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.

Yes, it does. Multiple charts means increased granularity.

Thanks for all the replies since my last post.

Ill try to respond to the points raised in order.

@Martel732.
I think we may be talking at cross purposes a bit?

This thread was looking at what basic parts of game mechanics and resolution methods you would want to keep in a complete ground up re write of the 40k rules, written as a war game focusing on clarity brevity and elegance.(At a specific game size and scope that I picked for various reasons.)

I was not discussing how we could keep the current rules the same, and improve the granularity of results.

Because when you use the restricted game mechanics and resolution methods for WHFB with the wider range of unit found in 40k.You only have 2 options.
1)Bigger range of dice.(RT and 2nd ed.)
2)Or more dice rolls.(3rd ed to 7th ed.)

And as rolling 60+ D10 for a mob of Orks is problematical,from a practical stand point.
And all the extra rules for rolling additional dice in the current rules.Makes it feel more like a random story generator you have to try to make sense of.Than a a war game with actual player tactical interaction.

For these and may other logical reasons based on player feed back, advise from game designers, and 3 decades of gaming experience.
I think it would be much better to tweek the stat line and resolution methods and keep the D6.

(If it was a choice of increasing the granularity of results and keeping the current rules as is.Then I would prefer larger dice sizes to multiple dice rolls too! )


@Battlegrinder.
I agree with you.
Bending the rules of the game to try to make units behave how you think they should is poor game design.
As GW plc are focused on ''selling toy soldiers to children'', not writing war games .They often are guilty of poor game development along these lines.
The unit looks cool as 'Kewly MacKewll of the cool clan', but has no clear tactical/strategic function in the army.(The units no one takes unless they get massive point breaks ... )

I am glad you get the idea that basing the game play on 'modern war fare' is just a guideline for the sort of game mechanics and resolution we use.So we get tactical and strategic loading that are in synergy with the units perceived function.(EG main battle tank equivalents act like main battle tanks in game. )

If the game mechanics and resolution methods were written specifically for 40k.
One armies deep striking heavy infantry, would not be tactically comparable to another armies large walking vehicle with jump capabilities.

Just a simple example...
Infantry is harder to hit, and therefore immune to anti tank weapons that can only target units with Evasion skill lower than X.

But 40k makes no difference to the chance to hit if the target is a tiny Grot or a huge Gargant.

@Kirotheavenger.
I think we are on the same page.
Would you replace templates and blasts with a number of attacks?I would like to discuss this concept further.(It could speed up game play a bit. )

@Charistoph
The fine detail of the technology used is immaterial to the way modern warfare is waged.
If you go back to the 1920s and look at the level of technology, compared to today.The difference is mind boggling. But the basic tactical and strategic concepts hold true.

My point stands that the rules of a war game are written based on unit function, NOT what the minatures look like.
As war games are a functional document, instructing the player how the game works with the minimum of fuss.Having a clearly defined scale and scope is important.

Inspiring short term sales of plastic bitz, just needs inspiring art and narrative.And as this is how 40k appears to be 'developed' it has no clear game play design or direction.

'Space fantasy' would be a game where for what ever reason , close combat trumped ranged combat.(May be a Jedi Knight vs Sith light sabre battle .)

I know GW write rules to try inspire collectors to collect more GW stuff.This is however not the way a war game focusing on clarity brevity and elegance is written.
As Rick Priestley put it '..more of a sales promotion department for a toy company, than a game design studio..'And I defer to his superior knowledge of GW plc.

So GW threw away Armour Save Modifiers. All though far from perfect they did give more proportional results.
And replaced it with the AP system that abstracts the actual resolution, throws proportionality under the bus, and messes up any chance of improving game balance.

I agree A.S.M should have been replaced.But why not with opposed AV and AP values?Just a s simple but gives proportional results.
Or opposed dice rolls, or any other type of resolution method that gives proportional results and delivers intuitive tactical game play.

I also agree the super heavies and some fliers, would be better off in an Apocalypse expansion. (Another reason for the game size at 4th/5th ed , before Apoc units were shoe horned into the standard game.)

The types of weapon , the way characters function and psychic abilities , are the fine detail that is carfuly applied over the basic game structure.
Making mobility, fire power and assault equally effective tactically, is not going to detract from any of these sorts of fine detail.

If WHFB in space does not fit the intended game play of 40k.Why use WHFB based stat line, game mechanics, and resolution methods?
The ONLY reason is backward compatibility .If we are going for a ground up complete re-write this is no longer a valid consideration is it?

Apart from 40k
All the other war games I am aware of use one of those three basic game play types to build the strategic and tactical loading in the rules.
And they all have clearly defined , concise and intuitive rules as a result.

Therefore as this seems to be the proven method for writing clearly defined, concise and intuitive war games, adopting it for a new 40k war game rule set would seem prudent.

Epic uses a different scale of minatures. But the game size and scope is similar to the current 40k game size and scope.

I agree that you can not abstract the resolution to one dice per unit because of the model scale in 40k. But detailed unit interaction can be covered by rolling a D6 per model, if more suitable resoluion methods are used.

Because of the imbalance between shooting and close combat ,since 3rd ed when to hit mods were removed.
40k has had buffed assault editions, (that seem more like fantasy combat) and then buffed shooting editions (that seem more like high sci fi combat.)
Never fixing the core problem, just adding bloat to the rules....

@jade_angel.
An interesting topic.I am glad you brought it up.

If the range of results is naturally covered by a dice roll.Then always fail on the lowest result, and /or always succeed on the highest result.Does not abstract the interaction too much.

However, as you point out the wide range of weapons and units found in 40k may make this level of abstraction too severe.

I suppose its a question of do you want proportional results and a wide variety of tactical options.In a more complex game play.
Or do you want a more abstract less complex game play where dice rolls are more important?

In regard to the question of absurd results, in the case of a single resolution method where if you always allow for a chance for the firer to hit (or miss) the target, you MUST allow for a chance for the firer to wound(or fail to wound) the target...

Yes, there might be absurd results. But I think they'd be pretty damn minimal when it comes down to it, especially if the resolution method takes into account what would make a result absurd and mitigates it as much as possible - Having a 1/6 chance with every shot that your lasgun causes noticable damage to a Landraider is clearly too high, but what about a 1/36 chance? What if that chance is lowered even further by rolling against a Landraider's Armor (which would seem like a natural inclusion in the system that Lanrak seems to envision, in which the division between vehicle and infantry resolution methods is thrown out)?

Ask Martel about the likelihood of success when firing lasguns or bolters at a FnP Riptide. I dare you. You'll find out that what is undeniably a chance to do harm is effectively an incredibly low chance requiring such masses of incoming firepower that the absurdity of the harm is not actually that relevant.

But we need not consider a 1/6 chance to-hit or to-wound as the absolute bottom of the barrel, in the same way the current game system doesn't consider a 5/6 chance to-hit or to-wound as the absolute maximum chance to do either, because re-rolls are a thing. This is explicitly so with our current to-hit chances based on BS alone - once you go to BS 6, you start allowing re-rolls to hit (with a severely diminished return per BS increase).

Why couldn't this apply on the other end when using a comparative success table, but forcing successful rolls to re-roll (with slowly diminishing chances to succeed on the re-roll)?

Imagine a single resolution table in which you compare your offensive stat to the opponent's defensive stat, starting with a resolution mimicking the to-wound table for values within 2 of each other - if your O stat is equal to their D stat, you roll on a 4+. if O is 1 or 2 higher than D, 3+ or 2+ respectively. If O is 1 or 2 lower than D, 5+ or 6+ respectively. But what about other values?

When O is 3 or more higher than D, you could allow rerolling failed rolls, starting with a success on a 6+ for 3 higher, 5+ for 4 higher, 4+ for 5 higher, etc. You could even include a "this is truly absurd that they miss/fail to wound/whatever" scenario for when O is 8 or more higher than D: Automatic success.

The same could work in reverse. When O is 3 or more lower than D, you start forcing rerolls on the successful roll, starting with a 2+ for 3 less, 3+ for 4 less, 4+ for 5 less, etc., all the way down to automatically missing/failing on 8 or more less than D.

This would almost certainly subject targets that are currently entirely immune from some weapons to become vulnerable (albeit at lasgun-firing-at-FnP-Riptides levels), but it wouldn't be so in an unlimited way. It would also allow mean that some shots become truly impossible instead of merely unlikely (An Ork firing at something with an Evasion of 10).

The situations where true absurdity become problematic are really quite low.

Changing the 8+ or 8- results on the table to merely keeping the 2+/2+ and 6+/6+ respectively would similarly occur very infrequently, and so would also limit truly absurd situations to being exceptionally improbable.


But the real thrust is that we are playing a game pregnant with abstraction - the distances moved, the number of shots fire per roll, the effect of a weapon being stopped or not stopped by armor/force fields/cover... So many things already require abstraction, and the abstraction needed to keep this game from being entirely unwieldy as a gaming system is going to inevitably include absurd results.

The question is NOT whether a potential system will include absurdity, but rather whether the inevitable absurdity of a system's resolution method is sufficiently low in comparison to the benefits that a faster/better/easier universal resolution method can provide.

I'm of the opinion that the benefits often outweigh the costs, and I'm willing to allow my Ta'unar to suffer death-by-a-thousand-flashlights, even if that seems slightly absurd on its face, if the entirety of gameplay follows a single resolution method (and is rebalanced for that method).

No matter how you move resolution around for the D6, you are still halving efficacy when you go from needing a 5+ to 6+. This doesn't happen on a D10 until you get to 9+ -> 10+.

So even if trash the AP system, we can get even MORE proportional results by using a D10. But it seems like most people favor the D6. This being the case, I'd rather roll 2D6, but that also causes problems as has been noted.

I would never replace blasts and templates, either, because they punish sloppy play.

Although I would agree that templates add that positioning element to the game, it's such a pain to have to break out the templates and there's always arguments of ''so that scatters here, little more that way, little further...'' ''now that hits 8, wait 9. Perhaps even 10? 7 you say?''
It's not as big of a problem in friendly play, when I don't care if he moves the scatter perpendicular to where the dice points and sees double when counting, but in more competitive play/TFG that gets irksome.

I believe AoS these kinds of weapons are like D6 hits or something?
Maybe make it 1D6/2D6/whatever hits, cannot exceed the number of models in the target unit. Maybe just that many shots, rolling to hit as normal.

Moving over to D10s would be a serious logistical issue. Although perhaps 40k would be a major driving force in the D10 economy? But still, at the very least the game would shut down for a couple days while everyone ordered the dozens of dice that would be required.
D6 may have it's flaws, but I think we just might be stuck with it, not to mention GW has all those stocks of fancy dice.

I would really love an evasion type stat and comparative ranged to-hit rolls.

Lanrak wrote:
@Charistoph
The fine detail of the technology used is immaterial to the way modern warfare is waged.
If you go back to the 1920s and look at the level of technology, compared to today.The difference is mind boggling. But the basic tactical and strategic concepts hold true.

Not really. In some cases it was due to ignorance and in some cases it was due to technology allowing things that have never been done before. For example, Bltzkrieg would be almost unsupportable in 1920, as vehicles couldn't move fast enough, and aircraft was still learning how to do things. Today, while the US took some basic parts of Blitzkrieg in Desert Storm in to play, the concepts of precision weapons and things like the B-52, AH-64, and A-10, M1A1 played huge dividends in how that operated to which would could not have been considered by Rommel, von Brauchitsch, or Göring.

While some basic concepts still will apply, technology or enemy habits occasionally change completely how things work. The bayonet charge is something that will not happen in this modern age but was a standard practice in the biggest war 1920 knew, but if we could field a Company of Infantry that could effectively ignore small arms, a version of it may come back in to play.

Lanrak wrote:
My point stands that the rules of a war game are written based on unit function, NOT what the minatures look like.

I disagree, to a point. As an example, take what you can do with an Infantry unit in 40K or Warmahordes, and then consider what you can do with it in Epic, Dropzone, Planetfall, or even Heavy Gear. If you think the level of scale does not impact a game, you are deluding yourself. The more a single Infantryman can be easily recognized on a game board, the less abstract their functions have to be and the more rules you CAN attach to them.

If you are referring to my classification of 40K as Space Fantasy, I already explained that it is not just at this level which it applies. It is just more recognizable at this level than at Epic or BFG.

Lanrak wrote:
As war games are a functional document, instructing the player how the game works with the minimum of fuss.Having a clearly defined scale and scope is important.

No argument there, but it is obvious that what you think is clearly defined and important does not match everyone's. A game can be as simple as Checkers or more complex than D&D. In order to get some certain nuances a model/unit they wanted to include, they had to go the route they wanted. There is a point where you want a unit to do X, but the basic rules cannot include them. They wouldn't be needed in Epic, because Epic does not care about things on an individual model's scale like 40K does. Things like how Characters operate for example.

Lanrak wrote:
Inspiring short term sales of plastic bitz, just needs inspiring art and narrative.And as this is how 40k appears to be 'developed' it has no clear game play design or direction.

Actually, I think GW is developed by what sounds cool to someone who has a pint or two in them, and then written with the same considerations for anything else.

Lanrak wrote:
'Space fantasy' would be a game where for what ever reason , close combat trumped ranged combat.(May be a Jedi Knight vs Sith light sabre battle.)

Why? Where has this been exclusively defined as such? A battle between rebel troops and stormtroopers, or clone troopers and droids, with no force users around would play out like Tau versus Necrons. It still doesn't change how powerful these armies are nor the fact that the 40K is still a Space Fantasy game (Star Wars is noted as Space Opera, by the way).

Lanrak wrote:
I know GW write rules to try inspire collectors to collect more GW stuff.This is however not the way a war game focusing on clarity brevity and elegance is written.
As Rick Priestley put it '..more of a sales promotion department for a toy company, than a game design studio..'And I defer to his superior knowledge of GW plc.

Don't just name drop, where and when is he noted as saying this?

I should note that he hasn't worked for them in at least 6 years. Things can change in that time. Not to mention, it's not like this is really any different than what 40K has always been.

Lanrak wrote:
So GW threw away Armour Save Modifiers. All though far from perfect they did give more proportional results.
And replaced it with the AP system that abstracts the actual resolution, throws proportionality under the bus, and messes up any chance of improving game balance.

I disagree on messing up any chance of improving game balance, but it does make it more challenging. FB wasn't much better in that regard, either, as soo many things could do the same thing without much modification. Armor really wasn't very good in FB aside from a few Characters with some exotic upgrades.

Lanrak wrote:
If WHFB in space does not fit the intended game play of 40k.Why use WHFB based stat line, game mechanics, and resolution methods?
The ONLY reason is backward compatibility .If we are going for a ground up complete re-write this is no longer a valid consideration is it?

But to go back to the D6 argument, if it works now or can work, why replace it? This is part and parcel of how this discussion began, after all. You have proposed moving stats, but they are still there. You then want to add a stat to be used in a definition which is already applied to another stat's.

Lanrak wrote:
Apart from 40k
All the other war games I am aware of use one of those three basic game play types to build the strategic and tactical loading in the rules.
And they all have clearly defined , concise and intuitive rules as a result.

Then you really have not played very many war games. Aside from Chess, most I have played or read the rules of are either too simple to properly represent some of the capacities of the system or they are muddled down with abstractedness which messed with either conciseness or intuitiveness. In fact, aside from games like Risk and Chess, I cannot think of any game which can complete that triumvirate and be fun for me to play. Every game misses a few things here and there, and you are deluding yourself if you think you can do it.

Lanrak wrote:
Epic uses a different scale of minatures. But the game size and scope is similar to the current 40k game size and scope.

No, it is not. Most of the Epic game boards I have seen would be closer to an Apocalypse game than 40K. A standard 40K game of 1850 points would look like a Getting Started box for Epic, and that doesn't even consider the amount of area they are operating on. It's like comparing Civilization with Dawn of War.

Lanrak wrote:
I agree that you can not abstract the resolution to one dice per unit because of the model scale in 40k. But detailed unit interaction can be covered by rolling a D6 per model, if more suitable resoluion methods are used.

I rather disagree because of the weapons involved. Reducing everything to 1 D6 per model, especially when it comes to Attacks, misses out on a lot of that "modern combat" feel that you are trying to secure. Let's face it, there is a huge difference in the tactics and firepower one will apply if they are using a Gewehr 98 vs if they had a M16, M4, or an M60.

Hi folks.
Perhaps It might be a good idea to clarify my reasons for starting this thread.As it may help people understand where I am coming from and hopefully going to with it.

Back at the end of 5th ed 40k, (Late 2011, through to early 2015.)

The game devs at GW towers 'leaked ' the play test ideas for the new 6th edition 40k .
These seemed to be addressing the core issues of the 40k game play, rather than just pandering to larger models/higher model counts.
(The sales driven 'money grab' direction the corporate management actually inflicted on 40k 6th edition.So bad they had to release a new edition of 40k in just 2 years to prop up falling sales!)

I had a 'what if..' idea. I thought might be fun to investigate.

What if Tom Kirby took ill ,(Just for a short while ,so he was out of the way until the release of 6th edition had happened.)
And all the corporate management went into a bit of a panic.

And let the GW game developers actually focus on a re write of 40k.
Where the intended game play of 5th edition 40k became the driving force behind the new ground up re write of the 40k rules.

At this point I would assume that J.J. would be talking to R.P. and others about the chance to 'put right the rules' for the game they all are passionate about...
And they decided that the 5th edition game was big enough for standard games.(And Apoc would remain an expansion for higher game for those that like that sort of thing..)
And looking at how well the rules for Epic Armageddon fit the 40k universe, they decide a 'modern warfare' based game play was the way to go.

And as a new member of the game development team you were invited to help '..sort this mess out and arrive at a well defined concise and elegantly written war game rule set for 40k...'

I would like this thread to talk about the basic elements of the current game play would like to keep in this type of ground up re write.

I am not asking how you want to fix the current rule set.Or if you want to take the 40k rules in a different direction.(There are lots of other threads discussing these topics. )

Some posters seem to understand the intent of this thread already.
But other seem a bit confused.So I thought it may be beneficial to clarify it a bit more.

@Unusual Suspect.
I would prefer a system with proportional results that cover all units.
And that auto success and auto fail happen at the intuitive end of the spectrum of results.
(Eg the las gun AP 2 can not hope to penetrate the Land Raider Armour AV 10.The Land Raider saves on a 1+)

However, limited re rolls to allow lucky shots is a simple game mechanic we could use.(The 'Exploding dice' method works well in many games. )

@kirotheavenger.
Would you say its just the 'faffing about' positioning and scattering of blasts and templates that is the main issue with using templates?
Would addressing the ' placement process', be a more acceptable option than replacing the blasts and templates with a random number of hits?

@Charistoph.
Basic tactical and strategic concepts, are not specific tactical doctrines adopted by a particular forces with specific technology level are they?

As 40k 5th edition was clearly a war game based on unit interaction.The the rules for this size of war game is based on unit interaction.

Referring to skirmish games where the focus is individual model interaction, (Infinity , Urban War SST, Fast and dirty, Stargrunt II,No Limits, 2nd ed 40k etc.)
These are going to have different interactions to game where the infantry units are small 'blob squads'' on a base.(Epic, Dirtside, Battletech,Heavy gear, Drop Zone Commander etc.)

This is one of the core disconnect with the 40k battle game .The minature scale is the same as a detailed skirmish game.But the game size is that of a 15mm or smaller battle game.
So using 'conventional' skirmish rules slows the game down too much.And using 'conventional' battle game rules does not provide enough detailed interaction.

The current 40k rule set bodge of using a horrible mix of both, means some elements are micro manged, and other are macro manged.So player are hit with a bewildering level of disconnect at every turn.(Compared to war game rules with specific game play focus.)

I have found games like X-Wing ,Space Hulk , Blood Bowl etc.Are brilliant fun when sober and slightly drunk.

I am aware the topic of this thread may not mach every ones opinion on how 40k should be developed .
But it is my thread and I think investigating this direction would be interesting. If you do not agree , that is absolutely fine.

I paraphrased the actual interview a bit here is what was actually said by Rick..

''Bryan Ansell pretty much kept the creative part of the business separate from the manufacturing and sales part. Bryan was a very creative and ideas driven man – I don’t think he’d mind me saying that – he always wanted to make great games with interesting mechanics and stimulating ideas – and he didn’t mind investing in creative staff. He was a real patron of the studio and took a real interest in all the models and artwork. Bryan always said that if the studio ever had to mix with the manufacturing and sales part of the business it would destroy the studio. And I have to say – he wasn’t wrong there! The modern studio isn’t a studio in the same way; it isn’t a collection of artists and creatives sharing ideas and driving each other on. It’s become the promotions department of a toy company ''

I would urge you to look at Rogue Trader and 2nd edition 40k . if you think 40k has always been the same.

The all or nothing nature of the AP system does completely remove proportional results.And with out proportional results how do you achieve game balance?
My dudes in 2+ armour are worth 67pts each vs army ''X'' with limited AP 2 weapons.
But are only worth 23pts vs army ''Y'' with lots of AP 2 weapons.

If we cost my dudes in 2+ armour at the average cost 45pts. They are over costed vs one army , and under costed vs another. If you use the term 'challenging' to mean 'impossible' then we agree.

Having clearly defined game play ,scale and scope, simply makes picking the games you want to play much easier.
(Just because I am not interested in a games play style does not mean I can not appreciate now well written the rules are. )

All games have a different target audience, and so appeal to different gamer types.
Some people like the 'cinematic ; feel of Flames of war.Others prefer the more historical based Battle Group rules.And complete rivet counters love Firefly II.

There is not perfect war games rule set. Just the war games rule sets that are perfect for you.(Most abstract a bit in some areas, that does not mean they are bad games, just game that are not for you if you want more detail in these areas.)

My point is you can not abstract interaction to roll a dice per unit like you can with 'blob squad' games.
When the minatures used are large and detailed as they are in 40k .Players expect to roll dice for each minature not per unit.
(Discussing how we model higher rates of fire in the game is for much later in the discussion IMO. )

Lanrak wrote:
The game devs at GW towers 'leaked ' the play test ideas for the new 6th edition 40k .

Are you referring to the pancake edition which was made up by someone unrelated to GW?

Lanrak wrote:
@Charistoph.
Basic tactical and strategic concepts, are not specific tactical doctrines adopted by a particular forces with specific technology level are they?

Then you missed the point. What may seem basic to you is untennable in another situation. What we consider basic tactics and strategic concepts are largely based on the capabilities we can bring to the combat. An approach being handled by a modern breach team would not be the same approach that was used to clear a building in WWI, WWII, or Vietnam. Part of it is tactics we've learned over the decades, but also because we developed different technologies to accomplish the task which allowed us to change our approaches to those situations, such as the flashbang.

Lanrak wrote:
As 40k 5th edition was clearly a war game based on unit interaction.The the rules for this size of war game is based on unit interaction.

And still is. But there is also the desire for individual model interactions in the system as well. Such as allowing individual models to carry equipment different from the rest, Characters, and Independent Characters.

Lanrak wrote:
Referring to skirmish games where the focus is individual model interaction, (Infinity , Urban War SST, Fast and dirty, Stargrunt II,No Limits, 2nd ed 40k etc.)
These are going to have different interactions to game where the infantry units are small 'blob squads'' on a base.(Epic, Dirtside, Battletech,Heavy gear, Drop Zone Commander etc.)

This is one of the core disconnect with the 40k battle game .The minature scale is the same as a detailed skirmish game.But the game size is that of a 15mm or smaller battle game.
So using 'conventional' skirmish rules slows the game down too much.And using 'conventional' battle game rules does not provide enough detailed interaction.

That's because it was and is not meant to fit YOUR tightly bound definitions. It is a hybrid meant to handle situations where teams exist and most of the interactions revolve around them (unit interactions), but individual model actions are recognized and have an affect. It is not meant to be Epic any more than it is meant to be Infinity. It is meant to straddle that area that is in between. You do not seem to want to accept that as you certainly do not seem to be taking it in to account in your judgements.

Lanrak wrote:
The current 40k rule set bodge of using a horrible mix of both, means some elements are micro manged, and other are macro manged.So player are hit with a bewildering level of disconnect at every turn.(Compared to war game rules with specific game play focus.)

It may be a horrible mix of both, but that is not because of what its trying to do, but rather drunks are writing rules.

Lanrak wrote:
I have found games like X-Wing ,Space Hulk , Blood Bowl etc.Are brilliant fun when sober and slightly drunk.

But were you writing a whole ruleset based on being drunk while doing it?

Lanrak wrote:
I would urge you to look at Rogue Trader and 2nd edition 40k . if you think 40k has always been the same.

I never did say it has always been the same. I seem to remember pointing out that changes have happened, but more that some of these things have not changed in 19 years and it has worked pretty well so far. If nothing else, Movement is consistent and easy to remember, making it more obvious when someone is cheating.

Lanrak wrote:
The all or nothing nature of the AP system does completely remove proportional results.And with out proportional results how do you achieve game balance?
My dudes in 2+ armour are worth 67pts each vs army ''X'' with limited AP 2 weapons.
But are only worth 23pts vs army ''Y'' with lots of AP 2 weapons.

If we cost my dudes in 2+ armour at the average cost 45pts. They are over costed vs one army , and under costed vs another. If you use the term 'challenging' to mean 'impossible' then we agree.

Not really. It then comes about making those AP 2 Weapons either rare and/or dangerous along with low rates of fire per turn. Which we were at before 5th Edition.

Considering which, 5th edition vs 6th edition AP. Melee Weapons either allowed an AS or completely ignored it. 6th Edition actually allowed for some variance in that capacity. So, it sounds like 5th Edition really is what screwed the game over in many areas.

Lanrak wrote:
There is not perfect war games rule set. Just the war games rule sets that are perfect for you.(Most abstract a bit in some areas, that does not mean they are bad games, just game that are not for you if you want more detail in these areas.)

Correct, but your statements have presented the concept that it is possible. 40K just seems to rub your sensibilities and desires raw.

Lanrak wrote:
My point is you can not abstract interaction to roll a dice per unit like you can with 'blob squad' games.
When the minatures used are large and detailed as they are in 40k .Players expect to roll dice for each minature not per unit.
(Discussing how we model higher rates of fire in the game is for much later in the discussion IMO. )

You could, but at 40K's scale, it is counter-productive. More to the point, 40K has avoided that, aside from points where they desired random movement. I don't even know why you bothered to bring it up.

My first instinct is to say I would keep nothing from the current rules set, but then we wouldn't have 40K would we?

I think at the most basic, a ground up 40K would need to keep a Characteristic/Statistic comparison to derive a roll for success on a d6 die. This, at the core, is what makes the game Warhammer as opposed to some other system.

That being said, lots of the game needs to change. The rules have crept so far from where they were back in 4th Edition. Remember the days when a Chaplain with Jump Pack and a squad of Assault Marines were a good unit? Remember when the only common rerolls were Twin-Linked Weapons, Hatred, and Litanies of Hate?

@Charistoph.
I will simply assume I am unable to communicate with you in a way you can understand.Or you are so fixed in your opinion , that no matter what I post you will simply argue with it.In either case it is not productive for me to continue to respond to you.

I will try show why I think 40k is better suited to a modern war fare focused set of game mechanics and resolution methods.

In video this is what I think 40k 5th ed looks like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-E1RcRvny8

Is this closer to Ancient to Napoleonic warfare?(What WHFB regiments actually represent.1 model= multiple combatants.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vlcuvrM1po

Or a modern type warfare, where efficient ranged weapons mean a large group of infantry is a target rich environment.(Graphic volience warning...)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuaSi-H0oGY

@alextroy.

I think at the most basic, a ground up 40K would need to keep a Characteristic/Statistic comparison to derive a roll for success on a d6 die. This, at the core, is what makes the game Warhammer as opposed to some other system.

I agree,

I got the impression that 4th and 5th ed 40k had at their core a good game play concept.But the rules got in the way of the game play sometimes.
And because 4th and 5th ed 40k had a majority player group that could agree on what the game play should be,the game worked better, IMO.

6th edition and 7th edition 40k are mainly aimed at collectors who do not play or do not care about the rules that much.

@All.
GW plc are quite within their rights to pick their own target demographic from the potential customer base.And if you are happy with GW plcs version of 40k, that is great , you have everything you want,(Or can house rule to get it.)

But I am just wondering what a 40k written for gamers might look like.(Focusing on game play not short term minature sales.)
What would be different, and what would remain the same...

5th ed had its problems for sure. Wound allocation shenangians. Grey Knights. Space Woofs. The magic vehicle damage table where infinte shakens were the rule.

Lanrak wrote:
@Charistoph.
I will simply assume I am unable to communicate with you in a way you can understand.Or you are so fixed in your opinion , that no matter what I post you will simply argue with it.In either case it is not productive for me to continue to respond to you.

Conversely, you seem to not understand or care for what I state since you do not seem to address them with anything but your preconceptions and trying to fit 40K in to something it isn't.

Lanrak wrote:
I will try show why I think 40k is better suited to a modern war fare focused set of game mechanics and resolution methods.

In video this is what I think 40k 5th ed looks like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-E1RcRvny8

Is this closer to Ancient to Napoleonic warfare?(What WHFB regiments actually represent.1 model= multiple combatants.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vlcuvrM1po

Or a modern type warfare, where efficient ranged weapons mean a large group of infantry is a target rich environment.(Graphic volience warning...)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuaSi-H0oGY

As I said, it is a mix of the two, something you do not seem to want to accept because you want to pigeon-hole it. The reason for that mix is that some armies prefer to fight using more ancient/napoleonic tactics (Orks and Tyranids), some prefer to use our modern tactics (Necron, IG, and Tau), while others have units that prefer to operate in one or the other (Eldar) or can fight almost equally well in either atmosphere (Space Marines in all their colors). And I think part of the problem is you are confusing some things that mark a type of combat, but a style of game as noted to your references for each style.

Yes, WHFB could be considered either a more representative state ala Epic, but it could also be considered a 1:1 representative state, depending on the preference of view of the players. Same could apply to 40K, but most people prefer to view 40K on a 1:1 basis exclusively.

Where I see napoleonic/ancient combat is more about bringing a press of soldiers in to melee. Ranged fire is used to make it that press more successful, one way or another. Orks and Tyranids are designed around this.

Modern Combat is about making firing lanes. Flanking to remove cover and using armor and cover to ensure your troops survival is all part and parcel of that. Necrons, IG, and Tau operate along this method.

All Eldar armies operate on a mix of this, depending on the units purchased. They have melee units which prefer the press and ranged units which prefer to operate with fire lanes and cover.

The multitudinous Space Marines, however, operate on a different concepts. Their ranged units may prefer to use cover and firing lanes, but can handle themselves in the press of combat. Their melee units will prefer the press, but can handle a firefight (with rare exception and limitations).

So, 40K is that strange hybrid that Space Fantasy provides, allowing one to use either set of tactics and concepts to fit what the units are designed to use.

Now, I am not saying GW does a good job of representing this with the rules they write. Too often an edition will favor one approach over another, making those who dedicate themselves to one factor have difficulties. In addition, they often do not care for their rules' interactions. They then swing a pendulum of balance, making things worse as time goes on.

@Martel732.
I agree that every edition of 40k had an obvious issue that needed fixing.It was almost like the game devs left something so broken in the rules,so they had an easy fix to justify the next edition.
(This is not evident in any game written by the davs out side of the influence of GW sales. )

@All.
Some people still do not seem to understand what a 'basic concept' is.

There are three basic types of vehicle.
Those that fly in the sky, those that float across the sea, and those that drive across the land .

If you want to make a ''sea plane'', a airplane that can land and take off on water.
You simply modify the fuselage(hull) of an airplane to achieve this slightly different design function.The end result looks like a cross between a boat and a airplane.

You do not start off with a deep sea trawler and slap some wings on it. It looks like a cross between a boat and airplane , but this one will not fly. .

Basic resolution methods.
As the majority so far seem to except that keeping the D6 , and making better use of opposed stats in a table to give the D6 result required for success.
Is a reasonable place to start with the new rule set resolution methods.Along with direct representation for distances in inches, the number of dice rolled etc.
I think we could move on to other topics...

The game turn,
What are you views on keeping the action phases, but using them in an alternating phase game turn.(Similar to A.O.S.)

Blasts and templates.
As some of my gaming friends are disabled, I am not heavily into guessing ranges, for obvious reasons. I also agree that faffing about scattering the blasts /templates just slows the game down.

Suggestions ...
For indirect fire, why not just roll to hit , with a +2 modifier to targets Evasion stat.
If the attacker rolls over the score needed , the attacker places the blast/template over the target unit.
If the attacker rolls exactly the score needed , the defender places the template over their unit.

A failure to roll an accurate to hit score for indirect fire means the shot is not fired.(Wasting ammunition , or not having a clear target definition are resons you could use to explain this .)

For direct fire , do you prefer to just replace the 3" and 5" blasts with D3 or D6 hits?

I wouldn't mind seeing an alternate-phases setup, though for the sake of having an intelligible phase, I wouldn't want to see alternating WITHIN a phase. I move all my units, you move all your units, I shoot all my units, you shoot all your units, etc.

But if its "I move a unit, you move a unit, etc., etc." I think you'd just end up confusing things more.

I don't know what AoS's system is like, so you'd need to be more specific/clear about that.

Blasts and Templates:

For someone so adamant about making the game more streamlined and consolidating resolution methods, it kinda boggles my mind that you're considering keeping two separate resolution methods for Blast weapons (edit: that is, having blast markers for indirect weapons and d3/d6 for direct - if you intended one or the other, then never mind).

On the choice between having d3/d6 hits versus placing a template... For nostalgia's sake, I'd probably prefer the template (and before Martel has a chance, yes, it would also work better to "punish" poor model placement choices), but for ease of mechanics sake, I'd prefer the d3/d6 method. Actually, I'd prefer the d3/2d3 method (I like bell curves more than linear distributions).

Your proposed alternative methods for Indirect Fire confuse me. Add the additional Evasion stat, then apply d3/2d3 wounds on success, nothing on a failure.

How about for the 7" and 10" and Apocalyptic blasts? 3d3/4d3, and d3/d3/d3 per profile?

Would you be able to choose up to 2 or 3 units that are within 6" of each other, and apply 1 or 2d3 to each unit, to represent the ability for such sized markers to cover multiple units previously?

How about something completely different: Barcodes or RFID tags on the base which gives the model’s stats and Reader Apps for Smart Phones which can read the model’s stats and calculate odds. You can have all kinds of info on the code/tag possibly including facing, but the machine/program can do all the calculations instantly to generate the “To Hit, and “To Save” numbers based on the Target Units Armor type and the Weapons’ AP value based on a stats comparison but instead of looking-up the stats and cross referencing on a chart all that stuff is done by the machine/app. You can even tag cover/terrain and include that in the calculation. You can program it to use a D6 or a D10, or a D whatever. You can even go the next step and have the machine/program do a “dice roll” with a random number generator, if you want, but I think most players would still want to roll the dice.

Thirdeye wrote:
How about something completely different: Barcodes or RFID tags on the base which gives the model’s stats and Reader Apps for Smart Phones which can read the model’s stats and calculate odds. You can have all kinds of info on the code/tag possibly including facing, but the machine/program can do all the calculations instantly to generate the “To Hit, and “To Save” numbers based on the Target Units Armor type and the Weapons’ AP value based on a stats comparison but instead of looking-up the stats and cross referencing on a chart all that stuff is done by the machine/app. You can even tag cover/terrain and include that in the calculation. You can program it to use a D6 or a D10, or a D whatever. You can even go the next step and have the machine/program do a “dice roll” with a random number generator, if you want, but I think most players would still want to roll the dice.

This is a totally infeasible idea for numerous reasons:

1. Completely removes the ability to use custom or converted models.
2. Handcuffs your analog game system to digital software, removing a main benefit of tabletop gaming.
3. Since dice resolution and unit interaction are now digital, most players will wonder why the entire game doesn't just go digital.
4. Forcing players to stare into their phones or tablets all game defeats the purpose of gaming in-person.
5. Not everyone's devices will be compatible, so players are arbitrarily left out through no fault of their own.
6. Any attempt to monetize such a system will inevitably pile DRM on the software, to prevent players from "logging in" models they don't actually have. This kills any hope of a healthy after-market.

Those are just a few I can think of off the top of my head.

 Xca|iber wrote:


This is a totally infeasible idea for numerous reasons:

1. Completely removes the ability to use custom or converted models.

Not true. There are programs where you can print your own barcodes and program your own RFID Tags. It could be as simple as entering the model type, weapons and gear and the program will send the barcode to your printer or configure your tag.

2. Handcuffs your analog game system to digital software, removing a main benefit of tabletop gaming.

It would still be table-top, just faster and more fun as the program does all the heavy lifting.

3. Since dice resolution and unit interaction are now digital, most players will wonder why the entire game doesn't just go digital.

That day is coming, with VR, but this is just a faster and fun way to play tabletop.

4. Forcing players to stare into their phones or tablets all game defeats the purpose of gaming in-person.

No different than sharing photos or TEXT.

5. Not everyone's devices will be compatible, so players are arbitrarily left out through no fault of their own.

You can make it compatible with most common devices.

6. Any attempt to monetize such a system will inevitably pile DRM on the software, to prevent players from "logging in" models they don't actually have. This kills any hope of a healthy after-market.

The program will allowing you make your own custom barcodes and/or tags.

Those are just a few I can think of off the top of my head.

keep ‘em coming.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
I wouldn't mind seeing an alternate-phases setup, though for the sake of having an intelligible phase, I wouldn't want to see alternating WITHIN a phase. I move all my units, you move all your units, I shoot all my units, you shoot all your units, etc.

Battletech has used a similar method for almost its entire iteration. There are different phases which handle different events: Movement, Shooting Phase, Physical Attack Phase. There are other Phases as well, but are short and tend to deal with some of the Aspects unique to Battletech.

It first starts with an Initiative Phase. This is to determine who Moves first. This is the only time Initiative really matters. Moving first allows you to push where you want to be, but moving second allows you to react to what your opponent did.

Battletech does have Movement alternating per unit, but most of the time, the numbers are small enough not to matter here. All the ground units are moved, and then any aerospace units are accounted for (most aerospace only interact on map once every few turns, unless they go VTOL).

Shooting is done via alternating unit, but it doesn't really matter as all damage is only officially processed at the end of the Phase. So vehicles that explode by that Turn's shooting, can still shoot "after" they explode.

Then comes the Physical Attack Phase which includes Punching, Kicking, Pushing, Ramming, etc. Same as shooting, the results are only official at the end of the Phase.

Then comes the Heat Phase (only applicable to Battlemechs and aerospace fighters) which can cause 'Mechs to power down or explode.

Then the Turn is resolved.

I have always liked this process as it doesn't hurt you too much that Phase for bad positioning like 40Ks and WarmaHordes IGOUGO system.

 Xca|iber wrote:
This is a totally infeasible idea for numerous reasons:

1. Completely removes the ability to use custom or converted models.
2. Handcuffs your analog game system to digital software, removing a main benefit of tabletop gaming.
3. Since dice resolution and unit interaction are now digital, most players will wonder why the entire game doesn't just go digital.
4. Forcing players to stare into their phones or tablets all game defeats the purpose of gaming in-person.
5. Not everyone's devices will be compatible, so players are arbitrarily left out through no fault of their own.
6. Any attempt to monetize such a system will inevitably pile DRM on the software, to prevent players from "logging in" models they don't actually have. This kills any hope of a healthy after-market.

Those are just a few I can think of off the top of my head.

Eh...it's actually mostly workable, the only issue is just the barcode thing, which is superfluous anyway. There's no reason you'd need actually scan in what models are shooting at what models, you could program a basic menu to select them from a list, or whatever.


Now, I don't think there's any real need for such a system (perhaps to speed up rolls for some armies like IG under FRSR), but it could be done.

@Unusual Suspect.
I would like to start with basic alternating phases.(I move, you move, I shoot ,you shoot,I assault , you assault.)

I would consider alternating unit movement in the movement phase if it was deemed necessary after play testing.
For example...
If we have all movement happening in the movement phase, (similar to 2nd ed.) And if units are 'locked in assault' when charged in the movement phase.A well timed assault with lots of units could become very overpowering.So in this particular case , alternating unit movement may be a valid option.

I did not make it very clear when I was posting on blasts and templates.

Option 1 ,keep the blast and templates as they are, but just roll to hit like other shots.(BS vs Evasion.).
Roll over the score required to hit , the attacker places the template/blast.(Accurate hit.)
Roll the exact score needed to hit, and the defender places the template /blast .(On target.)
Roll under the score needed to hit, simply means the shot is not fired due to not being able to 'aquire the target' properly.


Option 2.Replace the templates, blast markers with a random number of hits. D3, D6, 2D3, 2 etc.
Roll to hit as normal.(BS vs Evasion.)

Note.
Indirect fire adds +2 to the targets Evasion stat.In both cases.

I am not sure if people are ok with templates, its just the faffing about scattering etc, they do not like.Or If they actually do not like the templates/blasts themselves?

@Thirdeye.
These are the sort of 'customer focus' ideas we could look at much later in the development.(EG after we get the game turn and resoluiotn methods sorted out .)

@Charistoph.
I like the way Battletech modeled 'simultaneous action' by leaving damage resolution to the end of the phase.
Do you think a modified system similar to this could work with 40k?

EG
A shoots, B shoots, then resolve damage.
A assaults then B assaults then resolve damage.

Do you agree some variation on alternating phases , would be a better fit for 40k than alternating game turns?

Lanrak wrote:
@Charistoph.
I like the way Battletech modeled 'simultaneous action' by leaving damage resolution to the end of the phase.
Do you think a modified system similar to this could work with 40k?

EG
A shoots, B shoots, then resolve damage.
A assaults then B assaults then resolve damage.

Do you agree some variation on alternating phases , would be a better fit for 40k than alternating game turns?

Technically speaking, tracking such resolutions have been in place for a long time now. Necrons have had to use such considerations for We'll Be Back and Reanimation Protocols, and one has had to track the such resolutions for Morale Checks in Shooting and Assault Phases.

It would allow for a lot of issues to be reconsidered, such as not wanting to win Assault on your Charge. One would have a chance to Move out range of Shooting, or to make another Charge.

But that really wouldn't be keeping much of 40K for a rewrite, though.

40K Needs to be a faster game. Breaking a turn down into many phases, whether by player or unit does not speed up the game.

Ideally, you would touch a unit once a turn and then not touch it again unless enemy action made it necessary. That would speed up game play as opposed to the current rule where it is possible to touch a unit in 4 different phases.

 alextroy wrote:
40K Needs to be a faster game. Breaking a turn down into many phases, whether by player or unit does not speed up the game.

Ideally, you would touch a unit once a turn and then not touch it again unless enemy action made it necessary. That would speed up game play as opposed to the current rule where it is possible to touch a unit in 4 different phases.

I won't agree on need, some people like the pace it is at. But I do agree that it could be sped up a little. I am in a personal debate about the Assault Phase having the ability to Move in. I don't see the point of keeping Running in the Shooting Phase (it IS rather stupid to split it up), but there is some merits to allowing Assault have its own Movement. It would simplify it by having the Charge being performed and resolved in the Movement Phase, but those would either be well positioned in the turn before, or those who Moved second always having the Advantage to Charge (depending on Turn resolution).

If no Movement is allowed in the Assault Phase (aside from Pile In/Consilidation), then how would one look at the interactions of Jet Pack and Eldar Jet Bikes?

I know some of my local group basically Shoots using 6th Edition rules (i.e. not splitting groups), and prefer to use a WHFB 8th/modified 5th Edition Wound Allocation, in which the peons, non-Special/Heavy Weapon models die first, leaving no reason to keep Look Out Sir or worry about Barrage Sniping. That would also speed things up a little as you don't have to deal with "but this guy was closer", "no, there are more of THAT guy", or the Shenanigans that some armies got away with in 5th Edition (Nob Bikers, I'm looking at you).

One more thing about the Battletech system, one advantage of the Battletech turn system is that all players are involved at all almost all times. The times between their interactions is small, instead of taking the time to get a Little Caeser's Fresh & Ready Pizza or eat a hamburger, it becomes a couple droughts of your drink or a couple bites of snacks between interactions.

@alextroy.
I would argue the current 40k rules are over complicated, and counter intuitive in some cases.

And it is this over complication that slows the game play down.And the counter intuitive results break the immersion in the game play.(W.T.F. moments.)

I think the lack of tactical interaction in the game play of current 40k is also a driver of the rules bloat.As the GW devs seem to want to replace simple tactical options with lots of additional (special) rules.

A slight alteration in the game turn mechanic is not going to effect the speed of game play that much on its own.Its all the over complicated stuff it does away with that speeds up game play.(EG a more interactive game turn removes the need for 'over watch' rules.etc.)
Similarly reducing the number of resolution methods will also speed up game play a bit.
(Less time looking up multiple charts and special rules would speed up game play . )

@Charistoph.
I am aware some people would not play a game of 40k unless it was using the latest official rule released by GW plc.

But a few adventurous souls out there are happy to try out new ideas in games.
If a 40k war game rule set used processes that are familiar to current 40k players in new ways.Maybe it may appeal to some o f these gamers?

Keeping the D6, and opposed stat values to generate the score required to succeed, seem favorable to the majority so far.

I know moving from alternating game turn to alternating phase is quite a big change,But it is still using the phases players are familiar with.

Would performing all 'decisive' movement in the movement phase,(because it is more intuitive,) and 'locking units in assault' .(Similar to 2nd ed where assaults were resolved in the assault phase without any 'move intro assault' in the actual assault phase.)

Be within the bounds of a reasonable change in your opinion?
Or is this concept too far away from the current rules?Are there any issues we could not work around of we were to adopt it?

I think the simultaneous resolution option is worth exploring in more detail.

Lanrak wrote:
@Charistoph.
I am aware some people would not play a game of 40k unless it was using the latest official rule released by GW plc.

But a few adventurous souls out there are happy to try out new ideas in games.

Do not conflate game pace with unnecessary complications. Game pace is determined by the level of detail you are trying to reach. The game pace of a flight of tie fighters is quick in Star Wars Armada, but is pretty much an entire round in X-Wing, for example.

And alternating interactions by Phase (or IN Phase) can affect a person's perceptions of game pace, as one is not waiting too long between times they have to make decisions, roll Saves, or remove models from the board.

Lanrak wrote:
If a 40k war game rule set used processes that are familiar to current 40k players in new ways.Maybe it may appeal to some o f these gamers?

Hence keeping what is know about 40K in a rewrite. This is called Gaming Literacy. Tabletop games do not always use the same concepts and systems across the board because they are not all trying to reach the same level of detail with the same concepts. However, when moving from edition to edition, it is better (in most cases) to use the same or slightly modify the methods one has used in the past.

Lanrak wrote:
Keeping the D6, and opposed stat values to generate the score required to succeed, seem favorable to the majority so far.

I am in favor of it, largely, as it allows for a greater spread of stats. However, for BS, this is turning away from what has been used for almost 20 years now. By changing Shooting from a set value to an opposed, you are introducing a change to 40K Gaming Literacy. Not saying this is bad, but something to be aware of.

Lanrak wrote:
I know moving from alternating game turn to alternating phase is quite a big change,But it is still using the phases players are familiar with.

Would performing all 'decisive' movement in the movement phase,(because it is more intuitive,) and 'locking units in assault' .(Similar to 2nd ed where assaults were resolved in the assault phase without any 'move intro assault' in the actual assault phase.)

Be within the bounds of a reasonable change in your opinion?
Or is this concept too far away from the current rules?Are there any issues we could not work around of we were to adopt it?

I see the advantages of both. On one hand, having Charges in the Movement Phase is great for Press Units as they can just Charge from unit to unit without nearby units being able to successfully move away without proper planning. On the other hand, having Charges still in the Assault Phase would allow for Firing units a chance to escape.

Lanrak wrote:
I think the simultaneous resolution option is worth exploring in more detail.

It has been something I have wanted to try for a while, but I do not have the collection nor the store time to dedicate to testing it for some time.

------------------------------------------------------

Off hand, my suggestion is try testing each change independent of the other in the context of the current rules and see how they work, rather than combining the whole thing all at once. This allows you to properly gauge the impact and favorability of the individual pieces. Once you have the refined details of each change, then combine what you've learned in one big swoop and test from there.

Thirdeye wrote:

 Xca|iber wrote:


This is a totally infeasible idea for numerous reasons:

1. Completely removes the ability to use custom or converted models.

Not true. There are programs where you can print your own barcodes and program your own RFID Tags. It could be as simple as entering the model type, weapons and gear and the program will send the barcode to your printer or configure your tag.

And who's going to make or convert one of these programs for use with 40k? Anybody can write up a pdf - that's easy to do. But to create software with the capabilities you're talking about, along with a user-interface for entering 40k stats and the like, will take a fair amount of time and effort. Unless you think you can actually line someone up to do that in their free time, and commit fully to hosting/maintaining the software, it's all just vaporware at the moment.

2. Handcuffs your analog game system to digital software, removing a main benefit of tabletop gaming.

It would still be table-top, just faster and more fun as the program does all the heavy lifting.

If the system is so complicated that you need digital software to make the play efficient and enjoyable, then the system is already bad. Unless your point is just to have some optional electronic aids for general ease of gameplay... in which case that's not really the point of this thread. In considering a re-write of the 40k rules, the endeavor should be a system where electronic aids are cool/optional, but never necessary.

3. Since dice resolution and unit interaction are now digital, most players will wonder why the entire game doesn't just go digital.

That day is coming, with VR, but this is just a faster and fun way to play tabletop.

See above. And if you're already going to the trouble of making all game mechanics digital except for model placement, you might as well go all the way and just make a videogame instead.

4. Forcing players to stare into their phones or tablets all game defeats the purpose of gaming in-person.

No different than sharing photos or TEXT.

I don't know who you play with, but I do not stare at photos or texts while I'm playing a tabletop game with someone. That's just rude. The occasional dice-roller is fine in a pinch, but even that gets tiresome when somebody is focused more on their phone than the other person and the table. I mean seriously, you text in the middle of games?

5. Not everyone's devices will be compatible, so players are arbitrarily left out through no fault of their own.

You can make it compatible with most common devices.

Can does not mean will. Even GW with all their resources took forever to make most of their digital products available across platforms. So now your proposal isn't just looking for someone to code all of this, but someone able and willing to develop it in parallel for many different device types. Again, not something everyone is willing to do for free.

6. Any attempt to monetize such a system will inevitably pile DRM on the software, to prevent players from "logging in" models they don't actually have. This kills any hope of a healthy after-market.

The program will allowing you make your own custom barcodes and/or tags.

This is only true assuming we actually get someone on board to do the project. If this system you suggested were implemented by any rational-thinking company, they would absolutely dump DRM on it the first chance they get.

Those are just a few I can think of off the top of my head.

keep ‘em coming.

You should look up the game from a couple of years ago (can't recall the name) that tried to do something just like this - the one with the weird Lucifer model and the whole angels vs daemons vs humans theme. TL;DR: It failed miserably, for all the reasons I just listed.

@Charistoph.
I was trying to argue that the speed of interaction is more negatively effected by over complication in the written rules , than by a slight change in the resolution or game mechanics.

I agree that 'game pace' is important.
But me, me,me, then you, you, you.Does not change the overall pace of a game turn, just the level of interaction to me ,you, me ,you,me ,you.

Comparing two stats on a chart to determine the dice roll required for success is already used in the 40k rules.(It is part of the gaming literacy.)
So revising it to cover ALL combat interaction of ALL units, could be viewed as improving the level of detail covered in the game play, while removing pointless complication from the written rules. This could be seen as a win win by some.

As many people have complained about the lack of interaction in the game turn.(Some gamers feel 'left out of the game play' when its not their turn.Rolling saves and removing casualties is a poor consolation prize.Compared to more frequent tactical interaction.)

With interleaved or alternating phases each player gets to take direct actions against their opponent every phase.If we left casualty removal to the end of the turn it could minimize the requirements for who has the initiative.(As it would model simultaneous interaction.)

Lanrak wrote:
@Charistoph.
I was trying to argue that the speed of interaction is more negatively effected by over complication in the written rules , than by a slight change in the resolution or game mechanics.

Game pace can be affected by over complications, but it can also be affected by under complication, too. I understand that you think that certain aspects of 40K you consider over complicated are not actually that, but rather a deliberate inclusion to represent a certain aspect of warfare, such as rolling for Difficult Terrain.

Lanrak wrote:
I agree that 'game pace' is important.
But me, me,me, then you, you, you.Does not change the overall pace of a game turn, just the level of interaction to me ,you, me ,you,me ,you.

I never said it did. I said the perception of the game length is different. "A watched pot never boils" was never about the mystical ability for observation to slow the boiling ability of water, but that when one focuses too much on one thing, time tends to take on a different values so that a perceived minute may seem to take longer than 60 ticks of a clock. Kind of like a kid in school waiting for recess versus a kid in school taking a difficult, but vital, test. The time may be equally the same in seconds, but the first seems like forever but the latter can seem like never enough time.

Lanrak wrote:
Comparing two stats on a chart to determine the dice roll required for success is already used in the 40k rules.(It is part of the gaming literacy.)
So revising it to cover ALL combat interaction of ALL units, could be viewed as improving the level of detail covered in the game play, while removing pointless complication from the written rules. This could be seen as a win win by some.

True, it can. I was just pointing out that while the mechanic was there, it has not been applied to the BS system before. If you may have noted, I did say it was largely an improvement.

Lanrak wrote:
As many people have complained about the lack of interaction in the game turn.(Some gamers feel 'left out of the game play' when its not their turn.Rolling saves and removing casualties is a poor consolation prize.Compared to more frequent tactical interaction.)

With interleaved or alternating phases each player gets to take direct actions against their opponent every phase.If we left casualty removal to the end of the turn it could minimize the requirements for who has the initiative.(As it would model simultaneous interaction.)

That's why I like how Battletech does it. I personally think that the IGOUGO system is totally borked on this front specifically for those reason.

For an example of 'over complication ' in the written rules, due to an 'abstract over simplification' of function ,I think the way 40k currently handles weapon and armour interaction is a corker.

In WHFB weapons are basic lumps of wood, rock or metal 'swung' or 'thrown ' at basic armour , made of animal hide or metal.

Armour is made up of light or heavy .(6+ or 5+ save.)
A shield adds 1 to the armour save.
A mount adds 1 or 2 to the armour save.

So 6+ save to represent light infantry, (shield or light armour.) All the way to a 2+ save to represent heavy cavalry , (Heavy armnour shield , barded steed.)

This covers all the armour in the game . with the exception of magical items.Similarly a sImple ASM of -1 or -2 covers most weapons in WHFB.

Look at the vast array of technology in 40k weapons and armour. The basic WHFB method simply can not cope with this wide range of values.

These can can be covered by..(Proposed new method.)
1 rule.
Compare the targets AV value, to the weapon hits AP value on a universal resolution chart.To get the score needed to pass an armour save.

OR
Current 40k methods.

1 rule.
Roll over the armour save to pass the armour save.

1 exception.
Unless the AP value of the weapon hit is low enough to cancel the targeta armour save completely.

2 and 3 exceptions.(This would be covered by the to hit roll alteration .But is part of the armour weapon interaction in the current rules.)
Unless the model is in cover when it can get a cover save instead of its armour save.Unless the weapon attacking it ignores cover.

4 and 5 exceptions.
Unless the model has a invulnerable save.(Unless the attacker has a special rule thatr ignores this particular inv save.)

6 exception.
Unless the target is classed as a vehicle , in which case it resolves weapon hits with completely different stats and in a completely different way.

In my preferred rules, they are written to keep exceptions to a minimum.

I would like more detailed unit interaction in the 40k game play.But achieve this by removing over complication from the core rules.

So using a D6 in a more detailed way, in a three stage damage resolution.(That applied to all units.)
Coupled with an alternating phase game turn that modeled simultaneous action.

Might be a good starting point for a '40k war game' rule set.

Is any one opposed to this basic out line of what should be kept in a 40k re write, focusing on game play and tactical interaction?

I don't know, but I've been playing with a d8 based modification of the bolt action rules and it's been a lot of fun. The essential elements are the activation system, and the feeling that there are real tactical choices to be made when doing said activations.

I found the d6 just didn't allow enough viable stats to encompass the differences in 40k units without adding layers to the rules like a separate save roll or complicated weapon profiles.

Edit - one essential thing that separates 40k from many other games I've played is close combat, including bolt action. 40k tries to make close combat an essential part of its system. It's always struggled I think trying to make rules that make it sensible to have sci fi weapons and armor but still somehow have it make sense to run up with a sword and start hacking away. I think you'd lose something of what makes 40k 40k if you didn't put real emphasis on close combat. It's really the only thing that just doesn't feel right using bolt action rules as I am doing.