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.
2016/10/15 01:26:18
Subject: 40k Fan 8th Edition: A much simplified game
So the last couple weeks have been a lot of discussions on where 40ks missteps are and where it might be going and how best it could get there. The ideas are spread across a bunch of threads over a range of subjects. I wanted to try to condense a lot of the most recent/best ones that keep cropping up and see if we might be able to slap together something that could be play tested on a small scale (1000 points or less) and expanded as we go. I will keep this OP updated with the most recent rules and ideas. Lets see if we can get a really fun game out of 40k!
Change Log. Updated 11/8/16
Spoiler:
11/8/16 -Added a list submitted for Tau. First pass at a conversion for Supporting Fire rule. Requires testing and probable adjustment. Please provide feedback. ore lists incoming.
11/3/16 -Small fixes to assault phase text. Added separate explanation of Tactical Retreat. A Tactical Retreat no longer has to move towards table edge. A unit that chooses to break away from a combat may head in which ever direction they wish. Also explained Consolidate. You now Consolidate at 1/2 M but must ensure coherency.
11/1/16 -Changed how WS functions. -Updated Nid and Necron Lists to reflect new stat lines
10/28/16 -Tightened up some language around the various sections. -Added 800 point lists for Necrons and Tyranids to replace block of testing stat lines.
10/27/16 -Added Steady! to Orders. -Added Combat Speed! to Orders. -Added Cruising Speed! to Orders. -Changed Sv to Av. Since that save represents your armor save all models now have a "Armor Value". Functions the same just a rename. -GREATLY Updated Unit types - Mostly Vehicles. -Updated Status Flying - Renamed to Airbourne. Functions the same. Now "Aircraft Vehicles that are Flying are considered Airbourne" as opposed to "Aircraft Vehicles that are Flying are considered Flying". I think that sounds better. -Changed M attributes on play test units to reflect new phase of testing. This is a increase from previous M attributes across the board.
10/25/16 -Added the section "Weapon Types". -Added "Turbo Boost" to Unit Actions. -Added "Turbo Boost!" to Orders. -Added the section "Unit Types" -Mentions Bulky (*) Special Rule - Clarification in Notes
Notes: This reduces the number of weapon types greatly. Only one Weapon type will prevent charging into assaults, 2 weapon types will reduce BS if the model moves before shooting. Things like salvo and rapid fire will be a part of the basic weapons profiles in the form of variable range and # of shots. As a result you can have a rapid fire assault weapon (Weapons like a assault rifle or Uzi) and rapid fire heavy weapons (I am thinking something like a SAW). The intent is to greatly simplify the need to look up the various weapon rules by placing more information on the weapon profile and making the restrictions each weapon type imposes much simplified and easier to memorize.
As of this Update the following have been cut from the game.
Unit Types Cut: Jetbikes (Now just Bike (Skimmers)), Artillery, Jump, Jet Pack, Beasts, GMC, Chariots, Heavy, Fast, Super Heavy Walkers, Super Heavy Tanks.
Turbo Boost introduces the concept of Mounted Weapons on bikes. It notes that Mounted Weapons are immune to the BS penalties for moving. I want to clarify how this functions here.
A model suffers a -1 BS when using a Heavy Weapon as part of a shooting attack if that model has moved. A model suffers a -1 BS if it Runs as part of it's move action. This means a model would suffer a -2 BS when using a Heavy Weapon as part of a shooting attack if that model moved during the move action and was part of a unit that Runs.
A bike with a Heavy Weapon mounted on it can move without suffering the -1 BS penalty. It would STILL suffer the -1BS if the unit Runs. In this case the penalty is not coming from the fact that the model Moved (that penalty is negated by the fact that it is mounted) but is instead coming from the Run action itself. Likewise a Unit of bikes that Turbo boosts will Suffer a -1 BS and if it chooses to run could end up with a -2 BS.
If, somehow, there was a bike unit that had a heavy weapon that was not Mounted that Turbo Boosts and Runs it would fire that heavy weapon at -3 BS. If this brings the units BS to 0 or less it would be unable to fire the weapon.
The Bulky Special Rule is being changed to Bulky #. Instead of 3 different Bulky special rules there will be 1 with a number. The number is the number of models the model with this special rule counts as for determining transport capacity. Bikes in this example are Bulky 3 and thus each single bike counts as 3 models for transport purposes.
Vehicles are not done yet. I will finish it up tomorrow. I found some issues with Ramming which is kind of the new and only "tank shock" that needs to be adjusted.
10/19/16 -Added the section "Unit Actions". -Changed "The Game Round and Player Turn". Now there are orders you can give to an activated unit. These orders determine the permissions granted to a unit during their activation. -Moved "Psychic Powers" into "Unit Actions" -Updated "Assault" to reflect the way information is distributed across the rules. -Added a "Special Thanks!" section for contributors of mechanics! Thanks everyone!
Core design goals.
Spoiler:
Simple Tight Rules: There should be as little looking up special rules as possible. The game should be easy to learn over the course of a couple games. Depth of game play should come from interactions. We want to reduce resolution methods. Reduce unique special rules to the things that actually need them. Fix complexity where ever we can find it.
I would like us to gut the game here if needed. Every mechanic is up for scrutiny. If something seems good enough lets rip into it and see if we can make it better.
Simple Army Construction: There needs to be a simple and effective way for people to build their army list. That starts with the FoC and logical restrictions to maintain a balance. I would like to start with the 30k method. I will expand on that more below. But returning to design goal 1, this is free to be torn down and rebuilt as something else entirely if there is a easier better way to do it. Nothing is sacred here.
No Immunity to Basic Mechanics Things like Fearless and ATSKNF are widespread in 7th. Whole parts of core mechanics don't function for large swathes of the armies out there. None of that. If Fearless exists it exists rarely. Moral needs to play a part in the game for all forces.
Active Game Play and Tactical/Strategic Counter Play Too much of 40k as it is now involves lots of down time and waiting while the other player takes their many actions. You often have no choice but to watch barrage after barrage come your way with little to no answer but whatever ends up weathering the storm to dump onto them when it's your turn. Too many mechanics are closed systems that leave players incapable of reacting to them. As much as possible we need to open up options for counter play. Players need to be able to react reasonably to the other player to allow for a more active game of risk and reward.
That is it. Lets not start the simple game with complicated goals.
Unless changed here, use the base line 7th ed rules to fill in any gaps in the game play for the time being. The goal will be to fill those gaps as we go.
There are a few important things to note. -That single image with the primary and secondary detachments is all you get. There are no multiple FoC charts. No formations. No Decurions. Everyone gets the one. -LoW cannot be taken in games below 2k points per army and cannot cost more then 25% of your total army value. -Each army will have a special rule that allows access to Rites of War. Units that have this special rule will be limited to 1 for every 1k points in your army. RoW will be different for each faction. Preferably with a few generic options and then some unique to specific sub factions. For instance there will be generic space marine RoW and then ones unique to different chapters.
For the opening of this play test we won't worry about RoW just yet. As we start to expand and convert units I would love to add more to them.
Agents of -BLANK-
Some sub-factions and mini-dexes and sometimes just data slates will be Agents of -Faction- (Example: Agents of The Imperium). These units can occupy the allied detachment or LoW detachment for any faction that they are a part of. Imperial Knights are not their own faction. You cannot JUST play knights. They are Agents of the Imperium and can be taken as a LoW choice for any of the Imperium of Man factions. Knights may also be Agents of other factions. There is an Imperial Knight that has been corrupted by a Genestealer Cult. There will be a data slate for his knight as a "Agent of the Cult".
The Stat Line (I.E. Attributes)
Spoiler:
Weapon Skill (Ws) Now functions like BS. A WS of 3 hits on a 4+. No comparing attributes to determine success.
Ballistic Skill (Bs) As 7th.
Strength (S) As 7th.
Toughness (T) As 7th.
Attacks (A) As 7th.
Wounds (W) As 7th.
Movement (M) This stat represents the number of inches the model can move during the movement phase. If the model decides to run it can run half movement value, rounded up. If a model decides to charge it can charge the full value. (As a rough example things like jump packs will add +2" to a models movement and allow them to ignore the effects of difficult terrain, Difficult terrain would reduce a models movement by 2".)
Armor Value (Av) This will function in parallel to BS.
The idea here is that it's no longer the only stat working in reverse from all the others. Also, because it is not represented by the roll, abilities can add or subtract from the various save types to represent better or worse rolls. A 2+ save does not need to go to a full rerollable 2+ save. It can instead be a 2+/6+ when you improve a Armor Sv 5 to 6.
Leadership (Ld) As 7th.
Unit Actions
Spoiler:
Move: The unit may move each model up to a number of inches equal to their M attribute. If a model touches terrain at any point during it's move it immediately suffers any effects of the terrain. The model gains any of the terrains benefits so long as it stays in contact with the terrain. A unit that makes a Move action counts as having Moved until it's next activation phase.
Run: The unit may move each model up to a number of inches equal to 1/2 their M attribute. The entire unit suffers a -1 to BS until the units next Activation Step. A unit that Runs counts as having Moved until it's next activation phase.
Shooting Attack: As per the Shooting Phase in the BRBpg.30 with some exceptions. The unit may target units locked in combat.
Charge Action The player must declare a valid enemy unit that it wishes to Charge. In order for the enemy unit to be a valid target at least one model in your unit must be able to reach base to base contact with a model in the target unit by moving up to a number of inches equal to it's M attribute by the most direct path possible. A unit that charges gains +1 A. A unit that charges begins an Assault.
Some times a unit may need to make a Disorder Charge. A Disordered Charge functions exactly like a Charge Action but the unit does not gain a +1 A and cannot benefit from any special rules that effect Charge Actions and Assaults.
Over Watch: A unit on Over Watch may, during an enemies activation, interrupt their turn to make a Shooting Attack at 1/2 range. The controlling player may choose to do this before or after any actions the enemy player makes with their unit. If you choose to interrupt a unit that is charging into assault the enemy unit is not counted as being locked in combat for the purpose of this shooting attack. If you choose to interrupt a Embark action the player may make their Shooting Attack before the unit is removed from the table. If you choose to interrupt a Disembark action the player may make their Shooting Attack after all models from the Disembarking unit have been placed on the table.
If the Over Watch unit Goes To Ground or moves for any reason (including Falling Back) they are removed from Over Watch. All units deployed at the beginning of the game begin the game on Over Watch.
Embark: The player must declare that the unit will embark upon a valid transport vehicle. In order for the Transport Vehicle to be valid the unit must be able to move each model a number of inches equal to it's M attribute to within 3 inches of one of the vehicles access points. At least one model must make base contact with the transport vehicle or it's base. Move each model a number of inches up to it's M attribute as close as possible to the access point. Remove the unit from the table making sure it is clear to the opponent that the unit is embarked upon the vehicle. A unit that Embarks counts as having Moved until it's next activation phase.
Disembark: The player places each model from the disembarking unit within 3 inches of the access point of the Transport Vehicle they are Disembarking from. A unit that Disembarks counts as having Moved until it's next activation phase.
Turbo Boost: The unit may move each model up to a number of inches equal to their M attribute x2. The entire unit suffers -1 to BS until their next activation phase. If a model touches terrain at any point during it's move it immediately suffers any effects of the terrain. The model gains any of the terrains benefits so long as it stays in contact with the terrain. A unit that makes a Turbo Boost action counts as having Moved until it's next activation phase.
Manifest Psychic Powers: A unit that is capable of manifesting psychic powers may attempt to manifest each power it knows once with certain limitations. Manifesting Psychic Powers requires a Ld test. This test is modified by the Warp Charge cost of the power and the number of powers they have attempted to manifest so far.
If the Ld test is passed the power is manifested successfully. If the test is failed the power fails. If the caster rolls doubles the model or models that attempted to manifest the power suffer Perils of the Warp.
Example: A Ld 10 model that attempts to manifest a 2 WC power would require a roll of 8 or less. But if they attempted to manifest a second power at 2 WC it would require a roll of 7 or less.
Deny the Witch Any unit may attempt to Deny the Witch for any power that it is being cast upon it. If a model is capable of Manifesting Psychic Powers it's unit may attempt to Deny the Witch for any power that is being generated by a model, or is targeting a unit, that is at least partially within 12" of the Psyker model. Each power may only be denied by a single unit.
Deny the Witch requires a roll of 2d6. If the unit attempting to Deny rolls a 11+ the unit succeeds This roll is modified by the difference in mastery levels. If the roll is successful the power is canceled and fails to manifest. If the Deny roll fails the power is successful and manifests according to the power.
Example: A mastery level 2 Psyker attempts to Deny a power manifested by a Mastery level 1 Psyker. Because he is 1 level above the enemy he gains a +1 to his roll. He rolls a 10 and because of the +1 succeeds. The power has been denied and fails to manifest.
Each Witchfire and Nova power counts as a single weapon for the purpose of determining how many weapons the model can fire in a Shooting Attack.
If a infantry model can fire 1 weapon in the shooting phase it can choose to manifest any benediction or malediction powers it knows and a single weapon.
Weapon Types
Spoiler:
Every weapon will have a type that explains how it may be used. May types may place restrictions, penalties, or maybe even benefits depending on the actions of the unit.The various Weapon Types will be detailed below.
Melee weapons will always use the A attribute of the model for it's number of attacks. Shooting weapons will have a number after it's type that dictates it's number of attacks. Some weapons will have a variable number of attacks based on different ranges. When this is the case the number of attacks will be presented with both numbers corresponding to the variable ranges.
-Melee Melee weapons can be used as part of any combat using their listed profile. Their number of attacks is equivalent to the A attribute of the model wielding them.
-Pistol Pistol weapons can be used as a part of any shooting attack using their listed profile. Pistol weapons count towards your melee weapons for the purpose of determining number of attacks in combat.
-Assault Assault weapons can be used as a part of any shooting attack using their listed profile.
-Heavy Heavy Weapons can be used as a part of any shooting attack using their listed profile. If the model moved during their current activation they suffer a -1 BS when firing Heavy Weapons until their next activation phase.
-Artillery Artillery Weapons can be used as a part of any shooting attack using their listed profile. If the model moved during their current activation they suffer a -2 BS when firing Artillery Weapons until their next activation phase. If any model in a unit attempts to fire an Artillery Weapon in their activation the unit cannot make a Charge Action.
-Bomb Bomb Weapons can be used as a part of any Move action using their listed profile. A Flying Monstrous Creature must be swooping to use a Bomb Weapon. A Flying Vehicle must be Zooming to use a Bomb Weapon. No other model types are capable of using a Bomb. A Bomb Weapon can only target a model that the attacker passed over while moving.
The Game Round and Player Turn (Why the hell GW calls both of these a turn is beyond me)
Spoiler:
-A single Game Round encompasses each player activating each of their units until both players no longer have any units to use. At this point a new Round begins. (Round 1, Round 2, etc etc..) A Game should generally be no longer than 6 Rounds but players can make them longer or shorter as they desire.
-A player turn involves the active player selecting a single unit to activate and completing the following steps of their activation in order.
--Step 1: Activation: For most models this phase will mean nothing. But some models may have abilities that trigger or go away at the beginning of their activation. This is when those effects take place. Units that begin the round in Reserves that are activated roll to see if they arrive from Reserves during this phase and deploy if successful.
--Step 2: Orders: The player chooses one of several orders to issue to the unit. The active player must declare to his/her opponent which order is being used and then complete any of the actions it allows. Some orders may only be available under certain circumstances and depending on the situation some orders may be restricted. The different orders you may choose and the circumstances under which they may be used are as follows.
-Hold Position!: The unit may make a Shooting Attack at +1 BS. The unit may Manifest Psychic Powers as part of it's Shooting Attack.
-Advance!: The unit may make a Move action. The unit may choose to Run as part of it's Move. The Unit may make a Shooting Attack after it has Moved. The unit may Manifest Psychic Powers as part of it's Shooting Attack. The unit may make a Charge Action after Shooting but must make a Disordered Charge.
-Assault!: The unit may make a Move action. The unit may choose to Run as part of it's Move. The unit may Manifest Psychic Powers after it has Moved. The unit may make a Charge action after it has Moved.
-Over Watch!: The unit may make a Move action. The unit may choose to Run as part of it's Move. The unit may Manifest Psychic Powers after it has Moved. At the end of it's activation the unit enters Over Watch. Place a token next to the unit to indicate that it is on Over Watch.
-Disembark!: A unit must be embarked upon a Transport to be issued this order. The unit may make a Disembark action. The unit may make a Run action as part of the Disembark. The unit may make a Shooting Attack after it Disembarks. The unit may Manifest Psychic Powers as part of it's Shooting Attack. The unit may make a Charge action after Disembarking but must make a Disordered Charge.
-Embark!: If the unit is capable of embarking upon a Transport the unit may make an Embark action. The unit may choose to Run as Part of it's Embark. The unit may make a Shooting Attack before or after it's Embark. The unit may Manifest Psychic Powers as part of it's Shooting Attack.
-Turbo Boost!: Only units composed entirely of Bike models may be issued a Turbo Boost order. The unit may make a Turbo Boost action. The unit may make a Shooting Attack after it's Turbo Boost. The unit may Manifest Psychic Powers as part of it's Shooting Attack.
-Steady!: Only units composed of vehicles may be issued a Steady! order. The unit may make a Shooting Attack firing each of it's weapons. 1 weapon has a +1 BS. The unit may Manifest Psychic Powers as part of it's Shooting Attack.
-Combat Speed!: Only units composed of vehicles may be issued a Combat Speed! order. The unit uses it's Combat Speed M attribute for all actions until it's next Activation Step. The unit may make a Move action. The unit may choose to Run as part of it's Move. The Unit may make a Shooting Attack after it has Moved firing up to 3 of it's weapons. The unit may Manifest Psychic Powers as part of it's Shooting Attack.
-Cruising Speed!: Only units composed of vehicles may be issued a Cruising Speed! order. The unit uses it's Cruising Speed M attribute for all actions until it's next Activation Step. The unit may make a Move action. The unit may choose to Run as part of it's Move. The Unit may make a Shooting Attack after it has Moved firing up to 3 of it's weapons. 2 weapons fire at -1 BS. The unit may Manifest Psychic Powers as part of it's Shooting Attack.
-Ram!: Only units composed of vehicles may be issued a Ram! order. The unit uses it's Cruising Speed M attribute for all actions until it's next Activation Step. The unit may make a Move action. The unit may choose to Run as part of it's Move. The unit may Manifest Psychic Powers after it has Moved. The unit may make a Ram Action after it has Moved.
Each player takes turns activating a single unit until all units have been activated. Then a new Round begins.
Assault
Spoiler:
An assault is when two units begin melee combat. An assault is composed of a number of rounds of combat that begins with a Pile In.
-The Pile In: Starting with the active player, each player selects one model that is not in base contact with an enemy model and moves it up to 3" to get into base contact with an enemy model. If they cannot reach an enemy model they must move as close as possible. Each model can only be moved once this way.
-The Combat: Combat consists of 3 rounds of attacks. Quick Melee, Melee, and Slow Melee. Each model that is in base contact with an enemy model is considered "Engaged in Combat". Each model in a unit participating in the assault that is Engaged in combat, or is within 2" of a model that is Engaged in Combat may attack with a single weapon. Most weapons are standard melee weapons (listed as Melee in their profile). Some however are Quick or Slow (listed as Quick Melee or Slow Melee in their profile). Quick Melee always strikes first and slow melee always strike last. If two weapons would strike at the same time the attacker strikes first. At the end of each round of combat there is a new pile in move.
Example. The active player (player a) successfully charges player b. They each have 5 models in their unit with weapons that are classified as Melee weapons but player A has one model with a power fist (a Slow Melee weapon). Player A attacks with the 4 models that do not have slow weapons. Player B removes any models that have no remaining wounds. Player B attacks with any remaining models and Player A removes his models. There is a pile in. If Player A's model with the power fist is still alive it now gets to attack.
-The Winner, Moral, Locked in Combat, Tactical Retreat, Fall Back, and Sweeping Advance
Determine who won the combat by adding up the total unsaved wounds inflicted by each side. The side that inflicted the most wounds is the winner. In case of a tie the combat is a drawn and the units are Locked in Combat.
Locked in Combat: A unit that is Locked in Combat has two options. First they may choose to stay in the combat. This will leave the unit where they are and they will be unable to be issued orders until they disengage. A unit that is activated while locked in combat may attempt to Manifest some psychic powers. A unit that is locked in combat will, after attempting to manifest psychic powers, initiate a new round of combat. The unit may also choose to make a Tactical Retreat. Units locked in combat have a Cover Save of 3 (4+). If a unit chooses to target a unit that is locked in combat during the shooting phase any to hit rolls of 1 hit friendly units in the combat instead. Wounds are allocated to the closest friendly model first and continues to the next closest. If two models are tied for closest model the enemy chooses which model wounded next.
The unit that lost the combat must either make a Tactical Retreat or must attempt to pass a moral check same as 7th. If the moral check passes the unit is Locked in Combat. If the moral check fails the unit must Fall Back and must now check for a Sweeping Advance.
Tactical Retreat: If a unit chooses to make a Tactical Retreat that unit must test for Sweeping Advance as though it failed it's Moral Test. After removing any casualties the unit many then make a single move up to it's M attribute. Unlike a normal sweeping advance the unit may move in any direction.
Sweeping Advance: Each unit rolls 1d6+M. If the Unit that is attempting to Fall Back wins they make a fall back move = to their M attribute and must head by the most direct path possible towards their deployment table edge. If their movement takes any models off the table edge those models are eliminated from the battle.
If the unit fails the Sweeping Advance they suffer a number of unsaved wounds, that cannot be negated by any means, equal to the difference of the rolls. If the unit is incapable of moving legally the Fall Back roll is considered to have failed by the lowest possible result (1+M) even if the unit passed.
Consolidate: After a unit that was Engaged in Combat becomes unengaged either because their opponent choose to make a Tactical Retreat, made a Fall Back Move, or was eliminated, the Remaining unit may Consolidate. The unit may move up to 1/2 M but must end their move with the unit in coherency.
-Charging into units Locked in Combat and Charging Multiple Units
If the target you declare is Locked in Combat or if reaching your target would place you into combat with multiple enemy units you are making a Disordered Charge. A disordered charge functions similar to a standard Assault except that the charging unit gains no benefits for charging. Any special rules the unit may have and the bonus attack for charging are negated by the fact that the unit must keep track of many more enemy combatants or move their way around their allies as they enter the fray. If charging multiple units each model may choose a model from either unit to attempt to get into base contact with. The unit must be in coherency at the end of the charge. If models from only one enemy unit end up in base contact then the charge against the second unit fails. You are now in a combat with only a single enemy unit but still loose all benefits due to making a Disordered Charge. It may occur that you declare a charge against a single unit, but because of their close proximity to a second unit you end up in base contact with the second unit as well. This retroactively becomes Charging Multiple Units and thus becomes a Disordered Charge.
Model Types
Spoiler:
Core Model Types - Infantry Infantry can shoot a single weapon as part of a Shooting Attack, Move M as part of a Move Action, run 1/2 M as part of a Run Action, and move M as part of a Charge Action. Other unit types act as Infantry unless otherwise noted.
-Bike Bikes ignore the M penalty of terrain but treat all terrain as Dangerous. A bike can fire one weapon for each rider on the bike. Some bikes have weapons that are Mounted on them. A model may fire a mounted weapon without suffering any penalties for moving. Bikes may be issued a Turbo Boost Order. Bikes have the Hammer of Wrath, Jink, and Bulky 3.
-Cavalry Cavalry ignore the M penalty of terrain. Cavalry have the Hammer of Wrath special Rule.
-Monstrous Creature MC may fire up to 2 weapons as part of a Shooting Attack. A MC reduces the M penalty from terrain in half. MC may never Go to Ground. MC have the Fear, Hammer of Wrath, Relentless and Smash special rules.
-Flying Monstrous Creature A FMC may fire up to 2 weapons as part of a Shooting Attack. A FMC may have up to 2 M attributes separated by /. (Example A Flying Hive Tyrant has a M attribute of 8/24). When a unit containing at least 1 FMC makes a Move Action It must decide if it will be using the first or second attribute.
If the FMC chooses to use the first attribute it is Considered Gliding. A Gliding FMC uses the first attribute for all effects related to the M attribute until it's next Activation Step (Run, Charge, Fall Back etc etc..). A Gliding FMC can move freely over all terrain treating it as open ground. However if it begins or ends it's move in dangerous terrain it must make a dangerous terrain test.
A FMC that chooses to use the second M attribute is considered Flying. A Flying FMC must use the second attribute for all effects related to the M attribute until it's next Activation Step (Run, Charge, Fall Back etc etc..). A Flying FMC may pivot the model up to 90* before it moves and must otherwise move in a strait line a minimum number of inches equal to the first M attribute. If a FMC has only a single M attribute it is always Flying. A Flying FMC is considered Airborne. FMC have the Fear, Hammer of Wrath, Relentless, Jink, and Smash special rules. If a FMC is Flying suffers more than one unsaved wound in a single activation it must make a grounding test.
Grounding Test: Roll 1d6. On a result of 5+ The FMC is grounded. It is treated in all ways as though it was Gliding and suffers a str 9 hit with no cover or armor saves allowed.
(Example: A Flying Hive Tyrant is activated. The player chooses to Advance!. He decides that the FHT will be swooping. He can choose to pivot the model up to 90* and then must move it somewhere between 8 and 24". If he chooses to Run the FHT he may continue along the same strait line up to 12" further.)
Status: Airborne- A model that is considered Flying may not be targeted with a Charge Action and may not make Charge Actions themselves. If a unit attempts a Shooting action against a unit that is Flying they do so at -2 BS (to a minimum of 1).
-Vehicles Vehicles have a couple unique characteristics that separate them from other model types. These characteristics are listed below.
---Front/Side/Rear AV: Vehicles have 3 separate Save Values representing different facings on the vehicle. These Sv are separated by / and represent Front, Side, and Rear AV (Example: A Leman Russ has a Sv of 5/4/3) representing A model must fire at the nearest facing during a Shooting Attack.
---Movement: Most Vehicles have 2 M attributes separated by /. The first number represents their Combat Speed. The second number represents their Cruising Speed. A vehicle makes use of these variable speeds depending on it's orders. If a Vehicle has only a single M attribute then it may only move at Combat Speed and cannot be issued orders that require Cruising Speed.
---Vehicle Orders: Vehicles are restricted to a specific list of orders that are mostly unique to vehicles. The Orders that can be issued to Vehicles are as follows.
Steady!
Combat Speed!
Cruising Speed!
Ram!
---Mounted Weapons: Any weapon listed as part of the wargear for a vehicle is considered Mounted. Mounted Weapons do not suffer BS penalties for having moved.
---Vehicle Damage Chart: If a vehicle suffers more than one wound in a single activation the vehicle must roll on the Vehicle Damage Chart.
1-3 - Nothing Happens 4 - Shaken (-2 to BS (to a minimum of 1) for the vehicle and any unit that is Embarked upon it and 1/2 M until the end of the units activation in the next Game Round). 5 - Weapon Destroyed (Select one weapon at random from the wargear of the vehicle. That weapon cannot be used again for the rest of the game while it remains destroyed) 6 - Immobilized (The vehicles M attributes are reduced to 0. It may not pivot.) 7 - Explodes! The Vehicle is destroyed
If the result is 4 and the model is already shaken it becomes a 5. If the result is 5 and there are no more weapons to destroy the result is 6. If the result is 6 and the model is already immobilized the result is 7. Each unit suffers a str 4 ap - hit for each model it has within d6" of the exploding model.
-Walker A walker is issued orders and behaves as though it was Infantry instead of a vehicle. A walker may fire up to 2 weapons as part of a Shooting Attack. A Walker reduces the M penalty from terrain in half. A walker may never Go to Ground. Walkers have the Fear, Hammer of Wrath, Relentless and Smash special rules.
-Aircraft: Aircraft treat their M attributes differently then other models. Some Aircraft have 2 M attributes separated by /. When Aircraft make a Move Action It must decide if it will be using the first or second attribute. If the Aircraft chooses to use the first attribute it is considered Hovering. A Hovering Aircraft uses the first attribute for all effects related to the M attribute until it's next Activation Step A Aircraft that chooses to use the second M attribute is considered to be Flying. A Flying Aircraft uses the second attribute for all effects related to the M attribute until it's next Activation Step. A flying Aircraft may pivot the model up to 90* before it moves and must otherwise move in a strait line a minimum of 12" up to it's M attribute. If a Aircraft has only a single M attribute it is always Flying. Flying Aircraft are considered Airborne. Aircraft can only be issued the Combat Speed! Order.
Model Sub-Types
-Skimmer A Skimmer can move freely over all terrain treating it as open ground. However if it begins or ends it's move in dangerous terrain it must make a dangerous terrain test.
-Transport A Transport has Transport Capacity listed in it's profile. In order for a unit to attempt to embark upon the Transport the entire unit must not exceed it's transport capacity. Only a single unit may be embarked upon a Transport at a time. Many Transport vehicles have Firing Points. If a unit embarked upon a transport vehicle makes a Shooting Attack they must draw Line of Sight from the Firing Points on the vehicle.
-Open Topped Open Topped Vehicles count their entire hull as a single Firing Point and embarked units may draw Line of Sight from anywhere on their hull. If an open topped vehicle rolls on the Vehicle Damage Chart add +1 to the result. If an open topped vehicle is charged in an assault and has a unit embarked upon it, the embarked unit is engaged in the combat but cannot make Pile In moves. Each model in the embarked unit is considered to be in base contact so long as the Vehicle is in base contact. A unit engaged in combat with a Open Topped Vehicle with a unit Embarked upon it may choose to target the Vehicle or the Embarked Unit in combat.
-Assault A unit that disembarks from an Assault vehicle that attempts a Charge Action does not have to make a disordered charge and may instead Charge as normal gaining all the benefits and making use of any relevant special rules.
Marine Stat Lines for testing
Spoiler:
For the sake of testing ATSKNF does not do what it says. Instead... "Any model with ARSKNF may use their unmodified highest Ld when, resisting Pinning and Fear tests,and when Regrouping".
Captain/Chapter Master Infantry Ws S A Bs T W M SvLd / Ws S A Bs T W M SvLd 6 4 3 5 4 3 6 4 10 / 6 4 4 5 4 4 6 4 10
Librarian Infantry Ws S A Bs T W M SvLd 5 4 2 4 4 2 6 4 10
Tactical Squad Infantry Ws S A Bs T W M SvLd 4 4 1 4 4 1 6 4 8 Sergeant 4 4 1 4 4 1 6 4 8 Veteran Sergeant 4 4 2 4 4 1 6 4 9
Scout Squad Infantry Ws S A Bs T W M SvLd 4 4 1 4 4 1 6 3 8 Sergeant 4 4 1 4 4 1 6 3 8 Veteran Sergeant 4 4 2 4 4 1 6 3 9
Assault Squad Infantry Ws S A Bs T W M SvLd 4 4 1 4 4 1 6 4 8 Sergeant 4 4 1 4 4 1 6 4 8 Veteran Sergeant 4 4 2 4 4 1 6 4 9
Scout Bike Squad Bike Ws S A Bs T W M SvLd 4 4 1 4 5 1 9 4 8 Sergeant 4 4 1 4 5 1 9 4 8 Veteran Sergeant 4 4 2 4 5 1 9 4 9
Power fists are slow weapons. Terminator Armor reduces M by 1 Hit and Run allows you to Tactical Retreat without suffering a sweeping advance. In case it was missed above - Jump Packs are +2 to M and ignore difficult terrain. They also give the model Deep Strike, Hammer of Wrath, and Bulky 2.
I am not the MOST familiar with SM wargear. I think that is enough to test with. Try to fill any logical gaps.
A Call for More Lists! If you are interested in trying out the mechanics, playing a game, participating in the play test, just want to see how units might come out the other side of this, Submit a List!
Submit a 800 point list either here or through PM and in a day or 2 I should be able to convert the units stat lines and war gear to the new system and post it here. The units and point costs may not be the best balanced against each other at this phase but it's more about testing the general game play at this stage. Codex rewrites will happen at a later phase. But the more lists we have the better we can see how it all works. Submit a List!
Special Thanks!
Spoiler:
Special Thanks to... Backspacehacker ScarVet101 Charistoph Imateria
...and anyone else I may have forgotten so far!
This message was edited 63 times. Last update was at 2016/11/09 08:09:33
I want to make sure the basic interactions function well before we begin to build exceptions and adjustments in the form of special rules.
A HQ, a couple Troops, and maybe a Fast Attack or Elite option for Necrons, Tyranids, and Space Marines will be up within 24 hours so it can start to be tested.
As stated, use the 7th ed rules that exist now to fill in any gaps in this bare bones basic structure. Those gaps will get filled as we go.
I intend to ask players of Codex's I am not super familiar with to help build their Army List Entrys once we get there.
Glad to have someone willing to try it out and provide feedback.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/15 06:47:45
First post updated with unit stat lines for a few units for Marines, Necrons, and Tyranids so we can play a couple games and see how the mechanics play out. Please let me know if you try it and provide feedback on anything that feels good, bad, a little wonky. Try to ignore any unit or army imbalances for the moment. I need feed back on core mechanics. Does the new stat line work? How does the movement stat feel? Are assaults quick and intuitive?
Dakka Wolf wrote: I have no real issue with using the AOS game mechanic similar to early 40k mechanics and I was keen to see the movement stat restored as a numerical value - until I saw the movement numbers you have planned. Four inch Space Marine movement, eight for a bike. Nids with six inch movement and halved run range. I hope you plan on crippling shooting as well because you've just turned pretty much all melee armies into clay pigeons.
The numbers I have now are based on information I got in a thread about the numbers used in an earlier edition of 40k. They are not the "movement numbers you have planned". They are place holders while the core mechanics get checked. They, like everything up there, are up for change. Using the numbers that were explained to me gives me a chance to see how those numbers play out. If it doesn't work it gets adjusted or scrapped.
Reacting to it by saying I am crippling something isn't quite fair. Not only because of the points above, but because it hasn't been fleshed out or fully tested yet. I did mention those stat lines were not balanced against each other and that those stat lines existed to test the core mechanics. I would appreciate suggestions for how you would implement the M attribute instead. While I am sure you dislike these numbers, I don't know what numbers you think would be better or why. Please elaborate!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/16 03:30:24
Dakka Wolf wrote: I'd change the armies you're using for testing for a start. You're running tests on a melee army, an all rounder tactical army and a durability all rounder army. Until you put a properly shootie army into the mix you're going to have results that seem alright but will need to be rehashed as soon as a shootie army is put up. Why do I think the movement suggested is a crippling? Because it is less than what they have now and Tyranids now rarely make combat, even against semi-shootie armies like Necrons and Space Marines. I can tell you that without even bothering with a playtest.
I agree I could have other army stat lines in there. These are the armys I personally am most familiar with so these were the 3 I used to start. More will be coming.
In case part of this was not clear, there is nothing restricting you from charging in assault any more. At no point in any of the rules for any phase does it say a unit that runs cannot charge. The only penalty for running is -1 to Bs. While vehicles and deep striking are not yet on the lists up there let me clarify, you can charge when you get out of a vehicle or on the turn you arrive via deepstrike. The charges will be disordered charges unless you have a special rule that would, in normal 40k, allow you to charge at all (assault vehicles) at which point it will be a normal charge.
Average charge distances are 7" currently (2d6). Average run is 3-4". Move is generally 6". But you cannot generally do all 3. The effective threat range for assault is, for basic infantry, an average of 13" from start of turn to declaring your charge.
Hormagaunts can move 6, run 3 and charge another 6. An effective range of 15".
In the current rules for 40k an assault marine with a jump pack can either move 6 or 12" and then attempt to charge 2d6. If they move 6 they can reroll their 2d6. That is an effective assault range of 8-18" if they save their jump pack for assault and 14-24" if they do not.
Assault marines with jump packs can do the same as those hormagaunts. M 4 +2" from jump pack = 6 move 3 run 6 charge. 15" threat range. That is better then the average threat range of normal 40k jump infantry who use their jump packs in the assault phase when they get the most bang for their buck out of it and still pretty damn good for the game in general.
This is an overall much better threat range than most units accomplish now.
A Bike can move 8, run 4, and charge 8. That is a 20" threat range for assault with no random distances. That seems pretty significant to me.
Necrons have a harder time charging. But they also have good armor saves and RP to keep them alive. Their dedicated assault units are either hyper durable (Lychguard), Jump infantry (Preatorians), or will have a higher M attribute (Flayed Ones - probably M 4). Their lower M attribute also means they fall back slower and their overall higher Ld means they will be doing it less. Without transports Necrons will be the slow moving unstoppable zombie gun line they are represented as in the fluff.
Finally, keep in mind that the rules above present alternating activations. If one opponent moves their first unit forward they are now that much closer to the unit you are activating next. Which in turn places your unit that much close to THEIR next activated unit. You get the chance to react to each unit as they do things. You are not moving your entire army forward and then waiting for their entire army to blast at you before you get another chance to move.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2016/10/16 06:05:26
Lanrak wrote: @Lance845. I am in total agreement with what you are trying to achieve. (I think most 40k players are,).
However, it important to try to objectively look at the core rules to see what issues are there first.As this then allows slight changes in the foundation of the game to prevent the rules needing things to patch up the gaps and prop up the mechanics later.(Special rules and additional systems.)
This is exactly what is above. As is stated up there and will be restated here. Nothing up there is sacred. I am not tied to any of it. I want to see some feed back from people who get a chance to play with it a little to let me know how any of it works. Are the M ranges too small? Is the assault phase a complicated mess? There are literally an infinite number of ways that everything up there COULD be. I would like some more feedback on how it IS. That is why only a couple units have the new stat line and special rules have not been touched yet.
The movement values from 2nd ed with a base movement of 4", was from a game with an average force size of about a quarter of what is currently fielded.(So most units had to move into weapons range, not just assault units.)And most importantly there was a 'fiddle factor' to reduce the effectiveness of shooting to get balance with assault attacks.(To hit modifiers.)
If you use the alternating phase game mechanic from LoTR/A.O.S. which I think is a massive improvement in player interaction , that causes a minimum amount of friction. You can model 'simultaneous actions', each phase very simply.(Leave casualty removal to the end of the phase.) And this allows the removal of a lot of pointless complication from the rules.
I have seen the arguments for alternative phases and alternative activations and all of that. My preference is alternating activation. The problem with phases is the longer range shooting armys can just step back while the slower shorter range armys try to step forward. They can do this in response to you. Tau WANT to go second, because they want to watch you move first and reposition accordingly before you begin your army wide shooting phase. You then have all the same problems of Alpha strikes which occur primarily when the entire army gets to do all it's shooting at once, potentially wiping entire units off the board before they have had a chance to do anything.
I am aware you suggested leaving model removal until the end of the phase. Marking that could be as simple as tipping a model over, but some models are massive or do not tip well and that creates book keeping when goal #1 is keep it simple.
With alternating activations each player is only capable of the maximum damage potential of a single unit and then the other player gets to respond. MSU maintains an advantage in more activations with a better potential ability to react. But larger units are capable of capitalizing on each activation better. There is a method to the madness and a lot of Pros to the system above. I am not saying it's perfect or that it's incapable of being changed. I am saying try it and tell me what happened, the good and the bad. I need to know what doesn't work the most but it would be great to know what does work as well.
To get balance between shooting at assault, you need to balance the resolution methods.Currently shooting is far more effective at killing things than assault. I am not saying to go back to to hit modifiers, but if you use comparative values in a table for assault,why not do the same for shooting? Replace the redundant Initiative stat with a 'Size stat' , that you compare the the BS value to give the chance to hit. (Cover can add to the targets stat to make it harder to hit.)
I have seen your arguments for multiple comparative stats before. Part of the reason right now assault is still the core games assault rules while Bs is still using the flat value rules is because I am partially undecided in which direction to go. Assault compares on a chart (which I am trying to do away with for simplicity sake) while Bs just functions at a glance. Ws may go to a flat value like Bs is for the sake of simplicity and brevity of game play. I don't know yet! As above, nothing is sacred. It is all in flux. Those resolution methods can very easily change. While the precise method of resolving an attack is certainly a core mechanic it is also currently in a state of tried and true tested mechanics. The game turn and what basic options are available to every unit of every army is not. I am sure a lot of ideas for resolving assaults and shooting can crop up in the time it takes to hammer all of that out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dakka Wolf wrote: Deepstrike assault and more vehicles that can be charged out of...you're definitely catching my attention as a Space Marine player, as a Nids and Space Wolves player I know I'm currently getting the better mobility, by mixing ICs and units I can consistently get better range before decurions and formations even come into the equation.
I cannot stress this enough. Decurions and Formations will not exist here. Currently Rites of War will be the method of adjusting and customizing the FoC. If you are unfamiliar with RoW and want to see some good examples of what RoW are capable of, maybe even start brain storming some ideas for an effective RoW for your army, look up the 1d4chan tactica page for space marines 30k. They will have a MASSIVE list of them.
Also please note the M attribute is on the stat line of the Model. If, say, you added a Bike or cavalry IC to a unit of foot sloggers, each model will move it's M attribute. The bike cannot make the rest of the unit faster.
Ranged armies aren't actually better at killing things than melee armies the issue is that they get more attempts because melee armies are forced to cover the distance to get inside gun range and most simply don't cover it fast enough. If melee units can't make melee by turn two they're going to die before striking a blow.
I agree. Lets try to spell out a scenario with 2 space marine armys. Good all around armys with units that specialize in either shooting or assault and are often at least capable in both.
Deployment zones measured 1 foot back from the center line of the table. That means if both players place units at the line there is a 2 foot gap to get across. Player 1 activates a unit of... say... scout marines deployed at the line. They move 4 and run 2. Player 1 wants to get the scouts out front to be an initial target for player 2. These scouts now have a maximum of 18" between them and the enemies deployment zone (the same thing they would have now btw.)
Player 2 now has a choice. He can respond by activating and moving up a decoy of his own. Some Tac Marines or Scouts... Or he can grab his Bike unit he placed on the line and just shoot and charge them. They are well within the 20" effective charge range of the bike. He will have to run to do it (barely) which will drop his BS by 1 and make his shooting attempts go from a Bs 4 to a 3. A 2/3rd chance of success to a 1/2. He also has to realize that over extending those bikes this early in the first game Round means he is taking the target unit player one has given him instead of holding back to take his choice of targets latter in the round. Also that he has made his bike a much easier target for the rest of player 1s army. But if player 1 uses all, or even a good chunk, of round 1 to kill these bikes... well.. that is an entire round of unmolested advancement for the rest of your army.
This scenario does not factor in Deepstrike, Outflank, Scout Moves, Infiltrate, or vehicles. I do not think Round 2 assaults will be a problem. I also think both players have a lot more options on the table to weigh risk and reward.
Thank you for your skepticism. I want people poking holes in this. But I would also ask that you give it a fair shake and let me know what you liked and didn't like and as best as you can explain it "why". Right now the test is set up for a real brief game with a small amount of units. It's quick and dirty for gathering some data. Please, give it a go.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/10/16 14:15:45
I have participated in these discussions with you before Lanrak. I am well aware of design principles and the design process seeing as how it's what I have my BA in. In the first post I outline a FoC chart that details a point restriction before a LoW can be used and how the game scales up to RoW by allowing those units to be taken 1 for every 1k in the army. Based on the current 40k rules you should have a pretty decent sense of scale for the game. I am still utilizing unit to unit interactions. It's very easy to see what type of game I am proposing. I disagree that it is where all of 40ks game play issues start. 40ks issues are many and wide spread and it comes from many places including making use of design conventions from 30 years ago.
I am happy to discuss the mechanics at work above. I am open to suggestions for any mechanic that does not seem to be working. I would LOVE for you to give the current phase of testing a go and give me your feed back. I am NOT interested in repeating several other threads you have started or been in.
Please try to stay conscientious of what you are bringing to the thread. I do not want to begin redesigning your game here and I would appreciate you not derailing this discussion by doing that. I simply ask for you to discuss THIS design and THESE mechanics. If that is not the discussion you want to have I ask you to leave this one alone.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/16 22:59:50
Imateria wrote: I'm in agreement with Lanrak that an alternating activation system is probably not ideal for a 40K sized game, certainly not when you get to the point that 5 or 6 units would be the average for an all rounder army (i.e. one that is neither elite nor MSU), say around 1000 points for where the game is currently. After that point the number of units each player can field can start to vary massively and an elite army is at a distinct disadvantage against MSU. It would also mean one of your stated aims cannot be met, a Grey Knights player against Genestealer Cults or even Dark Eldar venom spam will still find themselves sitting around for long periods of time after they've moved their 5 units waiting for their opponent to activate their remaining 10+.
Thank you for the good feed back! I have a kind of answer for this that the test has not reached yet.
MSU has a number of advantages inherent to it. You don't waste shots. You can take each unit and fire at different targets. Mobility. All great.
Less large units has only one or two advantages. Maximizing kill power in a single activation and durability/less kill points to give up in a kill points game.
30k has a great way of costing units. Many unit wide upgrades come at a flat cost instead of points per model and expanding the units size costs less then the base line unit. A group of 3 nid warriors costs 90 points base, each addition warrior costs 30 points. By the 30k method each additional warrior would cost about 22.
Currently Hormagaunts can buy adrenal glands for 2ppm with a base unit size of 10 models = 20 points. For a full sized unit of 30 Gaunts thats 60 points. By the 30k method that upgrade would just cost a flat 20 points and as you continue to expand the unit size larger and larger you get those upgrades at a premium. A bulk discount if you will. Players now have to choose between the advantages of MSU and the cost efficiency of expanding the units they have. The most effective list building will probably end up someplace in the middle, but it is a choice that impacts how you can play and will make the "no brainer" that MSU is now something that needs to be seriously taken into consideration.
You mention Grey Knights. In all honestly grey Knights as they are now do not seem to really be a force unto themselves. When I get to Grey Knights I see them as either a Agents of the Imperium built to supplement other forces or to be combined with an Inquisition force that would expand on their very narrow and very limited capabilities at the moment. It is true that Grey Knights basically exemplify the MSU with their high costs and small unit sizes. That is a more an issue of the force then the mechanics and all things being balanced should not be a problem when we get there.
Does this effect your thoughts on MSU and it's impact on the game?
For this reason I am much more in favour of alternating phases, though it's far from perfect as you've already explained. However, one thing 30K has that could help mitigate against that is it's variety of scenarios that set out objectives to win the game. Suddenly if you need to get across the board, sitting back and reacting to your opponents actions with the sole intention of shooting them off the board doesn't work because you'll be forcing them to castle up and handing the game away. I also suggested a few months ago an alternate set up to Maelstrom, where rather than randomly drawing cards each turn both players start the game with 12 pre-selected cards. If both players have a game plan then it wont take long before people are developing strategies to counter their opponents game plan as well as successfuly implement their own. Obviously several of the current cards, both general and faction specific, will need to be changed to work in that system, but I think it would give us a much more strategic game.
I like that game type!
It's fair that different scenarios can force a army to stop back stepping if they want to win. But it's not exactly back stepping that is the problem. The problem is player 2 ALWAYS has the advantage of favorable positioning. They can ALWAYS take their vulnerable units that player 1 tried to line up shots on and place them behind other units for protection. Player 1 has to reveal his hand every round and hope any of his positioning pays off while player 2 can make the most of the board and min max his positioning and effectiveness. This is especially damaging to assault based armys. If player 1 tries to move a unit into position to target a particularly weak to assault unit, player 2 can simply move something more durable... maybe a tarpit... in the way while moving the vulnerable unit back. Player 1 now either has to hope they can charge around this obstacle unit or find some other target. Meanwhile, player 1 has moved his units up to attempt to find favorable positions for shooting. Player 2 can deploy HIS assault units whereever they will be most effective and player 1 has no recourse but to watch it happen. Player 1 is always at a disadvantage. ALWAYS. And the core mechanics of that system hard wire that situation.
If you have suggestions for how to implement alternating phases that eliminates that massively damaging effect I am all ears.
As for giving everything a Movement stat, I am completely in favour of this, but I think it would be best to set Space Marines as a 6" move and use that as a base line to work others around, so Eldar also having 6" but Guard 5" movement and so on. Tyranids would be the difficult one to work out given the huge variety in their units, Hormagaunts should be really fast, say 8" movement, but something like an Exocrine should be really slow like 4" movement, though that can't be taken as Infantry= fast and monstrous creature= slow as a Carnifex should be pretty quick whilst Zoanthropes and Hive Guard should be slow. One other thing though, how would you represent Flyers and FMC's/FGMC's as many of the former and all of the latter have two movement types?
The movement attributes are not set in stone. What I have up there is just a base line to test out the basic game structure and the phases. Those numbers can very easily change and very likely will. I absolutely agree that an exocrine should not be as fast as a hormagaunt. If you notice I dropped the Zoanthropes speed down. They are not fast units like the Hormagaunts are. For the moment I ask that we worry less about the actual speeds and more about how the move/run/charge interactions function.
I have ideas for Flyers/Vehicles/FMCs. The idea I have knocking around that I think I like best is to have 2 values. For example a Flyrant might be M 8/20. Up to 8 inches the unit is considered gliding, up to 20 it is swooping. A Landraider might be M 10/30 with 10 being able to fire all weapons and up to 30 all but 1 snap shots.
Of course, again, those numbers are meaningless for the moment. But it would allow different vehicles to have different effective speeds and keep the difference between different speed values simple and easy to remember.
This point actually reminds me of another reason I dislike the alternating phases. You would need to have each player go through every movement before they shoot. Even if it's 6 units per side that is 12 units and maybe 10-15 minutes where everyone needs to remember who moved, who ran, who didn't for the purpose of firing weapons and BS and any other effects that might come into play. That issue and the time frame becomes worse and worse with each additional unit. It either becomes an exercise in frustration or book keeping that needs to be handled. With alternating activation everything that impacts that unit happens in within the space of that single activation. A single unit should take no more then a few minutes with both players being active participants during any shooting and assault and possibly even during movement if units are on over watch.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2016/10/17 01:07:12
I was using a rather extreme example, but it's not the only one, I've built an Haemonculus Covens army with less than 35 models in it and about 8/9 units at 2000pts. Can be rather effective as well. Whilst MSU is always going to have the advantage of efficiancy whilst highly elite armies want to maximise defence and killing power I don't think it'll ever be possible to properly balance them out, but my main concern was with the downtime for players where elite armies face off with extreme MSU. (As an aside, I've been thinking that an Agents of the Imperium codex with the Ecclesiarchy, Sisters of Battle, Inquisition, Death Watch and Grey Knights all together and the ability to build lists around the Ecclesiarchy and Ordo's would be the best way to implement that part of the Imperium into the game rather than a series of mini codexes, particularly given the crossover in several of the units between the Inquisition and the Ecclesiarchy).
As for the problem of alternating phases, Lord of the Rings and Age of Sigmar uses a Priority roll off at the start of each turn so that there's no guarantee on who will go first each time and I've seen it suggested that running the phases so that the players go ABBAABBAAB is the fairest way to do it. I like the idea of players alternating who goes first each phase but I could see games where people forget who's turn to go first it is because ABABABABAB is so engrained into most game systems. Personally I think having it alternate each Game Turn on who goes first would be better, so if you win the roll off to go first turn 1, you go second turn 2.
I understand that examples are often given in the form of extreme outriders. It's important to reign those extreme cases in. The worst case scenarios will happen.
The only way to properly balance it so that no army ever has more units then the other is to say each side has x number of units and they MUST have x number of units. I don't like the idea of a hard limiter in that way.
Since a single activation involves all phases of the unit the other player actively participates in the saves and assault portions which will come around much faster. I understand that your main point is that the player with less units to activate will spend more time waiting while the other player does his activations. I pose a question: What is the difference between waiting while they move more units in alternating phases and waiting while they activate the outlier units in alternating activations? To me I can see no significant difference. In either mechanic the person with more to do will be more active on their turn and the person with less to do will have more down time. With alternating phases the down time is only broken when the phase is completed. With alternating activations the downtime is either the space of a single activation or the total sum of the outliers (which again, certain systems will be in place to hopefully help mitigate MSUs dominance in the meta and certain forces will be relegated to Agents or collapsed into other codexes). Either way, for the bulk of the play the down time should come in significantly shorter bursts with activations.
Can you expand on the ABBAABBAABBA idea? If I am reading it correct you are saying (p1 Move/p2 Move/p2 Shoot/p1 shoot/p1 assault/p2 assault). Is this correct?
I would also ask how this helps mitigate the issue of player 2s favorable positioning as well. Again, I find this to be the biggest issue especially when considering assault based armies. I do understand that round 1 would favor p2 and round 2 would favor p1 and in that way it might "balance out". But it doesn't change that each round is tactically dominated by one player, not because of their own strategy and tactics, but because the game forces them into that play space.
It was meant as more of a general observation than actualy imputs on what their ranges should be. I was thinking the same sort of thing with having the two values for Movement as being the best way to represent it. One thing I might be concerned about is that units can move, run and charge in the same turn, several powerful units are goin to have a very good chance for a turn 1 charge under the current system, let alone with alternating phases or activation.
I appreciate the observations! I have a friend who is going to help me play a bunch of test games in a couple days. I intend to keep a close eye on how those numbers end up working. Though they are not the focus on this phase of testing there is no reason not to gather the data while it's there.
One of the ways I am trying to mitigate turn 1 assaults is that every unit deployed at the start of the game deploys on over watch. That allows them to interrupt enemy activation after move to take a shot at full BS. It makes sense that an army deployed would be standing ready AND it helps provide protection against these shenanigans.
If 1 or 2 units at the end of game round 1 can make a charge I do not see it as a real problem. Assault focused units should get to do their thing. But if an army is entirely composed of assault based units and attempts to charge with every activation then the enemy will have an entire army ready to over watch on them as they approach. This is also meant to help discourage null deployments. If you are not around on Round 1 for the enemy to shoot, they can enter over watch and prepare for your arrival.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Zingraff wrote: My idea for alternating unit activations is that at the start of the game, both players contribute with as many cards (or wooden counters), as they have units in the game. This could be conventional playing cards, or wooden counters in a drawing bag, the idea is that the cards themselves do not refer to any particular units.
When your colour is drawn, you decide which unit to activate and then perform a complete turn with it, after which the unit is marked with a counter. This continues until every unit has either performed a turn or been eliminated from the game. At the end of the turn, if any units were eliminated before they could carry out a turn, there will still be cards left in the deck. These cards are discarded, and a new deck is prepared for the next turn, which should also take into account units arriving from reserves. Alternatively, you could use wooden counters in a draw bag, or glass beads or cardboard chits. Some components have the advantage that they can also function as markers.
I haven't tried it yet, but I've discussed my idea with my most regular and experienced opponent (we've both played 40k on and off since the 90's), so I'm interested in hearing what you think about it.
Because the activations are randomised, the player with the most units does not gain any unfair advantages, other than the increased likelihood of his units becoming activated. Also, with every activation being randomly drawn, this should lead to some interesting situations, where you're forced to adapt to the actions of your opponent, and where neither player's actions take place in a vacuum.
It's not a bad idea for helping to mitigate all the excess activations being piled onto the end of the game round. It is certainly easily interchangeable with alternating activation systems in that the only thing needed is for both players to agree to do it. This and the system I have outlined above are easily just personal preference and either can be used as optional methods.
If you and your friend would not mind testing my other mechanics feel free to use this method for alternating activations and report back how it went. I would love the feed back.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/17 02:02:01
I fear that opens the door for death star shenanigans.
You either have predetermined detachments that you have to try to balance against each other, restrict the point levels the game can functionally be played at, and restrict the ways in which armys can be built.
or
You have open detachment construction and players will min max units within a detachment to create death star activations. Promoting mono builds and the such.
It's not a bad idea on the surface, but would require a lot of fiddling to make functional without breaking the game. And lets try to keep in mind Design Goal 1 and 2. Keep it simple and easy army construction.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I grabbed an idea from another thread that I think fits well here.
Witchfire and Nova powers count as a weapon when determining how many weapons a model may fire in the shooting phase.
This means an infantry model may choose to manifest all the benedictions and maledictions they want but choose between shooting powers and their wargear when attacking during shooting.
The actual powers will obviously be up for some changes down the line. The next things on my list is weapon types and model types (infantry, MC, Vehicles and such). I will have those updated in the OP by midish week? I really appreciate the questions, suggestions, and feedback. Please keep it all coming!
Automatically Appended Next Post: I just thought of a system from a game I have not played in a LONG time. Anyone else ever play Heroscape?
Page 8 and forward details the system I am talking about with "Order Markers".
In Heroscape each player has 4 order markers marked 1,2,3, and x on one side. The other side is blank. At the beginning of each round the players take turns placing an order marker on the unit card (in 40k I imagine this would be some kind of 1 sided token you place next to the unit). The x is a decoy. That unit does not activate, but your opponent does not know that and they are unsure of which token you placed next to which units.
The players then take turns activating their units in order by revealing their order marker and running through an activation. p1 reveals order marker 1, move, shoot, assault. P2 reveals order marker 1, move shoot assault. You do this until you have run out of orders and then the next turn begins.
You can bring MSU or not. But you will still only have x number of activations a turn. I don't think 3 is a particularly good number of activations for the size and scope of 40k but the basic system is functional. The other problem I see is that there is a very distinct power gap between different units in 40k that is not as drastic in a game like Heroscape. In Heroscape you can place multiple markers on a single unit and activate it multiple times (so even when the game begins to reach it's end and one side has only one unit remaining it STILL has 3 activations a turn), but what happens when those activations are all piled onto a knight?
Nuances to consider for balancing, but an idea worth exploring possibly. What does everyone think?
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/10/17 05:13:32
Personally I think one side having more units then the other is a null problem. It exists because you have forces that organize differently. You can fix it by normalizing how forces are built or you can let it go.
I have also seen opponents start to drift on my turn in 40k. I have also drifted, especially by turn 3 or 4. I THINK that alternating activations will mostly fix this by making each turn significantly more brief.
That being said, HOW you decide who gets to pick a unit to activate is all entirely interchangeable. None of these methods interfere with the actual turn structure. I would love to see these different methods in action. I am going to try them all out myself. When this goes into PDF form every one of them that maintains a balance will at least be in an index for "alternate rules for player preference".
Anyone have any thoughts on the assault phase structure? With the addition of Tactical Retreats I was hoping to eliminate the concept of "Tar Pitting". There is no counter play to having an ongoing combat that neither side can win just to remove units from game play. It means no player is ever locked in combat that does not choose to be there.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/17 12:41:28
So it's alternating activations within a phase. It's not a bad idea and eliminates the problem of favorable positioning. Isnt the scale of battletech generally about 6 models a side? (I think i played very briefly MANY years ago and only a few times)
How do you see the book keeping working out in terms of keeping track of wounds in a 40k scale game using that system?
@Lanrak. No man. Im not having this conversation with you. I understand your position. I understand what you are asking. I do not agree with you at the very core of your design philosophy and do not want to discuss it with you here. You and i do not agree on where game design starts. We do not agree on how we build the design up from its foundation. And we do not agree on where the trouble with 40ks rules come from. I don't want to discuss these differences of opinion with you in this thread.
I am asking you to discuss these mechanics as they are or dont participate in this thread. Its that simple. Start a new thread and we can discuss it there or send me a pm. I have watched you lead conversations astray with the same couple of questions you believe are needed to start the design process that you are asking me now.
I do not agree. I will not discuss it with you here.
If you have a question about the way these mechanics are meant to function in action, cool. If you have suggestions for ways to clean them up, also cool.
I am happy to discuss that with you.
Please respect that. I am not going to ask again.
@Charistoph, i am super interested in a lot of those concepts. I am on a small road trip and internet is sporadic. I will respond to you in more depth when i got a better signal.
I wont be able to respond in depth until late tonight or tomorrow. But i have seen some real neat ideas i want to get into. Thanks to those tossing their ideas out there. I am glad to have concepts bouncing around. I can already see some good improvements or easily implemented alternate methods. Woot!
Lanrak, you can answer questions a-c by reading the first post. Specifically the first section titled design goals. Its easy to extrapolate from those 4 goals what problems i see and from the mechanics i propose some ways to fix them. Feel free to comment on those and toss in both your own 2 cents or alternatives.
Further, design goal 2 says exactly how tied i am to gwsfoc. By reading even the very beginning of the first post you could answer all of your qusstions.
What i wont do is discuss what you think are the problems with gws designs or where you think we need to start to build a functional game. You and i could go back and forth for 10 pages and never come to a conclusion. I am politely trying to avoid that derailment so the thread stays productive.
I have discussed each persons ideas that have bothered to post any actual ideas and concerns. Contribute to the thread by reading the topic and staying on topic or stay out.
Dont respond here if your not contributing. Please. PM me. I would be happy to go over this with you ANYWHERE ELSE. I do not want it here.
A) What YOU think the issues are with the current 40k rules,
B)How YOU want to address those issues.
C) What sort of game play do YOU want to end up with.
Lance845 wrote: Simple Tight Rules: There should be as little looking up special rules as possible. The game should be easy to learn over the course of a couple games. Depth of game play should come from interactions. We want to reduce resolution methods. Reduce unique special rules to the things that actually need them. Fix complexity where ever we can find it.
I would like us to gut the game here if needed. Every mechanic is up for scrutiny. If something seems good enough lets rip into it and see if we can make it better.
Simple Army Construction: There needs to be a simple and effective way for people to build their army list. That starts with the FoC and logical restrictions to maintain a balance. I would like to start with the 30k method. I will expand on that more below. But returning to design goal 1, this is free to be torn down and rebuilt as something else entirely if there is a easier better way to do it. Nothing is sacred here.
No Immunity to Basic Mechanics Things like Fearless and ATSKNF are widespread in 7th. Whole parts of core mechanics don't function for large swathes of the armies out there. None of that. If Fearless exists it exists rarely. Moral needs to play a part in the game for all forces.
Active Game Play and Tactical/Strategic Counter Play Too much of 40k as it is now involves lots of down time and waiting while the other player takes their many actions. You often have no choice but to watch barrage after barrage come your way with little to no answer but whatever ends up weathering the storm to dump onto them when it's your turn. Too many mechanics are closed systems that leave players incapable of reacting to them. As much as possible we need to open up options for counter play. Players need to be able to react reasonably to the other player to allow for a more active game of risk and reward.
That is it. Lets not start the simple game with complicated goals.
Unless changed here, use the base line 7th ed rules to fill in any gaps in the game play for the time being. The goal will be to fill those gaps as we go.
From the first post we can see that the answer to A) is that I think there are too many special rules and too much having to reference the rule book. The game is overly complicated. We should simplify it. Army construction should be a simple affair. And that I believe the army construction is a good place to place restrictions that help maintain balance. That 40k has a lot of special rules that contradict core game systems or make them redundant. And that the game has poor counter play opportunity and a lot of down time.
The answer to B, is literally started with the rest of my post, but continues with the subject matter of the thread. Us here pooling ideas and trying to hammer them into the best possible configuration to meet the design goals outlined.
The answer to C, is a combination of the answers to A and B. It seems pretty obvious.
Just a quick note on the 40k F.O.C. It is the ONLY one I am aware of that focuses on unit function, rather than unit rarity in the force.
Every other game I have played that uses 'point values' for in 'game value',and balances synergistic anomalies with a F.O.C based on limiting unit numbers and types available. Eg how rare a unit is in a force is not controlled just by P.V. but by the theme of the force chosen.
And as a result every other war game I have played has a much simpler and far more diverse and 'narrative friendly' F.O.C .
Would you consider alternatives the the current 40k F.O.C?
Simple Army Construction: There needs to be a simple and effective way for people to build their army list. That starts with the FoC and logical restrictions to maintain a balance. I would like to start with the 30k method. I will expand on that more below. But returning to design goal 1, this is free to be torn down and rebuilt as something else entirely if there is a easier better way to do it. Nothing is sacred here.
I would like to start with the 30k method.
But returning to design goal 1, this is free to be torn down and rebuilt as something else entirely if there is a easier better way to do it. Nothing is sacred here.
I repeat Lanrak... your every question could be answered in the first part of the first post. I am convinced you just didn't even bother to read the first post. The next time you post here without respecting what I have requested of you I am contacting mods. I ask other participants of the thread to ignore him unless he decides he wants to actually contribute.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lanrak wrote: @Chaospling.
I am not asking for any discussion or lengthy explanations.Just trying to get a better understanding of what Lance845 wants to achieve.
He has changed the game turn mechanic , added one stat , and made some minor changes to the 7th ed rule set.It is not clear from this what end game play he is trying to arrive at.
I believe in building a game based on simplified abstract goals. I am not tied to deciding whether it's epic at 32mm scale, or small skirmish. I believe that based on those 4 goals we can hammer out a fun way to play a game and the the size and scope of the game that fits that best will find us. We differ in this opinion. YOU think we need to define that first to know where to go. I don't. I wont discuss the differences with you here. What end game play I am trying to arrive at is the game play that best fits the criteria of the design goals to make the most fun possible within them. Any 40k rules that are currently still in tact from 7th edition are there simply for the sake of current testing purposes. ... again, stated in the VERY FIRST POST. They can, and likely will, be changed as this goes. I think it is both healthy for me to have ideas I might not think of tossed my way by the community AND fun for everyone to talk about it and build together.
Contribute or leave it alone.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NInjatactiks wrote: For unit activation, have you thought about doing the DnD/Dark Heresy route of giving action points to units or the option of doing an action and movement in any order?
Thanks for the post Ninja!
I am familiar with DnD but not Dark Heresy. How do you see the action points playing out over unit activations in a game at 40ks current scale? Like... say 1500 points?
Just curious if you can expand on this idea at all so I can make sure I am understanding it right.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/10/19 09:33:14
ScarVet101 wrote: Just a few ideas I've seen that I'd like to add to the pot.
Like a lot of people have said adding movement stats back in would be great and could actually strip a few special rules out. I'd like to see something like this. Using SM as an example drop centurions to 4", terminators to 5" and Power armour & scouts to 6". Bikes, Jump Pack & vehicles could all get a similar thing.
A couple people have suggested I place Space Marines at the 6" speed as use them as a base so far. Lemme ask you this, and anyone else feel free to answer, what do you think the largest effective range of base infantry should be? If marines are starting with a move of 6" and then can run and charge, then how far should hormagaunts be able to reach?
My initial thought was to maintain 40ks current rough numbers as the maximum for basic infantry. Do you feel like the game might start to fall apart if something like a blob of 30 hormagaunts could move 8 run 4 and charge 8 for a 20" effective threat range? And that is before gargoyles and shrikes get even faster for being jump.
No wrong answers, I just wanna hear what you guys think.
What I would add to that though is that if this became a 3 part stat linked with shooting and assaults it could bring all movement in to just one phase, cutting down the dead time the other player has to sit through. If you make it in to contact, you've assaulted and no shooting (if you can fight) except pistols. Defense grenades prevent pistol fire
Moving through cover should reduce a units speed bands and fleet should be a counter, change unit entries to Fleet (X), X being the amount added back. Eg if a terrain piece is -3 movement and a HB has Fleet (2), they only loose 1" movement. Fleet shouldn't increase a units speed though, Speed 6" Fleet (3) should still be 6" moved in the open.
So linking this to shooting, units which don't move fire at full effect and one model can fire at a different target.
Units that move at the 1st speed fire as one, with Heavies snapfiring
units that fire at the 2nd speed can't fire heavies and rapid fire & salvo weapons can only snap fire
moving at the final speed only pistols may fire at snap fire.
relentless units, MCG.MC and vehicles fire at the step lower then their actual movements (so they can fire heavies normally at speed 1)
BS become a split stat, full/snap fire - this is more that it makes no sense that a vindicator assassin as the same poor chance of hitting with snap fire that a Ork does.
For starters, I am not necessarily opposed to the idea that a unit either assaults OR shoots and that that is a choice the player makes in their movement phase. That could work. I will ruminate on how it could effect a few different armys.
Second, I feel like the different effects for shooting is adding the complication of current vehicles to every unit in the game. I would much rather get that complication out of the game in general then bring it to everyone across the board.
The idea for fleet is really interesting. I am making a note of it for sure for when I get to condensing and redoing the special rules. That is a very interesting idea!.
To help break up a player turn, bring back the old school Overwatch (unit doesn't move or shoot in there turn, but can fire during the opponents movement phase, no split fire) but using the snap fire BS score. Replace the current over watch with the option to fire as per this overwatch instead of making CC attacks as the defender on the turn you are assaulted at I10. Assault grenades prevent this.
I havea preference for the form of overwatch I have now. Snapshots just are not effective. It's more of a waste of time rolling piles of dice for little to no effect. Sacrificing your shooting and assault phase to enter overwatch as a tactical decision plays better into the goal of active counter play.
Armour Save, invunerables & cover save Vs AP - replace the current AP with the AOS rending modifiers, then cover and invulnerable save modify the role as well. The difference being cover can be ignored by some weapons. Using the SM captain as an example his 3+ armour is improved to 0+ by his Iron Halo (a 1 still always fails), hit by a bolter (rend 1?) he still has a 2+ save but hit by a Meltagin (rend -5?) he is reduced to a 6+ save. The same captain behind a defence line (+2 save?) would then have a 4+ save against the melta but would still fail to the bolter on a 1.
I have actually been considering this! AP is a penalty to Sv stat. Cover is a penalty to BS (minimum BS 1 -i.e. 6+) Invul saves as a design rule will never be better then 4+ and are uneffected by anything but destroyer weapons) which will just ignore all saves similar to AOS mortal wounds (you still have to roll to hit).
Finally Leadership tests - these become D6 + factor. So in shooting and combat the factor would be casualties (like AOS) but units fall back rather then take more casualties. Fearless units could possible only be D3 + Factor.
Good idea. Leadership is currently the only stat that tests the way it does. I would like to get it more in line with the rest of the attributes if for no other reason then simplicity.
Lance845 could you clarify what happens when an 'assault death star' is assaulted by multiple MSU.(Ill keep the units names generic as I dont want to get bogged down in minutia.)
Does the Death star get to fight back just once ,eg the first attacking MSU. In which case the MSU get an unfair advantage compared to the current rule set? Or Does the Deathstar, get to fight back with full efficiency on every MSU attack, Giving the death star unit an advantage over the current rules?
Have you any ideas on how current 'combined assaults' could be covered with single unit activation game turn?(Apologies If I have missed it .
Death stars should mostly end up eliminated. That being said one unit can be more powerful in melee then another. But that isn't really your question.
Your question is, "What happens to a unit that is assaulted multiple times in a single game round? Do they a) attack at full efficiency during every combat or b) fight once and then sit back and take a beating from each additional unit that fights."
I have several thoughts.
a) The first is that a unit can only actively put itself into combat once each game round on it's own activation. If an enemy decides to engage it over and over again in the element where they have the advantage with different units that is their own choice. If this was the way we go, with each unit getting their full attacks each combat, then there are several mitigating factors in play.
Some mechanics that help to balance this idea out.
Attacking priority always goes to the attacker. There are essentially 6 initiative steps in the current proposed assault system. Attacker quick, defender quick, attacker "standard", defender "standard", attacker slow, defender slow. If one unit gets charged multiple times it has to weather at minimum 1 round of attacks from the attacking unit unless the attacker has only slower weapons then the defender (at which point the attacker is making the choice to give the attacker a round of combat before they get to hit). This means, in general, that a unit that gets assaulted should be suffering some losses before they get to attack. In return, they get to attack at their full remaining strength. Coupled with Tactical Retreats so tarpitting doesn't exist and nobody ends up locked in combat that doesn't want to be, this becomes all about choice and natural limiters. A unit is limited in what it is capable of doing naturally by it's full potential in a single activation. Any additional potential is given to it by the other player. Left alone it will simply sit until the next game round.
By this thought process a "deathstar" will only be as killy as the opponent lets it be. By the same token, an enemy could potentially throw hordes of lesser units onto a dog pile to try to overwhelm a powerful assault unit. Strength in numbers can come into play. But each round of combat they do not wipe out that assault unit, it gets to strike back and potentially do more. Do you think that unit is weak enough that you can overwhelm it? Risk it and find out. Risk and reward. Active game play
b) The other idea is that a unit should diminish over consecutive combats. My current thought on implementing this mechanically is that a model losses 2 attacks for each combat it participates in after the first to a minimum of 1 attack. A unit of models with 5 attacks on the charge would have 2 when the enemy charges them and 1 the next time. They would maintain 1 attack each until the next game round... or more likely their next activation.
I am currently not favoring this one. For one, again, nobody lets the "deathstar" deal its damage repeatedly that doesn't let it. The combat system favoring the attacker allows the person activating units to try to capitalize. It seems fair to let the defender go down swinging with all the might they have remaining.
I also feel like this both gives an advantage to MSU and Larger units. The MSU might be able to come in activation after activation taking attacker priority, but to really capitalize on that priority they want the biggest unit possible. A very large unit being attacked by multiple small units might be able to wipe out those MSUs if they cannot do enough damage first.
In conclusion, there is a lot at play. I would like to see how it functions on the table with the current system before I make a decision on whether it needs to be adjusted. Theoretically, it should just work right now and the things perceived as problems just are not really problems or more correctly a problem of your own making if you let it happen. I am aware that something might need to change and have some ideas for how it could, but the problem hasn't actually presented itself yet.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/10/19 18:39:44
In regards to something like the Hormagaunts, there has been a call in the past to make them beasts anyway, would give a potential move + charge or 24"
In general though I would probable put Orks, Humans & Tau as 5" and Marines, Eldar, Daemons and Nids at 6" basic and then move out from there within each race.
So as I've already given a marine example, may nids would be Gaunts, 'stealers & warriors at 6", Hive Guard & 'thropes 5" with ravaners & hormagaunts at 7" (other beasties as suits).
Why do you think, from a fluff perspective, that marines should be in the same classification as eldar and nids? I mean, lets keep in mind that the movement stat means we can assess each individual unit and give them a speed that is appropriate to them. I am just curious and want to keep the discussion going. I was concerned that necrons were going to be too slow by the numbers I have now and these could help "fix" that if it's actually a problem.
I take your point on making shooting to complicated but there does need to be some trade off between moving and shooting. How would you play it?
Welly current plan was a BS penalty for choosing to run. Once I get new weapon types those classifications would mesh well into that system. Different weapon types would be effected by different types of movement and potentially restrict it (run is -1bs in general, moving might be a -1bs to heavy (-2 if you do both) and if any of this reduces your BS to 0 you cannot shoot that type of gun. Shooting a "salvo" (just as an example) means you cannot charge.
I think snap shot would work better if it was actually based on BS rather then a flat 6+. For a tau if they has BS 3/2 getting to shoot a pulse rifle at BS2 instead of trying to hit something with the blunt end would actually be better for them. With Marines being something like 4/3(or2) it would be more of a choice as to which would be better.
Lat bit, I've never really been a fan of cover effecting BS as some weapons (like lascannons) aren't going to care about that tree you're hiding behind. However anything a shot might have to pass through is going to take some of the sting out of it so maybe a "counter rend" would cover that. Feel no pain could work the same way and leave invuns as they are (agree to a cap at 4+)
As has been stated cover saves cover a variety of things as it should for simplicity sake.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lanrak wrote: @Lance845.
When you say 'death stars' will be eliminated, do you mean removed as an option from play?EG restrict what units a player can take to allow the single units activation game turn to work better.(EG improve the balance between units to remove issues with unit imbalance in the single unit activation based game turn?)
Im building from the ground up. The codexs as they are now won't function properly eventually. We have every opportunity for balance, both from a unit balance perspective and a mechanical perspective.
The rules may work, BUT if players feel the rules give unfair advantages they ask for change.
If you let the 'assault specialist' fight the enemy MSU one at a time, they get to overwhelm the MSU with their close combat skills.
And some players may find loosing the ability to attack the enemy with multiple units at the same time to similar effect as the current rules, as 'unfair'.
To be blunt, I don't care. Everyone will feel one way or another about everything. I only care if the game play is fluid and the interactions fun. Again, combat favors the person whos turn it is. They can pile on the MSU all they want. It has lots of advantages inherently. Giving some advantages back to larger more invested units is not a bad thing and I won't apologize for it or try to maintain the dominance MSU has now. It's a new game! Nothing here needs to adhere to anything that came before.
Currently a player can launch multiple units into attacking an enemy unit.This is resolved as 'one combat in initiative order'.
Alternating phase game turn allows this to happen with similar results, (and no extra rules for sequencing required.)
And the majority of 40k players we talked to thought it was easier to transition to alternation phase game turn from the alternating game turn mechanic as the same familiar phases and tactical options could be used.
Again, I just don't care. Develop new tactics. This is not 7th ed with patches. This is something new. The core mechanics of the game turn are going to be different. Some mechanics will transition in new forms. Some might get cut if they aren't helping. Some new concepts will likely slip in (Tactical Retreats). I would not put in this work if I was interested in just playing more of "7th - but this time maybe better?". This is meant to simplify the 40k experience and build it into a better actual game.
The old tactical loading in the movement phase(action.()From 1st and 2nd ed 40k.)
Remain stationary and get a bonus to ranged attacks,And can fire move or fire weapons .(Longer range or higher rate of fire for side arms?)
Move and shoot 'move and fire' weapons only.
Move up to double movement rate.(The only way to launch an assault, by declaring a 'charge'?)
This gives a tactical choice between moving and shooting.As previously mentioned.
This puts all the movement in the movement phase(action,) and speeds up play considerably. (It actually does increase tactical depth and speed up play, play tested , proven and used in lots of good war games! )
This is a system I had forgotten about for some reason. Easily something to take into consideration. Likely something to be used. It's very quick and easy to activate a unit and pick one of 3 simplified options. I will begin writing something up to be released with weapon types.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/19 20:16:20
Main post updated with a bunch of stuff. Added a change log to detail all the changes and make it easy to see whats new.
10/19/16 -Added the section "Unit Actions". -Changed "The Game Round and Player Turn". Now there are orders you can give to an activated unit. These orders determine the permissions granted to a unit during their activation. -Moved "Psychic Powers" into "Unit Actions" -Added a "Special Thanks!" section for contributors of mechanics! Thanks everyone!
The nuts and bolts of this is that the unit activation is now working like some other games out there in that you have a set of predetermined orders that you can give to a unit.
You pick your unit, you select your order, and then you follow the permissions the order allows. Mostly these order will look like the normal 40k actions broken up among the various phases. Except now there are no phases. There is just the unit activation and it's permissions. Give them a look over. If you notice anything that seems to be missing or any action that is not covered please let me know. Mechanically and strategically speaking these orders and the actions they allow should function very similar to what you would expect from 40k as is (with the exception that they are now using the more streamlined and simplified rules we are developing here). I am currently unsure of Hold Position! I don't know if I should combine it with some kind of Go to Ground or what.... which reminds me I need to add Go to Ground later as well...
Future order additions will be something for occupying a building/terrain and using gun emplacements as a way to easily blend in stronghold assault rules.I will worry about those Orders/actions at a later date though. What I think I like best about this is how condensed it is. What was many many pages of rules spread all over the BRB explaining how various unit types interact with various unit types on a unit to unit basis is now just one list of permissions. Is this a good change? A bad change? Do you foresee problems arising from it? Let me know! Thanks to everyone who has been participating so far. MORE IDEAS!
And please. Feel free to convert a few units of whatever army you have to the new stat line and post the stat lines here for testing purposes. The general guideline I have used so far for which units to convert is 1 "main generic HQ", 2 iconic basic troops, an extra unit or 2 that adds some flexibility to the list and allows the list some of that armys flavor. Lets get more test games going to see how this all flows.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/10/20 14:00:50
Lanrak wrote: @Lance 845. Is the proposed new stat line going to cover vehicles ,(EG do they get T W and a save, ) or do they get a separate set of stats like the current 40k rules? If vehicles are to remain as part of the new game , should we not use stats that cover all unit types in a similar way?
Vehicles will likely have a T and Sv value. They should follow the same systems as everything else. There is no reason to create an entirely different resolution method just for a minority of the models in the game that are not even available to every army. They will also likely retain the facing system in current 40k unless something more interesting gets proposed or comes to mind.
Also, if you are changing the way players interact, tactics used, forces and units used, so everything apart from the minatures is ' new and different'. How can the new rules set be recognized as' the game of 40k' by the existing player base?
Because space marines and orks will use bolters, chain swords, and orky dakka and choppy stuff to fight over alien worlds.
If you just want a better rule set to use 40k minatures with , there are a quite few ,much better rule sets in terms of clarity and brevity already in existence. (Depending what sort of game play you are after there is Stargrunt II, No Limits, One Page 40k, Dirtside, Warpath, to name a few. )
(I think the 40k game scale and scope should be unique , and deliver the game play the majority of 40k players expect. I could be in a minority in thinking like this? )
Because I enjoy game design. I enjoy the process, I enjoy the conversation with the community and the pooling of ideas. I like making something new. Because those other systems are not, quite, right to me. 1 pg40k is great for what it does but does not offer the depth of game play I am looking for. It's TOO simple for me. Not bad btw. I really admire their bare bones design. Excellent reductive design to get to the bare bones core of the game and get it playing quickly.
But I don't want to play Risk right now, I want to play twilight Imperium. And that means I need a little more meat on the bones.
You asked me these last couple of questions in the PMs we have going. I answered it here to clarify for the thread why I stated this and why I am investing my time. It's not up for debate here. I wont discuss it with you. Stay on the topic of brainstorming new ideas not referring me to games that already exist or opening a debate about whether it is still 40k if it's not using 40ks mechanics.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/20 17:52:06
It's a superficial change. One that is unimportant for the time being. Context vs mechanic. It functions exactly the same and can be adjusted in a clean up.
Thanks for the feedback! I will get to answering this points. Been real busy with life stuff the last couple days so haven't been able to do to much work on this project.
Imateria wrote: Haven't been in the thread for a while but I'll answer some questions you brought up in various other posts Lance.
Fluff reason for having Space Marines move at a base 6" instead of 5" like normal humans is simple, they're genetically engineered supe humans meant to keep up with Eldar and Daemons. I also agree with the previous posters delinations of having Orks, Humans and Tau (makes sense to add in Necrons to that list as well) at 5" with Marines, Eldar, Nids and Daemons at 6", taking those figures as a base for the factions and adjusting for specific units (e.g. Dark Eldar Wychs can be 7" because they are super fast gladiators whilst Wracks would be 5" because they're shambling Frankensteins).
Your specific example of Hormagaunts threat range at 20" with an 8" move, 4" run and 8" charge is a good one. I think I previously mentioned that I'm not in favour of having a unit both run and charge in the same turn for the worry you presented, the enormous threat ranges some of the really fast units can have. Just imagine what it would be like with Reaver Jet Bikes, who absolutely should be the fastest of the fastest and unlike most other bike units absolutely want to be in close combat with their Cluster Caltrops. Personally I prefer the idea of units choosing one or the other because doing both seems to be too much of a boost for assault units.
I am in particular concerned about the out-liers with the movement stats. Too much speed and the threat range becomes VERY powerful. Too little and any piece of terrain becomes a slog you will never escape. A 4" move on all non canoptek crons with a -2" move for difficult terrain would just ruin their ability to move in any kind of terrain. There are potential answers. Like the crons getting some kind of move through cover to adapt their slow and steady march forward... But that's a patch for a problem in the baseline rules that ignores one of my design goals. No army wide immunity to core game mechanics.
I will definitely takes these numbers into consideration as I roll out the next update which should include some more units for some more armys with updated M attributes across the board. Unit types and Weapon types will also get updated and I think really streamlined.
Regarding changing the terms for Wounds and Wounding, it might be superficial, certainly at the moment, but it will defintiely be something that needs to be considered especially if your changing vehicles to have a Toughness value and Save. At present you have to be very careful with wording things because To Wound and Armour Penetration are very different things.
I agree. I also thought of a way to adjust the vehicle damage chart. Consider this idea and please give me some feed back.
Vehicle toughness is not based on facing but is based on highest current av on the vehicle.
av = t
14 = 10
13 = 9
12 = 8
11 = 7
10 = 6
armor saves would be based on facing and different facings would have different armor saves.
AV = Sv 10-11 = 3 (4+)
12-13 = 4 (3+)
14 = 5 (2+)
If a vehicle suffers 2 or more unsaved wounds in a single activation it rolls on the vehicle damage chart. (This means it can only ever roll on the chart 1 time in any given activation. No multi pen would be possible.
Vehicle Dmg Chart
roll 1d6
1-3 Nothing happens
4 = Shaken (snap shots only and a reduction to M... I am thinking 1/2 M currently but might be a flat reduction like 6" or maybe reduce it to combat speed only)
5 = weapon destroyed
6 = Immobilized
7 = Explodes
If the vehicle is already shaken and you roll a 4 add 1 to the result. If the roll is a 5 and the vehicle has no more weapons to destroy add 1 to the result. If the vehicle is already immobilized and the roll is a 6 move to explodes.
I think most vehicles would get an extra wound or 2 in addition to this. I would have to see how durable the toughness and saves make the vehicles first. Coupled with a 50% chance that nothing happens on a pen and only 1 pen possible from any given unit. Some weapon types, such as melta, might force a pen roll regardless of # of wounds or possibly give a bonus to the roll. Just some rough ideas at the moment. Thoughts?
Fluff reason for having Space Marines move at a base 6" instead of 5" like normal humans is simple, they're genetically engineered supe humans meant to keep up with Eldar and Daemons. I also agree with the previous posters delinations of having Orks, Humans and Tau (makes sense to add in Necrons to that list as well) at 5" with Marines, Eldar, Nids and Daemons at 6", taking those figures as a base for the factions and adjusting for specific units (e.g. Dark Eldar Wychs can be 7" because they are super fast gladiators whilst Wracks would be 5" because they're shambling Frankensteins).
And we could be looking at 7" Banshees/Guardians vs 6" Scorpions/Fire Dragons/Dark Reapers, as well. In other words, the "normal" Eldar being 7", but their heavy armored versions being slowed down.
One of the biggest problems I have had with the introduction of the M stat is that it usually starts with a severe global nerf to all but the "fastest" Infantry staying at 6". And yes, they may have been 4" for the most part before 3rd edition, but it has been 6" for quite some time since then. So, going from 6" to 4" for basic Movement will be seen as a nerf by anyone who sees it. It would be the equivalent of removing Run after so long with it.
If we're to have the Movement stat brought back in, we need to have the "baseline" Marines keep the 6", and the "average" Guardsmen being 5". Terminators might be slower to 5" to indicate the stodginess of their Armor, but that's about it.
I don't have a problem with using marines as the jack of all trades average that we adjust the others to. But buffs and nerfs would all be relative regardless of where we put that line. If people are inclined to think it's a buff for eldar to move 6 while marines move 5 and guard move 4 then they will definitely feel the same way about eldar moving 7 marines 6 and guard 5. I don't put a lot of stock into those kinds of thought processes because of that. It's more about what effect the actual numbers have on the actual units and their intended purpose within the army.
Agreed, 4" is just too slow for something that isn't huge an lumbering like a Tyrannofex.
And I am inclined to agree. As above, the effect even just basic terrain could have on a 4" M is a bit too drastic for balance purposes. Those M4 armies would be crippled.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/24 09:48:33
Lance845 wrote: I don't have a problem with using marines as the jack of all trades average that we adjust the others to. But buffs and nerfs would all be relative regardless of where we put that line. If people are inclined to think it's a buff for eldar to move 6 while marines move 5 and guard move 4 then they will definitely feel the same way about eldar moving 7 marines 6 and guard 5. I don't put a lot of stock into those kinds of thought processes because of that. It's more about what effect the actual numbers have on the actual units and their intended purpose within the army.
It's the amount of change which is being perceived that can trigger the response. People who played 2nd Edition won't have as big a problem with the average Infantry moving 4", many would like that back from what I've seen. But getting people who came in later to try and play this out without seeing it as falling down the nerf-bat tree is the reason for caution on it. I am only suggesting starting out with Marines at 6", test it, and then adjust from there so that you have some more data than a lot of these M-stat revival groups seem to do.
Keeping that in mind, do you plan on keeping in "pre-measuring" or not? If not, 1.5M for a Charge is fine. If not, may I suggest M+D6 or M+D3 as the average to allow some variability in the game?
Agree! I am happy to do a lot of data gathering. I want this to be done right.
I don't want variable charge distances. 1) it's a ridiculous extra roll for seemingly no purpose. 2) shooting doesn't have a variable distance on the guns.
I would like the game to try to make both melee and shooting as viable options for units, favoring one or the other, based on wargear and stat lines. Dice rolls for trying to hit. Not for the chance to try to hit.
10/25/16 -Added the section "Weapon Types". -Added "Turbo Boost" to Unit Actions. -Added "Turbo Boost!" to Orders. -Added the section "Unit Types" -Mentions Bulky (*) Special Rule - Clarification in Notes
Notes: This reduces the number of weapon types greatly. Only one Weapon type will prevent charging into assaults, 2 weapon types will reduce BS if the model moves before shooting. Things like salvo and rapid fire will be a part of the basic weapons profiles in the form of variable range and # of shots. As a result you can have a rapid fire assault weapon (Weapons like a assault rifle or Uzi) and rapid fire heavy weapons (I am thinking something like a SAW). The intent is to greatly simplify the need to look up the various weapon rules by placing more information on the weapon profile and making the restrictions each weapon type imposes much simplified and easier to memorize.
As of this Update the following have been cut from the game.
Unit Types Cut: Jetbikes (Now just Bike (Skimmers)), Artillery, Jump, Jet Pack, Beasts, GMC, Chariots, Heavy, Fast, Super Heavy Walkers, Super Heavy Tanks.
Turbo Boost introduces the concept of Mounted Weapons on bikes. It notes that Mounted Weapons are immune to the BS penalties for moving. I want to clarify how this functions here.
A model suffers a -1 BS when using a Heavy Weapon as part of a shooting attack if that model has moved. A model suffers a -1 BS if it Runs as part of it's move action. This means a model would suffer a -2 BS when using a Heavy Weapon as part of a shooting attack if that model moved during the move action and was part of a unit that Runs.
A bike with a Heavy Weapon mounted on it can move without suffering the -1 BS penalty. It would STILL suffer the -1BS if the unit Runs. In this case the penalty is not coming from the fact that the model Moved (that penalty is negated by the fact that it is mounted) but is instead coming from the Run action itself. Likewise a Unit of bikes that Turbo boosts will Suffer a -1 BS and if it chooses to run could end up with a -2 BS.
If, somehow, there was a bike unit that had a heavy weapon that was not Mounted that Turbo Boosts and Runs it would fire that heavy weapon at -3 BS. If this brings the units BS to 0 or less it would be unable to fire the weapon.
The Bulky Special Rule is being changed to Bulky #. Instead of 3 different Bulky special rules there will be 1 with a number. The number is the number of models the model with this special rule counts as for determining transport capacity. Bikes in this example are Bulky 3 and thus each single bike counts as 3 models for transport purposes.
Vehicles are not done yet. I will finish it up tomorrow. I found some issues with Ramming which is kind of the new and only "tank shock" that needs to be adjusted.
Please look it over and let me know of any inconsistencies. This was kind of a big update. Lots and lots of information I had to keep track of as I chose what to cut and what to condense and what to keep. It's why Vehicles didn't quite get done yet.
Note that very few types of weapons now. You can take almost any weapon and figure where it would fall pretty easily. For instance most Salvo Weapons are kind of redundant in the game as is because they come on relentless platforms at which point they would be Heavy or Artillery(note the examples for how heavy works with bikes to see how heavy would be effected on Relentless platforms). The few that do not can be covered by the Heavy or Artillery Type and a Variable range/# of shots.
Fast and Heavy vehicles are made redundant by the M attribute.
Again... there is a lot. Please feel free to field any and all questions. Especially if you can think of odd ball or outlier units and weapons that don't quite fit within the given rules.
....A special Rules update is probably next...UGGH! ::head ache::
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CalgarsPimpHand wrote: First let me say this looks like a good effort. I'm in agreement on a lot of your ideas. I only skimmed this thread, but I want to ask, have you ever played Bolt Action? It has a few nice mechanics that hit your design goals and it feels more like a 40k game than 40k does (40k is more of a very complicated tooth pulling simulator).
In particular:
alternating activation via random draw from a dice bag, to keep MSU from holding actions till end of turn as effectively
morale test is often needed for activation, favors high quality troops
pinning that affects shooting and morale, a nice bit of realism that also has interesting interplay with the activation mechanic
unified damage system for infantry and vehicles
a simple set of orders with options for overwatch, rallying, taking cover, and penalties for moving and firing
It's written by some notable ex-GW designers and in my opinion it's the direction 40k should have gone to remain relevant as a ruleset. It's well worth looking at and possibly borrowing liberally from.
Thanks for the post!
I have not had the chance to play Bolt Action myself. (Damn hobby is expensive to get into 1 game let alone 2). But I have read a lot about it and will be glad to look over the rules if I can find any. Please read over the rules in detail and give me all your criticism.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/26 07:48:05
Question: How do people feel about firing arcs on vehicles? Does it really add anything to the game besides headaches? Is the game more fun because of them? Would it be easier to assume that any given vehicle is capable of rotating and positioning itself during it's activation to fire it's weapons at full effect?
Lance845 wrote: Question: How do people feel about firing arcs on vehicles? Does it really add anything to the game besides headaches? Is the game more fun because of them? Would it be easier to assume that any given vehicle is capable of rotating and positioning itself during it's activation to fire it's weapons at full effect?
Outside of turrets, the main body of a Vehicle tends to turn relatively slowly, but there is nothing in 40K which actually defines the actual time of a player turn/round like in Battletech.
Agreed.
I always assume that as the model moves it is positioning itself for it's attacks. For instance, a flyer should not be restricted to a 45% vertical fireing arc meaning that if any model is positioned directly below the front of it it would be unable to shoot it after it's move. It is very reasonable to assume that if that is the intended target of the flier then it moved in a dive and positioned it's weapons appropriately to fire on that target.
Likewise, a tank is not just rolling up, stopping, and then shooting. The point of the variable speeds of vehicles is that the guns are being fired as it goes and that has an effect on the accuracy of the weapons. If that is the case then you can assume that the tank has positioned itself appropriately to fire in any given round.
But I guess it should be a general question as well, "Should there be firing arcs on anything?"
Firing Arcs could be kept/implemented if we are concerned with a unit type(s) being able to deploy too many Weapons in one direction at the same time.
This is fair. Outside of crazy things like super heavies and GC can you think of any vehicle that has "too many weapons"? In most examples off the top of my head they have 3 max. Would that be fixed by tying number of weapons a vehicle can bring to bear based on it's Order/Move?
For instance. If a Vehicle "Holds Position!" It may fire 1 weapon at +1 BS and all of it's other weapons at BS. A Vehicle moving at combat speed may fire up to 3 weapons at full BS. A Vehicle moving at Cruising Speed may fire 1 weapon at full BS and up to 2 weapons at -1 BS.
If a vehicle is holding position is it fair to assume that it can rotate in place to get the firing arcs it desires? It's actual positioning at that point is simply where it ends it's activation.
Unusual Suspect wrote: I like the approach and the design goal, though I've mostly been skimming through your proposals.
A quick question: Under Unit Types, you have the Skimmer subtype listed.
"-Skimmer
A Skimmer can move freely over all terrain treating it as open ground. However "
Presumably you intended to finish that with some for of dangerous terrain test discussion?
Correct! I am still working out a lot of the details on some of the unit types. As I was typeing it all up I noticed some snags and just sort of petered out while I was working out the kinks. Good catch. I will add it to my notes to update and finish that.
You've removed the jet pack and jump pack types, but I didn't see them added in anyway. Are they intended to be distinguished (like they are now), or will you be removing the ability to move in the assault phase outside of charging?
There is a piece of wargear for Assault Marines in the play test profiles that details a jump pack and what it does as a rough example. Similar wargear will exist for other armys that accomplish similar effects. Increases of M attribute, immunity to movement penalty from terrain and the such.
Some units may end up with the skimmer sub type. For instance Necron Destroyers will now be Infantry Skimmers instead of Jetpack infantry. It amounts to roughly the same thing so I figured why not condense it down and make it all a lot easier to remember.
Also, will they be represented in wargear as granting the Skimmer subtypes (or its equivalent for infantry, if that needs distinguishing) and/or movement speed increases, for when models can take that sort of gear as an upgrade?
My apologies if any of this has already been answered.
It depends on exactly what it is. In the marine example assault marines do not always have jump packs. So in this case it's wargear. However Destoryers only ever get around with their hover platforms. So they are themselves Infantry Skimmers. Skimmer does not offer a M increase inherently. Different units will have different speeds as would be appropriate. So the skimmer type would not on it's own be sufficient for Assault Marines to effectively become "jump".
I am always happy to clarify. Thanks for the feedback. Please feel free to offer up any more questions or criticism.
Amishprn86 wrote: I stopped reading when you said "Shooting Attack: As per the Shooting Phase in the BRBpg.30 with some exceptions. The unit may target units locked in combat."
WHY THE feth WOULD YOU SHOOT INTO A BATTLE WITH YOUR OWN MEN IN THE WAY.
For several reasons.
To start, not allowing units to be shot at while they are locked in combat, from a purely mechanical/meta perspective, is an exploitable immunity state for the units in combat. Which is how it is used now. In particular units with Hit and Run (looking at you marine bikers) will get into a combat on their turn, sit there during your shooting phase, leave on your assault phase, shoot you because you are no longer in combat and then jump back in to exploit the immunity again. This is bull gak. Combine this with things like Tarpitting (also bs). The fact that melee is some kind of blanket immunity has pathed the way for exploitative tactics. Removing that immunity changes the meta in, what I feel, is a more productive way.
If you continue reading to the actual assault rules you should see a few changes that make assaults function fairly differently. Take it all in as a whole and see what you think.
But it can all change. We will see how it tests out in the long run.
From a fluff perspective almost every army WOULD fire into combats with their own guys. Commisars would gladly order strikes into combats with imperial guard. Nids give zero feths. Marines might charge in making a heroic sacrifice to hold the enemy while their brothers drop the bomb or whatever counting on their super human genetics and superior armor to carry them through. Necron lords would give exactly zero craps about the warrior dross and higher ranking lords would gladly sacrifice lower ranking lords. Tau are happy to sacrifice their lives for the greater good. Eldar would be the most hesitant to loose lives except that every life lost can be recovered in their soul gems and placed into the wraithbone constructs in times of war. In the Grim Darkness of the far future nobody gives a gak about individual lives.
Regarding tanks, firing arcs and such: Have you made yourself some kind of overview of unit types where you state which areas the specific types should excel in? For example, I completely disagree with the current rules that Walkers should be able to fire more weapons on the move than tanks - this is the one area which I think that Tanks should be good at.
I currently have walkers functioning more like armored MC. The idea was that
1) Walkers in the current game basically just suck. They have a lot of complicated exceptions to being vehicles that try to bring them closer to acting like non vehicles while still technically being vehicles. I figured I would reverse that. Make them non vehicles that have armor values and will either have a vehicle type or be immune to the things that normally do not effect vehicles. Still kind of sorting out the easiest way to place them and reach that effect. It simplifies everything when you can just look at all the tau battle suits, killa cans, dreadnaughts, etc... and say, "ok... it's a slow moving MC with different saves on different facings and a high T". Of course Tau will probably be quicker moving with generally lower T.... working all that out is a ways away.
2) Walkers can currently fire 2 weapons on the move. Tanks can fire 3 at full BS at combat speed and 1 at BS and 2 at -1 BS at cruising speed. Vehicles can fire more weapons on the move then walkers.
That being said, I am still working out the kinks on units types. Please feel free to ask questions and throw out suggestions. If you have some other ideas on how this could function I am all ears, but do please try to take into account the game as a whole.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Update 3.
Change Log. Updated 10/27/16
Spoiler:
10/27/16 -Added Steady! to Orders. -Added Combat Speed! to Orders. -Added Cruising Speed! to Orders. -Changed Sv to Av. Since that save represents your armor save all models now have a "Armor Value". Functions the same just a rename. -GREATLY Updated Unit types - Mostly Vehicles. -Updated Status Flying - Renamed to Airbourne. Functions the same. Now "Aircraft Vehicles that are Flying are considered Airbourne" as opposed to "Aircraft Vehicles that are Flying are considered Flying". I think that sounds better. -Changed M attributes on play test units to reflect new phase of testing. This is a increase from previous M attributes across the board.
I need to add in Ram! order and unit actions to incorporate charging vehicles into other vehicles or vehicles into units. This includes trying to work out how Chariots will work. I may need to reintroduce them as a unique model type. I would REALLY rather not because only 3 armys in the game even have them and 2 of those only have 1 unit each that is a chariot. Seems like a silly small amount of models to have a whole unit type dedicated to it. I got a lot of ideas mulling about. Maybe another update tonight or tomorrow after I think on it a bunch.
As always... please look over the updates and let me know if you see any problems.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I am about ready to jump into another phase of the play test. But it's impossible to know who has what armys and what models. So I am reaching out to the community who might be interested in helping out.
If anyone would like to try out the rule set I ask for you to submit a 800 point list.
- Use the 30k FoC. Do not use the secondary detachments for the time being. (No ally, fortification, low)
- Use only primary codexs. No minidex. So no Harlequin, Haemonculus Coven, etc etc.. --Also, please no deathwatch or Genestealer Cults for the moment. They are too new, I don't have reliable access to them, and some of the rules need major reworks to function in the new system (looking at cult ambush)
-No unique Named HQs. Only Generic. By the 30k rule set these Named HQs would be 1 for every 1000 points in the army and offer rites of war options. For now I would like to use generic HQs to keep the general flow of the test simple.
-No chariots yet. I just haven't quite worked out their functioning yet.
Any list I get submitted to me I will try to convert the wargear and stat lines for testing in the form of a comprehensive army list. The turn around should be a day or 2. You got two armys and a friend you want to test it with? Submit me two lists.
The point costs wont be balanced yet since I wont be changing any point costs. I will make notes on how any special rules should play out. The goal is a ramped up version of the first phase of testing. Namely:
-Is the game play smooth and easy to pick up on? -Are unit interactions intuitive? -Is this a general improvement over the core game play of standard 40k? -Notate any rules inconsistencies or trouble spots you found in the game play.
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2016/10/28 01:32:08
The meta wouldnt be better, it would be worst, Tau would send Kroot, IG send body bags of guys, Nids would send swarms of gants, CSM hordes of Cultists, everyone would have 200-300 points of bad throw away units and 1200-1500pts of literally just the most OP firing units you could take, there wouldnt be marines, It would be3 Storm Surges, or 5 Wrathknights, It would be 15 Venoms + 6 Ravagers and 50 Hellions, etc...
It would literally be "Did I melee your shooting unit? Yes I win, No I lose"
ANY ARMY with Unkillable DS that can move fast.. Cugh Cough SM Bike star, Cough Cough Daemons.
You think the meta is bad now.. HAHAHA.
I am curious if you read the rest of the rules?
For starters sweeping advances do not automatically wipe the unit. They deal a number of unmitigatable wounds equal to the difference in the sweeping advance test.
No unit is locked in combat anymore that doesn't choose to be there. Tactical Retreats allow any unit that would be locked in combat to choose to leave.
Being locked in combat grants a 4+ cover save. A roll of 1 when shooting at a unit that is locked in combat hits friendly models instead.
There are several parts of this design that I was sure would have resistance. This being one of them. But in the games I have played testing it so far I have not seen any major exploitable results and primarily a massive decrease in the general crap tactics that happen so far. Granted, my tests so far have been with a limited number of units on smaller scale games. That being said, the general results have shown very VERY few instances when units remained locked in combat regardless. Primarily either the combats were decisive with units loosing and breaking away or the players making a choice to tactical retreat. In the rarer situation where units remained locked in combat, shooting at them was no different then trying to shoot at units who were attempting to advance up the field to get into assaults while receiving cover AND a chance to hit your friendlies. It doesn't seem to break anything.
Again, if the unit is not destroyed when breaking away anymore and you want to free up the unit for it's own activation you can make the choice to Tactical Retreat and break away. Go nuts!
I would ask you saw it in action, or even read the whole thing, before you decided it was broken. Otherwise the criticism is appreciated and I will keep my eye on the mechanics to see how it plays out. If it's not working as intended or promoting undesirable behavior it will be changed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/28 06:44:42
Amishprn86 wrote: Right. B.c a MC that is amazing in Melee, 3x the height is going to let a unit "run" away from it.
Or Leaping Gants with legs like a kangaroos. Even Steeds ... yes run away from Steeds.
Its just that simple to walk away from Giant monsterous, daemonic, jumping, savages looking to eat you. You want to talk about it being fluffy, there is your fluff.
There is a point where fluff comes into play and there is a point where game mechanics need to take over for the sake of the game. If the mechanics perfectly replicated the fluff then Shadow in The Warp would cover the entire table making it impossible for anyone but Nids to manifest powers and causing a Ld penalty to every enemy unit. Nids would be immune to perils of the warp because they don't actually access it to manifest their powers. That is just a single rule. However, as a game it needs to be reigned in for the sake of the game.
The test for sweeping advance is now based on the M attribute. Nids are more likely to catch basic infantry. Bikes are more likely to catch most things. And a giant MC depending on whether it's a slow lumbering monster or a crazy fast Diamacheron is more likely to catch nobody or 2-3 people from a group of 10 that decides to turn and flee.
Assuming that a single wound should be sufficient to wipe out a 29 man blob from the game because of a couple bad dice rolls is not fluffy, doesn't make sense, and is part of what makes assault so powerful in 7th. Which is why assault also has so many nerfs to balance it out. Remove the ability to totally wipe a unit regardless of it's size and you can start to bring the assault phase more in line with the rest of the game.
If you want Shooting into Melee to "work" it SHOULD be snap shots to represent you "trying to not kill your own team". Or, if your unit is at 25% strength THEN your commander might say "they are a lost casuse, lets shoot them"
I don't care if they are balanced or not. Honestly the idea of shooting into your team to get a couple extra kills and the thought that you can simply run away from any fight isn't smart.
Funny, I mostly only care if it's balanced or not.
Snap shots is a exercise in futility. It's a bunch of people rolling a bunch of dice to mostly get nothing done. So far there is no such thing as "snap shots" in this version of the game. There are BS penalty's which can bring you down to BS 1. But no inherent "snap shots". It's not the idea of shooting into your team to get an extra couple kills. It's that the enemy cannot use combat as exploitable immunity. It's still each sides choice on whether that is the unit they wish to target or not. Again, I recommend you see it in action.
FYI this is also what you said
"No unit is locked in combat anymore that doesn't choose to be there." and then you said "Being locked in combat grants a 4+ cover save."
You will never be in combat, you will walk out of combat, shoot them, then get back in..... so when will that cover save come into effect?
I assume this is coming from you still not having read most of the first post so I think you think the game is still using alternating player turns in which they use all their units in phases.
The game uses alternating activations. One player activates one unit. Next player activates one unit... etc etc.. If you can tie up a unit in assault early in a game round you may want to stay locked in combat to make use of the cover to protect yourself from future enemy unit activations. If the enemy is worried that they may loose the entire unit (or suffering an unacceptable amount of losses) in attempting to make a tactical retreat that unit might stay locked in combat. Now you have a 4+ cover save.
It's about giving the tactical choice to the player and making the choices interested by giving them pros and cons.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/28 18:23:29
(I think most 
.
)
