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.

So when will the PDF be available?

Would anyone be able to help writing up the new rules as a P.D.F.(My desk top publishing skills are rubbish. )

If some one could get the rules down in a document, we can review and edit in some form or other.

Then maybe look at documenting some basic unit load outs and army lists?

I think we have a good starting point for some alpha testing.

@Lanrak

Ok. I gave the Guants evasion 6 as I felt they had the same evasion capability as guard and would be more mobile than Ork Boys. Hormies melee defense was 6 due to the I+1 conversion (they have I5 right now).

I never played 2nd (started at the start of 6th, though played some 5th games shortly thereafter). I'm kinda surprised at how much faster bikes are than cav/beasts.

For points, my main though was to go the AoS route (approximate points per unit, not per model), as points will never be exact anyway. Giving points as a basis around which to discuss the game with your opponent (much easier to do in a home-brew as you have to start there anyway :-) ).

Ok. I like the command rule. To simulate synapse, Nids will probably have significantly higher commands than most other armies, which makes sense. Even the best trained troop still has some survival instincts, while Nids under Synapse have none.

For Pinning weapons, essentially we'd have a weapon with very high AP, but low Damage?

How do we want blasts to work? Do we want to include the templates still, or just make them do 1d6 or 2d6 hits if they hit? If we include the templates, I was thinking about changing the rules to be: Select a target unit. Place the template to get the maximum number of models in the target unit under it (like the flamer rules). Note that the center does not have to be on a model. Roll to hit v. their evasion as normal. If hit, blast doesn't scatter. If don't hit, the blast scatters 2d6" using the scatter die (use the small arrow on the hit symbol).

Probably don't want to do it in PDF format to start with. Probably just type up a text file or word document that makes easy printing. The key points post I made earlier I have typed up as a Word document. I'll work on fleshing that out a bit more and put it on Google Drive when I get home from work.

Yup, sounds like a good starting point for an alpha.

Edit: Question on Phases. How many phases do we want? Just the three standard ones (i.e. Movement, Shooting, Combat) or break it down a bit further. I really like AoS's Hero phase, and was thinking a Beginning or Orders phase would be a good implementation. As we are using the actions, we could make it where both players pick which actions their units will accomplish that turn during the Orders phase (along with buff/debuff type powers and other targeted special abilities), potentially doing it simultaneously or secretly. I'm thinking about making up markers for units signifying which actions they are accomplishing, which you could put face down next to a unit so your opponent doesn't see (but you can't fudge later based on their actions). It's one of the things I like a lot about X-wing and Armada. That would give us the Orders, Movement, Shooting, and Assault phase, unless also like AoS we want to move all morale type tests to the end (and gives defined structure to the beginning and end of a player turn for effects). Do we even need to differentiate the shooting/assault phase, if assaulters can't shoot first (as they moved into close combat during the movement phase)?

Also, do we want to have a defined order for every turn, or randomize it? I.e. roll off at the beginning of the game, winner takes first action in all phases (moves first, shoots first, assaults first etc), or ABBAAB (moves first, shoots second, assaults first). Or have a roll off per turn so that each game turn has a slightly different order?

Hi guys. Sorry I've been out of the loop lately. It's work again.

I've read through the posts since my last post and I think I've got a handle on what you're all going for. Just my own thoughts:

Due to the difficulty in getting physic powers manifested, I would do away with rolling to hit etc. Honestly, I like how AoS does it. "Smite" (Arcane Bolt) is roll to manifest by passing a leadership test. If passed, one enemy unit within 18" of the pysker suffers D3 mortal wounds. If they fail nothing happens. If they roll a double one or double six they suffer the perils of the warp, and a mortal wound. A double one will probably still pass the eats anyway. Simple and to the point.

I also like the idea of basically ditching things like fearless etc. to make leadership more important. Fear can be a reduction in leadership, and And They Shall Know No Fear is an immunity to leadership penalties (which when combined with their high leadership makes marines hard to break).

Finally, I would like to completely scrap templates. They just slow the game down imo.

Who here said that it's more important to get the feel of the game better than matching the performance of our new system exactly with the old one? I think that is so true. It doesn't matter if boltguns under our system don't kill quite as many guardsmen as before. Just so long as they still kill guardsmen in droves while the las guns returning fire struggle to drop those marines then it's all ok.

Also, I volunteer to do the new stats for the guard.

@wraithbalor.
I started playing 40k in the days of RT.(Yes, I am that old! )

The races in earlier editions had basic themes, and specific fighting styles.Then GW sales department wanted every army appeal to every player type,(especially Space Marines!) And it all got a bit silly IMO. (This is the main reason I wanted to leave Space Marines out of early play testing. )

Thematic notes on hoard armies.(Just my basic take on the old background)

Imperial Guard, are 'Joe Average ',closest to WWII Russians in fighting style. As Joseph Stalin put it '..one death is a tradegy , a million deaths is just a statistic..'
The reason I gave IG Evasion 6, is they are the only hoard army made up of troops that would use cover effectively, out of self preservation.

Tyranids have superior speed, that tend to swarm the enemy with a sea of fast moving bodies .(Lesser creatures have no self awareness, and are just driven by the hive mind, as fast as possible into the enemy lines.)

Orks have superior toughness, and have a psychopathic obsession with fighting, and no reguard for self preservation.
(Grots however, are obsessed with self preservation, because they have to serve the Orks! )

I totally agree we should assign points at the unit level.
The unit level is the level of interaction of the game play.
So assigning points at the micro level,(models and equipment) then balancing the game at the macro level.(full force level.)Is the worst way to arrive at a game play balanced for random pick up games.

Giving a Command unit a Morale dice modifier to influence near by units was a system we were trying out to cover command and control elements.Its a simple mechanic we think works OK so far.

As we do not need to add 'pinning' artificially with special rules.We can adjust AP and Damage values to get the effects we want in the game.
(The only thing we MAY have to look at is Sniper rifles.I am not sure which way to deal with them.Target selection or morale modifier?But we can address these a bit later.)

I suppose I am used to using templates in 40k.I would implement them in the following way.

Roll to hit .(Attackers Ranged skill vs Target Evasion skill)

If the roll to hit is successful the attacker places the template to cover as many enemy models in the target unit as possible.(Same as you suggested.)

If the roll to hit fails, the owner of the targeted unit placed the template.It must cover one model in the target unit.Then the owner of the targeted unit may move the template the number of inches the attacker failed the to hit roll by.

IMO ,its all the time taken 'scattering templates' that puts player off using them.

I am OK with replacing templates with Dice rolls, if that works better and still 'feels right'.

I am happy to 'book end' the phases.

Command Phase.(Place orders, request off table support, cast psychic buffs/debuffs?.)

Movement phase.(All movement happens here.)

Shooting Phase.(All ranged attacks, happen here.)

Assault Phase(All close combat attacks happen here.)

Resolution phase.(Off table arrivals resolved here ready for the start of the next turn,attempt to rally suppressed/routing units.)

I am happy with rolling l off every turn to see who goes first,( in all phases.)

@Future War cultist.
As the basic game is in a state of flux at this early stage of development, I think its hard to define how psychic powers should work until we get the normal stuff working right first.
But I think expressing psychic powers in similar way to normal combat is a better design principal.

I agree we are not trying to replicate the results of the GW rules.But get a rule set that 'feels right '.
if the new rule set follows the principals of modern war, mobility to take objectives, ranged attacks to control enemy movement, and assault to contest objective.
I think we would get a rule set that feels right for 40k battle game .

If you can do the starter Imperial Guard lists,and wraithbalor can do the starter Tyranid lists, I can have a go at the Orks starter list.

I'm sorry, can someone explain the orders and actions thing to me? I've been out of the loop and I'm really behind. Is that like bolt action and gates of Antares rules?

@ Lanrak

My proposal is a hybrid of the AoS system and the 5th edition era rules, both of which are simple, tried and tested. But sure, we'll have to create the core rules first of course.

The actions are (to start with)
o Advance (move then shoot ‘assault’ weapons)
o Charge (move 2x into CC range – defined as ….)
o Run (move 2x)
o Fire Support (no movement, fire all weapons, some types may get bonuses)
o Hide (move 1x and Evasion +1)

The orders part of the turn would simply be deciding which action set (i.e. move/move, move/shoot, aim/shoot) the unit is doing. This allows us to make suppression the loss of 1 action, limiting them to move, shoot (weapons that don't need an 'aim' action), or hide.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Now that I'm thinking about it, weapon types. Probably only need two types of weapons, assault and ordnance. Assault can be fired using a shoot action (i.e. move/shoot or aim/shoot, or just shoot if suppressed), while ordnance weapons require an aim/shoot action sequence. Do we need any other types (i.e. heavy which fires at RAS 1 after move, or full RAS with aim)

@wraithbalor.
The weapon type definitions I would like to start with are.
Area Effect.These weapons use templates/blasts, (or rolling D3?) to determine the number of models hit.
It is not necessary to put 'area effect' in the 'notes' as we replace the attack value with the template type or number of dice rolled to generate the number of attacks .

Ordnance .Weapons that can only fire when the unit remains stationary to set up/reload/ aim them.(HAS to use a 'Fire Support' order to fire.)

Pistol. One handed small arms that can be used in an assault.

Rapid Fire Weapons that can be fired on the move , but have double rate of fire when stationary.

SniperThese weapons have improved ability to hit at long range , so models using them get + 1 to Ranged Skill when firing at targets over half weapon range.
Target selection in the unit can be a bit OP.So I think the best way to represent the suppression sniper fire, if we want to, would be to add 1 to the morale grade of the unit suffering one or more wounds from sniper fire.

All other weapons are assumed to be able to move and shoot using their weapon profile.(Eg they are using the core rules without any special abilities/restrictions.)

If weapons have different types of ammunition/fire modes.I think I would be best to just give a profile for the each type of ammunition/fire mode.Rather than make up special rules for every slight difference.(Ill leave that for GW to do. )

Also the benefit of listing the unit weapon profile on the unit card, is weapons class changed depending on what unit used them.
Eg a heavy bolter is 'Ordnance' when carried by an IG squad.But is a normal move and fire weapon when mounted on a vehicle.And could be a' Pistol' when used by a deamon prince !

@ Lanrak

I liked the idea of sniper weapons allowing the enemy player to allocate the damage they inflict. It really gives them a purpose that they're sorely missing in the game at the moment.

Also, about different ammunition types; I'm keen to keep it simple. Case in point; Sternguard Veterans. They could have a rule in their datacard that simply says: Specialist Ammunition: All models in this unit may reroll failed to wound rolls when making shooting attacks with boltguns/storm bolters/combi bolters etc.

Is this what weapon profiles look like at the moment?:

Range: Attacks: Penetration: Notes:

Anything missing?

@Future War Cultist.
I can understand why people could see letting sniper rifles select the enemy model in the unit as intuitive ,considering the amount of times war films and FPS games show this.
However, the ability to remove leaders/characters, and specialist weapons from a unit is quite a powerful .And I am concerned the conditional rules we may have to use would add more complication than is necessary.I am happy to try out different types of rules for sniper rifles later in the play testing when we get the basics sorted out.

I would prefer to cover differences in unit weapons simply by altering the weapon data on the unit card incrementally.

However, if we need to use a special rules for a re roll.Then I would prefer to use limited re rolls to limit the down time the re rolls inflict on the game play.

Example.

'Master Crafted' Re roll rolls of natural 1, to hit.

'Armour Buster'Re roll rolls of natural 1, to penetrate amour.

'Chain Edged/Frangible' Re roll rolls of natural 1, to damage .


The weapon dats we were using was..

Effective Range/Attacks/Armour Piercing/Damage/Notes.

(Damage simply replaces the Strength value, simply because in 40k the amount of damage caused is not usually down to the strength of the user like it is in WHFB.)

@Lanrak,

For weapon types, I like those. I think Sniper should require Fire Support orders as well (you cant move and shoot sniper weapons accurately). Rapid fire is either double shots or double range, or just short range with less attacks but staying still enables more shots?

@FWC

We need to have Damage and Penetration (or AP) both, as we are using three stage damage resolution, rather than two stage.

Hi folks.
I have been thinking about the way we present the information on the units weapons.

If the have the 'top level' of where and how weapons are used.3 categories for each units weapon descriptions.

Eg
Assault Weapons(Close combat attacks/effects.)

Ranged Weapons.(Ranged attacks/effects, that can 'move and shoot'.)

Ordnance(or Fire Support.) Weapons.(Ranged attack that can only be made when the unit is stationary.)

Next we can have the types of weapon, that have information displayed slightly differently.
Eg they get explained in the rules but, do not need 'special rules' as such.

Area Effect Weapons .
Simply have the attacks replaced by size of blast/tepmlate,( or D3 s?)

Pistols.
These have an entry in the Assault weapons data, and the Ranged weapons data.As they can be used in both types of attack.(0-4" range in Assault, 2-12" range in normal ranged attack, perhaps?)

And we can use special rules for weapon with special operation types.

Chemical weapons, Ignore the effects of cover.

Poisoned weapons double damage vs organic targets.

Haywire weapons(EMP.)double damage vs mechanical targets.

And then finaly special rules to cover 'special ability conditional buffs.'
Rapid fire.Double attacks if unit remains stationary.

Scope/(Targeter?) Add 1 to shooters Shooting skill when target is over half range.

'Master Crafted' Re roll rolls of natural 1, to hit.

'Armour Buster'Re roll rolls of natural 1, to penetrate amour.

'Chain Edged/Frangible' Re roll rolls of natural 1, to damage .

This is just an example to show how we could present the weapon data on several 'layers'. We can then combine them to arrive at special weapon functions without having to use a special rule for each individual weapon.

I've really fallen behind with this project. I think I'll have to take a back seat because I'm so far out of the loop.

Y'all,

I'm typing up a Google Doc with the basic rules we've talked about. It is located at

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hgo53xhzXyXVBHXXNkVQDLCcbj4YLlWsiL4EB05rSdI/edit?usp=sharing

Anyone with the link can edit it, but please make sure that you comment on the changes you made as well, so we can keep track. Hopefully, we'll be able to get some playtesting started in a couple of weeks.

Note: I added some stuff about initiative and alternating units which I based partially on Firestorm Armada (using 2d6 for initiative rather than 1d6 and giving modifiers to it based on army). This way certain armies are more likely to go first in certain phases. Unless we want to have everything be simultaneous resolution. Was thinking something like
Tyranids initiative: 2/0/1, where it is movement, shooting, assault.

Please look over the google doc and let me know what y'all think!

Hi wraithbalor.
It seems a bit rude just editing you work .
So I would like to make some suggestions in this post , so we can discuss if they are worth incorporating into an edit of the document.

Just for clarity.
State the psychic phase has been removed from the game turn, as it is more time efficient to use psychic abilities in the relevant phase.(As was done in 3rd to 5th edition 40k.)And leave it at that for the game turn implications.

(Move the description of how psychic powers are cast to a section in the rules specifically about how to cast psychic powers.)

Change the wording on the command phase to read, ''During the command phase ,every unit on good morale, will have an order given to it.''

Then later explain how 'suppressed' and 'routing' units behave differently to units on good morale...

Suppressed units are not fully under the direct control of the player.They are focusing on self preservation.To represent this in the rules, suppressed units loses one movement action but gains +1 to their Evasion stat.(To show they are moving cautiously/making maximum use of cover.)

Because of this suppressed units may only chose to move up to normal movement rate and not launch any attacks what so ever.(They will fight back if assaulted.)
Or make normal ranged attacks while remaining stationary.(They count as having moved.)

Routing units are not under the players control at all.They have completely lost all will fight on.As such they must move at double rate away from any visible enemy , and towards the closest edge of the playing area.
If factors make the direction of movement contested,the unit will move towards its own deployment zone.

Off table support, reserves/artillery and air strikes.
I rather like the way other games increase the chance of successfully rolling for reserves(off table support) as the game goes on.
EG
To successfully request off table support, you need to roll 6+.
However to increase the chance of arrival through out the game. You add the game turn number to the dice roll.
EG initial roll on turn 1, you need a 5+
Roll on turn 2 =4+
Roll on turn 3= 3+
Roll on turn 4= 2+
Roll on turn 5 any remaining off table support arrives automatically.(No roll actually necessary)

Rolling for initiative..
If we are alternating moving units, and resolving attacks simultaneously,do we need to roll off for initiative each turn?

Thoughts on terrain.
If we want to keep it simple.
Difficult terrain reduces movement rates by half.

Light cover adds 1 to the models Evasion stat.
Heavy cover should either add 2 to the models Evasion stat, OR add 1 to its Evasion stat and one to its Armour value.(I prefer +2 to Evasion stat as it keeps it 'cleaner' .)

The examples of how we could cover different types of weapons was just to illustrate the methodology.
I was not advocating we have to use re roll type special rules .But if we were going down that route, limited re rolls would be the way I would go.

Do you agree with listing the units weapons on the unit card, as
Assault;-

Ranged;-

Fire Support;-

This clearly separates the weapons the unit may use when taking various orders.

IMO, if the universal resolution table gives the result 1,'automatic success' no dice have to be rolled.Similarly if the table give the result N/A , then no dice are rolled as the result has no effect at that point.

@Lanrak,

I'll move psychic powers to their own section when I get home. What did you think about the order of sections? Should I move the stat block sections to the top?

For initiative, I'd like to roll off at least each turn, as who moves first can make a big difference in your final positioning (i.e. you may want to move first to make your opponent respond the way you want, or go second to respond).
Also, do we want attacks to be resolved simultaneously, or back and forth like AoS? if back and forth the order matters there as well. If simultaneously don't need to worry about it too much.
What do you think of the way of rolling? i.e. the 2d6+race specific bonus?

For terrain,
Hard terrain with a +2 to Evasion works fine. I added the possibility of even stronger terrain, mostly thinking of purpose built fortifications versus ruined buildings as the examples of adding to Armor as well. Those would not be standard, but special rules on a terrain datasheet.

Should we also have dangerous and/or lethal terrain? If we did, we could give it attack stats like a melee weapon, would count as a melee attack against the unit.

Shooting phase: I just realized I didn't put any restrictions on targeting units. Should we continue the rules against targeting units in Assault? If not, it should at least count as hard cover that can't be gotten around (i.e. chem weapons don't help) or risk hitting your own models?

For weapons,
OK, I say get rid of the re-rolls then. We can simulate all those will +1's to the relevant stat (i.e. Mastercrafted would add 1 to RAS/MAS when attacking with that weapon), rather than re-rolls (makes game faster).

Putting the weapons on the card like that looks great, clearly separate them (plus we could remove rapid fire from the special rules and just list the weapon twice, with one profile Ranged and one Fire Support, and any other weapons we want to do that with).

Something I hadn't thought of yet, but how do we want to deal with characters/independent characters? Do we allow joining of units, or add some priority rules (that AoS really needs so you can't just murder characters with ranged attacks)?

@wraithbalor.
I am not the best person to ask about rule book layouts, as it not really my area of expertise.

Does current 40k follow the general format....

Introduction.

Game turn,(explains player interaction.)

Unit stats,( explains unit interaction .)

Actions taken in phases.(Movement , shooting , assault)

if so we might as well follow this layout that is familiar to the players.

If we are using alternating phases the biggest 'reduction in complication bonus' we can get from this type of game turn is 'simultaneous resolution.'

I do see your point about rolling off each turn to see who chooses to goes first each turn.(Adds a level of tactical uncertainty.)
If the game was using alternating unit activation , then a racial bonus would probably be wise, (as a fiddle factor ).
However,for alternating phases with simultaneous resolution, a straight 2 D6 roll off, with attacker going first in the result of a tie, would do the job.IMO.

Just a general comment here.
It is our job to sort out the 'nuts and bolts' of the game play, to arrive at a well defined intuitive rule set , that delivers tactically rich engaging game.

The 'frippery of weird and wacky stuff ', anyone can add to the rules for a bit of fun.Is not really part of the early rules development process.

This is the territory of house rules.(Lets do a game across a Nid planet where the terrain eats people !)

Narrative campaigns,('Battle for Torriuos VI' Detailed campaign narrative and scenarios, for linked battles and unique to this campaign special forces, terrain. objectives, etc.)

And gamers 'hand books' like ('Creature Feature').

All this can be added on to the solid rule set at a later date.

So at this stage I would like to keep terrain simple, and stuff that adds lots of complication, with little resulting game play complexity ,to a minimum.


I think it is important to prohibit making ranged attacks into or out of Assault.Mainly for the simplicity of the rules, and the balance of the game.
(From a back ground p.o.v killing your own troops is frowned upon, or at least reprisals from survivors would be enough to deter this practice in all armies.)
Allowing assault units to 'lock ranged units in assault' helps balance the two unit types out, in game play terms.

I am happy to allow models in assault to used limited ranged weapons like pistols on enemy model in the same assault. (But that would be shown on the weapon profiles,)

I too would like the weapon stats on the unit card to clearly display what that units attacks are when..
In Assault,
Firing on the move,
Firing when stationary.

My pet hate in the 40k rules is.
Looking up the weapon data,
Then altering it for the model carrying the weapon,
Then having to look up special rules that apply the the model with that weapon,
Then having to look up special rules for that weapon depending on how far the model moved,
And then having look up special rules for that weapon vs a particular target..etc.etc.

Just 'read the data you need off the unit card'.Is just so much better IMO.

It may prove necessary to include some minor buffs later in the play testing.If we need this then limited re rolls,(re roll natural 1),is the simplest and least disruptive option I can think of ATM.

You are right with the 3 simple categories covering units weapon attacks , in assault , ranged and fire support .'actions'.

A description in the rules of why pistols rapid fire and area effect weapons have slightly different data presention is all that is needed.(No special rules !)

So we only need special rules for different weapon types that have special abilities.
Chemical-ignore cover effects.

Poisoned- increased damage vs organic targets.

Haywire- increased damage vs mechanical targets.

Scoped-add 1 to RAS when firing at targets over half range.

I have just had a thought.
Could we use 'Organic Damage Modifier' +X, instead of 'Poison'.

Eg Chain edged weapons get +1 Organic Damage Modifier.
And
'Mechanical Damage Modifier '+X, instead of Hatwire/EMP.

Eg E.M.P Round= Mechanical Damage Modifier +2.

I would like to include independent characters and unit leader upgrades on separate cards.

If we gave Independent characters higher evasion stats , to show how hard it is to pick them out in the fog of war.

We could say players have to target the unit with the lowest evasion values if within 6" inches of each other.(So ICs could lurk near friendly units and be reasonably safe from direct fire.)

This is just my initial idea , we may need to play test some alternatives?

@Lanrak,

Layout sounds good, pretty easy to move around.

For initiative, we'll go to just 2d6 (or 1d6) and winner chooses, with simultaneous resolution. Lets see how people feel about that, we can always switch later after feedback.

I agree with your general comment, and need to work on keeping it in mind more. I've written and ran campaigns multiple times, so I can get bogged down in detail (and I enjoy complexity).

For the Org/Mech Damage modifier, I like it, though the fluff person wants me to keep the name Poison and have it written as "Poison(Org/Dam/+2) to specify what it effects and by how much. Though that can make it more confusing for new players. We'll have to see.

For IC's/evasion, I'd rather make the targeting restriction only affect IC's, rather than all units, to allow for targeting priorities by player.

@wraithbalor
I like to keep things simple so I can understand what is going on!

The thing is the 'unit blurb' in the back ground part of the codex is the place to narrate the history and effect of the weapons , equlpment, and combatants have in the 40k universe.

The rules job is to present the in game data to the player in the best defined and most elegant way possible.

So the background of a particular poison can be detailed in the 'unit blurb'.The rules just need to tell the player its +2 damage vs organic targets, for example.

Excellent point for the IC Evasion.

If an Independent Character has a higher Evasion value than a unit within 6", it can not be targeted directly, as long as it is not the closest unit to the attacker.(Hidden in the fog of war.)

Hi folks .
Just a few ideas on targeting restrictions.(In addition to basic range and L.O.S.)

A)Units 'locked in assault', can not be fired upon, and can not fire on units out side on the assault they are 'locked' into.

B)Independent 'characters'/(Leaders/specialists,) can only be targeted directly if;-
They are the closet unit to the attacker.
Or they do not have a unit from their force within 6" of them.(Even if they are not the closest enemy unit to the attacker.)

C)Only the models in a unit that are actually in cover can claim the bonus for being in cover.The attacker may decide how they want to split their fire between models in cover or models in the open from the same enemy unit.

A model is only granted the cover bonus if the attacks 'line of sight' is blocked by the terrain in the horizontal plane.
AND
The units Evasion value compared to the cover rating determines the model can claim cover from that terrain type.

EG infantry, Evasion value 6 is hiding behind a concrete wall ,cover value 4.Can claim cover bonus for heavy cover..

A Tank, Evasion value 3, can not claim cover from the same concrete wall, because its Evasion value is not higher than the cover value of the wall.

Do these seem reasonable?

@Lanrak

Good point on the fluff v. crunch.

Other than Range/LOS (which is another place I was thinking of using a Size stat, i.e. you can't see over people bigger than you)

I like A, makes sense (in most cases) and is better for balance.

I like B as well, makes it harder to kill the characters since they can't join units anymore.

C. The only issue I have with C is it gets rid of area terrain. I really prefer area terrain to TLOS cover, as it is much easier and less contentious. Also, I would say for heavy cover (walls and such) that if you're Evasion is less you gain a soft cover bonus, instead of none (yeah that tank can't hide behind the wall, but the wall does limit firing angles).

@wraithbalor.
It was not my intention to get rid of area terrain.
Just to prevent models not actually in cover claiming the cover bonus, because some models from their unit are in cover.

That is why I wanted to use direct line from attacker to defender (l.o.s) to determine if the model is behind cover.(Probably model base to model base in the horizontal plane only.)As linear and area terrain cover a specific boundary in the horizontal plane.

Simply using Evasion to determine relative 'height' on the table top was the basic concept I wanted to try out.

I do not mind letting models with Evasion equal to the hard cover rating gaining a soft cover bonus.

@Lanrak,

Ok. I misunderstood what you were saying. I think that's a good way to do it (without trying to get into TLOS too deep). Another thing I was thinking of adding was a limit to how much cover a model can see through. I was going to put something like "If a piece of terrain is more than 4" thick along the line of sight, the model cannot see through it."

The main issue with using Evasion for relative 'height' (and transport size) is that we lose some of the ability to differentiate between "Hard to hit because it's small" and "Hard to hit because it's really good at dodging" That's one reason why I really like the idea of a size stat. My thoughts for it would be a simple scale from 1-5 (for normal 40k, up to 8 for Armageddon), where a guardsman (or wall) would be size 1, large infantry size 2, bikes/cav and really big infantry 3, small MCs and vehicles 4, and large vehicles/MC's 5. Simple rules would be cover 2 sizes larger blocks line of sight, equal size (or smaller) to cover size lets you claim full cover bonus, up to 2 size larger than cover reduces bonus by 1 (meaning a size 2 wall would provide a soft cover bonus to a small vehicle, but not a land raider or Riptide). That'll give us 10 stats, which makes it slightly harder to memorize everything, but we're already going to be making unit cards because each units weapons will be essentially unique (appropriately so).

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I'm one of those guys who likes AoS and wants to see if it's possible to do the same for 40k. And I just wanted to run a few ideas past you all here. There is another thread about the same thing here but that one is talking about using a D10 system, which I'm open to, but I'd like to try a D6 version as well.

First, I've narrowed down all model characteristics to these six:

Movement, Ranged, Melee, Save, Wounds, Leadership

Ranged and Melee are the scores on a D6 needed to hit with an attack for their respective weapon types. For example, Ranged: 4+ needs a 4, 5 or 6 to hit with a ranged weapon. The others I'm sure you can guess.

And weapons have been reduced to these five characteristics:

Range, Attacks, Strength, Rending, Damage

Range and Attacks I'm sure you can guess. Strength is the score need to wound on a D6. For example, Strength: 4+ needs a 4, 5 or 6 to wound the target. Rending is how much the attack reduces the targets armour save by, and Damage is how many wounds the attack inflicts on the target if unsaved.

Finally, what about this idea:

Units who have made a shooting attack cannot launch an assault in the same turn at all, ever, unless it says so on their Dataslate. But if they do launch an assault, the system goes like this:

In AoS, assuming you sucessfully get into combat, first you pile in, then you attack with all your Melee weapons. In this system, first you make a shooting attack with one ranged weapon, them you pile in, then you attack with all Melee weapons. It's to create a sense that in 40k, assaults are close range gunfights as well as hacking and slashing fests. Weapons that were previously assault weapons can instead get bonuses when used like this (+1 to hit for example) whilst others can get penalties (for example, if a model shoots a heavy weapon it cannot pile in afterwards).

I know that is a bit odd out on its own but I'm trying to tackle each section on their own before I present the complete set of rules you know? What do you think?

Like the ideas

@wraithbalor.
If we were stood at a games table with some models and scenery ,it would be so much easier to exchange ideas.I am not that good at explaining things in the written format.

My ideas for L.O.S come from play testing using bits of paper laid out on the table to represent area terrain.(Similar to the excellent flat cardboard terrain in the F.O.W starter set, but not as good obviously.)

Mainly because in most war games the vertical scale is so different to the horizontal scale, the models used to represent terrain are actually abstract representations .

My basic idea for 'horizontal' LOS is;-

if there is clear line from either side of the attackers base ,to either side of the targets base.

The model is in open ground.

If there is only clear L.O.S from one side of the attacking models base to one side of the target models base, the target model may claim partial cover.(Counts as one less.Heavy cover counts as light cover, light cover counts as open ground.)

If a clear L.O.S can not be drawn to either side of the target models base from either side of the attacker base, the target model may claim full cover from interveening terrain .(If its Evasion value is higher than the terrain feature.)

If it makes you feel better, call 'Evasion' 'Size'.
The ability of more agile combatants to kneel or lay down means that can make themselves smaller to hide and get into and out of transports.(I assume we use the smallest size the model can make it self as the base determination of Evasion.)

It just made more sense to use 'Evasion' as the model gets smaller /more agile the higher the score they get.To my mind evasion/size values cover the same feature of the game play.

I think there used to be a minimum depth of visibility through area terrain.
If you are happy with 4" of area terrain blocks line of sight completely, that sounds about right to me .(I think it was the old value used. )

@Mrpinkpigy.
The next edition of 40k is rumoured to be a game that is reducing complication to the tactical depth of the current game.(Simplified.)

Some people do not want this shallow level of tactical depth in their 40k games.(Everyone is different. )

They want the 40k rules streamlined, where the complication in the rules is reduced, but the tactical depth of the game play is increased to a level found in other war games currently available.

Eg more like Epic Armageddon, than Battle for Vedross .

I was more on the extended Battle For Vedros system side of the argument myself, which is why I've backed out of this thread. It's gone off on a different direction to what I was going for. It's ok though. Each to their own, and I wish it all the best.

@Future war Cultist.
As GW are probably going to re write the next edition closer to what you want.(Simplified rules.)
You could probably get away with house ruling 8th edition 40k to get the game you want.

I believe there are lots of gamers out there that want more tactical depth and complexity in the game play of 40k. As GW are no longer writing rules for this audience, I think it is up to us to attempt it.

However, please feel free to comment on the rules discussions in this thread, as your input has been very valuable.

That's kind of you to say Lanrak, but I'm not sure how useful I'd be from this point on. I've got very different ideas to how to do this and it would probably only derail it at this stage.

@ Future war cultist.
I do not think our ideas are that radically different to be honest.The ones I propose are only slightly more complex that yours.

If we look at your stat list, the only difference is I proposed an opposed stat to generate proportional values for ranged attacks to hit , and close combat attacks to hit.
(Add 'Evasion' and 'Dodge', or what ever we end up calling them.)
As you said you would probably add a 'size' stat at some point anyway, that only really leaves a separate opposed stat for close combat.

And I would like to keep a 'toughness' type stat to get proportional results from 'wounding' as well.

As I honestly think having a 'flat chance' to hit and wound, would not represent the diversity of the 40k background that well without havbing to include lots of special rules .....

The weapon data is practically identical.(Except I prefer using opposed values to determine the roll to penetrate and to wound/damage.)

So I basically added 2 stats and one resolution method to what you proposed, to arrive at a much wider range of proportional results within the core rules.

I understand some people like the idea of special rules instead of a slight increase in complexity in the core rules.But what we are both proposing is much less complicated than the current rules any way!

The current 40k rules show how easy it is to loose control of the application of 'special rules'. So I am playing it cautious.

Also I would appreciate your input on the starting stats for the basic units for the imperial guard forces , so we can do some play testing in the near future.

It would be good if we can start with play testing the hoard armies first, to frame the scale of the game in a more sensible way.

@ Lanrak

That's all true I suppose.

I don't think I'd be much help with the core rules but I will offer help and advice with the IG rules when you all get around to them.