M41 - alternative rules for battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project)

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.

**kodos**

Yeah, in German all nouns and names are capitalized. That's why it is hard for me to guess how it would look like for a native speaker (because I am used to it).

I would see rules terms like names because they name a specific rule described somewhere in the text

**kodos**

Because of some ideas from this topic
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/672271.page

Would a change from Armour Saves (lower = better) to Armour Rating (higher = better) be step too far and change too much from the original rules?

Same for Leadership tests.
"higher roll = better" seems strange if you are used to the "double 1" is always a success thing.

**MagicJuggler**

I could totally see it: Roll under BS to-hit. Roll under Armor to Save. Armor Piercing simply subtracts from your armor rating. You already have Toughness Checks, Initiative Checks, and such...

**Powerfisting**

That would certainly go a long way towards building more consistency into the stats and rules formatting but a lot of precedents present in the rules now would need to "mirrored," if you will. 2+ armor is always really good, but in an inverted system, there would need to be some analogous precedent indicating "oh this ones really good," and alternately "oh this one isn't quite so good."

**Lanrak**

After a very long and detailed discussion on another forum, it was concluded that any rules rewrite needed to address the core problems with the 40k rule set.

Namely the minatures being the scale used for detail skirmish games.Where every slight difference has to be represented in the rules to up sell the minatures.
And the size of game being the size generally used for 10mm or 15mm scale minatures where the infantry base has generalized stats.

So the current 40k battle game size needs detailed unit rules like Epic Armageddon.(or DZC)

Where as the minature scale needs detailed model rules like Rouge trader to appease the expectations of some players..(or Infinity.)

Since 3rd edition the game has been a horrible compromise between direct up selling minatures and up scaling the game size.

If you are writing new rules, it is important to CLEARLY identify the game play you are targeting, and write rules JUST to support that game play.

I hope that is helpful?

**kodos**

I agree that the current level of the original rules would be better played with 15 or 6mm miniatures.
(funny fact, the new Warpath rules were criticized for needing to many models for a 28mm game while the amount of minis would have been less than for a 1750 points 40k game)

But I don't see a problem to aim for the gap between Epic Scale Battles and Necromunda Scale.
The 100 Space Marines with Titans on one side and the 10 model game on the other side leave a gab for rules with 30-60 minis per side.

We try to get the rules working at different scales but aiming for 50 miniatures per side (having detailed rules which are only used with large miniatures and/or at close range) and making the rules more deadly

**Lanrak**

@Kodos.
Well if you are writing for the middle ground, as it were.Are you writing the rules as a large skirmish game, or a small battle game.

Because without a clearly defined end game play in mind.it is easy to end up with an over complicated mess of the two.(Hence 3rd to 7th ed 40k from GW.)

If you have horrid mix of micro and macro management, it leads to a lots of disconnects for the gamers.(WTF moments.)

If you can tell me which sort of game play you are aiming for.(A battle game that scales up, or a skirmish game that scales down)

I may be able to offer some helpful ideas.

**kodos**

It is more Mass Skirmish Game but with focus on units and not on models.

At the moment the most important would be to test the system outside our group and add (remove) some things to make the game faster.
e.g.. rules were we are not sure are:
- if -2 to hit for return fire is to less or to much
- if reaction range should be reduced to 8
- if psionic reaction range should be increased
- if 40k weapon range shouid be reduced
- measurement in 2D or 3D
- primary missions need a point cap (max 15 points, 9+6)
- if secondary missions are too complicated
- if everything is clear and understandable

**Lanrak**

@Kodos.
If it is a skirmish game it should have model focused rules.(EG large/mass skirmish game like 2nd ed.)
And there are several good rule sets players can already use for this type of game.

However as there is a practical upper limit on the size of game these types of rules can support.

When this limit is passed , a battle game with the focus on the unit interaction is the best fit for the game play.(EG 40k 3rd ed -7th ed)

It appears you have just taken the mess that GW sell, and tried to clean it up a bit.And you have managed to make a lot of improvements.

However, you seem to have missed the core problems that generate lots of issues in the game play.

EG
1)Lack of interaction in the game turn,
2)Over complication caused by using multiple resolution methods that limit results.
3)Having to add additional systems (rules ) to add complexity back to the restricted game play generated by limiting resolution methods.

If you are going to the trouble of re writing the background to avoid the GW legal hammer , why not re-write the rules to get rid of all the core problems?

**kodos**

I tried to do this but asking people in the club and the net showed that there are specific rules which people connect to 40k.
Removing those rules even if it would improve the game led to even more problems to get people into alternative rules (while the 40k community would accept AoS like rules without a problem as long as they are "official")

So instead of doing all new I kept those game mechanics people want to have in 40k and wrote the rules around them.

the Reaction System replacing Overwatch and intercept adds more interaction without breaking the IGYG Phase System

Units Act, Models React adds model based rules to avoid the problem that models are just wound marker for special/heavy weapons (and nerfs reactions, looking at "all units in 12" overwatch Tau")

40k has a RPG complexity but using a lot of models. I tried to reduce the complexity to a minimum without losing the "feeling" of 40k (instead of adding more special rules to distinguish units I want to use the full profile value from 1-10)

If the idea of Living Rulebook would be accepted, and get a chance, further improvement can be made.

**MagicJuggler**

Getting houserules to be accepted in a gaming community is like trying to get a requisition form through the departmento munitorium. Change only comes through official decree after lots of inertia.

Regarding Psykers, I imagine there are a few things to keep in place:
-In 6th and 7th ed fantasy, Magic became exponentially powerful for linear point investments, as power dice accumulation outpaced dispel dice. 8th capped Power Dice but made "All Or Nothing Spells" too common.
-In 40k, Psyker Powers were either random or non-random. 5th edition was the only edition where attempts to deny Psyker Powers were based on proximity, but there was no limit to how many times a model could attempt to negate powers. A model with a Hood or Rune Staff could shut down psyker-heavy armies easily, as many an Eldar and Tyranid Player learned to regret. 7th negated positioning altogether, as a Psyker could use Warp Charge generated from a Psyker across the map!

Initially, I figured:
-Make the Deny range slightly larger than the range of most powers. (If most Psyker Powers are range 18", denial should be range 24").
-Make Deny dice drain from the same warp charge used for manifesting powers. ("Do I hold onto dice, or go all in?")
-Make powers degrees of success.

**Chaospling**

@Lanrak:

Very interesting posts - You've given me a lot to think about. Would you be interested in evaluating another system? In what forum were you having the detailed discussion about this subject?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lanrak wrote:

1)Lack of interaction in the game turn,
2)Over complication caused by using multiple resolution methods that limit results.
3)Having to add additional systems (rules ) to add complexity back to the restricted game play generated by limiting resolution methods.

Could you expand on these points?

**Lanrak**

@Chaospling.
The thread was on Warseer, 'Finding and fixing 40ks core faults.'

It ran for 23 pages and over 400 posts...(Lots of cool ideas were exchanged.)And it let people find new ways of approaching the rules for thier own 40k games.

I will try to highlight the core concepts the best I can.

'Good intentions that lead to development faults...'

1)WHFB based rules were used to sell GWs sci-fi minatures in the RT era , as WHFB was ..''the largest and most popular non historical game in the world''.(According to GW)
So Rogue Trader had to be written so WHFB players could convert across easily. 2nd ed took the skirmish rules to the largest game size they could realistically get to,

2)The up scaling to a battle game in 3rd ed was an 11th hour idea enforced on the dev team by the sales department.
The original 3rd ed 40k was a tidied up 2nd ed skirmish game. In the mad panic to get 3rd ed battle game working the dev team 'threw the baby out with the bath water.'

3)3,5 ,4,5th edition the GW dev team all tried to get the WHFB based rules working better with the 40k game play, by adding MORE rules....

4)In 6/7th ed the GW devs completely gave up on game play , and want the players to sort it out themselves.

'Lack of development focus that splits the player base....'
Back when I started playing 40k, GW had several games in the 40k universe to cover all the game sizes with more focus on a particular game play...

Inquisitor , (Confrontation RPG) super detailed RPG with minatures.

Necromundia/Gorkamorka.Rouge Trader , RPG Skirmish games with detailed model rules

2nd ed 40k large scale skirmish with competitive play given more focus.

Epic larger scale battle games with detailed unit rules ,written with competitive play in mind.

Now GW have cut all these different games and expect a collector that is interested in a narrative driven RPG based skirmish type game, to enjoy playing a person who wants a battle game with more competitive focus.

Because GW never really define 40k game play beyond'' cool looking models with cool sounding rules''(tm)

100 40k players will have 100 different ideas on how to fix the game they way they think it should be played.
As the current 40k rules are a horrid kludge of ideas that are sold to everyone by GW as 'this is the game you want to play the way you want to play it'.

Core concepts to take way...
1)For any new 40k rule set It is very important to define the game play you want to achieve.

2)And to look at the the way the core mechanics and resolution methods can be tweeked to arrive at the game play you want to achieve, in the most elegant and efficient way .

For example a rule set written specifically for the current 40k battle game from scratch by a professional game dev, would probably look more like detailed Epic rules than the up scaled skirmish rules that GW use.

And so would look completely alien to 40k players!

So the best way to proceed IMO, is to pick familiar methods used in 40k, and tweek them to cover more.

EG used alternating phases instead of alternating game turns.(Phases are familiar and every one under stands them)
Use a single resolution table to cover all combat interaction , to hit at range, to hit in close combat, armour save and to wound.

Intelligent use of a D6 to give 9 different results on the one universal resolution table to cut down on the need for multiple resolution methods special /additional rules.

I can give more details if you like .I do not want to derail this thread though.

Ill post up some basic outlines if Kodos does not mind?

**kodos**

I am also interested into those allthough I disagree about alternating phases. I prefer either alternating unit activation or IGYG unit activation with an Action/Reaction System.

For 40k, the phases are a basic part of the game and players want them to stay (same for D6)

**Lanrak**

Hi again.
I may have not have explained things that well?

Most people I discussed this with ,agree that the battle game of 40k needs more player interaction.

So you can keep the alternating game turn (IGO/UGO) and add on additional conditional reaction rules.(Add on Over watch /charge reaction rules etc.)

This works fine in smaller skirmish game where there are fewer less complex interactions.(Infinity and ARO, for example.)But is quite time consuming and complicated for larger more complex battle games like 40k.

However if we use alternating phases or alternating unit activation, it removes the need for these additional conditional rules.
And as we are trying to remove the pointless complication in the rules , both of these options are preferable to having to add on even more rules are they not?

If we use alternating unit activation , we move away from the phases players are familiar with.And have to balance the units far closer in terms of in game effect than 40k ever has before.(All games that use alternating phases have a much narrower band of in game effect across units.)

But if we use alternating phases we keep the phases players are familiar with and remove the need for 'over-watch' type rules.

EG
Start of turn phase.
Roll off for who goes first.
Roll for (request) off table support.(Reserves air/artillery.)

Movement phase.
Player A moves
Player B moves

Shooting Phase
Player A shoots
Player B shoots

Assault Phase
Player A Assaults
Player B Assaults

End on turn phase.(Tidy up before start of next turn)
Rally units on poor morale/ Plot arrivals.

I am not convinced we need a separate phase for psychic abilities.I would rather let models activate their powers in the most appropriate phase.
The above is just a simple example to show one option we could use.

I am happy with using a D6.I just want to curt down on pointless complication caused by using multiple resolution methods.

As we use opposed values for to hit in close combat, and to wound.
Why not use them for to hit at range , rather than the restricted subtract BS from 7.
And why not use them in a similar way to generate a save throw , by comparing AP to AV?

So ALL the combat resolution can uses the SAME chart!

The active player (the one rolling the dice ) looks up thier stat from the column on the left.And cross references the opposing players value from the range of results along the top.(Like the WS vs WS chart and the S vs T chart.)
EG attacker BS 4 rolling to hit target Stealth 3 needs a 3+ to hit.

A/O 1 . 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.10
1 4+4+5+5+6+6+H H N N
2 3+4+4+5+5+6+6+H H N
3 3+3+4+4+5+5+6+6+H H
4 2+3+3+4+4+5+5+6+6+H
5 2+2+3+3+4+4+5+5+6+6+
6 1+2+2+3+3+4+4+5+5+6+
7 1+1+2+2+3+3+4+4+5+5+
8 D 1+1+2+2+3+3+4+4+5+
9 D D 1+1+2+2+3+3+4+4+
10 D D D 1+1+2+2+3+3+4+

I know I have cheated and extended the range of results using letters.

N= 'No effect' , 'Not able to succeed.'

H means 'Hard to do' .You have to roll 6+ and halve the number of successes.(As this cuts out the rolling extra dice to roll 7+ roll 6+ followed by a 4+.Same result but less dice rolls

)

1+ means you auto succeed.(Obviously.)

D=Double success.

I would also like to change the resolution order to follow the logical progression of' to hit' 'to save' 'to wound'.
As the phases alternate, the new order of resolution follows this trend.
Game turn A,B,A,B,A,B , combat resolution, Attacker, Defender Attacker.

So rather than having to use lots of different systems to cover combat resolution.We can use one table to give a wider range proportional results.
Reducing the need to use special rules to JUST cover special abilities.

Rather than to cover the gaps left by restrictive/unsuitable core rules.

I know this makes some radical changes, but it does allow a more solid foundation to build the game on.

I am happy to discuss the above ideas in more detail.And I am happy to discuss any alternatives you may like to look at too.

**kodos**

I had similar discussions more than a year ago on other forums and also considered those systems.

First of all, one table to fit everything was always the basic idea but without a defensive value you have always the difference between to hit roles for ranged and close combat.

And after a year of rule development I prefer the simple flat to hit version for ranged combat and a WS VS WS for close combat.
Because it solves some problems and give greater possibility.
But every model in the game need a complete profile to get an advantage.
(all tanks get a weapons skill value of one, so are able to "ram" each other on a 4+, while other models hit a tank automatically most of the time).

This was also a reason to cut down the original table to a much more simpler version of +/- 2 and everything else hits/wounds automatically or cannot hit/wound at all.

The Idea of a double success is similar to the Critical Hit trait I use.

Regarding altering phases, I don't see a superior system for any size of games.
There is StarShip Troopers with an IGYG unit activation Action/Reaction System which worked perfect with 100 bugs per side, There is Kings of War with a IGYG Phase system which works well in bigger games, and WMH with a unit activation IGYG System without any interaction during a player's turn and people are not complaining about missing the interaction.

@altering Phases
The first thing you would have to do to cut everything that does not belong into the phase.
No running in the shooting phase, no Reactions (no Overwatch, no striking back in close combat) etc
Otherwise it won't work
Also a strict ABAB altering will not work because than one player will always have the advantage.
So either ABBAAB or determine who goes first every phase with a dice roll.

We preferred the IGYG Phase System with Action/Reaction because it is a streamlined version of the exiting rules.
The advantage here is that if you really use a clear system (instead of the mess 40k has, with Overwatch intercepting an action while striking back in combat is based on a profile value etc) you can add much more possibility’s for the player to really control his army instead of watching the automatic slaying (eg he can chose to run away from close combat instead to strike back, or use his ranged weapons etc.)

The same would apply to altering unit activation and I wrote rules using it but even less players wanted to use them because this was really a different game.
(but also Edition 7.5 is considered completely different from 40k while it is only a streamlined version of the original rules)

**Lanrak**

Hi Kodos.
Yes to get one table to fit everything you do need to add defensive stats.
(EG Stealth for ranged defense , and maybe Agility for close combat defense.This would allow differences between models good at shooting and good at hiding, and those good at hitting in close combat and those good at dodging hits in close combat.)

But these replace all the additional modifiers and special rules for abilities for target attributes skill and equipment etc.

The single table and the introduction of a movement value can cut out over 60 of the current special rules !!

I think this is a better trade off as it gets the detail in the interaction in a simple way.AND it gets rid of a lot of WTF moments where a one in a million chance happens every 1 in 6 times !

Also If we re configure the stat line so the weapon profile takes the net effect of the user in each unit.We can keep the stat line the same length.

How does always hit on a 3+ no matter what ,be perfect for one combat resolution , yet not right for another in the same game?
Why does being 3" further away from a target make so much difference?

I am not saying the table I posted is the finished product , but was just an example to show how a D6 can generate a good spread of results .(Rather than just 3+4+5+ GW use!)
So D10 and D 12 are not needed.I admit the idea needs more refining and you table my be a better fit for 40k.

Game Turn Mechanic.
It is more to do with what a player can achieve in game per game turn that sets the need for the game turn mechanic.

This is determined by the amount of tactical movement before the players get into effective combat range.

WHFB and KoW are all about the best close combat match ups with ranged attacks used in supporting roles .
Modern skirmish games in 28mm, and large battle games in 10 and 15 mm also have a lot of maneuvering into combat range.

In 40k most units start in effective weapons range , Or can move into effective weapons range in turn 1.

So you have never heard of the 'Alpha Strike ' issues 40k players have been complaining about since 3rd ed ?

Also most games that use alternating unit activation tend to have much better ballanced units than 40k.

Death stars can be nearly as devastating as a complete forcve when they move then shoot/assault before the opponent can react.
And OTT MSU players can just drag the tactical advantage and game play enjoyment past breaking point.

How can having to using a game turn that needs extra rules be more streamlined than one that does not?

Players have been using the 'LoTR game turn' to great effect in 40k since 2007 to my knowledge with very little change to 4th 5th ed rules.

Its clear some people just want a slightly tidied up version of the horrible mess GW sell folks.Thats fine.

But I think it is important to let people know which version of 40k you are trying to re -write , as it helps people collect around the project they identify most with.

if 40k was a car, GW would be selling it as a 2 seater sports car front end with people carrier back end , with off road options for formula1 track racing.

Trying to fix the game play without addressing the core issues is what GW devs have been doing for the last 17 years.(Corporate management wont let them make the necessary changes.)

Look how well that turned out....

I am trying to say you can make a better rule set , by cleaning up GWs WHFB based rules.

(In the same way you can improve the taste of a stale sandwich by removing the wilted lettuce and picking out the worst bits of mould and pouring on you favorite sauce.)

But to write a good 40k rule set replacement , you need to write rules specifically for the intended game play of 40k.This is NOT 'WHFB in Space' any more.IMO.

But as opinion is divided on the skirmish/ battle, narrative /competitive loading . Any new rules need to make clear what end game play they are aiming for.

As a tidy up of the messy GW rules, your proposed rules are very good!

I was just wondering if you would be interested in the next level of development ? A complete ground up re write, but keeping the feel of 40k?

If there is any interest we could start a new thread perhaps?

**kodos**

Lanrak wrote:

The single table and the introduction of a movement value can cut out over 60 of the current special rules !!

That's the reason why I did it.

I tried to get a rules working that use also the same table for ranged attacks.
To easiest way would be to just keep ranged to hit roles like they are and introduce a stealth trait which add a modifier (which could be positive and negative)

The next would be to add another profile value (defence) and let BS and WS roll against it and the most advanced version would be to add a ranged and a melee defence value

Another way would be to have a flat "to hit" roll which is modified by ranged or melee defence (Marines hit always on 3+, Dark Eldar have Stealth which gives -1 to hit while Harlequin have only -2 to hit in melee and a Knight or Baneblade has +2 to hit for ranged attacks etc)

At the moment I use the first version but would like to add the second version (but this needs more testing)

Lanrak wrote:
Hi Kodos.
In 40k most units start in effective weapons range , Or can move into effective weapons range in turn 1.

So you have never heard of the 'Alpha Strike ' issues 40k players have been complaining about since 3rd ed ?

Also most games that use alternating unit activation tend to have much better ballanced units than 40k.

Death stars can be nearly as devastating as a complete forcve when they move then shoot/assault before the opponent can react.
And OTT MSU players can just drag the tactical advantage and game play enjoyment past breaking point.

alternating phases do not solve the alpha strike problem of 40k
because the is still one player who can shoot first with all his troops

The main problem with Alpha strike in 40k is a mix of bad unit balancing, too few LOS blocking terrain and too high weapon range.
Alternating activations does not solve this

Lanrak wrote:

Game Turn Mechanic.
It is more to do with what a player can achieve in game per game turn that sets the need for the game turn mechanic.

This is determined by the amount of tactical movement before the players get into effective combat range.

WHFB and KoW are all about the best close combat match ups with ranged attacks used in supporting roles .
Modern skirmish games in 28mm, and large battle games in 10 and 15 mm also have a lot of maneuvering into combat range.

the need for tactical movements in my version of the rules comes with the cover and reaction system.
Melee unit need to move around units and attack them from the back and ranged units cannot jump 1" in front of a unit, shoot and get back into cover without triggering lots of reactions

While the original rules are more or less just moving both army's straight forward and shoot each other, the M41 rules force the players to manoeuvring into the right position to shoot or attack.
Also the removing of true Line of sight with an abstract version adds more LOS blocking terrain on the table.

Lanrak wrote:

Trying to fix the game play without addressing the core issues is what GW devs have been doing for the last 17 years.(Corporate management wont let them make the necessary changes.)

Look how well that turned out....

Starship Troopers is basically how the 4th edition should have looked like.
Also Bolt Action is just a better Version of 40k, but having the problem that it does not scale up (going above 1000 points in Bolt Action leads to the same problem 40k have)

Lanrak wrote:

But to write a good 40k rule set replacement , you need to write rules specifically for the intended game play of 40k.This is NOT 'WHFB in Space' any more.IMO.

But as opinion is divided on the skirmish/ battle, narrative /competitive loading . Any new rules need to make clear what end game play they are aiming for.

As a tidy up of the messy GW rules, your proposed rules are very good!

I was just wondering if you would be interested in the next level of development ? A complete ground up re write, but keeping the feel of 40k?

If there is any interest we could start a new thread perhaps?

M41 Edition 7.5 is the 4th rulebook with a complete ground up re-write, keeping the feel of 40k were I was a part of the team.

Started with a rules based on the 5th edition, did a second edition of SST with the intention to fix the first edition problems and write lists for all 40k fractions. An Advanced Version which was more or less a rule-set you are writing about.
And the Edition 7.5 is the last step and a continuous process of rewriting the rules and trying to be faster than GW with their new Editions.
Non of those were finished because we ran into problems and had to go back and start from scratch again.

While I appreciate all kind of critique and suggestions, most of them are not new for me and I have read or heard them several times and the last few years
(also most suggestions in the other topics here on dakka are nothing new and the problems are addressed in the M41 rules).

So we can still talk here about the next level of development, but at the moment I focus on the first 2 force lists to make it easier for others to test the rules.
And in my opinion this rules should be tested with proper army lists before they are scrapped again or major changes are made.

**Lanrak**

@Kodos.
I think we agree that having opposed values on a table for all combat resolution is the simplest way to get the diversity back into the in gamer interaction.

The problem with straight modifiers to dice roll is they tend to give large boosts when using a D6.(17% efficiency jumps minimum.)Where as modifiers to stats, can give smaller increments of change , if we use a table similar to the one I posted up earlier.

Also lots of players were put of 'modifiers for everything' in 2nd ed.

Having a few limited modifiers is acceptable, but this means covering as much of the game play with core mechanics and resolution methods as possible.

Just using the unit profiles to determine the dice rolls required is the best option IMO.

If we used Stealth and Agility as opposed values we could show the difference between the races shown in the back ground on the profiie.

In WHFB a large block of troops (representing 200 to 1000 man regiment) are pretty much a standard ' barn door' so need no modifiers to distimguish between them.

Frontages are roughly similar and easy to hit.(-1 to hit for individual Models and +1 to hit for massive monsters is all the variation you need when shooting is in a supporting role.)

In 40k there is a MASSIVE difference between the targets , and as shooting should be EQUALLY important as assault in 40k.

I was pointing out the imballance MAGNIFIED by the alternating game turn was identified as a problem since 3rd ed 40k.
The fact one player has to sit a take stuff off the table for 15-30 mins every game turn, makes for a less than fun experience for lots of gamers.

Changing to alternating phases/unit activation , breaks up the action between the players and increases the player involvement/fun.
And is the preferred method in modern games,and absolutely necessary as the first stage of fixing the 'down time' side of the game turn imbalance in 40k.

Starting in shooting range , needs to be addressed at the core fault , eg make the 'to hit' variable enough to support and inspire tactical game play!
Some people like 40ks current 'War Yahtzee- special rules top trump,' approach.

But most the mature gamers I know prefer more tactical depth.

I agree that Starship troopers was A.C version of 40k.(And much better game IMO.)

(BA) GoA is the cleaned up 2nd ed skirmish game RP actually wanted to make.

The fact even Alessio gave up on fantasy battle based rules for a sci fic game after the first alpha edition , sort of shows how bad a fit WHFB rules are with a 40k battle game.

And so to really sort out the issues with 40k , the core game mechanics and resolution methods need sorting out first.
Get the foundation right and you can grow the game play.

As long as you are aware the cleaned up GW rules are just a stepping stone to the next level of development .And a complete ground up re-write is needed to fix the game play.
Then we are on the same page!

**kodos**

The first two Forces will be Tyranids and Imperial Guard

Imperial Guard:

Spoiler:

Tyranids

Spoiler:

**Powerfisting**

kodos wrote:
The first two Force will be Tyranids and Imperial Guard --> change "Force" to "Forces." The Plural form of nouns needs to be used when referring to more than one of that noun.

Imperial Guard:

Spoiler:

All models without Tank Armour have only the Retreat Reaction --> Use "Models with tank armor only have the Retreat Action" here. This isn't strictly incorrect, but phrases sound more fluent when "weak" adjectives are used before the phase they modify.

Chain of Command:
Every unit leader (NCO) can order only his unit See about about see about about the use of "only"
A platoon command officer can oder one unit in his platoon which is in command range or has a vox caster (if the command unit also has one)
A company command officer /senior officer) can order two unit of his company which is in command range or has a vox caster (if the command unit also has one)
Orders are placed at the begin of the Start-Phase and last for one game turn.

The unit receiving the order must make a Leadership test I don't speak German, but I get the impression that in other languages (not just German), the word "make" is a common catch -all word for taking actions. In English, the word "make" and variations thereof is used strictly as a synonym for creating something. In English, we make dinner, but we take tests.
If the test is passed the Order takes effect. Receiving an Order does not count as action. Every unit can only be orderd once per turn. use "Each" instead of "every" in this sentence. Again, like with the use of "only," this is not strictly incorrect, but sounds funny to native speakers. The word Every is used in normal conversation as a means of implying emphasis.

Orders:
NCO:
Be ready: The unit get Aware: 1 verb agreement is tricky. Some forms of verbs appear "plural" and that is where it gets confusing because verbs cannot be plural but when referring to a singular noun, the verb is essentially modified in the same way that nouns are when being pluralized. and vice versa. Use either "the unit gets [rule]," or "Ordered units get [rule]." I'm not going to point this out everywhere here, but as far as I can tell, this mistake was made in every entry for orders.
Take Aim: The unit can re-roll faild to hit rolls of 1
Dogs, Do You Want to Live Forever: The unit get the Counter Attack Reaction
Supressiv Fire: The unit get the Return Fire Reaction

Officer/Senior Officer
Move, Move, Move: The unit must make a double move and can Run in the Shooting-Phase
Attack, Attack, Attack: the unit must Charge and get the Counter Charge Reaction
Fire at Will: The unit must shoot this turn and get the Split Fire Trait
Fire on my Target: All weapons in the ordered unit gain Ignore Cover: 1

Senior Officer, Commissar
Back to Battle: Fleeing units in Command Range pass their Leadership test automatically and act normal that turn.

Force Organisation:

Tank Company:
1 Tank Company Command
2-4 Tank Platoon (at least 1 must be of the same type as the command tank)
0-6 Support Formations

Infantry Company
1 Company Command
1-4 Infantry Platoons
1-2 heavy Weapon Troops
0-8 Support Formation

mechanised Infantry Company
1 Company Command with Salamander
1-4 Infantry Platoon with Chimera
0-6 Support Formations (Transport must be taken if available)

Veteran Company
1 Company Command
3-6 Veteran Units
1-2 Special Weapon Units
0-6 Support Formations

Engineer Company
1 Company Command
1-4 Engineer Platoon
1-3 Assault Engineer Units
0-6 Support Formations

Cavalry Company
1 Cavalry Command (Company Command on horse)
3 Rough Rider units
1-2 Sentinel or Armoured Sentinel Units
0-4 Support Formations

Every choice below counts as "Support Formation" except those which are mentioned in the Company list (eg a Tank Company cannot take a Tank Platoon as Support Formation)

Company Command:
Command Unit, 0-1 2iC Unit, 0-1 Heavy or Special Weapon Unit
Option: Salamander, Horses

Infantry Platoon:
Command Unit, 2-3 Infantry Unit, 0-1 Heavy Weapon Unit
Option: Chimera

Heavy Weapon Platoon
Command Unit, 3 Heavy Weapon Units
Option: Chimera, each Heavy Weapon Unit can have 4 additional Soldiers

Special Weapon Platoon
Command Unit, 3 Special Weapon Units
Option: Chimera

Artillery Platoon:
Command unit (Observer), 3 Artillery Units (Forge World Stuff)

Tank Company Command
Command Tank, 0-1 2iC Tank

Tank Platoon
Command Tank, 0-4 Tanks

SPG Platoon
Command Tank (Observer), 1-3 Artillery Tank

Veteran Platoon
1-3 Veteran Units
Option: Salamander, Chimera

Tempestus Platoon
1-3 Scion Unit
Option, Taurox, Chimera

Engineer Platoon
Command Unit, 1-3 Engineer Units
Option: Taurox/Centaur Light Carrier

Engineer Assault Squad
1-3 Engineer Units with Hades Breaching Drill

Commissar Support
1-5 Commissar
Option: Leman Russ Tank (0-1), Horses

Priest Support
1-3 Priest

Psionic Support
1 Primaris Psioniker

Penal Legion
Overseer, 1-3 Penal Legion Units

Conscript Platoon
Command Unit, 1-3 Conscript Units

Missile Artillery
1 Manticor or Death Strike Missile

Ogryn Platoon
1-3 Ogryn Units

Cavalry Platoon
Cavalry Command Unit, 0-2 Cavalry Units

Scout Platoon
Command Sentinel, 0-2 Sentinel

Battle Walker Platoon
Command Armoured Sentinel, 0-2 Armoured Sentinel

Tyranids

Spoiler:

Synapse:
Every Unit with at least one model in command range of at least one model with this trait count as in Synapse Range. Use "Count as being in Synapse range" or "are in Synapse range" here. Failing those, put the phrase "in Synapse range" in quotes. The latter is less preferable as that is more of a legal convention than something a lay- person would write. The way you have this worded sounds like something a middle schooler would write to make themselves sound smart. Also, see above about the use of the word "every."
Units in Synapse Range pass every Leadership Test and take no Critical Hit from hits whose STR doubles their CON.
Additional the unit can freely chose the unit leader each Phase from the models in Command Range of a model with the Synapse Trait. At the beginning of this sentence, use either "additionally," or "in addition." Additional is an adjective, so in order to make sense in this context either needs to be made into an adverb or be modified by a preposition.

If a unit is out of Synapse Range at the end of the Start-Phase, the unit leader cannot be change and must be determined normly if the unit has none.
Additional the unit cannot act freely and instead follow the table below:

Nearest enemy unit is in point blank range, attack the unit in the combat-phase (skip movement and shooting-phase)
Use either "Nearest enemy that is in point blank range," or "Nearest enemy in Point Blank Range." Right now, the verb "is" in this sentence is either extraneous or incomplete, depending on your perspective.
if not:
Nearest enemy unit is in weapon range,
attack the unit with ranged weapons in the shooting-phase (skip movement and combat phase)

if not:
Nearest enemy unit is within 20 inch, move towards the enemy unit
The enemy unit is now in weapon range, attack the unit with ranged weapons in the shooting-phase (skip combat-phase)
The enemy unit is now in Charge range, harge the enemy unit in the Combat-Phase

if not
Move towards the nearest Synapse unit

Force Organisation:
(similar to the Guard one, not yet finisehd with the text)

I like it. In general, the Force Organization Charts you made up are nice and fluffy and nothing is overpowered, as far as I can tell. And none of the choices are very "auto- take" either. This style of organization has potential to be a "best of both worlds" kind of solution, but the line between having lots of power units all over the place with other models collecting dust and internally balancing everything is a thin line and I think you are right on top of it here.

I have nothing to say about tyranids. What you've done is really balanced on paper, but I think in three or four years, I've played against Tyranids twice, so I don't qualify myself to comment on them.

With imperial guard, everything you have also looks cool; you've done orders the way everyone with two brain cells to rub together wants, so that's a plus and there is support for every build here, so no one's collection is left out! but I wonder why everything is so limited? Why can I only take one heavy weapons team with my infantry platoon? And why are special weapons teams limited to Company Command? It wouldn't hurt to open up some options, I think.

Now, you also seem to be worried about your English translation skills and you've done a good job but there are a few little things and I pointed those out in the quoted text.

**kodos**

Thank you
this helps a lot

@heavy & special weapon teams
this was a typo, they are available for infantry platoons too and up 3 units
(and as platoon for veterans and infantry)

**sturguard**

I have some issues with the psychic phase. Currently in 40k, players generally take an all or nothing approach because the system is setup to work better than way. I mean if you have a mere 4 dice to cast and you need 2 successes you should get 1 spell off. Now if your opponent has 3-4 dice, he stands a pretty good chance of negating your spell. So why spend 100 pts on a psycher who may or may not help you at all. So people find ways to spam as many dice as possible. In your system, it looks like it is easier to block spells, as well as wounding yourself in the process. My first question would be, why can psychers hurt themselves while manifesting but not blocking spells. Why not make it on a double 6 the blocking model gets wounded? In my opinion is spells were made less powerful and the system was more predictable to cast, people wouldnt spam as much. I think your system makes it too difficult for the non tournament list to ever get a spell off- just my opinion.

**kodos**

Thanks for your reply

First I like the idea that the blocking model can get wounded too.

The other thing is that you need to be very close to an enemy psycer to block his spells if you are not the target.
So using powers to inflict damage is more difficult while buffing your own troops is easier.

The system is also more like an improved 5th edition system.
And if it is really to difficult the cast spell, I would decrease the reaction range for psionics.

PS:
At the moment I try to finalise a rulebook pdf which is more work than I expected and has more to do with visual things.

I am also searching for good Artworks without GW symbolic to use them for the final pdf.

PPS:
And now for something completely different

I try to make a formula to calculate the point costs to make it easier to develop new units and army lists

this is what I have at the moment which does not scale well but sum up the basic idea

Spoiler:

**kodos**

made some minor tweaks to the online rulebook and merged the basic and advanced rules into one document

**kodos**

Update to the main document and start working on the first 3 Army Lists

Imperial Knights
Imperial Army
Hivemind

**kodos**

Push this topic because somewhere else a question came up regarding the GW IP and I could not find something about it.

Does GW have a copyright on the basic profile value names or not?
Or of a combination of those (they cannot copyright "strength", but "to wound = Strength VS Toughness")

**Lanrak**

As GWs IP lawyers do not know their arse from their elbow, as proved in the Chapterhouse case.
They just use heavy handed methods if they think you are infringing on their IP.

It is best to proceed on the side of caution and change the well known warhammer names .

If players cant understand what Shooting skill and Assault skill are used for , for example.Then I dont want them using my rules...

**kodos**

So business as usual and just guess what can be an IP protected name and what not.

**Lanrak**

@Kodos.
If you look at how GW have re named some forces , like the IG .It is obvious that 'Imperial Guard' is in the public domain.

So do not use any of the 'brand new names'.

And you can use O.R.K.S , as the abbreviation of 'Organic Regenerating Kretanin Species.' For example.

Naming stuff is the minor details that we can look at after everything else is sorted out.
If you are writing your own back ground, as long as you make it clear the rules are suitable for for 28mm sci fi minatures. Clever players will understand what you intend.

And GW can keep selling their stuff to collectors and children , their target demographic.

GWs IP hammer seems to fall when people are SELLING goods .

If the new rules are just a 'fan made free to down load ' type they should not get involved.