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 all.
I would like to start a general discussion on the suitability of WHFB game mechanics , for the current 40k game.

The WHFB game mechanics are very suited to the game play of WHFB, mainly close combat armed units , supported by ranged attacks.

It makes sense to have just 1 stat for the support role of shooting (BS).

And 4 for the 'main event' of close combat resolution ,( WS, Strenght , Initiative and Attacks).

(Toughness Wounds and Saves are common to ranged and close combat attacks.)


However with 40k mianly involving ranged weapon armed units , is this set up realy suitable?

The units used in WHFB are reminicent of Ancient to Napoleonic unit types.Therfore a 'Napoleonic type' game play suits the WHFB game well.

The units used in 40k are more reminicent of modern units.Therfore would a 'modern type ' gameplay suit the 40k game better?

Modern type warfare is all about manouverability to establish area control, fire power to limit enemy manouverability, and close assaults to contest defended objectives.

Has using a close combat focused rule set and game mechanics lead to the serious abstractions in the 40k rule set.(Trying to make a square peg fit into a round hole.)

Would a more modern rule set be more in synergy with the 40k background and game play?

I am just theorising , and asking for informed opinions on this subject.

TTFN
Lanrak.

completely OT, you have 45 views at the time im posting this, and looking at the rest of the front page posts, each topic gets about 1 reply for every 15-30 views.

What your'e saying makes sense, but is probably to foreign for most warhammer players. Sounds alot like AT43, which is awesome, if in need of tweaking.

I can't remember the edition (it might have been trial WD rules only), but they tried revamping hand to hand in 40K many many many years ago. Each model rolled 1D6 for each of its attacks with the highest roll winning or something. Genestealers had something like 6 attacks at the time. Suffice to say, you needed lots of dice and it was rubbish.

Flashman wrote:I can't remember the edition (it might have been trial WD rules only), but they tried revamping hand to hand in 40K many many many years ago. Each model rolled 1D6 for each of its attacks with the highest roll winning or something. Genestealers had something like 6 attacks at the time. Suffice to say, you needed lots of dice and it was rubbish.

Are you sure you're not thinking of a fan set or Necromunda expansion? That sounds like the Necromunda rules, but I've never seen them used in any official 40K publication, even as trial rules.

I could be mistaken, though. I never bought WD during 2nd ed.

Rolling a D6 for each attack and adding WS was the 2nd edition approach I seem to recall. Been a while since I actually played a game but it's similar to what they applied for Necromunda and Gorkamorka.

40K is very hand to hand orientated, you just have to accept it and suspend some belief. They have massive spaceships that can bombard planets from space, masses of long range artillery, everyone has a rifle at bare minimum and yet most games portray a ground battle in which a few ineffective shooting phases take place until forces can close in hand to hand. How often do our modern armed forces resort to fighting in close combat? Not as often as 40K I assume.

Only in GiJoe cartoons are the rules of engagement to fire your weapons ineffectively and mostly in a suppressive fashion in order to close ground on the enemy before throwing your rifles aside and beating them unconscious with your fists.

Platuan4th wrote:

Are you sure you're not thinking of a fan set or Necromunda expansion? That sounds like the Necromunda rules, but I've never seen them used in any official 40K publication, even as trial rules.

I could be mistaken, though. I never bought WD during 2nd ed.

Except for 2nd edition 40K, right?


Back then you rolled a D6 for each Attack the model had, picked the highest roll, added your WS to that total and then added +1 for every '6' after the first you rolled and -1 for every '1' you rolled. You compared this total to what the enemy came up with and that's how many 'hits' you caused...just like Necromunda (since Necromunda was written off of the 2nd edition 40K rules).

Suffice to say I personally HATED that system for a squad-based game like 40K, and I really don't even like it in Necromunda. Any game system that can't represent two guys simultaneously killing each other in close combat just ain't right.