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 this started on the official AT-43 forums, but I had wanted to know what people thought about doing a Warhammer 40,000 conversion that would allow you to play a game of 40k with the AT-43 rules. I'd call it "AT-40K" I guess.

The intent of this project is to play actual 40k armies using the AT-43 ruleset. This needs to be stated because the idea is NOT to play a 40k army in the AT-43 game world (i.e. versus UNA or Therians). That's not part of the balancing scheme.

I've looked over the rules a lot and believe in can be done quite easily, with the hardest part relating to point costs. As I have said in the official forums, one major conclusion I've reached about the design of AT-43 is that it was designed to play as fast as possible and not get bogged down.

Up to now the only major rules I've mentioned were that vehicles would have no special rules to differentiate wheeled and tracked locomotion beyond their movement rate (unless terrain rules come into play at a later date).

Also, troop transport vehicles would have a very simple unit limit (can carry a single one-or-two star unit). They will also allow a unit to disembark even if the transport moved that turn, so long as the transport didn't perform a rush move. By the way, I love the fact that this would all get planned out during the activation sequence, making it really cool to see it unfold.

If your wheeled/tracked-coffin goes boom the passengers are dead. This keeps things fast and furious and forces you to consider carefully if you want to use APCs for transport or for other tactical reasons (run people over, off cover to infantry using the new combat drills, etc).

Weigh in with your opinions and ideas! I'd write a LOT more but I have to go to work now. Maybe later?

Here is the original discussion thread on the official AT-43 forums:
http://en-forum.at-43.com/viewtopic.php?t=4171

Perhaps we should both pick a codex that we play to work on. (for example, you do deamonhunters, I do something else)
This way we can critique each others work alot easier and get more done.

I am running Necrons, SM and Eldar currently.

IronMessiah wrote:Also, troop transport vehicles would have a very simple unit limit (can carry a single one-or-two star unit). They will also allow a unit to disembark even if the transport moved that turn, so long as the transport didn't perform a rush move. By the way, I love the fact that this would all get planned out during the activation sequence, making it really cool to see it unfold.

What about those vehicles that are allowed to carry 40K's version of 3 star units(anything in 40K that takes up 2 Transport slots), like Land Raiders, Chimeras, Trukks, and Wave Serpents?

Well, I would definitely be devoted to a Space Marine codex translation as well as a lot of the core rules we'd need to get this working.

To start, a scout squad would be a 1-star unit. Space marine troopers, assault marines, veteran marines, devastators would be 2-stars.

As for the question regarding 3-star Terminator unit, we'd use a lot of common sense to translate it. In AT-43 these units consist of three soldiers, while in 40K they consist of up to ten. The first thing we need to do is explain how this is going to work, which is actually simple. These are Terminator fireteams (which is used in the real-world modern military). Fireteams are meant to be small and flexible.

A key difference we need to take to heart is that this is not the same kind of army list, nor the same kind of fight. In our "AT-40K" you build flexible platoons and combine them to create the kind of larger armies you're used to. The idea of only having three or six terminators in a platoon isn't really accurate... after all, your normal SM force would likely have at least two platoons in an average fight.

To address the question of transport posed by Platuan4th:

Any "normal" transport (i.e. a Rhino) that can hold a single 1 or 2-star unit can also hold a 3-star unit (there are only three guys in the unit!). Simplicity has got to be paramount to keep the flavor of AT-43.

Now a larger transport, such as the Land Raider, which is specifically designed for such bulky troops, can hold up to a pair of 3-star units. This will be an ability of the vehicle. For now I'd call the ability, "Battlesuit Compatible", and it will double the storage capacity for a 3-star unit. I use this name to keep it neutral for any army list.

Transports will use a slot in the platoon, so you can't get them as part of the marine's squad. Vehicles are much more dangerous in the AT-43 rules since they easily can run you over. Maybe you'd get up to three in a unit for one slot.

My 1,000-Foot View of the SM Codex:

I picture the SM army list allowing the standard SM squad to take a specialist in the form of one apothecary, though I am not sure if there will be a second specialist available. I considered the tech marine but they always were made out to be extremely rare... more like a hero-type. Maybe this is the downfall of the SM on a tactical level... good at fighting, but not at repairing their complex vehicles?

A minimum SM squad gets five men and 1 of them will be a special weapon. A maxed squad gets ten men and two special weapons. Yes, they must be matching types.

I think the dev's would be a support team, which we don't have the particulars for yet. When that becomes available I may change this, but for now I believe they'd be support-class.

I do have a question though. SM leaders would be...

Level 1 = Sergeant
Level 2 = Veteran Sergeant
Level 3 = ???
Level 4 = Captain
Level 5 = Commander

What is level 3? I considered "Terminator Honors Sergeant" but this seems kind of lame. Does anyone agree/disagree, or have other ideas?

As for the questions of the chaplain and the librarian... they're heroes of course! This is AT-40K!

P.S. how does this sound to you? Give me feedback on this stat line.

Space Marine Stats
Move = 14 cm (assaults would have 18 cm)
Morale = -- (they possess the Nerves of Steel trait)
Armour = 7 (the Terms would have a 10, the scouts a 5)
Melee = 5 (the assault marines/terms would get a 6)

I also have a list of weapons stats I came up with, but I want to really look them over before I put them out there.

--Steve--

This seems a good idea in principle.

Well you'd probably have to reverse engineer the 40K armor save back into an armor value that's scaled with the stuff in AT-43.

You'd have to sort of combine ballistic skill of the shooter and the range of the weapon into an accuracy score and decide whether or not the weapon has multiple shots, multiple wound capability and penetration will be related to weapon strength.

AT-43 has a really basic melee system so you'd lose some stuff if you used the AT-43 version as is.

High and low Initiative scores would probably best be expressed as bonus command points that let you move something around in your turn order card pile and bid for authority.

Also morale would be very important in 40K so the morale system in At-43 might need some tweaking.

Confrontation probably has cavalry rules that would be useful for small vehicles like motorcycles and mounted troops like rough riders.

It's been a while since I've played anything but killteam though and I'm sure my lapsed familiarity is showing. And event eh killteam was played with a guy being "dm" to keep us on track(which made me lazy) and we eventually switched to Chain reaction/All things Zombie anyway.

To answer a few questions (most via PM for some reason) and establish where we’re moving with this idea, i'll cover some rules clarifications.

Initiative:
The differences between these two games are not so great as you might think. Granted, WH40K has an initiative score to determine who gets the first strike, but this is because Warhammer is an “I go, you go” game. The initiative mechanic was necessary to make sure the more valuable melee troops were able to have an advantage. After all, WH40K is still focused heavily on hand-to-hand combat thanks to its Fantasy Battle roots.

With AT-43’s activation system, we don’t need initiative. If you activate your unit then you attack.

However, we COULD add a new trait to give a quality to certain hand-to-hand troops. Let’s call this trait, “First Strike”, and it will allow a unit that is on Overwatch to make a reactive melee attack FIRST, when their foe has charged them. If you don’t have this First Strike ability, you can never make the first attack when an enemy engages you. Instead, you wait until your turn to activate has arrived to make your attack.

Pistols:
There is, however, one serious issue for this conversion that will require a rule addendum. The issue? Pistols. In 40K they give you a melee attack, but in AT-43 they just plain suck. The only good way to handle this is as follows:

Pistols may be used in melee, however the accuracy of a pistol in melee is always 4. This is the case regardless of what the pistol’s listed accuracy score is.

Pistols use their listed accuracy when fired at range.

That fixes that, but I really wanted to avoid making any changes to the AT-43 core rules. Since pistols are wielded by a select few troops (and in this conversion we will know to keep an eye on these for balance purposes) it shouldn’t be a problem.

Morale:
I thought about the morale rules a bit. I know WH40K makes it a bigger thing, with the players keeping track of a lot of information for each squad on the table. I think this is why Rackham made it painfully easy. Only if you have three or fewer men then you make a test. This removes a lot of bookkeeping and insures those troops will not slow down the game for long. Speed was clearly the point here, and we will keep it the same. I don’t see any distinct advantage to the fun of the game to track the numbers of troops killed from round to round; in fact, I see a downside in slowing the pace of the game.

If someone can give me a specific reason why these rules ought to change and why it would make the game more fun, then let your voice be heard. Please, I would appreciate if your argument doesn't center around "that's how Warhammer did it". We're looking to primarily translate the SPIRIT of Warhammer and not so much the exact minutia of every rule. Heck, that's why were converting into AT-43 in the first place!

Flying/Hovering Vehicles:
These will be handled the same as any AT-43 vehicle with one change… if their propulsion is destroyed, they crash and are removed from the game. I will freely admit I do not have the Karman book (they have flying vehicles) so this might already be a rule in AT-43.

Armour Saves:
These are not a problem per se. The issue is in how you look at it. In 40K the effectiveness of the armour is an active thing for the defender to use in order to save himself from death. In AT-43 the effectiveness of armour is a passive thing for the attacker to get through. It’s the same thing, just a different perspective.

Admittedly this leaves “toughness” out in the cold, but is it necessary in AT-43? In cases where a species would literally be tough enough to resist a bullet it needs to be considered, such as Ogryns. In these cases we can simply give a higher armour value due to naturally tough skin. Humans, however, would get none. If you get hit with a hail of explosive shells you aren’t tough enough to ignore it. Warhammer included toughness as a balancing mechanism to make troops a bit more diverse but it never actually made any sense. The serious disadvantage of it was that it added an entire step to the combat resolution, and that slows things down... especiually when you do it with every attack.

What do people think? Tell me what the advantage is to the gameplay to reflect toughness. What do we gain or lose from it. I mean, we can always add a trait (“Too Tough To Die”) that might reflect super tough combatants, but I’d rather avoid too many traits. Tell me what your thoughts are on the subject.

“Weapon Skill”
Warhammer resolves melee combat with a comparison between the weapon skill attribute of the attacker and defender. AT-43 uses the attacker's weapon versus the target’s weapon skill. The only significant difference here is that WS is only used to dodge or parry in AT-43, which is why it only factors in a defensive way. This will work fine. Those troops that are more effective in melee? Give them an extra point of accuracy with their melee weapons (they did this with Steel Troopers wielding a Volcano machine gun to make them better than Star Troopers, so it's a viable option for us). That will equalize things and it is what we will do for SM wielding a combat knife compared to an imperial guardsman.

IronMessiah wrote:To answer a few questions (most via PM for some reason) and establish where we’re moving with this idea, i'll cover some rules clarifications.

Initiative:
The differences between these two games are not so great as you might think. Granted, WH40K has an initiative score to determine who gets the first strike, but this is because Warhammer is an “I go, you go” game. The initiative mechanic was necessary to make sure the more valuable melee troops were able to have an advantage. After all, WH40K is still focused heavily on hand-to-hand combat thanks to its Fantasy Battle roots.

Well I dunno. There were initiative rules that weren't just about preserving good melee troops such as "powerfists hit last" I think it's more about the speed you imasgine a troop type to have more than anything else. Dark elves are really really ninja-like and other troops mostly aren't. And I think the hand to hand focus is partly due to novels like Dune and done "on purpose" to add a flavor to the system and to give swarmers and mobs like Tyranids and orks a chance. So far AT-32 has been about troops versus troops versus cyborg/robots versus apes. But when the system tries to embrace a different type of paradigm it may ened to expand a bit to get that paradigm right at least via "advanced rules" for use in smaller games.

IronMessiah wrote:

With AT-43’s activation system, we don’t need initiative. If you activate your unit then you attack.

However, we COULD add a new trait to give a quality to certain hand-to-hand troops. Let’s call this trait, “First Strike”, and it will allow a unit that is on Overwatch to make a reactive melee attack FIRST, when their foe has charged them. If you don’t have this First Strike ability, you can never make the first attack when an enemy engages you. Instead, you wait until your turn to activate has arrived to make your attack.

I'd favor giving a player more to do by perhaps creating a melee specialist troop type and having melee classes have new drills just for them such as "brace for a charge" that enhances the close combat score (used for defense against close combat weapons) by one point for the first round of combat. Especially nimble attacking melee troops might have one to lessen the effect of a target squad that is placed on overwatch slightly.

IronMessiah wrote:
Pistols:
There is, however, one serious issue for this conversion that will require a rule addendum. The issue? Pistols. In 40K they give you a melee attack, but in AT-43 they just plain suck. The only good way to handle this is as follows:

Pistols may be used in melee, however the accuracy of a pistol in melee is always 4. This is the case regardless of what the pistol’s listed accuracy score is.

Pistols use their listed accuracy when fired at range.

I think it ought to vary according to troop type. Some guys can do more with a pistol than others and since 40K is often trying to be cinematic about things there ought to be some way to make a pistol in close combat very effective for one troop type and less effect for others. Also in real life melee is the last stage of assault and assault includes grenades, shotguns, smg's, rifle butt swinging and all manner of other savagery. AT-43 has a very minimalist approach to melee and I'm not sure it's purely for speed so much as it is the way they want their armies to work (that is they think guys with axes charging a machine gun nest is just silly and ought to be discouraged).

IronMessiah wrote:

That fixes that, but I really wanted to avoid making any changes to the AT-43 core rules. Since pistols are wielded by a select few troops (and in this conversion we will know to keep an eye on these for balance purposes) it shouldn’t be a problem.

Morale:

I thought about the morale rules a bit. I know WH40K makes it a bigger thing, with the players keeping track of a lot of information for each squad on the table. I think this is why Rackham made it painfully easy. Only if you have three or fewer men then you make a test. This removes a lot of bookkeeping and insures those troops will not slow down the game for long. Speed was clearly the point here, and we will keep it the same. I don’t see any distinct advantage to the fun of the game to track the numbers of troops killed from round to round; in fact, I see a downside in slowing the pace of the game.

If someone can give me a specific reason why these rules ought to change and why it would make the game more fun, then let your voice be heard. Please, I would appreciate if your argument doesn't center around "that's how Warhammer did it". We're looking to primarily translate the SPIRIT of Warhammer and not so much the exact minutia of every rule. Heck, that's why were converting into AT-43 in the first place!

Well I kind of think stuff like banners, Komissars, preachers with relics, psychic attacks, chaos pheremones, the presence of an Avatar on the field, proximity Chaplains, being essentially mindless outside of your programming, being a young green conspript, a repentant convict, or just being hand picked by an Inquisitor because you are absolutely stone cold, and hearing a "Waaaagghhhh" go up ought to be represented somehow. I think it's more spiritual and flavory than it is boring yadda detail to be snipped out for brevity.

IronMessiah wrote:

Flying/Hovering Vehicles:
These will be handled the same as any AT-43 vehicle with one change… if their propulsion is destroyed, they crash and are removed from the game. I will freely admit I do not have the Karman book (they have flying vehicles) so this might already be a rule in AT-43.

Karman vehicles have "altitude" where you put a riser between the base and craft for a new POV that lets them shoot over some cover. Changing altitude is a movement and triggers overwatch fire.

Firiing arcs are NOT 360 degrees as with striders. They are usually 180 degrees.

Instead of running people over they do a flyover and stop in their midst and rotate their craft rapidly to roast the troops they are running down with their "heated ejection gases". This is called a BBQ attack.

They can rocket jump over terrain and troops.

Karman vehicles hover because of anti-gravity fields and do not stay aloft through propulsion. Loss of propulsion SP immobilizes the craft but it does not crash. If troops stay in cohesion with it it can continue to fire within it's arcs. Otherwise the pilot can eject and join the nearest unit if a hero, or eject and leave the battlefield if a mere pilot. Abandoning the vehicle means it is considered destroyed. So a 40K craft would probably crash if it stays aloft through jets(land speeders are still little jet buggies right?) and probably fall if it stays aloft through some type of repulsor field tech(eldar, Tao).

IronMessiah wrote:
Admittedly this leaves “toughness” out in the cold, but is it necessary in AT-43? In cases where a species would literally be tough enough to resist a bullet it needs to be considered, such as Ogryns. In these cases we can simply give a higher armour value due to naturally tough skin. Humans, however, would get none. If you get hit with a hail of explosive shells you aren’t tough enough to ignore it. Warhammer included toughness as a balancing mechanism to make troops a bit more diverse but it never actually made any sense. The serious disadvantage of it was that it added an entire step to the combat resolution, and that slows things down... especiually when you do it with every attack.

What do people think? Tell me what the advantage is to the gameplay to reflect toughness. What do we gain or lose from it. I mean, we can always add a trait (“Too Tough To Die”) that might reflect super tough combatants, but I’d rather avoid too many traits. Tell me what your thoughts are on the subject.

I think that big multi-SP/wound troops and something like Warmachine's "tough" trait where a tough model is knocked down if killed and then gets up next round with a single SP remaining on a role of 5 or 6 on a d6 might handle those big tough models well enough without worrying about a toughness/ weapon strength mechanic.

IronMessiah wrote:
“Weapon Skill”
Warhammer resolves melee combat with a comparison between the weapon skill attribute of the attacker and defender. AT-43 uses the attacker's weapon versus the target’s weapon skill. The only significant difference here is that WS is only used to dodge or parry in AT-43, which is why it only factors in a defensive way. This will work fine. Those troops that are more effective in melee? Give them an extra point of accuracy with their melee weapons (they did this with Steel Troopers wielding a Volcano machine gun to make them better than Star Troopers, so it's a viable option for us). That will equalize things and it is what we will do for SM wielding a combat knife compared to an imperial guardsman.

It's been a while but I think in 40K you win or lose a melee as a miniround where initative comes into play and you have multiple attacks. In AT-43 you take your lump on your attacker's turn and if you survive you try to return it on your turn. Some troops don't have melee weapons and so can't attack while engaged. In 40K you can have one guy wipe out most of a squad if he mas multiple attacks and overwhelming WS. In AT-43 it's one attack=1 kill and melee is typically limited as few units(mostly therians) seem to have more than one melee attacks or weapons(Tiamat, Grim golems, Assualt Medusas, Hekat Golgoths, K-fighters, shooters, warriors) just as no weapon seems to cause more than 3 sp damage(because 3 SP is OBSCENE damage).

Meanhwile marines have what amounts to anti-tank hand grenades.

I think the two universe have a lot of work to come together well. 40K makes the armry troops have special or unique rules where AT-43 typically saves the strange new game complicating mechanics for the heroes which effectively makes all that weird flavor stuff optional. Both are valid approaches to game design where the army serves the game design or the game served the army design. AT-43 mechanics are useful for speeding up the game but you lose a lot of stuff if you just apply them, as is, to troops from another system which was made with different assumptions about what a player wants. I think the target of a conversion should be more of a hybrid approach where the At-43 model informs the 40K in terms of streamlining mechanics but keeps much of it's own rules/conetnt ideas for things not, or barely, present in the AT-43 rules.

I feel this is probably a more productive approach than trying to shoehorn all the changes into a bunch "alien to the system" army lists that only slightly resemble their pure 40K(or whatever) counterparts and clipping off any bits that don't fit. I don't know if "40K vs. AT-43" compatibility should even be a goal of such a project. In stating the above however I assume the real goal is to make a better 40K rather than rather than scoring a bunch of unofficial new units/sides for play in AT-43.

If the goal IS more oriented towards expanding AT-43 into some universal sci-fi combat system that uses other types of models (like Infinity, Warmachine, or Pig-Iron) with fan-generated, but centrally standardized, rules then my approach would definitely be the wrong one.

I would say the goal here is to take 40K's flavor and intent (fluff-wise) and translate it to the AT-43 rules. I agree that translating 40K rules line-by-line is a not very productive. Even 40K doesn't represent 40K well, such as the supposed hail of fire a bolter can deliver when you read the books.

I want to play 40K with a much more tactical spin, something I've never felt I can get from the real rules. It always ends up in a big fist fight in the middle of the board (or the edge of the board when dealing with the Tau, as they desperately try to get away from me).

I have been trying to avoid changes to the AT-43 rules, but the addition of traits and possibly new combat drills (I really liked the "Brace for charge" idea) might be inevitable.

I do disagree with the idea about how to handle pistols:

I think it ought to vary according to troop type. Some guys can do more with a pistol than others and since 40K is often trying to be cinematic about things there ought to be some way to make a pistol in close combat very effective for one troop type and less effect for others.

I think it will bog the game down to worry about what a particular soldier can do with a pistol beyond what is intended here. We want this to be simple. I definitely don't want to give two accuracy ratings for a pistol. That would be an unnecessary complication. Since a pistol in close combat should have an equal chance of hitting anyone, a universal accuracy rating will work fine. Making one pistol more or less accurate when in hand-to-hand combat doesn't benefit the fun of the game as much as it slows it down.

In response to the "melee specialist" idea, I think they are already in the game. The UNA has their Shock troopers, the Therians have their Grim Golems... these troops are in the game. They could definitely be MORE effective, which we will take care of. Right now it takes FAR too much to get into melee for these specialists, since they've got to face a lot of firepower. I think I'd increase the reach of the marine jump packs so that instead of going from 14 cm for a marine to 18 cm for a jump pack (as it is in AT-43), we'd go from 14 cm for a marine to 22 or 24 cm (I'd need to playtest this first, of course). We'd also arm them properly so that these specialists would get multiple melee attacks.

Obviously, we'd reflect the proper troop types. The marine army list will still have assault squads, much like the UNA has shock troopers, so melee specialists are guaranteed to be in this variant.

As for the intent of AT-43 with close combat, I still feel it comes down to speed of play. Melee in 40k is a long affair, made even longer by supremely powerful heroes. I will grant that AT-43 is a decidedly shooting-centric game, but anything that led to complication was cut. If this is not liked then consider that AT-43 is still a huge amount of fun despite this.

As for your excellent mention:

Well I kind of think stuff like banners, Komissars, preachers with relics, psychic attacks, chaos pheremones, the presence of an Avatar on the field, proximity Chaplains, being essentially mindless outside of your programming, being a young green conspript, a repentant convict, or just being hand picked by an Inquisitor because you are absolutely stone cold, and hearing a "Waaaagghhhh" go up ought to be represented somehow. I think it's more spiritual and flavory than it is boring yadda detail to be snipped out for brevity.

This is exactly what we want to reflect. Why can't a WAAAAGGHHHH force a morale check? Why can't a Komissar have rules to demonstrate the power of his faith in the Emperor and rally his troops to a massive bonus? Why can't the fall of a banner give every marine some sort of berserking ability until it is reclaimed? There is no reason why. We can reflect this in whatever way we wish.

You also mentioned the multi-wound heroes. I'm still thinking about that one. I think this is something we'd need to play test when more of the project. AT-43 is very clear on that one, and all heroes are very mortal. I used to think that would suck, but I actually think it makes the game more intense. I guess I'll just have to see.

I am certainly trying to hash this out and organize it so that it will be a very fun experience, but I want to underscore that I want it to be a decidedly different experience. If I wanted it to play the same kind of 40K then this would be a pointless exercise. I know where I want to go with this and I hope a lot of other people like the concept enough to give positive advise that will move things forward.

Well for starters, what about what mini's will be representing what kind of forces that already exist in AT-43 as a quick flow over of models to rules? Getting something like that in place for people would make the process of adding certain things later much more specific and balanced in terms of the rest of the force.

If you ever get this monstrosity completed...you guessed it...
It would be a great article. (sorry for the harping)

Weedy contribution, but...
Up until 3rd ed. there used to be a SM rank called 'lieutenant', that stood between the vet. sarge and the captain. That's probably your best bet.

I was going to cough up and post an IG list but then I realized that I hadn't played IG since third edition bfore the new codex came out and all I really had to go by was some steel legion figures, a unit of Kasrkin, and some plastic cadians that I had done bad things to.

Run of the mill IG seem a lot like Red Block Krasnye to me. I say give them on point less accurate laser rifles from the UNA steel troopers (4) and then toss in the combat knife. Lower morale a bit to make room for veteran units, HQ's, and elites

I figure shock troops would have ten man squads with a compulsory sergeant.
2 special weapons would be allowed (1 grenade launcher + either one flamer, 1 sniper rifle, or 1 plasma rifle) and one heavy weapon that could not be moved without another figure in base to base with the firer(since they are mostly 2-man portable/loader systems). Laser-Cannon(medium laser gun), Heavy Bolter(sonic cannon maybe?) autocannon, mortar, heavy stubber, missle launcher(lock on? dumb fire?), and Multimelta.

Sergeant has a laser pistol and chain sword or power weapon. The sergeant's morale is higher than the troops and they use his morale while he is alive.

Other supporting gear is voxcaster, auspex, nbc gear, grenades (might have to make up some new hand grenade types)

Then storm troopers would be your elites with abnormally high morale.

Heavy weapons teams are 2-6 men servicing three heavy weapons to be chosen as desired. The loader has a laser rifle and a combat knife. The firer has only the heavy weapon. Both men must be base to base when moving the heavy weapon. (laser cannon, autocannon, heavy stubber, heavy bolter, multi-melta, missile launcher. The teams may break up into two man elements servicing one weapon that act independently and presumed to be in vox contact with the HQ. Thus they will require one card for each firing team.

That reminds me... should we use obsolete stuff in this?

Would bringing back assault guardsmen with jump packs, beastmen, mutants, penals(with drug collars rather than explosive ones), and such be a good idea? For that matter to we want thumper artillery, tarrantulas, speeder bikes, guard land speeders, and robots and dreadnoughts that you can climb into and out of at the service of all imperials?

For that matter do we want slaan, squats, old fashioned genestealer cults, distinct ork tribes, Exodites, Chaos androids, ratlings, and Malal worshippers running around alongside the Tao and Necrons? Do we want speculative stuff like Hrud/Skaven, mutant uprisings, techno-lizardmen and revivified (not undead!) armies of thralls to Space-Vampires ? Do we want vortex grenades and conversion beamers?

Should we look to the old Laserburn background for further inspiration?

Is finding use for old miniatures(not Laserburn obviously, as they are 15mm,) a good motivation for the migration of 40K stuff to a new system like At-43? Or do we just want 4th ed/5th Ed?

Karman seem like durable Eldar. Or maybe they're like
Tau Crisis suits?

this sounds like a good idea! I've never played at-43 but I like the descriptions I've read. Gritty sci-fi gun battles. I've been trying to find a good combat system to use my 40k minis with, as I love citadel miniatures.

Certain races would seem to be easier to convert than others, marines, IG, tau, eldar, and orks would seem to fit. I dont know If they have giant monsters like tyranids or daemons in at-43, so those would be harder.

Are you planning on staying closer to the fluff than GW does? I would think that would be really cool if a bit unbalanced. according to fluff a marine bolter is more like an accurate grenade launcher than a rifle and power armor would make even basic marines killer in CC.

I think that grenade launchers in At-43 are indirect fire(lobbing) AOE attacks with knockdown on hit but unwounded troops.

I don't think that bolters really work that way.

With no multi-wound non-vehicle units in the game the explosive rounds really wouldn't have any effect that normal direct fire shots don't already have. They shouldn't get any added structure damage because that's the realm of really big rockets and missles.

I figure a "fluff" SM bolter would look a lot like a Red Blok gauss rifle. Maybe with one point more penetration to reflect the explosive round, and an impact reroll to reflect the autro fire.

Space Marine Bolter: Direct fire weapon

Accuracy: 4 (5 with targeting gear)
Shots: 1/1 (1 shot with a reroll like assault rifles get)
ROE: 0
Penetration 6/1 SP damage

An imperial bolter would be similar but have the penetration lowered by one since normal humans use smaller bolters than space marines do.

A bolt pistol would beabout the same but have less accuracy and no reroll.

Bolt pistol:

Accuracy: 2 (3 with targeting gear)
Shots: 1/0
Penetration: 5/1

I'm not too sure about storm and heavy bolters yet.

I guess a storm bolter might be:

Accuracy 3(4 with targeting gear)
Shots 2/1
Penetration 6:1

Heavy Bolter:

Accuracy 3(4 with targeting gear)
Shots: 3/0
Penetration 8/1

If you're porting things to 40k, would you be rewriting the
codex? Terminators could easily become multi-wound
models as would Wraithguard and other heavily armored
troops.

Just a thought.

Apparently Iron Messiah isn't too keen on including multiwounders.

I'm trying to be helpful within the bounds of his specs.

Overall though I don't see anything about tactical dreadnought armor that puts it much past a Kolossus in terms of its survivability. It's got a lot of armor so would it would take a fairly high penetration weapon to pierce it but in AT-43 terms it's clearly an infantry model and not a strider or vehicle. You might let it force the attacker to reroll a successful armor penetration once or something like that. Maybe you could declare that it never allows a happy face result (where a weapon would automatically penetrate the armor on a sucessful impact roll and thus always survives with the damage roll is 1) for damage rolls. Say if an 18 penetration weapon( I think only the medium nucleus cannons on the Baal Golgoth have 18 penetration)) hits a power armor with armor value of 12 (which is a whole LOT of armor, as much as light vehicles typically have) then 18-12=6 which would normally be a happy face result.

I'm big fan of this idea, and will probably do some calculations and post what i,ve got some time soon. Gonna do a little marines and IG (for scale mostly), tyranids and chaos more in-deep.

Sounds pretty cool. Im all for anything that takes the great minis & background of 40k and moves it to a decent rules set.

There you go, my first contributions.
Since to convert 40k units into the AT-43 system you need to know said system well, I did summaries on troops, weapons and vehicles present in AT-43. This sure will help anyone working on the conversions.
I also included my early considerations on calculating Armour values for 40k troops and vehicles based on their AT-43 analogues. Waiting for your feedback, working on some troops and tanks.
Also, looking forward to see what you guys&gals have done.

I like the idea too, but since the original thread is ~5 years old, you might want to start a new thread and let this one rest in peace. Maybe PM the original authors in case they are still around.