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.

Hi folks.
Many people enjoy the game play of 40k, but are put off by the complicated way the game play is covered by the GW 7th ed rules.

So I thought a thread discussion of basic mechanics and resolution methods to see if we can cover the current game play in a much more straight forward way might be helpful.

Some things are seen as 'intrinsically 40k' by the players.
A) Players taking turns.
B) Three stage damage resolution.
C)Freedom of choice in the F.O.C.
D) Rolling D6's

Also it might be good to accept that 40k has moved into a massed battle game now, and is no longer a skirmish game , like it was in the days of RT/2nd ed 40k.
So the rules should be written for 'detailed unit interaction' , not 'detailed model interaction'.
(The resolution can be on a model per model basis , but the effects should 'apply to the unit'.)

Main issues.
The current 7th ed rules uses 7 resolution methods and a game turn mechanic that is most effective when opposing forces HAVE to move into weapons range.

I would prefer to use direct representation for resolution in the form of stat lines being used directly.
Maximum distance in inches, number of dice rolled , target score required.

And one other resolution method , opposed values.(Similar to the S v T chart in the current rules.)

So rolling to hit at range follows the same resolution as rolling to hit in close combat, rolling to save, and rolling to wound.

Look up the attacker value on the table , look at the defenders value on the table.The place where these values cross is the dice score required to succeed.

In respect to the game turn, I would prefer to use alternating phases, to alternating game turn.
(Alternating unit activation could be used if we radically restructure the units in 40k to achieve enough balance for this game turn.I do not think the benefits out weigh the bonuses.)

Alternating phases allows a good balance of interaction and ease of control for the players.

Do you think alternating phase game turn and just 2 resolution methods ,(direct representation, and opposed values,)is a good foundation to build a cleaned up 40k rule set on?

I want to try to keep (and enhance ) the current game play of 40k, but get rid of all the rules issues that cause players problems.

This thread it trying to look at the core rules, and see if fixing the issues at source , can solve more problems, that addressing symptoms with even more special rules and added on systems...

examples?

No, I don't think alternating activation would work for 40k and I don't think the current resolution system is convoluted or confusing.

If I were to point out the biggest issues with 40k today I would say that the turn is too long, there are too many rules that don't interact with the rest of the game, and the tactical wheel is too absolute; my attempts to solve this got compiled in the Aegis Project linked to in my signature. I changed the turn structure to one movement phase and one combat phase where all shooting and melee attacks occur with a reactive phase in between to give players action when it isn't their turn, I moved from the all-or-none AP system to a save penalty system, and there are many more minor changes; my FOC system is still under construction. The rules are currently being revised (streamlined and rebalanced, stuff was too durable in the first draft) but they're playable and there's a semi-complete Space Marine Codex for it.

Here is an out line of the new game turn.

Start of game turn.
Players roll off to see who goes first.(May add strategy ratings.)
Players perform any compulsory actions.
Players request off table support.(Reserves , air or artillery strikes.)

Movement phase.
ALL movement is carried out in the movement phase.(Psychic abilities that effect movement are played here.)

Player A may move any of their units that are allowed to move.

Player B may move any of their units that are allowed to move.

Shooting Phase.
All ranged attacks are carried out in the shooting phase.(Any psychic abilities that are ranged attack based are played here.)

Player A may make any permitted ranged attacks.

Player B may make any permitted ranged attacks.

Assault phase.
All close combat attacks are made in the assault phase.(Any psychic abilities that effect close combat are played here.)

Player A may make any permitted close combat attacks.

Player B may make any permitted close combat attacks.

End of game turn .
Players get to attempt rally any of their units on poor morale.(Suppressed, stunned , routed.)
Any off table support arrives now and any effects are resolved before the start of the next game turn.

Note , the movement phase determines the actions the unit may take for the rest of the game turn.
Units may remain stationary and maximize shooting in the shooting phase.(May fire heavy/ordnance type weapons and improve rapid fire weapons range.)
OR the unit may dig in/take up hull down position .(Take cover instead of shoot.)
(Potential to include over watch to fire move and shoot weapons in enemy movement phase perhaps?)

Units may move up to their normal movement and shoot move and fire weapons in the shooting phase.

Units may move up to double their movement , but can not shoot or assault.

Units may move up to double their movement in to close combat with an enemy unit.And assault them in the assault phase.

Just a basic outline that works well wit 40ks current game size and unit compositions.(In our limited play testing.that is. )

I am proposing that all damage resolution follows the same method.
All stat values are 1 to 10.And are compared in a single 'universal chart' to determine the dice roll needed for success.

The current values would need to be converted to the new system though.

'Active player' stat 'Shooting skill',(BS) 'Assault skill',(WS) 'Armour value'.
Is compared to the 'Opposing player') stat. 'Stealth value', 'Agility value', 'weapons armour penetration.'
In a table something like this..

A/O,1,2 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10
1.....4,5,5,6,6,h.h.n.n.n
2.....3,4,5,5,6,6,h,h,n,n
3.....3,3,4,5,5,6,6,h,h,n
4.....2,3,3,4,5,5,6,6,h,h
5.....2,2,3,3,4,5,5,6,6,h,
6.....1,2,2,3,3,4,5,5,6,6
7.....1.1.2.2.3.3.4.5.5.6.
8.....1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.5,5
9.....1.1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.5
10...1,1,1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4
1 = automatic hit/automatic save.
h= halve number of 6s rolled to determine number of hits.(No save possible)
n- Not possible to hit or save.


EG a SM with 'Shooting skill' of 6 is trying to hit a Ratling sniper Stealth value 8.
The SM needs to roll a 5+.(Ratling snipers are very small and hard to hit.)
The same SM shooting at a Chaos Land Raider Stealth value 2 would hit it on the roll of a 2+

Rather than subtract the Shooting skill(BS.) value from 7 to get a fixed score to hit.
The Stealth value of the opponent is used to give a variable chance to hit.

In assault the SMs Assault value of 6 is compared to their opponents Agility (Initiative )value.
Against an Chaos Cultists Agility of 3.The cultist is hit on 2+.
If the SM was trying to hit an Eldar Banshee ,(Agility 8) they would need a 5+ to hit them.

Armour saving throws are covered in a similar way.
The Amrmour value of the unit is compared to the AP value of the weapon hit.
EG Sm armour value of 4 is hot by an weapon with an AP value of 3, the SM saves on the roll of 3+

A Land Raider Armour value 10 is hit by a weapon with AP 6, and saves on the roll of a 2+

This is just an example to show how the resolution method works.Actual values can be revised by play testing results...

Perhaps it would be better if I broke it down to make it easier to see what I want to propose?

Here is the concepts behind the game new turn.

1)I do not think 40ks need a separate psychic phase.
In a game where technology is primitive, like WHFB, magic is very distinct from the normal combat of swinging or throwing lumps of metal stone and wood at each other.

However, with the advanced technology ,(and lost tech that no one understands, )in 40k. When fire bolts fly from a creatures fingers, it could be psychic ability or a Jakaro digi weapon.When a force field stops a projectie it can be a displacer field generator, or a temporal shift in the warp from a psychic ability.
The point is the technology in 40k looks like 'magic' to those that do not understand it.And psychic ability looks like 'magic' to people that do not understand it!

Do you agree that psychic abilities should be used in the appropriate game phases, rather than in a separate phase?

2) I think it is important to book end the game turn with 'pre game turn phase', and a 'tidy up phase' at the end of the game turn.This gives us a place to sort out player and unit actions that do not fall into the 'normal action phases.'

Do you agree a start of game turn phase, and end of game turn phase are worth using to keep the action phases 'clean and clear'?

3)I would like to keep all the specific actions in the specific phases.(So all the movement a unit is going to take is done in the movement phase.)

A unit may remain stationary.(This lets them fire to full effect in the shooting phase.Or class as dug in / hull down at the start of the shooting phase instead of shooting.)

A unit may move up to thier movement value .(And shoot 'move and fire weapons' in the shooting phase.)

A unit may move up to double their movement value into base to base (hull) contact an enemy unit.And count as charging the enemy unit in the assault phase.

A unit may move up to double their movement value but can not launch an attack in the shooting or assault phase.

Do you agree keeping the phases 'pure' makes the game play cleaner and easier to understand.(And add more meaningful decision making to the movement phase.)

4) I would like to add more interaction between the players in the game turn structure.
Alternating game phases, allows a clearly defined and easy to follow game turn structure .And it allows players to react to each other after each action phase.

Do you agree that alternating phase game turn , A,B,A,B,A,B is better for 40k game play than A.A.A.then B.B.B?

It follows the familiar order 'move' 'shoot' 'assault' that is familiar to current 40k players.

Has any one any questions or comments on this revised game turn structure?

1) I prefer a separate Psychic Phase over the previous system of "Psychic powers are scattered wherever." This is definitely cleaner.

2) Agreed.

3) This negates abilities like move-shoot-move, flat-outs, turbo-boosts...disagreed.

4) Alternating game phases are nice. Potentially, adding "Abjurations" as psyker anti-spells which can be cast during the opponent's phase would be interesting.

@Magic Juggler.
If you have a personal preference for a separate psychic save , that is fair enough.

But if we do not NEED to have a separate phase for psychic abilities , why should we add the complication of one to the game?
(What psychic abilities could not be performed in other phases?)
IF the psychic abilities are shown to require a separate phase of their own after play testing. I am happy to put one in!

Performing all movement in the movement phase does not negate any abilities.
it just interprets them in a different way to the current game turn.
Units can move then shoot then move again.(Spread out over 2 game turns instead of 1)
Flat out movement and turbo boost movement distances are still covered, but by movement rates not special rules.

@AnomanderRake.
I am proposing alternating phases, not alternating unit activation.
(Alternating phases has been successful in many 40k rules re writes since 5th ed.it is proven to work well with the' imbalanced units*' in 40k.)
(* Imbalance as in Death star units to MSU of wide functionality and abilities, not PV allocation .)

The reason there are so many special rules (EIGHTY FIVE!!!! ) and the game takes so long.
Is because the basic core rules fail to cover enough game play.because they use multiple but restrictive resolution methods.Which means the game has to rely on lots of additional systems (separate vehicle rules, super special codex rules , USRs. etc.)

EG
To hit at range is just based on the skill of the shooter.(Not the skill and disposition of the shooter and target as I propose,)
To hit in close combat uses values of 1 to 10, but the table gives ONLY THREE RESULTS> of 3+4+5+ .Making a mockery of the stat values .
To wound is better but has 'always fail on a 1' .(Which makes for several WTF moments , as it does in the rest of 40k.)

The save roll has AS vs AP, and Str vs AV, and a ton of special rules .

Imagine that the entire game play is covered by either using the stat line directly.
How far a unit can move in inches, the maximum range of their weapons in inches.Now many die they roll to attack(or template blast size).Or the score they need to succeed.

Or opposed values for 'to hit' 'to save' and 'to wound' using the same chart..

And less than 20 special rules for actual special abilities.(Not for things that should be covered by core game resolution methods. ).

Is it that time of the week again?

I mean no disrespect, Lanrak, but what is the point of doing this over and over?

lolz! exalted!

Because any thing is better than trying to use the rules GW plc try to sell you!
If 40k could be fixed with a few tweeks, dont you think a team of professional game developers would have done it over the last 17 years!!!!

If you do not want a complete re-write fair enough.Go fiddle and faff with the same broken system GW have been selling you for 17 years.

If however, you want to look at alternatives or post some meaningful feed back I will be happy to engage with you.

I believe there are people out there who love the background of 40k but find GW rules too expensive /complicated to enjoy playing games of 40k.
So why not explore some alternatives , rather than just give up and follow GW, or rage quit.

Every time I start these posts I get a few more good ideas / feed back to incorporate.So every time I get closer to a better version of 40k rules.
And I would like to think some of the ideas discussed help other people try out new ideas in their house rules/re-writes.

So rather than the proposed rules sections being made up of ' this unit needs a nerf/boost' or 'how to make the game better for my army '.
We get some proper critique of the current GW rule set, and discuss alternative ideas people could use.

So for these reasons I keep on keeping doing this'over and over....'

Any constructive comments or questions are welcome.

I love the wh40k background but outright hate gw and try to tell people to boycott and scratch build their models and torrent download the books.

I hate the people who thinks 200 pages of fluff should be written for 5 pages of rules. If you want fluff then read the novel.

Lanrak wrote:

Any constructive comments or questions are welcome.

We try.

(At least he's dropped the 'dice type' gibberish)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Filch wrote:
...and scratch build their models...

??

You're missing the entire point. The models are the thing GW is actually good at; if you don't like their models then there's really nothing recommending 40k or WHFB over literally any other game in existence.

Are you kidding me? Finecast is crapcast!

My message is clear, stop buying gw products and convince others to boycott it in order to force them to change strategy or drive them out of business.

 Filch wrote:
Are you kidding me? Finecast is crapcast!

My message is clear, stop buying gw products and convince others to boycott it in order to force them to change strategy or drive them out of business.

...You know you won the whole Finecast thing, right? It's getting phased out because everyone hates it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(Also if you don't like GW's models and you don't like their rules why aren't you playing a game you like instead?)

Apart from the possible addition of a separate psychic phase.(if we need to add one.)
Has anyone any issues with the alternating phase game turn?

I was happy using the stat line directly , (as actual value, target score or modifier.)However, this gives very linear and proportional results.
And this is so alien to the current 40k rules, I think I may have to use a results table to load the results a bit.

Would you prefer to use all the stat values directly?
Or do you like a table to tell you what score you need to succeed fot opposed values like S v T?

I do personally prefer using the statline directly.

@chrisrawr.
I think most people would be OK with direct values like distances for max movement and max range,and the number of dice rolled.

However, to get the directional scaling constant, for the sake of intuitive game play.(EG rolling high is good, and higher stat values are better.)
Using the opponents score as the base score required to hit, although simple is completely different to the way current 40k does it.

Eg
My opponents Melee skill is 4 , so I need 4+ to hit them in close combat.

My opponent is has Stealth value 3 so I need 3+ to hit them at range .(Models in cover add 1 to thier Stealth value.)

The opponents AP value is 8, my armour value is 4.I need to roll 5+ on a D6 to save.(I have too beat the attackers weapons AP value to pass an armour save.)

My weapon damages on a 3+.My opponents Resilience is 1.I need to roll 4+ to damage the target model.(3+1=4+.)

So although the basic combat resolution has the same 3 steps.To hit , to save to wound.
And the resolution is much simpler and inclusive.(All models resolve the combat in the same way.)

Because the resolution method looks so different to'value X vs value Y on a table ', many 40k players think it is not '40k ' enough.

So that was why I thought about using one table for all the resolution.
So rather than subtract value from 7, compare values in the WS chart, compare values in the S v T chart.

All resolution uses comparison of opposed values on the same table .(A table that allows auto fail and auto succeed.)

Do you think it is important to keep the direction of scaling intuitive?
EG higher stats are better, rolling higher is better.

Or do you like 40ks approach of using lots of different methods , because thats how WHFB does it?

Alternating phases seems attractive. Have you considered situations where one player moves into Range just to have the other move out again. In the current rules, if I manage to get into range, I am rewarded by being able to shoot at my target. If my opponent wants to avoid being shot at, he has to deploy out of my maximum threat range, and as I move up, has to decide whether or not to continue moving back. This interaction gives me board command. In your proposed system, there could very well be turn after turn where, after both movement phases are complete, there's nothing in range to shoot at (just imagine two lines of Space Marines shuffling back and forth...).

AnomanderRake wrote:

 Filch wrote:
Are you kidding me? Finecast is crapcast!

My message is clear, stop buying gw products and convince others to boycott it in order to force them to change strategy or drive them out of business.

...You know you won the whole Finecast thing, right? It's getting phased out because everyone hates it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(Also if you don't like GW's models and you don't like their rules why aren't you playing a game you like instead?)

Ok, I will shut up about the fine cast. And isn't it obvious that GW has brain washed me so bad? I am trying so hard to break free from them but all I can think about is wh40k. I tried playing other board games but its not the same as the grim dark of wh40k. Fluff belongs in their novel and rules belong in the codex. Their rule books are just so horribly written they rely on fluff to pad their pages so they can sell a 200pg codex where there is just 10-20 pages of real content. The rules contradict so often and so bad you end up forging the narrative by ymdc roll offs. The point balancing is so unbalanced. Power creep simply should not exist in this digital age when codex should be quickly re written with each new edition but no, we have to have 200 pages of regurgitated fluff and charge me $. The GW models are catching up to FW prices and that is just outrageous. they dont even look as good as FW models. Why the hell does FW even exist when its also owned by GW?

DCannon4Life wrote:Alternating phases seems attractive. Have you considered situations where one player moves into Range just to have the other move out again. In the current rules, if I manage to get into range, I am rewarded by being able to shoot at my target. If my opponent wants to avoid being shot at, he has to deploy out of my maximum threat range, and as I move up, has to decide whether or not to continue moving back. This interaction gives me board command. In your proposed system, there could very well be turn after turn where, after both movement phases are complete, there's nothing in range to shoot at (just imagine two lines of Space Marines shuffling back and forth...).

Have you ever played Vandal Hearts 2 on the PSone? It was so frustrating to move one of your soldiers into striking range and then the enemy moves away. You had to predict the prediction of the enemy movement. Think that was fun?

Oh god yes vandal hearts <3

I would just like to say in my 30 years of war gaming, WANTING my opponent to run away from my advancing units.
So I could just walk onto objectives and force them off their table edge.(Counting them as routed off table and destroyed in game turns.)

None of my opponents let me have such an easy win.

Are there any other possible issues with alternating phase game turn?

Or are you folks quite happy to give it a go?

Lanrak wrote:
@chrisrawr.
I think most people would be OK with direct values like distances for max movement and max range,and the number of dice rolled.

However, to get the directional scaling constant, for the sake of intuitive game play.(EG rolling high is good, and higher stat values are better.)
Using the opponents score as the base score required to hit, although simple is completely different to the way current 40k does it.

Eg
My opponents Melee skill is 4 , so I need 4+ to hit them in close combat.

My opponent is has Stealth value 3 so I need 3+ to hit them at range .(Models in cover add 1 to thier Stealth value.)

The opponents AP value is 8, my armour value is 4.I need to roll 5+ on a D6 to save.(I have too beat the attackers weapons AP value to pass an armour save.)

My weapon damages on a 3+.My opponents Resilience is 1.I need to roll 4+ to damage the target model.(3+1=4+.)

So although the basic combat resolution has the same 3 steps.To hit , to save to wound.
And the resolution is much simpler and inclusive.(All models resolve the combat in the same way.)

Because the resolution method looks so different to'value X vs value Y on a table ', many 40k players think it is not '40k ' enough.

So that was why I thought about using one table for all the resolution.
So rather than subtract value from 7, compare values in the WS chart, compare values in the S v T chart.

All resolution uses comparison of opposed values on the same table .(A table that allows auto fail and auto succeed.)

Do you think it is important to keep the direction of scaling intuitive?
EG higher stats are better, rolling higher is better.

Or do you like 40ks approach of using lots of different methods , because thats how WHFB does it?

You're going the opposite direction of how things ought to work here. It's extraordinarily counterintuitive that a firing model needs the same dice roll to hit a fast-moving space elf 48" away as he does to hit a stationary Baneblade parked in front of his nose already, setting up the statline as a flat score to accomplish things makes the game less granular, less interactive, and makes things linearly better than other things, if you want to do 40k that way you have to cut 95% of the distinction between units to make it work. My solution on the resolution side was to make a universal table (used for all to-hit and to-wound rolls) with a shallower and more linear curve than 40k's, same value from the attacker and defender is a 4+, differing by one or two points is a 3+/5+, differing by three or four points is a 2+/6+, differing by five or more points is automatic/impossible. I got to make more granular stats instead of the current game's 'range' of 3 to 4 for most units and it made to-hit modifiers easier to work with.

As for phases of play alternating phases worked fine for GW's LotR game (about the only thing that worked fine for that game), I have no objection. I do believe reducing the number of phases would be a better solution; Warhammer is the only game on the market that divides play into phases and activates units individually in each phase. WMH or Bolt Action are more typical in that they have one activation phase where you activate an individual unit, it does its entire turn, and then you move on to the next unit; it requires fewer rules and you don't need to keep track of the time steps (plus it's more intuitive, I've seen a lot more people accidentally move on to shooting before they're done moving everything in 40k than I've ever seen forget to attack with a unit because they're dead set on making the next unit walk in something else).

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Lanrak wrote:
@chrisrawr.
I think most people would be OK with direct values like distances for max movement and max range,and the number of dice rolled.

However, to get the directional scaling constant, for the sake of intuitive game play.(EG rolling high is good, and higher stat values are better.)
Using the opponents score as the base score required to hit, although simple is completely different to the way current 40k does it.

Eg
My opponents Melee skill is 4 , so I need 4+ to hit them in close combat.

My opponent is has Stealth value 3 so I need 3+ to hit them at range .(Models in cover add 1 to thier Stealth value.)

The opponents AP value is 8, my armour value is 4.I need to roll 5+ on a D6 to save.(I have too beat the attackers weapons AP value to pass an armour save.)

My weapon damages on a 3+.My opponents Resilience is 1.I need to roll 4+ to damage the target model.(3+1=4+.)

So although the basic combat resolution has the same 3 steps.To hit , to save to wound.
And the resolution is much simpler and inclusive.(All models resolve the combat in the same way.)

Because the resolution method looks so different to'value X vs value Y on a table ', many 40k players think it is not '40k ' enough.

So that was why I thought about using one table for all the resolution.
So rather than subtract value from 7, compare values in the WS chart, compare values in the S v T chart.

All resolution uses comparison of opposed values on the same table .(A table that allows auto fail and auto succeed.)

Do you think it is important to keep the direction of scaling intuitive?
EG higher stats are better, rolling higher is better.

Or do you like 40ks approach of using lots of different methods , because thats how WHFB does it?

You're going the opposite direction of how things ought to work here. It's extraordinarily counterintuitive that a firing model needs the same dice roll to hit a fast-moving space elf 48" away as he does to hit a stationary Baneblade parked in front of his nose already

what post were YOU reading?

To hit roll would be BS with modifiers vs Stealth with modifiers compared on a single table. Everything would scale off the same table, not use the same rolls.

Hi folks.
Just to be clear I was looking at 2 ways to deal with 'to hit' resolution.

Either using stats directly.

EG The Stealth value determines the base score of how hard the model is to hit at range.
EG an Eldar banshee Stealth value 5,(is hit on a 5+)Is much harder to hit than a Rhino Stealth value 3.(Is hit on a 3+)
If a model is in cover, it adds one to its stealth value.

Shooters that are better at shooting get a +1 or +2 modifier to their to hit dice roll.
(OR increase the effective range with their weapons.Better shots hit things further away.)

EG Stealth is the base score to hit 2+ to 6+. And Shooting skill is a modifier +0+1+2 to the to hit dice roll.

The alternative is using Shooting skill and Stealth values as opposed values in a table .(Cover still gives +1 bonus to stealth value.)
For example using the universal table posted higher in the thread.

Shooting skill 4 vs a target with Stealth value of /..
1 hits on 2+
2 hits on 3+
3 hits on 3+
4 hits on 4+
5 hits on 5+
6 hits on 5+
7 hits on 6+
8 hits on 6+
9 and 10 the attacker needs to roll 6s , but halves the number of hits.

BOTH systems include the size and agility of the target by using a Stealth value.

(If we are going to use a table for opposed values I would like to use the same table for all the combat resolution steps,(To hit to save, to wound.))

The advantages of using a table is we can load the results how we want, and use the full range of stats from 1 to 10.
Where as using stats directly limits the score required to 1 to 6,and the modifiers to success to 1,2,or 3 to the dice roll.

(I am happy to discuss modifiers for range and equipment etc, after we settle in the basic resolution method.)

 chrisrawr wrote:
Oh god yes vandal hearts <3

1st game was great! Great story and many tragic characters. 2nd was frustrating as hell.

Many of the problems with 40k, are down to the core rules not allowing enough granularity in the resolution.(This leads to over complication later.)

If we look at the to hit chance as an example.
Shooting is just a flat chance based on the shooter skill.
Close combat is a limited range of results based on attacker and defender skill.(3+4+5+.)


Using the proposed universal resolution table posted higher up for using opposed values to hit.
To hit at range and to hit in close combat have the same extended range of results.
Auto hit (on a 1+)
Hit on a 2+
Hit on a 3+
Hit on a 4+
Hit on a 5+
Hit on a 6+
Hit on a 6+ but halve number of hits (rounding down.)

That DOUBLES the range of results on the to hit chance in the current 40k game.

We can then add a few simple modifiers as we see fit, either to the stats line , or the to hit chance.
EG
Cover adds 1 to the models stealth value.
Being over X" away from the shooter adds 1 to the models stealth value .

Sniper scope adds +1 to the to hit dice score , when target is over X" away.
(X defines the start of 'long range shooting'.)

I believe if we add more granularity in the core resolution, and achieve it in a similar way.
It would allow more diverse game play,without having to rely on pages of special rules...

1. I like Alternating Phases. One problem I have with 40k (might just be my own experience) is that it can take way too long between my turns. Upwards of 20-30 minutes waiting for my opponent to move and shoot everything. I think this cuts down on the time between "me playing" and "me waiting". It seems like it would also make the game more "strategic", but that's just a gut feeling I have, that I can't condense into written words at this time.

2. I like the Direct Statlines and the Universal Table with Simple Modifiers. 1 to 10 is very easy to comprehend, with higher better. I also like that it removes the static "I shoot everything on a 3+" system currently in place. I liked how 2nd edition handled cover. It made you harder to hit, but did not take into consideration the "stealth" of units. So, a Space Marine would hit anything in Heavy Cover on a 5+. If every model had a Stealth Stat, and cover added to that, then each unit feels different than the others (as far as shooting and getting shot are concerned). Cover modifying the Stealth up or Ballistic Skill down is easier to understand (I think there should only be bonuses, and not penalties, but that's another discussion.)

The Universal Table makes it very simple to know at a glance how one unit will perform against another, whether shooting, wounding, assaulting, etc. The Ranged To Hit, To Wound, and Assault tables have nothing in common other than they have numbers in them. They are confusing until you are forced to memorize them from repetition. They're not intuitive.

I like the idea of Simple Modifiers, as well. I'm in favor of only bonuses (no penalties). As an example, say a Space Marine is firing at a model behind Heavy Cover (a ruin or building or something). Instead of the marine taking a penalty to hit, the opponent gets a bonus to defend. This is really "6 of one, half dozen of the other" though.

3. Special Rules are confusing. I think 40k has gotten bogged down in special rules. It's a barrier of entry to new players. "Here's the basic rules over the course of 100 pages. Got it? Now here's 50 pages of special rules that basically can negate every basic rule you just learned. Oh, and every unit has a special rule." They stop becoming "special" when every model/unit has one.

@ziggurattt.
Thanks for the feed back.
You make a good point about only using modifiers for bonuses.
I agree that is makes the game easier to learn and play if you only add to the dice roll or stat values as appropriate,

I agree that Special rules, should be used only for special abilities.(NOT for things that should be covered by the basic rules.)

HI folks.
As we more or less agree a alternating phase game turn would work, and cut down player waiting time between active involvement.(We can add in a psychic phase if needed.)

And that a universal resolution table for to hit , to save, and to wound , would be more straight forward and intuitive and would open up the range of results to make having values of 1 to 10 actually mean something.

Just these 2 basic concepts that seem to improve game play options and reduce rules bloat...

I would like to look as a couple of concepts to improve presentation of how people view units and unit organisation.

I think having a unit card for each unit, with force organization info on one side, (like they used to in Epic S.M.)
And the units in game information on the other , for easy in game reference.Would help all players.

I would also like to use symbols instead of letter to show the stats in the unit profile.(This may make the information easier to understand, especially for non English speaking players.)

I believe using force organization using unit rarity instead of function , would allow more themed lists to be created,But still have enough structure to balance the forces.
(This is based on the concept used by Andy Chambers in a WD article for having more themed Ork Klans.)

The player has to start by picking a HQ unit to lead the army.(This determines which units are Common ,Specialized or Restricted for this list.)

The player must select a minimum of 2 Common units , and a maximum of 8 Common units.

For every 2 Common units the player selects they may take 1 Specialized unit.

For every 2 Specialized units the player takes they may take 1 Restricted unit.

Example.
I want a Kult of Speed ork list.
So I chose A Warboss on war bike with retinue of Nobz on Warbike as a HQ choice from the KOS themed list.
This makes Warbikers, Warbuggies and Trukkboys Common units .
Deffkopters,Gun trukks and Scrappaz(Burna boys in a Trukk) are Specialized units.
Nobz on warbikes, and Battlewagonz as Restricted choice.

Because the lists have defined themes, this allows more theme specific units to be included,without them being used in non themed /counter themed armies.
EG Squiggoths, Boarboys , Wild boys etc, are only available in an Ork Snakebite (primitive ) list.

The simple structure outlined above can cover a wide range of force types. And retain a proportional structure , that can be used to arrive at balanced list structures.
I may need to explain this in more detail...

For the unit cards I would like to re structure the way he unit is presented to give players a good sense of the units capabilities from a quick glance.Rather than having to read through pages and pages of (special) rules.

To start
Unit Strength.
Use a Heart Symbol for organic units, and a Gear Symbol for mechanical/mechanoid .
The first number is the number of models in the unit , followed by the number of wounds/structure the unit has.
(I would like to consider separating the wounds/srtructure into mobility and armamanet in the large models, like M/c and vehicles.)

EG. IG Squad.(Heart) 10/1,(This unit is made up of 10 models with 1 wound each,)

Mobility.
A Symbol to show how the unit moves ,( legs, wheels, tracks, hover.)Followed by the maximum distance in inches the unit can move.

EG IG Squad (Legs) 5"

These 1st two bits of information on the unit card game data, show the size composition and mobility of the unit .This removes the need to artificially separate units in to types , like infantry , beasts, M/Cs fast vehicles etc.IMO.
(Some units may have special mobility rules like 'jump jets' , 'difficult terrain modification ', 'amphibious'.)

Ill stop there for comments and questions...

A psychic phase to keep the game neat would be useful. It would take place before movement so that movement can be kept to the movement phase, shooting to the shooting etc.

Unit cards would be useful reference tips, but would limit options for what you could take in a unit to what the printed cards say. If GW printed cards saying "ork boyz with boss nob (Heart) 24/1, 1/1 (legs) 6" (wargear) 22 shootas, 2 rokkit launchas, big choppa" It would mean that can't kit out my squad any other way. If the cards were fill it in yourself, that would take forever in a big army. Just leave the squad and model information where it belongs, in the rulebooks instead of releasing more add ons and rule bits.

I would love individualised force organisation, but I know that GW would have to release several dozen charts per army or have players hammering at the doors because their lists are suddenly impossible to use.