8)D6 roll on chart for vehicle damage.
AND on top of this we have over eighty special rules!

The vast range of units and abilities can not be covered with just direct representation .The variation in species and technology is too vast.

However, using opposed stats in a single table with an extended range of results for a D6 .OR using opposed stats directly , with the D6 as the random factor of success.

Could cover all combat resolution with one simple method.

To hit at range, shooting skill vs Stealth skill.
To hit in assault, Assault skill vs agility skill
To make armour save, targets Armour value vs weapon hits AP value
To damage weapons damage value vs target resilience.

Ill give examples of each method , after we agree on what game play and basic game mechanics we should use.

@all.
Well as no one seems to think a 40k war game rule set should be co-operative ,or based on naval warfare or ancient warfare.(Apart from GW, plc. )

And we have a size for the intended game.(I would like to leave out the 'big toys' from 6th and 7th ed, for now.We can add them back in after we get the core units of infantry vehicles and M/Cs working how they should first.)

We have established the scale and scope for the new game play.

Now on to game mechanics.
The alternating turn sequence ,(IGO/UGO.)Only really works with games that include a couple of turns or more of tactical maneuver into effective weapons range.

As the combatants are usually within effective weapons range after one turn in 40k, a more interactive game turn is a better fit!

Alternating phases is the least disruptive and easiest game turn to move to for existing 40k players in my experience.As the phases stay the same but the order becomes interleaved.
EG.
A move,
B moves
A shoots
B Shoots
A assaults
B assaults

(Ill put back a pyschic phase if we need one.I am not convinced we do.)

Players can alternate going first, or roll off, or use tactical ratings to decide, etc.
Also if we leave resolution until both players have made attacks in each shooting /assault phase, We can simulate simultaneous activation, with the minimum of fuss.

I know lots of people want to use alternating unit activation, but this has met critisism from people wanting to take actions with armies not single units one at a time.
And it still allows one unit to perform multiple actions while the opponent watches/removes casualties.Which some players think is just as unfair as letting an army take multiple actions while they watch.
And with the massive range of unit sizes and types in 40k, from Deathstars to MSU .It is perceived to be an source of balance issues by some current 40k players.

As I would like the new war game rules to appeal to new players,by being straight forward as possible.And to be perceived as free from obvious imbalance causing issues as possible.And appeal to veteran players because it has a lot of tactical depth.

I would like to use this simple alternating phase game turn to start with.

I also think a more intuitive way to resolve damage would be..
Roll to hit.
Roll to save.
Roll to damage.
I would like this to apply to ALL units, in a similar way.(To get rid of the multiple resolution methods in 40k 7th ed, and obvious balance issues between unit types.)

I would like to keep the 3 stage damage resolution for several reasons, it adds character and subtle differences between units.And it allows us to implement a very simple but effective suppression system to shooting.

Ill stop there for any comments or questions people may have....

You can always make psychic powers phase based. so all shooting would be in the shooting phase, most buffs and debuffs at movement and such.

based on something like a LD check + psyker level to meet a number or what not. instead of psychic pools. which would benefit having higher lv psykers. which i never understood in current 40k.

edit: roll to hit roll to save and roll to damage is the current system anyway isnt it?

@Lanrak
You wrote a lot lol. I'll get back at you as I process what you said and formulate what I think about it, mate. Right now I'm in finals week so my replies might be a bit slow. You have some excellent ideas and hey- even getting rid of the different resolution methods and replacing them with a single one where stat goes vs stat will make the game infinitely easier and intuitive for new players to more easily get involved. I know that not even I know all the charts and equivalents and whatever. It's much too complicated and it complicated the game needlessly.

And great idea with the interwoven phases to make the turn more interactive. I have yet to completely explore that idea but at face value it sounds fantastic!

@Desubot
Could you explain what you mean by that? I though to just put the Psychic phase, the assault, and shooting all in one phase- the action phase. You'd move and then use your action whether its to shoot a bolter, attack a unit within melee range, or use a psychic power. For salvo and heavy weapons, they'd simply not move in order to fire during the action phase. What do you think?

Pre 6th (?) edition psychic powers happens at different phases depending on what it was. some powers activated in combat, some in shooting (so they can shoot)

instead of having a separate phase for all Psychic powers as we do now.

 Desubot wrote:
Pre 6th (?) edition psychic powers happens at different phases depending on what it was. some powers activated in combat, some in shooting (so they can shoot)

instead of having a separate phase for all Psychic powers as we do now.

That's interesting. If it's a combat power, it'll activate in the combat phase. If it debuffs movement or whatever, it happens elsewhere. I like that, it makes more sense and it gives psychics a more special role in the army since they can do a myriad of things. Instead of having your power take effect next turn, your librarian or whatever can activate it when he's supposed to and then have it directly affect the target unit in the next phase.

Why was the psychic phase introduced if the 6th edition had a good system?

I've always preferred the idea of interleaved turns, and love how they work in games that are designed around them.

In fact, I've been considering what the game would be like if there was no such thing as turn phases, but instead in each unit's turn it can either move, charge, shoot or fight (if you're in close combat). You'd need to double or triple the number of turns, and some units like vehicles might be able to move and shoot as a single action (either that or their move and shoot actions would just be more significant), but the basic idea is that everything becomes a discrete action, you have to choose between moving and shooting or moving every turn to get to a target faster etc. It eliminates the clunky running mechanic, and also removes the need for reactionary mechanics, i.e- Overwatch, since in your turn you just shoot the combat unit that's heading towards you instead, or move away if you prefer.

I was also picturing it as working along the lines that each pair of unit activations is done by Initiative, so if player A has the unit with the highest Initiative, they take an action with it, then their opponent takes an action with their highest unit, then you work it out again. This means that while Eldar wouldn't move faster as such, they could get in first a lot more of the time which seems appropriate, it becomes especially interesting in armies with mixed Initiatives such as Tyranids where some monsters have low Initiative, but others are higher, so you might get to act first in each pairing till your highest Initiative units have all acted for that turn. If one side has more units than the other then you still end up waiting at the end, but that's just more incentive to wipe stuff out completely faster rather than just wounding everything

This of course would be an even more significant departure, and needs to be balanced by things like Heavy weapons requiring a reload action before they can fire again (so you can only fire lighter weapons every turn), but would fire more shots or something.

@Deusbot.
Excellent suggestion for psychic power integration and implementation in the new rules.

I thought 40k still used ' roll to hit', 'roll to wound,' roll to save'?(I have not played any 7th ed 40k games.So I am not sure. )

Anyhow rolling to save before rolling to wound/damage, makes more sense from a sequencing point of view.And allows a simple suppression mechanic to be used.

@urbanknight.
No worries mate.I would rather take it slowly and get it a good as we can.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Haravikk.
I have a game turn mechanic for the advanced rules that follows what you are proposing.(I think).

Command Phase.

Primary Action Phase.

Secondary Action Phase.

End of turn phase.

Players place an order counter (representing 2 actions), face down next to their each of their units in the command phase.

Then players alternate taking the first action of the order counters in the primary action phase.

Then players alternate taking the second action of the order counters in secondary action phase.

The 6 order counters cover the combinations of actions , move shoot, ready and assault. I have found this game turn is only really suited to more experienced players. So for the new rules I would like to stick to the simpler alternating phase game turn.

Anyhow,If we are happy with the simple alternating phase game turn , outlined in my previous post.

I would like to cover some simple ideas for mobility.

ALL units get a Mobility stat.
This is expressed as the maximum distance the unit can move when taking a move action.(In inches.)And a Letter showing HOW the unit moves.
(L)Legs, (W)Wheels, (T)Tracks , (H) Hover.

EG
SM Bike W 12"
LemanRuss T 6"
Dreadnought L 6"
Land Speeder H 12"

Terrain effects the different mobility types in different ways. The terrain chart shows how terrain types effect the various mobility types.

ALL Movement is taken in the movement phase!

In the movement phase a unit can..

a)Move up to its mobility value, and shoot in the shooting phase.

b)Move over its its mobility value, up to double its mobility value , and not shoot in the shooting phase.

c) NOT move, and shoot all weapons to full effect in the shooting phase.

d )Charge up to double it mobility value , into base to base/ hull contact with enemy unit.And fight a round of close combat with the enemy unit it charged in the assault phase.

This is an attempt to speed up play by removing all random movement,(pointless dice rolling,) and completing all movement in the movement phase.

 Haravikk wrote:
I've always preferred the idea of interleaved turns, and love how they work in games that are designed around them.

In fact, I've been considering what the game would be like if there was no such thing as turn phases, but instead in each unit's turn it can either move, charge, shoot or fight (if you're in close combat). You'd need to double or triple the number of turns, and some units like vehicles might be able to move and shoot as a single action (either that or their move and shoot actions would just be more significant), but the basic idea is that everything becomes a discrete action, you have to choose between moving and shooting or moving every turn to get to a target faster etc. It eliminates the clunky running mechanic, and also removes the need for reactionary mechanics, i.e- Overwatch, since in your turn you just shoot the combat unit that's heading towards you instead, or move away if you prefer.

I was also picturing it as working along the lines that each pair of unit activations is done by Initiative, so if player A has the unit with the highest Initiative, they take an action with it, then their opponent takes an action with their highest unit, then you work it out again. This means that while Eldar wouldn't move faster as such, they could get in first a lot more of the time which seems appropriate, it becomes especially interesting in armies with mixed Initiatives such as Tyranids where some monsters have low Initiative, but others are higher, so you might get to act first in each pairing till your highest Initiative units have all acted for that turn. If one side has more units than the other then you still end up waiting at the end, but that's just more incentive to wipe stuff out completely faster rather than just wounding everything

This of course would be an even more significant departure, and needs to be balanced by things like Heavy weapons requiring a reload action before they can fire again (so you can only fire lighter weapons every turn), but would fire more shots or something.

For this to work, we need smaller army sizes. What we're trying to do is reduce bloat and down time for players- nobody wants to be playing against that guy with the ten million guardsmen as he moves them all in a turn. So by doing this system, we get the players in an interactive scenario. However, entire turns might take too long if we do interwoven turns between units if we have a ton of units. I don't like setting restricitons for anything, so is there a way that this would work? If not, like I said, how will we fix this issue?

@Lanrak
To answer your question about the game size, I'm partial to platoon size. This way we make players think more about what they're bringing to the table and we can introduce a more comprehensive and interesting upgrade system so that each unit feels unique. I feel that this is the advantage 40k has over Fantasy- smaller unit sizes and smaller armies overall lead to a less cluttered game with a more personal feel. You want each squad to perform their function, kind of like chess. Maybe 10 squads of 6/7 units each? That way we don't have too any models at once and you can blow through a turn pretty fast- it only takes 6 movement phases for your army, 6 for your opponent. With our layered turn mechanic it'll feel faster and not boring to watch since players will be engaged, and it'll feel indeed like a chess match. And yes, modern warfare lol. Ancient obviously wouldn't work here and Naval doesn't work either.

Here are the stats I'd like for the average unit (infantry). Obviously a different approach will be needed for vehicles and the like.

For Movement:

Initiative will be used to figure out who will go first in a turn sequence, much like in Dungeons and Dragons. The quickest units will have higher initiative. Scale of 1-10 (or 20?), 1 being the slowest.
Speed is the range of movement allowed per turn, measured in inches.

For Assault:

Strength will be used for assault and melee. Scale of 1-10, 1 being the weakest.
Defense will be used to defend against Strength. If Defense is higher than Strength, the attack is negated. Scale of 1-10, 1 being the weakest.

For Ranged Combat:

Ballistics will be used for shooting prowess, and will represent the accuracy of a shot. Scale of 1-10, 1 being fethed up accuracy.
Evade will be used to avoid ranged attacks. If Agility is higher than Ballistics, the shot not only misses and the target evades the shot. Range of 1-10, 1 being the clumsiest.

For Damage Calculation:

Weapon Strength refers to the damaging potential of the weapon wielded. Scale of 1-10, 1 being the weakest.
Armor refers to the actual armor on a model and will be used against WS in case of an attack. If Armor is higher than WS, the attack dissipates across the armor and inflicts no damage on the model. Scale of 1-10, 1 being the flimsiest armor.
Health will simply replace Wounds. If a ranged attack surpasses a target's Evade and the ranged weapon does more damage than the armor can handle, 1 is subtracted from the total Health count of the model. If a melee attack surpasses a target's Defense and does more damage than the target's armor can bear, 1 is subtracted from the Health count. At 0 Health, a model is removed.

I'm not sure what to do with stuff like Invulnerability and Cover saves. I was thinking of a system where cover would add points to a unit's Evade count and Invulnerability would simply be rolled like usual (2+ invuln would mean a roll of 2+ would shrug off an attack), but adding even one or two points to the Evade count might make cover too OP. What's preventing players from using an artillery barrage to make craters and then camp in them to set up killzones for their enemy to wander into? I wouldn't want to encourage this kind of entrenched warfare, so maybe we could raise all the stats to a 20 point cap instead of 10 so that the bonus of a cover save is mitigated and doesn't make a unit completely broken?

Anyways, what do you guys think? I feel like with this system people will truly take into account the stats of their units and weapon upgrades will feel much better. You'd only give units high in Ballistics a good ranged weapon and units high in Strength get a good melee weapon. Units that are tanky and have a ton of Defense will be given the great armor so they can bullet sponge, and the ones with high Evade can go "crater-hopping" and play guerilla tactics with the enemy.

Edit: I think giving Assault troops the ability to double run and assault is a good one, it makes them faster and it gives them viability. However, I haven't completely put it into context so it may make some units broken. How do we make Assault troops viable while making sure they don't break the game by dashing across the battlefield?

Edit #2: The Initiative stat is there only because there is an assumption that the turn order will be per unit. For example: Player 1's fastest unit goes fist in action phase 1. Player 2's fastest unit goes into action phase 1. Then, Player 1's second fastest unit goes into action phase 1, and the turn order keeps on interweaving until all units have taken their action. Then, action phase 2 starts, the same process happens, and the turn ends. Like I said before, in a game with a ton of units this might be slow and tedious (Might, I'm not sure if it really will) so we have to figure out if that's what we're going for and if so, how to make the game faster. Whether by limiting army size or whatever, but we'll see.

@urbanknight.
Just a bit of clarification on the points you raised.

A platoon sized game is usually 20 to 60 infantry a side.(Sort of 2nd ed size games.)
A HQ and 2 to 5 units .Each unit can be 5 to 10 soldiers, 3 bikes/buggies , or a tank for example.

If you prefer a platoon sized skirmish scifi game, there are lots to pick from!
Beyond The Gates Of Antaries, (by Rick Priestly ) Warpath Fire fight, Infinity, Urban War,Tomorrows War, StarGrunt II, No Limits, Fast And Dirty. etc.

There are that many quality scifi skirmish rule sets currently available, its propbably easier to convert the one you like best to use 40k models in.

A Company level game usually has a HQ unit and 5 to 10 units, on each side.

If you are wanting to use about 10 units a side , then this is a company level game.

I have some ideas to speed up the interaction and movement of units, so we can use more units without it slowing the game down as much as the current 40k rules do.
Also increasing the level of tactical options will allow units to perform more in game functions , and therefore allow different play styles to be generated without 'special snow flake rules'.

Initiative...

In alternating phases,with simultaneous resolution modeling,Initiative is redundant.
Who hits what is decided by the opposing skills , not arbitrary scheduling of made up skill to counter a non interactive game turn.(This will be come clearer as we progress through the new resolution methods.

Speed = distance moved over time, as turn = non defined fixed period of time , speed is reduced to max distance in inches.

Assault rolling to hit
To hit in assault =Assault skill.(Value 1 to 10)
To avoid being hit in assault = Dodge skill .(Value 1 to 10)

Ranged attacks rolling to hit.
To hit at range = Shooting skill (Value 1 to 10) .
To not be hit at range =Evade skill.(Value 1 to 10)

(Here we replace the scheduling function of Initiative, with the immediate opposed skill.
Inititive does not decide who swings first, but who is likely to get hit first.

EG ork Initiative 2 runs as a Eldar banshee Initiative 6 .
The Ork flails wildly as the Edar Banshee elegantly and deftly doges out the way of the brutish attacks.
The Eldar banshee dispacthes the Ork with one well exectuted swing of her sword as the ork thunders past ...
The ork swung first several times probably, but missed.The Banshee landed the first blow however.

Adding these opposed skill also helps distinguish between the units better.IMO.

Armour Save rolls.
Weapons have an AP( value of 1 to 10.)
Armour has an AV (value of 1 to 10.)

1 being the weakest, 10 being the best. These values are compared on a 'universal resolution chart' and apply to ALL units.

Having values from 1 to 10 allows us to cover all the units in the game, where as 2+ to 6+ armour saves only gives HALF the range of values.

Here is the universal resolution chart we are currently using for play test.(We have tried extending the range of the D6 a bit , to see how it goes.

A/O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1....,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7.n,n
2....3.4.4.5.5.6.6.7.7.n.
3....3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.7.7.
4....2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.7.
5....2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.
6....1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.
7....1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.
8....d.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5
9....d.d.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4
10..d.d.d.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.

7= halve number of 6s rolled = number of successes.
n= no effect what so ever.
d= automatic success that denies any special abilities of the opponent.

Ill stop there for comments and questions.
(Ill cover damage rolls later.)

Lanrak wrote:
@urbanknight.
Just a bit of clarification on the points you raised.

A platoon sized game is usually 20 to 60 infantry a side.(Sort of 2nd ed size games.)
A HQ and 2 to 5 units .Each unit can be 5 to 10 soldiers, 3 bikes/buggies , or a tank for example.

If you prefer a platoon sized skirmish scifi game, there are lots to pick from!
Beyond The Gates Of Antaries, (by Rick Priestly ) Warpath Fire fight, Infinity, Urban War,Tomorrows War, StarGrunt II, No Limits, Fast And Dirty. etc.

There are that many quality scifi skirmish rule sets currently available, its propbably easier to convert the one you like best to use 40k models in.

A Company level game usually has a HQ unit and 5 to 10 units, on each side.

If you are wanting to use about 10 units a side , then this is a company level game.

I'll check those games out, but yeah, 10+ units sounds fair and small enough. I was thinking Armageddon for some reason lol

I have some ideas to speed up the interaction and movement of units, so we can use more units without it slowing the game down as much as the current 40k rules do.
Also increasing the level of tactical options will allow units to perform more in game functions , and therefore allow different play styles to be generated without 'special snow flake rules'.

Initiative...

In alternating phases,with simultaneous resolution modeling,Initiative is redundant.

What do you mean by redundant? That doesn't make sense- initiative resolves which unit the player is allowed to move per phase sequence. For clarity, let's define a few terms and then I'll finish my point.

Phase: Command Phase, Action Phase 1, Action Phase 2, etc. These are all phases.
Turn: All the phases. C Phase, A Phase 1, A Phase 2, and End Phase are the four parts of a turn. Both players have to finish their respective phases for the turn to be over.
Phase Sequence: Let's say you and I are on A Phase 1. We both have five units. That means that I move one unit in A Phase 1, then you move one unit in A Phase 1. The Phase Sequence goes back to me, and I move my next unit. This goes on until my 5 units have gone and your 5 units have gone. Once all 10 units have participated in A Phase 1, A Phase 2 begins and the Phase Sequence happens again.

This is the reason why Initiative is important. It gives a clear advantage to fast armies, but it also adds a counterbalance: Since they're not all moving at once but one unit at a time, you can counter them with your own fast units.

Now.

It just occurred to me that perhaps a player would see more tactical advantage in moving a dreadnought instead of a skimmer to counter a jetbike. By initiative rules, he technically has to move the skimmer first, which sets up a restriction for him and makes him conform to a certain strategy. In that case, I'd be alright for Initiative to be stricken, but you keep on using it to show who gets hit?

Who hits what is decided by the opposing skills , not arbitrary scheduling of made up skill to counter a non interactive game turn.(This will be come clearer as we progress through the new resolution methods.

Speed = distance moved over time, as turn = non defined fixed period of time , speed is reduced to max distance in inches.

Assault rolling to hit
To hit in assault =Assault skill.(Value 1 to 10)
To avoid being hit in assault = Dodge skill .(Value 1 to 10)

Ranged attacks rolling to hit.
To hit at range = Shooting skill (Value 1 to 10) .
To not be hit at range =Evade skill.(Value 1 to 10)

(Here we replace the scheduling function of Initiative, with the immediate opposed skill.
Inititive does not decide who swings first, but who is likely to get hit first.

EG ork Initiative 2 runs as a Eldar banshee Initiative 6 .
The Ork flails wildly as the Edar Banshee elegantly and deftly doges out the way of the brutish attacks.
The Eldar banshee dispacthes the Ork with one well exectuted swing of her sword as the ork thunders past ...
The ork swung first several times probably, but missed.The Banshee landed the first blow however.

It would make more sense if the Banshee were to attack first. If she has higher Initiative and in the fluff she's obviously faster, why is she just standing there letting an Ork swing at her? There's a chance his hit will connect, so it would make more rational sense for her to attack first. This way, Assault is dictated by the fastest units- while they may not pack a punch like the heavier units, they get to strike first. Or we could also make a roll chart for initiative or something so heavy units dont always go last and have a chance to strike first (something to represent ambushes and fierceness of the model or something. Maybe this particular Ork Boy took the Banshee by surprise, whatever. What do you think?

Adding these opposed skill also helps distinguish between the units better.IMO.

Armour Save rolls.
Weapons have an AP( value of 1 to 10.)
Armour has an AV (value of 1 to 10.)

1 being the weakest, 10 being the best. These values are compared on a 'universal resolution chart' and apply to ALL units.

Having values from 1 to 10 allows us to cover all the units in the game, where as 2+ to 6+ armour saves only gives HALF the range of values.

No disagreements here. What did you think about cover saves? Do they add to the armor count or what? And what about Invulnerability?

Here is the universal resolution chart we are currently using for play test.(We have tried extending the range of the D6 a bit , to see how it goes.

A/O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1....,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7.n,n
2....3.4.4.5.5.6.6.7.7.n.
3....3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.7.7.
4....2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.7.
5....2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.
6....1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.
7....1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.
8....d.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5
9....d.d.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4
10..d.d.d.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.

7= halve number of 6s rolled = number of successes.

I don't understand this. What do you mean, halve the number of 6's?

n= no effect what so ever.
d= automatic success that denies any special abilities of the opponent.

Ill stop there for comments and questions.
(Ill cover damage rolls later.)

Comments in bold and yellow. The chart is a good idea, and a company game is alright. I hadn't thought about the actual numbers. I'd like you to explain the suppression mechanic you wanted to add to this. Subtracting from Ballistics or movement range might be the result of a suppression action.

And here are the stat names that I'd like to use, just so that we don't use interchangeables and get confused. Because we want players to be immersed and have the game be as easy and newbie friendly as possible, using words that have different initials is best when designing stat names because the codexes themselves will use just the initials per unit. Like so:

Strength will be used as the skill to hit in melee.
Defense will be used to counter Strength.
Ballistics will be used for ranged attacks and the accuracy of a shot.
Evasion will be used to counter Ballistics.
Initiative will be used to see who attacks first in melee (but we'll see about that)
Armor Rating will dictate how much armor a unit has.
Weapon Damage will show how powerful the weapon the unit is holding is. It is countered by AR.

And so we have our unique set of initials: S, D, B, E, I, AR, and WD. RoM could also stand for Range of Movement and will show how much a unit can move per standard move action. Give me all your questions and comments lol

The game turn.
I only mentioned the 'open phase' game turn as a advanced rules option.(As Haravikk was suggesting something along those lines.)

But for the simple new rules, I was hoping to stay with the basic alternating phases.

A moves all units
B moves all units

A shoots with all units
B shoots with all units
(Resolve effects of shooting after both sides have made attacks.)

A assaults with all units
B assaults with all units
(Resolve effects of assault after both sides have made attacks.)

Obviously players may only move shoot and assault with units as dictated by the rules.
Allowing BOTH sides to make attacks before the damage is resolved ,reflects the fast messy and brutal nature of modern war.

As this game turn models SIMULTANEOUS ACTIONS, The order individual models swing their swords or pull the trigger,is not a concern any more.
Who is hit is decided by the opposed skills of the combatants.

Initiative is a 'hang over' from ancient warfare(WHFB) where blocks of troops slowly line up in an orderly fashion and take turns hitting each other.
It has NO PLACE in modern battle war game.(IMO.)

I was trying to illustrate how ancient warfare where models are in close formation do not have the room to doge out of the way.So to simplify the combat ancient war games structure the fighting into striking order based on initiative.

Where as with loose skirmishing formations as found in modern warfare , more agile fighters have room to dodge the swings of less agile opponents.

Getting 7+ on a D6.
Example A unit of 10 soldiers with BS of 3 try to hit a target with Evasion skill of 8 in light cover.(+1 to evasion skill) for a total Evasion value of 9.

The attacking player rolls 10 dice .And rolls 4 natural 6s. The number of 6 rolled is halved, to count as only 2 hits.

*The old way to roll a 7+ on a D6 was to roll a 6 and then re roll a 4+.Halving the number of 6s rolled achieves the same statistical result but removes the second dice roll.

Naming conventions.
Can you give me the reasons for picking the names you listed for the new stats?I am happy to use new stat names in the new rules.But some of the ones you listed do not seem that intuitive.

Just a recap post for everyone who might be reading this extremely wordy thread; here's what we've proposed so far for the new rules:

-The new rules will get rid of individual player turns, instead interweaving phases between players. For example, Player 1 will move all his units in the movement phase, and then Player 2 will move his units. After that, the shooting phase begins and the players will resume the sequence until the turn is over.

This will make turns more engaging and interesting for players since counterattacks and deeper strategy will be necessary to succeed when your opponent can shoot you back right after you're done. The whole starter/advanced turn sequence is a deeper discussion that we'll delve into later.

-The psychic phase is no more! We're throwing back all the way to 6th edition where psychic powers manifested themselves as needed and in the phase they needed to be used. This also creates more synergy with the interwoven turns. For example, you have a psychic unit that can slow down enemies. Instead of having your unit risk death after the shooting and assault phases to use it's power (and the power won't even activate till next turn anyways since it affects movement), your unit can cast it during it's movement phase and have it immediately affect the enemy.

The multiple resolution systems will be gone, replaced by a stat vs stat mechanic. I dunno about you guys, but the whole "to hit" "to wound" and "to...etc" charts were always off putting for me. Too many charts with different mechanics and different resolutions. By establishing a stat system of 1-10, 1 being the lowest, and comparing both stats to influence rolls we can simplify the game, use a standard in resolution, and keep the dice rolling mechanic.

More things will show up, I haven't covered everything since we're just now starting, but those are the big ideas we're floating so far!

Lanrak, mate, I'll get back to you in a bit. I have a final tomorrow so after I'm done I'll address your post

You know if you are going to do this properly you will have to spend a lot of time on it and if the end result is going to be better than a commerical product like 40k then you really ought to do this is a commercial product as well. You need to sell the finished product. That way more people will have an opportunity to enjoy what you have created and you will have had your sacrifices in time compensated too. Everyone's a winner. And since you are now deciding to go for a 'from the ground up' total fresh write up rather than just patching 40k then you needn't worry about stepping on Games Workshop's IP. They might even buy the rights to it in the end so it could still end up as a 40k rules set.

I am interested enough in this project to post here because I am also writing a fresh rule set for a fantasy game. A lot of the ideas you and Lanrak have for interleaved player turns and such I have in my game as well. I'm aiming for my game to be published eventually. I'd like to be a part of this project too but only if it is going to be a commercial project.

Another thing to consider is that voluntary projects with no hope for reward don't have great staying power, once the initial enthusiasm wears thin and some problems develop people lose interest and drop it.

If your going to do intiative and have it meaningfull then Highest intiative moves last and shoots first ..giving it the greatest advantage(the higher initiative gets to pick where the fight will be)

morfydd wrote:
If your going to do intiative and have it meaningfull then Highest intiative moves last and shoots first ..giving it the greatest advantage(the higher initiative gets to pick where the fight will be)

If you are doing that then you probably should have the option to use them later as going first isnt always the best option.

morfydd wrote:
If your going to do intiative and have it meaningfull then Highest intiative moves last and shoots first ..giving it the greatest advantage(the higher initiative gets to pick where the fight will be)

That makes some sense but is a bit too rigid, sometimes moving first is better and sometimes shooting later is better.

The way initiative works (provisionally) in my game is higher initiative can choose to play an action (move or shoot for example) before a lower initiative opponent, but can defer their action till later.

That way higher initiative gets the larger range of tactical choices.

So like imagine an eldar facing off against an ork. Ordinarily the eldar would want to shoot that smelly ork in the face before the ork pulls off a charge and subjects the eldar's exquisite senses to his body odour (and axes and fangs and whatnot) but what if in between the ork and the eldar was a minefield and behind the ork was mega-ork? Then actually the eldar might prefer to let the ork dash across the minefield and blow himself up before the eldar shoots and so giving the eldar a clear shot at the mega-ork behind him...

Hi folks.
I have been looking at writing new rules for my favorite game setting since 4th ed 40k arrived.(Oh crap they still want 40k to be WHFB in SPACE! ).

And looking at the rules sets we have played and talked about for the last 30 years or so.(Yes I am an old fart. )

I have tried several combinations of game mechanics and resolution methods in new rules for 40k.(And we have had some great fun converting some other rules for 40k skirmish games.And had lots of fun with the two good Epic rule sets. ))

However, after several attempts, the one thing that lead the projects astray, is when we lost focus on the intended game play.

Including something because it works well in another rules set, that may be written specifically for that particular feature.Is NOT a good reason to include it in a new rule set you are writing.

In fact writing a simple and elegant rule set for 40k (5th ed size game.)Is very problematical, because GW have just converted a ancient rule set , added in lots of kool ideas, and not really thought about the impact on the game play.(GW plc write rules to inspire sales of the latest releases, NOT to arrive at a well defined and enriched game play.)

The scale of the models leads people to want to use detailed model resolution.But the scale of the game requires detailed unit interaction.

So the current rules are 'sub optimal', Skirmish rules do not fit the scale of the game.And Battle game rules do not fit the scale of the minatures.

The ONLY way to progress and stay on track is define the game play and focus on game mechanics and resolution methods that deliver it in the least complicated way.

I have quite a few alternatives we can try out.I am proposing the ones I think would be the best fit.But I am open to discussing others.

I am not keen on using the ideas based on ancient combat embedded in the core WHFB rules, that have been transfered by backwards compatibility into 40k.

In WHFB the majority of weapons use the models physical strength to determine the damage inflicted.(Swords and bows etc.)As weapons and armour in WHFB are all low tech
The focus of WHFB is close combat , the amount of attacks and the order those attacks occur in.deserve the place on the stat line.

In 40k most weapons have damage rating independent of the users Strength.
In 40k the level of tech often determines the number of attacks/rate of fire .

And as in 40k units are not large unwieldly regiments lining up in an orderly fashion to take turns striking at each other in close combat.

But are smaller skirmishing squads frantically trying to kill the opponent before they get killed themselves.

In 40k shooting should be equally important as assault.IMO.And how unit move across the gaming area is an important attribute that deserves its own stat.

So as a quick rule of thumb.Mobility , shooting and assault should have equal representation on the stat line.IMO.

Current 40k has, 0,1,and 4 loading.I proposed 2, opposed values for each in game resolution feature.

After lengthy discussion and diagnosis of suppression in the real world and the ways to model it in game.

The simplest model of threat /confidence interaction is this.

If a unit fails more saves from shooting , than it has 'hit points' left,the unit becomes suppressed.

I admit it is a simple abstraction , but it covers the wide range of unit types found in 40k , without the need for lots of complicated (special )rules.

large mob units rely on weight of numbers to avoid suppression .Elite units rely on better armour to avoid suppression.

And everything else is a proportional mix of armour and number of bodies, in between.

 SolarCross wrote:

morfydd wrote:
If your going to do intiative and have it meaningfull then Highest intiative moves last and shoots first ..giving it the greatest advantage(the higher initiative gets to pick where the fight will be)

That makes some sense but is a bit too rigid, sometimes moving first is better and sometimes shooting later is better.

The way initiative works (provisionally) in my game is higher initiative can choose to play an action (move or shoot for example) before a lower initiative opponent, but can defer their action till later.

That way higher initiative gets the larger range of tactical choices.

So like imagine an eldar facing off against an ork. Ordinarily the eldar would want to shoot that smelly ork in the face before the ork pulls off a charge and subjects the eldar's exquisite senses to his body odour (and axes and fangs and whatnot) but what if in between the ork and the eldar was a minefield and behind the ork was mega-ork? Then actually the eldar might prefer to let the ork dash across the minefield and blow himself up before the eldar shoots and so giving the eldar a clear shot at the mega-ork behind him...

I think that might make the game too complicated. The way Lanrak and I are formatting these rules will allow interwoven turns, but not of individual units. I thought about letting players alternate individual unit turns but not only is that tedious, it can be counterproductive if we factor in initiative- jetbikes will always move before dreadnoughts so players will have to counter jetbikes with either jetbikes of their own or outfit their heavier units with more armor to survive the faster unit's onslaught. Adding your system in where the faster units can reserve their action would solve this problem, but I think that might make the game too complex for a newcomer. Let's keep it in mind as we go on, so let me explain what I've been thinking of regarding turns.

The turn order will have alternating phases between players: Action phases. The two action phases can be used for a myriad of actions: Setting up heavy/salvo weapons, moving, shooting, charging, using psychic powers, and calling out challenges are just a few of the many actions. Keep in mind that only one can be carried out per phase, meaning that a sniper wouldn't be able to set up and shoot in one phase- he can set up in one phase and shoot in the next. While this ensures a shot each turn, it makes the sniper exposed to assault, balancing out the game and mirroring real combat. My grand idea for turn equality will be in how the turns are resolved. Both players will decide their unit's orders in their respective action phases, but their orders will only be resolved once both players' phases have concluded. For example:

Player 1 has an Ork Boy, and Player 2 has a Space Marine Scout. Player 1 enters Action Phase 1, and orders the Ork Boy to shoot the SM Scout with his shoota. He doesn't stand a good chance of hitting him, but he has the intention to charge and melee next phase. With his Phase over, Player 1 cedes control to Player 2, and Player 2 starts his Action Phase 1. He orders the SM Scout to return the Ork's fire. The Scout has a higher Ballistics skill than the Ork, so he stands a much better chance of landing a hit. Player 2 ends his Phase, and Action Phase 1 ends for both players. With the Action phase finalized, both player's orders will be resolved simultaneously. The Ork Boy shoots, but he predictably misses. The SM Scout shoots, and he hits the Ork Boy. The Ork Boy is removed from the game board, and Action Phase 2 begins with Player 2's action.

With this system, the Ork Boy and the SM Scout are given equal chances to shoot in the phase. 40k's current system of letting one army do three phases before the second army can do more than deploy is extremely one-sided and can result in heavily unbalanced gameplay. Here, the SM Scout's stats proved victorious over the Ork Boy, and the Ork Boy's dismal Ballistics skill was the only thing that saved the Space Marine.

I do have a qualm with this system, though. It does not reward taking fast and agile units more than it rewards heavy units since either way, both units go at once. An Ogryn and a Banshee would assault at the same time, and the Ogryn would be able to soak up attacks with upgraded armor while dealing devastating damage (in this new system, at least), meaning that there is no value in taking fast units other than getting to the objective quicker. What could be done here is reinstate the Initiative stat and have it take part during resolution. In the example I used above, the SM Scout would have higher Initiative, making his shots resolve first in the resolution chain. After his shots have resolved, Health is subtracted and the Ork is not allowed to shoot if his Health dropped since you can't really shoot once you're dead, can you? This would reward faster units while still giving heavy units an option to take better armor to tank through that first attack so they can hit back harder.

It is this way that both players get to move their units but their actions are resolved according to initiative (1) or simultaneously (2), taking away the unfair advantage that first turn players have. Of course, now the second player has a slight advantage since he can react effectively to the first player (avoiding crossfire traps, assault charges, etc), but we can act to curb that advantage later. What do you guys think about it? Is this (semi)instantaneous resolution method good, or do we do the individual phase mechanic? Remember that the point of the rule change is to make things easier, balanced, and less complicated.

And hey, to reply to your first post: It would be nice to do something like that, but I'm not a professional game maker nor do I want to be one. If this rule system can be used commercially, then I will do so. But for now it's just a project I'm working on to make the game more balanced. I'd be glad to use your help but keep in mind that I do not guarantee that this project will succeed or yield any profit.

Lanrak wrote:
Hi folks.
I have been looking at writing new rules for my favorite game setting since 4th ed 40k arrived.(Oh crap they still want 40k to be WHFB in SPACE! ).

And looking at the rules sets we have played and talked about for the last 30 years or so.(Yes I am an old fart. )

I have tried several combinations of game mechanics and resolution methods in new rules for 40k.(And we have had some great fun converting some other rules for 40k skirmish games.And had lots of fun with the two good Epic rule sets. ))

However, after several attempts, the one thing that lead the projects astray, is when we lost focus on the intended game play.

Including something because it works well in another rules set, that may be written specifically for that particular feature.Is NOT a good reason to include it in a new rule set you are writing.

In fact writing a simple and elegant rule set for 40k (5th ed size game.)Is very problematical, because GW have just converted a ancient rule set , added in lots of kool ideas, and not really thought about the impact on the game play.(GW plc write rules to inspire sales of the latest releases, NOT to arrive at a well defined and enriched game play.)

The scale of the models leads people to want to use detailed model resolution.But the scale of the game requires detailed unit interaction.

So the current rules are 'sub optimal', Skirmish rules do not fit the scale of the game.And Battle game rules do not fit the scale of the minatures.

The ONLY way to progress and stay on track is define the game play and focus on game mechanics and resolution methods that deliver it in the least complicated way.

I have quite a few alternatives we can try out.I am proposing the ones I think would be the best fit.But I am open to discussing others.

I am not keen on using the ideas based on ancient combat embedded in the core WHFB rules, that have been transfered by backwards compatibility into 40k.

In WHFB the majority of weapons use the models physical strength to determine the damage inflicted.(Swords and bows etc.)As weapons and armour in WHFB are all low tech
The focus of WHFB is close combat , the amount of attacks and the order those attacks occur in.deserve the place on the stat line.

In 40k most weapons have damage rating independent of the users Strength.
In 40k the level of tech often determines the number of attacks/rate of fire .

Therefore we use Weapon Damage and Armor Rating to demonstrate this independent technology level. An Ork boy is strong, but he can be stronger with a Power Klaw. He's resilient, but he can be ever tougher with 'Eavy Armor. Weapons and Armor will be very important, which will make players think about the equipment they outfit their squads with.

And as in 40k units are not large unwieldly regiments lining up in an orderly fashion to take turns striking at each other in close combat.

But are smaller skirmishing squads frantically trying to kill the opponent before they get killed themselves.

It could be argued that combat is combat is combat. No matter where it is fought, fast units will strike first and dodge better than, say, an Ork encased in metal. We need to stop comparing this new rule system to Fantasy and think about how an actual combat situation would play out- that is the point of the rule change, after all. We want this to be easy to learn, intuitive so that people can remember the rules, and we want it to be balanced and have it make sense so stuff like the inverted armor piercing table doesn't throw people off.

In 40k shooting should be equally important as assault.IMO.And how unit move across the gaming area is an important attribute that deserves its own stat.

So as a quick rule of thumb.Mobility , shooting and assault should have equal representation on the stat line.IMO.

Current 40k has, 0,1,and 4 loading.I proposed 2, opposed values for each in game resolution feature.

After lengthy discussion and diagnosis of suppression in the real world and the ways to model it in game.

The simplest model of threat /confidence interaction is this.

If a unit fails more saves from shooting , than it has 'hit points' left,the unit becomes suppressed.

I suppose that makes sense, but shouldn't suppression affect weaker units as well? Like, the way suppression works is that it doesn't kill a unit, it just pins it and forces it to be very cautious when moving so it doesn't get hit, limiting movement. If I shoot at you with a machine gun, you'll duck for cover, right? Well, you're not gonna budge from that position until I'm dead or I stop firing, so we have to keep that in mind. Maybe set up suppression so that its a separate action instead of shooting to kill? Say for example that you have a huge unit like a Meganob that you really don't want next to your Leman Russ. You have a group of Guardsmen nearby, so maybe they're able to suppress the Meganob instead of killing him, something impossible to do since lasguns tickle monsters like him.

Maybe suppression should be a different kind of roll? Kind of like shooting but with a reduced threshold. For example, lasguns could have a Weapon Damage of 2, and the Meganob would have an Armor Rating of 4. The lasgun will definitely have a tough time killing this tin can, but we could modify the "to hit" table so that a lower roll is required for the lasgun to suppress the Nob. Think about it in terms of combat- the Nob wouldn't be completely afraid of getting lasered, but he would be cautious of getting shot in the eyes or something by a stray shot. Therefore he'd march on close to the ground and shield his face, limiting his RoM and weapon range so that he can continue moving and shooting despite of the lasgun barrage. In this way, weak units can still have a chance to be useful by suppressing dangerous units so that they can be dealt with, and assault troops are given a great boost- suppressed units can't run away very fast and make great targets. Obviously I just made this up so it needs work, but what do you guys think?

I admit it is a simple abstraction , but it covers the wide range of unit types found in 40k , without the need for lots of complicated (special )rules.

large mob units rely on weight of numbers to avoid suppression .Elite units rely on better armour to avoid suppression.

No matter whether its a large blob of mooks or an elite unit of armored baddies, supression is suppression. The whole unit gets suppressed, I think. We need to work on ways to avoid suppression so it doesn't become an OP tactic, but I don't think it makes sense that big blobs can avoid suppression- it doesn't matter if there are five or ten guys next to you, getting shot still makes you dive for cover. And high enough armor will render suppression tougher to roll, so I suppose elites with high AR are saved from that.

And everything else is a proportional mix of armour and number of bodies, in between.

Hey Lanrak, good to see you today! My comments are in yellow.

What exactly did you think wasn't intuitive about the stat names I proposed?

The game as it is, plays very clunky. Like a 90s game.

My only input is that hit, wound, armor save, feel no pain/reanimation protocols, needs to be reduced to a single roll. High toughness can be represented by many wounds.

Movement needs to be reduced to a single phase.

The sheer clunkyness, randomness and pointless overwatch (though overwatch - as in shooting in opponents turn if he moves into your field of fire is a good -strategical idea), needs to go.

 triplegrim wrote:
The game as it is, plays very clunky. Like a 90s game.

My only input is that hit, wound, armor save, feel no pain/reanimation protocols, needs to be reduced to a single roll. High toughness can be represented by many wounds.

Movement needs to be reduced to a single phase.

The sheer clunkyness, randomness and pointless overwatch (though overwatch - as in shooting in opponents turn if he moves into your field of fire is a good -strategical idea), needs to go.

I'm not sure exactly how to condense those rolls into a single one. Like I posted earlier, what we're doing here is making the resolution methods easier to understand. Hopefully by interweaving the phases we can make games more interesting, but without radically changing how the game works (for example, simplifying combat so much that shooting and assault are one stat- attack) we won't be able to cut down on dice rolls. The problem with reducing the number of dice is that the game will feel barebones and will lack strategic depth. If the Strength and Ballistics stats are mixed together to constitute a single "Attack" stat, it'll get rid of the variety between units. A strong melee fighter like an Ork would have the same attack as a sharpshooter like a Tau soldier. Since the Attack stat counts for both types of combat, it would mean that a Tau warrior could theoretically stand up to an Ork.

I know that's not what you meant, but keep that in mind. Reducing "to hit, wound, armor save" and so on would have a similar detriment. If we mix the Evasion and Armor Rating stats together, it'll completely break down the difference between fast, agile fighters like Banshees and slow, heavy fighters like Ogryns who have high armor. Not only that, it would make armor upgrades redundant.

What we have indeed done is that units now have to endure only two rolls in a regular attack to see if wounds should be allocated or not: Evasion/Defense, and Armor Rating. The attacker rolls his Ballistics/Strength against his target's Evasion/Defense (one dice roll), and then Weapon Damage is rolled against Armor Rating. If the result is higher, 1 point of damage is allocated to the unit. Then, if the unit has FNP that roll will be applied. If the target has invulnerability saves, that save is rolled before the Weapon Strength/Armor Rating roll. If that save is failed, the attack makes it through to the armor roll like normal.

Movement is restricted to a single action. You have two actions per unit spread out between two phases. If you choose to move twice with a unit, it's your choice and you may do so. Just keep in mind that your opponent can choose to shoot that moving unit after moving himself, or even shoot twice and not move.

Not sure what to think about Overwatch. On one hand, I like the mechanic, but on the other, I'm not sure about it since it might make ranged units too powerful now that we're also adding a suppression mechanic to all ranged units.

And high toughness will be shown by high Armor Rating. One thing I really hate about the game is that armor doesn't count for much here. With these rules we can change that so that an Ork Boy can have obviously inferior armor to that of a Nob instead of the Nob having a second hitpoint. I don't know which units truly deserve more HP, but that's something else to consider later. It does make sense that tough units require more damage to die, but then again- everything can die with a lucky enough shot, so maybe increasing armor is the way to go since it still allows the attacker to have a small chance to succeed? Tell me what you think!

You could do a simple % calculation and just make an average attack number reach an average defense number to reach that would = that %.

And special rules that bump up the defense or attack number for things like evasion or lighting reflexes.

 Desubot wrote:
You could do a simple % calculation and just make an average attack number reach an average defense number to reach that would = that %.

And special rules that bump up the defense or attack number for things like evasion or lighting reflexes.

What do you mean with the calculation? What is it modifying/replacing? And yeah, adding points to defense, strength, etc thanks to special rules make sense.

Its just math.....

a guy should be able to 100% kill a dude 50% of the time?

then attack vs defense should be a difference of 4. on a d6

you want to make terminators REALLY hard to kill? then bump the defense as high as you need to get the % you are expecting.

or if you want armor penetration and stuff can add to the attack dice to make it easier to hit defense.

though honestly it might not work well as a d6 isnt granular enough.

 Desubot wrote:
Its just math.....

a guy should be able to 100% kill a dude 50% of the time?

then attack vs defense should be a difference of 4. on a d6

you want to make terminators REALLY hard to kill? then bump the defense as high as you need to get the % you are expecting.

or if you want armor penetration and stuff can add to the attack dice to make it easier to hit defense.

though honestly it might not work well as a d6 isnt granular enough.

I admit that what you just said kinda went over my head, sorry :/
I don't agree that it should be a guaranteed kill every time that a hit lands, so maybe triplegrim was right in saying that we should add more health to the beefy units, regardless of their armor?

Maybe.

Personally would rather not have to remove individual models but more along the lines of shooting them making the overall unit weaker by degrading moral and or adding certain weapons that are straight lethal that will do so.

that way models get to actually stay on the table instead of removed after de bagging. which is ALWAYS demoralizing.

i think this is more fantasy though.

 Desubot wrote:
Maybe.

Personally would rather not have to remove individual models but more along the lines of shooting them making the overall unit weaker by degrading moral and or adding certain weapons that are straight lethal that will do so.

that way models get to actually stay on the table instead of removed after de bagging. which is ALWAYS demoralizing.

i think this is more fantasy though.

Morale will have to be addressed later, I'm not sure what kinda system we'll be using now. I do know that if we do things like that it'll make the game too complicated. Maybe instead of making all weapons do morale damage and only some do lethal damage, let all do lethal damage and have some inflict morale damage? For example, the weapon the Dark Reapers use, flamers in general, and stranglehorns? They'd do a bit less damage but inflict a moral check upon weapon hit- if my Burna Boys hit your SM Scouts, your scouts have to pass a leadership test or run away. This could be a different sort of suppression that could make ranged weapons interesting- make ranged weaponry not only lethal, but give it the potential to interrupt enemy actions and formations. Adding a Nob to a pack of Ork Boyz and giving him a Bosspole would mitigate the effects of these weapons, for example, so the game already has a structure for supporting morale-loss and ways of countering it.

These simplified rules sound pretty awesome. You might want to try changing small things and then implementing them into a few games to see how they work out. For example, you want to change the phases to:

Player A move
Player B Move
Player A Attack
Player B Attack
Player A Charge
Player B Charge

Start with that for a few games, with all the other BRB rules intact and see how it plays out. If you try to change too much too quickly it'll be tougher to judge what doesn't work properly and might be too much at once.

I liked the idea of an "Action" per phase for each unit. This actually makes a lot of sense that you should chose to move or shoot or psyker.

Just a thought....

ixi_DUCK_ixi wrote:
These simplified rules sound pretty awesome. You might want to try changing small things and then implementing them into a few games to see how they work out. For example, you want to change the phases to:

Player A move
Player B Move
Player A Attack
Player B Attack
Player A Charge
Player B Charge

Start with that for a few games, with all the other BRB rules intact and see how it plays out. If you try to change too much too quickly it'll be tougher to judge what doesn't work properly and might be too much at once.

I liked the idea of an "Action" per phase for each unit. This actually makes a lot of sense that you should chose to move or shoot or psyker.

Just a thought....

Thanks for your input! I'll definitely try it out this weekend with some of my mates and I'll get back to you guys with the test results after we're done. In the meantime, I'll stay here to answer questions and discuss new rules as we come up with them. Now you've got me looking forward to playing that game

 urbanknight4 wrote:

And hey, to reply to your first post: It would be nice to do something like that, but I'm not a professional game maker nor do I want to be one. If this rule system can be used commercially, then I will do so. But for now it's just a project I'm working on to make the game more balanced. I'd be glad to use your help but keep in mind that I do not guarantee that this project will succeed or yield any profit.

If you make a better game than 40k then the only difference between you and the monkeys who wrote 40k is that they got paid for their work. I, of course, do not expect a guarantee of success or profit but only a reasonable probability. If you are starting this with proper commercial intentions then the probability of success and profit lies some unknowable chance in between 0% and 100%, which is good enough for me. If you are starting this with the intention of throwing away your time for free then that probability looks like it lies somewhere between 0% and 0% which is not encouraging. Anyhoo best of luck with your project. I hope you don't mind if I start my own separate independent project.

I'm an entrepreneur I play dice with life all the time, no stranger to risk.

I have seen it mentioned here that the game needs to have the resolutions reduced to single roll, instead of the nominal three rolls that it has now. I absolutely agree the attacking procedure needs to be shortened, but to two rolls instead of one. I think having to roll three times and sometimes four for each attack is too much. I have actually been experimenting with two different ways to reduce it.
The first was changing the to-wound chart to one that modifies each roll to hit. For example I made it that 4+ on the chart would instead be -2 to hit, with an increment of 1 in each direction accordingly. It seems to be fairly proportional, and modifying the special rules to fit it wasn't hard.
My second idea is to flip the to-wound chart around and make it a chart for saving throws based on toughness and strength. Saves that a unit can take instead of armour. With this there would need to be nerf to all scores needed to hit, or better yet the number of attacks/shots models can make, in order to compensate. I don't think that would be hard though. If it's a change that reduces the number of dice that one rolls in an attack I think it would be great.

Make to hit based on distance and remove ballistic skills.

The closer the easier to shoot. The farther away the harder.

1-12"=2+, 12.1-24"=3+, 24.1-36"=4+, 36.1-48"=5+, 48.1-60=6+

Make weapons with sniper rules work back wards, easier to hit far away and difficult to hit up close due to being rushed.

1-12"=6+, 12.1-24"=5+, 24.1-36"=4+, 36.1-48"=3+, 48.1-60=2+

Redefine soldier roles based on shooting range.
troops are infantry that only has guns that can shoot 12.1-24". Make that range a 2+

Fast attack moves fast and cant really concentrate on shooting as they ride a bike or horse or use jump packs or jet bikes. Fast attacks can be infantry, beasts, mc, cavalry, flyers and skimmers. Their effective range is 1-12"=2+. Treat all ranges above 24" as 5+. Scat bikes will be nerfed.

Flyers treat air to ground targets as if it was the sniper ranges where the closer the more difficult but the further away it becomes easier. Flyers shooting at ground targets treats the target as if it was closer by 12" thereby making it more difficult since it is using the sniper or inverted shooting range. Rules like strafing run can ignore this.

Flyers shooting air to air use the regular shooting ranges.
Ground units shooting at air treats the flyer as if it is 12" even further so long range guns and snipers are better at shooting it or putting the flyer out of range.

Heavy support are supposed to have access to long range guns. Their sweet spot is 36.1-48"=2+. Shooting at 24.1-36"=5+ due to calibration error. Shooting at 48 1-60"=6+ due to curvature of the planet. Rules with ordanace or heavy can treat ranges above 48" as 5+.

These rules will not affect template rules including torrent and therby making flame and blast templates more favored. Just check max range and roll for scatter.

Remove individual model upgrades from squads. Create Squad upgrades.

Not sure how to handle weapon upgrades atm.
I was considering what of the sergeant weapons or special or heavy weapon can be baton passed around if the original carrier died. This will eliminate precision shots, challenges, look out sirs.

Any way we can organize the rules for infantry to be in movement trays just to make movement of large armies even faster? Like give you the option for no tray and play regularly. If you have 10 or more then you can put them on a tray and get bonuses to mitigate flamer and blast damage for balance purposes. Like reduce all damage from flamer and blast by half rounded up even though they are bunched together. In a real sense one sees it coming and yells duck or to all leap out the way.

Marksman224 wrote:
I have seen it mentioned here that the game needs to have the resolutions reduced to single roll, instead of the nominal three rolls that it has now. I absolutely agree the attacking procedure needs to be shortened, but to two rolls instead of one. I think having to roll three times and sometimes four for each attack is too much. I have actually been experimenting with two different ways to reduce it.
The first was changing the to-wound chart to one that modifies each roll to hit. For example I made it that 4+ on the chart would instead be -2 to hit, with an increment of 1 in each direction accordingly. It seems to be fairly proportional, and modifying the special rules to fit it wasn't hard.
My second idea is to flip the to-wound chart around and make it a chart for saving throws based on toughness and strength. Saves that a unit can take instead of armour. With this there would need to be nerf to all scores needed to hit, or better yet the number of attacks/shots models can make, in order to compensate. I don't think that would be hard though. If it's a change that reduces the number of dice that one rolls in an attack I think it would be great.

In the game I'm writing I have reduced attack resolution to two rolls: a to-hit roll and a to-wound roll. To hit is not much different except "cover saves" are bundled in as a to-hit penalty modifier. For the to-wound roll three 40k stats are bundled into one stat plus modifier, instead of toughness + wounds + armour save there is one stat "resilience" which is modified by an armour bonus. I use a lot of modifiers in place of a lot of rolls. I stretch out the range of values that a d6 produces to accommodate the wider range of values that stats plus modifiers can give by requiring 6s and 1s to be re-rolled, when a 6 is re-rolled the new result is added to 5 and when a 1 is rolled the result is added to -5. The gives the d6 roll a range of values -4 to 11 with a bell curve of probabilities in which 2-5 are more common than 6-11 or -4 to 1.

Base chance is less than 3 success, more than 4 is fail. Stats + other modifiers are added or subtracted together depending on whether they assisting or opposing to make an overall modifier which is then applied to the roll result.
How this would work in practice:

Guardsmen gets hit by a regular small arm say an Ork shoota: Assisting factors are that the shoota has a strength of 4 and AP of 1 (AP is a damage modifier that is used against armour- contrary to 40k larger AP are more penetrating than smaller) and in opposition the guardsmen has a resilience of say 2 plus an armour bonus of 2. -4 -1 +2 + 2 giving an overall modifier of -1 to the die result. So on 1-4 makes a kill and 5-6 means the gaurdsmen survives.

Example edge cases:

So say an Ogryn gets hit by a grot blaster or similar weak weapon. His base resilience would be something pretty high because he is big, so say it is 8 (resilience can go higher than 10 in my game as it includes "wounds"). The damage of the grot blaster is say just 2 and the Ogryn has some armour which buffs his resilience by 1. The overall damage modifier is then 8 + 1 -2 = +7 means that for the grot blaster to get a die result which is within 1-3 for success he must roll die result of less than -4, if first rolls a 1 and then a 1 again the reroll he will get the needed -4 but he'd be wildly lucky to get it.

On the other end a grot is hit by a lascannon. Base resilience is 1 and has no armour lascannon damage is 8 AP 5. Grot has no armour so we ignore the AP. The overall damage modifier is 1 - 8 = -7. The lascannon wielder would have to be unlucky enough to roll 6 and then 6 again, result 11 - 7 = 4 for fail.

HI folks.
Writing rules specifically for the sci fi company level battle game with 28mm minatures.

Is a bit like trying to explain the concept of how a modern jet passenger airplane should work.When the only reference most people have is steam engines and hot air balloons.

People keep asking 'but where is the coal store, and how can you get lift without hot air?'
(If the game turn does its job properly you do not need things to artificially restrict scheduling like 'Initiative values' , and reactions like 'over watch.'See how alternating phases has added more tactical depth and reduced complication already! )

I would like to get to the simplest rule set that delivers the most tactical depth.

However, it has been my experience over the last 10 years or so, there are some things that are intrinsically 40k.

The three stage damage resolution is one of them.
Because players are using 28mm minatures , they want to see the difference between a 'tough monster' with no armour and a 'weak man' with lots of armour.
Other battle games using 6mm to 15 mm minatures in 'blob squads' do not require this level of detail, as the PLAYERS DO NOT EXPECT IT.So they can get away with 2 stage damage resolution.

What makes the 40k rules so SLOW, is not the basic three stage damage resolution, but all the badly applied and worded special rules rules tacked on to it.

Using D6 is also intrinsically 40k to lots of gamers.I know some folk want to just use D10.But I would rather try using the D6 in a more intelligent way first.

Using defined phases is some thing lots of 40 players feel comfortable with.This is why I think interleaved phases is a good replacement game turn mechanic for the new straightforward rules.

@Grief
Many 40k players want their units to be different to everyone else.So a flat to hit based on distance is not going to be popular.

Most games use the effective weapon range , as a limit on how far some one can accurately fire a weapon.
If we use Shooting skill vs Evasion skill to generate proportional to hit rolls at range from the Universal Resolution Table.We get a much wider range of results that take lots more factors into account, effectively and intuitively.

We could add a long range modifier for a set distance.
EG targets more than 30" away get + 1 to their Evasion value.
And we could include cover in a similar way.Targets in cover add 1 to their Evasion value.

This would cover the skill and disposition of the shooter and the target, simply and efficiently.Resulting intuitive rules that deliver proportional results.

The 'If a unit suffers more failed saves than it has hit points left' , method to determine suppression.Is the simplest method that gives intuitive results for ALL UNITS found in a game like 40k.(I know because we have play tested it quite heavily. )

Basic ideas for suppression.
A suppressed unit counts as having moved.(Diving for cover, moving to maximize protection.)
Therefore while suppressed a unit is classed as 'gone to ground''/hull down.'(+1 to Evasion.)

But this defensive disposition has a negative effect on the units actions.
A suppressed unit may move once, OR shoot counting as having moved.It can not charge into assault.(But will fight back if assaulted.)

A unit stays suppressed until it passes a morale(LD) test.A morale test is taken at the end each game turn for each unit that is suffering from suppression.

Lanrak wrote:

Using D6 is also intrinsically 40k to lots of gamers.I know some folk want to just use D10.But I would rather try using the D6 in a more intelligent way first.

I think there is a basically practical reason for trying to keep the d6 as mainstay for a new wargame despite its limited range. Unlike roleplay games (which typically use a great variety of die), wargames typically involve throwing down masses of dice at once. If you make a wargame that relies on D10 then the punter has to contemplate buying a ton of new dice whilst shelving his accumulated heaps of d6s. If you keep the d6 then the prospective punter has one less thing to buy. In a pinch he can just raid the die from that old game of Risk or Yatzee that has been sitting in a back cupboard for the past decade.

An acceptable workaround might be to find a way to do mass resolutions without mass die rolls. Or even, more controversially, make a game more like chess in which no die rolls are necessary at all for resolutions. Knight takes pawn.

 SolarCross wrote:

Lanrak wrote:

Using D6 is also intrinsically 40k to lots of gamers.I know some folk want to just use D10.But I would rather try using the D6 in a more intelligent way first.

I think there is a basically practical reason for trying to keep the d6 as mainstay for a new wargame despite its limited range. Unlike roleplay games (which typically use a great variety of die), wargames typically involve throwing down masses of dice at once. If you make a wargame that relies on D10 then the punter has to contemplate buying a ton of new dice whilst shelving his accumulated heaps of d6s. If you keep the d6 then the prospective punter has one less thing to buy. In a pinch he can just raid the die from that old game of Risk or Yatzee that has been sitting in a back cupboard for the past decade.

An acceptable workaround might be to find a way to do mass resolutions without mass die rolls. Or even, more controversially, make a game more like chess in which no die rolls are necessary at all for resolutions. Knight takes pawn.

Another alternative is the dystopian wars or legion style of dice. where each attack gives you a dice. you hit on your unit characteristics (so elites hit on 3+ while normal on 4 and chumps on 5s and so on) and any rolls of 6s gives you extra hits.
then take people off based on their DR.

its only really 1 roll for resolution which i like.

 Desubot wrote:

Another alternative is the dystopian wars or legion style of dice. where each attack gives you a dice. you hit on your unit characteristics (so elites hit on 3+ while normal on 4 and chumps on 5s and so on) and any rolls of 6s gives you extra hits.
then take people off based on their DR.

its only really 1 roll for resolution which i like.

Yeah I did consider something like that myself, luck or the random element effects to hit chance but damage is strictly deterministic. It is even fairly realistic, any number factors can throw a shot off its mark but if it connects then it imparts a particular amount of kinetic energy which isn't highly variable and the thing it hits can absorb that kinetic energy without damage or cannot, there isn't that much variation in that either. I suppose it makes some shots not even worth taking though. A work around might be where many weak weapons can combine their damage output to push over the damage resistance needed for the kill. So maybe an Ogryn who auto-shrugs off a single lasgun hit but who is auto-killed by a lascannon. Then isn't being hit simultaneously by 10 lasguns pretty much like getting hit by a single lascannon? If you are weak, gang up.

Grief wrote:

Ok, not to hate on what you just suggested, but did you just seriously suggest we modify range rolls to cover the planet's curvature?? I'm all for making the game as close to real combat as possible, but that's absurd. We want players to feel in control with easy-to-learn rules and intuitive mechanics, not super complex range parameters that define maximum range and bullet drop. That's a calculation for an FPS or something where the computer handles the calculation, but this level of complexity jsut drives up the learning curve for no real reason. Giving ranged weapons a flat range isn't accurate but its part of the game and adds to the strategy- for example, it doesnt make sense that pawns in chess can't attack a unit that's literally right next to them, but its a rule made to enhance the strategy of the game.

Lanrak wrote:
HI folks.
Writing rules specifically for the sci fi company level battle game with 28mm minatures.

Is a bit like trying to explain the concept of how a modern jet passenger airplane should work.When the only reference most people have is steam engines and hot air balloons.

People keep asking 'but where is the coal store, and how can you get lift without hot air?'
(If the game turn does its job properly you do not need things to artificially restrict scheduling like 'Initiative values' , and reactions like 'over watch.'See how alternating phases has added more tactical depth and reduced complication already! )

I would like to get to the simplest rule set that delivers the most tactical depth.

However, it has been my experience over the last 10 years or so, there are some things that are intrinsically 40k.

The three stage damage resolution is one of them.
Because players are using 28mm minatures , they want to see the difference between a 'tough monster' with no armour and a 'weak man' with lots of armour.
Other battle games using 6mm to 15 mm minatures in 'blob squads' do not require this level of detail, as the PLAYERS DO NOT EXPECT IT.So they can get away with 2 stage damage resolution.

What makes the 40k rules so SLOW, is not the basic three stage damage resolution, but all the badly applied and worded special rules rules tacked on to it.

Using D6 is also intrinsically 40k to lots of gamers.I know some folk want to just use D10.But I would rather try using the D6 in a more intelligent way first.

Using defined phases is some thing lots of 40 players feel comfortable with.This is why I think interleaved phases is a good replacement game turn mechanic for the new straightforward rules.

@Grief
Many 40k players want their units to be different to everyone else.So a flat to hit based on distance is not going to be popular.

Most games use the effective weapon range , as a limit on how far some one can accurately fire a weapon.
If we use Shooting skill vs Evasion skill to generate proportional to hit rolls at range from the Universal Resolution Table.We get a much wider range of results that take lots more factors into account, effectively and intuitively.

We could add a long range modifier for a set distance.
EG targets more than 30" away get + 1 to their Evasion value.
And we could include cover in a similar way.Targets in cover add 1 to their Evasion value.

This is definitely ok by me. Modifiers cut down on rolls and are more easily remembered.

This would cover the skill and disposition of the shooter and the target, simply and efficiently.Resulting intuitive rules that deliver proportional results.

The 'If a unit suffers more failed saves than it has hit points left' , method to determine suppression.Is the simplest method that gives intuitive results for ALL UNITS found in a game like 40k.(I know because we have play tested it quite heavily. )

Explain this. It doesn't make much sense since there's only going to be one save roll of any kind- either FNP or Invuln saves, and you can only roll whichever is the highest. I was thinking that suppressive fire could be a separate action that a ranged unit could take, for example: One Action Phase 1, a guardsmen squad fires upon a nob squad. Upon resolution, they land all the hits but do not manage to damage any of them. Therefore, on Action Phase 2, the IG player decides to suppress them instead of shooting to kill. Perhaps suppression fire is rolled exactly like ranged combat, but has a +1 to Ballistics because its not using accurate fire? It wouldn't make an armor roll because its not meant to damage but instead the suppression target makes a leadership roll. The reasoning behind this roll is that brave units will be less likely to be suppressed and so will serve as a counter to this mechanic.

Basic ideas for suppression.
A suppressed unit counts as having moved.(Diving for cover, moving to maximize protection.)
Therefore while suppressed a unit is classed as 'gone to ground''/hull down.'(+1 to Evasion.)

This sounds good.

But this defensive disposition has a negative effect on the units actions.
A suppressed unit may move once, OR shoot counting as having moved.It can not charge into assault.(But will fight back if assaulted.)

Are you saying that successful suppression will limit a unit's actions to just one instead of two per turn? That will not only be broken if used on the first phase, but it will be useless if used on the second phase since the second action will already have been taken. What I was thinking is more along the lines of reduced RoM and reduced weapon range. This effectively suppresses assault units since they will move less quickly to their target, and ranged units will have to get closer to shoot. Or maybe for ranged units, their Ballistics will go down and suffer a penalty? Maybe a -2 to Ballistics or something to demonstrate the unit's firing blind from cover.

A unit stays suppressed until it passes a morale(LD) test.A morale test is taken at the end each game turn for each unit that is suffering from suppression.

Comments are in yellow

And you haven't answered my previous posts, mate. They're above. The suppression mechanic and the morale weaponry just gives more weight to what I'm saying with initiative. If a quick unit with a flamer uses it on a slow unit, the flamer's demoralizing effect is lost if both actions are performed simultaneously. If initiative is used and, during resolution, the quick unit is allowed to fire first, the flamer shoots and the target immediately takes a leadership test. If they fail, the unit automatically retreats or whatever. This makes more sense than a unit shooting effectively at its attacker as heavy flame swirls around it. I mean, even the bravest man has to take pause at being set on fire, and his aim won't be the best after.

The same goes for suppression. If someone is shooting suppressive fire at you, you take cover regardless of what the situation is (Maybe Death Korps of Krieg arent affected by this mechanic) and will therefore affect your actions if it is done by someone quicker than you. I want to put this initiative in the rules because quite simply, it makes the most sense. Like you said, players want their tough units to feel healthy and hale, and their tanky troops should feel tanky. Likewise, the quicker troops should feel agile. Beyond Evasion, Initiative offers those units a chance to distinguish themselves and add strategic importance to buying them. They may not be the most durable or damaging units, but they serve an important battlefield function- that of a skirmisher.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SolarCross wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Another alternative is the dystopian wars or legion style of dice. where each attack gives you a dice. you hit on your unit characteristics (so elites hit on 3+ while normal on 4 and chumps on 5s and so on) and any rolls of 6s gives you extra hits.
then take people off based on their DR.

its only really 1 roll for resolution which i like.

Yeah I did consider something like that myself, luck or the random element effects to hit chance but damage is strictly deterministic. It is even fairly realistic, any number factors can throw a shot off its mark but if it connects then it imparts a particular amount of kinetic energy which isn't highly variable and the thing it hits can absorb that kinetic energy without damage or cannot, there isn't that much variation in that either. I suppose it makes some shots not even worth taking though. A work around might be where many weak weapons can combine their damage output to push over the damage resistance needed for the kill. So maybe an Ogryn who auto-shrugs off a single lasgun hit but who is auto-killed by a lascannon. Then isn't being hit simultaneously by 10 lasguns pretty much like getting hit by a single lascannon? If you are weak, gang up.

I plan on adding a concentrated fire mechanic to the rule system. Someone suggested in an IG thread that guardsmen should be able to trade ten of their lasgun shots for a single high powered, damaging shot in order to simulate concentrated fire. The tradeoff is that only one model will get hit, maybe two, but the higher Weapon Damage stat of the "concentrated fire" will make sure that guardsmen aren't totally defenseless when facing high armor opponents. Of course, they're really not supposed to be killing Termies with their pathetic lasguns, so the concentrated shot won't be that powerful. I'll fiddle around with the exact numbers but that's the mechanic I'll use to introduce balance to the squad sizes- big blobs are weak individually but can pack a punch together, and small elite squads can kill a lot but be overrun.

 urbanknight4 wrote:

I plan on adding a concentrated fire mechanic to the rule system. Someone suggested in an IG thread that guardsmen should be able to trade ten of their lasgun shots for a single high powered, damaging shot in order to simulate concentrated fire. The tradeoff is that only one model will get hit, maybe two, but the higher Weapon Damage stat of the "concentrated fire" will make sure that guardsmen aren't totally defenseless when facing high armor opponents. Of course, they're really not supposed to be killing Termies with their pathetic lasguns, so the concentrated shot won't be that powerful. I'll fiddle around with the exact numbers but that's the mechanic I'll use to introduce balance to the squad sizes- big blobs are weak individually but can pack a punch together, and small elite squads can kill a lot but be overrun.

Yeah sounds good. I would also like to see wider (even universal) access to the opposite "split fire", it seems unreasonable even implausible that a unit can't direct its fire at different targets. It is especially hard on the big blob, a 30 ork shoota mob should be able to spray lead with wild abandon in all directions if they want. It is generally better to throw down all your fire on one enemy unit at a time all the better to wipe it or make it run, rather than just tickle a couple of units but sometimes its overkill. Is it so hard for a squad sergeant to order his troops to "drop those bogies over there" whilst telling his special weapon bloke to pop a missile into that tank?

HI folks.
There are a few different ways we can use a D6 to get a wider range of results.
I just suggested we look at the 'opposed values on a chart' method first, as this is familiar to current 40k players. (I am happy to look at alternatives is they end up a better fit in the new rules. )

With D6s limited range of results , a FEW modifiers work well .But must be applied sparingly and with care.
(This is why I prefer a comparison chart as we can fine adjust the values, so a increase in stat does not automatically increase the dice score required to succeed by 1 if we do not want it too. )

@Urbanknight.
As there is JUST ONE save roll , that applies to ALL units,where targets Armour value is compared to attacker weapon Armour Penetration value.

This removes the need for ANY additional systems.(Removing pointless complication is the main reason for the new rules.)

EG
A Landraider is AV 10 a Grechin is AV 1.(Space marine power armour AV4, Ork Mega Armour AV 5)

This means Terminators end up having comparable armour to a light armoured vehicle .Which is more intuitive IMO.

We may have a bit of miscommunication here.For the simple new rules I thought we were sticking to alternating named phases?
I Move,
You Move,
I Shoot ,
You Shoot,
I Assault
You Assault.

And open phases would be in the advanced rules.(Some ideas are really good, but are a bit complicated for a new rule set to get new players to enjoy 40k.)

Anyhow Suppression.
In the shooting phase ,a unit will try to damage enemy units if they can.

So an IG Squad firing on a Ork mob is DEFINATLEY trying to kill them.
Suppose the IG shooting penetrates the armour of over half the ork boys in the mob.But fails to wound any.('A Team' the shooting as we used to say in the late 80s. )

In the current rules the IG player moans how his flash lights are useless , and wants to get them str 4, with rending and assault 4.

However, the new rules mean the Ork Mob is suppressed, as they have failed more saves than they have hit points (wounds) left.
IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MANY WOUNDS ARE CAUSED< OR HOW MUCH DAMAGE IS DONE>ITS JUST FAILED SAVES THAT CAUSE SUPRESSION
in the new rules .

It is not added on,it is not a separate thing, but a natural part of rolling to hit ,rolling to save, rolling to damage .(Wound)

The IG player has slowed down the rampaging Orks !His lasguns are NOT useless.Everyone is happier and we do not end up in a stupid arms race to sell codex books.(Codex creep.)

The volume of threatening incoming fire causes suppression.The morale/(Leadership) of the unit determines how fast the unit recovers from suppression.

Elite soldiers dive for cover as fast as new recruits, but elite soldiers regain combat effectiveness much faster.

That is why I wanted a morale test at the end of the game turn to represent this, A Grot mob is going to be less likely to recover from suppression, than a Nobz Mob for example.

NOTE,If the effects of suppression happens in the SHOOTING phase.
This is to allow shooty units to slow down assault units, without having to cause massive casualties
This is huge as it removes the need for shooting to be overpowered to cause massive casualties to be effective,and for assault units to need lots of complicated special rule buffs, and ablative wounds to be effective .

If you want reduce movement and reduces ranged weapon fire as a result of suppression .I agree with you.
Counting the unit as having already moved , is a simple way to arrive at this .

As it removes the need for complicated rules to explain all the restrictions and exceptions you HAVE to list for each weapon type,etc.If you go the route you propose.

INITIATIVE STAT was used in WHFB as it was decided to be the best fit with the alternating game game turn and the type of combat taking place.

Evasion and Dodge stat show how agile the unit is DIRECTLY when being attacked at range or in close combat in the new rules.As modern warfare is an equal focus on mobility fire power and assault .Having a reaction stat to each attack stat is a better fit with a more interactive game turn.

Concentrated fire.

I like the idea.
How about;-
Concentrated fire if a unit halves its rate of fire , it can add 2 the AP value of its weapons ,but can only suppress the target?

High rate of fire Heavy weapons , have the options to reduce the rate of fire to one, and add the difference to the AP value.(Representing pouring fire into one spot on the target , 'jack hammering' through the armour as it were.)

EG
A Heavy Bolter.
Range 36, Attacks 3, AP 4 , Damage 5.

Decides to Concentrate Fire , and now has Range 36. Attacks 1 , AP 6 , Damage 5.

I think this thread is extraordinary. I think that you're coming up with really simple and yet challenging game mechanics. I've loved the hobby since '90, but I've never played a lot. With the actual set of rules, I wouldn't even want to try: too complicated. So thank you for the thread and the work.
I like the fact of the “complete overhaul”: I never thought of it, of the fact that it is necessary (and simpler than putting “limits” or fixing here or there).
I like
- alternate phases
- 3 phases (move – shoot – assault)
- all actions of a type done in the dedicated phase (even assault or run moves)
- stat vs stat mechanics (no multiple resolution systems: BS vs evasion, WS vs dodge, Armour value vs Amour penetration, damage value vs resilience, or whatever names you choose)
- the idea that the strengh of the blow, in 40k should depend on level of tech (of the weapon), not “brute force”
- 3 stage damage resolution (roll to hit – save – damage)
- the order of the stages I like, also (armour before damage)
- the suppression system

Now, sorry if I go back to some points: just trying to abandon GW thinking.
If I understand correctly, the “cover save” as we know in GW would dissapear: it would give bonuses to evasion. It is right?
Is it going to be “the stronger the cover (like a bunker) – the higher the bonus?”?
On the “3 stage” damage resolution: every unit/model, even vehicles, are going to have all stats, like “resilience”?
On the level of tech vs strengh of the wielder determining the “strengh/damage value” of the blow:
a power fist wielded by a SM sergeant or by a Commissar will have equal damage value? Or some races/units/characters will have like a bonus to the strengh/damage value of blow?
On the “all actions of a type done in the dedicated phase”: if a unit assaults and gets “in contact” with the enemy, the enemy unit will not be able to move, I imagine. But will it be able (other units also) to shoot the assaulting unit?
(But I don't want to lead the discussion astray).

Lanrak's clear thinking, historical analysis and WHFB vs 40K comparisons was very insightful.

PS I'd really buy these rules, if it were a commercial product: hope you get to that!!!

Umagumo wrote:
I think this thread is extraordinary. I think that you're coming up with really simple and yet challenging game mechanics. I've loved the hobby since '90, but I've never played a lot. With the actual set of rules, I wouldn't even want to try: too complicated. So thank you for the thread and the work.
I like the fact of the “complete overhaul”: I never thought of it, of the fact that it is necessary (and simpler than putting “limits” or fixing here or there).
I like
- alternate phases
- 3 phases (move – shoot – assault)

I was thinking of tweaking even this. Maybe the fact that unit actions are determined and restricted by turn order can be the cause of some of 40k's clunkiness. What I propose is that instead of having three distinct phases, we make two phases and give each unit the opportunity to perform an action per phase. For example, an Ork Boy would be able to either move or shoot in the first phase, and he'll be able to do the same in the second phase. A sniper team would set up in the first phase and shoot in the second. A Banshee squad would move towards an enemy, but maybe that enemy isn't there anymore or died or got a massive buff from a psycher. Therefore, the Banshees use their second action to get the heck out of there and run. I think this gives more tactical depth to the game and allows players to do as they choose but keep in their mind that their opponent can, as well.

- all actions of a type done in the dedicated phase (even assault or run moves)
- stat vs stat mechanics (no multiple resolution systems: BS vs evasion, WS vs dodge, Armour value vs Amour penetration, damage value vs resilience, or whatever names you choose)
- the idea that the strengh of the blow, in 40k should depend on level of tech (of the weapon), not “brute force”
- 3 stage damage resolution (roll to hit – save – damage)
- the order of the stages I like, also (armour before damage)
- the suppression system

Now, sorry if I go back to some points: just trying to abandon GW thinking.
If I understand correctly, the “cover save” as we know in GW would dissapear: it would give bonuses to evasion. It is right?
Is it going to be “the stronger the cover (like a bunker) – the higher the bonus?”?

I'll have to think about that. It makes sense, but giving a unit a +1 for being in a crater and another a +3 to Evasion for being in a bunker might be too OP. Of course, that's the whole point of being in a bunker in the first place, to make sure the occupants don't die. Maybe if we make anti-armor units able to nuke bunkers that'll balance out the +3 the units inside get? It's a good point and I hadn't thought about it.

On the “3 stage” damage resolution: every unit/model, even vehicles, are going to have all stats, like “resilience”?

Vehicles will have different stats. The stats we listed are only for infantry and the like. Armor and vehicles are much different than infantry so we have to approach them differently- for example, a Leman Russ tank can hardly be expected to dodge out of the way of a hail of bullets. Likewise, an Ork Warbike isn't really going to have a Strength stat to hit other units- not only is it not autonomous, it doesn't really have any melee capability, the pilot does. We'll explore this later on as we solidify what we have now. I want to make our foundations sturdy and get everyone on the same page so that we can proceed with the other rules.

On the level of tech vs strengh of the wielder determining the “strengh/damage value” of the blow:
a power fist wielded by a SM sergeant or by a Commissar will have equal damage value? Or some races/units/characters will have like a bonus to the strengh/damage value of blow?

It'll do the same damage. I know that sounds weird, but stay with me: A Commissar and a Sergeant will have different Strength ratings in the first place, meaning that their combat prowess will be different. If they go up against a unit that has high Defense, the Sergeant has a higher chance of getting his blow to land since, obviously, he was made for this weapon and has trained with it more. However, the Commissar will do exactly the same amount of damage to a target because it's essentially the same weapon- weight, unwieldiness and all. If a regular mortal human has the ability to lift and effectively operate a weapon meant for superhumans (I'm looking at you, Commissar Yarrick), then I don't see why we should penalize him for being human. The one thing that will be different will be cost. It presumably takes more to train a regular human to wield a Power Fist than it takes a Space Marine, and its more expensive to get one if you're the Imperial Guard since you don't regularly get those weapons. Therefore, outfitting a Commissar with a Power Fist will be a bit more expensive than doing the same with a SM Sergeant, but they'll yield equal results.

On the “all actions of a type done in the dedicated phase”: if a unit assaults and gets “in contact” with the enemy, the enemy unit will not be able to move, I imagine. But will it be able (other units also) to shoot the assaulting unit?
(But I don't want to lead the discussion astray).

This is an interesting one. I always hated how an assault unit, no matter how pathetic, could potentially tarpit your expensive elite just because they're duking it out. Now, it makes perfect sense that shooting into a fray will be a lot more difficult than just shooting at a blob of baddies since you don't want to hit your friends, but it should be possible. Maybe shooting into an assault situation adds a Ballistics penalty to the shooter? -2 should be fine, demonstrating that the shooter is trying harder to shoot in a more precise fashion. Maybe critical failures hit friendly units or something I dunno, but a -2 sounds good for now. Like I said, let's solidify our basics and move on to the advanced rules after.

Lanrak's clear thinking, historical analysis and WHFB vs 40K comparisons was very insightful.

PS I'd really buy these rules, if it were a commercial product: hope you get to that!!!

Thanks for your comments, answers are in bold yellow. When I set out to change 40k's rules I just wanted to balance things out while keeping the regular game structure intact, but Lanrak and other users made me realize that the crux of the problem in 40k isn't D weapons or overpriced Bullgryns or reanimation protocols. Its the turn structure, the arcane and confusing rules, and the fact that ranged attacks are so OP. I'm going to try and fix these issues, but I don't know how long it'll take. Lanrak has been a huge help and a veritable fountain of info so I'm definitely happy to share the project's credit with him once it's complete- but first we have to get it done.

Lanrak wrote:
HI folks.
There are a few different ways we can use a D6 to get a wider range of results.
I just suggested we look at the 'opposed values on a chart' method first, as this is familiar to current 40k players. (I am happy to look at alternatives is they end up a better fit in the new rules. )

With D6s limited range of results , a FEW modifiers work well .But must be applied sparingly and with care.
(This is why I prefer a comparison chart as we can fine adjust the values, so a increase in stat does not automatically increase the dice score required to succeed by 1 if we do not want it too. )

@Urbanknight.
As there is JUST ONE save roll , that applies to ALL units,where targets Armour value is compared to attacker weapon Armour Penetration value.

This removes the need for ANY additional systems.(Removing pointless complication is the main reason for the new rules.)

EG
A Landraider is AV 10 a Grechin is AV 1.(Space marine power armour AV4, Ork Mega Armour AV 5)

This means Terminators end up having comparable armour to a light armoured vehicle .Which is more intuitive IMO.

We may have a bit of miscommunication here.For the simple new rules I thought we were sticking to alternating named phases?
I Move,
You Move,
I Shoot ,
You Shoot,
I Assault
You Assault.

And open phases would be in the advanced rules.(Some ideas are really good, but are a bit complicated for a new rule set to get new players to enjoy 40k.)

Like I told Umagumo, I want to get rid of those three phases since they restrict player actions for no good reason. Nothing in real life restricts me from moving after I've shot someone, so why should the game tell me so? Just like we got rid of the psychic phase and let players use the powers whenever they please, giving players 2 blank checks for 2 separate actions makes the game more intuitive and tactically deep for them to play. Actions can include stuff like shooting, moving, suppressive actions, setting up heavy/salvo weapons, and attacking in melee.[/b]

Anyhow[b] Suppression.
In the shooting phase ,a unit will try to damage enemy units if they can.

So an IG Squad firing on a Ork mob is DEFINATLEY trying to kill them.
Suppose the IG shooting penetrates the armour of over half the ork boys in the mob.But fails to wound any.('A Team' the shooting as we used to say in the late 80s. )

In the current rules the IG player moans how his flash lights are useless , and wants to get them str 4, with rending and assault 4.

However, the new rules mean the Ork Mob is suppressed, as they have failed more saves than they have hit points (wounds) left.
IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MANY WOUNDS ARE CAUSED< OR HOW MUCH DAMAGE IS DONE>ITS JUST FAILED SAVES THAT CAUSE SUPRESSION
in the new rules .

It is not added on,it is not a separate thing, but a natural part of rolling to hit ,rolling to save, rolling to damage .(Wound)

The IG player has slowed down the rampaging Orks !His lasguns are NOT useless.Everyone is happier and we do not end up in a stupid arms race to sell codex books.(Codex creep.)

The volume of threatening incoming fire causes suppression.The morale/(Leadership) of the unit determines how fast the unit recovers from suppression.

Elite soldiers dive for cover as fast as new recruits, but elite soldiers regain combat effectiveness much faster.

That is why I wanted a morale test at the end of the game turn to represent this, A Grot mob is going to be less likely to recover from suppression, than a Nobz Mob for example.

NOTE,If the effects of suppression happens in the SHOOTING phase.
This is to allow shooty units to slow down assault units, without having to cause massive casualties
This is huge as it removes the need for shooting to be overpowered to cause massive casualties to be effective,and for assault units to need lots of complicated special rule buffs, and ablative wounds to be effective .

If you want reduce movement and reduces ranged weapon fire as a result of suppression .I agree with you.
Counting the unit as having already moved , is a simple way to arrive at this .

As it removes the need for complicated rules to explain all the restrictions and exceptions you HAVE to list for each weapon type,etc.If you go the route you propose.

I don't know if I like that mechanic. It essentially guarantees that any given unit that gets shot at will either suffer casualties or be suppressed, with a small chance to come off unharmed. I propose that we make suppression a separate action. When I'm firing suppressive fire, I'm not shooting to kill you, I'm shooting to keep you pinned. This means that I'm shooting for effect, to make it seem frightening and damaging to morale- high volume fire with no regard to actual accuracy. It's not likely that you'll get hit much if I'm shooting at you like this, but if you're not particularly brave you're not risking it. Therefore (keep in mind that under my two-phase system players can do whatever they want in each phase), a unit can shoot to kill in the first phase, realize its not killing anything, and then opt to shoot suppressive fire in the second phase to pin the sturdy unit.

I'm not sure about making suppressive fire so powerful that it can just get rid of your movement if you're pinned. This effectively neuters assault units that have low leadership (which might be the point, but bear with me) so I think we need to approach this differently. How about we just halve everything for the pinned unit? Let's say that a Shoota Boy squad encounters a Banshee group about 40" away. Those Banshees can get withing melee range if they move and charge, easily achievable within the two blank action phases I have put in the turn. The Ork player knows that his Boys are no match for the Banshees in melee, and he only has one turn to save his squad before the Eldar players gibs them. So he opts to suppress the Banshees. Somehow he succeeds the roll and the Banshees are suppressed. He can breathe in relief because their movement range instead of being 30" is now 15". If they were Eldar Rangers, their shooting range would also be limited from whatever it is to half. This still lets the Banshees move, but it'll take them 3 movement actions to get to the Ork Boys- ample time for a squad of Stormboyz to rescue the hapless Orks.

As for getting out of suppression, that's what the command phase is for. You'll recall that I said Action Phase 1 and Action Phase 2. The reason they say Action and not Running or Shooting is because players can run in Action Phase 2 and shoot in Action Phase 1- I'm not limiting them. Well, before those two phases will be the COmmand Phase. This will be used for stuff like psychic powers that affect movement (so that any unit on Action Phase 1 that decides to move will be affected by the power) and other stuff- like suppression morale checks. In our aforementioned example, the Eldar player might be incredibly mad that his Banshees are now suppressed and can only move like their legs are broken. He sees the Stormboyz nearing, so he hopes that his Banshee unit will snap out of it during the Command Phase so that he can resume killing the Ork Boys. He makes a leadership roll, and the Banshees pass it. They are automatically not suppressed anymore and can now take their actions without any limits, meaning they can now move 30" again.

INITIATIVE STAT was used in WHFB as it was decided to be the best fit with the alternating game game turn and the type of combat taking place.

Evasion and Dodge stat show how agile the unit is DIRECTLY when being attacked at range or in close combat in the new rules.As modern warfare is an equal focus on mobility fire power and assault .Having a reaction stat to each attack stat is a better fit with a more interactive game turn.

Ahhh, I totally get what you're getting at now. We should change the stat names (some of them) so that they reflect the skill being used. What I understood is that first, melee/ranged attacks are measured against agility- the ability to move out of the way, or defend against a blow. Then, they are measured against how well-armored the unit is, and then against how tough the unit is. Therefore, tough units like Nobs and Ogryns should have low Evasion but high Armor Rating and high Health.

Here's what I'm a bit troubled on. Strength and Defense aren't very representative names of the skills used for combat- while a unit does indeed use Ballistics to aim a ranged weapon, a melee unit doesn't use Strength to see if it can crash through an enemy. The assumption is that it can already wield the weapon, so its strong enough to hold it. Maybe something like Weapon Skill or Prowess might be better? And for Defense, that sounds more like what Health and Armor Rating already do- provide a stalwart defense against damage. So maybe something like Agility or Dexterity should be used, to signify a unit's ability to either move out of the way or parry the blow.

I do have a problem with this system, though. It makes units like Ogryns, who will be high in AR and Health, very effective at soaking damage of any kind. That may sound good, but is it balanced? They'll get hit a lot since they're slow and stupid and so they'll have low Evasion and Dexterity/Agility, but they can glance off blows like nobody's business since they're likely have high armor and more than 1 HP. Not sure if that's ok since I've never played with Ogryns or super tough units, but is that fine? What I'm saying is that a unit high in Evasion would be good at evading bullets, like a Banshee squad. They're fast and can dodge easily. A squad like Chaos Assault Marines (or whatever the CSM version of the Jump-pack wearing guys are) will have high Dexterity since they're really good at melee combat and defending against it. But those two units are good at mitigating only one type of damage (ranged or melee), meaning they can be neutralized with the opposing type. However, this is not true for Meganobs and Ogryns since they don't give a feth whether they're being shot at or hit with a club, they'll soak up damage with high AR and Health and hit back hard.

Is that... ok?

And PS, no Initiative. I totally get what you're saying with what I wrote. Fast units are represented and tanky units are represented too.

Concentrated fire.

I like the idea.
How about;-
Concentrated fire if a unit halves its rate of fire , it can add 2 the AP value of its weapons ,but can only suppress the target?

No suppression. Concentrated fire is meant to kill and its the complete opposite of suppressive fire- its focused, accurate, and shoots to kill whereas Suppressive fire shoots to scare and its wildly inaccurate and imprecise.

High rate of fire Heavy weapons , have the options to reduce the rate of fire to one, and add the difference to the AP value.(Representing pouring fire into one spot on the target , 'jack hammering' through the armour as it were.)

EG
A Heavy Bolter.
Range 36, Attacks 3, AP 4 , Damage 5.

Decides to Concentrate Fire , and now has Range 36. Attacks 1 , AP 6 , Damage 5.

Ey. Comments in bold yellow.

I'll make a post soon solidifying everything we've discussed and to make a concentrated and coherent version of what I'm changing and what my decisions are on these rules. That way our readers don't have to crawl through two pages of complicated back-and-forth between us and other users in order to get an idea of what we're doing.

Umagumo wrote:

PS I'd really buy these rules, if it were a commercial product: hope you get to that!!!

There you go urbanknight, you have a punter already.

Hi again,
My take on a complete new rule set for 40k type game,would be to keep things as straight forward as possible , but keep some things familiar, so we keep the basic feel of 40k.

I am not very good at explaining things in the written format.(If we were in the same room pushing models around and rolling dice it would be much easier to explain. )

To translate the utter chaos and destruction actual battle, into a basis of a enjoyable intellectual pass time , we need to use some levels of abstraction.

It is important to keep the abstractions intuitive and constant to deliver a frame work players can easily understand and are free to explore .

And as this is a completely new approach to the way rules for a game like 40k are written, I want to minimize complication.
As that way we can see how the simple systems work together to deliver the game play.

The way I would like to look at the alternating phase game turn , is everything is actually happening at the same time.

But like the director of a war film we look at different aspects of the battle , so the audience (players) can make better sense of whats going on.

To get an overall sense of the flow of battle we look at what units are moving one one side of the battle field.Then we look to see what units have moved on the opposing side during the same period of time.(A moves then B moves.)

After the general flow of the battle , we zoom in to see what effects of the ranged attacks have on the flow of the battle.(Which units are damaged suppressed by incoming fire)Looking at the effects one sides shooting , then the effects of the other sides shooting.(A shoots then B shoots,remove casualties after both sides have made attacks)

The after this we zoom in closer still to see the assaults used to contest objectives, the fast and brutal close combat used to contest vital points in the battle lines.
(A fights in close combat, then B fights in close combat.Remove casualties after both sides have made attacks. )

I know this is an abstraction , but I hope this explanation sort of helps show we can use it to make sense of the utter chaos of actual war.

And to keep things simple I intended to use the same stats for all units.

Speed , the maximum distance a unit can move when it take a move action.(Ill put mobility type and various terrain effect into the advanced rules.)

Shooting skill, How good the unit is at hitting units at range.

Evasion Skill, How good the unit is at avoiding being hit by ranged attacks

Assault Skill. How good the unit is at hitting in enemy units in close combat.

Dodge Skill, How good the unit is at avoiding being hit in close combat.

Armour Value How well protected the unit is by Amour.(VS weapon AP value, )

Resilience How difficult the unit is to damage after it suffers penetrating hits. (VS Weapon Damage,)

Hit Points,How much damage the unit can take.

Morale Grade,How willing the unit is to fight on .(Roll over modified Morale grade to pass morale test.)
(Fearless Grade 1, Elite Grade 2, Veteran Grade 3, Trained Grade 4 , Conscript Grade 5.perhaps?)

Command Value.How good the unit leader/attached character is at commanding the unit.A value in inches that determines the units coherency.(A sort of invisible base the unit is on.)

Now all the talk about how weapon technology has overtaken the physical attributes of the combatants is to try to justify removing S, I,A off the stat line.

Units get their own weapon profiles, for ranged and close combat weapons,These stats are the combined ability of the users skill and the weapons technology.
And displayed under the unit profile, using the following format.(As a starting point.)

EG
Name.Range.Attacks.Armour Piercing.Damage.Notes.

So rather than having to memorize a load of weapon profiles, and then modify them depending on some attributes, and modify them again for certain special rules...

You just read the net result of the weapons attack off the units weapon profile, that is under the unit stat line.

This is mainly trying to improve layout and presentation of information.

As regard to cover modifying Evasion Stat.
We are currently play testing,
Light cover, that just makes the target harder to see , like long grass , smoke etc.Adds 1 to the targets Evasion Stat.

Hard Cover , is substantial cover that offers physical protection like walls /rubble, trenches etc.This has a chance of deflecting incoming fire so adds 2 to the targets Evasion stat.

Bunkers and Buildings could be given their own AV values, the attacker has to beat , to cause damage to the occupants , perhaps?

I will try to show some examples in my next post this may help illustrate how things work...

Lanrak wrote:
Hi again,
My take on a complete new rule set for 40k type game,would be to keep things as straight forward as possible , but keep some things familiar, so we keep the basic feel of 40k.

I am not very good at explaining things in the written format.(If we were in the same room pushing models around and rolling dice it would be much easier to explain. )

To translate the utter chaos and destruction actual battle, into a basis of a enjoyable intellectual pass time , we need to use some levels of abstraction.

It is important to keep the abstractions intuitive and constant to deliver a frame work players can easily understand and are free to explore .

And as this is a completely new approach to the way rules for a game like 40k are written, I want to minimize complication.
As that way we can see how the simple systems work together to deliver the game play.

The way I would like to look at the alternating phase game turn , is everything is actually happening at the same time.

But like the director of a war film we look at different aspects of the battle , so the audience (players) can make better sense of whats going on.

To get an overall sense of the flow of battle we look at what units are moving one one side of the battle field.Then we look to see what units have moved on the opposing side during the same period of time.(A moves then B moves.)

After the general flow of the battle , we zoom in to see what effects of the ranged attacks have on the flow of the battle.(Which units are damaged suppressed by incoming fire)Looking at the effects one sides shooting , then the effects of the other sides shooting.(A shoots then B shoots,remove casualties after both sides have made attacks)

The after this we zoom in closer still to see the assaults used to contest objectives, the fast and brutal close combat used to contest vital points in the battle lines.
(A fights in close combat, then B fights in close combat.Remove casualties after both sides have made attacks. )

I know this is an abstraction , but I hope this explanation sort of helps show we can use it to make sense of the utter chaos of actual war.

And to keep things simple I intended to use the same stats for all units.

Speed , the maximum distance a unit can move when it take a move action.(Ill put mobility type and various terrain effect into the advanced rules.)

Shooting skill, How good the unit is at hitting units at range.

Evasion Skill, How good the unit is at avoiding being hit by ranged attacks

Assault Skill. How good the unit is at hitting in enemy units in close combat.

Dodge Skill, How good the unit is at avoiding being hit in close combat.

Armour Value How well protected the unit is by Amour.(VS weapon AP value, )

No. Armor Value goes against Weapon Damage, period. We have five different people just in this thread saying that they hate 40k's multiple steps to resolving attacks, and now you want to add an Armor Piercing vs Armor step? Its completely unnecessary and makes the game longer and more complicated for no good reason. You yourself said it, we need to make this game easy. So no.

Resilience How difficult the unit is to damage after it suffers penetrating hits. (VS Weapon Damage,)

Hit Points,How much damage the unit can take.

Morale Grade,How willing the unit is to fight on .(Roll over modified Morale grade to pass morale test.)
(Fearless Grade 1, Elite Grade 2, Veteran Grade 3, Trained Grade 4 , Conscript Grade 5.perhaps?)

Inverted scales don't make sense. We've used a 1-10 scale for literally everything, why would you pull a GW and randomly crowbar a different scale in there?

Command Value.How good the unit leader/attached character is at commanding the unit.A value in inches that determines the units coherency.(A sort of invisible base the unit is on.)

Now all the talk about how weapon technology has overtaken the physical attributes of the combatants is to try to justify removing S, I,A off the stat line.

Units get their own weapon profiles, for ranged and close combat weapons,These stats are the combined ability of the users skill and the weapons technology.
And displayed under the unit profile, using the following format.(As a starting point.)

EG
Name.Range.Attacks.Armour Piercing.Damage.Notes.

So rather than having to memorize a load of weapon profiles, and then modify them depending on some attributes, and modify them again for certain special rules...

You just read the net result of the weapons attack off the units weapon profile, that is under the unit stat line.

This is mainly trying to improve layout and presentation of information.

As regard to cover modifying Evasion Stat.
We are currently play testing,
Light cover, that just makes the target harder to see , like long grass , smoke etc.Adds 1 to the targets Evasion Stat.

Hard Cover , is substantial cover that offers physical protection like walls /rubble, trenches etc.This has a chance of deflecting incoming fire so adds 2 to the targets Evasion stat.

Bunkers and Buildings could be given their own AV values, the attacker has to beat , to cause damage to the occupants , perhaps?

Now you're talking like the "planet curvature" guy from a few posts ago. Long grass? In an age where we have superhuman walking tanks and alien insect things that are psychically connected? Dude, long grass has a 0% chance of hiding you from anything in this universe. I understand smoke a bit, but how would you even show smoke in a tabletop game? This is how it's going to be: cover of any kind gives you a +1 to Evasion, period. It doesn't matter what kind of cover it is unless its a bunker, in which case it is subject to different rules that we'll talk about later.

I will try to show some examples in my next post this may help illustrate how things work...

No no no, what happened?? We had a good thing going, don't go off injecting weird ideas.... Read what I'm writing in response to your posts. Its getting frustrating trying to communicate with you if you're doing your own thing and not taking into account what I'm saying.

Guys, listen. We're trying to make this game simple and while I appreciate that everyone is pitching in, you're all missing the point. I'm not doing these rule changes because I want to inject a million gimmicky mechanics to make this game cool and whatever, I'm changing the rules so the game is elegant, sleek, and balanced. If we bumrush too many mechanics here its going to turn out exactly like 40k is right now: bloated, incoherent, and extremely unfriendly to new players because hey, who has the time to memorize all the random special rules and circumstances and procedures in a game? I sure as heck don't. So while I appreciate the enthusiasm, don't just inject random stuff.

Here. This compendium has been long overdue. I'm going to concentrate all the new rules I've decided on and add more to this post later. This will go on a Word Doc and I'll post a dropbox link in the OP so that you can all keep up. It'll have versions and changelogs so that everyone can be on the same page. If you're reading a previous version of the rules, get the new version because we'll be talking about different things. This is the OFFICIAL rule set, alright? It's what I'll be putting on the actual project, so bear that in mind.

First up. Turn order.

A single turn will encompass gameplay for both players through a system of interwoven phases. Before, you had the running phase, the shooting phase, the buttering your toast phase, etc, but not anymore. I'm done with that. I don't particularly care for restricting players and I know that if you want to shoot before moving, you should get to. Therefore, I'm giving each and every unit in a player's army two actions per turn. Just two, but you can do a lot with those two. One action can consist of moving, shooting, whacking someone with your weapon in melee, setting up a heavy weapon, using a psychic power, etc. You can only do one of these actions per phase. So with that in mind, here's the actual turn order:

Command Phase: Psychic powers that affect unit movement or deployment happen here. Reinforcement happens here. Suppression and leadership morale tests happen here. I know it doesn't make much sense and its ambiguous, but we need this phase. Ignore it for now, but keep in mind its here.

Action Phase 1: Here you get to do anything you want, but only one action per phase. Player 1 goes through AP1 first, and then Player 2 goes through AP1.

Phase Resolution 1:[/b] All the actions you took during AP1 are resolved here. Did you shoot someone? Move somewhere? Did you call an Ork Warboss' mother dirty in a challenge? All the dice rolls and resolution stuff will be here in order to emulate things happening simultaneously. Two squads line up in their respective AP1 and shoot, and during this phase their combat plays out. That way nobody complains about how "he went first, of course he won" or "my units would have trounced yours if you hadn't gotten lucky and gone first". Enough of that. Actions get resolved [b]simultaneously.

Action Phase 2: Same as AP1.

Phase Resolution 2: Same as PR1.

End of Turn: Everyone take a breath, because now it's time to do this alllll over again.

That's it- your turn is no longer composed of 3/4 phases where you're locked into doing something you might not want. You get to do whatever you want, see it play out in front of you, and then the next turn rolls around. Period.

Stats:

Everyone is gonna be confused about what to call what, and since I haven't received any suggestions as to what to call the skills I'll invent my own. This is what we'll be using when we discuss stats. Not AP, not Assault, not any of the current 40k stats. We use these so that nobody gets confused and starts talking about rules that we're not using.

Melee: This stat gauges how awesome or crap your unit is at hitting stuff. A Guardsman will be weaksauce compared to a mighty morphin' Banshee. Scale of 1-10, 1 being the weakest.

Dexterity: Can your unit catch a sword with their own weapon and prevent their untimely demise? Well, this stat will tell you. This gauges how good your unit is at either dodging Melee strikes or at parrying them. A CSM is supposed to be good at parrying since he's a couple millennia old, and a Banshee is good at being annoying and darting all over the place, so expect both of these units' Dexterity to be high. This directly counters Melee, so if your Dex is higher than your opponent's Melee, your unit will either dodge the blow or catch it like the ninja it is. Scale of 1-10, 1 being the slowest.

Accuracy: Can your unit hit the broad side of bard? This stat obviously gauges that, so units like Grots will suck at it and units like literally anything the Tau have will be great at it. It will gauge if your shot lands the target or if you missed. Scale of 1-10, 1 meaning that you should turn your lasgun in and sacrifice your life for the Emperor.

Evade: Gauges if your unit can dance around enemy fire and not get hit. Banshees and fast units like the Harlequins will have an insane amount of Evasion, so don't expect to hit them that often as, say, an Ork Boy. This counters Accuracy, meaning that if your Evade is higher than their Accuracy, you stand a good chance of maintaining structural integrity of your body.

Armor Rating: Is your armor good, or should you have spent a bit more on not dying? This stat will show just how bad or good your unit's armor is. Grots will have low armor, but a Meganob will have an ungodly amount of it. Scale of 1-10, 1 being laughable.

Weapon Damage: How powerful your weapon is. Whether is a pitiful lasgun or a formidable Power Fist, Weapon Damage will go against your opponent's Armor Rating. If it's higher, your opponent had better get used to the new hole they have in their face. If your weapon is lower, you stand a very good chance of your weapon glancing off their armor. Should have brought a bigger gun. Range of 1-10, 1 being the worst damage.

Health: How healthy and hale is your unit before you send them off to their inevitable deaths? Units like Ogryns will have 2 or more Health, symbolizing the ungodly punishment they can take before dying, and Guardsmen will have one to symbolize the way they fold like wet tissue paper when they're shot at. If your enemy succeeds at a Weapon Damage roll versus your Armor Rating, one health is subtracted from your unit. No ifs or buts, its happens. Scale of 1-10, 1 being pretty normal for the average bear. 10 meaning you'd better have a lot of pointy sticks.

Range of Movement: How far your unit can move. Values can vary between units and different terrain types can affect your movement. I'll talk more about this later.

Weapon Range: This will be described along with whatever weapon you choose, next to the Weapon Damage of that weapon. It shows how far it can shoot. If its a melee weapon, it has no range. Why would you throw a Power Klaw?

Leadership/Morale: This shows how courageous your unit is. Is it cowardly, like a grot, or brave like a Terminator? This stat affects such things as squads taking casualties (take too many and you have to do an instant morale check. Fail and go into instant retreat.) and being under suppressive fire. If your unit isn't particularly courageous, expect to be suppressed for a long time. Scale of 1-10, 1 being a wuss, 10 being fearless and as such, immune to suppression and morale breakdowns.

AAAand that's it! Those are all the skills we'll be using because at this point we have a lot. Add any more and we risk turning into an RPG. On to the next thing on our list: Special rules.


I've decided on two things for ranged units. Right now they're pretty good if your weapon can do more than tickle your opponent, but not if you're a humble Guardsman. So what do we do help out the lasguns and the grot blasters of the world? We give them the ability to suppress and do concentrated fire. The first one is kind of complicated. Here's what's up:

Any unit that can shoot can also suppress. If you see your unit isn't doing jack to kill that squad of Ogryns charging at you, and you'd like to not die, why not suppress them? This will be a separate action, like shooting to kill or melee, which means that (per phase) you can either suppress or shoot to kill. If you choose to suppress, here's how it's resolved. You shoot normally and do an Accuracy roll. If you pass, your target goes on to make a Morale check. If it fails, great! You've succeeded and your target is now suppressed. What this process is meant to simulate is that your unit shoots at the enemy, right? Since there's a volley of fire coming at it, your target decides whether its brave enough to stand in front of it or dive for cover. If it chickens out, it becomes suppressed.

When suppressed, units have half Range of Movement and take a -2 to Accuracy, meaning that assault units can't move as fast as normal and shooty units are essentially firing blindly from cover. However, all's not terrible for the suppressed units. Since they've technically gone to ground and dived behind cover, they get a +1 to Evade. That doesn't prevent your melee units from getting in there and roughing them up, though.

Remember the Command Phase? Yeah, at the beginning of every turn you roll for Morale for every suppressed unit you have. If you fail, they stay suppressed. But if you succeed, they automatically snap out of it and aren't suppressed anymore. Another thing to keep in mind is that the unit suppressing cannot do anything other than move, but they cannot move farther from their target than their weapon range will allow. What this means is that if you have an IG Guardsmen squad suppressing some Ork Boys, and there are 15' between you, you can move away from them. Lets say that the lasgun's range is 30. That means that the Guardsmen can only move 15', because they're still suppressing the Orks. If the Guardsmen move out of weapon range so that they're not in range of the Orks, they stop suppressing the Orks and the Ork BOys immediately stop being suppressed. The same happens if the Guardsmen decide to take another action, like shooting or setting up a heavy weapon. It immediately diverts the squad's attention to the new action and the suppression order is cancelled.

Alright, that was long. On to concentrated fire, an easier topic.

Guardsmen (I love IG, sue me) have terrible weapons, the lasguns. Not terrible as in good, but terrible as in "we could play laser tag with these". Therefore, I give you weak players another weapon in your arsenal: concentrated fire. Unlike suppressive fire, this actually kills things. Do you see that Nob over there? Yeah. Using your combat training, you order your Guardsmen to shoot and concentrate their fire at a single target- the Nob. This limits the number of attacks they can make to one quarter (If you had 10 Guardsmen, you can only make 2 of these shots since 10 divided by 4 is 2.5 and I'm rounding down because this is the grimdark future) but it exponentially does more damage. Concentrated fire gives you a +2 to Weapon Damage since instead of only one lasgun shooting ineffectively at the Nob now you have ten of them shooting at the same spot. So remember kids- if you're weak but you have friends, gang up on the big guys! Concentrated fire is just like Suppressive fire in that its a separate action. Your Guardsmen can do Concentrated fire on Action Phase 1, and then Suppress the survivors on Action Phase 2. Just like that, your puny humans are fixed and now serve a deep tactical function in the battlefield.

Last thing (there are more but this is a summary so whatever). You can shoot into assault.

*Cue hundreds of outraged voices*

Let's be honest. If you're a soldier in the 41st millennium, you shoot to kill. You might also value killing an enemy over saving an ally. Be it as it may, you're a fething trained soldier. Act like it and shoot into that mob of allied soldiers and bad guys duking it out.

A unit can shoot into assault, but will take a -2 to Accuracy (a -2 might be too much, so I'll test it and see if a -1 is needed). A critical failure (rolling a one) means you hit your friends and damage calculation ensues as if you had hit an enemy. Hahaha, guess that's why you don't shoot into assault!

Anyways, that's that. I'll take suggestions and more ideas for new rules that build upon these, and I'll change what I've already written if you convince me that something sucks or is unbalanced or whatever. Remember, I'm here to make this easy, fun, and balanced.

@urbanknight.
I HAVE tried to address the points you keep raising,But I do not seem to be able to make my points clear enough.

My two main concerns, from my experience talking to GW devs and trying to write new rules for 40k over the last ten years or so.

1)The reason 40k rules went so horribly wrong in 3rd ed was because the core rules did not cover enough of the game play, and so needed extra rules piled on top.
So in the rush to make the rules simpler , we have to make sure the new ideas do not follow this trend.

2)It does not matter how clever the new rules are, if the game play does not feel like 40k, 40k players will not touch it.


Here are my direct responses to you proposed out line.

Game Turn Mechanic.
You want to use an alternating ACTION game turn mechanic.

Concerns..
1)It breaks with the familiar phases 40k players are used to, so may negatively impact uptake by existing players.

2)This is more suited to more experienced players.However if players overcome the 'analysis paralysis ' of working out what two actions they want to take with their units in the command phase.(Which some might .)

The lack of defined structure in the game turn as you wrote it, would lead to confusion IMO.
if we look at a large game say 15 unit a side, could you remember which units took what actions and when ,if you had several distractions , and a few beers?
You come back after a bathroom break and try to take an action with a unit, and your opponent says you already activated that unit this turn,is there any way to know who is mistaken?

If you want this sort of game turn to work you need to add a more defined control structure to it.
I have found a combination of non attack action and attack action , in a two action order sets work best.(Especially if a order counters are placed next to the players units in the command phase.)

Here are the orders I would start with.

Advance, move then shoot.

Breakaway shoot then move.

Charge, move then assault

Go to Ground move then ready .(+1 to Evasion stat.+2 to Evasion stat if unit is in cover)

Support fire, ready then fire .(Only way to use move or shoot weapons.)

Top Speed move then move again.


I use the term ready, to describe the unit setting up heavier weapons, OR going to ground /going hull down to maximize cover.It keeps the turn structure balanced .

So the revised alternating action game turn looks like this.

Command Phase.(Players place the appropriate order counters face down next to their own units on good morale.)

Primary action phase.(Players alternate turning the order counters over and taking the first action of the order with their units.)

Secondary action phase.(Players alternate taking the second action of the order with their units , and then removing the order counter.)

Resolution phase.(Tidy up phase before the next turn.)

The same big game with 30 units on , mid game bathroom break ,( after a few beers).looking at the order counters next to the units we can see exactly what units have done and the exact state of the game.

We can use ONE counter next to the unit to show its orders. what actions it has taken, and replace the order counter with a Suppressed or Routed counter to show units that are not on good morale perhaps.

The Stat line
Concerns..
Moving to a 2 stage damage resolution system removes some detail and character from the units that players tend to want with 28mm minatures.
It also removes the ability to include a simple suppression mechanic based on failed saves..

If you are having weapon range and weapon damage on the stat line, what happens to number of attacks ?Does the stat line include close combat weapons and ranged weapons?How is this information displayed clearly?

This is why I wanted the units weapon stats displayed separately underneath the units stat line for clarity.

I think it is better to separate unit morale, from the leadership of the unit.As it allows more flexibility in showing cowardly units being lead by inspirational leaders.

I wanted to include a SIMPLE rating of how willing to stay in a fight the unit was.
Using ONE resolution method for all units and ALL combat resolution , is in addition to direct representation.The distance in inches, the number of dice rolled, the score needed to succeed on a D6.

The convention of rolling high is good, is not broken.(Unlike GWs leadership where rolling low is good,)
The dice rolling convention of using one D6 is not broken.(Unlike GW leadership where you roll 2 d6.)
it covers a similar range ,6,7,8,9,10, vs 1+2+3+4+5+

I admit making low numbered stats good to fit the direct roll COULD be seen as breaking the theme.(But using the term GRADE , instead of VALUE , should be acceptable.)

But if you wanted morale to be resolved in the same way as combat , what would be the opposed value in the chart?


I prefer to have a wider set of core rules/stats than we actually need to start with , so we can rationalize them later, IF the play testing shows them to be redundant.
(In the same way, Cool, Intelligence, Willpower and Leadership , were rationalized down to just Leadership, for 2nd ed 40k.)

As it is much simpler to get a good result from rationalizing stat values, than it is trying to cover gaps in the core rules with special rules patching!

It would be interesting to see one of these threads not be taken over by you just once, tho.

Lanrak wrote:
@urbanknight.
I HAVE tried to address the points you keep raising,But I do not seem to be able to make my points clear enough.

My two main concerns, from my experience talking to GW devs and trying to write new rules for 40k over the last ten years or so.

1)The reason 40k rules went so horribly wrong in 3rd ed was because the core rules did not cover enough of the game play, and so needed extra rules piled on top.
So in the rush to make the rules simpler , we have to make sure the new ideas do not follow this trend.

2)It does not matter how clever the new rules are, if the game play does not feel like 40k, 40k players will not touch it.

I'm willing to take that risk. How different is the 40k we have today to the one first released? I'd say very. Is 40k dead now because the 1st Ed players decided they weren't gonna play? No. So that point is irrelevant. As long as my rules are balanced and fun, I'll find someone to play them. And unlike what SolarCross thinks, I have no immediate plans to sell or market this rule set. I'm not ruling out selling this set, but you're thinking with the assumption that I'm here to make profit or get a cult following. It'd be nice, but it doesn't matter.


Here are my direct responses to you proposed out line.

Game Turn Mechanic.
You want to use an alternating ACTION game turn mechanic.

Concerns..
1)It breaks with the familiar phases 40k players are used to, so may negatively impact uptake by existing players.

Mate, that's the point of a rules overhaul. I'm not here to gently ease you into the next rule set or post a few patches, you yourself and many others in this thread said that we need to start from the ground up. I consider the strict phases an issue, therefore I'm getting rid of them. If I want to shoot during my first phase and run afterwards, I'd better be able to since I've probably paid over $200 USD for this game.

2)This is more suited to more experienced players.However if players overcome the 'analysis paralysis ' of working out what two actions they want to take with their units in the command phase.(Which some might .)

Now you're just underestimating the players. Anyone willing to seriously invest money in this game (which is quite obviously strategical warfare) had better know what to do once the pieces are in front of them. Saying a player is going to be paralyzed as they analyse the battlefield is in front of them is like saying a chess player will take forever to analyse the board before him. Yeah, so you're having trouble figuring out what strategy to pursue and what orders to give out. But that's not really a rule problem, that's a player problem. Chess doesn't have an "easy" mode, so I don't see why we should hold players' hands and tell them what to do.

The lack of defined structure in the game turn as you wrote it, would lead to confusion IMO.
if we look at a large game say 15 unit a side, could you remember which units took what actions and when ,if you had several distractions , and a few beers?
You come back after a bathroom break and try to take an action with a unit, and your opponent says you already activated that unit this turn,is there any way to know who is mistaken?

Counters. Place markers. Getting reliable opponents that aren't going to cheat. There are a lot of ways that the players can resolve this issue, but just to humor you we'll add a counter system. It'll have two different sides so that you can clearly tell when a unit has taken an action that phase or not. If you forget what action you took, then... I don't know what to say. I'm trying to make the game simple and easy to understand precisely so that players can focus on this kind of thing. We'll see how it goes on playtests.

If you want this sort of game turn to work you need to add a more defined control structure to it.
I have found a combination of non attack action and attack action , in a two action order sets work best.(Especially if a order counters are placed next to the players units in the command phase.)

Here are the orders I would start with.

Advance, move then shoot.

Breakaway shoot then move.

Charge, move then assault

Go to Ground move then ready .(+1 to Evasion stat.+2 to Evasion stat if unit is in cover)

Support fire, ready then fire .(Only way to use move or shoot weapons.)

Top Speed move then move again.


I use the term ready, to describe the unit setting up heavier weapons, OR going to ground /going hull down to maximize cover.It keeps the turn structure balanced .

No.

This is weird AND limiting. The entire point of giving the player the choice of what to do in his action phases is to get away from the illusion of choice 40k gives us right now. I don't feel free running in the movement phase, shooting in the shooting phase, etc. So I changed it. And now you want to bring back that illusion? What you're saying doesn't even make tactical sense. Let's pretend that we're using your rules:

I order my GUardsman unit to "Advance". On Action Phase 1 they move accordingly. Fantastic. However, upon Phase Resolution Phase 1 I see that my opponent has two Stormboy squads close by, and he gave them "Charge" orders, which means that next phase they'll melee my Guardsmen. You want to know what I can do about that? Nothing, because according to your rules I can only shoot on my Action Phase 2. So I shoot, kill maybe 3 of the 12 Stormboyz charging at me, and on his Action Phase 2 my opponent rips my unit to shreds and laughs.

Under rational rules I would have been given a choice. A choice to either run away and hope I have a unit that can save my Guardsmen, or try to suppress one Stormboy squad while another unit suppresses the second, solving my problems.

See? This is why we want free choices. Reactionary gameplay works like counters in real life. If I have a bowman shooting at your heavy spearmen, you don't continue to plod through slowly to reach me. You'll be too dead to attack me. So instead you order your men to raise their shields and sit tight while your calvalry unit smashes into my lightly armored archers. Problem solved, and it was a reaction. I think we'll stay with my system, I don't feel like restricting people just because some will be confused or whatever. Play enough games and you'll stop being confused.

So the revised alternating action game turn looks like this.

Command Phase.(Players place the appropriate order counters face down next to their own units on good morale.)

Primary action phase.(Players alternate turning the order counters over and taking the first action of the order with their units.)

Secondary action phase.(Players alternate taking the second action of the order with their units , and then removing the order counter.)

Resolution phase.(Tidy up phase before the next turn.)

The same big game with 30 units on , mid game bathroom break ,( after a few beers).looking at the order counters next to the units we can see exactly what units have done and the exact state of the game.

So... you just answered your own question in this very same post here. There ya go, turn counters.

We can use ONE counter next to the unit to show its orders. what actions it has taken, and replace the order counter with a Suppressed or Routed counter to show units that are not on good morale perhaps.

The Stat line
Concerns..
Moving to a 2 stage damage resolution system removes some detail and character from the units that players tend to want with 28mm minatures.

And moving to a 3 stage damage resolution system makes resolving attacks extremely slow and tedious. I don't want this game to feel like a chore 60% of the time. Armor and Armor Piercing is nice, but it only makes sense in videogames or something where the computer does the calculations for you. I'm NOT subjecting players to having to roll three times per attack per model. In huge games that's just gonna make people not even want to attack.

It also removes the ability to include a simple suppression mechanic based on failed saves..

I think you haven't been reading. Literally the last post explains in detail how I'm handling suppression. I don't like your failed saves idea, it doesn't make sense, and it makes suppression OP because if your unit doesn't get killed, it gets suppressed. I'm treating suppression like a separate action, etc etc. Read the post above you, I'm getting tired of rewriting the suppression mechanic and using the same Guardsman example.

If you are having weapon range and weapon damage on the stat line, what happens to number of attacks ?Does the stat line include close combat weapons and ranged weapons?How is this information displayed clearly?

You got me there. Thanks for pointing that out, I'll add number of attacks to the stat line. And I think our players are smart enough to know that they shouldn't be using Power Fists to engage in ranged combat, nor should they be throwing bayonets at an enemy shooting plasma at them. But fine, I'll have the weapons say what kind of weapon they are. There are indeed some weapons like the Tyrannid weapons that are very ambiguous.

This is why I wanted the units weapon stats displayed separately underneath the units stat line for clarity.

They.. will be. I can't list them attached to the unit stats because the units have a choice of weapons to choose from. I'm not listing of all them next to the unit stat lines, so I don't see why you'd think I'd do that.

I think it is better to separate unit morale, from the leadership of the unit.As it allows more flexibility in showing cowardly units being lead by inspirational leaders.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you implying that what I wrote is exactly as its going to appear in the codexes and the rulebook? Because its not. Of course inspiratinal leaders will override cowards. Units will use the leadership/morale of the bravest unit. But I still need to list the individual morale of each individual unit in their codex entry in case 1. the brave unit gets gibbed and 2. there is no brave unit since those are more expensive.

I wanted to include a SIMPLE rating of how willing to stay in a fight the unit was.
Using ONE resolution method for all units and ALL combat resolution , is in addition to direct representation.The distance in inches, the number of dice rolled, the score needed to succeed on a D6.

The convention of rolling high is good, is not broken.(Unlike GWs leadership where rolling low is good,)
The dice rolling convention of using one D6 is not broken.(Unlike GW leadership where you roll 2 d6.)
it covers a similar range ,6,7,8,9,10, vs 1+2+3+4+5+

I admit making low numbered stats good to fit the direct roll COULD be seen as breaking the theme.(But using the term GRADE , instead of VALUE , should be acceptable.)

But if you wanted morale to be resolved in the same way as combat , what would be the opposed value in the chart?

Fair enough point. I'll probably end up using GW's system or something, I haven't thought about that.


I prefer to have a wider set of core rules/stats than we actually need to start with , so we can rationalize them later, IF the play testing shows them to be redundant.
(In the same way, Cool, Intelligence, Willpower and Leadership , were rationalized down to just Leadership, for 2nd ed 40k.)

As it is much simpler to get a good result from rationalizing stat values, than it is trying to cover gaps in the core rules with special rules patching!

I'm not patching. Patching implies that you have a finished product, people complained, and now you're fixing what you put out. We literally just started these rules, I see no reason to patch. I'm going to continue working on the rules, which will take a long time, and then when I'm done hopefully they'll be good, fluid, and balanced. They'll need patching because I highly doubt it'll be perfect when it leaves, but I'm not adding a ton of unnecessary rules just to create a headache for my future self. We keep things concise and easy and if we forgot something we go back and redo things. There's no time limit on this, no rush. If people want it out faster, they're free to help. But I'm not rushing this project nor am I compromising my orignial goal just because it might be easier or whatever. This project is gonna take as long as it takes, and that's that.

... how would you even show smoke in a tabletop game?

Making smoke markers isn't particularly difficult, people have been doing it for years to show wrecked vehicles.

You pull apart some cotton balls, spray it black/grey, give it some red, yellow and orange highlights, and boom, smoke markers.

As far as gameplay goes, you could have players put one of these smoke markers on any unit that has thrown smoke, or if you want to be really crafty, have it be a small line similar in size to one piece of the aegis defence line, and make it so that any targeted unit whose line of sight passes through this smoke line gains the smokes cover save.

This helps to bring more tactical choices into the game, and makes the game more visually interesting, since smoke is actually part of the battlefield, rather than simply saying "this unit has cover from smoke".

I understand they had something in 2nd edition where battlefield effects could "drift" around the battlefield, and while i'm not sure its a good idea, you could consider having smoke move around using scatter dice, to make a dynamic battlefield.

 Rav1rn wrote:

... how would you even show smoke in a tabletop game?

Making smoke markers isn't particularly difficult, people have been doing it for years to show wrecked vehicles.

You pull apart some cotton balls, spray it black/grey, give it some red, yellow and orange highlights, and boom, smoke markers.

As far as gameplay goes, you could have players put one of these smoke markers on any unit that has thrown smoke, or if you want to be really crafty, have it be a small line similar in size to one piece of the aegis defence line, and make it so that any targeted unit whose line of sight passes through this smoke line gains the smokes cover save.

This helps to bring more tactical choices into the game, and makes the game more visually interesting, since smoke is actually part of the battlefield, rather than simply saying "this unit has cover from smoke".

I understand they had something in 2nd edition where battlefield effects could "drift" around the battlefield, and while i'm not sure its a good idea, you could consider having smoke move around using scatter dice, to make a dynamic battlefield.

Hmm. That makes sense, yeah. I see where you're getting at. Besides, throwing smoke grenades is a perfectly acceptable thing for a soldier to do. However, maybe only sergeants and the like can do it? Like, you have a squad of Ork Boyz. The Nob can throw smoke grenades and shield the unit from enemy fire, giving the unit and any who are behind the smoke cover a +1 to Evasion. I'm not sure if this should be a separate action or if it should be a limited use item in order to prevent players from abusing it. For example, if it turns into a separate action then the player has to choose between launching a smoke grenade or performing any other action. In this case though, the smoke grenade would have to be worth it so I might bump up the Evasion buff to +2. On the other hand, if we make it a limited use item, the Nob can throw it during the Command Phase and thus shield the unit for longer and not interfere with the two actions the unit can take. However, the Nob only carries one grenade and the smoke save only buffs Evasion by +1.

On that note of revising what is already there, anyone have any ideas as to how to resolve for leadership/morale? There is no opposing stat in the rules so it'll have to be an independent roll, I just don't know how to implement it.

Thanks for the smoke suggestion, Rav1rn!

 urbanknight4 wrote:

On that note of revising what is already there, anyone have any ideas as to how to resolve for leadership/morale? There is no opposing stat in the rules so it'll have to be an independent roll, I just don't know how to implement it.

You can very easily make it an oppositional roll by introducing a default constant called the Fear Factor (or whatever you like). Make it a value equivalent to an average leadership stat. Maybe some weapons / troops could have a bonus to fear factor. So say if hit by Noise Marine you take your leadership test against the fear factor plus noise marine fear bonus.

 SolarCross wrote:

 urbanknight4 wrote:

On that note of revising what is already there, anyone have any ideas as to how to resolve for leadership/morale? There is no opposing stat in the rules so it'll have to be an independent roll, I just don't know how to implement it.

You can very easily make it an oppositional roll by introducing a default constant called the Fear Factor (or whatever you like). Make it a value equivalent to an average leadership stat. Maybe some weapons / troops could have a bonus to fear factor. So say if hit by Noise Marine you take your leadership test against the fear factor plus noise marine fear bonus.

Ok, that makes sense but the only thing keeping me from implementing that is that the "Fear Factor" stat would only be used for cases of suppressive fire and maybe melee attacks. I like the idea of fearsome units like CSM, Daemons, and some Tyrannids having a bonus to something or affecting morale but I don't see a good way of implementing that. Is there a way to just make morale and independent roll? I'm not sure if I should use GW's system or not for this.

 urbanknight4 wrote:

Ok, that makes sense but the only thing keeping me from implementing that is that the "Fear Factor" stat would only be used for cases of suppressive fire and maybe melee attacks. I like the idea of fearsome units like CSM, Daemons, and some Tyrannids having a bonus to something or affecting morale but I don't see a good way of implementing that. Is there a way to just make morale and independent roll? I'm not sure if I should use GW's system or not for this.

I think you misunderstand (I didn't explain it well) the Fear Factor would be a Game Constant not a unit stat. It would not be on a unit's profile. It doesn't matter if it is rarely used, it just has to be available when needed.

A Game Constant effectively makes it an independent roll. There are probably many other ways to do it but if you want a method that behaves the same as all your other oppositional resolutions then a constant that stands in for an opposing stat is just the best way.

--------

On a related note I don't think I quite get exactly how you will carry out oppositional rolls, maybe I missed it or you haven't got to it yet.

I get that there is a stat and an opposing stat and there will be some modifiers and a random element. But how does it all go together? Specificaly will you use a d6 result added to a stat + modifiers and another d6 result added to the opposing stat plus modifiers and then see which is highest? If so there are problems with that. It is fine on its own but doesn't work for "fast dicing" in which multiple dice are thrown down at once because then it not clear which die thrown pairs up with which opposing die. A work around might be to have the "pro" dice lined up in order and then the opposing die lined up in order and compared against each other. But that will be clumsy with a lot ot dice, you will make Ork shootas cry at the thought of letting rip.

The other way to do it is do it the way I already mentioned above on another page which uses just one die per resolution. The difference is found arithmetically between the poposing factors and he opposing factors (relevant stats & modifiers) to find a single overall modifier to a single die roll... This allows fast dicing and also fewer die rolls but has the drawback in requiring players to do some basic math... Not everyone is good at that, but then if one can't do math why would one be playing a nerd game?

-------------

Actually I just thought of a way to modifiy the first method above (the one that uses a die for pro and one for opposed) which avoids fast dicing altogether. Just use one die (or rather two) result and say it applies to all resolutions in the batch. An example 5 eldar are shooting at 10 guardsmen, accuracy is 4 and they have sniper scopes or something with gives them +1, the gaurdsmen have evasion 3 and are behind a smokescreen giviing them +1 (or whatever). Rather than have the eldar roll 5 dice one for each shooter and the guardsmen roll an equivalent number to evade, the eldar could roll just one die and the gaurdsmen do the same. So the eldar roll high 5 and guardsmen rolls low 2. 5 + 4 + 1 = 10 for the eldar and for the guardsmen 2 + 3 + 1 = 6. 10 beats 6 so 5 gaurdsmen get hit. If the eldar roll too low and the guardsmen roll high enough then the opposing beats the proposing and all 5 guardsmen avoid being hit.

Doing it that way avoids fast dicing but produces all or nothing results. Which I don't find satisfying personally, but it might work for you if you want to keep it simple.

Hi mate I love how these alternative rules are looking

Like solar cross I too am interested as to how to use the dice with these rules

Maybe I've missed the explanation but I'm eager to have a few games with these rules as they really do seem fun and in a way a lot more cinematic if you get my meaning

Edit @solar cross, that sounds like a good idea but what about say a 10 man tactical squad with a heavy weapon and a special weapon? And say the sarge has a plasma pistol would that mean 4 dice? E.G. 1 for the heavy, 1 for the special, one for the pistol then 1 for the 7 other marines? (that's still better than the current system as it's still going to be less dice) If so which would you roll for 1st? especially if say it's a template weapon firing

 SolarCross wrote:

 urbanknight4 wrote:

Ok, that makes sense but the only thing keeping me from implementing that is that the "Fear Factor" stat would only be used for cases of suppressive fire and maybe melee attacks. I like the idea of fearsome units like CSM, Daemons, and some Tyrannids having a bonus to something or affecting morale but I don't see a good way of implementing that. Is there a way to just make morale and independent roll? I'm not sure if I should use GW's system or not for this.

I think you misunderstand (I didn't explain it well) the Fear Factor would be a Game Constant not a unit stat. It would not be on a unit's profile. It doesn't matter if it is rarely used, it just has to be available when needed.

A Game Constant effectively makes it an independent roll. There are probably many other ways to do it but if you want a method that behaves the same as all your other oppositional resolutions then a constant that stands in for an opposing stat is just the best way.

--------

On a related note I don't think I quite get exactly how you will carry out oppositional rolls, maybe I missed it or you haven't got to it yet.

I get that there is a stat and an opposing stat and there will be some modifiers and a random element. But how does it all go together? Specificaly will you use a d6 result added to a stat + modifiers and another d6 result added to the opposing stat plus modifiers and then see which is highest? If so there are problems with that. It is fine on its own but doesn't work for "fast dicing" in which multiple dice are thrown down at once because then it not clear which die thrown pairs up with which opposing die. A work around might be to have the "pro" dice lined up in order and then the opposing die lined up in order and compared against each other. But that will be clumsy with a lot ot dice, you will make Ork shootas cry at the thought of letting rip.

The other way to do it is do it the way I already mentioned above on another page which uses just one die per resolution. The difference is found arithmetically between the poposing factors and he opposing factors (relevant stats & modifiers) to find a single overall modifier to a single die roll... This allows fast dicing and also fewer die rolls but has the drawback in requiring players to do some basic math... Not everyone is good at that, but then if one can't do math why would one be playing a nerd game?

-------------

Actually I just thought of a way to modifiy the first method above (the one that uses a die for pro and one for opposed) which avoids fast dicing altogether. Just use one die (or rather two) result and say it applies to all resolutions in the batch. An example 5 eldar are shooting at 10 guardsmen, accuracy is 4 and they have sniper scopes or something with gives them +1, the gaurdsmen have evasion 3 and are behind a smokescreen giviing them +1 (or whatever). Rather than have the eldar roll 5 dice one for each shooter and the guardsmen roll an equivalent number to evade, the eldar could roll just one die and the gaurdsmen do the same. So the eldar roll high 5 and guardsmen rolls low 2. 5 + 4 + 1 = 10 for the eldar and for the guardsmen 2 + 3 + 1 = 6. 10 beats 6 so 5 gaurdsmen get hit. If the eldar roll too low and the guardsmen roll high enough then the opposing beats the proposing and all 5 guardsmen avoid being hit.

This mechanic sounds interesting but I'm not sure. It does sound simple, but then again... I have my doubts. I like how easy and straight to the point it is, but I have yet to test it. Right now it might work and it would be balanced since the Guardsmen might have higher armor or something than the Eldar can penetrate, so it doesn't matter if they get hit because the Eldar are unlikely to do any damage. Again, this adds an interesting mechanic where there is indeed a random element but at some point it'll be impossible to overcome the odds, like in the Weapon Damage 10 weapon hitting the Armor Rating 1 Grot. This system offers a saving grace of 6 points, but your opponent could also roll high. So your 9 point deficit isn't going to be overcome no matter what lol. We'll see how this turns out, but good job on spotting an alternative!

Doing it that way avoids fast dicing but produces all or nothing results. Which I don't find satisfying personally, but it might work for you if you want to keep it simple.

Here is a chart that Lanrak proposed a while ago:

Here is the universal resolution chart we are currently using for play test.(We have tried extending the range of the D6 a bit , to see how it goes.

A/O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1....,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7.n,n
2....3.4.4.5.5.6.6.7.7.n.
3....3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.7.7.
4....2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.7.
5....2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.
6....1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.
7....1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.
8....d.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5
9....d.d.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4
10..d.d.d.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.

7= halve number of 6s rolled = number of successes.
n= no effect what so ever.
d= automatic success that denies any special abilities of the opponent.

I like the fact that skill equals have a 50% chance to succeed and fail, but I don't know what to do about the 1's and the 7's. The 1's are troubling because they essentially mean an automatic success since the lowest you can roll on a die is a one. The sevens trouble me since they don't make much sense. You have to roll a six first, and then divide it by half to suceed three times?? I don't understand that very much. I'm not very proficient at math hammer and I admit this is the first time I think about die values, so I hope you guys can help me work this out. So far I like the middle values and the d values- automatic wins are ok if, for example, a weapon with a damage of 10 hits a puny armored unit, like a Grot. Its an instakill and its wishful thinking to think that the Grot might have survived, say, a Power Klaw attack.

Any suggestions? Remember that we're using d6's just because I don't want people to have to buy d10's or d20's on top of the counters that we discussed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LancsHotpot wrote:
Hi mate I love how these alternative rules are looking

Like solar cross I too am interested as to how to use the dice with these rules

Maybe I've missed the explanation but I'm eager to have a few games with these rules as they really do seem fun and in a way a lot more cinematic if you get my meaning

Edit @solar cross, that sounds like a good idea but what about say a 10 man tactical squad with a heavy weapon and a special weapon? And say the sarge has a plasma pistol would that mean 4 dice? E.G. 1 for the heavy, 1 for the special, one for the pistol then 1 for the 7 other marines? (that's still better than the current system as it's still going to be less dice) If so which would you roll for 1st? especially if say it's a template weapon firing

Hey man, thanks for the interest I like hearing from people that they like the rules, it helps me figure out what I'm doing right.

To answer your question, you choose what to roll for. In 40k you choose what weapon to fire first, and we're keeping that system because it makes sense. The only caveat is that you can't fire one bolter, then fire a missile pod, and then fire another bolter. You either fire ALL the bolters or you fire the missile pod, no mixing. Keep in mind that dice rolls happen in the Resolution Phase, so even though you get to choose your weapon order, so does your enemy and both results are simultaneous.

 LancsHotpot wrote:


Edit @solar cross, that sounds like a good idea but what about say a 10 man tactical squad with a heavy weapon and a special weapon? And say the sarge has a plasma pistol would that mean 4 dice? E.G. 1 for the heavy, 1 for the special, one for the pistol then 1 for the 7 other marines? (that's still better than the current system as it's still going to be less dice) If so which would you roll for 1st? especially if say it's a template weapon firing

It could be a different die for a different weapon type but you could have the die as a random factor that is applied to all weapons in the unit (if you are really keen on reducing die rolls to a minimum). There are other possible permutations too. As far as Urbanknight's game is concerned how it is done is up to him, his thread his game, he has final editorial control. I'm just chipping in ideas and advice not decisions.

Since you mention template weapons, it might be an idea to address how that is done. In particular I would be interested in a game mechanic that produces a template effect without templates or even special scatter dice. If anyone has ideas for that? Not saying it should be in UrbanKnight's game or the one I'm writing, but just interested in whether it is a possible option.

 SolarCross wrote:
As far as Urbanknight's game is concerned how it is done is up to him, his thread his game, he has final editorial control. I'm just chipping in ideas and advice not decisions.

Oh definitely, I was just wondering what you're thoughts were on the multi dice issue

In fact I'd like to put that question to urbanknight also as, like I said before, I'm very interested in trying out these rules

I think if it is possible, still including heavy weapons as a separate thing, either using another roll or whatever can be thought up, would add (for me at least) that entertaining element of planning the battle ahead (what squad load out would be best for the scenario I'll be facing etc)

@Lord_blackfang.
Well thank you so much for that insightful look in to your wealth of game development experience.You mastery of all aspects is breath taking.
The way you can argue the case for for all you brilliant ideas, and provide help full suggestions to all these new rules ideas is an example to us all.

Its not like you just bitch about some one being active in a forum they are interested in is is..Oh wait.


@urbanknight.
You go do your thing.


TTFN

 LancsHotpot wrote:

 SolarCross wrote:
As far as Urbanknight's game is concerned how it is done is up to him, his thread his game, he has final editorial control. I'm just chipping in ideas and advice not decisions.

Oh definitely, I was just wondering what you're thoughts were on the multi dice issue

In fact I'd like to put that question to urbanknight also as, like I said before, I'm very interested in trying out these rules

I think if it is possible, still including heavy weapons as a separate thing, either using another roll or whatever can be thought up, would add (for me at least) that entertaining element of planning the battle ahead (what squad load out would be best for the scenario I'll be facing etc)

Why should heavy weapons have a different ruleset for them? Shouldn't high rate of fire/high damage be good enough? I'm not putting you on the spot, I'm just curious as to what you'd like to be in the rules. I'll take everyone's suggestions but explain what you'd like. What did you think about the rules I've introduced so far?

And damn, @Lanrak. Being real classy right about now

 urbanknight4 wrote:


Hey man, thanks for the interest I like hearing from people that they like the rules, it helps me figure out what I'm doing right.

No problem mate and thanks for the clarification

I'll be following this thread with interest. Luckily enough the misses is also an avid 40k player so I'll be having a few games with this rule set, play testing as things develop


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 urbanknight4 wrote:


Why should heavy weapons have a different ruleset for them? Shouldn't high rate of fire/high damage be good enough? I'm not putting you on the spot, I'm just curious as to what you'd like to be in the rules. I'll take everyone's suggestions but explain what you'd like. What did you think about the rules I've introduced so far?

Haha don't worry you didn't

The higher rate of fire/high damage is great, it's template weapons that I'm a little fuzzy on

As for the value table, I agree 7's seem weird and for me the 1s don't make much sense to me as wouldn't the d value (basically the action succeeded and nothing can stop it) apply here too?

I do like the value table as well, but what do you think of the 7's? I didn't understand too well what was going on there. Could you also try out SolarCross's resolution method? I kind of like it and I hope it works because its the cleanest way to resolve conflicts without having a table that players need to look up mid-game.

Haha just edited my last post answering that very question :p

Sure we'll try solars method out too, definitely would be nice to not have to keep referring to a table!

I will be gone for a bit so I won't be posting, but I'd like to solve this 1's and 7's issue for the table method. At least, if anything, so we have a backup method to Solar's resolution, which I really like.

Hope you have a good playtest!

 urbanknight4 wrote:
I do like the value table as well, but what do you think of the 7's? I didn't understand too well what was going on there. Could you also try out SolarCross's resolution method? I kind of like it and I hope it works because its the cleanest way to resolve conflicts without having a table that players need to look up mid-game.

My personal preference is to keep charts to a minimum. Players of wargames will inevitably have to do a lot of referencing during a game looking up stats, weapon profiles and situational modifiers, this much is probably unavoidable, but every second searching the book for the answer is a second that disrupts play and slows the game. An easily memorable simple process that produces a clear result from dice rolls and unavoidably referenced factors (stats, profiles & modifiers) is golden.

That said I forsee a few problems with the three different methods of performing oppositional resolutions that i mentioned above. Well there were really two different methods and a variant of one.

I should probably give names to these methods for clarity and recap the process for each.

Method 1 I will call "a die for each direction biggest wins". This is the method where each oppositional vector has its own die roll which is added to the its respective vector to see which vector is the biggest and biggest wins.

Example: A to-hit resolution, Accuracy + modifier + d6 vs Evasion + modifier + d6 for each shot taken. If modified accuracy is greater than modified evasion the target is hit, if modified accuracy is less than evasion the target escapes the hit. Nice and neat, easy to remember, but can't be fast diced which for a wargame is a big problem.

Also the sharp eyed will notice it can produce a third outcome of a even draw! Example a guardman shoots at another guardsman: Accuracy 3 + roll of 3 vs Evasion 3 + roll of 3 means to hit is 6 and to evade is also 6, so did he hit or not? This is a tricky one, you could just say unless the "attacking" value is greater than the "defending" value it is a fail or alternatively unless the "defending" value is greater than the "attacking" value it is a success but this breaks symmetry and feels like a fudge. Alternatively a draw could produce some other resolution output so for a draw on a to-hit we could say it hits at half strength. This is okayish but means every oppositional roll will have to have an extra rule explaining what happens in the event of a draw... Not looking so simple after all.

The Method 1 variant I will call "a die for each direction by batch". This variant of method 1 is the same as one in all respects except to get around it inablity to do clean fast dicing the die roll result is applied across a batch of resolutions at once. Again really this is another fudge, or more politely a work around, which has its own problem in that it tends to produce all or nothing results, in the case where the same stats and modifiers apply across the whole batch then they will either all succeed or they will all fail, all or nothing. I don't particularly like it but it is there as an option. This method also has same problem as method 1 in that it can produce draws.

Draw results might be blessing in disguise though if you would like a third possible output to a resolution besides success or fail.

Method 2 is my favourite but it is the more math intensive. I will call Method 2 "one modifier to rule them all and in a single die bind them".

In this method "attacking" or assistive stats are added to assitive modifiers and then "defensive" or resistive stats are added to resistive modifiers and then the modifeid assistive value and the modified resistive value are differenced by subtracting the resistive from the assistive to produce a single overall modifier. Given a modified assistive value is equal to the modified resisitve value this produces an overall modifier of 0, which is nice and symmetrical, balanced, which is excellent. Then a single die is rolled and the overall modifier applied to the result to see in which range of numbers it lies, if it is 4 or more then it is a success, if it is 3 or less then it is a fail. Again given the assistive and resistive factors are equal this results in balanced 50/50 chance of success. Even better this method can be safely fast diced.

Optionally the range of the d6 can be enlarged by requiring a reroll of 6s and 1s and then adding 5 to the rerolled 6 and adding -5 to the rerolled 1, to produce an overall d6 range of -4 to 11 with a bell curve of probabilities in which 2-5 is much more common than numbers -4 to 1 or 6-11. This adds a little to the total number of die rolls but greatly adds to range of values a d6 can produce and so reducing the number of resolutions that will be auto-win/auto-lose whilst still enabling safe fast dicing!

In my game i shall be using method 2 because seriously despite the arithmetical overhead it is the best possible method for doing oppositional resolutions.

@urbanknight.
If you want to use a simple proportional table results table to cover everything.
At one end you have to have automatic success,and automatic fail at the other end.IMO.

EG 1 to hit is an intuitive result if a SM is firing a meltagun at the side of a Chaos Land Raider 2" away.(He has to turn 90" to the land raider to miss it! )
A land raider should auto pass an armour roll vs a lasgun, for example.

A auto fail on 16.666% of the time, no matter what the situation .Is what messes up the results in the current rules , and makes it a 'gamey' game, not a 'war game'.IMO.

7s on a D6.
Roll the dice , pick out the dice that score natural 6s. Discard half the dice that rolled 6, to determine the number of successes.
Or just replace it with 'n' result if do not like the '7' resolution.

On returning from the pub last night I looked at this thread to see what new ideas were being discussed.
Being drunk I took exception to the comment by Lord_blackfang.(I would have just ignored it normally.)

If you feel I have 'taken over' this thread by posting ideas and putting forward the arguments for and against ideas.Please let me know yourself. It is your thread after all.

@Solar Cross.
IF you want to get rid of tables all together you could ...
Simply list opposed skills, and use the D6 roll as the random, element in the resolution.

EG Shooting skill of 5, Evasion skill of 8.The shooter needs to roll 4+ to hit.
(Shooting skill +Dice score beats Evasion skill to hit .)

The only problem with this is it is 'maths up front' , which some 40k players do not like.And the range of values are not contained in a scale of 1 to 10.Opposed values are larger than the primary skill values.

Lanrak wrote:


@Solar Cross.
IF you want to get rid of tables all together you could ...
Simply list opposed skills, and use the D6 roll as the random, element in the resolution.

EG Shooting skill of 5, Evasion skill of 8.The shooter needs to roll 4+ to hit.
(Shooting skill +Dice score beats Evasion skill to hit .)

The only problem with this is it is 'maths up front' , which some 40k players do not like.And the range of values are not contained in a scale of 1 to 10.Opposed values are larger than the primary skill values.

I think that makes profiles too hard to read, in the sense that having oppositional values higher to compensate for a natural d6's bias towards positive numbers warps the sense of which stat values are average, low or high. I think a better way is to put the compensation into the d6 not the stat. So average accuracy is say 4 and so is average evasion. The d6 result is read as 1 = -3, 2 = -2, 3 = -1, 4 = +1, 5 = +2, 6 = +3. The simple rule here is the value of a d6 is x -3 (where x is the natural roll), so in conventional nomenclature we would call this a d6-3 . If consistently used I think even the thickest players will readily get to the point where they auto-read the right compensated result from the die and don't need to make the small subtraction consciously.

I think we should just bite the bullet and accept that wargames need to have an arthimetic component, and they all do. We aren't even talking calculus or n-dimensional topology, it is only basic arithmetic, primary school stuff. Pandering to the lowest common denominator (pun intended) is what reduces so many activities to simple minded dross which might be nice for the dunces but not so much for the rest of us, example WHFB becoming Age Of Sigmar!

-------
On Charts vs Arithmetic

Actually it is generally true that from an arithmetic process you can derive a chart and from a chart you can deduce an Arithmetic Process.. So actually there is no harm in having both in the rules as different ways of presenting the same information. Some people have good memories but poor reasoning skills, others have bad memories but good reasoning skills. Memory people like charts and hate arithmetic processes because they like to just see the answer and not work it out. Reasoning people like arithmetic processes but hate charts because they like to follow a chain of reasoning to find the answer and don't like to just see it. If you complement your arithmetic processes with appropiate charts you cater to both types of player.

@SolarCross.
So you have no problem with charts if they support proportional results that would be derived from a basic maths model of the system?

I prefer charts as you can alter the values slightly , to get more graduated results if needed.

Just writing a bit between breaks (I'm busy today but tomorrow I'll give fleshed-out answers. I like Solar's first resolution method, the stat+roll vs stat+roll. I know that there are currently two problems with this method: no fast dicing, and ties.

As for fast dicing, can someone explain what it is and why it's good?

And with ties, what about rerolling to resolve them? I don't want to give either side an unfair balance so I'm open to suggestions as to how to resolve ties here

Lanrak wrote:
@SolarCross.
So you have no problem with charts if they support proportional results that would be derived from a basic maths model of the system?

I prefer charts as you can alter the values slightly , to get more graduated results if needed.

Yes charts, or at least charts with simple number inputs and simple number outputs, should (actually MUST), be derived from an mathmatical model. This ensures that A) the pattern of numbers as outputs are actually logical, B) the chart can be expanded for a greater range of inputs if neccesary whilst still retaining the same logic, and C) that the entire chart can be accurately reproduced providing the formula at least is known wihout resorting to memory or guessing. I consider that crucial.

Another reason for beginning with the formula and then making the chart rather than beginning with a chart and then from it deducing a formula is that making a chart from a formula is easy whilst deducing a formula from a chart (that might not even have been made from a formula) is non-trivial. Like it is easy to get an egg yolk out of an egg shell but very difficult to put it back again...

If you have derived your charts from a good formula then the chart should NEVER need adjusting. If it is producing results that are not what you wanted then it is the values of the imputs that need adjusting... If you mathhammer your grot blaster and find it insta-gibs a terminator 95% of the time and this not a result that you wanted but the formula was providing a good and logical distribution of values then the failure was in the values assigned to the grot blaster and/or the values assigned to the terminator. Adjust the imputs not the chart.

And your chart, I hate it. Sorry but there it is. I have ignored it as far as I can. Right because I hate charts, I see a chart and anal math dweeb that I am I must know what formula produced it because if I am to allow it into my head and become part of my mental furniture I must understand its logic (if it has any). And if the producer of the chart has not provided the formula used then it is a pretty obvious assumption to take that he did not use a formula at all, just plucked whatever numbers looked pretty at the time and slapped them down according to touchy feely whimsy. That being the case I will hurt my head trying do the work deducing a formula which the chart maker should have saved me by giving the formula in the first place, to no avail as there wasn't one to deduce in the first place. So then there is no way to let it into my head without memorising it which I just hate to do especially if the thing to be memorised is garbage.

If I bought a book with that chart in it, I'd want a refund or maybe ritually burn it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 urbanknight4 wrote:
Just writing a bit between breaks (I'm busy today but tomorrow I'll give fleshed-out answers. I like Solar's first resolution method, the stat+roll vs stat+roll. I know that there are currently two problems with this method: no fast dicing, and ties.

As for fast dicing, can someone explain what it is and why it's good?

And with ties, what about rerolling to resolve them? I don't want to give either side an unfair balance so I'm open to suggestions as to how to resolve ties here

Fast dicing is where you save time by rolling multiple resolutions at once. Like you have 30 Ork shoota boy mob laying laying down the dakka at a bunch of panzie space elves. How many hit? They get 2 shots each, so that will be 60 dice rolls using 40k's one die to-hit method. If you have to do that one die at a time it will take a LOOONG time AND you will probably lose count along the way, so fast dice it, work out what die result you need to succeed and then throw down all 60 dice at one time, (or break it up into 2 or more big batches if you don't have enough dice) and just count out the the winning dice. Quick and simple.

Fancy trying that with method 1? Don't! It will not work and you will have to do twice the number of dice rolls too because not only are the orks rolling to hit, the elves are also rolling to evade.... 120 dice rolls, rolled one at a time... It will not do, not for a wargame, not model by model. Unit by unit resolutions maybe, but not model by model.

Rerolling ties, is not really great either, because it is more die rolls plus they feel like wasted die rolls, moreover the rerolls could tie as well, every now and again they might tie many times in a row and then the players will really think it sucks.

If you are going to have a method that produces ties, it is better to make creative use of them, turn the bug into a feature (if you get programming analogies). An example from 40k is the vehicle armour test. Roll less than AV = fail, roll on AV = glance, roll over AV = penetration. A method that produces ties is just a method that gives three output types instead of two. It is only really bad if you only want two (success or fail). If you can use a third then a method that produces ties is actually just exactly the thing you want.

Merde, you're right. I don't think we can use this system then, in that case. I was thinking about what you said on the charts and my thinking is that there has to be a way to both make a simple formula that encompasses die rolls and stat values that can also make a chart. This way, we can give players both a chart and an easy way to predict rolls so fast dicing can happen without referring to the codex.

What if we make a system where we show the minimum roll on a d6 needed for any given stat to surpass its counterpart? It doesn't have to be an extensive list- just one chart will do since all our stats are universally scaled from 1-10.

I have no idea. I'll review what you wrote and since we've nixed the first method, let's try out number 2.

 urbanknight4 wrote:
Merde, you're right. I don't think we can use this system then, in that case. I was thinking about what you said on the charts and my thinking is that there has to be a way to both make a simple formula that encompasses die rolls and stat values that can also make a chart. This way, we can give players both a chart and an easy way to predict rolls so fast dicing can happen without referring to the codex.

What if we make a system where we show the minimum roll on a d6 needed for any given stat to surpass its counterpart? It doesn't have to be an extensive list- just one chart will do since all our stats are universally scaled from 1-10.

I have no idea. I'll review what you wrote and since we've nixed the first method, let's try out number 2.

I might make something up for you. I'm just downloading a spreadsheet program (had to switch computers recently due to technical issues) when it's done I'll see what I can do.

Btw if you are going to use modifiers ie cover bonus to evade, then really you will probably want your range of inputs to be greater than 1-10. What if the super evading hyper elf with evade 10 has cast hyper evade buff +2 to evade whilst sitting in a smokescreen +1 evade? Adjusted evade is now 13... That might not even be an auto succeed either if he is being targeted by the 8 Accuracy Vindicare Super Sniper with +1 accuracy combat drugs and HQ auto targeting support +2 accuracy.. adjusted accuracy 11.

 urbanknight4 wrote:


I also know that I would like a system of counters. Just like in Fire Emblem there is a system of counters, in here there should be something like that to encourage strategic gameplay. Oh, so your brought a melee heavy army? I brought a ranged heavy army. But to counter that, you could add walkers or skimmers or tanks or something that would smash into my ranged units like a battering ram. Of course, that was a very simplified example but you see where I'm going. No longer will Necron warriors be able to blow up Rhinos, nor will a super-slow melee unit be able to transverse a bullet-hell to clobber the shooters.

I'm going to need the help of everyone who's interested in this, then. Rules are complex to fix since you have to not only make sure the fix isn't OP, you have to make sure it fits in with the rest of the rules. Building a new set of rules is another headache entirely. The good thing is that by the end, we'll have a system that not only works, it rewards creative and strategic players over those that simply burn a couple hundred bucks on whatever the meta is.

Counters are a fine idea - if you can instigate them in the middle of the game and rearrange or adapt your force to meet the counter. The problem with the current game is that your army list is static. If you "brought the wrong army" for the fight with counters implemented, you've likely lost before the first mini hits the table. Not fun. Either you have to be able to change the army mid-game (Reserves would be great for this), or if the army is static, counters can only be a mild annoyance - and in the latter case, what's the point?

 Stormonu wrote:

 urbanknight4 wrote:


I also know that I would like a system of counters. Just like in Fire Emblem there is a system of counters, in here there should be something like that to encourage strategic gameplay. Oh, so your brought a melee heavy army? I brought a ranged heavy army. But to counter that, you could add walkers or skimmers or tanks or something that would smash into my ranged units like a battering ram. Of course, that was a very simplified example but you see where I'm going. No longer will Necron warriors be able to blow up Rhinos, nor will a super-slow melee unit be able to transverse a bullet-hell to clobber the shooters.

I'm going to need the help of everyone who's interested in this, then. Rules are complex to fix since you have to not only make sure the fix isn't OP, you have to make sure it fits in with the rest of the rules. Building a new set of rules is another headache entirely. The good thing is that by the end, we'll have a system that not only works, it rewards creative and strategic players over those that simply burn a couple hundred bucks on whatever the meta is.

Counters are a fine idea - if you can instigate them in the middle of the game and rearrange or adapt your force to meet the counter. The problem with the current game is that your army list is static. If you "brought the wrong army" for the fight with counters implemented, you've likely lost before the first mini hits the table. Not fun. Either you have to be able to change the army mid-game (Reserves would be great for this), or if the army is static, counters can only be a mild annoyance - and in the latter case, what's the point?

That's not quite true at all. Counters work in all instances and even in a "static" game like 40k they can work wonders. Say that, for example, I have a mob of Ork Boyz rushing at your Guardsmen. Ranged beats Melee and acts as its counter, so the Guardsmen will be countering the Boyz. But how, you say, if the Guardsmen are super weak? They can simply suppress the Boyz and cut my charge short. In the same way, if I have a squad of Ork Bikes, I can direct them to charge at the Guardsmen. I plan to give jetbikes and skimmers a charge bonus and good frontal armor but bad side armor so that they're good shock troops. Shock troops historically make mincemeat out of ranged units like archers, and so you can expect to not only lose your Guardsmen, my Boyz won't be suppressed anymore. This is the way that counters will be implemented here and the reason why they'll be necessary to have in your army.

I want players to realize the importance of building a balanced and coherent force, kind of like you would in the Total War game series, because being prepared is half the game. I don't mean have specific counters to any given enemy, just have a good balanced force. For example, let's say I'm facing someone that doesn't know how to balanced armies. He's playing Space Marines and brings half ranged and half melee infantry. My army is Orks and has ranged, melee, a squad of warbikes (count as shock cavalry), and a War Trukk that can transport troops. The reason why I'm going to win is because every move he takes I can immediately counter with one of my squads. His marines are shooting at my Slugga Boyz? That's fine, I'll just direct my PK Warboss and his bike squad to take out the shooters. Is he bringing in melee to kill my warbikes? I'll use my ranged to suppress them while my Warboss escapes. Are his shooting units really powerful, powerful enough to kill my melee or suppress them? I'll stick them on the War Trukk and give them much more survivability. Since he doesn't have a dedicated anti-armor unit he'd better hope he has a strong enough weapon to blast open my Trukk (I know the rules right now say that Trukks are terrible and you can pop them open with anything, but I want to change point values and stats because honestly, why put your men on a transport if its going to be just as vulnerable as if they were just footslogging?) The Trukk whill survive most of the ranged damage and maybe he'll kill it, but by the time he does, my Slugga Boyz can pour out and ravage his front lines. Heck, I could even do a hammer-and-anvil attack where the warbikes hit the ranged units my Slugga Boyz are attacking from the back, and get a bonus to damage or the Melee skill for one turn since they're getting hit by a giant metal motorbike in the back.

Of course, he could just bring really awesome troops and be better than me at strategy, so its not like bringing a Trukk and some Warbikes makes me the automatic winner. He just has to play with that fact in mind, that I could do a back charge with my bikes, counter his ranged, drop my Boyz closer without casualties, and suppress his melee. Counters are supposed to reward army diversity and forward planning. Its supposed to add strategic depth and more options to people. Ork warbikes are no longer just really fast shooting platforms- they're shock cavalry like they're supposed to be. The dakkaguns they have are for guerilla warfare since they have bad armor and I don't want them to decimate a line at once.

@ urbanknight4

The trouble with a balanced force with counters for every situation is that it must have only a few counters of each type. The way to gain an intrinsic advantage over a balanced force is to go large on one particular counter, overwhelm the balanced army's natural counter then mop up the rest. A notorious example of this in 40k is the "flying circus" an army composed entirely of flyers... A balanced army should have a hard counter against flyers but if it is balanced it won't have many. The flying circus only has make those few AA guns its target priority and maybe take a few hits, overwhelm it, and then spend the rest of the game slaying with the wild abandon that only impunity can bring as nothing else in the balanced army can effectively touch them. This is where Stormonu still has a point, if you brought a sensible all comers balanced army to a fight and found yourself playing against a player with a very focused army then there isn't much you can do at that point to alter your chances because the lists are fixed at that point, you can't just dial in more anti-air guns to compensate.

Of course this not so much a failure of 40k's rules as just a limitation inherent to simulating war with physical painted objects instead of computer pixels. It takes a large amount of time and money to make up an army and especially if you are playing wysiwig having a mid game ability to dial in more troops of a particular type is limited greatly by what models a player has available to him.

I have thought up a reasonably good solution on how to introduce a more adaptable to the moment (less static) component to an army's capabilities without requiring an extensive model reserve. Not sure if I should share it here though as it I think it might be a good enough feature that I should consider it "commercially sensitive".

---------------

I have done up a chart for the Method2 overall modifier and a chart adjusted to give the appropriate "roll over to win" (plain d6 not extended d6 or other d6 variant. The numbers in the roll over to win chart should have a + next to them but couldn't figure out a way to do that in the spreadsheet program without monkeying up the formula. S = Auto succeed, F= Auto Fail. You will note that most possible combinations of Assistive and Opposing values produce auto-win/lose results with only a narrow canyon of either-way chances running from top left to bottom right. This is because of the d6's small range (1-6). If you want to make that canyon of chance bigger you will have to make the d6 put out a wider range, which can be done though my extended d6 method or a simpler one that involves applying a multiple to the d6 before factoring it in with the overall modifier. It would still be the humble d6 under the hood though.

Assisting blue top, Opposing red left.

----------

Method 2 - Overall Modifer



Method 2 - Roll over to win



----------------

Going back to the nixed Method 1and its variant, I just had a glorious idea for how to fix it so that it can be safely used for fast dicing by means of another variant that is a hybrid of Method 1 and the batch variant. To recap: Method 1 provides a variation of results but can't be fast diced. The batching variant avoids the need to fast dice but produces all or nothing results which is not a good thing really as it would mean a 30 Ork mob's dakka would either ALL hit or ALL miss with no permutations inbetween. The reason method 1 can't be fast diced is because 2 not 1 rolls are used for per resolution and that makes pairing one to another really hard to the point of being impossible. However we can keep both rolls and enable fast dicing by making one die rolled per model/resolution and one die batched per unit.

So for example: 30 Orks with 2 shots each lay down the dakka on 5 Eldar. How many hit? The eldar roll one die for their whole unit's response and add it to their evade. Once this is determined we now have a single function constant for the whole eldar group. From this we can work out what die roll the Orks need in this round of firing to get a hit. They can then fast dice all 60 shots without worrying about which die pairs with which oppositional and pick out all the hits. This way you get your fast dicing, a larger range of chances due to effectively using a 2d6 instead of a d6 and avoid all or nothing results though ties will still happen. With ties though I'd be inclined to treat them as feature and use them creatively even if it means a few extra rules for how to handle them.

Hi folks.
I get the impression my approach to this re-write may not be fully understood. And as such there appears to be some disconnect -miscommunication, going on.

I am looking at this project as an objective overview of a game system sold as a functional system.That is failing to function as expected.

Basic concepts of writing a good war game.(AFAIK.)
1)The type and number of units/models on the table , influence the players expectation of scale and scope of the game play.

2)The expected game play should determine the most appropriate game mechanics and resolution methods.

3)The optimal choice of game mechanics and resolution methods, will deliver the required/expected depth of game play with the minimum pages of written rules.

Following these basic concepts, and the amount of issues players have with 'over complication' 'lack of interaction' and 'awful game balance on every level.'

An objective overview of the 40k game system shows serious flaws in the core rules for 40k.

The game play has changed radically from the RT /2nd ed skirmish games.But the core rules have not.
(Apart from,Removing the movement stat that TRIPLED the pages of written rules required to cover movement .Along with removing the modifiers/multiple dice to give proportional results and replacing them with randum and special rules, that has QUADRUPLED the page count for additional /special rules!)

In the last decade of so , GW plc has lost 2/3rd of its sales volumes ,I believe the majority of this is down to players wanting good rules, simply buying into other companies products.

If you agree that the core rules need re-writing to 'fix the 40k company level battle game system.'
It is important to accept the synergistic and compound effects of ANY change to the core rules,may have on the end game play.

For example,
The inclusion of a Speed stat to cover movement means we do not need to use special rules for movement like Fleet.. and Slow and Purposeful.We just give models higher or lower speed values..
If the game turn is more interactive, we do not need to add artificial interaction like 'over watch'.)

I proposed that ..
We need a more interactive game turn for the larger battle game size.
(EVERY 'finished' 40K re-write using a more interactive game turn, (Alternating phase or unit activation types.) showed improvement in game play , and was seen as an improvement to the game play by the players.AFAIK.)

We do not need over six separate resolution methods in addition to direct representation to cover the interaction of all the units found a 40k battle game.

We do not need to use larger dice sizes, like D10,D12, D20.

As a more interactive game turn has been proven to be a positive choice over the last 7 years of so.By many new rules, from many different sources.

I wanted to prove the concept of direct representation and one other resolution method , could cover ALL the combat interaction of all units in the 40k company level battle game.Without having to use larger dice sizes.

The example table we are using for Alpha testing in the new rules.Does give us proof of this concept.

One resolution table can cover all combat interaction of all the units found in the 40k battle game.

The actual finalized results and values and and generative formula, will be found in BETA play testing, prior to actual release of the finished rule set.

The table was not presented in a finished rule set sold for £50.But was posted in a rules development forum to try prove a basic concept.

An observation...
Anyhow, some people seem to fail to comprehend the effect the inclusion of a suppression mechanic, (and LOS blocking munition,) would have on the game play.

If shooting does not have to kill/destroy units to be effective,Then assault units do not have to be so large to include 'ablative wounds'

If we take this effect into account, hoard infantry assault units , (Orks and Nids) no longer have to be 30 models strong to be viable.
(We have found units of about 15 models to be as effective in the new alpha rules we are play testing, as units of 30 are in the current 40k rules.)

Also if the to hit score required is no longer tied directly to the dice score.But is proportional depending on the Evasion of the target,and the Shooting Skill of the attacker.

We can use skills values in the middle of the range , to cover all units.(With extreme values of the table generated by the modifiers.)
This means orks no longer need to roll 2 dice for every attack, we just use the wider range of values now available.

So this means an Ork boy unit is rolling 15 dice per attack NOT 60 Dice per attack, in the new rules.

As some clever bloke said, 'rolling hand fulls of dice is fun, rolling bucket fulls of dice is a chore'.

Basically as I am looking at 'fixing the game system used for the 40k company level battle game'.I am very wary of the effects any changes to the core rules have on the resulting end game play.

If people are just looking at resolution methods and game mechanics in isolation, it could explain the slight difference in perspective, perhaps?

@ Lanrak

Making nids & orks less hordey can easily be done with 40k's core rules as is, just give them tankier & punchier stats, but then they wouldn't be orks or nids they would be more like Deathwing termies with lightning claws or some such. The point of hordey orks and nids is to be hordey for its own sake. Having resolution methods that enable fast dice and so making hordey armies a viable option when it comes to the nuts & bolts of actual play is good thing to have in its own right, we do want the players to be able to play the widest range of tactical and strategic options as well as game scales and not narrow them to elite choices only, small games only.

Resolution methods are about as close to the foundation of a game as anything else, get that right early on and the game will have a solid foundation. Exploring all the possibilities, pros and cons of a good number of different options for core mechanics should be done early and done thoroughly. For a start you cannot pen a single stat with any confidence until you know what the stat will do once run through whatever resolution method is finally chosen.

-----------

I just made another "roll over to win" chart for method 2 in which the humble d6 is made more powerful against the assisting and resisting factors by doubling the values it produces. So a roll of 1 becomes 2, 2 becomes 4, 3 becomes 6 and so on until 6 becomes 12. The chart output values have been adjusted to show what number is needed to roll equal or over to make a win, and also which inputs produce Auto-Success/Fail just as I did for the Method 2 with straight d6. It might be that following the formula doesn't quite produce the same results as the chart because to make the chart you have to reverse the formula which means I have not so much doubled the d6 as halved the magnitude of the overall modifier, which doesn't necessarily produce the same result because halving odd numbers means producing fractions that must then be rounded and the rounding method I used may have been a bit eccentric.

Beefing up the power of the d6 in this way widens what I call the canyon of chances and consequently reducing the number of combinations that produce an auto success fail, over a straight d6.

Method 2 with doubled d6.



For comparison a recap of Method 2 with straight d6.



If am feeling brave I might attempt a chart for method 2 using the extended d6. It will be complicated to make, sigh.

--------------

Okay I did it! A "roll equal to or over for success" chart for universal oppositional resolutions using Method 2 "one modifier to rule them all and in the die bind them" utilising my patent pending xxd6 method to produce the random component. xxd6 is the xd6 roll extended again using the same formula and principles. This work of genius massively expands the "canyon of chances" wider almost chasing the auto results away completely and giving a fair approximation of a bell curve of probabilties. Amazing what you can squeeze out of a single d6!

A few days ago I wrote up a nice explanation of how to procedurally utilise the xxd6 Method 2 but doing up the chart really helps visualise how it works.

Alongside to the right I worked out what the equivalent %chance of success and fail is for a sample of rolls. Nice eh?

That's exactly how I did it in one of my games, but I used a d8 and only 5 possible values for any stat, so it was a lot smaller.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
That's exactly how I did it in one of my games, but I used a d8 and only 5 possible values for any stat, so it was a lot smaller.

I think it is desirable to keep the range of typical stats with a "low" being not more than 5 steps from "high" in order to keep a reasonable probability that a low can beat a high and high can lose against a low. So if we are thinking of making 6 our low stat (Ork accuracy), we should place our high stat at 10 (Space Marine Company Commander accuracy). One nice feature of this method is that it is much more scalable than the above chart suggests so we can use it for atomic mega weapons and impenetrable force fields as well as rolled up newspaper weapons and starved kitten damage resistances. So there is no need for "D-weapon" extra charts.

In fact the methods' inputs and outputs can be represented in a much cleaner, more concise and more readable way than the above chart as can be seen by the alternative representation below. Having a separate axis for assisting and resisting factors is redundant as in the method they are both combined to make a single number, the Overall Modifier, before rolling the die. So the chart below shows what xxd6 rolls are needed for each overall modifier. I have also shown the respective % chances for each which though not needed for the method are nice for getting a feel of the probabilities.

To the right I have made another chart in the same way for using method 2 with an xd6.

Hey man, not to criticize your work or anything (admirable job with the charts and the math hammer!) but even I am having a tough time understanding exactly what you're getting at and trying to decipher this new "expanded" d6.

Could you explain your system and what you're doing,exactly? I would love it if you could use simpler terms so that anyone looking at this can understand it. I know we're getting to the deeply technical discussion here, but I'm getting lost with all the stuff you're doing.

 urbanknight4 wrote:
Hey man, not to criticize your work or anything (admirable job with the charts and the math hammer!) but even I am having a tough time understanding exactly what you're getting at and trying to decipher this new "expanded" d6.

Could you explain your system and what you're doing,exactly? I would love it if you could use simpler terms so that anyone looking at this can understand it. I know we're getting to the deeply technical discussion here, but I'm getting lost with all the stuff you're doing.

Okay I'll see if I can help, once you understand it you will see it is very simple to operate. Method 2 has two components: The Overall Modifier and the Random Number Generator (d6, xd6, d8 or even d10 if you want). The Overall Modifier is a simple number in which the sign (- or +) shows the direction of a force and the number represents the magnitude of the force, small, medium or big. The Overall Modifier is the sum of all the relevant factors working for success and working against success. So I'm a marksman my accuracy is say 5 and I have a sniper scope which helps my aim a bit by 1, added together that makes a positive force towards hitting the target with a extent of 6. Working against that is my target which is say small -2, far away -3 and hiding in a hedge -1. So adding the positive factors towards success (hitting the target) to the negative factors working in the opposite direction we can get a simple number that tells us which was stronger and by how much. In this case the positive factors add up to 6 and the negative factors add up to -6 so they are balanced in opposition since when summed they give us 0 (6 - 6 = 0) and so this 0 is our overall modifier. When plugged into our random number generator we want our Overall Modifier of 0 to get as an output a 50/50 chance to hit, like flipping a coin, on a d6 a roll of 4 or more is a 50/50 chance. Method 2 has a process for adjusting for the bias of our random number generator (the d6) towards positive numbers but you don't need to know what it is if you use the last chart. You can just look for where the Overall Modifier of this to-hit resolution is on the chart and then see what you need to roll on the d6 to get a hit in the box just to the right.

If the positive factors are stronger than the negative factors then the overall modifier will have a positive sign and if the negative factors are stronger than the positive factors the overall modifier will have a negative sign. The greater magnitude of the overall modifier shows how much more greater the one was over the other. So for an overall modifier of +2 we can see that the positive factors were bigger than the negative factors by a difference of 2 and we would want our random generator to give a greater probability for success than 50/50. Using a d6 for a random generator our +2 modifier becomes a roll 2 or over (which works out as a 83% chance to hit.)

So that is how you find the overall modifier what it means and how you use it with the last chart.

Now for the second component of Method 2, the random number generator. On the last chart it is an extended variant of a d6 but it can be any other kind of die, though a different die will produce different probabilities for the Overall Modifiers.

The d6 just gives a small range of outputs, just 6 different outputs, usually labeled 1 through to 6, which makes it a pretty crappy random number generator but every wargamer has them in buckets so we probably should try to use it. if we can despite its serious limitations. The xd6 and the xxd6 is just a kind of magic trick to improve the range of results we get out of a d6. For any Overall modifier that when applied to our d6 is too great in magnitude for any chance for getting anything other than one result, like roll 7 or more or roll 1 or more, we reroll the nearest extreme that if could somehow be lower or higher enough to give an alternative to auto-success or auto-fail then we reroll it with a bias (in this case I have used a bias of +/-5) to see if somehow our d6 had more sides it could have given us a lower or higher result. So when even a roll of 6 would give a fail we rolled a 6 then we reroll the 6 and add the new result to a positive bias so our d6 can squeeze out a higher number than 6. Likewise when even a roll of 1 would give us a success and we rolled a 1 then we reroll the 1 and add the new result to a negative bias (so -5 here) to see if we can squeeze out a lower number from our d6. Doing this extends the output range of the d6 from 1 to 6 into -4 to 11. So that is the xd6.

xxd6 is the same except you do it for when even the xd6 cannot give you enough output range to avoid auto win / lose and apply another bias to tilt it further. You could also have an xxxd6 or xxxxd6 or so on. But frankly given the output probabilities there isn't much point, xxd6 is probably overkill as it is.

But you don't really need to understand any of that to use the chart, just roll what it tells you for the appropriate Overall Modifier, simple.

In the roll column a single number like 4 means roll 4 or more for success. If there is 1 followed by an 'r' (r means reroll) and then another number, that is shorthand for IF you roll a 1 roll again and if you roll higher than the second number that is success. If there is a 6 followed by an 'r' and then a second number then IF you roll a 6 roll again and if you roll higher than the second number that is success.

Where you have something like 1 'r' 1'r' 5 then I hope you see now that means IF you roll a 1 then reroll it and IF you roll another 1 roll it again and if the you then get 5 or more that is success. So it also goes with 6 'r' 6 'r' 3.

Does that help?

@SolarCross.
I totally agree that the single resolution method you use ,(along with direct representation).Is a very important component in determining the outcome of the game play.

To use the foundation for a building analogy, the outline of the foundation (the intended game play) determines the plan of the building.
The width and depth of the foundation,( game mechanics and resolution methods) ,determine how thick the walls can be, and how high you can build them.
(The walls represent the balance of strategic and tactical loading in this analogy, BTW.)

if you calculate the depth of the foundations using the most advanced maths and latest theories , it can be about as much use as a chocolate tea pot to you , if the outline plan is the wrong shape!

I am happy to explore ALL options available in terms of possible resolution methods we could use.

However, the resolution method we settle on must:-
A)Cover all the core combat interaction between all the units in the game .
(With slight variation between discrete and indiscrete units obviously.)

B)Be simple enough to understand and use, but still give enough varied results to cover the wide range of units found in the 40k game.
(EG a minimum of 6 possible outcomes from opposed stats/opposed rolls.)

C)I would like modifiers and special rules to be kept to a minimum.

As I have mentioned the intended game play again, I think I had better point out several problems with the GW plc '..selling toy soldiers to children..' development.

The most glaring omission for the 40k rules ,from a game play standpoint, is the lack of tactical functions for ranged attacks, found in most other quality battle games.

The basic concept shooting and assault ONLY causing physical damage, causes masses of problems in the resulting game play.
The imbalance in shooting and assault.
The need to mutate all aspects of the game play to try to hide this obvious omission.
(Speeding up movement , introducing several special rules to off set morale and massive casualties from shooting.)

And finally light armoured hoard units being over large.(GW $a£e$ department influence here.)In the current game this lead to lots of slowing down in the game.

Having to move 30 models in a unit every turn, (twice in the current game turn.) is slow. (Especially if you have to roll random movement as well!)

Having two over sized hoard armies opposing each other leaves sod all space for tactical maneuver!

Under the RESTRICTIVE current rules there is no way for units to counter being shot at other than high numbers of models or high armour.

If we include a simple suppression mechanic as part of the natural resolution,(and LOS blocking ammunition.)
Shooting can be effective without having to kill droves of enemy.And so horde unit sizes can scale down, appropriately.
(Especially if the lighter armoured units can get better Evasion stats?)

As shooting gains 2 tactical functions beyond just killing stuff. Breaking up the enemy advance ,( or support your own assaults) , by use of suppression.And blocking enemy LOS .(This would have to be used carefully though.)

A rough example...
If the average unit size is 10,
Elite units can be half that size , 5.(50% reduction to standard unit size.)
Horde units can be half as big again 15.(50% increase over standard unit size.)

The horde unit is still proportionally bigger than the elite and standard units.But is of a more practical size in terms of foot print on the game table and practical movement during the game.

The intended game play can give you the in game functions that are important in shaping the final rules.
Not the actual stats /values obviously, but they can give you a good idea of what should be included.

I'll read both your replies in a bit, Lanrak and Solar, but we have more problems abounding than just figuring out the resolution method: the turn order has some holes in it. I just got back from testing the turn order sequence and man...

Recall that I said that I would give players a flat two actions per turn to use as they wanted. Want to move twice? Want to shoot twice? Go ahead!

The problem with this is that shooty armies become incredibly powerful. As they're able to shoot twice, they get to absolutely wreck any melee army or slow army or whatever. At least, this is with the current stats. I found my Ork Boyz dying in droves to my opponent's Tau warriors before they could even touch bases.

I think radically changing stats and making movement ranges a bit different would be good here since it's absurd to have so many units die like this. I don't know about you guys, but has anyone tested this turn structure? I'd love to hear from someone else how it went for them.

Another issue was the psychic phase. Physic powers are really powerful, is it ok to use them twice per turn or should we limit them to only one use per turn?

Can I take a whack at explaining the chart?

Like with the 40k To Wound chart, you compare your relevant stat to the enemy's relevant stat to see what you need to roll. If they are equal, your odds are 50/50. So Strength 5 versus Toughness 5 is a 4+. Accuracy 5 versus Dodge 5 is also a 4+, and so on whatever your stats are.

If your stat is higher, for each point of difference your roll becomes easier by one result. Strength 6 versus Toughness 5 is a 3+. Strength 7 versus Toughness 5 is a 2+.

The reverse is true if the enemy stat is higher. Your roll gets more difficult. Strength 5 versus Toughness 6 is a 5+. Strength 5 versus Toughness 7 is a 6+.

The semi-innovation here (this same method was actually present in Warhammer Fantasy and in 40k back when To Hit modifiers were a thing and you could take difficulty above 6+ and is present in 40k now for BS above 5) is that you can get rolls that are harder than a 6+ but can still pass and rolls that are easier than a 2+ and still fail.

A roll that is one step harder than a 6+ is that you need to make a 6+ roll, roll the dice again and get a 2+. So you have a 1/6 chance of failing the roll after you've already made your 6+. The next hardest is a 6+ followed by a 3+, and so on.

You can make rolls easier than a 2+ by re-rolling failures in a similar manner. What is listed in the table as "1.r.6" means you pass on a 2+, but if you roll a 1, you roll again and pass on a 6+.

@urbanknight.
The suggestions I made for the 2 action order sets a few posts back were play tested quite a bit, to solve the problem of letting units do what ever actions they wanted each turn.(As you have found out unrestricted actions is a bit over powered )

I am not just posting up random ideas as they occur to me.But the suggestions I have made are based on years of 'research and development',(conducted by my gaming group and others,) and a fair bit of play testing.


@lord_blackfang.
Excellent explanation of the resolution methods.

However, I am not a massive fan of re- rolls, as they can slow the game down, in my experience.
(That was why we tried just halving the number of 6s rolled to count as a result of 7.Its the same as re rolling 6s needing 4+.)

If we look at the current core rules set up, the range of results in each of the 3 stages of resolution is very restricted.
Usually only 3 results to hit.
6 results to wound.
5 results to save.

That is a range of just 90 results.

If we extend the results so we have 6 results in each of the resolution stages...
This gives us 216 results.
Just using the ALL the D6 results in each stage over doubles the results we could use.

If we add limited modifiers to the stats we use.This may give enough spread of results to allow enough detailed interaction, without having to rely on multiple systems and so many special rules ?

This is another reason I prefer to keep the 3 stage damage resolution. It adds another level of multipliers to the range of results.

I admit I do not have any answers yet.But I do have a good idea about the sort of questions we should be asking.

Lanrak wrote:
@SolarCross.
Having to move 30 models in a unit every turn, (twice in the current game turn.) is slow. (Especially if you have to roll random movement as well!)

Having two over sized hoard armies opposing each other leaves sod all space for tactical maneuver!

Under the RESTRICTIVE current rules there is no way for units to counter being shot at other than high numbers of models or high armour.

If we include a simple suppression mechanic as part of the natural resolution,(and LOS blocking ammunition.)
Shooting can be effective without having to kill droves of enemy.And so horde unit sizes can scale down, appropriately.
(Especially if the lighter armoured units can get better Evasion stats?)

As shooting gains 2 tactical functions beyond just killing stuff. Breaking up the enemy advance ,( or support your own assaults) , by use of suppression.And blocking enemy LOS .(This would have to be used carefully though.)

A rough example...
If the average unit size is 10,
Elite units can be half that size , 5.(50% reduction to standard unit size.)
Horde units can be half as big again 15.(50% increase over standard unit size.)

The horde unit is still proportionally bigger than the elite and standard units.But is of a more practical size in terms of foot print on the game table and practical movement during the game.

The intended game play can give you the in game functions that are important in shaping the final rules.
Not the actual stats /values obviously, but they can give you a good idea of what should be included.

To be honest I don't find your obsessing over horde armies makes any sense. Your main objection seems to be that horde armies slow up the game, but that is a minor issue which fantasy players solved decades ago: movement trays. The average model count for 40k is way below that of a typical fantasy game where most if not all units will have 20-40 models in them sometimes a single unit will have as many as a hundred models if they are skaven or goblins. It is not even remotely unusual to have over 200 different models on just one side. Moving 40 models on movement trays is quicker and easier than moving even just 4 models without trays. And before you say yes but fantasy armies are mostly rank 'n' flank with few skirmishers while 40k is all skirmishers, you can buy or make skirmishing trays as easily as ranked movement trays. Moving 30 ork boyz or 30 Imperial Guard on 6 skirmishing trays with each taking 5 models would take no more time than moving just 6 models without trays. The fault lies not with slow armies but with slow witted 40k players who don't use trays when they should.

The number one reason it doesn't make sense though is that whether or not we want to spit our dummy out over horde armies is beside the point at this stage in development.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 urbanknight4 wrote:
I'll read both your replies in a bit, Lanrak and Solar, but we have more problems abounding than just figuring out the resolution method: the turn order has some holes in it. I just got back from testing the turn order sequence and man...

Recall that I said that I would give players a flat two actions per turn to use as they wanted. Want to move twice? Want to shoot twice? Go ahead!

The problem with this is that shooty armies become incredibly powerful. As they're able to shoot twice, they get to absolutely wreck any melee army or slow army or whatever. At least, this is with the current stats. I found my Ork Boyz dying in droves to my opponent's Tau warriors before they could even touch bases.

I think radically changing stats and making movement ranges a bit different would be good here since it's absurd to have so many units die like this. I don't know about you guys, but has anyone tested this turn structure? I'd love to hear from someone else how it went for them.

Another issue was the psychic phase. Physic powers are really powerful, is it ok to use them twice per turn or should we limit them to only one use per turn?

Melee troops dying in droves to gunfire.. sounds about right for a sci-fi game. You know the saying don't bring a choppa to a pulse rifle fight

Right but 40k isn't really a sci-fi game it is a FANTASY game with elves, demons, magic users, sword wielding heraldry clad knights in shining armour except in SPACE. So somehow melee has to be made viable despite all the shooting. I'm with you on that but is the reason your ork boyz are dying by the bucketful really the fault of your turn structure?

Making melee more viable to me sounds like a balance issue that can be solved by making them cheaper point wise and hit harder in cc if they any survive long enough to get there. If I could have 30 ork sluggas for the same cost as 10 firewarriors then I'm not going to be too sorry if even 25 die running up the table providing the remaining 5 that actually make into close combat with the shrimpy fish faces eat them alive in the end. Ever watched the film Zulu? Yeah that's what I call a fun fight.

Same with psyking, if it is too powerful then nerf it or make it cost more. But at this stage you can't be looking at balance, because you haven't even settled on stats and you can't settle on stats until you have settled on core mechanics.

When you evaluate your turn structure at this stage you should only be thinking of how smoothly it works and not worry if it is unbalanced, because balancing is all about point costs and you can't even begin to do that until you know what all your game mechanics, stats and core rules will be and are then ready to start making or adapting faction codices.

-----------------

Ok brace yourselves I have a few more charts up my sleeve...

This time I have Method 2 using an extended d10 and also for comparison Method 2 with a regular d10.



This to my eyes is loveliest by far.. Nice range even without an extension, percentage chances in neat 10% increments for the centre range and tidy 1% increments on the extended. Extended it actually gives a variable chance for a larger range of Overall modifiers than even the xxd6 did. No joke that is one hot random number generator, if I wasn't a married man... well...

Well everything is about the pros and cons, so what is the trade off? Okay it is perfect as a number generator but what about the punters? They all have buckets of d6s right? They will cry and pout if you tell them they need to go out and buy 30 weird looking d10s so they can fast dice their orks. Really? I wonder if the punters could really be that dumb, that they would be willing to throw down around half a grand on models and paints, then spend almost as many hours painting them and then cry at the prospect of spending a fiver on 30 dice. I just checked on ebay you can get 30 new d10s for around a fiver including p&p.

So why not d10?

@SolarCross.
I am a bit perplexed that that from my last 3 posts, you have concluded I am.''... obsessing over horde armies...'

When I have tried to be a clear as possible in declaring my intentions, and my perspective.

Post at the top of this page...
''Hi folks.
I get the impression my approach to this re-write may not be fully understood. And as such there appears to be some disconnect -miscommunication, going on.

I am looking at this project as an objective overview of a game system sold as a functional system.That is failing to function as expected. ''

'' An objective overview of the 40k game system shows serious flaws in the core rules for 40k.''

'If you agree that the core rules need re-writing to 'fix the 40k company level battle game system.'
It is important to accept the synergistic and compound effects of ANY change to the core rules,may have on the end game play. '

''I proposed that ..
We need a more interactive game turn for the larger battle game size.
(EVERY 'finished' 40K re-write using a more interactive game turn, (Alternating phase or unit activation types.) showed improvement in game play , and was seen as an improvement to the game play by the players.AFAIK.)

We do not need over six separate resolution methods in addition to direct representation to cover the interaction of all the units found a 40k battle game.

We do not need to use larger dice sizes, like D10,D12, D20. ''

My second post addressed to you.


@SolarCross.
''I totally agree that the single resolution method you use ,(along with direct representation).Is a very important component in determining the outcome of the game play.

To use the foundation for a building analogy, the outline of the foundation (the intended game play) determines the plan of the building.
The width and depth of the foundation,( game mechanics and resolution methods) ,determine how thick the walls can be, and how high you can build them.
(The walls represent the balance of strategic and tactical loading in this analogy, BTW.) ''

''The most glaring omission for the 40k rules ,from a game play standpoint, is the lack of tactical functions for ranged attacks, found in most other quality (modern) battle games''.

''The basic concept shooting and assault ONLY causing physical damage, causes masses of problems in the resulting game play.
The imbalance in shooting and assault.
The need to mutate all aspects of the game play to try to hide this obvious omission.
(Speeding up movement , introducing several special rules to off set morale and massive casualties from shooting.)''


You appear to have skipped over all this and just focused on the section of my post prefaced by..

'And finally light armoured hoard units being over large.(GW $a£e$ department influence here.)In the current game has lead to lots of slowing down in the game. '

The last comment after a long and fairly detailed posts proposing how I think we could proceed in getting the game play in synergy with the units types and equipment weapons used to fight in fictional battles in the 40k universe.
Was in reply to your apparent assumption that just speeding up dice rolling would fix everything?

In you last post extending your assumption, that GW has had it right for the last 18 year.(40k is just Warhammer Fantasy Battles in space with guns)
By ignoring all the evidence of 40k using 'less than optimal' core rules.

You proposed using movement trays and a bigger dice size .D10.
And the imbalance between assault and shooting units can be fixed by making assault units bigger,by lowering the cost per model, and more powerful in assault?

You seemed to imply this was your solution , eg buy more stuff.(Do you work for GW sales department BTW? )


To be clear , I think 40k SHOULD HAVE RULES WRITTEN SPECIFICALLY FOR ITS INTENDED GAME PLAY. 40k SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO BE A WHFB CLONE.

I believe that 40k players are heavily invested in the inspiring background and art of the 40k universe.

And GW plc use this as leverage to get money from them without really providing a QUALITY rule set,.(The 40k game and the 40k players deserve quality rules for 40k , IMO.)

I want to try to get a straight forward, easy to learn and play , intuitive rule set.That has enough tactical depth to keep players interested long term, without having to force new purchases by heavy handed restructuring .

This perspective on re writing the rules seems to be in line with the title of this thread.If this is not in line with what you want urbanknight, please let me know.

Lanrak wrote:
@SolarCross.
I am a bit perplexed that that from my last 3 posts, you have concluded I am.''... obsessing over horde armies...'

When I have tried to be a clear as possible in declaring my intentions, and my perspective.

That was the only part of your posts I found interesting enough to respond to. The rest was more or less repeating some rant you made at the beginning of the thread. Yes 40k is flawed, we already know that, addressing those flaws is the point of the thread. You are telling us nothing new.

When I said 40k is fantasy in space I was referring to the fluff not the crunch. 40k is fantasy in space. If you want to make a game that is "modern warfare in space" then it might well be a great game but it won't have melee at all, or magic, or superheroes. It won't be 40k though and 90% of the models the 40k player has won't be appropriate for it. Urbanknight made this thread because he wants to make a better 40k with which he can use his 40k models in the context of 40k like fluff. If you want modern warfare in space you need to do it somewhere else.

@SolarCross.
I am trying to make reasoned arguments for measured changes to the core rules based on a wealth of evidence that proves them worthy of investigation.

A)
GW made battle games for the 40k universe using game play based on modern warfare.Adeptus Titanicus, Epic Space Marine, Epic 40k, Epic Armageddon.
In the Epic series of games GW game devs were allowed to develop the rules specifically for the game play of the large 40k battles,They used a more interactive game turn mechanics and simple suppression mechanics.
As these games use the same units that are found in 40k 5th to 7th ed,and these games managed to represent assault and psychic attacks, in a balance way alongside shooting.(And only used a fraction of the pages of rules 40k 7th ed uses.)This supports my argument for new rules.IMO.

B)
Andy Chambers was '40k Overfeind'(Lead game developer in normal speak.) He was convinced the errors made in the 3rd ed 40k , needed to be corrected by completely re-writing the rules from the ground up.
GW corporate management would not let him make the changes he thought were needed to fix the game play of 40k.
Andy Chambers left GW plc , (probably due to not being allowed to fix the game play of 40k.) and used his new ideas in Star Ship Troopers .
And Star Ship troopers game play was based on modern warfare.

C)
After Rick Priestly who originally co wrote the rules for RogueTrader to start the whole 40k game series.
Wanted to write a scifi war game at Warlord Games.(Allegedly the game he wanted 3rd ed 40k to be.)
Beyond The Gates of Antares was loosely based on the modern warfare rules Bolt Action.(Written by Alessio.)

In fact lots of scifi war games base their game play on modern warfare.
As modern warfare has an equal focus on mobility, fire power and assault.

What I have written so far I would class as a reasoned argument.

However, I would class this as a rant ...
''Okay it is perfect as a number generator but what about the punters? They all have buckets of d6s right? They will cry and pout if you tell them they need to go out and buy 30 weird looking d10s so they can fast dice their orks. Really? I wonder if the punters could really be that dumb, that they would be willing to throw down around half a grand on models and paints, then spend almost as many hours painting them and then cry at the prospect of spending a fiver on 30 dice. I just checked on ebay you can get 30 new d10s for around a fiver including p&p. ''

I am sure that urbanknight is intelligent and mature enough to speak for himself.
And if you actually bothered to read any of the discussion at the start of the thread, (Which you dismissed as a rant.)You would have seen that urbanknight agreed with me that modern warfare was the best fit to base the game play of 40k on.

Could you please explain what you mean by this?
When I said 40k is fantasy in space I was referring to the fluff not the crunch. 40k is fantasy in space.

Some of the factions in 40k have a similar look the the models found in fantasy games.
But the organisation of units, equipment and weapons is completely different to the fantasy games.

So if you were saying the superficial look of 40k is similar to fantasy,(fluff.)
But the 40k game play has nothing to do with fantasy games .(Crunch)
You are agreeing with me.

If you believe 40k is fantasy in space, then GW plc are making the 40k game you want.So why are you posting here?

Lanrak wrote:
@SolarCross.
However, I would class this as a rant ...
''Okay it is perfect as a number generator but what about the punters? They all have buckets of d6s right? They will cry and pout if you tell them they need to go out and buy 30 weird looking d10s so they can fast dice their orks. Really? I wonder if the punters could really be that dumb, that they would be willing to throw down around half a grand on models and paints, then spend almost as many hours painting them and then cry at the prospect of spending a fiver on 30 dice. I just checked on ebay you can get 30 new d10s for around a fiver including p&p. ''

Nope those comments may have been a touch brusque but they were far too concise to be classed as a rant. Rants need to be rambling and self-important posturing totally opposed to making a meaningful contribution, I have a lot to learn from you in that regard.

Lanrak wrote:

Could you please explain what you mean by this?
When I said 40k is fantasy in space I was referring to the fluff not the crunch. 40k is fantasy in space.

Some of the factions in 40k have a similar look the the models found in fantasy games.
But the organisation of units, equipment and weapons is completely different to the fantasy games.

So if you were saying the superficial look of 40k is similar to fantasy,(fluff.)
But the 40k game play has nothing to do with fantasy games .(Crunch)
You are agreeing with me.

If you believe 40k is fantasy in space, then GW plc are making the 40k game you want.So why are you posting here?

You don't understand Modern Warfare at all. Modern Warfare is launching cruise missiles from 1000 miles away then sending in stealth bombers to flatten anything the cruise missiles missed then sending in the armour for the photoshot because the public like to see tanks in the news reports and then sending in the infantry, not one of whom is armed with a sword, to wander around in the rubble "winning hearts and minds" by raping the locals and getting sniped at by terrorists. No demons, no swords, no magic and no superheros.

I'm sure bolt action is a fine game though I am not sure we can really call WW2 "modern warfare" anymore, (though even in WW2 melee was long obsolete, the submachine gun will win every time against a sword, powered by the sacred relics of Ultramar or not) but 40k is a collage of pastiches of every funky war related thing going including modern warfare memes but also huge dollops of fantasy tropes. To puff yourself up and loftily pronounce that ripping off bolt action is the right way to fix 40k is just vacuous grandstanding, because while 40k already has modern warfare elements it wants to be fantasy too with magic, knights in shining armour, demons and heroic melee. Ripping off bolt action will not give you that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
------------------

By now you are all probably expecting me to drop another chart.. and far be it for me to disappoint. So here is Method 2 with no random number generator at all..



Haha! after all that agonising over the poor range of probabilities that the d6 puts out, various fiendish torture techniques to stretch the d6 beyond its natural capabilities and even flirting with exotic lovelies like the sexy d10, all with the view to widening the "canyon of probabilities" as far as can be, I then go and throw up a chart with no random element at all, that canyon of probabilities snapped shut entirely. What am I trollling? Well maybe, well actually no. Ask yourself what is the best game ever, ever, ever created? Most people would probably say chess though myself I think wei chi, or "go" as the Koreans call it, is just a bit better than chess. Both chess and go have one thing that makes them go (pun intended), strict determinism no random element. Now what is the worst game ever created? For myself I would have to say Snakes and Ladders. Yes it is even worse than 40k or Age of Sigmar, much worse. Why is it the worst game ever created? Is it because of the simple rules? No the rules of chess and go are pretty simple and they are the best games ever, simplicity can't be it. The reason Snakes and Ladders is the worst game ever, is that playing only involves rolling dice, roll unlucky and you fall down a snake, roll lucky you climb a ladder, roll lucky enough often enough and you win. The player has no choices to make, no strategy to formulate, nothing to contribute at all except rolling dice.

Wargames are generally somewhere in between chess and snakes 'n' ladders in terms of determinism and randomness. There is a random element but there are also choices to make with somewhat deterministic consequences even if those choices can be upset by fickle dice. Also the more dice thrown the more the averages tend to win out over outlying probabilities. Throw down 1 die to win on a 4+ and you could get anything, but throw down 40 dice to see how many of your 40 spearmen successfully stabbed someone on a 4+ and you will tend to reliably get something pretty close to 20 stabs.

So this prompts me to wonder about a few things.. Could wargames be improved by reducing randomness? Could a wargame be created that had no random element at all? Would that game then have a chance to be considered in the same lofty realm as chess?

I have had a few ideas on how to do standard wargame stuff like to-hit and damage resolutions strictly deterministically and in playing around with it some really fun stuff pops out as options that otherwise would be unthinkable. An example is weapon range, normally weapon range is an either/or algorithm: if in range take a shot, if not do not. Sometimes there will be a roll modifier if the range is "short" or "long" but it is usually small like +1 or -1. This is all to fit with the dice. If you use a random number generator then every other factor has to be constrained by the dice properties in order to keep the random element relevant. If you ditch the dice entirely then the range itself becomes available as a modifier or factor in a much deeper way. So instead of if in range take a shot, or short range +1, the range itself becomes a variable for your computations. You can use 24" as -24 to hit, 23" as -23 to hit, 22" as -22 to hit. Combine it with target size, weapon accuracy, special actions, cover bonuses all without a single die roll and you get a deterministic system that borders on hard to predict yet powerfully driven by player choice rather than luck of the die.

So what do you all think? Is it too radical to make a wargame without any dice throws?

@SolarCross.
So let me get this straight.

You want to ignore all the evidence gathered by actual historians , that have actually studied the history of warfare ,and how and when the way it was conducted changed.

You want ignore the actions of some of the best professional game designers, when they are free from the influence of GW sales department.

You want to ignore how good rule sets are written by other companies, and why they are written differently to current GW 40k rules.

You want to cling to the idea that modern warfare is all about long range missiles,and 40k is fantasy in space because the models used look a bit like the fantasy counterparts.

And after refusing to acknowledge any of the facts presented to try to change your limited view point,by dismissing them as a rant.

You only appear to want to create 'special charts' , that you think will fix everything, because you are unwilling to acknowledge the real and serious flaws in the core rules of GWs 40k.

And any one who does not agree with you ''..will cry and pout.. ''..could really be that dumb,''

Your definition.
''Rants need to be rambling and self-important posturing totally opposed to making a meaningful contribution,''

Could you please explain what you mean by ..
''When I said 40k is fantasy in space I was referring to the fluff not the crunch. 40k is fantasy in space. ''

As this would be an indicator of how much you actually understand about game development and game design.

@UrbanKnight I like what you're trying to do here, even if I'm not sure I'll like the final result. I'm not a great fan of the idea that 'one resolution method' is a worthy goal. Having different resolution methods allow for different distributions of probability. Sometimes you want a bell curve. Sometimes you want a linear progression. That said, I find your writing very clear and easy to understand.

Your query around 2 activation phases per round causing an overpowering of the shooting option has been encountered before. I suggest you pop over to Warseer and have a good read through Lanrak's own thread there: http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?412143-Finding-and-fixing-40ks-core-faults
I think it was Commissar von Toussaint who often wrote in that thread about his two phase turn which is just like yours. Be warned, you need many cups of tea or coffee to get through all the wordy writers in that thread. If memory serves, the solution to your problem is to halve the number of shots per phase. e.g. a weapon which is currently 3rd-7th ed rapid fire would only get to shoot once per activation.

@Lanrak If I may try to answer for SolarCross on this one:
''When I said 40k is fantasy in space I was referring to the fluff not the crunch. 40k is fantasy in space. '' means that the stories told in 40k have more in common with fantasy tales of knights and dragons than they do with cruise missiles and assault rifles. We want 40k the game to reflect that type of story. There is nothing I'm aware of in modern warfare that even remotely resembles the many and varied assault units we have in the 40k universe. As a result, trying to model the 40k game on real life warfare over the last century would be a grave mistake.

@SolarCross "Is it too radical to make a wargame without any dice throws?" No, of course not. However, the unstated question is "Is it too radical to make a 40k game without any dice throws?" The answer to that one is a very solid YES. A big part of the charm of 40k (the game) is the simplistic pleasure you get from rolling a bucket-full of dice and seeing a lot of 6s turn up. This is the same reason that I disagree with you about Snakes and Ladders. You're over-intellectualizing the concept of a 'good game'. Put in its simplest form, a good game is one which the players enjoy. Snakes and Ladders is a good game, especially for small children, precisely because it evokes the hope and disappointment/hope and elation cycle of needing to roll a certain number and succeeding.
Related questions:
"Should everything in a wargame be random?" No
"Is 40k 7th ed too random, not enough random, or just right?" A bit too random.

As for switching to d10s? You clearly haven't seen as many people as I have struggle over spotting the difference between a d10 and a d8.
I am a DND player, I have many polyhedral dice. I do not like the idea of switching 40k to d10s. There are a number of reasons for this, some are subjective, others are objective. One of the objective reasons is speed. One of the benefits of d6s is you can get away with using pips instead of numerals because the numbers are low enough to do so. This means we can spot 10 cases of 4+ on 20d6 faster than we can spot 10 cases of 6+ on 20d10. 4 pips is 4 pips regardless of which orientation it lands in. A 6 looks an awful lot like a 9, even if they do have the _ underscore.
Sure for an individual roll, there is no appreciable difference, but for 5, 10, 20, sometimes even 40 or 50 dice in a single volley of shots in 40k? That time is going to add up.

Lots of interesting thoughts in this thread. I'm gonna skip most of it and say what I'd like from a new version of 40k.

SCALE
Generally, the same scale and size of game is preserved. I know people moan about it but we have a game with regular infantry, fliers and super-heavy walkers. We need to keep that. I'd also like to continue using d6.

TURN STRUCTURE
I very much like the idea of a 'Command Phase' where you set up any special abilities, cast psychic powers, bring in reserves. However, this shouldn't be a game in it's own right. Maybe in my turn I do my reserves, and that's it. Maybe I'll have psychic powers and reserves and Orders because I'm playing IG and that's their special thing. But maybe I don't do any of those things and we can skip it.

If you have too many stages before you move a model then it gets boring for me. I think MEdge suffers from this - before a model moves you generate command points, assign them to models, then do a bidding war for reinforcements etc etc etc. Too much stuff! Too complex!

I'd like the rest of the turn to be SUPER SIMPLE in terms of actions - Alternate Activation, or 'I go, you go', or you get to activate two units, then the opponent does, etc etc. Using individual unit Initiative is a bit too granular for a game with so many units. Frost grave does this really well, but probably wouldn't translate directly to a game like 40k. Anyway, I'd like it to be as simple as 'you can activate two units each', and then some slow units take up more activations or something.

CONSISTENT RULES
Can we have one method of playing and one set of stats for all models? Vehicles shouldn't have a whole different way of taking damage - they should just be extra-tough to extra-fast or something.

SIMPLE CONFLICT RESOLUTION
We need fewer steps to resolve any actions, like shooting or assault. However, we need to make the range of values much greater to accommodate all our weird units. However, I want to stick with d6. I think MEdge actually handles this really well. If your score is higher, its 3+, if your score is lower, it's 5+. If they're the same, it's 4+.

I could totally see a system where a shooting action is resolved in two rolls. Grab a number of d6 equal to the number of shots the weapon has. To hit, compare your 'Shooting' stat plus any modifiers to the enemy 'Not getting shot' stat plus modifiers. If you're double them, you hit on 2, higher you hit on 3, equal on 4 and so on. Then, the enemy rolls to resist. He compares his unit 'Toughness' stat (which includes armour) plus modifiers like cover, etc to your weapon's 'Strength' stat. EXACTLY the same dice rolls happen. Any that get through cause a wound.

The advantages of this are many. Both players participate in the action. Because it's based on higher/lower/double, the range of values can be HUGE. A regular human could be T10, but a Land Raider T50, and a lascannon S40. The range can be huge to represent the massive variety in 40k, but the rolls are still simple.

Special rules and exceptions are very easy to add as modifiers. Maybe Meltas have 'Anti-tank' which gives you a +10 bonus against vehicles. You can include range modifiers to the Shooting stat, or cover as a modifier to the Toughness stat.

Anyway, that's a rough idea but something with this combination of simplicity and range would be great.

Zustiur wrote:

@SolarCross "Is it too radical to make a wargame without any dice throws?" No, of course not. However, the unstated question is "Is it too radical to make a 40k game without any dice throws?" The answer to that one is a very solid YES. A big part of the charm of 40k (the game) is the simplistic pleasure you get from rolling a bucket-full of dice and seeing a lot of 6s turn up. This is the same reason that I disagree with you about Snakes and Ladders. You're over-intellectualizing the concept of a 'good game'. Put in its simplest form, a good game is one which the players enjoy. Snakes and Ladders is a good game, especially for small children, precisely because it evokes the hope and disappointment/hope and elation cycle of needing to roll a certain number and succeeding.
Related questions:
"Should everything in a wargame be random?" No
"Is 40k 7th ed too random, not enough random, or just right?" A bit too random.

As for switching to d10s? You clearly haven't seen as many people as I have struggle over spotting the difference between a d10 and a d8.
I am a DND player, I have many polyhedral dice. I do not like the idea of switching 40k to d10s. There are a number of reasons for this, some are subjective, others are objective. One of the objective reasons is speed. One of the benefits of d6s is you can get away with using pips instead of numerals because the numbers are low enough to do so. This means we can spot 10 cases of 4+ on 20d6 faster than we can spot 10 cases of 6+ on 20d10. 4 pips is 4 pips regardless of which orientation it lands in. A 6 looks an awful lot like a 9, even if they do have the _ underscore.
Sure for an individual roll, there is no appreciable difference, but for 5, 10, 20, sometimes even 40 or 50 dice in a single volley of shots in 40k? That time is going to add up.

Thank you very much Zustiur for your thoughtful response but with respect I don't quite agree on one or two things.

Of course you are right that a good game is a game that people enjoy, but when it comes to objectively gauging how much people enjoy a game the clearest signal comes from how long they continue to come back to it, wouldn't you say? How many people continue playing snakes and ladders after their first game? Small children in the right mood will give anything a fair shot, everything is new to them, but it only takes one game to learn that snakes and ladders is an exercise in futility. For the competitive, winning at snakes and ladders means nothing because really it is the dice that win not the player. For the problem solver, snakes and ladders is dull because there is nothing to solve, just roll and roll again. Only those that take a rather masocistic pleasure in being a helpless hostage to fortune could possibly sustain interest in a purely random game once the novelty wore off and that doesn't seem to be a great number of people. Your local town probably has a chess club or two, masses and masses of clubs for sporting games (which are invariably wholly deterministic) but I wonder if there is a even a single snakes 'n' ladders club anywhere in the world?

Anyway I think I shall make a entirely non-random wargame ruleset, because it seems to me the less random a game is the more interesting it is and because as far as I know such a thing does not exist yet for tabletop wargaming but should. Maybe most wargamers would prefer to have some random element but there are hundreds of wargame rulesets that have that already. Urbanknight would probably be well advised to stick to conventional formulas and keep the dice in his game though. It is a bit of a gamble to go against convention.

On the d10, yeah I can see that the 6 or 9 ambiguity could pose some significant difficulty with a lot of dice, but i can think of an easy fix. Just improve the distinctiveness of the 9s in contrast to the 6s by colouring in the number with a red, green or blue biro (depending on which would be a complementary colour the dice). So 6 is white and 9 red (on a green die).

Ok... admitting that I haven't read the whole thread, but wanted to throw some ideas out there.

First up, I also think 40k has become almost unplayable. The power divide is just too large between poorly built armies and competitively built army. Many, many games can be decided up front and the actual playing of the game feels like going through the motions. Because of this, I haven't been playing much 40k lately. Instead, I've been playing a little ultra casual Age of Sigmar as well as Star Wars: Armada, Star Wars: Imperial Assault and Warhammer 40k: Conquest. If you'll note, the last three games are produced by Fantasy Flight Games. It got me to thinking...

What would Warhammer 40k look like if Fantasy Flight Games rewrote the rules?

I've talked through this with my friends and have actually put together the better part of a rule set. I'll outline a couple of my thoughts here.

First, a couple of general points and then the game structure.

1. Each player builds an army and then picks three missions. Whoever has the lower number of points gets to decided who is the First Player. The Second Player get to pick one of the first player's missions.
2. Allies are allowed, but only one allied Faction and that Faction may not contain any HQ units.
3. The Independent Character rule simply goes away. Instead, ICs are buffed a bit to make them more survivable. Think along the lines of how Age of Sigmar handles heroes.
4. Each Unit has a Unit Deployment Card listing stats and abilities. Upgrades are represented by smaller Upgrade Cards. These cards would be exhausted (tapped) as abilities or special weapons are used. This would also allow for additional gear to be acquired in game by looting enemy units at the end of a combat or interacting with weapons caches/mission objectives.

Game Structure

SETUP PHASE
1. Mission is chosen.
2. Deployment Zones determined and Mission specific setup done. This includes terrain and objective markers. Both are placed alternatingly by the players.
3. First Player deploys a unit, then Second Player. Units are deployed in alternating fashion until both players pass. All remaining undeployed units are placed in the player's "Reinforcement Zone".

START OF TURN PHASE
1. Start of Turn Effects

ACTION PHASE
1. The First Player activates a unit. That unit may perform up to two actions, in any order. Units may not perform the same action twice. Available actions are ATTACK, MOVE, REST (takes up both actions and would be something like 'roll 1 die per damaged model in the unit and recover a wound on a 5+ result'), RUN and SPECIAL ACTION. Special Actions would be listed on Unit Deployment Cards or Upgrade Cards and would include things like Psychic Attacks/Effects or an IG HQ's ability to order other units to do things. Only one attack may be made per turn.
2. The Second Player activates a unit.
3. This continues in alternating fashion until all units have been activated.

END OF TURN PHASE
1. Remove Casualties... NOTE: Casualties aren't removed from play until this stage. That means a model that is "killed" still gets to take his action later in the turn. The idea is that all of these alternating actions are really taking place simultaneously from a fluff standpoint. This also allows a unit that took fire to rest instead of acting and recover some health. Casualties are placed in a "Casualty Zone".
2. End of Turn Effects
3. Reinforcements... Starting with the first player and alternating thereafter, each player either nominates a unit in his or her Reinforcement Zone and attempts to bring it in by rolling a 3+ or passes. This continues until both players pass. Units are deployed into a deployment zone as normal or deployed per special instructions on their Deployment Card (Deep Strike type thing, for example).

ATTACKS
Combat would be simplified a bit. Strength goes away with To Hit and To Wound rolls being rolled into one Attack Roll. Toughness goes away with tougher critters getting more wounds and rolling multiple defense dice. Melee Attacks would be something like...
1. Declare Target
2. Fire Assault Weapons
3. Determine Charge Move Distance (Unit's Move Stat, normally 6" + D6")
4. Move Models
5. Any models within 2" of an enemy combatant rolls attack dice
6. Defender rolls defense dice
7. Attacker assigns undefended damage.
Ranged attacks are basically the same without the move and allowing any weapons to be fired.

Example Upgrade Cards:

JET PACK THRUSTERS
Upgrade Type: Warear
[SPECIAL ACTION] RETREATING BLOW: The unit makes an attack and then immediately moves up to 2D6". If the unit has has already attacked this turn, it may not use this ability. If it uses this ability, it make not subsequently attack.

APOTHECARY TRAINING (20 points... or whatever?)
Upgrade Type: Special Training
[SPECIAL ACTION] BANDAGE: Roll D6 and remove that many damage counters from models in this unit.

LASCANNON (30 points... or whatever?)
Upgrade Type: Heavy Weapon
While making an attack, if the attacking unit has not moved this turn, the defending unit rolls 3 fewer defense dice.

IRON HALO (15 points... or whatever?)
Upgrade Type: Wargear
While defending, any number of defense dice may be rerolled.

SUMMARY...

This isn't fully fleshed out yet, but it's something I'm working on for me and my friends. Depending on the outcome, I'll probably post my freebie rules online. the idea is to end up with a 4-6 page "Learn to Play" book and a secondary "Rules Reference" book outlining the specific rule scenarios that might come up. MOST of the rules would just be on the mission cards, unit deployment cards and upgrade cards... like X-Wing or Armada.

HI folks.
As there has been lots of good ideas on game development and game design for the new rules, I would like to comment on a few of them .

But first it is most important to try to highlight the point I have failed to explain that well, or people seem to have misunderstood.

To quote John Stallard's excellent article from white dwarf a few years back.(I believe it was when he was the GW studio manager?)
''Warhammer and Warhammer 40k, are at their heart a war game like any other.The only difference is the carefully applied veneer of the fantastical over the top.''

War games only have 3 basic types of warfare to set the game play focus, and the type of 'game engine'.(Game mechanics and resolution methods.)

'Naval war', focus on mobility and ranged attacks.(X-Wing , Battle Fleet Gothic , Man O War, etc.)

'Ancient warfare', focus on mobility and close combat.(WHFB,KoW Ancients , Napoleonics etc.)

'Modern Warfare' , equal focus on mobility fire power and assault.(Epic Armageddon, Epic Space Marine, Drop Zone Commander, BtGoA, SST, Dirtside, Fast and dirty, and any rule set for land war set after WWI.)

When I say base the game play on modern warfare , it is because it is the best fit with the game play players expect 40k to have.(Based on the units organisation , weapons and equipment.)

The current rules for Ancient warfare game play,(WHFB) can not balance the increased amount of ranged weapons, with the assault focused rules.And Naval type warfare game play would relegate assault to a supporting role.

Anyhow..

@Zustiur.
If you can get the results you want off one resolution method ,( as well as using direct representation) , why add more resolution methods just to make the rules more complicated?

I do not have a problem with using more than one resolution method if it is needed though.

If you watch the intro from the very first Dawn Of War cinematic .(On You tube.)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REVRyOfS56Q
This is what I believe the game play of 40k should reflect.

Now looking at this , would you say it is closer to .'
Ancient /Napoleonic based warfare .(On You tube.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vlcuvrM1po
The current game play focus of the WHFB based game play and rules.
(Rick was heavily influenced by hi work on Napoleonic rules at WGRG when he wrote the rules for WHFB, apparently.)

Or modern based warfare.(On you tube.)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuaSi-H0oGY
The game play based on modern warfare, using new rules can allow shooting and assault to be equally important.(Like the rules for Epic! )

I totally agree with you that we should stick with D6 for the new 40k, rules.

@Arbitorian.
Scale.
I am happy to allow the current Apoc size games to be supported.
However, I would like to re wind back to 5th ed size to start with.So we can introduce the larger units into a well defined and balanced rules set, in a way that does not
overpower the other unit options in the game.

I agree with the rest of you basic outline over view.
(However, as previously stated, reducing damage resolution to just 2 rolls can cause problems as previously discussed.)

@Kriswall.
Increasing the range of missions is a great way of improving the game play options, from the top down.

Alternating unit activation is a more interactive game turn like alternating phases/actions.
However, I have found most rule sets that use it need additional scheduling mechanics,and/or reaction mechanics.

But alternating phases(or actions) and alternating unit activation can be can be swapped out easily if the rest of the rules are written with both game turn mechanics in mind.

You proposed Attack resolution seems a bit complicated though ,IMO.

The ideas for more standardized units with standardized upgrades seems interesting.(If that is what you are proposing. )

Lanrak wrote:
@Kriswall.
Increasing the range of missions is a great way of improving the game play options, from the top down.

Alternating unit activation is a more interactive game turn like alternating phases/actions.
However, I have found most rule sets that use it need additional scheduling mechanics,and/or reaction mechanics.

But alternating phases(or actions) and alternating unit activation can be can be swapped out easily if the rest of the rules are written with both game turn mechanics in mind.

You proposed Attack resolution seems a bit complicated though ,IMO.

The ideas for more standardized units with standardized upgrades seems interesting.(If that is what you are proposing. )

I'm hoping that by not removing casualties until end of turn, units will still be able to react when their activation comes up. It would also be very easy to implement interrupt abilities... "When this unit is nominated as the target of a ranged attack, interrupt to move up to 6 inches in any direction." Star Wars: Imperial Assault has tons of these and they work fine.

The Attack process is still pending. I know everyone loves rolling TONS of D6s, but I'm considering repurposing Armada, X-Wing dice and Imperial Assault dice. That would give individual models the chance to miss, hit for 1-2 damage, crit or get an "accuracy" which might do something special like prevent defense. Defense works the same way. Each defense die can prevent anywhere from 0-3 damage. It's a very intuitive system, but would be a solid step away from rolling tons of D6s. I haven't really fleshed this out fully yet.

In terms of standardized upgrades... close, but not exactly. In X-Wing and Armada, the Ship and Pilot cards have "upgrade slots". The various upgrade cards correspond to these slots. So, you could fill an "Officer" slot with any "Officer" upgrade cards of the applicable faction, with some being neutral. I'm envisioning something like this...

Tactical Squad (10 Marines)
1x Special Weapon Slot
1x Heavy Weapon Slot
3x Wargear Slots

Tactical Support Squad (5 Marines)
1x Special Weapon Slot
1x Wargear Slot

Assault Squad (5 Marines)
5x Melee Weapon Slots
1x Wargear Slot

Devastator Squad (5 Marines)
4x Heavy Weapon Slots
1x Wargear Slot

So, you could take a Dev Squad with 4 Lascannons and Marksmanship Awards OR 4 Missile Launchers and an Interceptor Node (making up names here). the Tactical Squad would be the most flexible as it would have the most generic Wargear Slots.

Still thinking about it. I think I'm going to try to mock up a couple of units this weekend to give people a better idea of what I'm thinking.

Lanrak wrote:

War games only have 3 basic types of warfare to set the game play focus, and the type of 'game engine'.(Game mechanics and resolution methods.)

'Naval war', focus on mobility and ranged attacks.(X-Wing , Battle Fleet Gothic , Man O War, etc.)

'Ancient warfare', focus on mobility and close combat.(WHFB,KoW Ancients , Napoleonics etc.)

'Modern Warfare' , equal focus on mobility fire power and assault.(Epic Armageddon, Epic Space Marine, Drop Zone Commander, BtGoA, SST, Dirtside, Fast and dirty, and any rule set for land war set after WWI.)

When I say base the game play on modern warfare , it is because it is the best fit with the game play players expect 40k to have.(Based on the units organisation , weapons and equipment.)

The current rules for Ancient warfare game play,(WHFB) can not balance the increased amount of ranged weapons, with the assault focused rules.And Naval type warfare game play would relegate assault to a supporting role.

Anyhow..

You are wrong and this is why: In ancient warfare ranged attacks and mobility were of equal importance to close combat and even then when ranged attacks were not so strong (bows) nor mobility (cavalry) so fast, armies focused on melee generally proved inferior to either mobile or ranged armies as can be seen in battles such as the Battle of Carnae where a Parthian Army composed of 9000 horse archers and 500 heavy lancers slaughtered to a man a much larger Roman Army composed of 45,000 heavy melee. Also we might mention the conquests of Ghengis Khan and his successors who conquered nearly the entirety of asia using armies composed entirely of horse archers and heavy cavalry with the horse archers being the larger proportion.

Real ancient warfare is an equal focus on ranged, melee and mobility.

WHFB carries an intrinsic nerf to ranged and an accidental nerf to mobility due to model vs tabletop size. Though even with that ranged focused or mobile focused armies can still beat melee armies without too much trouble.

We should also note that Fantasy Warfare has components that are never present in ancient warfare but is present in modern warfare. Dragons are armoured flying flame throwers, and thus tactically more akin to a helicopter gunship than anything you would find on a ancient battlefield. Magic spells have effects comparable to chemical weapons, combat drugs, or artillery barrages but comparable to nothing in real ancient warfare. Fantasy has to have rules to facilitate units "coming out of nowhere" as in demons or undead being summoned from other dimensions, again nothing in ancient warfare is comparable but there is in modern warfare ie paratroopers.

Real modern warfare does not feature melee at all. It is all ranged and mobility.

40k rules need to be a hybrid of ancient and modern because it wants to have both tanks and swords.

@SolarCross.
Perhaps a quote from a military historian might help explain why I name the different types of basic warfare the way I do.

''In ancient warfare , large blocks of troops are the the most efficient way of waging war.In modern warfare however large blocks of troops are a target rich environment.''

The massive improvement in the efficiency of ranged weapons during the First World War , was the watershed for ancient warfare tactics and strategies.

If the fastest thing on the battle field is a horse and the most effective weapon is a pointy stick , then it is ancient warfare. (Battle of Carnae is ancient warfare.)

I am not talking about the marketing narrative of the games.(Fantastical veneer/fluff/background.)But how the core game play is delivered by the core rules structure.

The reason GWs 40k 3ed to 7th ed has never been able to balance shooting and assault, is due to the imbalance cause by using WHFB rules.
In WHFB ranged attacks are only supposed to be used in a limited/supporting role.
Therefore when the number of units with ranged attack capability increase to nearly 100%, the game balance falls apart.

If you agree that 40k should have an equal focus on mobility, ranged attacks and close combat assault , then we agree.
I might use a different terminology to you, for this, but we want a similar outcome.

If this is the case ranged attacks need to have more tactical functions than just killing stuff.And assault has to have different tactical effects to shooting.
As this lets all units have multiple in game functions and can allow all units to have value and be worth taking.

@Kriswall.
I did not say your attack resolution would not work.But it looked more complicated than ones previously discussed in this thread.
If the action is supposed to be simultaneous, so casualties are not removed until all attacks are resolved(To simulate this).Then 'interrupts' are redundant , are they not?

It is possible to get those sorts of results from opposed rolling of normal D6s, without having to use special dice.But I am not sure the range of results would be wide enough ?
lots of games use special dice to make the games easier for younger gamers to pick up.
Which is fine if you are just using half a dozen dice.But the amount of dice needed for a game similar size to 40k makes it prohibitive.

I had a feeling the unit cards and upgrade cards was where you were going with this, but I was not sure.
I certainly think it is a more user friendly option when It comes to army building.I am looking forward to seeing your mock ups.

Lanrak wrote:
@SolarCross.
Perhaps a quote from a military historian might help explain why I name the different types of basic warfare the way I do.

''In ancient warfare , large blocks of troops are the the most efficient way of waging war.In modern warfare however large blocks of troops are a target rich environment.''

That is an oversimplification but broadly true.

Lanrak wrote:

The massive improvement in the efficiency of ranged weapons during the First World War , was the watershed for ancient warfare tactics and strategies.

No that happened earlier than WW1. The Napoleonic era was the turning point, if not even earlier (at least for europeans). In the Napoleolic era melee was only barely useful in a supporting role and then only in the form of sabre wielding cavalry slicing across the flanks of infantry blocks or going after artillery in the back field (which is arguably mobility as much as melee). Point of fact all infantry in the Napoleonic era were issued with firearms. Both the Scramble for Africa and the Crimea preceeded WW1, no european or middle eastern army fought in those with any melee troops. Okay so the Zulus didn't have guns but they got wrecked by British rifles. The Boer War also was guns vs guns.

Lanrak wrote:

If the fastest thing on the battle field is a horse and the most effective weapon is a pointy stick , then it is ancient warfare. (Battle of Carnae is ancient warfare.)

Yes but the Parthians won using ranged attacks and mobility, the melee army was brutally wrecked.

Lanrak wrote:

I am not talking about the marketing narrative of the games.(Fantastical veneer/fluff/background.)But how the core game play is delivered by the core rules structure.

The reason GWs 40k 3ed to 7th ed has never been able to balance shooting and assault, is due to the imbalance cause by using WHFB rules.
In WHFB ranged attacks are only supposed to be used in a limited/supporting role.
Therefore when the number of units with ranged attack capability increase to nearly 100%, the game balance falls apart.

Nice theory but it is bogus and shows a total ignorance of WHFB. Point of fact in WHFB the most dreaded composition to face is the "gunline" of massed archers or gunners backed by artillery. In WHFB crossbows and longbows have a range of 30" and apart from cavalry and flying units, a 5" move per turn is considered "fast". In 40k most small arms are only 24" (bolters, lasguns) and a 6" move for infantry is standard. Both in WHFB and 40k the writers have tried their best to keep melee relevant because melee is heroic or something. In both WHFB & 40k shooting is massively underpowered from a realism point of view but no ones plays 40k or WHFB for realism we play them for fun. If you want to make 40k more realistic then you will have to get rid of melee altogether. You seem very confused on that point. "Balancing" from a fun point of view means nerfing shooting and buffing melee but that means making 40k less like modern warfare not more like. "Balancing" 40k from a "realism" point of view means scrapping melee altogether and massively buffing shooting. Eldar players will have to throw away their Striking Scorpions and Howling Banshees, Marines will have to throw away their Assault Marines, Power Fists and Lightning Claws, Ork players will have to throw away half their army and Tyranid players will have to throw away almost EVERYTHING. Tau will do okay though, you play Tau don't you?

Moreover WHFB is NOT ancient warfare. Most factions have access to an airforce for eff sake, dwarfs even have helicopters. The Imperials have tanks and the high elves have a massive airforce capability, dragons, phoenix, giant eagles and even, get this, flying artillery in the form of the Lothern Skycutter. Name me one historical pre-Napoleonic Battle that featured an airforce and I will grudgingly admit you are not quite as slowed as you trying so hard to appear to be.

Lanrak wrote:

If you agree that 40k should have an equal focus on mobility, ranged attacks and close combat assault , then we agree.
I might use a different terminology to you, for this, but we want a similar outcome.

That means making 40k LESS like modern warfare and MORE like WHFB. Do you think anything through before you type?

Lanrak wrote:

If this is the case ranged attacks need to have more tactical functions than just killing stuff.And assault has to have different tactical effects to shooting.
As this lets all units have multiple in game functions and can allow all units to have value and be worth taking.

I am all for tactical options, and if you can plagarise some nice features from bolt action then fine, but never forget this:

WHFB is not "ancient warfare" it is SCIENCE FICTION in MEDIEVAL CLOTHING & 40K is not "modern warfare" it is FANTASY in SPACE SUITS!!!!!

If still in doubt consult the chart below....

@Solar Cross.
You appear to have' got lost in the narrative of the GW studio'.Which is hardly a surprise, because the core WHFB rules for 40k are such a bad fit for the 40k game play ,it has to be 'narrated' with over eighty special rules!

Game play elements are concerned with the basic interactions of the players , and how the units interact in the game.

The table you just posted highlights how you confused the 'story of the game', with the 'function of the game play'.

Anyhow moving on.

@All.
I think we all agree that a more interactive game turn would help the 40k game play.Here are the two most popular proposed changes.
And a third one which was developed by my group as a possible option.

We have a choice of;-
Alternating phases.

A moves,
B moves
A shoots
B shoots
A assaults.
B assaults.

Pros,
This keeps the phases that are familiar to current players , so it is very straight forward,and easy to learn and use.
It can model 'simultaneous action' if we leave the casualty removal until all attacks have been made in a particular phase.
it reduces the 'down time' for the opponent to a phase,rather than a game turn.

Cons.
The level of interaction is not quite as good as ,alternating unit activation.(And Alternating actions.)
The actions are taken in a set order.

Alternating unit activation.

Command Phase.(Issue orders.)

Action Phase.(Players alternate taking ALL actions with ONE unit at a time.)

Resolution Phase.(Tidy up .)

Pros
It allows units to perform actions in any order.
it has a higher level of interaction than Alternating phases.

Cons.
It is not as easy to learn and use as alternating phases.(Most games using this game turn , list 2 action order sets to mimic tactical options that are embedded in the alternating phase game turn.)
it usually requires additional controls to schedule the action.(Blind draw, random action generation,( by dice or card draw),or phase sequencing, etc.)
It still allows multiple actions to be taken by a unit unopposed.So some players may ask for reaction mechanics to be added .
The game has to have good internal and external balance to allow this type of game turn reach its maximum potential.

This very generalized view shows that alternating unit activation allows more freedom of unit actions,and better levels of player interaction , but comes at a cost of added complication when compared to Alternating phases.

We had a look at improving the level of interaction found in alternating phases , but keeping the level of complication lower than alternating unit activation.Result ing in ..

Alternating actions.

Command phase.(Issue 2 action order sets.)

Primary action phase(Players alternate taking the first action of the units order set.)

Secondary action phase .(Players alternate taking the second action of the units order set.)

Resolution phase.(Tidy up phase.)

Pros.
It allows a higher level of player interaction than alternating phases.
It allows equal amounts of freedom in the order actions are taken as alternating unit activation.
it only allows one action to be taken before the opposing player can respond.(Removing the need for reaction mechanics, as sequencing is embedded in the basic game turn mechanic.)
It is more forgiving in terms of unit balance than Alternating unit activation.

Cons.
It is more complicated than alternating phases.
It requires a single counter next to each unit to show its orders, actions taken.When the unit suffers morale damage (Suppressed or Routed,)the order counter is replace with a Suppressed or Routed counter


However, it is possible to re -write the core rules to suit alternating phases.As this is the simplest game turn, and familiar enough to get a good uptake for play testing.

And then swap out the game turn to alternating unit activation or alternating actions later on.(With very minor changes.)If we want to .
Maybe for the advanced rules perhaps?

Lanrak wrote:
@Solar Cross.
You appear to have' got lost in the narrative of the GW studio'.Which is hardly a surprise, because the core WHFB rules for 40k are such a bad fit for the 40k game play ,it has to be 'narrated' with over eighty special rules!

Game play elements are concerned with the basic interactions of the players , and how the units interact in the game.

The table you just posted highlights how you confused the 'story of the game', with the 'function of the game play'.

Anyhow moving on.

Sadly you are still wrong and this is why:

Special rules in any wargame are needed because simple numbers alone don't describe special functions well. A modern warfare game needs them too because you can't just give a paratrooper a simple numerical buff to his move allowance to simulate his extra initial mobility. So you need a special rule "Paratrooper" which describes how he can deploy which is so different from other unit types. The modern warfare game doesn't need as many special rules as a fantasy game like 40k because it does not have magic, xenos, monstrous creatures or superheroes. It has fewer gameplay elements that need to be described by special rules. If you want urbanknight's game to throw away magic, xenos and all the rest of the fantasy jazz and just have humans shooting at each other then you best come clean about it now.

There is a certain about of leeway between what you can describe with simple numbers alone and what you can use an algorithmic rule for instead. I think it is fair to say that there are some rules in 40k 7th that could have been done with simple numbers instead of algorithms. An example is the Fleet rule which allows units with the rule to re-roll run and charge moves, since this pretty much just results in a larger move this could have been implemented by a simple number buff to a unit's stat. Space Elves get that rule as standard for almost all their infantry units (not sure about wraithguard) but in WHFB, in contrast, fast Elves are represented by a higher move stat, a simple number, an average infantry move stat in WHFB is 4" but Elves get 5", also Elven horse have a move of 9" whereas human horse have 8". There is a special rule in there too as normally putting barding on a horse imposes a move penalty of 1" but elves get their barding without a move penalty. Right so could 40k be a bit more like WHFB and have fast elves represented with a better numerical move stat instead of an algorithmic rule that lets them reroll some moves? Yes, it could be. Should it be? Maybe, but as weird as it might sound GW did 40k with that rule instead of a stat buff like WHFB because they wanted to make the game less a game of number crunching and more a game of algorithms, like chess in fact only bigger and more complicated. They are thinking of their players who aren't good with numbers but who do get word based algorithmic instructions with memorable evocative handles like "fleet". I don't think that is a bad approach in itself because most games that are more algorithmic and less arithmetic are easier to learn to play for average joe.

The trouble is that the vision of 40k is so big, grandiose, so all encompassing, like Fantasy with a turbo charger, that a monstrous about of algorithms are needed to describe all that diversity, or indeed a monstrous amount of arithmetic, so that either way it strains against what average joes like yourself can handle.

Alright, so I haven't been on this thread for two days and already there are 10+ posts and three other people have joined us. Welcome, first, and stop fighting, second. I created this thread originally to simply modify unit values and balance out the various codexes so that exploits wouldn't be so common. I wanted to make the game balanced and fun, but to do that we can't just try to fix the game.

That's not gonna work. What we need to do is rebuild 40k from the ground up. I get that some people don't want to do that, and that's ok. I'm not here for universal appeal, I'm here to make a ruleset that makes sense and that I like.

To that intent, this thread's members are not anyone's group. This is kinda disorganized at this point, with everyone saying their piece and the discussion getting all over the place. If you guys want to join me and be in my group, go ahead and tell me and we'll work on this. I appreciate everyone's suggestions, but try not to go all over the place and instead let's do a concerned effort to do this in order. To that end, Lanrak, stop repeating yourself. Like Solar said, you're seriously copy pasting half your posts. This only adds to the bloat and length of posts and makes reading these threads more tedious.

Here's what's gonna happen. I'm going to impose a roadmap on this thread that my group will follow. My group is anyone that is interested in helping with this ruleset. Whatever we discuss, I'll decide the final outcome after we talk about it, and then it'll go on the actual ruleset. This ruleset will be a Word Document (like I said in the OP) and I'll distribute it via Dropbox so that everyone can keep track of what's going on and what decisions have been made. This way no one gets confused about what's in the actual rules.

There are a few things that we need to do before going into the fun stuff like managing point values for units and such. We need to establish what the resolution system will be, how the turn order will go, and unit stats. Unit stats will come after the first two, though. To reply to what Arbitorlan said, we do need a different system for vehicles than for infantry. It hardly makes any sense that a vehicle would have a Melee skill for melee capabilities. This isn't transformers, we need to handle vehicles differently than organisms.

With that said, you can indeed make suggestions of any kind, just keep in mind our timetable. We need to have these basic areas covered before we go on to more complex things like unit stats and prices. Don't derail the thread, don't argue with people. don't change existing rules unless you have a really good reason to, and definitely don't be a jerk.

I'll be reading the new posts and commenting on them as I get to them, so be patient. There is a lot I haven't read lol.

Hey, I'd love to put in my 2 cents on this page, I love game development and design and I think that 40k has a lot of great elements, ideas, and of course lore. Since you've talked about staying on topic and since so many previous posts are argumentative I'll kind of start from scratch. Are you looking for simultaneous turn order like LotR? So
I move- Opponent Moves
I Shoot- Opponent Shoots
Ect.

Or are we looking at keeping the same very base mechanics, of the Move, Shoot, Assault phases but re-working their principles and the profiles of units?

SplinteredShield wrote:
Hey, I'd love to put in my 2 cents on this page, I love game development and design and I think that 40k has a lot of great elements, ideas, and of course lore. Since you've talked about staying on topic and since so many previous posts are argumentative I'll kind of start from scratch. Are you looking for simultaneous turn order like LotR? So
I move- Opponent Moves
I Shoot- Opponent Shoots
Ect.

Or are we looking at keeping the same very base mechanics, of the Move, Shoot, Assault phases but re-working their principles and the profiles of units?

Here's where I'd like us to begin. Keep in mind that this isn't the ultimate concrete thing, it's just a starting point so you guys can see where I'm wanting to go.

First up. Turn order.[/u][/b][/color]

A single turn will encompass gameplay for both players through a system of interwoven phases. Before, you had the running phase, the shooting phase, the buttering your toast phase, etc, but not anymore. I'm done with that. I don't particularly care for restricting players and I know that if you want to shoot before moving, you should get to. Therefore, I'm giving each and every unit in a player's army two actions per turn. Just two, but you can do a lot with those two. One action can consist of moving, shooting, whacking someone with your weapon in melee, setting up a heavy weapon, using a psychic power, etc. You can only do one of these actions per phase. So with that in mind, here's the actual turn order:

Command Phase: Psychic powers that affect unit movement or deployment happen here. Reinforcement happens here. Suppression and leadership morale tests happen here. I know it doesn't make much sense and its ambiguous, but we need this phase. Ignore it for now, but keep in mind its here.

Action Phase 1: Here you get to do anything you want, but only one action per phase. Player 1 goes through AP1 first, and then Player 2 goes through AP1.

Phase Resolution 1:[/b] All the actions you took during AP1 are resolved here. Did you shoot someone? Move somewhere? Did you call an Ork Warboss' mother dirty in a challenge? All the dice rolls and resolution stuff will be here in order to emulate things happening simultaneously. Two squads line up in their respective AP1 and shoot, and during this phase their combat plays out. That way nobody complains about how "he went first, of course he won" or "my units would have trounced yours if you hadn't gotten lucky and gone first". Enough of that. Actions get resolved [b]simultaneously.

Action Phase 2: Same as AP1.

Phase Resolution 2: Same as PR1.

End of Turn: Everyone take a breath, because now it's time to do this alllll over again.

That's it- your turn is no longer composed of 3/4 phases where you're locked into doing something you might not want. You get to do whatever you want, see it play out in front of you, and then the next turn rolls around. Period.

Stats:

Everyone is gonna be confused about what to call what, and since I haven't received any suggestions as to what to call the skills I'll invent my own. This is what we'll be using when we discuss stats. Not AP, not Assault, not any of the current 40k stats. We use these so that nobody gets confused and starts talking about rules that we're not using.

Melee: This stat gauges how awesome or crap your unit is at hitting stuff. A Guardsman will be weaksauce compared to a mighty morphin' Banshee. Scale of 1-10, 1 being the weakest.

Dexterity: Can your unit catch a sword with their own weapon and prevent their untimely demise? Well, this stat will tell you. This gauges how good your unit is at either dodging Melee strikes or at parrying them. A CSM is supposed to be good at parrying since he's a couple millennia old, and a Banshee is good at being annoying and darting all over the place, so expect both of these units' Dexterity to be high. This directly counters Melee, so if your Dex is higher than your opponent's Melee, your unit will either dodge the blow or catch it like the ninja it is. Scale of 1-10, 1 being the slowest.

Accuracy: Can your unit hit the broad side of barn? This stat obviously gauges that, so units like Grots will suck at it and units like literally anything the Tau have will be great at it. It will gauge if your shot lands the target or if you missed. Scale of 1-10, 1 meaning that you should turn your lasgun in and sacrifice your life for the Emperor.

Evade: Gauges if your unit can dance around enemy fire and not get hit. Banshees and fast units like the Harlequins will have an insane amount of Evasion, so don't expect to hit them that often as, say, an Ork Boy. This counters Accuracy, meaning that if your Evade is higher than their Accuracy, you stand a good chance of maintaining structural integrity of your body.

Armor Rating: Is your armor good, or should you have spent a bit more on not dying? This stat will show just how bad or good your unit's armor is. Grots will have low armor, but a Meganob will have an ungodly amount of it. Scale of 1-10, 1 being laughable.

Weapon Damage: How powerful your weapon is. Whether is a pitiful lasgun or a formidable Power Fist, Weapon Damage will go against your opponent's Armor Rating. If it's higher, your opponent had better get used to the new hole they have in their face. If your weapon is lower, you stand a very good chance of your weapon glancing off their armor. Should have brought a bigger gun. Range of 1-10, 1 being the worst damage.

Health: How healthy and hale is your unit before you send them off to their inevitable deaths? Units like Ogryns will have 2 or more Health, symbolizing the ungodly punishment they can take before dying, and Guardsmen will have one to symbolize the way they fold like wet tissue paper when they're shot at. If your enemy succeeds at a Weapon Damage roll versus your Armor Rating, one health is subtracted from your unit. No ifs or buts, its happens. Scale of 1-10, 1 being pretty normal for the average bear. 10 meaning you'd better have a lot of pointy sticks.

Range of Movement: How far your unit can move. Values can vary between units and different terrain types can affect your movement. I'll talk more about this later.

Weapon Range: This will be described along with whatever weapon you choose, next to the Weapon Damage of that weapon. It shows how far it can shoot. If its a melee weapon, it has no range. Why would you throw a Power Klaw?

Leadership/Morale: This shows how courageous your unit is. Is it cowardly, like a grot, or brave like a Terminator? This stat affects such things as squads taking casualties (take too many and you have to do an instant morale check. Fail and go into instant retreat.) and being under suppressive fire. If your unit isn't particularly courageous, expect to be suppressed for a long time. Scale of 1-10, 1 being a wuss, 10 being fearless and as such, immune to suppression and morale breakdowns.

AAAand that's it! Those are all the skills we'll be using because at this point we have a lot. Add any more and we risk turning into an RPG. On to the next thing on our list: Special rules.


I've decided on two things for ranged units. Right now they're pretty good if your weapon can do more than tickle your opponent, but not if you're a humble Guardsman. So what do we do help out the lasguns and the grot blasters of the world? We give them the ability to suppress and do concentrated fire. The first one is kind of complicated. Here's what's up:

Any unit that can shoot can also suppress. If you see your unit isn't doing jack to kill that squad of Ogryns charging at you, and you'd like to not die, why not suppress them? This will be a separate action, like shooting to kill or melee, which means that (per phase) you can either suppress or shoot to kill. If you choose to suppress, here's how it's resolved. You shoot normally and do an Accuracy roll. If you pass, your target goes on to make a Morale check. If it fails, great! You've succeeded and your target is now suppressed. What this process is meant to simulate is that your unit shoots at the enemy, right? Since there's a volley of fire coming at it, your target decides whether its brave enough to stand in front of it or dive for cover. If it chickens out, it becomes suppressed.

When suppressed, units have half Range of Movement and take a -2 to Accuracy, meaning that assault units can't move as fast as normal and shooty units are essentially firing blindly from cover. However, all's not terrible for the suppressed units. Since they've technically gone to ground and dived behind cover, they get a +1 to Evade. That doesn't prevent your melee units from getting in there and roughing them up, though.

Remember the Command Phase? Yeah, at the beginning of every turn you roll for Morale for every suppressed unit you have. If you fail, they stay suppressed. But if you succeed, they automatically snap out of it and aren't suppressed anymore. Another thing to keep in mind is that the unit suppressing cannot do anything other than move, but they cannot move farther from their target than their weapon range will allow. What this means is that if you have an IG Guardsmen squad suppressing some Ork Boys, and there are 15' between you, you can move away from them. Lets say that the lasgun's range is 30. That means that the Guardsmen can only move 15', because they're still suppressing the Orks. If the Guardsmen move out of weapon range so that they're not in range of the Orks, they stop suppressing the Orks and the Ork BOys immediately stop being suppressed. The same happens if the Guardsmen decide to take another action, like shooting or setting up a heavy weapon. It immediately diverts the squad's attention to the new action and the suppression order is cancelled.

Alright, that was long. On to concentrated fire, an easier topic.

Guardsmen (I love IG, sue me) have terrible weapons, the lasguns. Not terrible as in good, but terrible as in "we could play laser tag with these". Therefore, I give you weak players another weapon in your arsenal: concentrated fire. Unlike suppressive fire, this actually kills things. Do you see that Nob over there? Yeah. Using your combat training, you order your Guardsmen to shoot and concentrate their fire at a single target- the Nob. This limits the number of attacks they can make to one quarter (If you had 10 Guardsmen, you can only make 2 of these shots since 10 divided by 4 is 2.5 and I'm rounding down because this is the grimdark future) but it exponentially does more damage. Concentrated fire gives you a +2 to Weapon Damage since instead of only one lasgun shooting ineffectively at the Nob now you have ten of them shooting at the same spot. So remember kids- if you're weak but you have friends, gang up on the big guys! Concentrated fire is just like Suppressive fire in that its a separate action. Your Guardsmen can do Concentrated fire on Action Phase 1, and then Suppress the survivors on Action Phase 2. Just like that, your puny humans are fixed and now serve a deep tactical function in the battlefield.

Last thing (there are more but this is a summary so whatever). You can shoot into assault.

*Cue hundreds of outraged voices*

Let's be honest. If you're a soldier in the 41st millennium, you shoot to kill. You might also value killing an enemy over saving an ally. Be it as it may, you're a fething trained soldier. Act like it and shoot into that mob of allied soldiers and bad guys duking it out.

A unit can shoot into assault, but will take a -2 to Accuracy (a -2 might be too much, so I'll test it and see if a -1 is needed). A critical failure (rolling a one) means you hit your friends and damage calculation ensues as if you had hit an enemy. Hahaha, guess that's why you don't shoot into assault!

All I haven't worked out is the resolution method for the game. Solar has some good ideas but they went over my head when they started getting complicated. And Zustiur is right, d6's are just more commonplace and simpler to use than d10's. It puts us in a bind where I'm not sure how to get a nice resolution system that incorporates our stats with random chance and also isn't too complex to learn since that would undermine the whole point of the rule change in the first place.

Ok, so you're essentially looking in a lot of ways at how the Dark Heresy and Deathwatch games took with their d100 system and I think in a lot of ways that makes sense. Being able to leap out of the way of gunfire. Use combat actions like concentrated fire, kill fields, and cover to your advantage. As well as taking actions in the order you choose based off of a number of actions you get per turn.

Questions:
With this simultaneous resolve, how are we resolving turn order for conflicting unit actions. Is Phase 1 done 1 unit at a time? Eg:
Squad 1 Shoots
Opponent Squad 1 Moves

or is it done one army at a time?

Squad 1 shoots, squad 2-3 move, squad 4 assaults
opponent squad 1 moves, 2-3 shoot

In either case, does assault happen in both phases as it does now? With 2 combat phases per turn for those locked, or do you only attack on your turn while the other defends? Is there an initiative characteristic or way of determining fast weapons over slow and heavy ones?

SplinteredShield wrote:
Ok, so you're essentially looking in a lot of ways at how the Dark Heresy and Deathwatch games took with their d100 system and I think in a lot of ways that makes sense. Being able to leap out of the way of gunfire. Use combat actions like concentrated fire, kill fields, and cover to your advantage. As well as taking actions in the order you choose based off of a number of actions you get per turn.

Questions:
With this simultaneous resolve, how are we resolving turn order for conflicting unit actions. Is Phase 1 done 1 unit at a time? Eg:
Squad 1 Shoots
Opponent Squad 1 Moves

or is it done one army at a time?

Squad 1 shoots, squad 2-3 move, squad 4 assaults
opponent squad 1 moves, 2-3 shoot

In either case, does assault happen in both phases as it does now? With 2 combat phases per turn for those locked, or do you only attack on your turn while the other defends? Is there an initiative characteristic or way of determining fast weapons over slow and heavy ones?

Right now I think an army at a time per phase is good, but maybe we could test out unit per unit.

Assault happens whenever you choose. If your unit is 2 inches away from an enemy unit, you can choose to assault if you haven't used your action that phase. Your opponent can do the same. And fast weapons will fire normally. Super fast weapons will fire multiple shots per ranged action. Heavy and salvo weapons will need to be set up before shooting: use an action to set up the shot in Action Phase 1 or 2, and the next phase you can shoot. You can continue to shoot until your unit either dies or does another action.

Rock on, have you playtested the turn order with traditional 40k just to get a feel for the flow?


Are you looking to compare stats or have individual checks? Eg:
Compare:

I shoot with an accuracy of 5, does that compare to an evade of 4, giving a comparison table?

In this instance a single roll is used, since my accuracy is better than your evade, I'd probably need a 3 or something greater than 50% to hit, then we compare weapon power to armor to determine how badly it hurts you.

Or are you looking for an individual table?

I shoot with an an accuracy of 5, I need a 3+ to hit
They evade at a 4, needing a 4+ to dodge the shot?

In this case 2 rolls are needed, and we're looking a lot like 40k now but with different names for stats. Not a problem as there are some good things about the system as it is, but will need further refinement.

Or are we looking at an individual table with competing modifiers? Which I kind of like.

In this case, an Accuracy of 5 is 50%, meaning I would need to roll a 4,5,or 6 to hit. If my evade is a 6, that means I bump your stats making it harder to hit,
Now I need a 5 or 6 to hit because your evade is higher than my accuracy.

As for a stat table, one universal table would hopefully work for the entire line of stats as opposed to the Shooting and Assault table we have now. Keeping D6s but using a 1-10 stat as we have in 40k, we would want to look at % to create a viable table.
If we extrapolated stats 1-10 to 10-100, we have a good % hit dynamic already, with 1=10% hit chance- 10= 100% hit chance. So we break down on a d6 what those equivalent %'s are to determine what you need to hit with an action.

@urbanknight.
Just a quick point.
Currently SOME vehicles , like dreadnoughts have close combat attacks and are vehicles.And M/Cs take the role of vehicles in SOME armies.

You appear to want a separate stat line JUST for vehicles that can not fight in close combat , rather than put a '-' in the close combat skill stat for vehicles not armed with a close combat weapon?

What about if we want to allow vehicles the ability to ram /run over other units when they loose their range weapons ?

Giving all units the same stat line, also avoids the difficulty of balancing units with completely different profiles that the current 40k rules have.(Vehicles vs M/C debate on walkers has caused huge amounts of issues .)


Maybe this is why I think its important to focus on game function first, and not let game story corrupt the development at this early stage.
(''Cook the meat and veg of the game play to perfection, then sprinkle the spice of special rules lightly on the top.''A.C.)

You posted earlier in the thread how you were having issues with the game turn you made up, and asked for input/ideas.

If you look higher up the thread I tried to do a simple assessment of PROVEN game turn mechanics that people have used in 40k rules re writes for years.
(I also posted the game turn my group came up with , which can be used on the army level or unit level , which ever players prefer.If you are interested?)

@SplinteredShield.

I am not sure if urbanknight has play tested 'opposed rolls' or not.As outlined in your post.

Eg Attacker rolls dice to hit, and defender rolls dice to avoid attack .

We found with the larger number and wider variety of units/models in a 40k game.Even with just 2 sets of opposed rolls,(to hit, to damage.) took longer to resolve than, attacker rolls to hit, defender rolls to save , attacker rolls to wound/damage.

I suggested, and I think urbanknight agreed that we should use one resolution table for all combat resolution?

Lanrak wrote:
@urbanknight.
Just a quick point.
Currently SOME vehicles , like dreadnoughts have close combat attacks and are vehicles.And M/Cs take the role of vehicles in SOME armies.

You appear to want a separate stat line JUST for vehicles that can not fight in close combat , rather than put a '-' in the close combat skill stat for vehicles not armed with a close combat weapon?

What about if we want to allow vehicles the ability to ram /run over other units when they loose their range weapons ?

Giving all units the same stat line, also avoids the difficulty of balancing units with completely different profiles that the current 40k rules have.(Vehicles vs M/C debate on walkers has caused huge amounts of issues .)

Giving all units the same stat line has its own difficulties, everything is a trade off. The toughness + wounds + armour save system doesn't work well for vehicles the main issue being with armour save. Very heavy armoured infantry like terminators already get a 2+, vehicles need to have more than that really, especially the large ones, but you can't really give them 1+ or -2 or more to save. Also infantry are small enough that we can safely imagine that their armour save is "all round" but that is not so plausible an abstraction for vehicles which are large enough to warrant having different armour values on different facings. Partly this is for "realism" because it is common enough in real warfare for tanks to have stronger forward facing armour than rear facing and partly because it adds tactical depth in that out manoeuvring a tank to hit its weaker rear facing becomes a tactical choice. Hence why GW went with a different armour system for vehicles.

You might say we could just come up with a better mechanic that can be safely generalised for everything from grots to baneblades but well what is it? Whatever it is it will still carry with it the limitations and constraints imposed by the random number generator chosen. Given it looks like the d6 will be that generator and you will still want to have fast dicing for some resolutions (model by model shooting) whilst not needing it for other resolutions (like unit by unit leadership tests), in the end you will probably just end up re-inventing GWs patchwork of fudges and compromises.

Ideas are flowing and I need to write them. This is a (very) rough draft incorporating my own ideas and what I've seen discussed in this thread:

For deployment, players roll-off to see who deploys first, highest wins.

Each player takes turns deploying, one unit at a time, until both sides are deployed completely with Reserves left off the table to come into play later. (This way the first guy to deploy isn't totally counter-played by the opponent's deployment.)

Then roll for "Seize the Initiative." Players roll-off to see who begins the Action Phases, highest wins. Player whose Warlord has the higher Leadership value adds +1 to their result, no modifiers if they are tied.

Player A moves a single unit
Player B moves a single unit
-continues until all desired units have been moved
-If, say, Player B decides to move half his units and let the rest stay put, Player A can move the rest of his units without waiting for him
Player A declares which units are shooting what
Player B declares which units are shooting what
Shooting for both sides is resolved simultaneously
Remove casualties
Roll-off again for "Seize the Initiative" as the gunfire dies down. Identical to the above. (Change up the play order to add depth and prevent "whoever goes first wins.")

The flow of ideas slows down here. The Assault phase has me a bit stumped, but I don't think there should be an sequenced Attack Order. Whatever models are faster or slower on the attack should be assumed to be incorporated into the mass melee overall (i.e. warriors with heavier/slower weapons are assumed to be well-trained with their chosen weapon and know how to fight faster enemies with them). I suppose wounds from "slow" weapons could be resolved last, but...I dunno.

If Riptides can have wounds and armor, so can Land Raiders.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
If Riptides can have wounds and armor, so can Land Raiders.

Or alternatively maybe Riptides would be better treated as Walker vehicles, with AV and HP. Aren't they just the Tau equivalent to a Gorkanaut or Dreadnought? Except they have jump packs so if GW classed them as vehicles instead of monstrous creatures they would have to have what: the skimmer rule, hover, zooming flyer?

Without the AV system and keeping a d6 armour save, you either end up with 2+ armour saves on almost everything which is kind of flat or tons of rerolls to represent harder armour than a 2+ save. Then again having AV means a fair number of entities could plausibly be classed as vehicles with AV & HP or just as plausibly as Monsterous Creatures with Armour Save, Toughness and Wounds. At exactly what point does a powered armoured battlesuit become a walking vehicle? For the Space Marines the line seems to be somewhere between Terminator and Dreadnought and for Orks somewhere between Meganob and KillaKan. Strangely for the Tau their powered armoured battlesuits never become vehicles no matter how big they get, like the Stormsurge.

It is fair to look all that and see a messy patchwork of fudges and compromises but I don't think the fix will be as easy as just reducing it all to a one size fits all system which will probably just spawn more fudges and compromises.