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 folks.
I think wraithbalor is doing an excellent job of writing up the core rules we have agreed on as a starting point.
(I think it is a solid foundation for the new rules that should only need slight tweeks when we get to play testing. )

I would like to talk briefly on how we could do force composition.(Army building.)

I do not like the current 'restriction by function' the current 40k rules use.It is too restrictive and leads to having to break the basic composition rules with special characters, detachments, and unbound shenanigans, etc.

I want to get a set of lists that reflect the diverse background narrative, but offer enough balance for enjoyable random pick up games , without having to use Venn diagrams to work out how to build a force for 40k....

My basic idea is each faction gets several sub lists.Each sub list has its own theme, that is represented by a HQ, Common, Support and Specialized units.(Based on Epic S.M. list building.)

The Core of the army is the HQ unit and 2 to 5 Common units.
This can have up to 3 support units and 1 Specialized unit.


For example in an Ork Codex,there could be 7 separate lists based on the old Klan Kultures from the older background.
With different units in HQ, Core ,Support and Specialized, slots, to follow the theme of each Klan.

HQ units and Common units are 'on theme'.Support units support the theme of the army.And Specialized units are counter theme.

Eg War bikes could be a Common unit in a Kult of Speed list, a Support unit in a Bad Moon list, and a Specialist unit in a Goff List.

Also each Klan List could have Klan specific units.
EG a primitive Snake Bite Klan is the only Klan to use traditional Boar Boys, Giant Squggoths,and Wild boys.So we can keep the fluffy units that add character to specific forces, without letting over powered combinations ruin the game play.(With lots of play testing to sort out balance issues obviously.)

This way you get a simple method to construct your force.

A 'Core force' using a single HQ, and 2 to 5 Common units.
And you can expand this force by using up to 3 Support units and one Specialized unit.

(We can change the number of units available to the force if we need to have more in practice.)

But the 'narrative creation' is supported in several variants themed lists.That can be balanced better than 'just pick what you like '.

I probably need to explain that better..

Hi folks.
I appear to have posted a solution to a problem I did not fully explain.(Its my age you know... )

The original 3rd ed F.O,C was devised by GW sales department to help new customers purchase minatures in 'easily recognizable batches' based on function.
I think there was some promotion where if you bought a HQ unit and 4 troop units , you got a discount on a Heavy support ,or Fast Attack or Elite unit.(My memory is not 100% but I am sure my local GW,( Nottingham,) had this promotion in the late 1990s.)

Every other war game I have played that has a wide variety of unit types, classes units by how rare they are in a particular force/faction/army.
This allows more thematic builds to be arrived at simply, and as each thematic list is independent, you can alter each list individually to arrive at the level of balance you need.

I think most people recognize 40k has awful levels of balance at every level.Even if there was a miracle and PV were assigned reasonably accurately at the unit level.
The complete lack of meaningful play testing means any sort of synergistic effects in the game are not accounted for.
So the external balance would still need work. (Spamming units to gain massive synergistic advantages, and people buying multiples of less effective units because of background reasons,ending up with a 'complete dud' of an army.)

Until the GW devs completely gave up on the idea of game balance in 6th/7th edition.
GW used minimum amount of Troops options to force players to have to take 'less optimal ' units.The' Troop tax' as players with 'poor' troop unit choices might call it.

40k has a force organisation method that was designed as a sales gimmick to appeal to new players.But the only driver that would have improved sales, (discounts for army collectors,)was abandoned soon after launch.

So we were stuck with a restrictive force organisation method that would not let players build some ' narrative lists', and actively penalized some lists over others, right at the start.(Depending how good their 'Troops' choices are.)

But rather than fix the problem at source, with a completely new F.O.C. based on thematic lists and unit rarity within these new structures.

GW do what GW always do!And add more complication to the system with ,Detachments,( Combined Arms, Allied and Formations,) and 'unbound, lunacy'.
(I did see a man in a GW shop try to use Venn diagram to try to explain force organisation in 40k to a new customer! )

Failure is not a lack of success, but a lack of effort.
IMO, GW have failed at game balance in 40k completely.

The Idea I posted above was used in Epic SM.Where players would start an army with a 'Company Card', which had a HQ unit and several common units that gave the company its name.Then they could select several Support unit cards, and a Special unit card.

So for 40k we could take that basic idea to create the 'thematic core' of an army .

EG an IG Armoured Company could have.

HQ unit
A Leman Russ Tank.(With Colonel or Commissar.)

Common Units
1 to 2 Leman Russ Tank Squadron.(2 to 3 Tanks each)
1 to 2 'Iron Fist' Mobile Infantry Platoons.(1 to 3 Squads per platoon.)
1 to 2 'Sentinel' scout Squadrons.(1 to 3 vehicles per Squadron.)

Support units
Infantry
0-2 Iron Fist Mobile infantry.
0-1 Ogryn Shock Assault (In Chimera Transport.)

Armour
0-2 Tank platoons.(1 to 3 tanks of the same variant. Leman Russ variants, or Hell Hound. )

Artillery.
0-2 Artillery Batteries.(Each Battery can have 1 to 3 vehicles , Griffon, Basilisk, Manticore )

Recon Units.
0-2 Salamander Recon A/C.
0-2 Sentinel scout squads.

Specialist unit.
Air support.
0-1 Vulture or Vendetta.


Doctrines.
'2 by 2.'
For every 'Tank' platoon taken ,(Front AV 12 or higher.) There must be an infantry or recon platoon taken to support them.
Armoured vehicles are sitting ducks to long range artillery without good recon units to spot and neutralize them.And armour is easily destroyed in close confines of built up areas and heavy woodland by enemy infantry that is allowed to get too close.

This is just an example ,to show how themed lists do not have 'troop tax' .But allow a themed force to be built around a simple principal/concept..

Hi again.
I think the new proposed F.O.C. might be too different to GWs to be accepted.

He is another attempt, based on several comments on why not use percentage based F.O.C like WHFB used to.(And they worked really well in 3rd to 6th ed WHFB.)

But rather than use percentages , I would like to try out basic ratios instead.

You must include 1 HQ unit to lead your army.
This must be accompanied by 2 to 8 Common units.

For every 2 Common units selected, you may take a Support unit choice.

For every 2 Support units selected , you may take a Specialist unit choice.

This limits the units taken by simple ratios, not function or percentages.

And unit rarity is determined by the HQ taken, which determined the theme of the force.

There is not longer any artificial limits on 'function'.So there is no 'Troop tax', as 'Troops' are a counter intuitive concept in themed lists.

Does anyone have a problem with themed lists in the new codex books?

Eg the Ork lists might be,(Based on some old background from the 1990s)

Blood Axe, Klan.(Special Forces type list.)
This type of Klan has been exposed to Imperlal forces for centuries, and as such has been influenced by the militaristic strategy of their enemy.
They have 'Drill Bosses' instead of Nobs, these train the Ork Yoofs in the varied roles in the Blood Axe 'Art Of Waaagh'.

Blood Axes tend to be more specialized than the normal Ork Klanz, using 'Kommandoz, Stormboyz, Looterz(Imperial equipment.) etc.
And the use of 'salvaged' Imperial Guard vehicles for the base of all their wagons.Give the Blood Axes the 'element of surprise' when attacking imperial forces.

Other Ork Klanz will not ally with Blood Axe Klanz as they think they are 'Sneaky Gits', that can not be trusted.
(However, any Orks showing 'Blood Axe type enthusiasm' in other Klanz ,are put in a 'Kommandoz Skwad' and sent off behind enemy lines.Very occasionally, to the annoyance of the War boss, they may survive... )

Bad Moons.(Elite type Forces.)'
As Orks use teeth for currency.Bad Moon Orks grow teeth much faster.They run the risk of being 'toof napped' and put in 'toof farmz'.A terrible fate for an Ork Yoof with a big smile!
So unsurprisingly these types of Orks trade teef to get the best equipment that can to protect themselves from the enemy and other Orks.
Also these type of orks seem to be attracted to loud noises and shiney things even more than other Orks!
The best armour and the loudest guns and wagons define the Bad Moon Klan .

Deff Skulls.(Vanilla Ork list.)
Deff Skulls epitomize the basic Ork Kulture of 'fighting and winning.'
They often 'win' other Ork equipment from other klanz without telling them they are at war with the other Klan, , or in fact what the Deff Skulls won , until they a long way away.
Deff Skulls tend to have a little bit of everything , but not to much of any specialized equipment ,( due to the original owners still being very annoyed!)
Deff Skull Klanz are the most robust and diverse Klan, and often have a favorite lucky colour,(usually blue) they paint on their bodies and (re paint ) equipment to claim ownership of it.

Evil Sunz(Mobile Infantry,)
Evil Sunz Orks are often found fighting across barren planets with large desserts/wastelands to cross. Because of this Evil sunz tend to be nomadic and use bikes buggies trukks and wagonz to roam across these worlds spreading destruction and mayhem in the best Ork tradition.

Usually In an Evil Sunz Klan , if it has not got access to wheels , tracks, or some way to fly, it gets left behind.

Goff Klan(Infantry Hoarde).
Goff Klan Orks are obsessed with close combat !They often see ranged weapons as something fun to do before the 'real fighting' starts.As Orks get bigger and stronger the more they fight, so Goff orks are the biggest and most vicious looking Ork Klan.(And that is really saying something!)

To avoid the 'inconvenient' effects of being shot before they get into close combat, Goff Orks tend to flood the enemy gun sights with weedy Grot Mobs.
(Any Grot 'lucky' enough to survive , may get the chance to be nailed into a Killa Kan!)

Snake Bite(Primitive .)
Snake Bite Orks do not take up more modern technology like other Klanz. Possibly due to a lack of access to it, or a lack of Mek Boys to explain and promote it.
These Orks use the traditional Wild Boar as a means of charging into combat, and their primative weapons are just as effective in the hands of these skilled fighters.
Also this Klan tends to rely on the lowest Orkoid life form the Sqiug to enhance their fighting effectiveness.
Runt Heardz in Snake Bite Klanz often breed Squigs for thier poison,explosive excretions, and in the case of the Squiggoths a primitive armoured vehilce alternative!

I would also like to include the, Kult Of Speed (Recon force,),And a Supa Grotz list.( Alternative infantry shooty hoarde.)

And may be re visit the Old Freebooters lists,including Renegade Oddboys, Original Flash Gitz,Khornate Storm Boys, and Genestealer Ork Hybrids etc.

This way the player can pick a play style and theme for their army first.And chose the most appropriate list from thier faction codex,(with restrictions and bonuses).
To arrive at fun thematic lists with a better chance of balance. than the current complicated mess 40k has.

Hey y'all,

Sorry about not responding for the last little while.

For list building:

I like the thought of the specialized FOC's for list types (your IG Armored company example), though that would increase our workload substantially. Specialized lists which include other codex units (modified or not) can be included in those.

For Evasion v. Size: The main problem I see with using evasion as size, or just one value, comes when we look at things that are big but agile or small but slow. For example, the Wave Serpent is about the same size as the Land Raider, but you would expect the Wave Serpent to be much harder to hit (higher evasion) while it still would have trouble hiding behind a wall (bigger size).

For determining cover, I'd simply leave it that if one edge of base is blocked, they have cover. They can only be blocked for Line of Sight purposes if both sides are blocked. The main issue is also hiding behind a wall that is taller than the model. How do we say that the LOS is blocked? With the above method, the model simply has hard cover, unless we include a LOS block evasion value as well. Using the wall, could have Hard Cover Ev: 3, LOS Ev: 5 (so a model with evasion 5 or higher has LOS blocked, while 3 or higher gets the +2 to evasion for hard cover, and 2 gets a +1 to evasion)

Does that make sense?

@wraithbalor.

I would like to have different themed lists for each faction. Possibly half a dozen each new codex?

Eg, Foot slogging infantry,Mobile infantry, airborne assault, recon force,elite/ special forces, primative,heavy assault etc.

The thing is we are going to have to put a lot of time into play testing anyway.I thought it would be worth the effort to have the depth and divergence of themed lists .Instead of a one F.O.C. per faction that tries to cover everything.

Evasion and Size.
If you are Ok with the general principal of Evasion is roughly OK for working out transport capacity.
(EG Terminator size (Evasion 4?) or bigger (Evasion 3?)take up 2 spaces in a transport.)

And in general Evasion works Ok for cover vs most targets.

If its is only things like the Wave Serpent, that is cause issues.Are all these units that are more 'agile' also 'faster' too?

I have not played 40k since 5th ed, so I am not sure.

But if the main exceptions are fast skimmers and fast M/Cs = units with higher 'agility'.

Then if these units are able to cross longer distances each movement , would the increased mobility (less time in the open) reflect this difference in 'agility' sufficiently well?

I do not mind putting in a special rule for a special ability (Holo-field/Chameleon ?), if it is needed , when we get to play testing .
But to add a stat for 'size' to everything in the game to cover a few 'odd units', seems a bit excessive IMO.

If you could list the units you think would have 'intuitive play issues' with using Evasion =Size.
It would give me an idea of the amount of units we may have to cover with a 'fix'.

Themed lists sound fun, and let us get things going in a fluffy way that doesn't break immersion.

Evasion and Size

The biggest issues are in skimmers and fast MC's. Probably using movement and the potential for a special rule that decreases Evasion for cover purposes would do everything that a Size stat would. Thinking, then, of LOS blocking and cover, what do you think of using +/-2 as the basis for LOS/cover granting terrain? I.e. using the wall from my previous post. Evasion 5 would be a roughly 1 meter tall wall, so models with Ev: 5 or 6 would get the hard cover bonus, Ev 3 or 4 gets soft cover, and Ev: 7 or higher has LOS blocked (the grots are shorter than the wall :p). This would let us have LOS blocking terrain without having to worry about trying to TLOS whether the model can see the target or not. Would also use the 4" rule for things like forests and ruins, to allow for the effect of cumulative terrain.

@wraithbalor.
I have been giving this a bit of thought.

I think an 'Evasion bonus' for special abilities/equipment might be the best way to handle it.

EG both the land Raider and Wave Serpent have base Evasion 3.(As they are large vehicles)

However, if the Wave Serpent gets 'Holo Fields '(old background,)that blur the outline of the vehicle when it moves.This confers a Evasion bonus of +2 when the Wave Serpent moves.


A Tyranid Lictor has a chameleonic carapace.This changes colours and patterns to make the Lictor practically invisible when stationary or 'going to ground'.(Moving up to movement rate and making the most of cover.).

Although the Lictor has a Basic Evasion value of 4, it gets a Evasion bonus of +3 , when 'stationary', or' going to ground.'

For purposes of determining if a model can claim cover from terrain always use its base Evasion value.

Having the fiddle factor of allowing 'Evasion bonuses ' means we cover things that make the units harder to see/hit inclusively in the Evasion value.

I just used the above as examples , the actual values and names of abilities will change as we play test.

Does this look OK to you?

That sounds like a plan.

Just a general note on this new game development.

I think it is important to recognize the clarity the 're focused' stat line covering all the in game interaction brings.(9 Stats 2 resolution methods.)

As we are using opposed stats , we can add to one or the other to give variation in an intuitive way.(Without having to resort to negative modifiers.)
Eg Rather than having to use statements like '-1 to hit'.We can simply say '+1 to Evasion' instead.

And we can keep to the simple resoluiotn set of 'rolling a D6 , rolling high is good,high values are good*'.(*Possible exception for simp;icity is Morale Grade?)

And as the stats are clearly allocated to each 'in game function '.We can apply the few special rules that highlight actual special abilities , in the appropriate stat bonuses.

We can use this to arrive at intuitive and well defined rules and game play,(hopefully.)

As we seem to have got the basic alpha rules covered, I am off to start fleshing out the basic Orks units.
(I am not sure how long this will take , but if people want to post up their ideas for starting units , we can get some basic unit development flowing. )