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.

@Voidwatchman.
I agree that there need so be more tactical roles for units in 40k.(If you want 40k to be more'' war game'' than ''Yahtzee with minatures''. ).

As most war games I play manage to get these tactical roles simply by using more appropriate core rules that allow this sort of tactical play in an intuitive and straightforward way.

Would you be interested in exploring some options , in a 40k rules re write?

Obviously the game scale and scope needs to be specified first, so I can suggest the most appropriate options.

@Lanrak

Sure, that sounds like fun (and indeed closer to the original intent of the topic than my previous post!).

OK, so if were were going to overhaul the rules from the bedrock then I think we should pick a scale which matches up to the cost and size of the miniatures that we use.

28mm "heroic" is a perfect fit for the platoon scale; limited objectives within a circumscribed local area.

One of the things that I have always loved about 40k is that it is a mash up of a bunch of different themes from military history. There are armies which are like in composition to knightly orders, tribal warbands, greek phalanx, german panzer grenadiers and modern battlegroups.

Each one of the factions fights (ideally, I think) in the manner of some or another of these forces, and thus I think one of the most interesting things to do would be to somehow craft a ruleset which could draw out these differences and really allow for a different feel for every army.

Does that match up with your vision of things?

@Voidswatchman.
If you want a skirmish scale platoon game, then I will just suggest the mechanics that may be appropriate.
I prefer to cover the game play with the core rules, as it reduces the need to add on loads of extra 'special' rules.

We can use any interactive game turn with the new rules.(Based on alternating actions or alternating phases.)

However, how we define the models/units is important.
As 40k has failed to define how hard the model/unit is to hit at range .(Size or Stealth Stat.)
This has led to shooting being over powered since 3rd ed.(And the following rules bloat of ''all or nothing'' special rules to try to put the variation/balance back.)

So my starting line up of stats would be somthing like....

Mobility. how and now far a model/unit can move up to in a single movement action.

Melee value.How likely the model /units hits the enemy in assault.

Dodge value.How likely the model/unit is to avoid being hit in assault.
(Melee is compared to Dodge of opponent to determine the chance of hitting in assault.)

Ranged value, How likely the model unit is to hit a target ate range.

Stealth value. How hard the model /unit is to hit at range.
(Ranged value is compared to Size/Stealth value to determine the chance to hit at range.)
Note.
Cover can simply add to the units Stealth value.

Armour value,How much physical protection the unit has .(Armour scales power fields etc.)

Resilience , how hard the model unit is to damage after the armour has been breached.

Hit points, how many penetrating unsaved hits the model unit can take before being removes as a casualty of war.

All weapons are given a sum value based on the weapon and the combatant carrying it.

Weapon profile.
Name. Effective Range,Attacks, Armour penetration,Damage, Notes.

As explained above the chance to hit is attackers stat vs the opponents stat.

in a similar way the Armour Pen of the attackers weapon is compared to the Armour value of the target to give the chance to penetrate.
And the Damage value of the attackers weapon is compared to the targets Resilience to see if actual physical damage is done after the armour is penetrated.

Penetrating hits that do not do physical damage, can suppress the model.
If over half the models in a unit are suppressed, the unit counts as suppressed.(Until rallied.)

This means all combat interaction is a simple opposed value on ONE chart.(Using a D6)

Unit Morale Grade can be a value you have to roll over to pass a morale check.

Leadership can be a modifier to ONE dice roll per turn.

What I am aiming for is a set of stats that cover how models/units are similar, to arrive at a concise set of rules.Unlike GW who want to express every slight differences to promote sales...

@Stormonu.
I have has a quick read through your rules.All the core concerns seem to be addressed.
However I think you are writing in a GW type way.(The 'special rules and names to make the models sound cool'.)

I am sure GW fans would be happy with your rules.
I would prefer to 'rationalize' some of the rules to streamline them a bit.(I am probably in a minority of one though. )

Play X-Wing!

Scrap the rules. Start over fresh.

@Lanrak

Have you ever read Aetherverse? The basic set of statistics you describe here is very reminiscent of that ruleset (if you have not, look it up - great idea, impossible to get players together to actually see how it played out in practice!).

While I would not wish to criticize a well thought out post such as yours, I fear that what you are describing has already fallen down into something of a mental trap that I find hard to escape when thinking about rules; most of the statistics you describe relate to the way in which weapons interact with units, not the ways in which units interact with the battlefield or each other.

Might I suggest an alternative set of statistics? (I will assume that every unit gets to take 2 actions per turn):

1. Mobility - the distance any given model in a unit may move when taking a "move" action (just copying you here really ).

As an addendum to this however we add :

Mobility Type - defined as Flying, Hovering, Light, Medium, Heavy and Super Heavy.
Flying units only measure move distance on a 2D plane - treating the board as a flat surface.
Hovering units may move to anywhere their base can fit, but must measure on the 3D plane.
Light units are earthbound, but may otherwise move without penalty (so long as it fits, they may "sits"). If they need to go "up" or "down", first they are moved to the edge of the obstacle
they are trying to climb or descend, and may then move vertically with the remainder of their movement allowance (measured from their base to the vertical position they wish to occupy.
Medium units are as light units, with the proviso that they pay twice as much for clearing obstacles.
Heavy units do as the medium units do, but pay 4 times as much for clearance.
Super Heavy units may only move across clear ground, and must end their turn at least 1" away from the base of any terrain features.

For the sake of ease we shall say that our fantastical BRB will define the average clearances inherent to different terrain features in the game.

2. Security - "Security" defines the unit's ability to hold the ground that it has taken, how well trained the troops are in making sure that objectives are, in fact, under control (orks are
less likely to make sure that vital data has been retrieved from an ancient cyber-brain than the Adeptus Mechanicus might be, for instance). Security is measured on a value from 1-6. In a
scenario where objectives are contested, it will be the value which determines how much the unit "counts" towards holding the objective. On a "search" type scenario, it determines the add to
a d6 "search" roll (yes, this is inspired by dropzone commander).

3. Presence - "Presence" determines the unit's ability to project it's influence on its immediate surroundings. Presence is a value given in inches, determining how far from an objective
any given unit need be in order to count as "holding" that objective and the range at which the unit may attempt to rally friendly units.

4. Grit - "Grit" determines how difficult it is to pin the unit down under fire - how likely they are to keep on walking into (or indeed out of) gunfire. If a unit suffers a number of wounds
equal to its grit value (or casualties equal to half of that), it reduces its movement value by half (and then half again if this happens again) until another unit successfully rallies it. This is
represented by placing a "suppression" marker on the unit.

5. Morale - "Morale" is, of course, the statistic which determines how resistant the unit is to simply breaking and running away. Every unit with a "suppression" marker must take a
morale test at the end of the game turn. This is determined in the same way that leadership tests are currently, but with the additional ruffle that every suppression marker past the first gives
a -2 to that test NO UNITS ARE IMMUNE FROM THIS TEST, EVER, NO NOT EVEN IF THERE IS A COMMISSAR WHISPERING SWEET LEAD NOTHINGS INTO THEIR MATE'S EARS 3
FEET AWAY (I am tempted to etch this in blood upon the front cover of our imaginary rulebook, but I fear that would rather ruin the friendly and collegiate mood).

6. Leadership - Unlike in the current setup, leadership determines how well units can inspire their fellow soldiers to fight on. It is an X+ value, which determines the dice roll required to
remove a suppression marker from a friendly unit within their "presence" range and L.O.S. The difficulty with using your line units to do this is that it requires an action.

7. BS, WS, T, S, A and Sv, as we have now. (However, I would steal your idea of a single table that combined BS and weapon S to give a "single roll" value for whether or not damage is done by
shooting and a "wound" scored. Ditto for WS ofc)

This is a long post, and now I am tired - any of that tickle thy fancy?

edit: I fail at re-reading my own stuff sometimes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and as to the point that a freaking Knight is as hard to hit, in general terms, as a grot -

With a single roll most of those problems are gone, although there are still... eccentricities.

The whole "did I hit them and did I then make them die?" thing is quite a sticky problem in wargames - one wants to have endless values which determine all the possible variables, but players can only really handle a few variables at a time (I include myself in this - too much much adding and subtracting over the course of a few hours starts to melt my brain when I am also trying to work out how I should position my forces, avoid the enemy beatstick etc).

@Voidswatchman.

I fear that what you are describing has already fallen down into something of a mental trap that I find hard to escape when thinking about rules; most of the statistics you describe relate to the way in which weapons interact with units, not the ways in which units interact with the battlefield or each other.

Well I can address your fears with a few bits I forgot to post.

1)Mobility
I agree mobility is important.How far a model/unit can move is in all war games I can think of.(Apart from Arty Conliffes Crossfire where no measuring is used.)
I was thinking of a mobility modifier table for terrain, covering the basic mobility types.
Eg
Legs, wheels , tracks, hover/flight. And generic terrain types, hard standing /roads, rubble/ broken ground,dense foliage/light wood, jungle/dense woods, water feature.Buidings.
So wheeled vehicles get a higher mobility movement for roads, and a harsher penalty for rubble than tracked vehicles for example.

I think we have to introduce flying units into the basic game with far more care than GW did.I would prefer to get the ground troops working right first so we have a solid base game to build on.

If you want s skirmish game with detailed model interaction.Why are you asking for unit summary stats as well?

2)Security.
How well a unit holds on to objectives are based on:-

Units confidence, (The amount of models and their level of protection.)
Command and control of the unit leader(s).(Basic morale grade and Command modifiers/range of influence.)

You did remind me I should have given leaders a ''command range'' in addition to a dice modifier.Ooops.

3)Presence.
This is naturally the 'threat range' the unit imposes, based on its mobility and effective range of its weapons.I really do not see the need for a special rule to over ride this basic function.

4)Grit
Again this is a summary of the''unit confidence'' and ''command and control'' function.

5)Morale
Yes I agree that morale should apply to every one. And that negative situations should modify the roll.
Eg
Less than 75% of starting hit points-1.
Less than 50% of starting hit points -2.
Suppressed-1
Outnumbered -1

So the Fearless units that has Morale Grade 1.(Needs to roll a 1 to pass)
That has suffered over 50% casualties, and has been suppressed and outnumbered .Now only passes a morale test on a 5 or 6.

Command value.
(Leadership.) as posted above the range of effect is an important factor I missed off my original post.
Having a modifier to apply to a dice roll, gives the player more tactical choices.
EG,
Do I use it to make sure we hit?Or to Damage? or do we keep it back for our saves or morale test?

If you have changed you mind, and want to write rules for a massed battle game with ''unit summaries,'' then please let me know so I can post up some ideas.

If you play GW games for a while you get in the mind set of wanting to ''narrate'' the rules.And give every thing a special name.(To promote special rules for special models to drive sales. )

This is not really the job of the rules.The rules are supposed to present the player with clear and concise instructions on how the game is played.

The best way to do this is map the game play onto the closest real world counterpart.So the rules are intuitive.

1) Alternating Activation of some kind.

2) Escape the d6 system.

I messed around with creating / adapting systems to do this a few times in the past (including even recently) but honestly that's just p*ssing into the wind.

@Infantryman.

When you say escape ''the D6 system,'' do you mean

A)Still use dice in a simple deterministic way .But use larger dice sizes to add a bit more variation?

B) Use a system of opposed values or rolls to give more proportional results without having to use lots of modifiers or larger dice sizes?

D6 system is perfectly fine.

It's the D6 or D3 damage, number of shots, etc... that should be fixed with flat values. I'd just keep the D3 and D6 for those weapons that used to rely on templates and blasts to determine the number of shots and hits.

Lanrak wrote:
@Infantryman.

When you say escape ''the D6 system,'' do you mean

A)Still use dice in a simple deterministic way .But use larger dice sizes to add a bit more variation?

B) Use a system of opposed values or rolls to give more proportional results without having to use lots of modifiers or larger dice sizes?

In this instance, A. Something like a d10 or d12, as it provides more die-space to make units better differentiated. Currently, a Veteran Guardsman shoots as well as a decades-at-war Space Marine, which feels weird to me.

I have nothing against d6 per se, it's just that it feels crowded. One of my alternate rule iterations in the past used the FAD system, every squad rolls 2d6 and weapons (quantities of smallarms, individual MGs, etc) just added to that roll, but I think that system was beyond most 40k player's desire to learn.

@Infantryman.
So you are not bothered about the lack of proportionality in the interaction then?And you are Ok with ''Hoard armies'' rolling bucket fulls of D12/D10?

I like how GW have simplified the game by a big amount, although I feel in some cases they've simplified it too much, and it does take away from the realism a fair bit and introduce one or two odd situations.

Example: I played a game a few weeks back where one of the guys had a Vindicator parked sideways in a ruin *just* big enough to accept it, if you imagine a single wall covering the front, left side and rear of the vehicle. Because he could see an enemy unit out of his back tread he can fire his Demolisher Cannon practically out of his arse.

Situations like this seem that in some areas they've simplified it too much.

Here's what I'd like to see them change. The changes probably aren't perfect, no game is, and I'm sure I'll be bombarded with replies saying how wrong they are.

1: Better covering of rules and some more common sense applied rather than copying and pasting units.

Example: A Leman Russ Executioner sports a huge turret-mounted Plasma Cannon, something inherently unstable. If it overheats, the tank has a rule preventing it from being slain.

Chaos Land Raiders can take a Combi-Plasma as a pintle-weapon. If the gunner burns his fingers, the whole Land Raider is destroyed, as it's obvious they've copied and pasted the standard Combi-Plasma without thinking "Wait, this is a Land Raider, it shouldn't be slain instantly by a pintle-weapon".

2: Make Morale slightly less damaging.

I didn't mind the old Morale mechanic, and even this one I've grown used to. Where I think it goes bad is when you take so many casualties you just remove the whole squad because you know Morale will remove the rest. Yes some armies can mitigate this, but some are seriously vulnerable. My main force is Skitarii at the moment, we have Canticles (which are randomised and thus not always available) and Data-Tethers (which cost points and remove other wargear options) to help with Morale, and they're pretty much useless.

Perhaps if they implemented something like "A roll of 1 on a Morale check is always a pass", even something that small would be beneficial. If I run a squad of 10 tin-boys, you kill 4, you've got a good chance of most of the others fleeing.

3: Less of the "Use a dozen of the same unit" mindset.

Last night at the FLGS a friend showed me a couple of nasty Tau lists he had seen online. They consisted of around 8 Commanders with quad-fusions, and a good number of Gun Drone squads. That's it. Same with Elysians and Scion list, where until recently when CA upped the points, it's Scions with quad-plasma across the board. Yet stories, fluff and artwork common depict a huge variety of units acting in sync with each other.

4: Character targeting

I didn't mind the changes they made to Characters in 8th; as GW said it's the end of the age of the [insert]Star. I feel they've missed the point on the new targeting rules.

Example: Last night we played Apocalypse. My Reaver, a 50-foot tall war machine with weapons able of levelling cities, was unable to target my opponent's Gulliman, as there was a squad of Scouts my opponent had infiltrated to prevent exactly that. In conjunction with the previous point, lists where they've taken a ton of Culexus Assassins, ensuring you can only ever target the first one.

I hoped Chapter Approved would improve this as rumoured, yet they've made it worse by adding the "even if closer enemy units aren't visible[ mechanic. You could have a Gulliman on his own right ahead, but if a single Marine is slightly closer behind you, apparently that's enough confusion amongst your guys to prevent Gulliman being hit.

These are the ones I can think of, based on my own experiences.

I like 8e overall. I'd keep the system and address the following.

-Small melee characters (IE chaplains, chaos lords, etc.) have an issue getting into melee alongside the squad(s) they're "leading." They have longer charge ranges because they don't want to be up front getting assassinated, and friendly models can also be in their way. When their friendly squad *does* charge, and the character doesn't, they find themselves left waaaay behind and unable to catch up should the squad continue to press on, especially if they just rolled over something easy. They should be able to pick a friendly squad they're in coherency with and "tag along" on a charge as if they are temporarily part of the unit.

-90% of the current mortal wounds need to be debuffed to auto-wounds at an AP value, most of them being AP 2 or 3. Having a bunch of "ignore defenses" attacks makes the guys who pay for defense either suck, or get repriced so low to be ok against them that when you don't have MW's to throw at them, they are overpowered as hell. Some things like titan explosions can absolutely use old mortal wounds.

-First turn needs a little fixing. First thing I'd do is make player 1's heavy weapons count as if they moved for the first shooting phase and see how that slight adjustment works out.

-Fall back needs to get shot with the nerf gun a little. I like the option of getting your dudes out of melee, but it's a bit too good as it stands. My favorite solution is letting the unit they're fleeing from immediately attack but without pile in adjustments. (So if you were just barely tagged in combat by a guy at the end of a unit, only him and maybe the dude next to him would get to throw punches when you run.)

A lot of the other problems are related to fall back, like the fact that most melee units are overcosted for what they do, the pistol rule is rarely relevant, blobs of dudes are too good because they can take a licking, fall back 1", and keep standing in your way another round etc etc. Just fall back getting fixed to where people ACTUALLY consider whether it's a good idea instead of immediately doing it all the time would fix a lot.

-Morale is wonky and between it and how you get CP, almost forces people to run MSU. I'd switch it to "any models lost, regardless of number, cause a 2d6 morale test in morale phase, on a fail, 1 model flees." And then give a few of the super cheap units some shaky morale rule where they lose d3 or d6 or something instead. That would affect an MSU and full squad of the same unit the same way, and stop making it just a bad idea to run bigger squads in many situations.

-Horde models are good because the weapons that should kill them don't do their job well. Weapons that are historically meant to blow away hordes like the whirlwind castellan launcher, flamers, and other such things need to get an extra push against cheap bodies. I'd go to each problematic horde-style unit's data sheet and add something like a vulnerability to blasts and area effects, to where they get hit more by random-number-of-attacks guns and also may take damage from being close to another unit being hit by such a gun.

Really in the grand scope of the game, I don't have that many problems with it. Just a few core mechanics that need a bit of tightening up.

Keep it fairly simple and max 2 books/codexes.

IMO 8th edition has already jumped the shark, which is fine by me since I can avoid spending any more money on books and play other things until 9th. With that in mind, I will only comment on a full reset.

The quality standard for the 9th edition rule book needs to be at Bolt Action 2nd edition level. If they cannot start there then the gak-show will continue.

Lanrak wrote:
@Infantryman.
So you are not bothered about the lack of proportionality in the interaction then?And you are Ok with ''Hoard armies'' rolling bucket fulls of D12/D10?

Why wouldn't I be? It's not different from bucket fulls of d6.

@Infantryman.
It is quite different actually.
D6 are used in games where fast roll and fast read are important.(Eg where you are rolling more than a half a dozen dice at a time.)

Most game that use D10 and D20 etc only roll a few dice at a time.(Eg skirmish games or rolling for the effect of the entire unit.)

@Tokhuah.
Welcome to the ''ex GW fan club'', who are still waiting for GW plc to treat rules writing as it is treated in actual games companies.
(EG its actually supposed to focus on game play not short term sales.)

@Marxist artist.
GW are good at simple rules that are not up to the job.!
I would rather ask ..
''Keep the rules clear and concise and cover the intended game play.''

''.. And make the BETA rules and army lists a free down load.And ONLY after extensive play testing , by the customers , and extensive feed back, and adjustments.
Then sell the finished rule book with complete faction books...''
(Eg how game companies develop rules for publication. )

@niv-mizzet .
I have said i like a game system overall.
With just a couple of wonky rules interactions sorted out I am fine with the game system.

You have pointed out the core game mechanics do not work in 40k , which means the rules are broken beyond minor tweeks.
(Remember the few minor tweeks that took a team of professional game developers 19 years to totaly mess up 40k game play last time?)

@Valkyrie.
I think you mean..
I dislike the way GW make the game play over simple, and counter intuitive , and the rules over complicated?

GW fail to explain basic rules well enough, so thay make them simpler, so they can explain them better.
And end up with rules that lead to counter intuitive game play , along with loads of poorly explained ''all or nothing special rules' .Which just adds complication at the expense of game play.

I agree with the list of examples where the rules do not deliver expected game play.

As other war games can cover much more complex interactions with far fewer rules.It is possible to write clear concise rules for 40k.

Lanrak wrote:
@Infantryman.
It is quite different actually.
D6 are used in games where fast roll and fast read are important.(Eg where you are rolling more than a half a dozen dice at a time.)

Um.

Could you clarify how a d6 rolls and reads faster than a d10 or d12?

 Infantryman wrote:

Lanrak wrote:
@Infantryman.
It is quite different actually.
D6 are used in games where fast roll and fast read are important.(Eg where you are rolling more than a half a dozen dice at a time.)

Um.

Could you clarify how a d6 rolls and reads faster than a d10 or d12?

While not all that hard to read they are numbered so any that are not facing you will take a smidgen of time reading unless you are proficient at reading backwards, 6s and 9 confusion at times, rolling on the table directly where terrain or texture means more cocked dice.

its not much but it "could" add up.

 lolman1c wrote:
On my other thread talking about GW new beta approach I see a lot of people saying that the current devs are bad at their jobs and anybody would have made a better game. However, I've only very rarely ever seen someone actually laying out a tested and will thought out design document on how they would "fix" 40k. So I call a challenge! How would you fix all the current community problems with 40k?

Rules:
1. It can't just be you writing gibberish! You need to post a well constructed argument laying out the current flaws and how your changes "fix" them.
2. You may steal rules from other games.
3. You may outright scrap 40k rules and build your own from the ground up.
4. You can't attempt to fix one flaw. You have to list all the flaws you feel the games has and how they can be "fixed".
5. Your game doesn't have to be balanced just fun for everyone to play without anyone being stomped turn 1.
6. You can't delte factions or currently existing units.
7. If you have no ideas yourself then you are allowed to respond and reply to people's suggestions.

(More rules to be added if needed)

First problem:
Turn one matters too much.
Solution:
Some kind of penalty for going first, this should apply to both shooting and moving. My proposal is simple - no deep strikes on the first player's turn one. The player's units also counts as having spent half their movement already, which also means many of his weapons will fire at -1 BS.
The result would be, I hope, that some players would actually elect to go second in some cases.

Second problem:
I'm not too keen on templates having been replaced by D(x) shots. This makes former blast/flamer template weapons, that used to be good VS hordes but maybe mediocre VS tough single models, very good VS supposedly tough single models.
Solution:
Simply bring back templates. We don't need to bring back the scatter dice, a simple BS roll to either hit or miss works fine.

Third problem:
Make vehicles feel like vehicles again!
Solution:
Bring back armor values and different armor facings. If the armor is penetrated, then inflict damage. Keep the wounds - I agree that the damage tables were too random. To make things simpler in regards to deciding if you're rolling against side or front armor on non-rectangular vehicles, add an X to the blast templates, and center one over the vehicle you're shooting at.
I know many people didn't like that penetrating vehicles worked differently from wounding creatures, but that divide made it possible to make certain weapons great VS infantry and useless VS tanks, and other great VS tanks and inefficient VS infantry. And if we can deal with things like orders, strategems, tactical objectives etc., I'm sure this won't be too complex to fathom.
Ideally, an armor system should take AP values into account though. Let's say a Leman Russ will have a front AV of 16, and is targeted by a Lascannon. The Lascannon has S9 and AP-3, subtract the AP from the AV; 16-3=13. Then roll a D6, add it to the Lascannon's S and see if you roll equal or higher, like we used to do in the good old days. If you roll equal, it's a glancing hit and you inflict 1 wound, regardless of damage. If you roll higher, it's a penetrating hit and you inflict damage according to the weapon's profile.
Some weapons would roll 2D6 for penetration, and either pick the highest or add them together, or even pick the lowest if you will.

Fourth problem:
Cover. Adding to the armor save makes cover really good for models with already good armor saves, and almost useless for models with bad saves, as they'll still have their armor negated. The old system of a separate saving roll did the opposite, which was also a problem IMHO.
Solution:
-1 to hit models in cover.

Fifth problem:
Kill points negatively affecting armies with many cheap units.
Solution:
When you wipe a unit off the table, you earn kill points equaling that unit's points cost. Honestly I have no idea why we went away from this, it worked perfectly fine.
Obviously points from objectives should be adjusted accordingly.


That doesn't mean I hate the game as it is now, or that I want a return to 2nd ed. crazyness, but these are the fives things I most strongly want to change.

I've been trying to hack together a skirmish-scale 40k game based on my experiences with and observation of a bunch of games over the years; the rules aren't done yet, but some of my ramblings on the subject and some of the conclusions I've come to (2d6+stat v. target number for most rolls, alternating single-step activations, a 'hero resource') are linked to in my signature.

On Iolman's list of questions the aforementioned blog posts aren't gibberish but they haven't been edited and may be dense/difficult to comprehend (they make sense in my head, that frequently isn't sufficient), the system is a bizarre fusion of elements from Warmachine, Godslayer, Bolt Action, and a number of GW games, and I have enough brainstorming notes that I'm confident I can work everything in 40k (and some things that are in the lore and don't have models) that's appropriate in scale into my project eventually.

One thing I think 40k absolutely must do is abandon IGYG. In my opinion it's just a totally outdated way of doing things. And it creates inherent problems via alpha striking. Having a system of unit by unit activation would be so much better.

I'd have something like, 3 phases:

Tactical Phase: Player who's turn it is picks one unit to perform an action, then the other player picks one unit to perform an action and so on and so forth until everyone has performed an action.

Combat Phase: Player who's turn it is picks one unit within 3" of an enemy unit to pile in and attack, then the other player...you get the idea.

Morale Phase: Player who's turn it is takes a battle shock test for one unit, then the other player etc. etc.

Actions in the tactical phase would be things like:

1: Stand and fire (just shoot, usually with a bonus)
2: Move and fire (move then shoot, can end within 3" of enemy unit)
3: Advance (move with an extra D6", no shooting, can end within 3" of enemy unit)
4: Fire (just shoot)
5: Move (just move)
6: Retreat (move with an extra D6", no shooting, cannot end within 3" of enemy unit)

If there's an enemy unit within 3" of your unit when it's chosen to act, it can only perform actions 4, 5 and 6. Pinning type abilities like sniper rifles can limit the target to actions 4, 5 and 6 too.

Weapons would also fit three basic types: ranged (tactical phase only), melee (combat phase only) and assault (both!). The heavy ability would just be, under the weapons notes, "this weapon can only be used when performing a stand and fire action".

Just some food for thought.

I'd just sub in the Epic Armageddon rules. That game was great.

Wonder on a few simple things, like some basic fire arcs combine back to make facing of vehicles matter (especially fliers), perhaps a reduction in toughness for the rear 180 degree arc (or a reduction in save) by one pip

Maybe targets with ten or more wounds could be classified as large targets. They can singled out if they're characters, can't claim cover (?) and can only shoot in one direction each turn, which must be declared before doing so. This is a clumsy outline.

I agree with the scrapping of IGOUGO, but I also have some ideas about vehicles and heavy weapons.
First, graduated vehicle armor needs to come back. Best on the front, mediocre on the sides and crap on the back. Perhaps a way to expand the possible range of armor saves would be to include 1+/0+ saves, where you would need to have at least a -1/-2 AP to force the vehicle to take an armor save at all.
As means of compensation for this, some weapons will have a "Critical damage" rule. Their base damage would be D6, but on a 4-5, you add half the weapon's STR to the roll and on a 6 you add its entire STR to the roll. This way, it might be harder to punch through the front armor on some vehicles, but if you can get around the side, you might be able to kill certain vehicles in one shot. It brings back some of the cinematic drama that I think is missing from the game.
Finally, I think true line of sight for vehicle weapons needs to return. no more "Magic bullet" shots from a weapon that is facing away from the target.

I'll give it a shot:

Alternating Activations. For simplicity unit by unit. We goofed with this in WMH and it actually served to help curb the multi-solo problem since you had to weigh between moving a more solid multi-model unit or moving a critical support piece. It reduces player boredom and increases interaction. The tactical outlook of your opponent getting a move before you can get your 'bubble' in place is a great hold against some of those brick armies. Its a surprisingly easy rule to implement as well, with only a few model-specific rules needing tweaking.

Freestrikes: This will probably require some stat rebalancing, but allows units to exert a zone of control over a part of the map that can be contested and not just rushed past. With the risk of a free attack against someone leaving melee it actually can make a melee player sweat as the possible of a dice spike if they rush past those marines while the tau player finds they don't want to just fall back wily nilly.

Abstracted Line of Sight: Base Size will become a stat that predefines a set height. Terrain would be rounded to its closet 2 inches for large objects and barriers would be a predefined 1". This would really reduce some of the twiddly arguments that occur over LOS while speeding up play.

Formation Refactor: The 1" to the next model rule is clearly being abused as hell. I'd replace the morale stat with another defining how far apart the models can be from the unit leader. Cuts down on the rubber banding and makes figuring out if you are in formation much easier.

Max Strategem limit: Not in how many you can use but how many you can bring to a game. This way you can bring a couple for your list, a few for certain corner cases and have to really pick and choose if you are bringing multiple factions.

CP Bonus to more specific army faction keywords: So there's a whole lot of whining about soup lists from the more veteran players. Rather than punish the soup players for being fluffy, I'd have the more specific keywords tied to a positive CP bonus. If all of my formations are Chapter<BloodAngels> than I get a +2cp bonus. If the best I can do is <Imperium>, no bonus - but no punishment either.

Remove the Reinforcement Point System: It's a dumb rule that makes most related strategems and abilities not worth the points. Better to just reduce the power of those abilities and keep them balanced without the akwardness.

Remove the Morale system: I haven't seen a morale system that didn't make its user's terribly frustrated. Eitehr its a retreat mechanic that gets abused (it's 1 degree further away from enemy models soo..) or some really convoluted casualty mechanic that either punishes small units too much or large ones even worse. Instead, those units that are supposed to be morale-punishing would get a matching ability and weak 'conscript' style units would get a passive weakness that would activate after X number of casualties. It adds more to the datasheet, but solves a whole lot of headache for a mechanic only important for a handful of units.

Now for the big three:

Multi-mode for 'Named' Characters:
It's always weird to have a fluff character that has to be shoehorned into your list to get a specific ability. Instead I would make certain each 'named' character would have 2 datasheets - 1 for the actual named character (sly marbo) and another for a generic version (Catachan Commando) with a lower point cost, slightly diminished ability, but more options. So I could buy Sly Marbo, swap his ripper pistol for an inferno pistol (at the appropriate cost in points) and have my own customized model that I can name whatever the heck I want.

The Return of the Arc:
Large models and Vehicles need arcs. The classic Right,Left,Front,Back arc with weapons marked for which arcs they can shoot into. Anything with arcs would have a lower toughness for the rear arc (ie: 8/6). It encourages maneuver, especially of your bubblewrap since getting hit from the back becomes a lot scarier.

D10:
The more rules you add (natural as a game ages), the more problems you have with the limited range of bonuses from a d6. Every bonus adds or removes the chance of something happening by 16%. With a d8 you get more room, but given the sheer number of special rules in W40k we'd want to jump to D10. It would cause a riot for people with custom dice, but the change is needed to avoid the problem we see with the -1 bonus problem. This one requires a complete restatting, but would very much be worth it.

There would be some stat rebalancing, but I think it would strike a nice balance between fluff and clean gameplay.

GWS best system is the LOTR system. Real simple. You move, your opponent moves, you shoot, your opponent shoots, then you both fight. This simulates moving at the same time.

Or alternating unit. I move, shoot and charge 1 unit, then the opponent does.

SweetLou wrote:
GWS best system is the LOTR system. Real simple. You move, your opponent moves, you shoot, your opponent shoots, then you both fight. This simulates moving at the same time.

Or alternating unit. I move, shoot and charge 1 unit, then the opponent does.

They also made heroes really interesting by allowing them to futz with order of activations somewhat (loosely: a hero can declare a "heroic action" that lets them and a small group of nearby units act out of sequence (if you've lost priority and you're shooting second you can call a "heroic shot" to interrupt that), and in the case of the fight phase lets them fight multiple combats a turn).

SweetLou wrote:
GWS best system is the LOTR system. Real simple. You move, your opponent moves, you shoot, your opponent shoots, then you both fight. This simulates moving at the same time.

Or alternating unit. I move, shoot and charge 1 unit, then the opponent does.

Yeah except thats happening in a game where shooting isn't done by the vast majority of the units in the game and not at ranges that can span the entire table.

In 40k when your khorne bezerkers move forward or your whatevers deepstrike in, i just take my tau and step back to 12" away. Giving you the worst possible chance to succeed on a charge while letting me shoot the gak out of your melee units.

Alternating phases doesn't work in a game based around shooting that also has melee. longer ranged armies dominate shorter range and melee drastically.