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.

Oh I'm back.

So, a while ago I made a thread about "fantasising 40k", which, while fun, didn't actually hit the spot - As some wrote, some stuff in Fantasy simply doesn't work for 40k. What I ended up with later on, as I worked on the project, was more and more of a seperate game, using the same d6 as always, but with a few rules borrowed from Fantasy, and a continued focus on smaller, infantry-ruled games with powerful Heroes and Lords, and one or two big things like Dreadnoughts or Broadsides or whatever.

And so, I went on to do my own game for 40k. Oh dear goodness me.

The reason I write this here is, that I simply lack the experience and knowledge to properly know when I've gone overboard or nerfed something to heavily, so, if you want to, I do actually need people to help me on this journey and comment on the things I write. I'll put in Codeces, Rules and other sum-such things for you to read and comment on, and if you have questions regarding what I write, I need you to ask them, since it'll help me tremendously in the process of making the game.

Short FAQ:

Q: I have critique to your work, and want to show you what I'd do/have done in my own projects. Can I write them here?
A: No - There's plenty of threads around with people brandishing their own projects and proposed rules, but this one isn't for that - It's for my project specifically. If you use this thread for your own project, please refrain from commenting.

Q: So, what's in it for me?
A: Nothing, I guess. What I need is someone with experience and broader perspective than me, who can point out where I'm going wrong or my intentions are misplaced. If you have the time to spare, and want a skirmish-sized 40k game, you are free to help out

Q: You haven't mentioned X. Is X unchanged, then?
A: No, it's usually not mentioned because of it not being in the game to begin with (like, f.eks. Fliers). Feel free to ask, though - I might have missed it.

Q: Is :Faction: gonna be in the game?
A: Yes, of course, but in due time. I plan on making the Space Marines, Orks, Eldar and Necron Codeces first, but everything after that isn't planned. Feel free to suggest

Alright, that's about it. You can find the document below, and I hope some of you will feel like helping me on my quest for justice and game balance

- The Wise Dane.

Just a quick question .
With so many good skirmish games about, that are very synergistic with smaller 40k type battles.
Why do you want to stick with WHFB 3rd ed game mechanics and resolution methods?

GW were depending on the larger base of WHFB players crossing over to 40k back in the late 1980s, that is why 40k started off with WHFB based rules.
And then backward compatibility, sort of tied them into using WHFB based rules since then.

What reason do you have for using WHFB based rules for your 'new 40k skirmish 'game?
When other more modern , (post 1980s) resolution methods and game mechanics could be a better fit?

I would like to see what you have done but not all computers can read docx files. A regular txt or pdf would be helpful.

(edit)
I'm on the home puter now so I can read it.

my 2 cents:

First thing that jumps out is the change to vehicles. You say all vehicles will now have a T value and armour save. I like armour saves for vehicles and don't have a problem with T for them either but......a little later you have a wound statement that 1's always fail and 6's always wound. I'm not sure if this is what you had in mind but most people would find that massed gaurdsmen with lasguns blowing away a dreadnought or land raider a little off.

Second: perhaps thinning out the special rules a little more would make it a more skirmishy game. One of the problems with 7th is bloat.

Third: I like having a movement rate for each unit.

Forth: You are making your own game, now is the time to kill off all the annoying "random" rolls. Random makes balance tough and the game slower. It is GW's game's worst trait.

Lanrak wrote:Just a quick question .
With so many good skirmish games about, that are very synergistic with smaller 40k type battles.
Why do you want to stick with WHFB 3rd ed game mechanics and resolution methods?

GW were depending on the larger base of WHFB players crossing over to 40k back in the late 1980s, that is why 40k started off with WHFB based rules.
And then backward compatibility, sort of tied them into using WHFB based rules since then.

What reason do you have for using WHFB based rules for your 'new 40k skirmish 'game?
When other more modern , (post 1980s) resolution methods and game mechanics could be a better fit?

Thank you for your question

Well, there's several reason as to why I've done this, and the most notable is, that I don't know the more modern methods that you mention. I've wanted to keep the gist of the game the same as it's always been (or what I know of, at least). This is both because I have no skills or experiences creating fully new systems. I am, I must admit, very, very green, compared to many people here, and I won't try and make something new, when I got so many older inspirations to choose from.

That said, I don't see myself using the WFB systems too heavily, and I do pick and choose from both systems - And, when it comes down to it, a lot of the systems from WFB do the exact same thing as the 40k equivilents do, but simpler, easier or with less unqiue rules, so I've simply tried to pick what worked, and left out what didn't.

But, when it comes down to it, it's simply a lack of imagination and lack of knowledge on the subject that has led to this. If you have alternatives, I'd very much want to hear them

rhinosaur wrote:I would like to see what you have done but not all computers can read docx files. A regular txt or pdf would be helpful.

(edit)
I'm on the home puter now so I can read it.

my 2 cents:

First thing that jumps out is the change to vehicles. You say all vehicles will now have a T value and armour save. I like armour saves for vehicles and don't have a problem with T for them either but......a little later you have a wound statement that 1's always fail and 6's always wound. I'm not sure if this is what you had in mind but most people would find that massed gaurdsmen with lasguns blowing away a dreadnought or land raider a little off.

Second: perhaps thinning out the special rules a little more would make it a more skirmishy game. One of the problems with 7th is bloat.

Third: I like having a movement rate for each unit.

Forth: You are making your own game, now is the time to kill off all the annoying "random" rolls. Random makes balance tough and the game slower. It is GW's game's worst trait.

Thank you for your reply

First: I've never gotten why people didn't like that. To me, when people have a problem with X awesome unit being taken down by Y less awesome units, it's because it robs them of the cinematic feel it gives when a Land Raider alone smashes through enemy lines with impunity. This, however, is unfair to those, who routinely get the short end of the stick when talking cinematics, which is mainly IG. Therefor, instead of making sorta-convoluted mechanics allowing weapons to blow up tanks and some tanks to ignore 60 % of an enemy army and other such nonsense, I'm trying to make all weapons and models equal in terms of the way they give and take damage, respectivelly. I want to reward a player for making an army of many, many Guardsmen, dedicating all his shooting to bringing down a beast of a machine, and not handicap him for it.

Anyway, I do see it being a problem that torrents of low-strength fire being too powerful against heavies, so I'll likely bumb up Wounds for things like Dreadnoughts with one or two wounds. Furthermore, Land Raiders won't be in the game just yet - They need some additional balancing I think.

Second: I sorta see what you mean - I personally think it's an okay amount, but I'll look through the list and remove the stuff we don't need.

Third: Thanks It'll allow me to cut special rules, so goes to the second one as well.

Fourth: On this we can agree. I have removed some randomness, but I do see some points I left for no reason - I'll look through the list again. Some places needed to be random, though - As much as I hate random Charge Range, it needs to be so, so people won't just keep half an inch out to punish chargers.

------

Again, thank you both for your replies - It pointed out some things I didn't see before

If you like random charge then maybe something not so random, 2d6 is too extreme resulting in 2-12 and makes any kind of tactical plan more a game of chance. Instead of 2d6 then something like 4+d3 resulting in a charge range of 5,6, or 7. It makes it easier to plan for, more reliable, and still gives some suspense while maintaining some unpredictability.

 rhinosaur wrote:
If you like random charge then maybe something not so random, 2d6 is too extreme resulting in 2-12 and makes any kind of tactical plan more a game of chance. Instead of 2d6 then something like 4+d3 resulting in a charge range of 5,6, or 7. It makes it easier to plan for, more reliable, and still gives some suspense while maintaining some unpredictability.

That's true - I'm not exactly going for the extremes of 2 or 12, so that might be good. So, M + 4'' + d6''?

Hi again.
I will try to keep to general concepts in the next bit.

If you are not familiar with a wide range of game mechanics and resolution methods.
You are at a bit of a dis advantage if you want to reduce the rules bloat in 40k that is caused by using resolution methods from the 1970s Napoleonic rules iWHFB was based on and 40k inherited. .

Usually the more modern games, tend to use the stat line directly.
EG distance in inches,(Move 4") number of dice rolled,(Attacks 2) score needed to succeed.(Assault 4+)

Or used opposed stats, when the attacker stat is compared to a defender stat on a SINGLE resolution table.

Just some examples from games...Shooting skill vs Dodge skill, Assault skill vs Agility skill, Armor value vs Armour penetration value, Damage vs Resilience.

You could simply reduce the seven separate resolution methods used in 40k to just direct use , and opposed use of stat values.
(If you used opposed values for ALL combat resolution in 40k.This would include target skill in the resolution to give a wider range of proportional results.)

In terms of movement why not just let the models move up to their Movement value for normal movement, or up to double their Movement value when running/charging?

Random movement just for the sake of it is very 'gamey' IMO.

Lanrak wrote:
Hi again.
I will try to keep to general concepts in the next bit.

If you are not familiar with a wide range of game mechanics and resolution methods.
You are at a bit of a dis advantage if you want to reduce the rules bloat in 40k that is caused by using resolution methods from the 1970s Napoleonic rules iWHFB was based on and 40k inherited. .

Usually the more modern games, tend to use the stat line directly.
EG distance in inches,(Move 4") number of dice rolled,(Attacks 2) score needed to succeed.(Assault 4+)

Or used opposed stats, when the attacker stat is compared to a defender stat on a SINGLE resolution table.

Just some examples from games...Shooting skill vs Dodge skill, Assault skill vs Agility skill, Armor value vs Armour penetration value, Damage vs Resilience.

You could simply reduce the seven separate resolution methods used in 40k to just direct use , and opposed use of stat values.
(If you used opposed values for ALL combat resolution in 40k.This would include target skill in the resolution to give a wider range of proportional results.)

In terms of movement why not just let the models move up to their Movement value for normal movement, or up to double their Movement value when running/charging?

Random movement just for the sake of it is very 'gamey' IMO.

Okay, first: I never wanted to reduce the bloat of the game, or even mention it - I think that might be something you yourself have parted into my project from your desires... Or, I do, but the bloat I want to remove is just the worst of it, which, to me, is different rules for Fliers and Vehicles in general, formations and allying. I don't mind bloat, really - Sometimes, that's what can make a game pop for me, oddly enough. I had that with the Iron Kingdoms RPG when I played that, because it just lacked so many cool and awesome things that could make it a great and interesting game. As is, it was sorta boring.

I'm not a fan of random movement either, hence why Double Timing is simply a double normal move, and, while I'd love to make charges a definite range, that's simply not do-able, because of the game-play it produces. It allows people to keep just out of the charge range of your models, so you'll have even more of a time charging them. I'm all ears for other suggestions that will do basically the same.

Last, I feel you contradict yourself at the last comment - reducing movement to be a specific range and making a game simpler is, for the most part, gamey, because it caters to a simpler way of playing and therefor opens up for more strategy. That's all well, but I still wish a bit of narrative gaming in the mix, so the game being "gamey" isn't fully fantastic.

So I've been thinking about Bolters. In the document, I've let Bolter keep their Strength (so 4 and 5), made Stormbolters into a 2/4 Combat weapon and Heavy Bolters into a 4/6. What bothers me is what to do with them to make them unique - I personally feel that most normal weapons should have something that sets them apart - e.g. Pulse Rifles have a longer range and S, Gauss Flayers having the ability to rip apart anything, with a bit of luck.

So, what I gave them now, is that all Bolters now universally has Armour Piercing (-1), and I'm not sure if that's fitting. While you could argue that they should have this fluffwise, that will go into Kraken Bolter territory, and that's no good. You could also give them Shred, since they do have a tendency to shred apart most matter they hit.

What do you think?

@The Wise Dane.
Sorry ,my post was responding to rhinosaurs comment.

''Second: perhaps thinning out the special rules a little more would make it a more skirmishy game. One of the problems with 7th is bloat. ''

My post was simply outlining the option to use alternative core resolution methods to cover more game play.
(Reducing the need for special rules that just add complication to the rules . )

if you are happy with WHFB based rules for your scifi skirmish game.And with the 'baggage' that comes with it.

Fair enough, I will leave you to it..

Lanrak wrote:
@The Wise Dane.
Sorry ,my post was responding to rhinosaurs comment.

''Second: perhaps thinning out the special rules a little more would make it a more skirmishy game. One of the problems with 7th is bloat. ''

My post was simply outlining the option to use alternative core resolution methods to cover more game play.
(Reducing the need for special rules that just add complication to the rules . )

if you are happy with WHFB based rules for your scifi skirmish game.And with the 'baggage' that comes with it.

Fair enough, I will leave you to it..

Well, I'm naturally happy, since nobody's shown me a better and more suitable way of doing it yet... *hint-hint-nodge-nodge-know-what-I-mean-know-what-I-mean-say-no-more*

@lanrak, yes I'm fully aware of the archaic nature of GW games, I anxiously await for your current project to be done. You have a lot of great ideas.

@dane, there are a couple of recent threads about other peoples thoughts on bolters, storm bolters, and heavy bolters. They are quite lengthy but they might give you some ideas.

 rhinosaur wrote:
@lanrak, yes I'm fully aware of the archaic nature of GW games, I anxiously await for your current project to be done. You have a lot of great ideas.

@dane, there are a couple of recent threads about other peoples thoughts on bolters, storm bolters, and heavy bolters. They are quite lengthy but they might give you some ideas.

Oh, I've followed them before. Last time, the thread got closed down by mods. Much fun was had.

No, but it's more what can be done in the setting of the Revised Edition - As there'll be some sort of clause that'll force people to have some amount of Cores, and because you can now 1. Sorta charge after shooting Bolters, 2. can reduce Armour with Bolters and 3. shoot more shots with a few of the Bolter weapons, I need someone knowable to look through them.

It's here. It's done. I have done it. And now it's time for my project to fly!... Or fall, I dunno.

The general rules and the first Codex is below here, if you'd wanna look through them. There's so much to note, so i've decided to not write down the changes, and just let you ask if you have questions.