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.

@Martel732.
If you simplify the rules to exclude the variety of units already in 40k, it is a massive disservice to the veteran players, (and even veteran collectors?)Who have invested heavily in to 40k.(I do not give a flying gak about GW plc sales departments push to pedal plastic crack. )

I agree the 40k rules need to be totally re worked , focusing on the intended game play.

The current problems with the rules are ;-
1) Lack of player interaction.

2) Abstraction of resolution methods and results.

3) Over simplification of core rules , forcing the inclusion of exceptions and additions to core rules of a magnitude ridiculed by every one outside GW towers.!

4) Overly restrictive use of a D6 , forcing the need for multiple resolution systems.

Switching to a D10 system is only a simple 'work around' of issue 4. it may improve some issues , but leave other core issues unaddressed.

And I believe it is totally unnecessary to increase the dice size used in 40k. IF you fix all the other issues with the rules/game play.

And the other issue is 40k players do not like radical changes to the rules.So I would prefer to start with a re write that has familiar elements associated with 40k game play.
Using D6, players taking turns, and a three stage damage resolution.(Also the use of only 2 resolution methods not half a dozen. )

I don't think you can fix those issues on the D6 system.

@Martel732.

The first issue is a game mechanic issue.(I think most would be OK with using an alternating phase game turn in this re write.)

The second and third issues are just poor game development.
In the rush to make the core rules look easy to learn, GW abstracted the resolution to the point the results became abstracted too.

For example the to hit process should cover the skill and disposition of the attacker and the skill and disposition of the target.

In 40k only ONE out of those FOUR factors is part of the core to hit resolution in 40k!
So after rolling to hit and hitting the target,if the target is behind cover, it gets to roll a dice to see if you did not actually hit it after all..

After rolling to wound, the target rolls to save, if successful, the armour magically sucks the bullets out, heals the wounds and self repairs ...

Using the to hit as a prime example of over simplification making the rules more complicated , any target that is harder to hit has to have special rules.(Jink invisible, etc.)

And finally the current rules for 40k , only uses a fraction of the results a D6 could provide.
If we fully utilize all the values of a D6 in a comparative table allowing auto suceed, and auto fail.
We could get over 200 results that are proportional and intuitive.

Yes, but incrementing by 10% is so much better than 16.6%.

If the only issue was the increment of chance the dice roll gives.
Then I would argue that a 5% increment a D 20 gives is twice as good as a D10.
And the 1% increment a D100 gives you is ten times better than the 10% increment a D10 delivers.

If this was the only issue all games would be using D100s. As this is obviously not the case , all good game design has to consider all elements of the game play first.
And when all the game mechanics and resolution methods are deemed to be 'ideally suited to the game play'.
Then the game designers look at the most appropriate size dice for the game play.

The volume and frequency of the dice rolls , are a major factor in the game play.

If for example the game is a deatailed skirmish with 6 elements per side.
Each combat could roll a D100 per element , to attack and to defend.
For a total of 24 dice rolls per game turn.

However, even in a 'rationalized' game of 40k hoard armies are going to be rolling over 20 dice three times per combat ,per unit.
(Reduced from over 60 dice three times per combat per unit!)

That can be over 300 dice per game turn.(Orks vs Nids.) And some players like rolling hand fulls of dice, that is why they play hoard armies.
(Quantity has a quality all of its own. )

And this is where the humble D6 cube beats all other polygon shapes for stacking in to easily to handle blocks.And easy read dot patterns fast read better than numbers at odd angles.

If we were just rolling one dice per unit in 40k, then I could see the benefit of using larger dice size.
But as most players want to roll one dice per model (attack).
The volume and frequency of dice rolls in the 40k game play favors the D6.

If a car has poor performance and handling.
You could just put a bigger engine in it and hope for the best.

Or you could look at things like power to weight ratios, power distribution, drive chain efficiency, chassis integrity,suspension settings etc.

And find out a better designed car , would not need a bigger engine, if the chassis was strong enough, the drive chain was efficient enough, power distribution was balanced enough, and the power to weight ratio was improved.

If after addressing all the issues with the core rules , there is not enough increment of chance in a system that fully utilizes the D 6.
I would be happy to use larger dice sizes.

Hi folks.
I realize it may appear I am arguing against lots of ideas put forward by other posters.

My main concern is in the drive to put the rules to 40k 'on the right track ',we may not fully consider all the issues 40k rules have accumulated over the last few decades.And make choices that appear to solve a particular issue when looked at in isolation, while ignoring the impact they may have on other parts of the game play.(As the team of professional developers at GW towers have done this on several occasions, it is an easy oversight to make.I am very wary of this and I am trying to avoid these sorts of missteps, where possible. )

I am arguing for the minimum amount of change, that correct to flaws with the 40k core rules (game mechanics and resolution method level.)
As a starting point for the new rules to be developed from.This is not the finished rule set, just a 'neutral' starting point we might agree to all work from?

If we are cautious and change just enough to cover the main flaws in the core rules in a comprehensive way. Then we get a stable foundation to build the game play on.

If after play testing , things are found to need to be changed,then I am happy to discuss alternatives and change things as needed.Or indeed split the new core rules set into different groups to be developed with different game play focus if that is what people want to do.

I am very aware my desire for a well defined tactically deep, and intuitive modern battle game rule set for 40k is not shared by everyone.
GW have shoe horned at least 4 game play types into one big mess of a rule set to try to appeal to everyone.So the sort of game play other people want can be very different from my ideal.

But I am trying to 'lock down' a basic foundation core rule set , that delivers the 40k game play described in the background .In the most intuitive and well defined way.
This would give the rules development the best foundation to be built from, no matter what end game play different people wanted to end up with.


I admit I am influenced by my 12 years working on advanced weapon systems at R.O.F. as a conformance engineer.Functional requirement is imperative, after this is achieved you can get 'clever' with system streamlining, and tailoring systems to suit specific requirements

Would you like a review of what we have agreed on so far Future War Cultist?

There's a thought...one dice per unit? Would that be best saved for something on the epic scale?

Also, how do you guys want to handle difficult and dangerous terrain?

@Future War Cultist.
Yes, exactly , battle games using 15mm and smaller minatures on 'blob squad' bases, tend to roll dice per base, not dice per minature on the base.

If 40K was played with smaller scale minatures it would probably have rules as good as Epic. Becasue it would be Epic.

I would like 'difficult terrain' to simply reduce movement value by 2".

And 'very difficult terrain' to cause the unit moving thought/ into it, to 'lose' a movement action .
EG
Move up to normal move value.(too dangerous to run.)
OR
Shoot.(Non ordnance weapon only. terrain too unstable to fire 'move or shoot' weapons.)
OR
Assault units within normal movement range.(Not allowed to run into assault )

'Randum movement' slows down the game and is a poor alternative to tactical game play.

Yes, let's take the randomness out of it!

My idea was the unit simply halves it's movement when moving through rough terrain. Fliers (and bare in mind, this includes skimmers, jump infantry etc.) can just move straight over them. With some sort of dangerous terrain test. Say, roll 2D6 against their evasion like a leadership test and if they fail they suffer a mortal wound or, something.

We can work this out!

@Future War Cultist.
If you want to only use even numbers for movement rates.
Eg
4" for slow infantry.
6" for standard infantry and vehicles.
8" for fast infantry.
10" for fast vehicles.
12" for bikes and skimmers.

Then halving movement speed is fine, for 'difficult terrain'.

But if we want to use odd numbers like 3, 5 and 7.It makes it slightly more complicated as we have to round up or down.
(Ill keep the movement modifiers dependent on mobility type and terrain,for more advanced rules. )

If a unit has jumped over/flown over the difficult terrain,why would it need a difficult terrain test?

I would prefer to follow the examples of more 'sensible ' rule sets, and use 'difficult terrain' slows the unit down.(Half movement speed as you suggested. )

Replace 'Dangerous terrain', with 'Very Difficult terrain.'
Very Difficult terrain does more than slow the unit down , it restricts what actions the unit can take as they struggle to negotiate the dangerous elements . (As suggested in my previous post.)

You don't need to round up or down for half movement (i.e. it's possible to move 3.5 inches, while it's not possible to roll a 2.5 on the dice).

@wraithbalor.
Yes you are absolutely right.The rounding up /minimum move of 1" convention is only used where movement rates are halved for difficult, quartered for very difficult terrain.And often have movement reduced by fractions for other factors.(Over encumbered, suppressed, dispersed, etc.)

If we are using half speed for difficult terrain, and reduced action options for very difficult terrain , rounding up is not needed.
(Over sight on my part, thanks to one too many beers. )

On the subject of movement , is everyone happy with performing all movement in the movement phase?
This coupled with removal of dice rolling for random movement improved the speed of game play quite a bit.

Eg Simply determine the action the unit is going to take in the movement phase.

'Advance' , move then shoot.(Only use 'move and fire' attacks in the shooting phase.)

'Charge' , move up to double rate into assault.(No ranged attacks)

'Run' move up to double movement rate.(No ranged attacks , not charging into assault.)

'Fire support'.remain stationary, and fire to full effect.(Fire all weapons including 'ordnance' and gain any ranged attack bonuses for not moving.)

'Go to ground.' Move then take cover/ go hull down.(Increase Evasion by 1)

This simple selection of tactical actrion choices seems to work really well in our play tests.Is there any 'actions' I have missed out. that you would like to include?

I like your ideas Lanrak! I can't think of another action myself, apart from psychic powers.

I had a thought. Would it help to keep things simple and speed it up too if actions that prevented you from doing another action were all down together? So that we avoid players accidentally performing illegal moves. I've done it myself a couple of times.

@Future War Cultist.
You posted..

Would it help to keep things simple and speed it up too if actions that prevented you from doing another action were all down together?

I am not sure what you mean by this?

We have been using 'order counters'.(In a similar way to 'order dice' in B.A and Epic Armageddon.)

Eg temporarily just bits of paper with 'Advance','Charge', 'Run,' 'Fire', and 'Hide', written on them.(We simply put the order counter next to the unit as we decide what they are going to do.)

We then remove the order counter and replace is with a 'Pinned' counter when the unit becomes suppressed.

This lets us keep track of what actions units are going to take, and which units have been suppressed.(Our short term memory is often impaired by beer when we play. )

@ Lanrak

I'm sorry, I should have been clearer.

What I meant was, should things like running, shooting and going to ground all be done in the same phase because you can only do one (unless your data card says otherwise) to avoid incidences of the player performing illegal moves and the like.

But this order counters idea would probably help with that.

Y'all,

I've been following this for a while and wanted to try and summarize what I've gathered.

- I-phase you-phase (I-unit you-unit can become difficult with the vast differences in unit numbers between players)
- Model Stats
o Movement
o Ranged Skill
o Ranged Dodge/Evasion
o Melee Skill
o Melee Dodge/Evasion (or just one Dodge/Evasion)
o Armor*
o Toughness/Resilience
o Hit Points/Wounds/Hull Points
o Size/Bulk (use a separate stat or base upon others?)
o Morale/Leadership
- Weapon Stats
o Range
o Attacks
o AP*
o Damage
o Notes
- Damage Resolution
o Three Roll Damage Resolution (RS v RD, AP v Ar, Dam v Res for example)
 Stats with * are needed for 3 roll but not 2 roll
o Two Roll Damage Resolution (RS v RD, Dam v Res)
- All movement in the movement phase
- Two methods of resolution possible
o Utilize a single opposed value table to generate dice roll requirements
o Roll+value >= (or just > ) target (looks like this one is the choice)
- Unit cards
o Unit stats
o Weapon stats
o Opposite side: Points cost, upgrades, FOC options?
- Actions decided in movement phase, i.e.
o Advance (move then shoot ‘assault’ weapons)
o Charge (move 2x into CC range – defined as ….)
o Run (move 2x, must be farther than …. From enemy units)
o Fire Support (no movement, fire all weapons, some types may get bonuses)
o Hide (move 1x and Evasion +1)
- Some type of suppression mechanic
- Psychic powers, back to 5th using Ld, cast during appropriate phase?


Is this roughly what everyone thinks is going on so far?

@ wraith aloe

Yep, that's pretty much it!

The idea is to get as much out of the game as possible from a models core stats rather than needing extra rules like jink etc. And to do away with randomness and just keep it simple. Case in point, difficult terrain simply cutting movement by half rather than rolling for it.

@wraithbalor.
Good summary.

However,
The 'Run' option is just a double move , that is not into close combat .

I would like to use three stage damage resolution to start with , as it is familiar to current players.

The suppression mechanic I would like to start with is based on failed saves.

If a model fails its save roll it becomes suppressed.
If over half the models in a unit become suppressed,(fail their saves.) The unit becomes suppressed.

This is a simple rule that treats armour value as a measure of 'unit confidence', as generally better quality troops in 40k tend to have better armour .
Leadership dictates how quickly a unit recovers from suppresion.

EG Veteran IG caught in an artillery bombardment would dive for cover, just as quick as a White Shield unit.But the Veteran unit, would identify the type of artillery and direction of fire, and re act appropriately much quicker than ordinary IG units.The white shields would probably keep thier heads down much longer, and be slower to react appropriately, in comparison.

At one end of the scale we have 'single models with high armour' (eg tanks) that need high AP value weapons to affect them.(Suppress or physical damage.)

And at the other end we have 'hoard units' tend to have quantity of models over higher armour.So an Ork boys mob needs high rate of fire to suppress it , rather than high Ap weapons.

And as the variation or armour across units is incremental, this simple suppression rule works well with all the units in 40k, we have play tested. And give proportional results across this range.

I would like to use psychic powers in appropriate phases like they did in 5th ed, as a starting point.

As Future War Cultist said, it all about getting the unit stats and weapon data to deliver the bulk of game play.
With a reasonable amount of special rules to define a few actual special abilities.

@Future War Cultist

Half-distance movement is how we do it in Heralds of Ruin, and it works fairly well. Reducing randomness for randomness sake is a worthy goal.

@Lanrak

Thanks! Yup, for run the ... would simply be 1 inch (i.e. specifying that you can't get into close combat) unless we wan to change the distances required. I know AoS uses 3" and that works fairly well.

What happens when a model gets suppressed but the unit doesn't? What does suppression do?

I too think that we should start with 3 stage resolution, simply because it gives a touch-stone to current players. That would leave us with stats of
- Movement
- Ranged Attack Skill
- Ranged Defense Skill
- Melee Attack Skill
- Melee Defense Skill
- Armor
- Resilience
- Hit Points
- Size
- Leadership
With weapons having
- Range
- Armor Piercing
- Damage
- Notes (as needed)

The rolls would be
- Skill v. Defense (attacker rolls)
- Armor v. AP (defender rolls)
- Damage v. Resilience (attacker rolls)
again to maintain the touchstone of both players roll something in an attack. Thus you could fail the Armor save (and become suppressed) but still not take damage ("tis but a flesh wound"). Which mechanic should we use for the rolls, target number or look-up table?

For psychic powers: I think it'd be good to change witchfires into just a ranged weapon, so we're not adding another stage (or two) to the resolution, as this is why current witchfires are so bad. What type of mechanic should we use for other abilities (i.e. buffs, debuffs)? We could go back to a simple leadership test or implement something like casting values from AoS or make something completely different.

Once we've got the basics down, how many armies should we try to stat out? Probably fairly straightforward to do 2-3 armies, but only a small number of units in each, to work on playtesting the mechanics. From there we could start adding more units to each codex until we get a decent number and then more playtesting.

What kind of range do we want to use? (i.e. Ranged attack skill goes from 1-10, then Ranged defense should go from 2-17, where 2 is always hit and 17 is impossible to hit, unless we want 16 where the best shot ever will hit very rarely, but it isn't impossible, or even 14 where the best shot will always have at least a 50% chance of hitting)

Lanrak said:The suppression mechanic I would like to start with is based on failed saves.

If a model fails its save roll it becomes suppressed.
If over half the models in a unit become suppressed,(fail their saves.) The unit becomes suppressed.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but if a model fails its save, isn't it dead 95% of the time?

Furthermore, shouldn't suppression be based on firepower, not on damage? If I fire 100 heavy bolters at a unit, even if they all miraculously miss or fail to wound, that would be effective at suppression.

@wraithbalor.
We simply assume if the majority of the models in the unit are not suppressed, they automatically rally the rest of the models in the unit.

EG Suppression only happens if over half the models in the unit fail their armour save.

We were play testing the following.

Suppressed units may not Charge, but count as 'Gone to ground'.+1 to Evasion stat.

When units are suppressed they may take the following actions only.
A)Move up to normal movement rate .(But may not make any ranged attacks).

B) Make a ranged attack , counting as having moved.(May not actually move.)

(I am not sure why we need a size stat?Do you mean number of models in the unit?I was going to use a split stat on the hit point line eg 10 /1 = ten models one wound each)

I agree the Roll to hit,(attacker) Roll to save (defender) Roll to cause damage (Attacker.) Gives a interleaved damage resolution,which mimic the alternating phases.
(We can alter it if needed after more play testing. )

I would like psychic powers to be treated as ranged or close combat attacks if successfully cast. And the buff/ de buff type powers could be rolled for at the start of the relevant game phase?

I think it is best if we get the basics working right first though.

Here is a universal resolution table we were play testing.(Repeated from the first page.)

A = Active player ,(rolling the dice) Stat.
O= opposing player. stat.

A/O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1....,4,4,5,5,6,6,n,n.n,n
2.....3.4.4.5.5.6.6.n.n.n.
3.....3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.n.n.
4.....2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.n.
5.....2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.
6.....1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.
7.....1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.
8.....1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5
9.....1.1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4
10...1.1.1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.
(n= no effect,)

If players are used to looking up opposing stats on a table for the score they need to succeed in the current 40k rules.
Would this be another 'touchstone' we could use?

I can explain how it works in more detail if you like?

I have no problem with using stat +D6 vs opposing stat as target score,if people prefer this method over using a table.

There are loads of ways to simplify 40K and I've glanced through the pages here (awful lot to keep track of). I think you're heading in the right direction for most of the elements.

A movement stat is far simpler than any other form of locomotion mechanic (and it's extremely easy to reduce movement by half for difficult terrain etc.). If you need some ideas, consider looking into 2nd edition for movement stats so you don't have to create all of them yourself.

A D10 would be great but would increase the workload substantially.

I'd suggest a change to activation if that's something you're open to.

I think one thing to remember is that you're not trying to match 40K perfectly...but deliver the feel and a similar outcome to a situation. You can waste a lot of time trying to mirror the exact results of an encounter with 40K. If the outcome is slightly different? Big deal. If it "feels" like 40K you're probably on the right track.

I've been playing Kiddiehammer with my nephew and despite coming up with a ruleset in about a day, it actually delivers the exact "feel" of 40K and is a great mimic game for a younger kid. A test game should flow and feel like a 40K game - then you're headed in the right direction.

@Lanrak

A universal table works great. Makes it fairly easy to memorize (i.e. you don't have the issues we have now where people try to apply the S v T table to WS).

The only thing with treating the psychic powers as a ranged attack after casting is that adds another layer of failure to them (i.e. as a Nid player I get really annoyed at Warp Blast, as it currently has 5 points of failure, as compared to a normal shooting attack with only 3). If they are replacing your normal shooting attack (like in 5th/6th) then I think the act of casting should count as the to Hit roll.

The only question I have on your table is why a 4 is needed if the opponents stat is 1 higher (rather than 1 lower, or just equal as current)?

How many codexs should we start with? Probably should pick a model as baseline and stat them, then vary from there.

Also size was partially just to count for transport capacity as all infantry type models have a special rule describing how much they take up if more than 1. We might also be able to get away from TLOS using more abstract terrain rules and size together (i.e. a grassland is soft cover size 2, so size 2 and below models get the soft cover bonus, while larger don't. A ruin could be hard cover size 4, size 4 and below gets the hard cover mod, above size 4 gets soft cover mod, something like that).

"A D10 would be great but would increase the workload substantially. "

I think it's important to be able to demonstrate a difference between terminator armor, power armor, and aspect armor. It also allows us to make marines tougher than Orks, as they should be.

Hi folks..
@Rav1rn.
In the new damage resolution armour saves are rolled before damage rolls.(More intuitive order.)
I have not played 40k much since the end of 5th ed.But last time I looked the majority of weapons were S3 or S4. And the majority of models were T3 or T4.

Which meant most failed saved resulted in a wound about 50% of the time.(Wound on a 3+4+ or 5+)
And the whole point on including suppression was to allow units to be effected by incoming fire, without having to kill most of the models.

To model the effects of suppression fully you have to look at volume,accuracy, and effectiveness of fire, compared to confidence protection and disposition of the target.

Other war games can simply divide the level of protection between soft and hard targets.
Hard targets(AFVs) base suppression of beating the armour.(Bailed out).

As soft targets have no protection worth speaking about. Suppression (Pinning), is rated purely on density of threat /area effect of the weapons used.

However, as 40k has graduated levels of armour across all units, simply pretending all anti infantry weapon effect all infantry the same , from a Got to a Terminator, gives several WTF results.

Focusing on weapon threat to target is the only way to get 40k suppression to cover the diversity of units in 40k as simply as possible .AFAIK.
The armour value vs the weapon AP value can be used in this way , to arrive a proportional results for suppression.

@Elbows.
I totally agree.

@wraithbalor.
I did not make it clear.
My intention was the 'psychic power casting roll', replaced the 'to hit roll' for psychic powers that act like ranged attacks or close combat attacks.

EG (Made up power for 'Hammer Hand.')
if the model with' Hammer Hand' psychic ability wishes to use the power instead of a normal close combat attack.

The model rolls to cast the power.if successful the targeted model suffers one AP 6 Damage 10 hit.
If the model fails to cast the power successfully, it can not make any other attacks that phase.
(Critical failure =perils from the Warp>Critical success= double the number of hits.)

The values in the universal resolution table was just a starting point.(I wanted to structure the table to give fewer 'no effect' result to start with.As the majority of the units stat values would be in the lower half of the table.)
I am happy to adjust value as needed when we play test a bit more.

I was thinking of using Evasion (which includes the target size ,) to cover those sort of factors.

Eg
'Heavy Infantry' with evasion below 4 take up 2 spaces in a transport.

Long grass is 'cover 5' .Units with Evasion values of 5 or more can claim cover while in it.

As the vertical and horizontal scales are so different in 40k, I think a more abstract system that uses unit stats and cover values is the way to go.

I would like to start with basic units from non powered armour factions first.
Maybe ,IG, Orks Eldar and Nids?

I do not want to skew the balance of the game by making the game play 'Space Marine centric' like GW have.
@Martel.
You posted..

I think it's important to be able to demonstrate a difference between terminator armor, power armor, and aspect armor. It also allows us to make marines tougher than Orks, as they should be.

I totally agree with this sentiment.
Its just using the stat range from 1 to 10 fully , to give proportional results , for a score needed on a D6.
Is more practical for a game like 40k IMO.

I would like to see if using a D6 fully, gives enough variation to cover the game play we want.Before we move to using larger dice sizes.

Thinking about what Martel said, we may have to increase the table size, maybe 15 per side, to fully get the ability to go from a grot to a Land Raider to a Bio-Titan in both Armor and Resilience.

Starting with non-power armor factions first sounds good. I can do Nids, as I play them almost exclusively and have helped write fan-dex's for them before.

For psychics: Yup, we're on the same page.

For size: That'll work if we're still using unit types, i.e. infantry v. monstrous creature, to define who can get into transports.

Awesome that we agree on abstracting cover and stats! TLOS has always annoyed me.

@wraithbalor.
I am happy to up the scale of the universal resolution table to 1 to 20 if needed to cover all the super heavies and titans in Apoc type games.

However, as the new resolution is proportional and not FUBAR like current 40k rules have become.I would like to see what we can cover with stats of 1 to 10 first.

As I was not happy with the way GW shoe horned Apoc type units and flyers into the standard 40k game.I would like to 're set' to 4th and 5th ed sized games to start with.As this appears to be the most popular game size from all the polls I have looked at.

After we get this basic game size working right we can look at adding in the 'big toys' .


General notes on play testing so far..
In the limited play tests we have managed, we have found that the unit sizes run fine at ..
5 model elite infantry squads, 10 model standard infantry squads, and 20 model hoard infantry squads.

Simply because the new shooting resolution is not quite as effective at killing models, as it is at suppressing units. So units do not need to have so many 'ablative wounds' to survive.

Also we are using a a rough conversion method of current 40k stats to the new system.(Just to get starting values. )

Toughness = Resilience.

Wounds = hit points, (Number of models can be in the description of a split stat on Hit points.)(Vehicle hull points= new hit points?)

Armour, 1 pip of current save = 1 Armour point.
EG 6+ = Armour 1, 2+ save= Armour 5.

Current vehicle armour AV 14 = Armour 10 AV 10 +Armour 6.
I realize this means that Terminators are now in the same armour class as light vehicles , but maybe they should be?

BS and WS add 1 to get the new Ranged attack and Melee attack skills.

Initiative adds 1 to become the new Melee defense skill.(Dodge?)

This leaves Ranged Defense skill, and leadership to give values to.

Do you want to start with 2nd ed movement rates?(3",4" and 5" for infantry.Or would you prefer 2nd ed +1 eg 4",5",and 6".2nd ed movement rates seemed to be too slow in lots of peoples opinion so we sort of adopted 2nd ed +1 as a starting point.)

Would you like to use the Morale grade concept,(EG roll over the units morale grade on a d6 for a leadership test?)

Weapons
Range as current.
AP to give current save value for Resilience 4 .
Damage as current Strength.
Attacks.as current number of shots/attacks.or blast size/template.
Notes =weapon type and any special abilities.

So in our conversion the bog standard human IG trooper.

Movement 5"
Ranged Skill 4
Evasion 6 (PBI need to dodge bullets to survive!)
Melee Skill 4
Dodge 4
Armour 2
Resilience 3
Wounds (10)/1
Morale 3

Combat knife. 0-2", Attacks 1,AP 3, Dam 3, One handed . Close combat only.
lasrifle............2"-24" ,Attacks 1 ,AP 3 Dam 3,Rapid fire*.

*Note Rapid fire weapons may double rate of fire if the unit remains stationary.
I would like to bring this rule back , to promote more tactical difference between moving and shooting.

An Ork boy..
Movement 5"
Ranged skill 3
Evasion 5
Melee skill 6
Dodge 3
Armour 1
Resilience 4
Wounds (20)/1
Morale 3

Choppa 0-2", Attacks 2, AP4, Dam 4, One handed Close combat only .
Shoota, 2"-18", Attacks 2 , AP4, Dam 4.

I thought units that could be transported had transport options listed in their unit entry?If this is the case do we need to use unit types to define if units can be transported of not?
Apologies if I have misunderstood the issue ...

@Lanrak

Scaling: Sounds good to me. This is also useful in that we can (after some thought) rescale everything 1-10, rather than being limited to 1-6 for things like Strength and Toughness.

Morale: That works. Adds more randomness to it, but not too much (i.e. its now a uniform distribution rather than a normal distribution).

Movement: Probably should start at 2nd +1, with some variation on that possible (i.e. Slow and Purposeful models might only have a Mv of 3" to start, or something like that).

Ok, good starting point for conversion, then we can make some modifications as we see how things fall out (to make the differences between Artificer and Terminator armor apparent for example).

Here's a WAG at a termigaunt, hormagant, and a warrior

Termigant
Movement 6"
Ranged Skill 5
Evasion 6
Melee Skill 4
Dodge 5
Armor 1
Resilience 3
Wounds (20)/1
Morale 5
Notes: Instinctive Behavior

Scything talons 0-2", Attacks 1, AP3 Dam 3, CC only
Fleshborer 2-12", Attacks 1, AP4, Dam 4
Devourer 2-18", Attacks 3, AP3, Dam 4 (upgrade)

Hormagaunt
Movement 7" (Hormies should be very fast infantry)
Ranged Skill 4 (they have BS 3 for some reason)
Evasion 6
Melee Skill 5 (gave +2 to WS, but they should be higher than termies)
Dodge 6
Armor 1
Resilience 3
Wounds (20)/1
Morale 5
Notes: Instinctive Behavior

Scything talons 0-2", Attacks 2, AP3 Dam 3, CC only

Warrior
Movement 5"
Ranged Skill 4
Evasion 4
Melee Skill 6
Dodge 5
Armor 3
Resilience 4
Wounds (5)/3
Morale 1
Notes: Synapse- All friendly units with Instinctive Behavior within 12" of a unit with Synapse are treated as having Morale 0.

Scything talons 0-2", Attacks 3, AP3 Dam 4, CC only
Devourer 2-18", Attacks 3, AP4, Dam 4
Deathspitter 2-18", Attacks 3, AP4, Dam 5
Barbed Strangler 2-36", Attacks 5", AP4, Dam 4 Pinning

How do those look, as starting points?

I may be mis-remembering the transport rules, as I don't use them very often (Nids don't have vehicles!). This is a good starting point.

Not sure how we want to deal with pinning, though was thinking something like "Pinning weapons treat every failed armor save as 2 failures for the purposes of suppressing units"

I want to just mention a personal bugbear of the 40K (and Fantasy) system, even if you choose to in the end, to do nothing about it.

Leadership stat and Fearless/And They Shall Know No Fear.

I get that in the war-torn future, it's cool to have heroes who never run and fight to the bitter end against all odds.

But for God's sake, if you're going to incorporate a Morale system into the game, don't make practically every unit immune to its effects. Either keep and use the morale system - and nobody gets a free pass OR dump it and leave retreats/fall backs as a "General's Choice".

Personally, I'd like to see 90% of Fearless - and all of ATSKNF be ripped out of the game never to be seen again.

@wraithbalor.
If we are using 'revised' 2nd ed movement values, here is what we were trying out.

Slow infantry 4"
Standard infantry 5"
Fast infantry 6"

Vehicles 6"

Cavalry/Beasts 7"

Fast Vehicles 8"

Bikes /Light skimmers ,12"

And using special abilities
'Bulldozer' The model ignores the penalties for light woods and rubble .(The model uses its bulk or specialized equipment to cross difficult terrain with ease.)

Jump .The model can jump up to 8" over terrain.(The model has wings, jump jets , jump packs , etc to allow short flights to cross the battle field more effectively.)

For example Grot crew man handling a Kannon Big Gun, would count as slow infantry.

Obliterators would count as slow infantry with 'bulldozer' special rule.

This is just a starting point , but it feels about right so far..

I have Artificer armour at Armour 5, and Terminator (2+5++) at Armour 6.(Armour 7 for 2+4++ save )

Using 5th ed stats I would have got the Termigaunt as.
6"
4
5
4
5
1
3
(20)/1
6.

Hormagaunts.
7"
4
5
5
4
1
3
(20)/1
6

Gaunts tend to just run fast straight at the intended target.I would give them average Evasion (5).I am wary of giving hoard units to many 'fluff buffs' as they get very expensive very quickly when you cost them up.

Note for any command unit, (characters , heroes etc.)They get a Command value shown as, Range of effect, and Morale modifier.
EG The Nid Warriors would Have Command 12" +5.(This basically has the same effect as Synapse rule , but is part of the core unit rules. )

This simply means that Gaunts within 12" of a 'Nid Warrior pass morale tests on a 1+.(1+5 =6.)

If we are including suppression as part of the natural damage resolution.We do not need to add on 'special rules' for 'pining weapons' , just give them stats that generate the appropriate effects.

@Stormonu.
The morale system I was play testing was simply roll equal or over the units morale grade on a D6 to pass the morale test.

Current unit types /Morale Grade.

'Fearless' Morale Grade 1
'Elite' Morale Grade 2
'Veteran' Morale Grade 3
'Recruits' Morale grade 4
'Cowardly' Morale Grade 5
'Mindless' Morale Grade 6

Modifiers.(Add to Morale grade to make passing the test harder.)
Unit suppressed +1.
Unit below half starting strength +2
Unit surrounded by enemy+1

As previously mentioned Command units add modifiers to the dice roll to make passing morale tests easier.

I was thinking of having fear and terror causing units make units take a morale test before assaulting or being assaulted by them.

Fear causing model add 1 to the target units Morale grade.Terror causing models ass 2 to the target units morale grade.

ATSKNF simply ignores the effects of Fear causing models, and treats Terror causing models as Fear causing models .

These are just ideas for play testing .