Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/25 22:12:08


Post by: Strg Alt


This thread is maybe more suited to be posted in the rules section though it gives it more exposure if it´s being posted here in General. Mods may later relocate it at their own discretion.

I wanted to ask in this thread, if there is a willingness in the community to create a unique set of basic rules and codices for 40K which does not follow a sales driven mindset. Enthusiasts of Blood Bowl (Living Rulebook) and WHFB (9th Age) are fine examples that those projects can succeed. I am aware that the usual response would be to play just an older edition, if the current one isn´t to one´s liking but imho a community edition would incorporate the best ideas of a few or single selected edition(s) as it was the case with 9th Age. Also keep in mind that such an undertaking isn´t done in a couple of months but will take a long time.

Despite all of this the rewards of such an effort would be superior compared to GW´s releases as it will ensure that the SAME people will work on the basic rules and all the army books. This means that it is highly unlikely that a few factions will be significantly better than the rest. Another boon would be the obsolescence of new edition syndrome requiring the player base to update all their rules after a few years.

Suggested first factions to begin work on:

- Space Marines
- Imperial Guard
- Eldar
- Chaos
- Orks
- Tyranids

To make matters even more simple the first draft of the above factions should only include their vanilla versions which means no emphasis on specific chapters, craftworlds, klans, etc.





40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/25 22:16:02


Post by: JNAProductions


You need core rules before you can do faction work.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/25 22:25:03


Post by: vipoid


It's an interesting idea and might be worth a go but JNA is right - we have to do the core rules first.

Otherwise we won't know whether we're using pre-8th or post-8th WS/BS values, whether initiative exists, what USRs we have and what each one does etc.

I think it would be useful to have a jumping-off point. e.g. is there an edition you think we sould start with as a baseline and work on modifying?


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/25 22:37:58


Post by: Tawnis


In the vein of the Core Rules, how much of a dramatic shakeup to things are you thinking?

For example, one thing that I've always thought would be a big improvement (but would require A LOT of testing) would be less dice at higher values. By this I mean using something like D10's (since they seem to be the most popular beyond D6's.)

To explain my reasoning for this, take BS for instance, you are putting everthing in the galaxy on a 4 point scale. 2+ insane (Heros/specialist snipers) 3+ superhuman (Space Marines) 4+ Human (Guard) 5+ inaccurate (Orks) No one uses 6+ as far as I know.

So with this as a scale, where to Tau Fire Warriors fit? They are better than guard, but not as good as Space Marines. How about Gretchin? They are better than Orks, but are that as good as humans? Ect...

This would also allow things like +1 to hit to be used as a modification tool without being anywhere near as strong as it is now. An increase of only 1/10 rather than 1/6 is far less impactful, but still feels relavent. Though it doesn't also mean that if something does get to 2+ it does feel much more like a master marksman, and with an edition that I'm assuming will do away with much of the maligned re-rolls, something like that would be needed to feel thematic.

You wouldn't want to be rolling as many dice since they are reasonable larger in size, but I think that's something else people have wanted to tone down too. If it's designed with D10's in mind, everything can be balanced along the lesser dice rolls philosophy.

Food for thought.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/25 22:41:01


Post by: JNAProductions


 Tawnis wrote:
In the vein of the Core Rules, how much of a dramatic shakeup to things are you thinking?

For example, one thing that I've always thought would be a big improvement (but would require A LOT of testing) would be less dice at higher values. By this I mean using something like D10's (since they seem to be the most popular beyond D6's.)

To explain my reasoning for this, take BS for instance, you are putting everthing in the galaxy on a 4 point scale. 2+ insane (Heros/specialist snipers) 3+ superhuman (Space Marines) 4+ Human (Guard) 5+ inaccurate (Orks) No one uses 6+ as far as I know.

So with this as a scale, where to Tau Fire Warriors fit? They are better than guard, but not as good as Space Marines. How about Gretchin? They are better than Orks, but are that as good as humans? Ect...

This would also allow things like +1 to hit to be used as a modification tool without being anywhere near as strong as it is now. An increase of only 1/10 rather than 1/6 is far less impactful, but still feels relavent. Though it doesn't also mean that if something does get to 2+ it does feel much more like a master marksman, and with an edition that I'm assuming will do away with much of the maligned re-rolls, something like that would be needed to feel thematic.

Food for thought.
I'm partial to d12s, myself. I like the way they roll-plus, converting from existing 40k means you only need to use a simple formula to convert with the same odds.

The formula, for reference, is to multiply the target number 2, then subtract 1.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/25 22:43:37


Post by: Tawnis


 JNAProductions wrote:
I'm partial to d12s, myself. I like the way they roll-plus, converting from existing 40k means you only need to use a simple formula to convert with the same odds.

The formula, for reference, is to multiply the target number 2, then subtract 1.


I totally agree, I just thought more people would have D10's than D12's so it wouldn't be as hard to get into. Would be much easier to design though. Guard become 7+, Tau 6+, Space Marine 5+, ect...


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/25 22:46:04


Post by: JNAProductions


 Tawnis wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
I'm partial to d12s, myself. I like the way they roll-plus, converting from existing 40k means you only need to use a simple formula to convert with the same odds.

The formula, for reference, is to multiply the target number 2, then subtract 1.


I totally agree, I just thought more people would have D10's than D12's so it wouldn't be as hard to get into.
Acquiring 50 d12s is $13.95 on Amazon. That's not a big hurdle to overcome considering the price of 40k kits.

I'd rather build a system that requires a little more investment but works better, than going with a cheaper but less satisfying option.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/25 22:49:27


Post by: Tawnis


 JNAProductions wrote:
 Tawnis wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
I'm partial to d12s, myself. I like the way they roll-plus, converting from existing 40k means you only need to use a simple formula to convert with the same odds.

The formula, for reference, is to multiply the target number 2, then subtract 1.


I totally agree, I just thought more people would have D10's than D12's so it wouldn't be as hard to get into.
Acquiring 50 d12s is $13.95 on Amazon. That's not a big hurdle to overcome considering the price of 40k kits.

I'd rather build a system that requires a little more investment but works better, than going with a cheaper but less satisfying option.


Okay, you sold me. I'm down for D12's.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So beyond that, I imagine that there will be a lot taken from the older editions as people have fond memories, but there are a few things that I personally like from that newer ones that I think are worth considering keeping around.

1. Space Marines being 2W. (This would have to be accounted for in points obviously, but I think they should feel stronger, but be fewer.)
2. AP. Not as much of it as things are getting a little dumb, but weapons having a partial reduction effect to armor rather than all or nothing. Again, this is improved by making individual pips less impactful with D12's.
3. The concept of secondary objectives. While I think the system could certainly use a re-work, I think the concept is solid.
4. Cover modifying saves/hit rolls. Much like with AP, I like the idea of cover always protecting you in some way rather than being a replacement for your armor.

Things from old editions that work well.
1. Vehicle facing/armor sides. This is great and very thematic with fire arcs and all that. HOWEVER, I don't necessarily think the current wound system over the old Damage table is bad. I think they both have pros and cons and both should be tested once general rules are established.
2. Overall lower points/model count for basic games. This will be more a factor of how we balance units, but I think 1k should be the idea for a standard match.
3. Initiative. I really liked this. Maybe charring could give a modifier to your initiative, but I liked that some units were just plain faster/more dexterous than others.
4. WS vs WS. I really miss this too, not much math required and it really makes it feel like the warriors skill matters. On D12's you could even make this 7+ standard with a +1/-1 modifier for every point you are above/below, super easy to remember. Could have modifiers like +1 to hit if you outnumber them or something like that too so that a single model with high WS can still get swarmed.

Other ideas:
1. Weather effects: Some kind of system to fairly generate weather/time of day conditions. Not everyone fights in clear days in the afternoon when the sun is high on every alien planet out there.
2. Special Abilities and Stratagems: This is something that really got away from GW. I really don't like the way the Stratagem system is implemented, but I do like that units can do unique and special things that produces "hero moments" for a unit. Not even sure how to implement something like this, but this is the feeling that I think would be great.
3. Mission Types: Not having everything be "go hold x points". Things should be diverse and it's okay to have some modes favour certain playstyles over others so long as everyone still has a decent chance. Will think on this more and come up with some kind of comprehensive list when I can.
I'll post more if anything else pops into my head.

So how would you plan to get people together to test this? TTS?


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/25 23:27:36


Post by: Lance845


 JNAProductions wrote:
 Tawnis wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
I'm partial to d12s, myself. I like the way they roll-plus, converting from existing 40k means you only need to use a simple formula to convert with the same odds.

The formula, for reference, is to multiply the target number 2, then subtract 1.


I totally agree, I just thought more people would have D10's than D12's so it wouldn't be as hard to get into.
Acquiring 50 d12s is $13.95 on Amazon. That's not a big hurdle to overcome considering the price of 40k kits.

I'd rather build a system that requires a little more investment but works better, than going with a cheaper but less satisfying option.


The issue isn't acquiring d12s. Its mini d12s. Standard d12s are quite a bit larger than d6s and when a single unit of termagants are rolling 90 dice you need to fit as many in your hands as possible.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/25 23:41:43


Post by: Tawnis


 Lance845 wrote:


The issue isn't acquiring d12s. Its mini d12s. Standard d12s are quite a bit larger than d6s and when a single unit of termagants are rolling 90 dice you need to fit as many in your hands as possible.


In designing a new version of that game, that is something controllable. A lot of people seem to want to roll less dice anyway. To roll 90 dice, you're probably taking three goes at it anyway, with D12's if you're rolling something like 60, it would be pretty similar.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/25 23:44:42


Post by: Lance845


Then you should look to apocalypse to consider how to reduce number of dice. A much better game imo with some really great ideas.

Stat lines for units instead of models.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/25 23:49:27


Post by: Tawnis


 Lance845 wrote:
Then you should look to apocalypse to consider how to reduce number of dice. A much better game imo with some really great ideas.

Stat lines for units instead of models.


That is part of where the idea came from, but that style serves Apoc well where it wouldn't work as good in a skirmish game like 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Though something else to consider from Apoc, alternating activations.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/25 23:52:46


Post by: JNAProductions


 Tawnis wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
Then you should look to apocalypse to consider how to reduce number of dice. A much better game imo with some really great ideas.

Stat lines for units instead of models.


That is part of where the idea came from, but that style serves Apoc well where it wouldn't work as good in a skirmish game like 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Though something else to consider from Apoc, alternating activations.
I mean, I'd want to look beyond GW for inspiration, if we're not to just revamp an edition of 40k.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 00:20:23


Post by: Strg Alt


 JNAProductions wrote:
You need core rules before you can do faction work.


True.

My post also mentioned the basic rules. I stressed the point of doing these factions first to prevent codex bloat from burying such a project from the very beginning. Take a look at Epic Armageddon. It had only three factions and was good enough to play. So limiting oneself to only work on six factions would be prudent. Once those factions work well and are different enough from one another work could continue on others.

Just some thoughts what I would like to see in a community edition. I won´t go into detail as there are many ways to incorporate these ideas into the game and to not create a wall of text:

Emphasis on USR:
Keeps a gamer life simple and stress free.

Alternate activation
Keeps both players engaged.

Emphasis on small-sized engagements
Scale of the game shouldn´t be Epic with 40K minis.

Several different actions possible for units
Take a look in Epic Armageddon. Spices up the game.

Abstract area cover
Essentially every model on a terrain base gains the advantage of it´s cover bonus. Scatter terrain works differently.

Wide range of modifiers
Ranged combat: Distance, Quality of cover, Speed of target, Size of target & Wargear.
Close combat: Wargear and Quality of opponent.

Facings
Definitely for vehicles. Still undecided for infantry.

Templates
Yep, they are back.

Move stat
Yep, those are back too. No more idiotic SR to differentiate between fast and slow units. Keep random speed only for the likes of drunks (LOL!) and plague zombies.

Overwatch&Crossfire
Take a look in Epic Armageddon.

Pinning/Stagger mechanic
Should come in levels. Units coming under fire should behave worse than those who are not being shot at. Epic Armageddon uses the blast mechanic for that. Some weapon types should obviously be more useful for suppressing enemy units such as template weapons.

Wound allocation
Preventing abuse.

Close Combat Result Modifiers/Effects:
Wounds caused, Outnumbering, Fear & Terror, etc.

Scenarios
Take a look in 4th edition.

Environmental effects/hazards:
Rain, Fog, Night, Dim-light, Blizzard, Snowfall, Sunny, etc.






40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 00:35:53


Post by: aphyon


Mezmorki has basically already done this with his professional looking pro-hammer project while only making marginal homemade rules. there is also the "one-page rules" set as well as just doing what we did-play the edition you like with whatever compatible codex you liked best.


As it turns out many of us have the same thought as the OP, and in many cases, we come to the same or similar fixes for mistakes GW has made.

Of course, all of these projects are for older editions of the game as we are not fans of the mechanics of 9th edition.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 00:58:05


Post by: Unit1126PLL


This already exists, as mentioned.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 03:36:48


Post by: AnomanderRake


I've tried to do this as a collaborative thing in the past, and it doesn't work. Everyone who's willing to put in the hours to patch 40k themselves has a different idea about what worked/what doesn't about prior editions and is very set in their interpretation, whether or not it has anything to do with what anyone else liked.

I think Mezmorki's got the right idea by saying "here's a core rulebook I did myself, now go and do whatever version of whatever army book you liked". It avoids the issue of needing to argue extensively with lots of people about what goes in the core book by making it a solo job and it avoids the issue of needing to draw hard lines on what versions of books to use by leaving that up to players.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 03:56:43


Post by: H.B.M.C.


You'll never get anyone to agree to anything.

There are people here who want to consolidate the rules down into an optionless nightmare where the 8th Ed Indices would be seen as giving too much freedom. There are others who want to expand on everything - Chapter rules aren't enough, every Marine Company should have its own unique rules!

There are people who want the old AP system back, who want to enhance the current AP system, who want vehicles with armour values, who want to alter the core rule fundamentally and those who want to operate within existing bounds. I mean within four posts of the OP people are already discussing using alternate dice.

There are those that hate strats, love strats, want to change strats, want to remove them altogether. Replace 'strats' in the previous sentence with 'relics', 'warlord traits', and 'chapter tactics' as you see fit, 'cause they all exist.

There are people who refuse to acknowledge that there's anything wrong with the game, and will say "You can't change that!" at every turn, often with a bad "... because then this would happen!" excuse because either they only see singular things in a vacuum, or think we do.

There are those who want to remove Tau from the game completely and, as hard as it is to believe, insane people who disagree with them!

You'll never find a consensus.



40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 04:05:40


Post by: brainpsyk


 AnomanderRake wrote:
I've tried to do this as a collaborative thing in the past, and it doesn't work. Everyone who's willing to put in the hours to patch 40k themselves has a different idea about what worked/what doesn't about prior editions and is very set in their interpretation, whether or not it has anything to do with what anyone else liked.

This, like x1000000

Some of the worst things from prior editions: vehicle facings, model facings, templates and initiative. Those things never added anything to the game, they were just meaningless details or ways of making things OP.

Templates: how many models you hit turn to turn was really the same as a random number. There was all kinds of shenanigans and rules about templates bouncing behind cover, where the hole was at, what was "wholly" under the template vs. partially, what was on the opposite side of the wall from the hole, etc. It also forced player to spread out their models making movement take longer, and even flamer templates usually only got ~2-3 models.

vehicle facings: it all came down to the AV, which was really just a disguised STR vs. T roll. Hitting from the side granted a slightly better shot, but was a nightmare for moving and positioning. Just going STR vs. T speeds up the game a lot, and reality, vehicles are moving around, turning, etc. So this just complicated things by adding a level of detail and model placement that doesn't add any value. Same for a models with firing arcs because they turned to face the tank. It was just stupid.

Initiative, the absolute worst idea ever. The only value of the "I" stat was "my I stat is higher, I win" People forget the unkillable death stars, and models with a high I that were unkillable in melee because they always went first and could kill enough models that return attacks did nothing. I literally remember a squad of incubi mowing thru over 60 guardsmen AND 2 sentinels because there was NOTHING I could do to them because they always went first. I also remember 8 point hormugants mowing thru 12 point marines because Adrenal Glands (?) giving the gaunts I5, and marines I4, so the hordes of gaunts would always strike first no matter what I did.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 06:09:49


Post by: vict0988


I think it'd be really hard with 40k because the range of liked features is larger than in WHFB, I think there is fairly broad agreement that the current implementation of Stratagems is imperfect, what would actually be perfect ranges from complete removal, to datasheet integration to curbing, to cross-faction standardization. We cannot even agree on whether Deep Strike should have 50 names or if 1 name is enough. I think there was a pretty broad dislike of the WHFB horde mechanic and cavalry's inability to break a unit with a side charge in WHFB 8th edition.

I joined a previous project like this and it fell through when 8th started coming out, 10th might be as little as 18 months out, who knows how many of your collaborators will duck out when that happens? Statistically, a few people out of a group will generally do the most work, it might take just one or two people leaving for the project to end. 40k is not being cancelled, you don't have a whole community looking for where to go next, in fact there are already countless other 40k fan editions that people can go to. All of this is ignoring that, generally core rules are less problematic than codexes, just pick your favourite edition, errata it where absolutely 100% needed and make fandexes to suit your taste.

A mission/errata pack for an edition with pts errata where that suffices for existing codexes and full codex rewrites where the rules are badly written could be doable as a collaborative effort if you all agreed what the overall design plan was.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 06:25:51


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


Agreed. What OP wants to do already exists, with One Page rules probably being the most well known kind of alternative rules.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 06:31:38


Post by: Eihnlazer


One page rules is a pretty well written rules set.

It just needs more people actually playing it.



40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 06:56:21


Post by: kodos


alternative rules for 40k exists, a lot, no need to make another one

if you are talking of a community edition, it would need to start with the base rules of one Edition and make minimum adjustments that are needed to clear things up and than add balanced army books
Like FW have done it with 7th for 30k, or 9th Age used 8th Edition
No different dice, no big changes to the core rules unless they are broken etc.

Main problem here is that as soon as GW releases something new and promise that they fixed it and this time they really try, the project dies if you took the recent Edition as base, while if you used an older one the initial interest of the community won't be big


the other option is to make 40k army books for an already exiting non-GW game
the advantage here is that you already have a base to start with were a new wargame (like 40k with D12 and AA) starts from zero (look at OPR, that game exists for 15+ years now)

as an example, there were 40k lists for Warpath 2nd & 3rd Edition, or Starship Troopers


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 06:59:56


Post by: Sunny Side Up


One Page Rules have alternating activation though, which is the worst idea in wargaming.

If this keeps closer to actual 40K, it might be a viable alternative.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 08:02:28


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Really if you want change you've got to start with the little things.

In my group, the things I want to change as a start are:

1. Coherency/horde rules kick in at 11+ models. None of this 6-10 models horse gak.
2. Monoliths/Gorkanauts/Morkanauts are not LoWs. Macharius tanks shouldn't be either, but baby steps
3. You cannot target antennae/gun barrels/wing tips/claw tips/pointing fingers/heraldry. You gotta see the damned model.
4. Monoliths get Fly back so they can actually move over terrain.

Once we get used to these, and tweak them if necessary, then we can move onto the next thing: Removing the "Lose More" phase and replacing it with an actual God-damned Morale Phase.



40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 08:18:14


Post by: Flinty


Vehicle facing armour and templates may have slowed the game down a bit, but they were actual tactical decisions that the player needed to make. Bunch up to make movement and cover easier, and risk taking more damage from templates. If you want an easier time with vehicles, you needed to consider movement and flanking.

So it. Very much depends what you want out of a tactical tabletop Wargames.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 08:29:53


Post by: aphyon


You'll never get anyone to agree to anything.


Indeed, H is right. a lot of also depends on what one wants out of the game as well as where they started.

For example, i like my 40K being a strategy war game with some abstraction to keep it moving fast enough for the scale while including some realistic immersion that makes sense to real world experience- not a resource mechanic game where basic infantry small arms even have a chance to hurt a main battle tank.


To the point that i completely disagree with brainpsyk entire posts, i love templates, i love initiative, i love armor facings, and movement penalties for vehicles firing heavy weapons with the tradeoff for being harder/easier to hit in close combat ala 4th ed


alternating activation though, which is the worst idea in wargaming.


This is also situational. having regularly played games that use some variant of AA it can work and work quite well. like battletech where you alternately activate movement but shooting is simultaneous or DUST where you activate 1 unit but it gets a minimum of 2 action to do all the things it can do but also has a reaction mechanic possibility.

With 40K it has been IGO/UGO for so long that's all people think of.



40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 09:10:17


Post by: Da Boss


A lot of people are being negative and referencing other efforts. I'm enthusiastic about those other efforts and I've chosen One Page Rules as my variant of choice.

But I think it's wrong to say "don't make your own version, nobody will agree". You don't have to get the entire playerbase on board with your changes and that's impossible. But what IS possible is to get your local group or some part of your local group that thinks the same as you to take your changes on board, or to work together for a series of changes you want.

I think that's how all these projects start - with a group of friends working together, and then maybe you publish it and other people think "Oh, cool, I'll try that out" and others think "nah, not for me". I think trying to do it on the internet is gonna pull it in too many directions, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't do it at all, just that it's more suited to the people you're actually playing with.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 09:20:59


Post by: Jidmah


I wouldn't be opposed to such a project and would probably contribute to such an open source project if it ever got any traction.

However:
- My experience with trying to implement house rules like these is that most people are resistent to anything that changes more than a few particularly annoying rules. People are also very likely to reject house rules that don't support new things they have seen in a store or on the internet.
- What AnomanderRake wrote. Just looking at the contributors of this thread, half of them would fight me to the death on some ideas I have for my vision of a perfect 40k. There are just too many diametrical opposed ideas flying around - IGOUGO vs alternating activations, fully control of your army vs roll dice and see what happens, realism of firing arcs, scatter, templates etc vs less potential for conflict, model based positioning vs unit based positioning, 4th/5th edition style profiles vs 8th edition, stratagems or not and so on.
- People are biased for and against certain armies and often overestimate their knowledge of armies they don't play. You would need to have experts of every army to actually write rules for every army (this is a major flaw GW itself has right now)
- Even if you managed to overcome all these issues, there is no guarantee that the new game is better than what GW did. Writing rules from scratch is a whole different beast than applying some patches to the current system.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 09:51:32


Post by: a_typical_hero


 Da Boss wrote:
A lot of people are being negative and referencing other efforts. I'm enthusiastic about those other efforts and I've chosen One Page Rules as my variant of choice.

But I think it's wrong to say "don't make your own version, nobody will agree". You don't have to get the entire playerbase on board with your changes and that's impossible. But what IS possible is to get your local group or some part of your local group that thinks the same as you to take your changes on board, or to work together for a series of changes you want.

I think that's how all these projects start - with a group of friends working together, and then maybe you publish it and other people think "Oh, cool, I'll try that out" and others think "nah, not for me". I think trying to do it on the internet is gonna pull it in too many directions, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't do it at all, just that it's more suited to the people you're actually playing with.

I want to second this. The best rules in the world are useless if you can't convince your local group to play with them. And then, what your local group likes or thinks it needs fixing might be totally different from others. Talk to your own community, get them on board with the project and find something that fits your taste.

If you got something ready in the end, feel free to share with us. Some people might get inspired by it and use it themselves or adapt the rules to their need.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 10:13:33


Post by: H.B.M.C.


It's not negativity. It's just being realistic.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 10:14:25


Post by: Da Boss


Yeah, realistic about the prospects of success over the internet I guess. I just think it can work in a small group easily.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 10:52:17


Post by: Jidmah


That's not a community edition though, that's just house rules.

And even for my playing group, I see almost zero chances of a different system having any success. The vast majority of players is enjoying their 9th edition crusade play where most codices are sufficiently balanced for our playstyle too much to even consider changing.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 11:01:12


Post by: blood reaper


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's not negativity. It's just being realistic.


Look, while every attempt to produce an 'alt' 40k ruleset which gains serious traction has failed before, this attempt is sure to succeed!


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 11:05:05


Post by: Apple fox


I think the big issue here is the community for 40k isn’t really great for this kind of thing.

But I think it can be done, all the best community projects start small.
Get some local play testers, or test online best you can.

The worst you end up with is a game your group can play, and maybe others with enjoy it enough to contribute a bit as well.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 11:08:44


Post by: a_typical_hero


 blood reaper wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's not negativity. It's just being realistic.


Look, while every attempt to produce an 'alt' 40k ruleset which gains serious traction has failed before, this attempt is sure to succeed!
A true alternate 40k ruleset has never been tried before!


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 11:15:39


Post by: aphyon


 Da Boss wrote:
Yeah, realistic about the prospects of success over the internet I guess. I just think it can work in a small group easily.


In reality that is what 40K was always meant to be -roll dice, move models, play in the 40K universe with friends for a good bit of fun.
Nobody from GW is going to come to your FLGS or home and force you to play a certain way.

It is basically how we play, we like core 5th ed rules but pull in rules from other editions that make better sense in the framework of 5th. everybody in our local group enjoys it and it lets them play the way they want because they can use whatever codex they feel happy with.

It gives us something like a dozen regular or semi-regular players in the group.





40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 11:57:45


Post by: Strg Alt


 AnomanderRake wrote:
I've tried to do this as a collaborative thing in the past, and it doesn't work. Everyone who's willing to put in the hours to patch 40k themselves has a different idea about what worked/what doesn't about prior editions and is very set in their interpretation, whether or not it has anything to do with what anyone else liked.

I think Mezmorki's got the right idea by saying "here's a core rulebook I did myself, now go and do whatever version of whatever army book you liked". It avoids the issue of needing to argue extensively with lots of people about what goes in the core book by making it a solo job and it avoids the issue of needing to draw hard lines on what versions of books to use by leaving that up to players.


So the 9th Age people must have been aliens because they were able to work together?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You'll never get anyone to agree to anything.

There are people here who want to consolidate the rules down into an optionless nightmare where the 8th Ed Indices would be seen as giving too much freedom. There are others who want to expand on everything - Chapter rules aren't enough, every Marine Company should have its own unique rules!

There are people who want the old AP system back, who want to enhance the current AP system, who want vehicles with armour values, who want to alter the core rule fundamentally and those who want to operate within existing bounds. I mean within four posts of the OP people are already discussing using alternate dice.

There are those that hate strats, love strats, want to change strats, want to remove them altogether. Replace 'strats' in the previous sentence with 'relics', 'warlord traits', and 'chapter tactics' as you see fit, 'cause they all exist.

There are people who refuse to acknowledge that there's anything wrong with the game, and will say "You can't change that!" at every turn, often with a bad "... because then this would happen!" excuse because either they only see singular things in a vacuum, or think we do.

There are those who want to remove Tau from the game completely and, as hard as it is to believe, insane people who disagree with them!

You'll never find a consensus.



The solution would be to find people with which you share the most similarities. I wouldn´t work with someone on this project who adamantly insists on keeping IKs & Stompas in 40K. Leave that to 8th & 9th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 vict0988 wrote:
I think it'd be really hard with 40k because the range of liked features is larger than in WHFB, I think there is fairly broad agreement that the current implementation of Stratagems is imperfect, what would actually be perfect ranges from complete removal, to datasheet integration to curbing, to cross-faction standardization. We cannot even agree on whether Deep Strike should have 50 names or if 1 name is enough. I think there was a pretty broad dislike of the WHFB horde mechanic and cavalry's inability to break a unit with a side charge in WHFB 8th edition.

I joined a previous project like this and it fell through when 8th started coming out, 10th might be as little as 18 months out, who knows how many of your collaborators will duck out when that happens? Statistically, a few people out of a group will generally do the most work, it might take just one or two people leaving for the project to end. 40k is not being cancelled, you don't have a whole community looking for where to go next, in fact there are already countless other 40k fan editions that people can go to. All of this is ignoring that, generally core rules are less problematic than codexes, just pick your favourite edition, errata it where absolutely 100% needed and make fandexes to suit your taste.

A mission/errata pack for an edition with pts errata where that suffices for existing codexes and full codex rewrites where the rules are badly written could be doable as a collaborative effort if you all agreed what the overall design plan was.


Stratagems would go the way of the dodo.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 12:03:11


Post by: JohnnyHell


All 9th Age as a counterpoint proves is that there is no one “community” as I’ve yet to see anyone play a game of it. And also that was borne of GW killing a game with no immediate continuity, which isn’t the same for 40K. Not quite the equivalence you think. Yes, other games have had successful community-modded versions. YakTribe’s Necromunda NCE is the best edition for me, wouldn’t play any other. But again, that’s a game that was binned and picked back up by the community, not made from whole cloth.

A group can collab, in person or online. The larger the group the more unwieldy it will get and less likely to succeed. And it will never speak for or to the whole “community”. For there is not one singular community. And you know what they say about “designing by committee”.

If the OP wants to write rules for local pals as others have suggested that’s grand. But I’d wager between the various versions out there, the existing fansets and ongoing editions, there’s little appetite for something wholly other instead of a little patching on people’s preferred edition. And pitching it as a community edition won’t really fly as there’s probably just not the demand in the same way as when WHFB was killed off.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 12:04:18


Post by: Da Boss


9th age was a bit different though as WFB was totally gone.But maybe the online approach can work, if you have cleae design goals.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 12:05:55


Post by: Strg Alt


 Da Boss wrote:
A lot of people are being negative and referencing other efforts. I'm enthusiastic about those other efforts and I've chosen One Page Rules as my variant of choice.

But I think it's wrong to say "don't make your own version, nobody will agree". You don't have to get the entire playerbase on board with your changes and that's impossible. But what IS possible is to get your local group or some part of your local group that thinks the same as you to take your changes on board, or to work together for a series of changes you want.

I think that's how all these projects start - with a group of friends working together, and then maybe you publish it and other people think "Oh, cool, I'll try that out" and others think "nah, not for me". I think trying to do it on the internet is gonna pull it in too many directions, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't do it at all, just that it's more suited to the people you're actually playing with.


Agreed.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 12:19:01


Post by: PaddyMick


Don't know about WFB 9th, but Blood Bowl LRB was great and a nice idea to take inspiration from. Thing is, it only had mass take-up 'cos GW didn't support the game. They do now and it's been replaced by official rules at all events and anecdotally at the vast majority of club leagues too.

Good luck with the project. Maybe start small, write it all yourself? You'll find no shortage of help and opinion but design by committee would be harder.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 12:44:01


Post by: Gert


 Strg Alt wrote:

The solution would be to find people with which you share the most similarities. I wouldn´t work with someone on this project who adamantly insists on keeping IKs & Stompas in 40K. Leave that to 8th & 9th.

Then it's not a "Community" edition, its a "this is the way I want things and only people that agree with me will be allowed to contribute" edition.
Its as most others have said so far, the "Community" isn't of one mind and there will never be consensus on any one way to play 40k.
Good God, I'm agreeing with H.B.M.C, what has the world come to


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 12:56:10


Post by: Deadnight


 PaddyMick wrote:
Don't know about WFB 9th, but Blood Bowl LRB was great and a nice idea to take inspiration from. Thing is, it only had mass take-up 'cos GW didn't support the game. They do now and it's been replaced by official rules at all events and anecdotally at the vast majority of club leagues too.

Good luck with the project. Maybe start small, write it all yourself? You'll find no shortage of help and opinion but design by committee would be harder.


Indeed, this is a thing.

What a few folks are touching on is for better or worse, examples of games that have survived via fan codices and community efforts have been games they were either killed (wfb), dropped or weren't supported (bloodbowl, nevromunda).this is not the case with 40k. Its alive and well.

The second you try and build something beyond a local.effort (ie you and your pals, typical for the garage scene), especially like minded friends you will run into the problem of the 'official' game.

And for the most part, gamers are very conservative and dogmatic in this area. Unless ots from the mouth of the official publisher, it might as well not exist. Most will exclusively toe the line of what's official. Doesn't matter of what's official is crap, doesn't matter how much they'll complain or discuss problems or issues online, if its official, thats all that matters
and oftentimes that's the end of the debate.

Nothing wrong with home brewing and tweaking the game to make it work for you and yours. In fact I encourage it. Make it yours. But there won't ever be a 'community-hammer' brcause there is no one community.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 12:56:12


Post by: A.T.


If you are re-writing the army books the best advice I can give will be to try and find a way of storing data (stats, unit sizes, etc) that can be quickly and easily swapped between layouts.

I must have re-written my old simplehammer dexes four of five times changing layouts and nothing will suck the enthusiasm out of you faster than repeating the same mundane tasks...


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 13:54:05


Post by: kodos


Da Boss wrote:Yeah, realistic about the prospects of success over the internet I guess. I just think it can work in a small group easily.

being realistic because this is not the first time

we had a good Community edition during 5th, with 5th as base but a lot of patches, erratas and small changes to make it work. From a different scoring system up to scenarios, and rules changes
not all used it and depended on the country
but with 6th released it was gone and forgotten, no matter how bad 6th was, playing the community edition based on 5th was no option outside of small gaming groups (and I know 1 small local group which still plays it)

than again with 7th, because of the state of the game there was a community version with rules changes, balance patches, errata and everything you needed
gone and forgotten as soon as 8th hit the shelf

now 9th triggers the same event and the big problem is, no matter what you do and no matter how good your Community version is, as soon as 10th is released everyone will leave for the official rules because GW promised that this time it will be better

Strg Alt wrote:So the 9th Age people must have been aliens because they were able to work together?

that is why we have 9th Age, WarhammerCE, Fluffhammer or Warhammer Armies, all of them being community projects with different goals and basics

9th Age is just most known because they were able to take over for ETC and therefore the tournament crowed in Europe (as if you want to play at ETC you need your local tournaments to use those rules)


if you want to get this done, you need one of the big events to use the new rules instead of the official ones, than you get a large part of the community to agree on the basics, otherwise 1th Edition will be released before you could decide of D6, D8, D10 or D12 is the better alternative to the current system

this and the fact that GW official stopped support, was the main reason why 9th Age and Blood Bowl LRB worked were others failed. Necromunda also has their community version, but it is mostly ignored because there were never big Events behind it and now with the new version being out, no one cares any more


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 14:16:57


Post by: Zustiur


I've already written my own edition. I recommend starting with that ☺️


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 15:27:06


Post by: Strg Alt


 Gert wrote:
 Strg Alt wrote:

The solution would be to find people with which you share the most similarities. I wouldn´t work with someone on this project who adamantly insists on keeping IKs & Stompas in 40K. Leave that to 8th & 9th.

Then it's not a "Community" edition, its a "this is the way I want things and only people that agree with me will be allowed to contribute" edition.
Its as most others have said so far, the "Community" isn't of one mind and there will never be consensus on any one way to play 40k.
Good God, I'm agreeing with H.B.M.C, what has the world come to


Bad troll attempt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Deadnight wrote:
 PaddyMick wrote:
Don't know about WFB 9th, but Blood Bowl LRB was great and a nice idea to take inspiration from. Thing is, it only had mass take-up 'cos GW didn't support the game. They do now and it's been replaced by official rules at all events and anecdotally at the vast majority of club leagues too.

Good luck with the project. Maybe start small, write it all yourself? You'll find no shortage of help and opinion but design by committee would be harder.


Indeed, this is a thing.

What a few folks are touching on is for better or worse, examples of games that have survived via fan codices and community efforts have been games they were either killed (wfb), dropped or weren't supported (bloodbowl, nevromunda).this is not the case with 40k. Its alive and well.

The second you try and build something beyond a local.effort (ie you and your pals, typical for the garage scene), especially like minded friends you will run into the problem of the 'official' game.

And for the most part, gamers are very conservative and dogmatic in this area. Unless ots from the mouth of the official publisher, it might as well not exist. Most will exclusively toe the line of what's official. Doesn't matter of what's official is crap, doesn't matter how much they'll complain or discuss problems or issues online, if its official, thats all that matters
and oftentimes that's the end of the debate.

Nothing wrong with home brewing and tweaking the game to make it work for you and yours. In fact I encourage it. Make it yours. But there won't ever be a 'community-hammer' brcause there is no one community.


Maybe the phrase community was a bit misleading. The intention was to find a couple of like-minded people on the interwebz. The whole community will not agree on anything at 100% and this was never my intention.

Could someone please post links to the variant unofficial rules? I would like to read them first before working on this.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 15:41:57


Post by: Jidmah


 Strg Alt wrote:
Maybe the phrase community was a bit misleading. The intention was to find a couple of like-minded people on the interwebz. The whole community will not agree on anything at 100% and this was never my intention.

Could someone please post links to the variant unofficial rules? I would like to read them first before working on this.


In that case you should just start - maybe you find like-minded people, maybe you don't. However, if you already have something to build on, people have an easier time with getting on board with your vision.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 16:02:50


Post by: A.T.


 Strg Alt wrote:
Could someone please post links to the variant unofficial rules? I would like to read them first before working on this.
ProHammer:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/796101.page

I'd offer you a copy of simplehammer but it is caught in mid-revision limbo, as it ever has been (and based on your list not what you are after anyway).


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 16:11:29


Post by: aphyon


Could someone please post links to the variant unofficial rules? I would like to read them first before working on this.


Got an entire thread on it here-


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/789567.page


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 16:39:28


Post by: Tawnis


 Strg Alt wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
You need core rules before you can do faction work.


True.

My post also mentioned the basic rules. I stressed the point of doing these factions first to prevent codex bloat from burying such a project from the very beginning. Take a look at Epic Armageddon. It had only three factions and was good enough to play. So limiting oneself to only work on six factions would be prudent. Once those factions work well and are different enough from one another work could continue on others.

Just some thoughts what I would like to see in a community edition. I won´t go into detail as there are many ways to incorporate these ideas into the game and to not create a wall of text:

Emphasis on USR:
Keeps a gamer life simple and stress free. Totally Agree.

Alternate activation
Keeps both players engaged. Totally Agree.

Emphasis on small-sized engagements
Scale of the game shouldn´t be Epic with 40K minis. Totally Agree.

Several different actions possible for units
Take a look in Epic Armageddon. Spices up the game. I've never played Epic Armageddon but this sounds promising.

Abstract area cover
Essentially every model on a terrain base gains the advantage of it´s cover bonus. Scatter terrain works differently. Would have to be defined clearly how to target units that have some models in and out, but I like this if done well.

Wide range of modifiers
Ranged combat: Distance, Quality of cover, Speed of target, Size of target & Wargear. Cautiously agree. Distance and cover 100%. The others, you want to be careful not to add too many modifiers and especially things that people have to keep in their heads like how fast any given unit moved.
Close combat: Wargear and Quality of opponent. Totally Agree, I think the old WS vs WS system is a great baseline for this.

Facings
Definitely for vehicles. Still undecided for infantry. Totally Agree. I think Infantry could be done pretty simple, like all infantry have 180 degree facing so it's pretty easy to tell what they can shoot without busywork while vehicles are done in 90 degree arcs.

Templates
Yep, they are back. Ehhh. Okay, so I personally really like templates because they felt very thematic, however, they did certainly have their issues. See the mass infantry players that had to space every model out exactly 2" to make sure they would loose less models to blast. Tell them they can't do this and it puts them at a disadvantage, allow it and it's a huge pain in the ass. I dislike this from a game design perspective as it is something that is impossible to balance because each player will handle it differently.

Move stat
Yep, those are back too. No more idiotic SR to differentiate between fast and slow units. Keep random speed only for the likes of drunks (LOL!) and plague zombies. I feel like I'm missing something here, units all have a Movement stat.

Overwatch&Crossfire
Take a look in Epic Armageddon. Again, haven't played, but changing it up certainly sounds like it could be a good idea.

Pinning/Stagger mechanic
Should come in levels. Units coming under fire should behave worse than those who are not being shot at. Epic Armageddon uses the blast mechanic for that. Some weapon types should obviously be more useful for suppressing enemy units such as template weapons. I was actually just thinking about this and have a few ideas that are a little too long to type out here, but yeah, I like this.

Wound allocation
Preventing abuse. In what way? Or do you just meant TBD come up with something for this.

Close Combat Result Modifiers/Effects:
Wounds caused, Outnumbering, Fear & Terror, etc. Totally Agree.

Scenarios
Take a look in 4th edition. If that was the edition with the Battle Missions book, yes, totally agree. (I get my older editions mixed up a bit as I only played off and on through them.

Environmental effects/hazards:
Rain, Fog, Night, Dim-light, Blizzard, Snowfall, Sunny, etc. Yes! 100% Totally agree, it still baffles me that the only place we see this is the Open War Twist Cards in actual 40k.






As many people have pointed out, community editions do already exist, but as they have also pointed out, no one agrees on everything and I think working on a new version would be a lot of fun. I think a full redesign with keeping the ideas and concepts but implementing them differently would make it feel very much like it's own thing as oppose to other fan versions.

If you're willing, I'd be happy to help out with this, can't guarantee I'll be able to spend a lot of time on it, but I've certainly been thinking about it a lot since I read this and sketching out some broad strokes Core Rule ideas if you'd like to see them.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 17:51:25


Post by: Unit1126PLL


One note on the blast:

Spreading out every model to 2" wasn't mandatory, and in fact was a tactical choice with a list of pros and cons.

As an example from 4th, I can bring Soul Grinders with the Phlegm weapon (large blast). When my opponent is Orks (fairly regular), they have the option to spread out 2" to avoid the Phlegm.

However, doing so is a trap - in 4th, units do not pile in when they swing (meaning you get FARFARFAR fewer models in CC if your opponent charges you). Furthermore, my other Daemons can exploit the greater frontage to get multiple units in combat, adjust who makes it on the charge to get fewer swings, then pile in after the combat and wipe them on the next turn (their own turn) that frees up my units for the next turn whilst also having been un-shootable trapped in combat.

So spreading out is a disadvantage against my army, and certainly isn't a default thing just because I bring a few Large Blasts.

It's a tactical choice that affects the situation on the battlefield significantly, not an "automatic" thing they just have to suffer through (and at least in my case, doing so actively makes it easier for me to execute my plan against you).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
TL;DR:

Spreading out against templates was hardly a default choice and was a tactical option.

A good example of the types of choices available to players ON THE TABLETOP that they seriously had to think about. Sometimes it is best to spread out, sometimes not. Will it make you easier to charge and less good in combat? Will it take up too much space and make your army unable to maneuver? Will the increased footprint of the unit make it catch terrain and slow down?


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 18:12:23


Post by: Tawnis


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
One note on the blast:

Spreading out every model to 2" wasn't mandatory, and in fact was a tactical choice with a list of pros and cons.

As an example from 4th, I can bring Soul Grinders with the Phlegm weapon (large blast). When my opponent is Orks (fairly regular), they have the option to spread out 2" to avoid the Phlegm.

However, doing so is a trap - in 4th, units do not pile in when they swing (meaning you get FARFARFAR fewer models in CC if your opponent charges you). Furthermore, my other Daemons can exploit the greater frontage to get multiple units in combat, adjust who makes it on the charge to get fewer swings, then pile in after the combat and wipe them on the next turn (their own turn) that frees up my units for the next turn whilst also having been un-shootable trapped in combat.

So spreading out is a disadvantage against my army, and certainly isn't a default thing just because I bring a few Large Blasts.

It's a tactical choice that affects the situation on the battlefield significantly, not an "automatic" thing they just have to suffer through (and at least in my case, doing so actively makes it easier for me to execute my plan against you).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
TL;DR:

Spreading out against templates was hardly a default choice and was a tactical option.

A good example of the types of choices available to players ON THE TABLETOP that they seriously had to think about. Sometimes it is best to spread out, sometimes not. Will it make you easier to charge and less good in combat? Will it take up too much space and make your army unable to maneuver? Will the increased footprint of the unit make it catch terrain and slow down?


Oh, that's a good point. I didn't play enough back then to really learn the meta. So long as there are pros and cons to doing it, that would work out really well. Choosing the spread option is still a huge pain, but certainly gives something to think about work with.



40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 19:24:54


Post by: macluvin


I love everything you proposed and would love to play that fan edition. I really wish literally anyone would propose an edition that gets taken up by a significant portion of the players.

My input:
If I was going to do a flanking mechanic or facing mechanic for infantry i would base it off the last thing they shot at to determine facing. And if they didn’t shoot anything then I would say they don’t have a “rear” facing. For simplicity sake. I suppose it could be annoying to keep track of that.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 20:38:09


Post by: jeff white


I agree with the OP about reintroduction of templates and facings and so on. Though I don’t understand why d12s are preferable to 2 d6s.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 20:51:14


Post by: Dysartes


 jeff white wrote:
I agree with the OP about reintroduction of templates and facings and so on. Though I don’t understand why d12s are preferable to 2 d6s.

Makes it easier to roll a batch if you're rolling single d12s than multiple pairs of d6.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 20:57:34


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Strg Alt wrote:
...So the 9th Age people must have been aliens because they were able to work together?...


9th Age was run by a group of tournament people with a good sense of what worked/what didn't in a competitive setting, and was based on WHFB, which hasn't changed anything like as much as 40k from edition to edition so there was a lot less to argue about. If you had an extensive community of people from all over the place who knew each other from travelling to 4e-7e tournaments and had the same set of ideas about what was wrong with the game and what to change, sure, you could make a community edition easily enough. If you don't and are instead trying to gather a team from people griping on Dakka who agree on what's wrong and have completely different ideas about what to change, you're going to get nowhere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 jeff white wrote:
I agree with the OP about reintroduction of templates and facings and so on. Though I don’t understand why d12s are preferable to 2 d6s.


Linear probability curve. There's the same chance of rolling a 1 as a 6 on a d12, but you're six times more likely to roll a 7 as a 2 on 2d6. In addition to the batch-rolling problem.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 21:11:28


Post by: Tawnis


 jeff white wrote:
I agree with the OP about reintroduction of templates and facings and so on. Though I don’t understand why d12s are preferable to 2 d6s.


It enables you to adjust more parameters for balance purposes.

As I stated in the original example, with BS, you really only have 4 options to choose from between 2+ and 5+. Whereas with D12's you can go from 2+ to 10ish+ this makes it a lot easier to tweak units by smaller increments and make the game easier to balance. Another example, a good place to start testing hits and wound would be 7+ if even with WS vs WS and S vs T and +/- 1 point per difference. So S 4 on T4 would be 7+ (the statistical equivalent to a 4+ on a D6), T5 would be 8+ to wound, T6 would be 9+ to, and T7 would be 10+, whereas now it's all just 5+. Against T8, a S4 attack would be 11+ which is the statistical equivalent to a current 6+ roll. This makes every point in stats feeling equally relevant rather than certain values being considered better than others.

Also, the curve and rolling multiples as stated above.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 21:31:40


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Strg Alt wrote:
...Just some thoughts what I would like to see in a community edition. I won´t go into detail as there are many ways to incorporate these ideas into the game and to not create a wall of text:

Emphasis on USR:
Keeps a gamer life simple and stress free.


Absolutely.

Alternate activation
Keeps both players engaged.


The basic AA problem is that if you have to alternate every phase and you have a large number of units on the table (see: 8e Kill Team) it takes a really long time to get through a turn. Every AA system I've played that I've liked has restricted units to doing about two things a turn (move/shoot, charge/fight), which would require you to back off on some of more modern 40k's core assumptions about every unit getting to do everything it wants to every turn. It's doable, but I don't think it's doable while remaining close enough to 40k for existing 40k players to go for. AA 40k would probably look a lot like Bolt Action/Gates of Antares or Star Wars Legion. You'll also want to think about reducing the number of discrete activations it's possible to put on the table; if one army's cheapest activation is 200pts (Custodes) and another army's cheapest activation is 30pts (Guard) the Guard player gets pretty much complete activation control. Most AA games either are quite careful about making sure armies are usually similar in size (Crisis Protocol's points are set up so that you're almost always playing 4, 5, or 6 models), or have serious problems with people spamming cheap units to get more activation chances (competitive Bolt Action, Star Wars Legion).

Emphasis on small-sized engagements
Scale of the game shouldn´t be Epic with 40K minis.


Yes and no. One of the biggest things 4e-7e did for me was that the game scaled up really well; you didn't need that many extra rules to make much bigger games work just fine. In X-Wing you're playing 200pts all the time every game, Warmachine sort of works at 50-75 but starts to break down in specific ways if you go up/down from there, modern 40k is built for 1k-2k and once you step outside of that you start to run into all kinds of skew problems and problems with the 1/army mechanics (stratagems, WTs, psychic powers), but if you were playing 4e it actually kind of worked at 500pts and still kind of worked at 10,000pts. It's not perfect, it's never been perfect, but I think doing Apocalypse with the same core system is a worthwhile thing to consider. Also keep in mind that considering "does this still work if someone's trying to play a 10,000pt Apocalypse game?" is going to force you to consider speed of play a lot more than if you assume nobody's ever playing a game that's bigger than 1,000pts.

Several different actions possible for units
Take a look in Epic Armageddon. Spices up the game.


This one ties back into "restrict the number of things a unit can do each turn" from alternating activations. EA does it this way to make you pick one thing off a list when you activate each unit (though those things can be "move-move-shoot at -1") to keep play speedy even with alternating activations.

Abstract area cover
Essentially every model on a terrain base gains the advantage of it´s cover bonus. Scatter terrain works differently.


...Yeah, basically. True LOS and true LOS cover is shorter to write rules for but is tailor-made to cause arguments.

Wide range of modifiers
Ranged combat: Distance, Quality of cover, Speed of target, Size of target & Wargear.
Close combat: Wargear and Quality of opponent.


I don't think this is a good idea. I've played around a lot with modifiers for skirmish games and even there making the checklist of things you need to remember when attacking longer slows the game down and doesn't really add much decision-making. The sweet spot I've found is making modifiers for cover, range, and either attacker speed or defender speed, not both, and if you do those as core rules then never doing special rules that add modifiers on top of those.

Facings
Definitely for vehicles. Still undecided for infantry.


Facings are an awkward one just because GW wrote their rules in 4th-7th assuming rectangular vehicles, and by defining facings as corner-to-corner they ended up with lots of units with unusably narrow facings. I've come around to the idea of Flames of War facings (draw a straight line across the front of your vehicle, if you're in front of the line you shoot the front armor, if you're behind it you shoot the side armor) as a faster/easier to measure approach to facings that still rewards you for maneuvering around the sides of vehicles, but is more uniformly defined for all vehicles.

Templates
Yep, they are back.


I'd encourage you to consider going back to the 4e approach (roll to hit, on hit the template stays, on a miss the template scatters the full 2d6"). The later blast scatter from 5e-7e (template always scatters 2d6-BS") made you roll scatter a lot more, which took a long time and caused a lot of arguments (especially when multiple barrage was concerned), and required extra mechanics to cover things that would affect the to-hit roll (which you don't want if you're doing to-hit mods), and made blast weapons way too accurate.

Move stat
Yep, those are back too. No more idiotic SR to differentiate between fast and slow units. Keep random speed only for the likes of drunks (LOL!) and plague zombies.


Eh. On one hand yay, more granularity, but on the other hand it doesn't change the game that much that your infantry move 6" and mine move 7". Though if you really want to cut down on the special rule bloat having a move rate/run rate could be an interesting thing to include; something like Cataphractii armor (slow and purposeful in 7e, so they couldn't run at all) might move 6" but only run an extra 2", while jetbikes with their flat-6 or flat-8 turbo-boosts have that written into their statline.

Overwatch&Crossfire
Take a look in Epic Armageddon.


From my experiences with overwatch stratagems in 8e/9e and of range-restricted overwatch in Star Wars: Legion I'm worried this is just going to slow the game down. I haven't experienced it in EA but in 8e/9e and in Legion it was always just a deterrent to anyone moving into engagement range at all and it led to whole turns of stalemates as armies stared at each other across no-man's-land waiting for the other one to make the first move. If you're going to include it having some kind of counter-play other than "don't engage" (smoke templates to block line of sight, for instance) might be a necessary inclusion.

As to crossfire from EA I'm just worried that given the size of units and the size of tables in 40k relative to EA it's a geometric situation that won't really come up. EA's got much smaller units on the same size of table and much shorter ranges; in 40k you don't really see protruding salients that can get surrounded in that way.

Pinning/Stagger mechanic
Should come in levels. Units coming under fire should behave worse than those who are not being shot at. Epic Armageddon uses the blast mechanic for that. Some weapon types should obviously be more useful for suppressing enemy units such as template weapons.


The basic concern here is to make sure pinning affects everyone equally. GW was convinced that they were writing SM fanfic rather than a game from 5th on and made Space Marines more and more immune to pinning and morale, which basically made it a joke that didn't affect the game because so many things were Space Marines.

Wound allocation
Preventing abuse.


"Unit takes wounds. When the unit has wounds on it equal to its Wounds characteristic the defender removes one model of their choice." There. Done. (It precludes units with mixed wound counts, but that barely exists anymore.)

Scenarios
Take a look in 4th edition.


The major feature of the 4e missions that I think it's worth porting forward is that you get 50% of your victory points from the scenario and 50% from kill points. It's like the secondary objectives from current 40k but much simpler and doesn't give skew armies a huge edge by limiting the number of secondaries enemies can score against them.

Environmental effects/hazards:
Rain, Fog, Night, Dim-light, Blizzard, Snowfall, Sunny, etc.


Doing distinct effects for all of these is probably too detailed on the scale of 40k.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 21:47:41


Post by: Tawnis


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Strg Alt wrote:


Alternate activation
Keeps both players engaged.


The basic AA problem is that if you have to alternate every phase and you have a large number of units on the table (see: 8e Kill Team) it takes a really long time to get through a turn. Every AA system I've played that I've liked has restricted units to doing about two things a turn (move/shoot, charge/fight), which would require you to back off on some of more modern 40k's core assumptions about every unit getting to do everything it wants to every turn. It's doable, but I don't think it's doable while remaining close enough to 40k for existing 40k players to go for. AA 40k would probably look a lot like Bolt Action/Gates of Antares or Star Wars Legion. You'll also want to think about reducing the number of discrete activations it's possible to put on the table; if one army's cheapest activation is 200pts (Custodes) and another army's cheapest activation is 30pts (Guard) the Guard player gets pretty much complete activation control. Most AA games either are quite careful about making sure armies are usually similar in size (Crisis Protocol's points are set up so that you're almost always playing 4, 5, or 6 models), or have serious problems with people spamming cheap units to get more activation chances (competitive Bolt Action, Star Wars Legion).

What about a system based on activation point? It could be dolled out kind of like PL is now where it loosely follows points, but is much smaller. If say 1000 points = about 50 AP and each player can activate say (as a totally random example) 10 AP worth of units per activation, then the Horde armies would be able to activate a couple of units for each big unit from their opponent, but it would still balance out overall.

Wound allocation
Preventing abuse.


"Unit takes wounds. When the unit has wounds on it equal to its Wounds characteristic the defender removes one model of their choice." There. Done. (It precludes units with mixed wound counts, but that barely exists anymore.)

I think there are more of these than you think, especially in Troops. Ork Boys with Nobs, and Guardsman with Heavy Weapons jump out off the top of my head. I think Eldar Exarchs still have +1 W as well, but I'm not positive.

Environmental effects/hazards:
Rain, Fog, Night, Dim-light, Blizzard, Snowfall, Sunny, etc.


Doing distinct effects for all of these is probably too detailed on the scale of 40k.

Why do you think that? It doesn't have to be super complex. Personally I quite like the simplicity yet variation of something like the Twist system in Open Play in current 40k. Something along those lines would be simple but still achieve the desired effect.



40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 23:37:25


Post by: aphyon


Doing distinct effects for all of these is probably too detailed on the scale of 40k.


One of the few things in 6th edition that was actually fun was mysterious terrain and it works great in our kill team games, however in a 2K game you are looking at some serious bogging down of game play speed. Like i said before the great thing about 40K was the fact you could play this big battle where the rules were fun but not so complex like a skirmish game where you could do a 2K game in 2 hours or less.

his applies the same to

Wide range of modifiers


Works great in infinity, when you only have say 10 minis, not so much when i am throwing down dozens of infantry + vehicles.


Alternate activation


You would have to alter the game entirely and make it more like DUST where every unit that activates gets to do all of its actions-move/shoot, move/move, move/close combat etc... for the turn to make AA work in 40K


Move stat


Standardised move stats were clear, simple and worked great. it also gave units specific jobs.

move/run(no charge after run without fleet USR)/charge
infantry 6/d6/6
jump-12/d6/6
cav, leaping or beasts-6/d6/12
Bikes-12/12/6
Vehicles-6-12/6-12*/*
* Flat out with a vehicle on a road allowed non skimmers to move 18" in a straight line but they could not do anything else even pop smoke as the crew were driving so fast that had to concentrate on driving above all else.

Overwatch


Bog standard overwatch works just fine, we use it all the time in our 5th ed games, the key is remembering that the older edition were far less lethal in number of shots combined with hard saves. needing 6+ to hit a charging unit isn't breaking the flow of the game.


Wound allocation
Preventing abuse.


Probably the main complaint we hear about 5th ed core rules. i know why they did it and i know how the players abused the intent of the rule
The simple solution is the one we go with-

The controlling player removes the casualties as they like, multi-wound wounded models must be removed first. in the case of identical models with special or heavy weapons like a tac squad not removing the specials makes sense because even if you killed them some other member of the squad will pick them up as they are all trained to use them and would not leave something so important just lying about.





40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/26 23:47:32


Post by: Unit1126PLL


You could literally fix 5th edition's wound allocation by adding: "units may not contain more than one wounded model at a time" at the end of it.

Y'know, like fourth.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/27 05:39:58


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Tawnis wrote:
...What about a system based on activation point? It could be dolled out kind of like PL is now where it loosely follows points, but is much smaller. If say 1000 points = about 50 AP and each player can activate say (as a totally random example) 10 AP worth of units per activation, then the Horde armies would be able to activate a couple of units for each big unit from their opponent, but it would still balance out overall....


This is basically the same thing as trying to keep a single unit within a narrower range of possible points values, only requiring extra bookkeeping.

Environmental effects/hazards:
Rain, Fog, Night, Dim-light, Blizzard, Snowfall, Sunny, etc.


Doing distinct effects for all of these is probably too detailed on the scale of 40k.

Why do you think that? It doesn't have to be super complex. Personally I quite like the simplicity yet variation of something like the Twist system in Open Play in current 40k. Something along those lines would be simple but still achieve the desired effect.


All right. Go for it. Pitch me on distinct effects for rain, fog, night, low-light, blizzard, and snowfall that don't overlap with each other.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/27 09:38:07


Post by: Dysartes


 aphyon wrote:
Move stat


Standardised move stats were clear, simple and worked great. it also gave units specific jobs.

move/run(no charge after run without fleet USR)/charge
infantry 6/d6/6
jump-12/d6/6
cav, leaping or beasts-6/d6/12
Bikes-12/12/6
Vehicles-6-12/6-12*/*
* Flat out with a vehicle on a road allowed non skimmers to move 18" in a straight line but they could not do anything else even pop smoke as the crew were driving so fast that had to concentrate on driving above all else.

I'm going to at least partially disagree with you on this one - setting all infantry to 6" had two major problems.

A, Given human/Marine base speed was 4" in 2nd, you've suddenly upped their speed by 50% while not changing weapon ranges. Have we zoomed in on the battlefield (so 4" on the old table was 6" on the new), or are we looking at a longer time per round (in which case, should weapons be firing more shots).
B, You've removed a differentiation between units/species that actually matters on the table. We've seen this partially come back in 8th/9th, but the base speed being designed around is still too high.

It might be simpler - initially - but I strongly disagree that it was better. And that's before things like Fleet started cropping up so that units which should be faster than others in their category could actually be so - until those options get spread out to everyone in future editions.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/27 11:58:31


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
You could literally fix 5th edition's wound allocation by adding: "units may not contain more than one wounded model at a time" at the end of it.

Y'know, like fourth.
I never understood why they changed that.

 Gert wrote:
Good God, I'm agreeing with H.B.M.C, what has the world come to
Just bask in the glory of being right for a change.




40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/27 12:59:16


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
You could literally fix 5th edition's wound allocation by adding: "units may not contain more than one wounded model at a time" at the end of it.

Y'know, like fourth.
I never understood why they changed that.



In general I feel like they changed some things from 4th to 5th just to have a new RB to print. Can't make money if you don't have a reason to print a new rulebook!

So they took a functional wound allocation system and changed it, because why not!

They gave everyone Fleet (Run moves) because why not!

They changed the vehicle damage chart because why not! (Well in this case players actually thought transports were deathtraps; clearly those players hadn't played 9th yet. No invuln, no alive!)

They tore out the Campaign system (it's like Crusade with less bookkeeping but more narrative!)

They took out all the fun special missions (anyone remember sentries? Or the actually good bunker assault mission?). Don't worry, they sold you ANOTHER book at the end of 5th called Battle Missions that put them back in...

They removed the Extra Detachment system (and then brought it back in 6th but worse).

*Sigh*


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/27 14:30:32


Post by: kodos


Just for me to understand some things better:

you want a new game that is 40k in name only with the known faction (although you have to clear out the mess of codex and units to get things in line again) but with AA and a different dice system (direct rolls with D8/10/12 instead of D6+tables)

what is the game size you are aiming for, company level (aka, current 2000 points lists) or platoon level game?

and you want to build it from scratch, because taking some exiting rules (that are testing and have all the problems a different dice system and AA would bring already sorted out) would be too easy?


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/27 16:19:43


Post by: Strg Alt


A.T. wrote:
 Strg Alt wrote:
Could someone please post links to the variant unofficial rules? I would like to read them first before working on this.
ProHammer:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/796101.page

I'd offer you a copy of simplehammer but it is caught in mid-revision limbo, as it ever has been (and based on your list not what you are after anyway).


Thanks.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 aphyon wrote:
Could someone please post links to the variant unofficial rules? I would like to read them first before working on this.


Got an entire thread on it here-


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/789567.page


Thanks.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/27 16:22:13


Post by: Strg Alt


 Tawnis wrote:
 Strg Alt wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
You need core rules before you can do faction work.


True.

My post also mentioned the basic rules. I stressed the point of doing these factions first to prevent codex bloat from burying such a project from the very beginning. Take a look at Epic Armageddon. It had only three factions and was good enough to play. So limiting oneself to only work on six factions would be prudent. Once those factions work well and are different enough from one another work could continue on others.

Just some thoughts what I would like to see in a community edition. I won´t go into detail as there are many ways to incorporate these ideas into the game and to not create a wall of text:

Emphasis on USR:
Keeps a gamer life simple and stress free. Totally Agree.

Alternate activation
Keeps both players engaged. Totally Agree.

Emphasis on small-sized engagements
Scale of the game shouldn´t be Epic with 40K minis. Totally Agree.

Several different actions possible for units
Take a look in Epic Armageddon. Spices up the game. I've never played Epic Armageddon but this sounds promising.

Abstract area cover
Essentially every model on a terrain base gains the advantage of it´s cover bonus. Scatter terrain works differently. Would have to be defined clearly how to target units that have some models in and out, but I like this if done well.

Wide range of modifiers
Ranged combat: Distance, Quality of cover, Speed of target, Size of target & Wargear. Cautiously agree. Distance and cover 100%. The others, you want to be careful not to add too many modifiers and especially things that people have to keep in their heads like how fast any given unit moved.
Close combat: Wargear and Quality of opponent. Totally Agree, I think the old WS vs WS system is a great baseline for this.

Facings
Definitely for vehicles. Still undecided for infantry. Totally Agree. I think Infantry could be done pretty simple, like all infantry have 180 degree facing so it's pretty easy to tell what they can shoot without busywork while vehicles are done in 90 degree arcs.

Templates
Yep, they are back. Ehhh. Okay, so I personally really like templates because they felt very thematic, however, they did certainly have their issues. See the mass infantry players that had to space every model out exactly 2" to make sure they would loose less models to blast. Tell them they can't do this and it puts them at a disadvantage, allow it and it's a huge pain in the ass. I dislike this from a game design perspective as it is something that is impossible to balance because each player will handle it differently.

Move stat
Yep, those are back too. No more idiotic SR to differentiate between fast and slow units. Keep random speed only for the likes of drunks (LOL!) and plague zombies. I feel like I'm missing something here, units all have a Movement stat.

Overwatch&Crossfire
Take a look in Epic Armageddon. Again, haven't played, but changing it up certainly sounds like it could be a good idea.

Pinning/Stagger mechanic
Should come in levels. Units coming under fire should behave worse than those who are not being shot at. Epic Armageddon uses the blast mechanic for that. Some weapon types should obviously be more useful for suppressing enemy units such as template weapons. I was actually just thinking about this and have a few ideas that are a little too long to type out here, but yeah, I like this.

Wound allocation
Preventing abuse. In what way? Or do you just meant TBD come up with something for this.

Close Combat Result Modifiers/Effects:
Wounds caused, Outnumbering, Fear & Terror, etc. Totally Agree.

Scenarios
Take a look in 4th edition. If that was the edition with the Battle Missions book, yes, totally agree. (I get my older editions mixed up a bit as I only played off and on through them.

Environmental effects/hazards:
Rain, Fog, Night, Dim-light, Blizzard, Snowfall, Sunny, etc. Yes! 100% Totally agree, it still baffles me that the only place we see this is the Open War Twist Cards in actual 40k.






As many people have pointed out, community editions do already exist, but as they have also pointed out, no one agrees on everything and I think working on a new version would be a lot of fun. I think a full redesign with keeping the ideas and concepts but implementing them differently would make it feel very much like it's own thing as oppose to other fan versions.

If you're willing, I'd be happy to help out with this, can't guarantee I'll be able to spend a lot of time on it, but I've certainly been thinking about it a lot since I read this and sketching out some broad strokes Core Rule ideas if you'd like to see them.


Sounds great. I will contact you via pm in a couple of days.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/27 16:34:18


Post by: Siegfriedfr


For the sake of discussion, there is a very advanced project of the kind at this adress:

https://wargame.indiegamerules.com/games/stellar_frontiers


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/27 16:41:25


Post by: Strg Alt


 Dysartes wrote:
 aphyon wrote:
Move stat


Standardised move stats were clear, simple and worked great. it also gave units specific jobs.

move/run(no charge after run without fleet USR)/charge
infantry 6/d6/6
jump-12/d6/6
cav, leaping or beasts-6/d6/12
Bikes-12/12/6
Vehicles-6-12/6-12*/*
* Flat out with a vehicle on a road allowed non skimmers to move 18" in a straight line but they could not do anything else even pop smoke as the crew were driving so fast that had to concentrate on driving above all else.

I'm going to at least partially disagree with you on this one - setting all infantry to 6" had two major problems.

A, Given human/Marine base speed was 4" in 2nd, you've suddenly upped their speed by 50% while not changing weapon ranges. Have we zoomed in on the battlefield (so 4" on the old table was 6" on the new), or are we looking at a longer time per round (in which case, should weapons be firing more shots).
B, You've removed a differentiation between units/species that actually matters on the table. We've seen this partially come back in 8th/9th, but the base speed being designed around is still too high.

It might be simpler - initially - but I strongly disagree that it was better. And that's before things like Fleet started cropping up so that units which should be faster than others in their category could actually be so - until those options get spread out to everyone in future editions.


Exactly. My intention is to dial back movement speed for infantry. Advantages of such action:

1. Transports become more valuable.
2. Infantry doesn´t behave in stupid ways breaking immersion. I read a thread in the past in which someone explained how Genestealers were cosplaying as Usain Bolt sprinting around the board at a breakneck speed. Gonna have to delete such garbage fast.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/27 16:44:28


Post by: Siegfriedfr


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You'll never get anyone to agree to anything.

There are people here who want to consolidate the rules down into an optionless nightmare where the 8th Ed Indices would be seen as giving too much freedom. There are others who want to expand on everything - Chapter rules aren't enough, every Marine Company should have its own unique rules!

There are people who want the old AP system back, who want to enhance the current AP system, who want vehicles with armour values, who want to alter the core rule fundamentally and those who want to operate within existing bounds. I mean within four posts of the OP people are already discussing using alternate dice.

There are those that hate strats, love strats, want to change strats, want to remove them altogether. Replace 'strats' in the previous sentence with 'relics', 'warlord traits', and 'chapter tactics' as you see fit, 'cause they all exist.

There are people who refuse to acknowledge that there's anything wrong with the game, and will say "You can't change that!" at every turn, often with a bad "... because then this would happen!" excuse because either they only see singular things in a vacuum, or think we do.

There are those who want to remove Tau from the game completely and, as hard as it is to believe, insane people who disagree with them!

You'll never find a consensus.



yes, because everyone sees its favorite army in a vaccum and refuse perceived "nerfs" or the need for further balance.

I've said it in the past, but it's GW's job to provide a working Core and modular ruleset focused on simplicity for the community to accept it. Unfortunately, that's not their strategy.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/27 16:58:41


Post by: Gert


Except, as H.B.M.C. says in their post people disagree upon core rule concepts, not just favourite armies.
For example, I like 8th/9th but I don't want HH to use the same system. 40k had serious problems with equipment and relics that generally doesn't exist in HH, that and there is a much greater variety of weapons, wargear and upgrades for HH that likely wouldn't survive a port to the 8th Ed rule styling.
Some people like the R+F system from WHFB whereas others prefer the way AoS works.
It doesn't matter if GW provided a "working Core" ruleset because there will always be people who don't like it. That's where the lack of community consensus comes in, its not possible.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/27 17:22:54


Post by: jeff white


I think that GW should produce a rule compendium with layers and alternatives taken from prior editions and which people then choose to use or not depending on the degree of realism that they are trying to achieve.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gert wrote:
... people disagree upon core rule concepts, not just favourite armies.
...
It doesn't matter if GW provided a "working Core" ruleset because there will always be people who don't like it. That's where the lack of community consensus comes in, its not possible.


That would fix this problem... I think that this is possible.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/27 20:52:57


Post by: vict0988


 jeff white wrote:
I think that GW should produce a rule compendium with layers and alternatives taken from prior editions and which people then choose to use or not depending on the degree of realism that they are trying to achieve.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gert wrote:
... people disagree upon core rule concepts, not just favourite armies.
...
It doesn't matter if GW provided a "working Core" ruleset because there will always be people who don't like it. That's where the lack of community consensus comes in, its not possible.


That would fix this problem... I think that this is possible.

The only viable way I can see this sort of thing working is by expanding Narrative play to have more simulationist rules. 3 ways to play is enough for one system, GW is already having major struggles with balancing as is. Organising a matched play game should be easy, matched play, pts level, mission pack, casual or competitive lists are and gameplay etiquette should be enough, I don't want to discuss how many layers into the dreamworld we are going.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/27 21:11:57


Post by: aphyon


I think that GW should produce a rule compendium with layers and alternatives taken from prior editions and which people then choose to use or not depending on the degree of realism that they are trying to achieve.


Catalyst already did this with classic battletech

you can play hexes or 3d terrain rules and they have the core rules for them in the main book.

Then they have a second book (tactical operations) that is literally all the official optional rules you are free to use if your player base wants to.

Different ammo types, armor types, ECM modes etc....


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/27 22:57:32


Post by: PenitentJake


 Unit1126PLL wrote:


They tore out the Campaign system (it's like Crusade with less bookkeeping but more narrative!)



Hard disagree. Every single army in 4th had the same skill trees, no territories, no unique army goals or achievements. There were Kill Team missions, and combat patrol missions, but the two were regarded as separate both from each other, and the main game which included only missions suitable for 1500-2k points.

Fourth's campaign system was great for its time, and Crusade owes it a debt of gratitude; without the grand experiment of including a campaign system in the BRB at all, we probably wouldn't have Crusade. I liked the kill team missions- the idea of Bosses and Brutes, Sentries, etc. I'm not saying the system was without merit.

But comparing Crusade to 4th's "Campaign System" is like comparing 3.5 D&D to Basic D&D - You know, the soft cover book, where Elf was considered a class because game designers thought having both a race and a class was too confusing for entry level players.



40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/28 00:08:17


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Hard disagree myself.

Who cares what the progression trees are? There is so much more to narrative than mere 'progression.' IMHO, a game with no story that lets me level One Handed, Archery, Sneak, Illusion, etc. is way worse than a game that lets me level "combat" or "magic" but actually has a rich and compelling story.

And 4th had bits that actually taught you how to build and execute a campaign of each different type, including some I hadn't even heard of at the time.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/28 10:19:47


Post by: kodos


I am here with Unit1126PLL, 4th had a more well rounded system than 9th

You got everything you need including rules for small games and Kill Teams

the big advantage is that it is the same for everyone and not "you have a new Codex so you can have fun with Crusade, and you have to wait 2 years before it is worth playing)


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/28 10:47:05


Post by: Jidmah


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Hard disagree myself.

Who cares what the progression trees are? There is so much more to narrative than mere 'progression.' IMHO, a game with no story that lets me level One Handed, Archery, Sneak, Illusion, etc. is way worse than a game that lets me level "combat" or "magic" but actually has a rich and compelling story.

And 4th had bits that actually taught you how to build and execute a campaign of each different type, including some I hadn't even heard of at the time.


To be fair, it's not like 9th's crusade doesn't have that, it's just that GW has scattered that content across roughly 160€ worth of books...


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/28 13:59:12


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Jidmah wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Hard disagree myself.

Who cares what the progression trees are? There is so much more to narrative than mere 'progression.' IMHO, a game with no story that lets me level One Handed, Archery, Sneak, Illusion, etc. is way worse than a game that lets me level "combat" or "magic" but actually has a rich and compelling story.

And 4th had bits that actually taught you how to build and execute a campaign of each different type, including some I hadn't even heard of at the time.


To be fair, it's not like 9th's crusade doesn't have that, it's just that GW has scattered that content across roughly 160€ worth of books...


This I will grant, since I don't own more than one Pariah book (which does not do this) and the War Zone Octarius 1 book (which also does not do this).

I will leave open the possibility the others do I suppose. But honestly if they do I would be surprised.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/28 15:54:24


Post by: macluvin


The OP has my support. I could even fundamentally disagree with some of these changes but I would much rather the OP’s vision of 40k than GW’s. There was another version that sort of died as well, that may be worth looking at.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/796766.page#11073836


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/28 15:56:53


Post by: LordofHats


 Lance845 wrote:
The issue isn't acquiring d12s. Its mini d12s. Standard d12s are quite a bit larger than d6s and when a single unit of termagants are rolling 90 dice you need to fit as many in your hands as possible.


If there was one thing a community edition of 40k could do to really offer something, it would be to cut back on dice and rule bloat in the game. Too many dice. Too many rules. Honestly, too many models even.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/28 16:02:47


Post by: vict0988


 LordofHats wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
The issue isn't acquiring d12s. Its mini d12s. Standard d12s are quite a bit larger than d6s and when a single unit of termagants are rolling 90 dice you need to fit as many in your hands as possible.


If there was one thing a community edition of 40k could do to really offer something, it would be to cut back on dice and rule bloat in the game. Too many dice. Too many rules. Honestly, too many models even.

Sounds like you want to play KT.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/28 16:12:28


Post by: LordofHats


I did try Kill Team and I do like it, but it's also a very different game from 40k.

40k has become increasingly unwieldy over the years as its scale, number of dice, and number of rules have bloated. It's possible to cut all that back into a more manageable package without just creating another kill team.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/28 16:34:34


Post by: kodos


 vict0988 wrote:
 LordofHats wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
The issue isn't acquiring d12s. Its mini d12s. Standard d12s are quite a bit larger than d6s and when a single unit of termagants are rolling 90 dice you need to fit as many in your hands as possible.


If there was one thing a community edition of 40k could do to really offer something, it would be to cut back on dice and rule bloat in the game. Too many dice. Too many rules. Honestly, too many models even.

Sounds like you want to play KT.


yeah, because you either have to play with 10 models or 100 models, there is no space for something in between


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/28 16:48:18


Post by: Gert


I mean you could always play lower point/power games. Why does the entirety of 40k need to change when you could just not play large games? Combat Patrol is very much a thing.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/28 17:05:33


Post by: macluvin


 Gert wrote:
I mean you could always play lower point/power games. Why does the entirety of 40k need to change when you could just not play large games? Combat Patrol is very much a thing.


Common complaints about combat patrol seem to be that it is difficult to make the game work at that points level. Case in point: that thread from the brand new player wondering why his admech combat patrol was practically tabled in the first turn against a space marine combat patrol (the lists were basically what was in the start collecting or combat patrol boxes)


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/28 17:12:06


Post by: Gert


No, I remember that thread, and the issue stemmed from them being new to the game, a bad table, and an opponent with a better understanding of their army. None of these are "issues" with 40k but with the players.
So it's clear that people don't take the wrong message here (because I know at least one of you will), I'm not saying 40k is perfect, God knows it isn't. I'm saying try actually using the tools you've already been given before throwing them out and going out for new ones.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/28 17:18:26


Post by: kodos


usually you design a game with a specific size in mind and the machanics to work for that size

for example if damage is per model or per unit
if there are only 10 models on the board, damage per unit might not be the best option, were for 100 models, keep track of health for every single model might not work either

using the very same rules for 500, 1250, and 2000 points means not all sizes will work well, specially if the basic rules are designed with 500 points game in mind, but army lists for 2000 points


so yes, if you want to play a game outside its core size, it need to change


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/28 19:12:00


Post by: vict0988


 LordofHats wrote:
I did try Kill Team and I do like it, but it's also a very different game from 40k.

I am glad you liked it, too few models for me. I agree with most of what you write about, except for the models part, 9th has relatively few models IMO. My last 2k list used 55 models, I haven't played against a list with 150+ models this edition and there is always Incursion/1k pts. Are the rules for 500/1k pts bad? A mission set could fix that. 500 pts works really well for teaching games, I think it's just inherent to games with fewer pieces that they are going to be really swingy and one OP model might change everything.

9th is bloated, but I feel like all the bloat is almost entirely in the army-wide rule and Stratagem compartments, a Community Edition is likely to make the core rules a lot more bloated, so the game isn't going to be slimmed up at all by the end of it.
 kodos wrote:
usually you design a game with a specific size in mind and the machanics to work for that size

for example if damage is per model or per unit
if there are only 10 models on the board, damage per unit might not be the best option, were for 100 models, keep track of health for every single model might not work either

using the very same rules for 500, 1250, and 2000 points means not all sizes will work well, specially if the basic rules are designed with 500 points game in mind, but army lists for 2000 points


so yes, if you want to play a game outside its core size, it need to change

What kind of rules do you think would make the game more suited for 500 pt games and why wouldn't those rules make 2000 pt games better?


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/28 20:05:10


Post by: LordofHats


 Gert wrote:
I mean you could always play lower point/power games. Why does the entirety of 40k need to change when you could just not play large games? Combat Patrol is very much a thing.


Because the game really isn't designed with lower power games in mind which only makes the rule and dice bloat worse.

And this isn't necessarily a criticism of 40k's design exactly. Basically, every game system has a scale in mind and upper/lower points where it doesn't work so well. This is true of tabletop games, RPGs, and most closed systems really. There's a point where the system's balance just doesn't work so great. Here I'm not really complaining about that exactly. It's kind of a tangent.

Mostly, I'd really just appreciate 40k in a tighter package for my own sake. A rule set that involved less moving parts and fewer dice to sling and sped up play would be slick IMO. It would probably feel too streamlined or devoid of character for other people, since it would almost certainly mean losses of mechanics that are used to give different armies and units flavor.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/28 20:38:36


Post by: kodos


 vict0988 wrote:
What kind of rules do you think would make the game more suited for 500 pt games and why wouldn't those rules make 2000 pt games better?

current damage system on how hits are resolved are one hit at a time which you can do with a low model count on the table but not with each single dice in a 2k points game
you can do the fast dice rolling, but with that you have a disadvantage over doing it as it is supposed to be

the whole part of damage being resolved with single dice on single models, instead of units vs units is something that does not really work at 2k points


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/28 20:40:19


Post by: Lance845


 LordofHats wrote:
It would probably feel too streamlined or devoid of character for other people, since it would almost certainly mean losses of mechanics that are used to give different armies and units flavor.


This is looking for complication to add flavor when you should be looking for depth to add flavor.

We don't need complexity.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/28 20:44:52


Post by: vict0988


 kodos wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
What kind of rules do you think would make the game more suited for 500 pt games and why wouldn't those rules make 2000 pt games better?

current damage system on how hits are resolved are one hit at a time which you can do with a low model count on the table but not with each single dice in a 2k points game
you can do the fast dice rolling, but with that you have a disadvantage over doing it as it is supposed to be

the whole part of damage being resolved with single dice on single models, instead of units vs units is something that does not really work at 2k points

That doesn't answer the question. If 40k 9th edition is for 2000 pts then what changes could be made for 40k 10th edition to make 500 pts better if making 2000 pt games worse was not an issue.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/28 21:51:21


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Gert wrote:
I mean you could always play lower point/power games. Why does the entirety of 40k need to change when you could just not play large games? Combat Patrol is very much a thing.
Because the fundamental flaws of the 40k rules are not a result of the game's size.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/28 23:54:32


Post by: AnomanderRake


macluvin wrote:
The OP has my support. I could even fundamentally disagree with some of these changes but I would much rather the OP’s vision of 40k than GW’s. There was another version that sort of died as well, that may be worth looking at.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/796766.page#11073836


Isn't that the one that died because the guy who's running it is convinced that he absolutely must have exactly the same rules and keyword set for a WWII game, a sci-fi game, and a fantasy game, independent of whether the result makes any sense at all for any of them?


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/29 00:58:11


Post by: macluvin


 AnomanderRake wrote:
macluvin wrote:
The OP has my support. I could even fundamentally disagree with some of these changes but I would much rather the OP’s vision of 40k than GW’s. There was another version that sort of died as well, that may be worth looking at.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/796766.page#11073836


Isn't that the one that died because the guy who's running it is convinced that he absolutely must have exactly the same rules and keyword set for a WWII game, a sci-fi game, and a fantasy game, independent of whether the result makes any sense at all for any of them?


Possibly. I just noticed that it got a lot of attention then the threads died. It looked interesting to me at the time though. Like I said, I am looking for anything besides the rapid fire codex creep and half baked supplements that either fail spectacularly at getting an out of date codex by or accidentally add a wacky combo that breaks that faction. I feel like a wackaloon for looking for something like that though because I get the feeling that selling whatever I come across to others may be darn near impossible. I would love to have something in my pocket though for if I find someone else local to me that is willing to consider something beyond GW rules proper though.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/29 16:51:09


Post by: PenitentJake


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Hard disagree myself.

Who cares what the progression trees are? There is so much more to narrative than mere 'progression.' IMHO, a game with no story that lets me level One Handed, Archery, Sneak, Illusion, etc. is way worse than a game that lets me level "combat" or "magic" but actually has a rich and compelling story.


Yes, there is more to narrative than progression; that's why I also talked about things like taking and capturing territory to become the Master Crime Lord of Commorragh, taking a Penitent Oath and fighting your way to repentance, becoming a senior Cannoness or even a Living Saint; destroying and repurposing enemy technology to create better machines. It's why I also talked about how bespoke faction-based Agendas personalize the story of each battle and can be used to link battles.

And again, 4rth's system did have value- it's just that every army in it played exactly the same way in terms of missions, long term objectives and yes, progression as well. Also, the various points of the escalation continuum (ie. Kill Team vs. Combat Patrol vs 40k) were disconnected, each using its own rules so that you couldn't move seamlessly between them. Like: "Hey, my Kill Team has recruited a lot of members- I'd really like to add a transport. Guess that means I have to get rid of all my skills and gear, learn the new rules for Combat Patrol and play that instead. And then in another few months, I'll have to get rid of all my combat patrol skills and gear and learn the new rules to play 40k instead."

Maybe you think it's okay for genetically modified humans working for a fascist Imperium to use identical missions, have identical battlefield and story goals and progress in exactly the same way as a hive-minded devourer of worlds, or an army of daemons that occupy a parallel dimension, or a race that derives its immortality from the pain of others, but I don't. I am glad we have bespoke faction agendas, bespoke goals that include both a progression system and longer term goals like sainthood, territorial domination or any of the other path related content which link battles together in a narrative arc that actually fits the faction without having to houserule it.

It's also nice as a narrative (Crusade Player) to see Narrative (Crusade) content in every dex and campaign supplement rather than - "Yeah, we talked about narrative/ campaign stuff for 20-30 pages in the BRB, so shut up and houserule it from here on in. Want to become a Living Saint? Well we can show you how to run a map-based campaign that will work reasonably well for any army, but sainthood is up to you."

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


And 4th had bits that actually taught you how to build and execute a campaign of each different type, including some I hadn't even heard of at the time.


Crusade doesn't include this stuff in the BRB, but it's there. We've had 5 Crusade Mission Packs so far, as well as running flashpoint articles for more than a year in White Dwarf, plus the campaign content in the hardbacked campaign books. This content has given us tree campaigns, team and betrayal mechanics, grudge matches and vendettas and all sorts of additional content.

Having said that, I do think there could be more support for developing campaign systems- particularly map based campaigns. And I'd also acknowledge that the campaign structures that we have been given being linked to specific conflicts in specific locations may make it less likely that the material will be regarded as generic enough to be used outside of that context. But it certainly can be.

Many of the campaign systems mentioned in previous editions have not been invalidated by Crusade either- I still use Streets of Death from Urban Conquest. Planet Strike got it's reboot in one or another of the Crusade Mission Packs, and I haven't had a chance to check it out yet, so I'm not sure exactly how much it deviates from/ adds to what we already had- the folks at Goonhammer seemed fairly positive about most of it.

But again, I know you well enough to know I'll never change your mind, and I'm sure you know by now you'll never change mine. I'm not actually trying to change your mind; you've advanced a narrative based on your truth, I'm just advancing a counter-narrative based on mine so that anyone else reading along has the benefit of a different perspective so they can decide for themselves.

For the sake of OP- if you follow through with this project, I'm sure that both Unit and I would agree, you may want to include some information about playing narrative and campaign based games. Both of us do enjoy campaign play, and I don't think either of us would be happy with a version of the game that didn't include it as an option.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/29 18:28:25


Post by: Jidmah


First of, I agree with everything that you wrote PenitentJake, I just wanted to add my view about some things.
PenitentJake wrote:
Having said that, I do think there could be more support for developing campaign systems- particularly map based campaigns. And I'd also acknowledge that the campaign structures that we have been given being linked to specific conflicts in specific locations may make it less likely that the material will be regarded as generic enough to be used outside of that context. But it certainly can be.

The first campaign from the book of rust was quite specific to the DG conflict, but the other ones from the chaos and the ork book can be supplanted into any setting that is sufficiently close to the eye of terror or any ork territory. The scenarios of many missions also are common enough to use them as a pool to draw from for your own campaign.
It's also worth pointing out that GW is using the same framework to run all of those campaigns, which works surprisingly well - almost as if someone actually tried it before writing a book about it
We have adopted it for our own campaign and are quite happy with it.

I also fully expect the next warzone to bring yet another way of running a campaign. I truly hope they bring back Planetary Empires.

Many of the campaign systems mentioned in previous editions have not been invalidated by Crusade either- I still use Streets of Death from Urban Conquest. Planet Strike got it's reboot in one or another of the Crusade Mission Packs, and I haven't had a chance to check it out yet, so I'm not sure exactly how much it deviates from/ adds to what we already had- the folks at Goonhammer seemed fairly positive about most of it.

Containment has the planet strike rules and missions and nothing else. Our next campaign mission will be planet strike for everyone, so I will be able to share some experience afterwards
Catastrophe has rules for 3 and 4 player FFA games (aka everybody backstabs everybody games) which work a lot better than anything GW has tried before in that direction, though I haven't tried it with more than 50 PL per person yet.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/29 19:56:25


Post by: Unit1126PLL


PenitentJake wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Hard disagree myself.

Who cares what the progression trees are? There is so much more to narrative than mere 'progression.' IMHO, a game with no story that lets me level One Handed, Archery, Sneak, Illusion, etc. is way worse than a game that lets me level "combat" or "magic" but actually has a rich and compelling story.


Yes, there is more to narrative than progression; that's why I also talked about things like taking and capturing territory to become the Master Crime Lord of Commorragh, taking a Penitent Oath and fighting your way to repentance, becoming a senior Cannoness or even a Living Saint; destroying and repurposing enemy technology to create better machines. It's why I also talked about how bespoke faction-based Agendas personalize the story of each battle and can be used to link battles.

That's good for the people who have Crusade rules (which 0 of my codexes do). And good for the people that want to use those Crusade rules - I do own a Sororitas army, but why would I want a Living Saint for them? They're a minor order who worship Saint Sabbat. Getting a Living Saint of their own certainly isn't high on the todo list.

The codexes telling me what my narrative is links the game, it's true. But sometimes my narrative goals in a campaign are not what the Codex automatically assumes them to be.

PenitentJake wrote:
And again, 4rth's system did have value- it's just that every army in it played exactly the same way in terms of missions, long term objectives and yes, progression as well. Also, the various points of the escalation continuum (ie. Kill Team vs. Combat Patrol vs 40k) were disconnected, each using its own rules so that you couldn't move seamlessly between them. Like: "Hey, my Kill Team has recruited a lot of members- I'd really like to add a transport. Guess that means I have to get rid of all my skills and gear, learn the new rules for Combat Patrol and play that instead. And then in another few months, I'll have to get rid of all my combat patrol skills and gear and learn the new rules to play 40k instead."

Maybe you think it's okay for genetically modified humans working for a fascist Imperium to use identical missions, have identical battlefield and story goals and progress in exactly the same way as a hive-minded devourer of worlds, or an army of daemons that occupy a parallel dimension, or a race that derives its immortality from the pain of others, but I don't. I am glad we have bespoke faction agendas, bespoke goals that include both a progression system and longer term goals like sainthood, territorial domination or any of the other path related content which link battles together in a narrative arc that actually fits the faction without having to houserule it.

You're confusing "generic" with "bland". All of those missions are generic precisely so that they didn't have to proliferate bespoke rules across codexes (and feth you if you don't get one, like now). The generic missions provide an excellent framework for any army's narrative, if you have even a modicum of imagination.

And there was variety even in the generic. The Great Devourer wants to break open a bunker? Play the Bunker Assault battle mission, that allowed for a massive army of bugs to flow forwards into the enemy's defensive line. The Space Marines want to break open a bunker? Play the Strongpoint Attack battle mission where they work their way forwards and launch a surprise attack on all sides against an unprepared foe.

And if the Space Marine player wants to charge across open ground and attack a bunker in a pitched, set-piece battle, that's also allowed. Maybe such folly is the result of a commander on the Imperial side secretly turning to Chaos, trying to waste as many valuable lives as possible before being discovered... who knows! The narrative is yours, not your codex's.

The rules provide a generic framework within which to build a narrative, and go through the extra steps of explaining how to include Your Dude's narratives into the generic system... rather than just saying "Nice Your Dudes, but here's how the Order of the Martyred Lady crusades, so do that."

PenitentJake wrote:
It's also nice as a narrative (Crusade Player) to see Narrative (Crusade) content in every dex and campaign supplement rather than - "Yeah, we talked about narrative/ campaign stuff for 20-30 pages in the BRB, so shut up and houserule it from here on in. Want to become a Living Saint? Well we can show you how to run a map-based campaign that will work reasonably well for any army, but sainthood is up to you."

Yes, exactly.

Sainthood is up to you. Because not every ~100 woman Sororitas detachment will be working towards one of them becoming a living saint. Your army's goals, motivations, desires, even criteria for success are in YOUR hands, whilst the core rules provide a generic framework and suggestions/recommendations to include those motivations, desires, and criteria for success in the campaign. Crusade doesn't really do this at all, if you don't have a dex. And if you do? Well, I hope your criteria for success and your army's motivations align exactly with what GW mandates your Crusade system to support.

PenitentJake wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:


And 4th had bits that actually taught you how to build and execute a campaign of each different type, including some I hadn't even heard of at the time.


Crusade doesn't include this stuff in the BRB, but it's there. We've had 5 Crusade Mission Packs so far, as well as running flashpoint articles for more than a year in White Dwarf, plus the campaign content in the hardbacked campaign books. This content has given us tree campaigns, team and betrayal mechanics, grudge matches and vendettas and all sorts of additional content.

Having said that, I do think there could be more support for developing campaign systems- particularly map based campaigns. And I'd also acknowledge that the campaign structures that we have been given being linked to specific conflicts in specific locations may make it less likely that the material will be regarded as generic enough to be used outside of that context. But it certainly can be.

Many of the campaign systems mentioned in previous editions have not been invalidated by Crusade either- I still use Streets of Death from Urban Conquest. Planet Strike got it's reboot in one or another of the Crusade Mission Packs, and I haven't had a chance to check it out yet, so I'm not sure exactly how much it deviates from/ adds to what we already had- the folks at Goonhammer seemed fairly positive about most of it.

But again, I know you well enough to know I'll never change your mind, and I'm sure you know by now you'll never change mine. I'm not actually trying to change your mind; you've advanced a narrative based on your truth, I'm just advancing a counter-narrative based on mine so that anyone else reading along has the benefit of a different perspective so they can decide for themselves.

For the sake of OP- if you follow through with this project, I'm sure that both Unit and I would agree, you may want to include some information about playing narrative and campaign based games. Both of us do enjoy campaign play, and I don't think either of us would be happy with a version of the game that didn't include it as an option.


Agreed with all of your conclusions - and I acknowledge the gap in the number of non-BRB Crusade books I've bought. But I was unimpressed with the first one I bought (the very first one, Pariah) and decided that if this would be the model for all future Crusade books, I might as well not.

I also bought WZ:Octarius 1 but just for the Cadian supplement. Still not really that excited about the campaign rules from it, either - in fact, I have some pretty major issues with them that I won't get into here.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/29 20:08:31


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
...The codexes telling me what my narrative is links the game, it's true. But sometimes my narrative goals in a campaign are not what the Codex automatically assumes them to be...


Picked this bit out for emphasis. The narrative of Crusade feels to me like building a 5e D&D plot by rolling on all the random tables in the DMG. It's great if you don't know where to start and want to be able to come up with something approximating a plot without needing to know what you're doing, but if you do have a plot in mind for your dudes it feels very limiting. It's a great way to play through GW's story for one of their armies, not a great way to play through my story for my army.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/29 20:19:58


Post by: the_scotsman


Honestly id probably be way more OK with Crusade if it:

1) Ditched the absolutely dirt-stupid Power Rating crap, which has just never worked and once again puts an immense degree of power in the hands of people who want to abuse the system/know the best combos

2) wasn't stacked on top of the already ridiculously gigantic pile of subfactions+doctrines+army rules+auras+strats+traits+Relics+armies of renown+etc etc etc

In a system that had more sane limitations on those things, like say AOS does, I'd really be fine with Crusade's progression systems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
in terms of creating a community edition...good luck. best case scenario you get something like Prohammer - which allows someone to add a few little houserules to mostly nostalgic older mechanics from previous editions, and then you play it with a bunch of likeminded folks uninterested in breaking the game and *incredibly* your experience ends up feeling a whole lot better than when you used to play the main game where trying to break the game/use the best power combos was the norm.

Incredible. It must be your genius houserules that made the difference.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/29 20:29:10


Post by: Dysartes


Who peed in your cornflakes this morning, the_scotsman?


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/29 22:04:21


Post by: ccs


 the_scotsman wrote:
Honestly id probably be way more OK with Crusade if it:

1) Ditched the absolutely dirt-stupid Power Rating crap, which has just never worked


You're wrong on that. It's quick, easy, & close enough (for Govt work or GW games). It's not intended to be an exact science.
But hey, you've all backward engineered PL & know how many pts 1PL equels. Right? So what's stopping you from running Crusade with Pts?

 the_scotsman wrote:
and once again puts an immense degree of power in the hands of people who want to abuse the system/know the best combos


I'm going to share a dirty dirty secret with you:
Spoiler:
Those of us who can find/abuse the best combos using PL? Yeah, we can find & abuse them using Pts as well. Might be slightly different combos, but it's the same skill & more importantly the same mindset. So if you find someone abusing a system? Changing what you call the #s, or adding a decimal point, isn't going to change the results. You'll still be playing with an




40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/30 01:16:14


Post by: PenitentJake


 Unit1126PLL wrote:

That's good for the people who have Crusade rules (which 0 of my codexes do).


This is unfortunate, and I feel for you. If you want to blame edition churn, Covid, Brexit, the International Shipping Crisis, I'll go right along with you. This is not Crusade's fault.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

And good for the people that want to use those Crusade rules - I do own a Sororitas army, but why would I want a Living Saint for them? They're a minor order who worship Saint Sabbat. Getting a Living Saint of their own certainly isn't high on the todo list.

The codexes telling me what my narrative is links the game, it's true. But sometimes my narrative goals in a campaign are not what the Codex automatically assumes them to be.


Fair enough.

But you know there's more than Living Saints in the Crusade content of the dex, right? Like the penitent oath redemption arcs, the bespoke agendas, or the progression to cannoness superior represented by earning the right to use one of the blessings. If none of that works for you, you know you can use any of the generic agendas or other content from the BRB, or any of the campaign specific stuff in any combination, right?



 Unit1126PLL wrote:

You're confusing "generic" with "bland".


No, I'm using generic to mean that the rules in the missions are the same for every army, despite the fact that all armies are supposed to have different fighting styles, motivations, goals and criteria for achieving them. In 9th, this is achieved by combining missions with agendas and rewarding those with requisitions and battle honours.

Unique, faction based and campaign based options are provided for those who find them suitable, and generic options exist for those who don't. This is true of Agendas, Battle Honours and Requisitions, and what's more, you can combine options from all three sources in any combination you choose.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

All of those missions are generic precisely so that they didn't have to proliferate bespoke rules across codexes (and feth you if you don't get one, like now).


Okay... this is the second time you've said this like it's an inherent failure of the Crusade system rather than the edition churn model or the fact that the world has gone to hell, and it's the second time all call you out for it, because THIS. ISN'T. A. FAILURE. OF. CRUSADE. But don't worry- you'll do it again and I'll call you out again. Back on track...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The generic missions provide an excellent framework for any army's narrative, if you have even a modicum of imagination.


Sure. But without rules to represent that on the table, there isn't really a difference in anything but the story.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

And there was variety even in the generic. The Great Devourer wants to break open a bunker? Play the Bunker Assault battle mission, that allowed for a massive army of bugs to flow forwards into the enemy's defensive line. The Space Marines want to break open a bunker? Play the Strongpoint Attack battle mission where they work their way forwards and launch a surprise attack on all sides against an unprepared foe.

And if the Space Marine player wants to charge across open ground and attack a bunker in a pitched, set-piece battle, that's also allowed. Maybe such folly is the result of a commander on the Imperial side secretly turning to Chaos, trying to waste as many valuable lives as possible before being discovered... who knows! The narrative is yours, not your codex's.


These two stories sound different, but they sound like they are played exactly the same way, which means they AREN'T different whether they sound that way or not. Now it's been a long time since I read 4th missions, so maybe there were little things you could add in to change the ways the armies actually play- like the "without number" rule for the nids or whatever. But for the most part, no matter what your army was, you had to do the same thing to "win" and "winning" was how you got advances, which were the same as everyone else's advances.

In the new system, the primary mission is the same regardless of army, but you also have selectable Agendas to modify that mission- some of which are unique to factions and others which aren't. And you have to decide in battle whether unit objectives (Agendas) matter more, less, or as much as army goals (primary objectives) meaning that what constitutes "success" is more nuanced than it's ever been. And when you achieve either army goals or unit goals, you again have faction specific options available if they happen to suit your army, as well as generic and campaign based options if they don't (or if you are one of the unfortunate factions whose dex has been delayed), and you can mix and match these in any combination.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The rules provide a generic framework within which to build a narrative, and go through the extra steps of explaining how to include Your Dude's narratives into the generic system... rather than just saying "Nice Your Dudes, but here's how the Order of the Martyred Lady crusades, so do that."


Include your dude's narratives, sure, if by that you mean stories that play exactly the same way, just with different fluff. And again, if you don't like any of the dozen or so options in the sisters book, you can use any of the two dozen options in the brb or any of the half a dozen or so in each of the five Mission Packs or four campaign books AND you can mix and match!

Or you know, you could just play the exact same mission and get the exact same reward and just say "Yeah, I surrounded the bunker cuz I'm a swarm" or "Yeah, I attacked the bunker from all sides cuz I'm a crazy wolfy wolf" and "Now I can fight better cuz I'm a six limbed alien" or "Now I can fight better cuz I channeled my wolfy rage!"

Your narratives might be different, but your games are identical so who cares. A different skin does not a different game make.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Yes, exactly.

Sainthood is up to you. Because not every ~100 woman Sororitas detachment will be working towards one of them becoming a living saint. Your army's goals, motivations, desires, even criteria for success are in YOUR hands, whilst the core rules provide a generic framework and suggestions/recommendations to include those motivations, desires, and criteria for success in the campaign.


Again, the stories of your army's goals, motivations, desires are in your hands, because there are no actual rules for representing ANY of that besides a one size fits all set with various suggestions for reskinning it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Crusade doesn't really do this at all, if you don't have a dex.


Told ya you'd say it again. Told ya I'd call you out again. Difference is, here it's even better, because Crusade still DOES do this for you, even if you don't have a dex- you just have to use options from the BRB or the Mission Packs or Campaign books UNTIL your dex comes out.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

And if you do? Well, I hope your criteria for success and your army's motivations align exactly with what GW mandates your Crusade system to support.


Already addressed, but by all means, continue to pretend that the BRB and campaign resources aren't also available to every faction in the game. And the fact that the can be used in any combination multiplies the impact. You can earn a Charadon battle Honour for completing a BRB agenda and an Octarius requisition for a Pariah mission victory if you really want to; heck in the same battle a different unit might be pursuing an Octarius Agenda to earn a BRB Battle Honour. And guess what?

You can do it whether your 9th dex has been printed yet or not not.

Now it's true, you'll want to talk to your group about this because there is a rule that says you only get campaign rewards for campaign battles- but given the imaginative houseruling your group seems to have let you get away with in 4th, this should be fine- it's far less of a stretch or bend than what you've been raving about in 4th.


 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Agreed with all of your conclusions - and I acknowledge the gap in the number of non-BRB Crusade books I've bought. But I was unimpressed with the first one I bought (the very first one, Pariah) and decided that if this would be the model for all future Crusade books, I might as well not.


This is the important part, and I almost considered not responding because of this. I also feel like parts of my response may have come across as unnecessarily catty because of this. In the end, I guess I wanted to let you know that I read your response. Both of us already knew we weren't going to agree on specifics, and that is okay.

Sorry to be catty.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I also bought WZ:Octarius 1 but just for the Cadian supplement. Still not really that excited about the campaign rules from it, either - in fact, I have some pretty major issues with them that I won't get into here.


As much as I've been talking positively about them, I wouldn't say they're perfect either. I found that if you have it all, it's awesome, but if you look at the individual pieces in isolation, there are short-comings. And I've got gaps in my collection too- I've filled those in loosely for the purposes of posting with the Goonhammer reviews. Maybe we'll address the short-comings of the next campaign book + mission pack in another thread sometime down the road- like you, I don't really see the value of going over it from any of the existing ones.

And again man, genuinely, sorry about being catty- I've got stuff going on around me as I'm writing, and I've actually started this post over three times from scratch because of that stuff, so I'm in a grumpier mood than I should be.

Peace brother, and by all means, you do you.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/30 09:31:44


Post by: Jidmah


I'd like to point out that you are arguing with a person who, according to his own posts, is making uninformed statements based on having read 2 out of 26 books with crusade content.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/11/30 22:29:19


Post by: ScooterinAB


I'm also interested in doing something with 40k. I think the problem, though, is that it's too big a project. As others said, you're never going to reach a consensus on things. With 9 versions of the rules, it's going to be impossible to blend that smoothly.

I think a better approach to take is to pick one edition and work off of that. That way, instead of saying "I'm going to trying and make the one true version," you're instead saying "this is my take on this problem."


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/01 17:01:53


Post by: Tawnis


Personally, I'm finding this idea, if nothing else, a fun thought exercise. Still, I could see something really interesting coming out of it.

Yeah everyone has different ideas of what made the game great from one edition or another, but what everyone gives GW a lot of crap for is how they innovate the game. So rather than being nostalgic for the old days, I think that would be what would make a great "community edition" keeping some things and ideas that work, but building a new system/idea around it.

The OP's suggestion of going to Alternating Activations already requires a pretty hefty redesign of the base rules anyway, so why not go all the way on this. I said something similar when I was talking about how using a smaller amount of D12's would make scaling so much better than using a whole bunch of D6's as well as cutting back on dice rolls.

I'm working on a core concept idea that should be done in the next couple days that I'll put up then for many of you to all tell me how terrible it is but in the meantime, here's a bit of an idea on the scale of how the transition to D12's would adjust some profiles.

T1: Non existent, so everything can be lowered by at least one point if needed.
T2: Gretchin/Swarms
T3: Physically weaker than Gaurdsman: Eldar Guardians / Fire Warriors.
T4: Guardsman.
T5: Between Guardsman and Marines: Sisters/Kroot/Tempestus
T6: First Born Marines: Orks, Necrons
T7: Primaris Marines: Death Guard
T8: Custodes: Light Vehicles/Skimmers: (Land Speeder Storm, Scout Sentinel)
T9: Small Vehicles/Armored Skimmers: (Armored Sentinel/Land Speeders)
T10: Light Tanks/APC: (Hellhound/Chimera/Rhino)
T11: Tanks (Leman Russ)
T12: Massive Tanks: Baneblade (Just as a frame of reference.)

With this example, say a bolter is Strength 6. So that makes it 7+ to wound a Space Marine at Tough 6, then you either +/-1 for each point variance, going from 2+ to wound a Gretchin to needing a 12 to wound a Leman Russ. (If vehicles are even kept with Tough Profiles that is, but that's another conversation.)


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/01 17:44:53


Post by: vict0988


 Tawnis wrote:
Personally, I'm finding this idea, if nothing else, a fun thought exercise. Still, I could see something really interesting coming out of it.

Yeah everyone has different ideas of what made the game great from one edition or another, but what everyone gives GW a lot of crap for is how they innovate the game. So rather than being nostalgic for the old days, I think that would be what would make a great "community edition" keeping some things and ideas that work, but building a new system/idea around it.

The OP's suggestion of going to Alternating Activations already requires a pretty hefty redesign of the base rules anyway, so why not go all the way on this. I said something similar when I was talking about how using a smaller amount of D12's would make scaling so much better than using a whole bunch of D6's as well as cutting back on dice rolls.

I'm working on a core concept idea that should be done in the next couple days that I'll put up then for many of you to all tell me how terrible it is but in the meantime, here's a bit of an idea on the scale of how the transition to D12's would adjust some profiles.

T1: Non existent, so everything can be lowered by at least one point if needed.
T2: Gretchin/Swarms
T3: Physically weaker than Gaurdsman: Eldar Guardians / Fire Warriors.
T4: Guardsman.
T5: Between Guardsman and Marines: Sisters/Kroot/Tempestus
T6: First Born Marines: Orks, Necrons
T7: Primaris Marines: Death Guard
T8: Custodes: Light Vehicles/Skimmers: (Land Speeder Storm, Scout Sentinel)
T9: Small Vehicles/Armored Skimmers: (Armored Sentinel/Land Speeders)
T10: Light Tanks/APC: (Hellhound/Chimera/Rhino)
T11: Tanks (Leman Russ)
T12: Massive Tanks: Baneblade (Just as a frame of reference.)

With this example, say a bolter is Strength 6. So that makes it 7+ to wound a Space Marine at Tough 6, then you either +/-1 for each point variance, going from 2+ to wound a Gretchin to needing a 12 to wound a Leman Russ. (If vehicles are even kept with Tough Profiles that is, but that's another conversation.)

If I was re-designing Apocalypse (fast game with AA) I'd do mortal wounds and regular wounds. Give each unit an armour save. No comparing characteristics, weapons just make x mortal wound attacks (red dice) and y regular damage attacks (white dice), all do damage on a 4+, 6+ does an extra regular damage (mortal wound if the weapon is rending). Then do a save roll at the end of the battle round for the regular damage attacks and count up damage, get rid of the D12 save odd/even damage system. Resolving damage with two rolls isn't really difficult, you're getting rid of re-rolls, wound rolls and FNP rolls, that's already a big improvement in terms of speeding up the game.

Off the cuff numbers: 3 lascannons might do 9 mortal wound attacks with rending, 3 heavy bolters might do 12 regular damage attacks with rending and 10 Guardsmen might do 5 regular damage attacks. 10 Guardsmen would have 5 wounds and a 6+ Sv, a Leman Russ 10 wounds and a 2+ Sv. It would take 180 Guardsmen or 6 lascannons to destroy a Leman Russ. 20 Guardsmen or 3 lascannons to destroy 10 Guardsmen. Maybe ranges are tiny relative to 40k, maybe the Wounds characteristics should be doubled, I've never done math on this system.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/01 17:50:09


Post by: Strg Alt


ScooterinAB wrote:
I'm also interested in doing something with 40k. I think the problem, though, is that it's too big a project. As others said, you're never going to reach a consensus on things. With 9 versions of the rules, it's going to be impossible to blend that smoothly.

I think a better approach to take is to pick one edition and work off of that. That way, instead of saying "I'm going to trying and make the one true version," you're instead saying "this is my take on this problem."


Yeah, the title was suboptimal for this thread. Changed it a couple of minutes ago.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/01 20:08:55


Post by: ScooterinAB


I think the last few posts have some good ideas. I've also pondered the d6 problem. There just isn't enough wiggle room in there. That being said, if the dice were changed, I'd maybe say d10s instead. d12s start getting into the "sphere" problem that d20s have, and we already have trouble hitting the table with our dice.

I like vict's idea about removing a lot of the comparative rolls. There are so many roles being made and so much slowdown. This also worsens the RNG because no roll ends up actually mattering because there is another one that can undo it. And something like resolving wounds at the end of a turn could be a way to address alternating activation and the fact that action should all be happening at the same time.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/01 21:14:00


Post by: macluvin


ScooterinAB wrote:
I think the last few posts have some good ideas. I've also pondered the d6 problem. There just isn't enough wiggle room in there. That being said, if the dice were changed, I'd maybe say d10s instead. d12s start getting into the "sphere" problem that d20s have, and we already have trouble hitting the table with our dice.

I like vict's idea about removing a lot of the comparative rolls. There are so many roles being made and so much slowdown. This also worsens the RNG because no roll ends up actually mattering because there is another one that can undo it. And something like resolving wounds at the end of a turn could be a way to address alternating activation and the fact that action should all be happening at the same time.


I think the biggest counterargument to resolving wounds at the end of the turn is the book keeping... having to put counters next to everything you wounded that did not save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I do like this idea though, but be prepared for others not to so much.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/02 03:47:29


Post by: Mezmorki


Obviously this topic is near and dear to me (I'm the ProHammer author), so I'll offer up my two cents on this:

(1) I'm all for big ambitious projects. Go for it! Just don't have any expectation that you'll produce something unilaterally embraced by the community. Make it something that YOU are excited about and that your group is willing to play. If you can't get anyone to play it with you, the coolest ruleset in the universe won't matter.

(2) I think projects like this face a VERY steep climb if they are predicated on needing to write / re-write the codex books. It's a huge task just to re-write core rules to a decent level (I've been working away at ProHammer well over a year now). It's an entirely higher order of magnitude effort to re-write the codex books. And the more you stray from the original source rules of 40K, the more work the codex books will take. Something like GrimDark Future, which I'm sure has taken a ton of time to develop, at least focused on having a very streamlined and elegant ruleset so that making the army books wasn't as daunting.

I think also, from a player's perspective, there is a certain attachment to codex books that player's develop and an impression, even if we know it's misleading, that there is an internal logic or balance in the codex book that shouldn't be tampered with too much. Making all new rules and codexes means players need to not only buy into the rule changes, but they also need to buy into a vastly different codex approach.

The above points are why, with ProHammer, I decided to focus on making the core rules serve as an "interoperability" conduit between all of the classic (3rd-7th edition) codexes. There are no codex specific adjustments that are needed, just some blanket rules in the force organization section about how to use codexes generally from different editions. I think this really works well and empowers players to use the codex books they like best.

But back to the bigger topic and my suggestions...

(3) Establish your guiding principles. As said many times here, everyone has a different opinion of what would make the best 40K experience. If you want to connect with like-minded players you need to lay out your vision and guiding principles for what you want to achieve, and find people on board with that approach. That way, you can dig into the details and know you're all rowing in the same direction.

(4) I think it's easier to sell people on an extensive set of house rules and patches, rather than trying to re-build the game from the ground up. Earlier on in this thread, people discussed WHFB being picked up by the community since the old world was "killed off." While 40K continues on still, I'd argue that the "classic" era of the game (which I view as 3rd-7th edition) WAS killed off with 8th. Nothing in 8th/9th is really backward compatible with the classic versions.

So in a sense, the classic version of 40K was also killed off. So one approach, which is what I did with ProHammer, was to say "how can we make the best classic version of 40k to keep it alive?" When it comes to what people liked most within the classic era, my sense is that a mashup of 4th and 5th edition rules is what most people would probably gravitate towards if forced to make a choice. It is also what I've wanted, and so it's what I focused on making.

(5) Regarding some of your specific design proposals - again I encourage you to check out ProHammer, because it aligns with a lot of your ideas. Going off your list earlier:

* Emphasis on USR's - yes - I've assembled them all in a very concise list

* Alternate activations - ProHammer has a very light-weight reaction system AND old-school style overwatch. These changes make the gameplay more engaging for both players while still maintaining the overall IGOUGO structure. I am working (and have tested) a true AA module/addon as well.

* Emphasize on small-sized engagements - sticking with the current scale/scope of 3rd-7th edition

* Several different actions for units - ProHammer strives to inject more choices into rule, and I think the classic versions had done that already more so than the current versions. That said, ProHammer has options for going to ground, taking reactive fire to being shot or charged, forgoing movement+shooting to enter overmatch, not moving to gain a first fire advantage, advancing vs normal moves, voluntary withdrawal from CC, etc.

* Abstract area cover - we spent a lot of time trying to get the balance right here. We've very carefully defined terms for models, LoS rules, and terrain to both simplify but make sure terrain matters.

* Wide range of modifiers - This is NOT something ProHammer does. Classic 40K basically took a philosophical stance related to most situations that there are no die modifiers. While it gives you less tools to work with, in practical terms it can add a lot of mental gymnastics and overhead to just rolling dice. I prefer avoiding modifiers in most situations.

* Facings - yeup, ProHammer has this. We've gone to great lengths to standardize and clarify how vehicle facing is determined to make it simple and intuitive. No facing for infantry though. We felt that would be more appropriate in a smaller scale ruleset.

* Templates - hell yes they are back.

* Move stat - In keeping with the guiding principal of maintaining classic codex compatibility, we couldn't mess with this. I'm not entirely sure I'd want to either, although at times I miss it. It "could" be something that is implemented on an army-wide basis (i.e. all non-"slow" models in army X move at speed Y, etc.)

* Overwatch - yes, this is, as mentioned above.

* Crossfire - no rules for this, but we've considered it. We do have rules for SCREENING however.

* Pinning/Stagger - yes there are rules for pinning, which can also be forced via a special suppression rule. We're continuing to work on the way suppression works. I'm not sure we have it right yet.

* Wound Allocation - this was a major area of work and fine tuning. We've devised a process for wound allocation that is predicated on ALWAYS batch rolling / fast rolling attacks, and also fully considered multi-wound, mixed armor/cover save, mixed wargear, etc. units. It's been working quite well.

* Close combat result modifiers - another area we've revisited quite a bit

* Scenarios - 4th edition is a huge inspiration here. We have the "battle book" 50% done at this point. It lays out six different mission archetypes (think of the big mission categories from 4th edition like "Raid" or "Breakthrough"), and a series of charts to randomize many of the specifics within each archetype. One of the archetypes, for controlling standard "control points" basically encompasses the entire set of missions from 9th edition.

* Environmental effects - nothing yet, but it's been considered/discussed.


Anyway, feel free to hit me up with ideas or borrow ideas from ProHammer. Or if you have suggestions for me and ProHammer, if they are consistent with the vision there's a good chance I'd work it into those rules if it makes sense.

Best of luck with the project!




40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/02 18:23:45


Post by: Strg Alt


@Mezmorki:

Thanks for your input. I am aware that such a project is a ton of work but it can be done with dedication. I have read your version of 40K to p.31 so far and like most of the changes you have done to the 3rd-7th ruleset. Good job! However there are a few things which imo could be improved in your Pro Hammer ruleset:

- Rude Friendlies
Pro Hammer does not allow friendly infantry squads to pass through another friendly infantry squad during the movement phase while both of them are unengaged. For this to happen one squad would need to have such a coherency that actual models might pass through between models. So if models stand shoulder to shoulder movement for the other squad is denied. This should be logical in Space Hulk or Necromunda but in 40K it is a bit nitpicky.

- Omniscent Overwatch
Pro Hammer allows units to calmly pick their targets. I intend to go another route: When an opposing unit becomes a legal target for a unit on overwatch then the overwatch attack is triggered immediately. Being in a firefight is a stressful affair and the battlefield is not known to your units in the same way as to the player. So they will fire nervously at anything which might kill them in the next seconds.
Exceptions to this rule would be small guns having to fire at vehicles (waste of ammo with zero results) and units having a specific USR to avoid this restriction.

- Reactive Fire with Pea Shooters
Reactive Fire is performed via snap shots. This is already a severe limitation to the mechanic so I was baffled that these shots lost all of their AP values as well.

- Mercy with Instant Death
Instant Death only causes D3 wounds in Pro Hammer. Imo you have to draw the line somewhere in a war game which kind of wound is fatal and which is not. I think the vanilla formula was good enough.


And now to my project:
- Alternate Activation
I have played over a decade now 40K with AA via house rules. Can´t imagine going back to vanilla and falling asleep during another player´s turn obliterating my force while I can´t do anything.

- Modifiers
Players are smart enough to do simple math on the fly. The excuse "it slows down the game" was perpetuated by marketing people to justify yet another edition of 40K to be released.

- Crossfire & Stagger/Pinning
This will be implemented from Epic 40K. Test games will show to what degree it will suit 40K best.

And another thing:
-Transports
I have watched in horror now for multiple editions that often players drive up their rhinos loaded with SM simply down the centre of the battlefield without regard for any cover. Transports blow up as usual when confronted by heavy fire but the passengers hardly take any casualties or are limited in their actions when they are activated next time. I intend to make life a lot harsher for units who like to be blown up inside their transports on a regular basis to close distance to the enemy.






40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/02 18:41:21


Post by: Mezmorki


Thanks for taking a look - let me know if you have other feedback as well. Curious to see how your core rules stack up as well!

Regarding reactive fire:
Only heavy weapons shooting reactive fire are subject to snap fire. Non-heavy weapons shoot using their normal BS.

The switch to have the weapons AP ignored was due to certain types of units becoming very difficult to counter given that their weapon's were ideally suited to reactive fire. For example, charging Wraithguards with Wraith Cannons becomes a death sentence for many units that specifically intended to be a counter (i.e. elite high strength and armor negating melee units). Again, we want there to be reactive fire, but we want to make sure the lethality of the game is kept in check as well.

Or are you referring to units making reactive fire only hitting on snap fire on their next turn?

Regarding overwarch:
Conceptually, if a unit is going into overwatch I imagine it's doing so with the proper situational awareness to know what the key target is it's trying to target.

Regarding Alternating Activation:
Do you have anything written up (or can you briefly share) the system you've bee using?

Here's a post describing what I've been experimenting with:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/801429.page#11253809



40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/02 19:42:58


Post by: Tawnis


 Strg Alt wrote:


And another thing:
-Transports
I have watched in horror now for multiple editions that often players drive up their rhinos loaded with SM simply down the centre of the battlefield without regard for any cover. Transports blow up as usual when confronted by heavy fire but the passengers hardly take any casualties or are limited in their actions when they are activated next time. I intend to make life a lot harsher for units who like to be blown up inside their transports on a regular basis to close distance to the enemy.




You'll want to be careful here, this may just be one personal bias vs another, but I've had somewhat the opposite experience. I rarely use transports because I never find they do enough for their points (especially in 1k point games which I play the most) and on the rare occasion I do, I NEVER put a character in one. They always get focused down first, and on a 1 your important character that you're trying to protect in the transport is just gone.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be punishing, it certainly should; but to me the risk doesn't justify the reward/points investment, even currently (and you seem to think the opposite). This one will probably take a lot of balance. Perhaps a higher chance to wound, but you can allocate them to any passengers you want to give you more control?


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/02 20:22:05


Post by: Nurglitch


Is there anything in here addressing the issue of focused fire?


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/02 20:28:32


Post by: macluvin


Is there a community of people that play alternative rule sets? Especially on tabletop simulator?


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/02 20:29:43


Post by: Nurglitch


macluvin wrote:
Is there a community of people that play alternative rule sets? Especially on tabletop simulator?

Yup. There's a bunch of FB groups all about that.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/02 21:15:20


Post by: Dysartes


 Nurglitch wrote:
Is there anything in here addressing the issue of focused fire?

What issue are you referring to here, Nurglitch?


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/02 21:17:33


Post by: Mezmorki


 Nurglitch wrote:
Is there anything in here addressing the issue of focused fire?


As in it being too easy to focus fire down specific units?

ProHammer uses declared shooting - meaning that you declare all of your shooting targets at the start of the shooting phase, and then go unit by unit resolving the attacks. In our experience it does NOT add to the game time (makes it faster if anything) since you don't end up re-evaluating your shooting sequence each time after seeing the outcomes of each unit's attack.

It works well to cut down on focus fire, as you have to make a judgement about how much fire to concentrate all up front. And if you focus on something too much, you can end up "over killing it" and wasting excess fire. It adds quite a bit to the decision making in the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
macluvin wrote:
Is there a community of people that play alternative rule sets? Especially on tabletop simulator?


Our group is pretty insular, but we've been using TTS since the pandemic started, and we like it so much we stopped playing with the physical setup! Lately, we've even been bringing laptops (that can run TTS) to each others houses so we can still be in the same room playing, just over the virtual board!

I have a TTS mod I've been slowly assembling for use with ProHammer, based on adapting the other 40K tables that have been around. i need to get that posted and up for sharing. Has all the old blast markers, tokens, and even a process for custom terrain generation built in.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/02 21:29:10


Post by: ccs


 Nurglitch wrote:
Is there anything in here addressing the issue of focused fire?


What issue would that be?


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/02 22:51:41


Post by: macluvin


@Mezmorki well if y’all organize into an online presence like a discord group or anything I would love to try your system out.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/03 18:25:47


Post by: Nurglitch


ccs wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
Is there anything in here addressing the issue of focused fire?


What issue would that be?

The issue is simply that units can shoot at whatever is in range, leading the phenomenon of whole armies focusing their fire on single units and eliminating them in a single turn. Various early editions of 40k attempted to get around this problem by having additional requirements, such as passing a leadership test to shoot targets other than the closest and so on. At one point the Tyranids had a rule by which opponents could bypass these targeting restrictions so that opponents could target synapse creatures and larger, more dangerous bugasaurs.

Which makes for something of a dull game, and requires all sorts of additional rules to prevent characters from being 'sniped.'


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/03 18:37:13


Post by: Mezmorki


@Nurglitch

ProHammer does the following:

* Declared shooting (as described a few posts up)

* Screening rules - making it difficult to shoot through one unit to hit a unit behind it.

* Independent Characters - can't be shot unless they are the closest unit and within 18"


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/03 19:54:51


Post by: Insectum7


 Nurglitch wrote:
ccs wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
Is there anything in here addressing the issue of focused fire?


What issue would that be?

The issue is simply that units can shoot at whatever is in range, leading the phenomenon of whole armies focusing their fire on single units and eliminating them in a single turn. Various early editions of 40k attempted to get around this problem by having additional requirements, such as passing a leadership test to shoot targets other than the closest and so on. At one point the Tyranids had a rule by which opponents could bypass these targeting restrictions so that opponents could target synapse creatures and larger, more dangerous bugasaurs.

Which makes for something of a dull game, and requires all sorts of additional rules to prevent characters from being 'sniped.'
This is also one of those things that cuts down on the importance of maneuvering too. If you're guaranteed to be able to shoot at the target of your choice rather than just the closest unit (or closest unit of type X, as was also sometimes the case), there's less of a motivation to move/flank, etc.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/03 20:08:39


Post by: Mezmorki


macluvin wrote:
@Mezmorki well if y’all organize into an online presence like a discord group or anything I would love to try your system out.


I don't have much capacity for more games unfortunately - as I barely get in enough game time with my group as it is! I don't know if you use TTS or now, but I do have a TTS base module we've been using (but isn't uploaded on the workshop) that has a lot of assets and things setup specifically for ProHammer. Let me know if interested and I see about making those resources available.

Cheers!


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/03 21:04:35


Post by: jeff white


 Mezmorki wrote:
Spoiler:
 Nurglitch wrote:
Is there anything in here addressing the issue of focused fire?


As in it being too easy to focus fire down specific units?

ProHammer uses declared shooting - meaning that you declare all of your shooting targets at the start of the shooting phase, and then go unit by unit resolving the attacks.
Spoiler:
In our experience it does NOT add to the game time (makes it faster if anything) since you don't end up re-evaluating your shooting sequence each time after seeing the outcomes of each unit's attack.

It works well to cut down on focus fire, as you have to make a judgement about how much fire to concentrate all up front. And if you focus on something too much, you can end up "over killing it" and wasting excess fire. It adds quite a bit to the decision making in the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
macluvin wrote:
Is there a community of people that play alternative rule sets? Especially on tabletop simulator?


Our group is pretty insular, but we've been using TTS since the pandemic started, and we like it so much we stopped playing with the physical setup! Lately, we've even been bringing laptops (that can run TTS) to each others houses so we can still be in the same room playing, just over the virtual board!

I have a TTS mod I've been slowly assembling for use with ProHammer, based on adapting the other 40K tables that have been around. i need to get that posted and up for sharing. Has all the old blast markers, tokens, and even a process for custom terrain generation built in.

Love this.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/04 05:14:24


Post by: ccs


 Insectum7 wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
ccs wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
Is there anything in here addressing the issue of focused fire?


What issue would that be?

The issue is simply that units can shoot at whatever is in range, leading the phenomenon of whole armies focusing their fire on single units and eliminating them in a single turn. Various early editions of 40k attempted to get around this problem by having additional requirements, such as passing a leadership test to shoot targets other than the closest and so on. At one point the Tyranids had a rule by which opponents could bypass these targeting restrictions so that opponents could target synapse creatures and larger, more dangerous bugasaurs.

Which makes for something of a dull game, and requires all sorts of additional rules to prevent characters from being 'sniped.'
This is also one of those things that cuts down on the importance of maneuvering too. If you're guaranteed to be able to shoot at the target of your choice rather than just the closest unit (or closest unit of type X, as was also sometimes the case), there's less of a motivation to move/flank, etc.


So you're issue isn't one of focus fire, it's one of LoS.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/04 09:45:03


Post by: Maynard13x8


There is an alternative core rules call profanus40k. It is created and maintained for people from Spain. I knew about it two weeks ago. At first look appears to be 5th edition with some changes like vehicles with wounds instead of armor and other improvements. They say their goal is maximum equilibrium between factions, lack of destroyer combos, …
As far as I know, they are going to release a new version of core rules (with simplified mechanics and corrections) on Christmas. This release will also include all new codex since last update (April 2021).
There is only one problem, its only available in Spanish.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/04 14:36:32


Post by: Lance845


Professor Anus 40k? lol


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/04 17:30:10


Post by: Nurglitch


ccs wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
ccs wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
Is there anything in here addressing the issue of focused fire?


What issue would that be?

The issue is simply that units can shoot at whatever is in range, leading the phenomenon of whole armies focusing their fire on single units and eliminating them in a single turn. Various early editions of 40k attempted to get around this problem by having additional requirements, such as passing a leadership test to shoot targets other than the closest and so on. At one point the Tyranids had a rule by which opponents could bypass these targeting restrictions so that opponents could target synapse creatures and larger, more dangerous bugasaurs.

Which makes for something of a dull game, and requires all sorts of additional rules to prevent characters from being 'sniped.'
This is also one of those things that cuts down on the importance of maneuvering too. If you're guaranteed to be able to shoot at the target of your choice rather than just the closest unit (or closest unit of type X, as was also sometimes the case), there's less of a motivation to move/flank, etc.


So you're issue isn't one of focus fire, it's one of LoS.

No, it's units freely firing on any unit of their choice, narrowing the range of live options down to the optimal firing solution, thereby reducing player choice down to a procedure, and making the game boring as a result.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/04 17:36:51


Post by: AnomanderRake


Maynard13x8 wrote:
...There is only one problem, its only available in Spanish...


The next question is whether two years of high-school Spanish a decade ago, Google Translate, and a basic understanding of the syntax of Warhammer rules will let me muddle through.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/04 19:24:19


Post by: ccs


 Nurglitch wrote:
ccs wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
ccs wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
Is there anything in here addressing the issue of focused fire?


What issue would that be?

The issue is simply that units can shoot at whatever is in range, leading the phenomenon of whole armies focusing their fire on single units and eliminating them in a single turn. Various early editions of 40k attempted to get around this problem by having additional requirements, such as passing a leadership test to shoot targets other than the closest and so on. At one point the Tyranids had a rule by which opponents could bypass these targeting restrictions so that opponents could target synapse creatures and larger, more dangerous bugasaurs.

Which makes for something of a dull game, and requires all sorts of additional rules to prevent characters from being 'sniped.'
This is also one of those things that cuts down on the importance of maneuvering too. If you're guaranteed to be able to shoot at the target of your choice rather than just the closest unit (or closest unit of type X, as was also sometimes the case), there's less of a motivation to move/flank, etc.


So you're issue isn't one of focus fire, it's one of LoS.

No, it's units freely firing on any unit of their choice, narrowing the range of live options down to the optimal firing solution, thereby reducing player choice down to a procedure, and making the game boring as a result.


LoL, just LoL.
So being able to CHOOSE to fire at a target that's in range & LoS & doing so is boring procedure & somehow robs me of choice.
But making up/bringing back some rule that limits one to only fire on certain units isn't boring procedure devoid of choice......



40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/04 22:42:38


Post by: Maynard13x8


 Lance845 wrote:
Professor Anus 40k? lol

Profanus comes from Latin. In English is profane, blasphemous,…


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Maynard13x8 wrote:
...There is only one problem, its only available in Spanish...


The next question is whether two years of high-school Spanish a decade ago, Google Translate, and a basic understanding of the syntax of Warhammer rules will let me muddle through.


I don’t know, Spanish is my mother tonge , but what I can tell you is that I understand rules in English despite not being good with the language.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/04 23:08:36


Post by: Mezmorki


ccs wrote:

LoL, just LoL.
So being able to CHOOSE to fire at a target that's in range & LoS & doing so is boring procedure & somehow robs me of choice.
But making up/bringing back some rule that limits one to only fire on certain units isn't boring procedure devoid of choice......


Not LOL.

By giving players unfettered choice over targeting selection snd priority it's setting the for being able to perfectly optimize your firing order. It's an illusion of choice. The only choice is whether or not you decide to spend the time optimizing or not.

By having rules governing target selection based on the relative positioning of units (and specifically going beyond just LoS and range as factors) creates opportunities for actual tactical choices snd trade offs. You can look at it as limited choice when it comes to fire order (which it does), but it's adding choice and additional depth to when it comes to unit positioning and maneuver, which is typically less often a cut and dry matter of optimization.

The above is a situation where constraints and limits create tactical obstacles to work around and that can make the devious more interesting as a result.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/05 02:09:38


Post by: ccs


 Mezmorki wrote:
ccs wrote:

LoL, just LoL.
So being able to CHOOSE to fire at a target that's in range & LoS & doing so is boring procedure & somehow robs me of choice.
But making up/bringing back some rule that limits one to only fire on certain units isn't boring procedure devoid of choice......


Not LOL.

By giving players unfettered choice over targeting selection snd priority it's setting the for being able to perfectly optimize your firing order. It's an illusion of choice. The only choice is whether or not you decide to spend the time optimizing or not.

By having rules governing target selection based on the relative positioning of units (and specifically going beyond just LoS and range as factors) creates opportunities for actual tactical choices snd trade offs. You can look at it as limited choice when it comes to fire order (which it does), but it's adding choice and additional depth to when it comes to unit positioning and maneuver, which is typically less often a cut and dry matter of optimization.

The above is a situation where constraints and limits create tactical obstacles to work around and that can make the devious more interesting as a result.


We're just going to have to disagree.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/05 02:29:58


Post by: Insectum7


I don't think it's about choice or no choice. What it does is make maneuvering more important to the firing phase, and allow opportunities for an abstracted suppression mechanic by way of screening. Depending on implementation it also provides a way for elite troops to behave more reliably over less elite troops, rather than "elite" meaning "hur-dur-more-wounds-dur".


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/05 03:21:27


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Insectum7 wrote:
I don't think it's about choice or no choice. What it does is make maneuvering more important to the firing phase, and allow opportunities for an abstracted suppression mechanic by way of screening. Depending on implementation it also provides a way for elite troops to behave more reliably over less elite troops, rather than "elite" meaning "hur-dur-more-wounds-dur".

I agree, but......people complained that their "less elite" troops couldn't shoot at what they wanted them to as much as "elite" troops could back then as they do about "hur-dur-more-wounds-dur" now.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/05 03:27:00


Post by: Lance845


Switching the math of optimization from target selection in the shooting phase to positioning in the moving phase doesn't make it less math or optimization and doesn't change players focus firing. It just changes the amount they can do it.
You are not eliminating the problem, you are only changing the factors in the equation. It's still an equation.

If you want players to have to think about when and how they move and shoot without the ability to focus fire unfettered, you need to start looking at AA.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/05 16:32:35


Post by: Strg Alt


 Mezmorki wrote:
ccs wrote:

LoL, just LoL.
So being able to CHOOSE to fire at a target that's in range & LoS & doing so is boring procedure & somehow robs me of choice.
But making up/bringing back some rule that limits one to only fire on certain units isn't boring procedure devoid of choice......


Not LOL.

By giving players unfettered choice over targeting selection snd priority it's setting the for being able to perfectly optimize your firing order. It's an illusion of choice. The only choice is whether or not you decide to spend the time optimizing or not.

By having rules governing target selection based on the relative positioning of units (and specifically going beyond just LoS and range as factors) creates opportunities for actual tactical choices snd trade offs. You can look at it as limited choice when it comes to fire order (which it does), but it's adding choice and additional depth to when it comes to unit positioning and maneuver, which is typically less often a cut and dry matter of optimization.

The above is a situation where constraints and limits create tactical obstacles to work around and that can make the devious more interesting as a result.


People who think target priority rules restrict their joy of playing need to either watch a war movie or read a novel about firefights. Infantry keep their heads down when bullets fly and fire back at opposing units which usually tend to be the closest targets. Apparently having static models on the table standing straight doesn´t help to convey these conditions. When you also add the deafening noise of battle, rubble flying around and dust/smoke kicking up from explosions the thought of calmly selecting a far away target becomes an utter illusion. War is hell.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/05 19:09:41


Post by: PenitentJake


 Mezmorki wrote:

By giving players unfettered choice over targeting selection snd priority it's setting the for being able to perfectly optimize your firing order. It's an illusion of choice. The only choice is whether or not you decide to spend the time optimizing or not.


So having few or no choices about what you can shoot increases choices about where you can move?

Seems like a poor trade off to me when choices about where to move already exist in games with multiple objectives and obscuring terrain. And if you can only shoot the closest choice, why isn't moving "An illusion of choice" when the strategy is then ALWAYS put your least important units closest to the most dangerous enemy?

No matter what the rules, if the game isn't purely random, there's always a best choice. This never means there is no choice.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/05 19:54:12


Post by: Mezmorki


The "depth" of a given decision is a function of the number of factors or layers that play into making that decision. Depth is also increased where the assessment of the likely outcome of a choice is more ambiguous (ie it can't be easily calculated). Ideally this ambiguity emanates from the uncertainty of what your opponent you will do when they in turn face a complex decision about how to respond to your line of play. Navigating these uncertainties in deep decisions are about skillful play (aka heuristics or rules of thumb) that one develops through experience in reading complex board positions.

Consideration of range and LoS are two factors that play into decisions. But many games (even older 40K games) have additional layers to their decisions that make for deeper play.

Having to shoot the closest unit means that a unit's position relative to other units on the board is an added factor.

On the defensive side, a whole realm of strategy opens up regarding what units you try to keep on the front line in order to provide screening. Those decisions must be considered around where one might otherwise move that unit (or the units behind the screen) in terms of moving onto objectives or into better firing positions of their own. Maybe staying behind the screen means being out of effective firing range, do you break the screen to close range?

On the offensive side, having to shoot the closest opens up avenues for maneuvering around enemy units to avoid a screen. Can you swing a unit around the flank to get close to the unit behind the screen? What trade offs are involved in making that maneuver.

That's just screening. Other game systems use things like declared fire, where have to nominate all your shooting targets at the start of the phase before firing. This is to represent the simultaneous nature of units shooting, but in terms of depth adds a whole layer of risk-reward decisions regarding how you spread your fire around.

Other game systems have rules for crossfire, or true overwatch, all of which add depth to the game and often pertain to tougher to assess decision making. Do you shoot now or go on overwatch and wait for a better target to present itself? What if your opponent doesn't take the bait and avoids exposing their units? These are harder to calculate or optimize type decisions, and make for a better game IMHO.

There's no reason these types of mechanisms can't work in 40K (and most of them have in one old version or another) and they would make for a richer gameplay experience. YMMV.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/05 20:07:34


Post by: Lance845


In practice this would devolve into placing unfavorable targets in the way of people. Does that unit have an anti infantry gun? Park a tank in front of it. Especially if that tank is equipped with an anti infantry gun that can mess up the unit.

Or requiring a shooting order. First, I will position and fire all my anti tank to focus fire the tank down. Now that it's dead, I can move on to my anti infantry who now have new targets they can shoot at since the tank is out of the way.

I don't agree that forcing people to shoot the nearest target increases depth or choice.



I have posted terrain rules multiple times that treated intervening units as light terrain (a -1 to hit when shooting through them). You are not telling the player they HAVE to shoot the nearest. You are creating a situation where position provides benefits and hinderences and the players have to make choices about when and how they are going to deal with those things.

The hard cap, all or nothing, have tos don't add depth and they take away choice. The real depth comes from things like that coupled with AA. I could do x y z. But suffer consequences and don't know how the enemy will respond.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/05 20:18:13


Post by: Mezmorki


Oh, I totally agree that there better ways to handle having to shoot the closest unit that a hard "Thou must shoot the closest unit." Even when implemented in older 40K rules there were exceptions to that rule, and a leadership test to try and avoid it.

In ProHammer there is a rule specifically for screening, which stipulates when a screen is intact or not. ProHammer also uses declared fire. So you can declare shots against a unit behind the screen, but if the screen is "intact" all of your hits automatically hit the screening unit instead. But - you can try to break the screen first by resolving shooting with a different unit first to kill enough models to let your other unit shoot around the screen. How you distribute your shooting with using declared fire can get pretty agonizing (in a good way!).


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/05 20:43:04


Post by: jeff white


As it should.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/05 22:36:41


Post by: Insectum7


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
I don't think it's about choice or no choice. What it does is make maneuvering more important to the firing phase, and allow opportunities for an abstracted suppression mechanic by way of screening. Depending on implementation it also provides a way for elite troops to behave more reliably over less elite troops, rather than "elite" meaning "hur-dur-more-wounds-dur".

I agree, but......people complained that their "less elite" troops couldn't shoot at what they wanted them to as much as "elite" troops could back then as they do about "hur-dur-more-wounds-dur" now.
Yeah well, the customer is not always right


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/05 23:06:41


Post by: Nurglitch


 Lance845 wrote:
In practice this would devolve into placing unfavorable targets in the way of people. Does that unit have an anti infantry gun? Park a tank in front of it. Especially if that tank is equipped with an anti infantry gun that can mess up the unit.

This sounds really good to me.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 00:38:44


Post by: H.B.M.C.


I want to shoot that Battlewagon, but those unit of Gretchin are just a bit closer, so I guess my Lascannon guy has to sit around with a thumb up his ass until they're dead.

No. I hate "shoot closest" or "target priority" rules.

Of course, I had never even considered declared shooting in 40k. It's something I'm very used to in BattleTech, but applying it to 40k just makes so much sense. You want to ensure something dies, declare a lot against it, but you risk wasting shots. Don't put enough into a target, and you'll take the risk of leaving it alive.

Great idea.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 00:42:30


Post by: Mezmorki


The "shoot closest" rules in 4th always had the provision that you could shoot either the closest vehicle OR the closest non-vehicle. So you could ignore the Grenchin to shoot the battle wagon in your example.

And remember, a Ld test could be taken to shoot something other than the closest.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 01:06:10


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Mezmorki wrote:
The "shoot closest" rules in 4th always had the provision that you could shoot either the closest vehicle OR the closest non-vehicle. So you could ignore the Grenchin to shoot the battle wagon in your example.

And remember, a Ld test could be taken to shoot something other than the closest.
I know what the rules were. Doesn't mean I liked them. I'm especially bitter about them because Marines got to ignore them thanks to having Ld10 army-wide just because they brought a Captain.

I understand Nurglitch's point, but the "Target Priority" rules from 4th Ed are not the solution.



40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 02:02:36


Post by: catbarf


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I know what the rules were. Doesn't mean I liked them.


Don't you think it's a little unfair to hold up 'I can't shoot the tank because the grots are there' as an example for why it's bad, then? I get not liking target priority on principle, but you're citing a situation that was explicitly handled by the rule.

Anyways, I like declared shooting as a mechanic, but that's a lot to keep track of across an entire army (with split fire) for an entire shooting phase. I can't think of an elegant way to represent it on the table, either. Battletech has the major advantage of being designed for a lesser number of units.

Apocalypse accomplishes a similar effect by resolving damage after all shooting is conducted. You still get to assign fire and see the results before firing with another unit, but you only know how many saves the target will have to take until damage is actually resolved. Not a perfect solution for 40K either, but worth considering.

Fireball Forward does something similar through its activation system. When given a certain number of units to activate in a single impulse, you have to assign an activation order to your units before actually doing anything. That forces an element of planning and on-the-fly adaptation.

Just food for thought.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 02:09:15


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 catbarf wrote:
Don't you think it's a little unfair to hold up 'I can't shoot the tank because the grots are there' as an example for why it's bad, then? I get not liking target priority on principle, but you're citing a situation that was explicitly handled by the rule.
Then replace the Battelwagon with MANZ. Same problem. Same dumb rules.

 catbarf wrote:
Anyways, I like declared shooting as a mechanic, but that's a lot to keep track of across an entire army (with split fire) for an entire shooting phase.
I thought of that, but I'll take keeping track of declared shots over 4th's target priority rules.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 02:21:24


Post by: catbarf


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Then replace the Battelwagon with MANZ. Same problem. Same dumb rules.


With a size system, it wouldn't be that hard to say that a unit is only screened (for the purpose of target priority or line of sight) by units the same size as larger. You wouldn't need that many categories- smaller than human, human-to-Marine-sized, Ogryn-sized, vehicle-sized, superheavy-sized would cover most of the weird cases.

So Grots couldn't shield for MANZ, but Tacticals could screen for Devastators, and even if you passed the target priority test you'd have degraded shooting (IIRC it conferred a cover save back in the day) against the screened unit. You could shoot the closest target in any chosen category without having to test, or take the test for unrestricted targeting.

But I'm also a fan of just having screening rules. Positioning should matter IMO.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 02:48:37


Post by: Mezmorki


Regarding declared fire:

We've played many many games of ProHammer using it, and it's never been an issue to track, and we don't use anything physical to track it either.

Bear in mind, that in ProHammer units can only split fire once (following a Ld test), so it isn't like 8th/9th where potentially each model could be firing at different targets. This keeps it simpler for declared fire. If you really wanted to track it just make some quick tokens with number pairs and drop a half the pair by each unit and the other half by it's target.

Regarding screening. What ProHammer does (and we're fine tuning this right now) is that a target unit is screened if all the lines of fire between the shooting unit and it's target must pass through other enemy models or between gaps in other enemy models less than 2" wide (coherency). If so, then a screen exists and any shots that hit instead hit the screen.

Normal size models can't screen for vehicles or monstrous creatures. So you can ignore a screen to shoot those larger target. Vehicles themselves count as a obscuring terrain feature when trying to shoot a unit behind it (assuming you have at least some LoS around the vehicle), which grants the unit a cover save.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 02:57:14


Post by: Insectum7


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
Don't you think it's a little unfair to hold up 'I can't shoot the tank because the grots are there' as an example for why it's bad, then? I get not liking target priority on principle, but you're citing a situation that was explicitly handled by the rule.
Then replace the Battelwagon with MANZ. Same problem. Same dumb rules.
Imagine the rules were different. Are you against ANY sort of fire-control discipline/screening rules?


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 02:59:10


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 catbarf wrote:
With a size system, it wouldn't be that hard to say that a unit is only screened (for the purpose of target priority or line of sight) by units the same size as larger. You wouldn't need that many categories- smaller than human, human-to-Marine-sized, Ogryn-sized, vehicle-sized, superheavy-sized would cover most of the weird cases.
Pro-Hammer's screening rules seem fairly straightforward.

 catbarf wrote:
But I'm also a fan of just having screening rules. Positioning should matter IMO.
Positioning should matter, but so should the choice of my units. My squad with 4 Meltaguns isn't going to fire at the chaff unit when the thing they're meant to be shooting is just a bit further away. By the same token, my squad with 4 Flamers isn't going to waste their ammo on the nearby Chaos Terminators, when there's horde of Chaos Cultists slightly behind them.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Are you against ANY sort of fire-control discipline/screening rules?
I'm against any system that prevents a completely active (ie. non-broken/pinned etc.) from being able to use its direct-fire weapons at a target that it is both within range and LOS of due to arbitrary restrictions. I'm fine with being able to target only one unit unless something like a Leadership test is passed, as that shows off the squad leader actually leading the squad, and is an elegant mix of fluff and crunch (hell, our own 40k rules from years ago included this as a general rule), and it also opens up granular rules opportunities such as units that are unable to split fire due to temperament or training (Berzerkers or Gretchin) and those that do it inherently due to experience or technology (Long Fangs, Tau Multi-Trackers). But needing to take a test every time you want to fire at something that isn't the closest target, regardless of the weapons being used and (for the most part) the target being fired upon? No way!

"Sorry, you'll have to fire your squad of 16 Assault Cannons and 10 Frag Missile launchers at the brutally depleted unit of 3 Hormagaunts because they're 1" closer than the fresh unit of 30, which is obviously a better target, but suck it, 'Target Priority, bitch!"







40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 03:26:02


Post by: catbarf


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
"Sorry, you'll have to fire your squad of 16 Assault Cannons and 10 Frag Missile launchers at the brutally depleted unit of 3 Hormagaunts because they're 1" closer than the fresh unit of 30, which is obviously a better target, but suck it, 'Target Priority, bitch!"


That example specifically seems like more a problem of 40K's targeting/wound allocation being tied to the enemy's force organization rather than their actual disposition on the battlefield. I enjoy how Chain of Command handles targeting and wound allocation in a way such that whether I have three ten-man squads crammed into a tight space or one thirty-man squad makes zero difference to my opponent's shooting.

Do we assume that every Guardsman is perfectly disciplined and willing to ignore the Cultists shooting at him thirty yards away to instead take a shot at the CSM two hundred yards away and not so much as looking in his direction? I think it depends on what you expect from a wargame, and targeting restrictions are no more 'arbitrary' than any other limits on player activity.

In general, I like the idea of differing armies in terms of command and control. Guard and Orks seem more likely to engage the nearest, most immediate threat than, say, Marines. These kinds of distinctions can make armies play differently in ways beyond raw combat power. Ld seems the obvious stat to mediate this; I'm open to pretty much any suggestion for making Ld more valuable.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 03:29:00


Post by: Insectum7


@HBMC : But you're fine with a unit being able to shoot through a 20 man unit at a 3 man unit that looks identical except for size (in order to score a kill point, or whatever)? Because that feels equally artificial.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 03:38:19


Post by: Mezmorki


 Insectum7 wrote:
@HBMC : But you're fine with a unit being able to shoot through a 20 man unit at a 3 man unit that looks identical except for size (in order to score a kill point, or whatever)? Because that feels equally artificial.


To be fair to HBMC, they stated the ProHammer screening rules make sense. Under those rules, the physical situation on the board comes into play. It would be difficult for 3 models to form a screen for 20 modes behind them, because the 3 screening models would have to block ALL potential lines of fire. Conversely, it would be very easy for 20 models to screen for 3 models under the same rules.

Obviously the positioning and geometry starts to matter though. It's possible for 3 modes to screen, but they'd probably need to get really close first in order to zone out the firing lines. But then it makes it easier for their opponent to flank around them and avoid the screen. But maybe that need to flank around requires moving off the objective or moving out of the safety of cover. But these sorts of trade offs are exactly what the rule is intended to do. Sounds like HBMC recognizes this just fine, as being a more logical way perhaps to handle target selection.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 03:50:33


Post by: Insectum7


 Mezmorki wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
@HBMC : But you're fine with a unit being able to shoot through a 20 man unit at a 3 man unit that looks identical except for size (in order to score a kill point, or whatever)? Because that feels equally artificial.


To be fair to HBMC, they stated the ProHammer screening rules make sense. Under those rules, the physical situation on the board comes into play. It would be difficult for 3 models to form a screen for 20 modes behind them, because the 3 screening models would have to block ALL potential lines of fire. Conversely, it would be very easy for 20 models to screen for 3 models under the same rules.

Obviously the positioning and geometry starts to matter though. It's possible for 3 modes to screen, but they'd probably need to get really close first in order to zone out the firing lines. But then it makes it easier for their opponent to flank around them and avoid the screen. But maybe that need to flank around requires moving off the objective or moving out of the safety of cover. But these sorts of trade offs are exactly what the rule is intended to do. Sounds like HBMC recognizes this just fine, as being a more logical way perhaps to handle target selection.
While that sounds like a reasonable system, it doesn't appear to offer any way to use Ld (or other) in a way that differentiates different "discipline" levels of troops, which is one of tge things I really appreciated about the 4th ed mechanic.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 04:08:34


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Which is why I agreed with the ProHammer idea.

Having to make a test every time you want to fire at something slightly further away is stupid. I'd rather potential screening/LOS rules be built organically into the rules themselves.

I mean, it's either that or the current system, where you can kill things that are both out of range and LOS as long as you can see the tip of a claw on one model in the unit... but only to the side of terrain, never over it, because *mumble mumble* greatest edition ever *mumble mumble* meta-watch *mumble mumble*


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 04:11:02


Post by: Insectum7


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Which is why I agreed with the ProHammer idea.
Hmm. Well I like the idea that Marines are more disciplined than cultist rabble when it comes to fire control.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 04:23:42


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Insectum7 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Which is why I agreed with the ProHammer idea.
Hmm. Well I like the idea that Marines are more disciplined than cultist rabble when it comes to fire control.
They are. That's why they have BS3+.

(Or, for Pro-Hammer, BS4 I presume... ?)

More importantly, if you want to show much better someone is at something, then make them better at it. Don't make everyone else worse. It's the same line of thinking that sees GW raise the points costs on things they think should be rare rather than actually making them rare.





40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 04:54:16


Post by: Hellebore


hmmm.

you could go:

must target closest unit unless LD test is taken. You may ignore smaller units for the closest vehicle or monster instead.

you may ignore units under half strength.



or

you must target the closest unit with the most models in it first (clear and present danger).

smaller units of screening models can still grant cover, but they won't be seen as a threat.




40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 05:04:42


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Hellebore wrote:
you must target the closest unit with the most models in it first (clear and present danger).
There's a unit of Cultists nearer to me than a unit of Chaos Terminators. The Cultists have 11 models. The Terminators have 10. I'm a Fire Dragon.

Which one should I be shooting at?


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 05:16:04


Post by: Hellebore


Whichever one you are feeling most threatened by, which will be the terminators most of the time with your ld9.

Your argument around controlling your units imo isn't really reflective of how soldiers behave. Issuing commands and having them followed without deviation (ie you as the player having complete control over what they do) isn't really how soldiers work.

That uncertainty is reflected by the chance they'll open up on a unit they see first that's the most threatening whether you know it isn't or not.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 05:28:37


Post by: Insectum7


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Which is why I agreed with the ProHammer idea.
Hmm. Well I like the idea that Marines are more disciplined than cultist rabble when it comes to fire control.
They are. That's why they have BS3+.

(Or, for Pro-Hammer, BS4 I presume... ?)

More importantly, if you want to show much better someone is at something, then make them better at it.
Better at choosing targets is different than better at hitting targets.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Don't make everyone else worse. It's the same line of thinking that sees GW raise the points costs on things they think should be rare rather than actually making them rare.

That's just frame-of-reference. In 2nd ed, you couldn't even take a test, you just could only shoot at the closest target. By contrast, in 4th, EVERYBODY got better at choosing targets because it was even allowed in the first place. Some units could just do it better than others. I forget whether 3rd ed had any such mechanics, I think enemy models just blocked LOS or something.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 05:35:25


Post by: Gnarlly


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Which is why I agreed with the ProHammer idea.
Hmm. Well I like the idea that Marines are more disciplined than cultist rabble when it comes to fire control.
They are. That's why they have BS3+.

(Or, for Pro-Hammer, BS4 I presume... ?)

More importantly, if you want to show much better someone is at something, then make them better at it. Don't make everyone else worse. It's the same line of thinking that sees GW raise the points costs on things they think should be rare rather than actually making them rare.


Fire control (LD test to target a unit further from closest) is not the same as aiming/ballistics skill. You can be a crack shot sharpshooter but lack the control/discipline to avoid shooting at the nearest enemy and to target an enemy behind them.

+1 for 4th edition’s targeting rules. Yes, they sometimes require additional dice rolls, but they help distinguish more elite troops from frontline grunts/meatshields and take 40k closer to a more realistic tabletop wargame which I generally prefer.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 06:59:06


Post by: kodos


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Which is why I agreed with the ProHammer idea.
Hmm. Well I like the idea that Marines are more disciplined than cultist rabble when it comes to fire control.
They are. That's why they have BS3+.

(Or, for Pro-Hammer, BS4 I presume... ?)

More importantly, if you want to show much better someone is at something, then make them better at it. Don't make everyone else worse. It's the same line of thinking that sees GW raise the points costs on things they think should be rare rather than actually making them rare.

there are different problems here, and the point is what do you want your forces to represent on the table

are there some untrained soldiers that waste all their ammo on the first thing that moves no matter what it is?
do all models on the table have a basic training so that this is not an issue?
this has nothing to do with how good is the single soldiers at hitting the target, the best marksman seeing combat the first time without training and no NCO at hand who tells him what to do might shoot the first thing that moves, which he hits well but won't do much damage with his rifle because it is a tank like Alien (and how does an untrained soldier know that his laser rifle won't do any damage against an unkown enemy)

is it easier to have a core rule for split fire and target priority and make exceptions for those units who can ignore it, or make them Universal Special Rules for those units who needs them

this is something that need to be planned out before you go to writing the core rules to avoid the same problems that GW run into and why USRs never worked for them (they did no knew which rules they needed for the different factions when writing the core)

Those rules in 4th were realistic and made sense, but with the majority of units ignoring them anyway, it would have been easier to add them to those units who don't ignore them (like Conscripts, Gaunts, etc.)


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 07:55:35


Post by: H.B.M.C.


I'd rather put rules in for green and veteran troops than assume all units are incapable of shooting at things.

Sorry guys, but having your shooting phase go to gak before you've even fired a shot because you're not allowed to shoot at the things you want just isn't fun. I don't see the rule adding anything to the game.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 08:24:44


Post by: Dysartes


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'd rather put rules in for green and veteran troops than assume all units are incapable of shooting at things.

Sorry guys, but having your shooting phase go to gak before you've even fired a shot because you're not allowed to shoot at the things you want just isn't fun. I don't see the rule adding anything to the game.

If your shooting phase goes to gak in that way - and you know that is how the system operates, rather than getting gotcha'd in a demo game - then that is down to your poor decision-making and/or the counter-play of your enemy...

...you know, like an actual wargame.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 08:34:36


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Dysartes wrote:
If your shooting phase goes to gak in that way - and you know that is how the system operates, rather than getting gotcha'd in a demo game - then that is down to your poor decision-making and/or the counter-play of your enemy... you know, like an actual wargame.
I don't see it that way.

You should be able to direct your firepower where you need it, and no have units frantically firing at things they either can't hurt or are grossly overqualified to kill just because of a couple of inches distance here and there.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 08:42:12


Post by: Mezmorki


 Insectum7 wrote:
While that sounds like a reasonable system, it doesn't appear to offer any way to use Ld (or other) in a way that differentiates different "discipline" levels of troops, which is one of tge things I really appreciated about the 4th ed mechanic.


Well ProHammer had you covered there with the split fire rules. All models in a unit have to shoot at the same target, however if you make a leadership test and it passes the unit can split fire, and target up to two units, with models in the unit this firing in two groups.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 08:50:34


Post by: H.B.M.C.


We played that way for years in our own version. Worked perfectly. Only thing we did was requiring a primary and secondary target, so if you failed then you were stuck firing at the primary.

Not sure how necessary that is, but that's how we did it.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 08:57:39


Post by: Blackie


I'm with H.B.M.C. on this matter. The balistic skill, like any other stat, is an abstraction and it's enough to represent a unit's ability to aim and hit a target during actual warfare.

It shouldn't simply be considered the ability to hit something like paper range targets when nothing happens in the meanwhile.

And I also agree with PenitentJake: there's always a best choice, regardless of the game's system. Sometimes it's just harder to identify it, that's it.

So, more than forcing people to fire towards unwanted targets I'd like an evasion stat to compare with the BS, like the fight phase already does. Hitting a gretchin or a battlewagon shouldn't be equally easy/hard.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 09:26:44


Post by: kodos


H.B.M.C. wrote:I'd rather put rules in for green and veteran troops than assume all units are incapable of shooting at things.

Sorry guys, but having your shooting phase go to gak before you've even fired a shot because you're not allowed to shoot at the things you want just isn't fun. I don't see the rule adding anything to the game.

yeah, hence why you need to think first that the default status of the troops for all armies will be before adding such rules

Dysartes wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'd rather put rules in for green and veteran troops than assume all units are incapable of shooting at things.

Sorry guys, but having your shooting phase go to gak before you've even fired a shot because you're not allowed to shoot at the things you want just isn't fun. I don't see the rule adding anything to the game.

If your shooting phase goes to gak in that way - and you know that is how the system operates, rather than getting gotcha'd in a demo game - then that is down to your poor decision-making and/or the counter-play of your enemy...
...you know, like an actual wargame.

the shooting phase goes gak because everything is decided during the movement phase that way

this is not a bad thing by default, you just need to be clear what game you want and if you want a game were all the important stuff happens during movement, this is fine
if you want the shooting phase to be the one were the important decisions happen, it won't be fun for all those armies who cannot ignore it because of a high LD or special rule

if you want tactical options in the shooting phase, declaring targets is the way to go and also offers a risk-reward system


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 09:44:37


Post by: Jidmah


It's hilarious when you read this discussion and then flip back to the first pages of this thread where people tried to tell everyone that there would be no issues creating such an edition

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Everyone who's willing to put in the hours to patch 40k themselves has a different idea about what worked/what doesn't about prior editions and is very set in their interpretation, whether or not it has anything to do with what anyone else liked.


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You'll never get anyone to agree to anything.


Turns out they were right


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 12:03:32


Post by: Mezmorki


 Jidmah wrote:
It's hilarious when you read this discussion and then flip back to the first pages of this thread where people tried to tell everyone that there would be no issues creating such an edition


We haven’t even started talking about sweeping advances yet!


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 12:21:07


Post by: Jidmah


 Mezmorki wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
It's hilarious when you read this discussion and then flip back to the first pages of this thread where people tried to tell everyone that there would be no issues creating such an edition


We haven’t even started talking about sweeping advances yet!




Threads like this make it pretty clear to me why I enjoy 9th a lot more than 5th while at the same time showing why others don't - they are just different games for different kinds of players.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 12:25:47


Post by: Mezmorki


^^^^^ Yes - I totally agree with that perspective (although our preferences are probably flipped!).

I said early on in the thread that it's important to establish one's design goals and guiding principles up front, so that one can connect with like others that want to head in the same direction. It's pretty important IMHO.

FWIW, there was talk early about making to all a D12 system. At that point, I would say one should just start over completely, since writing then new core rules is the least of the challenge at that point when you have all new codexes to write. And if starting over, there are many, many other game systems to look to for inspiration and ideas.



40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 12:47:48


Post by: jeff white


I never understand why d12 instead of 2d6 I mean, there is precedence for 2d6 and there are different ways to use results, e.g. doubles, indexed options, odds v evens, etc…


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 12:57:49


Post by: Jidmah


 jeff white wrote:
I never understand why d12 instead of 2d6 I mean, there is precedence for 2d6 and there are different ways to use results, e.g. doubles, indexed options, odds v evens, etc…


The difference is how likely results are to occur:

Spoiler:


Essentially for 2d6 you always have to balance everything around the assumption that results close to 7 are more likely to occur than those further away from it. A 12 is a lot more likely to be rolled on a d12 than with 2d6.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 13:26:35


Post by: Dysartes


Not to mention that it's quicker to roll and resolve, say, 6d12 compared to 6x2d6, even if you have enough different colours of dice with you to do the latter as one roll.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 13:51:49


Post by: H.B.M.C.


2D6 works on a small scale where the bell curve is built into the probability of the game (BattleTech being a good example - you roll each weapon individually, and your required score goes up and down each turn based on numerous modifiers that all stack). 2D6 in 40k would take forever, and introduce a bell curve to everything.

A D12 is a big D6, where its results are flat (ie. none more likely to appear than any other) but it offers a greater range of possible results, allowing for more granularity and variance in stats. You don't have this "squishing everything to the middle" issue that you have with a D6 system (or, at least, it's not as pronounced, as you have 12 steps to work with rather than 6).

Again, the actual choice of die (D10, D12, D20, D1000) doesn't matter as it's the same flat return (unlike 2D6 or 2D10 or whatever). It's just the level of detail you want to include determines what dice makes the most sense.

D6s are the most common, and most people aren't even aware that die with other faces even exist. This is why GW chose them, as it's a simple concept that requires virtually no explanation.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 14:00:18


Post by: kodos


well, GW used D6 because they are common, but also because 3 D6 (to hit, to wound, save) equal a D20

currently 40k (or AoS) does not even use the possibility those 3 rolls offer


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 14:16:40


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Just to chime in on the 40k targeting thing:

I agree with Catbarf (as I often do) that the thing that's actually the problem with 40k's targeting is that the administrative division of the enemy's force affects your targeting.

This is true (and worse) in 9th AND in 4th.

You're not shooting at 3 hormagaunts screening 20, or 20 screening 3. You're shooting at 23 hormagaunts (from your/your trooper's in-universe perspective).

Similarly, you're not shooting at 3 squads of 10 guardsmen vice one squad of 30 guardsmen, you're simply shooting at 30 guardsmen regardless of their organization.

Chain of Command (again, as Catbarf mentions) handles this "screening" effect by dividing hits up between units within 4" of each other - this is before saves/determining if people survive.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 15:08:51


Post by: catbarf


H.B.M.C. wrote:I'd rather put rules in for green and veteran troops than assume all units are incapable of shooting at things.

Sorry guys, but having your shooting phase go to gak before you've even fired a shot because you're not allowed to shoot at the things you want just isn't fun. I don't see the rule adding anything to the game.


H.B.M.C. wrote:I don't see it that way.

You should be able to direct your firepower where you need it, and no have units frantically firing at things they either can't hurt or are grossly overqualified to kill just because of a couple of inches distance here and there.


How's that any different from having a unit in difficult terrain, flubbing the movement roll, being unable to get into a position to shoot as a result, and then complaining that it's not fun when you're not allowed to move where you want? Or rolling a 1 to Advance and not being able to get on the objective? Or rolling snake eyes on your charge and standing around while you get shot? All of these involve you setting up a situation where you need to make a certain roll to do what you want.

I mean, if you'd prefer more deterministic implementations of all these mechanics then I totally understand that. But discussions on target priority always seem to hyper-focus on the randomness of it, as if the game isn't already chock-full of places where you can flub a roll and have a unit be useless (or grossly suboptimal) for the turn.

You could even level the exact same complaint against using Ld checks to mediate split fire: Why shouldn't each model be able to direct its fire against the optimal target? Does it feel fun when a unit of 3 Aggressors fails a check and can't split its fire between three small units of Gaunts, and has to overkill one of them?

Part of good generalship is making sure you're not relying on a 4+ to score an objective or a 9+ to make your charge out of deep strike. Mitigating odds, rather than taking for granted a check that you might actually fail, and having contingencies. The important thing is that target priority was always a mechanic you could mitigate with good positioning and sequencing your fire to eliminate screening units as needed. To me, that's what it adds- increased importance of positioning and battlefield state, with a risk of failure if you don't plan movement and fire well, plus better distinction between the C&C capabilities of elite armies and chaff hordes.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 15:38:55


Post by: amanita


In our ruleset we grant a 5+ cover save when shooting through an enemy unit, but if the enemy wants they can say the closer unit is 'shielding' the targeted unit. Then the cover save becomes +2 (usually to 3+) for the targeted unit, but any successful cover save by the targeted unit becomes an automatic wound to the shielding unit, with the assumption it is deliberately trying to block incoming fire.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 16:15:46


Post by: catbarf


 jeff white wrote:
I never understand why d12 instead of 2d6 I mean, there is precedence for 2d6 and there are different ways to use results, e.g. doubles, indexed options, odds v evens, etc…


Others have pointed out why 2D6 is impractical for the scale of the game, but D12s can also interact with D6s in interesting ways.

Apocalypse basically uses D12s for individual saves, but every two wounds consolidates into a single save on a D6 instead. So if you take five hits, you roll two saves on D6s and one on a D12. Mathematically, this works out to the same average result as rolling 5D12 (the distribution is different though), but it cuts down significantly on the amount of rolling you need to do. Apocalypse also uses D12 rolls to wound, based on the profile of the firing weapon, to add a little more granularity to a system that involves far fewer rolls than 40K.

I'll always contend that switching from D6s to D12s for 40K is barking up the wrong tree; it's increasing the amount of fiddly stats minutiae to differentiate units rather than addressing the shallowness of the core rules that makes everything feel the same. Increments of 8.33% will not be as impactful as, say, actually representing that target size and range matter for hit probability, or mechanics that show that Marines are more coordinated and quicker to react than Guard.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 16:44:15


Post by: Strg Alt


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Hellebore wrote:
you must target the closest unit with the most models in it first (clear and present danger).
There's a unit of Cultists nearer to me than a unit of Chaos Terminators. The Cultists have 11 models. The Terminators have 10. I'm a Fire Dragon.

Which one should I be shooting at?


Depends on the threat level for the fire dragons:

A) Cultists and terminators can attack the fire dragons during their next activation.

B) Only the Cultists can attack the fire dragons during their next activation.

In case A) the fire dragons open up fire against the terminators because their unit is designed to combat heavy units (tanks & tactical dreadnought armour (and any derivatives of that such as orkish mega armour). To make things even more clear the fire dragons would have the perk Tank Hunter granting them more freedom for target selection and a bonus to destroy their preferred targets. This would also apply to other units such as devastators with AT weapons, tankbustas, etc. If they get wasted by the cultists in return then so be it. They knew this could happen when they signed up for the job.

That was at least the philosophy of the Bundeswehr when I served for my country:

- Wirkung geht vor Deckung -

Translation: Emphasis is on the offensive output of your unit. Their survival is secondary. So if you have the means to destroy a major/valuable unit of your enemy you go for it and don´t hesitate.

If such a mindset would be suitable for a dying race such as the Eldar is another discussion. The Dark Eldar use at least a lot of clones for their common soldiers so they would have no qualms adopting the above portrayed philosophy.


In case B the fire dragons waste the cultists. There is no Geneva convention in 40K.



40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 19:08:28


Post by: Lance845


2d6 only works if you are resolving a single attack at a time.

When a single unit can shoot 90 times, 180 with a strat, it is impractical to roll 2d6 for shoot, wound, save 180 times before moving on to the next unit.

It will never work for 40k to have more than a single dice for a single resolution.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 20:41:10


Post by: Nurglitch


Andy Chamber's Starship Troopers had a neat little mechanism by which you define an area or kill-box from which casualties of your squad's attacks would be drawn.

Personally I rather like the idea that because you didn't wipe out the unit of 30 hormagaunts and there's still 3 left that you can't immediately start shooting at the unit they were screening. It's like 'hey, that screen actually worked.' It's very nice for the Tyranid player.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 21:10:52


Post by: Insectum7


There might be a different sort of screening mechanic to be made where you could declare fire at both units, and if you don't wipe out the front unit then firing at the rear unit incurs a -1 to hit penalty.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 21:28:40


Post by: jeff white


Thanks for the education hbmc and jidmah. I guess I had been remembering terminator saves and sometimes we want that fat middle. So sure, 2d6 might not work for everything, shooting etc, but might work for some things. But I do appreciate your points. You guys are right.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 22:43:35


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 catbarf wrote:
How's that any different from having a unit in difficult terrain, flubbing the movement roll, being unable to get into a position to shoot as a result, and then complaining that it's not fun when you're not allowed to move where you want? Or rolling a 1 to Advance and not being able to get on the objective? Or rolling snake eyes on your charge and standing around while you get shot? All of these involve you setting up a situation where you need to make a certain roll to do what you want.
It's not. That's not really all that fun either. So why would we want to add more un-fun things like that to the game?

 catbarf wrote:
I mean, if you'd prefer more deterministic implementations of all these mechanics then I totally understand that. But discussions on target priority always seem to hyper-focus on the randomness of it, as if the game isn't already chock-full of places where you can flub a roll and have a unit be useless (or grossly suboptimal) for the turn.
Exactly! There are already plenty of places that include randomisation and areas where you can flub rolls. Why would we want to add to that?

 catbarf wrote:
You could even level the exact same complaint against using Ld checks to mediate split fire: Why shouldn't each model be able to direct its fire against the optimal target? Does it feel fun when a unit of 3 Aggressors fails a check and can't split its fire between three small units of Gaunts, and has to overkill one of them?
Because it's an unusual action outside of the standard abilities or methods. The idea of splitting fire is my unit taking a non-standard shooting action. I want to shoot, but I want to try to do more than I usually can. So there's a test involved. Simply being able to shoot at something shouldn't be something I can fail at when I can already also fail to hit it and wound it.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 22:51:52


Post by: Insectum7


 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
You could even level the exact same complaint against using Ld checks to mediate split fire: Why shouldn't each model be able to direct its fire against the optimal target? Does it feel fun when a unit of 3 Aggressors fails a check and can't split its fire between three small units of Gaunts, and has to overkill one of them?
Because it's an unusual action outside of the standard abilities or methods. The idea of splitting fire is my unit taking a non-standard shooting action. I want to shoot, but I want to try to do more than I usually can. So there's a test involved. Simply being able to shoot at something shouldn't be something I can fail at when I can already also fail to hit it and wound it.
??
"Take a test to perform a non-standard option."
Mechanically speaking that seems no different from choosing not-the-closest if shooting the closest is standard.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 23:14:26


Post by: JohnnyHell


A roll to see if you can roll is just tedious game design, full stop. It adds nothing.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 23:23:16


Post by: Insectum7


 JohnnyHell wrote:
A roll to see if you can roll is just tedious game design, full stop. It adds nothing.
Oh great, I'll just declare I'm hitting and wounding my opponents models then, and I'll just leave it up to them to make save rolls.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/06 23:56:52


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Firstly, Insectum, I don't know why you're acting like this is personal, but please ease down. You'll blow your transaxle if you keep this up.

Secondly, Jonny is talking about superfluous rolls, like if a psychic power has a To Hit roll after the psychic test; all you're doing is adding a step for no actual gain. Rolling to see if you get to roll To Hit is superfluous.



40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/07 00:02:29


Post by: catbarf


H.B.M.C. wrote:Because it's an unusual action outside of the standard abilities or methods. The idea of splitting fire is my unit taking a non-standard shooting action. I want to shoot, but I want to try to do more than I usually can. So there's a test involved. Simply being able to shoot at something shouldn't be something I can fail at when I can already also fail to hit it and wound it.


If shooting the closest target is the default, then checking to see if you can target something else is a non-standard shooting action. You want to shoot, but want to try to do more than you usually can.

By the same token, you can still always fail to hit and wound when you split fire, so why are you okay with taking a test first? Given how 8th/9th allows freely splitting fire, that also seems like a pretty heavy restriction on targeting that you are taking a Ld check to ignore.

JohnnyHell wrote:A roll to see if you can roll is just tedious game design, full stop. It adds nothing.


Good thing target priority isn't 'a roll to see if you can roll', then.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/07 00:51:23


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 catbarf wrote:
If shooting the closest target is the default, then checking to see if you can target something else is a non-standard shooting action. You want to shoot, but want to try to do more than you usually can.
Imagine if you had to roll to see if you get to charge what you want in the assault phase, then rolled your charge distance.

 catbarf wrote:
... so why are you okay with taking a test first?
Because splitting fire always felt like something that was very powerful - it extends the threat potential of any unit you have - plus its an interesting way of having troops with better leadership show that leadership in the way they direct their firepower. Clearly GW doesn't feel that way, as now you can split however you like, but then again 8th/9th isn't the best benchmark for these sorts of things, as in 9th you can fire at this Hive Tyrant but not this Hive Tyrant.

Target Priority though? It's just not the same. That's just the basic function of selecting a single target, and a rule that essentially denies that for no gain. It doesn't add anything fun to the game. It's just something you can do to stop you from doing a basic function of the game: Selecting a target for a unit to shoot at. Sorry, you don't get to do the thing you like this turn. feelsbadman.jpg

 catbarf wrote:
Good thing target priority isn't 'a roll to see if you can roll', then.
Sure feels like one...



40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/07 01:06:35


Post by: Mezmorki


To be fair and having played a lot of 4th back in the day, the times where not shooting the closest unit wasn’t something that I recall coming up all that often. Usually if a unit was baring down towards another unit, it was a threat and shooting it was a no brainer. Things got a little more confounding when you’d have two nearly equally close units that were further away. E.G., you had some devastators in the back line forced to shoot unit A that was 30” away instead of the more dangerous unit B that was only 36” away or whatever.

I could see having a rule for “threat range” or something, where if an enemy unit was within 12”, you had to shoot at that unit or take a leadership test to shoot something else.

This close proximity requirement would better reflect the imminent threat faced by an opposing unit that’s closing range. It also provides some counter play opportunity, as you could tactically withdraw to create more space and free up your targeting abilities (which again could mean moving off objectives, so it has a nice in-built trade off). If all enemy units were further than 12” away, then the unit can choose a target freely.

Combine the above with some basic screening rules that would work on the defensive side, and you could get nice synergies and gameplay dynamics starting to evolve.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/07 01:06:50


Post by: Unit1126PLL


People don't like leaving anything to chance?

Wait until they find out about REAL LIFE!!


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/07 01:09:14


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
People don't like leaving anything to chance?

Wait until they find out about REAL LIFE!!
Don't misrepresent what I'm saying.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/07 01:11:16


Post by: Insectum7


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Firstly, Insectum, I don't know why you're acting like this is personal, but please ease down. You'll blow your transaxle if you keep this up.
Not sure where you're getting that impression.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Secondly, Jonny is talking about superfluous rolls, like if a psychic power has a To Hit roll after the psychic test; all you're doing is adding a step for no actual gain. Rolling to see if you get to roll To Hit is superfluous.
In the case of terget choice it isn't shperfluous though? It serves to separate disciplined troops from less disciplined ones, as well as provides a bit of fog-of-war simulation.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/07 01:22:39


Post by: Lance845


But that can be as simple as a -1 to hit instead of a full test with the potential to fail.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/07 02:08:25


Post by: nou


 Mezmorki wrote:
To be fair and having played a lot of 4th back in the day, the times where not shooting the closest unit wasn’t something that I recall coming up all that often. Usually if a unit was baring down towards another unit, it was a threat and shooting it was a no brainer. Things got a little more confounding when you’d have two nearly equally close units that were further away. E.G., you had some devastators in the back line forced to shoot unit A that was 30” away instead of the more dangerous unit B that was only 36” away or whatever.

I could see having a rule for “threat range” or something, where if an enemy unit was within 12”, you had to shoot at that unit or take a leadership test to shoot something else.

This close proximity requirement would better reflect the imminent threat faced by an opposing unit that’s closing range. It also provides some counter play opportunity, as you could tactically withdraw to create more space and free up your targeting abilities (which again could mean moving off objectives, so it has a nice in-built trade off). If all enemy units were further than 12” away, then the unit can choose a target freely.

Combine the above with some basic screening rules that would work on the defensive side, and you could get nice synergies and gameplay dynamics starting to evolve.


That is something I have in my system - weapons have short/long range and you have to test if you have a target in short range but you want to shoot something at long range. Target selection within the same range class is unrestricted. The same applies for charge actions - you have to test if you want to charge with double action when you have a target for single action. Works well and creates much more interesting dynamics than 5th+ ed 40K.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/07 02:42:35


Post by: Insectum7


 Lance845 wrote:
But that can be as simple as a -1 to hit instead of a full test with the potential to fail.
That doesn't have nearly the same game-space ramifications, obviously, whether you agree with them or not.

nou wrote:
 Mezmorki wrote:
To be fair and having played a lot of 4th back in the day, the times where not shooting the closest unit wasn’t something that I recall coming up all that often. Usually if a unit was baring down towards another unit, it was a threat and shooting it was a no brainer. Things got a little more confounding when you’d have two nearly equally close units that were further away. E.G., you had some devastators in the back line forced to shoot unit A that was 30” away instead of the more dangerous unit B that was only 36” away or whatever.

I could see having a rule for “threat range” or something, where if an enemy unit was within 12”, you had to shoot at that unit or take a leadership test to shoot something else.

This close proximity requirement would better reflect the imminent threat faced by an opposing unit that’s closing range. It also provides some counter play opportunity, as you could tactically withdraw to create more space and free up your targeting abilities (which again could mean moving off objectives, so it has a nice in-built trade off). If all enemy units were further than 12” away, then the unit can choose a target freely.

Combine the above with some basic screening rules that would work on the defensive side, and you could get nice synergies and gameplay dynamics starting to evolve.


That is something I have in my system - weapons have short/long range and you have to test if you have a target in short range but you want to shoot something at long range. Target selection within the same range class is unrestricted. The same applies for charge actions - you have to test if you want to charge with double action when you have a target for single action. Works well and creates much more interesting dynamics than 5th+ ed 40K.
Those seem like reasonable paths to take to establish similar effects. I like the "range band" idea for establishing a sort of "engagement zone" where enemy contact is pressuring troops and reducing awareness or keeping them occupied and under threat. I also like the counterplay idea of retreating slightly to remove the pressure from nearby units, and opening the oportunity to engage other targets further away.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/07 02:46:04


Post by: H.B.M.C.


"No pre-measuring, but be sure to measure out to see if something is closer or not..."



40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/07 02:57:05


Post by: Mezmorki


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
"No pre-measuring, but be sure to measure out to see if something is closer or not..."



I think this is solvable.

With declared fire being used, you lock yourself into a firing regime before any measuring. Then when it comes to resolving individual shooting, you can measure ranges as needed, including to check to see if a unit falls within 12” close threat range, and would need to be shot at as a close threat (or take a leadership test to be able to fire at a more distant target).

I like the idea of getting to decide what close threat to shoot at if there are multiple close threats.

Also, with using a leadership test for split fire, that could be rolled into the same LD test as avoiding having to shoot the closest to consolidate some rolling.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/07 03:02:06


Post by: macluvin


Hats off to Mezmorki for that bold last stand to defend his position. Twas an admirable hill to die on as well. And a million exalts for admitting that there are other valid and possibly better ways of doing business than his way. I don't even have an oppinion I just want to try all of these suggestions and ideas.
Plus, it would be nice to see leadership interact with the game in some meaningful way like with pinning and possibly suppression mechanics but especially for target selection.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/07 03:03:32


Post by: H.B.M.C.


You would want to pile Target Priority rolls onto a system where you first make fire declaration and then measure after declaring targets?

1. Declare targets.
2. Check for units within 12".
3. If there are, too bad! Your declaration is worthless, and you spent time on something you now might not be able to do.
4. Roll to see if you can shoot what you want to shoot.
5. Failed? Guess you now have to fire at the other thing.
6. Feel bad both about being unable to use your troops and for spending time declaring targets you can't shoot at anyway.





40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/07 03:49:28


Post by: Mezmorki


Yes?

ProHammer already uses declared fire, and uses Ld for split firing. It works great. It doesn't have the shoot closest thing we're talking about here, but there are rules for screening as I've mentioned earlier.

Obviously if we're I to layer target priority onto ProHammer it would work such that if you couldn't hit your declared target because another unit was closer (and you failed the Ld test) you would just default to shooting the closer unit.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/07 11:56:58


Post by: nou


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You would want to pile Target Priority rolls onto a system where you first make fire declaration and then measure after declaring targets?

1. Declare targets.
2. Check for units within 12".
3. If there are, too bad! Your declaration is worthless, and you spent time on something you now might not be able to do.
4. Roll to see if you can shoot what you want to shoot.
5. Failed? Guess you now have to fire at the other thing.
6. Feel bad both about being unable to use your troops and for spending time declaring targets you can't shoot at anyway.



You would really not like my system, in which there are Ld checks before twelve different actions (and broken units have it reversed, they do not have to check for only a few actions). It boils down to the expectations from the game really - do you want a war themed game with omnipotent player, or do you want a simulationist wargame.

What puzzles me in this discussion though is the focus solely on the offence side - "I want my dudes to shoot at anything I want". But this coin has two sides - your opponent will shoot at whatever he likes and there is nothing you can do about it. Good target priority mechanics, especially combined with firing arcs, introduce ways of manipulating the board state from defence perspective and results in a fencing-like experience. [to be clear, I don't mean that introducing just this sort of mechanic without addressing other problems would magically turn 40k into a proper wargame, but it's a start]


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/07 13:07:24


Post by: Nurglitch


I've found the best way to do these things is, instead of having some grand, architected plan, play calvinball with your models and a friend. As in, do something fun, and then write that down so other people can have fun in the same way.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/07 13:22:29


Post by: Mezmorki


Changing topic a bit...

Surpression

The current thing I'm wracking my brain over is trying to add some sort of suppression rule to ProHammer. The one we have in place isn't really engaging or interesting enough in its current form - so it either needs to go or get transformed into something better.

I like Epic's approach where units accrue blast markers, which is similar to the system in Bolt Action IIRC.

I was thinking of having a system where when X happens the unit accrues a suppression marker, and each suppression marker is a penalty to a units leadership tests (for all types of Ld, psychic tests, split fire tests, casualty, pinning, etc). Suppression markers would be cleared or removed when Y happens.

Trying to figure out good conditions for X (when you gain a marker) and Y (when you lose markers).

Ideas for X (gaining markers), could be based on using one of the following:

(1) If a unit is hit more times by one firing unit than it has models (or wounds). This would better reflect a volume of fire, even if it isn’t that lethal, from forcing suppression.

Or... (2) If a unit is wounded a certain number of times (pre armor save) by one unit’s shooting. I.e., if a unit takes wounds equal to at least half the units’s current strength. This would represent units taking sufficient volume and/or strength of fire such that it poses a real threat.

Or... (3) If a unit suffers a casualty. This is pretty straightforward, but would also trigger from single-shot high power weapons more readily.

I was then thinking that once a unit accumulated X suppression markers (say 3?), you’d be forced to take a pinning test. If passed, the unit loses a marker and continues as normal. If the unit fails, they become pinned and lose a marker as well. Once pinned, units don’t gain additional suppression markers.

Suppression markers could also be cleared in the following situations:

(*) The unit passes a morale test (casualty test, break test, etc)

(*) The unit becomes engaged in melee combat

(*) The unit forgoes it’s moving and/or shooting to rally and remove one or two suppression tokens.

Obviously would need to account for suppression and fearless units or those immune to pinning.

- Fearless units would just ignore the Ld penalty during morale tests, since they automatically pass those. They would still be affected by the penalty for other Ld-based tests.

- Rules like ATSKNF would work well. Marines automatically pass pinning tests but they still need to take casualty tests and could be subject to the morale impacts of suppression. This could make it so that they would fall back more often, but since they automatically regroup after falling back they’d clear the suppression markers quickly.

Thoughts?






40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/07 13:50:35


Post by: Nurglitch


Part of being pinned is keeping your head down to ensure it remains attached to your body. I've often thought that Fearless units in 40k should suffer some sort of extra attrition for not being pinned.

Likewise I like the idea of 'flinching,' also from Andy Chamber's Starship Troopers, whereby you can save something that isn't going to vaporize you by immediately moving 2" away from the attacker.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/07 14:48:18


Post by: catbarf


Mezmorki wrote:I like Epic's approach where units accrue blast markers, which is similar to the system in Bolt Action IIRC.


I think Epic's system is straightforward and intuitive, and would be a good base for 40K. Each time an infantry formation comes under fire it receives a blast marker. Each time it takes a casualty, it receives a blast market. Each blast marker on a unit prevents a model from shooting. If the number of blast markers equals or exceeds the number of stands remaining, the unit is broken (in this context it would probably be pinning instead). Simple, straightforward, easy to track.

This system makes suppression an important part of the game without it being separate from killing things. It also innately accounts for the resilience of a target unit, and makes units degrade gracefully in response to fire rather than a binary fine/pinned.

Overall it's maybe a little too deterministic for my taste, but I like it as a starting point. You could also keep the counters but have pinning be an outcome of the morale check; something like using the ratio of suppression markers to models in the unit as a penalty to the Ld test (eg more suppression markers than models = -2), and then failing your Ld test by 1-3 means pinned and 4+ means broken or something like that. That would help make morale less binary, make morale something you're more likely to fail if you keep a unit in combat rather than taking time to rally, and tie pinning into the existing morale system rather than implementing it as a separate thing.

Nurglitch wrote:Part of being pinned is keeping your head down to ensure it remains attached to your body. I've often thought that Fearless units in 40k should suffer some sort of extra attrition for not being pinned.

Likewise I like the idea of 'flinching,' also from Andy Chamber's Starship Troopers, whereby you can save something that isn't going to vaporize you by immediately moving 2" away from the attacker.


For reference, flinching was a rule where if a model survived a hit by passing its save, it was moved 2" from the firing unit.

I like a lot about the SST system, but I don't think flinching would be appropriate to 40K. Imagine a unit of Marines getting pushed off objectives because they're getting bombarded with largely ineffectual lasgun fire, while Guardsmen never flinch because they don't get any saves to begin with. It's a great rule in the context of SST and leads to some fun cinematic moments where the MI hold the Bugs back by weight of fire, but that's a different style of game from 40K.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/07 15:14:37


Post by: Insectum7


 catbarf wrote:
Mezmorki wrote:I like Epic's approach where units accrue blast markers, which is similar to the system in Bolt Action IIRC.


I think Epic's system is straightforward and intuitive, and would be a good base for 40K. Each time an infantry formation comes under fire it receives a blast marker. Each time it takes a casualty, it receives a blast market. Each blast marker on a unit prevents a model from shooting. If the number of blast markers equals or exceeds the number of stands remaining, the unit is broken (in this context it would probably be pinning instead). Simple, straightforward, easy to track.

This system makes suppression an important part of the game without it being separate from killing things. It also innately accounts for the resilience of a target unit, and makes units degrade gracefully in response to fire rather than a binary fine/pinned.

Overall it's maybe a little too deterministic for my taste, but I like it as a starting point. You could also keep the counters but have pinning be an outcome of the morale check; something like using the ratio of suppression markers to models in the unit as a penalty to the Ld test (eg more suppression markers than models = -2), and then failing your Ld test by 1-3 means pinned and 4+ means broken or something like that. That would help make morale less binary, make morale something you're more likely to fail if you keep a unit in combat rather than taking time to rally, and tie pinning into the existing morale system rather than implementing it as a separate thing.

^Nice. That's satisfyingly straight forward.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/07 15:25:09


Post by: Nurglitch


A Plague Marine or Kardain might be able to shrug off a wound, but getting blasted in the face gives them pause. Getting hit by lasguns isn't a problem. Getting wounded by lasguns is, even if your armour allows you to fight on.

That's why I would amend the Epic version of blast markers to be wounds rather than casualties, so that it scales for units of big'uns and vehicles. Wounds accounted for even if they don't actually lose wounds (saved or ignored). That's why this is wounds and not unsaved wounds or casualties.

Effect of Blast Markers
Blast markers affect a unit depending on whether it moves (or advances) in the Movement phase. If a unit moved (or advanced) in the Movement phase, then each blast marker prevents it from firing one weapon. If a unit did not move in the Movement phase, then each blast marker forces a weapon to attack at -1 to hit.

Gain Blast Markers
-Each time the unit is attacked by an enemy unit in the Shooting phase
-Each time the unit loses a wound
-Each time a Blast weapon attacks the unit
-Each time the unit is attacked by an enemy unit in the Shooting phase who can draw a straight line across the attacked unit to another enemy unit ("Crossfire")

Broken Status
Once a unit's number of blast markers is equal to or greater than the unit's remaining total of wounds, then it is broken, and must Fall Back during their Movement phase.

Lose Blast Markers
Units take a morale test in the Morale phase if they Fall Back move in the Movement phase, rolling 1D6+Leadership and removing that many blast markers.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/07 15:34:13


Post by: nou


Suppression rules based on models in 40K fail with things like Tyranid Warriors - 3 model unit that should behave like elite but are surpressed easier than cannon fodder. Based on wounds are just a tad better, but also do not fit the lore/battlefield roles of various units all that well. Small elite squads are pretty much constantly suppressed, so you have to add a special rule changing how they react to suppression to half the units in the game. So instead of counting against wounds, in my system the count is against the Ld and suppression expands the list of actions that require command roll (a Ld check before actions I mentioned above) so fits nicely into existing game flow. Again, works pretty well, is non binary and while punishing, it is not outright an off switch. Another option I've added is an option to shoot only with intention to suppress - hits count double but do not deal damage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Nurglitch wrote:
A Plague Marine or Kardain might be able to shrug off a wound, but getting blasted in the face gives them pause. Getting hit by lasguns isn't a problem. Getting wounded by lasguns is, even if your armour allows you to fight on.

That's why I would amend the Epic version of blast markers to be wounds rather than casualties, so that it scales for units of big'uns and vehicles. Wounds accounted for even if they don't actually lose wounds (saved or ignored). That's why this is wounds and not unsaved wounds or casualties.

Effect of Blast Markers
Blast markers affect a unit depending on whether it moves (or advances) in the Movement phase. If a unit moved (or advanced) in the Movement phase, then each blast marker prevents it from firing one weapon. If a unit did not move in the Movement phase, then each blast marker forces a weapon to attack at -1 to hit.

Gain Blast Markers
-Each time the unit is attacked by an enemy unit in the Shooting phase
-Each time the unit loses a wound
-Each time a Blast weapon attacks the unit
-Each time the unit is attacked by an enemy unit in the Shooting phase who can draw a straight line across the attacked unit to another enemy unit ("Crossfire")

Broken Status
Once a unit's number of blast markers is equal to or greater than the unit's remaining total of wounds, then it is broken, and must Fall Back during their Movement phase.

Lose Blast Markers
Units take a morale test in the Morale phase if they Fall Back move in the Movement phase, rolling 1D6+Leadership and removing that many blast markers.

Under those rules, a 5 man Harlequin squad that is hit by a blast in a crossfire situation (even by the first firing unit) and loses just one member to it is immediately broken. Fun rule, very Elite friendly!


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/07 15:43:08


Post by: Tawnis


 Mezmorki wrote:
Changing topic a bit...

Surpression

The current thing I'm wracking my brain over is trying to add some sort of suppression rule to ProHammer. The one we have in place isn't really engaging or interesting enough in its current form - so it either needs to go or get transformed into something better.

Thoughts?



Didn't re-post the bulk to save space, but I was thinking of something quick and clean like this:

When you take wounds to either Blast Weapons, or Suppression Weapons (Snipers and the like) you get a suppression token, also if you take 50% casualties in shooting. At the end of your opponents shooting phase you take a pinning test. LD - suppression tokens. Units that are pinned are -1 to be hit, -1 to hit, and cannot move or fire over watch. At the start of your turn you roll to rally and test - suppression again. If you fail you remove some TBD number of suppression tokens, if you pass, you remove them all and can act as normal.

That might not be exactly how I was thinking since I don't have my notes on me at the moment, but something along those lines.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/07 16:03:21


Post by: catbarf


Nurglitch wrote:A Plague Marine or Kardain might be able to shrug off a wound, but getting blasted in the face gives them pause. Getting hit by lasguns isn't a problem. Getting wounded by lasguns is, even if your armour allows you to fight on.

That's why I would amend the Epic version of blast markers to be wounds rather than casualties, so that it scales for units of big'uns and vehicles. Wounds accounted for even if they don't actually lose wounds (saved or ignored). That's why this is wounds and not unsaved wounds or casualties.


I totally get what you're saying, but in such a system Plague Marines would be frequently subject to suppression because they survive a lot of their wounds, while Guardsmen would be less susceptible to suppression because they just die instead. I think a system where damage bouncing off your armor still suppresses you is perfect for a historical or modern wargame, but it doesn't really fit the aesthetic of 40K.

I mean, in your system, a unit of 5 Terminators that gets shot at by enough lasguns will typically fall back before they even lose a single model. But if you shoot them with plasma guns and kill 2, the remaining 3 are fine. That doesn't seem right.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/07 16:27:45


Post by: Gert


Bolt Action suppression works like this:
Spoiler:
Any time a Unit is Hit, it takes a Pin Marker.
The Pin Marker causes -1 to the Unit's Ld value which stacks (i.e. 2 Pin Markers = -2 to Ld).
Pin Markers also cause -1 to Hit whenever the Unit shoots, once again stacking (i.e. 3 Pin Markers = -3 to Hit).
Pin Markers can be removed if a Unit passes an Order Test where 1 Marker is removed if successful unless a double 1 is rolled, then D6+1 Markers can be removed.
There is also the "Rally" Order, where the Unit cannot Move or Shoot but removes D6+1 Markers.

However, BA Ld values are much higher on average than in 40k with three tiers:
Spoiler:
Inexperienced - Ld 8
Regular - Ld 9
Veteran - Ld 10

As well as this, Officers provide a Ld bonus when taking Order Tests. This again has tiers:
Spoiler:
2nd Lt - +1 within 6"
1st Lt - +2 within 6"
Captain - +3 within 12"
Major - +4 within 12"

The Ld values are capped at 2 minimum and 10 maximum. So if a Regular Unit had 2 Pin Markers but was within 12" of a Captain, it would go as follows:
Spoiler:
Ld 9 - 2 = 7.
Ld 7 + 3 = 10.
Final value = 10.




40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/07 16:36:09


Post by: Mezmorki


Well, plague marines are fearless, so they would never be strictly pinned or broken as a result of suppression. But suppression would mess with other leadership-based tests they might be trying to take (split fire, etc.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gert wrote:
Bolt Action suppression works like this


Thanks for the details on that!

At least in classic 3rd-th 40K editions, the leaderships are pretty comparable. Guard squad sergeants were Ld8 (ditto for Tau, Eldar Guardians). Marine Vet Sergeants were Ld9. Necrons, Chaos, were mostly Ld10. Most Tyranids were 10 or fearless if in synapse range. 8th/9th edition of 40k scaled the leadership down quite a bit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
nou wrote:
Suppression rules based on models in 40K fail with things like Tyranid Warriors - 3 model unit that should behave like elite but are surpressed easier than cannon fodder. Based on wounds are just a tad better, but also do not fit the lore/battlefield roles of various units all that well. Small elite squads are pretty much constantly suppressed, so you have to add a special rule changing how they react to suppression to half the units in the game. So instead of counting against wounds, in my system the count is against the Ld and suppression expands the list of actions that require command roll (a Ld check before actions I mentioned above) so fits nicely into existing game flow. Again, works pretty well, is non binary and while punishing, it is not outright an off switch. Another option I've added is an option to shoot only with intention to suppress - hits count double but do not deal damage.


Do you have the full rules for your system written out somewhere?


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/07 17:34:47


Post by: Jidmah


 Mezmorki wrote:
Well, plague marines are fearless

They haven't ever been fearless or more resilient to morale than other CSM since DG got their own codex.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/07 17:55:29


Post by: kodos


Surpression in WP: FireFight

Spoiler:

Units will be Pinned in the following situations:
Losing or drawing an Assault
Hit as part of a Shoot action by a weapon with the Pinning keyword
It received any hits as part of a Blaze Away action
It is a Vehicle wounded by an Anti-Tank weapon
It has the Fly keyword and has suffered a wound
It is a unit emerging from a destroyed transport vehicle

Place a Pin Marker next to the unit to remind all players of the unit’s current status and the unit will then automatically Hit the Dirt for free. While a unit has a Pin Marker it is Pinned.
A Pinned unit will suffer a -1 modifier to its to-hit roils in an Assault and also to any Nerve tests it makes.
A unit may only ever have one Pin marker.
Units that begin their activation Pinned will remove the Pin marker for free when they Activate, but may only perform a single short action for that activation.
Pin markers may also be removed by spending Command Points in the End Phase, or by some orders and keywords.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/07 18:21:59


Post by: Strg Alt


 Insectum7 wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
A roll to see if you can roll is just tedious game design, full stop. It adds nothing.
Oh great, I'll just declare I'm hitting and wounding my opponents models then, and I'll just leave it up to them to make save rolls.


Lol!


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/07 18:25:16


Post by: Mezmorki


 Jidmah wrote:
 Mezmorki wrote:
Well, plague marines are fearless

They haven't ever been fearless or more resilient to morale than other CSM since DG got their own codex.


To clarify, I'm referring to the classic editions (3rd-7th). Plague Marines were fearless all that time, as were other aligned special marines (Berserkers, Noise marines, Thousand Suns, etc.)


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/07 18:44:54


Post by: Strg Alt


 Mezmorki wrote:
Thanks for taking a look - let me know if you have other feedback as well. Curious to see how your core rules stack up as well!

Regarding reactive fire:
Only heavy weapons shooting reactive fire are subject to snap fire. Non-heavy weapons shoot using their normal BS.

The switch to have the weapons AP ignored was due to certain types of units becoming very difficult to counter given that their weapon's were ideally suited to reactive fire. For example, charging Wraithguards with Wraith Cannons becomes a death sentence for many units that specifically intended to be a counter (i.e. elite high strength and armor negating melee units). Again, we want there to be reactive fire, but we want to make sure the lethality of the game is kept in check as well.

Or are you referring to units making reactive fire only hitting on snap fire on their next turn?

Regarding overwarch:
Conceptually, if a unit is going into overwatch I imagine it's doing so with the proper situational awareness to know what the key target is it's trying to target.

Regarding Alternating Activation:
Do you have anything written up (or can you briefly share) the system you've bee using?

Here's a post describing what I've been experimenting with:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/801429.page#11253809



I borrowed the AA mechanic from Epic (90s) in addition with it´s Order system. Now to make things clear from the beginning those Orders have nothing to do with orders issues by Imp officers in later 40K editions. It goes like this:

1. Both players have already set up their forces.
2. Both players place Order counters UPSIDE DOWN next to their units. Should players dislike littering their battlefield with counters then they can also be placed on the corresponding unit cards next to the gaming table. Unit cards are index cards with a unit´s profile written upon it. It takes a pencil, a range ruler, an eraser and a little patience to create them so I am not dependent on GW to provide them via box sets.
3. Those Order counters represent either: First Fire, Advance or Charge. When a unit is activated it can only act within the limits of those actions. However I also want to include more options from the Epic Armageddon ruleset.
4: Turn 1: Both players roll for Initiative. Winner MUST activate a single unit of his force. Then the opponent activates one.
5. Next turn: Place Order counts like above. No initiative roll is needed to see who goes first. Instead the person who used the last activation in the previous turn AUTOMATICALLY loses initiative. This abolishes the phenomenon of the dreaded double turn which plague AoS.

About written stuff:
Nope, nothing yet. I have used either a custom variation of 2nd or 3rd-6th of 40K for my games with the above mentioned AA mechanic.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/07 21:19:07


Post by: nou


 Mezmorki wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
nou wrote:
Suppression rules based on models in 40K fail with things like Tyranid Warriors - 3 model unit that should behave like elite but are surpressed easier than cannon fodder. Based on wounds are just a tad better, but also do not fit the lore/battlefield roles of various units all that well. Small elite squads are pretty much constantly suppressed, so you have to add a special rule changing how they react to suppression to half the units in the game. So instead of counting against wounds, in my system the count is against the Ld and suppression expands the list of actions that require command roll (a Ld check before actions I mentioned above) so fits nicely into existing game flow. Again, works pretty well, is non binary and while punishing, it is not outright an off switch. Another option I've added is an option to shoot only with intention to suppress - hits count double but do not deal damage.


Do you have the full rules for your system written out somewhere?


Not in a "dakka-proof" version - this is played by a small group of like minded players who are mature enough to discuss eventual ambiguities on the fly and it is still late WIP, with few dozen games played with it (I think it is around v0.8 for the core rules and a bit less for four faction lists available ATM) so there was no need to write it down in a bullet proof, pseudo programming language yet (especially that I'm not native english speaker). At the current stage it is completely different wargame built around GW model range and parts of the lore, but it's no longer 40K since it has no Space Marines nor the Emperor in it . Except for small parts like suppression or Ld checks above it is not portable to 3rd-7th engine. I'll PM you with more details to not derail the thread.



40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/07 22:00:30


Post by: Strg Alt


nou wrote:
 Mezmorki wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
nou wrote:
Suppression rules based on models in 40K fail with things like Tyranid Warriors - 3 model unit that should behave like elite but are surpressed easier than cannon fodder. Based on wounds are just a tad better, but also do not fit the lore/battlefield roles of various units all that well. Small elite squads are pretty much constantly suppressed, so you have to add a special rule changing how they react to suppression to half the units in the game. So instead of counting against wounds, in my system the count is against the Ld and suppression expands the list of actions that require command roll (a Ld check before actions I mentioned above) so fits nicely into existing game flow. Again, works pretty well, is non binary and while punishing, it is not outright an off switch. Another option I've added is an option to shoot only with intention to suppress - hits count double but do not deal damage.


Do you have the full rules for your system written out somewhere?


Not in a "dakka-proof" version - this is played by a small group of like minded players who are mature enough to discuss eventual ambiguities on the fly and it is still late WIP, with few dozen games played with it (I think it is around v0.8 for the core rules and a bit less for four faction lists available ATM) so there was no need to write it down in a bullet proof, pseudo programming language yet (especially that I'm not native english speaker). At the current stage it is completely different wargame built around GW model range and parts of the lore, but it's no longer 40K since it has no Space Marines nor the Emperor in it . Except for small parts like suppression or Ld checks above it is not portable to 3rd-7th engine. I'll PM you with more details to not derail the thread.



I intend to group the ease of suppressing a unit according to it´s size trait:

1. Swarm (Necron scarabs, Ripper swarms, etc.)
2. Small (Grots, Ratlings, etc) & Medium (Standard Humanoid Infantry, Bikes, etc)
3. Monstrous Infantry (Ogryn, Tyranid Warrior, etc.)
4. Large (Dreadnought, Greater Daemon, Vehicles, Tanks, etc)



40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/08 13:16:07


Post by: Nurglitch


 catbarf wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:A Plague Marine or Kardain might be able to shrug off a wound, but getting blasted in the face gives them pause. Getting hit by lasguns isn't a problem. Getting wounded by lasguns is, even if your armour allows you to fight on.

That's why I would amend the Epic version of blast markers to be wounds rather than casualties, so that it scales for units of big'uns and vehicles. Wounds accounted for even if they don't actually lose wounds (saved or ignored). That's why this is wounds and not unsaved wounds or casualties.


I totally get what you're saying, but in such a system Plague Marines would be frequently subject to suppression because they survive a lot of their wounds, while Guardsmen would be less susceptible to suppression because they just die instead. I think a system where damage bouncing off your armor still suppresses you is perfect for a historical or modern wargame, but it doesn't really fit the aesthetic of 40K.

I mean, in your system, a unit of 5 Terminators that gets shot at by enough lasguns will typically fall back before they even lose a single model. But if you shoot them with plasma guns and kill 2, the remaining 3 are fine. That doesn't seem right.

What's not right about it? In one case the squad is prevented from advancing due to a firehose of lasgun fire, and a plethora of wounds, and in the other case the squad is not suppressed because only two guys are hurt and the rest aren't.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/08 14:21:37


Post by: Gert


From my perspective, having a unit lose models and be less effective is preferable to having a unit unharmed and unable to do anything.
It's not an easy situation to resolve because why would Terminators fear Lasgun fire and duck into cover? It won't likely harm them and serves only as a slight annoyance. A volley of Plasma fire is a serious concern because it can and will harm/kill a Terminator.
For Guardsmen, a Lasgun bolt is a potential death sentence so ducking in cover is a legitimate choice. Plasma even more so.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/08 14:26:51


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Yeah but you should lose models via the actions of your opponent using structures inherent to causing casualties - toughness values, wounds, saving throws and damage - not to instant remove model rules because you rolled badly.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/08 14:43:57


Post by: Gert


I'm not exactly sure what you're meaning here. Could you elaborate, please?


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/08 15:02:41


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Combat Attrition is a mechanic that ignores every method of causing casualties in favour of "you just remove models". Relative strengths, toughnesses, wounds, saves and damage values mean nothing in the face of the all consuming combat attrition test.

I don't support a morale system that reduces effectiveness by removing more models. As I've stated probably in this thread, but certainly in a number of others, it's a punishing 'lose more' mechanic that penalises a player when they're already suffering.

I mean there are some units where it's just not worth the risk taking anything that could suffer from even failing a morale test, let alone combat attrition. Points efficiencies aside, why would anyone risk taking 3 Invader ATVs in a single unit if a failed dice roll could result in 1 or even 2 T5 W8 models vanishing into thin air? Your opponent would be cheering, as that's a lot of durability they didn't have to chew through all gone with a single dice roll.

There's also the concept that the morale system should instead be a suppression system, thereby showing that squads that come under fire and take casualties hit the deck in an attempt further incoming fire, rather than running wildly off into the night, whether they be Gretchin or Heavy Intercessors.

That does mean splitting up the way casualties work in shooting vs close combat, because I don't think a unit fighting for their lives in close combat would suddenly hit the deck if a few of them got stabbed to death.

So there needs to be some sort of fleeing from combat mechanic where the opponent can catch you and cause further damage, but were I to do it I would ensure two things:

1. It's not an all or nothing. I hated Sweeping Advance rules that just insta-wiped out units when they were caught both for the aforementioned ignoring the basic methods of causing casualties and because of the way it allowed for extreme situations that didn't make sense (a single Gretchin catching and wiping out several Chaos Terminators, for example). Doesn't matter how rare that situation might be, the fact that it was even possible in the first place is a failing of the rules on a conceptual level.

2. To repeat myself again (and again, and again! ), it would have to exist within the confines of the existing rules for how casualties are caused. Thankfully there's something wonderful that, whilst overused generally, works perfectly in this situation: Mortal wounds. Catch the unit, they suffer X mortal wounds, and are stuck in combat.

I'd even extend that to falling back. Want to fall back? Risk of being caught. Want to ensure that you Fall Back goes off without a hitch? Make "Order Withdrawal" a strat that costs CP, but the enemy can't catch you. Have no CP but still need to get out of dodge? Disorganised Rout, a 0 CP strat that sees you auto-get away, no chance to be caught, but you suffer MW in the attempt. There's an argument to be made that falling back should be a 0 cost strat as well, but that's going beyond the scope of what I'm saying by a bit more than I already have.



40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/08 15:38:04


Post by: Gert


Ok but I'm not sure how that's relevant to the criticism of Nurglitchs "Blast Marker" system.
I'm not saying Combat Attrition is good or that things should never change before you put words in my mouth again, but why should Plague Marines suffer more under suppression than a Guardsman squad? In a similar scenario to the one seen earlier, if a Plague Marine squad is hit by a Blast in a Crossfire situation, suffers a wound but then ignores it with Disgustingly Resilient, it gets 4 Markers even though it's taken no damage. If a Guardsman squad has the same but takes the wound because they don't have DR, it takes 4 Markers. Both units are equally affected despite one taking damage and the other not.
The Guardsman rightfully lose models and suffer the effects of suppression because they are baseline humans in flak gear. The Plague Marines lose no models because they are far tougher and can shrug off damage but still suffer the same effects because? Sure the Guardsmen are going to Break before the Plague Marines but due to the stacking nature of Marker debuffs, the Plague Marine unit will be consistently bad throughout the whole game.
Suppression would have to be caused by unsaved wounds to bring any sort of fairness to the system and even then it still wouldn't work all that well IMO since most units will end up spending the game not actually doing anything. That's all well and good if you're recreating real-world scenarios where everyone is the same sack of meat in a uniform but that's not 40k.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/08 15:47:01


Post by: Mezmorki


^^^^^ All great points HBMC

I'll chime in on ProHammer for reference:

We too hated the old sweeping advance instant death rules. But there is some logic and rational to the idea of it. So in ProHammer it works like this:

If a unit loses a melee engagement and fails their break test, they must perform a fall back move. Falling back units move 2d6" towards their table edge and must try to end their turn further away from all enemy units to the extent possible (more nuances described in the rules).

The victorious unit can either consolidate up to 3" (letting the retreating unit go or moving into engagement range with another unit), or "pursue". If they chose to consolidate and had charged this turn, they have to take a restraint test (basic leadership test) to resist the urge to chase down the fleeing unit.

To pursue, the unit likewise makes a 2D6" move towards the falling back unit. After making the move, each pursuing model that manages to get into base-to-base contact makes 1 hit that automatically wounds with no armor save (effectively a mortal wound, invulnerable saves can be made). If any models are still in engagement range (base to base or within 2") then the respective units are re-engaged and will fight another round of melee combat next turn.

ProHammer also allows units to withdraw from close combat during the charge sub-phase of their own turn (rather than at the start of the turn like in 9th). This can result in the enemy unit pursuing or consolidating. But it also means you can charge into the engagement with a 3rd unit, to tie the enemy up, and let your original unit fallback without being pursued. This can make for some interesting tactical considerations!


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/08 17:17:39


Post by: amanita


Getting back the suppression mechanic, my group uses one that is ok but could certainly be improved.

Currently, a unit is forced to take a morale test if it loses 25% of its current strength. If it fails, it breaks and falls back (or is pinned, depending on what weapons caused casualties). If it passes but only by the exact roll necessary, it becomes suppressed.

(I'll skip how suppression affects a unit for now; this is more about what should possibly lead to a unit becoming suppressed if under fire.)

All additional units firing at the target unit count as a DM for the suppression roll. So if 2 extra units shot at a target forced into a morale test, the unit would need to roll under its normal leadership by 2 to avoid being suppressed.

This approach covers a few bases but misses a few more and is a tad wonky. It's an abstract attempt to simulate crossfire to some degree, all the while resolving the situation with a single roll.

There is no one certain mechanic that reliably covers all situations; as for writing rules its a balance of finding mechanics that are somewhat intuitive, playable and fair to the different units involved.

Other posters have listed very reasonable possibilities as to what should contribute to a unit becoming suppressed. Personally I'd like to make ACTUAL crossfire a thing, whereas a unit taking fire from multiple enemies beyond a 90 degree arc suffers a DM or in another matter. This would encourage maneuver from both players but perhaps this all should be brought up in Proposed Rules.

Regardless, I appreciate all the conversation considering this topic and thank the OP for starting it.



40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/08 17:27:31


Post by: Mezmorki


What is DM? I feel like I should know this.

Edit: I'm on my phone and Dakka doesn't give the tooltip.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/08 18:12:15


Post by: nou


 amanita wrote:
Getting back the suppression mechanic, my group uses one that is ok but could certainly be improved.

Currently, a unit is forced to take a morale test if it loses 25% of its current strength. If it fails, it breaks and falls back (or is pinned, depending on what weapons caused casualties). If it passes but only by the exact roll necessary, it becomes suppressed.

(I'll skip how suppression affects a unit for now; this is more about what should possibly lead to a unit becoming suppressed if under fire.)

All additional units firing at the target unit count as a DM for the suppression roll. So if 2 extra units shot at a target forced into a morale test, the unit would need to roll under its normal leadership by 2 to avoid being suppressed.

This approach covers a few bases but misses a few more and is a tad wonky. It's an abstract attempt to simulate crossfire to some degree, all the while resolving the situation with a single roll.

There is no one certain mechanic that reliably covers all situations; as for writing rules its a balance of finding mechanics that are somewhat intuitive, playable and fair to the different units involved.

Other posters have listed very reasonable possibilities as to what should contribute to a unit becoming suppressed. Personally I'd like to make ACTUAL crossfire a thing, whereas a unit taking fire from multiple enemies beyond a 90 degree arc suffers a DM or in another matter. This would encourage maneuver from both players but perhaps this all should be brought up in Proposed Rules.

Regardless, I appreciate all the conversation considering this topic and thank the OP for starting it.



I have it at 120 degrees - the second unit firing gets BS bonus and then any further unit gets the same bonus regardless of the angle. But knowing how modern community hates any kinds of templates/angles this isn't something that would be widely accepted. With GW's 180 degrees for GSC is easier to avoid needles debates, however this is very hard to achieve without "place anywhere more than 9" " rules.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/08 19:26:22


Post by: Insectum7


 Mezmorki wrote:
What is DM? I feel like I should know this.

Edit: I'm on my phone and Dakka doesn't give the tooltip.
Reading it in the context, I think Dice Modifier? Each additional engaging unit appears to modify the suppression roll by 1.

 amanita wrote:
Getting back the suppression mechanic, my group uses one that is ok but could certainly be improved.

Currently, a unit is forced to take a morale test if it loses 25% of its current strength. If it fails, it breaks and falls back (or is pinned, depending on what weapons caused casualties). If it passes but only by the exact roll necessary, it becomes suppressed.

(I'll skip how suppression affects a unit for now; this is more about what should possibly lead to a unit becoming suppressed if under fire.)

All additional units firing at the target unit count as a DM for the suppression roll. So if 2 extra units shot at a target forced into a morale test, the unit would need to roll under its normal leadership by 2 to avoid being suppressed.

This approach covers a few bases but misses a few more and is a tad wonky. It's an abstract attempt to simulate crossfire to some degree, all the while resolving the situation with a single roll.

There is no one certain mechanic that reliably covers all situations; as for writing rules its a balance of finding mechanics that are somewhat intuitive, playable and fair to the different units involved.

Other posters have listed very reasonable possibilities as to what should contribute to a unit becoming suppressed. Personally I'd like to make ACTUAL crossfire a thing, whereas a unit taking fire from multiple enemies beyond a 90 degree arc suffers a DM or in another matter. This would encourage maneuver from both players but perhaps this all should be brought up in Proposed Rules.

Regardless, I appreciate all the conversation considering this topic and thank the OP for starting it.


That looks mechanically simple, which is nice. But I'm trying to think about how abuseable it might be when MSU squads Split Firing are involved. (Spread your shots around multiple units to increase Suppression Modifiers all around). But maybe there's something I'm missing? I'm having trouble coming up with a solution that doesn't involve a lot of bookkeeping, like keeping track of number of incoming models vs. number of models in the target unit, or something.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/08 19:50:54


Post by: Nurglitch


 Gert wrote:
From my perspective, having a unit lose models and be less effective is preferable to having a unit unharmed and unable to do anything.
It's not an easy situation to resolve because why would Terminators fear Lasgun fire and duck into cover? It won't likely harm them and serves only as a slight annoyance. A volley of Plasma fire is a serious concern because it can and will harm/kill a Terminator.
For Guardsmen, a Lasgun bolt is a potential death sentence so ducking in cover is a legitimate choice. Plasma even more so.

More broadly, why are the Plasma Guns hitting first? What's the strategic situation, and how does that influence the player's decisions next turn? Where units are more easily suppressed than they are killed, then suddenly players are incentivized to spread their fire to control the game instead of resorting to killing the other guy first. That in turn makes target priority more interesting, as you're balancing killing them with the risk of retaliation. Makes for nice incentives to have mixed squads of heavy weapon specialists as heavy bolters and the like provide suppression while lascannons and multi-meltas provide the damage. Suddenly Imperial Guardsmen have a purpose, to control the board through weight of lasgun fire instead of being wound markers for special or heavy weapons.

Not to mention that the Plague Marines are going to be taking wounds at a considerably lower rate than the Guardsmen. Suppose two squads of 9 exchanged fire across an open field, bolters to lasguns. The Plague Marines can expect to inflict ~8 wounds or so at rapid fire range, before saves, and ignoring extra variables. They can expect ~4-5 wounds in return. So they're giving 9 blast markers and receiving 6 in return. Damage-wise it's 5-wounds to 0-2 wounds, and hence ~5 casualties to 0-1 Plague Marine. Well, if they both go first. The Plague Marines are at an advantage going first and second, since in the first case they should break the enemy before they even get to attack, and in the second case 6 blast markers are a -1 to hit for 6 models if they stand and shoot. They're still not going to lose this firefight. They should still inflict 6-7 wounds even with the lasguns dazzling them, if they stand still and shoot back. That may still break the survivors.

Add a second Imperial Guard squad and it gets interesting, as two of them attacking first should break the Plague Marines, but need to be in position at the right time.

Why is that interesting? Because we need to understand how those Imperial Guard squads have the Plague Marines in rapid fire range. The conditions may be more or less ideal, pushing the odds up and down slightly, but the basic rate will be two squads of Imperial Guard will be able to pin down a Plague Marine squad (or spur them to a charge, as blast markers don't affect assaults, this is why assault exists, because if exchanging fire is bad idea, maybe you can beat them up close).

Having been broken, what are the Plague Marines to do? They can make a Fall Back move, and drop most or all of their blast markers. If they were Death Guard I would just reform my unit coherency and try to make room for another squad, but less cray-cray Plague Marines might move back out of the way of another squad of Plague Marines stepping into their place from out of line of sight. You know, take a breather.

So much like heat in BattleTech you have to manage the break-points of the troops under your command, so that your army can fight as effectively as possible for tempo armies. It's also a curb on the outrageous lethality of everyone and their grandmother. It also gives a good reason for transports, as they are tough and can keep moving troops forward, like armour should. Plus you get to add colour to the board in the form of blast markers, which add a certain "Wait, people are shooting at us?" vibe to the game.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/08 19:55:43


Post by: amanita


@ Mezmorki Yes, Insectum7 is correct that DM means die modifier.

@ nou 120 degrees is interesting. How do you determine the arc? Do you choose specific models to orient the angle, such as the nearest enemy model to the cross-firing units? When determining the 120 degrees is that for any model or does the entire unit need to be 120+ degrees over?

@Insectum7 We've never noticed too much abuse from MSU in this system; it's rare when more than 3 units have LOS to a target unit. And the results still depend on causing at least 25% casualties. I wonder if suppression should also be possible merely from volume of fire, but that can skew the result by rewarding weaker or ineffective squads/weapons even more.

Overall I'm OK with our method but I'd like to incorporate some manner of implementing a crossfire mechanic without complicating things too much. And how strong should that effect be? Maybe just a DM for multiple attackers shooting at a target, a DM for crossfire, and a DM for something else, such as weapon types attacking? There are lots of possibilities, and since we are going to reformat our rules at some point, now is a good time to look into making some improvements


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/08 19:58:03


Post by: Mezmorki


 Insectum7 wrote:

That looks mechanically simple, which is nice. But I'm trying to think about how abuseable it might be when MSU squads Split Firing are involved. (Spread your shots around multiple units to increase Suppression Modifiers all around). But maybe there's something I'm missing? I'm having trouble coming up with a solution that doesn't involve a lot of bookkeeping, like keeping track of number of incoming models vs. number of models in the target unit, or something.


That's a great point. If you have 4 units, you don't want each unit splitting fire 4 ways to hit different targets on the off chance each one triggers a wound and stacks suppression markers.

I guess the question is what do we intend suppression to represent. Does it reflect purely volume of fire? Does it reflect actually "dangerous" fire that causes wounds?

If the former, which is what I was initially thinking, that makes the argument for something where if a unit gets successfully hit by another single unit's shooting more times than it has in wounds, then it gains a suppression token. This represents the inevitably distracting nature of being shot by a ton of things, regardless of the likelihood of doing damage. It would encourage players to have the bulk of a unit shoot at the same target to try and get in the needed number of hits.

If the later (based on actual wounds), then I think you ignore where the wounds are coming from and would just track total wounds (pre-save) over the course of the round. The total wounds would translate into suppression tokens at some determined rate.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/08 21:22:30


Post by: Insectum7


@Aminata, whenever I think of a crossfire mechanic I always fall back on the old Epic version which incurred crossfire whenever two attacking units could draw a line between them (any model) through the target unit. Mind you, I forget exactly what Crossfire actually DID in Epic, but the "straight-line-through" was really easy to determine on the tabletop.

For the Suppression DM's, I just worry about it a bit because I don't know your environment, and I know the type of gamer I can be sometimes . But for an easy example, a Rhino and two Combat Squads is 3 units in and of itself. And when I imagine how much I could abuse (a pretty common older build for me) three Drop Pods, including Combat Squads and Characters, like I'm looking at around 10 units all landing in the same, mutually supporting area.

Edit: I didn't catch which versions of 40K you were building off of (if any). The use of Blasts to suppress multiple units also comes to mind. On the one hand, it sounds really appropriate that big templates should suppress multiple units. But again, I worry about a too-high degree of punishment. Also, I may not have totally wrapped my head around it either, so take it all with a grain of salt.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/08 21:24:04


Post by: jeff white


Love the Prohammer fallback getting chased down the use of leadership for restraint… exalted.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/08 21:57:03


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Had a whole reply to Mezmorki just vanish overnight.

That's cool...


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/08 22:01:48


Post by: Strg Alt


Epic Armageddon uses suppression in the following way:

- When a unit is being shot at it receives a blast/suppression marker. The shooting attack may also be out of range to cause this effect so no hits or wounds are necessary. A unit may only receive a blast/suppression marker ONCE in this way so multiple opposing units firing at the same unit still cause only one marker in this manner.

- Each model which is removed from a unit due to ranged combat also adds a blast/suppression marker to this unit.

- Each blast/suppression marker prevents one model from the respective unit from using any ranged attacks during it´s next activation. Models at the back of a unit in relation to the incoming fire are first affected in this way representing the fact that the more cowardly individuals tend to lurk behind their gung-ho comrades.

- Having blast/suppression markers makes a unit perform worse in close combat.

- Having too many blast/suppression markers will force the unit to fall back (automatically broken, no LD check). The unit may of course try to lose blast/suppression markers later in the game.

- There are actions which help to remove blast/suppression markers from a unit.

- "They shall know no fear" USR requires an opponent to stack at least two blast/suppression markers on a SM unit in order to suppress a single model.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/08 22:08:27


Post by: nou


 amanita wrote:


@ nou 120 degrees is interesting. How do you determine the arc? Do you choose specific models to orient the angle, such as the nearest enemy model to the cross-firing units? When determining the 120 degrees is that for any model or does the entire unit need to be 120+ degrees over?



This is pretty straightforward to use in practice but actually hard to word for a non-native who doesn’t know english geometry nomenclature . You take a 120 template with long enough arms, place it so that at least one model from each shooting unit is tangential to it on the inside and if you can then cover at least one enemy model at least partially on the tip side of the angle, then the unit is caught in crossfire.

GW’s GSC and Epic rule is a 180 degree case of such procedure (any models within a bounding box of shooting units mean you are caught) and it works for any angle you desire, but it gets funny with small angles or angles larger than 180 degrees, so avoid those


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/08 22:09:12


Post by: Strg Alt


 Insectum7 wrote:
@Aminata, whenever I think of a crossfire mechanic I always fall back on the old Epic version which incurred crossfire whenever two attacking units could draw a line between them (any model) through the target unit. Mind you, I forget exactly what Crossfire actually DID in Epic, but the "straight-line-through" was really easy to determine on the tabletop.

For the Suppression DM's, I just worry about it a bit because I don't know your environment, and I know the type of gamer I can be sometimes . But for an easy example, a Rhino and two Combat Squads is 3 units in and of itself. And when I imagine how much I could abuse (a pretty common older build for me) three Drop Pods, including Combat Squads and Characters, like I'm looking at around 10 units all landing in the same, mutually supporting area.

Edit: I didn't catch which versions of 40K you were building off of (if any). The use of Blasts to suppress multiple units also comes to mind. On the one hand, it sounds really appropriate that big templates should suppress multiple units. But again, I worry about a too-high degree of punishment. Also, I may not have totally wrapped my head around it either, so take it all with a grain of salt.


Yep, Crossfire isn´t very complex but gives an edge. Epic Armageddon granted a malus of 1 to armour saves for units caught in Crossfire. Units which have the USR "Thick Rear Armour" (e.g. Terminators, Land Raiders just to name a few) were immune to it´s effects.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/08 22:37:09


Post by: Mezmorki


In ProHammer (sorry!!!!) we have a very clear process for determining vehicle facing.

For purposes of flanking or crossfire shots, I wonder if you could use a similar method. For example:

When you shoot an enemy unit for the first time in a round. Nominate a shooting model in LoS to a target model. The line between the two becomes an axis. Imagine a second line perpendicular to the axis centered on the target model to form a "crosshair" of sorts. This could also be determined based on using the closest shooting model and closest target model in LoS (reflecting units being oriented to face the closest enemy threat).

Once you have that "crosshair" established you can do all sorts of things. You could define 90-degree forward, side, rear arcs for the unit (just like ProHammer does for vehicles). Or you could simplify it and say you get a crossfire bonus for any other shooting you have that's positioned in the rear 180-degree arc of the unit.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/08 22:43:01


Post by: Insectum7


 Mezmorki wrote:
In ProHammer (sorry!!!!) we have a very clear process for determining vehicle facing.

For purposes of flanking or crossfire shots, I wonder if you could use a similar method. For example:

When you shoot an enemy unit for the first time in a round. Nominate a shooting model in LoS to a target model. The line between the two becomes an axis. Imagine a second line perpendicular to the axis centered on the target model to form a "crosshair" of sorts. This could also be determined based on using the closest shooting model and closest target model in LoS (reflecting units being oriented to face the closest enemy threat).

Once you have that "crosshair" established you can do all sorts of things. You could define 90-degree forward, side, rear arcs for the unit (just like ProHammer does for vehicles). Or you could simplify it and say you get a crossfire bonus for any other shooting you have that's positioned in the rear 180-degree arc of the unit.
^That is pretty clever. Kudos! I see some gamesmanship when picking the models however, especially for big squads. I'm not sure if that's better or worse than the gamesmanship of expanding squads to get the straight-line-crossfire, but it's there. Size of units and proximity matter a lot in both versions.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/08 22:54:53


Post by: amanita


I like that crossfire mechanic from Epic; it's intuitive and seems easy to use. But an angle closer to 120 degrees makes a little more sense to me for typical infantry engagements. I'll have to look further in that.

I agree that simply counting the number of units and adding them up as accumulative DM's could be an issue at some point, so I'm leaning now toward something more like a single DM of 1 if 3+ units are shooting at a target.

The accumulation of blast/pin chits on a target also has merit, but I doubt my group would want more 'extraneous' bookkeeping aids on the table. We abandoned predetermined declared shooting for that reason: it was taking too long to place and collect the markers we used to indicate which units were shooting what targets. Maybe if we tried another way to readdress that issue we'd reconsider declared shooting again.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/08 23:00:15


Post by: nou


 Mezmorki wrote:
In ProHammer (sorry!!!!) we have a very clear process for determining vehicle facing.

For purposes of flanking or crossfire shots, I wonder if you could use a similar method. For example:

When you shoot an enemy unit for the first time in a round. Nominate a shooting model in LoS to a target model. The line between the two becomes an axis. Imagine a second line perpendicular to the axis centered on the target model to form a "crosshair" of sorts. This could also be determined based on using the closest shooting model and closest target model in LoS (reflecting units being oriented to face the closest enemy threat).

Once you have that "crosshair" established you can do all sorts of things. You could define 90-degree forward, side, rear arcs for the unit (just like ProHammer does for vehicles). Or you could simplify it and say you get a crossfire bonus for any other shooting you have that's positioned in the rear 180-degree arc of the unit.


I have something similar for establishing facing for flanking purposes - when a unit shoots it establishes it's own facing along the line to the primary target. Subsequent shooting at this unit from an angle larger than 90 degrees gets the benefit of flanking (easier to wound). But this is possible because I have end of round damage resolution, so models double down as markers. Having this sorts of mechanics when you successively remove models during the turn would mean a lot of markers everywhere.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/09 19:57:36


Post by: catbarf


 Nurglitch wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:A Plague Marine or Kardain might be able to shrug off a wound, but getting blasted in the face gives them pause. Getting hit by lasguns isn't a problem. Getting wounded by lasguns is, even if your armour allows you to fight on.

That's why I would amend the Epic version of blast markers to be wounds rather than casualties, so that it scales for units of big'uns and vehicles. Wounds accounted for even if they don't actually lose wounds (saved or ignored). That's why this is wounds and not unsaved wounds or casualties.


I totally get what you're saying, but in such a system Plague Marines would be frequently subject to suppression because they survive a lot of their wounds, while Guardsmen would be less susceptible to suppression because they just die instead. I think a system where damage bouncing off your armor still suppresses you is perfect for a historical or modern wargame, but it doesn't really fit the aesthetic of 40K.

I mean, in your system, a unit of 5 Terminators that gets shot at by enough lasguns will typically fall back before they even lose a single model. But if you shoot them with plasma guns and kill 2, the remaining 3 are fine. That doesn't seem right.

What's not right about it? In one case the squad is prevented from advancing due to a firehose of lasgun fire, and a plethora of wounds, and in the other case the squad is not suppressed because only two guys are hurt and the rest aren't.


Because there aren't actually a 'plethora of wounds'; that's just an artifact of 40K's order of operations for fire resolution. If the wounds are being saved, they're not actually inflicting relevant damage. In this system, lasgun fire pinging harmlessly off your armor is more likely to make you seek cover and get your head down than seeing two of your squad being reduced to smoking boots. It doesn't fit at all with the imagery of Space Marines wading through ineffectual lasfire unharmed, but having to act tactically when heavy weapons are in play.

On top of that, it creates a gameplay dynamic where the more heavily armored you are and the less effective incoming fire is, the sooner you break relative to casualties sustained. A unit with a 5+ save will typically break when it sustains 40% casualties, while a unit with a 3+ save will break when it sustains 25% casualties, and a unit with a 2+ save will break when it sustains around 14% casualties. This makes elite armies much easier to suppress than cannon fodder ones, as cost typically scales with resilience, but here being twice as tough does not make you anywhere near twice as hard to suppress.

And the better armored you are, the more likely you are to break from ineffective fire rather than from effective fire. Two plain squads of Guardsmen rapid firing under FRFSRF have a good chance to suppress a 5-man Terminator squad while inflicting zero casualties, but a triple-lascannon squad that gets lucky and kills two Terminators outright has a zero percent chance of suppressing the survivors. So what exactly is being modeled here? Marines being rendered combat-ineffective by lasgun fire, but unfazed by guns that kill them outright, doesn't exactly scream lore-accuracy to me.

I mean, like I said, I like the concept for other settings- I've seen similar mechanics in historicals. But the devil's in the details with regards to mechanical implementation in a space fantasy setting where being nigh-immune to bullets is commonplace.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/11 13:54:42


Post by: Strg Alt


So we have had nine pages discussing about basic rules. Lets talk about a couple of factions which I want to focus on namely Chaos, Eldar and Orks.

Why those? The others are more or less fine as they are but with the above I intend to do the following:

1. Chaos
The bulk of the army will consist of either traitor guard, mutants, plague zombies or cultists. Beastmen, chaos hounds, trolls and minotaurs will also be available as well as Imperial Guard tanks. Access to CSM will be limited but they will come along with a few veteran abilities to represent their superior combat experience in comparison to loyalist marines. Daemons will also be limited and need to be summoned by earning summoning points during the battle.

Reason for this design decision:
Just lazily implementing a traitor legion here would only replicate the play style of SM which is not desirable. I want to give each faction a specific flavour and for chaos it is the most abundant selection of units to be available.


2. Orks
Orks are present for comic-relief and to mock the Imperium by using a lot of similar units with an orky twist. So funny stuff needs to be implemented again. Another thing which plagues the Orks right now is their abysmal BS score since 3rd. To remedy this BS will be improved and close combat prowess at the same time reduced because Orks shouldn´t play like green Tyranids.



3. Eldar
Mobility is key here. This will not only encompass speed and having access to skimmers but use of portals to quickly move units will also be considered. The aspect of the dying race could be portrayed in such a way that Eldar will have more difficulties regrouping as they don´t want to risk even more losses.



40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/11 15:06:18


Post by: Unit1126PLL


What would you do with Chaos Daemons as a faction Strg Alt?

Especially since Slaanesh is supposed to be similar to what you wrote for Eldar (replace skimmers with monsters where appropriate)


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/11 15:41:21


Post by: Strg Alt


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
What would you do with Chaos Daemons as a faction Strg Alt?

Especially since Slaanesh is supposed to be similar to what you wrote for Eldar (replace skimmers with monsters where appropriate)


Daemon models are included in the Chaos faction but will play a minor role just like CSM. Limelight is on the Lost & Damned as elaborated above. Priority of the project is to create unique play styles associated to a faction.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/11 15:51:23


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Ah, I disagree there. Daemons have a totally different flavor, narrative theme, etc. to the rest of Chaos.

I also appreciate Lost and the Damned, but making Daemons fill a minor role is disappointing, to me.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/11 18:12:00


Post by: Jidmah


 Strg Alt wrote:
2. Orks
Orks are present for comic-relief and to mock the Imperium by using a lot of similar units with an orky twist. So funny stuff needs to be implemented again. Another thing which plagues the Orks right now is their abysmal BS score since 3rd. To remedy this BS will be improved and close combat prowess at the same time reduced because Orks shouldn´t play like green Tyranids.


Reading that send a shiver down my spine.

If need an old hammer ork army, just take 4th edition's codex as a base and fix the dead weight units in it. It supported various different ways of playing the army and still had all the whacky cool rules like the SAG table and squig curse. The only thing that probably should be taken from an older codex is the looted wagon, as other editions simply did looting better.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/13 14:06:47


Post by: Pacific


 JohnnyHell wrote:
All 9th Age as a counterpoint proves is that there is no one “community” as I’ve yet to see anyone play a game of it. And also that was borne of GW killing a game with no immediate continuity, which isn’t the same for 40K. Not quite the equivalence you think. Yes, other games have had successful community-modded versions. YakTribe’s Necromunda NCE is the best edition for me, wouldn’t play any other. But again, that’s a game that was binned and picked back up by the community, not made from whole cloth.


Just being devil's advocate, the one counterpoint to this I would say is that 40k has changed so much, certainly from 2nd through to the current edition, and actually even the game setting has moved on, so that they are effectively completely different games and the old game is 'dead'.

Therefore there is a space for people wanting gaming on a smaller scale, no super heavies crashing about, horrible codex creep.

I think this is why the Horus Heresy community is extremely vocal on not wanting an upgrade of their game to 9th edition-equivalent, because the game has changed so much even 7-9th. (Dare post something about this in the FB group - oh boy!) If you go back to 3rd, 4th edition the difference is even more pronounced.

There is a fairly sizeable, and growing, oldhammer community found on social media. I think that's probably your best route - find an old version that is the one you enjoyed playing, then find other people who thought likewise.


40K - Alternative Edition @ 2021/12/13 14:34:18


Post by: Nurglitch


On the bright side, trying to build a better Warhammer is usually the first step on a path to making a game of one's own.