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.

Hi Dast.
I think it is important to get the basic 'army composition ' method sorted out.

As most armies are based on a form of infantry type, (Foot, Mobile, or Mounted.).These basic options should be set by the HQ IMO.
Most lists have transport options and/ or individual transport options.
(Mounted /individual transport , is bikes/beasts or ,jump / jet packs/wings.)

The thing is if we change the conditions for scoring ,(new missions,) then 'All Tank' lists are a bit over powered'

I was trying to have 3 seperate systems to get the diversity we need.

A)The HQ mobility type.

B)'Doubling up' on Core HQ if all core units taken.(7 core units and an extra HQ can be taken as Core.) OR 'Doubling up' on special units if 2 of the same type are taken.
(Adding a specialised HQ option and/ or making the original HQ Specialised)

C) Simple stat trade off 'traits'.Rather than tying to work out points values for special abilities on everything.

Some lists need quite a bit of diversity, and trying to make one system cover everything may be forcing it to do too much?
EG Rather than using one very complicated system,we couod use 3 simple ones that work together?

Hello,
I'm not sure the HQ's mobility type should necessarily be that important.

True the ones I have got so far do more or less select core units with the same mobility type as themselves, but I dont think that this would nesesarily have have to have been the case, and is more a coincidence. For example I dont think an Imperial general should get core ogryns, even if they are both "walking".

Your "B" option sounds interesting, but Im not entirely sure I understand what you are saying.

Traits do not currently have any special rules accosiated with them, I think its simpler to leave them as a force organisation element than trying to shoe-horn some universal stat modifiers to the whole army based on the HQ's traits.

Hi Dast.
I was listing 3 basic methods we could use TOGETHER to arrive at the diversity we might need.
A,B and C, rather than just one method which could get a bit complicated.

Eg Basic Core unit mobility choices set by HQ mobility type.
CORE unit foot slogging infantry, OR CORE Mobile infantry,OR CORE Mounted infantry.Core units using a different mobility method to HQ count as specialised.
(These units DO NOT have a 'Thematic type'!)

This does not apply to all races equally, but to enough to be a basic factor.


This is a basic theme of 'foot slogging infantry hoard', or'faster moveing better protected mobile infantry', or 'super mobile mounted infantry'.Some armies could only have one or two basic variants based on mobility...

Then the next method I wanted to use was DOUBLING UP.

If you include the full 8 core units choices for your first HQ , you may double up on the original HQ by UPGRADING a core units to an additional HQ unit.So maximizing on core units doubles up on the HQ .

EG An Ork Goff Warlord takes 8 Boys units, he can upgrade one boys mob to a Warboss and retinue.(As 8 Boys mobs can be hard to direct with just one HQ!)
Obviously this is applying 'Doubling up' to the core theme.

Applying it to a Specialist theme is done like this.

All Specialist/ Rare units are given a 'thematic grouping' .
EG For IG unit types could be ;-
Abhuman,(Ogryn, Ratling, Beastman.)
Independant , (Veterans , Storm Troopers.Sentinels)
Expendable,(Conscripts, Penal Legionares.)
Armoured ,(Leman Russ,Demolisher Hell hound, etc.)
Artilllery .Heavy Weapon teams Bassilisk/Manticore/Griffen

If a player pick 2 units from the same thematic grouping .(EG Ogryns and Ratlings.) They can take 2 more units from this 'thematic group' as core choice.(EG another Ogryn and a Beastman unit.)

This entitles the player to another Special unit Choice.

So this means a Themed force can have 6 core choices,
2 Specialised units of the same Theme, 2 Specialised units of the same theme counting as 'core units'.
2 more Specialised units.

This allows up to 50% of a force to be Specialised units of the same Thematic type..

I hope that makes more sense.if not Ill try to explain it again..

The last option was the add a simple 'Stat changing Doctrine' to the units WITHOUT Thematic type.(Eg HQ and core units only.)
This is just a 'flavor twist', that allows;-
Feral units to be better at close combat than shooting.
Recon units to be faster but less well armoured.
Defencive units to have higher stealth but lower mobility.
Disruptive units to have higher effective range, but less able in close combat...

I hope this makes more sense?

Dast and Lanrak,

I think that the mobility type is fantastic for adding traits to the commander, but some armies it really doesn't apply to. I would normally be up for adding multiple ways to determine which units are core, support, and elite; however, doing that can add some serious complications to a game we're trying to minimize complications in.

Instead, I think we should keep as simple of a core system as possible but leave it open for armies to deviate from.

In other words, I think the core system should simply be:
Commanders have primary traits
Commanders have secondary traits
A single commander is taken (with a retinue if applicable) and any additional HQ units take up elite slots and do not have traits.

We now have two options for adding extra force org slots:
1 - Games have a certain number of Commanders and a certain number of points.
2 - There is still only ever one commander, but the number of core/support/elite slots increases based on points.

So method 1 would have these rules:
-Every commander unlocks 8 core, 4 support, and 2 elite slots. This is the only way to get force org slots.

Method 2 would have these rules:
-You have one commander.
-Every 2000 points unlocks 8 core, 4 support, and 2 elite slots.


These are the two simplest methods that I can think of, and allow the theming of armies.


Lanrak,

Doctrines I think are great, but I feel they are once again more suited to some armies than others. For instance, Imperial Guard and Black Templars are perfect for this; however, Tyranids and Chaos Daemons obviously don't have different doctrines. Instead these can be summed up very similar to what the Space Marines have now with Chapter Tactics This is the direction I feel we should head if we want to change stats around in a themed army.

Mind if I give a shot at some Imperial Guard examples?

Home World codex special rule (much like Synapse)
-Feral
---Units are better at close combat, becoming +1 Dexterity but -1 Accuracy.
-Forge
---Units have access to heavier armor, becoming +1 AV but -1 MV
-Desert
---Units are faster due to being used to the difficult terrain at home, becoming +1 MV but -1 AV.
-Dark
---Units have spent their entire lives in the darkness, gaining Night Vision.

Obviously very rough, but what do you think about that? We can add several more and will really help theme armies and give players the opportunity to make a fluffy army that plays the way the fluff describes.



Oh, and here is the rulebook so far. I've gotten through quite a bit

Hi rabid.
In my post I was thinking about the basic ways to get variety in the armies.
I agree that the HQ sets the basic organisation of what is Core /Specialised /Elite.

The majority of armies can set the basic 'primary' trait from the HQ mobility type.

The exceptions will be based around actual differences in that races HQ.(EG Nids.)As I am not very familiar with these armies I just used mobility as an example.

The doubling up idea is quite simple, and allows quite varied themes.(Select 2 Special units of the same type , and 2 more of the same type can be taken as core units.)
This is probably less restrictive than second commander 'trait'.

The idea for doctrines was to make swapping out abilities , more of a player choice.
(I did not like the GW ones where some give massive benifits with very little downside.)

I wanted to use these ideas together over the whole of the armies, AS APPLICABLE.

Some races do not have doctrines, some have different HQ types NOT based on Mobility, but something else.

Also it would be important to put 0-1.0-2 ,0-3, restrictions on some units.

Lanrak,

Sorry I haven't had the chance to really dive into this, I actually just finished up everything but two sections in the rulebook though

The Warlord and force org chart is the main one, examples of the game are the other.

I posted it up on the first page when you get the chance

Hmm this would be annoying for me as I have just spent ages trying to learn the rules and their a massive changes NOW???!!!

TechmarineNic,

This is meant to be a total rewrite of the rules. I can understand your frustration, but don't think of it as learning a new rulebook but as learning a new game. If you have experience with tabletop games you will likely be able to pick this up and play fairly easily (after all, it is only about 30 pages currently.)

Granted, there are a lot of rough edges and I'm sure there are imbalances. However, having people revise it will smooth out the edges and play testing will dramatically help balance the game.


If you get the chance to read through the rulebook, please let me know anything and everything that is unclear or may be unbalanced. Like I said in the first post, I have thick skin and can take criticism very well; the only thing I don't want is someone to say "this sucks" and not say anything else to help make it better.

Hello Tachmarine-Nick,

Its very nice to see that people other than me, Rabid and Lanrak are reading this.

I can see two ways to read your comment and am not sure which is correct- I will give an answer to both:

Interpretation 1 - All the "changes" we have recently brought in are annoying after you learned the old stuff.

Answer: I may be mistaken, but I don't think we have actually changed anything recently. We have added allot, but these additions didnt replace existing stuff.

Interpretation 2- You know 40k (6th or whatever), and our rules seem to be massive changes.

Answer: Just in case you were confused this is a set of "home made" rules to replace those of 40k being made by fans for their own games, this is not a massive change to the actual "real" game.

The changes are big, and will take getting used to. One of the things that makes normal 40k's so confusing is that every new addition has to remain vaguely consistent and compatible with those that came before (for example an old Codex still more or less makes sense). This means that each new edition has very little wriggle room to fix problems, simply because backwards compatibly gets in the way.

I admit that the changes will definitely take some getting used to. I spent a good 10 minutes staring at the hive Tyrants new stat line in Radid's Tyranids trying to decipher what it meant in "old money".

I hope one of these answers your question Techmarine,

Dast

Dast,

I'm really looking forward to reading over what you're thinking for the Imperial Guard codex. It sounds like you had a lot of good ideas, now it's just going to be making sure things are balanced and we don't have anything unnecessary in it



All,

Was busy than I anticipated the last few days, now I'm ready to dive back into this and see if we can crank out the last bit


Warlords and force org stuff is all that is left. Let me see if I can sum up the stuff we've said so far, because I think there are a lot of disconnects.

We've agreed on these points:
-Each army has a single model as their warlord
-That warlord has a primary trait as determined by something. Many armies will have it as the mode of transportation (bike, jump packs, etc.) but some will have it based on other things (Daemons and their marks, etc.)
-The warlord will also have secondary traits as determined by other factors.
-Some warlords will have a retinue that will add more primary and secondary traits.
-All other units in the codex will have a single trait. If that trait matches a primary trait they are core. If that trait matches a secondary trait they are support. If that trait doesn't match either they are elite.
-Some units will have a trait that simply says "core", "support", or "elite" and these units always fill those slots.


Things we disagree on, and why I disagree:
-Taking two of the same unit will allow for a third to be taken as core.
---I think this rewards spammy armies, when in fact we should be rewarding diverse armies. The units that should be spammed to match the style of the army will already be covered with the primary trait.
-Units should have restrictions on the number of them that you can take.
---Though it is used decently well in several other games, I don't think it scales very well. Instead, I think that units that should be restricted as such should simply be considered "elite" units, and won't be able to be spammed.
-Different armies will have different methods of building their army. With similarities between them.
---Although I fully agree that armies should have differences between them, I think that diverging from a solid structure we put in the rulebook will add more complication than the benefits of variability. I really feel that using the traits system is the way to go, but different armies will have different ways of determining the traits. This way we can put in the rulebook "primary traits make core units and secondary traits make support units" and it is very clear how you plan your army.
-Maxing out the core slots gains an extra HQ slot.
---My original plan was to simply allow any HQ unit that is not the warlord to be taken as an "elite". Maybe making it so if you take another HQ as an elite their primary trait makes those units "support" is a good compromise for us?


I hope that I summed everything up pretty well, please let me know if I missed something or didn't represent what you guys were trying to say well.

Hi rabid.
Just to point out that to get 2 special choices, you need to take 4 core units first.
So allowing to take extra Special units of the same type as a Core choice is just an alternative to secondary traits.
The special units have 'traits' rather than the HQ having 'secondary traits'. Just an alternative to your proposal.(Select 2 special units with the same trait , you can take a special unit with the same trait as core, OR a rare unit with the same trait as special choice.(If the number of core units allow another special choice to be taken.)

EG
HQ
Warlord on Warbike
Retinue of nobs on Warbike

2 Warbike (Boyz) Mobs Core Choice.
2 Wartrukk(Boyz) Mobs Core Choice

Warbuggy Skwadron as Special Choice.(Fast Attack trait)
Wartrakk Skwadron as Special Choice.(Fast Attack trait.)

Can take a Skwadron of (Fast Attack trait ) Deff kopters, Wartrakks Warbuggies as a SINGLE Core choice.

Just an alternative ...

I am not saying that 0-X has to be used in every list .BUT in some cases where VERY rare units or SPECIAL CHARACTERS are involved , a limit of 0-X may be more sensible.
To stop some lists spamming special characters.(You know they will if you don't say they can not! )

And as we are using numerical restrictions on the slots so extending it to units is not that much of an over complication or counter intuitive
EG.
HQ 1+
Core 2 -8
Special 0-4
Rare 0-2.

Lanrak,

Definitely a good call on special characters and the like. Those need to be limited to 1.

So primary traits we all agree upon, so the debate is really between having secondary traits or gaining an extra of the same trait after taking two (we'll call this adaptive org)

Previously I missed the part where it takes two support of the same trait to unlock an elite of that trait. This makes more sense to me now


To sum it up, I am against forcing people to take core units to unlock support and elite. Though I understand your concern that if we don't do something to make the players pick units in accordance with their theme, what's the point of having the themes. Instead I'm thinking about reducing the number of support and elite slots, but unlocking more.
Alright, here's my idea to combine our thoughts:

1 Warlord slot (model has primary traits)
2-8 Core slots (determined by the primary trait of the warlord)
0-2 Support slots base. For every 2 Core units that share a trait, a slot opens up for a Support unit of the same type.
0-1 Elite slots base. For every 2 Support units that share a trait, a slot opens up for an Elite unit of the same type.

In the Codex, units will be listed in these sections:
Headquarters - One is chosen as a Warlord, the others may be taken as Elite.
Core - Always considered Core units.
Support - Considered Support units, unless the Warlord makes them Core.
Elite - Considered Elite units, unless the Warlord makes them Core.

So this allows for things like Terminators in a Raven Guard list. With the system you were saying it looked like it would be exceedingly difficult to get certain units in some lists. Though I easily could have misinterpreted it.


Here's a Space Marine example (using fluffy Raven Guard, who currently don't have a really good way to be represented)

Warlord:
---Captain with Jump Pack (Stealth and Rapid are his traits)

Core:
---Scout squad (Stealth and Tactical are their traits)
---Scout squad (Stealth and Tactical are their traits)
---Assault Marine Squad (Rapid and Close Combat are their traits)
---Assault Marine Squad (Rapid and Close Combat are their traits)

Support:
---Tactical Drop Squad (Tactical is their trait) (this unit used a free Support Slot)
---Bike Squad (Bike is their trait)
---Sternguard Veteran Squad (Veteran is their trait)
---Vanguard Veteran Squad (Rapid and Veteran are their traits) (this unit used a free Support Slot)

Elite:
---Terminator Squad (Veteran is their trait) (this unit used a free Elite Slot)
---Drop Pod Dreadnought (Armored is their trait)


*Quick Note: Veteran units cannot be shifted from their spot unless the Warlord has a Veteran Trait. Just an idea to make the example work.

Hopefully this makes some kind of sense, I'm typing it up in a bit of a hurry unfortunately

Hi again.
I think we are very close to an agreed solution.We all want something similar, its just a bit of 'fine tweeking' to get it how we all agree on.

1+ HQ .The first HQ selected counts as the CiC.(Warlord.)
A second HQ may be taken to start a new F.O.C. after all 8 core units taken with original HQ.
OR one may be taken as Elite choice if 4 core and 2 support units of the same trait are taken.

I prefer the original unit numbers in F.O.C.(Other wise it may nerf non theme lists?)
2-8 Core Units.

0-4 Support units.

0-2 Elite unit.

Another alternative , 'selective pool denomination'.
Have 2 groups of units , and trait selection determines actual F.O.C?
EG

COMMON UNITS.
Core units and Support units.
Units that share the same trait as the warlord are Core Unit selections.
Units that do not share the same trait as the warlord count as Support units.

SPECIAL UNITS.
Units that share the same trait as the warlord , or 2 selected Core units ,Count as Support units.
Units that do not share ANY trait with the rest of the army count as Elite.(Rarest.)

What do you think to the basic idea?

I like the last thing you said the most of all our suggestions, let me see if I can say what I read your proposal as (just to make sure I got it)


1 HQ
2-8 Core
0-4 Support
0-2 Elite

Codex is breaks units down into 3 groups:
Headquarters
Common
Rare


Common units that share the trait with the warlord are considered Core units. Those that do not are considered Support.

Rare units that share the trait with the warlord are considered Support units. Those that do not are considered Elite.

*Exceptions: Units may have the trait Core, Support, or Rare and cannot be moved around.

If all 8 Core slots are filled, a second HQ may be taken that determines the layout of the next force org chart.


I think if we use those rules, we will get the most bang for our buck. Themed lists are encouraged, but not so much that the players can't run something else. It's also not so complicated that new players can't pick it up and plan an army, nor is so complicated that it is easy to make mistakes when planning an army.

I took out unlocking units for Core and Support to simplify things. While they sound like they can work on paper, I think they can add a lot of unnecessary confusion if we're not careful.

Hi Rabid.
Yes that looks a good system!
Enough flexibility to allow themes, but not over complicated.

Hello again,

So, just to clarify we are using the system two posts above this one the concept of "secondary traits" no longer exists.

Of course anything that previously made use of the "secondary traits" rules could simply have it as a normal trait using the system above.

I have some very big deadlines coming up, so I am afraid I am likely to get very little done on this over the next few weeks.

Dast,

Secondary Traits are gone now, we can adapt the codices to have the model that we want. So we don't have to worry

No worries on the deadlines, there are much higher priorities than this. I'm still really looking forward to your Imperial Guard codex though, so whenever you get the chance and the motivation to knock it out that'd be great


All,

I'll throw the new system in the rulebook tonight.

The last thing I can think of has to deal with the current system of Warlord Traits. I think they add some nice customization options to distinguish a player's warlord from other players'. However, those are obviously advanced rules and we don't need to worry about them

With that, I am going to change the title of the thread and mark that all the core rules are complete

Also, we gotta come up with a name for our game. I'm woefully bad at naming things, but I tend to lean towards acronyms (military ) What do you guys think?

Working titles...

4.T.K.
(See what i did there... )
40 P.(like 40k but 5 versions later...)
Or ...
Xenos and Zealots.

I am rubbish at names too!

4.T.K and Xenos and Zealots made me laugh a lot.

I third being rubbish at names.

Warspanner?

I don't yet have an serious ideas.

Oh boy, trying to think of one...

What about R.E.I.G.N.

R - Revolutionary
E - Engagement
I - Innovative and
G - Galvanized
N - Narrative

Roughly meaning: We were tired of running into problems with GW so we came up with our own system... Just with cooler words haha

Reign is the name of a pretty popular RPG, but that doesn't rule it out.

I thought it sounded familiar haha

Ugh... Naming so far feels like the hardest part.


The newest version has been uploaded to the first post when you guys get the chance to take a look. I put a title page on there, but that is of course subject to change.

All,

I went back and have remade the Tyranid Codex with the new Force Org chart. Next up is Tau, and I've got a pretty good idea how I'm going to do that one so hopefully it doesn't take as long as this one did haha.

Here it is, let me know what you think.

All,

Here is the Tau Codex. Very rough but the first version is done, let me know what you think.

So after reading through the rulebook a couple times, there are some parts I'm not as happy with as before.

1. The blast marker system seems very clunky the more I look at it. I'm thinking instead that certain things add dice instead of following a flow chart.

2. Challenges I think we can make a lot more fun than they are. They shouldn't be used as a way to game the Assault in your favor, but instead just add some flavor to the game and allow for narrative.

Thoughts?

I agree on the blast marker thing, each good thing subtracting a die and each negative adding one would be far simpler.

The thing with challenges is that the epic cinematic warlord on warlard combats tend to happen when they happen anyway, and the tactics associated with "barely characters" like squad captains challenging epic heros to mitigate damage to their squad is a bit game-y.

I will give it some more thought, at the moment I have no solution ideas.

I have been thinking a lot on the blast marker resolution recently, and I think I came up with a good method that doesn't slow the game down so much.

It's simple, and only one step:

Roll the Scatter die and a single D6
-Add a D6 if not in LOS of the firing model
-Add another D6 if also not in LOS of any friendly models
-Add the Stealth value of the target
-Subtract the Accuracy of the firing model, double this if a "hit" is rolled on the Scatter die.

Obviously this isn't the best explanation, so here are two examples:

Example 1:
Basilisk is shooting at a Rhino (Acc: 3 / Stealth: 2)
-They are not in LOS of the Basilisk, but are in LOS of a friendly model.

The Scatter die and 2D6 are rolled with a total of 5 on the 2D6.
-Add the Stealth value, increasing the scatter to 7.
-Subtract the Accuracy value, decreasing the scatter to 4.


Example 2:
Marine with a Rocket Launcher shooting at a Lictor in cover (Acc: 4 / Stealth 6)

The Scatter die and 1D6 are rolled with a total of 4 on the D6 and a "hit" on the Scatter die.
-Add the Stealth value, increasing the scatter to 10.
-Subtract 2x the Accuracy value, reducing the scatter to 2.


Hopefully this makes some kind of sense, and it feels much faster than the previous iteration while still retaining pretty high fidelity.



I'm still working on a solution for the challenges, so far I'm considering alternating attacks combined with a few other things. Seeing as how these are advanced rules I feel we can make them more complicated than others because the players can opt to simply not use them.

Lastly, I'm hurting on a name. Most recent idea was to change it away from an acronym and just give it a one-word name. The only thing I could think of was "Constellation" but as I'm sure you can guess I don't like it.

Hi folks.
As reguard Indirect fire, blast marker resolution.

How about using a D10 instead of the scatter dice?

D 10 roll - round falls ...

1, 12" short
2, 12" left
3,12" right
4 , 12" long,
5, 6" short
6 6" left
7, 6" right
8, 6" long
9 or 10 on target.

if indirect fire guided to target, modify the round fall UP TO a number of inches equal to the Acc of the Spotter.

Name idea...'Dark Divisions'...

Sorry if it is a bit pants...

Hopefully be able to input more next month.
(Real life is a bit hectic ATM.)

Lanrak,

Very interesting take on it. I would really like it if it weren't for the fact it would use a D10, and I feel that goes against a lot of what we've tried for.

With a scatter die, you have every direction available to you but it isn't required to own one (only encouraged). If you don't own a scatter die you roll a D6 with 1-4 being directions and 5-6 being hits.

Lastly, I would still like to include the targets stealth value in the calculation. It represents just how difficult it is to hit the target in many different fashions.


Sorry to hear that things are hectic, hope everything works out

Hello again,

I am afraid I dislike Lanrak's scatter proposal, me and a friend tried a similar thing when playing without a scatter dice as a filler. (we used a clock face with d6 markings). The problem came when my (competitive) opponent starting saying things like "you can't choose that point to deep strike, because of the clock their is no way you can mishap even though that lake is right next to you." We agreed to rotate the clock for that one strike to make it work, but you get the idea of the problem.

As for wound allocation to units, I know I've said this before, and something else was chosen instead, but I really feel that once wounds have been allocated to a unit, and all the roles like RV and AV have been taken using the units majority values, that the player controlling that unit then removes models equal to casualties taken, removed models can be out of range/line of sight whatever. They can be the ones with bolters, or with lascannons or whatever (just say that if the lascannon guy happens to die someone else picks it up).

I would also measure all ranges from the furthest forward model in a unit.

This is just so much simpler, I really don't see the sense in worrying about where individual models are actually standing, their is a squad somewhere around their, as signified by that cluster of models, exactly where they are as individuals is never specified. (Just like forests are an area thing, and even if they have been modeled as a finite number of individual trees they are not played that way).

For allocation to characters in units maybe we could have this system:
-Wounds inflicted by non-character models are taken by non-character models in the unit until they run out, then by character models.
-Wounds inflicted by characters are taken by other characters until they run out, overkill is taken by the rest of the unit.

In CC this would basically do challenges but in a simpler way, at range it would work in a story line sense (if not a logical sense). Story-line wise great hero's leading the charge of the army don't die to a random lasgun shot fired by a conscript. They are either the last of their squad, and are overwhelmed by enemy firepower (like in the last samurai film), or are killed by some enemy hero marksman who has a name himself. (Achilieis wasn't killed by just any old archer).

I like this idea, but haven't yet thought it through entirely. It would be quite a big change. What are your thoughts?

Dast