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.

Lol, everyone here is wanting to add more rules. You all need to read the RT rulebooks,I've played for 5 years and i opened the 1st rulebook up and i felt like a child. Ever since 1st edition, they have been trying to make the game as basic as possible since that want new people. How would you like to have a intro game and have 20 steps....ok roll to aim, roll to shoot, roll not to hit cover, roll to make sure bullet doesn't stray, roll for armor...ok now ill roll for Cover save, no armor, oh wait now invul fields... Games take a long time as it is. The only rule base rull that needs to be changed it how turns are played, I'm a big advocate of simultaneous moving/shooting/assault phases.

To many steps anyways the whole concept of a cover save was so it would be helpful against the AP-1,2-3 guns that blew through armour. Cover is made as a last dith effort and i agree with wuestenfux that cover should never be under 4+

Hi.
I never wanted to add more rules to the bloated 40k rules.
Just replace then with more straightforward ones.

RT was a detailed skirmish game (similar to Necromundia).
If you only have 20 to 30 minis on the table the RT rules are fine.

As time went by GW, uped the minature count in 40k , but did not change the rules focus from individual minature to unit level.
This means GW 'streamlined' 40k by chopping great lumps out of the system ,and then patching them up with lots of quick fixes.Leaving an abtract mess a proffesional development team cannot understand sufficiently well, to be able to actualy develop it!

40k has far to many exceptions to the basic rules to be concidered 'straightforward'. And other rule sets achive far more game play with far fewer rules.

If you dice for units not induividual models in units (especialy hoard armies,) its suprising how detailed and fast the results can become.

TTFN
Lanrak.

Cover vs armor save system they have right now is not that bad.
Most of the time you will not choose to take cover saves with, say your SM unles you are fired upon with ap3 weapon.
so if you fail you cover save your armor shouldn't help anyway. Heavy armored troops should instead have diferent kind of advanage vs light troops.

Something like if your squad is taking cover saves they cant move next turn, just shoot back. Imagine it like they are hiding behind the wall, sort of pinned down firing back. vs if they where taking armor saves = ignoring all the bullets coming their way not ducking for cover, just relying on their armor.

Hi grabah.
The cover save system the use now is 'simple resolution' 'just roll a D6', at the expence of system definition.(The chance to see -hit is lumped in with armour effects.)

Most other rule sets I play clearly define in game actions and what they repesent.(So its clear what in game action maps to what, and how/why.)

This means the basic rules cover all the game play in a well defined and comprehensive way.
(Unlike 40k which has over simplified basic rules ,and then has to use more exeptions that it has basic rules, to cover the game play .)

Cover saves could be replaced with a BS modification.

As we use a fixed 'target value' of 7 to subtract BS from to get roll to hit.BS 3 needs 4+ to hit.(7-3=4)

Why not allow this 'target value' to be modified?

-1 for large target.
+ 1 for small target.
+ 1 for firing over half max range.
+ 1 for target in /behind cover/obscured.

EG
So shooting at a small target,in cover , at over half range. 7 +1+1+1=10 BS 3 needs (10-3=7) 7+ to hit.

IF we want to differentiate between cover that just obscures view to the target, and cover that adds protection .
Eg tall grass , smoke, canvas sheeting etc, just make it harder to see /hit the target.
Bunkers, prepared defences etc,adds protection to target unit

Then 'hard cover' could reduces the strenght of the weapon hit.

(Rant warning...)
Why cant 40k use BS modifiers? because WH uses them.
Why cant 40k use movement stats? because WH uses them.
Why can 40k use proportional allotment army composition?Becuase WH uses them.
Etc ,etc,etc.....

All the best resolution methods and rules for the WH game mechanics are used by WHFB.

This leaves 40k with an unsuitable set of game mechanics, that can not use the best methods of implementations , because it 'has' to be different to WHFB!

If GW want 40k to be different to WHFB , why not write a rule set specificaly for 40k game play?

(Rant ends.)

TTFN
Lanrak.