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.

Just uploaded a PDF version of the rulebook for your reading pleasure.

Chrisrawr, I actually had a pretty solid chunk of time open up for tomorrow evening. I haven't had the chance to really go through and make a lot of the adjustments we had talked about though. I think we should do Tau vs Tyranids again if you're up for it.

Yes If I can, I'll be there. Skype me - we might have to save and break it into chunks like last time, but that shouldn't be too much of a problem. I might be going on a 14 hour work-related-road-trip literally at any time (could be 3am and I'd be told to grab a timmies and suck it up) - so that might interfere.

Great!

This time we need to not forget to use objectives haha.

Also, here is a change to deployment that will make it much easier:
-Defending Player chooses their deployment zone

-Deploy in order of Command Value
---Use the highest in the squad
---Independent Characters may join a squad prior to deployment

-Start with a CV of 1, and move up
---All units from both players of a certain level deploy before moving to the next.
---Players alternate deploying units, with the defending player deploying the first unit.
---The owning player may decide any order of units with the same CV.

Let me know if you have any questions.

That sounds pretty solid! Ill be able to play after 5ish PST

So with me starting my masters degree, the time I have available to play test this is nearly 0. I would love to continue this project, and I occasionally have time to work on the documents.

There are a few major changes that I'd like to look at doing. The largest of which is the damage chart is going to be revised. Right now things get stratified too quickly and some units are hopelessly outmatched in certain areas. I'm going to reel this in and the chart can be read like so:
If the two stats are within 1 of each other, it's a 4+
If the two stats are 2-3 away, it's either a 3+ or 5+ depending on the direction.
If the two stats are 4-5 away, it's either a 2+ or 6+ depending on the direction.
Past that, it is automatically a pass or a failure.


Beyond the revisions I plan to do, I am in desperate need of play testers now. There is just no feasible way for me to play test anymore, so now I need a few people to take the reigns on it and provide feedback to me. Unfortunately though, this means that if I can't find a group of play testers this project will fall by the wayside for I don't know how long. I'm going to hold off creating another codex until I know for sure one way or the other. However, I'll still add occasional revisions to the already created documents.

 Mezmerro wrote:
Please, upload pdf version of rulebook.
As and old MSOffice version user and I cannot open .docx

online converter

Interesting that you brought this up, I was actually just considering reviving it.

The biggest thing I need to play test right now is finding a way to do a truly simultaneous turn. I'll try to explain what I mean.

Say there are three units on each side with the following counters (their color):
Side 1:
-Tactical Marine Squad
-Assault Marine Squad
-Command Squad

Side 2:
-Tactical Marine Squad
-Devastator Squad
-Command Squad

(Reminder: Green = shoot to full effect, Yellow = run or charge, Red = move and shoot to reduced effect)

Side 1 is the defender, side 2 is the attacker and activates the first unit each turn.

--Side 2 uses their Devastator Squad to shoot at Side 1's Tactical Marine Squad. They choose to react to the incoming fire. They take a command check and fail, meaning they do not get to react.
--Side 1 uses their Tactical Squad to shoot at Side 2's Command Squad. The Command Squad chooses not to react.
--Side 2 uses their Tactical Squad to shoot at Side 1's Assault Marine Squad. They choose to react to the incoming fire, and pass their command check. This allows them to immediately make their charge move towards Side 2's Tactical Squad. Side 2 then resolves their shooting attack even if Side 1 was successful in charging.
--Side 1 uses their Command Squad to move up and shoot at Side 2's Command Squad. They choose to react and pass their command check. This allows them to use their tactical movement to move to cover and return fire.

I'll try to get a full blown battle report on here soon. I've gotten pretty decent at using Vassal so I can even include pictures

Mezmerro, you should be able to download a plugin that'd let you open .docx files as read-only, try http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/word-help/open-a-word-2007-document-in-an-earlier-version-of-word-HA010044473.aspx

I'm taking a look through this, first-impressions-wise I don't think stats are quite granular enough on a hardcapped 1-10 scale, and I think the order of play is a bit byzantine, but I haven't read into depth much.

@Rabid.
Would you consider interleaved player actions as an alternative game turn mechanic?

EG
Command turn
Place orders next to units on good morale.
Request off table support


Primary actions.
Attacker turns over order counters one at a time and performs 1st action of order.
Defender turns over order counter one at a time and performs 1st action of order.

Secondary actions
Attacker removes order counters one at a time and performs the second action of the order.
Defender removes order counters one at a time and performs the second action of the order.

Resolution phase.
Plot arrivals of off table support.Attempt to rally units on poor morale.


Orders are 2 action sets , made up of move attack or ready actions.

Just a thought...

AnomanderRake,

I would really like some elaboration and examples as to what you mean. The 1-10 system I'd like to stick with as it is familiar to the tabletop community and stats that allow for smaller steps become unwieldy as soon as the game scales up.

As to the overcomplexity of the rules, I'm actually quite surprised you are saying that. Most of the rules are intuitive, and the ones that aren't I have attempted to word in a way that is easy to read. Any rules in particular that pop out at you?


Lanrak,

I really like your idea, but I feel it would be better suited for small games. I feel scaling this up would cause the game to slow down exponentially.

I'm hoping to get a play test in soon to see how feasible my new game turns are, but I have high hopes for it. There will be some pushback from the 40k community because of how complex the system appears on paper; however, once I find a good way to explain it I'm sure that opinion will change.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, another major change I'm doing is moving away from TLOS. I used to think it was beneficial to the game but my experience is leading me away from it. I'll be uploading the new rulebook soon and will be sure to let you know.

Hardcapping stats at 1-10 is the problem, I think; if the absolute best possible insane crazy thing has a 10 in a stat, you have to confine most units to the 3-5 range and one more point in a stat is too big of a change. I've been working on a revision of my own and I've allowed things with stats over 10 which means I can have a wider scale into which the 95% of models that aren't Monstrous Creatures can fall (2-7, usually). I also don't agree with some of the decisions you've made on stats; if you're going to keep Initiative order in melee tying Initiative to Weapon Skill shuts out a lot of granularity in unit profiles.

I'm complaining about the turn order more than anything else; first off alternating activation of units gives a massive advantage to the guy with fewer units on the board since he gets to unload his entire army's firepower while the other guy gets to unload some fraction of his army's firepower in the same period. This system would work fine if the two sides are playing similarly-sized armies but this is 40k, not a WWII simulation, and there's going to be a massive disparity in model count in many matchups. The green/yellow/red order counters are a nice idea but it's more words and more counters tacked on top of the weapon type system that seems to work reasonably well in 40k today. Simultaneous play during all phases isn't actually necessary to increase the number of things the defending player has to do; I interspersed phases such that the player who's turn it is moves all his guys, the defender makes any reaction attacks, and then the attacker makes standard attacks; coupled with the streamlining of the attack resolution system I'm hoping (short on tests right now) this will keep the defending player engaged without having to worry about how you'd balance armies with a different number of units.

As to the advanced action phase this is a system that I personally view as entirely too complicated when it appears in tabletop RPGs where everyone who isn't the GM is controlling exactly one person each; it's slow, clunky, and favours models with higher Ld to an unnecessary degree.

Your universal resolution chart looks like a reasonable idea on paper but if you run through the math the bell curve is too steep in the middle and too shallow out on the ends; the difference between no advantage and an advantage of two points is a whopping 33%, the difference between an advantage of two points and an advantage of three points is all of 3%. I agree that there should be a universal table for all things and that impossible/automatic values should be there, but the reroll isn't the way to do it. My table slows down the progression between stat levels such that if the attacker's value is equal to the defender's you get a 4+, if the difference is one or two points you've got a 5+ or a 3+, if the difference is three or four points you've got a 6+ or a 2+, and if the difference is five or more points it's automatic or impossible; this makes a single stat point less relevant and lets me have a wider range of stats and subtler distinctions between models.

You've added a lot of special-case and subtle distinction rules, not to mention a few that don't make a lot of sense (why does being at extreme range with small arms make the target easier to hit?), Heavy Cover having a different effect on top of Light Cover may be 'realistic' but it doesn't streamline the game well.

Beyond that most of my concerns are style/editing-related; I'd strongly encourage you to look up the usage of adverbs, you're using adjectives to describe verbs everywhere and it's giving me a headache (when in doubt add the "-ly" suffix).

Overall it looks like you're too concerned with realism and not concerned enough with playability; there's entirely too much here that's some mixture of slow, clunky, redundant, or unnecessary.

@ rabid.
I have been play testing the alternating actions game turn with up to 18 units per side.

It is just the next level up from interleaved phases.
Eg(From LoTR SBG)
Player A moves.
Player B Moves.

Player A shoots
Player B shoots

Player A assaults
Player B assaults

When you add order counters,units can perform any actions in any order.Having just 2 actions per game turn means the resolution is faster than the 3 fixed phase game turns.
In my experience the game turn I proposed scales fine.(We even used it for some 300th scale WWII games!)

What do you folks think of using stats directly?

EG when resolving assault , the WS is the score you have to roll over to hit the model.

So a model with a WS of 4, is hit on a 4+.A model with a WS of 2 is hit on a 2+

And models strike in WS order, highest first.

If we list weapon effects of the unit under the unit stats, we can cover all weapons with a simple stat line...
EG
Name , effective range,armour piercing , damage,attacks , notes(Type of weapon, assault, small arms , support, fire support,and any special abilities,like ignore cover, parry , armour bane etc.)

Lanrak wrote:
What do you folks think of using stats directly?

EG when resolving assault , the WS is the score you have to roll over to hit the model.

So a model with a WS of 4, is hit on a 4+.A model with a WS of 2 is hit on a 2+

And models strike in WS order, highest first.

For starters you're still tying WS to Initiative, which doesn't always make sense; secondly you're chopping off a whole slew of unit granularity. Where in 40k you had potentially a hundred different combinations of WS and I permitted within the rules you've slashed that down to five. Not to mention the logical problem of a Space Marine Terminator and a grot hitting their target on exactly the same value.

Hello,

Sorry about my general absence. I promised an Imperial Guard codex ages ago. I am sorry about that, I started a new course and have less time generally. I have also been pressed into doing a lot more play-testing of a space-ship system I was working on.

Hello Andomander(nice to see other Malazan readers),

On another thread you were describing how close combat would work in your system. If I remember correctly it amounted to a minimum range on ranged weapons, and a small finite range on close combat weapons. (So within 6 inches you cant use your bolter, but can use your chainsword.) I really liked this idea.

In terms of:
-the unit activation system
and -the universal resolution table

I think that both are an improvement on regular 40k, but that both could, in principle be better.

For unit resolution I believe alternating turns can be boring, and that the traffic light system does improve on it, without being too complex.

[On a side note (but related) I have been thinking that a house rule I might adopt for doing unit activation would be to have a card for every single unit in the game (excluding those in reserves) shuffle them all up. Then activate units in the order the cards are dealt. (In principle they could go largely before you, bad luck). I like things to be a bit random and crazy.]

For the universal resolution chart I would say that having a universal one is a definite step in the right direction. The re-rolls is a result of the fact that dice just dont have enough sides to properly capture all of the power levels in 40k. Their are many possible approaches, D12's etc is one (but silly in so many ways). Additive D6's prohibit simultaneous rolling. (which one pairs with which?). Numbered cards or random number generators are a bit too zany.
Re-rolls seem the best (or least bad) member of the set, although I wouldn't rule out their being something better we haven't thought of.

Hope you are all well,

Dast

Dast wrote:

On another thread you were describing how close combat would work in your system. If I remember correctly it amounted to a minimum range on ranged weapons, and a small finite range on close combat weapons. (So within 6 inches you cant use your bolter, but can use your chainsword.) I really liked this idea.

You actually can use your bolter; most small arms will have a 'melee' profile in addition to their ranged profile to get around the problem of 12"-range ranged weapons not being especially useful with a 6" ring around your guys where they can actually be used. This has the additional advantage of giving me a good reason why classically crap-in-close-combat armies should have a unit that can handle themselves up close (Tau, for instance, don't do running around punching people but they would do short-ranged firefights) and allowing me to make certain small arms a little more useful (most purpose-built rifles aren't as good in close range, but optimized short-range things like shotguns, pules carbines, and meltaguns don't take the penalties a bolter or a pulse rifle would).

In terms of:
-the unit activation system
and -the universal resolution table

I think that both are an improvement on regular 40k, but that both could, in principle be better.

For unit resolution I believe alternating turns can be boring, and that the traffic light system does improve on it, without being too complex.

[On a side note (but related) I have been thinking that a house rule I might adopt for doing unit activation would be to have a card for every single unit in the game (excluding those in reserves) shuffle them all up. Then activate units in the order the cards are dealt. (In principle they could go largely before you, bad luck). I like things to be a bit random and crazy.]

For the universal resolution chart I would say that having a universal one is a definite step in the right direction. The re-rolls is a result of the fact that dice just dont have enough sides to properly capture all of the power levels in 40k. Their are many possible approaches, D12's etc is one (but silly in so many ways). Additive D6's prohibit simultaneous rolling. (which one pairs with which?). Numbered cards or random number generators are a bit too zany.
Re-rolls seem the best (or least bad) member of the set, although I wouldn't rule out their being something better we haven't thought of.

Hope you are all well,

Dast

I'm not challenging the idea of a universal resolution chart, merely the implementation. A universal resolution chart would be a massive step in the right direction. The issue with the table as written in these rules is that beyond a difference of two points either way between the attacker's stat and the defender's individual stat points stop mattering. WS6 and WS5 are almost identical when attacking WS3, where there's a massive jump between WS4 and WS5; I haven't done all the math to back this up, but it's weird and fuzzy to me. d12s are too hard to store/transport and nobody has many of them, I tried additive d6s briefly with the idea of multiple colours of dice but that turned out to be too clunky for games larger than about five models a side, and random number generators would require too many peripherals. I kept with the semi-linear system in the rules today but spaced it out more, that keeps the universal resolution system while allowing for a wider spread of stats and remaining easy and simple to manage.

Posting here to mark it in my history so its easy to find, Im gonna read the rules when i get home today. Will post feedback tonight.

I think there is an older version of the rules up. Let me attach the newest one here.

I can't do a full response tonight, but I should be able to dedicate a significant amount of time tomorrow to this and can give detailed responses. I really appreciate all the feedback, please keep it up!

Note: I am in the process of rewriting the rulebook with quite a few revisions. This will cause some disconnects in the rulebook that I will hopefully have remedied tomorrow.


Edit: Please see my most recent post for the most up to date version.

Differing armour stats for different types of attacks seems way too in-depth for a wargame where we're expecting dozens of models on the board at once.

@AnomanderRake.
I did not explain that idea too well.I just put the value that would be on the stat line.

This value is MODIFIED, NOT FIXED LIKE 40k.

In 40k the chance of anything hitting anything else is JUST 3+,4+,5+ fixed.
And the order of fighting is fixed!

Eg Tau have a Assault value (new WS value )of 2.
However, they gain =+2 from charging into assault, +1 for charging a suppressed enemy.
Now they have an assault value of 5 for that round of assault. (Which makes assaults much more survivable!.)
Weapons options can alter Assault value, and some may just alter the striking order.

I find direct use of stats, with sensible limited modifiers works very well!(KoW, Warpath, FoW etc.)

I am rubbish at explaining my ideas though..

AnonamderRake,

Alright, so let's see if I can address everything that came up:

Advantage to having a few large units over MSU:
-This system actually makes it a balance between the two. Yes, large units will generally get to act first and that gives an advantage to players who take them. However, MSU gives many other advantages that we already witness in 40k. Currently the only reason not to take MSU in 40k is the potential to give up more kill points (1/6 of missions) and the Force Org limitations. This system balances them out.

Tying in Initiative and Weapon Skill:
-This is remedied a bit in the newest version. Agility takes the place of Initiative and Dexterity takes the place of Weapon Skill. Agility shows the order of hits in close combat and the chance to dodge while Dexterity is your ability to hit in close combat (so hitting is Dexterity vs Agility.)

The Universal Resolution chart not scaling well:
-I had the exact same realization as you actually, and there is a different resolution chart in the newest version. It is very similar to the one you propose actually.

The Advanced Action phase:
-Totally removed due to the reasons you pointed out. I realized actually that any rules that I marked as Advanced needed to either be integrated or removed. This is all in the newest version.

Rule peculiarities:
-I don't recall weapons being easier to hit at long range vs short, but I'll read through and try to find that. Cover is actually one of the main things that I am reworking today. I'll post my ideas below outside of this summary as to make sure they don't get lost in it.

Ammo Types and Armor Types:
-This was actually the single most requested rule by people, and I think I have found a good way to implement it. I plan to keep this, but am willing to hear out other ideas.

Writing style and overall concerns:
-I will admit that my writing style needs work, especially when the document gets to be more than a few pages. Luckily, I married a librarian Once all the rules are complete I plan to hand it to her and let her revise it. As to the overall concern with realism vs playability. When I started this, I will admit that the main motivation was the horrendous lack of realism in 40k; however, as time went on and I got more experienced with writing rules I started seeing what you are talking about. I highly recommend reading through the newest ruleset, as I think you will be pleased with it. If you wait until later tonight it should even have the new cover rules in it.


Dast,

Welcome back, it's great to see you again Don't worry, I know the feeling about classes overloading a schedule. That happened to me last semester, and I'm trying to knock out as much as I can this time around just in case it happens again soon haha.


Lanrak,

I'm glad to hear that it scaled so well, and am genuinely surprised because I haven't seen games like that work so well. The ones I tried were all homebrew, so that likely explains why they became such a charlie foxtrot when the games got larger.

Please read through the Action-Reaction system in my new rulebook though. I know it needs work still, but the core of it I find to be pretty solid. Hopefully I'll get a play test in with it shortly and can give a good analysis on how it actually plays out.


Ultimentra,

Welcome to the thread, I look forward to getting your feedback


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually finished it faster than I thought I would. Taking a break for lunch and will pick this back up this afternoon. Next I plan to start adding the examples.


Edit: Please see my most recent post for the updated rulebook.

Much improved over the last draft. My only serious complaints here are that drawing the mission after deployment makes deployment irrelevant and grants too much of an advantage to faster armies, and that the funny circly thing profiles are really hard to read at a glance.

Very good point on the set up order. I'm trying to find a good way to structure that but the summary is:
1. Determine deployment type and choose sides.
2. Determine mission type and set up mission.
3. Deploy forces.

Also, I've been on a roll today and here is the most recent version with examples included and quite a bit reworded.

@Rabid.
There are excellent concepts in your rules!
However, I feel the way they are expressed could be simplified a bit.
I think you may get on better splitting the rules in to basic rules, and advanced rules .

To get the core interaction sorted before you add in the 'fine detail.'
I am not going to go into specifics , as I will put my own bias on everything.

However,I do feel there are features that you have ported straight over from 40k , that need to be justified before inclusion.
(I tend to have the opposite approach and refuse to use ANYTHING from GW 40k rules unless I can not find a better alternative. )

I am trying to be objectively constructive without trying to influence your decisions too much by including how I would make the changes.

It is possible to create a massive and diverse amount of game play from simple concepts applied efficiently ,(X -Wing,for example.)
I believe you have the core of a great game , but are shoving in unnecessary 'detail/complication' simply because GW 40k has it to make up for the lack of good game development.

YOU DO NOT NEED TO.
The core of your game is better than that.It needs careful refinement not drowning in ' chrome' IMO.

Lanrak,

I'm going to do another read through of my rules today and try to find anything I think is extraneous. Although there are some advantages to splitting it into basic and advanced rules, the community with which I can play Grimdark I know will be exceptionally small. Splitting what is already such a small community is a risky decision.

The intent behind splitting it up I feel I am accomplishing though. All of our debates so far have been on what would be considered basic rules. These are also what I've been play testing. Once these have been nailed down, we will be moving to more and more advanced things.

I really appreciate your criticism, and use it to look at my rules from other perspectives. My apologies if this response sounds like I'm shooting down everything you're saying; however, I assure you I am not.

@Rabid.
What I meant was get the core rules running right before you add more detail in.
EG establish the best function you can , then add chrome.

I did not mean to present them as 2 separate rule sets.But clearly separate your ideas into core rules and advanced rules.if the core rules are good enough they do not need the advanced rules .The advanced rules just add another layer.

There are no bad ideas in game development , just bad places for them to be.

I just would like you to look through the options you have , and see if any are a better fit, than the resolution methods/game mechanics you are using.

Could you list your design brief as a set of bullet points?I find this really helps focus on efficiency and elegance, and getting the right ideas in the right place.

I play with a group of 4 friends, I'll have a chat to them and see if they would be interested

Lanrak,

Here is my design plan:
-Design a draft turn system
-Come up with rules for assault and ranged combat
-Refine stats
-Refine turn system
-Refine rules for combat and stats
-Design a few codices to play test with
-Refine rules for combat and stats again
-Refine turn system again

Those have all been accomplished, here is what is left:
-Continue play testing
-Refine individual stats and make minor rule changes
-Add mission and deployment rules
-Play test missions and refine them
-Add chrome rules (like duels, flying units, etc.)
-Final play test and refining of core rulebook

Afterwards I'll be focusing heavily on completing the remaining codices.

Does this help or were you looking for something else?


MSRC27,

Fantastic! Thank you very much and please let me know what they say.

Hi Rabid.
What you posted was a organised list of functional requirement for 'a war game'.
Which is important .

However, the design brief pullet points I was looking at would be something like this...

Define the game play!
1)Type of warfare.
a)Level of interaction,
b)Balance of mobility , fire power and assault requirements.
c)How many types of unit are in the game , how do they interact,etc.

2)Size and scope of game.
a)Range of number of elements in the game .(How many units per side.)
b)Scale of the playing pieces and representative values.(Eg 1 to 1 or 1 model to 10 actual men..)
c) level of detail/abstraction, etc..

I am not saying you did not look at these things.But if you 'step back' from the 'nitty gritty' , some times an overview of the game play, can let you see a clear way forward.

Maybe looking at you game development focusing on game play, rather than the detail in the resolution etc, may help?

Hello Lanrak,

Looking at it I believe that your "zoomed out" view is a very usefully one in general when designing games.

However I think it is less relevant to what we are doing here, making a game that attempts to fix warhammer 40k. This means that what sorts of units exist has already been established (by the models that exist). It has also already been established that things like tanks, monsters and infantry are all going to be relevant, we even have pre-conceived ideas as to what factions will exist and what their strengths and weaknesses are.

We can be a bit more flexible with things like scale and number of units in the game,but it wouldn't really be a re-boot of 40k if a typical army contained 5 unit (...well, unless they were knights), it would be more like necromunda.

I think that most of us here probably actually quite like the answers 40k gives to the above questions. That's not what is wrong with it. The problem with 40k's rules is basically one of execution, not intent.

Hi Dast.
I agree that the game size and general arrangment of forces are going to follow what has gone before.

However, GW plc's version of 40k has such poor implementation because it does not write rules for the intended game play.
But uses ancient warfare rules with lots of 'exceptions and additions' bolted on .This leaves convoluted over complicated rules.

And if Grimdark is veering towards being over complicated, then a clearly defined definition of the intended game play may help focus the development process.

IMO 40k is a modern warfare game , using modern warfare units with a sci-fantasy veneer.

So establishing a well defined intuitive rule set for modern warfare first ,then adding the 40k flavor /chrome afterwards is possibly a better idea.
Than writing a rule set for GWs 40k when no one can define what GWs 40k is supposed to be.

A large skirmish / battle game with model /unit focus that is played in narrative/ competitive environment , with friends at home/ strangers in a store.
Is 40k, WHFB in space, or near sci fi , or far sci fi , or just cool ideas chucked in a book ?