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.

Hi all.
Having converted several rule set to play games of 40k with.Because my gaming group and I are not fans of using GWs rules for 40k.

I thought I would have a go at writing a rules set , based on the game mechanics and resolution from lots of popular modern rules sets.Picking the ones that seemed to give the best fit for the game play the 40k background suggests.

This is just a rough draught of the basic rules covering the core game mechanics and resolution methods I want to use.
There is no START to my desk top publishing skills, so please excuse the poor format and lay out.

I have done limited play testing on these rules .BUT I would like input from a wider audience , to help me refine them .
I have not included charts, and diagrams, or the section on how to set up the table and organize a battle and the new F.O.C.etc
As I want to get the basics sorted out first.

These are completely different to current 40k rules.So if you are looking for a 'cleaned up 40k clone', this is not it.

Also they may not be explained too well, so please feel free to ask questions, and I will give examples and explanations as appropriate.(And update and amend the rules as necessary) .

Also IF this project has no interest to you, PLEASE do not post.
If you are happy with GW current 40k rules , with or without house rules.You have the rules you want to use.

Please let others try to develop the rules they might prefer to use, without interference.

Remember GW plc have been developing the 40k battle game rules for FIFTEEN YEARS , with a team of professional game developers. And the resources of a multi-million pound multinational company.

The attached PDF, is just an amateur gamer , throwing some ideas together a few months of limited play testing.

Ok lets hit the good points first:

The modifiers for shooting are interesting and seem like they would work well, and the new 3 state morale system is exciting and i like how there are suppression reactions the player can take. If I'm reading this right, you only measure the distance the leader may move, then place the other models inconsistency with him, which should massively speed up movement, even if some cheese will be had with this method, and i like how leaders in general are more than slightly upgraded models and instead actually function as a leader would be expected to. Being able to attack the crew of exposed artillery gives a fun counter to their shooting strength, and i like how multiple model units and single model units are very clearly defined and explained for each rule and circumstance. While the command phase/orders really isn't my style, i think its well thought out and open to tactical choices. Splitting damage effects on single model units into mobility and weaponry is a wonderful idea, and makes them much more interesting, even if armor facings on monsters feels weird. Finally, the document is laid out very well, with strong distinctions and clear transitions from one topic to the next.

The bad:
-using GW pictures is a risky choice considering their legal team
-terminology changes from place to place, such as mobility value and speed value describing the same thing almost back to back
-I was really looking forward to a section describing in-detail how command re-rolls would work, but I could only find them in one small section in the characteristic section, which while enough to have it function, they need more room to be expanded upon
-I noticed a general deficit of examples, these are critical in making sure your rules are clear and properly implemented. Small examples of combat and movement are very useful for explaining these things.
-The CAPTIALIZED words spread around are distracting and far too obvious of an attempt to capture the readers attention towards certain points of order
-the movement drop of jump infantry and walking infantry by 1" seems incredibly arbitrary, especially when everything else is still measured in 6" slots
- could just be a matter of personal taste, but the cover system seems overly complex, there's a whole bunch of different types of terrain and movement effects on that chart, and the effects are just a bit too small to be worth the changes.
-in the jump jet section for movement it refers to height level, but I can't seem to find any other reference to this system
-having the targeting zone for shooting is a very cool idea, but I can't tell if multiple model units are allowed to split fire or not
-how removal of weapon destroyed results is handled is not explained, and frankly that's a lot of points to have to lose to wreck a vehicle. A stormbolter and hunter-killer missile is a 25 point upgrade that will improve most vehicles survivability 50% or more. Maybe look at classifying some weapons as primary armaments and some as secondary, and secondary do not count towards preventing wrecking effects.
-the OK morale state should probably be renamed, the other states are exciting and fluffy, OK seems like a placeholder.
-i don't think blast weaponry is described anywhere beyond one example which doesn't make it clear how they operate
-suppressing individual models with saved wounds would be slow and confusing, maybe look at some sort of group effect that all suppression effects are placed into, and beyond a certain number, the unit is suppressed.
-general wording clean up, some places it switches between "unit" and "models" so those need to be better defined
-the effective range of weaponry is described as dependent on the models skill, but no explanation of how this system would work is given. Again, examples are a must-have for something as crucial to the system as this.


So yeah, extremely well done overall with great ideas, but they need some cleanup and polish to really shine.

Hi Rav1rn.
Thanks for the feed back.

I have no DTP skills and I know the presentation was not too good.The pictures are just place holders Lee used to structure the document.(They will be replaced before we release it as a free down load, when the rules are eventually finished.)

It is a WIP and we are still finalizing the rules , and so some of the wording and terminology is a bit hit an miss.And we have not got around to putting all the examples in yet.

This rules development was me just trying to approach 40k as a battle game , scaling up good ideas from 6mm to 15 mm battle games for use with 28mm heroic minatures.
(The use of a 'virtual base' a set coherency from the unit leader was the key IMO.)

Now to reply to some of your more specific comments..

The command re rolls have been used in a generic way in play testing.(Eg allowed to be used for any single dice roll.) However I was thinking about making the re rolls more race/army specific with the independant character models.This area does need more development and explanation I agree.


I wanted to have a spread of value for infantry movement types .
I know just 1" difference does not seem much .But a slow infantry unit moving 'at the double' for 2 turns will be out paced by a fast infantry unit by 8" taking the same orders.
I also wanted most infantry to have a reason to use transports!

The TERRAIN movement modifiers may seem a bit too detailed.BUT I would like how a unit moves to be more detailed , to allow the differences to show on the table.I want there to be a reason to use attack bikes as opposed to land speeders over different terrain.
(How a unit moves and interacts with terrain is very important way to help define units abilities in the game IMO.)

The height levels are simply the equivelant height of floors on a scale building.(I forgot to put that in. )

The targeting zone applies to ALL unit types.Its the simplest way I could think of to allow reasonable splitting of fire on nearby targets.

In the new rules weapon destroyed results stand, and are not repaired! A lot of the 'fiddely' stuff in GW 40k rules will not be ported over.

When I get around to converting the 40k units to the new army lists, I intend to have single model units in light, medium and heavy classes.Each class will have a set number of structure/wounds .Secondary weapons will NOT add structure points.(Light 3, medium 4 , heavy 5 for example.)

I cant think of another name for units that are on OK morale ?Could you suggest one?

I do need to explain blast effects better.I was simply going to use attacker places blast on target unit when a successful roll to hit .Misses have no effect.
(I am not a fan of scatter for direct fire weapons.)

Indirect fire scatters D6 if friendly unit observing intended target.Owner of attacking unit places blast template .
if firing blind it scatters 2x D6, and the owner of targeted unit places blast template.(Speculative bombardments rarely land on target!)'

How I intended to apply suppresion ...
If a model in a multiple model unit fails its armour save it is placed CAREFULLY on its side .If it looses all its wounds (structure for mechanical units,) it is removed from play as a casualty.

If a unit suffers over 50% of its starting strength in suppression or casualties, the UNIT becomes suppressed.(Place a Suppressed counter next to the unit and stand any suppressed models back up.)

Has this quick run through made it a bit clearer?

Quite simply the better the BS skill of the model the longer the effective range of the unit with that weapon.
(Better shots can hit targets further away.)
EG.
IG white shield with Lasgun effective range 20"
IG standard squad with lasgun effective range 24"
IG vet squad with lasguns effective range 28"

(Actual variations from standard ranges in Current 40k will be defined after much more play testing!)

How refined the striking skill of the model is in assault effects the AP value of the close assault weapon, and how strong they are effects the damage.The number of attacks they get with the weapon is listed under 'Effect' .This shows how skilled they are at landing blows, either through frenzied onslaught, or agile out manouvering of the opponent.

I am aware there is a lot of work to do on presentation, and clarification.
But I am glad you like most of the new concepts and the general structure of the new rules.

I am slowly learning how to do stuff on my computer.(Hopefully my eldest son will help me with some unit card mock ups.)

I appreciate the feed back it has been very helpful.

This rules development was me just trying to approach 40k as a battle game , scaling up good ideas from 6mm to 15 mm battle games for use with 28mm heroic minatures.
(The use of a 'virtual base' a set coherency from the unit leader was the key IMO.)

this is probably my favorite part of your ruleset, because I want move away from current 40K wounding system to something halfway between this and epic, hopefully combining the best of both systems. I also love the target area idea, because it allows for tactical positioning to be a bigger part of the game, and allows for split fire without it becoming ridiculous. If it's ok with you, I might borrow some of these ideas for my own project. One cool idea i had in this department is an independent character may spend a command point to designate a target zone, and any friendly unit within their command range may treat it as if their own unit leader had designated it. Talk about force multiplier!

I agree with most of your ideas towards the points i brought up, i just wanted to get out there, good to know youre still putting this thing together and polishing it, I'd like to see it as it develops.

Instead of OK morale, maybe operational, normal, functional, there's a lot of words out there to mean the same thing, but sound a lot better for the tone being set.

Hi Rav!rn.
Feel free to use some of these ideas if they are helpful to you.I would just like a rule set we can use for 40k that has been developed for its intended game play .
It may take a while , but I am not bothered who gets there first,As long as some one does!

Some feed back suggested useing a D6 for everything to start with.I can sort of see the logic in this.
Here are the revised stats for Morale and Stealth rolling D6 for the tests.

Morale.
Fearless 1+
Elite 2+
Veteran 3+
Average 4+
Cowardly /Mindless 5+

Stealth.
Large vehicles/MCs .2+
Medium vehicles /Mcs large infantry units.3+
Small vehicles , medium infantry units 4+
Small infantry units 5+
Single infantry model 6+

Although there is not as much granularity in these values , they do use simple modifiers , which gives more variation.This may be enough hopefully.

I view the WIP rules at the moment as the finalized starting point for development .
Hopefully I can tidy / polish these up to a decent standard.Then develop a unit cards template to a good standard.

Then port over the units from 40k to the new rules format, ready for mass group play testing....

Rather than capitalize key words and points in the text would colouring them be better?

I intend to use a glossary of terms at the end of the rules , to help define the rules better.

Hi again.
After play testing and suggestions we have changed the way we resolve damage a bit.(To make it more straight forward.)

Roll to hit is still based on the targets Stealth (for ranged attacks) and Assault value (for close combat.).

Roll to save is still Armour value +D6 roll , compared to the weapon hit armour penetration value.

However, the damage resolution has been cleaned up a bit.
All weapon have a damage roll value. The score needed on a D6 to cause damage.
This is modified by target resilience.

Eg a Boltgun has a Damage rating of 3 +
A model with a resilience of 1 takes damage from the Boltgun on a roll of 4+
(3+ add 1 = 4+)

A model with a resilience value of 3, would be damaged by the bolt gun on a roll of 6+
(3+ add 3 = 6+)

This keeps the same 3 step process from 40k .
Roll to hit .
Roll to save.
Roll to damage.

But because the order is in a more intuitive order, and the results are more proportional and varied.
Additional resolution methods to cover units that fall outside 40k limited resolutions are not needed.

What do you folks think of the new method?

I know you have a free right to do what you want, but i dont see why people play GW games yet they moan first of all about the price, secondly they moan about using the rules. There is a very simple solution, dont play their games if you moan about their products and prices and rule sets if they really are that bad.

Lanrak,

Sorry I'm late, I'll give some inputs now

I finally managed to read through your ruleset, and it sounds good for the most part. I think Rav1rn hit everything I saw right on the head though! The only thing that I really worry about is that the limited range on stats may cause a huge redundancy with weapons. I would love to hear a battle report on one of your play tests though, as I think that will qualm a lot of my concerns.

Out of curiosity, do you have any codices completed that I can look through? I think that'll help put a lot more into perspective.

Lastly, what about "Combat Ready" instead of "Ok" for morale state?



neconspurs,

I'm sorry, but what you're saying is immensely unhelpful. You have the right to your opinion, but jumping onto someone else's thread and basically saying it's worthless is entirely inappropriate. Please reserve statements like that to general discussion or threads you are actively involved in.

I agree with the out of place comment, just a strong feeling i have.

Hi Rabid.
To be fair we are still finalizing the fine detail (modifiers etc, ).Life is getting a bit hectic ATM.So progress has slowed down.
I think we are going to replace units on 'OK' morale with the term 'Operational'.

Here is the current universal weapon stats.

Name.(Self explanitory.)
Effective range.(The range enemy models can be hit by the weapon.)
Attack(Number of dice rolled, or type/size of template/blast marker.)
Armour Piercing value (How good the weapon is a beating armour . AV+D6 roll has to beat this value to pass the armour save roll))
Damage value (How good the weapon is a damaging the soft target behind the armour.)
Notes.(Special abilities , ignore cover, rapid fire, parry etc.)

Armour piercing values of 5 to 20.Armour value of 1 to 15.
This gives a wide range of armour save rolls , some automatic penetration and automatic saves.
Eg a laspistol has no effect vs heavy armoured vehicles.
A melta gun hit on a flack vest will automaticaly go straight through it!

Damage values of 1+,2+,3+4+5+, and Resilience values of 0,1,2,3.
Simply replicate the Str vs T value to wound without the need for a table.

I an hopeful the special abilities listed under notes, will give enough variety to the weapon types, without too much complication.

I am not sure about your comment about the limited range on stats causing weapon redundancy.
Could you elaborate a bit?

I can post some examples to illustrate my proposed resolution, if you show me the areas that cause you concern.

You actually covered it pretty good by giving me some of the numbers you're using

So it sounds like the majority of your weapon stratification comes form the AP vs AV roll. I was concerned about the fact that all weapons essentially have only 4 levels of strength (2+ through 5+) and all units essentially have only 4 levels of resilience (0 through 3.) It just at first seemed like it would really cut down on the range of weapons you could feasibly have (i.e. no difference between a plasma gun and a demolisher.)

I understand that special rules add differentiation, but I know how much you prefer to have core mechanics that cover scenarios vs making exceptions, so I just wanted to make sure that didn't slip away


Examples will really help paint a really good picture for me, so here are some that I'd really like to see:

Targets:
Guardsman
Space Marine
Ork
Carnifex

Weapons:
Lasgun
Bolter
Meltagun
Plasma Gun

Basically if you could show the stats you'd have for each, then demonstrate the math for one (to make sure I have it down) that would be perfect.


Lastly, no worries at all about life taking priority. I understand that completely (as I'm going through it too haha )

Hi Rabid.
These values are not finalized, but are just for illustration .

IG. Squad.,
L 5"
AV 2
RV 1
Wounds 10/1
Size 4+
Assault 3+
Morale 3+
Command 6"/ -

Space Marine Squad.
L 5"
AV 4
RV 2
Wounds 10/1
Size 3+
Assault 4+
Morale 2+
Command 6/1

Ork Boyz Mob
L 5"
Av 2
Rv 2
Wounds 30 /1
Size 3+
Morale 3+
Command 9" /1

Carniflex.
L 6"
Av 10/9/7
Rv 2
Wound Mv 2/As 2.
Size 2+
Morale 2+
Command 12" 2

Weapons
Lasgun, range 24" Attack 1/AP 5/ Dam 4+/Small Arms -Rapid fire.*

Bolt gun range 24" Attack 1 /AP 6/ Dam 3+/Small arms -Rapid fire.*

Melta Gun , range 12" Attack 1/ AP 16 /Dam 1+/ Support -Thermal*/ Anti tank.*

Plasma Gun range 24" Attack 2/ AP 8/Dam 2+/Support -Gets hot.*

*Rapid Fire
May fire 2 shots at half range.
if unit does not move (On fire support orders.) they may make a special Attack ,'Suppressive Fire 'double the AP value of weapon, but attacks will not cause damage.

Thermal. Weapon is designed to burn through standard armour, target has to re roll any successful armour save rolls.

Anti tank weapon is developed as an anti tank weapon,its slow to aim/recharge/ discharge and is only effective against large targets. (Target Size 1+ or 2+ ONLY.)

Gets Hot. Weapon can only fire alternate turns.

AN IG trooper is hit by a lasgun.
He rolls ONE D6 and adds AV 2 ,If this result is over 5,(6 or more,) he makes his armour save roll and takes no damage,(4+ save roll.)

If he fails the save he takes damage on the roll of a 4+, (if the attacker rolls 4 or more the trooper looses his only wound and is removed as a casualty.)

If the hit fails to cause damage he does not loose a wound, he is just suppressed.

I may not have explained it too well, sorry.

Hi again.
I should have stated we were going for overlapping zones of effectiveness for weapon/armour interaction.

The most common units, infantry, are usually armed with weapons that are effective vs the most common targets, enemy infantry.
These weapons are classed as 'Small Arms',( for ranged weapons,) and assault weapons for close combat in these rules.

As these rules allow for units to be effected by suppression, for hits that defeat armour but do not cause damage.Then there is no requirement for all weapons to be able to cause damage vs all targets.(As a suppressed unit has reduced effectiveness in game.)

As monstrous creatures and vehicles perform similar roles in their respective armies. We decided to give them the same extended profile. (To allow both to suffer slow reduction in effectiveness, like other units.)

This gives us 2 unit types, multiple model units that show reduction in their effectiveness by removing models.And Single model units that record damage separately.(As current 40k.)

Weapons either project a their effect over a wider area ,(anti infantry )or concentrate it on one point.(Anti tank.)

This gives 2 weapon types , those that are effective vs multiple smaller lighter armoured but more agile targets.Anti infantry .
And those that are effective vs heavily armoured but much larger slower targets.Anti tank.

Some weapons have multiple warhead types, like missile grenade launchers.(Frag HE and Krak. AP)

Other may have multiple fire effects.
Eg multiple shots at lower AP.OR fewer shots with higher AP.
This represents the shooter focusing the weapon fire on one spot on the target.

These weapon have the benifit pf duality of function, but are not as effective as specialized anti infantry or specialized anti tank.

I think this way of mapping weapon to target types give much more intuitive weapon to unit interaction.