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.

Dast,

Your wound allocation system does seem drastically simpler than the one we decided to go with. It sounds like it may work, and your logic is good. I think that is something that we're going to need to play test though, and see if there are ways to break it based on that system.

I do like that if we go with it, it will eliminate quite a few extra things we've added to try to ensure that the system we decided to go with doesn't break.


This weekend is going to be m first play test of the entire game (armies planned with the new codices and not changing any rules on the fly.) I'm going to take some pretty serious notes and hopefully will get to make a battle report. Those really depend on how much time I have to play. If the current system works well and we both feel that it is realistic, chances are we're going to keep it. However, if there are any hiccups with this sytem then yours is going to be next

Rabid,

I'm looking forwards to hearing how you game goes, have fun!

Dast

So after playing, here are a couple things that we noticed:

A lot of AV and AP values didn't translate over very well from standard 40k. For instance, my monstrous creatures were just being absolutely melted by his missile pods.

The game seemed incredibly fluid though, and something was always going on. All in all we were both very happy with how the game played, though there are obviously some imbalances.



Also, I'm going to have to take a step back from the project for a little while. I've got some stuff outside of a game of plastic dudesmen that I have to take care of for a little while. I'll be sure to upload everything that I have now so you all know where I'm at in case you get time to work on it.

Alrighty then, I think things have slowed down enough that I can start working on this again.

Lessons learned from the play test:
-The game is incredibly fluid. There was always action and we both had a good time.
-AP seemed to have translated to being too good. Current 40k's AP 4 weapons just melted current 40k's 3+ save models.
-On the contrary, AP - weapons translated to being absolutely worthless.
-No vehicles were involved, so I'm not sure how well those work.
-Ranged combat was hugely favored because of how AP translated. However, the one close combat that we had actually looked like it played out very well.
-Tons of typos in the codices. I'm ashamed at how many there were and need to do a better job before I release them in the future.
-The blast system we both liked a lot. Much better than the previous iteration.
-The basic ruleset seemed to work well. We'll try an advanced ruleset next and bump the points up to 1500 to try to get more things.
-Having different missions and trying to guess your opponent's was a blast. Though they're not balanced yet, it was a lot of fun.


Things to do:
-First up is to rebalance the AP and AV of the codices.
-Go through and scour for typos.
-Knock out the next two codices: Space Marines and Chaos Daemons.
-Release V0.2 with the two additional codices.

Hello,

The AP-AV issue makes sense. Fixing it might have to be done weapon by weapon, in normal 40k a better ap becomes exponentially better (well, maybe not exponentially, non-linearly in any case), in this system it is quite linear.

Sorry the IG codex is taking so long, I have lots of work at the moment, I will be working on it properly in a few weeks time.

Glad the cool turn system seemed fluid! Did you stick to the basics (just counter order) or did you use LD and C and everything?

Hope you are all well,

Dast

Dast,

We just did the basic system as we wanted to make sure that was working well.

The current plan for play testing is to do solely the basic rules until we're happy with those. After that we'll add some of the easy advanced rules (advanced turns and splitting fire.) Once we're happy with those we'll add the major advanced rules (reserves, flyers, night fight, etc.)

There's no rush on the IG codex, I actually don't have any IG models so I'll be proxying pretty hard if I play test that one haha. I am really looking forward to looking through it though, I think it has a ton of potential that isn't tapped by the current codex.

I might be saying a bbullshit 'cause I raelly haven't read the rulebook and you might just have added something similar to this, but what I relly feel 40k needs is the distinction between weapon types, for example solid ammos, energy, fire, plasma, electric, explosives and so on. My idea is basically thet, I dunno, take a tesla cannon. It has AP - but it uses high voltage electric energy, so it is hard that it goes trough heavy armors but if it does, it probably ignores the target T because this is what happens when you take a shock no? I dunno I think it might be really cool, think about it guys and lemme know!

Drew,

We actually had talked about that, and are considering putting it in later once we have a solid core ruleset.

One of the things to be careful of with different ammo types are that different armor types would be necessary too. Along with the ammo type affecting different body types differently (e.g. shock vs biological will have a different affect than mechanical.) We definitely like that idea though, and will be revisiting it.

Ok mate! BTW I've read the rulebook and I definetely have to say that this is, even if it's still in "beta" phase, by far better than actual 40k ruleset. Looking forward to see IG and necron codexes so I can playtest it with my friend!

I'm really glad to hear that! Please let me know if there is anything that doesn't make sense or seems imbalanced. I'm currently going through and revising it and the two codices done so far. The next armies I'd planned on releasing were Chaos Daemons and Space Marines, though I think I could through Necrons in the mix pretty easily.

Glad to know the new blast system worked. Like the weapon type idea. Ever play MechWarrior Clix? Might want to check up on those rules again for inspiration/ideas. Though as I recall they only had Energy and Ballistic. RE-ENGAGE THE LURKING DEVICE!

Alright, so here is a big update on my attempts to balance the translation of current AP, AV, and Toughness to the new AP, AV, and RV.

I've created this excel spreadsheet that everyone is free to toy around with. There are quite a few weapons and targets to choose from with values already inputted. Here is a guide to using it:

Values that you can and should edit to test out balance are green.
Select a weapon and a target in the drop down boxes.
Bane (reroll damage) and Slayer (reroll AP) must be manually checked.
If you really want to add more targets and weapons (you shouldn't need to) they are hidden to the right of the charts. Simply add the weapon and the value into the list that is already there. Be sure to add it somewhere in the middle, and sort it A-Z.

Very nice spreadsheet, I will have a proper play with it later.

One thing I have noticed in my first little play with it: Dreadnaughts and Predators each take 5 wounds from lascannons, while marines and terminators take 3 and 1 wound(s) respectively.

This is a bit odd. Are the RV's of vehicles being used correctly?

Also, this is going to sound very silly, but I cant find the data , only the vlookup or hlookup system you have set up by the tables. Where is the actual data?

I should only be busy for four more days, then I will have plenty of free time to get that Imperial guard codex written. I am looking forward to working on it properly. Did you do your Codices in illustrator? I was just wondering as it would be good to be consistent in style, and that would make that easier. (I was thinking of trying my hand at making some sort of LaTeX skeleton all the codices could be done with, but it probably wouldn't turn out well, and the ones you have done look great as they are.)

Dast

I'll have to take a look and make sure that it is looking those up correctly.

The RV's of vehicles I've been playing a delicate balancing act with. On one hand, they have very strong armor that will make them impervious to a lot of things. On the other hand, I don't want to make a plasma pistol one-shot a land raider.

The data I think you're looking for is in hidden columns. They are between column O and AC. I highly recommend not changing the values in the table above it, and only changing the green cells.


The changes I'm considering:
Bumping all current monstrous creatures RV by 1. They are going to be easier to hit now, I'd like to make up for that by making them harder to kill.
Rear AV 10-11 vehicles have RV 4 now
Rear AV 12-13 vehicles have RV 5 now
Rear AV 14 vehicles have RV 6 now

I think the AV conversion that works best is:
- to 0
6+ to 1
5+ to 2
4+ to 3
3+ to 5
2+ to 7
10 to 6
11 to 7
12 to 8
13 to 9
14 to 10


I made the codices in Microsoft Publisher, but I'm good to convert it to something else to keep them all looking good and uniform.

In case you couldn't guess, I have gotten incredibly busy over the last few weeks.

This will have to take a back seat for a while, but I do plan on remaking the Tyranid Codex. Also, I have decided to wait until the new Space Marine Codex comes out unless I get a lot more time soon.

I am back with a vengeance!

Things have calmed down significantly, or at least I hope that they have. To put things in perspective, my wife and I are both applying/going to grad school, we just bought a house, and her car died. So... this took a back seat.

However, over the last month I've been working on it in my spare time. Tyranids have been redone and I finished the first draft for Daemons. Also, I was joking with my wife that I should just name this Grimdark. It kind of stuck so that's the new name I put on the rules


For comments and critique:

Hello again!

Grimdark is a great name actually, it lets people know not-too-subtly that it is 40k, but the name actually works itself.

Anyway, Demons!
As allays it looks great and is easy to read. I find it odd how little their actually is to say when all the usual explanatory stuff that 40k rules include is removed.

Their are two types of things to say, they will be kept separate.

Spelling punctuation etc.
Apart from immortals the demons of the Ether (great way of doing undivided), have not been given names. Presumably this is not an oversight and you are just waiting for naming inspiration. Their is something really appropriate about the greater demons of the Ether not having a name. (Many have tried to give these horrors names, but they simply shed them like a man removing a coat. The name would simply evaporate, and no longer be theirs)

The only name suggestion I have is this: Dreadfurry (Furry champion).

The Slaanesh psychick powers begin with the words "Demons of the Ether may..."


Idea feedback:

As I said, I love the Ether demons. It allows more undivided style armies to work. They all have movement type "Tracked", does this represent them being serpentine? Them being ranged is appropriate, three of the gods do close combat.

Removing demons all deep striking is a sensible idea, it will make them less wonky.

I find it odd that Fiends, Bloodcrushers and the other cavalry are not rare, whilst nurglings and hounds are rare. Nurglings and hounds feel less rare to me.


I was thinking that it would be nice to maybe include enslavers? (of the Ether). They come up a bit in backstory as big jellyfish like psi-things that turn people into mindless shambling zombie-slaves. They are also demons, it has always seemed odd to me that they were missing from the normal demons codex in the first place.

It might make sense to include some sort of "warp rift" or something as a transport option to certain units. It would work a lot like a drop pod, they deepstrike through it at some point.

I will give it all more of a proper read tomorrow, I hope you are well.

Dast

Dast,

Let me address your comments as best as I can.

1. I'm glad you like the name

2. Daemons of Ether have not been given names because I am having difficulty thinking of them. I'm thinking the greater daemon I will call "The Unnamed" because I like what you were saying.

3. Dreadfury I think is great! I'll change that soon.

4. Whoops, I'll fix that.

5. They are meant to be more unstable than other daemons, meaning that they will be less hindered by terrain. Additionally, I thought they could be represented in many different forms. The combination of these made me lean more towards Tracked vs Legged.

6. Actually, all daemons can deep strike still. Daemonic Instability mentions that they can deep strike. Combining this with the Warp Rift idea though I think would work very well.

7. I was having a hard time figuring out the best way to split these up. I like your point though, and I think moving all the cavalry types to Rare and the beeat types to Common would be better.

8. Enslavers are very interesting. I've never heard of them and feel like I couldn't really do them justice, but I'll give it a shot. How does this sound:

Size/Type: Large/Immaterial
MV: 4
Movement Type: Tracked
Accuracy: 4
Stealth: 3
Dexterity: 1
RV: 5
AV: 0
Wounds: 4
Leadership: 8
CV: 2
Points: 80

Special Rules:
-Daemonic Instability
-Daemon of Ether
-Psyker level 1

Weapons:
Enslave
Range: 12"
Str: 0
AP: 0
Attacks: Small Arms D6
Special: Enslave*

*Enslave: This attack may only target Infantry sized units. The unit must make a leadership check for every hit suffered. If the leadership check is failed, remove a model with no saves of any sort allowed. Additionally, a single Lesser Daemon of Ether is added to the Enslavers unit.



This guy would replace the currently un-named unit of Ether, and would be a Rare choice while Furies would move to Common.

What do you think?

Hello Rabid,

Ahh yes they can still deep strike, I assumed the instability rule would only be instability. Oversight on my part.

To me those enslaver rules look very good, the only thing I would be tempted into changing would be creating some sort of zombie stat-line and have that be the thing enslavers make, but I can see that getting needlessly over complicated, more lesser demons represents the effect fine in game terms. What you have their looks perfectly good.

The flamer chariot has AV 6/6/6, it could just say 6. (Although this really doesn't matter).

Incase you were interested their is a backstory thing about them here http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Enslaver#.Udx6rDvrz1s

I will hopefully be able to playtest a small game of demons vs. Tyranids against a friend next week. I am looking forward to see it actually play.


Best wishes,

Dast

Dast,

I added it to Daemonic Instability just to cut down on special rules, that's all The special rules actually take up remarkably little room so I'm pretty happy.

All monstrous sized units have facings just like in current 40k. So although it may be simpler just to put a single value if it's the same for all facings, I tried to keep it as standardized as possible.

I'll have a read through their backstory, they sound very interesting.


Finally, here is the updated Daemons and Tau. I hope you like them

Hello again Rabid,

I have read through the rulebook again. Anyone who has ever played warhammer 40k (or warhammer) should understand, but their are a couple of places where I think it could be clearer for the uninitiated. It is wonderfully dense compared to 40K, the word economy explaining things is impressive.

1) On the force organisation it doesn't point out that you are only allowed two eleites choices, or four support. It shows the diagram (with two eleites boxes and four support boxes) but doesn't really explain how the diagram limits your army. This could be done in just a sentence or sentence fragment.

2) The universal resolution table doesn't have the "bad" re-rolls explained (only the good ones).

3) Maybe a different symbol for bad re-rolls on the universal resolution table would be appropriate. ("\" instead of "/" ?)

4) "Running is very simple." -So much so in fact that this sentence at the beginning of its rules extends them by about 25% . Perhaps remove it?

5) Slight lack of clarity in the advanced turn resolution system:
If we both have units of the same counter colour trying to act in 1 step (say step 12) we roll off to see who goes first then alternate.
A bit later we both want to activate units with the same counter colour in step 8. Do we roll off again or carry over whose turn it was from previous?

Nothing wrong with either, but specifying more clearly might be good.

6) In one or two places the words "Natural roll" are used. (For example insane heroism). Maybe this term should be added to the Nomenclature? (It is looking a bit lonely)

7) I may be wrong, but as far as I can tell the only time unit coherency is mentioned is in the rules for Independent characters. (saying they can move in and out of Coherency with units).

8) Again this is sort of obvious, but the rules jump straight into movement modifiers/penalties. I am pretty certain that it doesn't actually say anywhere that the unit moves inches up to its movement value in the absence of modifiers (For running and Turbo it does say, but not for normal moving). Again maybe just a sentence to cover the obvious might be good. (Obvious things are the easiest to forget).

Sorry for the rain of random little bits and pieces. If these things are just annoying you and no helpful please say and I will stop.

Dast

Dast,

These are exactly what I'm looking for. I've spent so much time looking at the document that I physically can't find the things wrong with it anymore. This means I'm in dire need of fresh eyes to avoid the blatant errors present in more recent 40k codices and the subtle errors that are always present.

I'll fix these up tonight and attach the rulebook in this post. I've also had a breakthrough on how I think the Marines codex should be, so I'm going to get started on that tonight. If I keep the pace from the last few weeks I should have it done by this weekend pretty easily.

Just finished the Space Marines codex.

Very rough obviously, but let me know what you think.

So quite a bit of progress has been made over the last few weeks. Most of it has been documented in the Grimdark Documents thread, so please check that out in addtion to this thread; though I'll try to make sure information is put on both.

Something I'm strongly considering is adding a "chosen" ability to each of the Traits of the Primarch in the Space Marines codex. These would be used in order to make your commander into the special characters that are currently in the codex.

For instance:
Raven would give +1 to their Stealth value
Blood would give +2 MV
Knight would make Thunder Hammers Str 10
Flame would move the +3" template range to this instead of being default
Stallion would give Outflank

Those are just some examples I was thinking of for the loyalist side of things. Chaos might be a bit harder, but I have some thoughts there too:

Heretic trait would change to allowing any marine unit to become Chosen. The Chosen trait we'd have to come up with though.
Plague would add Bane to all close combat attacks.
Terror would allow charges in Green.
Siege would allow Devastator weapons to be bought.
Berserker would remove Always Strike Last from chain axes and power axes.
Sorcerer would add an additional +1 Psyker Level.
Fanatic would grant Last Chance (5+)
Trickster would gain +2 to their Deny the Witch roll.


Not sure, kind of just vomiting information onto the computer so I remember it later.

Just started looking through this, I absolutely love the counters system and even just that alone would be a huge step in the right direction for 40k.

Violent deep strike needs a better name. I was thinking "Deep Assault" but that sounds like a terrible porno more than anything else

Hello,

I really like the space marine Codex. I have mixed feeling about combining the chaos marines in with the marines. It makes perfect sense for the most part, their is no point calling them different armies when so may units are the same, but it does sort of rule out demon engines unless we added a lot of extra traits and stuff, which seems overcomplex.

I suppose Chaos marines loose some demon stuff, and gains some other stuff (attack bikes, landspeeders) which they could model demonically.

The traits are a very good idea, and I like the extension to primarch traits to represent special characters.

Some units have so many options (notably the dreadnaught) that it might be worth adding a few horizontal lines somewhere on the table to separate the options that are in separate categories.

Hope all is well with you,

Dast

Dakkamite,

Thank you for the kind words, we really appreciated it

I'll see what I can think of for a new name, trying of course to avoid ones that could easily be terrible porno names haha.


Dast,

I'm glad you like the new codex, it was the most intensive one so far. I do miss the different chaos engines, but I feel that streamlining them will do more good than harm. Considering that Grimdark has no set models, current chaos engines can actually be used still but will have different rules. Heldrakes could very easily be a Stormraven or Stormtalon, the Fiends can be used as Land Raiders if you're really feeling it. Defilers unfortunately I'm not sure how they can be incorporated :(

As for the units that have so many options it's confusing, I'll try to come up with a better way to represent it. Confusion is something I'm really trying to avoid.



I've been thinking a lot more about the traits, and here is a revamp I hope you like (I'm sure there are balance issues):
*note: 1st line is for Traits of the Firstborn. 2nd line is for Chosen (they keep the first line too).

Loyalist (also gain ATSKNF)


Traitor (also gain Fearless)

An update to everyone:

This project has not died, it has just taken a bit of a backseat recently due to other things that are a much higher priority.

A new Special Rule that I am going to include is a new version of Relentless. The games felt very static, so I am hoping that this rule will help with that. All Large and Monstrous sized units automatically have this rule:
-May move up to half MV and still fire weapons as if stationary for a Green Action.

When the new Space Marine codex comes out, I'm going to do a heavy revision of Grimdark's Space Marine codex. Focusing primarily on the traits.

Also, in an attempt to include daemon engines I'm going to give some more options to other units. For instance, the Stormraven will be able to take a heavy flamer to try to make up for the Helldrake. Additionally, I'm going to add a forge unit to the Elite slot and give it options similar to the Forge Fiend and Mauler Fiend.

Lastly, this is going to be the only codex that I include an allies system. The only two other codices that can be allied with are Daemons and Imperial Guard. These are the rules I plan to use for it:
-May select up to 2 Common units to fill Support Slots
-May select up to 1 Rare unit to fill an Elite Slot

The new trait for Apostle allows modifies the ally system.
-May select from both codices instead of choosing one.
-May select up to 4 Common units to fill Support Slots
-May select up to 2 Rare units to fill Elite Slots