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.

Now that I'm all nestled into my university dorm and as prepared as can be to be inundated with homework, I think its time to finally post my own work. Before, I wanted to write my game as fully as I could on my own and test it a few times first, but now that I'm a few hours from home and my captive play tester (my parents keep saying he's my brother, for some reason), I don't really have any avenues for getting in games at the moment. So now is as good a time as any to get feedback from other gamers.

Here is everything I have written so far in a handy dropbox link!

Notice my back-to- basics approach; no LoW, GMC, superheavy nonsense, the classic FOC is back, among other things. I haven't even incorporated flyers yet, but that is in the works; I just don't know how I want to handle them. There are also no special characters, but those shouldn't change too much at all unless something needs done to actually make them compatible with the rule set. There aren't many of those kinds of issues in the SM army list off the top of my head, so they will be incorporated into the game whenever I get around to it.

A lot of stuff is incomplete so far; basic imperial vehicle upgrades aren't complete, psychic powers are an absolute mess and all worded like mtg cards and the only army list I've done so far could totally be formatted better. I'm all ears for ideas about those things. This is also my first attempt at writing rules at all, so the whole thing could be suffering from GW writer syndrome and I would have no idea. The usual typos, grammar, etc.are also expected to happen.

The general design curve so far has been reducing randomness, allowing for a wider array of strategies and tactical options while making all of those things viable. The hardest part of this, I've found, is writing scenarios that don't skew army comp very heavily in one direction or another.

Some things that came up in playtesting that are killing me:

With the addition of save stacking (with no floor on how low saves can go) and armor save modifiers,everything is so damn durable and a few outlier units have proven nigh unstoppable due to being able to take great armor saves and invuln. saves. I've improved a few choice weapons and geared some psychic powers around that feature in order to keep everything from getting super duper ridiculous, but I'm still trying to find an integrated means of mitigating that effect more with positioning and strategy rather than cooking the Army Comp Books. I also don't want to go back to one- save only or artificially cap armor saves because I want unit interactions to remain organic.

When I wrote the Space Marine Army List to be compatible with my rules, I basically ported the 6th ed codex into my game and only made actual design decisions when it was necessary for compatibility. Later, I went back and reworked problem units that were notoriously under/over costed or broken. I did this because I actually cannot fathom the impact my core rule changes have made on game balance yet and don't have a large enough collection to physically test all of the combinations that exist in the current army list. I would like to see what more experienced players than I think about balance tweaks.

There are specific mechanics that I'm not happy with so far. Namely, Feel No Pain, Twin Linked and Eternal Warrior all feel either a little weak or too strong, but I can't think of any way to rework them without tipping the pendulum all the way to the other side.

Other Notes:

In early drafts, I used APE as the armor penalty stat rather than PEN; anything that says APE (I don't think there are, but I may have missed some) is a typo and should be PEN.

When I get around to updating everything again, other options from Imperial Armor should also be there (e.g. Sicarans, all of those ridiculous land raider variants and that cool land speeder variant etc.).

The next army list I should get around to working out is CSM since they are the army I actually play. Then after that (read: sometime this June,maybe), I'd like to work on a horde army, preferably non- imperial. That leaves orks or nids. The problem there is that I don't have a lot of experience with either of those armies, so if anyone has any ideas about what to do with them, I'm all ears!

What exactly are you trying to achieve with this new version of GWs WH40k?

I agree that it is best to start without all the 'Apoc' type units.Sort of 4th to 5th ed size game and standard units.

Get the foundation right, core game mechanics and resolution methods , and the rules will not fall over as fast as GW efforts seem to.

You seem to have added some stats in, and some modifiers, and cut down on some special rules.Which is good.

But there does not seem to be any sort of desire to sort out the horrible kludge of resolution methods 40k currently uses.

I believe we can cut down from the 7 or more resolution methods GWs 40ks has, to a much more intuitive 2 or 3.

Would you be interested in using opposed values for ALL combat resolution , on one resolution table,to give lots more granularity and proportional results?
(This allows natural and intuitive tactics to develop.)

BTW the original F.O.C used in 40k is one of the core issues , driving game play in the restrictive direction, of cost effective min/maxing.

I think you have some good ideas, but the core rules need tweeking to solidify the rules foundation.IMO.(To improve elegance and efficiency.)

I could post up some ideas and alternative if you like?

What exactly are you trying to achieve with this new version of GWs WH40k?

All I want is a clean, simple, sexy game with less randomness and more strategic/ tactical decision making where positioning and morale play a greater part in the outcome of the game than list building. Honestly, I should put that sentence in the OP.

I agree that it is best to start without all the 'Apoc' type units.Sort of 4th to 5th ed size game and standard units.

Get the foundation right, core game mechanics and resolution methods , and the rules will not fall over as fast as GW efforts seem to.

It does still need tweaking, I'm sure but that's basically the idea I had when I went in. For the record, I'm not necessarily totally opposed to involving larger units; I just need some time to tune everything so I have a proper basis on which to balance them. The 30k books are proof enough to me that the whole thing can be balanced and fun. It just needs a little TLC.

You seem to have added some stats in, and some modifiers, and cut down on some special rules.Which is good.

That's funny because initially, I had wanted to incorporate the additional stats effects' as USRs. That's why we draft things, I suppose.

But there does not seem to be any sort of desire to sort out the horrible kludge of resolution methods 40k currently uses.
I believe we can cut down from the 7 or more resolution methods GWs 40ks has, to a much more intuitive 2 or 3.

Would you be interested in using opposed values for ALL combat resolution , on one resolution table,to give lots more granularity and proportional results?
(This allows natural and intuitive tactics to develop.)

Now, don't go and reply to this by explaining the whole resolution mechanic you post in every other post in the proposed rules forum; I've seen it before. But I would like you elaborate on how that would be different from my own? I have an opposed values chart that is used in each stage of combat damage resolution. I've even killed AV so vehicles use the same chart. The only thing that doesn't use the chart are saves, but that is probably the only thing GW came up with that really works.

Unless of course you mean to actually scrap three- stage damage reduction entirely and replace it with something else entirely? Some means of incorporating armor and the like into toughness a la LOTR miniatures, or folding toughness into the roll to hit?

BTW the original F.O.C used in 40k is one of the core issues , driving game play in the restrictive direction, of cost effective min/maxing.

That is not true. The min/max nature of list building is an artifact of nothing actually being balanced against one another. My intent of incorporating hit modifiers into resolution actually was an attempt to differentiate small arms from heavy weapons and the like. It may take time and testing and tweaking, but eventually, an environment can be created around this rule set where basic dudes and their small arms are desirable and present a relative trade off in comparison to heavy/ special weapons. This, in combination with classic FOC swaps and emphasis on tactical decision making should precipitate a shift from wanting to take the objectively best individual units to wanting to take units that are synergistic with each other. let me cite 30k again. Everyone on the 30k forum will tell you there are fewer auto takes and fewer still garbage units that under perform in the Legion Army List; its not perfect either, but its a lot better than 40k main. Why? not because 30k killed the FOC but because the units themselves are all equally worth taking, more or less. 30k actually is more restrictive if you take ROWs into account.

I think you have some good ideas, but the core rules need tweeking to solidify the rules foundation.IMO.(To improve elegance and efficiency.)

I could post up some ideas and alternative if you like?

If you have any other ideas, I'm all ears!

Hi again.
You said...'All I want is a clean, simple, sexy game with less randomness and more strategic/ tactical decision making where positioning and morale play a greater part in the outcome of the game than list building. Honestly, I should put that sentence in the OP.'

Well lets start at the beginning, and determine what sort of game you actually want.

As 40k is a horrid kludge of detailed skirmish rules with detailed model interaction.All the way through to massed battle game rules with generic unit interaction.

A re write using your above description could be any thing from 'Inquisimundia' type detailed skirmish, up to a 'Epicgeddon 'type massed formation game.

So it is a good idea to define the scale and scope of the rules for the intended game.

EG
A standard 4th-5th ed sized game of 40k , could be described as a (smaller) battle game with detailed unit interaction.
This lets us focus on the resolution methods that are most appropriate for this game size and scope.

Next we have to look at the type of basic game play we want the game to use.

There are 3 basic types of game play in war games.(I am generalizing a lot BTW.)

1)A focus on maneuvering and close combat with ranged attacks in a supporting role.
EG Ancient up to Napoleonic ,WHFB type games play.

2)A focus on maneuver, ranged and close combat in equal measure.
EG , WWII to Modern/Hard Sci fi combined arms land battles.

3)A focus on maneuver , and ranged combat, with close combat used in a supporting role.
Eg Large naval /space ship type battles where boarding actions , are used in a supporting role.

This lets us sort out what in game stats we should use.(And how we load the importance of them.)

By now we have narrowed down what stats and resolution methods are a better fit with the intended game play.

The last basic thing we need to look at is the game turn mechanic.As it sets the level of player interaction .

If the game allows lots of tactical maneuvering into weapons range.Alternating game turns may be used.
Otherwise alternating phases, or unit activation may be a better fit....

And at this point we have clearly defined the scale and scope of the rules and the intended game play, so have a very good idea what game mechanics ,resolution methods , and stats we should be looking at.

Now we have a clear start point and end destination in mind ,It makes it much easier to refine and define what we do.

This is a general guideline to try to help to keep focus on what is important.(End game play.)

If you could tell me what scale and scope of game you want to cover.And the intended game play type you want to end up with.
I would be able to make suggestions in line with your intent...

@Powerfisting.
Sorry about the delay, been hectic at work...

Do you agree that 40k changed from a large skirmish game in 2nd ed, into a small battle game in 3rd to 5th ed?

Do you agree that a battle game should have detailed unit interaction?


Should 40k have a focus on close combat over shooting?

Or Should have a focus on shooting over close combat?

Or should shooting close combat and maneuver all be equally important?

Resolution Methods...

Most good games use direct representation as one resolution mechanic.

EG number of dice rolled, range of effect/movement in inches.

And another one to handle more detailed interaction that required more granularity.
Generally roll over/under stat with limited modifiers to stats, OR stats opposed in a chart with limited modifiers to stats.

Now look at 40ks current resolution methods...

1)Compare WS on an opposed chart A for score to hit.
2)BS subtract stat from 7 for score to hit.
3)Compare S to T on an opposed chart B for score to wound.(Non vehicle models only.)
4)Roll 2 D6 under Ld value.
5)Roll equal or over Sve value on D6 , unless AP value is equal or lower.(Non vehicle units only.)
6a) Roll equal to AV on a D6 weapon strength value for glancing hit result.(Vehicle models only.)
6B)Roll over AV value on D6+ weapon strength value for penetrating hit result.(Vehicle models only.)
7)Determine damage on random D6 chart C, for 6A/6B results.
8)Additional D6 roll to ignore wounds non vehicle only.(WBB/FNP USR)
9)Additional D6 roll instead of sve roll that ignores weapon AP values.(Inv/Cover saves).

No to mention over 80 special rules that just make things even more complicated..

Having opposed stats on a single chart for all combat resolution , with limited modifiers to stats where appropriate.
Is a good secondary resolution method.

I assume you intend to give vehicles a similar stat line to infantry.So they get a save roll and T value ?

So you think just 6 values 2+3+4+5+6+- that are taken at full effect, or completely ignored is a good enough system to cover the variety of units and weapons found in the 40k battle game?

Or do you intend to use Inv saves too?



I believe that the three stage damage resolution,(roll to hit ,roll to wound ,roll to save) .Along with using D6 and players taking turns, is the fundemintal things that ' makes 40k feel like 40k.'
(Having tried all sorts of options over the last 15 years or so , these are the things we found to be important to the 40k players we know.)

The old F.O.C core problem is it focuses on unit function NOT rarity in the force composition.

This makes people look at the units they can take as Elite , Fast Attack and Heavy Support in isolation.
So people tend to try to spam the most cost effective option in each slot.To increase thier chance of winning.Whic is completely counter to thematic list building which is much more diverse and fun,IMO.

IF the force comp was similar to Epic ,Where you get a HQ and 5 common units , this allows up to 4 support units and one specialist unit to be taken,

The theme of the force sets which units count as common support, or specialist for that list.

Lanrak wrote:
@Powerfisting.

Spoiler:

Sorry about the delay, been hectic at work...

Do you agree that 40k changed from a large skirmish game in 2nd ed, into a small battle game in 3rd to 5th ed?

Do you agree that a battle game should have detailed unit interaction?


Should 40k have a focus on close combat over shooting?

Or Should have a focus on shooting over close combat?

Or should shooting close combat and maneuver all be equally important?

Resolution Methods...

Most good games use direct representation as one resolution mechanic.

EG number of dice rolled, range of effect/movement in inches.

And another one to handle more detailed interaction that required more granularity.
Generally roll over/under stat with limited modifiers to stats, OR stats opposed in a chart with limited modifiers to stats.

Now look at 40ks current resolution methods...

1)Compare WS on an opposed chart A for score to hit.
2)BS subtract stat from 7 for score to hit.
3)Compare S to T on an opposed chart B for score to wound.(Non vehicle models only.)
4)Roll 2 D6 under Ld value.
5)Roll equal or over Sve value on D6 , unless AP value is equal or lower.(Non vehicle units only.)
6a) Roll equal to AV on a D6 weapon strength value for glancing hit result.(Vehicle models only.)
6B)Roll over AV value on D6+ weapon strength value for penetrating hit result.(Vehicle models only.)
7)Determine damage on random D6 chart C, for 6A/6B results.
8)Additional D6 roll to ignore wounds non vehicle only.(WBB/FNP USR)
9)Additional D6 roll instead of sve roll that ignores weapon AP values.(Inv/Cover saves).

No to mention over 80 special rules that just make things even more complicated..

Having opposed stats on a single chart for all combat resolution , with limited modifiers to stats where appropriate.
Is a good secondary resolution method.

I assume you intend to give vehicles a similar stat line to infantry.So they get a save roll and T value ?

So you think just 6 values 2+3+4+5+6+- that are taken at full effect, or completely ignored is a good enough system to cover the variety of units and weapons found in the 40k battle game?

Or do you intend to use Inv saves too?

I believe that the three stage damage resolution,(roll to hit ,roll to wound ,roll to save) .Along with using D6 and players taking turns, is the fundemintal things that ' makes 40k feel like 40k.'
(Having tried all sorts of options over the last 15 years or so , these are the things we found to be important to the 40k players we know.)

The old F.O.C core problem is it focuses on unit function NOT rarity in the force composition.

This makes people look at the units they can take as Elite , Fast Attack and Heavy Support in isolation.
So people tend to try to spam the most cost effective option in each slot.To increase thier chance of winning.Whic is completely counter to thematic list building which is much more diverse and fun,IMO.

IF the force comp was similar to Epic ,Where you get a HQ and 5 common units , this allows up to 4 support units and one specialist unit to be taken,

The theme of the force sets which units count as common support, or specialist for that list.

With respect, have you actually read my project or do you just drop the same post in every topic on the proposed rules forum? If you read either of the documents I've linked to in the OP, a lot of questions you have would be kind of obvious and you would find that the suggestions you've made are already there. The whole section you regurgitated about the opposed values resolution system is the exact thing as what I've written so far.

To answer your initial question about the scope of the game, I have nothing to say about 2nd ed or the game's progression onward. I only started 40k on the tail end of 5th ed. I will say that I have read most of the 3rd ed material and like it a lot. My long term plan is to pull everything back to a medium size game and slowly tweak everything over time to ramp everything up to be closer to 6th/ 7th ed while allowing light vehicles and infantry to retain their relative utility in the presence of much larger threats.

Now, about the epicgeddon force allocation you seem to like. That is actually more restrictive than a normal force org chart. The thematic angle you get from there only marginally improves balance in exchange for a lot of lost freedom. A force organization chart allows for players to naturally build a theme for themselves if they want but also leaves more room for broad strategic synergy. Realistically, a system with a set number of themes is only viable for space marines. And then, it would only involve very simple archetypes like "Close Combat Spec," "Firefighter Spec," and "Heavy Shooty Spec." What if someone comes up with a cool fringe theme they want to pull? "Oh well. You can only do these three things." In an environment where every unit is point-- costed appropriately in relation to each other such that they are all equally worth taking, inter-- unit synergy prevails over individual performance. The reason units are analyzed in isolation is because synergy and utility is less important than basic firepower and point efficiency. Ideally, very few units would actually be something that would be considered "efficient" in their own right. In fact, most would be rather mediocre on their own, but a lot of units would jive with each other to create synergy organically.

Calls it Warhammer 40k: Unlimited; Proceeds to limit things.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Calls it Warhammer 40k: Unlimited; Proceeds to limit things.

I went through a lot of titles for this project and couldn't think of one that stuck. All the ideas I had for names sounded dumb. I was gonna call it "Super 40k" but that felt too much like an anime title.

@Powerfisting.
I just read the rules section.I Am not really interested in the army lists until the core of the game is sorted.

So I may have missed the intended size and scope.(Sorry.)But ALL the relevant info should be in the core rules document.IMO

It is always useful to have designers notes at the start to say what you have done and why.


The main changes of adding a movement stat (speed.) and armour modifiers (pen.)Are straight from 2nd ed 40k, more or less.

A movement stat (speed ) is eminently sensible and allows much more straight forward implementation of tactical choice in the game turn.

Talking of which you state you want to use alternating phase game turn, but do not appear to state what the phases are or what order they are taken.

EG
Command Phase.
Movement phase
Shooting phase
Assault phase
Resolution Phase.

You seem to have listed the action options for units .I may have misread /misunderstood this?


AP systems and armour modifier system are both restricted when using a D6 and have limitations.(ASM worked fine in WHFB with the limited and primitive weapons and armour involved.)

So it was a genuine and logical question to ask why you did not extend opposed values to cover this part of the combat resolution.(In my 1st post.)

If you want to start with 3rd-5th ed 40k size games,I assume you want a battle game with detailed unit interaction then?

My question about game play is quite important.
As you proposed stat line has TWICE AS MANY STATS FOR CLOSE COMBAT , as it does for ranged combat.

You seem to have kept the WHFB in space bias on close combat over ranged combat.I did not know if this was intentional or not.

So I thought I had better ask the question...


The only reason I keep saying the same things is because they are true.
40k game development was compromised from the start.
And after 4th 5th and 6th edition re writes were refused by the GW Sales department , and replace with rushed through 'sell more (bigger) stuff for more profit' directives.
The dev team just appear to have given up on game play.

'The leaked 6th ed rules' seem to be looking at lots of alternative methods to use in a complete overhaul, that was quashed by GW Sales dept again....

Its obvious our frame of reference is very different.

So to 'fix 40k ', you really need to define what you think the issues are, and how you want to address them.IMO.

As the current 40k rules could be refined into a variety of completely different game types!

Anyhow, I do not think I explained the concept of the army organisation lists that well.

The themed HQ and 5 core units, that allow up to 4 support units and 1 Special unit.

Is just the basic frame work the themes are placed on.

EG the Ork army list would have different themes based on the old Klanz.

Bad Moonz.(Elite .)

Blood Axes.(Special forces.)

Deff Skulls,(Basic Orky list, scavaging a bit of everything!)

Evil Sunz, (Mobile Infantry.)

Goffs, (Infantry hoard,)

Kult Of Speed.(Recon Scouting force.)

Snake Bites, (Primative.)

This way specialized unit can be included in specific themed lists,
EG Boar boys and Squiggoths only appear in the Snake Bite list.

Also the core force can comprise any units that are on theme in the core.(So current Elite , Fast Attack of Heavy Support units can be included in the new 'Core'units.)
So players are looking at the theme of thier list before they add supporting units.

I apologize if I have misunderstood what you intended to try to do.I am genuinely trying to help develop your ideas.

Fair enough. We will have to agree to disagree on force organization,I suppose. I have some other plans in the works, but that is going to wait until I have a chance to test the rest of the game mechanics more. I Only need a couple working army lists and a simple organization structure to work out the main interaction mechanics first.

Lanrak wrote:
@Powerfisting.

My question about game play is quite important.
As you proposed stat line has TWICE AS MANY STATS FOR CLOSE COMBAT , as it does for ranged combat.

You seem to have kept the WHFB in space bias on close combat over ranged combat.I did not know if this was intentional or not.

So I thought I had better ask the question...

Okay, I guess I've misunderstood. "Twice as many close combat stats than ranged stats" isn't fair. CC involves SKL vs. SKL, STR vs. RES and Armor + Pen, all in initiative steps. Each model has an MRK or EVA value depending on which end of the barrel they're on, but then all of their weapons have RNG, STR and PEN and some special rules. The only thing CC has that shooting has no equivalent to is initiative. Scrapping Initiative would reduce a lot of unit- to- unit differentiation. I wouldn't say I'm as biased for CC as much as WFB, especially since we are talking about the 40k universe, so plasma destroyers and laser destroyers exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lanrak wrote:
@Powerfisting.Talking of which you state you want to use alternating phase game turn, but do not appear to state what the phases are or what order they are taken.

It is an alternating phases turn structure that goes like this:

*Resolution Phase
*Activation Phase
*Movement Phase
*Action Phase
*Combat Phase.

Is it not clear which order phases are taken in? They are listed and described in the order they go.

@Powerfisting.
I have found it helpful to look at lots of other games to see how they handle things and to see if they have similar issues to 40k.

Over the last 30 years of so playing war games, AFAIK, 40k (3rd to 7th )is the ONLY game that selects force organization using function slots.

I believe this is part of the reason for balance issues in the game.

All other war games generally deal with game balance using 2 methods.
A)Accurate as possible allocation of point values to give as accurate as possible in comparable game worth of elements.

B) Army /force composition using rarity of units to balance out synergistic bonuses, and restrict possible compositions to give fun random pick up games. (Or to represent historical availability of units.)

40k 3rd edition used the function slots to help new (younger)players collect their forces.
(With progressively less and less focus on trying to balance the game and more and more focus on selling anything to anyone until we ended up with this unbound nonsense. )

I was just advising force composition structure based on rarity of units works much better than 40k function based limitations in all the games I have played.


If we look at 40ks stat line as it was taken from WHFB 4th ed ,

WHFB 'ancient warfare' with massed ranks mainly armed with close combat weapons,maneuvering to get a tactical advantage in close combat , with ranged attacks used in support.This fits perfectly with the WHFB stat line.

M=movement
WS=Close combat stat.
BS= Ranged combat stat
S= Close combat stat (Most weapons are primative and depend on the strength of the user,swords and bows etc.)
T=common combat resolution stat.
W=common combat resolution stat
I=Close combat stat
A= Close combat stat
Ld=common resolution stat
Sve =common resolution stat.

Ranged combat is only used in a supporting role so only has one dedicated stat.
Close combat is at the heart of the WHFB game play and so has four times as many dedicated stats!

But is it a good fit for a game with skirmishing infantry supported by armoured vehicles mainly armed with ranged weapons?(40K 3rd -7th ed.)

This is why I asked about why you kept the 4 close combat only stats.Did you do it intentionally?

Adding an opposed stat to BS is a good idea, and it goes some way to balance the loading between close combat and ranged attack focus.

However If we look at the function of the other close combat stats,we may find they are not needed or can be replaced, or used differently?

Strength, is the core value used to calculate the power of close combat attacks.
Attacks is only use to determine the number of close combat attacks.

We could present the net result of damage and number of attacks in a similar way ranged weapons are presented.Just an option.

Initiative, determines who lands the first blow in close combat.

It could be replaced by an opposed stat to WS.
EG a stat to show how good a model is at hitting things in close combat, and an opposed stat to show how hard the model is to hit in close combat.

We could use 'simultaneous resolution' with alternating phases.Which would make the idea of initiative redundant any way.

Talking of which.I am quite surprised you moved away from the phases we all know.

Start of Turn, (Some call this Command Phase.)
Movement Phase,
Shooting Phase,
Assault Phase,
End of turn,(Some call this the Resolution phase.)
(I am not sure we need a separate psychic phase.)

This is probably why I did not recognize the new phases you used in your rules.(Sorry)

Could you explain why you felt the need to introduce this new phase set?

I've been wondering about your secret rules for a while.  I kind of thought they were too secret to post.  Maybe now I can play with them in the next 3? years.  I've got two houses and kids and stuff.

"@" Lanrak, which website would you recommend  people post on if they didn't want you posting the same thing constantly in their threads?      

"APE" appears at the bottom right corner of pages four and six, and twice on page twelve.

How does overkill trigger? I can't tell, but if it is a normal.rule.and not a special time, it will be a playable game I think.

It seems like most shooting rolls to hit will be 5+ or 6+, just given evasion and range penalties.

pelicaniforce wrote:
I've been wondering about your secret rules for a while.  I kind of thought they were too secret to post.  Maybe now I can play with them in the next 3? years.  I've got two houses and kids and stuff.

"@" Lanrak, which website would you recommend  people post on if they didn't want you posting the same thing constantly in their threads?      

"APE" appears at the bottom right corner of pages four and six, and twice on page twelve.

How does overkill trigger? I can't tell, but if it is a normal.rule.and not a special time, it will be a playable game I think.

It seems like most shooting rolls to hit will be 5+ or 6+, just given evasion and range penalties.

Overkill is my replacement for Instant death. This is tentative, as auto hits/ wounds exist, which would account for interactions that deserve to be quite absolute, but then monsters and large vehicles are still around so if it stays, it will mostly be for the design space. That way, large models can be hurt quickly but don't get dropped from one lucky shot.

I will check those typos thank you

I admit I may have gone too far with the to hit modifiers. Initially, the idea was just to make shooting weaker. With the proliferation of SM, most shooting operates on 3+ to hit, weaker guys hitting on 4+. I wanted to shift line infantry shooting into the 4/5+ range so that anything that hits on a 2/3+ feels really special. Later, I kept having ideas about certain positioning strategies I wanted to be relevant and the to-hit roll was the catch all area for that. I want them all to be there eventually, but maybe modifying other things.

The range penalties may require their own mechanic that doesn't involve any modifiers. The idea there was to differentiate "small arms" from "not small arms" and "most definitely not small arms." Now, line infantry have a niche that needs to be filled that only they fill to the end that they no longer are a tax.

When relative power levels, point balancing and inter- unit synergy have been worked out, I have some absolutely radical Force Organization methods I want to test, but that is for later.

@pelicaniforce.

If you actually read what I post, you would realize I use the same simple examples to illustrate the points I want to make.

However, the points I try to make are different in each thread.

I asked Powerfisting why not replace the weapon and armour interaction with opposed values, as the to hit and to wound resolution all use opposed values in these new rules

It seemed odd to me ,using the resolution method that GW made backward compatible to a game GW no longer make.(fixed save rolls from WHFB.)

I also asked why not use the phases players are used to, move shoot assault etc.Rather than create new unfamiliar names for phases.

I also expressed concern over using F.o.C using slots based on function, as this artificially restricts the lists available.
Where as every other game that uses F.o.C slots based on rarity allow much more diverse lists.

In the Wise Danes thread I expressed concern over the generic unit interaction found In Epic.
EG A 'Epic dev infantry unit' has the same profile .Where as 40k players want every different load out to have a different profile.

So the only options for a 40k game based on epic rules is limit the units used, or resort to lots of special rules.

I post in '40k re write' threads to try to understand exactly what the OP is trying to achieve.
Eg define the intended scale and scope of the new rules and what sort of game play they want to end up with.
So I can try to offer useful suggestions.

If some people do not understand what I post, I am happy to try to explain things in simpler terms .

Trying to fix 40k without stating what the OP believes the core issues are , and what they want to end up with.
Can make it difficult to post useful suggestions/ideas.

If the thread sets out what the perceived problems are, what the proposed solutions are at the start.

It makes it easier for everyone to post useful comments.

 Powerfisting wrote:

How does overkill trigger? I can't tell, but if it is a normal.rule.and not a special rule, it will be a playable game I think.

Overkill is my replacement for Instant death. This is tentative, as auto hits/ wounds exist, which would account for interactions that deserve to be quite absolute, but then monsters and large vehicles are still around so if it stays, it will mostly be for the design space. That way, large models can be hurt quickly but don't get dropped from one lucky shot.

ic. I wasn't sure, because it is right below the hits/wounds chart, and it references a separate "multiple wounds."

I hoped it was a default mechanic built in to the hit/wound/save process. Most skirmish games with independent models in small numbers would usually include in the basic attack process rules for inflicting variable amounts of hit points/wounds, and rules for inflicting crippled status effects. Then it is the same for tank/monster/giant robot games. You already have a "skirmish" aspect because you can get multiple multi-wound character models. With all the MCs and armored units around that aren't even super heavies, that is a mechanism that really needs to be in the game. It kind of looked like you were saying that "over scoring" on one of the hit or wound rolls would inflict overkill.

(and that chart is so mathematically skewed. why?)

My idea was that wounds that cause overkill would cause d3 wounds instead of the usual one by "Gaining" the "Multiple Wounds (d3)" rule when the criteria for causing overkill. Would it be better if I cleaned up that rule? I might remove Overkill as a main rule altogether and amend the Multi Wound rule to go off on all attacks where strength double out toughness. It was an addition that happened later. Initially, I wanted to see what would happen in an Instant death- less environment for testing purposes and played many test games without it, only to realize that I had introduced other new features without taking into account that I would eventually have to incorporate some kind of Instant death equivalent.

The chart is still a work in progress, tbh. Before I incorporated Overkill, I had the idea that auto wounds/hits would pick up for the lack of Overkill by "naturally" deciding that some interactions should have been absolute. And boy, was that a bad idea. In one test game, we had it set up so that grav weapons were set up so that they wounded easier on higher toughness and did worse on low toughness (not anymore) in addition to the current chart. My brother has a unit of two grav centurions and a lascannon sgt. He proceeds to erase two rhinos in one phase and reduce my third (and only one left) to 1 wound. I love coming up with ideas for this project and getting criticism to make it a better game, but boy are test games just dumb fun.

I admit I may have gone too far with the to hit modifiers. Initially, the idea was just to make shooting weaker. With the proliferation of SM, most shooting operates on 3+ to hit, weaker guys hitting on 4+. I wanted to shift line infantry shooting into the 4/5+ range so that anything that hits on a 2/3+ feels really special. Later, I kept having ideas about certain positioning strategies I wanted to be relevant and the to-hit roll was the catch all area for that. I want them all to be there eventually, but maybe modifying other things.

That sounds good.

I've mused on some modifiers affecting things that aren't directly related to damage, like range and stuff.

The range penalties may require their own mechanic that doesn't involve any modifiers. The idea there was to differentiate "small arms" from "not small arms" and "most definitely not small arms." Now, line infantry have a niche that needs to be filled that only they fill to the end that they no longer are a tax.

Is it that infantry are good because they can hit well when close to the enemy, and heavy weapons can't?

Its not that they will be "good," in the modern tournament scene where players will say, "hot damn! these tac marines are gonna put out so much damage and there's nothing anyone can do about it!" Instead, it will be prudent and natural for troops to be the bread and butter of the force because while other units are "good," going full tilt on those units would be unwise because of practical limits and a need to support them.

I mean if a model has a high MRK or SKL, say 8, against a low EVA or SKL, say 3, and a moderate STR advantage say 7 vs RES 4, then it is strange that his attack only does one wound. If you shoot a lascannon at a RES 5 or 6 monster, and really nail it, you should be able to do more than one wound. If you put a bolt round directly into the face of a 3 wound human, you should do at least two wounds.

You didn't need that in the 3rd and fourth edition incarnations of this game because most units were large units with one wound. Now you have more independent characters and more large creatures.

what if instead of Overkill as I have implemented it, I remove it and integrate it throughout all damage interactions? So, for every point scored on the to hit/wound roll beyond the minimum needed to wound, an additional hit/ wound is scored?

So if I need a 3+ to hit and a 4+ to wound, and roll a 4 to hit and a 5 to wound, I score two hits which deal two wounds? That sounds crazy, so the generated hits/ wounds would be easier to save, perhaps.

I could also shift the generation of additional dice down a step, so high to hit rolls would generate an additional attack and to wound rolls would generate hits that I would need to roll normally. Currently, this is basically a USR in my own game called Sustained attack. I could make it so that generated rolls cannot generate more rolls and the Sustained attack rule suspends that restriction, but makes it so that generated rolls would succeed only on higher results.

This would remove the need for a few special rules, allow for some statistical gradation and allow the resolution chart to remain without a lot of drastic tweaking.

I mean, a single STR 6 hit could force four saves then, which seems like a lot.

Do you see what I mean about multi-wound single models and one wound squads though?

pelicaniforce wrote:
I mean, a single STR 6 hit could force four saves then, which seems like a lot.

Do you see what I mean about multi-wound single models and one wound squads though?

I kind of see what you mean. Could you elaborate a bit more? Is the real problem the resolution chart or more the resolution process?

I have to say it is the combination between type of game and resolution process. If the game is almost entirely squads of infantry, bikes, and cavalry, with very few independent characters or trans which are there just fit decoration, the process is fine. I'd the number of units in two opposing armies on the table is equally split among squads, ICs, armor, giant walkers, and flyers, then the process is bad because you really need a variable damage step or stat for the squads element to be able to compete. I say "or stat" because it doesn't have to be an extra roll, you could have fixed damage amounts on every weapon profile, or a fixed chart for any given STR doing a specific amount of damage to a given RES.


The chart

That's fair. In future versions, I think I'm going to incorporate a lot of things that would mitigate the hero hammer, though. The game I want kind of is a game with lots of infantry and light transports supported by fewer characters and monsters. That said, a lot of weapons have the WFB style Multiple Wounds rule, which was an attempt to reduce the relative efficiency of High- ROF Mid STR guns. Failing that, I could just incorporate that into the main statline of all weapons, but that would feel kind of empty for all of the weapon profiles that would still only do one damage per wound.

I've been floating a few ideas around:

In early versions, I attempted to apply my own version of the vehicle damage chart to all models larger than size 4. At first it was also a random chart. Then, I took an idea from this forum where there was an effect associated with each point rolled over the base roll needed to score a wound (so if I need a 3+ and I roll a 4, that's a "1" on this chart and a relatively weak effect happens).

I fully intend to "overcost" some models. It will be observed that bikes for instance lost some special rules but bike marines have actually gone up in point cost. A lot of options on SM commanders are more expensive too; I also intend to experiment with raising their base cost. As I am able to get some more testing done, I want a lot of monsters like Greater Daemons, Daemon Princes, Hive Tyrants, etc. to be more expensive. The goal isn't to overcost them out of viability but to find a point cost sweet spot where taking one to support a practical army is a good idea but an army of flying daemon princes makes you feel just as silly as you look.

I would also like for large single model units to feel individually more "Unwieldy" than an infantry squad. I'm not sure how I want to do this, but I definitely feel like a squad of infantry, even a large one should have some kind of maneuverability that large monsters can't pull off.

How would you alter the chart to be less skewed?

It can be skewed however you want, I'm just asking a question.

I know mathematically that there is a greater difference in probability between 6+ and 5+ than there is between 5+ and 4+, and both are bigger than the difference between 4+ and 3+. So why did you decide to weight every jump on the d6 the same, instead of closer to their probabilities? Instead of, for example, having the roll jump from 4+ to 3+ when the attacker has two more points of SKL, and then to 2+ when he is three points better, since 2+ is not as much of an improvement as 3+.


I am just saying that as an example. On the d6, the marginal differences vary, but on you chart the characteristic differences are simple increments.



Then there is the problem of what stats are being used. MRK and STR attack other characteristics, but SKL attacks SKL. So when they use the same chart, being at a MRK or STR disadvantage only hurts you once, because defense is handled by EVA and RES but being at a SKL disadvantage hurts you coming and going. If you are going to go with a uniform increment where you get an extra pip the d6 for every x of a stat, Why is getting hit more easily and having a harder time hitting for being one point of SKL down better than a chart where being one point down still lets you be hit more easily, but still allows you to hit on 4+, and being down two points does make your attacks hit on 5+ but does not make you easier to be hit than being done just one?



You could try to make a perfect chart for the d6 if you had no limits on characteristic scores, e.g. while models with equal skill but on 4+, a model with a SKL of 81 would hit on 3+ against a model with SKL of 54, but that model with SKL of 54 would hit on 5+ against models with SKL around 72. This is obviously very impractical. That is a reason I can't say anything about your chart until I know a little more about why you favor of over other possibilities.

pelicaniforce wrote:
It can be skewed however you want, I'm just asking a question.

I know mathematically that there is a greater difference in probability between 6+ and 5+ than there is between 5+ and 4+, and both are bigger than the difference between 4+ and 3+. So why did you decide to weight every jump on the d6 the same, instead of closer to their probabilities? Instead of, for example, having the roll jump from 4+ to 3+ when the attacker has two more points of SKL, and then to 2+ when he is three points better, since 2+ is not as much of an improvement as 3+.


I am just saying that as an example. On the d6, the marginal differences vary, but on you chart the characteristic differences are simple increments.

But the increment difference between different rolls doesn't change like that. You are about 17% more likely to roll a 4+ than a 5+. You are also (about) 17% more likely to roll a 5+ than a 6+. So my chart weighs each result equally.

Then there is the problem of what stats are being used. MRK and STR attack other characteristics, but SKL attacks SKL. So when they use the same chart, being at a MRK or STR disadvantage only hurts you once, because defense is handled by EVA and RES but being at a SKL disadvantage hurts you coming and going. If you are going to go with a uniform increment where you get an extra pip the d6 for every x of a stat, Why is getting hit more easily and having a harder time hitting for being one point of SKL down better than a chart where being one point down still lets you be hit more easily, but still allows you to hit on 4+, and being down two points does make your attacks hit on 5+ but does not make you easier to be hit than being done just one?

Now this I had not thought of. I'm reluctant to introduce another whole stat to work this problem out though. Do you imagine folding EVA into MRK and rolling MRK vs MRK would even this out? Failing that, SKL could also roll on a chart against EVA.

Ah, actually, you are referring to percentage points. Those are useful things for some people, but they are different than percentages. It is apparently a common mistake to make.

I think I'd like to let Google take care of that, there should be some examples about interest rates or course grades. The example for 40k I can give is that when fighting Marines it is really bad to have s3, but only superficially nice to have WS or BS 5. Imagine if the only bonus to taking Sternguard were bs5, with no special ammo.

Anyway I'm sure after a little bit of reference you'll find that hitting on 5+ is a 100% improvement on hitting on 6+, and 2+ is only 25% better than 3+.

Ok. I will look that up for myself. Thanks for the input!