Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I am starting to make my own version of 40K or own game based of 40K. I was thinking instead of just using Use as Created (just like they are in 40K, Warmahordes, you pick from what is made in the codex) how about being a bit more like Battletech and make/design your own mini stats and then making them into units/broods?

This way you can make your own version of how a Space Marine should be, or how an Ork should be or what ever. You can either make an expensive SM where they are hard to kill, strong in combat and shooting but cost a lot of points and have few of them.

Yes it is more work to do, but at least it will be your version. Also this way if you want to play CSM and you feel like it should be played like a SM then you can do so. If you want to make a squishy gaunts but have lots of them you can do that now. What ever your vision you can make it.

There will be stats for a bunch of weapons and what ever you feel is a bolted you can use it. There will be armour as well, and stats for movement so you can make what ever you want. They will be priced accordingly.

So if everything was done well and everything was priced accordingly and well balanced, would you like to to make your own mini stats or just like to Use as Created and then make your own force that way?

Like to see what people think for a 40K game. (not sure if this should be in 40K general or here proposed rules)

I like both approaches but unit design rules are never balanced. It also leads to odd situations where two people play the same faction and have totally different rules. WYSIWYG is out the window... So I think unit creation rules are more suited to space fleet games or warband skirmish games (Necromunda) than 40k type games.

This kind of system almost always works badly because it's very difficult to create a system where the price of a stat increase has the correct value in all situations. For example, +1 BS is worth a lot more on a shooting unit than on a melee unit or a squad of basic troops that camp on an objective all game. If you price that point of BS the same for all units then you'll either make the shooting unit too cheap or the melee unit too expensive. The only way to fix it is to give each unit a list of stat upgrades with their own prices that only apply to that one unit, which isn't really the level of customization you're talking about.

And then there's also the min/max problem. Fixed stat lines work from a realism perspective because you have to buy everything the fluff tells you to buy, you can't just take good stats in the things that matter and cut everything else down to the absolute minimum to save points. A space marine is always going to be reasonably tough and have average or better stats in melee and shooting in the current system. But if you allow customization you get cheaper BS 0 melee squads and cheaper WS 0/STR 0/A0/I0 shooting squads. Or maybe your IG blobs that always have a commissar attached are now LD 0 on everyone else, because who cares about the leadership of the average meatshield. The end result is that you take "flaws" that don't have any negative effect to pay for powerful stat upgrades, and anyone who tries to build a fluffy army under that system will get slaughtered even worse than they do now.

Thanks guys, greatly appreciated for your feed back.

I think, have it customizable but with limits. Like roleplays.

Like have base bodies (human, Atartes, Tau etc) and give them a min and max stat range. Some stats may not be able to change, while others can.

Then for weapons, have a limit on just how many you can take. So for example, you are allowed 1 general weapon, 1 general pistol and 1 general melee weapon. Give these the ability to choose from a limited list of general rules to go with that weapon and a range of stats for them (to keep them limited). Then have a limit of special weapons which can be a wild amount of choices but limited in number etc.

So the first step is to start with human, and create a system of limited ranges of stats and choices. Then work out a standard points system (which will change radically when you start working on guns and armour etc) and go from there.

If that makes sense.

I've been thinking that it would be great if 40k had custom HQ's. Picture if each army had an HQ with a low base point cost, and no gear or special rules. There is then a point cost for every special rule and piece of wargear purchased for it.

Each codex would only have to scale one user-generated character against its own HQs.

if the game is just using model vs model interaction, then allocating PV to equipment/abilities is reasonably straightforward and easier to balance.

However, if the game is unit vs unit, then the group of models making up the unit can have very marked synergy bonus /deficit effects.

Just a standard cost for a 'body' , can become inaccurate depending on where a unit 'break ' level is set.
Eg if a unit becomes suppressed when it losses over half its strength.
Then even numbers of models are more cost effective than odd numbers of models , as the extra model makes no difference to the break point of the unit.


I believe the most accurate way to attribute point costs is at the level of interaction.So for a battle game PV should be allocated at the unit level.As this deals directly with any synergy issues in the unit composition.

I agree that building a unit gets touchy, because it's strengths and weaknesses are multiplied. Alternatively, if it is a unit based game like 40k, it would be fairly easy to have custom options for an HQ. Use the Ordo- Inquisitors. There are three subtypes, and each has a plethora of options allowing you to create exactly what you want (short of giving them Marine stats). I'd like to take it one step further and have special rules and limited Characteristics upgrades be purchasable the same way, and it would be kept in check with a rule limiting each army to one character generated this way.

If he started WS2, BS2, S2, T2,W2, I2, A2, Ld8, Sv4+, and no base Special Rules...

There would be a cost for improving each Characteristic, scaling up in cost as you progress (Either capped at 5, (10 for Leadership) or becoming spectacularly expensive beyond that point. Similarly Special rules would be purchased, and the power could be limited by having only certain special rules available to certain factions, or by scaling the costs so that after a point it stops being cost effective (you could have a T5 HQ with 2+, 3++, 4 Wounds, Eternal Warrior and It Will Not Die, but the cost would be higher than Lords of War, Giving a practical and competitive reason for players to create a balanced character rather than making a juggernaut that's 3/4 of their army).

And/or: specific special rules may be mutually exclusive (ex: you may not want any character to be able to purchase Eternal Warrior and It Will Not Die, regardless of how overpriced it is).

I see in my old Rogue Trader book they have point costs for the stats. I know they can't be used now because a lot of units have become cheaper, but I wonder how close they would come to building a unit now.

Has anyone tried it?

Because of the silliness of the WS chart, going past 5 is pointless in 98% of game situations.
Due to the large increments of the d6 steps, going from s6 to 7 is pretty worthless, while s8 becomes instadeath for most units in the game.
So unlike most games like DnD where you could scale costs of stats upwards as they go up, 40k has silliness where certain break points are more valuable than others above or below.

I have seen somewhere (wish I could remember where) that if you had a WS 10 vs WS 1, it should be a no contest and I agree. I also agree everyone should always have a chance, so when I saw WS1 vs WS10, the WS1 would need a roll of a 6 to hit, then another roll of 6 again to hit. So this way a high WS actually matters but everyone still has a chance to participate no matter how unlikely it can happen.

Why have a range of 1 to 10, when all you use a WS table for is to reduce the effect to hit on a 3+,4+ or 5+?

Just stating the score needed to be hit directly offers TWICE as many results with NO effort what so ever.

EG a model with no assault ability an Assault value of 1.(Is hit in assault on the roll of a 1 or more eg, Auto hit.)
The highest Assault value is 6, where the opponent need to roll a 6+ to hit the model in assault.

So all units have an assault ability of 1,2,3,4,5,or 6.
This could also determine the base striking order, so Assault value 6 strikes before Assault value 4.
We could have modifier for charging and some weapon /equipment types perhaps?

Lanrak wrote:
Why have a range of 1 to 10, when all you use a WS table for is to reduce the effect to hit on a 3+,4+ or 5+?

Just stating the score needed to be hit directly offers TWICE as many results with NO effort what so ever.

EG a model with no assault ability an Assault value of 1.(Is hit in assault on the roll of a 1 or more eg, Auto hit.)
The highest Assault value is 6, where the opponent need to roll a 6+ to hit the model in assault.

So all units have an assault ability of 1,2,3,4,5,or 6.
This could also determine the base striking order, so Assault value 6 strikes before Assault value 4.
We could have modifier for charging and some weapon /equipment types perhaps?

Not sure what you mean. Are you saying WS should not go above 6? What for units that have WS of 7, 8 and 9? (never seen WS 10 yet). I want to basically keep the codices the same so not changing anything there if I can help it.

Hmmm, maybe like shooting they get to reroll failed hits then if their BS is higher than 6?

Can you please explain more, I think I know what you are getting at, but not completely sure how to implement it.

Hi Davor.
What I mean is the models WS is the score the opponent needs to roll equal or higher than, to land a successful hit in close combat.
For the half a dozen models in the game with a WS over 6, just make them roll a 6 , followed by a
2+ to hit. for WS7
3+ to hit for WS8
4+ to hit for WS 9
5+to hit for WS 10.

(Going toe to toe with a greater deamon of khorne should be scary!The improvement in close combat could represent the ethereal nature of these models perhaps? )

In my wip rules I have changed it so each unit has its own weapon profile on the unit card.
This allows us to fine tune , effective range , number of attacks , AP, and damage , to balance out the units net effect in game.

This would make higher assault values worth more, but as PV are all over the shop ATM, I can not see this as a reason not to change things.

I like that Lanrak. I think I am going to use that somehow. Thank you.

Lanrak wrote:
Hi Davor.
What I mean is the models WS is the score the opponent needs to roll equal or higher than, to land a successful hit in close combat.
For the half a dozen models in the game with a WS over 6, just make them roll a 6 , followed by a
2+ to hit. for WS7
3+ to hit for WS8
4+ to hit for WS 9
5+to hit for WS 10.

(Going toe to toe with a greater deamon of khorne should be scary!The improvement in close combat could represent the ethereal nature of these models perhaps? )

In my wip rules I have changed it so each unit has its own weapon profile on the unit card.
This allows us to fine tune , effective range , number of attacks , AP, and damage , to balance out the units net effect in game.

This would make higher assault values worth more, but as PV are all over the shop ATM, I can not see this as a reason not to change things.

This would make fights between high WS models very long, especially challenges. In challenges (assuming the rest of the rules are the same, which is unlikely), instant death would become very powerful, as you would be able to turn that one 6 you rolled to hit into winning the whole challenge.

How would you suggest to fix it then Yourintestines? Like I said me and my son haven't played in ages, so relearning everything. Can't see all the possibilities so that is why this is a great place to see what people think.

What do you suggest?

Hi folks.
In the last decade my gaming group and I have looked at new ideas for rule sets.
And we have come up with loads of ideas for 40k.

However, every time we devise an elegant and intuitive alternative to 40k rules, we find they do not work with the rest of the 40k rules.

So we decided years ago, to just write a completely new rule set from scratch as it is much quicker in the long run!
(If a team of professional game developers cant get Warhammer Fantasy 'battle games in space' working after 16 years and 5 editions.it is pretty much a lost cause.IMO)

We decided to just use Assault values of 1 to 6.To prevent having to re roll hits for high WS.
(Which would probably just slow the game down, while adding very little to the actual game play. )

Our last notes for converting WS to assault values for play testing are...

Things that currently do not have a WS, get Assault value 1.(They are auto hit in assault.)
WS 1 or 2 , get Assault value 2.
WS 3 gets Assault value 3
WS 4 gets Assault value 4
WS 5 or 6 gets assault value 5
WS 7 or above gets assault value 6

(We have skewed the values to represent majority of units in 40k with WS 3 or 4.(Over 90% of units have WS 3 or 4.)

Long protracted combats , and challenges, etc are fine in WHFB. Where units represent 100s of actual troopers in close formation .(EG Ancient to Napoleonic type warfare.)

I think faster more brutal assaults to push enemy units back/ out of positions , is more in keeping with 40k.

Currently we are trying out one round assault resolution.(Both sides fight one round of close combat.)

After the assault , the units that has caused more damage (wounds/structure point loss,) is the winner.

The loser MUST break off from the assault .(Moves D6 " away from the unit(s) that won the assault.)
If the loser has lost over half its starting strength it counts as suppressed after breaking from the assault.

If the winner of the assault has lost over half its starting strength, it returns to good morale and automatically consolidates its position.
(Must take Fire Support or Infiltrate order next turn.)

If the winner of the assault has not suffered over half of its starting strength as casualties,it may take orders normally next turn .

If the units have caused an equal amount of damage in the assault.The side that has the highest number of wounds/structure points left is classed as the winner of the assault .(Weight of numbers is important in assaults!)

If the assault is still a draw , BOTH sides break from the assault , and BOTH sides count as losing the assault.

Just a basic concept we are playing with ATM.
I probably need to explain it better....

Davor wrote:
How would you suggest to fix it then Yourintestines? Like I said me and my son haven't played in ages, so relearning everything. Can't see all the possibilities so that is why this is a great place to see what people think.

What do you suggest?

The current WS chart for 40k works fairly well, I think, with different ratios of WS having different to hit rolls. 40k currently is:

Attacker has less than half the defender's WS: 5+

Attacker has equal to or more than half the defender's WS: 4+

Attacker has a higher WS than the defender: 3+

You could change the ratios for more variety.

Another idea I have:
Going with Lanrak's Assault values (AV), change WS 5 to AV 4, and WS 7 to AV 5.
The change for WS 5 is to stop units with it being to hard to kill, and the change for WS 7 is to stop WS 6 getting lonely.

In challenges, the normal to hit should be scrapped in favour of a Hobbit style combat system.
Both challengeee's roll a dice for every attack they have. Take the highest rolled by each model, and add their WS/AV (depending on what to hit method you are using). Whoever gets highest gets to make all their attacks against the other model, hitting automatically. (This probably will be too OP.)

That is what I was thinking YourIntestines, using the LotR but if you have like 10-15 or more minis in combat. and then some units having 2,3 or more attacks, how would you deal damage then? I like how in LotR you can Shield for more protection in in combat.

Maybe have something like how it's in Star Wars X-wing or Star Trek Attack Wing. You roll the amount of dice you have for attacks. You roll to hit. Your opponent rolls for defence. Each hit will negate your opponents hit. The one who has the most hits left wounds then? Maybe have WS be Free dice to use. Say your WS is greater than your opponents, that is how many bonus dice you get with your attacks? They can be used as either Defensive dice or Attack dice bonus.

I don't know, just thinking of things. My son just loves to roll lots of dice.

We are using Armour thickness (1 to 15) for all units ATM

Roll a D6 add the models Armour thickness ,if this total is higher than the weapon Armour piercing value (5 to 20) , the model passes its save and takes no damage.
if the total is equal or less than the weapon AP value , the model takes damage.
The revised damage resolution we are using is..

So roll to hit , (using Assault value for Assault, or Stealth value for ranged attacks.)

Roll to save.(Armour +D6 vs weapon hit AP , for all attacks.)

Roll for damage.(Roll over weapons damage value, modified by target Resilience.)

Do you think rolling saves before damage makes more sense?

The way I see it, is you roll to hit. If you are Hit, then you roll your armour save. If your armour save didn't protect you then you are wounded. No need to roll. I just think the Roll to Wound needs to eliminated and you roll twice, not 3 times.

I HATE that you roll to hit, then get hit, then you roll to wound, but then you roll to save. While I guess the order doesn't matter, it's the same result. 3 rolls. 2 on the attackers part, once on the defenders part.

You get hit, yes your armour didn't save you, the wound could still be a minor one. I see it as you get hit, but you shrug it off, either by adrenalin or it's like it blew your arm off but you are still alive and keep going, because of drugs, sheer determinationnor what not is keeping you alive. Once you fail your wound, then you die (if you had one wound remaining.)

Maybe if GW explained it like that, I would accept it, but they didn't.

I guess it all depends on how you want to forge the narrative. In small skirmish games, I think that would work awesome, you get to see how heroic your men/beasts are. Since GW didn't explain it like that, I got use to see it, as wounding where a person should die but it magically disappears and in larger games like over 1000 points, it just seems a bit ridiculous. I rather see it as I hit, then you roll for armour save, fail that then you take damage, no need to see if wounds are taken, they should be taken right away unless the armour saves it. If the armour can't save it, how can you really skin and bones save it then? Just unnecessary rolling and time wasting.

When playing larger games do we really need to see if that one marine is kept going on by shear determination? Now, we forget the next turn what happened to him. We are playing larger games now, not roll playing games so we don't need to know these things.

TL;DR Roll to Wound. Great for small games, under 1000 points, bad for larger games 1000+ plus. Slows the game down unnecessary.

How about resilience, like in War of the Ring?

Standard models would have resilience 1, particularly tough ones would have 2 or 3.

Models would have to take enough wounds to equal their resilience before they get hurt, and they wouldn't carry over between turns.

Particularly strong weapons would count as more than one wound.

Not sure what this would replace, if anything.

I don't remember how resilience works. Never played War of the Ring, but bought the book. Does sound good, but how can we make a fast paced game when in the 1500, 2000 or more point games? Would it slow it down or speed it up?

Hi folks.
We have play tested several 2 stage damage resolution methods with 40k.But they just did not seem 'right' for some reason.
I think its because 40k players have got used to differentiating between armour and toughness.

Attacker rolls to hit.
Defender rolls to save.
Attacker rolls to damage.

Flows quite well.

Weapons get a 'Damage value' the number on a D6 the attacker needs to roll to damage the target.
The models Resilience value adds to this number.

Eg Bolt gun damage value is 3.
It damages Resilience 0 targets on a 3+
It damages Resilience 1 targets on a 4+
It damages Resilience 2 targets on a 5+
it damages Resilience 3 targets on a 6+

Just some thoughts..

Davor wrote:
I don't remember how resilience works. Never played War of the Ring, but bought the book. Does sound good, but how can we make a fast paced game when in the 1500, 2000 or more point games? Would it slow it down or speed it up?

If it were to replace both wounds and toughness, That would give a two stage damage resolution method with (hopefully) a satisfying measure of toughness, and would also stop wound markers getting lost or knocked mid play.

Just a quick anecdote.
During the many play tests of different combat resolution methods over the years.

It is not the BASIC 3 stage damage resolution of 40k that slows the game down.
But the god awful way it is implemented, then added to in such hap hazzard ways..

WHY compare values on a chart , when you can just list the chance to be hit on the stat line?

Why have separate cover saves, when to hit mods make much more sense?

Why compare values on a chart, when the chance to damage can be on the weapon stat line, and the targets Toughness/resilience can be a simple modifier?

Why have MULTIPLE weapon armour resolution methods supported by a raft of special rules to fill in the gaps the multiple systems leave.When ONE simple weapon-armour interaction can cover everything?

Yes the WSvs WS chart, and the S vs T chart can be memorized,(eventually.)
But why bother?

Just reading a value off a stat line is simpler and quicker and takes up MUCH less rules writing to explain.

IF you are a child wanting to impress your friends by remembering all the rules for your army .Then the way 40k is written gives you a challenge.

If you a a person who wants to enjoy actually playing the game, the way 40k rules are written just gets in the way!