Hypothetical game development discussion.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Lanrak**

Hi all.
Just thought I would write a post on 'what if...'
In this case , 'what if a rule set was written specificaly for the current 40k type game?'.
(NOT being restricted by legacy-marketing issues.)

We should start start by defining the GAME PLAY requirements, IMO.

Straight forward and intuitve ,( as its to be an introduction into gaming.)
Achived by...

Covering ALL elements ,units, interaction the basic rules.(Reducing the level of complexity in the rules,NOT the game play)

Baseing the game play/mechanics on a real world counter part.(To aid intiutive play.)

Make the game tacticaly rich, to reward intelegent decision making .(This way the game grows with the players experiance, and is NOT locked into particular singularities.)

So to recap we are aiming for intuitive and efficient.

Anyone want unecissarily complex and poorly defined rules ?I didnt think so.

As general perceptions of any table top game are usualy formed by what models/units are on the games table, and how they are arranged.

EG
If its massed ranks of infantry and cavalry in strict formations mainly armed with close combat weaponry, we expect game play to be similar to ancient to napoleonic warfare.

If its star ships and space stations we expect the game play to reflect naval combat.(Closest preconception of this type of encounter.)

So what real world conflict is closest to the unit types and organisations found in the current 40k?

Napoleonic, WWI, WWII?

THQ and others belive WWII is closest.(DoW and CoH very similar game play.)
Remember this is purley to establish a basic reference to allow intuitive rule development .
(Other wise you can end up with lots of contradicting counter- intuitive specific descripor rules, rather than inclusive basic rules ).

I intend to have a go at developing a new rule set , loosly based on WWII, that could be used with current '28mm heroic grim dark' minature ranges.

If you like playing current 40k with GW rules please continue.(I will.)

This thread is just a hypothetical delve into what might be if GW focus on 40k development took a different direction.
If you have NO interest in this please do not post.

BUT if you are interseted in what might be achived with a alternative stand point on game development , chime in after I have posted my outline on actual game mechanics .TA!

I am I bit to tireds to continue at this point , thanks for reading.

BBS
Lanrak.

**JohnHwangDD**

The challenge is that different people want different things out of their games.

I look for smooth play so I want a faster-moving ruleset with heavier use of minor statline differentiators and USRs.

Others want a high-detail RT-ish game.

Still others want a large amount of highly-unpredictable board-gameish activity going on as entertainment.

And all of us will claim to want the same "good" rules.

So with so many disparate objectives, I don't think you'll get true agreement on a new ruleset.

But if you want to do this, there's a fan version of Epic that you might want to consider as a model for the overall process of how to create a fan version of 40k.

**H.B.M.C.**

And, for once, John is 100% on the money.

Our group, having designed and playtested a complete ruleset for over 5 years, has thought about doing our own ruleset (ie. not derived from 3rd and 4th Ed) and creating a completely different 40K game (40K Advanced we called it).

Immediately this sparked off arguments about what it would be. One group wants it to be very freeform, in the style of Aetherverse or BattleTech in that you have defined rules that cover everything, and then 'construction' rules meaning you can make whatever units and army you want, and they're pre-balanced within the rules as there are a set amount of defiend characteristiscs, weapons, special rules and so on. This was to get away from the 'Codex list' idea.

Another group wants to keep Codex/lists, and go for a more detailed, almost Mordheim-like approach, where you have a selection of characters (Veteran Sergeants, Techmarines, etc.) and then 'mooks' to go with them. Your Sergeants and whatnot gain experience, get new weapons, and their 'mook' squads are attached to the and you arm them like normal squads. A bit like what Dawn of War II is looking to be like actually.

And thus we are an an impasse. Granted, we've done very little work on it so far, our time being taken up with The Revisited Project and BattleTech games, but it is a sticking point that DD is 100% about - people want different things, so trying to design a single ruleset is difficult when people want different things out of it.

BYE

**Lanrak**

Hi guys.
I acknowledge thare are as many prefered game play preferences as there are gamers !
But this is NOT about game play preferences but more about actual rules development process.

IF a rule set was written SPECIFICALY for the current game of 40k,retaining similar game play ,( in the same way ALL the other GW games have rule written specificaly for them with the game play as primary factor.)How different would it be ?

I dont expect the masses to switch from 40k to this, its just an exercise in rules development from a different standpoint.

Just to see how it goes

, and If any one want to contribute ideas, please feel free.

(IF I want to play a skirmish game , detailed or fast play ,or anything in between, I am spoilt for choice!
StargruntII, Warzone, Chain reaction,Xenocide, Close Quaters, No limits , etc, etc.
ALL free to down load.Not forgetting GWs Mordhiem/Necromundia/Inquisitor.)

Current 40k is NOT a skirmish game any more.Just because we use skirmish scale models , doesnt stop 40k from being UNIT focused game play,( NOT model focused marketing -based gameplay.)

The only games I am aware of, set at a similar level,(platoon to company level.)Tend to use 15 to 20 mm true scale minis.(Crossfire, FoW ,IABSM,Body Count , etc.)

Any how , alot of gamers think an interactive game turn mechanic is preferable to an 'army level, full action set, IGO/UGO' game turn mechanic.
(I will not concider variable leght bound mechanics , as experianced players tend to completly stomp newbs, without balancing mechanics which tend to be a bit hit and miss.)

This leaves...

Alternating unit activation , where ONE unit takes all its actions , then an opposing unit takes all its actions.
Player A activates a unit.
Player B activates a unit .
Repeat untill ALL units have been activated.(Multiple action sets are often refered to as 'Orders'.)

OR army level single action IGO UGO .
This can be set action sequences.

EG
Player A Moves (Or Readies)
Player B shoots.
Player A reacts.(Move or shoot)

Player B moves.(Or Readies)
Player A shoots.
Player B reacts. (Move or shoot)

Or can be free choice,

Player A takes one action with all units .(Units dont have to take the same actions...)
Player B takes one action with all units .(Units dont have to take the same actions...)
Player A takes one action with all units .
Player B takes one action with all units .

Actions could be these, move, shoot, ready, (A player simply assigns the action most useful to the unit at that time .To initiate an assault simply move into base/hull contact with an enemy unit.This makes assult a viable option as it steals mobility and fire power from enemy units, as unit locked in close combat can not move or fire untill the combat resolution at the end of the game turn.)

The activation turn sequence simply uses combinations of these actions to get 'orders.'
EG
Ready+ Shoot, Fire support.
Move +shoot , Advance,
Shoot +Move Evade,
Move+ Move, Charge.

The real bonus of these is that, ALL units are seen to be doing the same amount during one game turn.
(In 40k some units move, then shoot (or move) then move and close combat attack.(4 actions.)
While other just stand still (ready) and shoot.(Two actions, often percieved as one)

Also as the opponent gets to react to your actions the game play becomes more tactical.

Any how , Ill not dwell on specific game turn mechanics,as Its quite easy to swop out one set for the other.(We have done this alot, my gameing group like to try out new stuff...

)

On to unit stats.
IF the stats are used directly in the game mechnic it results in far more transparent game play options.So it LESS confusing for newbs.
Also I tend to prefer wider numerical ranges in the stats , this cuts down on 'wordy descriptors' and combining additinal/alternative methods to achive exactly the same function.

EG If 'AR' is 'Armour/Resistance to damage' Stat.
A 'Moog Troper' 'AR 4', A 'Zatek Transporter' 'AR 12', A 'Wooziut Assault Cyborg' 'AR 7'
Its clear and easy to compare the 'armour /resiliance' of the creature, to the vehicle, and to the construct.

If it was presented as;-
Moog troper 3+ armour save,
Zatek transporter AV 12
Woosiut Assault Cyborg 2+ armour save , 5+ force field save.
It become much more difficult to compare unit abilities ...

Any how I would like to propose the following In Game Interactions/Functions and the relevent stats.

Mobility.
Type of movement .Walker, wheeled/tracked, hover/skimmer, flyer , and Jump jet.(A symbol in front of the combat speed value)
Combat Speed. Distance the unit can move up to when it takes a movement action.
EG
/\ 4 >-walker 4'' max move.
O 12 > wheeled 12" max move.
(_) 6 > tracked 6" max move.

Defencive capability.
AR>Armour/-Resistance to damage.How hard it is to damage the unit .
HP> hit points, how many wounds /structure points the unit has.
SZ> Size. How big the unit is and how hard it is to see on the battle field.

Offensive capability.
This is mainly covered by weapon effects, (From claws to particle beam disruptors..)
Weapons can be split into the following types.

Assault weapons ,Weapons used in close combat assaults.(Fancy that!)

Small/Side arms.The standard guns of an infantry unit , (Pistols, rifles, SMG type weapons)

Support weapons. Special weapons used to support attacks with special functions.

Fire Suport weapons , Special weapons used to support attacks, that can ONLY fire after taking a ready action .(Fire suport order.)
(Note weapons can change catagory depending on the unit, eg a heavy bolter can be a fire suport weapon in an infantry unit , and a support weapon when mounted on a vehicle.)

Weapons have the folowing stats, Range , Effect and Damage Rating.
(As the majority of weapons are NOT dependant on the 'str' of the creature wielding them I prefer the term 'damage')

AW> Awarness, how likley the unit is to detect , identify and engage targets.

Command and control.
MG > Moral grade , how likely the unit is to carry on fighting.
(Roll over the 'MG' to pass a moral check, bad situations add to the unit Moral grade, good situations add to the dice roll )

CA> Comand Ability , a how much influence a leader has on own-nearby units,(Moral dice modifer) and how far this effect reaches.(Radius in inches.)

Anyhow thats my initial list of stats.

Ill post the out line of my proposed game mechanics next post.All straight forward and give proportional results...

TTFN
Lanrak.

**Lanrak**

HI again.
If there is a concrete frame of reference, (actual real world counterpart) to base the game structure on , it is easier to decide exactly what elements the game is going to focus on.And in doing this what elements are abtracted and by how much.

EG
Epic and Warmaster tend to focus on the 'command and control ' elements, and the stats for the individual units tend to be comparitivley simple , as they are NOT the primary focus of the game.
This is usual practice for Battalion to Divisional level games.(It works realy well.

)

In skirmish games like Necromundia and Mordhiem, the focus is more on individuals taking part.There is FAR more focus on individual actions ,(longer stat lines for models ), than on command and control.As most models tend to stay within yelling distance.

(This works realy well too.

)

I think most people would agree that the current game size of 40k falls neatly between these 2 game types /sizes?

Its bigger than skirmish but smaller than battalion.

As 40k started off as a RPG-Skirmish game , and has skirnmish sized models, (28mm heroic.) ther is a tendancy to belive skirmish type rules should be used.
However wih the increse in model count in 2nd to 3rd ed, the detailed skirmish rules became too unweildly.

Rather than 'reset' the rule set to fit the new game size,GW did a quick hatchet job on the old skirmish rules.
And in doing so , lost ALOT of the meaning -sense -dynamic of the rules structure and direction.

If you start with detailed skirmish rules and chop them down to fit more models on the table , you can end up with nonsensical jibberish.(Not very intuitive.)

If you start with Battalion level rules , ADD more detail to the units stats , you increase the amount of clarity and detail.
And simply altering the action-sets/orders to be more direct unit objectives , is a comparative straight forward job.

Any how.Just to recap I intend to use WWII platoon to company level actions as a basis for the new rules set.
I hope to represent all issues fairly evenly.

Here is my list of assumptions/abstractions.
Most forces have a strong sense of purpouse.(Complete the mission with minimum losses/ dont get killed .)

A ranged weapons effective range is ALOT shorter than its maximum effective range.
(This is also determined by the ability /state of the firing unit....On top of a hill on a clear day not under threat, is radicaly different when you are blinded by smoke, deafened by gunfire, and death is so close by you can smell it...)

I intend to amalgimate the 'also-ands' into one group.
EG rather than roll 26 seperate dice for Orks armed with shootaz , I just roll once for the mass effect ! (Speed up play).

Units will NOT open fire unless they will have an effect on the target.My game definition of Effective range!(Blazing away at targets at maximum range just attracts a lot of unwanted attension!)

Trooper will ALWAYS take up better weapons of the dead/ injured unit members.

'Unit leaders' spot and decide targets , all measurment to targets is from the 'unit leader'.. All measurment is to the middle of the target unit.

Weapons have 2 basic types of effect,
Area effect, multiple moderate damage over a wide area.(Mainly anti personell, AP)
Single point contact HIGH damage(Mainly anti tank, AT),(Same concept as used in Epic.)

Basic mechanics.

Weapon effects .
The damage rating of the weapon (+ dice roll )is compared to the AR value of the target.
This is looked up on the damage chart to give result.(One chart for AP weapons , one for AT weapons)

(AT weapons just take how much the AR was beaten by ,( Penetration value) ,and determine result on the SINGLE MODEL by a futher dice roll.
AP weapons compare the amount of damage to the current units HP +AR value to determine the effect.)

Or
AP weapons could give save roll required.
EG 7 marines with bolt guns, damage 4 +D6 (roll a 3 to give 7)fire on Ork mob AR 2 . 2 -7 = 5. the orks in the target zone need to roll a 5+ to aviod being casualties. (It may be necissary to give more variable target zone sizes?)

The units awarnes value (AW)is the distance a unit can spot a size 3 (meduim sized) target.
EG units AW value of 8"

A size 3 target 48" away , the unit needs to roll a 6+ to spot the target.
A size 3 target 40" away, the unit neds to roll a 5+ to spot the target.
A size 3 target 32" away , the unit need to roll a 4+ to spot the target .
A size 3 target 24" away, the unit needs to roll a 3+ to spot the target.
A size 3 target 16" away , the unit neesd to roll a 2 +top spt the target .
A size 3 target 8 inches away the unit needs to roll a 1+ to spot the target.

The AW value is altered by 1 " per shift in target size.

EG AW 8".
size 1 =6"
size 2 =7"
Size 3 =8"
Size 4 =9"
Size 5 =10"

'Cover' has a size modifier . this is the amount the cover reduces the target units size by.
EG a size 4 vehicle behind a size 1 wall counts as size 3 .

A size 4 vehicle behind a size 2 ruin counts as size 2 target.

Cover makes a unit harder to spot/see.If the cover is the same size or higher than the units size, the unit may hide behind/ in the cover.

Hard cover adds to the hiding units AR value.

Ill leave it there for now.
Thanks for reading.
TTFN lanrak.

**namegoeshere**

I remember this from warseer.
Just post a link to your finalized version.
It still seems a bit confusing to me over 'spotting', 'handing over targets' etc.

I would say the game should play like 'black hawk down' the movie. With a few more sci-fi elements. Some points.
Shooting kills quickly.
Except when targets have cover.
Moral is more than just running away.
Issuing orders is not perfect.
Rescuing fallen comrades (not all of them - but v important ones)
Battles span a long time (though shouldn't take long to play - as spacehulk)
Units move - engage in decisive and indecisive firefights, dig in, hide, regroup.
An element of chance doesn't mean everything takes a die roll.
Minimal maths and remembering what unit did what.

**Lanrak**

Hi mate.
I am still working out different combinations of game mechnics.
Rolling to see a target make more sense than rolling to hit IMO.( Units tend to have a 'comfort zone' driven effective range.If they can comfotably supress-knock out a unit they will!Taking pot shots at extreem range just makes the enemy very annoyed!)

I swapped out visual ranges for the range band awarness.(Spotting is ,distance to target /awarness value =dice roll required to spot.)

It doesnt take much to alter game play radicaly!

And there is my point, rather than faff about adding special exeptions (special rules.), just altering basic game mechanics can get the required result so much quicker easier and simpler!

There are lots of great games that you can use 40k minis with.

Unfortiunatley GW dont think that a good rule set is required for 40k.A rehash of the WH rule set every 5 years is all you are going to get.

Ill continue to experiment and see where I get to.

Thanks for remebering my old rule set.

Its still a WIP.

BTW, do you prefer unit activation or alternating single actions ?

TTFN
Lanrak.

**warpcrafter**

Start with the original epic rules, expand the stats and target numbers to make the game D12 based and increase the range of weapons and wargear to something just short of what they are in the current generation of codexes.
The idea about rolling for mass effects needs to take into account heavy/support weapons or it becomes a meaningless dice-rolling exercise like EPIC:40,000.
The fourth edition 40K rules did quite a lot of things right. I don't understand why GW felt the need to make so many changes.

**namegoeshere**

One of your first ideas was just to make each turn small - so the opponent would get a chance to react. I thought that was a very good idea. I stole it for my rule set.
As for your spotting range- do you spot and shoot in one turn or are they separate? If they are separate do you have to remember which units are spotted? Do you show it with a counter?

Glancing at your rules I'd say they could be simpler.
I've altered mine quite alot. Always looking for the simplest most elegant solution. But also the most complete game - allowing each unit to function as its fluff implies/ as you would expect it to on a battlefield.
But unfortunately my rules are still written too minimally to be easy reading. :(

There is no reason to alter the epic rules to 40k - as that already exists in a rather good version on the internet.

**Lanrak**

Hi namegoeshere.

You liked the .

Start of turn Phase.
Both players;-
Attempt to rally units on poor moral.
Request off table support.(Reserves and artilery-air strikes.)

Action phase.
Player A takes a singular action with all thier units.
Player B takes a singular action with all thier units .
Player A takes a singular action with all thier units .
Player B takes a singular action with all thier units.

End of turn Phase .
Resolve close combat assaults
Plot arriving reserves-bombardments.

Notes.
Units may chose different actions to other friendly units. Choice of actions are , move shoot, ready.('Fire Support' class weapons require a 'ready' action before they fire.EG Fire Support class weapons may not 'move and shoot'.)

This was the simplest way of geting the amount of interaction I wanted without ANY 'temporal back tracking' and 'conditional perameters.'

The idea for 'spotting & handing on targets 'was if a unit that could see an enemy unit , but could not effect it.Would pass the information on to another unit that could.

EG a scout unit with no A.T. weapons would inform a tank hunter unit of the presensce of enemy tanks.
As long as the information chain, (Commmand radii ) linked up between the sender and the fireing unit , the shot could be taken the next action phase.

(Eg if the enemy was outside the tank hunter units awarness range,the scout unit would pinpoint the targets for them.)
But i was only going to allow ONE comms message per CV .
EG a Tac squad CA 1/ 12" could pass on ONE 'target location message' to units within 12".This stops game breaking amounts of super long range shots of death....and makes it easier to keep track of what 'extended awarness' shot is going to be taken next action .

This means that scouts and recon units CAN actualy scout and recon, not just be light disposable distraction units.
Unfortunatley I am a bit pants at explaining things in the written format.

I tend to look at the basic group of proven game mechanics that give the closest priximity to what I am after.
Then I tend to mix and match abit to get the ' game play' I am after.
Then look at stream lining to make the whole thing easier to play!

To be fair I am stuck in stage 2, ATM!

I am trying out new ideas.Was there anything you found very confusing-complicated?

TTFN
Lanrak.

**namegoeshere**

Yeah that is a good turn sequence.
Your language is tending more toward real world explanations rather than rule explanations.
With handing off targets, it does involve remembering for the next turn- so a counter would be a good idea. (Your giant brain might be ok remembering lots of details - but a good game should involve very little remembering of conditions or states - so god invented counters)
My system handles this a bit more abstractly. For you I would suggest the targeting unit puts a targeted counter on the ground by the enemy. Any enemy within 6" of the counter can be indirectly fired upon by indirect fire weapons.

Personally I'm against units not deployed from interacting though - off table bombardments etc. It is a minature game - there are mortars, grenades etc that can do the job

What causes smoke on the battlefield? - If smoke was liberally represented you wouldn't need spotting ranges. A good spotter could see through 2 or so, a bad 1 only 1. (This is what I'm leaning toward - but just need to figure out what causes smoke)

Otherwise you have too many gradients of categories.

Paremeters;
Cover is vital
Nobody wants to die or is reckless with their life - they put their life before the mission
Troops in cover hide
Troops far away are hard to see
No unit is aware of everything around them - least of all hidden or hard to see targets
Troops need to stop to regroup - they are not bullet spraying berzerkers
Troops hand each other info
I like less dice - but morons like more - morons have numbers on their side so...
Close assult is the best way to remove infantry from cover

**Lanrak**

Hi namegoeshere.
I think counters are a good idea!I tend to forget stuff too.

There are one shot off table bombardments in the curent rules.
I also dont like totaly indirect fire being so 'opportune'.
'Oh you dicided to dump a load of shells behind that hill on a hunch...pity my most expecive squad just happened to be there...'
I prefer a freindly unit to have the 'eyes on the prize'

So my ideas for reserves-airstrikes-bombardments were ment to cover current 40k stuff.

Smoke can be laid pre game by interdictive battery fire, or put down mortars and grenades.

However if you are pushed for time or low on scenery ,why not just limit the range a unit is aware of?
This is why I thought the 'awareness range' X D6= the distance the unit can see /be aware of this turn. Was a simple mechanic.
Other wise a more compicated aqusition tables might be needed.EG target size +/- modifiers = roll required to spot the target.

However if you included 'smoke placement/ drift phase ' for each player in the start of turn.So each player controls X amount of smoke clouds covering dia Y ".To represent off table suport ??? (I say smoke . it could be somthing more fluffy like , swarms of flys -buzzer squigs-tiny spores etc.)

Hmm off table suport represented in a non desructive way, and we get around thorny LOS restrictions and add a new level of tactics...maybe this might work?

Any how I agree with your perameters.

I look forward to bouncing some more ideas around.

TTFN
Lanrak.

**Orkeosaurus**

The thing is, if these battles take place within the 40K universe, somethings are going to be far different from a regular wargame. For instance:

namegoeshere wrote:Nobody wants to die or is reckless with their life - they put their life before the mission

Quite a few armies would never put their own lives above the mission. Space Marines, Chaos forces loyal to the gods, Necrons, Tyranids, Inquisitorial forces, most Eldar, etc. In addition many units in the IG are equally dedicated, and Orks and Dark Eldar are pretty cavalier with their lives as well (not that they are necessarily paying too much attention to the mission at hand...).

Troops need to stop to regroup - they are not bullet spraying berzerkers

Space Marines, Chaos Marines, and Orks are all pretty much bullet spraying berzerkers.

I like less dice - but morons like more - morons have numbers on their side so...

What do you mean by less dice? If you mean less things decided purely by chance then I would agree with you, as there are far too many instances in 40K of good tactical play turning into a liability due to a fluke of the dice, which may not even have been that unlikely, all things considered. However, using more dice when determining something by chance is called for is a good thing, as it increases the bell curve and makes flukes less likely to occur.

**namegoeshere**

Lanrak
Smoke can be laid pre game by interdictive battery fire, or put down mortars and grenades.

I'm thinking more of smoke - not as something actively used (though if we work out rules for naturally occuring smoke - smoke on purpose can be added), but as what makes it hard to spot enemy and shoot them over long distances. I'm hampered in this by not having practical experience. But In most war movies the effect of combat is a lot like mist. Of course there is also naturally occurring mist, darkness, sandstorms, rain. Though thinking about this - none of these things can be decently represented by scenery pieces... I think I'll ditch the idea.

However if you included 'smoke placement/ drift phase ' for each player in the start of turn.So each player controls X amount of smoke clouds covering dia Y ".To represent off table suport ??? (I say smoke . it could be somthing more fluffy like , swarms of flys -buzzer squigs-tiny spores etc.)

I think swarms of flies as a unit - would be a cool unit.

I do want to have rules for the difficulty of spotting enemy. But I'm still struggling to understand the situation.

This seems a good point to discuss cover. One idea I came up that I like is scenery - not as area terrain - but as bases. A base the size of normal models base could hide one model - several could hide behind a dreadnought base etc. The cover only has to half the height of the model to hide them (but only from the other side). You would have to be careful not to move them by accident - but it better represents the actual availability of cover. You don't need to hide in a wood or a building (thought they are a bonus), lying on your stomach you can hide behind 4 or so sandbags or other minimal amounts of cover.

**namegoeshere**

Quite a few armies would never put their own lives above the mission. Space Marines, Chaos forces loyal to the gods, Necrons, Tyranids, Inquisitorial forces, most Eldar, etc. In addition many units in the IG are equally dedicated, and Orks and Dark Eldar are pretty cavalier with their lives as well (not that they are necessarily paying too much attention to the mission at hand...).

Actually according to the fluff - the lose of a single marine - would be a tragedy. Doubly so with a Elder. Enough to seriously jeopardize the possibility of calling the mission a success.
It is perfectly possible in my rules for troops to rush headlong into enemy fire if you like (though they have to be v numerous or tough to pull it off), but some units are expendable and some aren't. (Though my rules allow you to re-write troop stats - if you want expendable kamikaze marines you can put their stats together).
I've just included an extendability stat (not it's actual primary function or name). Losing a gretchin is no big deal. But if you lose the ork warboss - no troops don't break and run - but you would struggle to win the mission - and troops would be more likely to act instinctively - it is some orks instinct to shoot and charge the nearest enemy (Goffs), some orks will take cover and snipe (deathskulls), some will move quickly to the objective then shoot (red suns)

Basically I'm saying yes some troops are in a hurry to die - but some are very cautious with their lives - my rules include both options (40k just has fear as a weak thing, not just troops taking cover so they don't die - or the idea that you might want your troops to not die. This is partly due to 40k being a v brief combat, so there is no benefit to troops being cautious - my game takes place over a longer amount of time).

Space Marines, Chaos Marines, and Orks are all pretty much bullet spraying berzerkers.
Unless you are shooting bullets the size of tennis balls you aren't going to be very effective this way. Fluff for marines doesn't really have them this way though - it has them as super soldiers not nut jobs. Less so now - but back in the day there where lots of pictures of Orks taking cover. It's really the 40k game rules that have warped the fluff into every army warring like a game of rugby.
But yes certain armies and troops can fight this way. But tanks do it a lot better than infantry - that being the function of tanks, and the failings of infantry - tanks can move and fire, move fast and take a lot of enemy fire, shoot a lot - infantry can take cover, hide and more easily search for enemy hiding units. The weapons on a tank can spray a volume of fire where by they can function that way. But infantry have to take stock of enemy locations and aim, not to mention to take stock of where enemy are so they can hide from them or even sneak up on them. Some troops are so elite they can do these things instantly - to a degree though even they benefit from taking cover and surveying the scene now or again

What do you mean by less dice? If you mean less things decided purely by chance then I would agree with you, as there are far too many instances in 40K of good tactical play turning into a liability due to a fluke of the dice, which may not even have been that unlikely, all things considered. However, using more dice when determining
something by chance is called for is a good thing, as it increases the bell curve and makes flukes less likely to occur.

There are some v random elements to my game (Not the shooting I explained above, but every six turns you can take a command turn, this is represented by you getting a command turn when you roll a 6 for your turn). You are saying that would annoy you? Sigh... I will have think of an alternative mechanic

**namegoeshere**

http://www.military-sf.com/MilitaryScienceFiction.htm

Awesome website for this stuff

http://www.military-sf.com/FireFightDynamics.htm

Actually seeing the enemy is not as common as in the movies. Usually only a few people will see the enemy. Camouflage is designed to hide the soldier from enemy view. If the soldier can't be seen he cannot be easily shot, furthermore, when a soldier is firing at an enemy he takes cover and tries to hide from enemy bullets as well as enemy observation. Of course when someone ducks behind a tree, rock, car or some other object he/she can't be seen at all and so he/she can't be shot.

What this usually means is that both sides are hiding from the each other at the same time they are trying to kill each other. Sticking your head up to look for the enemy usually means you get shot at or start attracting fire. This is a bad thing so most fighters don't spend a lot of time looking for the enemy. This means it is important for professionals to communicate and inform each other when and where they see the enemy. There are a great many ways warriors use to inform each other of where the enemy is at. Team leaders can use tracers, smoke grenades, or shouted commands to show their team where to fire. Just because a unit can't see the enemy doesn't mean the enemy cannot be suppressed with a high volume of fire. What is important is that the suppressive fire be close enough to the enemy to scare them.

....

A Marine patrol is stalking through the jungle on a search and attack mission. Suddenly the point man comes under fire and hits the ground. The Automatic Rifleman, behind the pointman, opens fire on the suspected enemy position, firing as fast as he accurately can. The third man in formation (with a grenade launcher) starts to fire on the enemy also. As quickly as it can, the Marines will bring as much firepower as they can on the enemy and will get in a line facing the enemy. There will usually be enough room between Marines so that a single grenade will not kill more than one or two. The point man might have a higher content of tracers in his weapon to designate the enemy's location and because tracers help with suppression.

Grenade launchers will fire smoke, as well as explosives to mark the enemy location for those that don't yet see the enemy. The smoke would interfere with the enemy's ability to see the Marines and it will tell the Marines about where the enemy is at, the smoke is also less likely to interfere with the Marine's ability to see. Fireteam leaders will order their fireteams to concentrate fire on those locations.

If the Marines have managed to suppress the enemy, the squad leader may send a fireteam to the side of the enemy and assault him from there (flanking). If this fails or is not practical then the squad leader will get on his radio and call for mortars or artillery (if he hasn't done so already). Also, reinforcements might be dispatched by higher authorities.

If the enemy fire is too strong and the Marines are taking casualties then they will retreat under cover of mortars, artillery, close air support or Naval gunfire.

If the squad leader believes he cannot flank the enemy and the squad can assault them he will give the order. At this point he can advance the squad by fireteams, or give the fireteam leaders control. While two fireteams lays down a high volume of fire, and suppresses the enemy, another fireteam will advance. Meanwhile, fireteam leaders are directing their teams to advantageous positions, with the machine gunner taking priority. If there is a target that the machine gunner is having difficulty with then the team leader will engage it with his grenade launcher. Also, Marines on either side of the line will be told to be more watchful so the Marines don't get flanked.

**Orkeosaurus**

namegoeshere wrote:Actually according to the fluff - the lose of a single marine - would be a tragedy. Doubly so with a Elder. Enough to seriously jeopardize the possibility of calling the mission a success.
It is perfectly possible in my rules for troops to rush headlong into enemy fire if you like (though they have to be v numerous or tough to pull it off), but some units are expendable and some aren't. (Though my rules allow you to re-write troop stats - if you want expendable kamikaze marines you can put their stats together).
I've just included an extendability stat (not it's actual primary function or name). Losing a gretchin is no big deal. But if you lose the ork warboss - no troops don't break and run - but you would struggle to win the mission - and troops would be more likely to act instinctively - it is some orks instinct to shoot and charge the nearest enemy (Goffs), some orks will take cover and snipe (deathskulls), some will move quickly to the objective then shoot (evil suns)

I get that the Space Marines and Eldar can't afford to let themselves be killed without a good reason (as more of a resource thing than a not dying thing; I think samurai had the same problem), but they wouldn't hesitate to die for an important mission, which I figure games of 40K usually are (otherwise you probabably wouldn't be able to take Abbadon). I like your take on the Warboss' importance, and expendable troops versus troops you can't afford to lose many of.

Basically I'm saying yes some troops are in a hurry to die - but some are very cautious with their lives - my rules include both options (40k just has fear as a weak thing, not just troops taking cover so they don't die - or the idea that you might want your troops to not die. This is partly due to 40k being a v brief combat, so there is no benefit to troops being cautious - my game takes place over a longer amount of time).

That is too true. Falling back means you're a coward who is fleeing from the battle for just about everyone except Space Marines. It's one of things I strongly dislike about the current rule set.

Unless you are shooting bullets the size of tennis balls you aren't going to be very effective this way. Fluff for marines doesn't really have them this way though - it has them as super soldiers not nut jobs. Less so now - but back in the day there where lots of pictures of Orks taking cover. It's really the 40k game rules that have warped the fluff into every army warring like a game of rugby.
But yes certain armies and troops can fight this way. But tanks do it a lot better than infantry - that being the function of tanks, and the failings of infantry - tanks can move and fire, move fast and take a lot of enemy fire, shoot a lot - infantry can take cover, hide and more easily search for enemy hiding units. The weapons on a tank can spray a volume of fire where by they can function that way. But infantry have to take stock of enemy locations and aim, not to mention to take stock of where enemy are so they can hide from them or even sneak up on them. Some troops are so elite they can do these things instantly - to a degree though even they benefit from taking cover and surveying the scene now or again.

I see what you mean now. Lots of armies are sort of crazy and have Rambo-like abilities, but they don't run at the entrenched enemies with their guns on full auto. I'm also plenty tired of people thinking Orks don't know how to do anything besides fight in close combat. They aren't Khorne worshippers, they like shooting and maneuvering on the battlefield (go fasta!) just as much.

There are some v random elements to my game (Not the shooting I explained above, but every six turns you can take a command turn, this is represented by you getting a command turn when you roll a 6 for your turn). You are saying that would annoy you? Sigh... I will have think of an alternative mechanic

Well I haven't really read these rules (are they around anywhere?), so I can't really say whether or not I would like this control mechanism. However, one thing that helps to minimize the feeling of being screwed over by luck with no recourse would be to have some sort of mechanic that allows you to influence it. (i.e. Captian Tacticius is an expensive HQ that can't do much in combat, but he can allow you to reroll your command dice once per game, or something along those lines. This also gives you a nice representation of skilled commanders on the field, as opposed to "this guy is a great commander... this doesn't make a difference to your game, but, uh, he also has a super rare powerfist!)

**namegoeshere**

Thanks for vaguely positive response ;P
I haven't put my new rules in my sig yet - as I'm still fixing bits and bobs - and more importantly it's written up very briefly most have struggled to follow it. Which to a degree makes it hard to determine if my rules are very simple or very complex.
Commanders are important in my rules - effectively coordinating tactical actions - (though I'm not against them also having a super rare power fist) - they also add to the amount of orders you can place, ability to choose missions, scenery, deployment.

**Lanrak**

Hi guys.
I think we can agree most units in 40k have a very strong sense of purpouse.
And it is not to be bullet catcher number 23!

Most of the wargames I play tend to give proportional results.Dice rolls influence results but are NOT TOTALY deteministic.

Eg
In 40k beat the AV by 1 or 10 and you have the same chance of causing the same effect on a vehicle.
(Roll a D6 to determine damage.)

In Firefly the amount you beat the armour value by determines the range of damage.

I tend to use the simplest direct mechanic I can think of.
If Leaders have a Command value.(A number from 1 to 4.)This can be used to modify the dice rolls for moral and command .
If leaders have a range of effect. a Command range , (like nids synapse range.)
This means leaders can be defined quite easily.
Eg
IG sergeant Com 1/-(Influencs his own squad by 1.)
IG Junior officer 2/12"(Influences up to 2 units within 12" by up to 2 total)
IG senior officer 3 /18"(Influences up to 3 units within 18" by up to a 3 total.)
Commisar Yarrick 4/24"(Influences up to 4 units within 24" by up to 4 total.)
An octegenarian commisar putting the fear of the emporor into the front line guard over the vox caster seems more sensible than taking on a Nid fex/Ork Warlord in CC.

GW have corrupted 40k so taking a knive to a gun fight is the prefered option.

Because it was easier than adressing the real issues of limiting unit interaction in a logical and scalable way.IMO.

Namegoeshere.
Have you layed out your rules in a easy to follow format?

Eg
Introduction , what you want to achive and how you intend to get there.
Unit stats, what they represent and how they interact.
Game turn mechanics.How players/units interact with each other.
In game actions and how they are represented.

PS I have used other rule sets, (mainly skirmish level) with 40k minatures, and the games are still 40k, but made far more sense!
IMO.

How do you feel about giving units a movment and size value, and giving terain a movment modifier and size value ?

Eg a unit is size 2 and can move up to 6 inches per turn.(Mv 6 Sz 2)
A jungle is size 3 and reduces movment by 2 inches per movment action.( Mm2 Sz 3)
So the unit moving through the jungle is hidden (smaller than the jungle size) and reduces its maximum movment by 2 to 4"

A low hill might be Mm 0 Sz 2 .A swamp might be Mm 4 Sz 0.

Just some thoughts.
TTFN
Lanrak.

**George Spiggott**

I think the best way forward for a reworked 40k game system would be to take an existing rule set and mod 40k army lists for it, Epic Armageddon, or Starship Troopers would be the most suitable choices IMO. The game would also need a set of USR's and a fixed imperial wargear list.

I did put some thought into doing this with FoW but I'm not sure it would handle armoured infantry very well and also Rogue Trader but that would need so much cleaning up that the game would be unrecognisable.

**namegoeshere**

George Spiggott wrote:I think the best way forward for a reworked 40k game system would be to take an existing rule set and mod 40k army lists for it, Epic Armageddon, or Starship Troopers would be the most suitable choices IMO. The game would also need a set of USR's and a fixed imperial wargear list.

I did put some thought into doing this with FoW but I'm not sure it would handle armoured infantry very well and also Rogue Trader but that would need so much cleaning up that the game would be unrecognisable.

This has already been done with epic Armageddon rules for 40k models. It's pretty good and a lot of the armies have been written up. Sorry I don't know exactly where it is, I didn't do it, it was a group project.

Plus I think some of us actually like the writing up rules bit

(I really don't like these ork smileys)

**namegoeshere**

Most of the wargames I play tend to give proportional results.Dice rolls influence results but are NOT TOTALY deteministic.

Eg
In 40k beat the AV by 1 or 10 and you have the same chance of causing the same effect on a vehicle.
(Roll a D6 to determine damage.)

In Firefly the amount you beat the armour value by determines the range of damage.

Personally I'd rather roll two dice (succes or not, then how much success) that work out how much the score was beaten by on one dice. As it is not elegence or simplicity alone that is important, though these are important, but ease of play. And figuring how much you beat the score by bogs the game down.

Also in the end I simplified shooting, there is just more firepower, or less.
The other modifiers are absolute range, range variables, can ignore cover, can damage tanks, can be combined with charge, slow weapons (grenades, artillery, heavy weapons on troops), can be combined with movement (most weapons on a tank). Thats it. No complex distinction between a heavy bolter and a multilaser, except which has more firepower. No complex distinction between what weapons are good against marines, and what are useless

I tend to use the simplest direct mechanic I can think of.
If Leaders have a Command value.(A number from 1 to 4.)This can be used to modify the dice rolls for moral and command .
If leaders have a range of effect. a Command range , (like nids synapse range.)
This means leaders can be defined quite easily.
Eg
IG sergeant Com 1/-(Influencs his own squad by 1.)
IG Junior officer 2/12"(Influences up to 2 units within 12" by up to 2 total)
IG senior officer 3 /18"(Influences up to 3 units within 18" by up to a 3 total.)
Commisar Yarrick 4/24"(Influences up to 4 units within 24" by up to 4 total.)
An octegenarian commisar putting the fear of the emporor into the front line guard over the vox caster seems more sensible than taking on a Nid fex/Ork Warlord in CC.

I personally don't bother with this detail, all command units (prob wrong term as it applies to sergeants and such) can co-ordinate tactical actions with units in 6" (so a circle diameter of 12"). Well led armies have more command units, less well lead ones less.
Then the quality of army commander dictates how many orders you may give out in the game.

Namegoeshere.
Have you layed out your rules in a easy to follow format?

Eg
Introduction , what you want to achive and how you intend to get there.
Unit stats, what they represent and how they interact.
Game turn mechanics.How players/units interact with each other.
In game actions and how they are represented.

Not really. My rules go;
Set up
What happens in a turn
What is a tactical action
Environment
Unit stats/ common special rules (tank, anti-tank etc)
Missions
Some random example unit stats
Musings on random army special rules (people like them, makes each army a bit unique)

Not that this is exactly the best way of doing things though - and its all written like a rules reminder sheet at the moment. Will (eventually write it up more as you suggest - but am still tweaking and streamlining.)

How do you feel about giving units a movment and size value, and giving terain a movment modifier and size value ?

Units are just sized by their bases at the moment (or multibase models or dimensions for anything bigger than a dreadnought). An infantry model can hide in cover that is at least half its height (though in reality you need less, only really coming up to your knees, but because 40k miniatures have giant things on their back, I had to be a bit more generous). Anything more is just punishing armies that have stupid giant plumes on their head

which is everyone in 40k. Cover below waist height for a normal infantry isn't put down, at least I haven't put in rules for cover that just provides a movement problem, didn't occur. Though mines and carbombs are units available to certain armies. All cover reduces speed in the same fashion, it seemed unnecessary to go into further detail on it imo. Walkers can ignore all cover, climbing all over buildings etc. Just to come up with some reason for them having long legs -other than it looking cool. Note dreadnoughts aren't walkers though (small legs) they just move like infantry.
In my game though you can walk around cover, as it is a lot of small pieces rather than a few large areas.
Units have move values. Most infantry move 3", because my turn is quick (though adding buckets of dice to shooting might have altered that... I hope not), and 6" makes it too easy to move from one piece of cover to another staying hidden, when the enemy should have an opportunity to shoot at you over 6".

When I get home I'll provide a link to my rules. Though at the moment the rules for morale seem a bit clunky... Maybe I'll fix them before I stick it up

**Lanrak**

Hi namegoeshere.
I find it hard to belive subtracting the armour value from the strenght of hit is any thing other than straight forwad and intuitive.
(Weapons cause damage, armour prevents damage.)

Just rolling dice that give the same chance of a result, totaly irrespective of how hard somthing is hit ,just seems off to me.

As reguards to range I was hoping to group all smallarms-side arms into one effect to speed up dice rolling.
Give a effective range and set amount of base damage.(Aditional damage from a dice roll to offer reasonable variance.)

As the unit looses models it reduces the small arms effective range per casualty.

EG 12 men firing rifles effective range 24 " dam 8 (A).
After taking 2 casualties effective range drops to 22",damage value remains the same.After taking 6 casualties effective range drops to 18".Damage remains the same.
(This models the reduced firing effect and the hesitance of the unit to engage after taking casualties.)

Rapid firning -automatic side arms tend to have a fixed lethal density (damage) but the number of firing weapons tend to extend the range of this lethality due to sheer quantity of munitions expended, ( up to a balanced maximum ).

Effective range is the range at which the weapon WILL have an effect on a target unit, not the maximum range the munitions can be propelled.
EG SA 80 max range 600M+
Effective range about 250M ish.

Because most units will NOT engage a target unless they WILL hit it!(or be close enough to effect it , supresss it etc.)And swaping the 'roll to hit' to a 'roll to see' opens up the game for far more tactical options.

If you fix the 'Leader Control Zones' eg all 6" radius, is this not limiting a variable that may lead to lots of additional rules?

GW do this so they can add lots of 'Speshul (needs) rulz' to sell models!!
EG every leader has a 6" command radius.
Apart from Nid Synapse which is 12".
And natural born leaders which is 8"
And psychic links ,comms Vox , loud Hailers , shouty , mind meld , supernatural auras , all adding and modifiying the ALWAYS 6" SO it rarely is EVER 6".

(End of anti 40k rules development rant.)

Why not let the naturaly occuring variables vary.And let the game mechanics be fixed?
Eg Everthing works like this , no exceptions !
This is a lot easier than adding tons of fixes as you go IMO.

If you are using the single order allocation game turn ,(posted higher up) how can leaders hand out more orders?Only ONE action per unit maximum, per player turn.

If the game mecahnic is controling the action allotment , leaders are left to influence the moral effects. The better the leader the more effect they have.

Just a note on unit size , as the ground scale and vertical scale of the current 40k differ by a multiple of 6.5 , vertical scale is 16mm= 1M, ground scale 2.5mm = 1m.(ish)

Then using direct measurment in this environment is very abstracted.(True line of sight )

If we extended the playing area so the ground scale was the same as the vertical scale we could use true line of sight.But as 30 foot (10 M ) square gaming tables are hard to come by , most gamer accept the abstraction and accept rules that take this into account.

As an aside , I started with E.A as a basis. But after changing the command and control down to to platoon level,(moving to more imediate tactical desisions ) and increasing the unit detail.(Expanding the unit data to help define the wide variety of units found in 40k.)
It doesnt look much like EA anymore.

I am looking forward to seeing you rules namegoeshere.We seem to want similar game play, but are possibly approaching it from a different start point perhaps?

TTFN
Lanrak.

**namegoeshere**

We both want rules that simulate real combat.
But we have some slightly different idea of what that is.
We both think that combat isn't as 'point and click' as 40k makes it seem. But rather must take into account the v limited view of the troops actually fighting.
But for example I wouldn't reduce the range of a unit as it takes casualties.

I find it hard to belive subtracting the armour value from the strenght of hit is any thing other than straight forwad and intuitive.
(Weapons cause damage, armour prevents damage.)
Just rolling dice that give the same chance of a result, totaly irrespective of how hard somthing is hit ,just seems off to me.

Subtraction takes time. When over however many turns, with however many units - it really adds up. And the question is what does it add? You can show which weapons are more dangerous, who is hit worse? More dangerous can just be included in the overall firepower of the weapon.

As reguards to range I was hoping to group all smallarms-side arms into one effect to speed up dice rolling.
Give a effective range and set amount of base damage.(Aditional damage from a dice roll to offer reasonable variance.)
As the unit looses models it reduces the small arms effective range per casualty.
EG 12 men firing rifles effective range 24 " dam 8 (A).
After taking 2 casualties effective range drops to 22",damage value remains the same.After taking 6 casualties effective range drops to 18".Damage remains the same.
(This models the reduced firing effect and the hesitance of the unit to engage after taking casualties.)
Rapid firning -automatic side arms tend to have a fixed lethal density (damage) but the number of firing weapons tend to extend the range of this lethality due to sheer quantity of munitions expended, ( up to a balanced maximum ).
Effective range is the range at which the weapon WILL have an effect on a target unit, not the maximum range the munitions can be propelled.
EG SA 80 max range 600M+
Effective range about 250M ish.
Because most units will NOT engage a target unless they WILL hit it!(or be close enough to effect it , supresss it etc.)And swaping the 'roll to hit' to a 'roll to see' opens up the game for far more tactical options.

If we use a more normal scale, then all ranges on the board are reasonable shooting scale... otherwise I don't feel militarily knowledgeable enough to comment on this aspect of units firepower specifically. Other than to say it wasn't mentioned in the link in my sig

If you fix the 'Leader Control Zones' eg all 6" radius, is this not limiting a variable that may lead to lots of additional rules?
GW do this so they can add lots of 'Speshul (needs) rulz' to sell models!!
EG every leader has a 6" command radius.
Apart from Nid Synapse which is 12".
And natural born leaders which is 8"
And psychic links ,comms Vox , loud Hailers , shouty , mind meld , supernatural auras , all adding and modifiying the ALWAYS 6" SO it rarely is EVER 6".
(End of anti 40k rules development rant.)
Why not let the naturaly occuring variables vary.And let the game mechanics be fixed?
Eg Everthing works like this , no exceptions !

My game has the 'tactical action' rule, which essentially lets units do lots of cool stuff that is otherwise harder to fit into igo ugo. Sneaky units can sneak about, units can ambush and kill several enemy in one burst (rambo spray style), crack shots can unleash one super deadly shot, and also units can do something psychic or otherwise model unique. This means If I want to express the differences between a nid synapse and a shoutey ork, there is this slot to do so. And really 6" is the limit, as it insures, to a degree, that the units assisting each other, are in a position relative to do so. Ie one is targeting the enemy the other is taking the shot, though in the real world they could actually be very far apart for this, the rules for working out that they could both see the same target where cumbersome, simply making them reasonably close to each other was just simpler.

If you are using the single order allocation game turn ,(posted higher up) how can leaders hand out more orders?Only ONE action per unit maximum, per player turn.

One action per unit per game turn is correct.
But the idea that each game turn they can choose a new action isn't. In my rules there are three orders - move to the objective, attack (shoot at enemy, if out of range move toward enemy), or regroup (move to cover, rally, target enemy). A unit (in fact a whole bunch of units) will follow one order for several turns. In the real world units just don't do that many things at once, they don't change their orders minute by minute, they adjust them according to resistance but don't get given new orders that frequently. The only exception is if they take a casualty at which point they revert to their training (one of the orders above). Which neatly combines the moral effect of being shot at (units will make little progress if every time they take a casualty they rush to cover) and stops units from being too stupid.
In fact I only want orders to be given out every 6 turns (and the first turn obv). Essentially you only make decisions every 6 turns, thus massively speeding up game play. But because cover is realistically effective in my game, and because (most) units think of their own safety first (very usefully in a game with so many turns), the game lasts far more than the 40k 6 turns. Also units have slower move rates to allow the enemy a chance to shoot them before they can leapfrog unrealistically far from cover to cover.

If the game mecahnic is controling the action allotment , leaders are left to influence the moral effects. The better the leader the more effect they have.

There is another mechanic as well to influence moral affect in my game. Rally counters. You spend these to either rally a unit, or to initiate a special action. Units can generate them as the game goes on to a degree, but good leaders start with a certain amount of them. Also leaders effect how many order counters you start the game with. These are spent to hand out orders.

Just a note on unit size , as the ground scale and vertical scale of the current 40k differ by a multiple of 6.5 , vertical scale is 16mm= 1M, ground scale 2.5mm = 1m.(ish)
Then using direct measurment in this environment is very abstracted.(True line of sight )

Ugh, gross. I never realized. I would have both the same.

If we extended the playing area so the ground scale was the same as the vertical scale we could use true line of sight.But as 30 foot (10 M ) square gaming tables are hard to come by , most gamer accept the abstraction and accept rules that take this into account.

Or we could simply increase the amount of cover, hence making such complex and dense combats more viable. Essentially coming closer to space hulk, or city fight.

I am looking forward to seeing you rules namegoeshere.We seem to want similar game play, but are possibly approaching it from a different start point perhaps?

I think at this point you would find them hard to follow as they are in brief form - but until I write them up nice;

Fog of War

Bring 1 detachment
Players roll to decide the missions (see appendix at end)
Players get +D6 rally counters each
Players alternate turns until someone wins
The game is over when somebody reaches (points value)/50 or 0 victory c

Turn

Turn – players alternate turns – in your turn:
Units act according to any training orders not hidden to them
Otherwise units act according to the closest order counter not hidden to them

Attack
Your unit attacks the nearest not hidden or partially hidden enemy unit
Roll an amount of dice equal to your units firepower
If you roll a number equal to the units resilience it is destroyed
If that unit is partially hidden it is suppressed instead
Then attack the next closest enemy with the amount of dice that passed
If that enemy is 6” from the original and a viable target
Turn the unit toward the last damaged enemy
If not in range move toward a not hidden enemy
If there are no not hidden enemy move toward the nearest attack c
Regroup
Move this unit toward the nearest spot where they are hidden from the enemy
Turn the unit to face the enemy it’s hiding from
Move
Move this unit toward the nearest not hidden move order
Turn the unit to face that move order
If this unit is already on the move c it does the next nearest not hidden order

Training
Place a Training counter when a unit is suppressed/destroyed
If it is not in view of any other Training counter
Training is either attack, regroup or move depending on the unit
If move it is toward the nearest ok move order not the training order

Environment

Models
Models come in units of
x – an ordinary miniature base, or a special flat base the same size
xx –two ordinary bases, and so on
o – a base the size of a terminator base
O – a base the size of a dreadnought base
Number x number x number– width length height
Metal bases are preferable to plastic so the model doesn’t move
This is doubly important for cover models

Cover
Cover’s height is equal to it’s base’s radius
Can hide units with same base or smaller if in contact and behind (cover)
Hides all units with a base two steps lower and behind (tall cover)
‘Tall cover’ counts as ‘cover’ if in contact and at door or edge
Units can move over cover if it’s two steps smaller or has big enough doors

Partially hidden – behind cover and within 6” of attack c
Can be suppressed by all weapons, can be destroyed by storm
Mostly hidden – behind tall cover and within 6” of attack c
Can be suppressed by smoke weapons
Completely hidden – behind cover and not near attack c
Can’t be shot
Not hidden – not any of the above
Can be shot and destroyed, can be used for placing orders

Suppressed
When a hidden unit is destroyed instead put a suppressed counter on it
It may do nothing – it does not count as regrouping

Counters
Distinguish your counters from your opponents
Rally/ Order/ Numerous/ rally/ victory counters
Order counters: Move: Attack: Regroup: Training
Your troops only follow your order counters
Be careful not to confuse normal rally c with free ones
Free rally c have to be spent by the turn by the unit (unless passed)
Numerous c can be additional models, distinguish different models

Command turn

If you pay 15 rally c you may instead of a normal turn take a command turn
Each regrouping unit gets a free rally c for the turn (put c on them to tell)
You may spend a rally c to do any of the following
If this is not the same action you last did it costs three rally c
These actions are independent of orders – may be any direction or target

Order
Put order between your unit and objectives, order or not hidden units
Or remove an order
Aid
If the unit spending the rally c is in 0”
A unit can't aid itself if it's diehard is 0
Remove the suppressed c on a suppressed unit
The unit is no longer suppressed
Units with armour or light armour can’t be aided

Stealth
Move/ attack/ regroup
It must start every action hidden or behind all enemy units
Coordinated fire
May shoot but not move
Tactic
Attack, regroup or move this unit
This costs 3 or 6 rally c
You may do this in opponents command turns too

Capture
Enemy unit if (suppressed), and in 0” is captured
Gain victory c equal to that units rally, the enemy loses that much victory c
Drop-off
Put units onto or off transport unit
Ascend/descend
Change flying height, height may be 1” above table or 12” above

Characteristics

Move
Inches the unit moves forward without going over cover or turning
Otherwise it may only move 2”
Firepower
How many dice rolled for damage
Awareness
How many co-ordinated attack actions the unit takes for each payment
Silence
How many stealth actions the unit takes for each payment
Diehard
If destroyed and not suppressed,
instead move this x” toward the nearest safety and not toward enemy
This unit is suppressed
Resilience
What the enemy needs to roll equal to or more to destroy this unit
Training
Units in sight of a training counter do this action in your turn,
Tactics
How many tactical actions unit may take for each payment
Rally
How many rally counters this unit adds to your total
How many victory counters you lose if you lose this unit
Additional info
A Armour (may only be damaged by anti armour – gets diehard) 3
L Light armour (takes half damage from weapons without anti-armour) 2
A Anti-armour (may damage armour, shoots armour units first) 2
S Smoke (counts mostly hidden as partially hidden) 12
C Command (may pass free rally c from up to 6”, gain rally c every turn) 4
F Fly (is 12” above table, >12” oversee) 8
T Tall (is x” above ground, can only hide behind cover half it’s height, x”>oversee)
F Fort (counts as cover) 3/2
C Turn Circle (shoot 360o, does closest two orders, cant hide, can’t shoot <height”)
W Walker (moves full speed over any cover or scenery) 2/3
I Invulnerable (can’t be destroyed or suppressed) 10
R Rapid (><24 half firepower ,>12double fp”, 6”>Storm)
P Pistol and sword (>6” quadruple firepower, Storm)
N Numerous (get a copy every command turn, deploy on your table edge)
S Storm (counts partially hidden as not hidden)
O Oversee (may put order c on any unit can shoot – can shoot all units)
Special actions
These are actions you can take in the command turn
They cost 3 or 6 rally c
Special rules
Special rules for this unit/ detachment

Missions

Attacker v Attacker

--Chance patrol encounter
Scenery is randomly placed on the board (2x1d6”) random direction from centre)
Amount of scenery randomly determined 3d6x, 2d6o, 2d6O, 1d6 4x4
Players deploy their army according to the detachment rules
For every 10% difference in points values, the poorer may move a unit or cover 3”
For every unit moved off your table edge get that units rally in victory points
For every enemy unit captured get that units rally in victory points again
-- Other possible mission [needs research]

Attacker v Defender

-- [needs research]

Defender v Defender

-- [needs research]

I also have a bunch of unit stats - but they are in a table so I can't ctrl+c, ctrl+v them here
Also note the indents and such have been lost in translation... so had to bold a lot of stuff
I just deleted my old missions for not really being very realistic, or taking into account which army is defender, so these are being redone.

Here is a tactical marines stats
unit size: x (denotes 1 ordinary base, units weaker than a marine, such as gaurd are multi-base, though additional bases can be represented by counters)
rally: 1 (the more valuable and awe inspiring the unit the higher)
tactic: 2 (veterans, khorne berzerkers, hero's, rambo have this high)
awareness: 2 (snipers, emperors children, jungle fighters have this high)
silence: 2 (lictors, plague marines, scouts, ninja's have this high)
diehard:- (Units that like Bruce willis or a wack-a-mole just don't die when they should, sly marbo, gretchin have this high)
training: regroup (assault marines have attack, rhinos have move)
move: 3 (typical for infantry - it seems low but turns go quick)
resilience: 5 (out of cover even marines are vulnerable)
range: - (the R in the firepower explains the relation between a bolter and range)
firepower: 1R (Heavy weapons have this high)

**Lanrak**

Hi namegoeshere.

I think I can see you point of view and your apoproach now.It is helpful as I can now discuss alternative methods and ideas with you.
You have a good grasp of th game play you want.

However I feel you may have been exposed to too much information as reguards to modern combat perhaps?
To recreate the effects you seem to have to add a lot of extra 'bolt ons' with the explicit function adding the effect you want.

This works, but makes for overly complicated rules.(40k does this far too much.IMO)

I suppose I would prefer to have slightly more complex basic rules that cover everything.WITHOUT having to add exeptions and contradiction , like 40k does.

The subtraction I was refering to works like this.

Unit A fires its AT weapon (Krak missile- launcher)at an enemy vehicle .
Unit A rolls a dice to get bonus penetration(as current 40k).
This final result is called the 'penetration value.'
Eg missle launcher damage value 8 AT+6= 14.

If the target was a landspeeder AR 10.
14-10=4
If the target was a Landraider AR14
14-14=0.

The Higher the penetration value the more damage the vehicle takes.THis gives scalable intuative resaults.

Unit B fires at an enemy infantry unit ,(Small arms value +D6 roll.) This is added up to give the area fire value.
(Support weapon values may be added to this total.)

This value is compared to the enemy infantry units current AR+HPs. If the value is greater than the targets AR+HP the unit has to take a moral test or become supressed.(Shaken)
If the value is twice or more than the AR=HP the target unit is automaticaly supressed and has to test for neutralisation.(Stunned)

EG CSM squad fires its small arms , bolt guns dam 8AP.
At a SM terminator squad.
The CSM player rolls a D6 and gets 5 .
8+5 = 13.

The terminatiors have an AR of 7 and a HP of 5 .
7+5=12

As 13 is greater than 12 the termies have to test for suprssion(Roll over moral grade on a D10)

The terninators fail thier moral check and become supressed.
Which is a good job because the AP value of the Bolt guns * is only 1 higher than the AR of the terminators so they save direct damage on a 1+...

The same CSM unit fires its bolters on a mob of orks, AR 2 HP 22.(22 orks with light armour)
2=22=24
And rolls a 5 .
8 +5 =13.

As there are far to many orks to be supressed by the bolter fire.
However ALL orlks in the target zone take a saving throw.
Bolter dam 8 - ork armour 2 = 6(Roll a 6+ on a D6 to save.)
All orks in the target zone are casualties unless they roll a 6 on a D 6.

Why not classify terrain as Size , Capasity(what size units can hide in it), and Movement modifier?
Linear obsticles only effect models passing over, along, them.
And unit may only claim cover if the terrain obstructs line of sight.

I am suffering from a bad head cold ATM sorry if this post doesnt mak much sense.

TTFN
Lanrak.

**namegoeshere**

My shooting system is to roll over the targets resilience - increased firepower means more dice. This has the advantage that you can handle the shooting for several models/units at once by just picking up lots of dice, you don't have to distinguish which are from which unit.
But it is very dice heavy - I could in theory switch to your system.
The only thing that is really essential is that lasgun armed guardsmen should not suffer against power armored marines. Yes gaurdsmen are a lot cheaper and more numerous, but they shouldn't find it impossible to win without a tank doing all their shooting.

But I don't like the idea of suppression occurring out of cover - suppression only really occurs when the unit being shot at can actually cower behind something, (read the military quote i posted earlier).

With my system being shot has 3 possible outcomes
1. No effect, firing is not powerful enough
2. Training kicks in and unit destroyed
3. Training kicks in and unit suppressed
With only one roll (though multiple dice)

The reality of infantry is that out of cover, they are nothing but a bad excuse for a tank. Their purpose is to either investigate cover (hold cities, patrol, look for insurgents), or to hide, (hold cities, guerrilla combat, ambushes) etc

As to terrain - I don't use Area terrain.
A cover piece is a model much the size of any other model. This is simply more realistic and more like how terrain really functions. It allows:
1.Troops moving position to locate the enemy
2.Troops losing the benefit of cover when flanked
3. Troops can move from cover to cover, not being stuck either in no mans land or a safe island (though both can still occur to a degree)
4. More troops to use cover
Cover can be effective even if only up to knee height (in the real world). The failure to include this is perhaps one of the major reasons 40k doesn't actually resemble real combat.

In my system cover is either, ordinary base (can hide one ordinary base), terminator base (can hide one base of up to terminator size), or dreadnought base (can hide one base up to dreadnought size - or 3 normal bases, or 2 terminator bases). Or is area terrain, in which case it blocks los entirely (it is assumed to be tall).
I've never played a game where the distinction between terrain impediments has been important. In my game all terrain slows movement to the same degree, except tall terrain (the height of the model), which blocks movement.
There is no need for a wood to be a block of area terrain - you can simply place 4 bases - each with one tree on in my system.

I've edited my rules (and put up the alterations), to clarify how cover works, to explain the rules for flying vehicles a bit more, and to change the mechanics for when command turns occur, and reduce the amount of remembering you have to do in the command turn.
Also I added the 'diehard' rule, as I wanted a way to tie in moral with how a hero model can be tougher than a reguler version - though this is definitely unsatisfactory at the moment.

As far as I can see your system relies too much on mental calculations.

Perhaps you could be more specific about what you consider are the unnecessary exceptions in my rules?
Perhaps you are considering things I've added to the rules as 'patches' when in fact they are added for their own purpose - such as the command turn, the stealth action, the coordinated fire action etc. You might think that if the ordinary turn rules functioned differently these wouldn't be necessary, but I actually think that having these two turn types better illustrates the passing of time than trying to cram all these events into one turn.
(Just to clarify I'm not being pissy, just happen to think I'm right ;P)

I've tried over and over to visulize how a unit can be suppressed or broken while out of cover, but it doesn't really work, either the bullets bounce of them or they kill them (or injure them for long enough to be as good as dead), the idea that they are sufficently hurt to be scared but not killed, or that seing their buddy get hurt would unnerve them - just doesn't hold, they react according to their training, either to rush to cover, or return fire. Yes they function worse, that is represented by losing rally counters when troops die. Less rally counters means less special actions, less orders. Think Hicks in Aliens, scared, spending his last moments emptying his magazine at the enemy. But if hicks is behind cover, getting shot at, he takes sufficent heat he is pinned behind cover, perhaps wounded, perhaps thinking he can't stand without getting killed. If he didn't have that cover and took the same amount of fire he would take lethal damage and die. If he was only wounded - the enemy would shoot him further till he was dead.

**Lanrak**

HI again.
Sorry about the delayed reply.
Unfortunatley my bad head cold turned into Bronchitus!
(Any how a short stay in bed with lots of antibiotics and nearly back to my old self.)

I can certainly see how rolling over a single target value is very simple and effective.
Im was just a bit concerned that high volumes of dice tend to give very average results.

Thats why I was concidering using a base attack value and adding a dice as a modifier .

I suppose I have difficulty understanding the simplicity of your rules as the layout is so different to the rule sets I am used to.
I didnt mean to infer they were not any good or not right, just I failed to understand them that well!

Both players adding 2 values together to compare the result is too much mental arithmatic ?Well thats far less than lots of other popular games .And remember this is for UNITs not each MODEL.

I was just trying to reduce the mount of dice rolling by clumping all the weapons into group effects.

I guess you may be have a different idea of what 'supression' and 'cover' are, and how they can be represented.

Supresssion reduced the units ability to function effectively. Usualy by making them consentrate on self presevation over offensive operation.

A squad on patrol walking over an open field comes under fire .What happens?

'Incomming !'
'Hit the dirt!'
And as the bullets -shells rip up the ground around the squad , what do they do?
Try to move to cover .

Units in cover tend to be pinned in place by supressive fire ,which is usual practice for using tactical out flanking .

I try to find comminality , what things have in common.
So all units are covered by the same sats.(Unlike 40k !)

And rather than have lots of wordy rules to give complex permissions exeptions and conditional effects.
If assaulted by ...unless the attacker is more than x away....or defenders are in cover... before the assault is declared....after the attacker moved but before.... etc.

I prefered to let all the complex actions possible to be build up out of simple singluar actions, and the tactical flow determined by the players.

I understand you rules are only in note format ATM.Perhaps if the were wrtitten out as a 'comprehensive rule set' ,following a standard layout , I may be able to contribute more.

Any how , the SST system for dammage allocation is a resasonable starting point.
But if we scale up the game to true unit interaction , I think more detail is needed.

Are you aiming for more of a skirmish sized game?

TTFN
Lanrak.

**namegoeshere**

Unfortunatley my bad head cold turned into Bronchitus!
Sorry to hear it

I can certainly see how rolling over a single target value is very simple and effective.
Im was just a bit concerned that high volumes of dice tend to give very average results.
Thats why I was concidering using a base attack value and adding a dice as a modifier .
Really it's not that big a deal, both are reasonable ideas

I suppose I have difficulty understanding the simplicity of your rules as the layout is so different to the rule sets I am used to.
I didnt mean to infer they were not any good or not right, just I failed to understand them that well!
I understand

lots of people struggle to read my rules as they are laid out

Both players adding 2 values together to compare the result is too much mental arithmatic ?Well thats far less than lots of other popular games .And remember this is for UNITs not each MODEL.
There's not much in it either way - but I prefer mine just a little. Without any arithmetic at all, it is possible to roll and read several dice very quickly, as in spacehulk.

I was just trying to reduce the mount of dice rolling by clumping all the weapons into group effects.
Yeah, mine originally was just deal x damage points, and different units can take different amounts of damage before being destroyed. But after your comment on players wanting more dice in your games, I decided to change it to this, rather dice heavy version.

A squad on patrol walking over an open field comes under fire .What happens?
'Incomming !'
'Hit the dirt!'
And as the bullets -shells rip up the ground around the squad , what do they do?
Try to move to cover .

Yeah this is what happens in my rules - if the units training is regroup. Units follow their training (rather than there orders) when they come under fire. The regroup order is to move to cover. As cover is more spread out in my came, it is essentially the same as the unit dropping to the ground, they are moving 3 or so inches to get to cover then dropping to the ground.
Certain units don't have regroup as their training, vehicles normally have move, it's to their advantage to keep moving, some particulerly intense units have attack as their training instead, assult units, terminators etc.

I guess you may be have a different idea of what 'supression' and 'cover' are, and how they can be represented.
Supresssion reduced the units ability to function effectively. Usualy by making them consentrate on self presevation over offensive operation.
The first stage is moving to cover. But if the unit takes a lot of fire - then it becomes suppressed.

Units in cover tend to be pinned in place by supressive fire ,which is usual practice for using tactical out flanking .
In mine the difference between being pinned or not is how much fire you take

I try to find comminality , what things have in common.
So all units are covered by the same sats.(Unlike 40k !)
And rather than have lots of wordy rules to give complex permissions exeptions and conditional effects.
If assaulted by ...unless the attacker is more than x away....or defenders are in cover... before the assault is declared....after the attacker moved but before.... etc.
I prefered to let all the complex actions possible to be build up out of simple singluar actions, and the tactical flow determined by the players.

I agree, I like to think there aren't too many exceptions in my rules at the moment. Though at the same time I think it's important to allow different races/ detachments etc to have one or two special rules that make them exceptional

I understand you rules are only in note format ATM.Perhaps if the were wrtitten out as a 'comprehensive rule set' ,following a standard layout , I may be able to contribute more.

Any how , the SST system for dammage allocation is a resasonable starting point.
But if we scale up the game to true unit interaction , I think more detail is needed.
Are you aiming for more of a skirmish sized game?
Not sure I follow? What is SST?

I'd also like to hear your rules

**Lanrak**

HI namegoeshere.
Sorry I assume you just borrowed the targeting and damage mechanics from Star Ship Troopers .
My comment of players prefering more dice heavy combat was in reference to my own original system.

No roll to hit, ONLY roll to damage , no roll to save!

Its the unit interaction as reguards dammage allocation I am messing about with .Trying to get it as smooth and proportioanble as I can.

I am also torn between singular unit activation .

Start of turn
Player A takes ONE action with all his units .
Player B takes ONE action with all his units .
Player A takes ONE action with all his units .
Player B takes ONE action with all his units .
End of turn.
Actions:- move /ready/ shoot / assault.

And standard alternating unit activation .
As the standard alternating unit activation is quite well known and well understood I migh use this to start with.
And swap it out later if the other game turn works better!

Have you read the Stargrunt II rules ?(Free down load from Ground Zero Games ).They seem to be very close to the type of game you are after.

I will attach my latest WIP.
NOT finished by a long way yet!!!

TTFN
Lanrak.

**warpcrafter**

Well, I just got done reading your rules set, and I'm extremely impressed

It is completely bereft of the sort of arbitrary rules defects that the nincompoops at GW delight in using to clutter their rules just for the hell of it. I can't wait for some army lists so that I can start bulling my friends into trying it out on the tabletop.
I one burning question, namely are you going to stick close to the 40K fluff, or make up your own completely original universe? (Remember, lots of us on DakkaDakka have lots of 40K stuff just laying around.)