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.

Walls of text are underable.

Just can't.

But from what I've seen I can conclude, that you are trying to fix parts which are not broken. Using car example - you are trying to repaint parts of broken car.

5th edition was most popular time for 40k for a reason.

And the reason wasn't that there was no flaws in statline or activation mechanics or something, the reason was that it got enougth tactical debth married with accesibility.

So, if the idea was to fix 40k, you (we) need to go back, reveal this core of the game and develop from it.

@Chaospling.
It may be a bit difficult to see how the new assault method would work in the new game turn .(Especially as I messed up the explanation a bit. )
I meant to say the attacking unit launches an assault in its Movement Phase.By moving into contact with the enemy unit it is assaulting.(Up to double its mobility rate.)
Remember I am trying to keep all the movement in the Movement Phase if possible.

The target unit that is assaulted may not shoot after the Attacking unit 'locks it in assault.'(Movement phase is before the Shooting Phase.)

This is the only bonus the assaulting unit should need, if the game play follows similar trends of other tactical battle game rules.

I would like to try to use a much cleaner and better defined set of interactions to start.
Letting units perform all sorts of actions in all sorts of phases, lets the game play devolve in to a complicated mess quite quickly if you are not careful.

So keeping all the movement in the movement phase,all the shooting in the shooting phase, and all the close combat attacks in the assault phase should keep the interaction well defined and intuitive.(Hopfully)

I am hoping the new rules will allow shooting to control enemy movement and L.O.S with tactical use of suppression, damaging transports, and smoke/blind ammunition.
And assault will be used to contest objectives and can be used in a more tactical way too.

The idea of the assault is to push the enemy off an objective or to prevent them from giving effective fire support by locking them in assault or forcing them to be pushed back.

I think it is important to make attacks in 40k more than just about 'killing stuff'.As this is the way to open up tactical game play to allow units to have lots of different in game functions .

It may be I am going too far?
I would like to get complex game play , by using straight forward rules.

Which is the complete opposite of 40k 7th edition, from what I can tell.

@Lanrak:
Well my argument still stands as the shorter range of a unit (including assault attacks of range 0-2") makes it less efficient, everything else equal, as units with shorter range have to spend more time to get into range. Units with shorter range needs to have higher efficiency per turn to be equal units with higher range. If you don't do this then you should be very aware about point costs as there will be a considerable difference between assault units and units which prefer to shoot.

Also, I get that you want to avoid unnecessary complicated and messy rules which messes up gameplay, but do you want to get completely rid of chosen gambled actions?

"I am hoping the new rules will allow shooting to control enemy movement and L.O.S with tactical use of suppression, damaging transports, and smoke/blind ammunition.
And assault will be used to contest objectives and can be used in a more tactical way too. "

Isn't this done already by the damage or threats of dealing damage or do you have something in mind that would be new to 40k, that you haven't presented yet?

@Chaospling.
I am primarily trying to sort out the core game play , and get the rules as straightforward as they can be while supporting wide range of viable tactics in game.
As this is going to alter comparative in game worth of every unit, I expect all the point values will need to be re evaluated.

Currently in 40k the focus of all attacks is to cause physical damage.In this respect shooting has the advantage of longer range and not having an opposed skill to reduce the chance to hit compared to assault.

I have probably made a mess of explaining how I believe the new game play works. I will try to run through a turn looking at a unit launching an assault.

In the first movement phase the 'assault unit' will probably.
A)Move at double rate to close with the enemy,
Or
B)Move then Go to ground, to increase their Stealth value, reducing the chance of hits from ranged weapons.

In the first movement phase the 'shooty unit' that is the target of the assault (because its on an objective!) will probably.
Not move but 'set up' to maximize its shooting* in the shooting phase.
(*Fire 'Move or fire weapons' and double range to 24" of 'rapid fire weapons' like bolters and lasguns in the shooting phase.)

In the first shooting phase, any friendly units supporting the 'assault unit', may try to suppress units likely to fire on the 'assaulting unit(s)'.Or fire smoke/blind rounds to reduce the line of sight to the assaulting unit(s).

Then IF the 'shooty unit ' has not been suppressed, or had its L.O.S to the assaulting unit hit by smoke.
They will shoot at the assaulting unit , hoping to suppress them, to slow their advance, or reduce their numbers, to reduce the impact of the impending assault.

Depending on the mobility rate of the 'assaulting unit', and the distance to the target.The above options will be repeated until the assaulting units target is within 'charge range'.(Double Mobility rate.)

When this occurs the assaulting unit charges (moves in to contact with,) the target unit in the assault units movement phase.

The only movement the charged target unit can take in their movement phase is to move more models into contact with the assaulting unit that charged them.IF they want to.

Neither unit can make ranged attacks in the shooting phase, as they are 'locked in the assault.'

Both units make their close combat attacks in their respective assault phases. Damage caused is recorded, and models are not removed until both sides have made all their attacks.

The side that won the assault may act normally next turn.(But may not assault if they are below half starting strength, unless they pass a morale test.)

The side that lost the assault is 'pushed back', a compulsory movement away from the winner of the assault.(if the loosing unit is below half starting strength, they will route from the assault if they fail a morale test.)

All the assault has to do is push the enemy unit off the objective, to be effective in game. (Physical damage caused is a added bonus.)

I was hoping to use suppression to add more tactical uses to ranged attacks.

If the target unit fails more armour saves from shooting than it has remaining hit points.It becomes suppressed.(It does not matter if the penetrating hits causes damage or not for the purpose of inflicting suppression .)

Suppressed units lose a movement action.(They count as having moved to minimize threat level.Diving for cover etc.)

A suppressed unit can only move up to their mobility rate OR make ranged attacks with 'move or fire' weapons.

This gives shooting the ability to limit enemy units in game effect, without having to inflict lots of physical damage.

The re introduction of smoke and blind ammunition for some units, would give them a tactical use.

I am thinking of letting 'Pistol Weapons' fire into the assault the unit is engaged in, instead of making a melee attack.
It would make pistols a actual considered choice over rifle type weapons.(Bolt gun OR bolt pistol folks not both! ).
I am not sure if this would make pistols too powerful though?

Quick summary of things I would like to add to the game play.

The tactical effects of shooting is to slow advancing enemy units down, or block enemies line of sight.
(I did not think 40k 7th ed used tactical suppression , or smoke/blind ammo?)

it is very difficult and time consuming to 'shoot a unit of an objective'.Especially numerous cheap infantry that are 'dug in'.(+ 2 to stealth.)

Therefore assaults are used to push back enemy units to contest objectives.Assaults are used to move enemy units away from objectives.

If we allow units to actively hide as a tactical option, then we have a real use for scouts and recon units to find and identify hidden enemy.

Has that made it any clearer?(I am not that good at explaining things. )

@Lanrak:
I'll try to respond to as many of the subjects you rise, but sometimes I can't manage them all. You don't have to apologize for not making things clear, I think you're rather clear most of the times, I just don't agree with you, I think.

This is a complete rewrite, but removing half of the phases in which certain types of units do their thing in which the original game didn't favor those types of units in the first place, should merit to huge boosts to those types in some other area so the balance between shooting and assaults is not distorted even more than it is.

"it is very difficult and time consuming to 'shoot a unit of an objective'.Especially numerous cheap infantry that are 'dug in'.(+ 2 to stealth.) "
But isn't the horde unit equally difficult and time consuming to remove from an objective in assault, if you don't outnumber the horde unit?

Maybe we should go back to talk about assault resolutions as we'll probably won't get to an agreement... I just can't get over the fact that you will remove half of the effective assault phases, and add that "Physical damage caused is a added bonus" when this is a big part of the DNA of Warhammer 40k.

Everything that you write about suppression, I can agree to, though I use the amount of successful hits, the hits don't have to do damage in any way in my ruleset.

I'm also interested in giving scouts and infiltrators a "new area of expertise" - when you say "hide" do you mean it should be possible for a unit to completely hide or just that some cover of the hidden unit could be negated by the scout?

@Chaospling.
I am not sure on the best method to deal with assault resolution.
So I am trying to get a straight forward system that should work, as the basic concepts work fine in other games.

This is just a starting point to give a clean and stable foundation to develop from.

I am happy to make changes to the basic system to make it a better fit with the expectations of 40k players.
I am sure you and others have plenty of great ideas that can be added to this basic foundation as we develop the rules further.

You wrote ..
''This is a complete rewrite, but removing half of the phases in which certain types of units do their thing in which the original game didn't favor those types of units in the first place, should merit to huge boosts to those types in some other area so the balance between shooting and assaults is not distorted even more than it is. ''

I am not sure what you are referring to exactly?

What 'Phases' have I removed from the game? A lot of the additional moving and assault related rules were put in to try to buff assault as shooting had a basic advantage due to the imbalance in the core rules.

Are you referring to the fact I am proposing that units only make close combat attacks in their own assault phase?

This is an example of starting with a 'clean rule'.If it becomes apparent we need to cause more casualties in assaults, then I have no problem reverting to both sides fight in their own and their opponents assault phase.

But my idea is to give shooting and assault additional tactical effects, so they are not just competing directly to 'kill stuff.'
Eg fix the core imbalance between shooting and assault in the core rules, and maybe a cleaner rule set can work?

The only reason I prefer to use 'failed saves' over ' hits', is that it prevents heavily armoured units being suppressed by fire that is no threat to them.
Eg a Necron Monolith being suppressed by lasgun fire!

If we allow units to 'Dig In' if they do not move or shoot.The bonus to their Stealth could make them very hard to see at long range.
So long range shooting becomes quite ineffective against Dug in units.

If we imagine the infantry hoard on the objective is a IG White Shield unit, 20 bodies with average Close Combat skills and basic knife close combat weapon.
A Elite close combat unit , EG Eldar Banshees with specialist close combat skills and specialist close combat weapons charge them .
(After the White Shieds have been suppressed by supporting Guardians squads.)

The Banshees would probably cause more wounds on the IG White Shields than the White Shields could cause on the Eldar Banshees.
So the Banshees win the assault.

The White Shields are pushed back.
The Banshees won the assault so they can charge the White Shields again.

The White Shields are pushed back again, off the objective.
The Banshees have won the assault and cleared the objective, of enemy units.Now the Guardian squads can move up to take the objective, fire on the White Shields to suppress them , while the Banshees , move to cover while working their way to the next target for assault.

My initial thoughts for scout units, is they remove enemy units Stealth bonuses from being Dug in .The scout report the position of the enemy unit.

I would like to explore the option of letting units 'hide', but I am not sure if this fits with the 40k background?

@Lanrak:
An overall "Got ya" to your post - I thought that you were dead set on removing half of the effective assault phases. We also agree that some units should be harder to suppress than others, so I can see the reason to include failed saves. I can't figure out if it's enough to only let the suppression be a question of armour (and of course the shooting unit's ability to hit) but also (or "instead") should be a question of the target's mind. Isn't suppression a question of how much incoming fire you can take without it stressing you to do something which maybe wouldn't have done otherwise? Others are very welcome to post their input about this subject!

About your example: maybe I forgot, but I didn't think that the White Shield unit could be pushed back if they still outnumbered their enemy.

Intuitively I can see how Tau would be able to mark their targets for drone/computer controlled weapons to lock on, but imaging a Space Marine Scout reporting the position of an enemy unit tells me that an invisible enemy unit is now visible, not that an enemy unit, which is dug in, is now somehow easier to hit.

@Chaospling.
I have been looking at ways of getting suppression into the core shooting resolution of 40k for about 10 years now.I have found you can get suppression working by using complicated rules quite easily.But I wanted to try to get something that is straight forward to use,intuitive that gives appropriate results.

You are right!
In its basic form suppression is the level of threat , compared to the units level of confidence.And the recovery from suppression is down to basic morale and the command ability of the commander of the units.

In 40k generally the more elite models tend to get get better armour. So the armour a unit has is a very rough indicator of their confidence.

So the simple rule 'If the unit fails more saves than it has hit points left, the unit becomes suppressed.'
Is the simplest and most intuitive method I can think of representing 'threat and confidence.'

This covers units that rely on high numbers to get them through, (Orks ' Mob rule',for example.)
And all the way through to the other end of the spectrum , units that rely on heavy armour to protect them fro all but the most powerful weapons.

This is a 'clean' basic rule that covers most interaction , delivering reasonable results with little fuss or confusion.So makes a good starting point IMO.
(We can add in some special abilities to some weapons and units if needed though. )

The second part of the suppression mechanic is how fast the unit recovers from suppression.

Imagine a Grot Mob and a Ork Warboss leading as Nobz Mob both receive heavy fire, and become suppressed.

The Grot Mob has a Morale Grade of 5,which moves down a grade to 6, because they are suppressed.So they need to roll 6+ on their morale test to lift suppression .
(Grots tend to be very cowardly and are good at hiding from the Runtherd!)It is very likely the Grots will stay suppressed for a few turns.

The Nobz Mob have a Morale grade of 2, which gets down graded to Morale Grade 3.They need to Roll a 3+ to lift suppression with a morale test.
However, the Warboss with Command 3/12" decided the Nobs Mob needed to be back up and chopping stuff up as soon as possible.
So he adds one of his command points to the Morale test, now only needing 2+ to lift suppression from the Nobs Mob/ Warboss unit.

I am not sure if the morale test should be taken straight away after suppression is caused,or to be taken at the end of game turn phase.(Resolution phase.) Its the sort of thing we can decide after play testing.

Is this close to your idea of how suppression should work?

To recap on my basic ideas for assault resolution.
The unit that caused the most damage to the enemy wins the assault.
If both units have caused the same amount of damage, the unit that suffered the least amount of damage wins the assault.
If both units have caused and suffered the same amount of damage in the assault, then the unit that outnumbers the enemy wins the assault.

So outnumbering now just the deciding factor when units cause and suffer the same amount of damage.
(On reflection I agreed that outnumbering is important, but not as important as I first wanted it to be. )

Sorry about the confusion on the last bit of my post,I was getting tired, and messed up my post.

IF we allow units to 'Dig in', this can add to their stealth value making it harder to see them and to hit them.And this is where scout /recon units can call in 'artillery or air strikes on the 'Dug in target.'

As the dug in units are in LOS of a unit that is spotting for the artillery/air support, the incoming fire does not suffer a penalty for being 'indirect fire'.

If we allow units to actively hide, then scouts and recon units can discover hidden units. Eg units remaining concealed behind LOS blocking terrain.etc.

Its just some ideas for discussion to add more tactical depth and options to the game play.

Walls of text for days.. *shudders* sorry, but I skipped the second page, my eyes were starting to hurt.

Anyways, I have an idea for totally streamlining the individuals models' abilities/statlines/USR:

Also, I have a suggestion for fixing phases, chiefly the Assault phase:

EDIT: Also, bringing in a morale counter treads a fine line on keeping track of all of a bunch of counters on different units, who has how much morale? what about those units with multi-wound models, who has how many wounds?

@dusara217.
I would like to summerise for you to save your aching eyes.In the words of Mekboy Grubnaz.

Da Main workybitz is bust Boss!
Weve been adding on as many gubbinz as we cud, but its still broke!(Even wiv lots of enthusiastic 'thumpin' and 'shoutin' at it, it still no good!)
I gonna smash it to bits an find new worky bits to start wiv!


Unfortunately analysis and discussion of game mechanics and resolution methods can be a bit boring to read through.
I believe if we use a more suitable stat line that reflects more elements of the game play, along with new core rules to bring the game play and back ground of 40k in to synergy.
We can arrive at a well defined intuitive tactical battle game rule set for 40k, double the tactics with a fraction of the pages of rules.

I intend to streamline all USRs by removing all of them.
And just use special rules for actual special abilities.

I intend to fix the phases by using the most straight forward rules that cover the interaction in that phase.

ALL movement happens in the movement phase , including running and charging into assault.

Shooting has an opposed stat so the size silhouette and skill of the target can be covered in the resolution, not just the skill of the shooter.

In assault all combat is 'simultaneous', initiative is replaced by an Agility stat to show how hard the model is to hit in assault.
Assault should be fast and deadly IMO, so I would like assault to be resolved after one turn.And the resolution should be kept simple and intuitive.

I would like to add tactical use of suppression , as an intuitive part of ranged damage resolution.And push backs as immediate and compulsory results of loosing assaults.

This gives shooting a tactical function of slowing down enemy movement, and Assault the primary tactical action required to contest an objective.
(I also would like to use L.O.S blocking ammo, like smoke ,and would like pistols to shoot into assault as an alternative to making Close combat attacks.)

I hope that helps.

The key thing about USRs is that they're universal. By removing all of them, don't you run into the issue slowing down games so that players can read through the special abilities of their models, specifically what those abilities do, double-checking in the middle of a Turn, etc. etc. ? When you have USRs that have very similar effects (Stealth/Shrouded, for example) it makes sense to merge them, or just remove one entirely, but removing the entire USR system would just make it even more difficult to get games going, since you'll constantly be looking back at the opponent's Codex to make sure that he isn't making up that one Unit's ability to hit an extra time in melee combat, because special rule, rather than just being able to see "oh, it has Rage, I know exactly what that does, because it's the same across every Codex."

@dusara217.
Pick any other war game on sale today apart from 40k.(and A.O.S if you class it as a war game.)

They have core rules , that cover about 90% of the game play.And a FEW special rules to cover special abilities that cover the rest of the game play .

Universal means it applies to everything universally.
Special means it does not apply to everything, it is a special case.

Universal Special rules are an oxymoron.And mean the core rules do not work properly.

The special rules section in the new rules , (approximately twenty special rules .)Will be listed after the core rules in the rule book.(Like most other war games.)

I expect the new rules will be about 50 pages , when we get them typed up and ready for alpha testing.