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.

Just to provide an alternate point of view, this thread has got me seriously thinking about what I'd change in 40k (I'm not going to say "needs" to change - because this is my personal opinion.)

Igougo isn't one of the things I'd actually change. There is a significant challenge to setting up your plan and forces to win the game over the 5+turns. I like getting to make my plans, trying to force the other player to do something by placing my units just so, taking my shots etc. Equally, I think it is quite enjoyable watching to see what the opponent is doing and getting time to think about what I'm going to do next turn.

It also makes the game WAAYYY simpler....which makes it easier to learn the basics for all ages (my 7, 10 and 12 year olds like playing). In many ways it also makes the games feel more casual to me - you don't have to worry about complicated facings, action reaction, how many orders/resources you have left.

I'm not saying that any of that is bad, in fact I like games with that level of complexity. But if I want that level of complexity I can always play a different game. 40k fits a certain niche and does it comparatively well.

There are certainly things I'd like to change, and some things we do in the house when we play which help us enjoy the games more.

Firstly, terrain. We have loads of it, and lots of LOS blocking.
Second, Point limits. We find that smaller point games (1000-1250) really reduces the waiting times. We'll play higher limit games if we have time, but that is when the game starts to drag a bit. 1500, is probably our upper limit.
Third, Army lists. We tend to change them up a lot and try different things.

Some of the balance changes I'd suggest to 6E are comparatively simple - and targetted at making things more reasonable:

Blast/Large blast Weapons with ranges >36' cannot be AP3 or better.
No rerolls on 2+ saves
Making cover easier to understand and use.

Of course, this is just imo and a lot of it has come about because as a family we've been looking at whether we should start fantasy armies.

From the research we've done, fantasy seems like a logical step up to a more tactically complex game. So we can keep 40k in it's niche (casual, shoot things, have a laugh) and step up to fantasy if we really want to exercise our tactical heads!

Mark

ps...just priced up fantasy armies, so if anyone has any recommendations for alternate games (infinity? warmahordes?) please pm!

Well lets see.
IGO UGO game turn simple and restrictive and non interactive game turn.
Core rules , similarly simple and restrictive .
IF this covered all the game play of 40k, I would agree 40k rules were simple and easy to learn and play.

However, as the game needs extra rules for vehicles, flyers, cavalry /beasts, bikes , walker ,tanks , and faster vehicles, monstrous creatures, artillery ,jump/jet packs, etc

So unless you only play with 'standard infantry' units 40k rules are NOT simple at all are they?

A slightly more interactive game turn, (interleaved phases,) removes the need for 'overwatch' special rules , and is just as simple to understand.
EG
I take an action
You take an action
I take an action
You take an action.

WHFB rules work ok for WHFB.
But Kings of War rules deliver a similar amount of game play but with much more straightforward rules(About a fifth of the pages of rules !)
(I would look at Mantic Games website as they let you download the rules and basic army lists for free!)

I had a discussion about 40K with a friend to day, and I'm shocked to say that I actually like 6th Ed. I thought 4th Ed was tremendously tedious and I loathed 5th Ed, but 6th Ed has some of the weird flare that 3rd Ed had (for all its absurdity).

It's overly bloated with too many special rules, and GW's inane need to make everything "cinematic' by way of random D6 charts is fething annoying, but structurally I like a lot of the changes they made. I also don't mind IGOUGO, but that's just me.

I would change some things though:

1. Hull Points. These are my single most hated thing in the game. I'd remove them completely. Get a Glance? Roll on the chart with a -2. Anything 0 or less counts as "no effect", because your shot glanced off the armour.
2. Charging from vehicles. I'd let units charge from stationary vehicles (ie. vehicles that did not move that turn) as well as from coming in on reserves. The charge rolls are random anyway, so it's tough enough getting into assault. Plus I think the current method over-values Assault Vehicles.
3. Casualty removal. Owning player chooses casualties from those in range and LOS. None of this "closest model" stuff. This will speed things up.
4. Blast Markers. Must we roll scatter for every single shot? This is tedious and does nothing but slow the game down. Large blast, ok. But small blast? No.
5. Walkers. All current AV walkers become T/W walkers. They work better that way.
6. Area Terrain. Have it completely block LOS from one side to the other. This means there are more things that generally block LOS completely, rather than seeing models through the crack of a window on the other side of a set of ruins. Again, speeds things up.

And I'd do something about aircraft. I don't like their implementation. The games can get too focused on them, and armies without anti-air cover are basically at the mercy of air-heavy armies (which are too easy to do). Air craft should be a supporting element of a ground force, not the main push in a game that focuses on ground skirmishes.

Can someone please make a version of 40k that is more balanced at ~400 points so that I can play a game in a lunch break without drowning in my rulebook and codex? Oh and is it possible to somehow condense army rules/lists a bit in order to capture the core principles behind an army's playing style, without having tons of clunky 'flavor' rules that create extra rolls and randomness there seemingly just to clog the game up?

Thanks.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


1. Hull Points. These are my single most hated thing in the game. I'd remove them completely. Get a Glance? Roll on the chart with a -2. Anything 0 or less counts as "no effect", because your shot glanced off the armour.

5. Walkers. All current AV walkers become T/W walkers. They work better that way.

Hull points was a move in the right direction majorly botched as usual, option 5 should be the same for all vehicles, there is no real reason why vehicles should be different than monstrous creatures, or put it in another way, not have the same profile with the rest of the units.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Personally i dislike how you can only target one unit. In my opinion squads should have an area of effect for their shooting for X amount of models.
So for example 10 guardsmen have a "large blast" sized area of effect, when they shoot they place the large blast anywhere in their range. You roll to hit like normal but wounds are taken from the models within the "area of effect" like normal. so if the area of effect goes over 3 different squads then all those squads can be effected. (but only those MODELS under the blast)

Umm... what, sorry thats just, I don't even have a word for it. Either let every model in a unit pick who they want to shoot or every weapon line in a unit pick who they want to shoot.

I mean in smaller scaled games shooting is done on a model by model basis during the unit's activation, which gets around this issue, but with an boyz mob or a blob squad, that could get tedious

Well, it looks like we have a crew of people ready to playtest!!
So...
In the interest of getting the ball rolling, lets throw around what we want and dont want.. based strictly upon reasonable arguements and counterpoints brought up by folks on this thread.

Wants :
1. Alternating turns - In essence we would like to see both players active in the turn.
2. Balance of stat line versus effect in game - WS 10 should mean something!!
3. Straight forward 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 mechanics.
4. Easy to play - not necessarily dumb mechanics, just easy mechanics to learn and implement with a minimal of reference.
5. One mechanic for all resoloution of combat - whether it is man v. man or man v. machine or machine v. machine.
6. Game play that fits the narrative.
7. To be able to use our current collection of models and play a game that can range from a few figs in a skirmish to a table full of machines blasting away at each other.

Dont Want :
1. An encyclopedia of rules.
2. Alpha Strike game enders.
3. Rules that change to encourage model sales.
4. Static turns of inaction.

That being said, I propose we come up with a system similar to the old Epic rules in which Orders are issued, and actions are "Interruptable" with a reaction system.
Close combat is quick and bloody with a definate resoloution at end of turn ( ala Flames of War style ).
Vehicles and Infantry have the same method of destruction, but each is capable of effecting one another to a major or lesser degree.
Flyers should be given orders rather than being able to zip into a series of 180' turns in the length of less than 100 yards.
Any other thoughts im missing ?

To the OP:

I really like this idea (only read the first page so I have not read any further pages ahead atm), as I have been thinking on this myself on re-writing the rulebook for 40k...

I can help with core rules and The CSM/CD/Traitor Guard codex's and Orks if you would like to include me in this project just shoot me a PM

Personally I think with Core rules it should be more inclusive but with the same turn sequence such as fist player movement phase, second players movement phase, first players shooting phase and so on..

I would say give vehicles a statline like a dreadnought/MC does (but double the wounds/HP if you shoot the rear armour) and if your going to include HP double the amount they already have.

I would also suggest the AP mechanism to work similarly to the Str modifier chart to WHFB, I personally would use it like this:

AP 5+ = 0
AP 4 = -1 to the targets armour save
AP 3 = -2
AP 2 = -3
AP 1 = -4

If the AP value forces the armour save to go beyond a 6 then the target is not allowed an armour save, remove the target model.

I would also suggest a split fire mechanism with only heavy weapon guys in a normal squad for example you have a squad of marines all with bolters except one guy with a missile launcher, and the guy with the heavy weapon can fire at a different target (so whilst some marines will fore into a squad the Missile launcher can fire at a nearby tank for example), the only time this would not apply is when you have a squadron of heavy weapons guys, to keep is simple, fast and fair imo.

Fixed charge distances like back in 5th ed, I personally really don't like the 2D6 charge mechanism they have done for 6th.

I would also use an extensive amount of modifiers instead of random dice to keep it fast paced

All this is just my opinion, hope this helps

Swastakowey - Indeed, the shooting would be in that one mechanic as well.
And I agree with you , my Warp Spiders are Tank hunters supreme but cant kill a Fire Warrior for squat!!

I would propose the following alternative to arrive at a SINGLE damage resolution process.

(Roll to hit based on TARGETS 'Stealth value' for ranged attacks , and 'Assault value' for close combat.Similar to FoW)

ARMOUR SAVE ROLL.
ADD a D6 to the models Armour value.(Extend vehicle AV down to cover infantry.Values of 1 to 14 )
IF this is higher than the Attackers weapon hit Armour Piercing value , the target passes the armour save roll.NO DAMAGE or further action taken.

This means heavy armour makes the target immune to some ranged weapons .Eg a main battle tank is immune to small calibre pistol and rifle /smg shots.

(But usually the same heavy armour makes the unit less agile , and at a dis advantage in assault.Especially if the heavy armoured unit is out numbered / swarmed by
more agile foes.)

IF the target fails the armour save roll.
Compare the targets 'Resilience' value (T) to the weapons (*modified) Damage(S)value .

If the Resilience value is HIGHER than the (*modified) Damage value the unit is suppressed but not damaged physically.

If the Damage value is Higher than the targets Resilience value the target takes damage.
Loose one wound/structure point if
Damage value is over the target Resilience value , but less than DOUBLE the target Resilience value.

Lose two wound/structure points if
The Damage value is at least DOUBLE the target Resilience value up to TRIPLE the targets Resilience value.

Automaticaly killed destroyed if.
The Damage value is over TRIPLE the targets resilience value.

(*The damage value can be modified by how much the target failed its armour save roll by , to give a 'penetration bonus' as an option.)

If over half the models in a unit are suppressed /removed as casualties the unit becomes suppressed.(Shaken)

This single resolution method covers ALL units, and gets rid of the clutter of special rules that current 40k has .
Simply because it compares numerical values directly , and we can use what ever values we need.As we are NOT restricted to the roll of a D6 to determine results.

Why are you talking about what damage mechanic to use when you haven't even figured out basic things like "what size will the average game be" or "is this a simulation game or an abstracted game", or decided on a formal structure for your development process? Throwing around random ideas in a forum thread is just wasting time.

(And yes, it matters. A single damage mechanic is a great idea if you want an abstracted game where fast and simple gameplay is the priority and the focus is on the fluff experience the players imagine together, but it's a terrible idea if you want a simulation game where you want to accurately represent what would happen in the 'real' battle.)

Is the OP still active on this? seems like this actually has a little ground but not a whole lot of orginization. Also sounds like everyone agrees that a "balancing" what work, where a rewrite is really in order. FarseerAndyMan seems to have a good lead on this so far and i would like to help. Has anyone started a file with the collected information?

@Perigrine.
The most detailed simulation war game I play ,(Firefly WWII 300th scale simulation.)
Has very simple resolution methods ,BUT uses lots of modifiers to get the level of detail .(over 20 modifiers for artillery bombardment!)

IF you look at most GOOD simulations they follow the nature of the interaction of REAL world events and recreate them in a simple way.
Simply using a Dice roll to represent variables in the interaction, and modifiers to cover situational adjustments.

Where 40k rules falls down is it uses D6 to determine the entire interaction, and restricts it , to the point where other resolution methods and rules have to be added.(resulting in messy over complicated and counter-intuitive rules.)


I agree the scale and scope of the game should be defined.

If we use the current game size (company level , ?) and assume game play that it should be in synergy with (simple) simulation of modern warfare.(An equal balance of mobility , fire power and assault.)As the units in 40k map on to modern warfare units in terms of deployment and function closer than ancient warfare.

This is what 40k should be IMO.
Because there are lots of excellent skirmish games for 20mm minis and up.And loads of great battle games for 15mm minis and smaller.And NO good rules for 28mm heroic battle games .AFAIK.

And if we define UNIT interaction in enough detail.Single model units and multiple model units can be used .
The skirmish variant of the game just uses infantry as single model units, and the battle game vehicles and MCs as single model units and infantry etc,as multiple model units

Here is the latest WIP alternative 40k rule set we have been working on.Its completely based on intended game play, using ideas from good battle games , and up scaled to 28mm .
there may be some concepts or ideas that might be useful ?

Cool stuff mate.

waiting to hear from the OP if hes still around for this. Ive got some ideas to help kick start this a bit more so we could start getting published version of the rules put out, and actually get this moving along. it could work but needs structure and folks to help. got the folks just need to get the foundation set.

IF we are doing a complete re-write of 40k.
Should we start a new thread in the proposed rules section ?

I think the first thing we should define is the intended game play .(WHFB in space, or Epic Armageddon with larger minatures and more detail.).

Then discus the basic game mechanics and resolution methods we can use.
I would like to use no more than 2 resolution methods other than direct representation*.(*maximum range of movement /weapons, or number of dice rolled.)

Because most good games only use 2 or 3 in total.

Just a thought.

Oh just as an additional note.
IF you want to use AP values in a similar way to the current rules.
Just let the AP value ignore save roll dice of that value or higher.

Eg
AP 6 , discard dice rolls that roll a natural 6.(-1 armour save.)
AP 5 , discard dice rolls that roll a natural 5 or 6(-2 armour save.)
AP 4 , dicard dice rolls that roll a natural 4 ,5,or 6.(-3 armour save.)
AP 3 discard dice rolls that roll a natural 3,4,5or 6. (-4 armour save.)

Eg a Ork in mega armour with armour save roll of 2+ is hit by an AP 3 weapon, he ONLY saves on a roll of 2. (Rolls of 3 ,4,5,or 6 are negated by the AP value of the AP 3 weapon.)

(This way we can use 1+ saves , but would need to re evaluate AP value and weapon /armour costing.)

This gives exactly the same effect as the old armour modifiers , but is more intuitive and easier to implement.(Remove dice rolls of a set value .)

OP -- you still out there?

I like your ideas Lanrak!!

my group and i meet on wednesdays...well give them a run next week..