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.

Wow I had some derp math there with the 5+3+ vs 3+/5+, i think i was thinking about how changing rending from to hit to to wound changed things, signs i need to stop staying up all night.

As to ditching attack stats in favor of a multiple attack USR, not really a fan of that idea. I think one of the best parts of 40k is the variety created between troops through their stats alone, before any special rules get thrown on top. Seeing the Ork Boy, Hormagaunt, Death Company, Daemonette, Bloodletter, and Genestealer profiles all demonstrate their position as powerful close combat units through their number of attacks, even before taking Wargear into question, makes them unique compared to other options. So our options kinda come down to keep the current attack system, create a multiple attack special rule that would have to be applied to all 6 of the units i listed above, and those are just Troops, never mind FA and Elites, or you make the standard 1 attack and save multiple attacks for higher level units, which seems like itd be really REALLY bland on a unit by unit basis, which was kinda the whole point of working on a new system, not to mention counteracting the purpose and design of many units.

As for making two units that get into Melee strike at the same initiative, unless otherwise noted by a special rule, i think that could be a cool idea, as you'd have fast, normal, and slow, with special cases like strikes last for power fists and the like. I would avoid doing the cumbersome 3 thing though, as your basically just recreating the initiative system in a stranger way, which defeats the purpose.

Also, i'd like to avoid using special rules for determining stats as much as possible (except for the new initiative idea you had, thats a cool idea). Otherwise youre gonna have the fun situation of paladins being Preferred enemy(Daemons), ATSKNF, 2 wound universal special rule, multiple attack (3) special rule, brotherhood of Psyker's, deep strike, the aegis, and anything else i forgot, and thats already 7 special rules before a character joins them for fearless, titans hearld, and anything else.

As for merging stats, i dont see why you couldn't merge WS and S into one stat, so long as you treat the Melee weapon as a ranged weapon with range 0 or something, rather than the models strength itself. A space marine could have Assault 5, and to reprint his strength,the chain sword he carries could be Dmg 6, so the Assault 5 of the space marine and a bonus for being a close combat weapon rather than a stick he hit over someone's head, or his fist.

Combining AP and Damage is probably the best way to go about it, but id be willing to look for a way to keep them distinct. I think that system just has a bit more flavor in it than just pure damage. Even if a Dmg 6 AP 2 weapon and a Dmg 5 AP3 weapon are similar in function, they just feel a bit more interesting than both being Damage 8, even though there's little difference between them.

Attacks and wounds could maybe be represented as the unit type perhaps, such as infantry/2/1 for infantry/2 attacks/1 hit point. Not really solving much but itd make the startline seem smaller than it really is.

As for the use of invulnerable saves as modifier rather than a flat save, i never really liked the idea of this field of energy being enough to stop a power sword or missile flat out, so making things less immediately dangerous by reducing their lethality seemed like a good idea, especially from the perspective of the units whose invulnerable saves are not a result of power fields.

And to bring up a point and answer dakkamites' question in one fell swoop, I'd like to make a mod of 40k, which is still recognizable as the game even with extensive changes. This is what has me worried about many of the changes being suggested, funnily enough being brought to light by dakkamite bringing up kings of war. That system is built around formations of models acting as one whole, whereas 40K is about a bunch of individual models working as a cohesive unit. This has always been represented in the round bases and coherency rules, as unlike its fantasy cousin who is a formation game, the models don't fit together nicely, and you purchase and load out individual models. I did like how they had a fairly limited set of statlines, that used special rules to differentiate them, but i think 40k should use a system where variety starts at the stats, then Wargear and special rules drive home the differences and specialities.

Also im not terribly keen on using a D12 if possible, since theyre slightly harder to come by and anything you can do with a D12, you can probably find a way to hack it into working on a D6. The irony of me saying that on a thread that i started titled D10 conversion to 40k is not lost on me.

Also, i dont know about you guys, but i will most certainly be rewriting Codex: Grey Knights to be unrecognizable to the pile of steaming disappointment Ward left at my doorstep.

Well, you were the one crazing about trying to shorten the statline as much as possible

But if you insist on it, then it takes nothing just to put back Vitality (Wounds), Fury (new name for Attacks maybe? Attacks sounds bad)

Wait, so you approve of D10s but not D12s?!?! D12s are MUCH easier to come by IIRC.

I'll be back in D3 hours!

If we really wanted it at minimum size, we could just have offense/defense, or even just elite/general/horde under quality heading, but one sounds like we'd be playing bloodbowl or something and the other would be awful, so more concise than the current system, but diverse enough to allow variation and distinctions.

Rage sounds like an interesting idea to replace attacks, maybe fury, ferocity, or wrath. I kinda like ferocity, but it might be best to stick with attacks, as its familiar and easy to use in game (they've got two attacks each vs they have a ferocity score of 2 each).

No dice other than D6 are easy to come by in my area, since all FLGS in my area are about an hour away before city traffic makes you rethink your decision. And yeah I was working with D10 specifically to avoid having everything feel like 40K pushed onto a bigger dice, and I've pretty much abandoned that at this point as better ideas have come forth, and. I like the use of a 2-12 scale, im just not so sure about the dice, since to playtest id either have to buy a whole bunch which are expensive or use a dice app which takes forever, whereas I've got access to dozens of D6.

It seems this is to be nothing more than a re-skin of the existing 40k rules to have a wider range of stats. I'll leave you guys to it then.

Wait, why does that matter? You don't want to help us anymore? :< I don't want a 40k reskin. I want a mechanically strong and logical game which is familiar to 40k players, but also fresh. 40k rules are broken all over the place. Grimdark took one path, I want to take another. I'm not a fan of the place counters and flip path.

Also by a 2-12 scale you mean 2D6? For me that is out of the picture because not only will it be impossible when it comes to rolling a lot of dice, but also, 2D6 has a fundamental problem of uneven values, as in, the chance of getting 7 is 1/6, whereas the chance of getting 2 or 12 is 1/36. Unless you want some sort of skewered data, which won't get you far anyway, this can't work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What's your opinion on a chart that goes like this:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marksmanship..................................1......2......3......4......5......6......7......8......9.....10
To Hit (Shooting).............................6+....6+....5+....5+....4+....4+....3+....3+....2+....2+
Target's Stealth...............................-1.....-2.....-3.....-4.....-5....-6.....-7.....-8.....-9....-10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Power..............................................1......2......3......4......5......6......7......8......9.....10
To Damage.....................................6+....6+....5+....5+....4+....4+....3+....3+....2+....2+
Target's Resilience..........................-1.....-2.....-3.....-4.....-5....-6.....-7.....-8.....-9....-10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fortitude..........................................1......2......3......4......5......6......7......8......9.....10
Morale Check.................................6+....6+....5+....5+....4+....4+....3+....3+....2+....2+
Target's Threat...............................-1.....-2.....-3.....-4.....-5....-6.....-7.....-8.....-9....-10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combat Skill.....................................1......2......3......4......5......6......7......8......9.....10
To Hit (Assault)...............................6+....6+....5+....5+....4+....4+....3+....3+....2+....2+
Target's Dexterity............................-1.....-2.....-3.....-4.....-5....-6.....-7.....-8.....-9....-10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Influence..........................................1......2......3......4......5......6......7......8......9.....10
To Affect.........................................6+....6+....5+....5+....4+....4+....3+....3+....2+....2+
Target's Pressure............................-1.....-2.....-3.....-4.....-5....-6.....-7.....-8.....-9....-10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pros:
Uses D6
Allows for variety

Cons:
Chances not perfectly even; without modifiers, the numbers conflict, however with enough modifiers, the difference in difference is minimised.
Needs more stats on the stat card; however stats are paired
Stats will need to start high up and get lowered, which means there isn't enough space for good characters; maybe extend the numbers to 20 or something.

Any obvious flaws in this?

I meant a set of 2-12 as in a D12 where a skill of one is always failing.
So to do a direct comparison to 40K,
2 == 2
3 == 3
4 == 3.5
5 == 4
6 == 4.5
7 == 5
8 == 6
9 == 7
10 == 8
11 == 9
12 == 10
This system lets us add more variety in standard troops, particularly picking out veteran skills, while still letting a us have the high power weapons be represented, though its far from perfect. But it bothered me that sisters of battle never got a higher weapon skill, even though i think we can all agree they could wipe the floor with the guardsman in close combat, if not to the extent they could outclass them in shooting.

The system i've been working on has melee skill, shooting skill, wounds, attacks, morale, and defense as unit stats, with damage, AP, range, and type as weapon stats, with the defense rolls having a chart like this with
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
3 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+ 8+ 9+ 10+ 11+ 12+ ---- ---- -----
4 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+ 8+ 9+ 10+ 11+ 12+ ---- -----
5 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+ 8+ 9+ 10+ 11+ 12+ -----
6 ---- 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+ 8+ 9+ 10+ 11+ 12+
7 ---- ---- 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+ 8+ 9+ 10+ 11+
8 ---- ---- ---- 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+ 8+ 9+ 10+
9 ---- ---- ---- ---- 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+ 8+ 9+
10 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+ 8+
11 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+
12 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+
So anything with toughness more than 6 points above incoming damage can't be hurt by it, while anything with strength 5 over the targets defense auto-wounds? No sure about that last part. So Defense would have to be a scale of 1 to 30 in this new set, so 12 Max Strength, + 8 for Max Penetration, and half a D12. AP reduces the targets Defense value. Far from finalized but i like the feel of it.

Hi folks.
It looks like we need to decide exactly what we want from this development..

I want to have a well defined , intuitive face paced MODERN BATTLE war game .

An interactive game turn, minimal resolution methods , and direct use of stats, to remove the need for separate charts and tables....(And reliance on special rules to carry the game.)

Now if this was just a WWII game populated by humans and similar level of technology across all armies.
Then we could use standard movement for infantry, bike jeep halftrack, tank fast tank slow tank like F.O.W
And a similarly close range of morale and training .

But 40k is supposed to encompass an entire universe.So the more variation we can put in the better, IMO.

Now this is why I wanted to use opposed stats.

Say we start by using infantry and vehcles .And we use D12 or D10 to set the range of results.

Then we want to add super heavies, and titans.
We have to rip up all the charts and tables and start again using a d20 and/or add in loads of special rules .....

If we simply use stats we can just put higher stats in for Super heavies/titans and the weapons to take them down .

A simple question,
Do you want to JUST cover the current game play of 40k in as few pages of rules as possible.Where everything is crammed together with deterministic use of dice.
OR would you like to use ADD more tactical depth to the game , (and cover the wide variety of units found in a universe,)By using new mechanics and reolution methods, and still use less than half the pages of rules 40k does...

In my 30+ years of war gaming, I have found simple simulations make far better games than 'cinematic' marketing pamphlets.

It may be on a different page now.
But when I listed my example starting stats.

I said that we could include the USERS Attacks in the Close combat weapons 'Effect'.(Effect being number of shots /hits/ area of effect.)

And we include the USERS balistic skill in the effective range of ranged weapons.(Better shots hit things further away.)

I listed Morale as the score needed to beat, to rally a unit on poor morale.(Yes I want to use simple supression mechanic, shaken, stunned and routed for ALL units.)

And Command as the number of RE ROLLS and RANGE , the unit leader/Character gives the near by unit per game turn.(These re rolls are dependant on the character type to what dice the unit can re roll.)

I am happy to discuss alternative game mechanics and resolution methods.
BUT it is important to me to use no more than 2 resolution methods (other than direct representation.)
And use the stats directly , to determine in game interaction.
To keep the rules straight forward and intuitive.

I can go through alternative game turn mechanics, and explain the proposed stats in more detail if you like?

Ok so lets break those goals down into more manageable chunks shall we?

Interactive game turn, minimal resolution methods, less reliance on special rules to carry the game.

100% on board with these goals. Interactive game turns would keep players involved and interested with less waiting around, whether this be through unit activation systems of alternating phases, and 40k's current turn system is both dated and broken.
minimal resolution methods make everything more unified, meaning less arbitrary rules that create differing systems, and hopefully make the game play faster. Less reliance on special rules for core gameplay means they can be used to really bring the "Special" portion to special rules.

As for putting as much variation as possible in with regards to movement, i'm not really on board with this idea. Does altering a units movement distance really make it feel or play any differently/better? All you'd be doing is slightly slowing down or slightly speeding up a units movement, unless you wanted some truly drastic effects. Plus I think 40k's current movement system is dynamic enough to not need fiddling with, as slow and purposeful, fleet, Slaanesh Daemons extra movement rule, Eldars Battle-focus, etc allow for very different movement mechanics and tactics without being overly fiddly, andlet us keep simple standard movement rules based on unit types (infantry, jump infantry, jet infantry, bike, etc)

And please, don't even bring up Apocalypse rules, we've got a big enough challenge ahead of us before we even think of approaching that.

As to whether we want to streamline the current 40K system or add tactical depth, why not both? Simplify and keep the best parts of 40K, modifying where necessary to make them faster and less cumbersome, and instead replace the complexity with tactical options in whatever method works best. Just off the top of my head, i'm not sure how i feel about using a Command stat in addition to Morale, but letting sergeants or leaders have warlord-esque traits might be an interesting route to go. Having them issue orders might be stepping on Imperial Guard Players toes a bit, but it would definitely be different and interesting.

Using simple Suppression, Shaken, Stunned, Routed Mechanics for ALL units.
Lanrak, i swear, every post you've got some interesting, innovative idea, keep it up.

And finally,we need to start getting examples and rules set down for many of these ideas. I like the concept of a direct comparison rather than charts, but we need a concrete system to evaluate, even if its only a placeholder to be modified and adjusted. The Ballistic Skill as range system sounds interesting, but without something to experiment with and evaluate, we cant say which parts work and which parts don't, and make necessary changes accordingly. Once we've got a basic ruleset for these ideas, we can start modifying and evaluating, but until then, we don't have the information to make a strong judgement.

Sorry to drop so much work on you Lanrak, but we really need these ideas to be fleshed out before we start judging beyond them being interesting. Also, how do you feel about some of the other ideas discussed, such as consolidating certain stats, dropping the initiative system in favor of roll-offs and fast/slow Initiative special rules, etc?

So what exactly is a direct comparison? Is that simply a 'chart', where every level of difference is a +/-1 modifier? Sort of like the to-wound mechanic of current 40k. So if the base was 7, and I was 2 higher than you, you'd need a 9+ to hit or something?

As opposed to charts like the current melee to-hit chart where the numbers jchange at various points and require that one actually look at a chart.

Hi Rav1rn.
If we want a more tactical game , then we need more IN GAME choice and interaction in the game play.

If you can bear with me a moment as I go over some basic ideas.

I think it is important that units have to choose what 2 actions they are going to perform in the game turn.(Rather than 1 to 4 in the current 40k game.)
EG
Ready (weapons), Then Fire to Full effect.(The only way to fire heavier weapons/ordnance.)

Ready (equipment) Then Move with higher stealth.

Move Then Fire

Move Then Move

Move Then Assault.

(Units can choose different actions to other friendly /enemy units.)

If you want to use alternating phases, here are two popular options.

No1
Player A move.
Player B move

Player A shoot
Player B Shoot

Player A Assault
Player B Assault

No2
Player A Move.
Player B Shoots
Player A Reacts.

Player B Moves .
Player A Shoots
Player B Reacts.

(Units can move shoot or assault as a reaction .)

Anyhow, just to explain why a Movement value might be useful.
Currently in 40k any SLIGHT change in unit /model equipment requires special rules to define slight improvements .
Where as if we use a distance in inches for speed.

We can say extra armour on a vehicle slows its speed down by X inches.
Or stripping off armour increases the units speed by Y inches.
(Making unit load out mutable and gives a finer level of balance.)

Having used Movement values in EVERY battle game except 40k .(And Arty Conliffes Crossfire which does not use ANY measuring.)
Sort of makes it very odd to me to work without a movement value.

I mean how would you feel if weapon ranges were written as every weapons range is 24" apart from weapons with , very short, short ,less than average ,more than average, longish, quite long , very long and super duper long, range special rules .

And than you had to look up and remember what every special range class was in terms of actual range.. .


Anyhow...
I am very happy to combine stats effect to get the NET in game effect.(And allowing us to use ANY value we need to is important IMO.)

This was the idea about using a UNIT WEAPONS PROFILE.(Ill explain later.)

I agree that units could have a 2 stage damage resolution.
Roll to hit. then roll to save.
Damage (AP + STR,)vs Defense (AV + Toughness.)

But most 40k players want to differentiate between armour and natural toughness.(I dont know why but they do.)

However, we could have a halfway resolution.Where the amount you fail the save by , is compared to a Resilience value, to determine the actual damage taken?
EG
If what you fail the save by is less than the Resilience value the model is Shaken.
If you fail the save by MORE than the resilience value the model is damaged.(looses a wound/structure point.)

(I know some people do not like using different terminology,But I want to use universal stats that apply to mechanical AND biological units.)

Sorry for rambling a bit, its my age you know...

You seem to be drawing a bit from the Epic rules, so why not just use that?

>Player 1 picks a unit that hasn't gone this round, does all movement, shooting, assault etc, using a variety of 'orders' like 'shoot more', 'move-shoot', 'move-move' etc
>Player 2 does the same
>Then back to player 1

I'm quite fond of this alongside a counters system, but since it seems the majority isn't in favour of the counters it still leaves this as a solid option. A bonus to something like this is that a COMMAND type stat becomes relevant.

If we want a more tactical game , then we need more IN GAME choice and interaction in the game play

I'm very much in agreement here. In fact, I've been thinking on another element that is crucial in promoting IN GAME choices and interaction - and thats to take the power away from PRE GAME choices in army list construction.

Frankly, I hate the army list construction element of 40k. I think that it takes the spotlight away from your tactical decisions on the tabletop, causing the game to be over before its even began, with wars won in the indexes of your army book than on the tabletop. As it is now, I truly believe 40k resembles more Magic: The Gathering than an actual wargame. I see much more in regards to "wow, thats a strong army" than "wow, he certainly used his army to great effect", and rarely see the weaker army come out on top in a game. We also seem to get tons of stuff thats under/over costed or powered this way because theres literally too much choice.

In that vein I'd like to... not necessarily remove choice, but structure it. What I'm talking about is an army construction system akin to that from SAGA. Instead of 1500pts or whatever, you get X choices from your army book (thinking 4 for a small game, 8 for a big one... something like that). A choice might be a solo Dreadnaught or Predator, a small unit of Terminators, a medium one of Space Marines, or a larger one of Scouts - depending on the scale we use (I'm fond of the one you see in Dawn of War 2 - Marines in squads of 3, because smaller units leads to more tactical gameplay plus three marines being equal to a whole mob of other models is more fluffy). Some choices, such as Land Raiders, may cost more, but rather than one unit costing 125pts and another 240 and yet another 734 points, its simple "one choice" (or "point" or "two choices" (two "points" taken up.

Each Option would have various ways of customizing it, but none of them affect the price of the unit. To use the army I'm familiar with (Orks), a "Boyz Mob" of say 8 Boyz led by a Nob can either have Sluggas and Choppas or Shootas on all the models. They then have the option of adding either two special weapons (choice of flamer, rokkit, big shoota) or to give the Nob a Power Klaw to make the unit killier in close combat. The unit may, instead of either or both of the special weapons, choose to take Stikkbomms (grenades, whatever those will do), 'eavy armour to make the unit tougher but slower, or to upgrade one boy to a Painboy (medic) that can also boost the durability of the mob.

Though all of this is encompassed under "Ork Mob - 1 point", I've got options here for a ded killy close combat unit, one thats hard as nails, a shooty unit... all brought about through ticking a few boxes on the list of options for the Mob. What I *don't* have to worry about, is whether to spend 5 points on this, or 7 points on that, or buy the 38.5 point upgrade that gives them something else, and then whether those various point expenditures are 'efficient' relative to choices elsewhere.

No matter what options I pick, its still just 1 point for the "Ork Boyz Mob" selection for my army, and should be 'equal' in utility to all the other 1 point options in my book. Theres still plenty of room for customization but I feel something like this helps to balance the game for more *gameplay* and less list construction.

First off lets address some of Dakkamite's concerns,

Worrying that Pre-Game decisions are more powerful than In-Game decisions is the fault of 40K's designers, not an inherent flaw in the system itself. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no official curve or formula used to describe a units cost since Rogue Trader, and this is just not acceptable. In games with fewer units and less choices to make, playtesting alone might be able to balance things perfectly, with some luck and lots of time and samples. However, with 16 distinct codex's in circulation, and more supplements being introduced all the time, its impossible to get things balanced out even close to perfectly without some way of mathematically describing its power compared to some standard, and attach a points cost accordingly. This is further complicated by the statline not having enough variety to allow units to differ to an appropriate amount, without resorting to special rules. This is why every codex seems to have at least 1 "dud" unit that just doesn't match up to anything it competes with, or you get stupidly overpowered options. The problem isn't the points system, but the lack of distinct control over it, that causes so many problems.

Your alternative of using a system that limits the number of units taken seems like it'd be both interesting, and much easier to balance. Im not a huge fan of it, since i like using the larger squads of standard 40k, but Dawn of War 2 had great gameplay that felt almost exactly like 40K, just at a smaller scale, so theres no reason that idea shouldn't work, im just not sure i want that to be the core 40k system, instead of a faster alternative ruleset, maybe even an introduction to the game kind of thing.

@Lanrak

I like the idea of an action system, it feels similar to the action system you'd find in tabletop RPG's, and those can work very well.

Alternating Phases option 1 is a no-go, it doesn't really address the problem of alpha-strike gameplay, so you'd be trading one flawed system for a different but equally flawed system.
Option 2 looks interesting though, especially since reaction is not the same as a distinct set of actions that can be undertaken in that period, so player choices can be more of a factor. i'd just worry that having both players act in one "player" turn would be a bit odd.

Yes, any slight change to a models movement requires a special rule to describe that, but its either use special rules for the few situations where that occurs, or you create a new stat that can itself vary, then likely have special rules on top of that anyways. It might be a good idea so far as having a unified statline for all units in the game, but i think just letting the units type decide these kinds of things would be better, such as having Heavy Tank/Tank/Light Tank, Heavy Skimmer/Skimmer/Light skimmer. This idea would also let us integrate your idea of changing a vehicles movement by changing its armor values, which i assume was your idea instead of the extra armor upgrade in place right now. This could even be applied to infantry, with Heavy infantry/infantry/light infantry types determining movement effects. Heavy infantry might act as having slow and purposeful, infantry may have no bonuses or penalties, and light infantry might get an extra 3" of movement over the normal value.

As to the change of the range system so it relies on BS, i feel this would either have too much effect, or not enough. Either your gonna get units that can sit outside the range of a less skilled enemy who cant move since they'd take a range penalty or not be able to shoot at all, or it'd just be a much more involved version of the current system that would require me remember how far the chaplain in my squad can fire, vs how far my captain can fire, vs the terminators they're attached to. At least with the current system its fairly fast, if not terribly varied. So while there's room for improvement, i'm not sure how well this new system would replace it.

However, we could have a halfway resolution.Where the amount you fail the save by , is compared to a Resilience value, to determine the actual damage taken?
EG
If what you fail the save by is less than the Resilience value the model is Shaken.
If you fail the save by MORE than the resilience value the model is damaged.(looses a wound/structure point.)

This is a great idea, and would make sure that even if no wounds are caused, the unit is affected. Couple ideas come to mind with this system.
1) Morale check could prevent shaking? might make it too many rolls
2) If unit loses a certain number of models, they do the typical morale check, but if they fail a certain threshold, they are shaken/stunned/routed or whatever
3) Assuming you make shaken/stunned the same as the current vehicle rules, it'd make fearless invaluable to assault units. Would also provide a nice way to keep strong shooting units from hitting as hard without needing to kill all of them.

Again, however, without concrete rules to look over, this is still just based on how i perceive such a system working. I'd really like to see an in-depth exploration of how direct comparison could work, preferably using a D12?

Worrying that Pre-Game decisions are more powerful than In-Game decisions is the fault of 40K's designers, not an inherent flaw in the system itself

I don't understand this at all.

This problem is the *result* of the system, which means the flaw lies in the system itself. The designers are kind of irrelevant, only the system they've given us matters, so I can't really figure what your getting at here

Im not a huge fan of it, since i like using the larger squads of standard 40k

The key aspect of the rules was the replacement of points with selections, not the squad size. If the squad size element is what you believe to be flawed in those rules then it can easily be swapped out for a larger number of models. I just went for smaller because not only do I like smaller, but because the stated mission of this endeavour is to make 40k into something involving the terms "small scale modern style tactical skirmish game" in any given order if I recall it correctly. Modern and skirmish are both in reference to smaller units, not to mention small scale though that particular element could just be a figment of my imagination

But if you're saying you don't want a template for army construction then many armies will just be running full HQ or full Fast Attack, it just won't work imo. And about the point system turning into simply a "slot" system, that will make it the opposite of variety, you'll have, at the bottom, a Gretchin squad, and at the top, some HQ like Calgar or something. Then you have to fit EVERYTHING into 2-6 slots. It will make many units the same price but vastly different power.

I do like the idea you mentioned of "if you take a power klaw you can't take stikkbombs", we'll have to consider that later.

As for the turn system, I love the idea Rav1rn mentioned earlier about:

Player 1 selects one unit and moves, shoots and assaults with that one unit
On a 3+, he may do the same with another unit.
On a 5+, he may do the same with another unit.
After using up to 3 units, the turn switches to the opponent.

It's like Epic rules, with a twist.

I don't like the counter system, it seems to add some unnecessary mechanic which seems to hinder the game a lot.

Also, following on from Lanrak's

Ready (equipment) Then Move with higher stealth.

I think this could be a great idea, moving only a fraction of your maximum distance but gaining Stealth in the process.

Player A Move.
Player B Shoots
Player A Reacts.

What do you mean by react? Move back? Shoot back? Engage in CC?

On a different note I think our focus has gone away from shortening unit statlines, so yes, I fully agree on having a Mobility statistic. This means that Eldar DON'T have to have a weird rule, but instead just move more than everyone else. As for Necrons they still have to get a special rule, but don't need that rule to outline their movement. This is good for beginners who sometimes forget rules; they still get the bulk of the actual game. So we NEED to agree on a very basic thing right now. It's the easiest obstacle to overcome. Do we want a short statline with more special rules? Or an honest one which is long but doesn't need rules backing it up? Imho I go for the latter.

Before we start thinking about all this extra stuff like Rav1rn said, we need to find a concrete, fundamental mechanic which we all agree on. Will it be:

(green = pro, orange = con)

Direct comparison:

Removes the need for charts
Uses D6
Doesn't address the desire for variety - it works just like the current S/T chart system.
It distorts receiving values by 4, which wouldn't be distorted with a chart
Dexterity vs. Dexterity, how is one going to hit another if they're the same value?

Strength Toughness Chart:
Uses D6
Easy to remember
One point in difference means 1/6 chance, which cramps everything together; no variety

S/T chart with D10 or D12:
Addresses the need for variety
Hard to get D10s and D12s, no-one will play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alternatively;

.........1.....2.....3......4.....5.....6.....7.....8.....9...10...11...12
.....1|4+...5+...5+...6+...6+...6+....---...---....---...---...---....---
.....2|3+...4+...5+...5+...6+...6+...6+....---...---...---...---....---
.....3|3+...3+...4+...5+...5+...6+...6+...6+...---...---...---....---
.....4|2+...3+...3+...4+...5+...5+...6+...6+...6+...---...---....---
.....5|2+...2+...3+...3+...4+...5+...5+...6+...6+...6+...---...---
.....6|2+...2+...2+...3+...3+...4+...5+...5+...6+...6+...6+...---
.....7|---....2+...2+...2+...3+...3+...4+...5+...5+...6+...6+...6+
.....8|---....---....2+...2+...2+...3+...3+...4+...5+...5+...6+...6+
.....9|---....---....---....2+...2+...2+...3+...3+...4+...5+...5+...6+
...10|---....---....---....---....2+...2+...2+...3+...3+...4+...5+...5+
...11|---....---....---....---....---....2+...2+...2+...3+...3+...4+...5+
...12|---....---....---....---....---....---....2+...2+...2+...3+...3+...4+

The result is not of the system, but of poor execution of the system. The system is you buy units and upgrades using points. In an ideal system, a unit's points cost would be representative of its abilities, with upgrades being costed appropriately. There's no problem with this system, assuming there's some mathematical way to ensure everything's costs are accurate. The problem is that the design team doesn't do this.
As for the problems with the actual rules and ways abilities are represented, yeah that's a problem with 40K, and why we're in this thread to begin with, but you addressed the points and buying system 40K uses specifically:

Frankly, I hate the army list construction element of 40k. I think that it takes the spotlight away from your tactical decisions on the tabletop, causing the game to be over before its even began, with wars won in the indexes of your army book than on the tabletop. As it is now, I truly believe 40k resembles more Magic: The Gathering than an actual wargame. I see much more in regards to "wow, thats a strong army" than "wow, he certainly used his army to great effect", and rarely see the weaker army come out on top in a game. We also seem to get tons of stuff thats under/over costed or powered this way because theres literally too much choice.

If things were priced appropriately, these problems wouldn't exist. You could tailor your list to how you wanted to play in addition to the strengths within the codex. Player skill and luck of the dice would determine victory, as one player would have had to either play worse or not take advantage of their codex's strengths or have the dice roll unfavorably all game long to lose.

Edit: as for whether we want a short statline with special rules, or a long statline that avoids special rules, that choice isn't really what we should be deciding on. Do we want to use existing stats to determine more effects in a less dynamic way, or do we want to explicitly state some factors to make that factor have a bigger role in the game system? If you look at most of the 40K armies, each has one special rule applied to almost the whole army that in a way defines them and their playstyle. Space Marine have ATSKNF, Eldar have Battle-Focus, Orks have Mob rule, Tyranids have Synapse, Tau have supporting fire, Necrons have reanimation protocols, Dark Eldar have strength through pain, etc. It just so happens that the Eldar's army special rule affects their movement to a degree, as it lets them move-shoot-move. Otherwise, using a Heavy/Medium/Light system, they could just be light infantry to make them faster than whatever the standard movement for infantry is. The Unit Type is already something in place to describe a unit, why not make it do more than just separate Vehicles, Infantry, Jump/Jet/Bike, and Monsterous Creatures?

Cool, we'll drop the slot idea then.

However, I still stick with what I said - everything is part of the system, including all the various elements of the game (such as IGOUGO and tons of powerful shooting) that lead to the alpha strike element of current 40k.

What about the issue with comparison statistics and non-comparison statistics?

None of these systems is exactly ideal, but can we agree that using the d6 just isn't going to offer enough variety to make things more interesting? Otherwise, i think using a D12 plus whatever unusual idea Lanrak has for direct comparison would be the way to go. With the widespread adoption of smartphones, using a dice app wouldn't be too bad, since they're relatively cheap. A good one would probably be better than using actual dice for stuff like 120 attacks from Ork Mobz.

Get yo technology outta my wargames

I asked what direct comparison was like five posts ago, still waiting on that

The whole point of the thread was to swap out D6 for something else, so I'm all for that

Direct comparison is:

Mk value 4
Stealth value 8

The shooter needs a 4+ to hit.

I don't want to use D12 anymore. I don't have a smartphone, and that would be disconcerting in a game which you play in real life unlike computer games, I don't want RNGs to determine my luck. :/


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I'm still waitin' on my Imperial weapon stats Check my thread to see what my thoughts are right now.

Ok, so run us through an example of how Melee and shooting would work. How about when the shooter has marksmanship 8 and the target has stealth 4?
Is there a way to use direct comparison using a D6 while maintaining variety?
Well, saying you need a set of 20 dice to play at a brisk pace, at ~~$1.00 per dice for a D12, thats only 20 bucks, but the app may be less than 5 dollars, so i meant it as an alternative for cheap play testing more than the final solution, i prefer the physicality of using dice as well.

Nah, direct comparison is basically the same chart, just without the chart and irregulated 4 points.

And to be honest I'm not willing to spend money on weird dice. I think we have to make it work with D6s. Check my thread for my updated thoughts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also does anyone have any ideas for determining who strikes first? I think this is clear:

- it shouldn't be the whole squad that strikes first
- the rule has to work with multiple dexterities in a squad

I've got more than just weapon stats for you IcyFireKnight

I have no idea who should strike first. I was perfectly happy with First Strike (x) and don't really know what direction this process has gone in since then.

Thanks again for the rulebook, lol!

As for an invulnerable save I think we should just keep it the same mechanic.

Safeguard (x+): A model with this special rule can make a save after being wounded.

And just a thought, for Deep Strike, their 2D6 scatter is reduced by their Fortitude.




I want to stress that

- it shouldn't be the whole squad that strikes first
- the rule has to work with multiple dexterities in a squad

So do you have any ideas?

Now I'm really confused, I thought the idea of using USR to supplement simple rules had been scrapped. I'm glad to see that it hasn't.

As for first strike, what happened to just having all "units strike simultaneously unless rule"?

I want that to happen, but isn't that a bit boring? Combat where everything puts out its attacks and x number of people die? I think some models should be able to get the upper hand.

I'm going to put something out there:

Models that have a higher Dexterity than the model they are attacking get a number of attacks that strike before equal to the difference in Dexterity.

So a Space Marine charges an Ork. 5-4=1. The Marine gets 1 attack before the Ork.

Bad wording but just an idea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also:

Now I'm really confused, I thought the idea of using USR to supplement simple rules had been scrapped. I'm glad to see that it hasn't.

I'd say it isn't a simple rule, certainly not as fundamental as Wounds or Attacks. Only about 10% of things have invulnerable saves, so Safeguard 5+ won't be flooding the Special Rules section, unlike Multiple Wounds 2 Multiple Attacks 3, which would.

I am still fully appreciating having USRs for flavoursome mechanics.

A super space marine (Dex 10), three regular marines (Dex 5), and a Scout (Dex 4) charge six Orks (Dex 4), two Nobs (Dex 5), and a Warboss (Dex 8)

How many bonus attacks does each guy get?

Combat where everything puts out its attacks and x number of people die? I think some models should be able to get the upper hand.

Isn't that how vanilla 40k works as is?

I'm all for adding options to the close combat, and the way I'd do it is with a simple STANCE system. During each assault phase, each player may declare (secretly? simultaneously? whatever) that any given unit or units of theirs that is engaged in an assault will use a COMBAT STANCE. The two stances to choose from are OFFENSIVE and DEFENSIVE. A unit fighting with a stance trades attack or defense for the opposite - overall it *must* be less efficient than an unmodified unit, but in exchange it allows a player to tie up a strong enemy unit for another turn, or do that last bit of desperate extra damage to one before reinforcements pile into the assault and wipe you out... stuff like that. You can use stances to make a trade off, selling overall efficiency to gain attack or defense where it is needed the most.

Sounds kinda like the brotherhood-champion special rule from the grey knights codex. Could be interesting, as long as we integrate it properly, so look up that units battle-stances to see how that might feel.Maybe even make it part of the action system lanrak described? Or something command would be used for, readying the troops or egging a unit into ferocity?

That's a good idea. Stance system, I shall think about it. It will add a nice dynamic to assault. Maybe in the first turn of an assault the charger HAS to be on offensive and the target HAS to be on defensive? I say that first turn has to be charger=offensive, target=defensive, then in the later rounds the combat initiator declares his position first. Maybe there could be a Neutral stance where there are no stat changes?

Offensive - +2P, -1R
Defensive - +2R, -2P

This means that defensive units lose out in the long run. Although...less Power means they can stall for longer.

Maybe even some units unlock an even stronger stance? "Seasoned Assailant" - +1P +1A +1D +1F, -2R

A super space marine (Dex 10), three regular marines (Dex 5), and a Scout (Dex 4) charge six Orks (Dex 4), two Nobs (Dex 5), and a Warboss (Dex 8)

How many bonus attacks does each guy get?

Firstly, it's not bonus attacks, it's attacks that hit before the Orks'.

I say that each marine brawls against the closest model (the ones in the front must attack the Orks that they are in base contact with, and the ones behind hit the closest).

This isn't how vanilla 40k works, because it's either ALL or NONE of the models that get the upper hand. I DON'T want an entire Guardian squad hitting before Orks. I want a fraction of them to, but not all.

Edit: So far I've found one use for Influence Value (Command).

Barrage: A weapon with this special rule does not need line of sight, however the user must be within 4 x User's Influence of a unit that can see the target.

Hi folks.
Back to basics....
As far a game turn mechanics go.
Alternating actions ,(governed by dice roll to allow more than one activation per turn.)
I am happy with.(Similar to EA one of my favorite games.)

Alternating phases, A,B,A B,A,B.(Move, Shoot, React.)

Interleaving the phases engages the players more throughout the game and delivers more tactical choice.
Why change the assault phase for a reaction phase?
Because it allows more tactical flexibility.SOME unit that are good at close combat want to assault.Others that are better at shooting would NOT assault but shoot.And some units want to move to a better position. (EG towards cover, into weapons range , out of enemy attack range.)

Or we could use the counter system from Grimdark(Based On Net Epic, another of my favorite games.)

As the strategic organisation was mentioned.
He is my idea.

For every HQ unit you may take 2 to 8 COMMON UNITS.(Common units are worth 1 VP)

For every 2 Common units taken you may take ONE Specialized unit.(Specialized Units are worth 2 VP.)

For every 2 Specialized units you may take ONE restricted unit.(Restricted units are worth 4 VP.)

The HQ taken sets the theme of the army .ON theme units are Common, Supporting theme units are Specialized, and Counter Theme units are Restricted.

(So we can put all the Klanz, Cults, Chapters, Craftworlds, Chapters , Regiments , back into the game.I would like more option to theme freely ...but in an organised way )

Set the Game size on the amount of VP you want to play.

The game has RANDOM senarios, each player takes a RANDOM mission card.The mission card sets conditions for minor victory , and major victory.

My problem with the current game set up, is it is obviously win- loose.(The players are set against each other ...)

With random senarios , you get more narrative focus, where you try to complete your mission first and formost, and try to guess what the opponent is trying to do...
(6 Attacker and 6 defender mission cards would give 36 random senarios. With wide and varied mission types there would be no Auto win army list!)

Anyhow , enough on that.(Ill discuss army comp in detail later.)

Here are the basic resolution methods I want to use.

Direct representation.
The range of movement /effective range of attacks expressed in inches.
The base score needed to a pass a skill test. Eg to rally a Shaken unit roll over their Morale Grade.(Targeting an enemy unit is based on their Stealth value.)
The number dice rolled(or re rolled.) .

Comparative stat .
Target AV 2. Attacker Damage 6.
Target needs to roll 5 + on a D6 to save .(5+2=7 , 7 is greater than 6.)

IF the target fails its armour save .
Compare the amount the target FAILED its armour save by to the targets Resilience .
EG If the target above had a Res 2.The if they rolled a 4 or 3 to save (failed by 1or 2.)They become shaken .
If they roll a 1 or 2 they failed by 3 or 4 and loose a hit point (Loose a wound structure point.)

This is a simple roll to target enemy in weapons range .
If successful
Target rolls to save.
If target fails save it takes physical or morale damage.

Ill leave it there for now..I am happy to go over anything again to clarify .(I do ramble a bit , sorry.)