Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hi folks.
This is a thread to discuss ideas that were being developed in another thread, but were running counter to the OPs ideas.So I decided to relocate them here.

My theory is if we make simple changes to the CORE 40k game mechanics and resolution methods so they can cover more game play , we can drastically reduce rules bloat and end up with a much more tactical game that also plays much faster too.(And is probably easier to balance.)

So my proposal is to try to optimize what is already in the core 40k rules.
In brief, use an alternating phase game turn, re introduce movement values, and use one opposed table to cover all units combat interaction.

Players are used to the 'action phases'.
So as a starting point I would like to try alternating phases, as a simple and easy to understand way of improving the level of player interaction.

EG
A moves,
B moves,
A shoots
B shoots.
A assaults
B assaults.

This game turn has been proven to work with previous 40k re-write with a minimum of fuss.(And can also be used to model simultaneous actions !)

Tactical stance of the unit is decided in the movement phase.(Similar to the old 2nd ed options.)
If the unit remains stationary , it may fire to full effect.*(Heavy/ordnance weapons.)

If the unit moves it may shoot in the shooting phase,or go to ground in the shooting phase.(+1 Evasion.)

If the units moves twice it may not shoot or assault in the shooting or assault phase.

If the unit charges into assault with an enemy unit in the movement phase both units are 'locked in assault' and can not shoot in the shooting phase.

Re introducing a movement value would help remove the randum rolling and movement special rules , that slow the game down.IMO.

I believe it is important to keep the 3 stage damage resolution, roll to hit, roll to save, roll to damage.(In a slightly more intuitive order.)

The other thing I think is important is to increase the granularity of the 'resolution table', so we can use it to cover ALL unit interactions for all units.
This reduces the pointless complication of half a dozen resolution methods, to just one universal combat resolution table.
Eg 3 stage damage resolution using full 6 values of a D6 gives over DOUBLE the current range of results found in 40k.

This is the table that was last posted , (and is up for review obviously.)

A = Active player ,(rolling the dice) Stat.
O= opposing player. stat.

A/O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1....,4,4,5,5,6,6,n,n.n,n
2.....3.4.4.5.5.6.6.n.n.n.
3.....3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.n.n.
4.....2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.n.
5.....2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.
6.....1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.
7.....1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.
8.....1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5
9.....1.1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4
10...1.1.1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.
(n= no effect,)

This would mean units have an Active stat for when they roll dice;-
To hit at range,(Shooting skill.)
To hit in close combat,(Melee Skill)
Armour save.(Armour value)
To damage.(Damage value.)

And an Opposed stat ,for when the opponent is rolling dice.
To avoid being hit at range,(Evasion.)
To avoid being hit in close combat.(Dodge.)
To penetrate armour.(Armour penetration value.)
To resist damage.(Resilience.)

I have used new names (....) to try to avoid confusion with the way existing stats are used.

This table has some features that are important.The auto fail /auto pass results are needed to stop 'willful distortion of proportion.'
Which lead to WTF moments in the game.(It is also a good indicator of limitations without having to narrate them with wordy special rules. )

Also the 'slight stretch of scale' is to allow more modifiers to the stat line , without the limitation of 16,667% increments.

If we add 1 to the current BS value to get the new Shooting skill.(Stat range of 3 to 8)
We can give units a Evasion Stat of 3 to 8 too, depending on size sillhuette general agility/equipment and skills.

EG a large tank type vehicle like a Land Raider could be Evasion 3, where as a Ratling sniper could be Evasion 8.

So a Space Marine Shooting skill 5 is shooting at a Land Raider Evasion 3, and needs 3+ to hit.
A Space Marine Shooting Skill 5 shooting at a Ratling sniper Evasion 8 needs a 5+ to hit.

We can use some simple modifiers to the unit stats.
EG being 'In Cover' adds 1 to the units Evasion Stat,Being 'gone to ground' adds a further +1 to the units evasion stat. Targeters/Git Finders/Marker lights etc add +1 to Attacker Shooting skill.

I would like to use the same table to generate the save rolls for all units.

Current alpha play test values.(You have to start some where. )
(Opposed values)
lasgun Ap 2
Bolt gun Ap 3
heavy Bolter Ap 4
Plasma Ap 5
Krak Ap 6
Melta Ap 8
Rail gun Ap 10

(Active values)
Infantry 6+ to 2+ saves transfer to Av 1 to Av 5.
Terminators have Av 6 to Av 7.(Count as light vehicles)
Vehicles get AV 6 to Av 10.(Current Av values Av 10 to Av 14.light to heavy vehicles.)

A simple way to model suppression it .If a unit fails more armour saves than it has hit points (wounds.structure points) left.It becomes suppressed.

Suppression could simply be. restrict suppressed units to one action per turn. until rallied.(Move or shoot.)

In a similar way to how we can use the table to determine the to hit roll, we can use it to generate the to damage(wound) roll.

Ill stop there for replies,comments ,questions and any alternatives you want to discuss.

@All.
I have realized my opening post has more of a 'mid thread aspect' by posting some ideas for solutions to problems that have not been highlighted and discussed in this thread yet.

So rather than insert new lines in the 'opening overview' of possible solutions.I would ask you to kindly gloss over my oversight/enthusiasm.

And read the following general issues that seem to be universally repeated by 40k rules critiques?

The game turn..
1)Lack of player interaction in the game turn/too much opponent down time.
2)Lack of tactical interaction.

Movement.
1)Moving units multiple times.
2)Too much random movement and too many special rules for movement.

Combat Resolution.
1)Too many resolution systems , (that add pointless complication, and makes game balance practically impossible.)
2) Over simplified front end, that requires too many special rules to add the granularity of results back in later.

Morale system.
1)It would be nice to have one!Practically complete focus on causing physical damage.(So close combat and ranged combat compete for the same limited function.)
2) Special rules were added, along with other changes to make units more survivable because shooting was too effective,AND then they buffed Assault units to make them worth taking.Leading to the Codex creep and 'Meta Flip Flop' that drives sales short term , but royally screws over game play.

I would like to try to correct the foundation of the rules, by optimizing the basic elements that players of 40k are used to .

IMO, the 3 things that players have indicated are intrinsically 40k.(Eg I got the most grief about when I removed/changed them, )
1)Action phases.
2)Rolling D6
3) 3 stage damage resolution.


Solutions for the Game turn.
I am aware there are some people who prefer alternating unit activation to alternating phases.
But if we are adding unit based tactical choices to the game.(Which I hope we will.)Then alternating phases/Actions game turn, can be swapped out with alternating unit activation game turn with the minimum of fuss.(I know because I have done it a few times... )

So I would like us to use the very simple alternating phases, as the basic start point.(As highlighted in my above post.)
Because this system is very simple easy to use, its a good one to use in a re focusing of the 40k rules, IMO.

As it gives CLEAR sequencing for players.

You move your units in the movement phase.(ALL movement is done here!)

You shoot with units in the shooting phase.

You fight assaults with units in the assault phase.

(I would like to use any psychic powers in the appropriate phase rather than have a separate phase specifically for them for now.We can add a psychic phase back in later.IF it is needed. )

If we introduce a Speed value , to show how far a unit can move when taking a movement action.This value can be reduced by a set amount when moving through difficult terrain,
This would go a long way to removing lots of special rules clutter and randomness from the current 40k movement rules..

If we used the following tactical stances for units, to add a bit of simple tactical planning back into the game in the movement phase..

a)If the unit remains stationary , it may fire to full effect.*(Heavy/ordnance weapons.)

b)If the unit moves it may shoot in the shooting phase,OR go to ground in the shooting phase instead of shooting.(+1 Evasion.)

c)If the units moves over its speed value up to double its speed value it may not shoot or assault in the shooting or assault phase.

d)If the unit charges into assault with an enemy unit, (up to double its speed value.)In the movement phase both units are 'locked in assault' and can not shoot in the shooting phase.The Assault is resolved in the assault phase.

Has anyone got any objection/observations on the first part of this project , dealing with the proposed game turn changes, and the introduction of a speed value ?

I like the overall ideas, but I have some problems with the chart:
a lasgun (2) would penetrate a terminator or rhino armour on a 6...
a heavy bolter (3) would penetrate anything, save the toughest armour.
a plasmagun would penetrate anything.
I liked more the chart that someone (maybe you) proposed on another thread (warseer?), with a - double - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 6/2 - 6/3 - 6/4 progression.
This also permits to give tanks a 6/2 - 6/3 - 6/4 immunity, or to allow even a simple guardsman to score a hit on a space marine captain or tyranid genestealer in CC.
This is really a 1 cent opinion, I have never played much and have stopped after 6th ed broke out, with all its complications.

@Umagumo.
On the chart the Av is down the side,as it is the active stat.(the defender is rolling to save.)And the Ap value is read along the top.

So new Av 7(terminators and current AV 10 vehicles) are invunerable to AP 2 weapons (they roll a 1 to save.)

I forgot to post the Armour Buster rule which can address the issues you raised.

Armour buster. Only weapons with this ability can cause physical damage to 'AV 6' and above targets.
Weapons without this ability can only suppress targets with 'AV 6' or above, even if the target fails their save roll.

Weapons with Armour buster ability can only be used on targets with a natural Evasion value of 4 or lower.

However, I am happy to look at variations on the table and values when we get to play testing.

(I am just posting up some examples to help explain the new concepts so people can see if they have merit.)

If people are happy with the basic changes the the game turn and movement?
We can have a closer look at the combat resolution and morale mechanics perhaps?

(I also stopped using GW rules for 40k after 6th ed did not use any of the leaked rules, that tried to fix the issues with the game play. )

I like a lot of this, alternating phase activation with all movement moved to the movement phase is exactly what I'm currently doing with my own homebrew rule set at the moment.

I'm not sure about running everything on a single opposed stats table though. Whilst comparing BS with Evade in the same way you compare WS's makes things spretty simple but I don't think it helps any with the immersion. This is a Sci-Fi based game and the fact of the matter is that when people are shooting lasers at each other nobody is dodging, they're either going to hit or miss and the target doesn't get to move out of the way like they do in films. Personally I'm having BS represented the same way amour currently is, showing the minimum roll needed to hit with range and cover modifiers affecting it. I just don't think a single catch-all system works out well for everything.

@Imateria.
I have been looking at the 40k rules as an overview of the game system.
And the combat resolution seems to have had the 'front end' over simplified to attract more people.But the result is having to add the granularity back in in later.(With special rules, separate systems and additional systems. Leading to massive rules bloat and confusion. )

I am not saying using one table , for all 3 stages of damage resolution is the ultimate solution.(As it has not been fully developed or play tested yet ).

But in terms of improving the front end granularity, in a simple and straightforward way.(That should remove lots of rules bloat.) I think is worth having a good look at.

The opposed roll to hit at range .
If it was just human combatants in the game of 40k.Then the target size, shape ,speed,and shiluette would be identical and so there would be no need for an opposed skill to hit at range.
However, 40k is unique in having such a massive variation in the type of units in the game.

The skill opposed to hitting at range, is meant to represent how hard the target is to hit compared to 'standard infantry.'(So it is an alternative to a ' to hit modifier system ' .)

Currently a large brightly coloured tank, is just as easy to hit as a single small creature wearing a camo cloak!
Resulting in units that should rely on stealth to survive , not being able to .

I am not sure if the name 'Evasion' is entirely representative of this stat.Would 'Stealth' be a better name?(I am open to suggestions.)

I see what you mean now. Evade certainly evokes the image of soldiers literally dodging bullets when thats not really going to happen, but you're using it as more of a sillouhette, a "how hard is it to hit this unit based on size" stat. I like that idea, not a clue what you'd call the stat though.

The other thing to remember is that evading fire - even in real-world combat - doesn't have to mean "I see the bullet coming, then with Superman-level speed, I step out of the way or do a cool Matrix dodge". It can mean "I'm juking and jiving so much, moving across my enemy's field of view so erratically, that they can't easily line up a shot on me". This fits pretty neatly with what Lanrak is talking about: if a lumbering tank that's 4 meters long is slowly moving in a straight line across my sights, I'm going to have a much easier time hitting it than I will a little dog-sized Hormagaunt that's jumping around like a ferret on meth.

Ok, I understand.
Do you have in mind "base" stat values (ie shooting and evasion, melee and dodge) similar to 40k (standard troups have 3, elite have 4, more than 4 is super etc.), or if you want to tune them down a bit (as you did for armour penetration)?
This regarding also the "armour buster" rule
(if natural evasion 5 is granted to, let's say, hormagaunts or genestealers, a plasma or meltagun - wich I suppose will have ABust - would change a lot, especially plasma).

HI folks.
I am not that good at explaining things in the written format.So your feed back is really helpful , as it highlights the bits that are not that clear.

@jade_angel.
Excellent description of what I meant, but did not actually post.

As I am about as good at naming stuff as Leonado de Quirm.(Terry Pratchett reference.)I will use 'Shoot' skill and opposed skill of 'Evade' skill until some one can think of better names.

I think the range of values 3 to 8 for natural 'Shoot' and 'Evade' skills would give a reasonable range of granularity.
(And limited modifiers could extend the natural basic values up to 10 and down to 1 perhaps. Eg cover, and gone to ground add to the units Evade stat.And equipment like Targeters and 'Gitfinders ' could l add to the units Shoot skill for example.)

Now on to close combat.
Currently the alternating game turn needs to use a initiative stat to determine striking order in close combat.

How ever if we are using alternating phases, (and simulating simultaneous resolution .)The Initiative stat is a bit redundant.

My proposal is to use the Init stat as a basis for a new skill that is opposed to the chance to hit in close combat.

If we call the units chance to hit in assault The 'Melee' skill of the unit.
We could call the ability to 'Dodge out of the way of close combat strikes' a 'Dodge' Skill?

So Orks could be Melee skill of 5 and a Dodge skill of 3.
And Eldar Howling Banshee could have the same Melee Skill of 5, but a Dodge Skill of 6.

So both units have the same skill at putting a close combat blow on target.(Melee Skill.)

But the nimble and agile Eldar Howling Banshee, is much more likely to elegantly dodge out of the way of the lumbering ork boys wild swings, and land the first blow....So it sort of does the same job as the Initiative stat under the new game turn structure, and keeps the resolution similar to hitting at range.(Opposed skill on a chart.)

We could start with the simple conversion to the new stats of;_
Melee skill =current WS +1
Dodge Skill = Current Init +1

I know this is quite a radical change , but I think of 40k assaults as fast brutal and lethal ,both sides swinging and trying to connect.And only the skill of the opponent to dodge the flurry of blows , can prevent them being hit.

Some units are not that bothered about being hit in close combat ,if they have high armour or are really tough/resilient .(Or just homicidal maniacs in some cases... )

I probably need to explain that a bit better, but I hope you get the basic concepts of the change, and why I think it is worth looking at ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Umagumo.
I have not really looked into finalizing values yet.
I would like to see if we can agree on the basic concepts of how to tweek the core rules frame work to cover the 40k game play better, first.

The rough transfer values I posted up for converting current stat values in to the new stat values, was just to give starting points for a 'Alpha play test.'/'Proof of concept'.

If we have to extend the range of the table to 15 from 10 for example, to help get all the units to work how we want.(And even use different value ranges in the table.)
This would allow a much larger range of values , and a wider range of granularity to the resolution .

But it would not add any more complication to the rules.And I think this is quite important.

This is why I think opposed values on a table is a good resolution method.It is already (under)used in the current 40k rules.And is very adaptable from a development point of view.

SBG alternating phases and movement is what I like about LOTR. I think the easiest place to make a foundation is with Kill Team and SBG combined using the movement based mechanism of SBG and everything else of 40k (of course, no specialist stuff of kill team). The duel rolls in SBG was awesome for a demi curb to monster power (with monster strikes being the rebalancing factor to keep them relevant), perhaps use initiative to represent fight value, or weapon skill. However just keeping the 40k assault system is good for speed because units can potentially smite each other and end a fight in a turn instead of rolling duels for days.

Lanrak wrote:

A = Active player ,(rolling the dice) Stat.
O= opposing player. stat.

A/O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1....,4,4,5,5,6,6,n,n.n,n
2.....3.4.4.5.5.6.6.n.n.n.
3.....3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.n.n.
4.....2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.n.
5.....2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.
6.....1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.
7.....1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.
8.....1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5
9.....1.1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4
10...1.1.1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.
(n= no effect,)

This would mean units have an Active stat for when they roll dice;-
To hit at range,(Shooting skill.)
To hit in close combat,(Melee Skill)
Armour save.(Armour value)
To damage.(Damage value.)

And an Opposed stat ,for when the opponent is rolling dice.
To avoid being hit at range,(Evasion.)
To avoid being hit in close combat.(Dodge.)
To penetrate armour.(Armour penetration value.)
To resist damage.(Resilience.)

I see a lot of problems with a table that halves the possibilities.
You are limiting the profile values to 1-5 with double results which is even less diversity than adding the D6 result needed directly into the profile.

something like this would be more usefull and a flat +/-3 also allows to use values above 10 without a problem.

A/O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1.....4.5.6.n.n.n.n.n.n.n.
2.....3.4.5.6.n.n.n.n.n.n.
3.....2.3.4.5.6.n.n.n.n.n.
4.....1.2.3.4.5.6.n.n.n.n.
5.....1.1.2.3.4.5.6.n.n.n.
6.....1.1.1.2.3.4.5.6.n.n.
7.....1.1.1.1.2.3.4.5.6.n.
8.....1.1.1.1.1.2.3.4.5.6.
9.....1.1.1.1.1.1.2.3.4.5.
10...1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.3.4.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Imateria wrote:

I'm not sure about running everything on a single opposed stats table though.

If you gonna use a table, it should be always the same one.
using 2 different tables and 4 different ways of comparing stats is one of the basic problems of 40k.

But I agree that there is no need to get everything into this system and a flat to hit value for melee and ranged attacks with a S VS T and AP VS AV table would also work

@Da Kommisar.
I agree that the LoTR was a good rule set because A.C. wrote the rules specifically for the intended game play.(Movement rates and alternating phase game turn work well in other rule sets too.)

And if we were looking at using the 28mm minatures of 40k in a skirmish game , the rules would be much easier to write.
(As there are loads of great skirmish rules for 28mm minatures we can use/convert to. Every thing from Beyond the Gates of Antares, to Warzone.)

But using 28mm detailed minatures in a scifi company level battle game is unique to 40k, and has some 'unique challenges.'

Looking at the development of 40k, there seems to be a shift from 'tactical options' , to just 'improving lethal effect of attacks ,and model count accordingly' ,(from 3rd ed on wards.)It seems the influence of the GW sales department went from 'slight corruption' of game development to 'complete replacement' for game development. Eg from slight 'Codex creep' to 'break the game to sell stuff'.

I would like to start with a game 4th to 5th ed 40k size.
As the units 'shoe horned ' into 40k in 6th and 7th ed were all about propping up falling sales figure, rather than careful and balance growth in game play options.

@Kodos.
The table posted was just an example, to illustrate how one table could potentially be used to cover all 3 stages of combat resolution for all units.

ONLY the to hit stats would use the 3 to 8 range, to allow modifiers to extend them into the lower 1 to 2 range , or up into the higher 9 to 10 range.
(Armour values and Armour Penetration values would use the 1 to 10 range, as would damage values and resistance values. )

Shoot skill 3 vs Evade Skill 8 needs 6+ to hit.
Shoot Skill 8 vs Evade Skill 3 needs 1+ to hit
(So the table does generate the full range of 1+ to 6+ from the basic stats.)

(Current 40k rules tend to be flat 3+,4+, or 5+ to hit at range 90% of the time!)

(The reason for the 'extending the range' was to try to allow for finer differences than the current 16.667% efficiency jumps straight dice modifiers applied direct to the D6 results have..

Using one resolution method other than direct representation is my main goal here.

Comparing opposed values on a single chart would be ideal but if it needs an extra chart for each stage.(EG 1 chart for 'to hit,' one chart for 'to save' and one chart for 'to damage'.)
it is not adding that much in the way of complication.(Compared to multiple separate systems and special rules to just deal with weapon and armour interaction for example! )

Having simple 'flat values' at the start of the resolution process is what lead to the devs 'tacking on' all the additional layers of rules and systems that lead to all the complication in the first place!

My idea is to try to re focus the rules frame work to be more in synergy with the expected game play.
If we can design a straight forward 'fudge free' foundation to build the game on, we may be able to get a much better rule set at the end.

'Tactical functions' come back to attacks, and 'dustpan and brush' casualty removal is a thing of the past.And players have less 'set up time' and more game time and room for engaging tactical decisions...)

This is the biggest impact on game play and rules , of any of the changes.
And some people like the 'rack them up then sweep them off' nature of current 40k. If you prefer this over meaningful in game tactical decisions please do not read on.

Tactical effects of shooting.

1) Restriction of enemy L.O.S.
Allowing limited use of L.O.S munitions.(Smoke and Blind.)
This would allow units to restrict enemy L.O.S in a tactical way.(May be forcing them to move so they can fire ,and in moving incur the penalty of being restricted to what weapons they may fire.)

2)Reducing enemy movement/(effectiveness. )
Simple suppression,If a UNIT suffers more unsaved hits than it has 'Hit Points' remaining(generic term for wounds/structure points.)It becomes 'suppressed.'

Suppressed units stay suppressed until rallied.(Pass a morale test, at the start of next turn?.)
Suppressed units count as having moved.(So they can shoot with 'move and fire weapons', OR move once.)

Tactical effects of assault.
To push back an enemy unit. (Mainly used to clear objectives.But may also be used to destroy units in a more efficient way than just shooting at them.)

Now the intent of shooting and assault is still to wound/damage, however, the tactical 'side effects' now have an impact in the game.That means even if you 'A-Team ' your damage/wound rolls, your attack still can have an effect.
And because they have different tactical effects in game , one to restrict enemy actions/movement, the other to drive enemy units off objectives.(Or push them to where you have a tactical advantage.

I intend to resolve assaults after just one game turn .I think the fast fluid and brutal nature of 40k assaults is better reflected this way.

Ill stop there for now...

@All.
I am undecided on how to handle assaults in 40k.
The clash of regiments where 100s of soldiers are locked in a large scrum, pushing one way then the other sort of works for WHFB.

If you think assaults in 40k should be fast and furious exchange of attacks that is resoved quickly?

Latest ideas on assault resolution,

I think having the side that cause the most damage on the opposing units as the winner of the assault is simple and intuitive.
The side that suffered the least amount of damage wins the tie.
If damaged caused and sustained is tied then the side with the most remaining 'hit points' wins .

(I think this gives outnumbering a reasonable function in assault, without making it too powerful.)

However, I think the unit 'functionality' after the assault should depend on the state the unit finds themselves in. If they have sustained too much damage, they will NOT launch another assault next turn.

The actions of the winning units(s) after an assault.
If the winning unit has over half its starting strength it can act freely next turn.

If the winning unit is under half starting strength it can move and shoot normally, but can not launch an assault next turn.
And must pass an morale test before it can launch another assault.

The actions of the loosing units after an assault.
The losing side in the assault must 'Disengage' from the assault.
(We turn the losing models to face away from the winning models to indicate they are going to move away from the winners of the assault next movement phase.)
They must move away from the unit that beat them in the assault in their next movement phase.(Compulsory move.)

They may chose to 'Fall back' by moving twice in the same direction.
Or they may make a 'Fighting withdrawal' after the compulsory movement of the unit Speed value , away from the winning unit they can shoot 'move and fire ' weapons.

However, if the losing side has fallen below half starting strength, it must pass a morale test, or '*Route' from the assault.
(*The unit must move twice its mobility value away from the unit that beat it in the assault.The unit continues to Route away from enemy units until it passes a morale test.)

If the unit falls below half starting strength and passes this morale test it must 'Fall back'' from assault as above, rather than being 'Routed.'

This is an effort to get fluid movement and speedy resolution into 40k assaults.( I may need to explain it better though...)

It is just one possible direction we could take .I am happy to investigate others.

Hi folks.
I am not sure if the proposed changes to assault were to poorly explained to get a reply?Or are generally seen as an acceptable system for play testing ,at Alpha Stage?
But as no one has argued strongly against them I will move on..

The last part for revision is 'Command and Control' elements.

I was thinking of splitting this into 2 values, one is the willingness to fight on of the unit, and the other is the Command rating of the unit/leader/character.

To keep Morale tests simple , I was looking at using direct representation for the units Morale Grade.
To keep rolling high is good for morale.(As opposed to rolling low like current Ld rules.)
And to keep resolution to 1 D6 ,(As oposed to 2D6 for current Ld. values.)

This means we could use
Morale Grade 1, 'Fearless'.
Morale Grade 2,' Elite'
Morale grade 3 'Veteran'
Morale grade 4 'Trained'
Morale grade 5 ' Conscripted'

To pass a morale test simply roll over the units Morale Grade.
Modifiers.
Unit under half starting strength +1,
Unit is routing +1.

(I am happy to keep the current '25% casualty sustained in a game turn' break point for a morale test in addition to this.)

I do not like the all or nothing nature of the current 40k morale rules.As it means special rules tend narrate what is not happening , rather than letting the rules allow the game play to just happen.

I would also like to use a Command Value.This is to show how well the unit is lead.

This is to allow a bit more variety in unit behavior when average units are lead by Characters.(That do not have to be 'close combat monsters' to have an effect in the game. )

The Command Value is used to define the unit coherency.This is the imaginary base the models in the unit must stand on.
EG
A unit with a Command value of 4, allows the unit to spread out on an imaginary base 4" in rasius.
A unit with Command Value of 4 being lead by a Character with Command value of 6, would allow the units to spread out to 6" radius, imaginary base.

(We have play tested this unit diameter coherency , and it makes moving units much quicker than model to model coherency allows.)

An option for fear causing units is to compare the Fear rating to the units Command Value on the universal table .

EG a Unit with Command 4 wanting to charge a unit with Fear 2 , passes a Fear test on a 3+.

These are just some basic concepts for consideration.

So the new unit stat line could look like this.

Speed..............(How far the units moves when taking a movement action.)
Shoot Skill.......(Hoe good the unt is at hitting targets at range.)
Evade Skill......(How hard the units is to hit at range.)
Melee Skill......(How good the unit is at hitting targets in close combat assault.)
Dodge Skill.....(How hard the units is at avioding
Armour Value..(How much armour protection the unit has.)
Resilience....... (How hard the unit is to damage.)
Hit Points........(How many times the model/unit can be damaged before it is removed.)
Morale............(How willing the unit is to fight on.)
Command.......(How well the unit is lead.)

I would like all weapons to be displayed on the unit card/entry below the unit data.

(This is where attacks migrates to, if you were wondering.)
Weapon name
Effective range.
Attacks
Armour Piercing
Damage.
Type/Notes.

EG
Melee weapons.
Small arms.(Rifles,and pistol type general weapons.)
Support weapons.(Special weapons)
Fire Support weapons.(Move or Shoot weapons.)

@All.
Just going to round this thread off looking at the core issues with the current army composition /force organisation method.

Because selecting units by 'function' is so restrictive in terms of composition variation.

I would prefer to use a simple composition method that allows more narrative variety,based on how rare the unit is in that type of force.

Here is the new proposed F.O.C.

Select a HQ unit.

For every HQ unit selected you may take 2 to 8 Common units.

For every 2 Common Units selected, you may take 1 Support unit.

For every 2 Support units selected, you may take 1 Specialist unit.


As some one suggested this in another thread.I thought I would mention it here.

IF we used units cards, we could have the in game info on one side, (Unit stat line and weapon data)
And the force organisation information on the other side.

If each faction had several narrative builds.(based on the old Klans, Chapters, Craftworlds, Regiments etc.)

Each of these build types could have a colour assigned to it,

On the back of each unit card, the class of the unit for each build type could be listed.Along with point values for the unit.

EG a SM Assault Squad could be,
Support , in a 'Blue' vanilla 'Ultramarine type' army.
Common in a 'Red' fast attack assault 'Blood Angel type' army.
Specialist, in a 'Grey ' siege specialist 'Iron hands type' army.

I think to speed up army selection and improve game balamnce a bit of standardization in the basic units available would help.

For example
SM tac squads are purchased as a 10 man unit ,made up of a Heavy weapon combat squad, and a Special weapon combat squad with Sgt.

4 marines and a Heavy bolter.
4 marines and a Missile launcher.
4 marines and a lascannon

sgt and 3 marines and flamer.
sgt and 3 marines and melta gun
sgt and 3 marines and plasma gun.

In a similar way Devastator Squads have 2 support squads of 5, each with 2 heavy weapons.

In a similar way Assault squads have 2 assault squads of 5 . each with one special weapon .

Then upgrades to these 5 man squads can be applied using separate upgrade cards.(Similar to x-wing etc.)

Eg Vet sgnt cards , or special grenade load outs etc.

The unit cards made army selection much quicker in Epic SM.

I may need to explain that a bit better?

Hi Folks.
Just a quick post to let you know I am going to try to write this up in a simple PDF doc.Unfortunately my desk top publishing skills are rubbish.
So if those people who are more gifted in this area, could assist my in formatting and presenting these new rule ideas, I would be most gratefull.

I will attach a doc as soon as I get chance to type it up.
(Unfortunately my work load has shot up recently as I have to write CMM programs for a whole new line of products! )

Lanrak wrote:

I think having the side that cause the most damage on the opposing units as the winner of the assault is simple and intuitive.
The side that suffered the least amount of damage wins the tie.

Isn't this the same number? If we both caused 7 damage, we surely both received 7 damage?

@lord_blackfang,
Thanks for pointing that out.
I meant 'suffered the least amount of damage as a proportion of the units 'hit points'.(Wounds/structure points, ) at the start of the assault.Wins the tie'

Eg if 20 Ork boys were assaulting 10 Eldar Guardians. And both sides caused 5 casualties.(5 points of damage on single wound creatures.)

The Ork unit has only lost 1/4 of its starting wounds, where as the Guardian unit has lost half its starting wounds. So the Orks count as winning the assault.

This was to give 'hoard units' a boost.they may not have the best equipment or the highest skills ,but they depend on swamping the target with weight of numbers.
If we are resolving assaults in one game turn.It is important to keep the weight of numbers effect in the assault resolution IMO.

I have no fixed ideas on assault resolution.I am just trying out some simple alternatives.

HI folks.
Here is my typed up notes for the alpha play testing.I could do with some help in formatting this in to a 'rule set' layout.
I have put some issues in red text.Before outlining the solutions I wanted to try out in green text.And included some optional rules in blue text .

It needs some more work obviously, but it does show how all the ideas hang together in a 8 page document.So It may help people get a better view of the intended changes and why I think they are needed.

Please feel free to comment on anything you like the look of, or if some things need clarification.Or if you have an alternative idea that might be a better fit.

I think a properly formatted rule set should run to less than 40 pages.
If we use new ideas in game development from the past 30 years or so that 40k seems to have missed out on.

HI folks.
Just a few comments from our limited play testing so far.

The good.
The alternating phase game turn runs smooth and allows an improved level of interaction.

The simple suppression mechanic works well at letting shooting have an effect without having to cause casualties.
This means close combat units do not need as many ablative wounds.We found a mob of 20 is just as survivable under the new rues as a mob of 30 under the GW 7th ed rules.(Having Evasion to oppose shooting and the options to 'go to ground' instead of shooting , also helps a lot here.)

Reducing the 'mass of models' in hoard units, and performing all movement in the movement phase helps speed up game play.(Also removing dice rolls for movement helps here too.)

The introduction so suppression also allows units to support each other.(Suppress a unit before it is assaulted for example.)


The Bad.
Not overly 'bad' but a bit over complicated.

Trying to work out the percentage casualties if the damage inflicted was the same.Is time consuming and we decided to drop it.

If the amount of damage inflicted is the same, the unit that has the higher number of remaining wounds/structure points counts as winning the assault.

If these values are the same as well,The units have tied the combat.
The units are 'locked in assault' and will not move or shoot, but simply fight in assault next turn.

The simultaneous resolution option may require a bit more book keeping than I originally thought.However, the use of unit cards (like X-wing) .Could allow the unit order/status counter, and damage sustained dice to be kept off the playing area.(Put them on the unit card away from the models.)

The undecided.
The simple morale grade systems seems to work , but I am not sure its the best option.
Using coherency 'invisible base' method is much better than model to model coherency .However, I am not sure if declaring a Command radius is the best option?

The assault resolution is sort of heading in the right direction but needs a bit more work.

The range of values on the universal resolution table may be expanded, as this would allow heavy vehicle armour and anti tank weapons to function without an 'anti tank' special rule.
Mind you, compared to the 80-+ special rules in 7th ed 40k,Only having a couple of dozen special rules in a re-write could be acceptable.

Just a quick update.
We have tried out a few different morale resolution methods.

We borrowed the 'Nerve' method from K.o.W.As this meant we could directly port the Ld values from 40k. And have a D 6 roll over 12 to pass.
(High values good High rolls are good, roll 1 D6. This makes all 'resolution markers' identical.)

Negative modifiers add to the target score, and positive modifiers (Command Value) add to the unit morale value.

This system works , but is more fussy than the simple method we started with.(Which follows the direct representation 'resolution markers'.)

The barrage marker system from Epic is more suited to the smaller scale minatures used in epic.(It works but is not as un obtrusive/inclusive as the first suppression method we tried,)

Currently we are trying using A Command value of 1,2,or 3 In conjunction with the Morale Grade System.
Each command value is tied to a command template size.
(This way we can adjust the command radius to what we need rather than having to declare its radius in inches as the command value.)

This way the Command Value can be added to the dice roll when taking a Morale test ,(Roll over Morale Grade on a D6.)

Also giving characters 'Hero Points ' instead of extra wounds, allows characters that are not supposed to be 'close combat monsters',shine in other areas, by inspiring the units around them!

The Hero points idea needs more work, but is is a area we want to look at in more detail.