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.

I was trying to make my own personal wargame, but decided to use 40k as a base and work from there instead. Sorry if these ideas have already been suggested elsewhere but I don't have the time atm to check the entire forum with such vague search terms.

I'll just stick to the basics for now to gauge feedback. These were two of my main ideas to make the game more dynamic (and streamlined too, once stats are memorised).



1. Vastly simplify the unit stat profile. Here's my ideal version (sticking with D6s and 10-point scales anyway).

Mobility (M) = Movement type descriptor, then movement range value (I'll use centimetres because I'm more familiar with them).

Aptitude (A) = Merged WS/BS value based upon training and inherent combat ability. The model needs to roll this value or below to succeed at range (thus higher values are better), and juxtaposes it with that of enemy models in melee ("melee" = within 10cm proximity of an enemy unit). Can be modified by an opponent's cover and stance (eg. when pinned), as well as a model's individual weapon types and special rule bonuses (for example, Khorne Beserkers would have special melee Aptitude bonuses or range penalties to provide a ratio). If modifiers take a model's Aptitude below or above the D6 range, then additional rolls are required (eg. consecutive rolls of 1 and then 4- for a particularly difficult shot).

Composure (D) = Discipline/leadership/fearlessness/general ballsiness value. Tested using 1D6 for simplicity's sake (and to avoid skewed probabilities). More modifiers brought into play to keep things dynamic. A natural 1 always passes, and a natural 6 always fails.

Strength (S) = Physical power, important in melee. Could also enable easier usage of certain weapons (for example, a Guardsman might suffer penalties with a Boltgun whereas a Space Marine wouldn't).

Resilience (R) = Physical durability value.

Protection (P) = Armour value, then shielding (similar to invulnerable) value if applicable. Shield save taken before armour save.



2. Make individual weapon stat profiles more dynamic.

Type (T) = Categorical descriptors. Different weapon types have different traits.

Weight (W) = Unless they remain stationary, models carrying wargear with a combined total Weight greater than their own Strength suffer -1 Aptitude and -4cm Mobility for every excess point.

Range (R) = Minimum and then maximum range values (if applicable).

Accuracy (A) = Aptitude modifiers based upon weapon ballistics and precision. Four values, one per quarter range (close, medium, long, extreme), rounding up/down for all members of a squad with a specific weapon (for example, if 6 of 8 Guardsmen with Lasguns are within the long range bracket, they all count as such). I don't want to get into specifics, but at long-range these modifiers would also penalise those with low Aptitudes moreso than those with higher Aptitudes, making it statistically more advantageous for the low-Aptitude models to get closer.

Strength (Str) = Stopping power, functionally identical to model Strength.

Penetration (P) = Reduces a target's Protection. Some weapons can 'expend' Penetration points to breach occluding cover (for example, a Lascannon could breach a plasticrete barrier and still retain immense penetrative power). Modifiers for armour and shield penetration respectively.

Suppression (Sup) = Measure of a weapon's intimidation factor. Each shot fired at a unit (whether it hits/wounds or misses entirely) automatically inflicts the specified number of Suppression points. If the number of Suppression points accumulated within one shooting phase is 3x or more the unit's highest Composure value, the unit must take a 1D6 Pinning Test. For every additional increment (4x, 5x, 6x, etc), the unit's Composure is modified by -1.

Fire-rate (F) = Number of maximum attacks per turn, 1 value for mobile and then 1 for stationary.



For example, the basic stats of a Guardsman and his faithful Lasrifle.


Guardsman:

Mobility: Infantry, 22cm.
Aptitude: 3.
Strength: 2.
Resilience: 2.
Protection: 2, 0.
Composure: 4.


Lasgun:

Type: Rifle (general-purpose default category, typically a good compromise between mobility and range), beam (typically have very good ballistics [improves Accuracy] and can expend Penetration points to breach cover).
Weight: 1.
Range: 0-120cm.
Accuracy: +1, 0, 0, 0.
Strength: 2
Penetration: 1, 0.
Suppression: 1.
Fire-rate: 1, 2.


So if one Guardsman, having remained stationary, were to fire two shots at another in the open (traitorous Chaos filth obviously!) from 89cm away (just within "long" range):

1. "Hit roll". Aptitude (3) - Accuracy (long) modifier (0) = two rolls of 3- to hit (1s, 2s and 3s are successful, everything above that misses).

2. "Protection roll", (assume one shot hits). Protection (2) - Penetration (armour) (-1) = one roll of 1- to save.

3. "Damage roll" (assume the shot bypasses the Guardsman's armour). Strength (2) vs. Resilience (2) = one roll of 3- to damage (50%, as per current wound chart).

How do you handle a target unit at different ranges and under different cover. Say some models of the target unit are behind trees and some behind rocks, and some are in the open, and some are at middle range and some long. Oh, and the attacking unit has different weapons all with different stats. How do you handle that situation?

Let's say I have a Guardsmen section armed with 9 Lasrifles and 1 Long-Las. The former have 120cm range, the latter has 160cm.
They're firing at a doppelganger enemy unit.

1. Work out the average cover of the enemy unit. Say more are behind trees (5/10) than behind rocks (2/10) or in the open (3/10). Thus they all count as being in "Level 2" tree cover (-2 Accuracy).

2. Work out the average distance of the enemy unit. Let's say they're within 'long' range of 7/9 Lasrifles, and within 'medium' range of the Long-Las. All Lasrifles would count as being at long range, and the Long-Las at medium of course.

3. Hit roll. Assuming the Long-Las is more accurate, simply use a separate die. Subtract -2 due to enemy cover.

4. Save roll. 2 Lasrifle hits and 1 Long-Las hit. Detract the Penetration value of each from the target's armour value.

5. Damage roll.

6. Remove casualties.

7. Enemy unit was subject to nineteen Suppression-1 shots that shooting phase, thus the owning player takes a Pinning Test.

OK, so you generalize range and cover. You do separate "To Hit" rolls for separate weapons (or use different color dice, etc.),

What if the target unit has separate "Protection", got to roll separate Save Rolls too or do you generalize "Protection" as well (average "Protection" rating)?

What if the target unit has separate "Resilience" values? Do you do separate Damage rolls or do you generalize?

For each different "Strength" of each different weapon that fired into a target unit with different "Resilience" values, do you have to make a separate rolls for each combination (different strengths v. different "Resilience" values)? Or do you generalize all that as well?

Didn't really think about it... but a good solution:

The enemy player allocates successful hits to the targeted models closest to the firing unit (and within LoS ofc). 1 hit per model in whichever combination he/she chooses, going from nearest to furthest and starting again if there are any surplus hits. An exception would be something like a sniper weapon, which could instead have a special rule allowing the firing player to allocate any hits it causes.
Then each model rolls his own save rolls and — if unsuccessful — damage rolls. However, If there are say 6 enemy Guardsmen each with one Lasrifle hit, then it would make sense to just roll all the dice at once and let the defending player pick out any subsequent casualties.

Alternatively, players could take turns to allocate the hits, from least to most powerful. Would slow things down but also introduce an interesting metagame element, with both players manipulating the allocation in their own self-interests.

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:
Didn't really think about it... but a good solution:

The enemy player allocates successful hits to the targeted models closest to the firing unit (and within LoS ofc). 1 hit per model in whichever combination he/she chooses, going from nearest to furthest and starting again if there are any surplus hits. An exception would be something like a sniper weapon, which could instead have a special rule allowing the firing player to allocate any hits it causes.
Then each model rolls his own save rolls and — if unsuccessful — damage rolls. However, If there are say 6 enemy Guardsmen each with one Lasrifle hit, then it would make sense to just roll all the dice at once and let the defending player pick out any subsequent casualties.

OK, good, yes, that's it! But in the case of same weapon and same situated target unit (ie all in the open and all with the same defense stat), than yes, you could simply roll everything once but the defender should take casualties starting with the model closest to the attacking unit's commander.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
In fact, if you did that every time you would not have to generalize range and cover. Those things should not be generalized as they are among the few things in the game that the Player's actually has 100% control over.

True.

What about:
A 10-man section suffers 6 identical Lasrifle hits. The receiving player could roll all the save/damage dice at once, but then be forced to remove casualties from amongst the 6 Guardsman closest to the firing unit?

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:
True.

What about:
A 10-man section suffers 6 identical Lasrifle hits. The receiving player could roll all the save/damage dice at once, but then be forced to remove casualties from amongst the 6 Guardsman closest to the firing unit?

Well, yes, assuming the models in the target unit all have the same Protection value and are similarly situated, ie, same cover save and same range. If not, you will need to allocate hits and roll saves separately.

I know that sounds like a lot of work, allocate hits and rolling separate saves each turn, but it really cuts down on a lot of complications and forced generalizations. In fact, it shows the futility of having too many characteristics/stats. They don't play well together. If every model in the attacking unit and the defending unit has exactly the same stats then it works. But when stats vary things get messy, and you end up doing forced generalizations. And things like Command Models, weapons, cover and range are more likely than not to be varied. So the question then is, why have all these stats? You are just going to end up doing forced generalizations. So why waste all the time looking the stats up, and cross-referencing on a chart to find a value? Why not generalize all the To Hit and Save stuff and instead spend the time allocating hits and rolling separate saves? Because its best to do that anyway, right? So why all the To Hit and Save stats?

Well that's kind of what I meant; just grouping all identical models together when rolling saves/wounds (for simplicity's sake).




Divide squads into 'subsections' when rolling. Roll for all basic infantry at once and remove casualties from within said subsection, then roll for each 'outstanding' model subsection and remove casualties from within that subsection.


For example, if a unit contained 7 Guardsmen w/Lasrifles, 1 Guardsman w/Grenade Launcher and 2 Guardsmen w/Heavy Bolter (a two-man HWT), and each model took one hit (ten total), the player would roll for:
1. The 7 Guardsmen w/Lasrifles (one subsection).
2. Then the 1 Guardsman w/Grenade Launcher (another subsection).
3. Finally, the 2 Guardsmen in the HWT (the final subsection).

So only three lots of rolling rather than one per individual squad-member, but still allowing individual stats to come into play. And ensuring that targeted players can't just remove all the 'meatshield' models first if a firing player scores enough hits.

In contrast, a unit of five models each with different weaponry or equipment would need to make five lots of rolls, as each model would count as a separate subsection.


The same thing could be done for weapon cover, ranges, etc, but that would overcomplicate things IMO. Too many dice to track. It could make small-scale games more interesting though if both players agreed to it.

I totally agree with your basic concept.
However, I would suggest a few minor changes.

I think it is important to have separate values for ranged and close assault skills.
Also a leadership/command value for unit leaders,/characters that is separate to the morale of the squad is important
(So conscripts being led by an inspirational leader will fight better.)

I do not think that the strenght of a model is really needed to be fair.
As this could be expressed as the weapon damage done in close assault.

If we class weapon types as ;-
Assault,weapon used in close assault.
Small arms,the main ranged weapon of infantrry units , rifles, SMG types.
Support , specialised support weapons, (flame throwers etc.)
Fire support.heavier support weapons thar can not move and fire.

And these classes are dependent on the unit carrying them!

Eg a heavy bolter is a fire support weapon for a IG squad.(Can not move and fire.)
A support weapon on a Predator tank.(Can move and fire.)

Here is a rough outline of my revised stat lines.

Eg
Unit profile
Mobility,

Armour value

Resilience

Assault skill

Ranged Skill.

Morale grade

Command value

Unit Weapons.

Name/Effective Range/ AP/Damage/attacks /Type& notes.

Lanrak wrote:
I think it is important to have separate values for ranged and close assault skills.

Maybe. Could go with either separate values or modifiers for specialised melee units.

Lanrak wrote:
Also a leadership/command value for unit leaders,/characters that is separate to the morale of the squad is important
(So conscripts being led by an inspirational leader will fight better.)

Well they'd have a higher Composure rating, which would essentially do the same thing. It would also decrease the effectiveness of enemy Suppression (the enemy would need more shots to force a Pinning test, and the receiving squad would be more likely to pass one as well).

Lanrak wrote:
I do not think that the strenght of a model is really needed to be fair.
As this could be expressed as the weapon damage done in close assault.

The way I see it, Strength is the base value. Then different weapons provide special rules or modifiers (for example, a Chainsword would hit at the user's Strength but allow damage re-rolls).

It could instead be done by making, say, an Astartes Chainsword a totally different weapon to a standard Imperial Chainsword, but then that creates confusion anyway because the different weapon stats have to be memorised. Probably better just to have one standard variant and then dole out any unique modifiers as unit special rules.
As for the Heavy Bolter example you gave, a Guardsman would already be drastically worse off with it on the move than a Marine would due to his lower Strength of 2 (the HB would easily surpass that, resulting in severe Aptitude and Mobility penalties unless stationary). Although a HWT special rule for Guardsmen could negate these penalties as long as both gunners are alive?...



I agree with your weapon classes, although these were the three I had in mind:

- Rifle (Can typically be used whilst on the move but with a lower Fire-rate and/or Accuracy. Common infantry weapon, generally have good all-round combination of stats).
- Support (Heavy weapons that can typically only be used by infantry whilst stationary, ranging from sniper rifles to missile launchers to vehicle ordnance. Are generally the most powerful).
- Assault (Generally short-ranged 'shock' weapons like flamethrowers, shotguns and grenades that can be used to full effectiveness whilst on the move. Includes melee weapons).



PS: How would "Morale grade" be different to "Command value"?

@I_ am_a_ Spoon.
As some units in 40k have vastly different abilities in these two aspects of combat.Some are excellent at shooting but rubbish in assault, and some excel at close assault but cant hit the inside of a barn door when shooting.
I think separate values would be the more practical way to go.(Modifiers could become cumbersome..)

The command value I proposed also shows the influence the leader /character has on the rest of the unit.
(Effects the unit coherency, and combat effectiveness directly.(As well as boosting morale and ability to recover from poor morale.)

I was going to use 'unit cards', with all the in game information on for each unit.So you do not have to remember ANYTHING!.(Excellent news if you play while drinking beer, lol.)

Just look up the weapon range and effect for the unit attacking.
So the effects a bolt pistol and close combat weapon has, varies quite significantly , depending which creature is using them.

Why list the stats for a weapon lying on the ground, then modify them depending who picks them up?
Why not just list the net effect?

The unit has a morale value.This is the number the unit has to roll to pass a morale test.
Fearless=1+
Elite= 2+
Veteran=3+
Trained= 4+
Mindless/cowardly=5+

This is modified by negative effects like being suppressed, and taking casualties.

Command value shows the range of effect of the leader/character.3,4,5,6,7,8,9 "Radius.
This also determines the coherency of the unit.(Measured from the leader/character not model to model.To represent more tactical flexibility allowed by more experienced leaders/characters. )
And the motivation level.The modifier the leader/character can apply to friendly dice rolls within their command range.(Once per game turn.)

I may need to explain this better?