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.

We don't need simplified. For the number of unique models in the game, we need more complex.

 thejughead wrote:
I would look here. This is quite polished, https://onepagerules.wordpress.com

Hey, that's my post >:O

Also got rejected


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
We don't need simplified. For the number of unique models in the game, we need more complex.

Aaannd what if someone just wants to play a more streamlined version of 40k?

 Selym wrote:

 thejughead wrote:
I would look here. This is quite polished, https://onepagerules.wordpress.com

Hey, that's my post >:O

Also got rejected


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
We don't need simplified. For the number of unique models in the game, we need more complex.

Aaannd what if someone just wants to play a more streamlined version of 40k?

Meseems that's their call, belike. But Martel has a good point here: for a mostly-general set of core rules, something a bit more involved is needed, or you get a case like AoS, where every warscroll has a ton of non-generalizable special rules that get very hard to keep track of, if you play more than one army.

An abbreviated, 40k-lite version does have some use, but the main game's core rules could be argued to be too simple already - hence the proliferation of special rules.

Martel732 wrote:
We don't need simplified. For the number of unique models in the game, we need more complex.

I kind of agree with this, although I would amend that the core BRB should be streamlined, with each phase being concise and easy to understand. The USRs and Codex special rules should be where the complexity comes from.

 Galef wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
We don't need simplified. For the number of unique models in the game, we need more complex.

I kind of agree with this, although I would amend that the core BRB should be streamlined, with each phase being concise and easy to understand. The USRs and Codex special rules should be where the complexity comes from.

I propose more mathematical complexity, but less verbiage complexity.

Martel732 wrote:

 Galef wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
We don't need simplified. For the number of unique models in the game, we need more complex.

I kind of agree with this, although I would amend that the core BRB should be streamlined, with each phase being concise and easy to understand. The USRs and Codex special rules should be where the complexity comes from.

I propose more mathematical complexity, but less verbiage complexity.

I enthusiastically second this.

Is what we've done here so far going in the right direction then?

Also, are special rules laid out in a war scroll like source hard to keep track off? I found myself frequently forgetting the rules for my faction but I had it down as a condition of being a beginner.

More complex game play. less complicated rules is what I was shooting for.

EG core rules cover 90% of the game play.Special rules cover the remaining 10% to add flavor to the game.

Rather than current 40k with appx 40% of the game play covered by core rules, and 60% of the game play dependent on special rules and additional systems to work at all!

I would like to streamline the rules by removing pointless rules bloat caused by inadequate core rules.

IMO the re introduction of a movement stat, and using opposed values in the three stage combat resolution goes a long way to add the variety and proportionality into the game play without having to use special rules for everything.

Is this the general direction people want to explore in this thread?


@Future War Cultist.
I was thinking along the lines of 20 special rules for the entire game.(Current USR replacements if you like.)
If we use the opposed stats as we discussed higher up the post.We can show the models in game abilities with the stat line much better.

And maybe have 1 or 2 army specific special rules to add character perhaps?

There are a few mechanics in 40K that are needlessly complicated for no reason.

Ballistic Skill: The target number to hit is ALWAYS 7 minus the models BS. There is no need for a chart.

BS 4 can be replaced with BS 3+ changing nothing mechanically, but removing an entire chart from the game.

Weapon Skill: Roughly you hit equal WS on 4+, lower weapons skill on 3+, higher weapons skill on 5+. The entire WS matrix could be replaced with that single one line of rules.

Compare Weapons Skills: Equal WS hits on 4+, lower WS hits on 5+, higher WS hits on 3+

Doesn't change how the game plays, but simplifies the mechanics, and makes it easier for new players, by eliminating charts with easy to follow rules.

@ Lanrak

It's definitely something I'm interested in. It would effectively remove the need for things like jink, shrouded etc, because instead units can just become harder to hit. One system covered by one small paragraph in the core rules.

Having said that adamsouza had a good idea too. That would keep things as they are but explain it a lot better. Play Testing is the only way we'll figure what what works and what doesn't.

I do like the idea too of some army specific rules to add the flavour. And they shall know no fear, combat squads and combat doctrines for marines for example.

One other thing; I want fear and morale to play a bigger part in the game, because right now they're all useless, and the game is a rush to just kill as many enemy models as possible. Any thoughts?

I have lots of thoughts, but they all require a change over to a D10, as well as a few new base mechanics.

Martel732 wrote:
I have lots of thoughts, but they all require a change over to a D10, as well as a few new base mechanics.

This thread is working on a D10 system. I'm open to the idea of a D10 system but here I'm exploring options for a D6 system.

@adamsouza.
You are absolutely right , GWs version of 40k has over complicated resolution methods, (seven to be precise if you include the additional rules for vehicles!)
Yet they only deliver a very limited range of results.Usually success on a 3+,4+,5+.

Where as if we used opposed values to give a much wider range of results , ( 7 results as shown in the table or by using directly opposed stat values.)
That is over double the range of results on a humble D6, that are proportional and remove the need for umpteen special rules to define the level of detail retrospectively .

Direct representation (eg roll the dice value or over for success.) Works in games where the units are similar in size and shape and technology level.

However, as 40k has the widest range of species and technology in any game I am aware of.I do not think direct representation has a wide enough range to represent this diversity without loads of special rules (like 40k has.)

If you want a simple 40k skirmish game , then Battle For Vedross type rules are good enough.(One page 40k is OK for smaller games too.)

But if you want a 'company level battle game' (hoard infantry 100 models a side.) ,With enough detailed interaction to be in synergy with the larger 28mm minatures of 40k.
It needs a unique approach to get the complexity of the game play required , without the pointless complication of current 40k rules.

@Future War Cultist.
Core rules,(About 50 pages.) Special rules (about 20?), Faction Specific Rules (2 per faction?)

Seems like a good sort of frame work start from IMO.

I totally agree the focus just on physical damage has lead to a reduction in the scope for more tactical use of psychology in 40k.

I would like to re introduce the tactical use of L.O.S blocking rounds.(Smoke and blind grenades/missiles/shells.)

And a simple suppression system that is part of the natural damage resolution process for shooting.

My suggestion for suppression from ranged attacks.

If a model fails its armour save it becomes suppressed.
If over half the models in the unit fail their armour save, the unit becomes suppressed.
(This scales proportionally across all units in 40k in our play tests over the last couple of years. )

A suppressed unit counts as having moved,(diving for cover,tactical armour positioning.)So may only move OR fire non* 'ordnance' weapons.
(*Ordnance weapons are [i]move or fire.)

Suppressed units can not launch an assault , but may fight normally if assaulted.

The unit may rally from suppression by passing a LD test at the start of the next game turn

In a similar way we could re introduce fear /terror as a LD modifier perhaps?EG to charge a 'fear 1' causing unit. you have to pass a LD check at -1.
Just some basic ideas we could discuss if you like?

Sorry for the late replies guys.

I like the idea of fear reducing your leadership value. That makes it far more potent. Maybe that can mean then that marines 'and they shall know no fear' simply means that they ignore negative modifiers to their leadership?

I like the idea too that all shooting attacks can cause pinning. What about this, to try and address the balance between shooting and assault:

When a unit takes casualties (any number!) from a shooting attack, it has to take a pinning check. If it's passed, they're OK. But if they fail, they're pinned. They can't move, run, shoot, manifest powers or launch an assault (but will fight back against an assault as normal) but become slightly tougher somehow (gone to ground and all that). And there's only two ways they can unpin themselves; either fallback or have a character with an appropriate ability unpin them.

The first one is, the unit can move 2D6 in any direction, but can't shoot, assault or run. Or do anything else really that turn except this move. The second one is something like, one character nearby rallies the troops and they get back up. This means that if you're pinned you're out for one turn at the very least. I find that the problem with rallying on a basic leadership test is it's usually passed and therefore pinning is not worth it.

The fallback move is to represent the troops consolidating, getting back in order, the unit leader rallying them etc.

Now onto assault: I'd like some way to have assaults resulting in one or both sides being wiped out instantly. To make it very risky but very potent. Thoughts on both?

@Future War Cultist.
I was looking at getting the balance between mobility fire power and assault to be of equal importance in 40k.

And to do this we need to move away from focusing purely on physical damage.(I totally agree with you on this. )

If we follow the basic concepts of modern warfare
' Mobility to take objectives, firepower to control enemy movement , and assault to contest objectives.'

We get a elegant fluid system that is in synergy with the 40 background.

Primarily the in game effects are shooting is used to suppress (pin) enemy units to reduce their mobility.Assault is used to push enemy units off objectives .

Causing casualties is what the unit is trying to do ,when shooting or assaulting.
But the different side-effects of each type of attack allows assault and shooting to shine in their own ways.

They are not both competing to be the most effective method of just killing stuff.[i]

I have outlined my ideas for a simple suppression mechanic as part of the shooting resolution process above .

I was thinking about assault lasting one round .Eg attacker fights, defender fights,looser is pushed back or routes.Winner can act freely or consolidates.
(The action the looser and winner of the assault take depends if they are over half strength or not.)

I know this is quite a different approach ti the current rules.I am happy to discuss/explain it in more detail if you like.

@ Lanrak

Gald we're in agreement!

That's a great way to look at things; mobility to take objectives, firepower to control the enemy and assault to take the objectives. It's pretty much how I want it too. I would like assaults to be quick and brutal.

If you want to go into more detail I'd be happy to hear it.

EDIT: the generals handbook has some great ideas for army composition. There's vanguard armies (0-1000pts), battle hosts (1000-2000pts) and war hosts (2000+). Or something like that. And each one takes different numbers of units.

Vanguard armies are like 1-4 characters, 2+ battleline units, 0-2 artillery and 0 behemoths. We could do some similar for 40k with recon units, air support etc.

There are lots of ways to make army selection more narrative and balanced at the same time.(I quite like the option Epic S.M. used.)
But we can discuss that in detail a bit later....

As we are using an alternating phase game turn, with simultaneous resolution .
Eg
Player a Assaults,(casualties marked.) then Player B assaults ,(casualties marked.)And then the assaults are resolved .

If you want assault resolution to be fast. why not resolve assault after 1 turn of close combat?Here is the last rules we were play testing ...

Winning the assault.
The unit that inflicted the most amount of damage (wounds or structure points) wins the assault.
If both units cause the same amount of damage , the unit with the largest amount of remaining hit points (wounds /structure points ,) wins.

If both units cause the same amount of damage in assault , and have the same amount of remaining hit points , the assault is tied and the units remain locked in assault, and do nothing until they fight in close combat during the next game turns assault phase.

Units that won the assault may.
If over half their starting strength.
Act normally .

If below half their starting strength.
May move and shoot normally , but will not launch an assault next assault phase.(Consolidating their position)

Units that lost the assault must.
If over half their starting strength.
Fall back, move their movement rate away from the enemy they lost the assault to.And count as Suppressed for the next game turn .

If below half their starting strength.
Route, move double their movement rate away from the enemy they lost the assault to .They will not perform any actions next turn after routing.And count as suppressed until rallied in subsequent turns.

We were trying to make casualties count , but balance elite units skills with hoard units numbers in a simple way.And put the focus on pushing enemy units away from your objectives, rather than just killing stuff in droves.

It is by no means the only option, and I am very open to other ideas to explore.

To be fair close combat has lots of options that we could use.This all depends on the level of physical interaction, and physical damage you think the units should have in assault.

I am quite happy with the way alternating phases works, and the proposed damage resolution and the suppression from shooting all hang together.(It still needs refining but the basic flow and form seems ok. )

Anyhow.
Here are a couple of alternative ways we could structure army building.BOTH do away with the awful practice of defining units by function not rarity , which is so restrictive to narrative and creativity in army selection, GW had to add on other systems like Detachments and Formations to work around its core flaws.

Option 1, Proportional Structuring.

Select a HQ unit to set the theme of your force.(Most Codex books would have about 6 themed HQ chioces.6 different Ork Klanz for example.)

For each HQ unit you select you must take 2 to 8 Common units.
For every 2 Common units you take , you may select 1 Support unit.
For every 2 Support units you take , you may select a Specialist unit.

Common units are on army theme, and are freely available .
Support units are available in limited numbers to support the common army themed. units.
Specialist units are in very high demand and so are only available in small numbers.

Option 2, Core and Support.

This is basically how Epic SM did it.
Select a 'Company card.'(Most codex lists would have about 6 company themes.)
This gives you a HQ and 4 to 8 units that comprise the core of the themed force.

You may add up to 5 Support units.

You may add one Specialized unit,

Note the Company Card determines which units are available as Support and Special choices.

These are just a couple of basic ideas for discussion.I am happy to discuss other ideas obviously .

@ Lanrak

Sorry for the late reply, again.

Anyway, I'll try to address some points here:

For assault, your ideas are a step in a right direction, but I'd like to make it even more decisive. Both units fight, then the one that inflicts the most causalties wins. The loser must take a leadership test. If they pass, they hold it together but must retreat 2D6 inches. If they fail...they're wiped out! Marines and fearless type units count as automatically passing this. If an IG unit within 6" of a commissar fails it's rout test, the commissar executes one model and they retake the test. And so on.

As for the organisation issue, I'm aiming towards option 1 myself. What do you think?

@Future War Cultist.
I am not sure why you want a unit to retreat a random number of inches when we are going to use a movement stat?
(It sort of made sense in WHFB to represent the disorder in close formation regiments when they broke from combat.)

I would prefer the 'auto destroy effect' only if the unit is assaulted while routing /retreating though.I think auto destroying a unit simply from loosing an assault and failing a LD test would be to over powered and result in WTF moments.(Also why implement a rule that some forces automatically ignore.)

I am not happy with the 'all or ignore' type morale rules in the current 40 rules set.I would much prefer a simpler and more proportional system.

The simplest morale system we got working was..
To pass a morale test roll over the units Morale grade on a D6.(New name as it is quite different to LD test.)

Fearless Morale grade 1
Elite Morale grade 2
Veteran morale grade 3
Standard morale grade 4
Cowardly morale grade 5.

Modifiers to dice roll.
Unit is routing +2
Unit is under half starting strength +2.

Enemy causes fear +1
Enemy causes terror+2
(Fearless units ignore fear modifier , and count terror causing units as fear causing units.)

(This tried to get proportionality into the morale system , using the simplest mechanics we could devise. )


I am happy to develop option 1 into a army selection method with you if you prefer that one best.

I am working away next week.And the internet coverage is patchy at best.So I might not be able to post until next week end .So please do not think I have lost interest..

@Lanrak

You're right. I didn't really think that one through.

About the random retreat; it's because I wanted to represent the disorganised nature of it. But anyway, destroying the unit probably is too much.

I think it's good to have shooting only pinning the units down whilst assault is needed to actually budge them from the spot.

We'll figure this out though. Eventually.

The thing is.If shootong causes suppression , and assualt causes push backs/ retreats.It is not necessary to cause masses of casualties to win a game.This means unit sizes can be kept at sensible levels and allow more room for the tacticical maneuver the rules changes promote.

About two years ago, 40K died in my area. Won't go into the details, but it was bad.
Starting in June, I've been working with a lot of new players to start things up again. Please believe me... 40K is too complicated.
I've worked with two different people for over two hours each to help them understand how to build their army. I look at the Grand Alliances in AoS and weep for the simplicity. (That would be easy to do in 40K... Imperium, Eldar, Chaos, and other.)
Even your simplified to hit and to wound system is too much, I feel. Instead of getting rid of Strength and Toughness you have doubled the number of charts that you need to use. Much better to have the AoS target numbers. There are very good reasons as to why a lasgun might damage a Landraider, just not all that often.
Imagine the following:
Guardsman shooting Lasgun. Hits on a 5+, no special rules.
Landraider defends with a 2+ rerollable save. Said guardsman has a 0.1% chance of damaging said Landraider. That seems fair.
What about a Lascannon? Hits on a 5+, but doesn't allow armor saves (Mortal Wound in AoS parlance) . That lascannon would wound 1/3 of the time. Seems about right.
Add to that a Landraider with 10 or 12 wounds? And a stat-line that gets worse as it takes more wounds? I see a very successful update.

What is great about Age of Sigmar is that beyond the 4 pages ruleset, everything else that you need is on the two unit entries. Special rules... everything. No special rules that gives the unit two Universal Special Rules that you need to look up. None of that business.

@ Lanrak

That's great right? Means that good tactics will will you the game rather than power lists right?

@ Anpu-adom

Just to clarify, are you saying that the to wound part of the mechanics should be ditched? Models roll once to inflict damage and then the defender rolls once to save?

You're absolutely right about 40k and AoS though. The former is a bloated, complicated mess, and the latter is a quick add streamlined joy.

Is there anything from the 40k board games (Space Hulk, Betrayal At Calath etc) to be learnt and applied to the main game?

 adamsouza wrote:

Weapon Skill: Roughly you hit equal WS on 4+, lower weapons skill on 3+, higher weapons skill on 5+. The entire WS matrix could be replaced with that single one line of rules.

Compare Weapons Skills: Equal WS hits on 4+, lower WS hits on 5+, higher WS hits on 3+

Doesn't change how the game plays, but simplifies the mechanics, and makes it easier for new players, by eliminating charts with easy to follow rules.

That is actually a fairly big change because you currently do not hit higher weapon skill on a 5+. You only roll a 5+ when your target has a weapon skill more than twice yours.

@Future War Cultist.
Absolutely, right .
WHFB game play is based on large blocks of troops, (representing 100s of soldiers,) that work at full effectiveness until they are broken and they route/retreat.

Unfurtunately in 40k this makes the squad based game play where each model represents one soldier , require lots of ablative wounds to make sure the light armour low resilience hoard units get to do something before routing from combat.(Especially with the increased effectiveness and frequency of ranged attacks in 40k.)

Where as if we let units get suppressed and pushed back, similar to modern warfare, it fits the 40k unit focused interaction, battle game play much better.

@Anpu-adom.
I am not sure which part of this thread you are referring to?
Future War Cultist and I were talking about keeping the 3 stage damage resolution but using one resolution method for all three stages.Either direct opposed stats, or a table to determine the to success roll using the opposed stats.

If you want a simple (Skirmish) rule set for 40k. then One Page Rules for 40k is the go to rule set IMO.

The problem with the direct representation AoS uses is it does not give the variety in the core interaction a tactically deep battle game version of 40k needs.
And so the bloat of special rules and additional systems needed would prevent a A.O.S type rule set being as simple as it is for an ancient warfare type game play. IMO.

I apologize if I have misunderstood your post.

I will have more time to elaborate later but for a quick analogy compare WHFB to Age of Sigmar and then compare WHFB to War of the Ring (GW's LotR mass battle game).

WHFB is a massive pile of rules and strange interactions that was bloated and difficult, no argument there. The problem Age of Sigmar had is that it cut the tactical wheel (where a weapon's effectiveness varies against different targets), everything heroes/wizards did, and the entire maneuver game in favour of keeping three rolls to kill, a long and non-reactive turn, and all the balance problems/model size bloat/power creep.

By contrast WotR is a mass battle system designed to handle a lot of models quickly and cleanly, that cut attacks down to a single roll while preserving numerical variability through number of attacks, and that had a fast and easy system for moving large movement trays of models around.

Not suggesting any specific rules from either one as a starting point for streamlining 40k, but the contrast is a thought-provoking one on what basic assumptions can be hacked on and what effects those might have on the game as a whole.

(Sidenote: @Lanrak: You may want to read Bolt Action/Gates of Antares, they have a well-designed pinning/suppression system)

@AnomanderRake.
The way 'Alessio and others ' wrote the rules specifically for the intended game play of LoTR .Meant that there was a clear precedent set for focusing on the intended game play when the rules for WoTR was written.

By the end of its life at GW WHFB had been mutated into a 'toy sales promotion product' , and its replacement A.O.S simply followed this focus.

Which is great if you are a 'collector' or a 'child', but not much use for gamers who want a tactically deep straight forward intuitive rule set.
(GW plc see their target audience as children and collectors apparently.)

I believe Beyond The Gates Of Antares is what 40k skirmish rules would have ended up at if Rick had stayed at GW .
And Epic Armageddon would have been the 'mass battle game in the 40k universe' , if the game developers had been listened to.
Both of these rule set have defined scale and scope and appropriate minature size .

The reason the current 40k rules are such a horrendous mess, is the lack of focus on scale and scope.
The minatures are large and detailed so that makes people want complicated detailed rules for the individual minatures like in a skirmish game .
But the amount of minatures in the game need unit focused rules to cover the scale of the game elegantly .

And this is why rules for a 28mm scale battle game 40k are so difficult to get right.

What works perfectly well in a historical rule set where all the combatants and tech level is the same (eg WWII.)Can not cover the wide diversity of life forms and tech level in 40k.
And skirmish rule set that work great with a reasonable number of infantry and a couple of vehicles , break down with the a mount of stuff on the table a 40k battle game uses.

There are loads of great sci fi skirmish rule sets you can use 40k minatures in.

However, for the 40k battle game it is important to get the range of results to cover all units from the core rules.Where special rules and exceptions are just that.

That is why I chose the suppression system based on failed armour saves rather than casualties. As it covers all units in the same way, and allows for the massive variety in unit type and size and tech level to be covered under one simple system.

If a model fails its armour save it becomes suppressed.
If over half the models in the unit* are suppressed in a turn, the unit becomes suppressed.
(*Other wise the rest of the unit rallies the suppressed members of their unit automatically, and the unit acts normally for the rest of the turn .)

Sorry that my thoughts kind of jumble out.

When "target numbers" and "use a chart" face off, I'm strongly in favor of target numbers. I disagree with Lanrak. I believe that a target number system is tactically robust enough to handle any game, even a non-skirmish tactical wargame like 40k. "Base + roll " such as in rolling against AV is almost as good as target numbers. You guys are correct, though... 40k needs 1 system of resolving... not 6.

In my mind, I ditched the to wound roll completely. I blame an incomplete understanding of AoS. :-P It would speed up the game a bit.

While you are at it, fix leadership rolls. I've always felt that having one area where low is good is poor design. Not to mention the previously mentioned 4-6 different resolution methods currently in 40K.

I looked up the rules for Bolt Action and Gates Of Antares. They look really good to me. I especially like the bag of order dice to determine what units act and the pin system affecting a units ability to act.

What about this idea; during the battleshock phase, each unit who suffered any casualties that turn rolls a D6 and adds the number of casualties to this roll. Thats the shock value. For each point that the shock value exceeds the units command/leadership value by, the unit gains a marker. Markers surpress units and prevent them from doing things. If the number of markers a unit has exceeds its command value, that unit is destroyed; routed off the field.

There can be methods to get rid of markers too. Rallying, character abilities, banners etc.