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.

@Charistophe.
I agree the stat line is long enough as it is.However, the stats used are not the optimal fit for the expected game play of 40k IMO.
(I do not think a 40k war game should be based on the concept of ''WHFB in space''.)

As the units in 40k are closest to modern land warfare units in terms of expected function.
Then the game play might be better reflecting the modern warfare loading of equal focus on mobility, fire power and assault.
(Mobility to take objectives, firepower to control enemy movement , and assault to contest objectives.)

So stats reflecting this focus would probably yield better results.

The current stat line has no stat for mobility, one stat for shooting, and four for close combat.

If 40k game play was focused on close combat with ranged attacks just in a supporting role,(like WHFB.) Then I would keep the current stat line.

However, as over 90% of units in 40k are armed with ranged weapons,I think this is where some core issues are.

I'm not sure Initiative is as great a stand-in for Evasion as it might initially appear. Many units have relatively low initiative scores yet are still relatively difficult to hit. An ork kommando, for instance, is fairly sluggish, but he can still have a fairly impressive cover save, especially when going to ground.

So in an opposed stat system like the one Lanrak has suggested, you would end up explaining that your initiative is X but that it goes up by Y for the cover, up another Z for your stealth rule, and up another W if you go to ground. After resolving that, your opponent would charge and may ask for you to clarify your initiative which is now just X instead of X+Y+Z+W, except for the nob with the power klaw because the unwiedly rule lowers his X to V, but only in close combat.

I personally feel that evasion might be a little cleaner even if it does mean adding one more column to the stat block. Plus, you might have effects that lower initiative (fluffed as making you sluggish, covering you in nets, whatever) that could theoretically make you easier to hit but which don't necessarily make sense for a venomthrope that's going to ground behind a pile of rocks.

Either one would work though.

Lanrak wrote:@Charistophe.
I agree the stat line is long enough as it is.However, the stats used are not the optimal fit for the expected game play of 40k IMO.
(I do not think a 40k war game should be based on the concept of ''WHFB in space''.)

As the units in 40k are closest to modern land warfare units in terms of expected function.
Then the game play might be better reflecting the modern warfare loading of equal focus on mobility, fire power and assault.
(Mobility to take objectives, firepower to control enemy movement , and assault to contest objectives.)

So stats reflecting this focus would probably yield better results.

The current stat line has no stat for mobility, one stat for shooting, and four for close combat.

If 40k game play was focused on close combat with ranged attacks just in a supporting role,(like WHFB.) Then I would keep the current stat line.

However, as over 90% of units in 40k are armed with ranged weapons,I think this is where some core issues are.

A fair point. But let's take a card you used for the D6 and go with, if we can use what we have, why add more?

Wyldhunt wrote:I'm not sure Initiative is as great a stand-in for Evasion as it might initially appear. Many units have relatively low initiative scores yet are still relatively difficult to hit. An ork kommando, for instance, is fairly sluggish, but he can still have a fairly impressive cover save, especially when going to ground.

So in an opposed stat system like the one Lanrak has suggested, you would end up explaining that your initiative is X but that it goes up by Y for the cover, up another Z for your stealth rule, and up another W if you go to ground. After resolving that, your opponent would charge and may ask for you to clarify your initiative which is now just X instead of X+Y+Z+W, except for the nob with the power klaw because the unwiedly rule lowers his X to V, but only in close combat.

I personally feel that evasion might be a little cleaner even if it does mean adding one more column to the stat block. Plus, you might have effects that lower initiative (fluffed as making you sluggish, covering you in nets, whatever) that could theoretically make you easier to hit but which don't necessarily make sense for a venomthrope that's going to ground behind a pile of rocks.

Either one would work though.

Who said anything about adding Cover to Initiative? Cover would wither work as it does now, a wholesale preventer, or would reduce the Shooter's accuracy. This does not affect the target's Initiative at all. This concept you are suggesting is conflating a debuff with a buff. Kommandos in Cover would be debuffing their Shooter's BS (if not just negating it) while their relative own ease of being hit stays the same.

 Lance845 wrote:
Do you really think a 90% chance for success is a good thing? Or a 10%? Or the gap between 10% chance of success to save vs 90% chance to hit/wound? Or even worse, 10% chance to hit wound vs a 90% chance to save? Could you imagine the frustration that would bring to the game.

The problem is that we already have those 90%/10% rolls. We just have them in the form of re-rolls/bonuses/etc instead of a straight number on a die. For example, a twin-linked BS 4 shot has an 89% chance of hitting. Having a D10/D20 instead of a D6 allows you to remove that special rule and extra die roll in favor of just having a straight 2+ on a D10 or 3+ on a D20. And with the extra values available you can get rid of a lot of other similar rules. Most of the various re-rolls, re-rolls of 1s, re-rolls under certain conditions, etc, can be simplified away. It makes the game easier to learn for new players, and it significantly reduces the number of rule interactions that potentially lead to disputes over how things work. There's no more argument over whether re-rolling 1s counts as a "re-roll" for being able to re-roll the scatter dice on blast weapons because there's no more re-rolling 1s.

@Wyldhunt.
I only proposed using Initiative to oppose Weapon skill in assault ,IF we were to move to a simultaneous resolution in a alternating phase game turn.
(As there is no need to define striking order in simultaneous resolution. )

A new Evasion stat would be based on model size,and the 'agility and stealth abilities' of the model.
Cover would give a bonus to the new Evasion stat to make targeted models in cover harder to hit at range.

@Charistophe.
My argument with the D6 was to use the values we already have, (6) fully and effectively before expanding on this range of values.

So I want to apply the same design goals to the stat line.Keep 9 values on the stat line, but make sure they cover ALL units, and cover the majority of the game play.

I think most people could see the potential value in adding a mobility stat.(The maximum distance a model can move when taking a move action.)
As this could remove randum movement and lots of special rules for movement, to make the game easier to play and quicker to understand.

If we were to add Evasion stat to oppose BS, for ranged attacks.This would help balance the core resolution difference between shooting and assault.(And we could get rid of some special rules too.)

If we are to add these two stats to the stat line which two can we remove to make room for them?

Well as assault has 4 stats, lets see if any can be moved elsewhere.
WS is important to define who hits in assault.(The same as BS is to shooting.)
Initiative defines the order of resolution in assault,which is also very important.

This leaves Attacks in assault, and model Strength as the base value to calculate the models weapon hit strength in assault.

If we look at WHFB where the stat line originated from.The majority of the units are armed with hand weapons for close combat, using the unmodified strength value and attacks value.The majority of the few units carrying ranged weapons also use this strength value and attacks value off the stat line.

Only a few special units and weapons in WHFB are the exception.

In 40k the majority of units carry ranged weapons along side close combat weapons.

These ranged weapons have completely separate values for strength and attacks(R.O.F).(Along with effective range, AP , and weapon type.)

Also lots of special close combat weapons modify the number of attacks and or weapon strength etc.

So if we move the Attacks and Strength value to a set of close combat weapons data for the unit.(In a similar format to the ranged weapon data)

The overall 'in game effect ' of all weapons carried by the unit could be displayed under the unit stat line.(On the Force data sheet, or unit cards.)

EG revised weapon data for all units weapons could be.

Weapon name.Effective range, Attacks, Armour Piercing ,Strength, Notes.

I may need to explain this concept better?

@Peregrine.
IMO it is not the range of results or the % chance of success that is the core issue with the current 40k game play.

But the complete lack of proportionality in the interaction, and all the random nature of 'I rolled a '5+' so I undo what you just did no matter what' type special rules .

The lack of meaningful proportional results removes the majority of tactical planning from the game play , (apart from target selection).

IMO if we focus the core rules to provide meaningful in game decision making, based on straight forward and intuitive resolution methods and game mechanics.
Like good war games do.We may find the humble D6 is just as effective in this new rule set as it is in other good war games.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Do you really think a 90% chance for success is a good thing? Or a 10%? Or the gap between 10% chance of success to save vs 90% chance to hit/wound? Or even worse, 10% chance to hit wound vs a 90% chance to save? Could you imagine the frustration that would bring to the game.

The problem is that we already have those 90%/10% rolls. We just have them in the form of re-rolls/bonuses/etc instead of a straight number on a die. For example, a twin-linked BS 4 shot has an 89% chance of hitting. Having a D10/D20 instead of a D6 allows you to remove that special rule and extra die roll in favor of just having a straight 2+ on a D10 or 3+ on a D20. And with the extra values available you can get rid of a lot of other similar rules. Most of the various re-rolls, re-rolls of 1s, re-rolls under certain conditions, etc, can be simplified away. It makes the game easier to learn for new players, and it significantly reduces the number of rule interactions that potentially lead to disputes over how things work. There's no more argument over whether re-rolling 1s counts as a "re-roll" for being able to re-roll the scatter dice on blast weapons because there's no more re-rolling 1s.

Rerolling saves and twin linking are special rule exceptions that cause an endless amount of complaints on here. Switching to a d10 system doesn't fix that. It just normalizes it into a core mechanic.

No save should ever be flat out rerolled. It should function like +1 to BS. 3+/2+/2+ 6+

The confusions over rerolling on scatter dice is because it's a dumb mechanic. You want to streamline and simplify the game so it's easier to learn, stop having 5 different resolution methods. Lets list them. 1) Roll target number based on your skill higher the roll the better2) roll target number by comparing 2 values on a chart (WS vs WS or Str VS t) higher the number the better 3) scatter dice lower the result the better 4) AV, glance/penetrate rolls higher the better 5) 2d6 leadership rolls, lower the better.

You can simplify the game by having 1 or 2 resolution methods.

Lanrak wrote:
@Charistophe.

There is no 'e' at the end of my log in name.

Lanrak wrote:
My argument with the D6 was to use the values we already have, (6) fully and effectively before expanding on this range of values.

And we can't use values we already have for a comparative for BS instead of inventing a new one any more than inventing a new comparison set for D10s in favor over D6s?

Let's keep the standard consistent. Let's see if we can't fit it in with what we have. If you want to do it with dice, why not do it for stats, too?

Lanrak wrote:
So I want to apply the same design goals to the stat line.Keep 9 values on the stat line, but make sure they cover ALL units, and cover the majority of the game play.

I think most people could see the potential value in adding a mobility stat.(The maximum distance a model can move when taking a move action.)
As this could remove randum movement and lots of special rules for movement, to make the game easier to play and quicker to understand.

There is random and randumb. A movement stat does not necessarily mean the loss of random movement. It is still valuable to have a random element for Charging and Running in a state where distances can be measured at any time (and it is stupid to exclude THAT). If associated with a Movement Stat, it just doesn't have to be that large (M+D3 works well enough in most cases for this).

Of the Special Rules that are regarding Movement, I can think of two that directly affects movement, and it is unique to one Walker unit and Dark Eldar Wargear. Of the rest, Move Through Cover would not be affected as Difficult Terrain would still affect the Movement Stat in one way or another, and Fleet has been Run and now modifying Run and Charge, and would make adjustments from there. Relentless doesn't affect Movement, it just adjusts access to actions. Slow and Purposeful only affects Running in regards to Movement and that is binary and would still be in affect.

Going from there, another problem I have with the Movement stat is that it usually starts with a nerf to everyone's movement but Eldar and Tyranids. Nobody can seem to be bothered with starting Space Marines at 6 and adjust other's from there. If your rules cannot handle Space Marines moving at 6 in general, it only shows a significant bias against a majority of armies that are seen on the table.

Lanrak wrote:
If we were to add Evasion stat to oppose BS, for ranged attacks.This would help balance the core resolution difference between shooting and assault.(And we could get rid of some special rules too.)

Not really. Modifications would still exist and most of those Special Rules would still be in play, if modified to account for some of these changes. Str v T is still used as a comparison, yet we still see those same modifications being employed for Wounding as we see for BS. The Special Rules wouldn't end up going anywhere, actually.

Lanrak wrote:
Initiative defines the order of resolution in assault,which is also very important.

And can be used to counter BS, as I mentioned before.

Lanrak wrote:
This leaves Attacks in assault, and model Strength as the base value to calculate the models weapon hit strength in assault.

If we look at WHFB where the stat line originated from.The majority of the units are armed with hand weapons for close combat, using the unmodified strength value and attacks value.The majority of the few units carrying ranged weapons also use this strength value and attacks value off the stat line.

Only a few special units and weapons in WHFB are the exception.

In 40k the majority of units carry ranged weapons along side close combat weapons.

These ranged weapons have completely separate values for strength and attacks(R.O.F).(Along with effective range, AP , and weapon type.)

Also lots of special close combat weapons modify the number of attacks and or weapon strength etc.

So if we move the Attacks and Strength value to a set of close combat weapons data for the unit.(In a similar format to the ranged weapon data)

The overall 'in game effect ' of all weapons carried by the unit could be displayed under the unit stat line.(On the Force data sheet, or unit cards.)

EG revised weapon data for all units weapons could be.

Weapon name.Effective range, Attacks, Armour Piercing ,Strength, Notes.

I may need to explain this concept better?

Interesting in concept, but we're still back to "why replace something when we can use what we have?" It also ignores several other factors.

So, from what you are proposing, we would have a model statline of:
WS, BS, T, I, E, M, Ld, Sv.

With Weapons having:
Range, Str, AP, Attacks, Type

Now, the problem is things like the Power Fist. The Attacks available to them would vary from model to model in Space Marines alone, not to mention going around all the other Imperials and Xenos which have access to them. Then there is the Str which carries a not so small spread of variances between Striking Scorpions, Sergeants, and Thunder Wolves. Even if we go AoS with them, we'd have a Special Rule to add Attacks for those Veteran Sergeants or having people cry foul. It really wouldn't help if there were a misprint or a change between Blue Space Marines and Red Space Marines (again) where a formula covered it before.

Then let's think of how many Weapons a standard Tactical Squad carries. That's 26 without including the one use Combi-versions. That can make for a very large document. I know because I have done it when I was making myself some Warmahorde-style stat cards for my Templars. I had to cut things VERY tightly in order to make them fit on to one face of a game card.

Still, there is some merit, especially if we REALLY want to AOS the unit datasheets. To move on from there:
Model Statline:
WS, BS, T, I, Ld, Sv.

Weapon Statline:
Range, Str, AP, Attacks, Type

BUT limit the Weapons to only what comes on the sprue. This would limit Tacticals to only carrying a Missile Launcher or a Heavy Flamer (for Blood Angels) and the Sergeant wouldn't be carrying any Combi-Weapons or certain Power Weapons, but it would make the whole thing a lot more manageable for everyone.

Still, I can see that some people won't be too fond with this.

Unit Types will still exist, and other Special Rules will be associated with them. Movement is consistent here (with one or two exceptions) so that makes it less complex. Besides, isn't Movement also just another one of those holdovers from WHFB?

Though, I do like moving the Weapons Attack profile from Type to its own. If used properly it could make Pistols and Rapid Fire Weapons much more interesting.

@Charisoph.
Apologies for spelling you name wrong.

If the current stat line covered all units , and all unit interaction sufficiently well, I would not be discussing alternatives.
If you want to look at keeping the current stat line , and investigating its suitability in more detail.Before we make any changes to it that is fine by me.

Lets look at the 'Movement stat' as a primary case.

Can you name one war game other than 40k that measures weapons ranges, that does not used movement rates?Because I can not find any.
(Apart from Arty Conliffes ''Crossfire ''that does not measure any distances, as that was his specific design goal. )

My point is lots of war games use pre measuring and do not need any 'randumb' elements in the movement rates for charging or running.

Because they use things like ''unit morale'' to drive meaningful decision making in game,( actual tactical interaction!)

For example suppressed units can not launch assaults.
And if units fall below X% of starting strength they need to pass a morale test to launch an assault.

Some games allow the targeted unit of an assault a round of defensive fire against the assaulting unit.(If the targeted unit is not suppressed.)

There are lots of options we could use, apart from 'randumb' movement.

Talking of tactical decision making.Are you familiar with 2nd ed 40k , where all movement* happened in the movement phase?
(*With the common house rule for march/run movement.)
This gave the basic tactical options of ..

1)Stay still and fire to full effect.

2)Move up to Movement stat and shoot move and fire weapons only in the shooting phase.

3)Run up to 2 x Movement stat.And not shoot or launch assaults.

4)Charge into assault, Up to 2 x movement stat.

Note, Units that were locked in assault by charging actions, could not shoot in the shooting phase.

If we simply state that difficult terrain reduces movement by 2".
And (Dangerous) very difficult terrain halves movement rates.

If models actually have movement rates this removes the need for.

Fleet, (faster units just move further.)

Move through cover,(Terrain just modifies movement rates )

Relentless,(covered by more sensible weapon classifications.)

Skilled rider.(Redundant.)

Slow and purposeful,( just has a slower movement rate.)

Turbo Boosters, and Fast Vehicles and Cruising speed, etc.Vehicles just have movement rates.

Most movement rates are based loosely on 2nd ed which was the last edition to have movement rates.
Eldar and Nids were the first to have fleet to make up for loosing their infantry movement rate being higher than other races.

If I was going to re write the game of 40k , I would use the human forces, of the Imperial guard and the bench mark.As that would give us actual humans a more relative sense of scale we could identify with.

If the 'how difficult to hit at range stat' was used.Things like Jink saves, invisibility,stealth, etc.Do not need extra special rules, they are just included in the models Evasion stat.

(I am trying to limit special rules to actual special abilities, rather than having them fill in the gaps left by a poor choice in core resolution methods.)

Initiative stat is based on how good the model is at not being hit in close combat.(Eg the ones better at not being hit in close combat get to strike first.)
These values have no bearing on how large the model is.(The size of the target is the base value used to determine how easy targets are to hit in most war games.)

A monsterous creature that is bigger than a tank, should be much easier to hit than a human sized model.
(Using 40k 5th ed rule book values I have at hand)
A keeper Of Secrets has Initiative 10, an Ork boy has Initiatve 2.

This is my argument against using Initiative values in a role they were never intended to represent.

The proposed stat line would be closer to this.(Taken from our play test rules using new names. 40k stat names in ().

Mobility.
Shooting (B.S)
Evasion.
Assault (W,S)
Dodge.(I),
Armour(Sve)
Resilience(Toughness)
Hit points(Wounds)
Morale(Ld)

9 stats, 1 for mobility, 2 for shooting, 2 for assault, and 4 common to damage resolution.

The UNITS weapon Data are listed under the UNITS stat line.

Each unit has its SPECIFIC weapon effects listed under their unit stat line.

So rather than little Timmy having to look at his SM Captains strength and attacks on his unit profile.Then find the rules for power fists,and a plasma pistol.Then work out the number of attacks the SM Captain gets in assault, and what strength each is resolved at.

This information is directly under the SM Captains Stat line.

EG
Name /Range/ Attacks/Strength/AP/Notes.

Power fist/0-2"/3/9/7/Close Combat only -2 initiative.

Plasma Pistol/0-12"/1/7/5/Side Arm.Gets hot.

Again these are just some ideas we are trying out to see what alternatives could be used.

Lanrak wrote:
@Charisoph.
Apologies for spelling you name wrong.

It happens, I can't tell you how often certain letters show up as a matter of typing training. I usually dismiss the first or second time, but I have seen some who have used it in an insulting manner. I try to give a warning before I actually take it as an offense.

Lanrak wrote:
If the current stat line covered all units , and all unit interaction sufficiently well, I would not be discussing alternatives.

But it seems there is an unwillingness to pursue it just as there was an unwillingness to pursue the concept of the D10.

Lanrak wrote:
Lets look at the 'Movement stat' as a primary case.

Can you name one war game other than 40k that measures weapons ranges, that does not used movement rates?Because I can not find any.

There is truth in this, but then, 40K has been running without such a stat for how long?

Lanrak wrote:
My point is lots of war games use pre measuring and do not need any 'randumb' elements in the movement rates for charging or running.

And many of them have other influences on them. Personally, I like having a little randomness in modified movement, though I admit the 2D6 for Charging is excessive, and Fantasy even had M+2D6. It allows for some of the vagaries of the battlefield that are not always controlled by the player or the models themselves. The explanation that GW provides is a good one, especially considering the power that being in Combat provides. And as focused as 40K is on the model, that power should be kept in play.

Lanrak wrote:
Because they use things like ''unit morale'' to drive meaningful decision making in game,( actual tactical interaction!)

Not everything in battle is as easily controlled and neat, nor can it be explained by the unit's morale.

Lanrak wrote:
For example suppressed units can not launch assaults.
And if units fall below X% of starting strength they need to pass a morale test to launch an assault.

That is still the case in 40K today without a Movement stat. They just call it Pinned instead of Suppressed.

Lanrak wrote:
Some games allow the targeted unit of an assault a round of defensive fire against the assaulting unit.(If the targeted unit is not suppressed.)

And 40K is one, and that doesn't involve any randomness to movement whatsoever.

Lanrak wrote:
There are lots of options we could use, apart from 'randumb' movement.

As I said, there is random and randumb. Some random things should be kept to keep that unplanned nature of real battle in play. I know not everyone agrees with this, but I do believe that element involved with Running and Charging should be kept in play, albeit more controlled. If a Movement stat is in play, it really doesn't take much to make it M+D3 for Running and Charging.

Lanrak wrote:
Talking of tactical decision making.Are you familiar with 2nd ed 40k , where all movement* happened in the movement phase?
(*With the common house rule for march/run movement.)
This gave the basic tactical options of ..

1)Stay still and fire to full effect.

2)Move up to Movement stat and shoot move and fire weapons only in the shooting phase.

3)Run up to 2 x Movement stat.And not shoot or launch assaults.

4)Charge into assault, Up to 2 x movement stat.

Much of this does not require any more of a Movement stat than what we already have.

Lanrak wrote:
Note, Units that were locked in assault by charging actions, could not shoot in the shooting phase.

If we simply state that difficult terrain reduces movement by 2".
And (Dangerous) very difficult terrain halves movement rates.

If models actually have movement rates this removes the need for.

Fleet, (faster units just move further.)

Move through cover,(Terrain just modifies movement rates )

Relentless,(covered by more sensible weapon classifications.)

Skilled rider.(Redundant.)

Slow and purposeful,( just has a slower movement rate.)

Turbo Boosters, and Fast Vehicles and Cruising speed, etc.Vehicles just have movement rates.

And this demonstrates you don't really know what most of these Special Rules do in regards to movement.

Move Through Cover and Skilled Rider would still have an affect. Instead of rerolling the DT Rolls, it would either reduce or ignore them. That is their point after all. This isn't really affected by a Movement Stat, largely.

Relentless has nothing to do with Movement Rate, nor has it ever. It affects the ability to Shoot (or Charge after Shooting) after Moving. Still an important factor when you have Weapons of different scales between the Lascannon and a Pistol.

Slow and Purposeful only partially deals with Movement, but even then just simply forbids the Run and Overwatch mechanics. Otherwise, it is Relentless mk 2. Still not affected by a Movement Stat.

Turbo-boosters IS Running for Bikes and limited to that unit type.

Fast Vehicles only affect Speed when dealing with Skimmers as well. It has more to do with how many Weapons the Vehicle can use when it moves.

So, out of these, only Fleet would be directly affected and left useless. But it can still be used by allowing for an additional Run and Charge range, if you let it.

Lanrak wrote:
Most movement rates are based loosely on 2nd ed which was the last edition to have movement rates.
Eldar and Nids were the first to have fleet to make up for loosing their infantry movement rate being higher than other races.

If I was going to re write the game of 40k , I would use the human forces, of the Imperial guard and the bench mark.As that would give us actual humans a more relative sense of scale we could identify with.

And we have been dealing with 6" movement for all Infantry for the last 19 years. That is most of the 30 years that 40K has existed. Anything less than this will be seen as a direct nerf and involve an emotional reaction if you are not careful.

Lanrak wrote:
If the 'how difficult to hit at range stat' was used.Things like Jink saves, invisibility,stealth, etc.Do not need extra special rules, they are just included in the models Evasion stat.

No, not really. Again, missing the difference between being able to avoid a shot and difficulty in lining up an initial shot when one isn't moving. Sure, Jinking would be a by product of this, but that is the only one of those you have listed which would be affected by name. But again, if we continue to use what we have, it can affect how BS perceives Initiative.

Lanrak wrote:
Initiative stat is based on how good the model is at not being hit in close combat.(Eg the ones better at not being hit in close combat get to strike first.)

Currently, it is not. It is literally listed as, "the swiftness of a creature’s reactions" in the rulebook. A higher Initiative swings faster in most cases. This sounds like also the ability (or willingness) to dodge an incoming shot.

Lanrak wrote:
These values have no bearing on how large the model is.(The size of the target is the base value used to determine how easy targets are to hit in most war games.)

A monsterous creature that is bigger than a tank, should be much easier to hit than a human sized model.
(Using 40k 5th ed rule book values I have at hand)
A keeper Of Secrets has Initiative 10, an Ork boy has Initiatve 2.

This is my argument against using Initiative values in a role they were never intended to represent.

And other factors can come in to play for them as well, or are you planning on removing Unit Types all together? After all, how difficult would it be to add a +2 roll modifier for targeting an MC or Vehicle, and +3/4 for Super-Heavies/Gargantuans?

Lanrak wrote:
Each unit has its SPECIFIC weapon effects listed under their unit stat line.

So rather than little Timmy having to look at his SM Captains strength and attacks on his unit profile.Then find the rules for power fists,and a plasma pistol.Then work out the number of attacks the SM Captain gets in assault, and what strength each is resolved at.

This information is directly under the SM Captains Stat line.

EG
Name /Range/ Attacks/Strength/AP/Notes.

Power fist/0-2"/3/9/7/Close Combat only -2 initiative.

Plasma Pistol/0-12"/1/7/5/Side Arm.Gets hot.

Again these are just some ideas we are trying out to see what alternatives could be used.

Again, are you willing to list the 30 Weapons currently available to a Space Marine Tactical Squad for li'l Timmy to look up? Or will you then reduce their armory selection as I stated earlier?

@Charistoph.

Lanrak wrote:
If the current stat line covered all units , and all unit interaction sufficiently well, I would not be discussing alternatives.

But it seems there is an unwillingness to pursue it just as there was an unwillingness to pursue the concept of the D10.

My gaming group started looking at re writing 40k during 4th ed 40k.(Shortly after we found out Andy Chambers re write got rejected by GW corporate.)

We really tried to get our expected game play of 40k to work with the current stat line for about 4 or 5 years.But key elements of in game resolution methods were missing.And we had to resort to lots of special rules to fill in the blanks.(In the same way GW 40k development has just resulted in special rules bloat.)

Not being paid to follow a specific design brief by GW .We started looking at alternatives.
(In a similar way to the game developers do when not on GW plcs payroll. )

Lanrak wrote:
My point is lots of war games use pre measuring and do not need any 'randumb' elements in the movement rates for charging or running.

And many of them have other influences on them. Personally, I like having a little randomness in modified movement, though I admit the 2D6 for Charging is excessive, and Fantasy even had M+2D6. It allows for some of the vagaries of the battlefield that are not always controlled by the player or the models themselves. The explanation that GW provides is a good one, especially considering the power that being in Combat provides. And as focused as 40K is on the model, that power should be kept in play.

I so not mind a FEW limited random elements in movement.
For example ,a unit routing after loosing an assault has a strong argument to be a random value.
As the unit is in complete disarray and out of the players control.(They could be wounded, panicking or in a shocked stupor, etc.)

But rolling every time a model moves , or moves through terrain is excessive.It disrupts game play and slows down the game to a crawl in some instances.

Not everything in battle is as easily controlled and neat, nor can it be explained by the unit's morale.

I was not suggesting this.But replacing the majority of meaningful and expected game play decisions with 'how lucky do you feel' dice rolls is the antithesis of good game development IMO.

If a movement stat is in play to allow calculated tactical interaction,along with very simple movement modifiers.I can not see the need for random elements When units are under control.

I posted up the ''old movement phase rules'' simply for comment, as they seem a good way of improving tactical depth in a straight forward way.
And speed up game play as models only move once per game turn.Just because it was in the broader topic on movement in 40k.

I only have access to a 40k 5th ed rule nook ATM.

All of those special rules and additional rules effect movement some way.Some of them are due to a lack of a movement value, other are a combination of poor game development, like overly restrictive core rules and weapon classifications.

All can be removed by simple changes and slight tweeks to core rules.While maintaining the amount of diversity required to cover all units.

And we have been dealing with 6" movement for all Infantry for the last 19 years. That is most of the 30 years that 40K has existed. Anything less than this will be seen as a direct nerf and involve an emotional reaction if you are not careful.

I agree that just plonking movement rates into the current rule set, would be just as pointless as just changing the D6 for a D10.
IF you do not define the intended game play and re define the core rules to reflect this first.

But if we follow the original background for the factions found in 2nd ed where every army had its own play style , using Imperial Guard as the benchmark.
We get a much more understandable game play and in game interaction, when we scale the game up to battle game sizes found in 4th and 5th ed..

My personal preference for a 40k re write would be a well defined intuitive rule set delivering a war game based on modern land based company level warfare.

My definition of Initiative was based on the one in the WHFB rules ,and early editions of 40k.
..' the swiftness of a creatures reactions in close combat'.. is very close to the original concept behind the initiative value.

Lanrak wrote:
These values have no bearing on how large the model is.(The size of the target is the base value used to determine how easy targets are to hit in most war games.)

A monsterous creature that is bigger than a tank, should be much easier to hit than a human sized model.
(Using 40k 5th ed rule book values I have at hand)
A keeper Of Secrets has Initiative 10, an Ork boy has Initiatve 2.

This is my argument against using Initiative values in a role they were never intended to represent.

And other factors can come in to play for them as well, or are you planning on removing Unit Types all together? After all, how difficult would it be to add a +2 roll modifier for targeting an MC or Vehicle, and +3/4 for Super-Heavies/Gargantuans?

My point is that if the stat line does its job properly, players do not need 'unit types ' to tell them how the models behave.

We are currently looking at unit cards, as they are a great way of getting the information players need a the players fingertips.
We have units cards with standard 'load outs'.And unit cards with blanks so the players can add in upgrade choices.

This makes it easier to 'block build' a force up to a set value, then see what points you have left for upgrades.And just swap out standard load out units where required.

Again its just a concept we are play testing ATM.

Lanrak wrote:
My gaming group started looking at re writing 40k during 4th ed 40k.(Shortly after we found out Andy Chambers re write got rejected by GW corporate.)

We really tried to get our expected game play of 40k to work with the current stat line for about 4 or 5 years.But key elements of in game resolution methods were missing.And we had to resort to lots of special rules to fill in the blanks.(In the same way GW 40k development has just resulted in special rules bloat.)

Not being paid to follow a specific design brief by GW .We started looking at alternatives.
(In a similar way to the game developers do when not on GW plcs payroll. )

Fair point, but this thread is also what one wants to keep.

Lanrak wrote:
I so not mind a FEW limited random elements in movement.
For example ,a unit routing after loosing an assault has a strong argument to be a random value.
As the unit is in complete disarray and out of the players control.(They could be wounded, panicking or in a shocked stupor, etc.)

But rolling every time a model moves , or moves through terrain is excessive.It disrupts game play and slows down the game to a crawl in some instances.

I can agree with this, but I'm also looking at the advantages that Running and Charging provide and I do like having a balance factor for this. While there are many games which do keep everything a set number, keeping some risk to certain more powerful options in a game like 40K helps keep it from being overpowered. That is why my own suggestion was more about keeping such randomness in deliberate movement very low.

Lanrak wrote:

Not everything in battle is as easily controlled and neat, nor can it be explained by the unit's morale.

I was not suggesting this.But replacing the majority of meaningful and expected game play decisions with 'how lucky do you feel' dice rolls is the antithesis of good game development IMO.

It was associated with Movement Rates, so that is I felt it needed to be addressed with it.

Lanrak wrote:
If a movement stat is in play to allow calculated tactical interaction,along with very simple movement modifiers.I can not see the need for random elements When units are under control.

We technically already have a movement stat, it just doesn't vary between models of the same Type so no need to post it with every unit's profile. Random Movement still works with this. However, I do agree that it is currently excessive and needs to be toned down. There is no reason for a someone to have a 10" difference in Charge Range. In Fantasy 8th Edition, Dwarfs went from Charging 6" to up to 15", while previously, heavy Cavalry could only Charge 14", (but then could Charge up to 19").

In order to keep some risk and mystery in the game, a full D6 isn't really needed, much less two, but a D3 combined with a known constant is sufficient for the task and still requires proper tactical considerations.

Lanrak wrote:
I posted up the ''old movement phase rules'' simply for comment, as they seem a good way of improving tactical depth in a straight forward way.
And speed up game play as models only move once per game turn.Just because it was in the broader topic on movement in 40k.

Single movement in a Turn wasn't presented in consideration, and wouldn't be required for a Movement Stat, nor would having a Movement Stat resolve this in any way. Single movement can be resolved now just as all Shooting from a unit can be resolved now. It is at the discretion of the players in how they wish to do this.

Lanrak wrote:
I only have access to a 40k 5th ed rule nook ATM.

It would be difficult to know what to keep if you are unaware of what they currently have, wouldn't it? Especially considering the huge number of changes, both great and subtle between 5th and 7th.

Lanrak wrote:
All of those special rules and additional rules effect movement some way.Some of them are due to a lack of a movement value, other are a combination of poor game development, like overly restrictive core rules and weapon classifications.

All can be removed by simple changes and slight tweeks to core rules.While maintaining the amount of diversity required to cover all units.

I disagree. Consistency for a weapon to be had across the board is vital, otherwise that leads to jealousy and/or confusion. Or would you change Weapon Types that involve the ability to fire a weapon effectively from unit to unit? And that just covers Relentless and Slow and Purposeful.

Move Through Cover is still also well applicable since it allows one to bypass the downgrades of Difficult/Dangerous Terrain, unless you plan on removing that all together as well. Talk about ignoring the realities of modern warfare. The debris field set up by modern battlefields is all the more reason to include a variable in to the constants of certain ganeral movement options far more than a constant can provide.

Lanrak wrote:
I agree that just plonking movement rates into the current rule set, would be just as pointless as just changing the D6 for a D10.
IF you do not define the intended game play and re define the core rules to reflect this first.

I disagree with that. For some, that consideration may come in to play, for the others, all they will see is, "I could move 6" before, I now move 4", my army is nerfed so I refuse to play this game". Even more importantly when a significant portion of current players never played 40K with units having their own unique movement rate, but with movement being consistent and easily remembered numbers.

Lanrak wrote:
But if we follow the original background for the factions found in 2nd ed where every army had its own play style , using Imperial Guard as the benchmark.
We get a much more understandable game play and in game interaction, when we scale the game up to battle game sizes found in 4th and 5th ed..

And you miss why game sizes have increased. Not just because "GW wants to sell more", but a lot of people wanted to play with more of their collection. Game Size has always been at the preference of the game organizers (TOs or you and the other player).

Lanrak wrote:
My point is that if the stat line does its job properly, players do not need 'unit types ' to tell them how the models behave.

I rather disagree, and that is because I recognize the purpose of Unit Types, and that is to provide a quickly and easily referenced set of rules that will be consistent across a group. With the huge plethora of models that are available, something that is easily recognized and remembered is vital to a smooth running game. True, AoS has gotten around much of this, but the variances and options between everything there is largely academic and only used for rank-and-file combat for Fantasy. 40K involves far more variances between units than Fantasy ever had. The differences in Vehicles and everything else is marked enough for that alone.

Lanrak wrote:
We are currently looking at unit cards, as they are a great way of getting the information players need a the players fingertips.
We have units cards with standard 'load outs'.And unit cards with blanks so the players can add in upgrade choices.

This makes it easier to 'block build' a force up to a set value, then see what points you have left for upgrades.And just swap out standard load out units where required.

Again its just a concept we are play testing ATM.

Why bother with blanks for upgrades? If you cannot fit it on the card, you are considering too much for an intuitive gameplay style. They would also have to fit on the main document as well. Again, not an easy task.

@Charistoph.
I agree the title of the thread is what do you keep in a 40k re write.But the first post stated the design brief as..
''What basic things would you keep?If the rules you were writing had the design brief of focus on clarity , brevity and elegance.''

As the current core 40k stat line does not cover vehicles.
And requires the use of over half a dozen different resolution methods,
And they lack the clarity of general definition to HAVE to use 'unit types' to cover their in game functional role with groups of special rules.
And they lack the definition to resolve movement and shooting sufficiently well to not have to rely on lots of additional special rules.

And after extensive play testing and investigation it is obvious in comparison to other alternatives.The current 40k stat line is not the best option to deliver intuitive results with clarity and brevity.

Then looking at the minimal changes required to address this would be a logical course of action.

I am not suggesting the option I posted was the only solution.But simply used it as an example of how 2 critical functions of the game play could be introduced to the stat line to correct these flaws, with the minimum of disruption.


In general the balance for running is to lose the ability to shoot or assault.
And the balance to charging is taking fire on the approach to the target.

Because GW introduced a major flaw with the balance between shooting and assault in 3rd ed.(Removed to hit modifiers and failed to replace them with an alternative.)
They have had editions that flip flop between buffing assault and then buffing shooting.Rather than addressing the core balance issue.

All good war games just deliver proportional results , which drives tactical interaction.(And usually ends up with much more concise and well defined rules as a result. )

If you are going to champion the way GW 'simplified' the movement element of the game play in 40k.
Then apply it to all the other stats on the stats line.Everything becomes a 4+ or a 1.
So there is no need for any stat at all!See how I just simplified the game...

So we just need a few special rules to cover the differences, about another 200 should do, and if your not sure just roll off.

I am not advocating removing all risk and mystery. Just making the risk and reward in the game play proportional and intuitive.
So players feel they are commanding an army rather than watching a film..

Only having access to a particular rule book to quote from ATM.Does not mean I have not read or I am not familiar with the 40k 7th ed.

At the moment a Character with 3 attacks and strength 4 equipped with a power fist.
Is much more effective in game than a leader with 2 attacks and strength 3 equipped with a power fist.

In the same way a Heavy bolter is much more effective when the user has BS4 than a user with BS 2.

Weapon effects are not and have never been consistent when they are used in game.Simply listing the net effect on the unit card/army roster allows this difference to be seen without any calculation or looking up rules for the player.(Unit cards are used in to good effect in many games.Letting players write in their choice of upgrade on a unit card, is no difference to doing the same on an army roster sheet.Both give the player relevant information during the game.)

If weapon classification are unit specific.

EG
If the unit can not move and fire with the weapon if is classed as 'Ordnance'.
If the weapon halves its effective range when fired on the move it is classed as a 'Rapid fire' weapon.
If the weapon can be fire one handed it is classed as a 'Side arm.'

The a Heavy bolter is classed as 'Ordnance' in an IG platoon.
It is classed as 'Rapid Fire' when carried by Deathwatch marines (with suspensors.)
It is classed as a standard weapon on a Chimera.
And classed as a 'side arm' when carried by a Deamon Prince, super heavy walker, etc..

I did suggest replacing the rules for dangerous and difficult terrain with simple movement modifiers.(As they work well in ALL the other war games I have played over the last 30 years. )
(If we added mobility type we could add more detail to the terrain interaction.Probably best to leave this for advanced rules though.)

I am not trying to steal GW plc target audience away from them.

This is just a thread looking at how different a rule set for 40k could be, if it was written as a war game , with the focus on clarity brevity and intuitive game play.

As such defining the scale and scope of the game play, along with the intended war fare type is very important.

Hi folks.
I am aware players wanted to move the the battle game size of 40k.
And that 4th and 5th ed 40k was the most popular game size.(And these are battle game sizes. )

And so this is why I picked the 4th-5th ed 40k game size as the theoretical game size we would look at war game rules for.
(I know the big toys introduced in 6th and 7th ed are popular, but many feel they were 'shoe horned' into the 40k game for sales reasons rather than carefully considered game play reasons.So adding them in carefully at a later point when the core game play is sorted seems quite sensible.)

As the unit in 40k are closest in in game functions to modern warfare, then following the way modern warfare has an equal focus on mobility fire power and assault seems like a logical choice .

Is this basic definition of game scale and scope clear enough?
Do you agree with it?Or do you see it as something else?

If we can get the D6 working more effectively , by using more efficient resolution methods, I think this would be the preferred option to buying and rolling lots of D10 for practical reasons.
I think the A,O,S type game turn may be a better fit for a 40k battle game .As it improves the level of player interaction, while keeping the familiar action phases.
The three stage damage resolution is also important to maintain the wide diversity of results to cover the wide range of unit types found in 40k.

For the reasons stated previously . I think the current stat line needs tweeking, to cover more of the in game actions directly, reduce the current number of resolution methods to just two.(And bring the number of special rules under control.)

How do you feel about unit cards, with the army list building info on one side, and the in game stat on the other?

Based on what data did you think 4th-5th were the most popular game size?

I have seen you say it before. I have seen a couple other people say it before. But I have also seen lots of people say lots of other things.

Lanrak wrote:
Hi folks.
I am aware players wanted to move the the battle game size of 40k.
And that 4th and 5th ed 40k was the most popular game size.(And these are battle game sizes. )

And so this is why I picked the 4th-5th ed 40k game size as the theoretical game size we would look at war game rules for.
(I know the big toys introduced in 6th and 7th ed are popular, but many feel they were 'shoe horned' into the 40k game for sales reasons rather than carefully considered game play reasons.So adding them in carefully at a later point when the core game play is sorted seems quite sensible.)

As the unit in 40k are closest in in game functions to modern warfare, then following the way modern warfare has an equal focus on mobility fire power and assault seems like a logical choice .

Is this basic definition of game scale and scope clear enough?
Do you agree with it?Or do you see it as something else?

If we can get the D6 working more effectively , by using more efficient resolution methods, I think this would be the preferred option to buying and rolling lots of D10 for practical reasons.
I think the A,O,S type game turn may be a better fit for a 40k battle game .As it improves the level of player interaction, while keeping the familiar action phases.
The three stage damage resolution is also important to maintain the wide diversity of results to cover the wide range of unit types found in 40k.

For the reasons stated previously . I think the current stat line needs tweeking, to cover more of the in game actions directly, reduce the current number of resolution methods to just two.(And bring the number of special rules under control.)

How do you feel about unit cards, with the army list building info on one side, and the in game stat on the other?

Game Size:
I personally enjoy the relatively small but not necessarily "kill team" sized games. I like games about a couple tac marine squads supported by some devastators and assault marines more than I like games featuring trios of knights fighting titans, multiple hive tyrants, etc. The smaller number of models, especially "rare" models, gives a little more "weight" to the units that are on the table. It's a law of conservation of ninjutsu thing. A handful of marines are a bunch of BAMFs. A whole company of marines may as well be guardsman-style cannon fodder. Plus, the current rules for superheavies and flyers feel like they render many non-competitive units invalid because of the difference in power level.

"Modern Warfare":
Sort of agree. Shooting, movement, and assault should all be important. These are all words strongly associated with many of the factions we know and love. I would not sacrifice the coolness of guys dueling with high-tech energy swords for the "realism" of gunning down everyone bringing a knife to a gun fight before they close the gap. The nit-picking distinction I want to make is that 40k, to me, is less about emulating modern warfare and more about providing an excuse for super soldiers, space elves, and mecha-pilots to show off their cool abilities on the battlefield. Rule of cool > emulating real-world combat styles.

d6 VS d10:
I'm not opposed to a d10 system, but I've yet to be convinced it's really necessary. There are other methods of making various weapons, armor, and abilities "feel right" that don't require changing up the dice system. If you were designing a new system form scratch, I'd be all for looking into alternative systems. As the fanbase already has a large collection of d6s, however, I think you'd need a very good reason to move away from d6s.


Unit Cards:
Eh. Sure. It's really no different from just having the book in front of you or photo-copying a datasheet. The info is there. You can read it. After a few games, you probably won't look at it much. You could chisel a unit's stats into a stone tablet. The only difference is how you transport the information.

"As the fanbase already has a large collection of d6s, however, I think you'd need a very good reason to move away from d6s. "

Giving terminators a legit niche is a pretty good reason.

@Lance845.
My belief that 4th and 5th ed 40k was the most popular game size, was based on several polls about players favorite edition of 40k.(On several web sites.)
And information from a sources within GW towers who should have a good idea about this sort of thing.. .

I am not saying that every one prefers 4th or 5th edition rules.But the general consensus from player feed back is that the game play was more in synergy with the back ground at this size.

@Wyldhunt.
When I say the basic concept should be based on modern warfare , it does not mean that we have a super detailed simulation of modern warfare.

But the basic game play should be driven by modern wars tactical focus.
Mobility to take objectives, fire power to control enemy movement, and assault to contest objectives.
So each is equally important , and it makes balancing a force more of a tactical preference , than a strategic headache in cost effectiveness evaluation.

Using game mechanics and resolution methods from a game that focuses on moving into close combat, with ranged attacks in a supporting role.(WHFB.)
With units mainly armed with ranged weapons and close combat weapons just makes too many abstractions in the in game interaction to make a good war game.(You have to make bringing a knife to a gun fight the expected/preferred option! ).

in modern warfare shooting is used tactically to block lines of sight with smoke, suppress units to slow them sown, or keep their heads down while you out flank them before assaulting them from the rear. And to disable transport /supporting vehicle units.

Mobility and shooting set up the enemy to be assaulted using actual battle field tactics. (Assault is the most effective way of destroying enemy units and clearing enemy units off objectives.)

IMO a 40k war game should be a solid war game based on modern land based company level war.With a veneer of 40k cool placed carefully on top.

Its a bit like a custom car, with proven mechanics and electrics on a chassis, with awesome looking body work bolted on the top.

I also think to get the scope in focus, starting with the Imperial guard as the bench mark makes more sense.As they are the most identifiable to us .This would give the players a better understanding how weird and diverse the rest of the races are.(Rather then how inferior they are to super human space marines... )

@Martel732.
How can changing dice size determine the tactical validity of a unit in a force?

Terminators have a legit niche, they are the super elite,super equipped , super armoured ,super space marines.(Deep strike elite shock troops .)
(Or they were for the first 5 edition of the game. )

Terminators have never had a viable mathematical niche. A big part of this is due to there only being 5 types of armor. D10 brings you up to 9 types. Now terminators have a viable niche in the crunch.

Terminators are 2+ on a d10, riptides and broadsides are 3+ and marines are 4+. Boom. Now weapons that take on riptides don't automatically lay waste to terminators. They have a niche. This granularity is impossible with d6.

Lanrak wrote:
@Lance845.
My belief that 4th and 5th ed 40k was the most popular game size, was based on several polls about players favorite edition of 40k.(On several web sites.)
And information from a sources within GW towers who should have a good idea about this sort of thing.. .

I am not saying that every one prefers 4th or 5th edition rules.But the general consensus from player feed back is that the game play was more in synergy with the back ground at this size.

It should be stated that it is feedback from players that frequent those sites. A significant proportion of players do not engage online. Too many do not engage in any of the sites that you posted. It is like polling Florida and using all the results to represent the desires of the United Nations.

For myself, I see failures and positives in 5th, 6th, and 7th. 4th was either transitioning out or had just completed transitioning out when I started looking in to the hobby.

So far, my biggest concern about 40K has not been addressed in any of these editions, and it doesn't seem that you are keen on addressing mine any more than GW is, either.

Lanrak wrote:
Using game mechanics and resolution methods from a game that focuses on moving into close combat, with ranged attacks in a supporting role.(WHFB.)

Sad to say, you are missing a lot of things if you think that 40K is still WHFB in space. Aside from the stats and the Wound resolution structure, there was a huge difference between 40K and FB 8th Edition.

Lanrak wrote:
With units mainly armed with ranged weapons and close combat weapons just makes too many abstractions in the in game interaction to make a good war game.(You have to make bringing a knife to a gun fight the expected/preferred option! ).

in modern warfare shooting is used tactically to block lines of sight with smoke, suppress units to slow them sown, or keep their heads down while you out flank them before assaulting them from the rear. And to disable transport /supporting vehicle units.

Too much depends on the situation to make such an assertion. First, 40K is NOT supposed to be modern warfare as there is 28-39,000 year difference between "modern" and then. Second, you are not taking in to account the technologies and habits of the cultures involved. Associating 40K with modern warfare is the same as comparing Dune's considerations with modern warfare.

Lanrak wrote:
IMO a 40k war game should be a solid war game based on modern land based company level war.With a veneer of 40k cool placed carefully on top.

Why? 40K is Space Fantasy, not Science Fiction or "modern warfare", nor intended to be such. You are doing the equivalent of complaining about War of the Rings not supporting Roman Legion or Agincourt strategies. If this is the core of your case, then you are aiming at an incorrect target.

 Charistoph wrote:
Too much depends on the situation to make such an assertion. First, 40K is NOT supposed to be modern warfare as there is 28-39,000 year difference between "modern" and then. Second, you are not taking in to account the technologies and habits of the cultures involved. Associating 40K with modern warfare is the same as comparing Dune's considerations with modern warfare.

Why? 40K is Space Fantasy, not Science Fiction or "modern warfare", nor intended to be such. You are doing the equivalent of complaining about War of the Rings not supporting Roman Legion or Agincourt strategies. If this is the core of your case, then you are aiming at an incorrect target.

"Space Fantasy" shouldn't mean "no relation to how modern wars are fought" anymore than than "wargame" should mean "it's just like today, but with more power armor". War of the Rings should support Roman or 100 year's war era tactics, or something roughly similar to them, since as far as I recall there's nothing in LOTR that's going to fundamentally alter the tactical or technological playbook that those tactics are based on. The only thing that 40 does differently than modern warfare is physic stuff, and some changes to how the arms vs armor struggle has played out. I fail to see why that rules out running a 40k rewrite more in lines with a modern-ish wargame, as opposed to the bizzare hodgepodge that it is now. It's not like lasguns and bolters are some exotic super weapon unlike anything we can conceptualize today, lasguns are roughly comparable to many contemporary small arms baring a few factors related to ammunition concerns, and a gryojet grenade launcher isn't exactly earth shattering either, we could probably build one now if we really, really wanted too. Ditto with most other race's small arms, which as far I've heard are fairly well balanced (or at least not as broken as the big/exotic stuff), so with that aspect as a baseline, building 40k back up is a lot easier than you think.

@Martel732.
You are arguing that when you use restrictive resolution methods (from WHFB where there is only 5 levels of basic armour.)
And this has a negative impact on the game play in 40k.

And I totally agree with this argument BTW.

I disagree with your solution of just increasing the dice size used.As it still leaves the very restrictive and counter intuitive resolution methods we currently have in the 40k rules.

I have shown than better resolution methods that use opposed stat value from 1 to 10 deliver proportional results that still use a D6.
Has the potential to arrive at the range of results we probably need without changing the dice size.

Lets ignore that difference in models size should factor into how hard the model it to hit at range.(Which would be catered for in my new proposed opposing value system.)

Your system would give the following saves on a D10 as your post outlined.
Marines, 4+, riptides/broadsides 3+ and terminators 2+.(70%, 80% and 90% save chance unless invalidated by a AP weapon value)

So marines get a save 70% of the time until they get a AP 4 hit , then they have no save at all.
As marines are so popular the game introduces a swathe of anti MEQ weapons to all armies.(Sound familiar. )
So most models do not get to take a save, and just rely on high model count or special rules to see them through the battles.(History repeating itself?)

This system has 9 armour type that are invalidated by AP values in a similar way to the current rules.(And would probably need extra rules for vehicles too?)

My system covers ALL models including vehicles with TEN armour values from 1 to 10.(The models Armour stat.)
Marines Armour value 4, Broadsides Riptides Armour value 5, and terminators on armour value 6, for example.

All weapons also have an AP value of 1 to 10,(Ten Values for the weapons AP stat.)

These are compared in the 'universal resolution chart' to give proportional results.(EG slightly more powerful weapons reduce the save of the model.I thought I explained this straight forward replacement for modifiers ?Apologies if I did not make it clear.)

@Charistoph.
I thought the statement
''I am not saying that every one prefers 4th or 5th edition rules.But the general consensus from player feed back is that the game play was more in synergy with the back ground at this size.''
Made it quite clear I was referring to the size of the game , number of units and type of units in 4th and 5th ed.

For what it is worth all editions of 40k are not that brilliant in terms of clarity brevity or elegance.I agree serious game play issues have been left in all editions of 40k.As GW plc focused more and more on sales of 'plastic bitz'' to collectors.

In terms of comparing WHFB and 40k.
Apart from loosing movement stat and modifiers, what exactly is the difference in game mechanics and resolution methods?

Having to add on a separate stat line for armoured vehicles that are not in WHFB, and four times the amount of special rules to cover the other stuff that is not covered by the WHFB rules that is in 40k. Sort of proved that 'WHFB in space' does not fit the intended game play of 40k.

In terms of table top war games there are three basic types of game play available.

1)Focus on mobility and close combat.With ranged weapons in a supporting role.

Ancient to Napoleonic type warfare.Where large block of troops in close formation scare the bejezus out of the opponent.

Here is what just the British infantry and artillery at Waterloo would look like if they were represented 1 to 1 scale for 40k type game.
(This is about 1/3 of Wellingtons army.Napoleon had a much bigger Army !This is also the same number of French DEAD after the battle. ).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqLoLKlbVuU

2)Focus on mobility and fire power, with assault in supporting role.

This is mainly used for naval warfare.
Air warfare usually uses this but generally does not have any assault elements.

3)Equal Focus on mobility fire power and assault.

Mainly used for modern land warfare.
With small skimishing infantry squads armed with effective ranged weapons and close combat weapons , supported by armoured APCs and tanks.

So what sort of game play do you think is most suited to 40k?

Just because the models in 40k are the same scale as those used in WHFB.And have a similar sculpt style.(Which is not surprising because they are sculpted by the same team.)

You think the game play of 40k should be based on WHFB?'Space fantasy' as you call it?

Most players look at the UNITS in 40k and see small squads of skirmishing infantry armed with ranged weapons and close combat weapons .Supported by APCs and tanks.

And oddly enough they expect the game play to follow the closest 'real world' counter part .EG modern warfare.

That is why GW had to add rules for modern warfare effects to the 'WHFB in space rules'.Pinning, crew shaken/crew stunned.(Suppression and neutralization.)Going to ground, etc

A rule set based on modern warfare game play would include these elements in a more synergistic and less obtrusive way..

Have you played Epic Armageddon?
When free of the GW sales team influence, the GW game devs always use modern warfare rules for 40k battle games.And they are much better war game as a result.

"My system covers ALL models including vehicles with TEN armour values from 1 to 10.(The models Armour stat.)
Marines Armour value 4, Broadsides Riptides Armour value 5, and terminators on armour value 6, for example. "

I'm attempting to preserve the current system for ease of conversion. We can keep all the current stats and minimize changes.

A complete rewrite is well beyond the scope of the effort I'm willing to put in. Even if I used a resolution chart like yours, I'd still trash the D6 and add an additional 4 outcomes.

I'm also not adding in new stats without a complete rewrite. In such a scenario, I would resolve everything with a 2D10 roll to get a proportional bell curve. As such, I'm not doing that.

"Has the potential to arrive at the range of results we probably need without changing the dice size. "

I would ideally prefer a bell curve on everything if we are going that far. As I said above, 2D10 is a good method for doing this. I guess the answer to your original question is that I would keep nothing. Except maybe a few of the stat names.

"So most models do not get to take a save, and just rely on high model count or special rules to see them through the battles.(History repeating itself?) "

No, because AP 4 and better weapons will have poor ROF, so Orks don't care if they don't get a save. Also, 4+ armor would retain half its save vs AP 4. And cover will be a to-hit penalty, so it stacks with armor.

"A/O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1....,4,4,5,5,6,6,n,n.n,n
2.....3.4.4.5.5.6.6.n.n.n.
3.....3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.n.n.
4.....2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.n.
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.....1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5
9.....1.1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4
10...1.1.1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.
(n= no effect,) "

Looking at this carefully, I still feel like this is not sufficiently granular, even though it is proportional.

The problem with desperately trying to find a mathematical niche for terminators is that there shouldn't be one. If a gun can take out a battlesuit twice the size of a dreadnought (or even just the size of a dreadnought), we should make that gun ineffective against an infantryman in particularly tough armor....why? Terminators are tough, but they're not THAT tough.

Perhaps an easier way (and one that doesn't require every 40k player to switch out to a new die size, and one that's not cheaply available in bulk at that) might be to tinker with the "only one save allowed" rule? Or just accept that terminators aren't viable in their original role, give them a redesign, and move on?

D10s are cheaply available in bulk. For the same price as a space marine bike (singular), I can get 30 of them.

We've tried the redesign angle. It fails miserably under the current system. Terminators still suffer from being less durable vs small arms than regular marines.

Terminators are just one example. Another is how the Eldar mostly have the same level of protection on their infantry as marines. The list goes on and on.

I would prefer a comparative to-hit roll. Rather than a flat number, have cover affect this.
Drop templates/blasts as a thing.

Maybe allow armour and invuln saves to stack? Make AP a modifier.

The issue with requiring 2D10s for a roll or 2D-anything is you can't roll them en mass. Because then it'd be impossible to pair them up.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

I would prefer a comparative to-hit roll. Rather than a flat number, have cover affect this.
Drop templates/blasts as a thing.

Maybe allow armour and invuln saves to stack? Make AP a modifier.

The issue with requiring 2D10s for a roll or 2D-anything is you can't roll them en mass. Because then it'd be impossible to pair them up.

Colors. It did all the time with D6's in Star Fleet Battles. Order was even important, so we used ROYGBIV.

So then I would have to buy dice off all different colours.
Then say I've got 7 different colours, you wanna be the poor bugger rolling ~100 lasgun shots with 7 pairs of dice? Presumably adding up the pairs as you go along.
It's just not worth the benefit.

Yeah, maybe guard are gonna be a problem. I guess for the scale 40K has evolved into, we are stuck with single-die resolutions.

Battlegrinder wrote:"Space Fantasy" shouldn't mean "no relation to how modern wars are fought" anymore than than "wargame" should mean "it's just like today, but with more power armor". War of the Rings should support Roman or 100 year's war era tactics, or something roughly similar to them, since as far as I recall there's nothing in LOTR that's going to fundamentally alter the tactical or technological playbook that those tactics are based on. The only thing that 40 does differently than modern warfare is physic stuff, and some changes to how the arms vs armor struggle has played out. I fail to see why that rules out running a 40k rewrite more in lines with a modern-ish wargame, as opposed to the bizzare hodgepodge that it is now. It's not like lasguns and bolters are some exotic super weapon unlike anything we can conceptualize today, lasguns are roughly comparable to many contemporary small arms baring a few factors related to ammunition concerns, and a gryojet grenade launcher isn't exactly earth shattering either, we could probably build one now if we really, really wanted too. Ditto with most other race's small arms, which as far I've heard are fairly well balanced (or at least not as broken as the big/exotic stuff), so with that aspect as a baseline, building 40k back up is a lot easier than you think.

You missed some key phrases there. There are cultural considerations to consider as well as technological. Some of the technology, we are too far away from creating, such as the Space Marine upgrades and Power Armor. In addition, we aren't facing Orks. Facing them and their cultural biases, as well as the Space Elves, involves some of those FB facets which seems to trigger Lanrak so much.

In addition, so much depends on events that happen across 30 millenia that it is impossible to track. I referenced Dune for a reason. Shields made lasers drastically dangerous to the firer and any supersonic (and many subsonic) weapons useless. Yet, those same shields make one a target out on the open bled of Arrakis leading to training and tactics of the Fremen which were foreign to the rest of the galaxy, and vice versa.

So, again, 40K is not modern warfare, it is space fantasy which follows its own rules and considerations, just like the War of the Ring has to take in to account the personalities and abilities of the orcs and uruk'hai which remove it from historical warfare.

Lanrak wrote:@Charistoph.
I thought the statement
''I am not saying that every one prefers 4th or 5th edition rules.But the general consensus from player feed back is that the game play was more in synergy with the back ground at this size.''
Made it quite clear I was referring to the size of the game , number of units and type of units in 4th and 5th ed.

You miss the point. Game Size is favored over what you can bring and the terrain you have access to. As editions went on, the average player's army grew. Game size is also sometimes considered, emotionally, with other things attached to it, such as Flyers and Super-Heavies or Formations.

6th and 7th allows those with larger collections to field those larger armies easier, and has more to do with the price points of models and and their upgrades. 6th and 7th also came with collections which made it easier to develop larger collections as well.

While 4th and 5th worked with smaller armies, you often had to pay through the nose for the smallest upgrades, or go with unvariable amounts.

So, yes, I have issues with all of them for different reasons.

Lanrak wrote:For what it is worth all editions of 40k are not that brilliant in terms of clarity brevity or elegance.I agree serious game play issues have been left in all editions of 40k.As GW plc focused more and more on sales of 'plastic bitz'' to collectors.

The issues are not because they are focused "more and more" on sales, those were already there. People are willing to pay for "more and more", so there is no point at complaining about that.

They have never cared enough for their game to make it a properly viable game, and that has cause the issues. They don't care enough to pay attention to the interactions of their rules. If you want to address that, I'm all for it. Anything else is just preferences.

Lanrak wrote:In terms of comparing WHFB and 40k.
Apart from loosing movement stat and modifiers, what exactly is the difference in game mechanics and resolution methods?

And gaining the AP system? Vehicles for one. Nothing comes close to Super-Heavies, either, though those should be kept for Apocalypse games.

Then there are the firing types and those interactions.

Independent Characters take on whole new ramifcations separate from FB, and are completely gone in AoS.

The Psychic system used to be quite separate from Magic, and to a point the levels of interactions are still different, but that has changed with 7th again to be closer to how 8th FB worked (but not completely).

Lanrak wrote:Having to add on a separate stat line for armoured vehicles that are not in WHFB, and four times the amount of special rules to cover the other stuff that is not covered by the WHFB rules that is in 40k. Sort of proved that 'WHFB in space' does not fit the intended game play of 40k.

Than it isn't so your conjecture on that is currently false for the last 19 years. It was probably truer of 2nd Edition, but not since 3rd.

Lanrak wrote:In terms of table top war games there are three basic types of game play available.

1)Focus on mobility and close combat.With ranged weapons in a supporting role.

Ancient to Napoleonic type warfare.Where large block of troops in close formation scare the bejezus out of the opponent.

Here is what just the British infantry and artillery at Waterloo would look like if they were represented 1 to 1 scale for 40k type game.
(This is about 1/3 of Wellingtons army.Napoleon had a much bigger Army !This is also the same number of French DEAD after the battle. ).

2)Focus on mobility and fire power, with assault in supporting role.

This is mainly used for naval warfare.
Air warfare usually uses this but generally does not have any assault elements.

3)Equal Focus on mobility fire power and assault.

Mainly used for modern land warfare.
With small skimishing infantry squads armed with effective ranged weapons and close combat weapons , supported by armoured APCs and tanks.

So what sort of game play do you think is most suited to 40k?

First question, why are you trying to cage 40K in to a mold of your own definitions (or definitions of another) instead of allowing to be its own thing that has evolved from another?

Why does 40K have to lock itself in to one of those molds when each army can approach the game in different methods so that each one decides if they are 1, 2, or 3? Necrons and Tau approach more on approach 2, while Orks and 'Nids prefer approach 1. Marines and Eldar depend more on the build, but can easily be set up as 1, 2, or 3, as the player chooses.

Lanrak wrote:Just because the models in 40k are the same scale as those used in WHFB.And have a similar sculpt style.(Which is not surprising because they are sculpted by the same team.)

You think the game play of 40k should be based on WHFB?'Space fantasy' as you call it?

Scale of the model when compared to another game is not the reason for it. The scale of the game allows for the interactions of individual soldiers to make as much a difference as the entire unit does. It is in that difference between WarmaHordes and Dropzone which is its intended niche, and that hasn't changed since 3rd Edition.

What makes 40K "Space Fantasy" is the setting of the universe and how it approaches things, not because it had origins being a High Fantasy offshoot. It's having futuristic knights going off to face alien orks and elves and cybernetic undead.

Lanrak wrote:Most players look at the UNITS in 40k and see small squads of skirmishing infantry armed with ranged weapons and close combat weapons .Supported by APCs and tanks.

And oddly enough they expect the game play to follow the closest 'real world' counter part .EG modern warfare.

That is why GW had to add rules for modern warfare effects to the 'WHFB in space rules'.Pinning, crew shaken/crew stunned.(Suppression and neutralization.)Going to ground, etc

A rule set based on modern warfare game play would include these elements in a more synergistic and less obtrusive way..

For some, but we also have to take in to account that centered around Platoon Bravo supporting Seal Team 6, either. It is its own universe.

Lanrak wrote:Have you played Epic Armageddon?
When free of the GW sales team influence, the GW game devs always use modern warfare rules for 40k battle games.And they are much better war game as a result.

Epic is a different scale from 40K, though. It requires a different level of abstractions in order to work. There are a lot of "modern warfare" tactics and strategies you cannot do with Epic, Dropzone, and Planetfall, that you can use with 40K.

That doesn't mean that 40K is designed to be a "modern warfare" game any more than it is a High Fantasy game. It rides somewhere in the middle. Some editions focus more on one aspect than another, that's true, and that can be a hard thing, especially if you don't want to eliminate your current player base and incur bad word of mouth.

There was something I thought of the other day while brainstorming a more straightforward system replacement. I like the idea of a single resolution method, in principle, but I think there is a major problem (unless you add special rules/caveats, which defeats some of the problem): either your chart has an always/never limit, or it doesn't, which has odd results.

To clarify - suppose you have a chart where, no matter how low my ballistic skill, and how high your evasion may be, I can still hit, and no matter how high my BS and how low your E, I can still miss (which is perfectly reasonable for to-hit rolls). Now, if you apply that to wounding, you have a chart where no matter how weak my weapon and how tough your dude is, I always have a chance to cause damage, and no matter how strong my gun and how weak your guy, I can fail to. The latter is already the case in 40k (even though a lot of people think it's dumb), but the former creates cases where Land Raiders are getting destroyed by Gretchin in melee, which is pretty obviously ludicrous.

If you apply that to saves, you get a case where everyone always gets at least a long-odds save against everything.

Or, if you take it the opposite way - like the current wound chart - where $DEFENSE_STAT can be so high that $OFFENSE_STAT can't affect it, you can get enemy units that literally cannot be hit.

In a system as "big" as 40k, that tries to encompass so many different units with so many different abilities, adding a bit more underlying complexity to avoid those kind of edge cases is probably a very good idea - we already know from experience that folks can and will exploit them, to the detriment of anyone who isn't optimizing quite as tightly.

The idea I came up with instead is essentially three resolution systems: One chart for to-hit, where you can always miss, and you can always hit, no matter how big the shift is, and another for to-wound, where it's possible to auto-wound (that demolisher cannon always wounds a Guardsman, say) and it's possible to be unable to wound (in much the same way that a bolter bounces off a Wraithlord now). The third system is a target number, like current saves, with the caveat that in all cases, a natural 1 on the d6 is a failure. When rolling to wound, if a weapon wounds automatically, you don't roll, but in any case where you do roll, a 1 always fails. That's used for saves and Damage Reduction, which replaces Feel No Pain. Instead of a 40k-like AP system, you'd have an AoS-style rend system, and 1+ saves are allowed (since a natural 1 still fails).

I don't actually know what to do with characteristic tests or morale, though: I'd like a system for morale checks where higher is still better without adding on yet another resolution system.

Anyway, I'll write that up in more detail elsewhere, but does that make any sense?