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.

Hi folks.
I thought it may be helpful to have a more generalized discussion of how 40k rules ended up where they did under GW .

How people go about fixing the 40k game play in different ways.

And a sort of general guide to the 'levels of fixing' , and what they can achieve in terms of addressing issues.

'Level One' fixes.
'House rules', 'Tournament rules','Home-brew Codex .'

Done well these tend to clarify the interpretation of the rules, and attempt to address the more obvious balance issues.
To arrive at a mutually agreed game play the players will hopefully enjoy more than GW RAW.

This generally addresses the symptoms of the flaws in the core rules set.But does not address these flaws directly.
It may improve clarity and balance in the game play, but generally adds more complication.(More pages of rules to read...)

'Level Two fixes'.
40k, rewind/redeux/redo.

These generally base the rules on an earlier version of the 40k rules ,usually 3rd to 5th ed.(Usually the favorite version of the writer. )
And often add in ideas from other editions.(Often 2nd editions movement stat, and modifiers,ASM and limited shooting to hit mods.)
And occasionally add in a more interactive game turn , alternating phases or alternating unit activation.

Done well these tend to drastically cut the amount of special rules, and can result in much better game play and reduced complication in the rules.(More fun less rules. )

However , these still do not address a lot of the flaws with the core rules, that can lead to difficulty balancing the game enough for enjoyable random pick up games.

Because the 3rd ed 40k rules were a massive compromise that was rushed through at the eleventh hour.

And the GW game devs have tried to re-write the rules for 40k every edition from 4th to 6th.
(Apparently Andy Chambers left because of GW corporate refused to allow him to re-write the 40k rules.And the leaked 6th ed rules were the devs last ditch attempt to make some long over due changes.After which the GW game devs apparently gave up on trying to fix game play issues ,and just followed the directives of the GW sales department..)

This brings us the the last and main topic of this post...

Level Three, Complete ground up re-write.

To find out the core flaws we need to look at the game mechanics and resolution methods, compared to the scale and scope of the game , and the intended game play, from the beginning .IMO.

Because if we can not identify what actually went 'wrong' and when it actually happened, we have little hope of fixing the actual issues with the core rules.

So I intend this thread to be a serious look at all the editions of 40k, see what compromises were made, and how much impact they had on the game development of 40k.

Because trying to reverse current 40k into a good game is practically impossible.

Perhaps going back to the start , and retracing the steps can show us where good intentions led 40k game play astray?

I understand this will be of no interest to many people. so I would kindly ask not to post in this thread If you are not interested in discussing general concepts of game development.

I am hoping by taking a step away from the minutia of the rules, we could get a better objective overview of the issues we may need to address.

I have to leave it there for now.

Ill be back tomorrow looking at how it all started with Warhammer Fantasy Battle Skirmish in Space , with Ray-guns!!!
(Also known as Warhammer 40,000 Rouge Trader. )

I actually have my ba in game design and have many thoughts on what makes for good game play and some base line on how to fix many aspects of 40k. Glad to contribute to this discussion. But I am only passingly familiar with 6th and have only played 7th. I cannot retrace what went wrong and where. Only what is wrong and the game design tenets that need to be kept in mind to fix it.

That being said I would classify the changes differently.

Level 1 changes address indivial rules. Fixing bad wording or cutting unnecessary nonsense rules while keeping the brb and codexs on the whole functional.

Level 2 changes addresses a single books rules to adjust the way the game plays while keeping the the other materials valid. A fandex, or creating rules for alternating activation that leave the codexs still functioning with the game (phases still exist etc etc...)

And level 3 are changes that effect the game in such a fundamental way that all materials are effected and all new codexs would be needed for the game to function. Creating a new psychic system that does away with level and warp charges would require not only changing the psychic phase but every power and all the gear related to powers and resisting them in every codex.

While I think level 3 would be fine and even potentially a ton of fun i think it's impractical. It is TONS of work that you will likely never convince many to play and does not allow for the introduction of new material from gw without your own back to the drawing board.

Level 2 seems the best place to play. Address issues in the brb that require as few adjustments as possible to codex entries. Those codex changes, when and if possible, should be adjustable with a single blanket statement that makes the change for all instances of the rule change. New materials from gw should be usable with few if any clarifications.

Hi Lance845.
My degree is in mechanical engineering.
(23 years working as a conformance engineer on weapon systems/ CMM applications engineer /programmer.)
But a healthy dose of logic and understanding how things in the real world works is never a bad thing in addressing game play issues in war games IMO.

I started playing war games before 40k Rogue Trader was released.(Mainly historical battle games and WHFB.)

I have experienced 40k in all its editions up to 6th ed where game devs appeared to just give up on game play , IMO.

I have had the good fortune of having productive communication with some GW game devs over the years.(Originally with snail mail, and more recently on the interwebs blogs and emails. )

I have 30 years of experience playing a wide range of games to draw on.

As I have no formal education on game design/development , If my terminology is wrong please correct me..

Arriving at 40k with 6th ed, is a bit like arriving after the car has left the road, gone though a wall and hit a freight train head on...
You are presented with a pile of mangled wreckage,of all the bigger bits they could find , and told
'If you work really hard you might get a viable mode of transport out of it some how.. '

So perhaps if we talk to the eye witnesses that saw the car leave the road, we might have a better chance of re building a car, as it were.

I am quite old and my memory is not perfect, so please feel free to correct any mistakes I may make .

In the beginning...
GW had a very popular fantasy battle game , (loosely based on the Napoleonic rules Rick wrote at the W.G.R.G.)

WHFB game play was the basic Ancient/Napoleonic type, massed ranks using tactical maneuver to get into the best close combat match ups.
Ranged attacks were used in a purely supporting role.
(GW skillfully added 'monsters and magic' to give the game a inspiring fantasy veneer.)

The alternating game turn mechanic worked well in this game due to the emphasis on tactical maneuver into effective weapons range.
(Although the model count was High in WHFB, the blocks of troops on movement trays , meant in practical terms moving 200 models only meant moving 10 movement trays. )

GW had built up quite a good range of scifi minatues.And they though it would be a good idea to write a rule set to use them in.

Unsurprisingly , they wanted to use the rules from their then flagship game WHFB.

However, as the majority of the scifi models had ranged weapons, this lead to some compromises on the game size that could be used.
Rick and Brian,(I think ,) wisely kept the numbers of models low , so the game space between models made tactical maneuvering into effective weapons range, a key part of the game play.

And for good measure they added quite a lot of to hit modifiers to reduce effective weapons range too.
(And suggested a minimum of 25% LOS blocking terrain for good measure!!)

Also the low number of models meant shorter 'down times' between player turns.

RT was more of a RPG/Skirmish hybrid, a sand box type game for players to explore and have fun with.We generally had a Games Master in our games of RT, as we used it more like a RPG than a conventional war game.(Sort of Inquisitor in 28mm. )

Over the next few years, there were loads of game supplement ideas in WD , from the game devs and some from the players.

2nd ed 40k became more focused on a large skirmish game more suited to pick up and play games than RT.
This was a comprehensive and competent inclusion of most of the supplement ideas from the WD , to actually improve the game play.

However, it was not a cohesive or elegant rule set at this stage.It was over complicated and clunky in places.(Especially in close combat!)

But the game size and scope suited the game turn and the stat line quite well.
It was still WHFB skirmish in space at this stage,and a ton of fun despite its clunky parts.

Over the next 3.5 years or so the GW game devs worked on fine tuning the large skirmish game of 40k. Replacing and or tweeking the rules to end up with a cleaner more elegant and fun large skirmish game.
(Based on chatting with some folks around at that time in GW .)

So the game devs and 40k player base are all on the same page ,heading in the same direction, working together actually developing the game play ,and having loads of fun in the process.

What could possibly go wrong?

I stop there ,for any comments , questions or corrections you may want to make.

I am hoping this objective overview of 40ks development over the years ,may be helpful in finding out what went 'wrong' and when it happened.

Maybe this history might be useful to some people trying to fix 40k?

I am reminded of the Fantasy re-write effort going on: http://www.the-ninth-age.com/

Based on a few previous editions of WHFB they are fixing the rules gaps AND adjusting all the codices to a modicum of balance.

I wouldn't mind that happening to 40k.

@Shandara.
WHFB is in a much better position to be fixed that 40k is.Because WHFB had game mechanics , resolution methods and stat lines written specifically for the intended game play of WHFB.

All WHFB really needed IMO, was re wording for clarity to make it more user friendly.
However, some one at GW towers thought it would be easier to get rid of initiative modifiers instead.
This lead to a imbalance in the weapon options, and so special rules were brought in to replace the initiative modifiers.
And so WHFB suffered from balance issues and rules bloat , thanks to the swath of special rules that followed, compounded by the Sales Department directive of sell more stuff....

I much prefer K.O.W for my massed battle fantasy games, so I am not interested in the 9th age WHFB project.
Although I wish them every success!

Back to the history of 40k.
When we left off , the game developers were working hard to refine and define the 40k large skirmish game with the help of the player base.
(Clubs, gaming groups and players used to write in using snail mail, and GW even published some players letters in WD, and gave players some credit for particularly good ideas !)

So the game has established itself in the community, the devs are in full swing writing the rule set the payers are waiting for.(A better large skirmish game of 40k. )

So to use my opening analogy , the car is in good shape motoring down the road , top down music playing and everyone is happy as Larry!

What could possibly go wrong...a flock of dumb sheep stood in the road , and would not move so the car had to swerve off the road at the last minute!!

Or in reality, GW Sales Department insisting on upping the model count in the 40k game , to be closer to the model count of WHFB, just before the large battle game skirmish rules everyone was working on for three and a half years was about to go to publishing...

So it was panic stations at GW studio.

Rick Priestly said in an interview , '...it was an eleventh hour change , we had very little time to change the rules , let alone do any serious play testing...'

Apparently a lot of the changes came from a WWII game Rick was working in in his spare time..desperate times call for desperate measures.

Still the GW devs were appeased with the promise of being able to make the necessary changes to put the game back on track, later ,if needed, apparently.

I think this is the pivotal point where things changed drastically , and the GW game devs lost control of the actual game development.
(Not really the fault of the game devs, as GW sales Department pulled the rug from under them at the last minute. )

What changed then?

The scale and scope of the 40k game play changed quite a lot!

No longer a large skirmish game (re-enforced platoon size, like BA) with detailed model interaction in the rules.

But a moving into a battle game , (company size similar to F.O.W ) which should have detailed UNIT interaction.

Also the increase in model count reduced the playing area between the combatants.
Ditching the to hit mods also compounded the issue of loosing the tactical maneuver from the game play.

This made shooting massively over powered, compared to assault due to WHFB stat line and alternating game turn mechanic being kept.

So the devs use the 'quick fix' of upping base movement to 6" for everything,AND added a movement to the close combat action!
To reduce the amount of shooting before close combat units could engage.

EG
2nd ed Orks (M4),could charge 8" into close combat.(3 turns to cover 24"
In 3rd they could charge 12" into assault.(2 turns to cover 24")

Units with 'Fleet of..' like Eldar .
Could charge 10" in 2nd ed.(M 5)
But could move then run then assault to cover 18" in one game turn in 3rd ed!

So now movement took place in the movement phase, in the shooting phase, (run) AND in the close combat phase , assault.

I know lots of folks would say 'BUT lots of bigger battle games used alternating game turns with units with ranged weapons..'
Yes but ALL the GOOD ones use smaller models 6mm to 15mm and shorter ranges to compensate, so tactical manuever into weapons range is maintained.

What they got right in 3rd ed,(IMO.)

Removing all the odd dice sizes and standardized on a D6.

Simplifying close combat .

Removing the multitude of modifiers that just slowed the game down, without adding much to the game play.

What they got wrong.
Keeping the alternating game turn mechanic after the game play focus changed.

Keeping the stat line focused on assault , making it impossible to fine tune the balance between assault and shooting after 'the maneuver in to effective range' tactical element disappeared.

Not replacing the functional modifiers that allowed proportional results with something simpler and easier to use.
(Which lead to having to rely on over EIGHTY SPECIAL RULES! )

Also removing the movement stat, contributed to special rules bloat, as mentioned above.(Edit.)

Not reducing the resolution methods to something more manageable, to allow game balance to be achieved much easier!

Sorry about the 'wall O text'.

Ill stop there , for comments and questions .
I am happy to explain and discuss any thing in the above post in more detail if required.

I follow many of your discussions and arguments, Lanrak, and when it comes to certain areas, it seems that you go for the man, not the ball.
For now I will mention your problem with the stat line, which you think is focused on assault. The stat line is for the characteristics of the model and nothing else. There's a natural difference between a close combat fight versus a ranged fight and between a close combat weapon and a shooting weapon, which can make all the difference where the factors of the equation should come from.

Stat line focused on assault: Weapon Skill, Strength, Toughness, Initiative and Attacks and with these we can get a result. A close combat weapon can alter these of course but these five factors are enough. From what I understand, it's because close combat uses five (four if we exclude Toughness) of the stat line's characteristics against shooting only needing Ballistic Skill, that you think the stat line is focused on assault? What about nature of the two types of combats?

Shooting needs the Ballistic Skill of the model's characteristic, but it also needs range, strength and the amount of shooting attacks - isn't it understandable to apply these characteristics (which, together with Ballistic Skill and Toughness, also is a total of five) to the shooting weapon being used? If not, you haven't made an argument for moving these characteristics from shooting weapons to a model's stat line.

I don't have time for longer discussions, but I sure hope others have, as much of these discussions are gold for people like me, who write alternative rules.

Edit: grammar.

@Chaospling.
Welcome to the discussion.
Not sure what you mean by '..go for the man not the ball..'

The stat line used in 40k is for the characteristics of the models in WHFB, and nothing else. (Fixed that for you.)

Lets do a quick comparison..

In WHFB at the same time as 3rd ed 40k

There were eight close combat weapon load outs the units in WHFB could use.This covered about 90% of the units found in the entire game!

These used WS,S,A,I exclusively to resolve close combat.(As WHFB game play is close combat focused. )

The of the six missile weapon options, 4 used the BS and S values of the model .

As shooting was used in a supporting roll listing up to 3 ranges the different missile armed troops used for a particular army was not an issue.

Crossbows, handguns (and Ill include the warmachine bolt thrower in this.)Used the BS value but used a weapon strength value, NOT the models strength stat.).

And the remaining warmachined used weapon based strength and to hit rolls independant of the model stat line.

So basically in WHFB , about 95% of the units in the game used the WHFB stat line values to resolve close combat and shooting.(Referencing up to 3 ranges for different missile armed troops was not much work.)

Now lets look at 40k

Of the twenty plus ranged weapons how many use the strength of the user?
NONE

Of the four or so close combat weapons how many use the Strength stat without any modification?
ONE.

So basically the S value in 40k is ONLY used for resolving close combat with standard CCW.
Power weapons and power/lightning /chain /fist/klaws etc all modify the base S value significantly.

Similarly Attacks ONLY applies to close combat, and most models have 1 attack.

So if the units weapons profile was to include close combat and ranged weapons , the S and A values could disappear from the stat line.

And weapon profiles could display the net effect values of the model and weapon .FOR ALL MODELS AND WEAPONS.

EG
Universal weapon profile.

Weapon Name/Effective Range/Attacks/Armour Piercing value/Damage value /Notes.

Damage value replaces Strength value , attacks is simply the number of dice rolled, for attacks, or the blast /template used.

This would appear under the unit stat line entry on the players army list/unit card for quick in game reference.


As we have established that tactical maneuver has been diminished significantly , due to increase in model count , and practically every unit having ranged weapons with no to hit mods.

Rather than mess about with movement values, and the game phases, to promote. 'mass punch up by turn three.'

Why not KEEP the game phases and movement value as they were,(and limited sensible modifiers .)

But change the game turn mechanic to alternating phases.

This reduces player down time, (symptom of higher model count.)AND allows for simultaneous resolution!

This would increase the tactical depth of the game massively IMO.

If we use simultaneous resolution, the Initiative stat becomes totally redundant;

This means the S,A, and I values ,(The close combat only values, we do not need.)
Are dropped from the stat line.

And the three replacement stats can be MUCH more useful...

Mobility/speed/move value.(Movement stat by any other name is still very important!)

Initiative can be replaced by a how hard to hit in close combat.Agility stat.(Similar function but a better fit with a fast paced sci-fi game IMO.)

And BS can get an opposed stat Stealth.So it is easier to balance shooting and assault as they are resolved in the same way!
(Just using different stats, obviously.)

So lets look at the proposed differences in the stat line.....

GWs 40k

NO stat for mobility.
ONE stat for shooting.(BS)
FOUR stats for close combat .(WS,S,I,A,)
THREE stats for universal damage resolution.(T,W,Armour.)
ONE stat for morale.(Ld)

And SEVEN resolution methods

NEW stats.

ONE stat for mobility.(M)
TWO stats for shooting(BS and Stealth)
TWO stats for Close Combat (WS and Agility.)
THREE stats for universal damage resolution.(T,W,Armour.)
ONE stat for morale.(Ld)

TWO resolution methods.

So if you think 40k should STILL be 'WHFB in Space', with game play focusing on close combat with shooting in a supporting role.
Then I can totally see why you do not want to change from what GW sell you.

However, I you believe like me that 40k should focus on mobility, firepower and assault equally .Then the new stat line I outlined above is a much better for for the intended game play.

And follows the 'stat loading' found in most modern , WWII to hard sci fi battle games.

Ill stop there for questions and comments.

I agree with chaospling that the stat line is effectively balanced because a model can always participate in assault and has all the information to do so, while a model requires a gun to shoot at which point he gains all ( the same number) of attributes to do so.

I never noticed that but it is clearly there.

That being said, I think alternating activation is much more tactical and less of a drag for the player who is waiting to go. Alternating turns is awful in 40k.

I believe that 40k should focus on mobility, firepower, and assault equally but I disagree that there are fewer characteristics/factors for firepower.

I agree that alternating phases is an interesting system and that's also the system, I'm using for the ruleset I'm writing. Why not just try and start writing yourself ?

I didn't like going from 2nd to 3rd edition for several reasons - one of them was losing the Movement characteristic from the stat line; I thought it was a loss because characteristics help differentiate models from each other. But after some time it really sunk in that models don't just move around, they - as written in the rulebook - move at a reasonable pace, stopping several times to scan the surrounding landscape for enemies, communicate with their commanders, identify the best lines of advance and so on. Yes, in a race a Guardian can outrun a Guardsman but on the battlefield I wouldn't find that kind of difference important; a bigger difference in speed is needed in order to show it and that's why I think that another type of unit (call it Cavalry or Beasts) is needed.

Edit: grammar.

@Lance 845.
If all models fought in 40k assault without any close combat weapons your point would be valid.

IF the model picks up a chainsword/ powersword/ power fist etc, on the way to the battle , how is this different to picking up a pistol or a gun exactly? (As pistols are used in assault are they not?)

Picking up a weapon that makes you better in assault or shooting is of equal importance and relevance to me.

If all weapon profiles are presented in the same way, all combat resolution can be resolved with equal amounts of detail and using the similar resolution methods.

So the act of engaging in ranged combat could be better balanced with engaging in close combat.

It is not a radical change of processes or information, mainly just presentation differences.

However, I am happy to leave this part of the debate for now, and look at what would happen if GW devs were allowed to use alternating phases for 3th ed 40k....

Assuming the GW devs were confident alternating phases, would compensate effectively for the the loss of focus on tactical maneuver.

1)They would NOT have ditched the M stat and upped all the movement rates to fry to off set this issue.

2) They would not migrate movement across all phases for the same reason.

It would probably look something like this...

Start of Game Phase(Command Phase)
Players can roll off to see who activates first , if they prefer this.

Player do all the 'pre action' activities.Compulsory movement of routing units,roll for deep strike/reserves, etc.

Movement phase.
In the movement phase the active player selects which one of 4 tactical options they want to take for each unit.

1)The unit remains stationary and uses ALL of its ranged weapons/attacks in the shooting phase.And may claim shooting bonuses from remaining stationary if applicable.

2) The unit may move up to its mobility allowance (M value), but may ONLY use 'move and fire' ranged weapons attacks in the shooting phase.

3) The unit may move up to twice its movement value ,BUT makes no attacks in the shooting phase,and can not launch an assault in the Close Combat phase.(But may get

4) The unit launches an assault, it may move up to twice its mobility value to get into base to base of base to hull contact with an enemy unit.


The Shooting phase.

The active player selects units under their control, that are eligible to make ranged attacks on enemy units within weapons range.
Then resolves ranged attacks in the following way.

Roll to hit, roll to save, roll to wound.

Do not remove casualties from shooting until both players have made all ranged attacks for this turn.(Simultaneous resolution option.)



The Close Combat Phase.
Units in close combat range of enemy units, (Base to base contact.)May choose to fight them with their close combat weapons.
(Option to let pistols fire into their own assault perhaps?)

Close Combat attacks are resolved in the following way.
Roll to hit, roll to save, roll to wound.

Do not remove casualties from close combat until both players have made all close combat attacks for this turn.(Simultaneous resolution option.)

End of turn phase(Resolution or 'tidy up' phase.)

Do all the stuff to tidy the game up before the start of the next phase.(Try to rally units of poor morale etc.)

This is just a simple example, but I hope you can see the basic benefits this simple change to the game turn mechanic can bring.

Lanrak wrote:
@Lance 845.
If all models fought in 40k assault without any close combat weapons your point would be valid.

It's more that all models CAN assault without melee weapons. Nobody gets assaulted and then just stands there while they get beat on. Meanwhile people properly equipped for it fair better.

However, I am happy to leave this part of the debate for now, and look at what would happen if GW devs were allowed to use alternating phases for 3th ed 40k....

Assuming the GW devs were confident alternating phases, would compensate effectively for the the loss of focus on tactical maneuver.

1)They would NOT have ditched the M stat and upped all the movement rates to fry to off set this issue.

2) They would not migrate movement across all phases for the same reason.

It would probably look something like this...

Start of Game Phase(Command Phase)
Players can roll off to see who activates first , if they prefer this.

Player do all the 'pre action' activities.Compulsory movement of routing units,roll for deep strike/reserves, etc.

Movement phase.
In the movement phase the active player selects which one of 4 tactical options they want to take for each unit.

1)The unit remains stationary and uses ALL of its ranged weapons/attacks in the shooting phase.And may claim shooting bonuses from remaining stationary if applicable.

2) The unit may move up to its mobility allowance (M value), but may ONLY use 'move and fire' ranged weapons attacks in the shooting phase.

3) The unit may move up to twice its movement value ,BUT makes no attacks in the shooting phase,and can not launch an assault in the Close Combat phase.(But may get

4) The unit launches an assault, it may move up to twice its mobility value to get into base to base of base to hull contact with an enemy unit.


The Shooting phase.

The active player selects units under their control, that are eligible to make ranged attacks on enemy units within weapons range.
Then resolves ranged attacks in the following way.

Roll to hit, roll to save, roll to wound.

Do not remove casualties from shooting until both players have made all ranged attacks for this turn.(Simultaneous resolution option.)



The Close Combat Phase.
Units in close combat range of enemy units, (Base to base contact.)May choose to fight them with their close combat weapons.
(Option to let pistols fire into their own assault perhaps?)

Close Combat attacks are resolved in the following way.
Roll to hit, roll to save, roll to wound.

Do not remove casualties from close combat until both players have made all close combat attacks for this turn.(Simultaneous resolution option.)

End of turn phase(Resolution or 'tidy up' phase.)

Do all the stuff to tidy the game up before the start of the next phase.(Try to rally units of poor morale etc.)

This is just a simple example, but I hope you can see the basic benefits this simple change to the game turn mechanic can bring.

Im sorry for the misunderstanding. Not alternate phases. Alternate activations.

Player a) activate one unit, move, Psyker, shoot, assault,

Player b) activate one unit, etc etc...

I feel like picking who you activate and when is a strong tactical move that adds a lot of depth to the game while minimizing any one players turn to those 4 phases with a single unit. At most you move about 30 models in a horde army before the next player gets to act.

While it's interesting to see how GW got where they did and some lessons can be learned from it. More important is building a fun game regardless of what GW is or is/was not comfortable with

@Lance845.
Alternating unit activation ONLY works if the units are fairly balanced in in game effect.(EG Bolt Action.)

The massive difference in in game effect found in 40ks units causes a few problems.

The time 'warp effect' of one unit performing multiple actions , while everyone else just stands and watches becomes a big issues with 40ks 'death star ' type units.

And MSU forces activating half their units after the opponent has run out of units to activates, also causes issues.

So players tend to ask for 'reaction' rules.Like over-watch etc.

Alternating phases, (with simultaneous resolution,) avoids all these issues, and can handle the wide variety of unit sizes and in game effect that 40k currently has .

Writing a good rule set means defining and focusing on the intended game play.

I am trying to see what would have happened if the GW game devs released their 40k 3rd ed skirmish game .

And were allowed to develop a 40k battle game over a reasonable period, (3 to 4 years.)

If this bothers you, ill just state the options and the associated issues/benefits.

Getting the best fit firm the intended game play is what is important.

Lanrak wrote:
@Lance845.
Alternating unit activation ONLY works if the units are fairly balanced in in game effect.(EG Bolt Action.)

The massive difference in in game effect found in 40ks units causes a few problems.

The time 'warp effect' of one unit performing multiple actions , while everyone else just stands and watches becomes a big issues with 40ks 'death star ' type units.

And MSU forces activating half their units after the opponent has run out of units to activates, also causes issues.

So players tend to ask for 'reaction' rules.Like over-watch etc.

Alternating phases, (with simultaneous resolution,) avoids all these issues, and can handle the wide variety of unit sizes and in game effect that 40k currently has .

The 2 arguments you have about alternating activation are nonsense because they not only exist now, they would be improved by alternating activation.

Both issues, the time warp and the more unit armies having more activation exist now with the current system and will continue to exist in any system. The time warp is inherent in any turn based game. We don't play in real time, so everyone watches while the enemy moves and plays. The only difference is instead of the entire army moving/shooting/assaulting before the enemy gets to react only one unit gets to do so.

A death star unit is significantly less of impact when the enemy gets to immediately respond without the rest of your army backing that death star up.


More smaller units vs less larger units is a base line balance. Survivability vs more activations.

Neither of these "issues" are tied to the power of one unit over another.

Writing a good rule set means defining and focusing on the intended game play.

I am trying to see what would have happened if the GW game devs released their 40k 3rd ed skirmish game .

And were allowed to develop a 40k battle game over a reasonable period, (3 to 4 years.)

If this bothers you, ill just state the options and the associated issues/benefits.

Getting the best fit firm the intended game play is what is important.

Doesn't bother me at all. Like I said, there is a lot of good information that can be gleamed from it and potentially a lot of great ideas that may emerge.

Your right that defining core values that the rules should all work towards is a great way to build a good game. I am interested in seeing how you think 40k might have gone. The range modifiers sounded like interesting mechanics, though I have also heard that it slowed a lot of things down.

Carry on.

@Lance845.
The reasons I prefer not to use alternating unit activation over alternating phases after several years of trying out both game turn mechanic types with 40k units .

The issues found in 40k with a alternating game turn are reduced by alternating unit activation.You are right about this.

But they are not removed entirely.Every time my group or other people have used alternating unit activation, they needed to add on some form of scheduling mechanic and/or reaction rules to use the current spread of unit types in 40k.Or have had to radically reduce the variety of units in the game.To fix the remaining issues ....

Also common negative reactions to alternating unit activation in 40k are..
' I want to take actions with armies not fiddle about with units one at a time.'
And ' ...so he gets to move , shoot or assault with more points of stuff before I can do anything.What has really changed?'

Just to be clear you can use alternating unit activation in 40k.But you need to add more rules to make it work as well as alternating phases.

My definition of a good rule set is one that delivers the maximum game play (fun)with the minimum of fuss(rules).That is why I prefer alternating phases.

Anyhow, to carry one with the look in to the alternative universe where the GW game devs got to publish their much better large skirmish game.
(Based on information from folks around at the time and logical extrapolation.)

And were taking their time to create a new 40k battle game to bridge the gap between 40k large skirmish and Epic Space Marine 'massive battles'.

After defining the scale and scope of the game as a 'company level* modern warfare game** focused on detailed unit interaction***.'

Bridging the gap between 40k skirmish , 're-enforced platoon ' size and Epics 'Brigade level. '

Following the Epic large battle games equal focus on mobility fire power and assault.**

Bridging the gap between detailed model interaction in 40k skirmish, and the 'detailed formation interaction' in Epic.***

It is obvious to everyone that the new game size would need a more interactive game turn.

So the basic choice would be to adopt Epic Space Marine alternating unit activation , using phase scheduling.

Command Phase.
Player place order counters face down next to units.
Advance move and fire
Charge move twice no shooting.(The only way to launch an assault)
First fire, no move fire to full effect.
Fall Back. move twice away form combat/enemy contact.

First Fire Phase.
Players alternate activating units on First orders.(May delay to the Advance phase.)

Charge Phase.
Players alternate activating units on Charge orders.

Advance Phase
Players alternate activating units on Advance/Fall back orders,

Resolution phase.
Tidy up before next game turn.

Or to keep the familiar game phases, but use them in an alternating phase game turn.As I outlined in the above post...

It is reasonable to assume the GW devs would be pushed in the direction of using the established phases from their flagship games of WHFB and skirmish 40k, in an alternating phase game turn.

However, I think it is possible to write rules that work with either of the game turn mechanic options , so that is what I would like to explore...

If people agree with the outlined scale and scope, and game play type I posted above.

A 'company level' battle game, with focus on detailed unit interaction.
(Appx '100 hoard infantry models' a side,units made up of 1 or more models.)

Using 'modern' type units and game play focus.
Skirmishing infantry,(or creatures,) supported by combat vehicles (or monsters performing the same role.)With an equal focus on mobility fire power and assault.

Rather than 'ancient' type units and game play where blocks of rank and file infantry /cavalry , supported by war-machines of limited number and effect.With focus on mobility and close combat ,and ranged attacks only used in a supporting role.

And we can agree that using these criteria , a more interactive game turn is a better fit for the intended game play.(Either alternating unit activation or alternating phases.)

I will look at the following model actions independent of game turn type , so people can use which they prefer.

Movement.
Looking at the old movement rates and the current USRs that replaced them.I think the following 'mobility values' seem like a reasonable starting point.

Slow infantry....................................4"
Standard infantry.............................5"
Fast infantry, Vehicles.....................6"
Fast vehicles ,and Cavalry/Beasts...9"
Very fast vehicles and Bikes..........12"

I am happy to alter the values as needed after play testing , this is just a starting point to show the range of different movement I think we should start with.
If players dont like using an M stat, that can simply list the 'mobility type ' for the unit on the unit entry instead.

When unit take a movement action , they may move the model(s) in the unit up to the model(s) Mobility value in inches.

Terrain Effects....

To remove the 'randum movement' and models inexplicably blowing up because they hit a rock...

Difficult terrain,
Units moving into or through Difficult terrain reduce their movement by 2".
(This is a modifier , that some players are so frightened of they have to roll a D6 instead !)

Very Difficult Terrain .(Replaces Dangerous terrain.)
Units moving into or through Very Difficult terrain lose a movement action,
EG
Units in Very difficult terrain can move up to their mobility value or Shoot counting as having moved.They can only launch an assault on units within their Mobility value.

This is a severe penalty , but it makes moving through areas that are best avoided, a tactical decision not a lottery of how well you roll.

Under the old rules...
A unit of the most experienced and trained super soldiers in the Galaxy , decide to move over an area containing molten lava.
They dont slow down but ride flat out risking destroying rare and revered equipment , and throwing away 100s of years of combat knowledge.
If they roll well the dangerous terrain has NO EFFECT .If they roll badly the terrain KILLS MODELS!!!

Under the new rules ,
The same super soldiers with 100s of years of combat knowledge decide to move through a area containing molten lava for tactical reasons..They negotiate past the molten lava at at half speed.

Special Abilities...
Some units have special abilities that effect their mobility.Here is my starting line up.

Amphibious...............................The units treats water features as open ground.
Difficult Terrain Modification....The unit treats difficult terrain as open ground,and Very difficult terrain as Difficult terrain.
Jump Jets.................................The unit may make short 8" jumps over intervening terrain .

Ill leave it there for now.
I would like to get feed back on the basic mobility rules outline, before looking at the optional more detailed advance rule options.

Lets start with the movement attribute.

Effectively it is the same thing as it is now in 7th with the exception that you require MORE special rules to cover the unique features and little intricacies that are covered by the units type in the brb. It also opens up the door for special snow flake units to have a different movement rating even though they should fall into one of the other base line categories.

I think the change to all the unit types with base line rules governing how they behave (including their movement) is a good one and going back to a less structured and inferior system is a bad change. In this case your fixing what isn't broken. Or breaking whats been fixed.


In terms of difficult terrain just slowing people down, it would certainly speed things up slightly by removing a die roll per a unit. It's not the worst die roll but simpler is better. How would you handle units that get to roll 2 dice and pick the higher result? The change to -2" is small. Potentially smoother, but not really game changing in any significant way.

The change to dangerous terrain I dislike all together. You have to keep in mind that dangerous terrain is a catch all for a lot of different things. It's not like, "hey... there is a pool of lava... don't step in it". It represents unstable vents that may be spewing lava at any given moment. Carnivorous plant life on alien worlds. Quick sand. Dangerous Terrain could be any number of things the units moving through them cannot predict.

Finally, "super soldiers with 100s of years of combat knowledge" the base line rules should not be written thinking of space marines. The game is not only about space marines. What space marines can and cannot do has nothing to do with what all the armies can and cannot do. At no point should you describe how the game functions through the eyes of space marines as a reason for why a rule should function that way. Their experience and equipment has no bearing on the base line interactions of all units in the game.

@Lance845.
If the stat line does its job properly you do not need to name the unit type separately. IMO.
(It should be obvious from the stat line how the unit performs in game.)

I am not familar with 7th ed rule book.
But 40k 5th ed had
Everything moves 6" and D6" when moving through difficult terrain.
Unless it moves 8" (Cavalry /Beasts)or 12" (Bikes and Skimmers.)instead...

Except...
Units with S and P USR,.Always move D6 inches.
Units with Move through cover USR, that roll 2D6 and pick best result.
Units with 'Fleet; USR can run instead of shooting in the shooting phase.
Units with Turbo Boost USR can move up to 24" if they do not shoot.
Units with Relentless USR are not effected by movement restrictions and firing heavy weapons.

And in the separate vehicle rules.

Amphibious, (Imperial guard Chimera.)

Difficult terrain modification

Jump sets..

Fast vehicles also had a separate move modes.(6", 12 " and 18") I think.

And jn Dangerous terrain models moved D6" but the model was removed as a casualty on a roll of 1.

UNLESS you had the skilled rider USR which let you re roll.
So dangerous terrain was only dangerous 1 in 36 times for a skilled rider, and had no effect on infantry units one out of six times.

(I have not got the rule book to hand so forgive me if got things a bit wrong. )

Having 5 values for mobility and 3 special ability rules can cover all the units in 40k in terms of mobility.*

So rather than just moving the specific mobility value for a unit.(Like every other war game, except Crossfire that has no measuring.) To get precise and constant differences between the units types.And special rules ONLY for special abilities.

You think memorising pages of exceptions is better?
If you prefer this method then lets expand it to cover all the game play, and lose the stat line entirely...

Everything moves 6", hits on a 4+ in close combat and at range, saves on a 4+, is wounded on a 4+has 1 wound and Ld 8.
And we can just have a USR to cover the variables across the units...
Because learning pages of poorly worded exceptions is more fun than just reading a stat line and being able to play the game ?

*The advance rules I was thinking of state the way the unit moves and this is compared in a terrain chart to determine the mobility modifier for each mobility type.(Similar to the current terrain chart.)

Mobility types could be Legs, Wheels, Tracks and Hover.

This could be presented as a letter or a symbol before the mobility allowance.
EG
Standard infantry L5"
Land Raider T6"
SM Bike W 12"
Land speeder H 12"

This way we can have varied effects on unit mobility depending on mobility type.(Displayed on a terrain chart,)

Eg wheeled vehicles get +2" on roads, but -2 on broken ground rubble , -1 in light woods .
Where as tracked vehicles get +1 " on roads , but only -1 for rubble , and treat broken ground and light woods as open ground.

This would give a tactical difference in mobility across units types.And remove the need for very difficult terrain.(Which you did not like.)
But you could add dangerous terrain tests to some terrain feature if you want to .

If you think 'super soldiers with 100s of years of combat experience' only applies to Space Marines.
And not Eldar , Dark Eldar, Necron, Chaos,Sisters Of Battle and Orks, if you assume the 100s of years of combat knowledge is referring to collective experience.
Then the GW propaganda is working...

IG are not super soldiers, but the yard stick to measure how superior all the other factions are . (Apparently.)

I dislike the Dangerous terrain rules as it epitomizes the '40k Yahtzee/Top trumps rules writing' the sales department think appeals to their core demographic.'No tactical thought just roll dice and watch things blow up randomly.'

A war game should be a engaging tactical and strategic experience that rewards good pre game and in game decisions equally.
'Micheal Bay movie' type game with random sh!t happening on the roll of a 6 or 1 for giggles, is not a good war game IMO.

If you do not know the difference between 'unrelated event happens on a roll of X.'
And the logical progression of statistical exchanges too arrive at a tactically calculated result that gives a intuitive interaction in a game.

Then you should not be allowed to muck about with rules.

Well in 7th they have a section in the BRB that lists all the types of units and their rules. The base line is Infantry and everything behaves like infantry unless otherwise noted. Infantry can fire a single weapon, move 6" etc etc...

A MC has fear, hammer of wrath, smash, move through cover, relentless, and can fire up to 2 weapons.

It is not necessary to state how far they can move separately because by default they move 6".

All MC gain those additional rules. If you are trying to change all that information to being a part of the units listing and stat line then there would be a ton of repeated and special rules on every units block.

There is, in general, very little to memorize until you get to the vehicles which behave completely differently from the rest of the units in the game. (it's own problem in my opinion)

But, the moment I see MC I know all the things a MC can do.

By your system there would be no standardization and every single unit cannot be expected to have all those rules in place.

Amphibious is no longer a thing. The terrain types have been drastically simplified.

The small number of values and usrs you propose do not actually cover everything though. Jump pack and jump models have an ability to either jump while moving or jump when charging. Your system does not cover all the things they can do by default with the system currently in place.

The unit types covering these rules standardizes more then movement to be able to tell most of what happens with units quickly and simply (until GWs poor grammar causes it's own problems).

I am all for trimming down special rules and simplification.

But I think what you are proposing will necessitate the creation of new rules to cover what 7th is already covering by giving the unit a type.


The strategic element of Dangerous Terrain ( which I agree could have a better system) is to gauge the advantage of entering it vs the risk of loosing a model or suffering a damage.

The tactical thought comes in there. Is the cover it provides worth the risk? Do I need to cross it to reach the other side NOW or can I move around?

The risk needs to be low enough to get people to still want to go in. But the risk should exist so people do question whether to enter or not. Currently I think dangerous terrain is a little too safe, but that's just me. Removing it all together or creating a much more complex system of terrain is going reduce the tactics on the field or increase the book/chart checking. Especially when those terrain elements effect different units differently (roads boosting wheels/treads, but not legs... etc etc..)

Not all exchanges on the table need be precise. Otherwise remove dice all together. There should be elements of randomness and having patches of the battlefield that create risk vs reward scenarios are a part of that.

7th has a lot of problems, the massive list of special rules is one of them. But in a lot of ways it seems like 7th trimmed some of the fat and I think that needs to be kept and expanded on.

Thanks for confirming the general flaws and defective practices are still present in the 40k rules.

I am going to have to ask are you familiar with any other war game rule sets?
Only you seem to be trying to defend the way the 40k rule are written , as the only way the information could be presented?

But if you objectively compare the 40k rules to other rules sets, its becomes very clear there are serious issues with the core rules borrowed from WHFB trying to cover the units found in the 40k battle game.

If we could just pull back from the detail of the rules for a minute.And re visit the points you appeared to be making in your last post about the rules layout in 40k...

40k core rules ONLY cover standard infantry fighting across open ground.

All the other dozen or so units found in the game ,(including vehicles) are covered by that many special rules you need a separate index to break down which special rules apply to what unit types.

And the other part of these units not covered by the core rules or the first lot of special rules , have to use completely different stat lines and even more resolution methods and tables, and a different set of special rules.

Would you agree with this generalized overview?

Now compare 40ks 'kludge of holistic complication' to a modern war game with rules written specifically for the intended game play.

Core rules cover as much of the game play as possible.Usually about 90%
THE FEW EXCEPTIONS appx 10% of the game play , introduces special rules to cover the FEW special abilities that fall out side the core rules.

All the games I play and I am familiar with, use between half a dozen and 2 dozen special rules to cover the entire game play..

If the stat line and resolution methods are used specifically to deliver the intended game play, you do not HAVE to rely on special rules.

To use a cooking analogy..
The core rules should be the 'meat and vegetables' of the game.(Satisfying on their own,)
Special rules should be the blob of sauce on the side of the plate to enhance the flavor.

What I would like to look at is what sort of rules 40k would end up with if they were written specifically for the new 40k battle game size.

Rather than try to get a Napoleonic skirmish rule set to cover a modern battle game LONG after all the professional game developers gave up on the idea as a practical solution.

The strategic element of the Dangerous terrain is to get people to buy models with Skilled riders so they can practically ignore it.

Tactical decision making is making CALCULATED risks , based on results the players have some form of control over.

Roll well and no effect, roll badly and unit destroyed, is NOT a tactical decision , just LUCK BASED.'do you feel lucky punk,.... well do ya?'

Sacrificing an action, however, is a calculated risk,Can you afford to loose X turns of shooting while you cross the terrain?
Or just reducing movement rates for varying terrain may be good enough?

If the resolution methods give results that are intuitive.(linked /proportional to what decisions players make in game.)
The game play and rules are in synergy.

If they do not there is a massive disconnect between the rules the players and the intended game play.(WTF moments.)/

A lot of people can not seem to separate the intended 40k game play, (which is fun.)

From the awful way the 40k GW rules structure and present the necessary information.

Ill stop there for comments and questions.(I can show you some alternative way to present the information in 40k rulesif you like ?)

For starters, my experience playing other systems is primarily restricted to more "lite" wargaming systems. Heroscape, That one that got kick started using legos. I played very little battletech like... 8 years ago. Some heroscape.

Miniature games. But nothing as in depth as 40k and nothing that had the "hobby" side of it.

That being said I have since studied up on some of the other systems as I have heard about interesting mechanics in them. This is common practice for game designers. I don't have the time to play everything. But I play as much as I can of what I can and study the rest by reading up on them and extrapolating how the rules could work along with reading on what people are doing with them.

Bolt action is one of those games I have "studied".

That being said...

40k core rules ONLY cover standard infantry fighting across open ground.

All the other dozen or so units found in the game ,(including vehicles) are covered by that many special rules you need a separate index to break down which special rules apply to what unit types.

And the other part of these units not covered by the core rules or the first lot of special rules , have to use completely different stat lines and even more resolution methods and tables, and a different set of special rules.

No, I do not agree with this. It IS true of vehicles (which I said earlier in the thread). And the various resolution methods is basically nonsense.

But the base line unit types before you get into vehicles are pretty simple and what makes them different is generally not USRs (though some do have access to USRs) but some of their few interactions with terrain and how they move and shoot different from standard infantry.

The difference between the different units can be as simple as understanding the difference between assault weapons, rapid fire weapons, and heavy weapons. Having them broken up into base line unit types is often as simple as understanding the difference between the different types of guns.

When everyone with a jump pack follows a simple set of rules by adding the prefix "jump" to whatever type of unit they are it simplifies the ULE with a standardized set of rules.


The structure of ULE's (including unit types) and the force organization chart are good ideas. It "should" allow for a fairly balanced build of armies with a mix of unit types instead of just pooling in all the best guys. There are literally an infinite number of ways that information could be presented, but these are not the things broken in 40k. They have grown out of control with power creep. But a fantastic well implemented version of them can be seen in 30ks books. Changing them doesn't serve any purpose other than to make up a whole new game and just call it 40k for funsies.

What is the top competing Table Top War game?

Why are they successful?

Is their system and rules streamlined?

Is their PvP unit costs balanced?

I majored in computer science, but didn't concentrate on game design; I took one course on it in my undergrad but ended up coding for the financial sector.

That said, I do enjoy my games, and like the intellectual exercise involved in making a game. For the rewrite I'm doing, I did a level 2.5 rewrite, keeping the core statistics in place, but otherwise doing a lot of rewrites. I adhere to several principles:

* Keep the game well-paced: One thing Settlers of Catan's 5-6 player expansion did, that almost gets played in regular games anyway, is allowing players to spend their resource cards "in between" player turns to build. This meant that even if the game took awhile, there was little down-time for any player. As a rule, I prefer alternating phases to "I Go You Go", and out-of-phase abilities, just so a player doesn't have to wait a good 10-minutes while doing nothing. Attention Span matters!

* The player's army is *their* army, and not the army rolled up pre-game. Simply put, any and all warlord traits, mutations, psyker powers, cybernetic upgrades, haemonculi experiments, kustom jobs, etc, are selected when building the army, rather than rolled pre-game.

* Special abilities are a matter of calculated risk versus calculated reward. Rather than using a simple "pass/fail" threshold for manifesting powers, I prefer a "degrees of success" system. Rather than "D" being a Knight-killing Russian Roulette, make it inflict 2 hits on an allocated model, and have it suffer a -2 modifier to invulnerable saves.

* Don't have too many "similar" special rules: Hatred & Preferred Enemy, Rage and Furious Charge, etc.

* Don't have too many "does the exact same thing" units in player armies. Given the choice between Flesh Hounds, Seekers, Furies, etc...there usually can only be one. (Flesh Hounds).

* Use "Simple Associations" for a lot of weapons. One thing that always annoyed me about Warmachine was just how many "tiny variations" of weapons there were, and how weapons had unique names. "Pig Iron is like a Military Rifle, but with +1 Strength...or was it like a Hand Cannon minus 2 range? I forget which analogy to use." "Why do these riflemen get Combined Ranged Attack, but these riflemen get Suppressive Fire instead?" "Why does an *axe* make it easier to parry in close combat than a sword?" I try using an associative pattern for weapon rules. Power Weapons are AP 3 base. Swords inflict a second hit on rolls of 6 to-hit.
Axes add +1 Strength, -1 AP, and Armorbane. Two-handed weapons are +1 Strength and -1 AP. Ergo, a Power Axe would be S+1, AP 2, and Armorbane, but a Two-Handed Power Sword would be S+1, AP 2, and inflict 2 hits on rolls of 6 to-hit.

* Every unit's initial cost, before options are considered, is a multiple of 25 points. The game is designed around 1850 points, and uses a scalable FOC. I dislike "pure" sideboards ("Swap out my entire army"), but like the idea of units having a secondary set of "Free equipment swaps" to choose from pre-game ("Specialist Loadouts". Like getting Demo Charges prior to a bunker-busting mission, etc.)

@ Filch.
Not really sure what point you are trying to make here?

@ MagicJuggler.
I agree with all of the general concepts you have on what makes a good game.
However, you seem to be 'locked into' the minutia of the rules and the complication that is already in 40k.
(I have read through the core rules on your re-write. )

However, an objective assessment of a rules set , should start at the beginning.
The core rules.(The game mechanics and resolution methods /stat line used.)

@All.
A good game will cover the majority of the game play (about 90%) with the core rules.With the last 10% covered by special rules for special abilities.
IF it does NOT, then this is the first thing that needs to be addressed[/i].

If we can agree that the 40k battle game benefits from a more interactive game turn mechanic?(Alternating phases, or Alternating unit activation.)

And the game play should have an equal importance on mobility , fire power and assault?

Then we can have an objective assessment of the 40k core rules.
In the order the phases/actions are taken,ignoring psychic phase/action for now.(I will just write the basic outline of the rules to save space. )

Mobility , does not have a stat.But a CORE RULE.

EVERYTHING moves 6" in open ground and D6 " in difficult terrain.

This covers ONLY 'standard infantry' and 'standard vehicles.'

Fire power, has one stat.(BS.)
Subtract BS value from 7 to determine D6 roll required to hit.(Resolution method 1)

All other information required for the 'to hit for shooting resolution' is in the separate ranged weapon data.

This ONLY deals with the attackers skill.It does not deal with the disposition of the units in combat or the skill of the target.


Assault. ,Has four stats.WS, S, A,I,

WS is compared to the opponents WS value on a separate table (Resolution method 2)
This does NOT apply to standard vehicles.

S value determines the base strength of close combat attacks in assault.
S is compared to opponents T value, to determine the dice roll needed to wound.(On a separate table, resolution method 3.)

UNLESS the models is carrying a weapon that modifies S or chance to hit or wound in some way.

(S values and number of shots/area of effect, AP ,values etc, for ranged weapons are found in the separate ranged weapons data.)

So this JUST covers standard infantry with CCW.

A value ,determines the base number of dice a model rolls for attacks in close combat.(This does not apply to some vehicles.)
(Direct use of numerator, resolution method 4.)

I value determines the striking order in assault.(This does not apply to some vehicles.)

So four stats on the stat line do not apply to some vehicles, and some units would prefer NOT to get involved in assault but shoot instead.

Non vehicle units get a fixed armour save value, eg roll over that value on a D6 and ignore the wound the model has just received.
(The armour sucks out the bullets, skilfully repairs the biological damage to the target, and repairs itself. )
(Direct use of dice score required, Resolution method 5)

However, IF the attacking weapon AP is LOWER than the armour save value , the non vehicle model does not get to take its save roll to negate the wound it just suffered.

However, the available fixed range of 2+ to 6+ for armour savesis not wide enough to cover all non vehicle models and Invunerable saves have to be used to extend this range of results ... These ignore the weapon AP value.(So are in practical terms yet another resolution method for armour/weapon interaction)

W value represents how many wounds a NON vehicle model can take before being removed as a casualty.(Direct use of numerator)
(Unless it is subject of a USR like WBB or FNP etc.)

Morale
If a unit of modes takes sufficient wounds in a game turn, it has to pass a Ld test , or route.
Roll 2d6 and roll under The highest LD value in the unit.(Resolution method 6)

40k morale only covers Ok or running away/destroyed.

Ok if we count 'direct representation' as one resolution method that is still 5 resolution methods, JUST TO COVER STANDARD INFANTRY!

Before we even get to the separate vehicle rules, USRs and special rules that cover the other dozen or so units found in 40k.

Compared to every other rule set I am familiar with, this seems a lot of complication to cover very little game play!![i]

On close examination 40k core rules cover less than half of the game play in 40k, and use more resolution methods than all the other game I know use to cover ALL the game play!

And STILL need to use EIGHTY PLUS special rules.(TRIPLE the amount of special rules found in other war games.)

The core rules are the foundation the game play is built on.If these are not right the game falls over very quickly and has to be propped up with additional rules...

To be clear , this is mainly an exercise in better defining and presenting the information we need to arrive at the intended game play of 40k,


However, it is important for people joining this thread to understand why it needs to be done.

I hope that makes my position on what is wrong with 40ks current core rules a bit clearer?

 MagicJuggler wrote:
I majored in computer science, but didn't concentrate on game design; I took one course on it in my undergrad but ended up coding for the financial sector.

That said, I do enjoy my games, and like the intellectual exercise involved in making a game. For the rewrite I'm doing, I did a level 2.5 rewrite, keeping the core statistics in place, but otherwise doing a lot of rewrites. I adhere to several principles:

* Keep the game well-paced: One thing Settlers of Catan's 5-6 player expansion did, that almost gets played in regular games anyway, is allowing players to spend their resource cards "in between" player turns to build. This meant that even if the game took awhile, there was little down-time for any player. As a rule, I prefer alternating phases to "I Go You Go", and out-of-phase abilities, just so a player doesn't have to wait a good 10-minutes while doing nothing. Attention Span matters!

* The player's army is *their* army, and not the army rolled up pre-game. Simply put, any and all warlord traits, mutations, psyker powers, cybernetic upgrades, haemonculi experiments, kustom jobs, etc, are selected when building the army, rather than rolled pre-game.

* Special abilities are a matter of calculated risk versus calculated reward. Rather than using a simple "pass/fail" threshold for manifesting powers, I prefer a "degrees of success" system. Rather than "D" being a Knight-killing Russian Roulette, make it inflict 2 hits on an allocated model, and have it suffer a -2 modifier to invulnerable saves.

* Don't have too many "similar" special rules: Hatred & Preferred Enemy, Rage and Furious Charge, etc.

* Don't have too many "does the exact same thing" units in player armies. Given the choice between Flesh Hounds, Seekers, Furies, etc...there usually can only be one. (Flesh Hounds).

* Use "Simple Associations" for a lot of weapons. One thing that always annoyed me about Warmachine was just how many "tiny variations" of weapons there were, and how weapons had unique names. "Pig Iron is like a Military Rifle, but with +1 Strength...or was it like a Hand Cannon minus 2 range? I forget which analogy to use." "Why do these riflemen get Combined Ranged Attack, but these riflemen get Suppressive Fire instead?" "Why does an *axe* make it easier to parry in close combat than a sword?" I try using an associative pattern for weapon rules. Power Weapons are AP 3 base. Swords inflict a second hit on rolls of 6 to-hit.
Axes add +1 Strength, -1 AP, and Armorbane. Two-handed weapons are +1 Strength and -1 AP. Ergo, a Power Axe would be S+1, AP 2, and Armorbane, but a Two-Handed Power Sword would be S+1, AP 2, and inflict 2 hits on rolls of 6 to-hit.

* Every unit's initial cost, before options are considered, is a multiple of 25 points. The game is designed around 1850 points, and uses a scalable FOC. I dislike "pure" sideboards ("Swap out my entire army"), but like the idea of units having a secondary set of "Free equipment swaps" to choose from pre-game ("Specialist Loadouts". Like getting Demo Charges prior to a bunker-busting mission, etc.)

I agree with basically all of these. One of the things I would add is that there should be no special rules that blanket ignore other rules.

ATSKNF, Fearless, and other rules like them, take entire mechanics in the game and throw them out the window. I suppose they would be fine on VERY few models per army. But otherwise I think those things are better served by Stubborn where even when you loose models you still use max leadership to avoid running.

Why create mechanics if you are then going to make rules that negate them entirely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lanrak wrote:
@ Filch.
Not really sure what point you are trying to make here?

@ MagicJuggler.
I agree with all of the general concepts you have on what makes a good game.
However, you seem to be 'locked into' the minutia of the rules and the complication that is already in 40k.
(I have read through the core rules on your re-write. )

However, an objective assessment of a rules set , should start at the beginning.
The core rules.(The game mechanics and resolution methods /stat line used.)

This is not true. Approaching the game from a design perspective should begin with a core design document that addresses design goals. Those goals should begin with broad concepts.

"A miniature war game that allows for detailed unit interaction with quick player turns so that each player has things to do often"

Then should begin with general concept rules which, so long as they are enforcing the core design goals, should be adhered to when actually designing any other goal/rule.

The list Magic Juggler has is a great example of that. The stat line and core rules should be built based on those goals.



There are several resolution methods in 40k. they are these

-1/2d6 test against value where equal to or higher is successful. Armor, Strength,

-Contested: WS vs WS sets the value. This is only different from above because you have compare attributes to find out what your target number is. Wounding also falls into this category (str vs toughness)

-Scatter: The scatter dice. We all know these.

-Armor: str+d6 to match/exceed value. Completely different method of wounding... for because.

-Rolling a target based on nothing: Manifesting powers, dangerous terrain tests, deny the witch.


There... might be another method? Can't think of any right now.

Of these I think contested, test, scatter are needed for sure. Random rolls based on nothing should be used very sparingly but do serve a purpose (gets hot and such). I think armor needs to go.

@Lance845.
I thought we had already agreed that if we were writing rules from scratch for a game, we would start with defining the scale and scope of the game, and the intended game play.

Eg my brief for 40k would be.. 'A company level battle game, with detailed unit interaction, with an equal focus on mobility fire power and assault.'

My argument is the current core rules are not optimal for this end game play.

I actually wrote , and you quoted.

'However, an objective assessment of a rules set , should start at the beginning.
The core rules.(The game mechanics and resolution methods /stat line used.)'

As you and lots of 40k players want to keep the current core rules and keep trying to defend them .

Despite GW plc NEVER trying to defend the rules they sell you.
'We are a minature company first and foremost..''..the rules are just the icing on the cake for collectors..' '..the rules are not all that important..'

I wanted to try to look at how good the core rules of 40k actually are, and how much of the game play they cover.

Having proved the current 40k core rules only (partially) cover standard infantry units in open ground.

And use the following resolution methods.(Being very kind and generic as possible following your example. )

1)Direct representation.(Number of dice rolled, score needed to succeed.(roll equal or over target score,)max distance in inches/mm.)
(Used in every war game I can think of.)

2)Opposed values .(Two separate charts.WS/WS, S/T)

3) Calculated value (7 minus BS stat value)

4)Roll under target score on multiple dice.(Ld)

And separate rules for vehicles with different resolution methods.

I thought I had proved that the current core rules of 40k were not an optimal fit for the game play most people expect.

And very over complicated, as most war game only use 2 or 3 resolution methods.(And a fraction of the special rules 40k uses.)

Magic Juggler, has listed practical examples of good game design, using a very poor rule set as a basis..

If we had a more suitable set of core rules just think of how good the finished rules could be...

I would like to explore using a different set of core rules written specifically for the intended game play of 40k.(As outlined at the start of this post.)

To reduce the complication in the rules , while increasing the tactical depth in the game play.

Then lets do this.

You are tackling a more complex rule like different terrain and how movement works based on an older version of the game. You want to start with the core rules start there.

Here is a model.

It needs to be able to move, shoot, and assault.

All of these things 40k lets you do with a system that at it's core is not bad or broken. The stat line works. Guns work. Assault and guns are basically equal in that each one uses the same number of attributes (though shootings attributes are a part of the gun, not the models, stat line). All that is fine. The core rules dictate how a model moves. It's generally pretty strait forward. Since the game is based around unit interaction and not model we have coherency. Great. I agree with coherency. It functions in the game and the vast majority of attacks leave models in coherency.

Now we say "well... not all units will be composed of infantry"

Great. We need to detail the types of things units can be and how they act differently.

We have 2 methods on the table.

1) defining unit types. 7th ed does this now. You have a section that says this is what these can do. Jump does blah da blah.

2) We expand the stat line. You create a new attribute for any attribute that can be changed by unit type and include those functions on the stat line. Movement difference changes? Add a movement stat. Treats terrain differently? Add a letter to the movement stat. Can shoot more than one gun? Have a # of weapons per shooting phase stat. Multiple movement methods by player choice (swooping or gliding FMC)... add a second stat line?

Do you see how expanding the stat line grows out of control when it's your defining characteristic to relay all information? The stat line needs to cover the basics that the model needs to function. The unit types become 1 word or a 2 letter abbreviation at the end of that stat line that tells you all that extra information. We all know FMC can fire 2 weapons. We all know vehicles can shoot all guns as long as they only move like infantry. 1 gun at full bs up to the second tier and all snap shots at their 3rd tier. It's a complex set of interactions conveyed to the player by putting a v at the end of the stat line as it's unit type.

Expanding the stat line without a really good cause is trouble. In fact you could probably trim it down a little by getting rid of initiative. All models attack at the same time. Some weapons or units may have a rule that says they attack first. When 2 opposing models have a rule that says they strike first they strike at the same time. Some models or weapons may have a rule that says they strike last. When 2 opposing models strike last they strike at the same time.

Initiative steps are gone. A stat is gone from the stat line. Now power fists strike after everything else. HoW are resolved before combat begins. Melee centric Eldar units will strike first.

That is simplifying GWs nonsense. We should be cutting things down not adding things on.


The point I am making is you are not eliminating unit types by moving a part of the information covered by unit types to the stat line. You are just creating a new part of the stat line. You have created more information that occupies more room on the page for the player to look at. Not less. At best this change has effectively changed nothing in terms of complexity and only possibly created a method of preference for some portion of the players while at worse you have added complexity.

Show me the stat line for a Flying Hive Tyrant where movement is added to the stat line. Convey that I have a minimum and maximum move distance when swooping, that I can only make 90* turns, that I cannot be assaulted or assault, that people can only fire snap shots, and that if I choose to glide I can be charged and charge, that I can choose to move extra inches in movement or assault, that moving during assault gives me bonuses, and how that movement interacts with terrain.

@Lance845.
Please quote where I stated I wanted to remove ALL special rules from the 40k rule set?

I said I wanted to look at changing the stat line and how information was presented to reduce the amount of special rules in 40k.
EG Special rules to cover about 10% of the game play not about 50%, and reduce the number of special rules from 80+ to a couple of dozen.

I understand our frame of reference is very different.I am looking at 20+ war game rule sets for reference/ideas.

If every war game that measures weapon ranges uses 'mobility values' APART from 40k 3rd-7th ed.Then why not look at using them in 40k?

If all the other war games have rules written inclusively to cover the intended game play, to reduce rules complication,(and the need for special rules.)

And 40k has rules written exclusively to sell the latest releases.(Special snowflake rules anyone.)

Why not look at writing 40k core rules inclusively to cover everything apart from special abilities?

Then lets do this properly...

There are TWO basic types of unit in 40k, from a game mechanic perspective.Discrete units and indescrete units.

EG
Units made up of a group of models that show damage by removing models .
And units that are represented by one model that records damage separately.

If we approach the rules with an inclusive focus we will be looking how units behave in a similar way in game. this means looking at the units in a more basic generic way. EG how they perform in game.

Obviously with the wide range of races, and technology in an entire futuristic universe, we can not hope to cover everything with stat line and core rules.But we should be able to cover the majority of the game play.And hopefully keep special rules limited to actual special abilities.(Not any and every slight difference!)

And with the massive range in tech,(pointy sticks to trans dimensional warp technology.) I think listing all units weapon effects separate to the stat line is a sensible approach..

So to start with in game actions in the order they turn up..

Mobility.
The majority of units move across the battle field in different ways and different speeds.

So a number to represent the maximum distance in inches a model may move in a movement phase/action is logical/intuitive.

(If a model has a minimum move distance this is presented before the maximum move distance, EG 6 to 12, means the model has to move at least 6" every movement phase.action, to a maximum move distance of 12". )

Having a symbol or letter to denote how the models movement is effected by different terrain types, also covers the majority of units.
(Eg a terrain chart with mobility type, Legs, Wheels , Tracks , Hover ,compared to terrain types that effect movement. rubble ruins, light woods, heavy woods water features etc.To give the relevant modifiers.)

The only units not covered by this core Mobility stat set , are those that have special abilities that can ignore terrain in some way.
EG
Units that can 'fly' over terrain, and those that 'bulldozer' their way through some terrain types.
(And those that can float over water features if that is to be a thing.)

I DONT CARE ABOUT THE FLUFF EXPLANATION ON HOW MODELS 'FLY' OVER TERRAIN.
If its due to powerful back legs making massive leaps, or wings, or jump jets, or anti grav generators or extreme flatulence!

Its the same in game effect so it get the same special rule.And we can use the same format as the standard Mobility Stat.

Eg Assault Marines get L 5" ,(same as standard Marines).But their jump packs give them Special ability 'Fly 8"'

Lets have a comparison loosing the familiarity that 40k players have with the rules they spent ages learning.
And look how it appears to a new player.

Current rules.(Names and page numbers have been changed to protect the guilty .)

How far can I move my 'Slartybart' model?

Look up the rules for 'Slartybart' units on page 21.

Ok, (thumbs through rule nook to look at rules for Slartybart.)

It says here that Slartybarts have the Piffle, Twaddle and Pointless special rules.

Well look up those other rules to find out what they do....
(Time passes reading rule book instead of getting on with playing the game.)

New rules.
New rules how far can I move my Slartybart model?
(It does not have 'fly'or' bulldozer' special rules.As few units in 40k have these special rules that is why they are special! )

Its got the L 6" mobility so it can move up to 6" in open terrain.Other terrain has the modifiers on this terrain chart on the quick reference sheet.

Seems far more intuitive/inclusive to me.

Ranged combat.

Ballistic Skill
How good a unit is at hitting a enemy within weapons range.

Stealth skill,
How good a unit is at avoiding being hit by ranged weapons.Based on unit size, silhouette, skill and equipment.

These are used in an opposed table , the universal resolution table.

(Unless you think hitting a Monolith 1" away should have the same chance as hitting a Ratling sniper 36" away?)

Close Combat.

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

Agility Skill.(Replaces Initiative made redundant by the new game turn.)
How good the unit is at avoiding being hit in close combat.

These are used in an opposed table , the universal resolution table.

(Unless you thinks a slow lumbering Mega Armoured Ork Nob should be as easy to hit in close combat as a nimble Eldar Banshee?)


If we look at the new stats and compare them to the game play requirement of 'equal focus on mobility , fire power and assault.'
Mobility has 2 elements on the stat line.
Ranged combat has 2 elements on the stat line
Close combat has 2 elements on the stat line.

So 2,2,2,. as opposed to current 40ks 0,1, 4.Seems like a better fit to me.

Damage resolution.(In the right order!)

Armour save
The majority of units have some form of physical protection, usually armour of some sort.

So we can give them an Armour Value.(1 to 10)
All weapons can have an Armor Penetration value.(1 to 10)

These values are compared on the universal resolution table to determine the models armour save value .
(The score needed for the armour to deflect absorb all the damage from the weapon hit.Proportional results without using ASM. )

All models have some form of natural resistance to penetrating weapon damage.

Resilience.(Toughness is linked more with biological units, resilience is more neutral and can be applied to vehicles and non vehicle units IMO.)

Compare the weapons Damage value to the targets Resilience value on the universal resolution chart to determine the score needed to cause damage to the target.

The Number of penetrating damaging hits a model can take,before being considered out of action/casualty.Is represented by the following stat.

Organic models have Wounds
Mechanical units have Structure

When a model looses all of its wounds/structure it is removed from play.
(Multiple model units track damage this way.Single models units track damage independently.)

Note. some special abilities only effect Organic units like Poisoned weapons.And others only effect Mechanical units like EPM/Haywire weapons.

Command and control / Morale.
All models have different levels of commitment to the fight.From homicidal psychopaths to cowardly conscripts.

I would like to give all models a Morale value to represent this.(Rather than all or nothing rules like 'fearless.')

And I would like to explore giving leaders/characters more in game uses than 'Close Combat boost'.

So would like to have a try at using a separate Command Value.

This is just a starting point , to see what we can cover with core rules...

However...
Why do you think a new rule set would need to have lots of complicated special rules to make up for lack of tactical depth?

When we get most of the units covered by the core rules,generating higher levels of tactical interaction, proportional resolution, and better balance between mobility fire power and assault in the game play.

Players could start enjoying playing the actual game.Rather than playing the special rules.

A Flyrant could have
Mobility L 6",
With Mobility special rules
Buldozer (uses its bulk to smash through rubble/ruins and light woods so treats them as open ground.)
Fly min " max " (Or just max" as 4th ed rules?Only saw the 4th ed Codex briefly a few years back so I am bit hazy. )

The restrictions on turning in flight , assault, shooting , different flight modes, and assault buffs were added in to help sell more models for more money in 6th to 7th ed.

I understand what you are trying to do. I believe you are doing it wrong. You are tackling things that are not the real issue because you are not removing elements from the game by changing the stat line. If you want to greatly reduce the special rules as your step one then list all the special rules and condence, change, or remove the ones you feel are clutter.

Move through cover is one of... 2? 3? Special rules that influence model movement. It's not really the area with the clutter. I would say hatred and all the similar rules could use a bunch of condencing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If your plan is not to condense what 40k has into a streamlined 40k lite but instead rework the core rules into a whole new game then ditch it all and start from scratch. Screw what they would have done.

@ Lanrak: Interesting that we come up with the same ideas without having talked about them; I've come up with an aspect of the game which relies on characters, though I'm using "rank" and then a value. Actually, "Command points" sounds better but I hate to not come up with everything in my ruleset myself.

Hi Lanrak, I'm glad to see you weren't sucked into the warp with the rest of Warseer. We've already established that you and I want different things out of a 40k re-write, so this time I'll try to stick to playing 'devil's advocate' rather than pushing my own ideas. In other words, I'll focus on your wording and the validity of your claims rather than trying to push the game towards my own preferences.

Lanrak wrote:No longer a large skirmish game...But a moving into a battle game

Yes

Lanrak wrote:Ditching the to hit mods also compounded the issue of loosing the tactical maneuver from the game play.

They weren't ditched entirely, they were replaced with a system (cover saves) that I agree is inferior. I'd argue that there is actually a good reason for making this change, but that can be discussed later.

Lanrak wrote:EG 2nd ed Orks (M4),could charge 8" into close combat.(3 turns to cover 24"

Yes.

Lanrak wrote:In 3rd they could charge 12" into assault.(2 turns to cover 24")

Orks, like all infantry, could only make the assault move if there was a target in range. Thus their movement across turns was 6, 6, then 12. Thus 3 turns to cover 24", exactly the same as in 2nd ed.
I don't have my 3rd ed Eldar codex here to verify the wording of fleet, but I don't recall being able to move+fleet+charge in the same turn.

Lanrak wrote:Of the twenty plus ranged weapons how many use the strength of the user? NONE

Correct, and given we're talking about gunpowder or better, there's no reason why the strength of the model should play any part in this. It's worth noting that 2nd ed did include rules for bows, which used the model's stats.

Lanrak wrote:Of the four or so close combat weapons how many use the Strength stat without any modification? ONE.

You were just talking about 3rd ed a few lines above this statement but I have no idea which edition you're referencing here? 3rd used the model's Strength for all close combat weapons. 4th and 5th were the same. 6th and 7th use the model's strength for most if not all weapons, albeit with modifiers in some cases. Are you thinking of 2nd ed? That definitely had both weapon strength and 'user' strength on close combat weapons.

Lanrak wrote:So basically the S value in 40k is ONLY used for resolving close combat with standard CCW.

In 3-7, yes, in 2 no, it had other uses too.

Lanrak wrote:Power weapons and power/lightning /chain /fist/klaws etc all modify the base S value significantly.

Yes, but they DO USE THAT STAT. In fact of the ones you listed, only two modify that stat at all. The rest use it as written on the model's stat line.

Lanrak wrote:Similarly Attacks ONLY applies to close combat, and most models have 1 attack.

True.

Lanrak wrote:So if the units weapons profile was to include close combat and ranged weapons , the S and A values could disappear from the stat line.

I refute this. Your claim is based on false evidence. I could perhaps see an argument in favour of combining Attack and Initiative or combining Attacks with Weapon Skill, but merging Attacks with Weapon makes no sense to me and would need to be explained clearly before I'll accept it.

Lanrak wrote:Universal weapon profile.
Weapon Name/Effective Range/Attacks/Armour Piercing value/Damage value /Notes.
Damage value replaces Strength value , attacks is simply the number of dice rolled, for attacks, or the blast /template used.

So you feel # of attacks is more appropriately tied to the weapon than to the user? So, picking an imaginary example, a person with a dagger may be able to make a greater quantity of attacks (let's pick 3) than a person with a heavy two handed maul (let's pick 1)? What about when that maul is wielded by something with incredible strength and/or speed, such as a greater demon. Is it still limited to a single attack? Likewise, if that greater demon weilds a dagger, is it still a weak attack?
Are you assuming that no two disparate creatures would ever use the same weapon?

Lanrak wrote:As we have established that tactical maneuver has been diminished significantly , due to increase in model count , and practically every unit having ranged weapons with no to hit mods.

Actually your earlier statements haven't established model count as a causal factor in reduced tactical maneuvers. The only correllation between the two things is that with more models on the board there is a greater chance of having a valid target to shoot at each turn.
Comparing WHFB and 40k (any edition) the primary causal factor in reduced importance on position and movement in 40k is the fact that the vast majority of units have ranged weapons. In WHFB, being more than 8" away is an important thing because it prevents a charge. In 40k, being 8" means virtually nothing, and indeed being 24" away is usually about as bad for a unit as being 1" away. It's only when you get beyond typical weapon ranges 12/24/36/48/72 that position plays that same role as in WHFB.
In contrast, cover is almost non-existent in any game of WHFB I've seen or read about, whereas being in cover or not in 40k is actually a pretty key factor, and requires careful positioning and maneuvers.

Lanrak wrote:Why not KEEP the game phases and movement value as they were,(and limited sensible modifiers .) But change the game turn mechanic to alternating phases.

I'm all for restoring the movement stat and sensible modifiers, but in context of where you made this statement, the only tactical maneuver benefit I can imagine from alternating phases is when player A says "I move here so I can see that unit" and player B responds with "I move that unit back behind cover". That's not a major increase from what I can see.

Lanrak wrote:If we use simultaneous resolution, the Initiative stat becomes totally redundant;

Yes, it would, but I hasten to point out that Initiative is more important in 3rd-7th edition that it was in 2nd edition. You haven't convinced me with any arguments about why it should be removed.

Without getting into the suggestive 'WHFB in space' argument, let's take a look at the statlines from a different perspective. Let's forget WHFB, 40k and all those other games for a second, and consider this from a blank sheet.
We have models, let's call them creatures. Each on represents a single distinct entity on the table and in the fiction. What are some of the features of a living creature that we may want to take from the fiction and represent on the tabletop?
* Its size
* Its speed in regards to moving across the battlefield. Let's call that Movement.
* Its reaction speed. Let's call that Initiative.
* Its martial skill in close quarters fisticuffs. Let's call that Weapon Skill.
* Its morale. Let's call that Leadership.
* Its intellect. Hmm, that might not get used much. Perhaps we should drop it, or combine it with leadership.
* Its physical strength. Let's call that strength.
* Its resillience. Let's call that Toughness
Hmm, looks sensible so far. There seems to be an awful lot of models on the board and combat looks like it might take forever. Perhaps some creatures should strike more often than others to represent cleaving through multiple opponents with a single blow? Let's call that Attacks.

Okay, that was a bit facetious, but the important take away here is that every single stat represents some defining feature of the creature. These are all perfectly reasonable things to want to represent on the tabletop. Throwing any one of them out in an attempt to reduce the quantity of items on the basic statline is not a particularly sensible thing to do, UNLESS you are trying to make the game more of an abstraction.
If you want a more abstract game (to make it simpler or faster), then I think you're better off focussing on replacing model stats with unit stats. Things like:
* Number of creatures, which would directly inform
* morale of unit
* combined martial skill which would be multiplied by the number of creatures
* The resilience of the unit against close combat attacks
* The resilience of the unit against small arms and machine guns
* The resilience of the unit against explosives
* How fast the unit is
and so on.

Getting back to my point, shifting characteristics which represent the creature onto a weapon statline makes no sense. Equally moving weapon statistics onto a creature's statline makes no sense if the assumption is that more than one type of creature can use the same type of weapon, and conversely, a given creature can choose from more than one weapon.



Your next post discusses movement across phases and the phases themselves before going into a hypothetical discussion on what GW might have done if Sales hadn't stuck their noses in. As interesting as this is, I don't feel it really helps your cause. We can all write 'What if' scenarios about that time. You'd be better off focussing on demonstrating how altenating phases will benefit the game without the historical supposition.
Regarding the movement issue specifically however, I will point out that with alternating phases there is actually a degree of logic to having movement occur both in the movement phase and the assault phase. It takes time to run from point A to point B, being shot in the middle actually kinda makes sense.


I also happen to agree with you that alternating unit activation is not appropriate for the sheer variety of armies and units available in 40k. This can be demonstrated by comparing unit activation with unit scoring in the form of 'kill points' and securing objectives. When one army consist of 5 kill points of extremely tough units, and the other consist of 30 kill points worth of weak units, it's pretty clear who is going to rack up the most points.

I've said enough for one post, so I'll return to discuss game scale and focus in detail at some later time. I'll just quickly note that I feel 40k currently sits in a bizarre spot between platoon scale and company scale that no other game matches, and that this is in fact part of its charm.