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 had currently planned on making the minimum movement 6" for all units. Then Slow and Purposeful could potentially reduce it past that, but ignore terrain or something. I'm not familiar with the 2nd ed movement ranges, but these were the ones that I had in mind.

Legs - 5-7"
Tracks - 8-12"
Wheels - 12-20"
Flying - 12-30"

Fleet - add 2"
Slow and Purposeful - subtract 2"
Move through cover - negative terrain modifiers are halved, no dangerous terrain tests.

Each unit will have their own movement characteristic, but can go outside of that by gaining special rules as noted above. Most units that have these rules now will lose them (like a Trygon) because they're movement characteristic is covered by the ranges above. However, this allows for things like a WAAAGH! adding fleet, so every unit moves 2" farther.


A panic system will require some more brainstorming, but I think it is still the best way to go. Also, with two blanket rules we can solve a lot of the panic problems:
-Fearless units never panic.
-If the size of the unit (swarm - infantry - large - monstrous) is larger than the unit that was wiped out, they don't panic.



On another note, I didn't end up having the time to play test the new phases this past weekend. Hoping for this weekend! My play time is always really limited because of my schedule, so if anyone on here is willing to play test it would be immensely helpful. The way I was planning on donig it was making a quick survey to answer after each game.

Hi rabid 1903.
If we are going to put a units movement speed as a characteristic.
Why not just use the net value ?
Rather than say is 6" -2" for a special rule...just say its 4"!

In 2nd ed, Movement stat was used the same as WHFB.(Move up to M stat in inches, per movement action.)
Do not move and shoot with 'move or shoot' weapons, move and shoot , or move up to double speed , (march) or up to double speed into assault(Charge.)
This meant ALL movement happened in the movement phase,(Intuitive.)Not movement phase, shooting phase (run,) ,and assault phase(move into assault)...

3rd ed 40k said every thing moves 6" or D6" in difficult terrain.
And then bloated the rules with all the extra rules to put the variation back!

Mobility type and speed are totaly seperate features. And do not need to be linked.As this can artificialy restrict unit profiles..
(Are we are going to allow Unit Creation rules and Costing criteria like AoA...)

Special Movement Abilities can be covered by 'Ignore One Condition' mechanic.
EG Jump Jets, Dangerous terrain mod, Amphibious, etc can be applied as required to units profile , displayed as a suffixed symbol.

I realy do not like blanket rules that apply finite conditions.
As this is the problem with the current 40k rules , they define rules as finite , then have to list all the exceptions as USR , seperate Vehicle Rules , Codex Special rules etc.
(Leading to massive rules bloat...)

Morale effects including panic(route) shaken(suppressed,) stunned (neutralised.)
Rather than say Fearless units are immune to some morale effects.
Simply give them a Morale value high enough to make it unlikely for them to panic.

EG roll a D6 and add it to the units (Modified) Morale Value,
If the total is 10 or over the unit is on good morale .OK.
If the total is 7 to 9 the unit becomes supressed.
If the total is 5 to 6 the unit becomes neutralised.
If the total is 4 or less the unit routes.

This way fearless units can have Morale value of 9.
So normaly they automaticaly pass morale checks...(9+1 = 10)
BUT if they have suffered over 75% casualties , (-3 to morale value,) are outnumbered (-1 to morale) and out of command range (-1 to morale )
They become suppressed on a roll of 3 to 6,neutralised on a roll of 1 or 2.

They never 'panic and route' , but are not immune to all thats happening to/around them..

Where as Grots on Morale value 6, normaly need to roll a 4 to pass a morale check!
And if in the same condition as the unit above.(-5 to morale.)They need 4+NOT to panic and route, and a 6 to 'get away' with being suppressed !

I think we need more morale states than the current OK or dead/running away..
If vehicles units can be'shaken' and 'stunned' , why not other units?

I probably need to explain that a bit better ...

You're doing a good job explaining things for the most part, some things are just really hard to explain without showing someone with plastic dudesmen.

I don't want to get rid of all the special rules, just condense the vast majority of them and make it so the game doesn't run on them.

With that said, Fleet and S&P are things that can be gained with wargear, one time events, etc. They will be taken out of the profile and replaced with a set value instead of doing it like 6 - 2".

About to head home from work, I'll try to put some more stuff up tonight.

Let's see, where did I leave off.

*Quick note: When we redo the codices, I'd like to try to condense the special rules but not totally eliminate them. For instance: furious charge, counter-attack, and crusader can be consolidated. I don't have a rulebook with me, but there are more examples.


The range of values given for each mobility type are there as a reference for when we start redoing the codices. You can basically ignore them for now, they don't mean anything significant.

I actually disagree with you on fearless. Some things literally do not know fear, while others are just hard to make flee. A good example is a Necron Warrior vs a Tyranid Termagant in synapse. The Termagant knows nothing else besides move forward, there is no retreat and there never will be. A Necron warrior is not fearless, but won't flee unless something significant happens.

Fearless to me means they will never run, never cower, never surrender, and all they know is to fight. A mob of Ork Boyz, Termagants, Daemons, etc all fall into this category.

This also really helps differentiate "fearless" units from "intelligent and battle-hardened" units. That difference is especially important if we end up using my turn system vs yours, because a fearless unit doesn't mean they know what they are doing.


I like there being multiple levels of morale checks (suppressed, neutralized, routed). How to go about this can be as simple as a testing as normal and if you fail by a certain amount you'll break. Or it can be much more complicated. Seeing as how we're trying to go with as simple of a rulebook as possible, I'm leaning heavily towards the former.

Leadership remains a 2D6 test.
If you pass, proceed as normal.
If you fail, you are suppressed.
If you fail by 3 or more, you are neutralized.
If you fail by 5 or more, you are routed.

A test is taken in the resolution phase if you suffered any casualties.
-1 Ld for 25% casualties that turn.
-3 Ld for 50% casualties that turn.
-5 Ld for 75% casualties that turn.

Weapons with the pinning rule bypass suppressed, meaning that if you fail your leadership you are neutralized and if you fail it by 5 or more you are routed.

Close combat bypasses suppressed and neutralized, going straight to routed. This means that if you fail your leadership after close combat you flee, just like now. This also makes it so close combat is a major morale game.




Hopefully this all makes some sort of sense.

Hi again.
I appear to be a bit confused as to what you want to do..

Just a revised version of the current rules, to reduce the amount of 'special rules bloat'..
(Previously done by Big Squig,to great effect.)

Or a complete re write focusing on game play and using the most straight forward synergistic and intuitive mechanics and resolution methods...

Eg writing core rules that cover everything , not just standard infantry units like 40k does...

I have played lots of rule set over the last 20 odd years.
And there are loads of of ways to deliver the game play 40k currently has without as much complication and ambiguigity as the current rules have.

Eg simply explain how the game works.Rather than how WHFB works, then how 40k is different to it.(Special rules.)

Can you let me know what rule sets you are familiar with , so we get some common ground to work from?

Honestly the only rulesets I am familiar enough with to pull from and discuss with any sort of intelligence are 40k (3-6th edition).


The goal of this is basically a mix of a rewrite and a consolidation.

It is a rewrite in the core rules. There is going to be a totally new turn order and many other things. The game will play a little similar to now in the fact that it will look like 40k on the board; however, the players will think through things much different. So basically it is going to look like 40k, but not play like 40k (if that makes any sense).

It is also a consolidation of the special rules. I'm at home now and will create a list of rules I plan on consolidating as an example, but lets avoid discussing those until we've hashed out the core rules. The point of this is to make it significantly easier to rewrite the codices. I'm no codex author and trying to balance over a dozen codices is going to take some serious work.

The current plan that I have is to take each codex, make the new unit profiles, and apply the new special rules. After that is accomplished I can give some sort of attempt to balance them. Granted, I don't know if I'm going to have the motivation to do that unless I get some help or the Dakka community loves it (I enjoy what I'm doing, but the work of balancing codices isn't going to be worth it unless people play).

I'll take a look at what Big Squig did, as I'm not familiar with it. If I like what I see, I'll contact him/her and ask their permission to use it.


Let me make another post after I've thought through the special rules. Hopefully what I've said makes sense, it's really difficult to take what I'm thinking and tell someone about it (and even more so to do it through text).

Hi rabid1903.
I did not mean to come across as negative in my last post.

The problem is if you have only been exposed to 3rd to 6th ed 40k rule sets.It can be a bit difficult to make objective decisions about how to proceed as reguards to re-writing the rules to cover the desired game play.

Its a bit hard to explain...
Imagine every one you talk to swears all the time on every other word. ''...Another 'kin' day,another 'kin' dollar..''

When some one speaks without swearing it sounds strange...all the information is there , in a more concise format.But you are used to the 'noise' of the swearing.

Special rules in 40k are like frequent swearing .Lots of gamers expect them even though often they add no actual value to the rule set.

It is possible to write a rule set that covers all the game play of 40k without 'special rules' that subvert, replace, add on to the core rules in a counter intuitive way.

MOST good games allow 'special abilities'
They, modify the dice roll. OR They allow a re-roll, OR They ignore ONE condition.

A rule set without 'bad' special rules is far easier to balance and tweek.

I would prefer to use the most straightforward mechanics and resolution methods first.Then add special abilities (rules) IF NEEDED.
Not start by including 'special rules' out of a sense of familiarity.

I am aware of how difficult it is to convey complex ideas in the written format.But we have lots of time ...

If we use the most suitable game mechanics and resolution methods , we should be able to keep special rules to a minimum.
(3rd ed removed the movement stat and added 7 times the pages of rules to explain the 'simpler' movement with ' special rules' )

I didn't think you were being negative at all, and even if you need to be in future posts you don't need to worry


I see what you are saying (that analogy was hilarious and perfect).

Let's ignore special rules for a while then, but not totally rule them out (not saying you are). For instance, let's design the morale system now. When we get to part 3 and are doing special rules, we'll come up with some or incorporate them (like fearless) for the new system.



So, let's try to reel this back in to the topics at hand.

Part 1 is done to the point of needing play testing. I've got another shot at doing that this weekend, let's hope I can do it and make a decision.

Part 2 is what we're working on now.
-Movement is done
-Shooting needs some work. The two directions we're coming at differ so much that I think we should hash more of it out before I try to play test the two.
-Wound allocation we haven't even touched on.
-Morale we've done a good amount on, but it's in a similar situation to shooting.

Part 3 we shouldn't even start discussing yet. It includes assaults and special rules. These will be where we can really start giving new unit profiles because we will have all the previous stuff taken care of.




With that said, let's try to sum up what we've thought for shooting.
Option A (what I'm thinking).
Roll a D6 per shot (similar to now).
BS + D6 => Stealth value
Both BS and Stealth values can be modified (think like pokemon you could lower oppenent accuracy or increase your evasiveness, or vice-versa).

Advantages:
-Allows for a lot less all-or-nothing scenarios, and more average rolls.
-A squad's sergeant doesn't make the rest of the squad more likely to hit.
-Similar to the game now, and easy to pick up.

Disadvantages:
-Not incredibly intuitive.
-Will take longer than option B, especially when calculating modifiers.


Option B (Lanrak's ideas, let me know if these are right)
Pick a target point.
Roll a D6, add ballistic skill and subtract opponent's stealth.
Any units in the target bubble are targettable to full effect.

Advantages:
-Splitting fire without any excess special rules.
-You know what to roll every time.
-Intuitive.

Disadvantages:
-Potential to be broken.
-Tendency to be all-or-nothing.



These are what I've gathered so far, please let me know if there is anything I should change/delete.

Ill just re state my version of ranged shooting.
You made a valid point about ALL models shooting individualy being important for 40k and I agree.(I modified my original suggestion.)

The Unit Leader/Character picks a 'Target point' .
The models in the attacking unit may EACH 'Target' enemy models within 6" radius of this point.IF they are in effective weapons range.(Roll to 'Target' instead of roll to 'hit'.)

The Targeting roll is simply based on the targets Stealth value.(Modified for distance and disposition of units.)
(Comparing BS to St and modifying both values is more complicated and gives similar results to just modifying ST.)

I wanted to represent BS with the NET effective range.(Better shots hit things further away.)

This way the unit leader decides where the unit shoots and the individual models select their targets.

Models are targeted starting with the models closest to the attacker.Models in the open are targeted before models in cover/obscured.

Damage Resolution.

Weapon and Armour Interaction.

If a model is Targeted sucessfuly .It is automaticaly 'hit'.(Targeting rolls replaced rolling to hit.)
So the next stage is for the targeted model to roll a saveing throw.

Roll a D6 and add the models Armour value (AV)
IF this value is higher than the weapons Armour Penetration (AP) Value the model takes NO damage.

IF this value does not beat the weapons (DV), the model it MAY take damage.

The new saving throw is proportional to the targets (AV) and the attackers weapons (AP). (Not fixed.)

IF the target FAILS its SAVING THROW, it MAY take Damage.

Resolving Damage to models after armour is penetrated..

The Attacker rolls a D6 and ADD their weapons Damage value.
If this value is HIGHER than the targets Resitance Value, the target takes damage .(the damage is equal to what the attacker beats the targets Resistance value by.)

I think we can use the AV vs AP & Damage vs Resistance to resolve damage in ranged and close assault , covering ALL weapons and units.

I hope this explanation is a bit clearer.

Just a quick post.
In the resolution of ranged combat above, I wanted to keep the basic 3 step interaction that is used in current 40k.

Roll to hit,
Roll to wound,
Roll to save.

But refine it to cover all unit weapon interactions , add MORE detail, and make it more intuitive.

Roll to hit.(Fixed X+ roll, that ignores all elements apart from attackers BS.Which IS BS IMO. )

Is replaced with Targeting roll.
This is based on the targets Stealth value .
The higher the Stealth value of the target the harder the unit is to target.(Spot identify bring weapons to bear.)
Simple modifiers , are used to modify the chance of successfully targeting the enemy unit, like distance to target, cover, special equipment etc.

So this is more detail in the first roll of the 3 stage resolution.(But does away with all the extra rules 40k uses for cover, vehicles, and some USRs etc.)

I belive its more intuitive to roll the armour save first.
If the hit bounces off your armour , no need to roll for damage.
A direct comparison between the damage of the weapon hit and the targets armour value , gives scalable proportional results.(More Intuitive.)

The damage roll , uses the same mechanic of direct comparisons of stats.

This system is more intuitive, and allows more tactical game play.
With the added bonus of constant graduated scaling.(Which makes improving game balance much easier. )

is there anything that is unclear , or any problems you can see?

I think I see what you're saying about the new aiming process, but I feel that it is substantially more suited to lower point games/lower model count.

Additionally, I meant to put this earlier but what happens if you just want to target a single unit. You'd be guaranteed to hit if you put the "target" directly on a model, because even if you roll atrocious and have a 0" bubble to target you will still have that unit targetted.

If you changed it so only models in the target bubble can be hit than you can snipe models out of a unit incredibly easily, and units that have a huge number of shots will be limited on what models they can kill.


I'm having a really hard time being swung to that system vs the system that I was saying.



Now, onto doing damage.

I agree that it should go:
hit - armor - damage

For armor, I think simply making it so the defender rolls similar to what you're saying will be very easy and intuitive.
Armor + D6 > AP of the weapon (1 on D6 always fails).

*note: this also makes it so a simple conversion can be made from current 40k stats.

This allows the defender to "save" units. I like that when my units are being hit, I feel like I actually have a shot at defending them.

After the armor roll has been made, we go to a damage roll.

The chart I made earlier in the thread is what I was planning on using.



Now then, with those changes a few things happen:

-There is a difference between heavy armor and tough units.
-Weapons can be geared towards different units incredibly easy. For instance, a melta gun can have very high AP to make it punch through any armor; however, it can now have lower strength to show that it isn't the ideal weapon to take out a monstrous creature. A Nob's Big Choppa isn't exactly an ideal anti-tank weapon; however, it makes hurting infantry a cake walk.
-The defender still has the feeling of "saving" their units.
-Easy conversion of stats from current 40k.
-There is always the chance of something failing, but things should generally perform how they are designed.
-I also planned on keeping instant death in the mix. I think it's a good addition personally, and a great way to counter multi-wound models.


Just like you said; the same process can be used in close combat, just using a different process to hit.



Here are some example values that I briefly came up with:

conversions:
RV = T or T + 1 (for MC) or current side armor - 8
AV = 7 - Sv or current front armor - 7

Trygon (decently armored, but very tough)
RV - 7
AV - 4

Tau Fire warrior (average armor and toughness)
RV - 3
AV - 3

Terminator (fantastic armor, decently tough)
RV - 4
AV - 5

Rhino (lightly armored vehicle)
RV - 2
AV - 4

Land Raider (the heaviest armored vehicle out there)
RV - 6
AV - 7

Leman Russ (very heavy armor, second only to the Land Raider)
RV - 4
AV - 7



As for weapons, they can then be balanced around what they are supposed to do. For instance, a melta gun is the premiere anti tank weapon. It would have a very high AP that would go straight through most armor (say 9). However, it would only have an above average strength (say 6).

Against a Land Raider, the defender could save on a 3+. Realistic to me if they were at range, but say they were in currenty "melta" range. If that were the case it could be something as simple as making them reroll.

Assume the defender failed. Now with a strength of 6 the roll to damage is now a 4+. If we just keep the # of hull points that we have now and translate them to wounds, then mision accomplished.


Here are some sample special rules that help things fit into their category:
Armorbane - Mechanical targets must reroll their armor save
Fleshbane - Biological targets must reroll their armor save
Tankhunter - +1 St vs Monstrous Mechanical units
Monster hunter - +1 St vs Monstrous Biological units
Poisoned - Reroll to wound vs Biological units
Melta - Reroll to wound vs Mechanical units

These are all incredibly simple modifiers that take no time at all but show what a weapon is meant to do.



Obviously this still needs some work, but it's the general idea.

HI rabid.
As reguards the damage resolution that was the direction I was thinking of...
(As we can simply alter the values to suit the way we want the unit /weapon to behave.+1 modifiers seem a bit redundant?)

All the 're-roll' ones are great !

NEW!Chemical Weapons .(Flame/Acid throwers.) Ignore cover modifier, (bonus vs open armour type perhaps?).

Armour bane, Vehicles must re-roll successful armour save rolls.

Flesh bane , Large Creatures must re roll successful armour save rolls.

Poisoned. Re-roll failed to damage rolls vs biological target.

Haywire Re-roll failed to damage rolls vs mechanical target.

I agree the targeting rules need defining better.
The 12" frontage for targetting allows the attacker to spread their fire.This just sets the maximum.

You are right I need to write the rest of the targeting rules.( )

Attacking models take it in turn targeting an enemy model.(Player picks the firing order and targets.)
Each attacking model/weapon must target the nearest non targeted model in weapon range.
When ALL models in the target zone and weapons range have been targeted.
The closest targeted model can be targeted by another attacking model.

Is this enough?
Or do you want to include ...

Duck Back.
Special models , leaders characters, and models carrying support -heavy support weapons are classed as 'special' where targeting is concerned.
THESE models MAY swop places with a 'normal' member of the unit AFTER the attack is declared. BUT before the targeting starts.
This represents the leader/characters 'sixth sense', stopping them getting caught in the crossfire.
And weapons being picked up by other members of the unit from the wounded.


I was thinking of these for basic targeting modifiers.
Target over 36" away +1 to Stealth value.
Target In cover +1 to Stealth Value
Target using Stealth equipment +1 to Stealth value.(Smoke, Blind , Holo, Camo, etc.)

Target Within 12" +1 to Targeting roll.
Attacker is a 'Scout' Unit +1 to Targeting roll.
Attacker using targeting Equipment +1 to targeting roll.(targeter marker lights , Git-finder.)

These are similar to the to hit modifiers found in most games.
The only difference is the base score is set by the TARGET not the attacker.
(Hitting a Rattling Sniper should be harder than a Land Raider.IMO.)

Original BS is presented on the weapon data as the effective range.
EG Rifle type weapons..
BS 2 18"
BS 3 21"
BS 4 24"
BS 5 27"
BS 6+ 30"

The targeting rules I am proposing use the following ideas.
Better shots hit things further away.
Smaller targets are harder to see.

I think our ideas are pretty similar, but there were a few things I was leaving out until we got to wound allocation. Let me throw those things in now and see if we can narrow this down to one or two similar ideas.


First off, I want to use a new universal chart. I've thought about it a couple times and I feel that this chart would solve a lot of problems.



It's the same chart as before, but instead of S vs T it will simply be rolling player stats vs enemy player stat. The trick to remember the chart is simple:

(For AP vs AV, S vs T, BS vs Stealth, and hitting in assaults)

If the two stats are equal, there should be an equal chance to go in either player's favor (hence 4+)
If the attacker has an advantage by 1 (say S 5 vs T 4), the odds should be slightly in their favor (hence 3+)
The opposite is also true (hence 5+)
Continue this trend until you either are a 6+ a second time (past that you can't hurt them) or are past 2+/2+ because you are so far above its auto.



I think that Template weapons never roll to hit, so cover actually would be ignored for this already

Simply taking BS vs lowest stealth value of target is the way I'd like to go (just because you're a world class assassin doesn't mean bob the new guy next to you won't reveal your position).

With that said, I say that there should be both BS modifiers and Stealth modifiers because different thing obviously effect different stats.

Here are the ones I was thinking of:
BS +1 (for the to hit roll, not effective range) for these things:
--24" excess range
--Markerlights

Stealth +1 for these things:
--Cover (and anything that currently gives it)



Rerolls I think will suffice for making something better or worse at killing what they are meant to. I don't know if I want to make it so things can be rerolled multiple times though.

These were the basic rules I was thinking:
___ bane: reroll successful armor saves
___ blight: reroll failed damage rolls


With the combination of those things, we can represent current rules.

e.g. Tankhunter = monstrous mechanical bane and monstrous mechanical blight
-the defender must reroll their successful saves and the attacker can reroll their failed damage rolls.


Things that currently have stealth, shrouded, etc. will simply have their Stealth values be high enough to represent it.




Now, onto wound allocation. I think it should be a modified form of the current system.

-Models are removed from the front.
-Models are removed from under the template and blast markers.
-Look out sir rolls remain.

On the following turn, using a red counter a unit can do a "recover casualties and move/shoot/charge"

This allows you to pick up any lost weapons, but also represents the chance that another model took the damage instead. You simply replace any of the models that you have with models that you lost, with an equal number of wounds done and no more than the number of models in the unit prior to recovering casualties.

Obviously a fleeing unit can't do this, meaning that their casualties remain. This is appropriate.
When targeting a unit, you're going to aim for the heavy weapon and probably kill that. This is appropriate.
If most of your unit is wiped out, you can still go and pick up the weapon you want and return fire. It's going to take some time though. This is appropriate.
Look out sir means that your sergeant had a brave soul sacrifice them self to protect you, meaning that you can act as normal in the next turn. Now said person might have sacrificed them self, but did it slower meaning you have to pull their corpse off you and will act slower next turn. If you're retreating you won't have this chance and it's less likely that someone would make the sacrifice.


What do you think?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'll post a detailed battle report soon, but option A has been play tested and this is the survey we took afterwards. I played against one of my best friends who unfortunately is not on Dakka.




Better/Worse than current 40k
Random vs In control (1-10)
Static vs Fluid (1-10)
More/Less tactical than current 40k
How "into" the game were you (1-10)
Suggestions:


Friend's responses (played Tau)
Neutral
2
8
Neutral
3
Roll for attacker/defender every turn.

Tyler's responses (played Orks)
Neutral
3
9
Less
6
Choices were frustrating, but not because I was choosing between two potentially bad outcomes. It was frustrating because there wasn't any consistency, and the game didn't feel like it was as good as it could be. Instead it was just "well I want to shoot before him, guess my deffkopta will have to be green this turn and I hope he makes it to next turn".

Well if you think a chart is required.Then a universal chart is the way to go!
(Simply adding a D6 to one stat , to beat the opposing stat, negates the need for a chart though.)

The chart you use is similar the the chart used for S v T, and to hit in 2nd ed.

IF the to hit roll was JUST comparing relative BS to Stealth, then I would use this method, as it is the same as the save roll and damage roll resolution.
But as we are going to use modifiers.....
Using Stealth as a base target score , and modifying it makes it the same as the morale resolution.

We need to keep the resolution methods to a minimum.(IMO.)
Ignoring direct representation, (movement distances,ranges, and number of dice rolled.)

A)Direct stat comparison B)Modified stat and target score.
Are the ones I would like to use...

This is the reason I went for Stealth as a base value modified , to give roll to Target. (Similar resolution as my revised morale system.)

I wanted to transpose BW to effective range , so Models chance to hit is directly effected by their effective range (BS modifier).So models with high BS can pick target further away...
Eg the troopers shoot at the nearest models but the character with higher effective range (BS ) can target a model further back in the target unit.

As I forgot flamers/chemical weapons were covered by templates( ).

I would like to suggest PINNING, cancels out any movement in the target unit during the attack.(NO 'look out sir',or 'Duck Back'.)And ANY model removed as a casualty ,CAN NOT be substituted with another model in the same unit, if the unit is PINNIED during the attack.

This gives sniper rifles and HE bombardments, etc, a special effect, that is completely different to Suppression.

I like your suggested rules of 'bane' and 'blight'.To make weapons better vs specific target types.
I don't think allowing re-rolling re rolls is a good idea.(...'it adds nothing but time wasting , complication, and arguments'...)

Allocation of hits we agree on.(Only you want to use 'look out sir' and i would change it to duck back.Minor difference in terminology/execution..)

The pickling up of support weapons and general sorting themselves out after an attack , could be included in the 'rallying step 'in the resolution phase perhaps?
ADDING the option for 'Re-organising' units that have lost casualties,or out of unit command distance.(Coherance ?what ever its called in 40k.)

SO rallying covers dis-organised units, supressed, neutralised, and routing units. (Pass a successful morale check to rally.)
This way at the start of the next game turn all units states have been resolved, and the players simply make decisions based on what they start with in the command phase.
(I think its a cleaner way to cover this.)

There are lots of ways to arrive at the end game play of 40k.

I think we are headed towards the same destination, but from different starting points.
You start from 40k 3rd to 6th ed, removing over complication..

I start from FoW, Net Epic, Dirtside,etc, adding detail.

I am sure we will meet on common ground, and arrive at a great rule set.

Both of you seem to be very certain on the 3 step damage resolution method. I haven't got a good alternative for 40k (yet) but in other games I have contributed (noticeably simpler ones) I have made 1 step systems that I felt were very successful. (They don't have enough degrees of freedom for 40k though).

Hi Dast.
The only reason I kept the 3 stage resolution, is because it is familiar to current 40k players.
And it allows the current differention between armour saves and toughness.(Ap values and strenght.)

It is quite possible to reduce it to 2 step.(Combining Armour and Toughness together/ AP and Damage values together.)
But in trial games most 40k players wanted the extra step to 'add detail' back in.

Most 'battle' games use smaller scale minatueres.(6mm to 15mm.)And oddly enough 1 and 2 step damage resolution feels fine in these games .

I belive its just a psycholgical barrier with 40k using individualy based 28mm models.Players seem to want skirmish levels of detail in the damage resolution.

My solution was reducing the resolution methods to 2 types.This means we can drop the 'clutter', while keeping the detail high.

I belive the goal is to simply let the core rules cover all the interaction.So the game play increases, while the number of pages of rules falls.

The current level of game play detail is not that high.Its just the awful level of over complication makes it look higher than it actually is.

Sorry, had some stuff come up and didn't have the time to reply.

Anyways, Lanrak.
I am opting for the chart system because it makes it so stats don't need to have a curve to them. If you think about it, every stat has a range from 0-10. If one stat is simply a D6 away, then it must be lower for there to be any sort of value in its meaning. Versus if every stat is 0-10 then there is a lot of versatility, and the range of guaranteed success or failure is much smaller.

If you look at the chart that I made, there are only 21 scenarios where you are doomed to failure. These all make sense because some weapons have no chance at hurting their opponent.

On the other hand, there are only 3 scenarios where you are guaranteed success. They are rare for a reason, and would represent things like a railgun hitting anything not very tough or armored or an earthshaker round hitting spore mines.

It allows certain ranges to consistently mean certain things:
1: trivial
2: below average
3: average
4: above average
5: significantly above average
6: outstanding
7-10: legendary



I do want to have both BS and Stealth be modified because it lets you control both aspects of your units. You'll have to make the choice between moving up to gain extra BS and pump out some more firepower, or moving to/staying in cover to increase your stealth value and take less damage. The game needs to be about tactical choices.

Also by making it so there is the universal chart, we have a massive range of values to use for stealth. For instance, certain units (like the Vindicare, Tau Stealth Suits, and The Deathleaper) should have outstanding stealth values (6-10) because that’s what they’re meant for. However, a Land Raider is not a stealthy vehicle and would have a trivial (1) stealth value. A Guardsman would have a stealth value of 3, meaning that a guardsman shooting at a guardsman would hit on a 4+. But if a Space Marine shot at the guardsman they’d hit on a 3+.

Most every unit would have a stealth value of 3, with small vehicles having a stealth value of 2, large vehicles 1. However, if a unit is in cover, that is increased by 1. If they have the stealth special rule, it is increased by 1, shrouded is 2, both would be 3. Of course stealth and shrouded are going away, but these are just the conversions.

This also allows for certain boisterous infantry to have a lower stealth value. For instance, make Orks have an immensely powerful charge when they WAAAGH, but lower stealth values because they aren’t going to hide or try to use cover effectively.


I think once people learn a trick for the chart, it’s going to be incredibly easy to follow and use quickly. I already have a trick for it, and have shared it already. When it comes time to wound in games I never have to look at a chart and my games move quickly.


Now, onto wound allocation. Specifics I prefer to wait on, and sort those out with special rules. I do plan on having a sniper special rule though that allows a player to pick the target or something like that.

Look out sir (or duck back) I do think should be reserved for characters. Personally I like the addition of characters, I just think they over did it a little bit. Get rid of precision strikes, random warlord traits, and some other things I’m not currently thinking of and I think it will do wonders. Keeping look out sir and changing challenges up a bit I think would be nice. We’ll address those in the next section though.

I like your idea to change it so you can recover casualties in the resolution phase instead of the following turn. I think it might slow the movement down too much if it forced them to stay still. I would like there to be some kind of consequence for doing it, but can’t think of a good one so I’ll drop it.

However, this would be very easy to break if we don’t put restrictions on it.
1. Must have no more models at the end of the resolution as before (e.g. can’t start with 4 models and end with 5.)
2. Must have no more wounds at the end of the resolution as before.
3. Models must remain in original locations, but may be reorganized (think switching models with each other.)
4. This cannot be done if suppressed, neutralized, or routed.
5. This cannot be done if locked in close combat.

I think these are all reasonable restrictions that make sense and will really help avoid breaking the system (e.g. reorganizing to be closer to a unit you want to charge).

Wounds are dealt to the models closest to the firing unit, in range, and in LOS. They are resolved in order chosen by the firing player, but each weapon cannot wound farther than its maximum range (e.g. a bolter can wound up to 24” away, and a rocket 48” away, but the presence of a rocket doesn’t double the range of the bolter.) The firing player elects all the weapons that will be fired, then goes through each group of weapons-checking range, rolling to hit, armor save, and to wound before moving onto the next group.

Here’s an example:
-10 man marine squad shoots with 7 bolters, 1 bolt pistol, 1 flamer, 1 plasma cannon.
-Marine player elects to resolve the flamer first.
-Next are the bolters that are currently in rapid fire range, finishing off the squad. Rapid firing does not limit the range of the weapon, it is a bonus shot if within half range that can still wound out to full range.
-Next is the bolt pistol that is no longer in range.
-Finally is the plasma cannon, which must roll for overheat because it is assumed to have fired but dealt no damage. If the player had not elected to fire the plasma cannon at the start, the overheat roll would not be necessary.



I know this is a massive wall of text; it’s over 2 pages in word haha. I hope it all makes sense, because it seems very intuitive, realistic, and easy to incorporate on my end. If this all makes sense we actually have completed part 2! Part 3 is just knocking out assault rules, then creating special rules for certain circumstances. I still need to finish play testing the new turn order, but that is almost done. After that’s done I’ll play test part 2 while we work on part 3. I still really need more people to play test it, because how much I like it is a moot point. I would really like for this to be a ruleset that the community can pick up and play if they feel like it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, here is a current stats conversion:

BS --- Same
S --- Same
T to RV --- Same
Sv to AV --- 8 - Sv = AV
Vehicle Armor Value to RV --- Rear Armor - 7 = RV
Vehicle Armor Value to AV --- Front Armor - 5 = AV
AP to AP --- 8 - AP = AP (current value of - means new AP 1)



I'm not happy with the AP vs AV from infantry. AP vs AV from vehicles is exactly where I want it though. If anyone has any ideas that'd be a huge help.

The reasons I prefer direct comparison over a chart.are...
Its simpler.No need to look up results , just be able to do simple subtraction and addition.

And it does not allow results to be 'fudged'.

Using compared stats,everything scales evenly.

Using tables there is a tendancy to sway results to the developers own personal preference.(it happened in 40k when they reduced the results in the to hit table.)

In direct comparison,every case of a result of 1+ is an auto pass.Every case of a 7+ is an auto fail.
It is not restricted (artificialy,) to any set amount.

The ranges of value already have direct meaning if when in a comparative way. That is what defines a comparative use resolution .

Using BS vs Stealth with modifiers, is more complicated resolution that I would like.
But it works well enough.(And fits with the comparison of stats in the other parts of the damage resolution.)

I am just a bit reluctant to over complicate the core rules at this early stage.

You basic outline for stealth values are a good starting point.

I want the characters to have their abilities represented by their command value.(Command Range, Number of Re Rolls.)
The command range shows the range of effect the character has.
EG.
0/1 means the Model can re roll one dice roll for themselves ONLY.
6"/1 means the model can re roll one dice for themselves or ONE model within 6"

The ranges I was thinking of was , 0",6",12",18",24".

The command values of 1,2,3 and 4 for very rare special characters.

These re-rolls allow characters to use their experiance(limited re roll once per game turn) to stop the army from suffering set backs....
Eg
A)Re roll a failed fire support request.
B)Re roll a Targeting roll for a squad member.
C)Re roll a failed Damage roll
D) Re roll a Failed Save roll.
E)Re roll a failed rallying roll.
F) Re roll a personal failed morale test.
G) Re roll a nearby units failed morale test.(If in command range.)
etc.

This adds a tactical dynamic of when to use your characters abilites, and which characters to utilise for the re-rolls you think are neccissary.

When I called for re-organising , during the resolution step as an additional Rally option.

I simply meant moving the models into a coherant effective fighting force.
A)Picking up support-heavy support weapons off the units casualties.
B)Removing individual suppresion from models .(If the unit was not suppressed. )
C)Moving models back into into unit coherancey.(After 'Pinning' -casualty removal has disrupted normal unit coherancy.)

However, it could be used for allowing 'medics' to attempt to recover lost wounds, and mechanics to attempt to repair vehicle damage.As you suggested with the restrictions you listed.

The only dis-advantage of failing a re-organisation roll, is the unit has to use some of its next movement action to regain unit coherancy and recover weapons.
OR fight in a dis-organised state , without weapons lost to casualty removal.

I meant vehicles and Monstrous creatures to have F/S/R AV values!

Infantry AV simply allow the same mechanic to resolve all damage resolution.I was working on AV = current saving rolls ' pips' as a rough starting point.

Eg
6+ = Av 1
5+ =Av 2
4+ =Av 3
3+ =Av 4
2+ = Av 5

Current Inv saves add to the base Av.(to give values up to Av 8 for a Terminator Chaplin perhaps?))

This leaves vehicles with Av of 9 to 10 for light vehicles.Av 11 to 12 for medium vehicles , 13 to14 for heavy vehicles, and 15 to 17 for super heavy.

If we put AP values at +2 on current str values for non AT weapons.(AT weapons will need a bigger boost to account for the current dice bonus to penetration)

Eg some rough values...
Laser pistol/rifle. AP5
Bolt pistol/rifle AP 6
Heavy Bolter AP 7

AT weapons Str+ 7 for a starting point perhaps?(an extra +4 for 2 D 6 pen.)

Las-cannon AP 16
Rail Gun AP 17
Melta gun/cannon, AP 15 At under half range AP 19


TTFN

Wow we had some major differences that I didn't see before haha!

Alright, so these are the big ones that I saw:
-Command stat
-F/S/R armor values
-Invul saves
-AP conversion

We'll tackle those first before we move on to some more specifics.

So, first up is the command stat.
I think this can best be covered by a warlord trait, not by a stat. I think if we add a stat it is only going to overly complicate things. However, by simply making it so a warlord can choose a trait for every 500 points means every player can have the commander they best feel represents them (as a warlord is supposed to do).

Here are some ideas:
-Bold: Every counter revealed to the opponent allows a single reroll that turn.
-Inspiring: Units within 6” may use the commander’s leadership.
-Stalwart: Models within 6” of an objective may reroll all 1’s for armor saves.
-Ravenous: The commander and their unit may add 1” to their charge distance.
-Cunning: The commander may redeploy either 3 friendly units 6” or 1 friendly unit 18”; remaining in their deployment zone.
-Clairvoyant: May look at a single enemy counter at the end of the command phase.
-Judicious: Units within 3” of an objective may reroll all 1’s to hit.
-Tenacious: The commander may redeploy either 3 enemy units 4” or 1 enemy unit 12”; remaining in their deployment zone.
-Unyielding: The warlord is scoring.
-Relentless: The warlord gains +1 Initiative when in the enemy’s deployment zone.
-Bloodthirsty: The warlord earns 1 victory point for every enemy character slain in a challenge.
-Sly: The warlord and their unit gain +1 stealth.

Obviously these aren’t a final version deal, but they allow the player to create themselves on the battlefield.


F/S/R armor values are next.
I don’t have a problem with these. I think we should keep the same RV regardless of the facing, but make it so the AV changes. Monstrous creatures will simple use the value they have now for their side, add 1 for the front, and subtract one for the rear. I think this is the easiest way to go about things.


Invul Saves I’m pretty set on.
I don’t want these to modify anything or be modified by anything (barring extenuating circumstances.) They are a save that can be taken after a wound is done (or after armor saves, either work). These are done in addition to armor and represent extraordinary equipment/toughness/faith/whatever. I really don’t want to see them lumped in with the armor save.

Finally, the AP conversion.
The plan I had been going with was to move everything to the 0-10 stat range. I like that range because it provides great comparisons and can be used with the universal chart I created. If we move into the 11+ category stats begin to lose some of their meaning. Suddenly terminator armor that would be a 5 by your system would be trivial compared to a trukk. Terminator armor is better than a trukk’s.

After thinking more about it, and looking at the chart and where things should lie I’ve come up with this.

Instead of it being 7-current AP, it will be this:
Current --- New
1 --- 10
2 --- 9
3 --- 8
4 --- 6
5 --- 4
6 --- 2
- --- 1

Vehicles will be AV -4 if we assume they will retain their facing values.


Example below is a Hammerhead with Railgun vs Land Raider
Railguns are now AP 10.
A Land Raider is AV 10.
Using my chart, this is a 50% chance to be saved.

Railguns are St 10
A Land Raider is RV 7
Using my chart, this is 2+/6+ (or an 86% chance to damage.)

Add in the reduced stealth value and BS 4
New to hit roll is 2+/6+

Current 40k, a Hammerhead has these odds to damage a Land Raider.
66% chance to hit * 50% chance to damage = 33% chance to damage
New version, a Hammerhead has these odds to damage a Land Raider.
2+/6+ to hit (86%) * 50% through save * 2+/6+ to damage (86%) = 37% chance to damage.


These are very close, but it is now a little higher. After all, a Land Raider is exactly what a Railgun is going to aim for. Some of these are going to break down, hence adjusting scores.


Example below is a Marine taking damage from various weapons
Melta gun – 0% chance to save
Plasma gun – 0% chance to save
Ion cannon – 0% chance to save
Heavy bolter – 16% chance to save
Bolter – 50% chance to save
Slugga – 83% chance to save
Environment – 86% chance to save

Example below is a Guardsman taking damage
Melta gun – 0% chance to save
Plasma gun – 0% chance to save
Ion cannon – 0% chance to save
Heavy bolter – 0% chance to save
Bolter – 16% chance to save
Slugga – 50% chance to save
Environment – 66% chance to save

Example below is a Terminator taking damage
Melta gun – 0% chance to save
Plasma gun – 0% chance to save
Ion cannon – 16% chance to save
Heavy bolter – 33% chance to save
Bolter – 66% chance to save
Slugga – 2+/6+ (86%) chance to save
Environment – 2+/5+ (89%) chance to save

Example below is a Fire Warrior taking damage
Melta gun – 0% chance to save
Plasma gun – 0% chance to save
Ion cannon – 0% chance to save
Heavy bolter – 16% chance to save
Bolter – 33% chance to save
Slugga – 66% chance to save
Environment – 86% chance to save


In another thread (actually the one that made me decide to do this); it was mentioned that the armor system should be redone. This makes it so there isn’t some magical barrier between AP values; where all of a sudden it just goes through armor. Although that’s very simple, it never really sat well with me. Now you really have to think about which guns to shoot with. It’s no longer “well he’s got a 2+ save, unless I’ve got plasma I’ll just shoot every horrible AP gun at him until he dies.” Now it’s “well he’s got a 2+ save, I can either use that heavy bolter to reliably kill 2.5 of his friends or shoot at him and only do 2 wounds; which do I need more?”

This is just the next iteration of course, but I think it mimics the game pretty well. Horrible AP weapons will have an immensely difficult time getting through things that have a save, but decent AP weapons have a chance at putting the hurt on enemies.

The only area I see this breaking down is in close combat, but we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it. Who knows, maybe we’ll do Strength = AP or something.

Hi.
I wanted to cover the current game play in the simplest way possible.
Eg use simple values and resolutions to get the interaction in the most straight forward way. 40k is the direct opposite of this.It is written to promote the sale of GWs toy soldiers .

COMMAND VALUES>
Rather than a range of values that are easily read and understood by all.
Why do you want to add a seperate list of effects,( tied to named abilities) that do not allow for comparative assessment ?
This seems to be over-complication just for the sake of it.(Essence of 40k. )

Eg Judicious, is incredibly overpowering for large units ,hovering near objectives, with high rate of fire.Where as it is totaly usless for units with low fire output, far away from objectives.

Where as a defined range and number of re rolls. IS comparable, as it can be used BY ALL UNITS IN MANY SITUATIONS.

IF you want to restrict the re-rolls to specific functions to add character.Then we could them break them down into Assault ,(close combat oriented rolls only.)Fire power,(ranged attack oriented rolls only,)
Tactical decision.(Calling in off table support , rallying units etc.).

AV and RV.
I agree RV remains constant from all facings.(It represents the softer target area behind the armour.)
F/S/R on all large target units/models, to allow for tactical movement advantages.
We both agree on this.

INVUNERABLE SAVES&SPECIAL RULES etc.
Invunerable saves, FNP,WBB, etc were added to the game of 40k to make up for the poor range of results the deterministic use of a D6 gives.AFTER modifiers were removed.

They are counter intuitive and do not allow for proportional results .
(Remember 40K is written without ANY concideration for game ballance.I would like to be able to ballance our rules to be suitable for ballanced competative play. )

MY objection to inv saves are the weapon that reduced heavily armoured vehicles to smouldering hulk, simply bounce off terminator armour, 1 out of 3 times!
INV saves allow models to survive the effects of attacks that simply should NOT be able to survive.

MY take on this is that Anti tank(anti Monstrous creature ) weapons are only usable vs LARGE TARGETS(Low stealth values.)
So an Ork Trukk Stealth 2, CAN be targeted by a rail gun, multi-melta missile launcher etc.

But a Terminator Squad Stealth 3 can NOT be targeted by Anti tank fire support weapons.
(Smaller more agile units are too hard to target, this make more sense than just ignoring 1 in 3 hits.IMO)

This simply follows the real world use of weaponry.Hard targets tend to be large and easier to hit.(Tanks Bunkers, ect.)
So they tend to deliver ONE high powered shot .(Long set up -aiming times,not practical to use vs infantry.)

Anti personel weapons tend to spray an area with lots of lower powered shot.

This way weapons are effective vs a specific target type.(And so armies NEED to use combined arms to be successful!)
The 'Spamyness' of 40k is not found in better balanced games.

As reguard to actual values, as long as the results are similar enough to current results overall.And acceptable to the players , I am happy to use what ever method/values works best.

I would prefer to get the basic frame work of the game play covered with the minimum of fuss.(Just unit stats and their interaction.)

However, you appear to want to put some '40K esk' over complication into the rules at the beginning. I do not know why you want o do this?

I think invulnerable saves do have some merit, they represent force fields, energy shields or the like. They would naturally need a different response than metal armor. Weapons intended to pierce material armor may be useless on shields (depending on your fluff).

I think that if invulnerable saves went it might be nice to put something else to take the role of force field thing.

I'm really not trying to overcomplicate things.


I found what you were saying about command stats to be more complicated personally. The main reason for this is that it is another stat to add onto the profile.

If we added command stat to the stats we already plan on adding a unit's profile would look like this:

Movement
Movement Type
Body type
Body Size
Ballistic Skill
Stealth
Weapon Skill
Strength
Resistance Value
Wounds
Initiative
Attacks
Leadership
Armor Value
Side Armor Value (monstrous sized units)
Rear Armor Value (monstrous sized units)


Granted, this eliminates tons of special rules; however, that is already so many stats that it makes me a little uncomfortable. Adding any more just seems like we'd be shotgunning players with number after number, and I feel it will deter players from even play testing.


The command traits I mentioned were a VERY rough idea, I plan to work them out before I even put them in the first post as an idea.

What they allow the player to do is better represent themselves on the battlefield through their commander who, after all, is supposed to represent them. I favor the method I put because it makes it customizable, versus picking from a list of characters and saying "well that one is kind of like me."

I'm fine with totally scratching the rules that went with the names I put above-I have no attachment to them. But I really don't want to have a command value and command range. We could simply make it so there are 5 choices you get when making your list, with a blanket reroll being one of them. Or anything for that matter, I really don't care. Hell, we could even make it so it is optional and in a competitive setting the TO can just disallow it.



I'm with Dast on invulnerable saves. They are supposed to represent things outside of armor protecting the user (e.g. faith, force fields, shear mass, etc.)

We would need to find a suitable replacement for this, and I can't think of something better than what is currently used.


Changing a weapon to be anti-monstrous sized targets I'm definitely willing to hear out. I'm a little worried about it though, because it is limiting the player's choices instead of opening them up. Giving the player more choices on tactics is what the goal of this is.

The reduced chance to hit compared to large targets I felt would be a good enough indicator of what single shot anti-vehicle weapons should be aiming for, but not making it so if the opponent doesn't take any monstrous sized targets the unit isn't totally useless.

Hi .
Sorry I should have said, my proposed stats would be.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(Unit name ).

Mobility.(Symbol for type of movement/ max distance moved in inches.)
Armour value.(F/S/R for 'large targets'.)
Resistance value.(toughness replacement)
Wounds/Structure points.(Number of models/amount of 'hits' per model.)
Stealth.
Morale value.(Ld replacement)
Assault value.(Initiative replacement,for assault sequencing.)
Command Value.(Range of effect/ number of re-rolls.)



(Weapons.)
Name/Effective Range/Damage /AP/.Effect/Notes.

Effective range , Damage and Effect takes BS-WS and A into account.(Net effect of weapon and user skill.)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

This gives us 8 stats.(3 double values)
Current 40k has 9.(Not including the vehicle rules!)

We could add a Targeting value to replace current BS if you think it is absolutely needed.
The catch all 'Stealth value' takes model sizes agility and training in to account.(The footprint of the unit determines interaction on the table.)

I do not mind having a range of different protection and weapon types/effects , that interact differently .But just a fixed value vs everything is just bad game design from a balance P.O.V.

I have no problem with some units being invunerable to some weapons.
But being invunerable to ALL weapons some of the time is just not intuitive.

40k only deals in physical damage.And all weapons can shoot at all models.And the basic save is 2,3,4,5,6+ fixed.(unless its a vehicle..)
So the whole galaxy of creatures is covered by JUST 5 results , that are fixed.So inv saves, FNP,WBB, etc are used to get variety back.(And different rules for vehicles etc etc.)

Using opposed stats lets the Dice roll become a variable modifer in a proportional relationship resolution.
So variable save rolls depending on the armour of the target and the Ap of the weapon.
And variable damage rolls depending on Resistance of the target and Damage value of the weapon.

If we look at the units in 40k.
They range from lightly armoured units that rely on weight of numbers, or stealth to see them though.
Up to massive armoured behemoths that rely on superior protection, as they are too large/rare to deploy in numbers or use stealth.

So there is a trade off between Amour v and Stealth/number of models in the unit.(A bit like modern warfare.)

So weapon design is also as varied.
Low power wide area of effect, vs lighter numerous, stealthy targets.
Up to
High powered single shot to defeat the thickest armour of the largest (monsters-)vehicles.

I propose using the new stats to display 3(4) types if invunerability!.(Varied upon weapon and target type.)

A) Higher stealth, invunerable to Anti tank type weapons that are ONLY effective vs Large targets.

B) Higher Ap values, invunerable to weapons with lower Ap .(No matter how much damage the weapon does.)

C) Higher resistance values ,invunerable to weapons with lower damage .(No matter how high the weapons AP value is.)

(Higher Assault values could give invunerablility to certain assault attacks perhaps?)

We have invunerability, but it is applied in a more intuitive way becuase its built into the basic game resolution.
(I may need to explain that a bit better?)

This model is invunerable to that weapon attack because ;-
Its too agile,or too tough,or too well armoured, or too well hidden.

Makes more sense to me than ...
That weapon fails to work 1 in 3 times vs some models , and not on others, because we say so.

Hi again.
I appear to have either not explained myself too well or put down something so far from current 40k rules.You dont have a frame of reference for objective critisism?

As I said before , I want to get to the game play of 40k with the minumum of fuss.(Less than 40 pages of rules, including diagrams /pictures.)

And to my mind the current 40k rule set has rules bloat for one main reason.
The core rules tell you how to play W.H.F.B.Then have lots of additional rules to cover the extra game play and units of 40k.(vehicle rules added on , movement rules added on, unit types added on USRs added on, special rules added on....)

I was looking at rule sets for modern warfare battles.(Epic Armageddon, Net Epic, F.o.W, Dirt-side, etc.)
And as these use in smaller scale minatures in larger battles than 40k.
It seemed easier to ADD definition and detail to a solid battle game rule set.Rather than try to unravell the holistic mess the current 40k rules have developed into...

Here is the profile for a SM tac Squad .See if my proposed stats are easier to understamd?

SM Tac Squad Unit card.

Tactical Squad. Basic PV ***
(L) 4"
(A) 4
(R) 4
(W) 10/1
(S) 4
(M) 8
(As) 4
(C1) 6"

SPECIAL NOTES. Combat Squads(can split into 2 x 5 man sections.)etc.

The letters in the () represent the symbols we use on the unit cards.(A picture paints a thousand words.And also means easier translation to other languages.)
Double stats explained...
The legs symbol means the unit moves on legs! upto 4 " per movement action.

The Wound symbol means the unit is considered to be an ORGANIC target.(If the unit has a (S.P) symbol it means it is considered to be mechanical)
The 10/1 means the unit starts with 10 models with 1 wound per model.(Unit leaders get re rolls instead of extra wounds, as they can be more useful!)
Creatures with more wounds like Ogryns, 5/2 , simply have a higher base number of wounds as now.


The Command value is represented by a chevron symbol.(like ' stripes' used in military rankings..)
1 chevron-1 dice re roll.
2 chevron -2 dice re rolls.
3 chevron-3 dice re rolls
Star Special Character with 4 of more re rolls.
Followed by a range of effect in inches.

Any special abilities would be noted under the unit stats.

Then we get the units weapon profile..

Standard Equipment
CC weapon/0-2"/1/4/1/Close Combat only.(Its not a throwing knife! )

Bolt pistol/0-6"/1/5/1/One handed Small arms.

Bolt Gun/6 to 30"/1/5/1/Small arms.

Support weapon(1) .
Flamer /Template/2/5/Template/Ignores cover.(Standard.)

Meltagun/12" /4/10/1/ 'Melta' (+4 AP at under 1/2 range).(Upgrade PV**)

Plasmagun/30"/3/9/2/ 'Gets Hot'.(Can only fire alternate turns.)(Upgrade PV**)

Fire Support Weapon(1).
Missile launcher /46" /1:3/5:8/3" Blast:1/Pinning;Large targets only.Stats for Frag then Krak Missiles.(Standard)

Heavy Bolter /40"/2/7/3.Pinning.(Down grade.PV **)

Lascannon/46"/4/11/1.Large target only.(Upgrade PV **)

Plasma cannon 40" /3/9/3.Gets Hot(Upgrade PV**)

Multimelta 30"/4/10/1/Melta .(Upgrade PV**)

This may confuse you even more. .

My apologies, I have been reading but haven't had the time to put together a good reply.

Here are a couple quick thoughts:

The command stat with your example makes infinitely more sense now. What I had thought you were saying was that it was for the warlord only, NOT as a substitute for a sergeant. I'm still a little up on the air as to what I think, and will know for sure once I get the chance to play test the turn order I brought up earlier. The command stat could be the perfect substitute for initiative if that is the case.

Your stats make much more sense now, especially with the second post. This whole next week I'm going to be pretty busy, but I'll try to at least have a short reply each day. My hopes are to have part 2 done by this next weekend, so we can start on part 3 when I'm done with training on the 11th.

Ultimate goal is to have v0.1 done by the end of the month. Then I'll start really trying to get people to play test, read and revise it, etc.

This may over-complicate things but I thought it might be nice if their were damage types. (They could be represented by little symbols next to the damage of weapons).

This would allows some flexibility, but perhaps at the cost of too much complexity.

Some damage types could be:
Kinetic
Thermal
Sonic
Mental
Poison
(Gas?)

Some weapons might have more than 1 type (for example lasers might be thermal and kinetic. Or poisoned projectiles might be both kinetic and poison). Tesla weapons would probably be thermal (best approximation), or their could be an electrical type i suppose.

A units resistance could be given by a number, potentially followed by one or more additional numbers next to damage symbols:

for example an avatar of Kain might have:

resistance: X + Y (symbol for thermal)

(additionally resistant to thermal, using X+Y).

A "-" sign could be used to put weaknesses if desired.

@rabid1903.
it is a bit difficult to discuss new ideas just in the written format..And it is very easy to mis -understand what people are trying to explain.

I posted up my proposed stats , to outline the basic format of a unit card, and see if they covered most of the interaction .
And hopefully show the ideas I had on representing the in game interaction.

@Dast.
I like the idea of different weapon types and armour types.

I would like to keep it fairly straightforward though.
(To borrow slightly from CBT.)

Weapons.
Kinetic, Energy,Thermal/(chemical .)

Armour types.(Units have ONE type of armour.)
Ablative , Reflective or Ceramic..

Ablative armour gets to re roll failed saves vs Kinetic hits.

Reflective armour gets to re roll failed saves vs Energy hits.

Ceramic armour gets to re roll failed saves vs Thermal/(chemical.) hits.

This allows different armour effects without too much over complication , IMO.

As reguards non physical damage.(Eg by passes normal armour types.)
We could make them low damage (1) but need to pass a (skill) morale test to use them, eg any psychic/sonic attacks perhaps?

Having composite armour types and multiple damage resistances is fine for detailed skirmish games.But for 40k battle games, they may be too complicated/fussy to use?

We have to be careful about the level of complication at this early stage IMO.
I would like to get the basics running right , and add the detail in later, as an when needed.

Lanrak I think your suggestion for how to do different damage types is a very good one, considerably less complex than mine. I would add that for sake of simplicity that models with different armor types should be kept from being in the same unit.

You system should also be robust to the inclusion of occasional exceptions when unusual unit abilities are introduced.

Ion, plasma, fusion and melta are at various points on the spectrum between energy and thermal. (I have put them in the order as I see it with the most energy-like first). Where do you think the cut should be? (I am struggling with plasma, I think it should be thermal, but would like to differentiate it more from melta).

The armourbane and fleshbane and bane things above make you re roll successful saves.
Having the correct armor type allows you to re-roll unsuccessful ones.

Presumably the simplest way of having both would be that they cancel and you don't re-roll anything.

(If you wanted to you could roll all of your saves, then pick them all up again (successful and not), and roll them again. As you can only re-roll a dice once that would be it. So you are back to just one roll, as the first makes no difference at all).

Dast,

Just eliminating the reroll is what I had been planning. It is by far the easiest route to go if both players have something that affects the roll.

Different weapon types and different armor types I do find very interesting and I really like the idea; however, I worry that the execution will be over complicated and lacking compared to what we want it to be.

Something like 75% of all weapons should be kinetic. Everything from a slugga to a Railgun are kinetic weapons.
The difference between thermal and energy is minute in reality.
All weapons do damage based on energy, but the type of energy is what differs. It will be one of 3:
-Kinetic - it will hit its target and transfer momentum or penetrate.
-Thermal - it will burn or melt its target (think the airborne laser used to take out missiles)
-Chemical - it is going to corrode its target or poison it (think an alien's blood from the movies)

This does get rid of your debate though


As for the armors, I don't think giving out blanket armor types is the way to go. If that was the case, 90% would be using anti-kinetic armor because that's what 90% of all armor is designed around. Instead I think we should make these special rules (we only have 2 so far).
-Reinforced - Reroll armor saves against kinetic weapons
-Ablative - Reroll armor saves against thermal weapons
-Coated - Reroll armor saves against chemical weapons


So to recap:
-Every gun gets a type.
-Not every armor gets a type.
-We should make it so armors can have multiple types.


With that, I'm off to training. I'll see if I can comment more tonight.