Hi folks.
Rather than limit what you would like to change in the 40k rules to 'X changes' in a 40k re write.

If the entire rule set was wiped out and you were writing the rules for the 5th ed size game and all of its units..(With the view of adding 7th ed units as an expansion.)
From a complete blank page.

Looking at the basic game mechanics and resolution methods.(Not additional or special rules.)

What basic things would you keep?If the rules you were writing had the design brief of focus on clarity , brevity and elegance.(From Rick Priestly Head of game development /Creative director.)

Examples of current game mechanics, resolution methods...
3 stage damage resolution,dice size, alternating game turn.(IGO UGO.) stat lines,etc.

Ok, here's what I'd keep:

1) Some kind of alternating phases or turns, rather than per-unit or per-model activation, because unit counts can vary so wildly.

2) 3-stage damage resolution, probably with saves last.

3) Variable hit/damage rolls based on characteristics of both attacker and defender (that is, not flat to-hit/to-wound rolls a la AoS).

4) Single die size. Doesn't have to be a d6, but I'd prefer not to need both handfuls of dice and dice of many different sizes.

the five key points I'd consider essential to 40k are:

1) d6-only dice system
2) BS WS S T W I A Ld Sv characteristic array
3) Move-Shoot-Assault phase sequence
4) Point-based list building
5) unit-based actions

1) Keep the D6. While I think the D8 would be the best choice mechanically, D6 have many advantages that make them an easier choice for a game with lots of dice per roll.

2) Keep the psychic disciplines. While the psychic phase is a mess, having powers split into specializations has some very exciting possibilities.

3) Keep "armor" and "toughness" separate. While it would be much simpler to combine these into a single "defense" stat, having them separate means effects like poison and armor penetration are better defined.

4) Keep the current statline. While how they're used needs improvement, especially how theyre presented to the player, I feel like the current statline is enough to cover just about anything.

It's kind of impossible to answer that question without more information. It really depends on what you're looking to get out of the redesign and what your main focuses are.

Nothing. Complete re-write from scratch, with no concern for the awkward remains of a 1980s fantasy game.

I would keep almost all the actual mechanics, even though a lot of rules should be changed.

Thanks for the replies folks!

As we have what appears to be a wide range of opinion from the few replies so far.I think it would be good to discuss those opinions in a bit more detail.

I will just ask posters some questions based on the order they replied, mainly to get a better understanding of their point of view/clarify anything I might not fully understand.

@Jade Angel.
Do you agree that 5th ed 40k is a game based on detailed unit interaction.But because of the size of the minatures players prefer to roll per minature , rather than roll per unit?

A simple example. in 40k a ten man squad gets to roll 10 D6 for the units attacks.In a 6mm minature game the player might roll a single D10 or D12 for the entire units attacks.(A 'blob squad on a base' does not inspire the amount of expected detail a group of 28mm heroic sized minatures do in my experience. )

@realcitrantHQ.
What do you mean by characteristic array?
Do you want to keep the WHFB stat line that excludes vehicles, over a common stat line that covers both?Would you convert vehicles to use the same stat line and other models and the same damage resolution system ?
Or is it the number of stats you feel is right.(9)?

Army composition is usually structured by theme/history , and comparative point values. 40k has failed miserably on both counts IMO.
A system that delivers more proportional results should be much easier to balance comparatively.But serious play testing is needed to sort out synergistic issues.

I am not clear on what you mean by unit based actions?
Do you want alternating unit activation in each separate action phase?


@Ravern!
I am not sure why you believe the current stat line is enough to cover everything?
It does not cover one of the cornerstones of tactical game play movement .And it does not cover vehicles either.

If you mean the number of stats (9) then I agree.

@Wyldhunt.
Well I think we should be looking at developing a war game.(Simple simulation rather than totally abstract game like'' Yahtzee''/''Snakes and Ladders''.)

From 4th-5th ed 40k game size and units..

Game scale is (re-enforced infantry,) company level.

Game play scope is expected detailed unit interaction.With units closest to modern warfare, skirmishing infantry supported by AFVs, APCs, and artillery.
(Some armies use creatures or monsters in those roles.It is fantastical 40k after all!)

do you agree with these basic assumptions?

@Peregrine.
I agree that 'WHFB in space' failed as a viable game development concept years ago.

However, just because GW plc failed to let the game devs apply good concepts effectively.(Bad implementation rather than bad ideas IMO.)

Are you sure there is nothing, not even rolling D6s in a more effective and meaningful way, is worth keeping?

@The Deer Hunter.
Dont you find the alternating game turn, rather unbalancing and boring?
Dont you find the use of so many different resolution methods and random rolls just slow the game down?

I am just trying to understand different points of view a bit better.Thanks for any feed back you may want to give.

Lanrak wrote:
Thanks for the replies folks!

As we have what appears to be a wide range of opinion from the few replies so far.I think it would be good to discuss those opinions in a bit more detail.

I will just ask posters some questions based on the order they replied, mainly to get a better understanding of their point of view/clarify anything I might not fully understand.

@Jade Angel.
Do you agree that 5th ed 40k is a game based on detailed unit interaction.But because of the size of the minatures players prefer to roll per minature , rather than roll per unit?

A simple example. in 40k a ten man squad gets to roll 10 D6 for the units attacks.In a 6mm minature game the player might roll a single D10 or D12 for the entire units attacks.(A 'blob squad on a base' does not inspire the amount of expected detail a group of 28mm heroic sized minatures do in my experience. )

<snip>

I am just trying to understand different points of view a bit better.Thanks for any feed back you may want to give.

Yes, I would agree with that statement, in general.

In further thinking about my original statements, I'd almost certainly prefer to replace the current alternating turns with alternating phases instead, however. (I move, you move; I psych, you psych, I shoot, you shoot; I charge, you charge; I fight, you fight). I would also add, yes, keep point-based list building. There's too much unit diversity, and too much diversity even within theoretically comparable units, to balance purely by unit count, model count or unit roles.

Lanrak wrote:
Thanks for the replies folks!

...

@Wyldhunt.
Well I think we should be looking at developing a war game.(Simple simulation rather than totally abstract game like'' Yahtzee''/''Snakes and Ladders''.)

From 4th-5th ed 40k game size and units..

Game scale is (re-enforced infantry,) company level.

Game play scope is expected detailed unit interaction.With units closest to modern warfare, skirmishing infantry supported by AFVs, APCs, and artillery.
(Some armies use creatures or monsters in those roles.It is fantastical 40k after all!)

do you agree with these basic assumptions?
...

There are a lot of different directions you could go, but I think that's a reasonable one. So if I'm understanding you correctly, you're going for something larger than a skirmish game along the lines of kill team or combat patrol but smaller than your typical 7th edition 1850 point tournament. Something sort of comparable in size to a 7th edition game at 1,250 or 1,500 points, right? It's difficult to add constructively to the conversation by simply saying "keep this" because that would devolve into me basically rewriting the majority of the 40k rulebook here. So I'll depart from the "what would you keep" format but try to stay on-topic all the same.

So with the game size mentioned above in mind, I think it's safe to drop most of the "smalll-scale" mechanics in the game. Things like Gets Hot! that only affect a single model and usually have limited impact on the overall game can probably be dropped for the sake of streamlinign things. You might also want to remove (or overhaul) challenges, look out sir, digital weapons, and master-crafted. Basically, anything that affects an individual model rather than the unit as a whole should be reviewed for possible removal. Overwatch, which represents a unit panic-firing at an enemy as they charge in in the hopes of removing one or two models, might fall into this category. Random charge distance and difficult terrain tests may not be condusive to games of this size either. The game you're describing is a game about squads rather than individuals (with the possible exception of your HQ-equivalent heroes).

Similarly, you may want to drop anything aimed at a particularly "large-scale" engagement. Do rules for flyers really fit into the game you envision? What about superheavies? Would something like a voidshield be reasonable to include? How about "buildings" (not ruins, but actual AV-having buildings)?

You'd also want to take a hard look at formations/detachments, and not just the "special" ones. Even the humble CAD doesn't necessarily fit especially well into the game you're describing. You say you want to encourage people to focus on infantry with things like vehicles and artillery being there in a supporting role, but what's my motivation to not take a bare-minimum of "troops" and then load up on big guns? What's my incentive as a dark eldar player to take more kabalite warriors instead of more trueborn, reavers, or talos? As a marine, why should I take power armored units instead of bikes, tanks, or something like T-cav? Why should tyranid players take gaunts instead of MCs? The CAD doesn't necessarily encourage "troops" (infantry or otherwise) or fluffy armies for all factions. So I guess what I'm getting at is consider dropping the CAD, consider dropping "troop" roles as they currently exist, but also consider keeping faction-specific detachments that encourage fluffy, flavorful playstyles. Something like the Bladewing Brotherhood is actually a cool way to play a thematic assault company or ravenwing army.


Aside from that, I think a lot of the existing rules in 40k work reasonably well (or better) in the sort of game you're describing. Armor saves and AP values matter a little more when it's harder to spam tons of big guns. Multi-step damage resolution isn't much of a problem when you smooth out some of the fiddly extra bits like challenges and LoSir. Outflanking and infiltrating matter more when the board is less crowded. Getting into melee is more feasible when your opponent doesn't have quite so many shots to throw at you before you get into range.

There's a ton of stuff you could add to the game to reinforce the playstyle you're describing, but a lot of what already exists works pretty well if you trim off the "big stuff" and the "small stuff."

@Wyldhunt.
The only reason I picked 4th-5th ed game size, is because it was the most popular game size across several polls.
Lots of gamers thought that the 'big toys and fliers' could work well in larger games if they were implemented properly.
But 6th ed just crammed them in to a basic game to improve short term sales.And 7th edition just doubled down on this.

I would like all these units from 6th and 7th ed to be covered in an expansion for larger game sizes.(Generally on bigger playing areas for organised games and campaigns. They have such a negative effect on smaller random pick up games. )

This gives us a much clearer view of the basic units that are the core drivers of the game play. (Squads of skirmishing infantry and support vehicles, or fantastical equivalents .)
I would like to set the new game size to be..
An infantry hoard of Orks , Nids IG etc, would be about 100 infantry models.A elite infantry, and support vehicles etc. would reduce this number proportionately.

(I also thing that we should start with the basic IG human units as the yard stick all others are compared to for allocating comparative point values.As this gives us a clearer indication of how scary and wonderful the rest of the 40k universe is. )

I agree that dropping the micro management of detailed model focus is a good idea!
(WHFB skirmish rules made sense in Rogue Trader 40k, RPG /Skirmish game.But 40k has been a battle game since 1998! )

All the good wargame focus on the level of interaction. In 40k this should be at the unit level.

I think the problem with 40ks F.O.C is it was far to restrictive.And rather than use a much better system to allow more narrative and balanced lists to be made.
They just threw more complicated and unbalancing methods over the top. (Formations/Detachments.)

I would much prefer a more simple and flexible system like Epic Space Marine used.(But thats for another thread..)

I am of the opinion that some of the core game mechanics and resolution methods could deliver a very good 40k war game.(Some of them need a few minor changes though.)

Eg keep the 'action phases' but alternate then to improve player interaction, and removes the need for over watch when implemented well.
(This does work really well.And has been used as an alternative in house rules since 4th ed. )

If we used opposed stat values on a chart similar the the to wound chart.
This is a good way of getting a wider range of proportional results in a straight forward way using the humble D6. Compared to a fixed value D6 roll .

Analogy alert.
if you have ever watched Gordon Ramsay sorting out a failing restaurant.
They often try to put out a massive amount of dishes that are all cooked badly , by staff that can not cope , with less than stellar ingredients to keep the cost down.
They simply think more is better.

Gordon looks at what the best local ingredients are.Works out a simple menu that makes the most of this.And just makes a few very good dishes every one enjoys.
And proves quality and value is more important than just quantity.


So in a similar way, I would like to look at getting to the good ingredients of the core 40k rule set.
Then look at the best way to build an appealing 40k war game using them.

Hi folks.
Just a quick post to clarify my motives.

A) You do not make something less complicated by adding pages of explanations to try to decipher why it does not work the way you think it should.

B)A war games has several expectations placed upon it by the players.And the developers should communicate clearly to the player what the war game actually is supposed to be.

C) The core game play of 40k , that is buried under a lots of poorly applied and some times poorly conceived rules, is worth saving, IMO.

So this thread is asking players what do you like about the core game play?

My pick would be..
Rolling D6 suits the nature of 40k players dice rolling preference.(Rolling per mode/weapon in the unit rather than rolling per unit.)

Action phases allow players to formulate and execute tactical plans with their force in a way they are familiar with.And required less book keeping/remembering who activated what and when.(Compared to alternating unit activation.)

Three stage damage resolution allows much more detail between units, and as 40k has the most varied range of units AFAIK this is needed.

Two best resolution methods.Opposed stats on a single chart, and direct stat value representation.
The first one gives a wide variety of proportional results simply , the second is straight foprward for distances moved, effective ranges, dice rolled etc.

Thinking about what you want to keep, makes you focus much more on core game play , IMO.

Lanrak wrote:
Are you sure there is nothing, not even rolling D6s in a more effective and meaningful way, is worth keeping?

Yep, pretty sure. I mean, by coincidence some very basic concepts might be the same in a new game. Models might still be on 28mm bases, weapons might still have a strength value rolled against toughness, etc, but none of the ideas in 40k would be must-keep things. I honestly can't think of a single thing that 7th edition 40k does well, so scrap the entire game and start over with a clean slate.

I think the D6 really has to go. There's too many units to support on a D6 system. You end up with gak like shootas being better than bolters.

@Peregrine.
The game mechanics and resolution methods are the very basic concepts of the game.(How players interact, and how you resolve the in game action.)

For example resolution methods...
Using stat lines directly to show the maximum range of movement or weapons , the number of dice rolled, etc.Are common to most war games.
Also using stats in an opposed table is quite common for resolving more detailed interaction in a proportional way.

Many war game use the same basic concepts used in 40k , to much better effect.

So this thread is looking at what players think would be a good 'fit' for a war game developed specifically for 40k .(4th to 5th ed size game.)
If the rules were written focused on clarity , brevity and intuitive game play.

@Martel732.
I agree that the current rules are very restrictive and do not cover the range of units found in 40k very effectively .

However, I think the biggest problem is with the lack of proportionality , due to not comparing stats for some resolutions.
EG take the to hit roll at range .A flat score to hit is too abstract and limiting for a game like 40k.

If we look at a BS 3 grunt with a heavy bolter.

The chance to hit a large target like a the side of a Trukk 2" away, is exactly the same as hitting a small Grot 36" away.(Both targets in the open.)

Changing dice size does nothing to sort out this issue with the rules.

If we used opposed stat values (1 to 10) in a chart with the full range of results.This gives us over 200 proportional results with a three stage damage resolution.
That is appx triple the amount of non proportional results the current rules deliver.

I think it is important to try to make the most of the humble D6 before we give up on it.
If after making the most of the D6 , it still fails to deliver enough variation , I would be happy to look at using larger dice sizes.

Lanrak wrote:
The chance to hit a large target like a the side of a Trukk 2" away, is exactly the same as hitting a small Grot 36" away.(Both targets in the open.)

Changing dice size does nothing to sort out this issue with the rules.

If we used opposed stat values (1 to 10) in a chart with the full range of results.This gives us over 200 proportional results with a three stage damage resolution.
That is appx triple the amount of non proportional results the current rules deliver.

And with a D10, that number increases significantly. D10s also also allow a greater flexibility in providing that level of proportional response as well.

The only actual problems I have with changing from the D6 to a D10 lies more in the ease of acquisition and the intimidation/stigma to players who are new to tabletop games. In terms of providing a greater capacity for flexibility and unit stats, even with comparisons, having D10s would be better.

We can fix a lot of problems with the AP system by simply going to D10. That's what makes it so attractive. By creating four new mathematical niches for armor, we can create a diverse range of armor, and by extension create a diverse range of weapons without have to write overly complex rules.

Also, a D10 allows for small to-hit modifiers without wrecking the game for some armies.

@Charistoph.
Obviously a D10 has a larger range of results than a D6.But why stop with D10?

Why not use a D20, that has twice as many results as a D10 so must be twice as good.Or even use a D 100 that is ten times better than a D10.

Is it because most players think we need a slight improvement on the range of results the D6 delivers in the 40k game play?
Eg an extra 60% increase in results would be enough.(From 6 to 10).

My point is if the D6 was used more efficiently in the rules you could TRIPLE (300%) the range of results currently found in the 40k rules for combat resolution.And these would be proportional results too!
This may be enough improvement to allow us to keep using the bucket fulls of D6 we have and love rolling.

If it is not , then I would be happy to use a D10 with the more efficient resolution methods.

But fixing the resolution methods to suit the intended game play is the first step IMO.

Eg .Hitting at range 50% of the time irrespective of how big the target is or how far away it is.Is a gross abstraction no matter what dice size you use .

@Martel732.
Why in the name of good game development would you want to keep the horrible AP system?

It abstracts the actual resolution to deliver counter intuitive results.
It only covers a fraction of units.
It generates massive imbalance in the game play.

I would prefer a system that covered all units, and delivers proportional results that help generate enough game balance for enjoyable random pick up games.

Because everyone knows the AP system, and it's much better on a D10. A good reason to stop at D10 is because warhammer stats are 1-10. I've got lots of ideas of how to use that in a revamped system.

Marines with 4+ armor, Riptides/artificer armor at 3+ and terminators at 2+ is already giving us mathematical space to fix a LOT of problems.

Lanrak wrote:@Charistoph.
Obviously a D10 has a larger range of results than a D6.But why stop with D10?

Why not use a D20, that has twice as many results as a D10 so must be twice as good.Or even use a D 100 that is ten times better than a D10.

Is it because most players think we need a slight improvement on the range of results the D6 delivers in the 40k game play?
Eg an extra 60% increase in results would be enough.(From 6 to 10).

As Martel stated, because the current stat system is applied through a 1-10 range. If we wanted to extend the range, we could seek using a larger die. But that complicates things even further for my main concerns regarding ease of access and the stigma/intimidation factor.

Lanrak wrote:My point is if the D6 was used more efficiently in the rules you could TRIPLE (300%) the range of results currently found in the 40k rules for combat resolution.And these would be proportional results too!
This may be enough improvement to allow us to keep using the bucket fulls of D6 we have and love rolling.

If it is not , then I would be happy to use a D10 with the more efficient resolution methods.

But fixing the resolution methods to suit the intended game play is the first step IMO.

Eg .Hitting at range 50% of the time irrespective of how big the target is or how far away it is.Is a gross abstraction no matter what dice size you use .

In that, I cannot disagree, nor was it my point in the response. The point was that as efficient as it would be for the D6 to use this process, it can become even more fine-tuned, such as allowing Lootas and Flash Gitz being just a LITTLE more accurate than the average Boy but still less accurate than a Grot or Guardsman and not relying on rerolls.

I don't actually understand the d10 thing.

Yes, it has a larger range of results which can create a more nuanced response. But that larger range of results also grows the gap between the weak and the powerful. while, for the most part, not really changing most of the results in any meaningful way.

Success roll d10 / % chance of success / d6 / % chance of success

10+ / 10%
9+ / 20% 6+ / 16.7%
8+ / 30% 5+ / 33.3%
7+ / 40%
6+ / 50% 4+ / 50%
5+ / 60%
4+ / 70% 3+ / 66.7%
3+ / 80% 2+ / 83.3%
2+ / 90%


Do you really think a 90% chance for success is a good thing? Or a 10%? Or the gap between 10% chance of success to save vs 90% chance to hit/wound? Or even worse, 10% chance to hit wound vs a 90% chance to save? Could you imagine the frustration that would bring to the game.

And if you think those extremes are too big why not move it down to a d8... at which point the results are even closer.

No. I think the change to a d10 using the mechanics that 40k does are mostly meaningless while actually growing the power gap in 40k.

You can't say that without seeing the final product and how units end up being costed. And terminators should absolutely get 90% vs small arms. And everything else that fails to reach AP 2. I would eliminate the need for the invuln by having weapons that match the armor like AP 2 vs 2+ halve the armor save instead of negating it. So 2+ becomes 7+ or 6+ (I haven't decided yet). AP 1 would be rare and give terminators no save at all.

D10 allows for small to-hit modifiers that don't wreck some armies (Orks). Additionally, increments of 10% are easier to work with than 16.667% I think. We can also get rid of a ton of reroll rules and bake it into the initial roll.

Martel732 wrote:
You can't say that without seeing the final product and how units end up being costed. And terminators should absolutely get 90% vs small arms. And everything else that fails to reach AP 2. I would eliminate the need for the invuln by having weapons that match the armor like AP 2 vs 2+ halve the armor save instead of negating it. So 2+ becomes 7+ or 6+ (I haven't decided yet). AP 1 would be rare and give terminators no save at all.

D10 allows for small to-hit modifiers that don't wreck some armies (Orks). Additionally, increments of 10% are easier to work with than 16.667% I think. We can also get rid of a ton of reroll rules and bake it into the initial roll.

Absolutely not a terminator should have a 90% chance of success to negate wounds. Nothing drags the game down faster then rolling a bunch of dice and having nothing happen at all. Reroll rules have nothing to do with using a d6 vs a d10. Either system could be using +1 bonuses to rolls instead of rerolls. Or scaling the way BS does 3+/2+/2+ 6+/ 2+ 5+ etc etc...

The prevalence of AP2 and it's effect on saves is a different mechanic. Can be changed without changing the die size because the two are unrelated. How about you change ap to a penalty to save and change the values to be closer to -1 to -4ish? D would negate entirely. AP 6 weapons would have no ap (allowing for more actual saves in the game giving orks, nids, and guard a chance to roll some dice) and a -2 ap weapon would make that 2+ save into a 4+. Changing dice size... a nonsensical solution to the problem you are bringing up.

My biggest problem with kill team is taking a single model rolling 1-2 dice and watching nothing happen over and over again. It's dull as dirt. Rolling a 10+ or even a 8+ vs a 2+ save would make the game even slower than it already is. Can you really not see how bad that power gap is for the game as a whole? Increments of 10% are exactly the same in difficulty as working with increments of 16.667%. It amounts to basic arithmetic. Where are you having the trouble?

We can agree to disagree about terminators. It's absolutely appropriate to soak 90% of low penetrating fire. That's a problem they have now; too weak vs small arms for the cost.

You can call it nonsense, but it would work VERY well for giving different weapons niches and giving different armies some flavor. Aspect warriors can have 5+ armor, leaving marines with 4+. Such differentiation is currently impossible, and that's unfortunate.

"Can you really not see how bad that power gap is for the game as a whole?"

Not really. Terminators would be expensive. Except it would justified under my system.

@Charistophe.
If 40k fully utilized the 1 to 10 stat line for opposed values, then we could generate a much wider range of proportional results from a 3 stage damage resolution.
(Especially if we extend the range of results to include auto succeed, and auto fail. 1+ and n=no effect.)

This could cover all units in the 4th-5th ed sized game.(We could extend the range of value to 1 to 20 for the larger range of models in apoc/large 7th ed size games?)

As previously mentioned (in other threads,) here is the extended table we were play testing.(One table to cover all three stages of damage resolution.)
A= the active(rolling) players stat, O=the opposing players stat.

A/O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1....,4,4,5,5,6,6,n,n.n,n
2.....3.4.4.5.5.6.6.n.n.n.
3.....3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.n.n.
4.....2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.n.
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.....1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5
9.....1.1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4
10...1.1.1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.
(n= no effect,)

As 40k uses opposed rolls to hit in assault, and to wound.
Why not use them to hit at range, (BS vs a new Evasion stat.)and for armour saves.(Amour value vs Armour penetration value.)

So rather than ranged attacks only being resolved based on the attackers skill.It takes the size/skill of the target into account too.(Cover can simply be a bonus to the targets stat.)
This way a BS value of 3 is only slightly better than a BS value of 2.

@Martel732.
Every one knows how limiting and flawed the AP system is.(Compared to other resolution systems in war games.)

Using a new range of armour values from 1 to 10.And a new range of armour penetration values from 1 to 10.With the above chart.

A SM with armour value 4 is hit by a las gun armur penetration 2.(4 down 2 across )=3+ save.
A SM AV 4 hit by a plasma gun AP6 (4 down 6 across)= 5+ save.

A land raider AV 10 is hit by a Las cannon AP 9.(10 down 9 across)= 3+ save
Las gun shots AP 2 just bounce off the Land Raider armour, 1+ auto save.(Need not be rolled.)

This is just one possible alternative to illustrate new concepts we could use.

I'd keep the name.


Beyond that, the D6 is probably sadly here to stay, that to me means keeping the multiple stage damage system - "to hit", "to hurt" "to save" just to get at least 2d6 if not 3d6 into the process to provide the bell curve - if you went to a single step you would need two or three dice in that step anyway so may as well stick with it.

Desire other systems being better I'd also keep the alternating turn system, ditto the basic stat line - even if the stats themselves get re-scaled - simply because this sort of defines what 40k is - moving away from that and may as well play a different game with the models, would suggest some of the history while a pain at times is what makes the game what it is.

I would however go back in time a bit and bring back a few long lost concepts that used to be in 40k.

Like to hit modifiers, weapons doing multiple wounds and save modifiers (which I'd have work with terrain, you're behind a wall, +1 to your save, or whatever)

The game started out as an infantry skirmish system, its actually not too bad at that so thats what I'd keep - and revise how vehicles etc fit in, but the base mechanics work - just need a bit of adjusting on some of the actual numbers.

Bell curves change the math of any given system A LOT.

Lanrak wrote:
@Charistophe.
If 40k fully utilized the 1 to 10 stat line for opposed values, then we could generate a much wider range of proportional results from a 3 stage damage resolution.
(Especially if we extend the range of results to include auto succeed, and auto fail. 1+ and n=no effect.)

This could cover all units in the 4th-5th ed sized game.(We could extend the range of value to 1 to 20 for the larger range of models in apoc/large 7th ed size games?)

As previously mentioned (in other threads,) here is the extended table we were play testing.(One table to cover all three stages of damage resolution.)
A= the active(rolling) players stat, O=the opposing players stat.

A/O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1....,4,4,5,5,6,6,n,n.n,n
2.....3.4.4.5.5.6.6.n.n.n.
3.....3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.n.n.
4.....2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.n.
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.....1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5
9.....1.1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4
10...1.1.1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.
(n= no effect,)

As 40k uses opposed rolls to hit in assault, and to wound.
Why not use them to hit at range, (BS vs a new Evasion stat.)and for armour saves.(Amour value vs Armour penetration value.)

So rather than ranged attacks only being resolved based on the attackers skill.It takes the size/skill of the target into account too.(Cover can simply be a bonus to the targets stat.)
This way a BS value of 3 is only slightly better than a BS value of 2.

Now imagine the subtle differences you can have with a D10. You could even bring modifiers back in to make those subtleties even stronger.

If I was going to use a comparison system, though, I would not have it be BS v BS. Just because you are a good shot does not necessarily mean you are good at avoiding being shot, but being good in melee is about also avoiding the other's blows. In this case, I do think I would be a better comparison stat with it. This would allow those units which are noted for having quick reactions but null shooting capacity to more sensibly avoid those incoming shots.

@Leopard.
As mentioned previosly lots of war games use the D6 to great effect.And the three stage damage resolution works fine in war games too.

What slows 40k game play down is the 'less than optimal' resolution methods that need all the extra rules and dice rolls.

EG.
I successfully roll to hit.Then because the opponent makes a 'cover save' I did not actually hit, after all!

Even if I did actually hit and then actually cause a wound,I actually did not if they make a extra FNP roll!

This is just 2 examples of poor rules writing that leads to over complicated and counter intuitive game play.

The only game play the alternating game turn and current stat line support well,(If you add the movement stat back).From a game play point of view is WHFB,As this is what these rules were written for!

A bolt gun is not the same as a bow and arrow, and a Chimera APC is not the same as a charriot.40k units are not mainly made up of large close formation blocks of troops armed with hand weapons.

Using opposed stats on a table , allows modifier to be applied to the appropriate stat which is more intuitive.
Eg
-1 to hit,actually increases the dice score needed to succeed.
Or.
Add one to your Evasion stat makes you harder to hit.
The second option to new players is much more logical.

I agree that scaling back the game size to 4th 5th ed would get rid of the worst excesses of 6th and 7th ed.

@Charistope.
If we have a stat range of 1 to 10 or 1 to 15 or 1 to 20.(Which ever we think is most suitable after play testing.)
We can apply modifiers to the stats directly to get the finer increments required.

I am reserved about just swapping to a D10,without giving the D6 a 'fair trial'.(Decent amount of play testing with new methods.)
As Hoard army players need to roll 60+ on occasion.And rolling 60+D10 is a pain in practice, and quite expensive.

I do not intend or suggest using a BS vs BS system
But to give the units a new stat 'Evasion' .This is based on the models size , agility and stealth abilities.

BS vs a new Evasion stat.

So models with jink saves, invisibility, camo cloaks , holo fields etc.Could all show these effects in the new Evasion Stat rather than having to use special rule , and additional rolls.

I was thinking of using WS vs opponents Initiative,If we wanted to model simultaneous resolution with alternating phases. (But that is for another thread perhaps?)

Lanrak wrote:
@Charistope.
If we have a stat range of 1 to 10 or 1 to 15 or 1 to 20.(Which ever we think is most suitable after play testing.)
We can apply modifiers to the stats directly to get the finer increments required.

I am reserved about just swapping to a D10,without giving the D6 a 'fair trial'.(Decent amount of play testing with new methods.)
As Hoard army players need to roll 60+ on occasion.And rolling 60+D10 is a pain in practice, and quite expensive.

Indeed. Which is why I brought up the concepts in which I did. D10s and D20s do offer a greater range of fine increments are used.

I have no problem with using D6s, personally, I am just stating that the higher numbers provide for a greater degree of flexibility, even if they do provide problems in other areas.

And I have also noted twice before that my greatest problem with changing from D6s is accessibility and intimidation. Accessibility does include costs (which really isn't that large between D6s and D10s in many areas). I had not thought about using 60 D10s (which could actually worse for an IG bloat Squad under Front Rank Fire), but that is a good point, but no more than using the mini-dice that 40K uses versus the larger dice that come in Starter Set or any other Board Game.

Lanrak wrote:
I do not intend or suggest using a BS vs BS system
But to give the units a new stat 'Evasion' .This is based on the models size , agility and stealth abilities.

BS vs a new Evasion stat.

So models with jink saves, invisibility, camo cloaks , holo fields etc.Could all show these effects in the new Evasion Stat rather than having to use special rule , and additional rolls.

I was thinking of using WS vs opponents Initiative,If we wanted to model simultaneous resolution with alternating phases. (But that is for another thread perhaps?)

It was used in what I quoted, so that is why I addressed it. I do not think a new stat should be used or needed, largely because the stat list is large enough as it is and Ini works better for this concept as any.

@Charistophe.
I agree the stat line is long enough as it is.However, the stats used are not the optimal fit for the expected game play of 40k IMO.
(I do not think a 40k war game should be based on the concept of ''WHFB in space''.)

As the units in 40k are closest to modern land warfare units in terms of expected function.
Then the game play might be better reflecting the modern warfare loading of equal focus on mobility, fire power and assault.
(Mobility to take objectives, firepower to control enemy movement , and assault to contest objectives.)

So stats reflecting this focus would probably yield better results.

The current stat line has no stat for mobility, one stat for shooting, and four for close combat.

If 40k game play was focused on close combat with ranged attacks just in a supporting role,(like WHFB.) Then I would keep the current stat line.

However, as over 90% of units in 40k are armed with ranged weapons,I think this is where some core issues are.

I'm not sure Initiative is as great a stand-in for Evasion as it might initially appear. Many units have relatively low initiative scores yet are still relatively difficult to hit. An ork kommando, for instance, is fairly sluggish, but he can still have a fairly impressive cover save, especially when going to ground.

So in an opposed stat system like the one Lanrak has suggested, you would end up explaining that your initiative is X but that it goes up by Y for the cover, up another Z for your stealth rule, and up another W if you go to ground. After resolving that, your opponent would charge and may ask for you to clarify your initiative which is now just X instead of X+Y+Z+W, except for the nob with the power klaw because the unwiedly rule lowers his X to V, but only in close combat.

I personally feel that evasion might be a little cleaner even if it does mean adding one more column to the stat block. Plus, you might have effects that lower initiative (fluffed as making you sluggish, covering you in nets, whatever) that could theoretically make you easier to hit but which don't necessarily make sense for a venomthrope that's going to ground behind a pile of rocks.

Either one would work though.

Lanrak wrote:@Charistophe.
I agree the stat line is long enough as it is.However, the stats used are not the optimal fit for the expected game play of 40k IMO.
(I do not think a 40k war game should be based on the concept of ''WHFB in space''.)

As the units in 40k are closest to modern land warfare units in terms of expected function.
Then the game play might be better reflecting the modern warfare loading of equal focus on mobility, fire power and assault.
(Mobility to take objectives, firepower to control enemy movement , and assault to contest objectives.)

So stats reflecting this focus would probably yield better results.

The current stat line has no stat for mobility, one stat for shooting, and four for close combat.

If 40k game play was focused on close combat with ranged attacks just in a supporting role,(like WHFB.) Then I would keep the current stat line.

However, as over 90% of units in 40k are armed with ranged weapons,I think this is where some core issues are.

A fair point. But let's take a card you used for the D6 and go with, if we can use what we have, why add more?

Wyldhunt wrote:I'm not sure Initiative is as great a stand-in for Evasion as it might initially appear. Many units have relatively low initiative scores yet are still relatively difficult to hit. An ork kommando, for instance, is fairly sluggish, but he can still have a fairly impressive cover save, especially when going to ground.

So in an opposed stat system like the one Lanrak has suggested, you would end up explaining that your initiative is X but that it goes up by Y for the cover, up another Z for your stealth rule, and up another W if you go to ground. After resolving that, your opponent would charge and may ask for you to clarify your initiative which is now just X instead of X+Y+Z+W, except for the nob with the power klaw because the unwiedly rule lowers his X to V, but only in close combat.

I personally feel that evasion might be a little cleaner even if it does mean adding one more column to the stat block. Plus, you might have effects that lower initiative (fluffed as making you sluggish, covering you in nets, whatever) that could theoretically make you easier to hit but which don't necessarily make sense for a venomthrope that's going to ground behind a pile of rocks.

Either one would work though.

Who said anything about adding Cover to Initiative? Cover would wither work as it does now, a wholesale preventer, or would reduce the Shooter's accuracy. This does not affect the target's Initiative at all. This concept you are suggesting is conflating a debuff with a buff. Kommandos in Cover would be debuffing their Shooter's BS (if not just negating it) while their relative own ease of being hit stays the same.

 Lance845 wrote:
Do you really think a 90% chance for success is a good thing? Or a 10%? Or the gap between 10% chance of success to save vs 90% chance to hit/wound? Or even worse, 10% chance to hit wound vs a 90% chance to save? Could you imagine the frustration that would bring to the game.

The problem is that we already have those 90%/10% rolls. We just have them in the form of re-rolls/bonuses/etc instead of a straight number on a die. For example, a twin-linked BS 4 shot has an 89% chance of hitting. Having a D10/D20 instead of a D6 allows you to remove that special rule and extra die roll in favor of just having a straight 2+ on a D10 or 3+ on a D20. And with the extra values available you can get rid of a lot of other similar rules. Most of the various re-rolls, re-rolls of 1s, re-rolls under certain conditions, etc, can be simplified away. It makes the game easier to learn for new players, and it significantly reduces the number of rule interactions that potentially lead to disputes over how things work. There's no more argument over whether re-rolling 1s counts as a "re-roll" for being able to re-roll the scatter dice on blast weapons because there's no more re-rolling 1s.

@Wyldhunt.
I only proposed using Initiative to oppose Weapon skill in assault ,IF we were to move to a simultaneous resolution in a alternating phase game turn.
(As there is no need to define striking order in simultaneous resolution. )

A new Evasion stat would be based on model size,and the 'agility and stealth abilities' of the model.
Cover would give a bonus to the new Evasion stat to make targeted models in cover harder to hit at range.

@Charistophe.
My argument with the D6 was to use the values we already have, (6) fully and effectively before expanding on this range of values.

So I want to apply the same design goals to the stat line.Keep 9 values on the stat line, but make sure they cover ALL units, and cover the majority of the game play.

I think most people could see the potential value in adding a mobility stat.(The maximum distance a model can move when taking a move action.)
As this could remove randum movement and lots of special rules for movement, to make the game easier to play and quicker to understand.

If we were to add Evasion stat to oppose BS, for ranged attacks.This would help balance the core resolution difference between shooting and assault.(And we could get rid of some special rules too.)

If we are to add these two stats to the stat line which two can we remove to make room for them?

Well as assault has 4 stats, lets see if any can be moved elsewhere.
WS is important to define who hits in assault.(The same as BS is to shooting.)
Initiative defines the order of resolution in assault,which is also very important.

This leaves Attacks in assault, and model Strength as the base value to calculate the models weapon hit strength in assault.

If we look at WHFB where the stat line originated from.The majority of the units are armed with hand weapons for close combat, using the unmodified strength value and attacks value.The majority of the few units carrying ranged weapons also use this strength value and attacks value off the stat line.

Only a few special units and weapons in WHFB are the exception.

In 40k the majority of units carry ranged weapons along side close combat weapons.

These ranged weapons have completely separate values for strength and attacks(R.O.F).(Along with effective range, AP , and weapon type.)

Also lots of special close combat weapons modify the number of attacks and or weapon strength etc.

So if we move the Attacks and Strength value to a set of close combat weapons data for the unit.(In a similar format to the ranged weapon data)

The overall 'in game effect ' of all weapons carried by the unit could be displayed under the unit stat line.(On the Force data sheet, or unit cards.)

EG revised weapon data for all units weapons could be.

Weapon name.Effective range, Attacks, Armour Piercing ,Strength, Notes.

I may need to explain this concept better?

@Peregrine.
IMO it is not the range of results or the % chance of success that is the core issue with the current 40k game play.

But the complete lack of proportionality in the interaction, and all the random nature of 'I rolled a '5+' so I undo what you just did no matter what' type special rules .

The lack of meaningful proportional results removes the majority of tactical planning from the game play , (apart from target selection).

IMO if we focus the core rules to provide meaningful in game decision making, based on straight forward and intuitive resolution methods and game mechanics.
Like good war games do.We may find the humble D6 is just as effective in this new rule set as it is in other good war games.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Do you really think a 90% chance for success is a good thing? Or a 10%? Or the gap between 10% chance of success to save vs 90% chance to hit/wound? Or even worse, 10% chance to hit wound vs a 90% chance to save? Could you imagine the frustration that would bring to the game.

The problem is that we already have those 90%/10% rolls. We just have them in the form of re-rolls/bonuses/etc instead of a straight number on a die. For example, a twin-linked BS 4 shot has an 89% chance of hitting. Having a D10/D20 instead of a D6 allows you to remove that special rule and extra die roll in favor of just having a straight 2+ on a D10 or 3+ on a D20. And with the extra values available you can get rid of a lot of other similar rules. Most of the various re-rolls, re-rolls of 1s, re-rolls under certain conditions, etc, can be simplified away. It makes the game easier to learn for new players, and it significantly reduces the number of rule interactions that potentially lead to disputes over how things work. There's no more argument over whether re-rolling 1s counts as a "re-roll" for being able to re-roll the scatter dice on blast weapons because there's no more re-rolling 1s.

Rerolling saves and twin linking are special rule exceptions that cause an endless amount of complaints on here. Switching to a d10 system doesn't fix that. It just normalizes it into a core mechanic.

No save should ever be flat out rerolled. It should function like +1 to BS. 3+/2+/2+ 6+

The confusions over rerolling on scatter dice is because it's a dumb mechanic. You want to streamline and simplify the game so it's easier to learn, stop having 5 different resolution methods. Lets list them. 1) Roll target number based on your skill higher the roll the better2) roll target number by comparing 2 values on a chart (WS vs WS or Str VS t) higher the number the better 3) scatter dice lower the result the better 4) AV, glance/penetrate rolls higher the better 5) 2d6 leadership rolls, lower the better.

You can simplify the game by having 1 or 2 resolution methods.

Lanrak wrote:
@Charistophe.

There is no 'e' at the end of my log in name.

Lanrak wrote:
My argument with the D6 was to use the values we already have, (6) fully and effectively before expanding on this range of values.

And we can't use values we already have for a comparative for BS instead of inventing a new one any more than inventing a new comparison set for D10s in favor over D6s?

Let's keep the standard consistent. Let's see if we can't fit it in with what we have. If you want to do it with dice, why not do it for stats, too?

Lanrak wrote:
So I want to apply the same design goals to the stat line.Keep 9 values on the stat line, but make sure they cover ALL units, and cover the majority of the game play.

I think most people could see the potential value in adding a mobility stat.(The maximum distance a model can move when taking a move action.)
As this could remove randum movement and lots of special rules for movement, to make the game easier to play and quicker to understand.

There is random and randumb. A movement stat does not necessarily mean the loss of random movement. It is still valuable to have a random element for Charging and Running in a state where distances can be measured at any time (and it is stupid to exclude THAT). If associated with a Movement Stat, it just doesn't have to be that large (M+D3 works well enough in most cases for this).

Of the Special Rules that are regarding Movement, I can think of two that directly affects movement, and it is unique to one Walker unit and Dark Eldar Wargear. Of the rest, Move Through Cover would not be affected as Difficult Terrain would still affect the Movement Stat in one way or another, and Fleet has been Run and now modifying Run and Charge, and would make adjustments from there. Relentless doesn't affect Movement, it just adjusts access to actions. Slow and Purposeful only affects Running in regards to Movement and that is binary and would still be in affect.

Going from there, another problem I have with the Movement stat is that it usually starts with a nerf to everyone's movement but Eldar and Tyranids. Nobody can seem to be bothered with starting Space Marines at 6 and adjust other's from there. If your rules cannot handle Space Marines moving at 6 in general, it only shows a significant bias against a majority of armies that are seen on the table.

Lanrak wrote:
If we were to add Evasion stat to oppose BS, for ranged attacks.This would help balance the core resolution difference between shooting and assault.(And we could get rid of some special rules too.)

Not really. Modifications would still exist and most of those Special Rules would still be in play, if modified to account for some of these changes. Str v T is still used as a comparison, yet we still see those same modifications being employed for Wounding as we see for BS. The Special Rules wouldn't end up going anywhere, actually.

Lanrak wrote:
Initiative defines the order of resolution in assault,which is also very important.

And can be used to counter BS, as I mentioned before.

Lanrak wrote:
This leaves Attacks in assault, and model Strength as the base value to calculate the models weapon hit strength in assault.

If we look at WHFB where the stat line originated from.The majority of the units are armed with hand weapons for close combat, using the unmodified strength value and attacks value.The majority of the few units carrying ranged weapons also use this strength value and attacks value off the stat line.

Only a few special units and weapons in WHFB are the exception.

In 40k the majority of units carry ranged weapons along side close combat weapons.

These ranged weapons have completely separate values for strength and attacks(R.O.F).(Along with effective range, AP , and weapon type.)

Also lots of special close combat weapons modify the number of attacks and or weapon strength etc.

So if we move the Attacks and Strength value to a set of close combat weapons data for the unit.(In a similar format to the ranged weapon data)

The overall 'in game effect ' of all weapons carried by the unit could be displayed under the unit stat line.(On the Force data sheet, or unit cards.)

EG revised weapon data for all units weapons could be.

Weapon name.Effective range, Attacks, Armour Piercing ,Strength, Notes.

I may need to explain this concept better?

Interesting in concept, but we're still back to "why replace something when we can use what we have?" It also ignores several other factors.

So, from what you are proposing, we would have a model statline of:
WS, BS, T, I, E, M, Ld, Sv.

With Weapons having:
Range, Str, AP, Attacks, Type

Now, the problem is things like the Power Fist. The Attacks available to them would vary from model to model in Space Marines alone, not to mention going around all the other Imperials and Xenos which have access to them. Then there is the Str which carries a not so small spread of variances between Striking Scorpions, Sergeants, and Thunder Wolves. Even if we go AoS with them, we'd have a Special Rule to add Attacks for those Veteran Sergeants or having people cry foul. It really wouldn't help if there were a misprint or a change between Blue Space Marines and Red Space Marines (again) where a formula covered it before.

Then let's think of how many Weapons a standard Tactical Squad carries. That's 26 without including the one use Combi-versions. That can make for a very large document. I know because I have done it when I was making myself some Warmahorde-style stat cards for my Templars. I had to cut things VERY tightly in order to make them fit on to one face of a game card.

Still, there is some merit, especially if we REALLY want to AOS the unit datasheets. To move on from there:
Model Statline:
WS, BS, T, I, Ld, Sv.

Weapon Statline:
Range, Str, AP, Attacks, Type

BUT limit the Weapons to only what comes on the sprue. This would limit Tacticals to only carrying a Missile Launcher or a Heavy Flamer (for Blood Angels) and the Sergeant wouldn't be carrying any Combi-Weapons or certain Power Weapons, but it would make the whole thing a lot more manageable for everyone.

Still, I can see that some people won't be too fond with this.

Unit Types will still exist, and other Special Rules will be associated with them. Movement is consistent here (with one or two exceptions) so that makes it less complex. Besides, isn't Movement also just another one of those holdovers from WHFB?

Though, I do like moving the Weapons Attack profile from Type to its own. If used properly it could make Pistols and Rapid Fire Weapons much more interesting.

@Charisoph.
Apologies for spelling you name wrong.

If the current stat line covered all units , and all unit interaction sufficiently well, I would not be discussing alternatives.
If you want to look at keeping the current stat line , and investigating its suitability in more detail.Before we make any changes to it that is fine by me.

Lets look at the 'Movement stat' as a primary case.

Can you name one war game other than 40k that measures weapons ranges, that does not used movement rates?Because I can not find any.
(Apart from Arty Conliffes ''Crossfire ''that does not measure any distances, as that was his specific design goal. )

My point is lots of war games use pre measuring and do not need any 'randumb' elements in the movement rates for charging or running.

Because they use things like ''unit morale'' to drive meaningful decision making in game,( actual tactical interaction!)

For example suppressed units can not launch assaults.
And if units fall below X% of starting strength they need to pass a morale test to launch an assault.

Some games allow the targeted unit of an assault a round of defensive fire against the assaulting unit.(If the targeted unit is not suppressed.)

There are lots of options we could use, apart from 'randumb' movement.

Talking of tactical decision making.Are you familiar with 2nd ed 40k , where all movement* happened in the movement phase?
(*With the common house rule for march/run movement.)
This gave the basic tactical options of ..

1)Stay still and fire to full effect.

2)Move up to Movement stat and shoot move and fire weapons only in the shooting phase.

3)Run up to 2 x Movement stat.And not shoot or launch assaults.

4)Charge into assault, Up to 2 x movement stat.

Note, Units that were locked in assault by charging actions, could not shoot in the shooting phase.

If we simply state that difficult terrain reduces movement by 2".
And (Dangerous) very difficult terrain halves movement rates.

If models actually have movement rates this removes the need for.

Fleet, (faster units just move further.)

Move through cover,(Terrain just modifies movement rates )

Relentless,(covered by more sensible weapon classifications.)

Skilled rider.(Redundant.)

Slow and purposeful,( just has a slower movement rate.)

Turbo Boosters, and Fast Vehicles and Cruising speed, etc.Vehicles just have movement rates.

Most movement rates are based loosely on 2nd ed which was the last edition to have movement rates.
Eldar and Nids were the first to have fleet to make up for loosing their infantry movement rate being higher than other races.

If I was going to re write the game of 40k , I would use the human forces, of the Imperial guard and the bench mark.As that would give us actual humans a more relative sense of scale we could identify with.

If the 'how difficult to hit at range stat' was used.Things like Jink saves, invisibility,stealth, etc.Do not need extra special rules, they are just included in the models Evasion stat.

(I am trying to limit special rules to actual special abilities, rather than having them fill in the gaps left by a poor choice in core resolution methods.)

Initiative stat is based on how good the model is at not being hit in close combat.(Eg the ones better at not being hit in close combat get to strike first.)
These values have no bearing on how large the model is.(The size of the target is the base value used to determine how easy targets are to hit in most war games.)

A monsterous creature that is bigger than a tank, should be much easier to hit than a human sized model.
(Using 40k 5th ed rule book values I have at hand)
A keeper Of Secrets has Initiative 10, an Ork boy has Initiatve 2.

This is my argument against using Initiative values in a role they were never intended to represent.

The proposed stat line would be closer to this.(Taken from our play test rules using new names. 40k stat names in ().

Mobility.
Shooting (B.S)
Evasion.
Assault (W,S)
Dodge.(I),
Armour(Sve)
Resilience(Toughness)
Hit points(Wounds)
Morale(Ld)

9 stats, 1 for mobility, 2 for shooting, 2 for assault, and 4 common to damage resolution.

The UNITS weapon Data are listed under the UNITS stat line.

Each unit has its SPECIFIC weapon effects listed under their unit stat line.

So rather than little Timmy having to look at his SM Captains strength and attacks on his unit profile.Then find the rules for power fists,and a plasma pistol.Then work out the number of attacks the SM Captain gets in assault, and what strength each is resolved at.

This information is directly under the SM Captains Stat line.

EG
Name /Range/ Attacks/Strength/AP/Notes.

Power fist/0-2"/3/9/7/Close Combat only -2 initiative.

Plasma Pistol/0-12"/1/7/5/Side Arm.Gets hot.

Again these are just some ideas we are trying out to see what alternatives could be used.

Lanrak wrote:
@Charisoph.
Apologies for spelling you name wrong.

It happens, I can't tell you how often certain letters show up as a matter of typing training. I usually dismiss the first or second time, but I have seen some who have used it in an insulting manner. I try to give a warning before I actually take it as an offense.

Lanrak wrote:
If the current stat line covered all units , and all unit interaction sufficiently well, I would not be discussing alternatives.

But it seems there is an unwillingness to pursue it just as there was an unwillingness to pursue the concept of the D10.

Lanrak wrote:
Lets look at the 'Movement stat' as a primary case.

Can you name one war game other than 40k that measures weapons ranges, that does not used movement rates?Because I can not find any.

There is truth in this, but then, 40K has been running without such a stat for how long?

Lanrak wrote:
My point is lots of war games use pre measuring and do not need any 'randumb' elements in the movement rates for charging or running.

And many of them have other influences on them. Personally, I like having a little randomness in modified movement, though I admit the 2D6 for Charging is excessive, and Fantasy even had M+2D6. It allows for some of the vagaries of the battlefield that are not always controlled by the player or the models themselves. The explanation that GW provides is a good one, especially considering the power that being in Combat provides. And as focused as 40K is on the model, that power should be kept in play.

Lanrak wrote:
Because they use things like ''unit morale'' to drive meaningful decision making in game,( actual tactical interaction!)

Not everything in battle is as easily controlled and neat, nor can it be explained by the unit's morale.

Lanrak wrote:
For example suppressed units can not launch assaults.
And if units fall below X% of starting strength they need to pass a morale test to launch an assault.

That is still the case in 40K today without a Movement stat. They just call it Pinned instead of Suppressed.

Lanrak wrote:
Some games allow the targeted unit of an assault a round of defensive fire against the assaulting unit.(If the targeted unit is not suppressed.)

And 40K is one, and that doesn't involve any randomness to movement whatsoever.

Lanrak wrote:
There are lots of options we could use, apart from 'randumb' movement.

As I said, there is random and randumb. Some random things should be kept to keep that unplanned nature of real battle in play. I know not everyone agrees with this, but I do believe that element involved with Running and Charging should be kept in play, albeit more controlled. If a Movement stat is in play, it really doesn't take much to make it M+D3 for Running and Charging.

Lanrak wrote:
Talking of tactical decision making.Are you familiar with 2nd ed 40k , where all movement* happened in the movement phase?
(*With the common house rule for march/run movement.)
This gave the basic tactical options of ..

1)Stay still and fire to full effect.

2)Move up to Movement stat and shoot move and fire weapons only in the shooting phase.

3)Run up to 2 x Movement stat.And not shoot or launch assaults.

4)Charge into assault, Up to 2 x movement stat.

Much of this does not require any more of a Movement stat than what we already have.

Lanrak wrote:
Note, Units that were locked in assault by charging actions, could not shoot in the shooting phase.

If we simply state that difficult terrain reduces movement by 2".
And (Dangerous) very difficult terrain halves movement rates.

If models actually have movement rates this removes the need for.

Fleet, (faster units just move further.)

Move through cover,(Terrain just modifies movement rates )

Relentless,(covered by more sensible weapon classifications.)

Skilled rider.(Redundant.)

Slow and purposeful,( just has a slower movement rate.)

Turbo Boosters, and Fast Vehicles and Cruising speed, etc.Vehicles just have movement rates.

And this demonstrates you don't really know what most of these Special Rules do in regards to movement.

Move Through Cover and Skilled Rider would still have an affect. Instead of rerolling the DT Rolls, it would either reduce or ignore them. That is their point after all. This isn't really affected by a Movement Stat, largely.

Relentless has nothing to do with Movement Rate, nor has it ever. It affects the ability to Shoot (or Charge after Shooting) after Moving. Still an important factor when you have Weapons of different scales between the Lascannon and a Pistol.

Slow and Purposeful only partially deals with Movement, but even then just simply forbids the Run and Overwatch mechanics. Otherwise, it is Relentless mk 2. Still not affected by a Movement Stat.

Turbo-boosters IS Running for Bikes and limited to that unit type.

Fast Vehicles only affect Speed when dealing with Skimmers as well. It has more to do with how many Weapons the Vehicle can use when it moves.

So, out of these, only Fleet would be directly affected and left useless. But it can still be used by allowing for an additional Run and Charge range, if you let it.

Lanrak wrote:
Most movement rates are based loosely on 2nd ed which was the last edition to have movement rates.
Eldar and Nids were the first to have fleet to make up for loosing their infantry movement rate being higher than other races.

If I was going to re write the game of 40k , I would use the human forces, of the Imperial guard and the bench mark.As that would give us actual humans a more relative sense of scale we could identify with.

And we have been dealing with 6" movement for all Infantry for the last 19 years. That is most of the 30 years that 40K has existed. Anything less than this will be seen as a direct nerf and involve an emotional reaction if you are not careful.

Lanrak wrote:
If the 'how difficult to hit at range stat' was used.Things like Jink saves, invisibility,stealth, etc.Do not need extra special rules, they are just included in the models Evasion stat.

No, not really. Again, missing the difference between being able to avoid a shot and difficulty in lining up an initial shot when one isn't moving. Sure, Jinking would be a by product of this, but that is the only one of those you have listed which would be affected by name. But again, if we continue to use what we have, it can affect how BS perceives Initiative.

Lanrak wrote:
Initiative stat is based on how good the model is at not being hit in close combat.(Eg the ones better at not being hit in close combat get to strike first.)

Currently, it is not. It is literally listed as, "the swiftness of a creature’s reactions" in the rulebook. A higher Initiative swings faster in most cases. This sounds like also the ability (or willingness) to dodge an incoming shot.

Lanrak wrote:
These values have no bearing on how large the model is.(The size of the target is the base value used to determine how easy targets are to hit in most war games.)

A monsterous creature that is bigger than a tank, should be much easier to hit than a human sized model.
(Using 40k 5th ed rule book values I have at hand)
A keeper Of Secrets has Initiative 10, an Ork boy has Initiatve 2.

This is my argument against using Initiative values in a role they were never intended to represent.

And other factors can come in to play for them as well, or are you planning on removing Unit Types all together? After all, how difficult would it be to add a +2 roll modifier for targeting an MC or Vehicle, and +3/4 for Super-Heavies/Gargantuans?

Lanrak wrote:
Each unit has its SPECIFIC weapon effects listed under their unit stat line.

So rather than little Timmy having to look at his SM Captains strength and attacks on his unit profile.Then find the rules for power fists,and a plasma pistol.Then work out the number of attacks the SM Captain gets in assault, and what strength each is resolved at.

This information is directly under the SM Captains Stat line.

EG
Name /Range/ Attacks/Strength/AP/Notes.

Power fist/0-2"/3/9/7/Close Combat only -2 initiative.

Plasma Pistol/0-12"/1/7/5/Side Arm.Gets hot.

Again these are just some ideas we are trying out to see what alternatives could be used.

Again, are you willing to list the 30 Weapons currently available to a Space Marine Tactical Squad for li'l Timmy to look up? Or will you then reduce their armory selection as I stated earlier?

@Charistoph.

Lanrak wrote:
If the current stat line covered all units , and all unit interaction sufficiently well, I would not be discussing alternatives.

But it seems there is an unwillingness to pursue it just as there was an unwillingness to pursue the concept of the D10.

My gaming group started looking at re writing 40k during 4th ed 40k.(Shortly after we found out Andy Chambers re write got rejected by GW corporate.)

We really tried to get our expected game play of 40k to work with the current stat line for about 4 or 5 years.But key elements of in game resolution methods were missing.And we had to resort to lots of special rules to fill in the blanks.(In the same way GW 40k development has just resulted in special rules bloat.)

Not being paid to follow a specific design brief by GW .We started looking at alternatives.
(In a similar way to the game developers do when not on GW plcs payroll. )

Lanrak wrote:
My point is lots of war games use pre measuring and do not need any 'randumb' elements in the movement rates for charging or running.

And many of them have other influences on them. Personally, I like having a little randomness in modified movement, though I admit the 2D6 for Charging is excessive, and Fantasy even had M+2D6. It allows for some of the vagaries of the battlefield that are not always controlled by the player or the models themselves. The explanation that GW provides is a good one, especially considering the power that being in Combat provides. And as focused as 40K is on the model, that power should be kept in play.

I so not mind a FEW limited random elements in movement.
For example ,a unit routing after loosing an assault has a strong argument to be a random value.
As the unit is in complete disarray and out of the players control.(They could be wounded, panicking or in a shocked stupor, etc.)

But rolling every time a model moves , or moves through terrain is excessive.It disrupts game play and slows down the game to a crawl in some instances.

Not everything in battle is as easily controlled and neat, nor can it be explained by the unit's morale.

I was not suggesting this.But replacing the majority of meaningful and expected game play decisions with 'how lucky do you feel' dice rolls is the antithesis of good game development IMO.

If a movement stat is in play to allow calculated tactical interaction,along with very simple movement modifiers.I can not see the need for random elements When units are under control.

I posted up the ''old movement phase rules'' simply for comment, as they seem a good way of improving tactical depth in a straight forward way.
And speed up game play as models only move once per game turn.Just because it was in the broader topic on movement in 40k.

I only have access to a 40k 5th ed rule nook ATM.

All of those special rules and additional rules effect movement some way.Some of them are due to a lack of a movement value, other are a combination of poor game development, like overly restrictive core rules and weapon classifications.

All can be removed by simple changes and slight tweeks to core rules.While maintaining the amount of diversity required to cover all units.

And we have been dealing with 6" movement for all Infantry for the last 19 years. That is most of the 30 years that 40K has existed. Anything less than this will be seen as a direct nerf and involve an emotional reaction if you are not careful.

I agree that just plonking movement rates into the current rule set, would be just as pointless as just changing the D6 for a D10.
IF you do not define the intended game play and re define the core rules to reflect this first.

But if we follow the original background for the factions found in 2nd ed where every army had its own play style , using Imperial Guard as the benchmark.
We get a much more understandable game play and in game interaction, when we scale the game up to battle game sizes found in 4th and 5th ed..

My personal preference for a 40k re write would be a well defined intuitive rule set delivering a war game based on modern land based company level warfare.

My definition of Initiative was based on the one in the WHFB rules ,and early editions of 40k.
..' the swiftness of a creatures reactions in close combat'.. is very close to the original concept behind the initiative value.

Lanrak wrote:
These values have no bearing on how large the model is.(The size of the target is the base value used to determine how easy targets are to hit in most war games.)

A monsterous creature that is bigger than a tank, should be much easier to hit than a human sized model.
(Using 40k 5th ed rule book values I have at hand)
A keeper Of Secrets has Initiative 10, an Ork boy has Initiatve 2.

This is my argument against using Initiative values in a role they were never intended to represent.

And other factors can come in to play for them as well, or are you planning on removing Unit Types all together? After all, how difficult would it be to add a +2 roll modifier for targeting an MC or Vehicle, and +3/4 for Super-Heavies/Gargantuans?

My point is that if the stat line does its job properly, players do not need 'unit types ' to tell them how the models behave.

We are currently looking at unit cards, as they are a great way of getting the information players need a the players fingertips.
We have units cards with standard 'load outs'.And unit cards with blanks so the players can add in upgrade choices.

This makes it easier to 'block build' a force up to a set value, then see what points you have left for upgrades.And just swap out standard load out units where required.

Again its just a concept we are play testing ATM.

Lanrak wrote:
My gaming group started looking at re writing 40k during 4th ed 40k.(Shortly after we found out Andy Chambers re write got rejected by GW corporate.)

We really tried to get our expected game play of 40k to work with the current stat line for about 4 or 5 years.But key elements of in game resolution methods were missing.And we had to resort to lots of special rules to fill in the blanks.(In the same way GW 40k development has just resulted in special rules bloat.)

Not being paid to follow a specific design brief by GW .We started looking at alternatives.
(In a similar way to the game developers do when not on GW plcs payroll. )

Fair point, but this thread is also what one wants to keep.

Lanrak wrote:
I so not mind a FEW limited random elements in movement.
For example ,a unit routing after loosing an assault has a strong argument to be a random value.
As the unit is in complete disarray and out of the players control.(They could be wounded, panicking or in a shocked stupor, etc.)

But rolling every time a model moves , or moves through terrain is excessive.It disrupts game play and slows down the game to a crawl in some instances.

I can agree with this, but I'm also looking at the advantages that Running and Charging provide and I do like having a balance factor for this. While there are many games which do keep everything a set number, keeping some risk to certain more powerful options in a game like 40K helps keep it from being overpowered. That is why my own suggestion was more about keeping such randomness in deliberate movement very low.

Lanrak wrote:

Not everything in battle is as easily controlled and neat, nor can it be explained by the unit's morale.

I was not suggesting this.But replacing the majority of meaningful and expected game play decisions with 'how lucky do you feel' dice rolls is the antithesis of good game development IMO.

It was associated with Movement Rates, so that is I felt it needed to be addressed with it.

Lanrak wrote:
If a movement stat is in play to allow calculated tactical interaction,along with very simple movement modifiers.I can not see the need for random elements When units are under control.

We technically already have a movement stat, it just doesn't vary between models of the same Type so no need to post it with every unit's profile. Random Movement still works with this. However, I do agree that it is currently excessive and needs to be toned down. There is no reason for a someone to have a 10" difference in Charge Range. In Fantasy 8th Edition, Dwarfs went from Charging 6" to up to 15", while previously, heavy Cavalry could only Charge 14", (but then could Charge up to 19").

In order to keep some risk and mystery in the game, a full D6 isn't really needed, much less two, but a D3 combined with a known constant is sufficient for the task and still requires proper tactical considerations.

Lanrak wrote:
I posted up the ''old movement phase rules'' simply for comment, as they seem a good way of improving tactical depth in a straight forward way.
And speed up game play as models only move once per game turn.Just because it was in the broader topic on movement in 40k.

Single movement in a Turn wasn't presented in consideration, and wouldn't be required for a Movement Stat, nor would having a Movement Stat resolve this in any way. Single movement can be resolved now just as all Shooting from a unit can be resolved now. It is at the discretion of the players in how they wish to do this.

Lanrak wrote:
I only have access to a 40k 5th ed rule nook ATM.

It would be difficult to know what to keep if you are unaware of what they currently have, wouldn't it? Especially considering the huge number of changes, both great and subtle between 5th and 7th.

Lanrak wrote:
All of those special rules and additional rules effect movement some way.Some of them are due to a lack of a movement value, other are a combination of poor game development, like overly restrictive core rules and weapon classifications.

All can be removed by simple changes and slight tweeks to core rules.While maintaining the amount of diversity required to cover all units.

I disagree. Consistency for a weapon to be had across the board is vital, otherwise that leads to jealousy and/or confusion. Or would you change Weapon Types that involve the ability to fire a weapon effectively from unit to unit? And that just covers Relentless and Slow and Purposeful.

Move Through Cover is still also well applicable since it allows one to bypass the downgrades of Difficult/Dangerous Terrain, unless you plan on removing that all together as well. Talk about ignoring the realities of modern warfare. The debris field set up by modern battlefields is all the more reason to include a variable in to the constants of certain ganeral movement options far more than a constant can provide.

Lanrak wrote:
I agree that just plonking movement rates into the current rule set, would be just as pointless as just changing the D6 for a D10.
IF you do not define the intended game play and re define the core rules to reflect this first.

I disagree with that. For some, that consideration may come in to play, for the others, all they will see is, "I could move 6" before, I now move 4", my army is nerfed so I refuse to play this game". Even more importantly when a significant portion of current players never played 40K with units having their own unique movement rate, but with movement being consistent and easily remembered numbers.

Lanrak wrote:
But if we follow the original background for the factions found in 2nd ed where every army had its own play style , using Imperial Guard as the benchmark.
We get a much more understandable game play and in game interaction, when we scale the game up to battle game sizes found in 4th and 5th ed..

And you miss why game sizes have increased. Not just because "GW wants to sell more", but a lot of people wanted to play with more of their collection. Game Size has always been at the preference of the game organizers (TOs or you and the other player).

Lanrak wrote:
My point is that if the stat line does its job properly, players do not need 'unit types ' to tell them how the models behave.

I rather disagree, and that is because I recognize the purpose of Unit Types, and that is to provide a quickly and easily referenced set of rules that will be consistent across a group. With the huge plethora of models that are available, something that is easily recognized and remembered is vital to a smooth running game. True, AoS has gotten around much of this, but the variances and options between everything there is largely academic and only used for rank-and-file combat for Fantasy. 40K involves far more variances between units than Fantasy ever had. The differences in Vehicles and everything else is marked enough for that alone.

Lanrak wrote:
We are currently looking at unit cards, as they are a great way of getting the information players need a the players fingertips.
We have units cards with standard 'load outs'.And unit cards with blanks so the players can add in upgrade choices.

This makes it easier to 'block build' a force up to a set value, then see what points you have left for upgrades.And just swap out standard load out units where required.

Again its just a concept we are play testing ATM.

Why bother with blanks for upgrades? If you cannot fit it on the card, you are considering too much for an intuitive gameplay style. They would also have to fit on the main document as well. Again, not an easy task.

@Charistoph.
I agree the title of the thread is what do you keep in a 40k re write.But the first post stated the design brief as..
''What basic things would you keep?If the rules you were writing had the design brief of focus on clarity , brevity and elegance.''

As the current core 40k stat line does not cover vehicles.
And requires the use of over half a dozen different resolution methods,
And they lack the clarity of general definition to HAVE to use 'unit types' to cover their in game functional role with groups of special rules.
And they lack the definition to resolve movement and shooting sufficiently well to not have to rely on lots of additional special rules.

And after extensive play testing and investigation it is obvious in comparison to other alternatives.The current 40k stat line is not the best option to deliver intuitive results with clarity and brevity.

Then looking at the minimal changes required to address this would be a logical course of action.

I am not suggesting the option I posted was the only solution.But simply used it as an example of how 2 critical functions of the game play could be introduced to the stat line to correct these flaws, with the minimum of disruption.


In general the balance for running is to lose the ability to shoot or assault.
And the balance to charging is taking fire on the approach to the target.

Because GW introduced a major flaw with the balance between shooting and assault in 3rd ed.(Removed to hit modifiers and failed to replace them with an alternative.)
They have had editions that flip flop between buffing assault and then buffing shooting.Rather than addressing the core balance issue.

All good war games just deliver proportional results , which drives tactical interaction.(And usually ends up with much more concise and well defined rules as a result. )

If you are going to champion the way GW 'simplified' the movement element of the game play in 40k.
Then apply it to all the other stats on the stats line.Everything becomes a 4+ or a 1.
So there is no need for any stat at all!See how I just simplified the game...

So we just need a few special rules to cover the differences, about another 200 should do, and if your not sure just roll off.

I am not advocating removing all risk and mystery. Just making the risk and reward in the game play proportional and intuitive.
So players feel they are commanding an army rather than watching a film..

Only having access to a particular rule book to quote from ATM.Does not mean I have not read or I am not familiar with the 40k 7th ed.

At the moment a Character with 3 attacks and strength 4 equipped with a power fist.
Is much more effective in game than a leader with 2 attacks and strength 3 equipped with a power fist.

In the same way a Heavy bolter is much more effective when the user has BS4 than a user with BS 2.

Weapon effects are not and have never been consistent when they are used in game.Simply listing the net effect on the unit card/army roster allows this difference to be seen without any calculation or looking up rules for the player.(Unit cards are used in to good effect in many games.Letting players write in their choice of upgrade on a unit card, is no difference to doing the same on an army roster sheet.Both give the player relevant information during the game.)

If weapon classification are unit specific.

EG
If the unit can not move and fire with the weapon if is classed as 'Ordnance'.
If the weapon halves its effective range when fired on the move it is classed as a 'Rapid fire' weapon.
If the weapon can be fire one handed it is classed as a 'Side arm.'

The a Heavy bolter is classed as 'Ordnance' in an IG platoon.
It is classed as 'Rapid Fire' when carried by Deathwatch marines (with suspensors.)
It is classed as a standard weapon on a Chimera.
And classed as a 'side arm' when carried by a Deamon Prince, super heavy walker, etc..

I did suggest replacing the rules for dangerous and difficult terrain with simple movement modifiers.(As they work well in ALL the other war games I have played over the last 30 years. )
(If we added mobility type we could add more detail to the terrain interaction.Probably best to leave this for advanced rules though.)

I am not trying to steal GW plc target audience away from them.

This is just a thread looking at how different a rule set for 40k could be, if it was written as a war game , with the focus on clarity brevity and intuitive game play.

As such defining the scale and scope of the game play, along with the intended war fare type is very important.

Hi folks.
I am aware players wanted to move the the battle game size of 40k.
And that 4th and 5th ed 40k was the most popular game size.(And these are battle game sizes. )

And so this is why I picked the 4th-5th ed 40k game size as the theoretical game size we would look at war game rules for.
(I know the big toys introduced in 6th and 7th ed are popular, but many feel they were 'shoe horned' into the 40k game for sales reasons rather than carefully considered game play reasons.So adding them in carefully at a later point when the core game play is sorted seems quite sensible.)

As the unit in 40k are closest in in game functions to modern warfare, then following the way modern warfare has an equal focus on mobility fire power and assault seems like a logical choice .

Is this basic definition of game scale and scope clear enough?
Do you agree with it?Or do you see it as something else?

If we can get the D6 working more effectively , by using more efficient resolution methods, I think this would be the preferred option to buying and rolling lots of D10 for practical reasons.
I think the A,O,S type game turn may be a better fit for a 40k battle game .As it improves the level of player interaction, while keeping the familiar action phases.
The three stage damage resolution is also important to maintain the wide diversity of results to cover the wide range of unit types found in 40k.

For the reasons stated previously . I think the current stat line needs tweeking, to cover more of the in game actions directly, reduce the current number of resolution methods to just two.(And bring the number of special rules under control.)

How do you feel about unit cards, with the army list building info on one side, and the in game stat on the other?

Based on what data did you think 4th-5th were the most popular game size?

I have seen you say it before. I have seen a couple other people say it before. But I have also seen lots of people say lots of other things.

Lanrak wrote:
Hi folks.
I am aware players wanted to move the the battle game size of 40k.
And that 4th and 5th ed 40k was the most popular game size.(And these are battle game sizes. )

And so this is why I picked the 4th-5th ed 40k game size as the theoretical game size we would look at war game rules for.
(I know the big toys introduced in 6th and 7th ed are popular, but many feel they were 'shoe horned' into the 40k game for sales reasons rather than carefully considered game play reasons.So adding them in carefully at a later point when the core game play is sorted seems quite sensible.)

As the unit in 40k are closest in in game functions to modern warfare, then following the way modern warfare has an equal focus on mobility fire power and assault seems like a logical choice .

Is this basic definition of game scale and scope clear enough?
Do you agree with it?Or do you see it as something else?

If we can get the D6 working more effectively , by using more efficient resolution methods, I think this would be the preferred option to buying and rolling lots of D10 for practical reasons.
I think the A,O,S type game turn may be a better fit for a 40k battle game .As it improves the level of player interaction, while keeping the familiar action phases.
The three stage damage resolution is also important to maintain the wide diversity of results to cover the wide range of unit types found in 40k.

For the reasons stated previously . I think the current stat line needs tweeking, to cover more of the in game actions directly, reduce the current number of resolution methods to just two.(And bring the number of special rules under control.)

How do you feel about unit cards, with the army list building info on one side, and the in game stat on the other?

Game Size:
I personally enjoy the relatively small but not necessarily "kill team" sized games. I like games about a couple tac marine squads supported by some devastators and assault marines more than I like games featuring trios of knights fighting titans, multiple hive tyrants, etc. The smaller number of models, especially "rare" models, gives a little more "weight" to the units that are on the table. It's a law of conservation of ninjutsu thing. A handful of marines are a bunch of BAMFs. A whole company of marines may as well be guardsman-style cannon fodder. Plus, the current rules for superheavies and flyers feel like they render many non-competitive units invalid because of the difference in power level.

"Modern Warfare":
Sort of agree. Shooting, movement, and assault should all be important. These are all words strongly associated with many of the factions we know and love. I would not sacrifice the coolness of guys dueling with high-tech energy swords for the "realism" of gunning down everyone bringing a knife to a gun fight before they close the gap. The nit-picking distinction I want to make is that 40k, to me, is less about emulating modern warfare and more about providing an excuse for super soldiers, space elves, and mecha-pilots to show off their cool abilities on the battlefield. Rule of cool > emulating real-world combat styles.

d6 VS d10:
I'm not opposed to a d10 system, but I've yet to be convinced it's really necessary. There are other methods of making various weapons, armor, and abilities "feel right" that don't require changing up the dice system. If you were designing a new system form scratch, I'd be all for looking into alternative systems. As the fanbase already has a large collection of d6s, however, I think you'd need a very good reason to move away from d6s.


Unit Cards:
Eh. Sure. It's really no different from just having the book in front of you or photo-copying a datasheet. The info is there. You can read it. After a few games, you probably won't look at it much. You could chisel a unit's stats into a stone tablet. The only difference is how you transport the information.

"As the fanbase already has a large collection of d6s, however, I think you'd need a very good reason to move away from d6s. "

Giving terminators a legit niche is a pretty good reason.

@Lance845.
My belief that 4th and 5th ed 40k was the most popular game size, was based on several polls about players favorite edition of 40k.(On several web sites.)
And information from a sources within GW towers who should have a good idea about this sort of thing.. .

I am not saying that every one prefers 4th or 5th edition rules.But the general consensus from player feed back is that the game play was more in synergy with the back ground at this size.

@Wyldhunt.
When I say the basic concept should be based on modern warfare , it does not mean that we have a super detailed simulation of modern warfare.

But the basic game play should be driven by modern wars tactical focus.
Mobility to take objectives, fire power to control enemy movement, and assault to contest objectives.
So each is equally important , and it makes balancing a force more of a tactical preference , than a strategic headache in cost effectiveness evaluation.

Using game mechanics and resolution methods from a game that focuses on moving into close combat, with ranged attacks in a supporting role.(WHFB.)
With units mainly armed with ranged weapons and close combat weapons just makes too many abstractions in the in game interaction to make a good war game.(You have to make bringing a knife to a gun fight the expected/preferred option! ).

in modern warfare shooting is used tactically to block lines of sight with smoke, suppress units to slow them sown, or keep their heads down while you out flank them before assaulting them from the rear. And to disable transport /supporting vehicle units.

Mobility and shooting set up the enemy to be assaulted using actual battle field tactics. (Assault is the most effective way of destroying enemy units and clearing enemy units off objectives.)

IMO a 40k war game should be a solid war game based on modern land based company level war.With a veneer of 40k cool placed carefully on top.

Its a bit like a custom car, with proven mechanics and electrics on a chassis, with awesome looking body work bolted on the top.

I also think to get the scope in focus, starting with the Imperial guard as the bench mark makes more sense.As they are the most identifiable to us .This would give the players a better understanding how weird and diverse the rest of the races are.(Rather then how inferior they are to super human space marines... )

@Martel732.
How can changing dice size determine the tactical validity of a unit in a force?

Terminators have a legit niche, they are the super elite,super equipped , super armoured ,super space marines.(Deep strike elite shock troops .)
(Or they were for the first 5 edition of the game. )

Terminators have never had a viable mathematical niche. A big part of this is due to there only being 5 types of armor. D10 brings you up to 9 types. Now terminators have a viable niche in the crunch.

Terminators are 2+ on a d10, riptides and broadsides are 3+ and marines are 4+. Boom. Now weapons that take on riptides don't automatically lay waste to terminators. They have a niche. This granularity is impossible with d6.

Lanrak wrote:
@Lance845.
My belief that 4th and 5th ed 40k was the most popular game size, was based on several polls about players favorite edition of 40k.(On several web sites.)
And information from a sources within GW towers who should have a good idea about this sort of thing.. .

I am not saying that every one prefers 4th or 5th edition rules.But the general consensus from player feed back is that the game play was more in synergy with the back ground at this size.

It should be stated that it is feedback from players that frequent those sites. A significant proportion of players do not engage online. Too many do not engage in any of the sites that you posted. It is like polling Florida and using all the results to represent the desires of the United Nations.

For myself, I see failures and positives in 5th, 6th, and 7th. 4th was either transitioning out or had just completed transitioning out when I started looking in to the hobby.

So far, my biggest concern about 40K has not been addressed in any of these editions, and it doesn't seem that you are keen on addressing mine any more than GW is, either.

Lanrak wrote:
Using game mechanics and resolution methods from a game that focuses on moving into close combat, with ranged attacks in a supporting role.(WHFB.)

Sad to say, you are missing a lot of things if you think that 40K is still WHFB in space. Aside from the stats and the Wound resolution structure, there was a huge difference between 40K and FB 8th Edition.

Lanrak wrote:
With units mainly armed with ranged weapons and close combat weapons just makes too many abstractions in the in game interaction to make a good war game.(You have to make bringing a knife to a gun fight the expected/preferred option! ).

in modern warfare shooting is used tactically to block lines of sight with smoke, suppress units to slow them sown, or keep their heads down while you out flank them before assaulting them from the rear. And to disable transport /supporting vehicle units.

Too much depends on the situation to make such an assertion. First, 40K is NOT supposed to be modern warfare as there is 28-39,000 year difference between "modern" and then. Second, you are not taking in to account the technologies and habits of the cultures involved. Associating 40K with modern warfare is the same as comparing Dune's considerations with modern warfare.

Lanrak wrote:
IMO a 40k war game should be a solid war game based on modern land based company level war.With a veneer of 40k cool placed carefully on top.

Why? 40K is Space Fantasy, not Science Fiction or "modern warfare", nor intended to be such. You are doing the equivalent of complaining about War of the Rings not supporting Roman Legion or Agincourt strategies. If this is the core of your case, then you are aiming at an incorrect target.

 Charistoph wrote:
Too much depends on the situation to make such an assertion. First, 40K is NOT supposed to be modern warfare as there is 28-39,000 year difference between "modern" and then. Second, you are not taking in to account the technologies and habits of the cultures involved. Associating 40K with modern warfare is the same as comparing Dune's considerations with modern warfare.

Why? 40K is Space Fantasy, not Science Fiction or "modern warfare", nor intended to be such. You are doing the equivalent of complaining about War of the Rings not supporting Roman Legion or Agincourt strategies. If this is the core of your case, then you are aiming at an incorrect target.

"Space Fantasy" shouldn't mean "no relation to how modern wars are fought" anymore than than "wargame" should mean "it's just like today, but with more power armor". War of the Rings should support Roman or 100 year's war era tactics, or something roughly similar to them, since as far as I recall there's nothing in LOTR that's going to fundamentally alter the tactical or technological playbook that those tactics are based on. The only thing that 40 does differently than modern warfare is physic stuff, and some changes to how the arms vs armor struggle has played out. I fail to see why that rules out running a 40k rewrite more in lines with a modern-ish wargame, as opposed to the bizzare hodgepodge that it is now. It's not like lasguns and bolters are some exotic super weapon unlike anything we can conceptualize today, lasguns are roughly comparable to many contemporary small arms baring a few factors related to ammunition concerns, and a gryojet grenade launcher isn't exactly earth shattering either, we could probably build one now if we really, really wanted too. Ditto with most other race's small arms, which as far I've heard are fairly well balanced (or at least not as broken as the big/exotic stuff), so with that aspect as a baseline, building 40k back up is a lot easier than you think.

@Martel732.
You are arguing that when you use restrictive resolution methods (from WHFB where there is only 5 levels of basic armour.)
And this has a negative impact on the game play in 40k.

And I totally agree with this argument BTW.

I disagree with your solution of just increasing the dice size used.As it still leaves the very restrictive and counter intuitive resolution methods we currently have in the 40k rules.

I have shown than better resolution methods that use opposed stat value from 1 to 10 deliver proportional results that still use a D6.
Has the potential to arrive at the range of results we probably need without changing the dice size.

Lets ignore that difference in models size should factor into how hard the model it to hit at range.(Which would be catered for in my new proposed opposing value system.)

Your system would give the following saves on a D10 as your post outlined.
Marines, 4+, riptides/broadsides 3+ and terminators 2+.(70%, 80% and 90% save chance unless invalidated by a AP weapon value)

So marines get a save 70% of the time until they get a AP 4 hit , then they have no save at all.
As marines are so popular the game introduces a swathe of anti MEQ weapons to all armies.(Sound familiar. )
So most models do not get to take a save, and just rely on high model count or special rules to see them through the battles.(History repeating itself?)

This system has 9 armour type that are invalidated by AP values in a similar way to the current rules.(And would probably need extra rules for vehicles too?)

My system covers ALL models including vehicles with TEN armour values from 1 to 10.(The models Armour stat.)
Marines Armour value 4, Broadsides Riptides Armour value 5, and terminators on armour value 6, for example.

All weapons also have an AP value of 1 to 10,(Ten Values for the weapons AP stat.)

These are compared in the 'universal resolution chart' to give proportional results.(EG slightly more powerful weapons reduce the save of the model.I thought I explained this straight forward replacement for modifiers ?Apologies if I did not make it clear.)

@Charistoph.
I thought the statement
''I am not saying that every one prefers 4th or 5th edition rules.But the general consensus from player feed back is that the game play was more in synergy with the back ground at this size.''
Made it quite clear I was referring to the size of the game , number of units and type of units in 4th and 5th ed.

For what it is worth all editions of 40k are not that brilliant in terms of clarity brevity or elegance.I agree serious game play issues have been left in all editions of 40k.As GW plc focused more and more on sales of 'plastic bitz'' to collectors.

In terms of comparing WHFB and 40k.
Apart from loosing movement stat and modifiers, what exactly is the difference in game mechanics and resolution methods?

Having to add on a separate stat line for armoured vehicles that are not in WHFB, and four times the amount of special rules to cover the other stuff that is not covered by the WHFB rules that is in 40k. Sort of proved that 'WHFB in space' does not fit the intended game play of 40k.

In terms of table top war games there are three basic types of game play available.

1)Focus on mobility and close combat.With ranged weapons in a supporting role.

Ancient to Napoleonic type warfare.Where large block of troops in close formation scare the bejezus out of the opponent.

Here is what just the British infantry and artillery at Waterloo would look like if they were represented 1 to 1 scale for 40k type game.
(This is about 1/3 of Wellingtons army.Napoleon had a much bigger Army !This is also the same number of French DEAD after the battle. ).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqLoLKlbVuU

2)Focus on mobility and fire power, with assault in supporting role.

This is mainly used for naval warfare.
Air warfare usually uses this but generally does not have any assault elements.

3)Equal Focus on mobility fire power and assault.

Mainly used for modern land warfare.
With small skimishing infantry squads armed with effective ranged weapons and close combat weapons , supported by armoured APCs and tanks.

So what sort of game play do you think is most suited to 40k?

Just because the models in 40k are the same scale as those used in WHFB.And have a similar sculpt style.(Which is not surprising because they are sculpted by the same team.)

You think the game play of 40k should be based on WHFB?'Space fantasy' as you call it?

Most players look at the UNITS in 40k and see small squads of skirmishing infantry armed with ranged weapons and close combat weapons .Supported by APCs and tanks.

And oddly enough they expect the game play to follow the closest 'real world' counter part .EG modern warfare.

That is why GW had to add rules for modern warfare effects to the 'WHFB in space rules'.Pinning, crew shaken/crew stunned.(Suppression and neutralization.)Going to ground, etc

A rule set based on modern warfare game play would include these elements in a more synergistic and less obtrusive way..

Have you played Epic Armageddon?
When free of the GW sales team influence, the GW game devs always use modern warfare rules for 40k battle games.And they are much better war game as a result.

"My system covers ALL models including vehicles with TEN armour values from 1 to 10.(The models Armour stat.)
Marines Armour value 4, Broadsides Riptides Armour value 5, and terminators on armour value 6, for example. "

I'm attempting to preserve the current system for ease of conversion. We can keep all the current stats and minimize changes.

A complete rewrite is well beyond the scope of the effort I'm willing to put in. Even if I used a resolution chart like yours, I'd still trash the D6 and add an additional 4 outcomes.

I'm also not adding in new stats without a complete rewrite. In such a scenario, I would resolve everything with a 2D10 roll to get a proportional bell curve. As such, I'm not doing that.

"Has the potential to arrive at the range of results we probably need without changing the dice size. "

I would ideally prefer a bell curve on everything if we are going that far. As I said above, 2D10 is a good method for doing this. I guess the answer to your original question is that I would keep nothing. Except maybe a few of the stat names.

"So most models do not get to take a save, and just rely on high model count or special rules to see them through the battles.(History repeating itself?) "

No, because AP 4 and better weapons will have poor ROF, so Orks don't care if they don't get a save. Also, 4+ armor would retain half its save vs AP 4. And cover will be a to-hit penalty, so it stacks with armor.

"A/O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1....,4,4,5,5,6,6,n,n.n,n
2.....3.4.4.5.5.6.6.n.n.n.
3.....3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.n.n.
4.....2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.n.
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.....1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5
9.....1.1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4
10...1.1.1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.
(n= no effect,) "

Looking at this carefully, I still feel like this is not sufficiently granular, even though it is proportional.

The problem with desperately trying to find a mathematical niche for terminators is that there shouldn't be one. If a gun can take out a battlesuit twice the size of a dreadnought (or even just the size of a dreadnought), we should make that gun ineffective against an infantryman in particularly tough armor....why? Terminators are tough, but they're not THAT tough.

Perhaps an easier way (and one that doesn't require every 40k player to switch out to a new die size, and one that's not cheaply available in bulk at that) might be to tinker with the "only one save allowed" rule? Or just accept that terminators aren't viable in their original role, give them a redesign, and move on?

D10s are cheaply available in bulk. For the same price as a space marine bike (singular), I can get 30 of them.

We've tried the redesign angle. It fails miserably under the current system. Terminators still suffer from being less durable vs small arms than regular marines.

Terminators are just one example. Another is how the Eldar mostly have the same level of protection on their infantry as marines. The list goes on and on.

I would prefer a comparative to-hit roll. Rather than a flat number, have cover affect this.
Drop templates/blasts as a thing.

Maybe allow armour and invuln saves to stack? Make AP a modifier.

The issue with requiring 2D10s for a roll or 2D-anything is you can't roll them en mass. Because then it'd be impossible to pair them up.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

I would prefer a comparative to-hit roll. Rather than a flat number, have cover affect this.
Drop templates/blasts as a thing.

Maybe allow armour and invuln saves to stack? Make AP a modifier.

The issue with requiring 2D10s for a roll or 2D-anything is you can't roll them en mass. Because then it'd be impossible to pair them up.

Colors. It did all the time with D6's in Star Fleet Battles. Order was even important, so we used ROYGBIV.

So then I would have to buy dice off all different colours.
Then say I've got 7 different colours, you wanna be the poor bugger rolling ~100 lasgun shots with 7 pairs of dice? Presumably adding up the pairs as you go along.
It's just not worth the benefit.

Yeah, maybe guard are gonna be a problem. I guess for the scale 40K has evolved into, we are stuck with single-die resolutions.

Battlegrinder wrote:"Space Fantasy" shouldn't mean "no relation to how modern wars are fought" anymore than than "wargame" should mean "it's just like today, but with more power armor". War of the Rings should support Roman or 100 year's war era tactics, or something roughly similar to them, since as far as I recall there's nothing in LOTR that's going to fundamentally alter the tactical or technological playbook that those tactics are based on. The only thing that 40 does differently than modern warfare is physic stuff, and some changes to how the arms vs armor struggle has played out. I fail to see why that rules out running a 40k rewrite more in lines with a modern-ish wargame, as opposed to the bizzare hodgepodge that it is now. It's not like lasguns and bolters are some exotic super weapon unlike anything we can conceptualize today, lasguns are roughly comparable to many contemporary small arms baring a few factors related to ammunition concerns, and a gryojet grenade launcher isn't exactly earth shattering either, we could probably build one now if we really, really wanted too. Ditto with most other race's small arms, which as far I've heard are fairly well balanced (or at least not as broken as the big/exotic stuff), so with that aspect as a baseline, building 40k back up is a lot easier than you think.

You missed some key phrases there. There are cultural considerations to consider as well as technological. Some of the technology, we are too far away from creating, such as the Space Marine upgrades and Power Armor. In addition, we aren't facing Orks. Facing them and their cultural biases, as well as the Space Elves, involves some of those FB facets which seems to trigger Lanrak so much.

In addition, so much depends on events that happen across 30 millenia that it is impossible to track. I referenced Dune for a reason. Shields made lasers drastically dangerous to the firer and any supersonic (and many subsonic) weapons useless. Yet, those same shields make one a target out on the open bled of Arrakis leading to training and tactics of the Fremen which were foreign to the rest of the galaxy, and vice versa.

So, again, 40K is not modern warfare, it is space fantasy which follows its own rules and considerations, just like the War of the Ring has to take in to account the personalities and abilities of the orcs and uruk'hai which remove it from historical warfare.

Lanrak wrote:@Charistoph.
I thought the statement
''I am not saying that every one prefers 4th or 5th edition rules.But the general consensus from player feed back is that the game play was more in synergy with the back ground at this size.''
Made it quite clear I was referring to the size of the game , number of units and type of units in 4th and 5th ed.

You miss the point. Game Size is favored over what you can bring and the terrain you have access to. As editions went on, the average player's army grew. Game size is also sometimes considered, emotionally, with other things attached to it, such as Flyers and Super-Heavies or Formations.

6th and 7th allows those with larger collections to field those larger armies easier, and has more to do with the price points of models and and their upgrades. 6th and 7th also came with collections which made it easier to develop larger collections as well.

While 4th and 5th worked with smaller armies, you often had to pay through the nose for the smallest upgrades, or go with unvariable amounts.

So, yes, I have issues with all of them for different reasons.

Lanrak wrote:For what it is worth all editions of 40k are not that brilliant in terms of clarity brevity or elegance.I agree serious game play issues have been left in all editions of 40k.As GW plc focused more and more on sales of 'plastic bitz'' to collectors.

The issues are not because they are focused "more and more" on sales, those were already there. People are willing to pay for "more and more", so there is no point at complaining about that.

They have never cared enough for their game to make it a properly viable game, and that has cause the issues. They don't care enough to pay attention to the interactions of their rules. If you want to address that, I'm all for it. Anything else is just preferences.

Lanrak wrote:In terms of comparing WHFB and 40k.
Apart from loosing movement stat and modifiers, what exactly is the difference in game mechanics and resolution methods?

And gaining the AP system? Vehicles for one. Nothing comes close to Super-Heavies, either, though those should be kept for Apocalypse games.

Then there are the firing types and those interactions.

Independent Characters take on whole new ramifcations separate from FB, and are completely gone in AoS.

The Psychic system used to be quite separate from Magic, and to a point the levels of interactions are still different, but that has changed with 7th again to be closer to how 8th FB worked (but not completely).

Lanrak wrote:Having to add on a separate stat line for armoured vehicles that are not in WHFB, and four times the amount of special rules to cover the other stuff that is not covered by the WHFB rules that is in 40k. Sort of proved that 'WHFB in space' does not fit the intended game play of 40k.

Than it isn't so your conjecture on that is currently false for the last 19 years. It was probably truer of 2nd Edition, but not since 3rd.

Lanrak wrote:In terms of table top war games there are three basic types of game play available.

1)Focus on mobility and close combat.With ranged weapons in a supporting role.

Ancient to Napoleonic type warfare.Where large block of troops in close formation scare the bejezus out of the opponent.

Here is what just the British infantry and artillery at Waterloo would look like if they were represented 1 to 1 scale for 40k type game.
(This is about 1/3 of Wellingtons army.Napoleon had a much bigger Army !This is also the same number of French DEAD after the battle. ).

2)Focus on mobility and fire power, with assault in supporting role.

This is mainly used for naval warfare.
Air warfare usually uses this but generally does not have any assault elements.

3)Equal Focus on mobility fire power and assault.

Mainly used for modern land warfare.
With small skimishing infantry squads armed with effective ranged weapons and close combat weapons , supported by armoured APCs and tanks.

So what sort of game play do you think is most suited to 40k?

First question, why are you trying to cage 40K in to a mold of your own definitions (or definitions of another) instead of allowing to be its own thing that has evolved from another?

Why does 40K have to lock itself in to one of those molds when each army can approach the game in different methods so that each one decides if they are 1, 2, or 3? Necrons and Tau approach more on approach 2, while Orks and 'Nids prefer approach 1. Marines and Eldar depend more on the build, but can easily be set up as 1, 2, or 3, as the player chooses.

Lanrak wrote:Just because the models in 40k are the same scale as those used in WHFB.And have a similar sculpt style.(Which is not surprising because they are sculpted by the same team.)

You think the game play of 40k should be based on WHFB?'Space fantasy' as you call it?

Scale of the model when compared to another game is not the reason for it. The scale of the game allows for the interactions of individual soldiers to make as much a difference as the entire unit does. It is in that difference between WarmaHordes and Dropzone which is its intended niche, and that hasn't changed since 3rd Edition.

What makes 40K "Space Fantasy" is the setting of the universe and how it approaches things, not because it had origins being a High Fantasy offshoot. It's having futuristic knights going off to face alien orks and elves and cybernetic undead.

Lanrak wrote:Most players look at the UNITS in 40k and see small squads of skirmishing infantry armed with ranged weapons and close combat weapons .Supported by APCs and tanks.

And oddly enough they expect the game play to follow the closest 'real world' counter part .EG modern warfare.

That is why GW had to add rules for modern warfare effects to the 'WHFB in space rules'.Pinning, crew shaken/crew stunned.(Suppression and neutralization.)Going to ground, etc

A rule set based on modern warfare game play would include these elements in a more synergistic and less obtrusive way..

For some, but we also have to take in to account that centered around Platoon Bravo supporting Seal Team 6, either. It is its own universe.

Lanrak wrote:Have you played Epic Armageddon?
When free of the GW sales team influence, the GW game devs always use modern warfare rules for 40k battle games.And they are much better war game as a result.

Epic is a different scale from 40K, though. It requires a different level of abstractions in order to work. There are a lot of "modern warfare" tactics and strategies you cannot do with Epic, Dropzone, and Planetfall, that you can use with 40K.

That doesn't mean that 40K is designed to be a "modern warfare" game any more than it is a High Fantasy game. It rides somewhere in the middle. Some editions focus more on one aspect than another, that's true, and that can be a hard thing, especially if you don't want to eliminate your current player base and incur bad word of mouth.

There was something I thought of the other day while brainstorming a more straightforward system replacement. I like the idea of a single resolution method, in principle, but I think there is a major problem (unless you add special rules/caveats, which defeats some of the problem): either your chart has an always/never limit, or it doesn't, which has odd results.

To clarify - suppose you have a chart where, no matter how low my ballistic skill, and how high your evasion may be, I can still hit, and no matter how high my BS and how low your E, I can still miss (which is perfectly reasonable for to-hit rolls). Now, if you apply that to wounding, you have a chart where no matter how weak my weapon and how tough your dude is, I always have a chance to cause damage, and no matter how strong my gun and how weak your guy, I can fail to. The latter is already the case in 40k (even though a lot of people think it's dumb), but the former creates cases where Land Raiders are getting destroyed by Gretchin in melee, which is pretty obviously ludicrous.

If you apply that to saves, you get a case where everyone always gets at least a long-odds save against everything.

Or, if you take it the opposite way - like the current wound chart - where $DEFENSE_STAT can be so high that $OFFENSE_STAT can't affect it, you can get enemy units that literally cannot be hit.

In a system as "big" as 40k, that tries to encompass so many different units with so many different abilities, adding a bit more underlying complexity to avoid those kind of edge cases is probably a very good idea - we already know from experience that folks can and will exploit them, to the detriment of anyone who isn't optimizing quite as tightly.

The idea I came up with instead is essentially three resolution systems: One chart for to-hit, where you can always miss, and you can always hit, no matter how big the shift is, and another for to-wound, where it's possible to auto-wound (that demolisher cannon always wounds a Guardsman, say) and it's possible to be unable to wound (in much the same way that a bolter bounces off a Wraithlord now). The third system is a target number, like current saves, with the caveat that in all cases, a natural 1 on the d6 is a failure. When rolling to wound, if a weapon wounds automatically, you don't roll, but in any case where you do roll, a 1 always fails. That's used for saves and Damage Reduction, which replaces Feel No Pain. Instead of a 40k-like AP system, you'd have an AoS-style rend system, and 1+ saves are allowed (since a natural 1 still fails).

I don't actually know what to do with characteristic tests or morale, though: I'd like a system for morale checks where higher is still better without adding on yet another resolution system.

Anyway, I'll write that up in more detail elsewhere, but does that make any sense?

Yes, it does. Multiple charts means increased granularity.

Thanks for all the replies since my last post.

Ill try to respond to the points raised in order.

@Martel732.
I think we may be talking at cross purposes a bit?

This thread was looking at what basic parts of game mechanics and resolution methods you would want to keep in a complete ground up re write of the 40k rules, written as a war game focusing on clarity brevity and elegance.(At a specific game size and scope that I picked for various reasons.)

I was not discussing how we could keep the current rules the same, and improve the granularity of results.

Because when you use the restricted game mechanics and resolution methods for WHFB with the wider range of unit found in 40k.You only have 2 options.
1)Bigger range of dice.(RT and 2nd ed.)
2)Or more dice rolls.(3rd ed to 7th ed.)

And as rolling 60+ D10 for a mob of Orks is problematical,from a practical stand point.
And all the extra rules for rolling additional dice in the current rules.Makes it feel more like a random story generator you have to try to make sense of.Than a a war game with actual player tactical interaction.

For these and may other logical reasons based on player feed back, advise from game designers, and 3 decades of gaming experience.
I think it would be much better to tweek the stat line and resolution methods and keep the D6.

(If it was a choice of increasing the granularity of results and keeping the current rules as is.Then I would prefer larger dice sizes to multiple dice rolls too! )


@Battlegrinder.
I agree with you.
Bending the rules of the game to try to make units behave how you think they should is poor game design.
As GW plc are focused on ''selling toy soldiers to children'', not writing war games .They often are guilty of poor game development along these lines.
The unit looks cool as 'Kewly MacKewll of the cool clan', but has no clear tactical/strategic function in the army.(The units no one takes unless they get massive point breaks ... )

I am glad you get the idea that basing the game play on 'modern war fare' is just a guideline for the sort of game mechanics and resolution we use.So we get tactical and strategic loading that are in synergy with the units perceived function.(EG main battle tank equivalents act like main battle tanks in game. )

If the game mechanics and resolution methods were written specifically for 40k.
One armies deep striking heavy infantry, would not be tactically comparable to another armies large walking vehicle with jump capabilities.

Just a simple example...
Infantry is harder to hit, and therefore immune to anti tank weapons that can only target units with Evasion skill lower than X.

But 40k makes no difference to the chance to hit if the target is a tiny Grot or a huge Gargant.

@Kirotheavenger.
I think we are on the same page.
Would you replace templates and blasts with a number of attacks?I would like to discuss this concept further.(It could speed up game play a bit. )

@Charistoph
The fine detail of the technology used is immaterial to the way modern warfare is waged.
If you go back to the 1920s and look at the level of technology, compared to today.The difference is mind boggling. But the basic tactical and strategic concepts hold true.

My point stands that the rules of a war game are written based on unit function, NOT what the minatures look like.
As war games are a functional document, instructing the player how the game works with the minimum of fuss.Having a clearly defined scale and scope is important.

Inspiring short term sales of plastic bitz, just needs inspiring art and narrative.And as this is how 40k appears to be 'developed' it has no clear game play design or direction.

'Space fantasy' would be a game where for what ever reason , close combat trumped ranged combat.(May be a Jedi Knight vs Sith light sabre battle .)

I know GW write rules to try inspire collectors to collect more GW stuff.This is however not the way a war game focusing on clarity brevity and elegance is written.
As Rick Priestley put it '..more of a sales promotion department for a toy company, than a game design studio..'And I defer to his superior knowledge of GW plc.

So GW threw away Armour Save Modifiers. All though far from perfect they did give more proportional results.
And replaced it with the AP system that abstracts the actual resolution, throws proportionality under the bus, and messes up any chance of improving game balance.

I agree A.S.M should have been replaced.But why not with opposed AV and AP values?Just a s simple but gives proportional results.
Or opposed dice rolls, or any other type of resolution method that gives proportional results and delivers intuitive tactical game play.

I also agree the super heavies and some fliers, would be better off in an Apocalypse expansion. (Another reason for the game size at 4th/5th ed , before Apoc units were shoe horned into the standard game.)

The types of weapon , the way characters function and psychic abilities , are the fine detail that is carfuly applied over the basic game structure.
Making mobility, fire power and assault equally effective tactically, is not going to detract from any of these sorts of fine detail.

If WHFB in space does not fit the intended game play of 40k.Why use WHFB based stat line, game mechanics, and resolution methods?
The ONLY reason is backward compatibility .If we are going for a ground up complete re-write this is no longer a valid consideration is it?

Apart from 40k
All the other war games I am aware of use one of those three basic game play types to build the strategic and tactical loading in the rules.
And they all have clearly defined , concise and intuitive rules as a result.

Therefore as this seems to be the proven method for writing clearly defined, concise and intuitive war games, adopting it for a new 40k war game rule set would seem prudent.

Epic uses a different scale of minatures. But the game size and scope is similar to the current 40k game size and scope.

I agree that you can not abstract the resolution to one dice per unit because of the model scale in 40k. But detailed unit interaction can be covered by rolling a D6 per model, if more suitable resoluion methods are used.

Because of the imbalance between shooting and close combat ,since 3rd ed when to hit mods were removed.
40k has had buffed assault editions, (that seem more like fantasy combat) and then buffed shooting editions (that seem more like high sci fi combat.)
Never fixing the core problem, just adding bloat to the rules....

@jade_angel.
An interesting topic.I am glad you brought it up.

If the range of results is naturally covered by a dice roll.Then always fail on the lowest result, and /or always succeed on the highest result.Does not abstract the interaction too much.

However, as you point out the wide range of weapons and units found in 40k may make this level of abstraction too severe.

I suppose its a question of do you want proportional results and a wide variety of tactical options.In a more complex game play.
Or do you want a more abstract less complex game play where dice rolls are more important?

In regard to the question of absurd results, in the case of a single resolution method where if you always allow for a chance for the firer to hit (or miss) the target, you MUST allow for a chance for the firer to wound(or fail to wound) the target...

Yes, there might be absurd results. But I think they'd be pretty damn minimal when it comes down to it, especially if the resolution method takes into account what would make a result absurd and mitigates it as much as possible - Having a 1/6 chance with every shot that your lasgun causes noticable damage to a Landraider is clearly too high, but what about a 1/36 chance? What if that chance is lowered even further by rolling against a Landraider's Armor (which would seem like a natural inclusion in the system that Lanrak seems to envision, in which the division between vehicle and infantry resolution methods is thrown out)?

Ask Martel about the likelihood of success when firing lasguns or bolters at a FnP Riptide. I dare you. You'll find out that what is undeniably a chance to do harm is effectively an incredibly low chance requiring such masses of incoming firepower that the absurdity of the harm is not actually that relevant.

But we need not consider a 1/6 chance to-hit or to-wound as the absolute bottom of the barrel, in the same way the current game system doesn't consider a 5/6 chance to-hit or to-wound as the absolute maximum chance to do either, because re-rolls are a thing. This is explicitly so with our current to-hit chances based on BS alone - once you go to BS 6, you start allowing re-rolls to hit (with a severely diminished return per BS increase).

Why couldn't this apply on the other end when using a comparative success table, but forcing successful rolls to re-roll (with slowly diminishing chances to succeed on the re-roll)?

Imagine a single resolution table in which you compare your offensive stat to the opponent's defensive stat, starting with a resolution mimicking the to-wound table for values within 2 of each other - if your O stat is equal to their D stat, you roll on a 4+. if O is 1 or 2 higher than D, 3+ or 2+ respectively. If O is 1 or 2 lower than D, 5+ or 6+ respectively. But what about other values?

When O is 3 or more higher than D, you could allow rerolling failed rolls, starting with a success on a 6+ for 3 higher, 5+ for 4 higher, 4+ for 5 higher, etc. You could even include a "this is truly absurd that they miss/fail to wound/whatever" scenario for when O is 8 or more higher than D: Automatic success.

The same could work in reverse. When O is 3 or more lower than D, you start forcing rerolls on the successful roll, starting with a 2+ for 3 less, 3+ for 4 less, 4+ for 5 less, etc., all the way down to automatically missing/failing on 8 or more less than D.

This would almost certainly subject targets that are currently entirely immune from some weapons to become vulnerable (albeit at lasgun-firing-at-FnP-Riptides levels), but it wouldn't be so in an unlimited way. It would also allow mean that some shots become truly impossible instead of merely unlikely (An Ork firing at something with an Evasion of 10).

The situations where true absurdity become problematic are really quite low.

Changing the 8+ or 8- results on the table to merely keeping the 2+/2+ and 6+/6+ respectively would similarly occur very infrequently, and so would also limit truly absurd situations to being exceptionally improbable.


But the real thrust is that we are playing a game pregnant with abstraction - the distances moved, the number of shots fire per roll, the effect of a weapon being stopped or not stopped by armor/force fields/cover... So many things already require abstraction, and the abstraction needed to keep this game from being entirely unwieldy as a gaming system is going to inevitably include absurd results.

The question is NOT whether a potential system will include absurdity, but rather whether the inevitable absurdity of a system's resolution method is sufficiently low in comparison to the benefits that a faster/better/easier universal resolution method can provide.

I'm of the opinion that the benefits often outweigh the costs, and I'm willing to allow my Ta'unar to suffer death-by-a-thousand-flashlights, even if that seems slightly absurd on its face, if the entirety of gameplay follows a single resolution method (and is rebalanced for that method).

No matter how you move resolution around for the D6, you are still halving efficacy when you go from needing a 5+ to 6+. This doesn't happen on a D10 until you get to 9+ -> 10+.

So even if trash the AP system, we can get even MORE proportional results by using a D10. But it seems like most people favor the D6. This being the case, I'd rather roll 2D6, but that also causes problems as has been noted.

I would never replace blasts and templates, either, because they punish sloppy play.

Although I would agree that templates add that positioning element to the game, it's such a pain to have to break out the templates and there's always arguments of ''so that scatters here, little more that way, little further...'' ''now that hits 8, wait 9. Perhaps even 10? 7 you say?''
It's not as big of a problem in friendly play, when I don't care if he moves the scatter perpendicular to where the dice points and sees double when counting, but in more competitive play/TFG that gets irksome.

I believe AoS these kinds of weapons are like D6 hits or something?
Maybe make it 1D6/2D6/whatever hits, cannot exceed the number of models in the target unit. Maybe just that many shots, rolling to hit as normal.

Moving over to D10s would be a serious logistical issue. Although perhaps 40k would be a major driving force in the D10 economy? But still, at the very least the game would shut down for a couple days while everyone ordered the dozens of dice that would be required.
D6 may have it's flaws, but I think we just might be stuck with it, not to mention GW has all those stocks of fancy dice.

I would really love an evasion type stat and comparative ranged to-hit rolls.

Lanrak wrote:
@Charistoph
The fine detail of the technology used is immaterial to the way modern warfare is waged.
If you go back to the 1920s and look at the level of technology, compared to today.The difference is mind boggling. But the basic tactical and strategic concepts hold true.

Not really. In some cases it was due to ignorance and in some cases it was due to technology allowing things that have never been done before. For example, Bltzkrieg would be almost unsupportable in 1920, as vehicles couldn't move fast enough, and aircraft was still learning how to do things. Today, while the US took some basic parts of Blitzkrieg in Desert Storm in to play, the concepts of precision weapons and things like the B-52, AH-64, and A-10, M1A1 played huge dividends in how that operated to which would could not have been considered by Rommel, von Brauchitsch, or Göring.

While some basic concepts still will apply, technology or enemy habits occasionally change completely how things work. The bayonet charge is something that will not happen in this modern age but was a standard practice in the biggest war 1920 knew, but if we could field a Company of Infantry that could effectively ignore small arms, a version of it may come back in to play.

Lanrak wrote:
My point stands that the rules of a war game are written based on unit function, NOT what the minatures look like.

I disagree, to a point. As an example, take what you can do with an Infantry unit in 40K or Warmahordes, and then consider what you can do with it in Epic, Dropzone, Planetfall, or even Heavy Gear. If you think the level of scale does not impact a game, you are deluding yourself. The more a single Infantryman can be easily recognized on a game board, the less abstract their functions have to be and the more rules you CAN attach to them.

If you are referring to my classification of 40K as Space Fantasy, I already explained that it is not just at this level which it applies. It is just more recognizable at this level than at Epic or BFG.

Lanrak wrote:
As war games are a functional document, instructing the player how the game works with the minimum of fuss.Having a clearly defined scale and scope is important.

No argument there, but it is obvious that what you think is clearly defined and important does not match everyone's. A game can be as simple as Checkers or more complex than D&D. In order to get some certain nuances a model/unit they wanted to include, they had to go the route they wanted. There is a point where you want a unit to do X, but the basic rules cannot include them. They wouldn't be needed in Epic, because Epic does not care about things on an individual model's scale like 40K does. Things like how Characters operate for example.

Lanrak wrote:
Inspiring short term sales of plastic bitz, just needs inspiring art and narrative.And as this is how 40k appears to be 'developed' it has no clear game play design or direction.

Actually, I think GW is developed by what sounds cool to someone who has a pint or two in them, and then written with the same considerations for anything else.

Lanrak wrote:
'Space fantasy' would be a game where for what ever reason , close combat trumped ranged combat.(May be a Jedi Knight vs Sith light sabre battle.)

Why? Where has this been exclusively defined as such? A battle between rebel troops and stormtroopers, or clone troopers and droids, with no force users around would play out like Tau versus Necrons. It still doesn't change how powerful these armies are nor the fact that the 40K is still a Space Fantasy game (Star Wars is noted as Space Opera, by the way).

Lanrak wrote:
I know GW write rules to try inspire collectors to collect more GW stuff.This is however not the way a war game focusing on clarity brevity and elegance is written.
As Rick Priestley put it '..more of a sales promotion department for a toy company, than a game design studio..'And I defer to his superior knowledge of GW plc.

Don't just name drop, where and when is he noted as saying this?

I should note that he hasn't worked for them in at least 6 years. Things can change in that time. Not to mention, it's not like this is really any different than what 40K has always been.

Lanrak wrote:
So GW threw away Armour Save Modifiers. All though far from perfect they did give more proportional results.
And replaced it with the AP system that abstracts the actual resolution, throws proportionality under the bus, and messes up any chance of improving game balance.

I disagree on messing up any chance of improving game balance, but it does make it more challenging. FB wasn't much better in that regard, either, as soo many things could do the same thing without much modification. Armor really wasn't very good in FB aside from a few Characters with some exotic upgrades.

Lanrak wrote:
If WHFB in space does not fit the intended game play of 40k.Why use WHFB based stat line, game mechanics, and resolution methods?
The ONLY reason is backward compatibility .If we are going for a ground up complete re-write this is no longer a valid consideration is it?

But to go back to the D6 argument, if it works now or can work, why replace it? This is part and parcel of how this discussion began, after all. You have proposed moving stats, but they are still there. You then want to add a stat to be used in a definition which is already applied to another stat's.

Lanrak wrote:
Apart from 40k
All the other war games I am aware of use one of those three basic game play types to build the strategic and tactical loading in the rules.
And they all have clearly defined , concise and intuitive rules as a result.

Then you really have not played very many war games. Aside from Chess, most I have played or read the rules of are either too simple to properly represent some of the capacities of the system or they are muddled down with abstractedness which messed with either conciseness or intuitiveness. In fact, aside from games like Risk and Chess, I cannot think of any game which can complete that triumvirate and be fun for me to play. Every game misses a few things here and there, and you are deluding yourself if you think you can do it.

Lanrak wrote:
Epic uses a different scale of minatures. But the game size and scope is similar to the current 40k game size and scope.

No, it is not. Most of the Epic game boards I have seen would be closer to an Apocalypse game than 40K. A standard 40K game of 1850 points would look like a Getting Started box for Epic, and that doesn't even consider the amount of area they are operating on. It's like comparing Civilization with Dawn of War.

Lanrak wrote:
I agree that you can not abstract the resolution to one dice per unit because of the model scale in 40k. But detailed unit interaction can be covered by rolling a D6 per model, if more suitable resoluion methods are used.

I rather disagree because of the weapons involved. Reducing everything to 1 D6 per model, especially when it comes to Attacks, misses out on a lot of that "modern combat" feel that you are trying to secure. Let's face it, there is a huge difference in the tactics and firepower one will apply if they are using a Gewehr 98 vs if they had a M16, M4, or an M60.

Hi folks.
Perhaps It might be a good idea to clarify my reasons for starting this thread.As it may help people understand where I am coming from and hopefully going to with it.

Back at the end of 5th ed 40k, (Late 2011, through to early 2015.)

The game devs at GW towers 'leaked ' the play test ideas for the new 6th edition 40k .
These seemed to be addressing the core issues of the 40k game play, rather than just pandering to larger models/higher model counts.
(The sales driven 'money grab' direction the corporate management actually inflicted on 40k 6th edition.So bad they had to release a new edition of 40k in just 2 years to prop up falling sales!)

I had a 'what if..' idea. I thought might be fun to investigate.

What if Tom Kirby took ill ,(Just for a short while ,so he was out of the way until the release of 6th edition had happened.)
And all the corporate management went into a bit of a panic.

And let the GW game developers actually focus on a re write of 40k.
Where the intended game play of 5th edition 40k became the driving force behind the new ground up re write of the 40k rules.

At this point I would assume that J.J. would be talking to R.P. and others about the chance to 'put right the rules' for the game they all are passionate about...
And they decided that the 5th edition game was big enough for standard games.(And Apoc would remain an expansion for higher game for those that like that sort of thing..)
And looking at how well the rules for Epic Armageddon fit the 40k universe, they decide a 'modern warfare' based game play was the way to go.

And as a new member of the game development team you were invited to help '..sort this mess out and arrive at a well defined concise and elegantly written war game rule set for 40k...'

I would like this thread to talk about the basic elements of the current game play would like to keep in this type of ground up re write.

I am not asking how you want to fix the current rule set.Or if you want to take the 40k rules in a different direction.(There are lots of other threads discussing these topics. )

Some posters seem to understand the intent of this thread already.
But other seem a bit confused.So I thought it may be beneficial to clarify it a bit more.

@Unusual Suspect.
I would prefer a system with proportional results that cover all units.
And that auto success and auto fail happen at the intuitive end of the spectrum of results.
(Eg the las gun AP 2 can not hope to penetrate the Land Raider Armour AV 10.The Land Raider saves on a 1+)

However, limited re rolls to allow lucky shots is a simple game mechanic we could use.(The 'Exploding dice' method works well in many games. )

@kirotheavenger.
Would you say its just the 'faffing about' positioning and scattering of blasts and templates that is the main issue with using templates?
Would addressing the ' placement process', be a more acceptable option than replacing the blasts and templates with a random number of hits?

@Charistoph.
Basic tactical and strategic concepts, are not specific tactical doctrines adopted by a particular forces with specific technology level are they?

As 40k 5th edition was clearly a war game based on unit interaction.The the rules for this size of war game is based on unit interaction.

Referring to skirmish games where the focus is individual model interaction, (Infinity , Urban War SST, Fast and dirty, Stargrunt II,No Limits, 2nd ed 40k etc.)
These are going to have different interactions to game where the infantry units are small 'blob squads'' on a base.(Epic, Dirtside, Battletech,Heavy gear, Drop Zone Commander etc.)

This is one of the core disconnect with the 40k battle game .The minature scale is the same as a detailed skirmish game.But the game size is that of a 15mm or smaller battle game.
So using 'conventional' skirmish rules slows the game down too much.And using 'conventional' battle game rules does not provide enough detailed interaction.

The current 40k rule set bodge of using a horrible mix of both, means some elements are micro manged, and other are macro manged.So player are hit with a bewildering level of disconnect at every turn.(Compared to war game rules with specific game play focus.)

I have found games like X-Wing ,Space Hulk , Blood Bowl etc.Are brilliant fun when sober and slightly drunk.

I am aware the topic of this thread may not mach every ones opinion on how 40k should be developed .
But it is my thread and I think investigating this direction would be interesting. If you do not agree , that is absolutely fine.

I paraphrased the actual interview a bit here is what was actually said by Rick..

''Bryan Ansell pretty much kept the creative part of the business separate from the manufacturing and sales part. Bryan was a very creative and ideas driven man – I don’t think he’d mind me saying that – he always wanted to make great games with interesting mechanics and stimulating ideas – and he didn’t mind investing in creative staff. He was a real patron of the studio and took a real interest in all the models and artwork. Bryan always said that if the studio ever had to mix with the manufacturing and sales part of the business it would destroy the studio. And I have to say – he wasn’t wrong there! The modern studio isn’t a studio in the same way; it isn’t a collection of artists and creatives sharing ideas and driving each other on. It’s become the promotions department of a toy company ''

I would urge you to look at Rogue Trader and 2nd edition 40k . if you think 40k has always been the same.

The all or nothing nature of the AP system does completely remove proportional results.And with out proportional results how do you achieve game balance?
My dudes in 2+ armour are worth 67pts each vs army ''X'' with limited AP 2 weapons.
But are only worth 23pts vs army ''Y'' with lots of AP 2 weapons.

If we cost my dudes in 2+ armour at the average cost 45pts. They are over costed vs one army , and under costed vs another. If you use the term 'challenging' to mean 'impossible' then we agree.

Having clearly defined game play ,scale and scope, simply makes picking the games you want to play much easier.
(Just because I am not interested in a games play style does not mean I can not appreciate now well written the rules are. )

All games have a different target audience, and so appeal to different gamer types.
Some people like the 'cinematic ; feel of Flames of war.Others prefer the more historical based Battle Group rules.And complete rivet counters love Firefly II.

There is not perfect war games rule set. Just the war games rule sets that are perfect for you.(Most abstract a bit in some areas, that does not mean they are bad games, just game that are not for you if you want more detail in these areas.)

My point is you can not abstract interaction to roll a dice per unit like you can with 'blob squad' games.
When the minatures used are large and detailed as they are in 40k .Players expect to roll dice for each minature not per unit.
(Discussing how we model higher rates of fire in the game is for much later in the discussion IMO. )

Lanrak wrote:
The game devs at GW towers 'leaked ' the play test ideas for the new 6th edition 40k .

Are you referring to the pancake edition which was made up by someone unrelated to GW?

Lanrak wrote:
@Charistoph.
Basic tactical and strategic concepts, are not specific tactical doctrines adopted by a particular forces with specific technology level are they?

Then you missed the point. What may seem basic to you is untennable in another situation. What we consider basic tactics and strategic concepts are largely based on the capabilities we can bring to the combat. An approach being handled by a modern breach team would not be the same approach that was used to clear a building in WWI, WWII, or Vietnam. Part of it is tactics we've learned over the decades, but also because we developed different technologies to accomplish the task which allowed us to change our approaches to those situations, such as the flashbang.

Lanrak wrote:
As 40k 5th edition was clearly a war game based on unit interaction.The the rules for this size of war game is based on unit interaction.

And still is. But there is also the desire for individual model interactions in the system as well. Such as allowing individual models to carry equipment different from the rest, Characters, and Independent Characters.

Lanrak wrote:
Referring to skirmish games where the focus is individual model interaction, (Infinity , Urban War SST, Fast and dirty, Stargrunt II,No Limits, 2nd ed 40k etc.)
These are going to have different interactions to game where the infantry units are small 'blob squads'' on a base.(Epic, Dirtside, Battletech,Heavy gear, Drop Zone Commander etc.)

This is one of the core disconnect with the 40k battle game .The minature scale is the same as a detailed skirmish game.But the game size is that of a 15mm or smaller battle game.
So using 'conventional' skirmish rules slows the game down too much.And using 'conventional' battle game rules does not provide enough detailed interaction.

That's because it was and is not meant to fit YOUR tightly bound definitions. It is a hybrid meant to handle situations where teams exist and most of the interactions revolve around them (unit interactions), but individual model actions are recognized and have an affect. It is not meant to be Epic any more than it is meant to be Infinity. It is meant to straddle that area that is in between. You do not seem to want to accept that as you certainly do not seem to be taking it in to account in your judgements.

Lanrak wrote:
The current 40k rule set bodge of using a horrible mix of both, means some elements are micro manged, and other are macro manged.So player are hit with a bewildering level of disconnect at every turn.(Compared to war game rules with specific game play focus.)

It may be a horrible mix of both, but that is not because of what its trying to do, but rather drunks are writing rules.

Lanrak wrote:
I have found games like X-Wing ,Space Hulk , Blood Bowl etc.Are brilliant fun when sober and slightly drunk.

But were you writing a whole ruleset based on being drunk while doing it?

Lanrak wrote:
I would urge you to look at Rogue Trader and 2nd edition 40k . if you think 40k has always been the same.

I never did say it has always been the same. I seem to remember pointing out that changes have happened, but more that some of these things have not changed in 19 years and it has worked pretty well so far. If nothing else, Movement is consistent and easy to remember, making it more obvious when someone is cheating.

Lanrak wrote:
The all or nothing nature of the AP system does completely remove proportional results.And with out proportional results how do you achieve game balance?
My dudes in 2+ armour are worth 67pts each vs army ''X'' with limited AP 2 weapons.
But are only worth 23pts vs army ''Y'' with lots of AP 2 weapons.

If we cost my dudes in 2+ armour at the average cost 45pts. They are over costed vs one army , and under costed vs another. If you use the term 'challenging' to mean 'impossible' then we agree.

Not really. It then comes about making those AP 2 Weapons either rare and/or dangerous along with low rates of fire per turn. Which we were at before 5th Edition.

Considering which, 5th edition vs 6th edition AP. Melee Weapons either allowed an AS or completely ignored it. 6th Edition actually allowed for some variance in that capacity. So, it sounds like 5th Edition really is what screwed the game over in many areas.

Lanrak wrote:
There is not perfect war games rule set. Just the war games rule sets that are perfect for you.(Most abstract a bit in some areas, that does not mean they are bad games, just game that are not for you if you want more detail in these areas.)

Correct, but your statements have presented the concept that it is possible. 40K just seems to rub your sensibilities and desires raw.

Lanrak wrote:
My point is you can not abstract interaction to roll a dice per unit like you can with 'blob squad' games.
When the minatures used are large and detailed as they are in 40k .Players expect to roll dice for each minature not per unit.
(Discussing how we model higher rates of fire in the game is for much later in the discussion IMO. )

You could, but at 40K's scale, it is counter-productive. More to the point, 40K has avoided that, aside from points where they desired random movement. I don't even know why you bothered to bring it up.

My first instinct is to say I would keep nothing from the current rules set, but then we wouldn't have 40K would we?

I think at the most basic, a ground up 40K would need to keep a Characteristic/Statistic comparison to derive a roll for success on a d6 die. This, at the core, is what makes the game Warhammer as opposed to some other system.

That being said, lots of the game needs to change. The rules have crept so far from where they were back in 4th Edition. Remember the days when a Chaplain with Jump Pack and a squad of Assault Marines were a good unit? Remember when the only common rerolls were Twin-Linked Weapons, Hatred, and Litanies of Hate?

@Charistoph.
I will simply assume I am unable to communicate with you in a way you can understand.Or you are so fixed in your opinion , that no matter what I post you will simply argue with it.In either case it is not productive for me to continue to respond to you.

I will try show why I think 40k is better suited to a modern war fare focused set of game mechanics and resolution methods.

In video this is what I think 40k 5th ed looks like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-E1RcRvny8

Is this closer to Ancient to Napoleonic warfare?(What WHFB regiments actually represent.1 model= multiple combatants.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vlcuvrM1po

Or a modern type warfare, where efficient ranged weapons mean a large group of infantry is a target rich environment.(Graphic volience warning...)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuaSi-H0oGY

@alextroy.

I think at the most basic, a ground up 40K would need to keep a Characteristic/Statistic comparison to derive a roll for success on a d6 die. This, at the core, is what makes the game Warhammer as opposed to some other system.

I agree,

I got the impression that 4th and 5th ed 40k had at their core a good game play concept.But the rules got in the way of the game play sometimes.
And because 4th and 5th ed 40k had a majority player group that could agree on what the game play should be,the game worked better, IMO.

6th edition and 7th edition 40k are mainly aimed at collectors who do not play or do not care about the rules that much.

@All.
GW plc are quite within their rights to pick their own target demographic from the potential customer base.And if you are happy with GW plcs version of 40k, that is great , you have everything you want,(Or can house rule to get it.)

But I am just wondering what a 40k written for gamers might look like.(Focusing on game play not short term minature sales.)
What would be different, and what would remain the same...

5th ed had its problems for sure. Wound allocation shenangians. Grey Knights. Space Woofs. The magic vehicle damage table where infinte shakens were the rule.

Lanrak wrote:
@Charistoph.
I will simply assume I am unable to communicate with you in a way you can understand.Or you are so fixed in your opinion , that no matter what I post you will simply argue with it.In either case it is not productive for me to continue to respond to you.

Conversely, you seem to not understand or care for what I state since you do not seem to address them with anything but your preconceptions and trying to fit 40K in to something it isn't.

Lanrak wrote:
I will try show why I think 40k is better suited to a modern war fare focused set of game mechanics and resolution methods.

In video this is what I think 40k 5th ed looks like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-E1RcRvny8

Is this closer to Ancient to Napoleonic warfare?(What WHFB regiments actually represent.1 model= multiple combatants.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vlcuvrM1po

Or a modern type warfare, where efficient ranged weapons mean a large group of infantry is a target rich environment.(Graphic volience warning...)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuaSi-H0oGY

As I said, it is a mix of the two, something you do not seem to want to accept because you want to pigeon-hole it. The reason for that mix is that some armies prefer to fight using more ancient/napoleonic tactics (Orks and Tyranids), some prefer to use our modern tactics (Necron, IG, and Tau), while others have units that prefer to operate in one or the other (Eldar) or can fight almost equally well in either atmosphere (Space Marines in all their colors). And I think part of the problem is you are confusing some things that mark a type of combat, but a style of game as noted to your references for each style.

Yes, WHFB could be considered either a more representative state ala Epic, but it could also be considered a 1:1 representative state, depending on the preference of view of the players. Same could apply to 40K, but most people prefer to view 40K on a 1:1 basis exclusively.

Where I see napoleonic/ancient combat is more about bringing a press of soldiers in to melee. Ranged fire is used to make it that press more successful, one way or another. Orks and Tyranids are designed around this.

Modern Combat is about making firing lanes. Flanking to remove cover and using armor and cover to ensure your troops survival is all part and parcel of that. Necrons, IG, and Tau operate along this method.

All Eldar armies operate on a mix of this, depending on the units purchased. They have melee units which prefer the press and ranged units which prefer to operate with fire lanes and cover.

The multitudinous Space Marines, however, operate on a different concepts. Their ranged units may prefer to use cover and firing lanes, but can handle themselves in the press of combat. Their melee units will prefer the press, but can handle a firefight (with rare exception and limitations).

So, 40K is that strange hybrid that Space Fantasy provides, allowing one to use either set of tactics and concepts to fit what the units are designed to use.

Now, I am not saying GW does a good job of representing this with the rules they write. Too often an edition will favor one approach over another, making those who dedicate themselves to one factor have difficulties. In addition, they often do not care for their rules' interactions. They then swing a pendulum of balance, making things worse as time goes on.

@Martel732.
I agree that every edition of 40k had an obvious issue that needed fixing.It was almost like the game devs left something so broken in the rules,so they had an easy fix to justify the next edition.
(This is not evident in any game written by the davs out side of the influence of GW sales. )

@All.
Some people still do not seem to understand what a 'basic concept' is.

There are three basic types of vehicle.
Those that fly in the sky, those that float across the sea, and those that drive across the land .

If you want to make a ''sea plane'', a airplane that can land and take off on water.
You simply modify the fuselage(hull) of an airplane to achieve this slightly different design function.The end result looks like a cross between a boat and a airplane.

You do not start off with a deep sea trawler and slap some wings on it. It looks like a cross between a boat and airplane , but this one will not fly. .

Basic resolution methods.
As the majority so far seem to except that keeping the D6 , and making better use of opposed stats in a table to give the D6 result required for success.
Is a reasonable place to start with the new rule set resolution methods.Along with direct representation for distances in inches, the number of dice rolled etc.
I think we could move on to other topics...

The game turn,
What are you views on keeping the action phases, but using them in an alternating phase game turn.(Similar to A.O.S.)

Blasts and templates.
As some of my gaming friends are disabled, I am not heavily into guessing ranges, for obvious reasons. I also agree that faffing about scattering the blasts /templates just slows the game down.

Suggestions ...
For indirect fire, why not just roll to hit , with a +2 modifier to targets Evasion stat.
If the attacker rolls over the score needed , the attacker places the blast/template over the target unit.
If the attacker rolls exactly the score needed , the defender places the template over their unit.

A failure to roll an accurate to hit score for indirect fire means the shot is not fired.(Wasting ammunition , or not having a clear target definition are resons you could use to explain this .)

For direct fire , do you prefer to just replace the 3" and 5" blasts with D3 or D6 hits?

I wouldn't mind seeing an alternate-phases setup, though for the sake of having an intelligible phase, I wouldn't want to see alternating WITHIN a phase. I move all my units, you move all your units, I shoot all my units, you shoot all your units, etc.

But if its "I move a unit, you move a unit, etc., etc." I think you'd just end up confusing things more.

I don't know what AoS's system is like, so you'd need to be more specific/clear about that.

Blasts and Templates:

For someone so adamant about making the game more streamlined and consolidating resolution methods, it kinda boggles my mind that you're considering keeping two separate resolution methods for Blast weapons (edit: that is, having blast markers for indirect weapons and d3/d6 for direct - if you intended one or the other, then never mind).

On the choice between having d3/d6 hits versus placing a template... For nostalgia's sake, I'd probably prefer the template (and before Martel has a chance, yes, it would also work better to "punish" poor model placement choices), but for ease of mechanics sake, I'd prefer the d3/d6 method. Actually, I'd prefer the d3/2d3 method (I like bell curves more than linear distributions).

Your proposed alternative methods for Indirect Fire confuse me. Add the additional Evasion stat, then apply d3/2d3 wounds on success, nothing on a failure.

How about for the 7" and 10" and Apocalyptic blasts? 3d3/4d3, and d3/d3/d3 per profile?

Would you be able to choose up to 2 or 3 units that are within 6" of each other, and apply 1 or 2d3 to each unit, to represent the ability for such sized markers to cover multiple units previously?

How about something completely different: Barcodes or RFID tags on the base which gives the model’s stats and Reader Apps for Smart Phones which can read the model’s stats and calculate odds. You can have all kinds of info on the code/tag possibly including facing, but the machine/program can do all the calculations instantly to generate the “To Hit, and “To Save” numbers based on the Target Units Armor type and the Weapons’ AP value based on a stats comparison but instead of looking-up the stats and cross referencing on a chart all that stuff is done by the machine/app. You can even tag cover/terrain and include that in the calculation. You can program it to use a D6 or a D10, or a D whatever. You can even go the next step and have the machine/program do a “dice roll” with a random number generator, if you want, but I think most players would still want to roll the dice.

Thirdeye wrote:
How about something completely different: Barcodes or RFID tags on the base which gives the model’s stats and Reader Apps for Smart Phones which can read the model’s stats and calculate odds. You can have all kinds of info on the code/tag possibly including facing, but the machine/program can do all the calculations instantly to generate the “To Hit, and “To Save” numbers based on the Target Units Armor type and the Weapons’ AP value based on a stats comparison but instead of looking-up the stats and cross referencing on a chart all that stuff is done by the machine/app. You can even tag cover/terrain and include that in the calculation. You can program it to use a D6 or a D10, or a D whatever. You can even go the next step and have the machine/program do a “dice roll” with a random number generator, if you want, but I think most players would still want to roll the dice.

This is a totally infeasible idea for numerous reasons:

1. Completely removes the ability to use custom or converted models.
2. Handcuffs your analog game system to digital software, removing a main benefit of tabletop gaming.
3. Since dice resolution and unit interaction are now digital, most players will wonder why the entire game doesn't just go digital.
4. Forcing players to stare into their phones or tablets all game defeats the purpose of gaming in-person.
5. Not everyone's devices will be compatible, so players are arbitrarily left out through no fault of their own.
6. Any attempt to monetize such a system will inevitably pile DRM on the software, to prevent players from "logging in" models they don't actually have. This kills any hope of a healthy after-market.

Those are just a few I can think of off the top of my head.

 Xca|iber wrote:


This is a totally infeasible idea for numerous reasons:

1. Completely removes the ability to use custom or converted models.

Not true. There are programs where you can print your own barcodes and program your own RFID Tags. It could be as simple as entering the model type, weapons and gear and the program will send the barcode to your printer or configure your tag.

2. Handcuffs your analog game system to digital software, removing a main benefit of tabletop gaming.

It would still be table-top, just faster and more fun as the program does all the heavy lifting.

3. Since dice resolution and unit interaction are now digital, most players will wonder why the entire game doesn't just go digital.

That day is coming, with VR, but this is just a faster and fun way to play tabletop.

4. Forcing players to stare into their phones or tablets all game defeats the purpose of gaming in-person.

No different than sharing photos or TEXT.

5. Not everyone's devices will be compatible, so players are arbitrarily left out through no fault of their own.

You can make it compatible with most common devices.

6. Any attempt to monetize such a system will inevitably pile DRM on the software, to prevent players from "logging in" models they don't actually have. This kills any hope of a healthy after-market.

The program will allowing you make your own custom barcodes and/or tags.

Those are just a few I can think of off the top of my head.

keep ‘em coming.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
I wouldn't mind seeing an alternate-phases setup, though for the sake of having an intelligible phase, I wouldn't want to see alternating WITHIN a phase. I move all my units, you move all your units, I shoot all my units, you shoot all your units, etc.

Battletech has used a similar method for almost its entire iteration. There are different phases which handle different events: Movement, Shooting Phase, Physical Attack Phase. There are other Phases as well, but are short and tend to deal with some of the Aspects unique to Battletech.

It first starts with an Initiative Phase. This is to determine who Moves first. This is the only time Initiative really matters. Moving first allows you to push where you want to be, but moving second allows you to react to what your opponent did.

Battletech does have Movement alternating per unit, but most of the time, the numbers are small enough not to matter here. All the ground units are moved, and then any aerospace units are accounted for (most aerospace only interact on map once every few turns, unless they go VTOL).

Shooting is done via alternating unit, but it doesn't really matter as all damage is only officially processed at the end of the Phase. So vehicles that explode by that Turn's shooting, can still shoot "after" they explode.

Then comes the Physical Attack Phase which includes Punching, Kicking, Pushing, Ramming, etc. Same as shooting, the results are only official at the end of the Phase.

Then comes the Heat Phase (only applicable to Battlemechs and aerospace fighters) which can cause 'Mechs to power down or explode.

Then the Turn is resolved.

I have always liked this process as it doesn't hurt you too much that Phase for bad positioning like 40Ks and WarmaHordes IGOUGO system.

 Xca|iber wrote:
This is a totally infeasible idea for numerous reasons:

1. Completely removes the ability to use custom or converted models.
2. Handcuffs your analog game system to digital software, removing a main benefit of tabletop gaming.
3. Since dice resolution and unit interaction are now digital, most players will wonder why the entire game doesn't just go digital.
4. Forcing players to stare into their phones or tablets all game defeats the purpose of gaming in-person.
5. Not everyone's devices will be compatible, so players are arbitrarily left out through no fault of their own.
6. Any attempt to monetize such a system will inevitably pile DRM on the software, to prevent players from "logging in" models they don't actually have. This kills any hope of a healthy after-market.

Those are just a few I can think of off the top of my head.

Eh...it's actually mostly workable, the only issue is just the barcode thing, which is superfluous anyway. There's no reason you'd need actually scan in what models are shooting at what models, you could program a basic menu to select them from a list, or whatever.


Now, I don't think there's any real need for such a system (perhaps to speed up rolls for some armies like IG under FRSR), but it could be done.

@Unusual Suspect.
I would like to start with basic alternating phases.(I move, you move, I shoot ,you shoot,I assault , you assault.)

I would consider alternating unit movement in the movement phase if it was deemed necessary after play testing.
For example...
If we have all movement happening in the movement phase, (similar to 2nd ed.) And if units are 'locked in assault' when charged in the movement phase.A well timed assault with lots of units could become very overpowering.So in this particular case , alternating unit movement may be a valid option.

I did not make it very clear when I was posting on blasts and templates.

Option 1 ,keep the blast and templates as they are, but just roll to hit like other shots.(BS vs Evasion.).
Roll over the score required to hit , the attacker places the template/blast.(Accurate hit.)
Roll the exact score needed to hit, and the defender places the template /blast .(On target.)
Roll under the score needed to hit, simply means the shot is not fired due to not being able to 'aquire the target' properly.


Option 2.Replace the templates, blast markers with a random number of hits. D3, D6, 2D3, 2 etc.
Roll to hit as normal.(BS vs Evasion.)

Note.
Indirect fire adds +2 to the targets Evasion stat.In both cases.

I am not sure if people are ok with templates, its just the faffing about scattering etc, they do not like.Or If they actually do not like the templates/blasts themselves?

@Thirdeye.
These are the sort of 'customer focus' ideas we could look at much later in the development.(EG after we get the game turn and resoluiotn methods sorted out .)

@Charistoph.
I like the way Battletech modeled 'simultaneous action' by leaving damage resolution to the end of the phase.
Do you think a modified system similar to this could work with 40k?

EG
A shoots, B shoots, then resolve damage.
A assaults then B assaults then resolve damage.

Do you agree some variation on alternating phases , would be a better fit for 40k than alternating game turns?

Lanrak wrote:
@Charistoph.
I like the way Battletech modeled 'simultaneous action' by leaving damage resolution to the end of the phase.
Do you think a modified system similar to this could work with 40k?

EG
A shoots, B shoots, then resolve damage.
A assaults then B assaults then resolve damage.

Do you agree some variation on alternating phases , would be a better fit for 40k than alternating game turns?

Technically speaking, tracking such resolutions have been in place for a long time now. Necrons have had to use such considerations for We'll Be Back and Reanimation Protocols, and one has had to track the such resolutions for Morale Checks in Shooting and Assault Phases.

It would allow for a lot of issues to be reconsidered, such as not wanting to win Assault on your Charge. One would have a chance to Move out range of Shooting, or to make another Charge.

But that really wouldn't be keeping much of 40K for a rewrite, though.

40K Needs to be a faster game. Breaking a turn down into many phases, whether by player or unit does not speed up the game.

Ideally, you would touch a unit once a turn and then not touch it again unless enemy action made it necessary. That would speed up game play as opposed to the current rule where it is possible to touch a unit in 4 different phases.

 alextroy wrote:
40K Needs to be a faster game. Breaking a turn down into many phases, whether by player or unit does not speed up the game.

Ideally, you would touch a unit once a turn and then not touch it again unless enemy action made it necessary. That would speed up game play as opposed to the current rule where it is possible to touch a unit in 4 different phases.

I won't agree on need, some people like the pace it is at. But I do agree that it could be sped up a little. I am in a personal debate about the Assault Phase having the ability to Move in. I don't see the point of keeping Running in the Shooting Phase (it IS rather stupid to split it up), but there is some merits to allowing Assault have its own Movement. It would simplify it by having the Charge being performed and resolved in the Movement Phase, but those would either be well positioned in the turn before, or those who Moved second always having the Advantage to Charge (depending on Turn resolution).

If no Movement is allowed in the Assault Phase (aside from Pile In/Consilidation), then how would one look at the interactions of Jet Pack and Eldar Jet Bikes?

I know some of my local group basically Shoots using 6th Edition rules (i.e. not splitting groups), and prefer to use a WHFB 8th/modified 5th Edition Wound Allocation, in which the peons, non-Special/Heavy Weapon models die first, leaving no reason to keep Look Out Sir or worry about Barrage Sniping. That would also speed things up a little as you don't have to deal with "but this guy was closer", "no, there are more of THAT guy", or the Shenanigans that some armies got away with in 5th Edition (Nob Bikers, I'm looking at you).

One more thing about the Battletech system, one advantage of the Battletech turn system is that all players are involved at all almost all times. The times between their interactions is small, instead of taking the time to get a Little Caeser's Fresh & Ready Pizza or eat a hamburger, it becomes a couple droughts of your drink or a couple bites of snacks between interactions.

@alextroy.
I would argue the current 40k rules are over complicated, and counter intuitive in some cases.

And it is this over complication that slows the game play down.And the counter intuitive results break the immersion in the game play.(W.T.F. moments.)

I think the lack of tactical interaction in the game play of current 40k is also a driver of the rules bloat.As the GW devs seem to want to replace simple tactical options with lots of additional (special) rules.

A slight alteration in the game turn mechanic is not going to effect the speed of game play that much on its own.Its all the over complicated stuff it does away with that speeds up game play.(EG a more interactive game turn removes the need for 'over watch' rules.etc.)
Similarly reducing the number of resolution methods will also speed up game play a bit.
(Less time looking up multiple charts and special rules would speed up game play . )

@Charistoph.
I am aware some people would not play a game of 40k unless it was using the latest official rule released by GW plc.

But a few adventurous souls out there are happy to try out new ideas in games.
If a 40k war game rule set used processes that are familiar to current 40k players in new ways.Maybe it may appeal to some o f these gamers?

Keeping the D6, and opposed stat values to generate the score required to succeed, seem favorable to the majority so far.

I know moving from alternating game turn to alternating phase is quite a big change,But it is still using the phases players are familiar with.

Would performing all 'decisive' movement in the movement phase,(because it is more intuitive,) and 'locking units in assault' .(Similar to 2nd ed where assaults were resolved in the assault phase without any 'move intro assault' in the actual assault phase.)

Be within the bounds of a reasonable change in your opinion?
Or is this concept too far away from the current rules?Are there any issues we could not work around of we were to adopt it?

I think the simultaneous resolution option is worth exploring in more detail.

Lanrak wrote:
@Charistoph.
I am aware some people would not play a game of 40k unless it was using the latest official rule released by GW plc.

But a few adventurous souls out there are happy to try out new ideas in games.

Do not conflate game pace with unnecessary complications. Game pace is determined by the level of detail you are trying to reach. The game pace of a flight of tie fighters is quick in Star Wars Armada, but is pretty much an entire round in X-Wing, for example.

And alternating interactions by Phase (or IN Phase) can affect a person's perceptions of game pace, as one is not waiting too long between times they have to make decisions, roll Saves, or remove models from the board.

Lanrak wrote:
If a 40k war game rule set used processes that are familiar to current 40k players in new ways.Maybe it may appeal to some o f these gamers?

Hence keeping what is know about 40K in a rewrite. This is called Gaming Literacy. Tabletop games do not always use the same concepts and systems across the board because they are not all trying to reach the same level of detail with the same concepts. However, when moving from edition to edition, it is better (in most cases) to use the same or slightly modify the methods one has used in the past.

Lanrak wrote:
Keeping the D6, and opposed stat values to generate the score required to succeed, seem favorable to the majority so far.

I am in favor of it, largely, as it allows for a greater spread of stats. However, for BS, this is turning away from what has been used for almost 20 years now. By changing Shooting from a set value to an opposed, you are introducing a change to 40K Gaming Literacy. Not saying this is bad, but something to be aware of.

Lanrak wrote:
I know moving from alternating game turn to alternating phase is quite a big change,But it is still using the phases players are familiar with.

Would performing all 'decisive' movement in the movement phase,(because it is more intuitive,) and 'locking units in assault' .(Similar to 2nd ed where assaults were resolved in the assault phase without any 'move intro assault' in the actual assault phase.)

Be within the bounds of a reasonable change in your opinion?
Or is this concept too far away from the current rules?Are there any issues we could not work around of we were to adopt it?

I see the advantages of both. On one hand, having Charges in the Movement Phase is great for Press Units as they can just Charge from unit to unit without nearby units being able to successfully move away without proper planning. On the other hand, having Charges still in the Assault Phase would allow for Firing units a chance to escape.

Lanrak wrote:
I think the simultaneous resolution option is worth exploring in more detail.

It has been something I have wanted to try for a while, but I do not have the collection nor the store time to dedicate to testing it for some time.

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

Off hand, my suggestion is try testing each change independent of the other in the context of the current rules and see how they work, rather than combining the whole thing all at once. This allows you to properly gauge the impact and favorability of the individual pieces. Once you have the refined details of each change, then combine what you've learned in one big swoop and test from there.

Thirdeye wrote:

 Xca|iber wrote:


This is a totally infeasible idea for numerous reasons:

1. Completely removes the ability to use custom or converted models.

Not true. There are programs where you can print your own barcodes and program your own RFID Tags. It could be as simple as entering the model type, weapons and gear and the program will send the barcode to your printer or configure your tag.

And who's going to make or convert one of these programs for use with 40k? Anybody can write up a pdf - that's easy to do. But to create software with the capabilities you're talking about, along with a user-interface for entering 40k stats and the like, will take a fair amount of time and effort. Unless you think you can actually line someone up to do that in their free time, and commit fully to hosting/maintaining the software, it's all just vaporware at the moment.

2. Handcuffs your analog game system to digital software, removing a main benefit of tabletop gaming.

It would still be table-top, just faster and more fun as the program does all the heavy lifting.

If the system is so complicated that you need digital software to make the play efficient and enjoyable, then the system is already bad. Unless your point is just to have some optional electronic aids for general ease of gameplay... in which case that's not really the point of this thread. In considering a re-write of the 40k rules, the endeavor should be a system where electronic aids are cool/optional, but never necessary.

3. Since dice resolution and unit interaction are now digital, most players will wonder why the entire game doesn't just go digital.

That day is coming, with VR, but this is just a faster and fun way to play tabletop.

See above. And if you're already going to the trouble of making all game mechanics digital except for model placement, you might as well go all the way and just make a videogame instead.

4. Forcing players to stare into their phones or tablets all game defeats the purpose of gaming in-person.

No different than sharing photos or TEXT.

I don't know who you play with, but I do not stare at photos or texts while I'm playing a tabletop game with someone. That's just rude. The occasional dice-roller is fine in a pinch, but even that gets tiresome when somebody is focused more on their phone than the other person and the table. I mean seriously, you text in the middle of games?

5. Not everyone's devices will be compatible, so players are arbitrarily left out through no fault of their own.

You can make it compatible with most common devices.

Can does not mean will. Even GW with all their resources took forever to make most of their digital products available across platforms. So now your proposal isn't just looking for someone to code all of this, but someone able and willing to develop it in parallel for many different device types. Again, not something everyone is willing to do for free.

6. Any attempt to monetize such a system will inevitably pile DRM on the software, to prevent players from "logging in" models they don't actually have. This kills any hope of a healthy after-market.

The program will allowing you make your own custom barcodes and/or tags.

This is only true assuming we actually get someone on board to do the project. If this system you suggested were implemented by any rational-thinking company, they would absolutely dump DRM on it the first chance they get.

Those are just a few I can think of off the top of my head.

keep ‘em coming.

You should look up the game from a couple of years ago (can't recall the name) that tried to do something just like this - the one with the weird Lucifer model and the whole angels vs daemons vs humans theme. TL;DR: It failed miserably, for all the reasons I just listed.

@Charistoph.
I was trying to argue that the speed of interaction is more negatively effected by over complication in the written rules , than by a slight change in the resolution or game mechanics.

I agree that 'game pace' is important.
But me, me,me, then you, you, you.Does not change the overall pace of a game turn, just the level of interaction to me ,you, me ,you,me ,you.

Comparing two stats on a chart to determine the dice roll required for success is already used in the 40k rules.(It is part of the gaming literacy.)
So revising it to cover ALL combat interaction of ALL units, could be viewed as improving the level of detail covered in the game play, while removing pointless complication from the written rules. This could be seen as a win win by some.

As many people have complained about the lack of interaction in the game turn.(Some gamers feel 'left out of the game play' when its not their turn.Rolling saves and removing casualties is a poor consolation prize.Compared to more frequent tactical interaction.)

With interleaved or alternating phases each player gets to take direct actions against their opponent every phase.If we left casualty removal to the end of the turn it could minimize the requirements for who has the initiative.(As it would model simultaneous interaction.)

Lanrak wrote:
@Charistoph.
I was trying to argue that the speed of interaction is more negatively effected by over complication in the written rules , than by a slight change in the resolution or game mechanics.

Game pace can be affected by over complications, but it can also be affected by under complication, too. I understand that you think that certain aspects of 40K you consider over complicated are not actually that, but rather a deliberate inclusion to represent a certain aspect of warfare, such as rolling for Difficult Terrain.

Lanrak wrote:
I agree that 'game pace' is important.
But me, me,me, then you, you, you.Does not change the overall pace of a game turn, just the level of interaction to me ,you, me ,you,me ,you.

I never said it did. I said the perception of the game length is different. "A watched pot never boils" was never about the mystical ability for observation to slow the boiling ability of water, but that when one focuses too much on one thing, time tends to take on a different values so that a perceived minute may seem to take longer than 60 ticks of a clock. Kind of like a kid in school waiting for recess versus a kid in school taking a difficult, but vital, test. The time may be equally the same in seconds, but the first seems like forever but the latter can seem like never enough time.

Lanrak wrote:
Comparing two stats on a chart to determine the dice roll required for success is already used in the 40k rules.(It is part of the gaming literacy.)
So revising it to cover ALL combat interaction of ALL units, could be viewed as improving the level of detail covered in the game play, while removing pointless complication from the written rules. This could be seen as a win win by some.

True, it can. I was just pointing out that while the mechanic was there, it has not been applied to the BS system before. If you may have noted, I did say it was largely an improvement.

Lanrak wrote:
As many people have complained about the lack of interaction in the game turn.(Some gamers feel 'left out of the game play' when its not their turn.Rolling saves and removing casualties is a poor consolation prize.Compared to more frequent tactical interaction.)

With interleaved or alternating phases each player gets to take direct actions against their opponent every phase.If we left casualty removal to the end of the turn it could minimize the requirements for who has the initiative.(As it would model simultaneous interaction.)

That's why I like how Battletech does it. I personally think that the IGOUGO system is totally borked on this front specifically for those reason.

For an example of 'over complication ' in the written rules, due to an 'abstract over simplification' of function ,I think the way 40k currently handles weapon and armour interaction is a corker.

In WHFB weapons are basic lumps of wood, rock or metal 'swung' or 'thrown ' at basic armour , made of animal hide or metal.

Armour is made up of light or heavy .(6+ or 5+ save.)
A shield adds 1 to the armour save.
A mount adds 1 or 2 to the armour save.

So 6+ save to represent light infantry, (shield or light armour.) All the way to a 2+ save to represent heavy cavalry , (Heavy armnour shield , barded steed.)

This covers all the armour in the game . with the exception of magical items.Similarly a sImple ASM of -1 or -2 covers most weapons in WHFB.

Look at the vast array of technology in 40k weapons and armour. The basic WHFB method simply can not cope with this wide range of values.

These can can be covered by..(Proposed new method.)
1 rule.
Compare the targets AV value, to the weapon hits AP value on a universal resolution chart.To get the score needed to pass an armour save.

OR
Current 40k methods.

1 rule.
Roll over the armour save to pass the armour save.

1 exception.
Unless the AP value of the weapon hit is low enough to cancel the targeta armour save completely.

2 and 3 exceptions.(This would be covered by the to hit roll alteration .But is part of the armour weapon interaction in the current rules.)
Unless the model is in cover when it can get a cover save instead of its armour save.Unless the weapon attacking it ignores cover.

4 and 5 exceptions.
Unless the model has a invulnerable save.(Unless the attacker has a special rule thatr ignores this particular inv save.)

6 exception.
Unless the target is classed as a vehicle , in which case it resolves weapon hits with completely different stats and in a completely different way.

In my preferred rules, they are written to keep exceptions to a minimum.

I would like more detailed unit interaction in the 40k game play.But achieve this by removing over complication from the core rules.

So using a D6 in a more detailed way, in a three stage damage resolution.(That applied to all units.)
Coupled with an alternating phase game turn that modeled simultaneous action.

Might be a good starting point for a '40k war game' rule set.

Is any one opposed to this basic out line of what should be kept in a 40k re write, focusing on game play and tactical interaction?

I don't know, but I've been playing with a d8 based modification of the bolt action rules and it's been a lot of fun. The essential elements are the activation system, and the feeling that there are real tactical choices to be made when doing said activations.

I found the d6 just didn't allow enough viable stats to encompass the differences in 40k units without adding layers to the rules like a separate save roll or complicated weapon profiles.

Edit - one essential thing that separates 40k from many other games I've played is close combat, including bolt action. 40k tries to make close combat an essential part of its system. It's always struggled I think trying to make rules that make it sensible to have sci fi weapons and armor but still somehow have it make sense to run up with a sword and start hacking away. I think you'd lose something of what makes 40k 40k if you didn't put real emphasis on close combat. It's really the only thing that just doesn't feel right using bolt action rules as I am doing.

Lanrak wrote:
For an example of 'over complication ' in the written rules, due to an 'abstract over simplification' of function ,I think the way 40k currently handles weapon and armour interaction is a corker.

In WHFB weapons are basic lumps of wood, rock or metal 'swung' or 'thrown ' at basic armour , made of animal hide or metal.

Armour is made up of light or heavy .(6+ or 5+ save.)
A shield adds 1 to the armour save.
A mount adds 1 or 2 to the armour save.

So 6+ save to represent light infantry, (shield or light armour.) All the way to a 2+ save to represent heavy cavalry , (Heavy armnour shield , barded steed.)

This covers all the armour in the game . with the exception of magical items.Similarly a sImple ASM of -1 or -2 covers most weapons in WHFB.

You forgot Plate Armour (4+ AS) and then Armour modifiers which comes by the Strength of the Attacks (before the Magical Weapons.

But if you think the WHFB system is "less unnecessarily complicated" than 40K, you're crazy because "math is hard". 40K's system is at least "you get it or you don't". That is not complicated and very simple.

Lanrak wrote:
Look at the vast array of technology in 40k weapons and armour. The basic WHFB method simply can not cope with this wide range of values.

These can can be covered by..(Proposed new method.)
1 rule.
Compare the targets AV value, to the weapon hits AP value on a universal resolution chart.To get the score needed to pass an armour save.

OR
Current 40k methods.

1 rule.
Roll over the armour save to pass the armour save.

1 exception.
Unless the AP value of the weapon hit is low enough to cancel the targeta armour save completely.

2 and 3 exceptions.(This would be covered by the to hit roll alteration .But is part of the armour weapon interaction in the current rules.)
Unless the model is in cover when it can get a cover save instead of its armour save.Unless the weapon attacking it ignores cover.

4 and 5 exceptions.
Unless the model has a invulnerable save.(Unless the attacker has a special rule thatr ignores this particular inv save.)

6 exception.
Unless the target is classed as a vehicle , in which case it resolves weapon hits with completely different stats and in a completely different way.

In my preferred rules, they are written to keep exceptions to a minimum.

AP is not an exception. Keep that in mind. Nor is it really complicated.

Also remember that Fantasy also has War Saves and Rejuvenation Saves, which makes your points using them as an example even less effective, as they have even more exceptions in 8th than what you listed in 40K. Such as:
Ward Save OR Rejuv Save, can't use both (sounds familiar).
Rejuv Saves cannot be used against Attacks that are Flaming (sounds like Cover).
Then there are the Magic Spells which deny ALL Saves.

So, your definition of "less complicated" doesn't even stand up in comparison. So, try using a different system that actually could be considered "less complicated".

Lanrak wrote:
I would like more detailed unit interaction in the 40k game play.But achieve this by removing over complication from the core rules.

Well, I just demonstrated that what you perceive as "complication" does not fit that moniker, especially when a system you used for an example is even more complicated and filled with exceptions than the one you are decrying.

@dosiere.
There are at least half a dozen rule sets we have slightly modified, and used 40k minatures with and had a blast with.

However, this thread was discussing what players might want to keep in a ground up re -write of the 40k rules .Focusing on game play with a specific game size , scale and scope.

Every play test using a more interactive game turn has led to more tactical interaction.
However, alternating phase type game play uses familiar phases,in a familiar order.And allows players to take action with entire armies.(So it has more elements of current gaming literacy.)

It also has the benefit of being able to model simultaneous actions in a simple way.(In the basic game turn structure.)
So it removes the need for additional sequencing and/or reaction type rules that still have to be used in an alternating unit activation game turn.

So from a stand point of retaining familiar aspects,(gaming literacy,) and reducing complication in the rules,the alternating phase game turn has a lot going for it.

I really can not see any benefits from moving to a bigger dice size, unless the D6 fails to cover the interaction sufficiently well with more appropriate resolution methods.

@Charistoph.
I am not saying the concept of the rules used in 40k are over complicated.

But the choice of resolution methods and game mechanics means the written instructions on how to play the game are over complicated.In comparison to the way other rule sets are written.

EG
Rule set 'A' has over 400 pages of rules, to cover a set game play at a set level of detail.
Rule set 'B ' has 100 pages of rules , to cover exactly the same set game play , at the same set level of detail.

Therefore rule set 'A' is objectively over complicated in comparison to rule set B.

Analogy.
The simple 'on /off' button is a very user friendly interface.
On a radio they may be one used for power, and perhaps 5 for pre-selected radio stations.

If you only want to listen to 5 radio stations this is the easiest and most user friendly option.

However, if you are travelling long distances, you are soon out of the range of your favorite radio stations.And having to fiddle with the pre set options every few miles makes the on off button much less user friendly.

In this instance a 'tuning dial' is much more appropriate. As you can easily tune the radio in as you move along.And you can quickly find multiple stations , and pick your favorite one.

Its about selecting the most appropriate method to cover the intended function.

Lanrak wrote:
@Charistoph.
I am not saying the concept of the rules used in 40k are over complicated.

But the choice of resolution methods and game mechanics means the written instructions on how to play the game are over complicated.In comparison to the way other rule sets are written.

Considering what you have repeatedly posted, you have presented the concept that 40K rules are both over complicated as well written out in a complicated manner.

Lanrak wrote:
EG
Rule set 'A' has over 400 pages of rules, to cover a set game play at a set level of detail.
Rule set 'B ' has 100 pages of rules , to cover exactly the same set game play , at the same set level of detail.

Therefore rule set 'A' is objectively over complicated in comparison to rule set B.

Which does not apply when comparing WHFB 8th and 40K. Both use large number of pages of rules, with a significant portion provided from a fluff perspective to provide the context and reason for the rule. But they do not quite cover the same set of gameplay and look at replicating a different level of experience, though level of detail could be similar.

A better track would have been to use Mantic's Deadzone system (or would their Warpath system be better?), as that is as close as I can find as a match to the same level of expected army size and level of detail. Infinity is too small in numbers, while Epic, Planetfall, and Dropzone are too zoomed out to do individual Infantry detail.

Though, I don't know how big their book of rules is, actually. Deadzone's Boot Camp downloadable book is about 50 pages once you cut out fluff, pages to write lists on, etc, but also includes stats of certain units and their weapons. I can't remember the size of Dark Vengeance's quick start, book, though, any more than I am aware of how big Deadzone's actual full ruleset is, either (website lists it at 112 pages, but I don't know how inclusive that is) versus 7th Edition's 208 page book which covers rules for a LOT more model types than Mantic provides in its games.

Lanrak wrote:
Analogy.
The simple 'on /off' button is a very user friendly interface.
On a radio they may be one used for power, and perhaps 5 for pre-selected radio stations.

If you only want to listen to 5 radio stations this is the easiest and most user friendly option.

However, if you are travelling long distances, you are soon out of the range of your favorite radio stations.And having to fiddle with the pre set options every few miles makes the on off button much less user friendly.

In this instance a 'tuning dial' is much more appropriate. As you can easily tune the radio in as you move along.And you can quickly find multiple stations , and pick your favorite one.

Its about selecting the most appropriate method to cover the intended function.

And your analogy points out some serious problems with your perspective. You missed out on other important functions and desires as stated in many of the little fluff blurbs associated with many of those rules.

40K was not supposed to be "5 station" simple. That is board game simple. Bringing up the Power button is pointless because that should be on every electrical device.

My car's stock radio has 6 station buttons (some which double as CD controls), a power button in the volume nob, a button to switch bands and preset groups (FM1, FM2, AM1, AM2), a button to switch to or pause the CD, a button for the audio adjustment (L/R, F/B), CD Eject, a scan button, and a tuning lever (looks like two buttons, but setup to rock up and down). 13 controls. My wife has no difficulty using this radio.

Let's compare that to the HD radio I installed in my previous car. A Power button. A multi-purpose nob. A button for SRC (source). A button for Menu. A Button for Back. A four button lever for up/down/left/right (left/right for CD skips). A Disp button (display), a CD Eject Button. A faceplate eject button. An EQ button. 10 controls. My wife could not change the channels after explaining it several times. Yet, I could do far more with all of those multi-purpose buttons than I can do on this stock radio. And that doesn't even consider that the HD Radio is also setup to play MP3, WMA, and connect to iPod, Bluetooth, and satellite radio adapters that the stock radio cannot, nor how much better a receiver it was over all.

It took me about 5 minutes to figure out the stock radio without a manual. It took me an hour to figure out the HD Radio with the manual. User-friendly does not always mean better for the job, and can actually lead to a loss of function, control, fidelity, or adaptability.

@Charistoph.
I have posted that the 'current 40k rules' (as in a set of instructions to play the game,) are over complicated.
I have posted several times that changing the game mechanics , and resolution methods reduces the need to use additional rules.
(And therefore reduces the complication in the written rule set.The 'clarity and brevity' focus on the re write. )

I have never posted that any particular rule had a complicated concept.

However, I may not have been absolutely clear, and that was the reason for my last post.

My analogy was meant to show the difference between simpler interaction in games where roll a 'X+' on a D6 is good enough.
5 buttons that are either on or off.(You have a 'pre set' result represented by the 5 values on a dice .EG save on a 2+,3+,4+,5+ or 6+)

And how counter productive this is if you need to cover a wider range of interaction, and use a method that is too restricted.
(Constantly adjusting the pre sets with modifiers , separate resolution methods and special rules.)

Where as the concept of a'tuning dial' to give finer adjustments , allows the user to get proportional results and allows more direct feed back to the user.
And is much more suitable for use with a much wider band of interaction.

The armour save and limited armour save modifiers work fine with the limited interaction in WHFB.(And a lot of other war games too.)

However the range of units and technology in 40k is too wide for this particular system to cope with.
So replacing it with opposed armour and armour penetration values on a chart to give the save required , allows for a wider range of proportional results to be used.

Both methods are simple concepts, one can cope better with the wider range of weapon and armour interaction in the current game of 40k than the other.


Do you think book ending the game turn with 'start of game phase', and 'end of game phase' is a good idea?

It gives a place for pre movement phase actions to happen, and allows things to be tidied up before the start of the next turn.
I would like to put psychic abilities back into the normal phases. EG models may use a psychic ability in the appropriate phase. (I dont mind having a separate psychic phase if it is needed after playtesting.)

Eg,

'Command' Phase.

Movement Phase

Shooting Phase

Assault Phase

'Rally' Phase.

Do you agree with this basic game turn lay out?

Lanrak wrote:
@Charistoph.
I have posted that the 'current 40k rules' (as in a set of instructions to play the game,) are over complicated.
I have posted several times that changing the game mechanics , and resolution methods reduces the need to use additional rules.
(And therefore reduces the complication in the written rule set.The 'clarity and brevity' focus on the re write. )

I have never posted that any particular rule had a complicated concept.

You just referenced how the Armour Save works a few posts back as being "over complicated".

And I know we have had this out before, but there is "complicated for detail" and "unnecessarily complicated". Many of the examples you specifically trot out usually come with fluff blurbs which define them as "complicated for detail". The less complicated something becomes in a tabletop game, the more abstract it becomes, as referenced by the example of fighters in Star Wars Armada versus X-Wing.

Lanrak wrote:
However, I may not have been absolutely clear, and that was the reason for my last post.

My analogy was meant to show the difference between simpler interaction in games where roll a 'X+' on a D6 is good enough.
5 buttons that are either on or off.(You have a 'pre set' result represented by the 5 values on a dice .EG save on a 2+,3+,4+,5+ or 6+)

And how counter productive this is if you need to cover a wider range of interaction, and use a method that is too restricted.
(Constantly adjusting the pre sets with modifiers , separate resolution methods and special rules.)

Where as the concept of a'tuning dial' to give finer adjustments , allows the user to get proportional results and allows more direct feed back to the user.
And is much more suitable for use with a much wider band of interaction.

The armour save and limited armour save modifiers work fine with the limited interaction in WHFB.(And a lot of other war games too.)

However the range of units and technology in 40k is too wide for this particular system to cope with.
So replacing it with opposed armour and armour penetration values on a chart to give the save required , allows for a wider range of proportional results to be used.

Both methods are simple concepts, one can cope better with the wider range of weapon and armour interaction in the current game of 40k than the other.

Except that before now we were talking about Shooting having an evolved comparison system, not damage resolution. You then referenced a portion of the damage resolution that was more complicated and included more details than you noted that was far more involved AND COMPLICATED than the system in 40K. And all this started when comparing D6 to D10s. You change the goal posts and targets of the conversation without proper segue or notice that you are changing the concepts and ideas you are looking to do. This is what leads to much of the confusions in your presentation.

Lanrak wrote:
Do you think book ending the game turn with 'start of game phase', and 'end of game phase' is a good idea?

Possibly, possibly not. It depends on the needs of the system and the rules you plan on setting out for entire game, both basic and advanced.

It has only become needed in 40K when they stopped having the Movement Phase be the start of the turn, but they still left it rather murky from there. However, it is a good place to do things like Reserves for the Start of the Turn and Falling Back for the End of the Turn, provided a clear delineation is defined and it remains consistent. This is where WarmaHordes processes better than 40K. Even "killing" a model is separated into different stages in the basic rules so that other desired rules could interrupt at desired points to either generate a beneficial affect (Tough) or to prevent one (Snacking). Note, I do not think it needs to be that detailed for 40K, but a little planning and "mapping" is needed so when one reads the Helfrost rule on a Weapon's entry, they know where it comes in to play in regards to Feel No Pain.

Lanrak wrote:
I would like to put psychic abilities back into the normal phases. EG models may use a psychic ability in the appropriate phase. (I dont mind having a separate psychic phase if it is needed after playtesting.)

I am of two minds on this. Witchfires are the only one in which this is actually a problem, for the most part. Previously, almost all others were all in the Movement Phase. What I would do with Psychic Powers is that if left in its own Phase is that Witchfires do not "shoot" automatically, but rather "provide this Weapon" to the Psyker who can then choose to fire it as a normal ranged Weapon.

If a Psychic Phase is presented, I'm not sure it should be after Movement, but there are about as many pros and cons to that as there are to having such a Phase to begin with. If before Movement, one could potentially hinder your opponents units, or you could move your units away from buffed units and towards better targets. If after the Movement Phase, it can become a "gotcha" moment. Good for the Psyker, bad for the other player. However, if after the Movement Phase, it is easier to plan the approach of the Witch and their targets to where they want to apply them.

Lanrak wrote:
Eg,

'Command' Phase.

Movement Phase

Shooting Phase

Assault Phase

'Rally' Phase.

Do you agree with this basic game turn lay out?

It is a good setup and will properly define and delineate everything but the Psychic Phase, unless you want to include that in the Command Phase as well.

HI folks.
Well as we seem to have had quite a long discussion, I thought it might be an idea to post up the basic frame work we could use.Developed from the ideas discussed so far.
Here is the bare bones game turn, with notes on basic resolution to give a general overview.

The game turn.
This clearly defines when and how players interact.EG when the players take specific actions with their units.

'Command' Phase.
This is the 'start of turn' phase, where all actions that are taken before 'player controlled movement ' happens.
EG
Requesting off table support.(Reserves, air or artillery assets.)Some psychic abilities may be used here.Also compulsory movement , like routing units can be done.


Movement Phase .
In the movement phase the play may move their models up to the models mobility value when they take a movement action.
Players alternate moving their units as far as they wish, within the following options..

1)If models do not move at all they can fire more effectively .
Eg They can fire 'Ordnance' weapons, and double the range of 'Rapid Fire' weapons from 12" to 24" when they shoot in the shooting phase.

2)If models take a single movement action.They can only fire weapons that can 'move and fire' in the Shooting phase

3)If models take two movement actions,they can not make any ranged attacks at all.

4)A unit must declare if it charging an enemy unit to initiate an assault.After the assault is declared, the charging unit may take up to two movement actions to get into base to base(hull) contact with the targeted enemy unit.If this happens both units are locked in assault and may not shoot in the shooting phase.

Shooting Phase
Players alternate making range attacks with their units.

To hit score is found by comparing the attackers Shooting skill to the defenders Evasion skill.
The armour save of the defender is found by comparing the Armour value of the defender to the Armour Penetration of the attacking weapon hit.
The damage to the defender is found by comparing the Damage value of the weapon hit to the Resilience of the target.

After all attacks have been resolved casualties are removed.

Assault Phase
Player alternate assaulting with units locked in combat.

To hit score is found by comparing the attackers Assault skill to the defenders Initiative.
The armour save of the defender is found by comparing the Armour value of the defender to the Armour Penetration of the attacking weapon hit.
The damage to the defender is found by comparing the Damage value of the weapon hit to the Resilience of the target.

After all attacks have been resolved casualties are removed.

'Rally' Phase.
This phase is used to tidy up before the next game turn.
Off table support can arrive now and have its effects resolved, before the start of next turn.
Players make morale tests to attempt to lift suppression, or stop a route.

I have changed some stat names to account not biological units, ( Strenght =Damage, Toughness =Resilience)And others to match the phase name.etc.(BS = Shooting skill, WS= Assault skill.)

As attacks are 'simutaneous' initiative is now used directly vs WS(Assault) to determine the chance to hit, rather than the striking order.

I may need to explain this a bit more?

What do you think to this new game turn overview?

It sounds like assault units would be far better off (being able to lock enemy units before they get a chance to shoot at all, and depending on mobility stats, easily getting turn 1 charges).

Would Overwatch still be a thing?

Would Rapid Fire still have double the shots at half range (so if the unit moves, <=6" is 2 shots, <=12" is 1 shot, with 12" and 24" respectively if the unit doesn't move)?

In the shooting resolution, where would Rending come into play? You're rolling the Damage v Resilience (which I'm interpreting as the current S v T or AV equivalent) after you roll through armor.

When you say "After all attacks have been resolved casualties are removed" are you saying that all shooting from all units occurs before any models are actually removed? Is this on a per weapon group, per unit, or per phase basis?

Why use Initiative as the opposed stat for WS, when you've already introduced Evasion (which can be applied more universally without utterly fething over Orks and utterly overpowering high initiative armies like Eldar and SM) as an "I avoid incoming attacks" stat?

Why remove all differentiation between the ability to hit first, simultaneously, or last? Doesn't that remove some serious strategic decisions between giving characters Power swords vs Power Fists vs Relic Blades, or the like?

Generally (for both the Shooting and Assault phases) why are you switching between the Attacker and Defender for rolling on the chart (i.e. the Attacker rolls to hit, the defender rolls on armor, the attacker rolls to wound, rather than the attacker rolls for to hit, armor penetration, and to wound? Give you've already implemented a per-unit activation, and so avoided the "I sit down and do nothing for half an hour aside from rolling armor saves while my opponent takes his turn", why not simplify and consolidate the table to be "active player centric" in all forms? Edit: In essence, given you're already abandoning several legacy issues, and given you've already got both players actively engaging in the game constantly, why not unify the charts and gameplay to be "active player rolls" situation?

Here are my comments:

Command Phase - Looks Good

Movement Phase:
1. Improving shooting of a unit doesn't move should be the exception (Heavy Weapons) rather than the rule for all weapons. You don't want to create incentives for static play.
2. Charges should not preclude all shooting. To reflect 'Assault' weapons and Overwatch and keep assaulting as a easy way to lockdown a good shooting unit, there should at least be the ability for the two units to fire at each other with some weapons at reduced accuracy. Some units (say tanks and monstrous creatures) should be able to ignore an Assault and fire at other targets.

Shooting Phase:
1. See 2 in Movement Phase
2. Given alternating shooting attacks be player, why not have shooting casualties removed immediately. It allows for a sense of initiative and makes the choice of which units you fire with earlier more meaningful.

Assault Phase:
1. Defense Skill, not Initiative. You can be slow to act, but still skilled in defense.

Rally (Resolution) Phase - Looks good.

It would be good to better explain the combat resolution (Hit, Armor, Wound). I am not fully following how it is supposed to work.

 alextroy wrote:

2. Given alternating shooting attacks be player, why not have shooting casualties removed immediately. It allows for a sense of initiative and makes the choice of which units you fire with earlier more meaningful.

In Battletech, all these actions are happening within 11 seconds per turn. It allows for a person who lost the Initiative to have meaningful Shooting without having to be burned by a die roll at the beginning of the game/turn. And Battltech has a chance to trade Initiative every Turn. I don't know if that is Lanrak's intent, but that is the main reason I like it..

There has even been "experimental" rules where a unit could shoot mid-movement (like scooting between buildings), but then they also received shots at the same point they fired, too.

Lanrak wrote:
@Leopard.


I do not intend or suggest using a BS vs BS system
But to give the units a new stat 'Evasion' .This is based on the models size , agility and stealth abilities.

BS vs a new Evasion stat.

So models with jink saves, invisibility, camo cloaks , holo fields etc.Could all show these effects in the new Evasion Stat rather than having to use special rule , and additional rolls.

I was thinking of using WS vs opponents Initiative,If we wanted to model simultaneous resolution with alternating phases. (But that is for another thread perhaps?)

Could use BS vs I, i mean the stat is there to show the speed and reflexes of the model.... so why not use that for the comparison of to hit (a person would be moving fast to dodge those bullets)

Thanks for the replies!

This was just an attempt at looking at how a new rule set might hang together,using some familair concepts.And trying to model simultaneous actions in a simple way.

Ill try to respond to questions in the oreder they were posted.

@Unusual Suspect.

I am trying to balance the assault and shooting effects using the new core rules .The imballance that has been there since 3rd ed.
(When to hit mods were removed in 3rd edition and not replaced with anything, GW just upped the movement rate by about 50%.And allowed 'assaulting' units to move three times, move in the movement phase, run in the shooting phase, and move into assault in the assault phase.And also used special rules to ignore morale from shooting casualties etc.Using Evasion vs shooting reduces the effectiveness of shooting for casualties, but the inclusion of suppression and smoke would increase its tactical effect to compensate.Hopefully. )

As all player controlled movement happens in the movement phase, and the most a model can move is double its mobility value.The only units that can get across the 24" of no mans land in turn 1 are units with a mobility of 12".(Mainly bilkes and some skimmers like Land Speeders.)
IF they are directly in front of the unit they want to charge, with no difficult terrain in the way.And the target unit is deployed exactly on the edge of thier deplotment zone.

So getting a turn one charge with a bike unit, if you opponent has set a unit up to be charged in turn one is possible.
Locking units in assault worked well to balance shooting and assault in the 1st 2 editions of 40k.I would like to play test it in the new rules.

If assault becomes too powerful, we could adjust mobility rates down a bit.(Back to 2nd ed values to compensate?)
Or we could try alternating unit movement between players. EG A,B,A,B,A.B .. rather than A moves everthing them B moves everythiing.

If we are modeling simultaneous actions then over watch is redundant,along with striking order in close combat.
If we assume a game turn is just a few seconds , rather than the 5 to 30 minutes alternating game turns generally represent.

A quick dash followed by a quick burst of automatic gun fire.(Modern warfare.)
Rather than marching for a few minutes to get into fusillade range , and delivering 5 volleys of fire...(Ancient to Napoleonic.)

I mentioned the tactical advantage of remaining stationary, to try to say you can fire weapons that move or fire.(Ordnance.)Or fire further with 'rapid fire' weapons.

The older rules for Rapid fire varied a bit.But generally fire up to 12" if moving.OR fire up to 24" if stationary.
I just generalized fire up to 12" if moving, or double range to 24" if stationary just to show a tactical choice.(Sorry for any confusion caused. )

Shooting resolution for ALL units is;_
Roll to hit.(Compare Shooting vs Evasion.)
Roll to save.(Compare Armour vs Armour Pen.)
Roll to damage.(Compare weapon Damage to target Resilience.)

As each stage of the resolution has a separate value to represent it.Simply adjust the values until they deliver the results we want.
Does 'Rend' still let you roll another dice if you roll a 6 for S vs vehicle hits?Rather than rolling extra dice some times, just give the attack a better AP value.

As all units are comparing AV vs AP to give proportional results for saves. A lot of these add on rules are not needed any more.

I was going with the idea of removing all casualties at the end of the phase.(We used a D10 per unit to mark wounds/damage taken until the end of the phase , when we tried this out in other rules .)

Currently there is no stat to show the size shape and speed of a unit to determine how difficult it is to target at range.So the new rules need a new Evasion stat.

If we are modeling simultaneous action.Initiative is not longer needed to see who strikes first in close combat.As all attacks happen at the same time.

But initiative is currently used to determine who would be likely to hit first in assault.Not who swings first, but who would connect first.

The lumbering Ork swinging wildly vs a swift and agile Eldar Banshee.
Does the Ork stand still while the Eldar Banshee slices him?
Or is it more likely the Banshee doges out of the way of the Orks wild swings, and deftly dispatches the Ork as he lumbers by?

Current abstraction..
Net result Eldar get first blow in and Ork can not strike back if killed..

New proposed rules both Banshee and Ork resolve attacks , the Ork is going to find it harder to hit the Banshee.(Orks hit Banshees on 5+ Banshees hit Orks on 3+)

Weapons that lower Initiative , just make you easier to hit.Rather than hit the opponent last.This is just changing the resolution process slightly, and removing huge swathes of written rules.

As the game turn alternates between the players, alternating the dice rolls between the players seemed like a nice idea to increase player interaction.

With opposed values it is entirely possible to make it attacker rolls in all three stages, or defender rolls middle or last stage.
I am happy to experiment when it comes to play testing to see what feels right.

@alextroy.
As explained higher up, being able to fire' move or fire' weapons is the tactical advantage of remaining stationary.(Along with shooting further with rapid fire weapons.)
Units not armed with heavy/ordnance type weapon gain no benefit from remaining stationary.(Unless we allow units to dig in maybe?)

With more sensible mobility rates , tactical shooting focus,turn 1 assaults are not going to be common.

Assault is not just close combat , but short ranged fire too.(The idea was short ranged shooting was to try to supress the defender while closing, and the defender would try to break up the assault . A simple morale test before the charge is carried out is always an option.)

The idea is with simultaneous actions both side open up with gun fire at the same time.(Over a few seconds of real time.)So both sides take hits as they are shooting .

I am happy to use a different name for the opposed stat to Assault.But is should be based on Initiative.(Original definition of Initiative was how fast to react the model was in close combat.)

I would like to use the universal resolution table to cover all combat interaction for all units.Simply use the appropriate active stat vs the appropriate opposed stat.

Assault.
Assault vs Initiative(Determines the chance to hit.)

Armour vs Armour pen(Deternines the chance to save.)

Damage vs Resiliance.(Determines the chance to wound.)

Shooting.
Shooting vs Evasion(Determines the chance to hit.)

Armour vs Armour pen(Deternines the chance to save.)

Damage vs Resiliance.(Determines the chance to wound.)

@mchammadad .
If all models in 40k were of a similar size.Eg just infantry.This would be fine.But a greater Demon of Khorne, has I 10, and is larger than some vehicles!Let alone a small Ratling sniper I 3.

Because of the massive difference in unit size in 40k , this has to be used as the basic value to oppose BS.

Lanrak wrote:

I am trying to balance the assault and shooting effects using the new core rules .The imballance that has been there since 3rd ed.
(When to hit mods were removed in 3rd edition and not replaced with anything, GW just upped the movement rate by about 50%.And allowed 'assaulting' units to move three times, move in the movement phase, run in the shooting phase, and move into assault in the assault phase.And also used special rules to ignore morale from shooting casualties etc.Using Evasion vs shooting reduces the effectiveness of shooting for casualties, but the inclusion of suppression and smoke would increase its tactical effect to compensate.Hopefully. )

As all player controlled movement happens in the movement phase, and the most a model can move is double its mobility value.The only units that can get across the 24" of no mans land in turn 1 are units with a mobility of 12".(Mainly bilkes and some skimmers like Land Speeders.)
IF they are directly in front of the unit they want to charge, with no difficult terrain in the way.And the target unit is deployed exactly on the edge of thier deplotment zone.

So Infiltrate and Scout are no longer part of the rules?

Because a lot of things have Infiltrate and/or Scout. That includes some models with 12" movement, and some models with Dedicated Transports (so effectively a 12" pre-game movement).

A lot of units have Fleet. What effect does that have in your rules?

You've removed Overwatch, if I've read that correctly. That means you're allowing 1st turn assaults that can completely negate a target unit's ability to shoot at all. As a (biased) Tau player, that is... worrying.

The older rules for Rapid fire varied a bit.But generally fire up to 12" if moving.OR fire up to 24" if stationary.
I just generalized fire up to 12" if moving, or double range to 24" if stationary just to show a tactical choice.(Sorry for any confusion caused. )

You didn't answer my question. Rapid Fire weapons fire twice at half range. Is that rule changed to "fire once"? If not, what range do we use to determine what "half range" is?

As each stage of the resolution has a separate value to represent it.Simply adjust the values until they deliver the results we want.
Does 'Rend' still let you roll another dice if you roll a 6 for S vs vehicle hits?Rather than rolling extra dice some times, just give the attack a better AP value.

So All Rending weapons are given a slightly better AP value, and the Rending rule no longer exists? Could work, given the comparative stat system. Fewer unnecessary rules is good.

If we are modeling simultaneous action.Initiative is not longer needed to see who strikes first in close combat.As all attacks happen at the same time.

But initiative is currently used to determine who would be likely to hit first in assault.Not who swings first, but who would connect first.

The lumbering Ork swinging wildly vs a swift and agile Eldar Banshee.
Does the Ork stand still while the Eldar Banshee slices him?
Or is it more likely the Banshee doges out of the way of the Orks wild swings, and deftly dispatches the Ork as he lumbers by?

Current abstraction..
Net result Eldar get first blow in and Ork can not strike back if killed..

New proposed rules both Banshee and Ork resolve attacks , the Ork is going to find it harder to hit the Banshee.(Orks hit Banshees on 5+ Banshees hit Orks on 3+)

Weapons that lower Initiative , just make you easier to hit.Rather than hit the opponent last.This is just changing the resolution process slightly, and removing huge swathes of written rules.

Have you been able to playtest this yet? This seems like it would be a severe nerf to low Init models (particularly hoard armies like Orks) and a fairly significant buff to Eldar.

How are you comparing stats - on a unit by unit, or model by model basis?

If the former, how is the use of a Powerfist ever a meaningful disadvantage in the way its stats (initiative 1) suggest?

If the latter, isn't that insanely complicated and likely to bog the game down?

...Why have separate melee and ranged defensive stats at all? Why not have just one (Evasion)?

How would a high WS modify, if at all, the melee defensive stat? Should it?

As the game turn alternates between the players, alternating the dice rolls between the players seemed like a nice idea to increase player interaction.

With opposed values it is entirely possible to make it attacker rolls in all three stages, or defender rolls middle or last stage.
I am happy to experiment when it comes to play testing to see what feels right.

I'm interested to see what you find. Conceptually I think I'd prefer the opposed rolls be consistently performed by the activating player, rather than switching back and forth, but for gameplay purposes, I'm worried it would be too "boring" for the non-activating player.

@Unusual Suspect.
I was just trying to post a basic concept for a re write for a 40k war game.(A ground up re write focusing on inclusive rules writing.)

A lot of the current 40k special rules are there to artificially close the gap between units to facilitate assault sooner.(To counter over effective shooting.)

If we follow modern warfare, ranged attacks are to control enemy movement .Suppress units, damage transports, or use smoke to block lines of sight.
In this set up we can allow units to move slower,and take longer to set up assault in a tactical way.
As players will get 1 or 2 (simultaneous) shooting phases before assault happens.Over watch is not needed.

Most of the rules for extra movement can simply be covered by an improved mobility.(EG how they were in 2nd ed.)

If we allow units to ''go to ground''/''dig in'' to improve their Evasion.(Similar to F.O.W.)We can let scouts cancel out these bonuses.(Actually scout for enemy positions. )

If the Rapid fire rule changes to suit the new rules, the only thing that would stay the same would be the option to fire twice as far when stationary.(Or half as far when moving.Actual values still being 12" and 24" in both cases.)

We could go back to 3rd ed, version.
Fire once up to 12" when moving.Fire twice up to 12" when stationary, or once up to 24" when stationary.

Just to put this into context.Currently the highest initiative strikes first.
Banshees strikes first,with a good chance some Orks are killed and make no attacks back.
(Then we have to use pile in moves etc, to get models into contact for the Ork attacks.)

New system all model in assault range get to make attacks.I would like to revise the assault resolution to a single round.A fights then B fights .Resolve assault.
Loser breaks from combat.(Withdraw in good order, or route.)
Winner Consolidates, or Persues.

As most models in a unit will have the same stats and weapons.I dont see how it will bog the game down rolling for each model?
We just used different couluored dice for unit leaders and special weapon modes.

Hitting a target at range is more to do with target size and siluette. Hitting a target in assault is more to do with the targets agility.
If the game is only dealing with similar sized targets.(EG WWII skirmish with just infantry targets) Then you can use the same value for both.
40k has very small units, swarms up to massive monstrous creatures!So needs separate values.

Currently 40k players are used to the defending player rolling for saves.As rolling for saves before damage is more intuitive.(And allows for a simple suppression mechanic.)
That Is why I proposed the order I posted. I am happy to change things around after play tests.

Lanrak wrote:
@Unusual Suspect.

As most models in a unit will have the same stats and weapons.I dont see how it will bog the game down rolling for each model?
We just used different couluored dice for unit leaders and special weapon modes.

Except the active roller in the WS/Init comparative stat roll is the attacker using WS, not the defender using init. That means the defender's Init is only important if it is actually being used as the basis for the defense. Consider a 10 man marine squad with 2 Powerfists - one on the leader, one on a non-character model.

Do we continue using majority stat? If so, a Powerfist would only be a negative if the Powerfists outnumber the other weapons - that is to say, for the vast majority of cases, the Power Fist's main balancing mechanic (striking at initiative 1) would be utterly meaningless except in challenges.

Are we instead comparing model-to-model, i.e. determining who each attack is aimed at based on individual model locations? If so, that fixes the above, but we're now in the realm of bogging down the game with unreasonably detailed determinations.

Currently 40k players are used to the defending player rolling for saves.As rolling for saves before damage is more intuitive.(And allows for a simple suppression mechanic.)
That Is why I proposed the order I posted. I am happy to change things around after play tests.

I must have missed something, what is this suppression mechanic you're speaking of?

But yeah, the attacker rolling to successfully penetrate armor would be a change from the existing rule where the defender rolls to successfully ignore the incoming attacks. Given we're talking a 40k rewrite, this is exactly the sort of Sacred Cow that should be up for slaughter, especially if it streamlines the understanding of what the comparative stat table is intended to represent: an active attempt to overcome a defense (BS vs Evasion, WS vs Init or Evasion, S v T... and AP vs Armor).

But momentum is a helluva drug, and player engagement is probably enhanced under the "I hit, you save, I wound" model you're proposing.

I can tell you now after playtesting a sub phase system where there is only 1 game turn but both players act in 'sub phases' shows promise

(e.g You move, i Move
you shoot, I shoot
you charge, I charge
You fight (with my models from previous fight), I fight (my models who just charged))

This system works in a way and to make it that the sub phases can be different (to show the different tides of battle) there is an initiative roll at the beginning of the turn which is a D6 and compare

I have a draft of this system if anyone is interested. Just pm me if you have any suggestions to tweak it or if I left out any glaring rule loopholes

@Universal Suspect.
My apologies, I was so inspired by the idea of modeling simultaneous actions in the new rules,(after Charistoph suggested it).I sort of ran with it without explaining how I got to the conclusions I posted.

Some of the concepts I posted were dealing with new ideas in resolving assaults, and lots of other ideas that were sparked off by the idea of simultaneous actions.

So I will just return to looking at the alternating phase game turn ,assuming assaults stay as they are in the current rules for now.

As mchammadad suggests , this could need a 'roll off' to determine who goes first each turn, if we stick with Player A then Player B type phases.

As most of the questions were more about the new resolution methods , rather than the game turn structure.
I would like to look at the movement and shooting phases in more detail next.

If we can give ranged attacks a different tactical function to assault.They will not be in direct competition with each other .
I believe a simple suppression mechanic that is part of the new shooting resolution would be good for the game play.

Rather than get all technical with 'threat to confidence ratios' etc.My suppression rule is based on failed saves.(Not just hits which do not take levels of protection into account. Or casualties which still focuses on physical damage to be done .)

Here it is ...
When a unit suffers a number of failed saves that is over half the units remaining wounds/structure points.The unit becomes suppressed.
(Even if the failed saves do not result in any physical damage.)

This scales to the level of protection/survivability all units have weather armour or weight of numbers etc.

Proposed suppression effects.
A suppressed unit may only move up to its mobility rate, or shoot counting as having moved.It may not charge into assault, but will fight back in assault if charged.
A supressed unit counts as gone to ground.(+1 to Evasion.)

This limits the actions of a suppressed unit, while still letting them perform some useful functions.IMO.

So now the three stage damage resolution for shooting delivers a much finer range of proportional results,and includes tactical suppression too.
Limited tactical use of smoke to block L.O.S also allows units to move under the threat of direct fire without sustaining massive casualties as default status.

This means that units can survive longer under fire, and so do not have to rely on high movement rates and/or ablative wounds to see them through.
In our previous play tests 'hoard units' only needed 20 models to survive as an effective assault unit in a 6 turn game taking 3 turns of (suppression ) fire.

When shooting is not just more effective at killing stuff than assault.But has a different tactical function.Mobility fire power and assault all become equally important. And so more 'combined arms' tactics come into play.

I think play testing is the only way to arrive a new mobility rates that allow a good balance between shooting happening before assault can be launched effectively.

We started play testing the following values ,
Slow infantry 4"

Infantry 5"

Fast Infantry/vehicles 6"

Cavalry/beasts/fast vehicles 8"

Bikes/ fast skimmers 12"

Is there any thing I need to clarify on moving and shooting?

Lanrak wrote:
@Universal Suspect.

What an unusual spelling of my username! (Not mad, just find it funny)

When shooting is not just more effective at killing stuff than assault.But has a different tactical function.Mobility fire power and assault all become equally important. And so more 'combined arms' tactics come into play.

That has... worrying implications. My Tau have mobility and fire power, but are explicitly designed to be pretty bad at assault. Other factions have different sets of two out of the three, while some factions just straight up have all 3 (Hi, Eldar!). Will missing an "equally important" element be problematic, or will codexes under a rewrite need to introduce such "heresies" as CQC Tau?

Is there any thing I need to clarify on moving and shooting?

My apologies if you've already answered this, but was the discussion above suggesting that you remove ALL shooting casualties only after ALL shooting is done correct?

@Unusual Suspect ,
Sorry about that.

Let me try to explain my motives in toning down shooting and assault to try to balance them , and allow more tactical interaction within the game.

When shooting is just very effective at killing stuff at long range.(To the point it breaks the game.)
You have 2 options,
Change shooting to give it a different tactical function to assault.
Or buff units that are focused on assault.(Speed up movement and increase unit sizes etc.)

As these buffs are not subtle changes to tactical planning, but out right game breaking in the opposite direction.(Because 40k 3rd ed on wards has no 'fine adjustment'
options. Just over powered swings to core rules or all or nothing special rules. )

I was looking at 'reversing the madness', by introducing the concepts from modern warfare..
Make shooting tactically good at limiting enemy movement.(Assault units can not assault you if they are suppressed. )

And as units are no longer dying in droves to 'over effective shooting', they do not have to be so large to soak up casualties, or move so fast to avoid being hit.

And as shooting tactically can control enemy advances. I would like assault to be toned down a bit in its effect ,to be the preferred method to shift units off objectives. (Assault pushes back enemy units when successful.)
Assault should still be a more effective method to inflict physical damage than ranged attacks.(Due to having to negotiate several rounds of ranged attacks to get into assault.)
But not as inflated as the gap has become over the last 19 years when focus was just on selling more toy soldiers.

These two changes would allow units to tactically maneuver , for more game turns.To try to get suppression fire to block enemy advances, and assault to claim objectives.

I was only suggesting we leave casualty removal until the end of the phase if we were modelling simultaneous actions.
(Which would require a near complete re write of the assault rules.Which I could discuss in more detail if any one wanted to?)

As it would probably be simpler just to use the current rules with alternating phases as proof of concept.Similar to mchammadad suggested to start with.
(Resolve attacks as they happen.)

Then add new rules for movement and shooting.(Mobility, and Evasion as we have discussed so far.)

Then finally tweek assault rules. Before we do the last stage of fine tuning to model simultaneous actions.

There are loads of options to look at, and play around with.

Hi folks.
Am I in a minority of one in thinking GWs version of 40k spends more time putting models on the table , just to take them off again a short while later.Compared to the time you actually get to do useful stuff with them in game?

Would you prefer a game where units got to move and shoot and charge more , (where prolonged fluid interaction let the tactical choices flow)?

If most people are reasonably comfortable with alternating phases as an improvement in the game turn mechanic.

Here are some points I may have to clarify/discuss further?

Unit Mobility
,Is any one unsure how movement rates and movement penalties for specific terrain types would work?

Would you like mobility type to factor into terrain modifiers?

Shooting.
Is everyone OK with proportional armour saves for all units?
Are you happy with armour saves being rolled before the to wound/damage rolls?

Do you think a simple suppression mechanic, ( based on failed saves,) would be a good concept in a 40k war game?

Assault.
We had been experimenting with more fluid assault resolution.We tried resolving assaults just after 1 turn .

The winner of the assault was the unit that caused the most damage.
In the case of a tie, the unit(s) with the the highest number of wounds(structure) left after the assault wins.

The winner of the assault may act normally next turn, if they are over half starting strength.
The winner of the assault may no charge into an assault next turn if they are under half starting strength.

The loser of the assault breaks from the assault if they are over half starting strength.(Compulsory movement away from the unit they lost the assault to.)
The loser of the assault routes from the assault if they are below half starting strength.(Compulsory double move away from the unit they lost the assault to.)

This had the result of units moving more and made the whole process 'faster and cleaner.'
True units did not die in droves and we did not once get a dust pan and brush out to remove casualties.

But it felt more like the fast paced hit and run type assault, snall unit actions tend to generate.IMO.

These are just basic concept and ideas that could work in a new rule set for a 40k war game.

Hi all.
I am not sure if the lack of replies is down to lack of clarity in explaining the new ideas.
Or if people simply do not like the direction we are going in?

I am happy to discuss alternative ideas , if you prefer..

More clarity is always a good thing. I can't follow where you are on just about any topic at this point.

@alextroy.
Now I know that its lack of clarity in the last few posts , Ill walk through a thread summary .
If you an others would be kind enough to point out areas that are not clear.
I can clarify in mere detail untill every one gets the new concepts.

Introduction.
I was wondering what game mechanics and resolution methods of the current 40k rule set would be kept in a complete ground up re write.
As a complete new rule set using completely new game mechanics and resolution methods end up with new game play that does not 'feel like 40k'.

After a bit of discussion , we appeared to have settled on keeping the following elements to help keep the '40k feel' in any new rules.

Action phases.
(As it clearly defines when player perform what actions, and provides a very straight forward structure to assemble into a game turn.)

Three stage damage resolution.
(Three stage damage resolution is needed to support the wider variety of units found in 40k.)

Opposed values in a chart.
(This allows proportional results without having to use more complicated combinations of rules.)

Using D6 to resolve the interaction.
(As players want to roll dice per model rather than unit .D6 are much easier to roll in hand fulls ,amd quick to read.And can deliver much wider range of results when used effectively.)

Using these basic concepts , and applying them into a ground up re write of 40k .
Could improve the depth of game play while at the same time reducing the level of complication in the written rules.When compared to GWs version of 40k.

EG write the new rules for 40k as a war game , focusing on the scale and scope of the game play.(Rather than just selling toy soldier to collectors.)

Then I may have got a bit excited and started looking at options we could use in re writing 40k with these basic elements of 40k in slightly different ways.To generate a 40k war game rule set....

Looking at how we could use these elements in a 40k ground up re write...
For several reasons listed previously in several posts I would like to start at 4th to 5th ed 40k game size.(Company level.)
And looking at the intended unit functions, a modern warfare game play with equal focus on mobility firepower and assault seems like a better fit.When compared to the ancient warfare focus WHFB and by extension 40k currently has.


Proposed changes and reasons.

The game turn.
If we use the action phases in an alternating, phase game turn.We can improve the level of player action at the core game turn level.
This would not need complicated scheduling or reaction mechanics if we modeled simultaneous interaction.

The stat lines and resolution methods .
If we make sure the stat line covers all the units actions and interaction.We can simplify the written rules by not needing lots of exceptions and special rules.

EG
Movement.
When a model takes a move action it may move up to its Mobility rate in inches.Some terrain types will reduce this Mobility rate.(Refer to the terrain chart for details)

If we use opposed stat values on a comparison chart,(similar to current S vs T.)For ALL combat resolution.We can cover ALL units in a similar way, and generate proportional results .Without the need for additional resolution methods, or special rules to try to put some proportionality back into the system.

Also re working the resolution order to follow, to hit, to save, to wound/damage.Allows a simple suppression mechanic to be included in the basic shooting resolution. (Suppression and morale has been undermined and badly applied in 40k for a while now.)

I believe a 40k war game should focus more on tactical choices in game , compared to the current GW 40k .

Is every one following these basic ideas?Please ask questions or comment on any thing you may disagree with.

I will assume everyone is following the general direction I would like to take the new 40k re write rules in so far.

Here is an overview of what the new game turn could look like.(I have used new stat names to avoid confusion with the old system.)

'Command' Phase.
This is the 'start of turn' phase, where all actions that are taken before 'player controlled movement ' happens.
EG
Requesting off table support.(Reserves, air or artillery assets.)Some psychic abilities may be used here.Also compulsory movement , like routing units can be done.


Movement Phase .
In the movement phase the player may move their models up to the models mobility value when they take a movement action.
Players alternate moving their units as far as they wish, within the following options..

1)If models do not move at all they can fire more effectively .
Eg They can fire 'Ordnance' weapons, and 'Rapid Fire' weapons may fire at full range, when they shoot in the shooting phase.

2)If models take a single movement action.They can only fire weapons that can 'move and fire' in the Shooting phase

3)If models take two movement actions,they can not make any ranged attacks at all.

4)A unit must declare if it wants to charge an enemy unit to initiate an assault.After the assault is declared, the charging unit may take up to two movement actions to get into base to base(hull) contact with the targeted enemy unit.If this happens both units are locked in assault and may not shoot in the shooting phase.

Shooting Phase
Players alternate making ranged attacks with their units.

To hit score is found by comparing the attackers Shooting skill to the defenders Evasion skill.
The armour save of the defender is found by comparing the Armour value of the defender to the Armour Penetration of the attacking weapon hit.
The damage to the defender is found by comparing the Damage value of the weapon hit to the Resilience of the target.

After all attacks have been resolved casualties are removed, And units check it they have become suppressed.

Assault Phase
Player alternate assaulting with units locked in combat.

To hit score is found by comparing the attackers Assault skill to the defenders Dodge skill.
The armour save of the defender is found by comparing the Armour value of the defender to the Armour Penetration of the attacking weapon hit.
The damage to the defender is found by comparing the Damage value of the weapon hit to the Resilience of the target.

After all attacks have been resolved casualties are removed.

'Rally' Phase.
This phase is used to tidy up before the next game turn.
Off table support can arrive now and have its effects resolved, before the start of next turn.
Players make morale tests to attempt to lift suppression, or stop a route.


Proposed unit stat line.
Mobility Maximum distance a model may move, when a model takes a move action.This may be reduced by terrain features,(As detailed in the terrain rules.)

Shooting skill.How good the model is at hitting targets at range. Based on current BS values.

EvasionHow hard the target is to hit at range, based on model size and shape etc.(New stat.)

AssaultHow good the model is at hitting targets in assault, based on current WS values.

Dodge.How good the model is at avoiding being hit in assault, based on current Initiative values.

Armour. How much physical protection the model has.based on current saves, and armour values.

ResilienceHow hard the model is to damage after its armour is defeated.

Hit pointsHow much damage the model may take before its removed as a casualty.(Based on current wounds/structure points.)

MoraleHow willing the unit is to fight.

New unit weapon profiles.(Each unit card will have the weapons the unit carried detailed below the unit stat line.)

Name /Range/Attacks/AP/Damage /Notes.

What do you think so far,Any questions or comments?

As no one seems to have a problem with the new basic structure , lets have a look at the possible benefits.

A more interactive game turn allows players to engage more in tactical interaction.Without the heed for the complication of scheduling rules or reaction rules like over-watch.

We can alternate between units in the movement phase if locking unit in assault proves to be too powerful.(Assault preventing charged enemy shooting, is a simple method to help balance shooting and assault in a tactical focused game. )

The addition of a simple suppression effect boost shootings tactical effectiveness.(Along with the use of limited L.O.S. blocking munitions perhaps?)

As all unit resolve damage in the same way, there will not be an artificial difference between vehicles and non vehicle units.(Everything gets a proportional save!)

And because the new stat line and weapon profiles cover more of the interaction in much more detail , and give more proportional results.Less add on all or nothing special rules are needed to put the lack of proportionality back in a complicated way.(In terms of amount of pages of written rules.)

As the main focus of attacks is now to tactically control the position of enemy units, (Fire power to slow them down, and assault to move them out of the way.)
This would have the benefit of unit surviving longer on the table and hoard units do not have to carry so many ablative wounds...


Anyhow.
I would like to ask for opinions on unit cards.
As they seem very popular with other war games.They give players an easy way to construct a force , and give all the in game information in an easy to use format.

If we combined the best ideas from several games, so the back of the card gives the army composition info, and the front of the unit card gives the in game data.
The unit cards can do double duty.
Speed up army co,position, and in game play speed too!

Keep it a corny place where bloodletters can charge at people trying to use modern tactics armed with nothing but daemonic swords and hatred and slaughter the modern tactics users anyway.

If at any point, Khorne and his followers cannot satiate their bloodlust in the close combat because the game's mechanics favor cowardice such as ranged sorcery or artillery too much over Khorne's bloody harvest of axes and skulls in the close quarters that Khorne demands all his followers seek then the game has failed to be Warhammer.

Why would a close combat army like Khorne , not be able to overwhelm an enemy in all out assault?
Shooting armies can only suppress a few units, the others would get through to tie up the enemy in assault.

its a case of picking your priorities , maneuver and attack in co-ordination to win.

So the armies have different play styles , and use different tactics against each other.Its just the rate of attrition is slowed down, and the level of tactical depth is increased.