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.

v0iddrgn wrote:
I disagree, I think the FOC has been completely thrown out this edition allowing for crazy OP stuff to exist such as armies consisting solely of super heavy's. Having a points value threshold so those who like those crazy "anything goes" styled armies help players who just want to play casual games without feeling like they don't stand a chance. You know, the thread's title states "a simplified game", the things I have suggested create just that. Sure, I kept 75% of the game mechanics very similar to what it is but people play 40K for a reason and I don't think changing the game to where it's barely recognizable is a good idea.

The FOC has not been thrown out, it is just not one thing like it was two to three years ago. The "FOC" is not a specific way to organize the army, but a section of a chart. The FOCs we see the most of now adays are not just decisions made on the Roles of the units, but a collection of other specific groups. In a way, that is far simpler and clear as to what to take than the more random collections of Roles that we see, and closer to how Flames of War operates. The only real downside from a gameplay perspective is just how powerful it makes each of the units inside them.

Role Detachments like the CAD offer the benefit of flexibility in their FOC, while the Choice Detachments reduce flexibility for clarity in their FOC (so long as we ignore Command Benefits and Formation Special Rules).

@V0iddrgn.
I may not have been clear,
The F.O.C introduced in 3rd edition was too restrictive.(It was intended to be super simple to appeal to children more than the percentage system that was originally used.And there were supposed to be discount incentives to appeal to collectors too.)

This has and will always be one of the worst force building methods I am aware of.

But rather than letting the devs just scrap it ,and use one of the many better systems that are used by other war games.
GW sales department only approved the over complicated and massively unbalancing 'formations and detachments' gak to be thrown on top of a gak basic system.

I was proposing a COMPLETELY NEW system similar to those used in other war game that are simple to use, and allow diverse thematically strong forces that are tactically diverse and fun to use in random pick up games.

You have suggested things that improve the symptoms of a compromised core rule set that has been forced to be backward compatible to a game type that has no bearing on the units currently used.(In or scale or scope. )

I was suggesting taking the things that make 40k '40k'/And tweeking them to fit the current game play better.

EG
The game turn currently uses phases.Players are used to the phases.

So using alternating phase game turn, is familiar, allows players to build the tactical force actions they want to in a more interactive game turn.
I would suggest alternating moving units.(Like A.O.S) in the movement phase.
(6 tactical options for actions decided here.Based on the options found in other war game like Epic and Bolt Action)

Shooting and assault phases, players alternate with their entire force, but model simiultaneous actions by not removing casualties until the end of the phase.

Combat resolution.

The active player looks up the active stat of their model(s).
And cross references this to the opposing players model(s ) active stat on the resolution chart.
This gives the D6 roll required for the active player to succeed.

Stats may be modified in some situations, but these are listed in more detail in the appropriate section of the rules .

How good the model is hitting enemy at range.(BS)

How good the model is at evading enemy attacks at range.(Stealth if you like, how hard the model is to see/hit.)

How good the model is hitting the enemy in assault.(WS)

How good the model is at avoiding the enemy models attacks in close combat.(Dodge?)

How much armor the model has.(AV)

How resistant the model is to (unsaved Damage)(T)

Weapon data could be.
How many attacks the weapon has.(A)

How good the Weapons is at defeating Amour.(AP)

How good the weapon is at causing damage.)(S)

I would like to see if we could use one chart to cover all 3 stages of resolution.Using values from 1 to 10 to start with.
(We could increase the range to 1 to 15 or 1 to 20 if needed though.)

The new table could be something like this.(Just an example for illustration perposes.)

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,)

That is the entire premise of the re-write I was proposing.Which takes less to explain that the changes you want to add to the hundreds of pages 40k already has...