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.

Lets look at my posts in this thread. Shall we?



My first post. I posted constructive criticisms of 2 of the types of problems I saw. I gave examples of why they were problems. And I finished with a statement saying these types of problems seem to permeate the whole document.

You of course, responded to none of my points and instead with sarcasm.



My second post. I told you directly I was not saying anything to insult you. I explained where complexity should arise from in a tight well made rule set. I gave an example of what good game play looks like. I re-emphasized the points I made in the first post. You more or less told me to feth off after this one along with flat out stating that I didn't read your rules despite me referencing them directly.

Lance845 wrote:Haha. Ok. Good luck with your game.

A pretty light hearted response from me considering the way you have acted thus far.

Lance845 wrote:Its always fun to see people assume it wasn't read and thus the criticism is invalid instead of hearing what they say.

I stand by this. It IS fun to see people assume things that are clearly untrue.



I have probably play tested close to a dozen systems posted onto this forum since I got involved in Proposed Rules. I have made several rule sets myself. I also went to school for and hold a degree in game design. You never played your own rule set before posting it here and only have 2 people lined up to try it. You never played games with similar rule sets but your defending yours with insults and sarcasm to those who have thus far tried to provide constructive criticism to you.



Again, I try to be constructive to you. I explain how your attitude is being destructive to your project. Your killing this thing before it really gets started.



And finally I give it a go to explain to you again from beginning to end what I have done thus far in this thread. Providing constructive criticism from the very first post to the very last.

I post here for the same reason I post anywhere. I feel like I will have some kind of fun or interest in the thread. I LIKE game mechanics. It's why I studied them. I will dig in to any rule set every time because dissecting them for interesting mechanics or ideas is incredibly appealing to me. And helping out those with less education in the practice can also be fun. I don't mind helping others refine their ideas and see if something really great can come out the other side.

No discussion on your rules right now will have any value if your attitude isn't fixed first.

 Lance845 wrote:

I post here for the same reason I post anywhere. I feel like I will have some kind of fun or interest in the thread. I LIKE game mechanics. It's why I studied them. I will dig in to any rule set every time because dissecting them for interesting mechanics or ideas is incredibly appealing to me. And helping out those with less education in the practice can also be fun. I don't mind helping others refine their ideas and see if something really great can come out the other side.

Well then, by all means let's start over. If you praise my rules, I promise to be nice... Just kidding. Please just focus on the rules and what would follow in a game because of the rules - good or bad would be the opinion of the players.

I'd say that we probably have to agree to disagree about alternative phases, but I'm ready to open a discussion/conversation about another topic.

I can add that if most people are really happy about the 8th edition rules, I don't think they would enjoy my rules sadly as I think the majority of players do not need that much depth in their games, if the game gets more complicated (even if we're not talking "over-complicated")

I am not going to participate in this discussion tip toeing around subjects because you decide you don't want to hear it.

You either want criticism or you don't.

To that end, your turn structure is at the very heart of your project. Instead of avoiding it why don't you explain it. I presented you with an example.

I play Tyranids. I have melee only units. Genestealers and Hormagaunts. Warriors and Shrikes if built that way. Hive Tyrants if built that way. Toxicrene, Dimacheron, venomthropes, malanthropes and more.

If in every other turn I move first before the Tau player I am facing moves, then all of those Melee only units have to move as close as possible to the Tau player to prepare for a charge phase. Specifically they have to move as close as possible to their intended charge targets.

AFTER they move the Tau player gets to move. What prevents them from putting unfavorable charge targets in front? (Moving an emptry Devilfish in front of the Hormagaunts instead of his Crisis Suits or Firewarriors) What prevents them from just moving as far back as possible? (Negating my ability to charge all together) What stops them from focusing all their shooting into the units that have revealed themselves as a threat so that he can negate that threat before it had a chance to do anything? (Making any dedicated melee units worthless and longer ranged shooting the clearly superior option in the game, hampering or crippling mid/short/melee ranged armies)

This is a very real issue inherent in alternating phases. What exactly in your rule system do you believe makes this a "non-issue"?

8th is both simple and shallow. You don't fix the shallowness problem by piling on complexity. 7th was incredibly complex but JUST as shallow as 8th. BTGOA and Bolt Action have much better tactical depth while not being anywhere near as complex as 7th.


A game being simple and a game having depth are not mutually exclusive. Poker is a simple game with a lot of depth.

Okay then, back on track! I do not have time today, but I'll give you a response tomorrow.

Okay, first let's take a look at the turn structure from the perspective of a more or less assault oriented army.

In 8th edition, if the assault oriented army has the first turn, it only has to endure one turn less of shooting compared to how many turns it moves and, in the end, charges.
In my version, the enemy will always have the chance to shoot the turn, the enemy charges.

It's correct that in every other turn, in my version, the enemy gets to move after you have moved, not taking into account that the initiative was seized. In every other turn one player has the advantage.
When it comes to the movement phase, it's correct that the enemy can try to block your charge and/or move back if he has the initiative, which he probably will have half of the game turns.
In the shooting phase the enemy always have a chance to shoot at the charging enemy.

Regarding this situation there are many factors:
How deadly are shooting attacks?
How far can the shooting unit move?
How much are shooting attacks reduced if you move and fire?
By moving away, a shooting army gives up board control - is that important?
Do transports still come cheap?
And there is the obvious one: how much do shooting units cost compared to assault units?

Any of the above mentioned can be tweaked to make a balanced game. What if the armies of 8th edition were transferred to a game with alternating phases except T'au, the point costs of their units were raised sky high, so a 2000 points T'au army would consist of one Devilfish and one Strike Team? Who would complain then?

It seems like you always look at the glass as half empty and that your Tyranid army always is fethed, when you ask "What exactly in your rule system do you believe makes this a "non-issue"?" You could have asked that in your first post instead of assuming that I wouldn't take the advantages a shooting army has into account. If I hadn't done that and I refused never to do so, I'd agree that this would be a bad game, but what have I done? Only by knowing that, can you judge my game. I can only say that of course am I aware of the possibility to favour one type of army more than another, but I do what I can to balance the armies, including assault-only oriented armies.

Additionally one also can take the following important points into account:
1. Pinning is introduced which is an advantage for shooting armies.
2. Only in the Assault Phase can units break.
3. I've reintroduced Target Priority which is an advantage for assault armies, especially the Tyranids.
4. Units can disembark from transports as part of a charge move, so can stay embarked in transports in the shooting phase - also an advantage for assault armies.
5. Last (as far as I remember) but certainly not least, in a IGYG system a player of a shooting army can always move his units so to maximise the outcome of his shooting phase - this is only possible half of the game turns with my rules.

Chaospling wrote:
Okay, first let's take a look at the turn structure from the perspective of a more or less assault oriented army.

In 8th edition, if the assault oriented army has the first turn, it only has to endure one turn less of shooting compared to how many turns it moves and, in the end, charges.
In my version, the enemy will always have the chance to shoot the turn, the enemy charges.

It's correct that in every other turn, in my version, the enemy gets to move after you have moved, not taking into account that the initiative was seized. In every other turn one player has the advantage.
When it comes to the movement phase, it's correct that the enemy can try to block your charge and/or move back if he has the initiative, which he probably will have half of the game turns.
In the shooting phase the enemy always have a chance to shoot at the charging enemy.

Regarding this situation there are many factors:
How deadly are shooting attacks?
How far can the shooting unit move?
How much are shooting attacks reduced if you move and fire?
By moving away, a shooting army gives up board control - is that important?
Do transports still come cheap?
And there is the obvious one: how much do shooting units cost compared to assault units?

Any of the above mentioned can be tweaked to make a balanced game.

No they cannot.

There is a baseline thing called inherent value. If I have 2 units and one of them serves no actual purpose in the game then it doesn't matter how cheap I make them they will not be taken. Likewise If I buy a unt that has an impact every turn of the game or one that is undermined every other turn of the game, EVEN if the second one costs half as much, I am going to fill my army with 100% effective units because they will remove models from my enemy more reliably. If my Hormagaunts get dropped to 2 ppm to make up for the fact that they are a purely melee unit with weak armor, 1w, and a middling WS to balance out the sheer number of attacks they will be laying down then they will STILL be worthless when my unit of 30 becomes less than 10 because they are incapable of reaching the targets they are built to hurt with any kind of numbers that allows them to actually hurt them.

Further, if you make shooting less deadly then we have a dragged out game where people are rolling a bunch of dice to no actual effect. Which isn't fun for anybody.

What if the armies of 8th edition were transferred to a game with alternating phases except T'au, the point costs of their units were raised sky high, so a 2000 points T'au army would consist of one Devilfish and one Strike Team? Who would complain then?

The point I was making was not that Tau are broken. It was that if you take any 2 armies and place them on the field the one with more longer ranged fire power has a clear distinct advantage because getting to attack is better than not getting to attack. It doesn't have to be melee. Salamanders and Sister of Battle make use of a lot of flamers. Well... what are all these 8" range weapons supposed to do against necrons with their 24"+ weapons? They walk into range to shoot the flamers and the necrons take a step back out of range and just shoot them.

It seems like you always look at the glass as half empty and that your Tyranid army always is fethed, when you ask "What exactly in your rule system do you believe makes this a "non-issue"?" You could have asked that in your first post instead of assuming that I wouldn't take the advantages a shooting army has into account. If I hadn't done that and I refused never to do so, I'd agree that this would be a bad game, but what have I done? Only by knowing that, can you judge my game. I can only say that of course am I aware of the possibility to favour one type of army more than another, but I do what I can to balance the armies, including assault-only oriented armies.

I own Tau Tyranids and Necrons and I have played Spacewolves,Dark Angles, and AM. This isn't "Woe is me for my army". This is what I said in the first post. Alternating phases is a terrible system that causes inherent unbalance. None of the things you listed address the core actual issue created by the system.

Additionally one also can take the following important points into account:
1. Pinning is introduced which is an advantage for shooting armies.
2. Only in the Assault Phase can units break.
3. I've reintroduced Target Priority which is an advantage for assault armies, especially the Tyranids.
4. Units can disembark from transports as part of a charge move, so can stay embarked in transports in the shooting phase - also an advantage for assault armies.
5. Last (as far as I remember) but certainly not least, in a IGYG system a player of a shooting army can always move his units so to maximise the outcome of his shooting phase - this is only possible half of the game turns with my rules.

1) I noticed. I wanted to get more into the bigger over all problems before I got into the smaller individual ones. Others noted how bad stun mechanics are earlier in the thread. We can get to that latter.
2) They have to get assaulted first. There in lies the issue.
3) Again, only if they can make contact with enough of the unit intact to accomplish anything.
4) Good! But they can still only assault 12" away right?
5) IGOUGO is ALSO a bad system because it creates a shallow game experience and single handedly manufactures first turn advantage. I am not lobbying for a return to IGOUGO. I am simply pointing out how bad alternating phases are and the imbalances you have built into your game.

 Lance845 wrote:

No they cannot.

There is a baseline thing called inherent value. If I have 2 units and one of them serves no actual purpose in the game then it doesn't matter how cheap I make them they will not be taken. Likewise If I buy a unt that has an impact every turn of the game or one that is undermined every other turn of the game, EVEN if the second one costs half as much, I am going to fill my army with 100% effective units because they will remove models from my enemy more reliably.

But what does a subject consisting of a unit, that serves no purpose in the game, add to our conversation?

 Lance845 wrote:

If my Hormagaunts get dropped to 2 ppm to make up for the fact that they are a purely melee unit with weak armor, 1w, and a middling WS to balance out the sheer number of attacks they will be laying down then they will STILL be worthless when my unit of 30 becomes less than 10 because they are incapable of reaching the targets they are built to hurt with any kind of numbers that allows them to actually hurt them.

1. Aren't the Hormagaunts still too few then?
or
2. Aren't the Hormagaunts too weak then?
or
3. Aren't the shooting attacks too deadly?

These and other parameters can't be touched to make the game balanced? Shooting attacks are just too good that nothing can bring balance to such a game?

 Lance845 wrote:

Further, if you make shooting less deadly then we have a dragged out game where people are rolling a bunch of dice to no actual effect. Which isn't fun for anybody.

So we don't even have a reference point or talking about how less deadly we're making shooting attacks - the game goes straight from nothing can balance out the shooting attacks to shooting attacks have no effect.

 Lance845 wrote:

The point I was making was not that Tau are broken. It was that if you take any 2 armies and place them on the field the one with more longer ranged fire power has a clear distinct advantage because getting to attack is better than not getting to attack. It doesn't have to be melee. Salamanders and Sister of Battle make use of a lot of flamers. Well... what are all these 8" range weapons supposed to do against necrons with their 24"+ weapons? They walk into range to shoot the flamers and the necrons take a step back out of range and just shoot them.

So are you saying that the only parameter which counts is the range of the weapons? Nothing can outweigh this parameter?


In short, aren't we disagreeing if an army can be as powerful as an army which have longer ranges for their weapons?

No. My examples are clearly confusing you.

In igougo each unit gets to act in a meaningful way. It can move into position, shoot its gun, and charge before the enemy gets to respond. The unit has agency because it gets to impact the game. The problem is they all do it at once and the enemy has nothing to do but sit there and take it.

This is terrible because its boring. Its uninteresting. It makes for a shallow tactical experience. And it inherently provides a massive first turn advantage.

In alt phases, an entire army moves first. Which reveals to the enemy what they plan to do (but havent done yet) and then the enemy gets to react, before they actually get to do anything. And those defensive movements, can negate the plans of the first players movements.

BECAUSE of that, the longer the range a unit has the more likely that 1) they will still get to act after the second player moves and 2) get to act after moving out of the first players kill box.

There is a critical tipping point where units become truely viable thats roughly equal to the average movement distance of units x2 (there are other variables but i dont really want to calculate out the formula for something that should be obviously bad without the hard math). Any unit with a range less than that value is at a disadvantage due to the turn structure. This disadvantage becomes exponentially more of a disadvantage the shorter their range is. Any unit with a range greater than that value becomes exponentially more valuable.

This isn't based on how easy/hard it is to kill something. It isnt based on point values. Its based entirely on the likelyhood that a unit is going to be able to do anything at all. Getting to attack is more valuable than not getting to attack. When you give the second player free reign to negate the actions of the first (so long as range is in their favor) you inherently unbalance the game against shorter range/melee units/armies.

This is terrible.

Now, with this next part i have been trying to avoid injecting my own preferences because this is your project not mine and i dont want you to make my game i want you to make the best version of YOUR game. But...

Alt unit activations has a player pick a single unit, move, shoot, and charge. The enemy then picks 1 unit and returns the favor. Each activation has agency because it gets to impact the game before the enemy responds, but the enemy STILL gets to respond.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
One more set of examples.

Flamers have an average 8" range. If the first player has a flamer they have to get into (8-targets movement speed) range to garantee that they can fire their gun.

That means if the model with the flamer is anything more than 2" away from a average movement speed 6 model then in the second players movement phase all they have to do is step backwards.

Since most infantry weapons have roughly 12" ranges the flamer models/units are likely to get shot off the board without ever using their gun.

Many pistols have 6" ranges. Its impossible for player 1 to move into a range that garantees they can shoot their gun.

Because charging is a max 12" away it is essentially a 12" gun that has to shoot after all the other shooting and with extra steps. In order to garantee the ATTEMPT to charge you have to end your move within 6" of a enemy unit and HOPE they don't put unfavorable targets in the way to roadblock you.

 Lance845 wrote:


There is a critical tipping point where units become truely viable thats roughly equal to the average movement distance of units x2 (there are other variables but i dont really want to calculate out the formula for something that should be obviously bad without the hard math). Any unit with a range less than that value is at a disadvantage due to the turn structure. This disadvantage becomes exponentially more of a disadvantage the shorter their range is. Any unit with a range greater than that value becomes exponentially more valuable.

I roughly agree, but

1. don't you think there are other parameters which decide the value of a unit?

2. why can't the point cost just reflect these values and thereby make the game balanced?

Don't you think that we just have to agree about disagreeing about this subject? It's an interesting subject of course but neither of us will convince the other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

One more set of examples.

Flamers have an average 8" range. If the first player has a flamer they have to get into (8-targets movement speed) range to garantee that they can fire their gun.

That means if the model with the flamer is anything more than 2" away from a average movement speed 6 model then in the second players movement phase all they have to do is step backwards.

Since most infantry weapons have roughly 12" ranges the flamer models/units are likely to get shot off the board without ever using their gun.

I agree, such a battle would not be balanced.

1) i said other variables exist. They just dont matter as much when the end result is you dont get to attack.

2) what point value do you assign to a unit that cannot shoot its gun?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chaospling wrote:

I agree, such a battle would not be balanced.

But the second player doesn't have that issue. Because the first player already moved the second player only has to end his move 8" away to garantee that he can shoot his flamer.

How are you planning to assign a point value to that? Something that when it moves first is crippled and when it moves second is highly valued?

Again, longer range shooting is exponentially more valuable while shorter and melee is exponentially worse. Tau vs orks, or nids, or khorne, or blood angles.

 Lance845 wrote:

2) what point value do you assign to a unit that cannot shoot its gun?

Maybe one which would allow the unit to take a fast transport which could take the unit within range.

I see your points, I just don't find your examples relevant because a normal game would include much more. As I wrote, I agreed about your example, I just don't find it relevant compared to a normal game.

Hehe it's hard to not answer you, but I really can't keep discussing this as I don't think we get anywhere.

So, what do my Daemons army do?

I run Plaguebearers, Plague Drones, Heralds of varying types, a Prince, and some Nurglings.

How do they get anything done, when the enemy can back away every time I advance towards them?

Tyranids have a single transport in the form of a drop pod. Deamons have no transports at all.

Its also poor design to shackle one unit to a second to be effective. Each unit should have some value on its own. Not require a second simply to function.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, what do my Daemons army do?

I run Plaguebearers, Plague Drones, Heralds of varying types, a Prince, and some Nurglings.

How do they get anything done, when the enemy can back away every time I advance towards them?

You are both making so many assumptions (seeing the glass as half empty) that is to your disadvantage:

Apparently
1. Board control doesn't mean anything.
2. Moving doesn't reduce shooting attacks at all.
3. The Board is endlessly big, so the enemy can back away forever.
4. Your models are as fast or slower as those of your opponents - you can never catch them.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

Its also poor design to shackle one unit to a second to be effective. Each unit should have some value on its own. Not require a second simply to function.

Well the unit with the short range has the fire power and the transport has the speed. Are you now saying that units shouldn't complement each other? We are playing armies against each other, surely it's fun to have one's force work together.

It's been fun guys, but I have to stop for tonight.

Chaospling wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, what do my Daemons army do?

I run Plaguebearers, Plague Drones, Heralds of varying types, a Prince, and some Nurglings.

How do they get anything done, when the enemy can back away every time I advance towards them?

You are both making so many assumptions (seeing the glass as half empty) that is to your disadvantage:

Apparently
1. Board control doesn't mean anything.
2. Moving doesn't reduce shooting attacks at all.
3. The Board is endlessly big, so the enemy can back away forever.
4. Your models are as fast or slower as those of your opponents - you can never catch them.

We are basing this on having play tested this mechanic before.

1) its far easier to control the board when you have numerical superiority. Step 1 is to take a clear advantage in that arena so that your opponent no longer has the man power to come back from it. I dont need to back away all game. I just need to back away long enough to cripple your chances of winning.

2) a reduced shooting attack is far superior to no shooting attack every time.

3) see 1. I dont need to back away forever. Just long enough.

4) speed is a factor yes. Thats why its so powerful to know where player 1 ends their move before you commit to making any of your own. Also the reverse is true. A slow army will never catch a fast one.

You have said we are making assumptions several times now. It's not assumptions. It's not even just experience.

It's math. I can mathematically prove that alternating phases creates imbalance like I did with the flamers. But that isn't even the worst of it. WORSE, you created a system of pinning that can be exploited easier by the same units/armies that gain the most benefit from the alternating phases set up than it can by the short range/melee units that suffer the most under it.

If you want to use alternating phases in a war game , you have to design the game with this in mind.
Current 40k is such a mess of different concepts and ideas ,trying to fix it by adding even more rules , without looking at the core issues in the game play .is just going to end up with another different type of complicated rule set, that does not quite work.

@Chaospling.
What do you think are the core issues with the current 40k game play?

@Lance845
What do you think are to core issues with the current 40k game play?

This seems like a silly question, but when some players see 40k as massive intergalactic strategy sci 'fantasy battle game'.And others think of it a large 'skirmish sized sci fi RPG'.

Finding out 2 different 40k players want different things from a 'improved rule set' is not surprising.

Lanrak wrote:


@Chaospling.
What do you think are the core issues with the current 40k game play?

Hey Lanrak,

Well, this thread isn't for discussing game design in general but who can resist such a polite attitude

I do not have an opinion about the current 40k game play when it comes to issues and such. I think that they successfully have obtained what they wanted with 8th edition - it's just not me.

I do not regard 40kD10: Edge of Revitalization as a fix as so much is different, it's actually a completely new game with the 40k feel. One of my goals was to keep the 40k feeling and it feels like that to me, but already when the dice were changed to D10, I think that a lot would not agree on this.

@Chaospling.
Ok you have written a completely new game with a '40k feel'.

So what core game play issues did you have with GWs 40k game ?You obviously wanted your game to be different enough to fix your perceived issues with GW s version.But keep some elements to appeal to 40k players.
(Otherwise it would be Chaosplings war game, with no reference to 40k at all. )

So what game play issues you have with with GWs 40k game play.To make you want to write a new rule set to address them?
I am asking so I have a clear idea what you want from your new rule set so I can make comments /suggestions in line with your personal goals.

I think alternating phases would be good in a 40k type game.But due to the complexity of GWs 40k,the rest of the game play has to be rewritten with this game turn mechanic in mind.(As all 40k rules and codex are written for alternating game turns, they need lots of adjustments to work with the new game mechanic.)

I think this is where Lance 845 has issues with your rules set.(Please correct me If I am wrong on this.)

Lanrak wrote:
@Chaospling.
Ok you have written a completely new game with a '40k feel'.

So what core game play issues did you have with GWs 40k game ?You obviously wanted your game to be different enough to fix your perceived issues with GW s version.But keep some elements to appeal to 40k players.
(Otherwise it would be Chaosplings war game, with no reference to 40k at all. )

So what game play issues you have with with GWs 40k game play.To make you want to write a new rule set to address them?
I am asking so I have a clear idea what you want from your new rule set so I can make comments /suggestions in line with your personal goals.

I think alternating phases would be good in a 40k type game.But due to the complexity of GWs 40k,the rest of the game play has to be rewritten with this game turn mechanic in mind.(As all 40k rules and codex are written for alternating game turns, they need lots of adjustments to work with the new game mechanic.)

I think this is where Lance 845 has issues with your rules set.(Please correct me If I am wrong on this.)

Well, my perceived issues weren't based that much on rules per se, but rather on how much the rules reflected the background, both accurately (how tough some models should be) and the diversity between so many races and their units. So it wasn't that I needed to change to rules just because I thought the rules were wrong, but I just couldn't find the potential in them to make a "fix", and so I had to come up with something new: D10, new profiles for models and weapons and so on.

More directly related to rules was the need of a more challenging and tactical game and less of the famous "down time" and that's why I wanted alternating phases and the possibility to seize a phase for a single detachment and to make your own objectives, which would open up for so many possibilities.

I guess this is a short answer for such a comprehensive question and it's actually difficult to answer, because, what came first?: the background you want a game to represent or the rules? Well, you have to know the background before you can come up with the necessary rules, but in this case some rules already existed and you didn't think they did the background justice, so they needed to be rewritten.

@Chaospling.
The rules set the framework for the game play, which sets how the elements/units in the game interact.

if you are trying to cover an entire galaxy of wildly different races and factions, all with a large range of units. Then you need core rules that cover this wide level of variety.

And GWs solution of simple core rules and load of special rules,(exceptions.) Does not really cover it for some.

If most units in the game have ranged weapons, then basing the stat line and interaction on ancient warfare where shooting is only used in a supporting role.
Could be seen as problematic.

Similarly alternating unit activation is great in game where models/units have to move into weapons range over a few turns.
However, as most units in 40k start or can be in weapons range after turn 1.This can be seen as problematic.

I agree that a fresh start rule set with a 40k feel is probably the right solution.But I think you may have not filtered out all the anomalies from GWs rule set .

I have already talked about this with you extensively Lanrak. Im not getting into it again. We already know that i dont agree with your philosophy or general hypothetical approach to broad concept game design as some super necessary step when people already answered those questions in the first post.

Lanrak wrote:
@Chaospling.
The rules set the framework for the game play, which sets how the elements/units in the game interact.

if you are trying to cover an entire galaxy of wildly different races and factions, all with a large range of units. Then you need core rules that cover this wide level of variety.

And GWs solution of simple core rules and load of special rules,(exceptions.) Does not really cover it for some.

If most units in the game have ranged weapons, then basing the stat line and interaction on ancient warfare where shooting is only used in a supporting role.
Could be seen as problematic.

Similarly alternating unit activation is great in game where models/units have to move into weapons range over a few turns.
However, as most units in 40k start or can be in weapons range after turn 1.This can be seen as problematic.

I agree that a fresh start rule set with a 40k feel is probably the right solution.But I think you may have not filtered out all the anomalies from GWs rule set .

Thank you for your input, though we have also discussed this before, and as you can see, I have made up my mind of what I wanted to keep to keep the 40k feeling and what needed to change. You can only discuss so much before the test games take over and supply one with answers.

Thoughts for week 29: Crew members

Hey guys,

Continuing the thought for week 28, which introduced the Remote Controlled special rule, week 29 looks into crew members and what this "system" does.

Every vehicle has crew members - the Imperial Armour books have been used as reference. This has been done to reflect background in greater detail. The crew members and their possible actions are shown below. This means that the Astartes' vehicles actually have a disadvantage, as their vehicles have less crew members than those of, let's say, the Astra Militarum. To balance this, special rules could be made to balance this isolated, but keeping in mind that I also wanted armies to be more cohesive, such a problem can be a possibility in disguise, and that's why the Remote Controlled special rule and the Weapon Link was invented for Space Marine forces.

I am noticing a trend.

What armies do you play?

 Lance845 wrote:
I am noticing a trend.

What armies do you play?

Anything Chaos... Though I have a crush on Astra Militarum.

Chaospling wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I am noticing a trend.

What armies do you play?

Anything Chaos... Though I have a crush on Astra Militarum.

Chaos is pretty diverse. Do you own Tzneetch deamons? Khorne? Chaos Marine generic edition or one of the special snow flakes (death guard/TSons)?

Khorne in general (World Eaters and Khorne Daemons), Iron Warriors and some Death Guard, though I could start a Word Bearers, Alpha Legion and/or Night Lords army anytime.
I've started on an Iron Warriors codex, and I haven't come to the vehicles yet, but I can't decide if the Weapon Link should be a lost wargear to Chaos Space Marines like so much else which have been lost in time...

Does any of this fit the trend, which you've noticed?

Yup. Your primarily Chaos Marines. Which, by and large, are a lot like a slightly different flavor of regular marines.

The special rules you have posted so far fit for marines and imperium at large (it's not like Astra militarum vehicles won't have basically all the same rules) and chaos marines by extension. But it also means these rules don't fit by and large with other armies in the game.

A Ghost Ark for example has no crew but 2 racks of guns and a single Driver. How would that be handled?

Tau Tanks are driven by a single Driver. Are hammer heads going to have to choose between moving and shooting? What happens with a devilfish? Same choice? move or shoot it's gun/s?

Are things like Knights going to be considered a vehicle? How are you going to handle their many guns/movement?

How about some of the bigger tanks? Are you just going to make up additional crew for a baneblade?

I imagine the distinguishing characteristic of a "pilot" is they drive fliers while Drivers handle non-Flyer vehicles. You COULD designate the ghost arks single crew as a Pilot, but then the ghost ark JUST gets to do everything every turn while the Imperium vehicles have to go through all the complexity of assigning crew to actions.

Players who tend to mostly play Imperium or imperium like armies often invent rules that flesh out and seem fluffy for the vehicles and fluff they have but don't mesh on any level with the rest of the game or leave an army or 2 as odd men out that just don't work. Thats the pattern I noticed. Your laying all this groundwork and it's going to require cumbersome patches or piles of unique special rules to give any semblance of balance to the other guys. More fair and easier to just let let vehicles do their jobs instead of spending action after action for a single model to see what it can and cannot do this turn.

Tau battlesuits, Dreadnoughts and the like, Knights and even normal Necron Warriors will have a single pilot. Additionally T'au will have AI systems operating as crew members. I haven't started on a Necron codex yet, but take a look at the T'au codex and the wargear they have.

So battlesuiys, dreads, and knights have to choose between movement and shooting?