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.

Hey Guys,

I wanted to ask you to state your opinion on the idea to create a rather profound "patch" of the 40k rules to address issues of balancing and play time based on community feedback and playtesting. The goal would be to establish a certain referencial house rule for everyone interested in a more balanced gameplay.
As a reference the Kill Team rules by the Heralds of Ruin might be helpful, however the degree of alteration is not yet defined, it should be as low as possible, but radical measures shouldn't be out of option if need be.

Some people of the German (tournament) community are reflecting about the current "state of the game" and some, including myself, are now considering our options. So if you are interested, give your vote (multiple choice is encouraged) and as well a comment if you want!

Thx guys!

I already have my own. Go for it, it's very doable, just remember that too many cooks spoil the broth.

No one denies that GW is terrible at writing rules, and yet, in a kind of paradox, there are plenty of people who are adamantly against changing the rules.

I would personally love to be playing a more balanced 40k done by people who, yknow, actually play the game in normal settings. It'd be really nice to not have to "discuss" with the eldar and necron players about what they can and can't bring.

You might check out zagman's recent efforts. He has some of the typical concerns addressed, such as melee weapons being overcosted etc.

I think that if you are working it with tournament organizers and players, then you should focus on those people and organizing tournaments with your new rules.

On the Internet, its easy to get input from people who might need play with the rules, and what they say can be a little bit ungrounded.

As an example of what you should do, Heralds of Ruin I think made up their rules and hosed them in a website, they did not take help from just anyone and everyone who has a gripe.

The problem is deciding on what you want to fix?
Do you want to fix the rules to suit the size of the minatures, or the size of the current game?
EG do you want skirmish or battle game.

Do you want to 40k to continue to be WHFB in space .Or do you want it to be a more detailed version of the much better Epic rules?

ATM 40k rules are a horrid mess, they fail to commit to any particular game size or play style.

IMO the only way to go is a complete re-write with a committed focus on the end game play.(Which ever you pick.)

The GW game devs have been trying to fix 40k with 'patches' for 17 years.Why do you think you can succeed when they failed ?

We have done this at our club and have a subset who play 40k 6.5.

Let me know if you want to know more

Thank you for your input so far. Most of the issues you bring up, I have already in mind (Small dedicated team, consequent decisionmaking and selective inspiration from others). I am glad, you are more encouraging than our own community,
At the current state I just want to know about the common opinion on the general idea.

The direction we want to go, I guess we will discuss in our small team.

It's a good idea but it's not doable. You will never convince everyone your system is best and it will constantly be picked apart. I agree it can and should be done. But it's only actually viable in a insular group of friends.

I've made a few efforts of rewriting my own codes: Orks. In 6-th and 7-th. It was succsessful cause i liked the results and people who played against it were satisfied too. Added a lot to variety and lined up the originally bad and good units. Took away what's a bit ott. But it's hard to expect other less open-minded gamers (like >70% of them) to accept rules that don't have label GW on them. Hell, even forgeworld is still not accepted everywhere. Most people would rather play a poorly ballanced game that's official rather than a well-ballanced homebrew game.

I've already created a comprehensive rules set based on the current rules, designed to not change anything. The current rules aim for something really good, but there's too many sections where it's ultimately unclear (what constitutes a model and non-model figurine, what constitutes the different parts of a model, how do you find the path that models move along, etc.).

If you'd like to see my current set, shoot me a PM and I'll send you the google doc. I'm looking for revisions. However, if you're looking to change parts of the base game to "fix" it, then this wouldn't be for you.

For a start, psykers and psychic powers need toning down massively.
And Invisibility needs a massive nerf, if not outright dropping.

Vehicles need the removal of the HP system and the restoring of the old damage charts. Glancing hits should range from nothing to crew stunned to weapon destroyed to immobilised. In addition only weapons that the attacker can see can be destroyed.
Penetrating hits should be mostly able to knock the tank out or make it explode with a small chance of only immobilising it instead.

Toss out vehicle armor entirely and reolace with toughness value and armor save.

I want to play 40k like Xcom online multiplayer.

with missions like deactivate the bombs, rescue civilian, meld canisters retrieval, exalt covert ops hacking or defend the data link.

Having only recently picked 40k back up, I've been able to compare it to the games I started in the interum (Infinity, Bolt Action, Warmachine, Dropzone, SAGA, X wing, probs some others I've forgotten...). And wow, I never truly understood how rubbish these rules are.

Been after something of a rules tweak to help this game approach at least a semblance of the depth of these other games. More of an overlay on the current rules than a total re-write using 40k models - I'm open to the latter too but am hoping that Warpath scratches that itch

Alternative activations, BS modifiers for distance etc, no more TLoS, meaningful terrain rules, random rolls go into the trash, basic gak like that would make the game far more enjoyable. And given the quality of the models and aesthetic of large battles, I'll settle for "more enjoyable".

Would write it myself but I'm sure there are dozens of far better ones out there that I just need to find.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Let me know if you want to know more

Would be keen to hear about it. Been after a basic rules adjustment to make the game less of a joke.

Also gonna look at that one in blackfang's sig, and Yarium's. And anyone else that has something just post it ITT and I'll definitely have a look.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/615240.page

I ran a thread a while ago trying to figure out a few easy changes that would have major benefits for gameplay. The link's above, here are the basic principles:

- Eliminate all pre-game randomness and allow players to choose warlord traits and pay points to choose psychic powers. I think the game really suffers from that fact that you cannot plan around your tabletop assets. If you know your warlord trait in advance you can build an army and your warlord around it. If you know your psychic powers in advance you can build creative combinations of psychic assets on the table.

- Dice rolls are only used for actions that involve interactions between models. Everything else is a fixed value/modifier: difficult terrain, run, mob rule, etc. Cover is a fixed -1 BS modifier, +1/-1 BS modifier based on range to target to disincentivize gunline play.

- Movement is condensed into one move per turn, with charging and running occurring in the movement phase. No more pile in moves.

- Cut down on wasted time and rules/tables bloat: eliminate perils table (perils always inflicts 1 wound), units that flee combat are removed, if a unit fails to regroup it is removed, eliminate look out sir, overwatch is eliminated except for specific defensive weapons (pistols, templates, grenades, etc.), cut superfluous or similar USRs.

@TheSilo

We took almost the same choices independently.
Although I don't think, the randomness is a problem, but dice rolls are time consuming and the game takes too long to finish.

@Alteration possibilities:

I sent a provisionary list of alterations to a friend and we went through most of the rulebook and talked about necessary changes.
We have consensus in completely removiing rerolls to A: Spare time and B: Improve balance by lowering the impact of special rules/abilities (the most powerful ones work with rerolls).
I want to remove cover saves as well and run/diff terrain rolls (diff. terrain = half movement on model basis, run = 6" extra movement at the expense of shooting). I also want to compress movement into the movement phase, so no movement in the shooting phase.
I also want to include a psychic powers simplification (no primaris power, 6 for each discipline, 3 with WC1, 2 with WC2 and 1 with WC3) and a psyker can choose according to his ML (in terms of amount and "difficulty" (WC) as well from one of his available disciplines before game).

For shooting, I want to remove cover saves and substitute it with BS modifiers (Cover should be beneficial to good armour as well and high BS becomes quite useful). Blast weapons hitting are also deadly, but well... they are.
And I plan to include BS modifiers not for target range, but target speed. (up to -3 for a target that moved 24" or more, I am looking at you, flyers...) Snap shots should change to half range full BS and Overwatch is a regular shooting attack as a reaction to an assault declaration, which is only possible if the assaulted unit did not already shoot in the preceding shooting phase.

The assault phase should see a removal of disordered charge, we already determined that as well.

I am against assault moves in the movement phase, because you cannot prepare an assault with shooting and assault troops cannot use their pistols properly. I think you lose tactical flexibility. You gain some time, yes, but my heart says no.

Fortunately we are quite in agreement about most things, so we don't need to negotiate much.

The next step are terrain (ruins need floors again...), special rules and psychic powers. Then we have completed the rulebook and then we write it down properly with good and consistent terminology and precise wording.
I could not convince in terms of the removal of the CAD/AD in favour of custom codex detachments (decurion style) and "unbound" units with massive drawbacks although I like the idea of each faction with different deployment fashion. Maybe I will do it on my own for fun's sake.

However we will narrow possibilities of alliance also within the Imperium. Battle brothers should be a rare case, Allies of convenience should not be convenient and desperate allies should be desperate and difficult to handle. And impossible (sry nids...) must be an option.

Ah and we want to change walkers for MCs to streamline them. We have to be careful with balance though.

So much for the news, I am glad to read some critical comments about the ideas.

Regarding play time, it's not the dice rolls that drag the game out at all. It's mainly two things:

1) Movement: you need to cut down the number of times a model can move in a turn. At the very least cut Run and initiative step Pile-in.

2) By-model micromanagement: The major offender here is wound allocation, which demands careful positioning of models within the unit (compounded with moving models too many times per turn), Look Out Sir nonsense, complexity of melee... simply reverting to 4th edition would allocation will cut down play time significantly. The next step is to cut down unit complexity (reducing options for different T, W and saves within a unit).

Further suggestions I would make:

- Cut the Warp Charge mini-game entirely. Allow each Psyker to attempt each power he knows once, use the power's WC cost as a negative mod on the Psychic test.

- Cut Challenges

Things I would advise against:

- Cover as BS penalty; this puts an additional workload on attack resolution and only replaces the problem of uneven effects of cover depending on armour to uneven effects depending on BS. If you want fair cover, just allow cover saves in addition to armour saves. It doesn't add anything to play time, honest.

On a slightly different tack, I would really like a new approach to morale and leadership. It's way too easy to make units immune to the effects of morale, to the point that leadership is becoming irrelevant. Trying to find a target for morale-based psychic powers is an exercise in futility against most armies, and shooting to force morale checks is an ineffective strategy since it only works against the most basic troop choices. I think GW kept adding more and more rules to keep units from running away because running away was basically killing off the unit. An infantry unit that runs 2d6" away just lost all that distance and can only move 3" in the following turn, essentially losing two turns out of a six turn game.

I would like to replace shooting morale tests with pinning tests. That way, units lose a round of shooting but aren't taken completely out of the fight by running away.

Move leadership to a 12 point scale. So that instead of being fearless or re-rolling leadership tests, models just get higher leadership. This would clear up a lot of grey areas and simplify the leadership system. Fewer units would be completely immune to the effects of psychology and even leadership 12 units could be made to flee from close combat or with other negative modifiers.

I know that there are many units that are fearless because the game designers don't want their colorful units fleeing the battlefield, but it leads to really crazy results where fifty termagaunts spend five turns fighting a walker that they can't kill, an imperial priest inspires a few conscripts to keep fighting a carnifex that is slaughtering their buddies, etc. Immunity to fear or morale should be very rare, it shouldn't be a cheap banner upgrade that turns a few guardsmen into effectively fearless zealots.

@lord_blackfang

Good points, we will take care of some of them. Look out Sir! is annoying, so it has to go. Challenges is also a problem to work on, because A: They don't work and (imho) never will work as intended, but B: Some characters rely on them, the whole champion of chaos rule needs them. So we have to invent a good system or we have to deal with the consequences of removing it.

concerning cover: Sure, Orks don't care about cover, because they won't hit a lot anyways and extremely good BS don't care about cover because they will shoot right through it. At the moment I like it, as I don't see a major problem in that. High BS needs to be useful, low BS is, well, low...

@TheSilo

Also a very interesting point. I didn' think about that yet, at least not in depth.

I want to alter Zealot SR to be less powerful, we have to discuss that though. Many games seem to use pinning effects, I would be willing to try it out. Lets see about that. But Fearless SR should also be rare, maybe substitute it for some units for a SR which makes them impetuous instead (Khorne Berzerkers don't care about anything, but they don't hold position while getting shot to pieces). So if they fail LD they move forward instead of back. Something like that. Let's see...

As long as it had proper oversight and a sense of professionalism, I think a "patch" or Community Rules document would be appropriate. I feel that we should make it our game.

Alternatively, you could work another game that uses the 40k models (or any models of the 28 mm - 32 mm scale), that has your "Changes" to the system but is otherwise a 40k game.

Are you going to look at the flaws in the core game mechanics and resolution methods in the current 40k rules?

Because unless you sort out the foundations , what ever you try to build will just get unbalanced and fall over at some point.

its all very well realizing the symptoms of poor rules writing , but are you going to look for the root cause?

I am happy to discuss this if anyone else thinks it is important.

Lanrak wrote:
Are you going to look at the flaws in the core game mechanics and resolution methods in the current 40k rules?

Because unless you sort out the foundations , what ever you try to build will just get unbalanced and fall over at some point.

its all very well realizing the symptoms of poor rules writing , but are you going to look for the root cause?

I am happy to discuss this if anyone else thinks it is important.

The perfect should not be the enemy of the good. Too many folks object to good marginal improvements on the grounds that they don't simultaneously solve every problem in the game.

@The Silo.
I am happy with slight changes, the idea is to find out what slight changes make the greatest improvements.
And the only way to sort that out is to look at the whole game system from the core mechanics and resolution upwards.

If you identify what the core problems are you can discuss how to fix them.
Otherwise its just subjective ideas based on what people think needs fixing.And people just plonking in mechanics and resolution methods from other systems in the hope it will improve things.(Because no one really understand what anyone else is actually trying to achieve it all grinds to a halt in short order.)

For example the current alternating game turn mechanic.(IGO UGO.) Do you modify it or replace it,What do you replace it with?
What game size do you want to use ?Up to large skirmish or battle game size?(Core driver of what mechanics you end up using!)

For a smaller sized game ,(eg 2nd ed to 3rd ed size.)If you do a basic clean up,
In the movement phase.;-
A unit can stay still and fire to full effect in the shooting phase.

A unit can move and make ranged attacks with 'move and fire weapons' in the shooting phase.

A unit can move twice, and not make any ranged attacks.The unit can 'run' ('vehicles 'top speed'.) or 'charge into assault' and fight in close combat in the assault phase.

This puts tactical choice back in the game turn, and speeds up play because units only move in the movement phase!

If we add movement values( based on unit type ) and limited to hit modifiers (for cover and long range.).The tactical element of maneuvering in to effective combat range is returned and this basic game turn becomes enjoyable and much less imbalanced.(The lower model count also allows conditional 'reaction rules' to be used without slowing the game down too much if you want to add them.)

This is one option to fix the game turn for 40k with 'slight changes'. (A sort of 2nd ed re-boot type game development.)

However, if the game size remains at the current 'battle game size'.(5th ed to 7th ed)
The amount of tactical maneuver is so restricted by the limited amount of space left in the playing area, and current weapon ranges.The game has a significance core mechanic imbalance.(The Alpha strike syndrome.)

The simplest option is to play on a bigger area.(12" x 6" for 1750 pt games works fine.)Or cover the board in los blocking terrain,(City Fight.)
(Or to halve the weapons and movement ranges.Which frankly looks and feels so wrong when you are playing it is a non starter IMO.)

The most practical option is to improve player interaction, by using alternating phases, or unit activation.However it is critical to acknowledge the wide variety of unit abilities and sizes in 40k.

Sorting out the intended game size and level of player interaction is the first thing you need to establish IMO.

Just so everyone knows HOW this thread is attempting to fix 40k.Eg what intended game play is being aimed for.

Basically it boils down to 'WHFB in space skirmish game' or ''Epic'' battle game with 28mm minatures.'

I hope that clarifies what I am trying to convey better?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry about the double post.

In summary ..
If you make the 'slight changes' needed at the 'foundations' of the game (core mechanics and resolution methods).To allow the game to be developed elegantly and efficiently.

You do not waste time arguing where to put the 'special rules scaffolding' to prop up the game play as it starts to collapse.

I do not want radical changes , I like the intended game play of the 40k battle game.(I think it aims to be Epic battles in 28mm.)

I just think the way the game play is delivered is possibly the most messed up example of game development ever sold !
And to unravel the mess effectively you need to start at the bottom and work upwards.

@Lanrak

I appreciate your effort and thank you for the nice information. Concerning game size: Certainly not skirmish, we already have very good skirmish 40k rules. I would like 1500-2000p size as standard, but 500 or 5000p (with table size adjustments of course) should be playable as well.

Again, our subjectively determined core problems are play time and balance. But we want to keep as much as possible. Otherwise we could "just" create a random Sci-Fi-System and call it 40k.
IGO UGO will definitely stay. So we will go for simplified movement and some modifiers as you proposed.

But you are mentioning terrain, it is also a problem we have to deal with. We need good rules on how much terrain is necessary for a balanced table without being too restrictive.

And you mention table sizes, which is a good point. But this comes with some problems (for bigger tables). If I imagine Scatterlaser Jetbikespam on a big table, this is not nice, because they can retreat far better than normally and the opponents will struggle to even get into position. So we have to increase the distance for objectives from the table edges on those tables so the jetbikes can retreat as far as they want while the opponent sits on the money...

@-Nazdreg-
For a battle game , eg current 7th ed game size and larger.using alternative game turn ,requires lots of work to off set the lack of tactical maneuvering .
(Lots of additional conditional rules, special rules that override the core rules that do not work with the lack of tactical maneuvering making reasonable game balance practically impossible.)

Relying on terrain and expanding the playing area to limit interaction is a poor option.Terrain should be there to enhance the game experience and NOT be a crutch to support poor game design.IMO.

So how exactly are you going to correct the imbalance of 'alpha strike ' .The boring and time consuming waiting for the opposing player to take all actions with all their units, while you wait to roll saves....

if you want to improve balance and speed of play , why not look to see if you can address the core issues that cause the current game to be massively imbalanced with time consuming pointless over complication?

I want the MINIMUM amount of changes to fix the 40k battle game.
Ones that actually correct the problems at source, rather than try to fix them with additional layers of special rules.(As GW have been trying to do for 17 years...)

I want the resulting rules to be recognizable as '40k'.Here are the things that need to be kept IMO.

1)Rolling handfuls of D6 for fast resolution.(40k does NOT need different dice size, just more intelligent use of the D6!)

2) Clearly defined phases to keep the game structure clear and easy to engage with for new players.

3)Players alternating taking actions .(either with units or phases ,IMO.)

4) Three stage combat resolution , roll to hit, roll to save, roll to wound/damage.

I also want the game to be more in synergy with the background, something the current rules fail at IMO.

Is there any thing else you think needs to be kept from the core mechanics?

Are you happy with the basic outline for 'streamlined' alternating game turn I posted?

EG
Units focus on shooting and do not move.
Or
Units focus on moving further and do not shoot.
Or
Units move a bit and shoot a bit .

I can show you a really simple structured alternating unit activation game turn that works great for 40k battle games.(It was used in a 40k battle game the 1990s so I know it works well! )

Would you like to see this alternative ?

Here is the proposed alternative game turn mechanic.
That was developed by the GW game devs for an 'Epic 40k battle game' when the studio was free of 'sales department influence'.

I takes the basic 3 options for units 'orders' from 2nd ed 40k.
Shoot to full effect and not move.
Or
Move to full effect (into combat if you want.)And not Shoot.
Or
Move and shoot (or shoot then move.)

And puts them into specific phases like this,

Command Phase.
(Players place order counters face down next to each unit , and requests off table support ,arty,air ,& reserves.)

Fire Support phase.
Players alternate activating units on 'Fire Support' orders.

Charge Phase.
Players alternate activating units on 'Charge' orders.

Advance Phase.
Players alternate activation units on 'Advance' orders.

Resolution Phase.
Players attempt to rally units , etc.(Assault can be resolved here instead of the charge phase if needed.)
AND plot and resolve any off table support , to tidy up the actions for the start of the next turn.

This prioritizes orders that focus on the decisive actions , in the order the game devs agreed on after extensive play tests.(This game turn is still used in the fan supported epic 40k battle game 'Net Epic' 26 years later!.)

It also allows straightforward implementation of morale states.
Simply swap the order counter for a Shaken, Stunned or Routed counter , when the unit suffers from these morale effect.

So one counter shows the 'unit state', and makes it easy to see where you got to when you have a short break from the game.(Orders are only turned over as the units activate.)

(The ONLY other unit counter we may need ,IMO, is a 'gone to ground' /'hidden' counter.)

Anyhow , please ask questions and comment , so I can try to cover any issues you may have with this alternative.(I may not have explained it that well.)

I got the itch to rework 40k about a year ago and came up with this thread. (You will notice almost everyone in my thread is in this one too.) My old tabletop friends were so far out of the hobby that working on those rules became an exercise in futility for me, but I think we were really close to a much simpler system.

IGO UGO will definitely stay. So we will go for simplified movement and some modifiers as you proposed.

The first thing I see changed in 90% of these new 40k threads is that IGOUGO is removed and replaced with alternative activations or phases or some such.

If you keep this mechanic you'll lose a lot of interest in whatever it is you eventually come up with. It really is rather unpopular.

@Dakkamite:

I know. The decision is not my decision. I would be willing to change that order, but we work in a team.

@Lanrak

Those are good rules. Psychic powers need to be implemented, but that should be possible without too many problems. However I don't expect too much love for that idea, because we are following a rather conservative route, but personally I like it and would try it out. I will introduce the idea, which I think I have understood properly, and then we will see what happens. Thanks again for your suggestion.

@DarkHound

Ah thank you. So your basic idea was to simplify damage resolution? I thought about something like that, but for me it interferes too much with current unit stats. They need complete rework (AP is extremely strong if it is a modifier and vehicles getting HP, toughness and armour also A: Interferes with the vehicle damage table and B: Forces us to create stats for them out of the blue (Is a Land Raider like a Riptide or rather like a Trygon, or a Wraithlord/Knight?)

@-Nazdreg-
My gaming friends and I have been looking at re-working 40k since 4th ed hit, and they did not follow the changes Andy Chamber, (the 40k over-fiend back then,) wanted to use.

We have tried several different game turn mechanics with the 40k game.(Variable bound, alternating phases, and alternating unit activation types.)
Lots of players want to change to alternating unit activation or alternating phases , as Dakkamite said.

The one based on Epic Space Marine posted above was the one we felt kept the basic feel of 40k , with minimal changes for a unit activation type game turn.
(Alternating phases could work with simple sequencing from LoTR, or interleaved repeat like Challenger and Firefly.)

I do not think that psychic abilities need their own separate phase.But could be re worked to fit into the standard phases outlined above.
(Bonuses for combat could be applied in the relevant phase, and command and control abilities could be used in the Command and Resolution phases as required.)

As we have talked about the most obvious core problem with the current 40k rules.
The game turn that needs to have 'tactical maneuver into combat range' to work ,that does not have it any more.
So we can reduce the size of the game to put it back, or change the game turn to one that is less reliant on tactical maneuver.(And put more emphasis on player command choices.)

The next two areas are the amount of resolution methods used.
Most good games use direct representation, (distance in inches, number of dice rolled etc.)And one other method.

For combat resolution 40k ,uses SEVEN SEPARATE RESOLUTION METHODS ! Talk about pointless over complication at the core!
1)7-BS =score required for success.

2)WS vs WS on a chart = score required for success.

3)S vs T on another chart = score required for success.(To wound non vehicles.)

4)Armour save vs AP = all or nothing score for success to save.

5)(Additional range of inv saves to extend D6 saves. )

6)S+D6(s) vs AV = armour save variant for vehicles.

7)Separate chart to determine damage on vehicles .

The other area is allowing the full options for tactical interaction in the game play.
(So the stats cover as much as possible to represent the wide diversity of units found in 40k.)

If we look at a units survivability in combat, it is made up of 4 basic factors.
Mobility.
Stealth.
Armour.
Damage sustainability .(toughness wounds etc.)

How quickly and how a unit moves and interacts with terrain is just as important on the battle field as how heavy its armour , and how many models are in unit .

EG a Sniper relies on stealth and mobility to remain undetected.
However in the current rules a SM with a las cannon has the same chance to hit a land raider 2"(20 M) in front of the las cannon barrel, and a Ratling sniper laying prone in open ground 40" (appx 700m)away....

40k has removed the elements of stealth and mobility from the basic resolution /stat line in the name of simplification.
But then replaced them with lots of special rules which just add more complication than the stats removed.

I can illustrate simple alternatives using stats directly, and with the addition of ONE resolution method 40k currently uses.
Just to show how much more straight forward the core rules can be, but cover much wider range of unit abilities.

Just as an example , to illustrate how over complicated the 40k core rules actually are.If you think this would be helpful?

@Lanrak

You forgot FNP/REAP (which is not a save, thus works in addition to a save...)

But I do like the differentiation between biological and mechanical elements, so I am not against the different kinds of damage resolution. 40k players are familiar with it, so it is not extremely complicated to understand. It may be hard to balance, but vehicles feel "biological" to me if they get armour and toughness. I don't know, it just feels unintuitive.

But anyways, I see your point. The problem is, there are different kinds of 40k-people. There are experienced tabletop gamers who know different systems like you and some other people (especially those who are dwelling in the "Proposed rules" area), and there are 40k-only guys. I am sure most gamer-type guys prefer a complete rewrite with the most "tactical" feel to it, whereas 40k-only guys somehow don't care about different systems and it is quite difficult to introduce any new and unfamiliar game mechanics to them. So tactically it might be better to come up with more but smaller alterations to test out what might be accepted (I can see lots of different good generic-scifi systems who could easily be used for 40k games and who might be rivals) before using the thunder hammer of the "one big alteration at the core", where many different reconceptions need to follow suit (which is essentially a new game).

I don't want to talk down what you created (which would be nonsense because I never tried it out), I just question the acceptance within our group. Trust me on that one.