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.

I agree that if we were to use a psychic phase, it should go before movement at the start of the turn.

I was thinking of unit cards being used instead of 'players army lists'.
(My experience in other games may influence my ideas here.Epic Space marine army building was so much easier.)

A card with blanks to fill in the 'variables 'leader load out and special /heavy weapon , would be a good place to start.IMO.
(Other games give you the 'unit cards' in the box with the minatures.So you do not need to buy a codex .)

The new F.O.C is flexible enough to allow each codex to have current vanilla lists , AND more themed lists.
(EG orks current mixed klan vanilla list.AND more themed Badmoon,Blood Axes, Evil Sunz, Deffskulls ,Goffs. Skakebite,and Kult Of Speed lists.
The more themed lists have acess to more themed units, like Boarboys and Squggoths for example.Without having to include them in the vanilla lists.

Players can use ANY of their models in ANYWAY they want to in friendly narrative games.(Unbound.)

The idea behind the new F.O.C is to allow more themed list with enough balance for enjoyable pick up games.

Specifically for those players who do not have the time, experience or resources to arrange narrative campaigns/games.(Like many new players.)

I really like your idea for a unit rarity FOC. Do you have plans to include limits within those rarity tiers? Example: 2+ ork boyz or 0-2 tankbustas within the common group to prevent people from loading up on 8 35pt grotz mobs just to get to the specials and rares. Not implying that 8 grotz mobz would be a wise choice or anything, just an example.

Hi rhinosaur.
In previous editions of 40k, when the dev team were trying to get enough balance for random pick up games. Several units were limited to 0-1 or 0-2.

The simple restriction '0-1 or 0-2 ' works fine.Especially where players have a much wider range of choice in the list creation.And without some form of restriction you get woeful balance that can lead to really one sided random pick up games.

However, in a more themed lists, I would prefer to strengthen the theme ties to influence how players select units.

The specific themed lists ,(Klans,Craftworlds, Regiments etc.)Could have 'Common traits' that allow some 'Specialized units ' to be taken as Common units in a limited way.

For example in a Goff list.

Goff Common Traits.
For every 2 Boys Mobs selected as Common units.A single Ard Boys mob, or Storm Boys Mob may be taken as a Common unit.
EG 4 Boys mobs would allow you to take a SINGLE Ard Boys Mob and a SINGLE Storm Boys mob as Common units.(For 6 Common units in total.)


More general structure in lists can be arrived at by listing requirements for Specific Specialized (or Restricted) units .So there is a themed proportionality in any themed list.

So taking 8 cheap minimum Grot mobs, in an Ork list would not give you free choice of Specialized Units.
But only allow you to take multiple Grot Specific Specialzed units . Killa Kans and Big Gunz .

I was thinking that specific Specialized unit could be have minimum specific Common unit requirements.
EG
2 Ork boys mobs must be taken as Common units before a single Deff Dread unit can be selected as a Specialized Unit.
(The force must have a reasonable amount of ork boys , so there is a pool of potential Ork pilots for the Deff Dreads.)

An Ard Boys mob most be taken as a Common unit before a Nobs mob can be selected as A Specialized unit.
(The Nobs mob is generated from the best fighters in the Ard boys mob.)

I prefer to have the unit choices follow a themed narrative.So the players are creating a themed force that has strengths and weaknesses that follow the specific theme of the army.

Rather than a 'net list' of the most cost effective unit combinations that has no 'narrative integrity or personality'.

Do I need to explain that better?

That makes sense. Great job. I like it. Its kind of like Dawn of War or other RTS where there are requirements to unlock other units/buildings. Any chance of posting a full army example?

Is wh fantasy faster because they use movement trays? or does it take just as long to move hoards of models?

Can we remove some of the stats and dice rolling? Like why is ws and bs almost always same? are s and t always same? can we skip wounding and by allowing 2xstr vs t = id auto wound? Can we replace 20 six sided die rolls with single 20 sided dice? The probability will absolutely be different but could speed things up.

4th ed dnd eliminated armor save rolls by forcing a higher to hit roll by the attacker. That sped everything up so you did not bother with armor saves. But everybody hates 4th ed because waac players dont get to manipulate the dice.

@rhinosaur.
I am just discussing basic principals and concepts ATM.But I think the more narrative themed army selection is worth exploring in more detail.
Ill have a look at a few different options, and see how they look when fleshed out.
Ill post up an some example lists when I have had a bit more time to develop some concepts further...

@Flitch.
Movement trays in WHFB ,and based units in other games help speed up movement .

In the play testing we have done using a coherency from the unit leader(or attached character) ,rather than model to model .Does speed up movement a bit , and allow more fluid unit mobility.(Better leaders and characters have higher command radi, so the troops are more flexible under their command.)

I totally want to remove the dice rolling for pointless random reasons.(Movement , equipment and abilities etc.movement has a value, and terrain modifies this with set values.Equipment and abilities cost PV or skill.)

However, 3 stage damage resolution is core to 40k game play.Every time we tried 2 stage damage resolution it failed to 'gel' with 40k players.

However, roll to hit, roll to save and roll to wound resolution order, in an interleaves phase game works better.
(if you do not beat the armour , you do not get to roll for damage.)

Rolling hand fulls of D6s is also core to 40k game play.

BUT using opposed stats in a universal table, (as posted earlier in the thread.)Means that interaction has meaningful results.
EG a Shooting skill of 4 does not mean the shooter ALWAYS hits ANYTHING in range on the roll of a 3+

But the score they need to hit the target depends on the Stealth of the target.

For the unit cards...
Make them dry erase with checkboxes for options?

Example:

VETERANS card 1 Veteran Sergeant 9 Veterans Lasguns, Flak Armor....(list out the standard equipment): XX Points Melta Gun (XX Points each) [x] [x] [ ] Plasma Gun (XX Points each) [x] [ ] [ ] Chimera (XX Points) [x] Total Points: <add up, write total points here> CHIMERA card Chimera (XX Points) [x] .....Multi-laser [ ] or Heavy Bolter [x] (Free option) .....Extra Armor [ ] (XX Points)

@ziggurattt.
Cool idea!
The unit composition and point values could be on the strategic information side of the unit card.

And the stats for 'unit leader weapons' and 'unit support weapons' could be dry erase too, on the tactical information side of the unit card.

How do you folks feel about standardizing unit sizes?
EG unit sizes of 5.10.15.or 10, 20 30.
(Or set to maximum transport capacity.Or multiples of the appropriate chaos gods number.)

So an Ork boys mob can be bought as a unit of 10, 20 or 30.
Rather than in any value from 10 to 30.

Its just that having set units sizes means we can play test units against each other for more accurate PV allocation.
Lots of armies have fixed unit sizes already , would extending it to cover all armies for random pick up games/tournament lists be a problem?

@Standardized Unit Sizes: Might be difficult for units with mixed groups (beastmaster DE, etc.) but I really don't see many reasons besides that to oppose it.

@chrisrawar.
I am not very familiar with some units in the current game.I am not sure why mixed unit would be a problem?
Would we be able to cover them in this way,

Unit leader.
Set number of model A(3 choices.)
Set number of model B (3 choices.)

I am not sure how DE beastmaster units are currently composed.Could you post the basic outline composition.(No PV or stats obviously .)

So we can discuss options.

Its just other war games that have fixed unit sizes seem to be much easier to build lists for .

Talking of which.
Having found my old rules for Epic Space Marine again, I have been thinking about list composition again.The basic outline stays the same.HQ, Common , Specialized, Restricted.

But the HQ selection and the FIRST common unit selection is bought in a basic block of HQ with 4 Common units.
(This represents the old 'company card idea from Epic SM)

These 4 Common units represent the core of the basic themed force.(They are not the same!)
EG some Ork Klan specific core common units.(Just to give you ideas how we can structure the army core.)

Snakebites , 1 x Boarboys, 2 x Ork boys mobs, 1x Wild boys OR Grot Mob.

Goff 1x Ard Boys , 2x Ork Boys mobs, 1 x Storm Boys OR Grot Mob.

Evil Sunz ,2x Trukk boys, 2x Warbikers , War buggies. (1 of each or 2 the same.)

Kult of Speed. 2x Warbikers, 1x War buggies 1 x Deff kopters OR Scrappaz.(Burna boys in trukk.)

This basic core allows access to 2 Specialized units (and potentially a Restricted unit.)From the theme list.
Obviously additional core units can be bought to add to the core of the army, along with Specialized and Restricted units .(With the original restrictions 2 to access 1).

This makes building a list a bit easier for new players.IMO.And as it has a structure based on well known themes.It makes the styles of play more obvious to players.And hopefully makes finding a army they identify with easier.

I am not sure if this would be seen as too restrictive by some players though?

its just I have seen veteran players completely bewildered by the amount of information they need to consider before building a force for 40k.
Maybe having a clear starting point with a core force to start from might be a good idea?

I may have to explain this a bit better?

The beastmaster unit is composed of 4 different model types:

A beastmaster model that has a high leadership but slows the squad down overall

A swarm model that has high wounds and attacks but low s and t - is also rending

A dog model with high I, medium S, and T and A and an invuln save

A monkey model with high S, T, and W

A beastmaster unit fits into different lists in different ways - they're a cheap pointsink for your last 80-150 points that is super effective at doing one thing. Without listing 20-30 combinations of the 4 models available, you end up losing a lot of the flexibility and strength of the unit.

Hi chrisrawr.

If the unit only has 4 models , with set stat lines and standard equipment.
The synergistic anomalies should be limited any way.
So just stating the comparative PV for each model should be OK.

Is the Beastmaster always taken as the leader model in a Beastmaster unit?(Would it cause a problem if it was.Could you state what problems these might be?)


Its only when there is a large variation in unit size, eg 10 to 30 models and lots of load out options.Where synergistic optimums,and deficits can make a mockery of the points per model/item .
(EG When they let SM have 5 to 10 model units and the 6 man las-plas spam was everywhere. )

I think the best thing to do is look at them on a unit by unit basis.Some small specialist units may be ok as they are ?

Does anyone think buying a HQ and 4 Common units as a 'Core' to a themed army is too restrictive?
Obviously there would be variation in unit size and load out.

Would the ability to convey the essence of what the army theme is based on , be a big enough boon , to compensate for the slightly more restricted army construction?

Remember the new Common units would be taken from all over the codex .(Not just troop selections.)

So could equate to the units most players would start with anyway!
Also with more themed lists , the more weird and wacky stuff could be included in the themed lists ,without messing up the balance of other lists.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
No, I don't think alternating activation would work for 40k and I don't think the current resolution system is convoluted or confusing.

If I were to point out the biggest issues with 40k today I would say that the turn is too long, there are too many rules that don't interact with the rest of the game, and the tactical wheel is too absolute; my attempts to solve this got compiled in the Aegis Project linked to in my signature. I changed the turn structure to one movement phase and one combat phase where all shooting and melee attacks occur with a reactive phase in between to give players action when it isn't their turn, I moved from the all-or-none AP system to a save penalty system, and there are many more minor changes; my FOC system is still under construction. The rules are currently being revised (streamlined and rebalanced, stuff was too durable in the first draft) but they're playable and there's a semi-complete Space Marine Codex for it.

Agree with this stuff. There are always rules questions, but my primary issue is that there's a lot of time wasted on effectively meaningless actions, e.g.:

- rolling for difficult terrain, which 75% of the time is going to be 4" or more ---> fixed modifiers on movement -3"
- rolling for snap shots, overwatch ---> have specific defensive weapons that fire at full BS (assault, pistols)
- moving models multiple times in one turn: move, assault, pile-in, consolidate ---> all movement/run/charges should be done as one movement, move/shoot/move should be the only exception
- odds and ends, e.g. my callidus assassin who has a fleshbane, shred weapon. 2+ re-roll? Why bother making me roll at all?

A lot of the all-or-nothing stuff is also annoying, with AP and initiative in close combat. I would prefer eliminating initiative and making the WS chart mirror the wound chart. All close combat is struck simultaneously so we don't have ridiculous situations were a squad that wins the initiative battle by 1 somehow wipes the entire enemy squad without so much as a scratch. But this change also makes it much harder to hit higher WS in combat and easier to hit lower WS.

Armor penetration modifiers would make armor much more important and get rid of the ridiculous scaling on body armor where 2+ is twice as good as 3+ is twice as good as 4+ is twice as good as 5+. Of course this would necessitate a points rebalance.

I am torn on something here. The psychic phase I think, is a net gain and should stick around. While it sucks for low to no psychic armies to miss out on what amounts to a entire phase, I think the strategic element of that phase is powerful and versatile.

I don't think removing it and then chopping up the psychic powers into multiple phases works especially well. There are a wide range of psychic powers that do a wide range of things and not necessarily fit smoothly into the phases you have laid out.

On the other hand, less is more.

But I am heavily leaning towards you keeping a psychic phase. I think it's own of the better things in 7th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheSilo wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
No, I don't think alternating activation would work for 40k and I don't think the current resolution system is convoluted or confusing.

If I were to point out the biggest issues with 40k today I would say that the turn is too long, there are too many rules that don't interact with the rest of the game, and the tactical wheel is too absolute; my attempts to solve this got compiled in the Aegis Project linked to in my signature. I changed the turn structure to one movement phase and one combat phase where all shooting and melee attacks occur with a reactive phase in between to give players action when it isn't their turn, I moved from the all-or-none AP system to a save penalty system, and there are many more minor changes; my FOC system is still under construction. The rules are currently being revised (streamlined and rebalanced, stuff was too durable in the first draft) but they're playable and there's a semi-complete Space Marine Codex for it.

Agree with this stuff. There are always rules questions, but my primary issue is that there's a lot of time wasted on effectively meaningless actions, e.g.:

- rolling for difficult terrain, which 75% of the time is going to be 4" or more ---> fixed modifiers on movement -3"
- rolling for snap shots, overwatch ---> have specific defensive weapons that fire at full BS (assault, pistols)
- moving models multiple times in one turn: move, assault, pile-in, consolidate ---> all movement/run/charges should be done as one movement, move/shoot/move should be the only exception
- odds and ends, e.g. my callidus assassin who has a fleshbane, shred weapon. 2+ re-roll? Why bother making me roll at all?

A lot of the all-or-nothing stuff is also annoying, with AP and initiative in close combat. I would prefer eliminating initiative and making the WS chart mirror the wound chart. All close combat is struck simultaneously so we don't have ridiculous situations were a squad that wins the initiative battle by 1 somehow wipes the entire enemy squad without so much as a scratch. But this change also makes it much harder to hit higher WS in combat and easier to hit lower WS.

Armor penetration modifiers would make armor much more important and get rid of the ridiculous scaling on body armor where 2+ is twice as good as 3+ is twice as good as 4+ is twice as good as 5+. Of course this would necessitate a points rebalance.

Overwatch should not involve snap shots at all.

This is how I propose overwatch.

1) A unit that does not shoot on it's turn may go on overwatch.

2) A unit on overwatch may fire at full BS at an enemy unit that moves within 1/2 range and LOS of it's weapons that could normally be fired in overwatch during the assault phase.

3) Only one unit can fire overwatch against an advancing enemy unit each assault and each unit can fire overwatch only once each turn.

4) On turn one, before movement, all units are assumed to be on overwatch if able.

Now overwatch is a strategic choice. You give up your shooting on your shooting phase to allow you to tear up the enemies advancing melee or deter them from doing it at all. You fire at full BS and it adds more depth to the game play.

@Lance845
If we re structure the psychic abilities to be more in align with command, movement,range attacks, and assault.They may fit better in to the game turn with out needing a separate phase.
However you raise a good point,if there were armies out there who could not shoot, or could not assault,would we use specific shooting and assault phases?
Or would we use some thing more generic like the 'attack ' phase after moving?
So the armies would use their appropriate abilities in the attack phase, rather than stand around doing nothing, in the phase they could not make attacks in.(One of my main gripes with current 40k game structure.)

However if the psychic phase is more than buffs to command movement shooting and assault. it may need its own phase.
(I can not help but believe that GW put the psychic phase back in just to try to sell more models, rather than improve game play.)

I totally agree that over watch should be a tactical choice.
Firing at half range later , (after enemy movement) is much better than the gakky rules 7th ed has .IMO.

I have been looking at Epic Space Marine.
Do you folks think a game turn based on the Epic space marine game turn would work with 40k?

EG
Command Phase.

First Fire Phase.

Charge Phase

Advance phase.

Resolution phase.

In the command phase, players put ONE counter face down next to each unit.
The counter determines which phase the unit activates in , the First fire phase, the Charge phase or the Advance phase.

Units with First Fire counters do not move , but fire before any movement takes place .(The only way to fire heavy/ordnance ranged weapons.)
Units with Charge counters may not make any ranged attacks but can move twice.And can move into assault.(Only units on Charge orders can launch an assault.)
Units on Advance orders may move and shoot, or shoot then move.After all the First fire shooting and Charging movement has taken place.

In each of the three action phases players alternate activating units on the same Order counter as the phase.

So rather than having 3 separate actions for 3 separate phases.

We have 3 separate orders for 3 separate phases.

We could show unit morale status by replacing the order counters with Fall Back , or Gone to Ground counters for example.

Do you think this sort of game turn would work well with 40k, as it did with Epic?

In regards to psychic powers, I'd love if they were more reactive than having an entire phase dedicated to them, you know? Like, if your opponent opens fire on a unit, you can then cast Forewarning before they shoot if you pass your psychic test, or maybe cast a Malediction on them before they roll to hit, to mess with them.

I like player interaction. 40k currently lacks that. I think the biggest change they could make is so players feel like they are not just a spectator for roughly 50% of the game.

Lanrak wrote:
Does anyone think buying a HQ and 4 Common units as a 'Core' to a themed army is too restrictive?
Obviously there would be variation in unit size and load out.

Would the ability to convey the essence of what the army theme is based on , be a big enough boon , to compensate for the slightly more restricted army construction?

Remember the new Common units would be taken from all over the codex .(Not just troop selections.)

So could equate to the units most players would start with anyway!
Also with more themed lists , the more weird and wacky stuff could be included in the themed lists ,without messing up the balance of other lists.

As long as each army had a fair amount of themed lists available, I like the idea. At least 4 preferably more.


As to the epic game turn structure: We are currently trying this out with our modded 5th edition. Not sure how it translates to 7th. So far so good. It keeps both players more involved.

@Molevelence.
I totally agree a more interactive game turn would improve the game play of 40k no end.
However, we have to keep clearly defined structure and easy to follow sequencing.

This is the reason I was thinking about using Epic SM game turn .I know from experience it is easy to learn and flows really well.
As players alternate activating units in the phase,this allows psychic abilities to be played in the interactive way you proposed.(During the appropriate phase.)

@rhinosaur.
I would like to think there is plenty of room in the background to get at least 6 or more army themes for each faction. (We can add some theme specific units to maximize the themes too!)

The basic army themes would be something like this.(Not all factions could cover all themes though.)

The foot slogging infantry hoard type.
The mobile infantry .
The airborne assault type .
The scouting /light recon type army.
The heavy assault/siege army.
The heavy armour /tank/M/C list.
The arty /defense line type army

Then the individual factions have their own variations on each of these basic themes.

I am glad the Epic game turn is working well with 5th ed units .
I think some of the units 'shoe horned' into 6th and 7th ed may need a bit of re working to fit the game play anyway.
(The stuff that was limited to Apoc and Epic game for example.)




.

Lanrak wrote:
@Molevelence.
I totally agree a more interactive game turn would improve the game play of 40k no end.
However, we have to keep clearly defined structure and easy to follow sequencing.

This is the reason I was thinking about using Epic SM game turn .I know from experience it is easy to learn and flows really well.
As players alternate activating units in the phase,this allows psychic abilities to be played in the interactive way you proposed.(During the appropriate phase.)

@rhinosaur.
I would like to think there is plenty of room in the background to get at least 6 or more army themes for each faction. (We can add some theme specific units to maximize the themes too!)

The basic army themes would be something like this.(Not all factions could cover all themes though.)

The foot slogging infantry hoard type.
The mobile infantry .
The airborne assault type .
The scouting /light recon type army.
The heavy assault/siege army.
The heavy armour /tank/M/C list.
The arty /defense line type army

Then the individual factions have their own variations on each of these basic themes.

I am glad the Epic game turn is working well with 5th ed units .
I think some of the units 'shoe horned' into 6th and 7th ed may need a bit of re working to fit the game play anyway.
(The stuff that was limited to Apoc and Epic game for example.)




.

i figure with Psychic 'phases', they would work similar to how Magic has the priority system.

Player A: "Alright, this squad of Guardsmen will fire into that squad of Space Marines. Would you like to cast a Blessing/Malediction?"

Player B: "No thanks, fire away"

Combat Resolves

Player A: "Ok, now this mortar team will fire into those Centurians. Wanna cast a spell?"

Player B: "Yeah, I'll roll for Forewarning"


It wouldn't break things up too much. It's like asking people if they want to jink, and allows the other player to feel like he has an option in the matter, and doesn't necessarily 'waste' a spell. He can save them for when they may matter the most.

@melevolence.
I agree with players choosing to use the psychic abilities as unit are activated in the relevant phases.
(Some psychic abilities could be played on units in the command phase,as approrpiate.Abilities that improve stealth or armour for example.)

HI folks.
So just a quick re-cap.

We can use a game turn based on Epic Space Marine.(With an option to use a separate psychic phase after the command phase if needed.)

Unit stats are;-
Direct representation.(Ranges in Inches, or number of dice rolled.Dice roll required for success)
Or
Opposed values that use a universal resolution table .
(A few simple modifiers used in appropriate places would remove the need for unnecessary special rules and additional rules.IMO.)

(We can look at how this would look next if you like?)

Army structure is based on themed narratives , that follow the proportions;-
2 Common units allow one Specialized unit to be selected..
2 Specialized units allow one Restricted unit to be selected.

Each army starts with a 'Core' comprising of a HQ selection and 4 Common units.(These are the units that are ALWAYS found in the themed army .)
Each theme will have its own Core .Each Codex would have 6 to 12 Starter Cores along with themed lists to reflect the types of army that race/faction can field.

(Note current classifications apart from HQ are ignored and replaced with the new system.)

Does this sound ok so far?

Hi again.
Just a quick question about close combat resolution.I Do not think the current method based on WHFB works very well for 40k.

I would prefer to use simultaneous rolling , to speed things up.And also resolve the assault after one turn.
I believe the close combat in 40k should be swift and brutal.

I we were to use simultaneous rolling, we would have to convert Initiative stat into some thing like 'Agility'.
Current WS represents how good the unit is at hitting things in close combat.Current Inititative could be viewed as how well the unit dodges hits in close combat, so it more likely to land the first blow.
(An ork would charge into melee swinging wildly in a brutal and straight forward assault.An Eldar banshee would gracefully sweep forward in a agile and mesmerizing dance of death.The Banshee is more likely to land the first blow, even if the Ork takes several inaccurate crude swipes at the Banshee first.)

So we could use these values on the universal resolution chart.
Close combat skill vs Agility .This gives the dice score required to hit in close combat.
(In the same way ranged combat skill vs Stealth gives the dice score required to hit at range.)

So rather than one units rolling to hit then wound then save, then removing casualties , then the opposing unit rolling to hit , then to wound then to save then removing casualties.then working out the result of the close combat.

Both players roll their to hit rolls,then both player roll their armour saves, then both roll to wound.Then the result of the combat is determined.

I understand this is a massive change.But What do you folks think about it?

Also for clarity of presentation I would like to list the ALL the units weapons effect separately under the unit.(Just the weapons the unit actually carries.)
As the abilities of the user change the weapons profile.

Name /Effective Range/Attacks/Armour Piercing/Damage/Notes.

Effective range is the maximum range the weapon can effect enemy models at.
Attacks , is the number of hits the weapon can make, or the template for area effect weapons .
Armour Piercing is how good the weapon is at beating armour .
Damage is how likely the weapon is to cause damage to a target after it beats the armour.
Notes , just list weapon type, Melee, Pistol, Support, Fire Support, etc.And any special abilities. EG ignore cover , re roll 1s to damage etc.

I probably need to explain this better?

Do you prefer the current assault resolution of one player then the other player, over simultaneous resolution ?

Just take a better game and work that for 40k. IE, bolt action is pretty sweet and is often referred to as "40k but not gak" in terms of its rules

Hell of a lot easier then trying to write something from scratch

@Dakkamite.
There are lots of good rule set out their.
I can think of at least a dozen good 28mm skirmish rule sets.(And a good half a dozen 15mm or 10mm battle rule sets.)

And lots of people have converted other rule sets to use 40k minatures in and had good experiences.

40k is coming up to its 30th birthday soon, and its NEVER had a rule set written specifically for it.
I personally find that rather sad considering how much people have always wanted a good rule set specifically written for the game of 40k.

As GW plc are not interested in game play , or clarity and brevity in their rules.

And most rules conversions are at best 'sort of 40k' but not quite'40k'.(40k is quite unique in several respects, so need rules written specifically for it.)

I think writing a rule set specifically for 40k from scratch a worthwhile endevour.
I may be in a minority of one though..