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.

I'm thinking about making my own ruleset, 40k has been around long enough now that we know how the 3rd/4th/5th edition rules work, alongside the various army books.

Thing is, many players seem to be getting tired of 40k as-is. I want to wait for the 5th edition rules, to give me a third set of rules, but what I want to do is make some kind of middle ground between 2nd ed and 3rd/4th/5th.

So first I would look at 2nd ed and get rid of parrying, weird necromunda style close combat weapons, weird dice, overwatch, and other stupid game mechanics. Following that, between all three rulesets, forge world, and the army books I think infantry and vehicles are fine, as are monstrous creatures including Tyranids and those big forge world ones.

The problem seems to be independant characters. Starting with Space Marine and Chaos Space Marine independant characters (there is a nice selection, nice and points balanced under the current system to look at), I want them to be more than just close combat munchers, maybe borrowing some ideas from warmachine/ hordes.

Basically it will be a game of independant characters, squad based infantry and vehicles all working together. And then after that there are the monstrous creatures, which are what they are: beatsticks.

I will shamelessly borrow some playtested tweaks from H.B.M.C. and company's revisited project eg T5 terminators, and I don't know what to do about Guard, tbh, there's just something about their book that bugs me. I was thinking something like a connected relationship between infantry and APCs/ tanks (eg a leadership bonus), which would make infantry seem less like carbon copy drones of the emperor. I'll probably ignore Orks and Tyranids at first, concentrating on Space Marines, Chaos Marines, Guard, Renagade Guard/ LatD and Tau (my brother plays Tau, and besides they are cool). The points level will probably be 1500 to 2000 so that infantry and vehicles still play a role alongside their strong HQ.

I put this in discussions because I want to know why veteran players feel that 2nd ed and possibly Rogue Trader were more fun in certain ways.

Heck, just 3rd ed. BBB (NO 'DEXES) with overwatch (perhaps slightly modified --I'm thinking unit has to take a LD test to go on overwatch, then a LD test to take a shot out of turn?) and strategy cards would work pretty well.

I can't speak for Rogue Trader; I started at the beginning of 2nd Edition.

I really liked a lot of the myriad options available in 2nd Edition. There was some really wierd stuff like Conversion Beam weapons and Stasis Grenades, units like Electropriests and datafaxes for vehicles. I think that modifiers to shooting and armor saves were one of the best things about 2nd Edition, and I'd really like to see them return (suddenly being fast is a defense again).

More than rules a big issue is army lists and point values.

I think Syr8766 is right that the 3rd edition BBB lists are a good way to go. When I picked it up I was very impressed with the streamlined simplicity of it. While in 2nd edition the Wraith Cannon had a page of special rules, in 3rd edition it was a melta gun. Who cares how it kills tanks, it just does.

But finding the right mix of flavorful rules, game balance and fun has long defeated GW, expecially since they are not neutral parties in this.

If they need to sell more Land Raiders, you know LRs are getting 2 pages of specail rules and superpowers.

I think using 3rd edition, as written is a good way to make a fast 40k game.

If I was starting from scratch though (and I've thought about it many times) I'd use 3rd edition but change the turn system to an action point one. Give each unit 2 APs, that can be used to move 6", fire a weapon (2APs to rapid fire or fire a special) or charge into CC. Give commanders a pool of APs they can give to units one per turn.

Just my 0.14 ren min bi.

I like how the Kyoto-Sensei thinks. Very AT-43.

You could even base "APs" on Strategy ratings for armies as your base, then do the AT43 thing (1 for each squad, +x for each leader/officer type, units with upgraded leaders don't need to expend APs to do actions etc.).

Actually, the more I think about it, you're better off combining 3e BBB for lists and basic rules, and AT43 for actions, special actions (overwatch et al) and turn mechanics. Throw in some strategy cards (now there's a 2nd ed. throwback0 based on whatever mission (and the possibility of having each side fighting a different mission/different goals), and some kind of random initiative determiner (even just rolling for initiative each round; bonuses given for strategy ratings) and you're set.

I wouldn't bring modifiers back if using 3e as the basis unless you're getting rid of AP for weapons and you really streamline it. Also, I'd mess around with the FOC system; make it ENTIRELY scenario based rather than HQ + 2 Troops + whatever. Also, bring back the possibility of allies (in 2nd ed. it was 25% of your army max--here I'd do it like the Daemon/Witchhunters dexes: 0-1 HQ, 0-2 Troops, 0-1 FA, 0-1 Elites).

Man, I really want to play this now.

It's going to take me a while to work on this, I'm going to have to research 2nd ed and AT-43 rules.

I really want to give it a strong Inquisition/ LatD feel, so I'll want to include whatever weird fluffy stuff I can dredge up.

I like the idea of scenario based, LotR or Battle of Macragge type lists but points based is cool too. It doesn't mean the FOC has to stay.

thanks .

We're currently in the starting phases of designing our own ruleset for 40K (no, not The Revisited Project).

Our aim is to make a game that is about half the size of your average 40K game, and increas the details of the rules. It would almost be a combination of 2nd Ed 40K, 3rd Ed 40K, Mordheim and Necromunda. 2nd Ed in scale, 3rd Ed in some of the concepts, Mordheim in 'army' structure (heroes & henchman become Leaders & Squads), and Necromunda in the roleplaying elements.

We're trolling through every rulebook we can get our hands on for this as well, from everything GW's ever done, to AT-43, Void, Warzone, Battlefield evolution, Classic BattleTech. It's interesting, but not easy.

BYE

It's funny, I've spent the last couple of years looking for a game that I could use my 40k figs in, that captures that 40k 'feeling' but with better mechanics. No Limits, 5150, Aetherverse, just to name a few. Not that they're bad games, but they don't quite feel like 40k to me, you know? Maybe it's just GW's proprietary meshugas that's got me thinking funny thoughts about their figs...

H.B.M.C. wrote:We're currently in the starting phases of designing our own ruleset for 40K (no, not The Revisited Project).

Our aim is to make a game that is about half the size of your average 40K game, and increas the details of the rules. It would almost be a combination of 2nd Ed 40K, 3rd Ed 40K, Mordheim and Necromunda. 2nd Ed in scale, 3rd Ed in some of the concepts, Mordheim in 'army' structure (heroes & henchman become Leaders & Squads), and Necromunda in the roleplaying elements.

We're trolling through every rulebook we can get our hands on for this as well, from everything GW's ever done, to AT-43, Void, Warzone, Battlefield evolution, Classic BattleTech. It's interesting, but not easy.

BYE

Have you considered just going over the rules for RPG games as well?

Is this supposed to be separate activations per model? (skirmish like Necrmounda)

Or just separate targeting? (squad skirmishy like Warmachine)

Ooh, don't forget chainmail and Warlord.

I liked the character of 2n ed. I know that's difficult to get across without loads of rules which slow the game down and the 'new look' models but that's what you asked. It's nice to see the shokk attack/vortex grenades return but somehow it's not what it used to be. I also liked the % way or organising armies. I do feel the FOC is a better system but itneeds heavier restrictions when playing missions - i am able to usually take my 'standard' army for any game, maybe with one or two unit swaps, but it's not different enough to force different tactics - my tactics only change when i want to play differently.

Scenery doesn't seem to affect me as much as it did in 2nd either. "nd i remeber playing to the battlefield, whereas now scenery items tend to be obstacles to go around or hide in.

The detail that 2nd had seemed to slow the game down, at the moment i prefer 4th for speed but it could do with just a few extra bits in, not so much game mechanic wise but background type rules.

HBMC, will the Revisited Project be updating at all after the release of 5th?

I'd really, really like to see a common sense rules patch put out after 5th comes out, and widely distributed. If that patch happened to also be in an edited scan of the rulebook that somehow leaked to the internet, that might make a nice lesson for GW about releasing better rules. Not that I (or any respectable Dakka member) would ever do such a thing, but it sure would be interesting if someone out there did. Hmm.

And if a rules patch made it into some larger tourneys, that would be really nice. People who fly across the country to play against other skilled players shouldn't have to use rules designed to keep ADD gameshop kiddies buying new armies.