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.

@Anpu-adom.
I am just trying to clarify what you mean by 'target numbers.'

If you are referring to 'fixed values' eg 'model X' has 3+ to hit,' model B' saves on a 2+ for example.
Then moving to a 2 stage damage resolution would only give you a maximum range of results of 36.(Using a D6)

If you are referring to adding D6 to the active models stat, vs the opposing model stat.

Eg Armour save is Av +D6 vs the AP value of the weapon hit.(Similar to F.O.W.)


Then this was an alternative we were considering.
But this does give 'odd' value ranges for stats, eg Armour value of 1 to 14 , AP values of 4 to 19 , for example.

And in practice a lot of people we asked did not like the 'odd ranges of numbers'.
They preferred the familiar values of 1 to 10 in a chart , reading off the value they needed for success.(This is the basis for my suggestion of the universal resolution table.)

Either of these last two method when used with a 3 stage damage resolution gives 216 results, with a proportion result at each stage of the resolution.
In our limited play tests. this cuts out the need for most of the special rules bloat and superfluous extra resolution systems.

@Future War Cultist.
B.A and B.t.G.o.A. are great skirmish games.And they use some very good ideas.

However,the range and diversity of units in 40k makes a 'straight conversion ' problematical, in terms of range of variation expected and in game power levels and variables.

I am concerned in a larger battle game if we focus on causing casualties for suppression,we will have to keep the 'ablative wounds models ' that bloat unit sizes to a similar level as current 40k.

Where as failed saves allow units to be suppressed without having to have so many 'ablative wound models' to 'clog up' the 'area of play.'

Hi all.
Just to clarify , if you want to have a good skirmish rule set for 40k, then basing the rules on B.t.G.O.A, gives the game a solid foundation.
(Kodos and AnomanderRake are right in the fact that B.t.G.o.A is a much better starting point for a 40k skirmish game than A.o.S.)

BUT the 'generic stats' for units and weapons may lack the variety in the detail that many 40k players have got used to.
And this may lead to resorting to lots of special rules to cover the 'expected differences.'
So I would approach this sort of conversion with careful planning and adress issues with core rules rather than hoping the special rules can fix the issues for you.

I am open to developing ideas from other games to create new rules for 40k.
But very little can just be 'copy pasted 'into the new rules from other rule sets, simply because of the unique scale and scope the 40k battle game has.

Lanrak wrote:
Hi all.
Just to clarify , if you want to have a good skirmish rule set for 40k, then basing the rules on B.t.G.O.A, gives the game a solid foundation.
(Kodos and AnomanderRake are right in the fact that B.t.G.o.A is a much better starting point for a 40k skirmish game than A.o.S.)

BUT the 'generic stats' for units and weapons may lack the variety in the detail that many 40k players have got used to.
And this may lead to resorting to lots of special rules to cover the 'expected differences.'
So I would approach this sort of conversion with careful planning and adress issues with core rules rather than hoping the special rules can fix the issues for you.

I am open to developing ideas from other games to create new rules for 40k.
But very little can just be 'copy pasted 'into the new rules from other rule sets, simply because of the unique scale and scope the 40k battle game has.

I'm not suggesting copy-pasting anything from GoA or Bolt Action (or copying anything from WHFB/LotR/WotR/AoS, for that matter), I simply brought them up to make a point about what concepts can and can't be sacred cows in a game. Plenty of efforts to 'simplify' 40k stick to the three-roll attack, or the long multi-phase turn, or some other bit of the game that slows it down and doesn't add much in the abstract.

The generic stats for units and weapons aren't all that different from how 40k works now. Imagine (we're talking in the abstract here) I were to define under the Bolt Action rules a 'heavy rifle' as a 24" range weapon with a +1 penetration value within half range. I could then say a boltgun is a 'heavy rifle', a shuriken catapult is a 'heavy rifle' that cannot fire at long range, a Gauss flayer is a 'heavy rifle' that gets a bonus to its penetration value if the damage roll is a 6, a pulse rifle is a 'heavy rifle' that retains its +1 penetration value at long range...

Infinity is another game that operates this way. They chose to have a very short list of weapons (about twelve unique weapon profiles in the core book) and handle the differences by combining one of eighteen ammunition types with said weapons to create a wide variety of equipment. Each new weapon doesn't need an entire new profile, all it needs is 'K1 Combi-Rifle' or 'Nimbus Grenade'.

I think the concept of standardizing and streamlining the weapons across factions would speed play up and result in fewer rules. I'm not suggesting this be done in a vacuum, I'm simply pointing out that there are worthwhile concepts to be found in these games without trying to port the system over entirely.

@AnomanderRake.
I suppose I was trying to make sure everyone is aware of how unique 40k is.
(And it is this uniqueness that has lead to GW devs constantly swapping between concepts in game development, leaving 40k in a complete and utter mess. )

And that to get any real progress in this sort of thread it maybe an idea to state the intended scale and scope of the game you are proposing ideas /rules for?

Eg Battle for Vedross is a simple skirmish starter game with limited room for growth and expansion without adding on multiple separate systems and special rules.(Rules bloat.)
The core rules are too simple to handle the variety in the current battle game of 40k.

The current 40k rules are over complicated by a factor of about 20, because again the core rules are too simplistic (despite being over complicated,) to cover the actual game play players expect.

And having tried lots of different approaches over the last decade or so , I have discovered the core difference between simple rules and streamlined rules .(My definition of them at least. )

Streamlined rules can cover all levels of game complexity,(being defined by me as the optimum amount of game play complexity, with the minimum amount of complication in the rules. )

Simple rules can only deliver simpler* game play. without resorting to multiple exceptions(special rules that can lead to rules bloat in more complex games).
(*Simple rules can only cover so much game complexity before special rules and additional systems are needed.)

If we take the BA skirmish rule set and look at its scale and scope.
Skirmish game where all factions comprise of human infantry with the same level of technology, and armoured vehicles with similar levels of technology.
Therefore a well written and defined simple rule set is all that is required.

Even looking at the sci fi skirmish games like, Warpath, Infinity,Warzone, B.t.G.o.A. etc.
These game all have a clearly defined scale and scope, where well defined simple rules and a FEW special exceptions do the job really well.

My concern is that simple rules would not cover enough of the core game pay and unit diversity 40k player want, in a company level battle game, without resorting to lots of special rules .
Probably not as bad as the current 40k rules but still not as 'clean rule set' when compared to using 'streamlined rules.'

Eg
Streamlined rules,
Units may move up to their movement stat when taking a movement action.This distance may be modified by terrain types.(Listed in detail in the terrain table page XX.)

Simple rules.
Everything moves 6 inches across open ground , or D6 inches across difficult terrain or for additional movement when running.

Apart from the following 14 exceptions listed over 7 pages for unit specific movement.
And the 9 special rules listed over another 6 pages .
And the super special rules scatter through out the codex books which will be releases years apart.....

Or to take you recent example borrowing the concept from B.A

Assuming 8 different weapons types , and each having light , medium and heavy variants.
That is 24 weapons profiles players have to learn.

And assuming a dozen special weapon rules that modify range, penetration modifiers , and to hit chances, to give the variance to cover 40k adequately .
(Hoping players do not expect super special variants of similar weapons as they do in current 40k rules to bloat the list of special rules even higher.)
This is generating several pages of information in the rule book players have to learn and remember.

Even 12 weapon types and 18 munition types takes up a lot of pages in a rule book and generates data player have to learn.

Both of these methods work well in games with smaller scale and scope than current 40k is trying to cover.

My suggetion for a streamlined option if to list the units weapon data under the units stat line.(On the unit card or on the players army list.)

EG.
Weapon Name, Range, Attacks , Armour Piercing, Damage, Notes.

This way if Unit X rifle has a longer ranged attack with a rifle because they are trained in shooting more than other units.
We can simply put an increased range value in the weapon data for that specific unit.
In a similar way we can simply show differences between units weapon effects directly on their weapon data for all variations .

No looking up standard profiles to modify with (multiple ) special rules, (that may or may not stack depending how you iterprit them.)Just read the units weapon data off the unit entry/card.
No data has to be learned and remembered , and correct pages of rules do not have to be found in the rule book during the game.

In my experience the three stage damage resolution does not slow 40k down, its the additional systems and special rules that have to be referenced ,(and argued over.)That detracts what should be an enjoyable game.

In the same way including the opposed stat in combat resolution gives you the variety in results that allows intuitive game play results.

Yes it is slightly more complex resolution that delivers more complex game play.But it does not add much in the way of complication to the rules.

''Compare opposed stats on the universal resolution table on page XX.to determine the dice score need to succeed.''

Is not that much more complex than-

''Look at the active models stat to find the score needed to succeed.''

However, the first delivers proportional intuitive results from the core rule.(Each and every model can have an active and passive stat to define it in detail.)

The second may requires special rules to determine the difference in target type.(Small target, Holo Field,Jink, Clouds of smoke, invisibility , etc.)

In short I prefer game where the stat lines and weapon data cover everything BUT the actual special abilities which are covered with a FEW special rules.

Sorry about the long and slightly rambling post.(Its been a long day at work. )

You and I seem to have different opinions on this front. I find that the biggest thing that slows the game down is counterintuitive or inconsistent rules. Consider Warmachine or Magic: The Gathering. There are a lot of special rules that exist as text in both games, but since they operate very consistently on top of a very cleanly-written set of core rules they are easy to learn and remember.

By comparison Age of Sigmar has a really, really short rulebook, but it has units that you have to know 48 different numbers to play. You end up spending a lot more time looking at stats and less time on the table.

I'm going to take some time to organize my thought process so I can suggest a better system in a fashion that makes sense. In the meantime I will say I that while I understand where you're coming from on the scale front, I don't think going into a bit more detail on commanders is incompatible with a functional company-scale game.

@AnomanderRake.
I am not proposing or promoting the use of counter intuitive or inconsistent rules.

I am not arguing against the use of special rules.

And I agree than IF the intended scale and scope of the intended game play can be covered by simple rules and a FEW well defined and implemented special rules, it is the preferred choice.

However, if the game scale and scope means that simple rules can not hope to cover the intended game play sufficiently well enough to allow the limited and well defined use of special rules.
(Most good games have between half a dozen and two dozen special rules, not OVER EIGHTY!!!!)

Then I believe it is prudent to look at more complex rules that do not add the complication in the rules ,'the way special rules bloat' tends to do.


If you look at the 40k rules ,the things that adds counter intuitive and inconsistent elements to the rules, 90% of the time its the special rules and additional systems that have been added to the over simplistic core rules .(The other 10% is due to poor wording or implementation of basic concepts.)

Now looking at 40k rules, everyone familiar with other rule sets can see pointless over complication in the core rules.
But even with this level of pointless complication the core rules are too restrictive and simplistic and fail to cover any thing but 'standard infantry' in 'open ground.'(If the inclusion of so many special rules means we have any' standard infantry' left? )

The errors in 40k rules start with lack of focus on a particular scale and scope of the game play.

And are then compounded with inherited over complication with forced backward compatibility to WHFB 3rd ed/RT.

And finally to give the illusion of 'easy to learn/explain ' they make the core rules deliver far to simplistic results and limited interaction ,with no chance of generating interesting games with engaging game play, without having to 'force the narrative' with random special events/rules.

If I was proposing expending the stat line and weapon data line to make them bigger and slow the game down I could understand your objection.
If I was suggesting using a completely new resolution method for combat, I could understand your objection.
(Basically a S vs T chart with wider range of values is not new. )

My concept is minimize the need for special rules by making full use of the stat line and weapon data.
If we do not need a particular stat , after play testing it is much easier to replace a single stat with a single special rule.Compared to trying to replace multiple special rules with a stat.

I suspect we're arguing the same point from opposite directions here. I do agree that there are quite a lot of redundant/unnecessary special rules (after a quick scan through the USRs I'd guess about thirty of them aren't redundant/irrelevant/easily cut), but I think the core rules/numbers/statlines are just as unnecessarily complicated and could easily be trimmed back.

Hypothetically if the Assault phase in which both players attack on each player turn was redesigned in such a way that your unit attacks in melee on your turn only, you could delete many pages of rules, make the melee/ranged balance easier to handle, and delete an entire statline entry and at least two USRs. The core rules, special rules, and statline are all unnecessarily complicated in this context and they make the game longer and more complicated than it needs to be be together.

Sorry I've not been contributing more here. Work has been crazy busy lately.

Anyway, I can see the merit of replacing special rules with more basic statlines. If a model had a stat that determines what is needed to hit it with an attack, we wouldn't need things like jink, shrouded, etc. But I also really like this idea of simplifying weapons down to a few basic types and leaving special rules in the units data entry to bring in the variety. Because we have to have variety, otherwise what's the point?

Pretty much all pistols have the same range and number of shots for example. I don't see why something similar couldn't be done for assault weapons, heavy weapons. This would probably help with balance.

I glad there's been so much debate here though. Please keep it up in my absence everyone. I'm getting some time off soon so I'll be back with better, more concrete ideas very soon.

@AnomanderRake.
I think we are aiming for very similar end goals , but as you say, our approaches are slightly different.

I am happy to use direct representation for most stats, with the exception of the combat resolution ' to hit', 'to save' , 'to wound.'

As the variation in this interaction in 40k is far more diverse than that found in other games.(Due to a massive amount of variation in life forms and tech levels found in the 40k universe.)

I was play testing the new alternating phase game turn with one player assaulting , then the opponent assaulting, and delaying casualty removal until the end of the assault phase.(To simulate simultaneous resolution.Doing this allows the replacement of the the Init stat which is redundant with a dodge stat to oppose WS.)

With the new focus of assault to push units back, or cause them to route.
This allows fast resolution of assaults,with tactical positioning replacing the current focus of ' killing stuff in droves in a big scrum'.
As you correctly indicated in your post this makes the rules for assault much less complicated and speeds up game play quite a bit.

I am not sure if is it too divergent from current game play for 40k players to accept though?

I agree the current 40k rules are needlessly complicated.(6 different resolution methods .)

However, rather than ditch all of them and only use direct representation.
Why not just use 'opposed values on a table' for combat resolution , and direct representation for the other 3 or 4.(Depending if you want to separate unit morale from leadership or not.)

The use of ONE resolution table, and allowing all units to be covered by the core rules in the same way.
(No separate rules for vehicles.)

Makes the rules six times less complicated, and allows more of the game play to be covered by the core rules, reducing the need for USRs completely.

Just core rules and special rules. (Like all the other games out there. )

@Future War Cultist.
I can see the benefit of 'rationalized' weapons profiles , IF you still want to describe the weapon profile separately in the rule book.
Then apply weapon special rules from the rule book to arrive at the net weapon effect.

But why not just display the net weapon effects on the unit card/unit entry under the stat line for the unit?

This way every unit can have a unique weapon if we want, but we do not have to remember any weapon data as it is on the unit profile in front of us during the game.

Eg
Unit name
(Model(s) stat line)
Mv,Sh,Ev,Cl,Dg,Av,Rs,Ht,Ld.(Still using 9 stats, but now we fully cover in game abilities for ALL units in the same way, , apart from actual special abilities.)

'Close Combat' weapon data.
Name ,R,A,Ap,Dam,Notes.

'Small Arms' weapon data.
Name R.A.AP.Dam,Notes.

'Support weapon' data.
Name R,A,Ap,Dam,Notes.

'Fire Support weapon' Data
Name R.A.Ap.Dam,Notes.

(Obviously some units would not have all weapon types.The weapon classification names are just to illustrate, I am sure you can think of better names . )

My 2 cents for stream lining 40k

General rules free like AoS

Codex still cost cash but with the codex you also get a data sheet for each formation

Codex aside from fluff says, all units taken from these codex have x rule

Then for example, with DA there would be a ravenwing strike force data sheet that says, you can take these models, they have x rules which do y, here's the profile of the units, here are the weapons that can get equipped onto them.

That way all you would need to pack is a single data sheet, containing all of the information you would need for your army.

The codex itself will have unit cost and upgrade cost and fluff.

The biggest issue with 40k is the constant, well this unit has this rule which does this!

There needs to be less this rule counters this rule and more this is what I can do with this rule end of story.

Kinda why I like dark Angels, I pass all moral end of story thank you come again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The only time it would get messy is with HQs but oh wel I'm ok with that.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
My 2 cents for stream lining 40k

General rules free like AoS

Codex still cost cash but with the codex you also get a data sheet for each formation

Codex aside from fluff says, all units taken from these codex have x rule

Then for example, with DA there would be a ravenwing strike force data sheet that says, you can take these models, they have x rules which do y, here's the profile of the units, here are the weapons that can get equipped onto them.

That way all you would need to pack is a single data sheet, containing all of the information you would need for your army.

The codex itself will have unit cost and upgrade cost and fluff.

The biggest issue with 40k is the constant, well this unit has this rule which does this!

There needs to be less this rule counters this rule and more this is what I can do with this rule end of story.

Kinda why I like dark Angels, I pass all moral end of story thank you come again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The only time it would get messy is with HQs but oh wel I'm ok with that.

Given that we're talking about a homemade ruleset I suspect copyright law means you won't be paying for it whatever happens...

@Blackspacehacker.
I agree with AnomanderRake that is is more of a 'discussion of house rules options, to inspire and exchange ideas.'

And if at the end of it we as a group made a 'fan rule set for 40k the tactical battle game', it would be more of a labour of love, simply because we believe 40k deserves rules written specifically for it. (Unlike GW plc view that a WHFB conversion for 40k is good enough for the 'kiddies and collectors' who dont play or dont care about rules. )

I agree the biggest issues with the way 40k rules are written is the lack of constants , and clear definitions.

The biggest culplrit to my mind it the use of 'false absolutes', to try to explain the rules as simply as possible.

Eg ...this always happens....apart from when any of the following 14 poorly applied and explained exceptions occur.(GWs special rules for everything syndrome.)

This unit is never affected by this particular rule, apart from when units with these special rules (we just made up to help sell the latest releases,) that always effect all units counter the first absolute, making it false.

To me the actual art* of the 40k universe is inspiring enough to get people hooked.

The rule set needs to define and deliver the intuitive yet complex game play in the most straight forward and well defined way possible.

I.M.O.this means using the stat line and weapon profiles to cover as much in game interaction as possible .Leaving absolutes to cover actual special abilities.

Example special weapon rules...
Chemical weapons:-Always ignore the effects of cover.
Poisoned weapons;- Always double damage vs organic targets.
EM or Sonic Pulse weapons :-Always double armour penetration vs mechanical targets.

This details weapon types that work differently to standard projectile weapons which make up the bulk of weapons in 40k.
Because the best games are always simple mathematic models that deliver intuitive simulation with abstracted resolution but do not abstract the results.


GW seems to be trying to 'narrate' the game play with lots of poorly applied and worded special rules.

Sorry I've been so out of the loop lately. Work was extra demanding this week.

There's a lot here I need to catch up on and reread. Just one question; should we veer on the objective side when making the rules or on the abstract side? I feel that abstract might be the better way to go, because it actually helps keep things uniform. For example, if I had a criticism of AoS, it's that range and los are measured from the model itself rather than from the base. This means that a model assembled with its weapon outstretched has a longer range than one clutching its weapon close to it. That's OK if the models had adjustable poses, but they don't. So should we stay on the abstract side when making the rules?

@Future War Cultist.
As all war games are abstractions of real warfare, to a greater or lesser degree.I think its important to specify what areas we think can be abstracted.

I am happy to abstract the resolution methods to fit the level of detail we want in the game.
If we are creating a battle game focused on unit interaction, we need a bit more abstraction in the resolution methods to speed up play than a detailed skirmish game would have, for example.

However, the one area we do not want abstraction in is in the results of the resolution.
The abstraction of results that are so counter intuitive it breaks the willing suspension of disbelief during the game.(WTF moments.)Has to be avoided at all costs.

This is one of the main faults in the current rules .IMO.

In an attempt to make the rules simple to explain ,and have heroic things happen every 5 minutes, GW have abstracted the results to make them practically meaningless, and use additional special rules to 'narrate' the out comes instead.

Thoughts on targeting and L.o.S.
If we accept the horizontal scale is exponential, and completely different to the vertical scale in 40k. Abstract targeting rules make logical sense, to fit the abstract scales on the 40k game play area.

Using the models base/hull to define the area it occupies on the table for angular LOS checks is fine.
But the models ability to use cover /hide behind terrain , needs to be covered by values in the rules , not how the model has been artistically intepreted on the playing area.

If we are talking basic design concepts, I think inclusive rules writing is a valid focus .

EG write rules that cover ALL units in the game.Not artificially separate units to make them appear 'special ', (so worth more money to players according to GW.)
From a game mechanics point of view, 40k only has 2 unit types.(Units that remove models to show damage, and units that record damage separately.)

As we are not trying to sell the latest releases short term to maintain revenue like GW do, exclusive rules writing just adds pointless complication with no benefit to the game play.


Are unit cards a good idea?
As many modern games use unit cards , for easy in game reference.
Would you be happy with this format?

One side could show the unit stats and weapon data, and on the reverse side it could have point values upgrade options and force organization data perhaps.

So you use one side of the cards to construct your force up to an agree size.
Then flip the cards over for easy in game reference.

This might be an ideal way to allow upgrades for units (add on cards) without having to use pages and pages of rules perhaps?

@ Lanrak

Yes, I think unit cards are a great idea!

And the three tier resolution method is the best way to go in your opinion simply because it gives us more results and thus incorporates more rules into it yes? I was toying around with this idea here:

A model has their shoot value and their melee value, which look like this:

Range, Attacks and Damage. Range is, well, range and Attacks is, you know what it is. Then there's Damage. This is a combined to hit and to wound value. Take a guardsman with a lasgun for example. They can look like this:

Shoot: Range: 24" Attacks: 2 Damage: 1
Melee: Range: 1" Attacks: 1 Damage: 1

To inflict damage, simply roll a D6 and add the Damage value to it. If it is 7 or more, they inflict damage on the target. So that guardsman needs a 6 to inflict damage with any attacks.

Then models have their actual profile. The Guardsman's is this:

Save: 1 Wounds: 1

Again, to save against a wound, roll a D6 and add the Save value to this. And again if it's 7 or more, they save against the wound. So higher number saves are better rather than the current reverse. And on their card it can have additional notes for special rules. For example, lascannons can inflict multiple wounds (D6 maybe?)

This means that armor saves and weapon strengths are limited to a range of 1-5, but it is pretty straight forward right? Yes it requires mental arithmetic but that's not too much to ask for right?

This system can create similar outcomes to the current one. Lets take 20 guardsmen with lasguns shooting at space marines:

In the current system, 20 shots (assuming they're in half range) averages out at 10 hits, which becomes 3.33 wounds, which is 1.11 dead marines.

In this system, 20 shots turns into 3.33 damage which again turns into 1.11 dead marines. But is quicker, more to the point and cuts out charts. Literally the only thing to remember is, it's always x + D6 = result. And 7+ is a success.

And a Land Raider can have a massive number of wounds and a rerollable 2+ save. With that:

20 lasguns becomes 3.33 damage which then becomes 0.095 wounds (my maths might be off there though). So yes you can damage a land raider with a guardsman but its incredibly unlikely and ultimately insignificant anyway.

Thoughts?

@Future War Cultist.
If you are happy with the use of unit cards, then we can use them to put the in game information on .
This means we can use slightly more complex resolution methods if we want to .As players do not have to learn the stat lines or weapon profiles as they are in front of them on the unit card.

The resolution method you outlined would work well enough in a game where units were intrinsically the same .(Eg all squads of infantry with similar levels of tech.)

My main concern is that in the drive to come up with simpler rules, we might forget the complexity of the game play we are trying to cover?

For example a main battle tank equivalent should not be able to be penetrated by small arms fire.It may only happen one in a hundred rolls , but when it does it will cause a WTF moments.
Not taking the targets armour or toughness into account when resolving damage in 40k, is over simplification that would lead to detrimental compromise in the game play.

Given that these values can be put on the unit card would this be too complex?(The same number of stats as current 40k, but all of them count fully describe the in game unit abilities.)

Movement value. (Maximum distance in inches the model may move per movement action.)

Ranged skill.(How good the model is hitting enemy with ranged weapons.)

Evasion skill.(How good the model is at avoiding being seen /hit.)

Melee Skill (How good the model is at hitting enemy with close combat attacks.)

Dodge skill(How hard the model is to hit in close combat.)

Armour value (How much armour protection the model has.)

Resilience (How hard the model is to be damaged by penetrating hits.)

Hit points (How many damaging hits the model can take/how many models in the unit..)

Morale (How willing the unit is to fight on.)

The unit weapon data can be unique to that unit if we want, as its printed under the unit stats on the unit card!
This is where players find the Range, Attacks, AP,Damage, and Notes for each weapon carried by that unit.

Why do this?

What damage does a combat knife do?Totally depends who picks it up!

A Grot only does 2 damage with a combat knife , (if they can stab someone in the back when they are asleep. )
A Ork Warboss could probably punch it straight through an IG flack vest, causing 6 damage for example.

How do you class weapons when they depend on what model is carrying them to determine how effective they are?

A heavy bolter is a move or shoot 'fire support ' weapon in an IG squad for example.

It can be a move and fire 'support ' weapon , when used by a specialist Xenos Hunter/Grey Knight unit.

It could even be classed as a pistol weapon and fired in assault when carried by a Deamon Prince.

If we list the simple weapon profile for the weapons actually carried by the unit under the unit stat line.

Name/ Range/ Attacks/Armour Piercing/ Damage/ Notes.

This presents the weapon data in a similar way for all weapons. (The same weapon data as current rules ,except the number of attacks is under its own line rather than being added to the weapon type .)

This is mainly a presentation change, to help fit the in game information on the unit card where it is most useful, and minimize the amount of info players have to look up in the rule book during the game.

I may need to explain this in a bit more detail for it to make sense?

My worry about unit cards is that it could take away from the squad customization. Godslayer uses an 'options' card with a list of options and checkboxes to indicate which ones are on the unit, but they've got one unit with options per army, that could get clunky in larger games.

On the statline I'd rolled dodge/evasion together for simplicity's sake in earlier projects; they didn't get a lot of testing but it seemed to work. The main effect was to make most models easier to hit in melee than at range; if that's a problem it'd be easy enough to just adjust MAT down/RAT up across the board.

I'd like to at least consider rolling resilience and armour together into one stat. Taking a brief detour a summary of Bolt Action's to-wound setup: Each model has a number describing how hard it is to kill, from 3 for green infantry to 11 for large tanks. Roll a d6 and add your weapon's penetration value (roughly analogous to Strength), if the result equals or beats the target's resilience you've successfully wounded (a roll of 1 always fails, but 6 doesn't always succeed). It's fast, intuitive, keeps small arms from affecting tanks, and allows for a fairly wide range of weapon stats.

Unique weapon data is something to be cautious with. If we get too excited about it we end up doing what Age of Sigmar did by chopping up statlines and making them longer. Given the relative uniformity of melee stats across a faction we shouldn't need the differences to be huge; we might end up with three generic melee weapon profiles across some factions. Ranged weapons really ought to be constant.

And I'd like to be cautious about a damage stat on weapons as well; that's one of the spots Age of Sigmar really screwed up. Keeping with the one wound-one model assumption for simplicity of record-keeping making a weapon suddenly remove twice the number of enemy models gets really out of hand really quickly. That said depending on the degree of abstraction it could be a way to deal with blast weapons?

@Anomander Rake.
I was thinking more long the lines of each unit having the basic weapon option sets on 'standard unit cards'.
And then upgrade cards to add more specialist equipment/leaders to the unit.

So for a SM tac squad they could have;_
Anti Infantry load out.(Flamer HBolter.)
Anti Tank Load out.(Melta Lascanon.)
Middle ground load out.(Missile launcher, plasma gun.).

The addition of a Vet sergeant upgrade card, could allow the unit to take any mix of special and heavy weapons.And a Vet Sgt weapons upgrade.
If the Vet Sgt is given the Terminator Honours upgrade card, the Vet Sgt can take extra upgrades.

This allows players to assemble their force quickly with standard units, and then go back and add upgrades to certain units if they want to.
(Did you ever play Epic Space Marine ?The unit card force creation system worked really well.And the upgrade system worked well in D.O.W 2)

I have no problem with reducing the stat line if play testing proves that a stat is making limited difference.
The old Will power , Intelligence, Cool, and Leadership were rounded up onto one Leadership value with practically no change to how the game worked.

However, 40k has units that are much easier to hit at range than they are in close combat, (Greater Deamon of Khorne) and unit that are much harder to hit at range than they are in close combat.(Ratling Sniper.)

Adjusting the ability to hit things in ranged and close combat can not generate the definition of difference between these extreme unit types.

My main concern with reducing the damage resolution to 2 stages from 3 .Is the reduction of results from 216 to just 36, if we keep the D6.

A WWII game fought with humans and the same tech level in both sides.Does not need the same level of depth of detail as a game covering life forms from an entire universe , and tech level from primitive to so advance we have no idea how it works!

I intend to cover all weapons by using the 5 weapon data values , and just changing the values incrementaly .

For example 'Gaunts Ghosts', are better at shooting than normal IG units.
Rather than giving them better Ranged Attack/ skill to equal the super human Space Marines .We can just give them longer range with their 'long lasrifles'
30" instead of 24" to represent them having a chance to hit targets further away because they are better shots.

The same way 'Mauglums Marauders' (Skar Boys Mob.)
Have brutally sharp chopaz and are slightly stronger than other Orks.
So rather than give them higher number of attacks or melee skill .
We can just give them one more on their choppaz Armour piecing value than normal Ork boy mobs.

When I say unique weapon data, I mean slightly different numbers in the weapon profiles to show slight 'fluff' differences across units.
(Not resorting to using umpteen special rules and power creep to sell models like GW do. )

(I am aware a lot of these ideas are new , and I may need to explain them better and in more detail.But open and detailed exchange of ideas is a good way to start the process of writing new rules for 40k IMO. )

On unit cards: I prefer to avoid cutting options back where possible. I'd be happier with some kind of quick-reference datasheet with the weapon stats printed on it the way FW does it instead of a WMH-style unit card, but if unit cards end up being the way to go the Godslayer approach is probably the one to go with.

On two-rolls: 40k already doesn't use very much of the 216, and making some things impossible to wound without sufficient penetration value sort of brings some of the stat range back. 6+ to hit/wound doesn't appear very much, 1 always fails, and armour saves of 5+/6+ don't get taken much, which already has the theoretical 216 stripped back to 48 possibilities. Going to two-rolls cuts back to 25 possibilities on the rolls, but I think making some things impossible to hit/damage with some attacks instead of making it hideously unlikely makes the proper-tool-for-the-task dynamic work better than it does in 40k today.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lanrak wrote:
I intend to cover all weapons by using the 5 weapon data values , and just changing the values incrementaly .

For example 'Gaunts Ghosts', are better at shooting than normal IG units.
Rather than giving them better Ranged Attack/ skill to equal the super human Space Marines .We can just give them longer range with their 'long lasrifles'
30" instead of 24" to represent them having a chance to hit targets further away because they are better shots.

The same way 'Mauglums Marauders' (Skar Boys Mob.)
Have brutally sharp chopaz and are slightly stronger than other Orks.
So rather than give them higher number of attacks or melee skill .
We can just give them one more on their choppaz Armour piecing value than normal Ork boy mobs.

When I say unique weapon data, I mean slightly different numbers in the weapon profiles to show slight 'fluff' differences across units.
(Not resorting to using umpteen special rules and power creep to sell models like GW do. )

(I am aware a lot of these ideas are new , and I may need to explain them better and in more detail.But open and detailed exchange of ideas is a good way to start the process of writing new rules for 40k IMO. )

I understand your theory, it's just that I think you're digging too far into subtle and overly-granular things. If we step back and look at the current selection of units in 40k there's enough work to do just making units for which the weapons do exactly the same thing, asking questions about random unique units that may not be sufficiently different to need different stats seems like putting the cart before the horse.

If slight weapon data changes do get used they definitely need distinct names for consistency and usability. I'd like to be able to have some kind of quick-reference without having to write "Flamer: Statline 1 or Statline 2, depending on where you find it" (as opposed to Flamer, followed by Promethean Flamer (Salamanders +S flamer)).

@AnomanderRake.
If all the in game data is on the unit card, it would be possible to keep the meaningful variations in units.I am sure some refining needs to be done to make all units viable options , that are internally and externally balanced.

Currently the codex books give the illusion of choice, but lots of the options are under powered or over costed, to the point the only players that take these units act like martyrs about it .

Currently the 40k game play is very simplistic with over complicated rules.
(GW tries to convince customers complication in the rules makes up for lack of complexity in the game play.But it does not, and gamer know this !)

So the choice is;-
A)Simplify the rules to match the simplistic game play .(And use special rules to cover all the game play that falls outside the simple rules.)

B)Refine the complication in the rules to support much more complex game play , and reduce the function of special rules to define actual special abilities.

Just because the current 40k rules fails to fully utilize the 3 stage damage resolution and the D6.
And so has to add pointless complication in the form of extra resolution systems for vehicles, and special rules for any thing that falls out side the limited range of 'standard infantry'.

Does not mean we have to abandon the 3 stage damage resolution and keep umpteen special rules does it?

I am trying to outline a robust frame work that can cope with the differences players may expect from a 40k core rule set.In play test we can always refine and reduce the stat line and weapon data if we want to.

Conversely If we start with a simple rule set with no 'wiggle room', we only have the option to add special rules to add definition.
And as this was the path 3rd ed 40k started on, and a team of professional developers could not address diversity issues with any thing BUT more special rules.

I am rather happier with starting with straightforward but complex rules that deliver more complex game play,we can streamline.
Rather than simple rules we have to add special rules too.

I may be in a minority of one in thinking like this though?

If the weapon data is just on the unit card, in the players force in front of you.Why do you players need to remember specific names for slight variations in weapons ?
The values we put on the weapon data on the unit card would be defined by play testing.

I'm not suggesting keeping umpteen special rules by simplifying combat resolution, I'm suggesting simplifying combat resolution and cutting umpteen special rules at the same time because the level of granularity you could theoretically get out of three-rolls is fundamentally unnecessary.

@AnomanderRake.
Ok, can you list the values you intend too use for combat resolution for the current 40k units.
(I am assuming you would be covering all units with the same resolution method.)

As this will show the areas special rules may need to be used.(Remember modifiers are quite restricted when using a D6.)

Lanrak wrote:
@AnomanderRake.
Ok, can you list the values you intend too use for combat resolution for the current 40k units.
(I am assuming you would be covering all units with the same resolution method.)

As this will show the areas special rules may need to be used.(Remember modifiers are quite restricted when using a D6.)

The point is that modifiers are less restricted under this approach because it's not compare-two-stats.

Briefly, to-wound rules: Roll a d6, add your weapon's penetration value (if any). If you equal or exceed your target's durability the target takes a wound.

There are elements under this approach that are going to be identical to each other where they aren't in 40k; this is partially because they've got special rules that have very little effect on the game, and partially because they actually were identical under older versions of the rules.

Let's look first at the low end of the scale: small arms and infantry durability.

Small arms penetration values:
+0: Light weapons. Lasguns, lasblasters, any S3 small arms that I'm not remembering. Most melee weapons.
+1: Most small arms. Bolters, gauss weapons, shuriken weapons, that sort of thing. Melee weapons on generalist melee units.
+2: Rare and unusually powerful small arms. Pulse weapons, Inferno bolters. Some character melee weapons/specialist melee units.

Infantry durability:
3: Crappiest of the crappy end of the scale. Grots.
4: Most chaff. Gaunts, Guardsmen, Guardians. If it's T3/5+ it probably belongs here.
5: Midrange troops. T4/poor save, T3/good save. Aspect Warriors, Battle Sisters, Fire Warriors, Stormtroopers.
6: High-end troops. T4/good save, T5. Necrons, Space Marines.
7: Outliers. Terminator armour, elite Necrons, that kind of thing.

The range of possible values are similar, the granularity is lower at the bottom end, and small arms are slightly more valuable. Most weapons are within +/-10% of their to-wound chances against most targets, slightly weighted towards more effectiveness.


At the higher end we have large heavy weapons and heavy vehicles. Bolt Action has an extra +1 to a weapon's penetration when shooting at side armour and +2 against rear armour, with a single special rule that changes it to +1 against rear armour and no modifier against side armour; this would tweak vehicle stat granularity some, it'd make the rewards for maneuvering to side/rear worse in some cases and better in others, but it'd make it worthwhile against all targets and it'd make facing more relevant.

Anti-armour weapon penetration:
+3-+4: Multi-role HMG/autocannon things. Heavy bolters, shuriken cannons, burst cannons. 3-4 shot S6-7 weapons. Elite melee weapons.
+5: Middling anti-armour weapons. Krak missiles, meltaguns at distance, plasma weapons. S7/low AP or S8 things. Fancied-up character melee weapons.
+6-+7: Ordnance, heavy anti-armour weapons. Lascannons, bright lances, meltaguns up close, battle cannons. S8/ordnance, S8-9/low AP. Powerfists.
+8-+9: Dedicated heavy ordnance, godly anti-armour weapons. Distortion weapons, laser destroyers, prism cannons, Vanquisher tank-killer shots. S9-10 with one or more of low AP, Ordnance, special vehicle-killing rules. D-weapons that shouldn't be D-weapons. Dreadnaught melee weapons.
+10: Titan-scale titan-killers. Pulsars, Heavy Wraithcannons, Volcano Cannons. Titan melee weapons.

Vehicle durability:
7: Really soft targets. Piranhas, Vypers. Only for open-topped 10-10-10 vehicles with two hull points, really squishy things.
8: Soft targets. Rhinos, Trukks. Most lightly-armoured vehicles.
9: Light tanks. Chimeras, Predators, most flyers. 12-13 on one face and less on others. Light/underarmoured MCs.
10: Armoured tanks. Wave Serpents, Devilfish. 12 on multiple faces. Midsize/armoured MCs.
11: Battle tanks. Russes, Sicarans, Hammerheads. 13+ front, 12 side, normal size. Heavily armoured or unusually durable MCs.
12: Heavy tanks. Land Raiders, rear-11 Russes, Monoliths. Eldar superheavies. Multiple faces at 13+ or more than 4 hull points. Smaller GCs.
13: Large/heavy/superheavy tanks. Spartans, Baneblades, Obelisks. Multiple faces at 13+ and more than 4 hull points. Larger GCs.

This rescales some vehicle damage, flattens out weapons across armies a bit, and makes trying to seek side/rear shots much more important; 40k tends to be a lot of trying to blast through the front armour with volume or dropping a meltagun at the back and just not caring about armour.


The point here is for gameplay complexity to come from the rulebook rather than from army special rules. A specific weapon's stats don't matter that much, it fills a similar role to one in another faction and minute changes in effectiveness from being stronger at different points of a three-roll shouldn't be a reason to write more stats/numbers/special rules/game phases to milk the subtle differences. Subtle differences can and should be implemented subtly; if the turn structure is reworked in such a way that weapon types aren't necessary a bolter is 24"/+1 Pen/ROF2, a Gauss flayer can be 24"/+1 Pen/ROF2/Rending (+1 pen on a 6 to hit), an Ork shoota can be 18"/+1 Pen/ROF2, a shuriken catapult can be 12"/+1 Pen/ROF2/Rending...

They're all +1 Pen weapons, but three numbers per weapon and one special rule have created differences that mirror their roles in 40k today, which GW needed four numbers per weapon and four special rules to create.

@AnomanderRake.
If I understand you correctly.(Please correct me if I get this wrong.)

You want a movement value in inches.
A value to show ability to hit at range ,
and a value to show ability to hit in close combat.

We all agree on this as far as I can remember.

However, you only want to use one stat to oppose the to hit at range and close combat.A single 'Evade' stat.
If we assume the Evade stat was based on the ability to avoid incoming fire .(As shooting comes before assault).

This would mean you would need special rules for ..
Models much harder to hit in assault,( like 'Lightning reflexes' + 2 to Evade stat in assault.)
Models slightly harder to hit in assault,(like 'Combat reactions' + 1 to Evade stat in assault .)
Models slightly easier to hit in assault , (like 'Slow Witted' + 1 to dice roll to be hit in assault.)
Models much easier to hit in assault , (like 'Clumbersome '+ 2 to dice roll to be hit in assault.)

So rather than a number you read off the stat line on the unit card, you have to lookup /remember 4 special rules, for basic assault before even looking at weapon special rules.
(Which do not give the same range of to hit result, or granularity as separate values of 1 to 10 opposed in a universal resolution chart.)

If you just have 'attack value' combining Armour Piercing value , and Damage (Strength of attack.)And a 'Defense value' combining Armour value and Resilience ,(Toughness ).

How do you differentiate between models with low armour and high toughness, and those with high armour and low toughness?

In the same way how do you differentiate between weapons that have high armour peircing but low damage , and those that have low armour piercing but high damage.

Eg High velocity AP rounds designed to punch through thick armour and cause spalling to damage, that pass straight through lighter armoured targets.
Compared to HE rounds that use concussive blasts/ shrapnel to damage organic targets with light armour, that do not damage vs heavier armoured targets.

Unless you wanted to artificially separate vehicles from other units and give them a completely different damage resolution system?
Which would add complexity in two ways like 40k currently does.(Multiple resolution systems and special rules !)

Most 40k players want the detail and diversity from the background to be included in the game.
Some customers are happy with the 'everything gets special rules' mentality of GW plc sales department.

Maybe I am over reacting, having played complex detailed simulations with 10 times the tactical depth of 40k.
But even the most complex war games I have ever played use a very limited number of special rules, and a fraction of the pages of rules 40k does.

I would be looking at the new core rules running to about 50 pages,(excluding pictures/diagrams.)And about 12 to 20 special rules (Including codex/racial special rules ) for the entire game.

What sort of page count and number of special rules would you be aiming for ?

Lanrak wrote:
@AnomanderRake.
If I understand you correctly.(Please correct me if I get this wrong.)

You want a movement value in inches.
A value to show ability to hit at range ,
and a value to show ability to hit in close combat.

We all agree on this as far as I can remember.

However, you only want to use one stat to oppose the to hit at range and close combat.A single 'Evade' stat.
If we assume the Evade stat was based on the ability to avoid incoming fire .(As shooting comes before assault).

This would mean you would need special rules for ..
Models much harder to hit in assault,( like 'Lightning reflexes' + 2 to Evade stat in assault.)
Models slightly harder to hit in assault,(like 'Combat reactions' + 1 to Evade stat in assault .)
Models slightly easier to hit in assault , (like 'Slow Witted' + 1 to dice roll to be hit in assault.)
Models much easier to hit in assault , (like 'Clumbersome '+ 2 to dice roll to be hit in assault.)

So rather than a number you read off the stat line on the unit card, you have to lookup /remember 4 special rules, for basic assault before even looking at weapon special rules.
(Which do not give the same range of to hit result, or granularity as separate values of 1 to 10 opposed in a universal resolution chart.)

If you just have 'attack value' combining Armour Piercing value , and Damage (Strength of attack.)And a 'Defense value' combining Armour value and Resilience ,(Toughness ).

How do you differentiate between models with low armour and high toughness, and those with high armour and low toughness?

In the same way how do you differentiate between weapons that have high armour peircing but low damage , and those that have low armour piercing but high damage.

Eg High velocity AP rounds designed to punch through thick armour and cause spalling to damage, that pass straight through lighter armoured targets.
Compared to HE rounds that use concussive blasts/ shrapnel to damage organic targets with light armour, that do not damage vs heavier armoured targets.

Unless you wanted to artificially separate vehicles from other units and give them a completely different damage resolution system?
Which would add complexity in two ways like 40k currently does.(Multiple resolution systems and special rules !)

Most 40k players want the detail and diversity from the background to be included in the game.
Some customers are happy with the 'everything gets special rules' mentality of GW plc sales department.

Maybe I am over reacting, having played complex detailed simulations with 10 times the tactical depth of 40k.
But even the most complex war games I have ever played use a very limited number of special rules, and a fraction of the pages of rules 40k does.

I would be looking at the new core rules running to about 50 pages,(excluding pictures/diagrams.)And about 12 to 20 special rules (Including codex/racial special rules ) for the entire game.

What sort of page count and number of special rules would you be aiming for ?

Not suggesting special rules for models easier/harder to hit in close combat; when I tried this it worked reasonably well with just the defensive stat. No differentiating the ease of hitting in melee.

My point here is that good AP/poor Strength versus good Strength/poor AP aren't mathematically distinct in enough cases to actually matter to the game. Almost all of 40k is "I have AP2, therefore you die, Strength be damned" or "I wound on 2s and have a bazillion shots, 2+ armour won't save you".

If you'd like to think about it from another angle, however, currently we have a to-hit roll that's mostly static, a to-wound roll that's based on offensive stats versus defensive stats, and a save roll that's based on environmental conditions plus buffs plus armour v. AP; a boring flat roll, a straightforward comparative roll, and a convoluted rules-all-over-the-place roll. By moving AP/armour into Strength-Toughness and moving cover into the to-hit roll we're left with two conditionally-modified compared-stats rolls, and no boring flat rolls/convoluted all-over-the-place rolls.

I don't want to artificially separate vehicles from other units. I want a straightforward set of non-random subsystem damage rules that apply equally to anything with enough wounds (things that 40k today calls Monstrous/Gargantuan Creatures and Vehicles) (I'm still working on how to implement it).

I want what special rules there are to be universal and consistent rather than every army operating differently off rules not designed to interact with each other. I want uniqueness and faction distinctions to be a product of subtle changes to how they interact with the core rules rather than their own system.

As far as quantity of special rules I'll go you one better and give a list of what the special rules ought to be: Hardened (replaces Fearless/ATSKNF/other reduced-morale-sensitivity rules), Blast, Psyker, Forward Deployment (covers Infiltrate/Deep Strike/Scout/Outflank), Fear, Gets Hot, Rending, Move Or Fire/Relentless, Flying, Precision Shot, Subsystems (vehicle/MC subsystem damage before death), Transport (13 rules, very little subscripting) should definitely be in, Impact/Counterattack (container for on-charge bonuses), Trample (container for tank/MC ramming/tank-shock), Template (as distinct from blast), and Redeploy (effects that allow a unit to move back into Reserves) (5 rules) are maybes.

However I do think that systemic rules that are central to the function of an army (Markerlights, Imperial Guard Orders, Acts of Faith, Power from Pain, Animosity/WAAAGH!, Synapse, and maybe Reanimation Protocols and Daemonic Instability (though both of those are odd cases where they might be too linear to be implemented as special rules)) should remain in some capacity as army-specific things. They should be stripped down, definitely, and used with care, but when you're making gameplay decisions based on choosing how to apply a special rule you should retain the option to do something similar.

So that's 20 rules that should definitely be implemented and 7 that I'm on the fence about for the entire game (Codexes included), though a few are longish rules snuck in there. Some kind of command-benefit system roughly similar to Warlord Traits (with the intent of making your commander good for more than hitting people with sticks) is also a possibility, but it'd be a lot shorter than what Warlord Traits are now. Say an absolute cap of 30 special rules in the game? Special characters put a snag in this but I'm on the fence about how to handle them in general, and I will concede that this is weighted towards longer systemic special rules that might need a couple of one-sentence rules that plug into them (Ghosthelm: Don't take wounds from Deny the Witch. Psychic Hood: Deny psychic powers cast within 24", not 12". Vox-Caster: Receive orders from unlimited distance. That sort of thing.)

On page count I could probably do it in 30 or 35, plain text only, but I'd have to start writing them down to be certain.

When I'm writing a special rule it's as a way to truncate the rules as a whole, not as a shortcut to modify a stat. In 40k Fleet is necessary on top of fixed move/run distance because they want to slightly increase the move of some models. If we were to make some units able to run and some units not Fleet would still be necessary, because otherwise we'd be printing the full text of the Fleet special rule in the shooting phase and adding a 'run distance' stat to a unit that would be 0 almost everywhere. If we say 'everyone can run' and define a run distance based on the Move stat (either 'move again' or 'move half again'), we can write what would otherwise have to be a special rule down in the shooting phase, not add to the statline, and move on happily with our day.

If it isn't there to truncate the rules it's a systemic change that's being written in an 'advanced rules - don't use unless you have a thing on your card saying you need them' section of the rulebook because we don't want the MTG-esque feeling of having six or seven phases of play that you don't touch in most games ('It's the Orders phase!' 'Neither of us is playing Guard.' '...Fine. It isn't the Orders phase.'), and 'special rules' is almost a misnomer.

@AnomanderRake.
I agree the current rules do not deliver the depth and variation players expect, from the 40k background.
And the awful way the multiple damage systems are implemented deliver the most over complicated way to arrive at the simplest and limited game play results I have ever seen.

It is possible using a three stage damage resolution to cover all units in 40k in the same way , using exactly the same resolution system.
(Apart from multiple wound/structure units record damage separately, (on the unit card perhaps,)compared to units that simply remove models to show damage.)

What units did you play with the 'attack' value vs 'defense' value?
Did you use a good cross section of units from all codex books?
And did you ask 40k players if they thought their models should reflect the background , or were they happy with the new revised stats?

Everyone I have asked in person want far more in the way of character and tactics put back in the 40k core rules, and they also want the pointless complication in the rules removed. (I admit my gaming circle are all over 35, and may have different opinions to younger folks.)

We prefer to write core rules as inclusively as possible , eg cover everything thing in the game that is obviously not a special ability, in the same way, using the simplest system possible.

We try out using direct representation first, (Score required , number of dice rolled , or distance in inches , as appropriate.)
Many games where the units and technology is similar across the entire game , do not need any more than this and a few special rules to work well,
Most of these games are fought on the same planet in a specific time period.

However, as 40k has so many varied units and technology levels,a cross and entire universe, and Millenia of time , I think opposed values is necessary to fully reflect the different ways units act and react in combat situations .

Ok to review your list of special rule ideas.(My comments are comparing how my slightly more complex rules would cover these.)

Hardened ,is not needed due to using a simple morale system that gives proportional results.

Blast X,and Template, are listed under the weapon profile value 'Attack',
(The core rules page XX define how Blast 3"/5"and Templates work differently to direct fire weapons.Blast and Template are not that special IMO. )

Psykers , simply have the ability to use psychic powers listed on page XX.(Why is this a special rule?)

Forward Deployment , agreed.

Fear and Terror simply add 1 or 2 to the dice roll of enemy Morale tests, when they are within 8" of a Fear or Terror causing model.(Something like that?)

Gets Hot, Agreed if only fires alternate turns ?(Requires a turn to cool down.This promotes tactical weapon use, not pushing your luck. )

Move or File /Relentless, not needed covered in the core rules for weapon types assigned to units.

Flying , not needed covered in the core movement rules .

Precision shot,(Picking out a special model from the unit?Not sure if this is a good idea,Increased effectiveness can be shown on the unit weapon data,)

What about chemical weapons ignoring cover bonuses, and poisoned weapons and Haywire(EMP) type weapons being mire effective vs organic and mechanical type targets respectively ?I would like to include Chain edged weapon too , just to add a bit of character...

If 'Subsystems'= Hit points for vehicles I agree , (but could we call then structure points or hit points?)

'Trample' not needed as vehicles have a (low) melee skill used when it attempts to ram .

Redeploy, not sure this is a good ideal, or really needed ?

I was referring to the racial traits that are required to define the character of the armies.However some like Synapse and Mob rule are covered with the new core rules for command /morale.
One or two per race at most would be enough, Waaagh!, Acts of Faith, Marker lights , Faith in the Emperor(ATSKNF replacement,),Combat Doctrines,(for IG,) etc.

I suppose I am aiming for more 'grit' in the core rules . and less 'shine' in the form of special rules.

I'm confused. I'm suggesting cutting unit types/weapon types where a movement stat and a short list of special rules would cover it, you're calling me on having too many special rules while saying you're going to have twenty on top of rules tied to unit type/weapon type?

I've proposed a two-roll damage resolution system applied consistently across all units, excepting a subsystem damage setup for vehicles/MCs. How is that more complicated than a three-roll damage resolution system applied consistently across units excepting a subsystem damage setup for vehicles/MCs?

Attack v. Defense stats were tested with Craftworld Eldar and Space Marines some time ago, I couldn't give you specific units. The theory came from Warmachine's single constant DEF stat, having distinct melee defense/ranged defense would add very little.

I don't know what you mean by 'And did you ask 40k players if they thought their models should reflect the background , or were they happy with the new revised stats?'. It sounds like a really loaded question.

If you'd read my post or looked at any of the math you'd realize that I am proposing an opposed-values resolution method. If you draw out the table you'd find that 'if weapon strength plus a d6 roll equals or exceeds target's toughness it takes a wound' is identical to 40k's Strength/Toughness resolution today except that the numbers have been shifted sideways to make the mental math on the tabletop more intuitive and 'auto-fail' is a possible entry on the table.

On the specific comments I'm really, really starting to wonder if you and I are using the same definition of the phrase 'special rules'. I define it as a component of the rules that is inconsistently applied; every model moves in the Movement phase, shoots in the Shooting phase, fights in the Combat phase. Not every model can fly. Not every model is a psyker.

Fear/Hardened are placeholders. 'Scary thing'/'ATSKNF' are fixtures of the 40k game and lore, I don't have a good sense of how I'd like morale to work but I know I want something of the sort.

Psyker, blast/template, move or fire/relentless, and flying are 'special rules' in the sense that not everything has the rule. This is a way in which this specific model/weapon breaks the core rules. If you're not going to define these things as 'special rules' I'm not sure how simplified you're expecting 40k to get. I'd hoped to drop unit types and weapon types entirely in favour of move stats and a few unit descriptors.

Precision shot is not there to increase damage/effectiveness in a way that can be simulated by giving it more attacks, it's there to allow you to pull the teeth out of a unit without killing it by selectively removing upgrade weapons.

Subsystems are vehicle damage table-like things. I haven't settled on precisely how they're going to be implemented, but I know that really big things with lots of wounds (vehicles and MCs) should be able to have bits and peices knocked off before they die.

On consideration trample could probably be rolled into Impact.

Redeploy is a class of effects in 40k today available to a variety of armies (Skyleap, Flyers, Gate of Infinity, Interceptor shunt) that I'd like to roll together and make more consistent. I do need to do more thought on the specifics, but I know I want room to be able to write 'models cannot leave the board' in the rulebook to avoid loopholes and have a way to do it under controlled circumstances as a special rule.

Chemical weapons ignoring cover, chain weapons, Haywire, et cetera aren't particularly necessary. I'd like to skip out entirely on 'ignores this specific modifier' or 'does more damage to this specific typeline entry' as a concept in the rules; one of the reasons 40k has such serious skew problems is that those sort of effects make their tactical wheel too strict. If I build an all-comers list that has tools for killing vehicles in it and I end up in a fight with a Tyranid player those tools are deadweight in the list; I'd rather reward players for building all-comers lists than punish them for not building skew lists.

And on army special rules if your 'core rules' include Synapse and Mob Rule I'm really quite confused. All armies have a random behaviour table to roll on if they aren't near a command unit and another to roll on if they fail a morale test?

And 'aiming for more 'grit' in the core rules . and less 'shine' in the form of special rules.' doesn't seem to be the case. You're writing the exact same special rules text I am, you're suggesting it should be written in the 'core rules' bit and then more special rules should be made up to fill the gaps.

@AnomanderRake.
It is obvious we have different spheres of reference and define things a bit differently.And I am not the best at explaining new ideas in the written format.

Currently 40k is a modern company sized battle game , covering a wide variety of units across the width and depth of an entire universe.
However, it is stuck with core rules from ancient massed rank warfare, which is like trying to base the rules for football on the rules for golf,because golf was the first game you played and liked.

There are lots of great SKIRMISH GAMES using 28mm heroic minatures. From 'Beyond The Gates of Antares' all the way through to 'Warzone'.

So if you want to mimic these popular rules and shrink the scale and scope of the 40k rules to a skirmish size ,with simple core rules and a few special rules .
That fine.

But if you want to cover the depth and variety in the current universe wide battle sized game ,these sort of rules are not robust enough.And you would have to add on extra systems and special rules to get the extra depth and diversity.

My approach is to look at good scifi battle games, like DZC, Epic Space Marine/EpIc Armageddon, Dirtside etc.That cover a similar scale and scope of game , but with smaller scale minatures.
And upscale the detail in the core rules to suit the expectations when using a '28mm heroic minature' rather than a '10mm blob squad.'

If the core rules cover command and control and suppression in a straight forward and unobtrusive way, we do not need special rules to add it on in a hap hazzard fashion .(This is why I am in favor of 3 stage damage resolution as we can use failed armour saves to drive proportionsl suppression results.Which removes the focus from killing stuff and the need for lots of 'ablative wounds' in units.)

I am aiming for a bout 12 to 20 special rules including all the racial traits maximum.

Now just because something is different does not mean it needs special rules.IMO.

Most ranged weapons in 40k work as direct fire projectiles weapons with single point impact.
So they simply have a number under their 'Attack' profile to show now many models they are likely to hit when firing .

EG a Rail Gun fires one powerful shot at a single target, where as an assault cannon sprays an area with lots of rounds and is likely to hit 4 models .(Or one model 4 times.)

Area effect weapons are not exactly a difficult concept for people to grasp. As most people know how a fragmentation or HE round effects an area , rather than a single point of contact, like a single bullet/ AP missile.

So to say an area effect weapon has 3" or 5" under its Attack profile to show the diameter size the area effect the weapon has , is not really in the realms of special rules is it?

Similarly weapons that spray chemicals , (corrosive liquid, flames etc.)Have 'Temp' under their attack profile to show the area of effect is a tear drop shaped Template area of effect.

The only things that need special rules are special abilities that ignore or replace one element of the normal game play.IMO.

EG ignore the first failed morale test. Ignore the effects of cover.

And effects that are constantly applied in specific conditions , eg Poisoned weapons double damage value vs organic targets.

In the same way ,
Amphibious , ignore the movement penalties for water features.
'Buldozer,' ignores the terrain penalties for light woods and rubble.
'Jump' allows units the ability of limited flight , (Jump packs, jump jets, wings , powerful legs etc.)So they can simply jump over terrain features.

The fact units move in different ways, on legs, on wheels , tracks and hover, does not need to be in the realms of special rules either.
As this could give a more detailed interaction with terrain types if you wanted to do that.

I guess I am more used to detailed core rules and very few if any 'special rules'.
As this takes much less time to learn , and if the rules follow logic and general expectations, they deliver a much more immersive game play experience,that can be easily expended upon.

My concern was that if you only play tested your ideas using a few 'elite' units , you may not discover the issues that arise when more diverse units are used with your new system.

We tend to play test using the hoard armies first.,( like Orks , IG ,and Nids,) because they are more likely to show up any issues , as they have the most diverse range of units in general.

My only reduction to the game would be to revert back to 5th ed and get all of those unit types working properly, before bringing super heavies and fliers into an expansion where they are integrated with much more focus on game play.
Rather than '...quick sell big models for lots of cash, to prop of falling sales volumes!!!

Lanrak wrote:
@AnomanderRake.
It is obvious we have different spheres of reference and define things a bit differently.And I am not the best at explaining new ideas in the written format.

Currently 40k is a modern company sized battle game , covering a wide variety of units across the width and depth of an entire universe.
However, it is stuck with core rules from ancient massed rank warfare, which is like trying to base the rules for football on the rules for golf,because golf was the first game you played and liked.

There are lots of great SKIRMISH GAMES using 28mm heroic minatures. From 'Beyond The Gates of Antares' all the way through to 'Warzone'.

So if you want to mimic these popular rules and shrink the scale and scope of the 40k rules to a skirmish size ,with simple core rules and a few special rules .
That fine.

But if you want to cover the depth and variety in the current universe wide battle sized game ,these sort of rules are not robust enough.And you would have to add on extra systems and special rules to get the extra depth and diversity.

My approach is to look at good scifi battle games, like DZC, Epic Space Marine/EpIc Armageddon, Dirtside etc.That cover a similar scale and scope of game , but with smaller scale minatures.
And upscale the detail in the core rules to suit the expectations when using a '28mm heroic minature' rather than a '10mm blob squad.'

If the core rules cover command and control and suppression in a straight forward and unobtrusive way, we do not need special rules to add it on in a hap hazzard fashion .(This is why I am in favor of 3 stage damage resolution as we can use failed armour saves to drive proportionsl suppression results.Which removes the focus from killing stuff and the need for lots of 'ablative wounds' in units.)

I think you've gotten this a bit backwards. A skirmish game has room for much more complicated rules because there are fewer models on the table to keep track of, a larger-scale game has to be simpler if it's going to track 100+ models on the table at once in any kind of reasonable timeframe.

As an aside on three-roll versus two-roll damage systems I don't think the extra die adds enough differentiation to care about. If you want to remove the focus from killing stuff and the need for ablative wounds you can adjust the parameters of a two-roll system to do that just as easily as a three-roll system.

(An aside from the aside: One of GW's better-functioning games is War of the Ring, which has single-roll resolution and yet manages to track 15pts/company Goblins getting in fights with 70pts/company Galadhrim guard reasonably well)

I am aiming for a bout 12 to 20 special rules including all the racial traits maximum.

Now just because something is different does not mean it needs special rules.IMO.

Most ranged weapons in 40k work as direct fire projectiles weapons with single point impact.
So they simply have a number under their 'Attack' profile to show now many models they are likely to hit when firing .

EG a Rail Gun fires one powerful shot at a single target, where as an assault cannon sprays an area with lots of rounds and is likely to hit 4 models .(Or one model 4 times.)

Area effect weapons are not exactly a difficult concept for people to grasp. As most people know how a fragmentation or HE round effects an area , rather than a single point of contact, like a single bullet/ AP missile.

So to say an area effect weapon has 3" or 5" under its Attack profile to show the diameter size the area effect the weapon has , is not really in the realms of special rules is it?

Similarly weapons that spray chemicals , (corrosive liquid, flames etc.)Have 'Temp' under their attack profile to show the area of effect is a tear drop shaped Template area of effect.

The only things that need special rules are special abilities that ignore or replace one element of the normal game play.IMO.

We agree on most of this, but you and I seem to have different bars for what 'ignore or replace one element of the normal game play' means. If you and I are going to keep using different definitions of the phrase 'special rules' you're going to have to stop calling me on using too many special rules, because you're suggesting using way more than I am.

EG ignore the first failed morale test. Ignore the effects of cover.

And effects that are constantly applied in specific conditions , eg Poisoned weapons double damage value vs organic targets.

In the same way ,
Amphibious , ignore the movement penalties for water features.
'Buldozer,' ignores the terrain penalties for light woods and rubble.
'Jump' allows units the ability of limited flight , (Jump packs, jump jets, wings , powerful legs etc.)So they can simply jump over terrain features.

The fact units move in different ways, on legs, on wheels , tracks and hover, does not need to be in the realms of special rules either.
As this could give a more detailed interaction with terrain types if you wanted to do that.

I think you're going into too much detail here. Giving a unit a rule making it ignore water terrain requires writing terrain types into the rules, and on tables where there is no water terrain you've spent time writing a rule into the rulebook that doesn't have any impact on the game. Chimeras have (or have had) Amphibious in 40k for a long time, I don't know if it's still there because I've never seen it do anything in any game.

As a secondary point subscriptable special rules (instead of writing 'Amphibious' and 'Bulldozer' in as distinct rules write 'Strider: Water' and 'Strider: Light rubble', where 'Strider' is a single rule entry) help with clarity/consistency.

I guess I am more used to detailed core rules and very few if any 'special rules'.
As this takes much less time to learn , and if the rules follow logic and general expectations, they deliver a much more immersive game play experience,that can be easily expended upon.

As a quick counter-argument here I'd like to point at Magic: The Gathering and Warmachine. Each card with unique text on it has a 'unique special rule' by one definition, but the core rules are written in such a way that you don't have to memorize any of them because it's very logically laid out, and you can intuit exactly what it does from the text of the rule without referencing anything.

My concern was that if you only play tested your ideas using a few 'elite' units , you may not discover the issues that arise when more diverse units are used with your new system.

We tend to play test using the hoard armies first.,( like Orks , IG ,and Nids,) because they are more likely to show up any issues , as they have the most diverse range of units in general.

Forget the test. That was an early proof-of-concept experiment using models to hand, the only bit I'm trying to take from it is that differing melee/ranged defense isn't especially necessary.

My only reduction to the game would be to revert back to 5th ed and get all of those unit types working properly, before bringing super heavies and fliers into an expansion where they are integrated with much more focus on game play.
Rather than '...quick sell big models for lots of cash, to prop of falling sales volumes!!!

Superheavies and flyers shouldn't need different rules from the rest of the game. Flyers were implemented in 5th edition as skimmers; from the lore it doesn't make any sense that a Falcon and a Valkyrie are different unit types at all. Superheavies could easily be implemented as just another weight class of vehicle (slightly larger than the rest) if you're going to stick the the superheavies 95% of people who want to use them actually have.