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.

This is a set of rules that I have been working on for a while that I want to share. It is still a draft.
I wanted to have a more fun and less clunky way to play the game that I love. I would really love to hear what people think about this.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5dHoMty9N7EdjJ5V0NKXzZ6NjA/view?usp=sharing (updated 20/04/2016)

Summary of changes:
1. Turn structure: I move a unit, you move a unit. I think this can make things a lot easier and faster

2. [edit] In this latest version I have ditched the two-roll system. I was never happy with how to word it, and the going back and forth with modifiers felt clunky.

3. Moving done all at once. There is no more move-shoot-charge. It's now: move and shoot, run, or charge and assault.

There are things that still need to be covered. I haven't really covered vehicles, but sketched out some movement rules for them. I want the changes I make to be simple, and intuitive in how they fit the behaviour of units into this system.

Biggest issue here is the same one I've seen in a lot of similar rulesets - giving a particular stat a lot more weight in game than its priced to have. In this case, is the LD test for reactive shooting fair? Have high LD armies paid an appropriate cost for it, have Orks and other low LD armies been discounted to represent not getting to shoot in half of these instances? Does "test or fail" add to the strategy of the game, or just add a swingy random element?

I would argue that they have not, and that it does not and suggest it would be fairer and more strategic to simply allow any unit to reactive fire in all cases.

More minor things to suggest;

-Rapid fire weapons should be able to shoot on the charge, but only once.

-Regarding the 4" "melee range" for dudes in combat, have you removed pile in etc?

Otherwise I like these ideas. In particular it does a lot for high WS troops, who currently pay a lot for a nearly worthless increase to their stats

Edit: While your fixing the rules, why not fix them all? Cover and armour could do with a serious adjustment, and in particular, armour and toughness could be a more logical combination than toughness and BS skill

HI .
All the basic concepts you want to implement seem good.
However, I think they way you want achieve them may need to be adjusted slightly.

The game turn concept is sound,The basic action sets you want to use,I agree totally with.

However,I would prefer to use activation phases to break up the action rather than a separate list of reaction actions.EG use the game turn mechanic from Epic Space Marine.

This way the actions of the units are broken up into action types , and performed in a set order.And the action is book ended neatly by a start phase and an end phase.This gives more tactical loading at the start of turn, and allows more structure in the action sequences.And stops death star units having too much impact !

EG.
Command Phase.(Start of turn Phase.)
Players decide what actions the units are going to take , and place an order counter next to them face down.(Fire Support, Charge or Advance.)
Players request off table support.(Reserves, air/artillery support.)

Support fire phase
Units on Support Fire orders MAY fire before Charge and Advance actions are taken.OR after all Charge and Advance orders are taken.
Units on Support Fire orders make ranged attacks to full effect.May fire heavy /ordnance and max range on rapid fire.

Charge Phase.
Units on Charge orders must move up to double their movement rate.This is the ONLY way a unit may enter close combat.

Advance Phase.
Units on Advance orders may move and fire , or fire and move.Units on Advance orders may only fire weapons that are allowed to move and shoot.

Resolution Phase.(The tidy up before next game turn phase!)
Close combat may be resolved here ,to lock units in combat to give a bonus to assaulting units if needed.
Units morale is resolved with Rally tests, (if you want to include suppression etc,)
And off tabe support ( reserves, air/artillery support ) arrives now, and is resolved before the start of the next turn.

I only suggest this game turn because it worked really well for Epic SM, which is about as large and diverse as 7th ed 40k is now!
Ill stop there , and let you comment on this variation of you basic idea.

Thank you very much for the feedback. I thought I would be able reply sooner but wasn't.

Dakkamite: You might be right about Ld being given too much influence in the game during reactive firing and it adding more randomness than strategy. I definitely want to avoid unbalancing the game by giving more control to one stat. SO I will have another look at this feature. I wanted to take advantage of the new turn sequence to change how overwatch works, but perhaps one can't really use leadership to control it.

Rapid fire into assault? I didn't really want to allow any units to do something new under this system that they couldn't already. It gives me some other ideas though.

There are no pile-in moves under this system, the 4" combat range was meant to make it unnecessary. I wanted to eliminate the process of moving models over and over again within combat. Generally I want to avoid micro-movement and micro-measurement altogether if you know what I mean. It is time consuming and gets in the way of the overall game. I do need to write the close-combat rules more clearly, I did rush this draft.

Lanrak: I have though about breaking up the action phases. I am trying to strike the balance between simplicity and depth. I will have a think about that. I am borrowing some concepts from other games obviously. However Warhammer units are quite complex entities compared to other systems so not everything can be just transplanted.

If I get around to making some adjustments I will of course update the file on the cloud.

You should look into dystopian wars. or the general spartan games dice mechanic.

its quite tweekable and resolution is pretty quick.

Overwatch can be pretty simple. This is how I would do it personally, as adapted from the Fast and Dirty rules and Potica40k;

~each unit activates once per turn to move, shoot, and charge
~each unit can also react once per turn.
~units tied up in melee do not get either actions or reactions. Melee between all units is resolved at the end of the turn.

~possible reactions are overwatch (fire at half BS at the unit which triggered the reaction, count as moving for heavy weapons etc), retreat (perform a half move, must move away from the enemy) and take cover (as go to ground)

~reactions are triggered by enemy movement, and by being targeted by enemy attacks and assaults
~reactions do not trigger reactions from enemy units. Only an action can trigger a reaction.
~all reactions must be declared before any dice are rolled.

~if a unit moves, then any enemy unit within 12" of the moving unit at any point in its move may react to the movement. Complete the original units move and then any reactions, which are resolved at any point of the movement (ie, you can shoot when the enemy was within X" even if it moved further away with its movement). If you can retreat far enough to escape the charge range of an enemy, then the units will not be engaged.
~if a unit is fired at or charged at, it may react to the attacking unit

@Dakkamite.
Most games using alternating unit activation or alternating phases do not need to add on reaction mechanics.(over watch charge reactions etc.)
As the increased player interaction reduces the need for it.

I would prefer not to have to rely on additional conditional rules if possible.

I have done some more work on this ruleset. I have taken a few suggestions from this thread, thank you for your input.
I have removed reactions/overwatch. It's probably not necessary with this turn structure.
I have added a combat phase that occurs after each units has activated. A unit may charge and fire its assault weapons when it activates. The actual combat gets resolved later. So other units can charge and join the combat.
I have written special rules that are adapted to the new toughness penalty system.
There are of course some formatting and wording changes as welll


This is still a work in progress, there might be gaps that need to be filled..
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5dHoMty9N7EOFhMdmloYThXTE0

@ Marksman.
Just a quick comment on the way you could cover mobility.
If you use a movement stat, eg M 6".(As was the case in 1st and 2nd ed rules.)

Or if you do not want to add a mobility stat.
Simply list the movement values for .
(Values based on 2nd ed.)
Slow infantry 3"
Infantry 4"
Fast infantry.5"
Creatures M/C and vehicles.6"
Beasts and cavalry and fast vehicles .8"
Bikes 12"

And use the unit description to determine how far the unit moves.

Then units have a simple tactical choice when units move...

1)Stay still and fire heavy/ordnance weapons.
2)Move up to M value then shoot 'move and fire' weapons.
3)Move up to double M value.This is the ONLY way a unit can initiate an assault.(Charge into assault.)

It could be a simpler way to present the information.

Alright, that sounds like a good idea. I had originally tried something like that in my first version. I have now sorted out some values like that for all types and incorporated that into my rules.

Hello again. After a long hiatus I have done some more work on this rule-set. I have some included some brand new ideas and ditched some old ones.
I have incorporated a fixed movement characteristic for different model type. I have also changed some core rules for close combat, which may look a bit drastic.

Lanrak, I have made much use of your feedback and ideas. Some of which were from your own thread, in which I really liked your suggestions. Thank you.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5dHoMty9N7EdjJ5V0NKXzZ6NjA/view?usp=sharing