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.

TL;DR - If you just want to see the rules without the preamble, scroll down to the Change Summary heading!

This thread is a sister thread for my work over at Warseer. Dakka's proposed rule forum gets more contributors so it'd be silly for me to exclude those of you who don't read Warseer as well.

Why make a community edition?
I've been dissatisfied with parts of the Warhammer 40k game for many years. Most of it works well enough that I wouldn't bother changing it, but certain parts niggle at me and I know from forum chatter that a number of these niggles are felt by other players too. The coming of Age of Sigmar has sounded an alarm bell. I feel it is worthwhile building a community version of 40k, in preparation for the possibility of significant changes happening to 40k. Do I expect everyone to change from 7th to this community edition? No. The point is to have an alternative '8th' edition available if 8th edition isn't to players' taste.
In other words, this is a backup plan. I'll write and tweak these rules right up to the release of 8th edition and upload them wherever I can at the same time as 8th gets released. If people want to use my rules before that happens, that is a bonus, but it's not a major goal at this time.

Where to start?
It is my view that there have been two major versions of this game. 2nd edition and 3rd edition. Rogue Trader was a different game which shared a lot with 2nd edition (I never played it). 4th-7th edition is the 3rd edition 'engine' (to use a computer game term) with patches and expansions.
Ever since the release of 3rd edition, it has felt as though the subsequent changes have been taking us back towards 2nd edition. As a result it is worth revisiting 2nd edition as a reference point when making Zeta edition.
Note that I'll be referring to this as 'Zeta' rather than 8th just in case GW does make their own 8th edition. I want to avoid confusion where possible. Spiritually, I want Zeta to be 7.1.
I will also be making notes for a possible future update 'Eta' which will probably be a reimagined 3rd edition (i.e. starting from 2nd and moving forward again).

Goals, and the general plan
The thing about creating a community edition is that the community has to actually get behind it. If they don't, it's just another person's dream house rules. If they do, the contributors can gather the whiff of officialdom necessary to make bigger changes.
With that in mind, my first attempt here will be to house-rule 7th edition to fix some of the more glaring holes without changing anything too drastically. It needs to be playable with whatever codices are current at the time of 7th's demise; It needs to be an improvement upon just playing with ebay'd copies of the rules; and it needs to be supported in an ongoing manner.

I do want to make the game run faster, but primarily through efficiency (touch the models less frequently) and clarity (less time looking up rules). I'm not looking to increase speed through over-simplification or homogenization (less fluffy variance). For example; I like that each of the Space Marine legions has its own flavour now, so I'm not planning to remove that.

I do not have all of the codices, and am not familiar with all factions. These rule changes will focus on the core rules, not the codices. If a core rule change has a significant impact on a particular codex, please let me know.

Project Speed and Duration
The trickiest part about this project is that there is no known deadline. We don't know exactly when GW is planning on releasing 8th edition, and at this stage what we've heard about the rule changes is vague at best. This means it's impossible to know how quickly we need to progress. I'm not too concerned about this however because we'll be sticking closely to 7th edition anyway - if a rule hasn't been written yet, just keep using the existing rule.
With that said, my work to date on Zeta has already covered the majority of the rulebook.

Assistance and input
I can write an awful lot of words on my own, but I need player feedback to ensure that:
a) What I'm writing makes sense
b) The game remains fun for as many people as possible
c) Ambiguity and rules holes get fixed
d) Balance is maintained or improved, rather than becoming worse

With that in mind, what I'm seeking here is playtesters and editors, plus a general contribution of ideas. If you like where I'm going with this and wish to contribute, please post as much feedback as possible in the thread below, or in the original thread over at Warseer.

Change Summary
I've tried to make this list comprehensive but it's entirely possible that I've missed something.

Core Rules
Models & Units
• Vertical coherency is now 4"

General Principles
• Blasts and templates are aimed at a 'height' again when dealing with multi level terrain
• Blasts do not have to be centred on a model
• Blasts can hit flyers and flying monstrous creatures
The Turn
• Created 'start of turn' and 'end of turn' phases for all those messy 'before the beginning of your turn' rules.
• 'Game Turn' is now called 'round'. Player turn is now just called turn.
Movement
• If a unit is unable to restore coherency by the end of the phase then it is automatically broken and must fall back.
• Only infantry may climb walls/multi level terrain. Other units must have an appropriate slope
• Run now occurs in the movement phase
• Run is no longer d6" and is based upon your base movement rate
• Difficult terrain effectively halves your movement rate
• A unit which has not restored coherency by the end of the movement phase becomes broken and must fall back.
• You can no longer take morale checks for casualties due to dangerous terrain
• Really tall models can step over small models.
Psychic
• This entire section has been rewritten. It has elements of several editions as well as new concepts which are intended to promote a risk and reward playstyle for psychic powers.
Shooting
• Snapshots are now BS -2 (min 0)
• Blasts may snapshot with the reduced BS. Snapshot 'Hits' still scatter but you subtract full BS
• Templates may be used with snapshots, models are only hit on a 4+ (wall of death still overrides this in overwatch)
• Double Toughness = Instant Death has been replaced with a gradient rule which deals multiple wounds.
• Intervening cover is less effective than actually being in cover/in base contact with terrain.

Assault
• Charge distance is half of your base movement rate +1d6"
• A failed charge forces the unit to move part way toward the target
• Consolidate is half move rate now, not d6"
• Altered the WS to-hit chart to make use of 2s and 6s
• Our Weapons Are Useless! Only requires the majority of weapons now, not all.

Morale
• Trapped is a little more deadly
• 50% casualties in a single phase applies -1 to the morale check
• Pinning checks that come from multiple sources apply modifiers to leadership
Unit Types
• Fleet is now a unit type which moves 8" base instead of 6.
• Beasts no longer ignore dangerous terrain
• Flying Monstrous Creatures have had a complete rewrite
Weapons
• Chainswords gain shred
• Rapid fire no longer restricted to 2/1
• Storm bolters become rapid fire 4/2

Vehicles
• Flat Out is now done in the movement phase
• Combat speed allows 2 weapons at full BS
• Power Of the Machine Spirit does not allow you to fire after flat out move
• Vehicles in squadrons cannot shoot through other models in the same unit
• Pintle mounted weapons may fire overwatch
• In assault you don't automatically hit the rear. You hit the next weaker facing. That is, in contact with the front of the vehicle counts as side armour.
• You can consolidate after fighting a vehicle (not walkers)
• Glancing and penetrating changed. Now more like 5th edition with glances rolling on the damage chart with a penalty. Not all results cause hull damage.
• Shaken, stunned, immobile, weapon destroyed all removed (for now a least).
• Extra armour modifies the damage table
Special Rules
• Fear now does WS -3 rather than set WS to 1. This means it can reach 0.
• Precision Shots/Strikes are 'always on'. No more looking for 6s. Note that this is a massive boost for sniper rifles!

Current downloadable document
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_T7hszf2ZfdWmp2YTllei1XcXc

Skitarii are certainly going to appreciate the BS5 Overwatch. I'd suggest rolling Salvo and Rapid Fire back together more generally (if it's defined as first number at half range after moving/second number at full range after not moving and may choose either profile after not moving then the entire Rapid Fire type becomes just Salvo 2/1).

I'm actually developing an alternate ruleset for 7th edition too that could incorporate alternate activations. The overall goal of my packet, however, is to reduce excessive dice rolling and time it takes to play. I'm very tempted to include some of your ideas or perhaps we can collaborate. Here's what mine are:

The Psychic Phase:

Deny the Witch:
If your opponent makes a successful Psychic test, you can attempt to nullify the power being manifested by making a Deny the Witch test. For a Deny the Witch test to be successful, you need to nullify enough Warp Charge points so that the value of your opponent’s successful warp charges is below the minimum value needed to manifest the power. For example, if Carl manages to get 2 successful warp charges on a warp charge level 2 power, Steve simply needs one Deny the Witch roll in order to negate the power.

Invisibility:
Instead of forcing snap fire, change the ability so that models firing at an invisible model do so at -3BS to a minimum of BS1. Template weapons can hit the target as normal.

The Shooting Phase:

Selecting Another Weapon: Ignore any entry regarding choosing to fire weapons separately. For the purposes of speeding the game up, weapons that are chosen to fire must fire at the same time. We suggest using different colored dice to designate the different weapons.

Cover Saves:
Determining Cover Saves: When any part of the target model’s body is obscured 25% from the point of view of the firer, the target model is in cover. If half or more of the models in the target unit are in cover, then the entire unit is deemed to be in cover and all of its models may take cover saves. If less than half of the models in the target unit is in cover, then the entire unit counts as exposed and may not take cover saves. However, cover saves may only awarded if the unit chooses to go to ground. Models that are Vehicles, bikes, monstrous creatures, gargantuan creatures, and super-heavy vehicles simply need to be obscured 50% in order to be counted as in cover, but this is awarded from a model by model basis as detailed by the default 40k Rules.

Run:
Instead of electing to run during the shooting phase, players do so during the movement phase. Instead of rolling to run, players move an additional flat value of 4” and cannot shoot during the shooting phase or assault.

Go to Ground:
Units that can go to ground are awarded +1 to their cover save as normal.

Assault Phase

Roll Charge Range:
Instead of rolling 2D6, a unit rolls 1D6 and adds the lowest initiative score to the value. Charging through difficult terrain subtracts 2 to the value.

No Retreat!
Units that do not take morale checks and do not fall back must suffer a number of wounds equal to the number their side has lost the combat by. All types of saving throws, except cover saves, can be taken against these wounds. For example, after all blows are struck, a fearless unit has lost the fight by a difference of 3 wounds. The fearless unit does not take a morale test, but it immediately suffers three wounds and will take three armour saves. If none of the enemies involved in the combat against a fearless unit can actually hurt it, the unit does not suffer any wounds if its side is defeated in combat and simply continues to fight.

Unit Types

Bikes and Jetbikes
Turbo-Boost: Bikes and Jetbikes can make a Turbo-Boost move during the movement phase, but may not shoot in the shooting phase.

Assault Moves: If Eldar and Dark Eldar jetbikes did not move or turbo-boost during the movement phase and are not locked in combat or charging, they may move 2D6” in the assault phase.

Jump Units
Special Rules: Jump Units also have the fleet special rules and always has the Hammer of Wrath special rule during the assault phase.

Jet Pack Infantry
Thrust Move: A Jet Pack unit that is not locked in combat, charging, hasn’t moved in movement phase or run, or arrived by deep strike that turn may move 2D6” in the assault phase.

 
Monstrous Creatures and Flying Monstrous Creatures:
Shooting with Monstrous Creatures: When firing a monstrous creature’s weapon, assume that weapons mounted can swivel horizontally and vertically up to 45 degrees.
Damage Table: When a Monstrous Creature or Flying Monstrous Creature suffers a wound, roll on the following Damage Table:
1-3: Shaken
4: Stunned
5: Weapon Destroyed
6: Immobilized
7+: Instant Death

If an AP2 weapon scored a wound, add +1 modifier to the roll on the Damage Table. If an AP1 weapon scored a wound, add +2 modifier to the table.

Hard to Hit: A unit firing at a swooping flying monstrous creature subtracts -3BS unless they have the skyfire special rule.

Gargantuan Creatures:

Shooting with Monstrous Creatures: When firing a Gargantuan Monstrous Creature’s weapon, assume that weapons mounted can swivel horizontally and vertically up to 45 degrees.

Damage Table: When a Gargantuan Creature suffers a wound, roll on the Damage Table above, but ignore all results unless a 7+ is rolled. If the result is a Fatal Blow, the Gargantuan Creature loses D3 Wounds.

Vehicles

Flat Out: Flat out moves are now done during the movement phase instead of shooting.

Difficult and Dangerous Terrain:
Vehicles ignore effects of difficult and dangerous terrain if it moves no more than combat speed (6”). However, if a vehicle goes cruising speed and/or flat out through either terrain types, it must take a dangerous terrain check. A vehicle that fails a dangerous terrain test must roll on the vehicle damage table.

Hard to Hit and Flyers: A unit firing at a Zooming Flyer creature subtracts -3BS unless they have the skyfire special rule.

Vehicle Upgrades

Extra Armour: Vehicles with extra armour ignore crew shaken results and downgrade crew stunned results to crew shaken.

Smoke Launchers: Vehicles that use smoke launchers count as shrouded instead of having a +5 cover save.

Characters:

Look Out Sir: Look Out Sir may only be attempted once per phase.

Terrain Types:

Difficult Terrain: Instead of rolling 2D6 and taking the highest result, units moving through difficult terrain move a flat value of 4”.

Special Rules:

Feel No Pain:
Models with Feel No Pain no longer treat FNP rolls as a separate roll upon failing a wound. Instead, treat the Feel No Pain as an invulnerable save for units that do not have one while units that do may add +1 to their invulnerable save. However, this bonus is negated by instant death.

Ignores Cover: Models hit by a weapon with ignores cover reduces their cover save by -2. If the value goes beyond a 6, then the model may not take cover saves.

Jink: Jink counts as its own separate save type that acts identically to a 4+ cover save, but cannot be stacked with stealth, shrouded, or any bonuses that is associated with cover saves. In addition, a jink save may only be performed once per player turn against a single shooting attack and the unit may not charge on their next turn if they jink. The jinked unit may not take jink saves against subsequent attacks of the same player turn.

Twin Linked: A model with a twin linked weapon counts as having +1BS. Template weapons that are twin linked count as +1 strength.

 NInjatactiks wrote:
I'm actually developing an alternate ruleset for 7th edition too that could incorporate alternate activations. The overall goal of my packet, however, is to reduce excessive dice rolling and time it takes to play. I'm very tempted to include some of your ideas or perhaps we can collaborate. Here's what mine are:

Go to Ground:
Units that can go to ground are awarded +1 to their cover save as normal.

Roll Charge Range:
Instead of rolling 2D6, a unit rolls 1D6 and adds the lowest initiative score to the value. Charging through difficult terrain subtracts 2 to the value.

No Retreat!
Units that do not take morale checks and do not fall back must suffer a number of wounds equal to the number their side has lost the combat by. All types of saving throws, except cover saves, can be taken against these wounds. For example, after all blows are struck, a fearless unit has lost the fight by a difference of 3 wounds. The fearless unit does not take a morale test, but it immediately suffers three wounds and will take three armour saves. If none of the enemies involved in the combat against a fearless unit can actually hurt it, the unit does not suffer any wounds if its side is defeated in combat and simply continues to fight.

Difficult and Dangerous Terrain:
Vehicles ignore effects of difficult and dangerous terrain if it moves no more than combat speed (6”). However, if a vehicle goes cruising speed and/or flat out through either terrain types, it must take a dangerous terrain check. A vehicle that fails a dangerous terrain test must roll on the vehicle damage table.

Smoke Launchers: Vehicles that use smoke launchers count as shrouded instead of having a +5 cover save.

Jink: Jink counts as its own separate save type that acts identically to a 4+ cover save, but cannot be stacked with stealth, shrouded, or any bonuses that is associated with cover saves. In addition, a jink save may only be performed once per player turn against a single shooting attack and the unit may not charge on their next turn if they jink. The jinked unit may not take jink saves against subsequent attacks of the same player turn.

Twin Linked: A model with a twin linked weapon counts as having +1BS. Template weapons that are twin linked count as +1 strength.

You definitely have some similar ideas there. I've quoted the ones I found most interesting.
I'm glad you mentioned Go to Ground because I suddenly realized I'd left the 'cannot go to ground' clause out of bikes and jetbikes. I've fixed that now. I've also decided that cavalry cannot go to ground.

Using Initiative as a factor in charge distance is interesting, but I'll be sticking with 'half movement rate'.

I see where you're coming from with the fearless/no retreat thing. It's tempting to put that in, but often being fearless in combat is its own detriment. It makes it a bit too easy for your opponent to lock a unit in a combat you wish to escape from.

Great idea with the ignoring difficult terrain at combat speed. I've stolen that

Smoke launchers giving shrouded. Stolen. Thanks

I like where you're going with Jink and Twin Linked but I'll be saving those two for project Eta, not including them in Zeta.

I took a few of your ideas too like how vehicles fire 2 shots instead of 1 on combat speed. I actually considered that initially to match monstrous creatures, but seeing you have that pushed me over the edge to play test it. Same with how pintle mounted weapons can overwatch which should be the point of them. Also you reminded me about consolidation moves which I'd actually make 6" instead.

No Retreat was an idea I brought back from 5th Edition and it was sort of an answer to people complaining about assault needing to feel stronger and wanting to have an effect against Space Marine's ATSKNF. I actually copied and pasted that straight from the 5th edition book, but I should reword some of it to clarify it's supposed to work against marines or maybe shift No Retreat to only work on marines. Hmm.

This is an interesting idea, I'll be keeping up with this.

Also, I love the debuff to leadership based on percentage casualties. Did you have any thoughts on making it -1 leadership if they're 25% below the starting value and -2 leadership if they're 50% if the unit doesn't have a character or do you think that's too much book-keeping?

@Zutiur.
Are you using movement rates in your re write?
If so would you like to have all movement carried out in the movement phase?

Would you be interested in using alternating phases to improve player interaction, and remove the need for over watch?

I can post up some ideas if you are interested.

 NInjatactiks wrote:
Also, I love the debuff to leadership based on percentage casualties. Did you have any thoughts on making it -1 leadership if they're 25% below the starting value and -2 leadership if they're 50% if the unit doesn't have a character or do you think that's too much book-keeping?

I considered reintroducing that old rule, but I've never really liked that it. It just doesn't feel right because often 50% of a unit is still as many or more than its base number. For example, a Tactical squad is 5-10 marines. Why should it be penalized for dropping down to 5 marines?
Worse example, a Guard blob of 50 gets cut down to 25 guardsmen. This is still 2.5 * their min size of 10. That shouldn't be penalized. Taking full size units has enough drawbacks without that happening.

Lanrak wrote:

Are you using movement rates in your re write?
If so would you like to have all movement carried out in the movement phase?

Would you be interested in using alternating phases to improve player interaction, and remove the need for over watch?

Hi Lanrak,
Sort of. I'm still assigning movement speed by unit type as 7th does, I'm just making better use of those numbers. I've shifted run to the movement phase but I have no intention of shifting charge to the movement phase. Nor do I intend to change away from the existing I-Go-You-Go whole turn at a time standard. This is a patch on 7th edition, not a whole redesign. I'm trying to keep lots of compatibility with existing codices so that I am not forced to re-write them all if people want to use my rules.

I'm already familiar with your ideas from the other threads. When I have Zeta 'finished' and start putting more effort into 'Eta', then I'll be doing much bigger changes, possibly including alternating phases or random unit activation (Bolt Action style).

As a person who shares the sentiment for 2nd ed and gradually changes current ruleset to better represent some old ideas, I have playtested a lot of modifications to current ruleset. Some thoughts to consider in your edition:

- instead of movement stat and reworking a lot of core mechanics, you can make run and charge distance based on initiative value (I use init OR d6 roll for run, but have also playtested charges with Init. as minimum distance)

- revert blast shooting to 2nd ed rules (just use 2d6 instead of artillery dice), i.e. scatter only if initial "to hit" roll fails.

- increase the importance of deployment phase, scout, infiltration, repositioning rules and make reserves faster and lower the impact of going first/second. I won't go into details on how I do it, because I do not play with or against SM and don't balance this against Drop Pods and other Alpha Strikes, but this step has a huge impact on duration of a game. I rarely have to play past 4th turn, 5th turn is usually just a "quick resolve remaining CCs" and all strategic decisions made in deployment phase are much more important and interactive. I think that deployment phase should ideally feel like fencing- or chess- like duel.

I personally hate the current all-or-nothing and best-of-available save mechanics, so I use a system more akin to 2nd ed, but faster to resolve:

- cover saves are separate roll of 6+ taken before actual armour/inv save, and are increasable to 5+ by stealth/shrouded (you need actual cover for stealth to work, shrouded works everywhere and gives 6+ in the open, 5+ in cover; stealth+shrouded makes it 5+ everywhere). This represent old "to hit" modifiers from 2nd ed, but are much, much faster to resolve.
- AP value that matches save value reduces thus save by 2, so 2+ is reduced to 4+, 3+ to 5+, 4+ to 6+. If you can reroll save by any means, you get to only reroll it as a "rended" value, so "rerollable 2+" is a subsequent 2+/4+, not 2+/2+ (this way a series of increased succes percentages is "tidy" - rellolable 3+ is worse than unrellolable 2+). Reroll '1' abilities become reroll '2', so 2+ save needs a "full reroll ability" to benefit. Yes, I know that this is still a lot of rolled dice, but all those who remember 2nd ed are perfectly aware, that calculating and resolving modifiers take a lot more time than just "brainless batch rolling" of predefined dice values.
- Jink is separate form of cover and cannot be improved by stealth/shrouded.
- MCs don't benefit from area terrain cover, only from being obscured, same as vechicles.
This change requires some point cost changes on some models, that have "backup inv saves" built in, as many of those are now only a benefit against "no armour or cover saves allowed" attacks. This change makes things generally harder to kill, so there is less impact of first turn casaulties, a lot more CC fighting, cover matters a lot for light troops, so their movement is more terrain dependant and there is less frustrating "my tough and pricy model vanishes without having anything to say" moments.

Get rid of/change Invisibility and restrict Independent Character group joining a unit and many, many OP, unballanceable shenanigans and deathstars just "magically" go away...

One last thing - get rid of Kill Points, those are the main reason why this game has little strategic depth and are completely unfluffy - if there is permanent war and lives do not matter, then why on earth killing another gaunt squad has any impact on the overall victory score?

The latest FAQ says that monstrous creatures have to be obscured so no more toe in terrain. Also I don't remember the last time I played a kill point game. Most people, except beginners, tend to ignore it because they know there's a lot more strategic depth in playing with objectives.

The thing you could do to speed up 40k the most would be alternating activations, I nominate a unit to take an action then the opponent does the same until we've both activated all of our units. You repeat this for each phase (movement/psychic/shooting/Close combat). To keep initiative useful you have some mechanic for seizing the initiative where a unit in a melee combat with a unit that the opponent is activating can attempt to activate first by rolling under their initiative. After your unit acts your opponent then takes his activation as normal. At best you get two back to back activations before the opponent can respond.

Boom now games take about a third to a half less time because you and your opponent can be moving models at the same time, and best yet no half hour of browsing the internet on your phone while you wait for your opponent. It also adds a lot of tactical depth and back an forth to the game.

 Grimgold wrote:
The thing you could do to speed up 40k the most would be alternating activations, I nominate a unit to take an action then the opponent does the same until we've both activated all of our units. You repeat this for each phase (movement/psychic/shooting/Close combat). To keep initiative useful you have some mechanic for seizing the initiative where a unit in a melee combat with a unit that the opponent is activating can attempt to activate first by rolling under their initiative. After your unit acts your opponent then takes his activation as normal. At best you get two back to back activations before the opponent can respond.

Boom now games take about a third to a half less time because you and your opponent can be moving models at the same time, and best yet no half hour of browsing the internet on your phone while you wait for your opponent. It also adds a lot of tactical depth and back an forth to the game.

And how exactly alternate activations should work between an army of three Imperial Knights and any MSU with a dozen(s) of units? This "alternate activations" argument appears in any "rewriting from scratch" thread, but never (to my memory) adresses this problem well enough to be practical or balanced.

I know that in other games with such a turn mechanic that it then becomes a list building consideration and advantage of MSU style builds. Now, in those games, the list building is a little more restrictive, so you'd rarely get more than 3 unit disparity between two armies.

In this case, the MSU player would get a bunch of consecutive turns to activate all their units.

One workaround is that a player may activate up to X number of units in a single round at a time, rather than just one. Grants some tactical flexibility to get a bunch of melta toting guys to work simultaneously, as an example.

Alternating unit activation works fine IF you have written the rules specifically for that type of game turn.(Epic SM for example.)

You can just plonk alternating unit activation mechanic from Bolt Action into 40k.
But as the alternating unit activation focuses on the interaction between SINGLE units, any balance issues are made much worse.

If game balance means nothing to you and you are just pushing minatures around and rolling dice for giggles.Fair enough.

However if you want a much simpler rule set that delivers a tacticaly more diverse and complex game play, alternating phases, with simutaneous activation modeling is the best option for a game that is more '40k fixed at source', than a BtGoA clone.

nou wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
The thing you could do to speed up 40k the most would be alternating activations, I nominate a unit to take an action then the opponent does the same until we've both activated all of our units. You repeat this for each phase (movement/psychic/shooting/Close combat). To keep initiative useful you have some mechanic for seizing the initiative where a unit in a melee combat with a unit that the opponent is activating can attempt to activate first by rolling under their initiative. After your unit acts your opponent then takes his activation as normal. At best you get two back to back activations before the opponent can respond.

Boom now games take about a third to a half less time because you and your opponent can be moving models at the same time, and best yet no half hour of browsing the internet on your phone while you wait for your opponent. It also adds a lot of tactical depth and back an forth to the game.

And how exactly alternate activations should work between an army of three Imperial Knights and any MSU with a dozen(s) of units? This "alternate activations" argument appears in any "rewriting from scratch" thread, but never (to my memory) adresses this problem well enough to be practical or balanced.

Who exactly is at a disadvantage in the imperial knights example?

 Grimgold wrote:

nou wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
The thing you could do to speed up 40k the most would be alternating activations, I nominate a unit to take an action then the opponent does the same until we've both activated all of our units. You repeat this for each phase (movement/psychic/shooting/Close combat). To keep initiative useful you have some mechanic for seizing the initiative where a unit in a melee combat with a unit that the opponent is activating can attempt to activate first by rolling under their initiative. After your unit acts your opponent then takes his activation as normal. At best you get two back to back activations before the opponent can respond.

Boom now games take about a third to a half less time because you and your opponent can be moving models at the same time, and best yet no half hour of browsing the internet on your phone while you wait for your opponent. It also adds a lot of tactical depth and back an forth to the game.

And how exactly alternate activations should work between an army of three Imperial Knights and any MSU with a dozen(s) of units? This "alternate activations" argument appears in any "rewriting from scratch" thread, but never (to my memory) adresses this problem well enough to be practical or balanced.

Who exactly is at a disadvantage in the imperial knights example?

That depends on implementation of alternating activtions you're thinking of. Just to give an absurd but clear example, one knight vs three Fire Dragons units. Either you allow to activate each unit once per turn, so Knight player gets one activation, FD player gets three, at least two of which happen after Knight player has done all of his decision making this turn, effectively making "alternating activations" devolve into I go you go. Or you allow only one activation per turn since Knight player has only one unit, then FD player gets to activate only one third of points each turn (it is exactly same as allowing Knight player to perform three activations per turn, while FD player activates all his units) effectively trippling tactical value of a Knight.

Have I missed some other options possible here?

I don't see that necessarily as a problem considering it's not that different from current 40k anyways where those 3 fire dragons would be activated at once if they get first turn. Besides, the knight can always charge into one of the squads and hope to be locked. However, that's why you do the opaque bag system so that the knight has a chance of going even if the odds are against it.

Going back to vehicle changes, I read in another thread a number of people liked the idea of them being able to pick and choose targets. How about using that idea instead of 2 weapons at combat speed?

 NInjatactiks wrote:
I don't see that necessarily as a problem considering it's not that different from current 40k anyways where those 3 fire dragons would be activated at once if they get first turn. Besides, the knight can always charge into one of the squads and hope to be locked. However, that's why you do the opaque bag system so that the knight has a chance of going even if the odds are against it.

Going back to vehicle changes, I read in another thread a number of people liked the idea of them being able to pick and choose targets. How about using that idea instead of 2 weapons at combat speed?

Ah, yes, I forgot about the opaque bag method, which requires a different absurd example to illustrate why it is equally doubtfull solution. Instead of Fire Dragon squads imagine spending knight points equivalent on eight separate Hive Guards. Now chances are, that the Knigt will never ever activate if we return tokens immediately or again devolve to a system awfully similiar to I go you go if we go through all tokens first and then put them back in a bag.

My point for the last couple of posts is - 40K would require a massive rework from ground up (and as deep as the core faction concepts, unit types structure and unit point costs/power level discrepancies) to ever make it work with alternating activations without it completely falling apart. It is not a "quick and easy fix" to do in a system, when we have 30pts worth single models and 500pts single models at the same time. But to be crystal clear - I do not criticize alternative activation system per se. Only it's application to 40K. Now I rest my case and let this thread flow back in it's intended direction.

nou wrote:
As a person who shares the sentiment for 2nd ed and gradually changes current ruleset to better represent some old ideas, I have playtested a lot of modifications to current ruleset. Some thoughts to consider in your edition:

One last thing - get rid of Kill Points, those are the main reason why this game has little strategic depth and are completely unfluffy - if there is permanent war and lives do not matter, then why on earth killing another gaunt squad has any impact on the overall victory score?

@nou
I haven't used initiative as the determining value but I have changed run to a fixed value based on unit type. Same with charge, it's now half movement speed + d6.
I'm happy with BS affecting the scatter distance rather than preventing scatter entirely. I'll keep it in mind if blasts continue to be lackluster with my other changes.
I was looking at some significant changes to cover and saves in general but realized that was too ambitious for my codex compatibility goal. I've left it more-or-less as is for now.
Invisibility will definitely change, I just haven't got around to rewriting all the psychic powers in the main book yet. There are just so many of them :(

Missions and objectives are the thing I intend to work on next. That section is a complete mess right now. Also, lives do matter in 40k. Just not for the Imperial Guard.


@Grimgold and others
For this project, I will categorically NOT be messing around with the turn structure. There are just too many things in 7th edition that rely on the existing structure. When I start on project Eta alternating phases, alternating unit activation and random unit activation will be tested, but for now let's please drop that topic. It doesn't belong in Zeta. This is a better 7th edition not a complete redesign.

---
In other news, I've just remembered and applied a change I've wanted to make for a long time. Bikes are now only relentless with the weapons that are directly mounted to the bike (eg the bolters and heavy bolter on a SM attack bike). Guns held by the model riding the bike (such as a grav gun...) do not benefit.
---
I get the feeling people here are making suggestions without having read the rule doc I posted a link to. That's ok but whenever I detect people doing that I'll just quote some of the rules as my response.

For example, here is a little snippet from movement and unit types:
During the movement phase each model may: walk, run or remain stationary/pivot. Walking is base speed. Run is base * 1.5. Stationary is obviously 0".
Charging is half base + d6.
Consolidate etc are half base
Fall back is unaltered at this stage. (2d6 generally)


Infantry movement rates:
Walk 6”
Run 9”
Consolidate 3"
Charge 3+1D6” (remember this still occurs in the assault phase)
Fallback 2D6”

Fleet movement rates:
Walk 8”
Run 12”
Consolidate 4"
Charge 4+1D6”
Fallback 2D6”

and so on.

Yeah, if you want to talk alternating activations, you can bring it over to this thread here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/708436.page

My issue with different movement stats per action is it'd be really overwhelming to remember all of them. It's already a tad annoying to remember the distances of units for a regular move for a new player on top of remembering different movement speeds for vehicles. Noobies would be completely lost without having to do a ton of flipping. I'm honestly ok with how movement works in 40k so I would prefer movement to be streamlined rather than becoming more deviated between units types.

Zustiur wrote:

nou wrote:
As a person who shares the sentiment for 2nd ed and gradually changes current ruleset to better represent some old ideas, I have playtested a lot of modifications to current ruleset. Some thoughts to consider in your edition:

One last thing - get rid of Kill Points, those are the main reason why this game has little strategic depth and are completely unfluffy - if there is permanent war and lives do not matter, then why on earth killing another gaunt squad has any impact on the overall victory score?

@nou
I haven't used initiative as the determining value but I have changed run to a fixed value based on unit type. Same with charge, it's now half movement speed + d6.
I'm happy with BS affecting the scatter distance rather than preventing scatter entirely. I'll keep it in mind if blasts continue to be lackluster with my other changes.
I was looking at some significant changes to cover and saves in general but realized that was too ambitious for my codex compatibility goal. I've left it more-or-less as is for now.
Invisibility will definitely change, I just haven't got around to rewriting all the psychic powers in the main book yet. There are just so many of them :(

Missions and objectives are the thing I intend to work on next. That section is a complete mess right now. Also, lives do matter in 40k. Just not for the Imperial Guard.


@Grimgold and others
For this project, I will categorically NOT be messing around with the turn structure. There are just too many things in 7th edition that rely on the existing structure. When I start on project Eta alternating phases, alternating unit activation and random unit activation will be tested, but for now let's please drop that topic. It doesn't belong in Zeta. This is a better 7th edition not a complete redesign.

---
In other news, I've just remembered and applied a change I've wanted to make for a long time. Bikes are now only relentless with the weapons that are directly mounted to the bike (eg the bolters and heavy bolter on a SM attack bike). Guns held by the model riding the bike (such as a grav gun...) do not benefit.
---
I get the feeling people here are making suggestions without having read the rule doc I posted a link to. That's ok but whenever I detect people doing that I'll just quote some of the rules as my response.

For example, here is a little snippet from movement and unit types:
During the movement phase each model may: walk, run or remain stationary/pivot. Walking is base speed. Run is base * 1.5. Stationary is obviously 0".
Charging is half base + d6.
Consolidate etc are half base
Fall back is unaltered at this stage. (2d6 generally)


Infantry movement rates:
Walk 6”
Run 9”
Consolidate 3"
Charge 3+1D6” (remember this still occurs in the assault phase)
Fallback 2D6”

Fleet movement rates:
Walk 8”
Run 12”
Consolidate 4"
Charge 4+1D6”
Fallback 2D6”

and so on.

Yes, I saw what you have already, just wanted to a different options to consider. If we're talking movement/running stats, then as you can see we have people with completely different expectations - ninjatactics would like movement to be much more like 3rd ed uniform 6" for everyone with probably a few exceptions, I'm on the exact oposite range of the spectrum. With your approach we must retain every snowflake rule that a squad may have regarding movement, and in the infantry department alone, we now have basic 6", fleet, +1", +3" in one phase, +3" in all phases, +3" ignoring terrain, slow and purposeful etc... Basing run/charge on initiative while retaining 7th ed movement/run/assault sequence makes everything already defined in available stats - thing meant to be faster CC fighters are faster runners/chargers and we can "fast clean" codices that utilise snowflake rules, while tactical Marines retain being "average" etc.

And how exactly you envision Eldar Battle Focus to work with your rules? Is it simply "can run&shoot same turn" now? I know there is little love for Eldar here on Dakka, but this "run in movement phase" changes how entire army works now...

Basic units need a guaranteed 6" move and 6" charge at the absolute rock bottom minimum.

@Lord Blackfang.
I am assuming you mean 6" minimum move when using the current 40k rules?

Where shooting is overpowered to the point you HAVE to buff units movement and assault capabilities to try to stop entire units being wiped out by shooting in turn 1 or 2.

In a re write using simpler rules to much better effect that are generate a specific game play type in synergy with the expected game play.
Movement rates of 4" are easily acceptable.

And all movement can be carried out in the movement phase, with the tactical options of ;_

Not moving and getting more effective shooting,(or digging in for a evasion bonus.)

Moving up to movement rate and shooting 'move and fire weapons' in the shooting phase.(Or going to ground )

Moving up to double movement rate into an assault .(Charge!)Assaults are resolved in the assault phase.

Or moving over movement rate up to double movement rate for a 'run'/flat out move.

 NInjatactiks wrote:
My issue with different movement stats per action is it'd be really overwhelming to remember all of them. It's already a tad annoying to remember the distances of units for a regular move for a new player on top of remembering different movement speeds for vehicles. Noobies would be completely lost without having to do a ton of flipping. I'm honestly ok with how movement works in 40k so I would prefer movement to be streamlined rather than becoming more deviated between units types.

I'm concentrating here on reducing double handling (moving the same model multiple times in a turn) and reducing 'randumb' rolls such as fleet. I'm not sure that fleet having an 8" move instead of giving a reroll to run and charge is really any harder to remember.

nou wrote:
With your approach we must retain every snowflake rule that a squad may have regarding movement, and in the infantry department alone, we now have basic 6", fleet, +1", +3" in one phase, +3" in all phases, +3" ignoring terrain, slow and purposeful etc... Basing run/charge on initiative while retaining 7th ed movement/run/assault sequence makes everything already defined in available stats - thing meant to be faster CC fighters are faster runners/chargers and we can "fast clean" codices that utilise snowflake rules, while tactical Marines retain being "average" etc.

And how exactly you envision Eldar Battle Focus to work with your rules? Is it simply "can run&shoot same turn" now? I know there is little love for Eldar here on Dakka, but this "run in movement phase" changes how entire army works now...

Huh? Were those examples supposed to be from my rules? If so, I think you've missed the concept.
It's not fleet +1.
Every unit type has a base movement rate. This is their 'walking' speed. Every other speed is a calculation based on that base speed.
Walk = Base
Run = Base*1.5
Charge = Base/2 + D6
Consolidate = Base/2
There should be no need to memorise all of the different distances for all of the unit types for all of the movement options. You only need to memorise the base move speed and the formulas.

I admit I haven't put any thought into Slow and Purposeful or the Howling Banshee/Slaaneshi Daemon extra 3 inches when running rules. I don't think they really need to change? I can't see anything in the wording of these rules that would cause a need to alter the way they work. I could change Slow and Purposeful to be a 4" base move, but I have no intention of messing with it. Not being able to run seems to be a fitting limitation for now.

Eldar Battlefocus may need rewording but it will function the same way as it does currently. There is a section in the book for Codex Amendments. Here is the current statement for Battle Focus:
A unit with this rule ignores the shooting penalty for running. It also may split its movement - if the unit walks during the movement phase, it may ‘run’ after shooting by moving again up to half of its base speed.
Let me know if that wording causes any concerns. The only loss I can see is that Eldar no longer have the ability to react between units firing. That is, if Unit A destroys enough of the target that Unit B is no longer in range, then Unit B no longer has the option of running forward d6" to get back in range. I'm hoping that any perceived 'nerf' from this change is counterbalanced by the fact they can move faster in general. Mind you, that boost to speed is more important to fleet units who aren't Eldar...
In fact looking at the wording I wrote for that, I should probably change it to:
A unit with this rule ignores the shooting penalty for running. It also may split its movement - if the unit walks during the movement phase, it may consolidate after shooting.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Basic units need a guaranteed 6" move and 6" charge at the absolute rock bottom minimum.

I hate the roll of double 1s for charge distance as much as the next person but I don't think a minimum of 6" is warranted. The way I see it, rolling for charge distance is the counterbalance to pre-measuring. If we look at basic infantry (who all move 6"), with my rules they have a charge distance of 3+d6". Which gives a range of 4"-9", with the average roll being 7". Or to put it another way, if you need 6", you've got a 5/6 chance of succeeding.
If you remove the randomness entirely I would expect to also remove pre-measuring so that charging can still fail. On the other hand, there is no such randomness to shooting, so perhaps you feel that pre-measuring charge distance is not an issue?

Averages don't work like that. The odds of getting a 6" charge on 3+D6 are 66%, as opposed to 72% on a straight up 2D6. The odds of getting the maximum 9" are 17%, when a 2d6 roll has 28% to get 9 or more. Most charges under your system will be shorter than on 2D6, despite the bottom cap of 4".


The pre-measuring thing is a false premise. Every modern wargame, barring maybe X-wing, has full pre-measuring and fixed movement distances. Guessing range also has no functional benefit other than bashing n00bs and people with mild cognitive disorders. In WHFB players were expected to guess distances across the table to within 1/2", estimating 12" at the start of your turn is trivial.

Zustiur wrote:

nou wrote:
With your approach we must retain every snowflake rule that a squad may have regarding movement, and in the infantry department alone, we now have basic 6", fleet, +1", +3" in one phase, +3" in all phases, +3" ignoring terrain, slow and purposeful etc... Basing run/charge on initiative while retaining 7th ed movement/run/assault sequence makes everything already defined in available stats - thing meant to be faster CC fighters are faster runners/chargers and we can "fast clean" codices that utilise snowflake rules, while tactical Marines retain being "average" etc.

And how exactly you envision Eldar Battle Focus to work with your rules? Is it simply "can run&shoot same turn" now? I know there is little love for Eldar here on Dakka, but this "run in movement phase" changes how entire army works now...

Huh? Were those examples supposed to be from my rules? If so, I think you've missed the concept.
It's not fleet +1.
Every unit type has a base movement rate. This is their 'walking' speed. Every other speed is a calculation based on that base speed.
Walk = Base
Run = Base*1.5
Charge = Base/2 + D6
Consolidate = Base/2
There should be no need to memorise all of the different distances for all of the unit types for all of the movement options. You only need to memorise the base move speed and the formulas.

I admit I haven't put any thought into Slow and Purposeful or the Howling Banshee/Slaaneshi Daemon extra 3 inches when running rules. I don't think they really need to change? I can't see anything in the wording of these rules that would cause a need to alter the way they work. I could change Slow and Purposeful to be a 4" base move, but I have no intention of messing with it. Not being able to run seems to be a fitting limitation for now.

Eldar Battlefocus may need rewording but it will function the same way as it does currently. There is a section in the book for Codex Amendments.

It's a long doc, I have missed the Codex Amendments section, sorry for dumb question on Battle Focus. So another question, not adressed in Amendments section - does Eldar Warhost Detachment bonus is still 6" run for everyone, so fleet units (almost everything in Eldar Codex) have a base movement of 8" walk + 6" run & battle focus, so now Fire Dragons have guaranteed 26" threat range (or guaranteed 24" in CAD instead of uncertain 19"-24")? That is 6-8" more than a melta-marine, I see a lot of Eldar hate potential here...

As for those examples listed in my previous post: those are current (official 7th ed) snowflake rules for infantry movement. And with your comment on Banshee/Slaaneshi units you confirm, that you want to leave them alone as they are in 7th ed codices? That makes Banshee unit in a Warhost move 8" (your fleet) and then run 9" on top of that (guaranteed 6" run from detachment plus snowflake rule) making them move 17" per turn or have 8" move plus 7+d6" charge (only snowflake rule here, no detachment bonus), making them autocharge enemies 16" away (to a rolled maximum of 21") instead of uncertain 11-21". Death company marine walk+charge range in zeta is 9+d6" for 15" maximum (instead of current 7th ed uncertain 8-18"). This means, that carefully placed, Banshees never get charged, they can either autocharge themselves risking only a single model to bolter pistol/rapid fire range or have 50% chance of succesful charge from completely safe distance, shoot and charge, deny overwatch, fight first and deny saves. People like Martel and Traditio are never gonna play your edition, as you just made the least effective Eldar CC unit as powerfull against marines as it was in 3rd ed

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Averages don't work like that.

Well that's embarrassing. I forgot what I was talking about mid paragraph. I was working from 4+d6 not 3+d6. You are completely correct.

The pre-measuring thing is a false premise. Every modern wargame, barring maybe X-wing, has full pre-measuring and fixed movement distances. Guessing range also has no functional benefit other than bashing n00bs and people with mild cognitive disorders. In WHFB players were expected to guess distances across the table to within 1/2", estimating 12" at the start of your turn is trivial.

Thanks for the clarification. That's good to know. For the moment I've noted it down as something I need to test but now my prime reason for not changing this is codex compatibility, and that's a pretty small issue as the only rules I can think of that need adjusting are fleet (already done) and Waaagh.

nou wrote:
It's a long doc, I have missed the Codex Amendments section, sorry for dumb question on Battle Focus. So another question, not adressed in Amendments section - does Eldar Warhost Detachment bonus is still 6" run for everyone, so fleet units (almost everything in Eldar Codex) have a base movement of 8" walk + 6" run & battle focus, so now Fire Dragons have guaranteed 26" threat range (or guaranteed 24" in CAD instead of uncertain 19"-24")? That is 6-8" more than a melta-marine, I see a lot of Eldar hate potential here...

As for those examples listed in my previous post: those are current (official 7th ed) snowflake rules for infantry movement. And with your comment on Banshee/Slaaneshi units you confirm, that you want to leave them alone as they are in 7th ed codices? That makes Banshee unit in a Warhost move 8" (your fleet) and then run 9" on top of that (guaranteed 6" run from detachment plus snowflake rule) making them move 17" per turn or have 8" move plus 7+d6" charge (only snowflake rule here, no detachment bonus), making them autocharge enemies 16" away (to a rolled maximum of 21") instead of uncertain 11-21". Death company marine walk+charge range in zeta is 9+d6" for 15" maximum (instead of current 7th ed uncertain 8-18"). This means, that carefully placed, Banshees never get charged, they can either autocharge themselves risking only a single model to bolter pistol/rapid fire range or have 50% chance of succesful charge from completely safe distance, shoot and charge, deny overwatch, fight first and deny saves. People like Martel and Traditio are never gonna play your edition, as you just made the least effective Eldar CC unit as powerfull against marines as it was in 3rd ed

No need to apologise. I'd rather people miss things and question them than have people feel they shouldn't ask questions without reading every single word of the doc. And yes, it is long, so I understand completely. Heck, I wrote the thing and I keep forgetting what's in there.
Has acrobatic changed in the new book? The last Eldar codex I got was 6th ed. In that acrobatic only gives +3 to run, not to charge. But to answer your question; at the moment a banshee or slanneshi will have a run distance of 8+4+3=13". If the banshee is in a Warhost, ... I honestly haven't given that much thought. There is no d6" roll to max in my run rule, but let's pretend that's what the 0.5 multiplier is (ie the 4 in the previous equation). A banshee would now run 8+6+3=17" yes. Their charge range is still 8+4+D6 though, giving them 13-18" charge vs the Death Company 8-15". So it's likely that the banshees will get the drop on the 'Angels but not guaranteed. On a tangent, the Death Company can have jump packs giving them 12+3+d6"=16-21" charge range.

Martel and Traditio may find there are other parts of my edition which help them significantly. The ability to do multiple wounds to monstrous creatures, the restrictions on lords of war, the increased durability of vehicles...
Speaking of which, I've probably gone too far with vehicle durability changes. That's actually intentional as I'd rather go too far and dial it back during testing than do the reverse on that particular issue.

The reason I haven't put much thought into the Warhost and other such detachment rules is simple, and is probably in a section you haven't had a chance to read yet. It's not a 'rule' but it does sum up my feeling on all the snowflake detachments 7th brought in, and their disastrous affect on game balance.

Choosing your Army wrote:For standard gaming we recommend sticking to an army built according to the Standard Detachment chart and the following rules.

In other words, formations and detachments can sod-off until I've had a chance to playtest everything else.

Keep the feedback coming, it's very helpful.

Zustiur wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Averages don't work like that.

Well that's embarrassing. I forgot what I was talking about mid paragraph. I was working from 4+d6 not 3+d6. You are completely correct.

The pre-measuring thing is a false premise. Every modern wargame, barring maybe X-wing, has full pre-measuring and fixed movement distances. Guessing range also has no functional benefit other than bashing n00bs and people with mild cognitive disorders. In WHFB players were expected to guess distances across the table to within 1/2", estimating 12" at the start of your turn is trivial.

Thanks for the clarification. That's good to know. For the moment I've noted it down as something I need to test but now my prime reason for not changing this is codex compatibility, and that's a pretty small issue as the only rules I can think of that need adjusting are fleet (already done) and Waaagh.

nou wrote:
It's a long doc, I have missed the Codex Amendments section, sorry for dumb question on Battle Focus. So another question, not adressed in Amendments section - does Eldar Warhost Detachment bonus is still 6" run for everyone, so fleet units (almost everything in Eldar Codex) have a base movement of 8" walk + 6" run & battle focus, so now Fire Dragons have guaranteed 26" threat range (or guaranteed 24" in CAD instead of uncertain 19"-24")? That is 6-8" more than a melta-marine, I see a lot of Eldar hate potential here...

As for those examples listed in my previous post: those are current (official 7th ed) snowflake rules for infantry movement. And with your comment on Banshee/Slaaneshi units you confirm, that you want to leave them alone as they are in 7th ed codices? That makes Banshee unit in a Warhost move 8" (your fleet) and then run 9" on top of that (guaranteed 6" run from detachment plus snowflake rule) making them move 17" per turn or have 8" move plus 7+d6" charge (only snowflake rule here, no detachment bonus), making them autocharge enemies 16" away (to a rolled maximum of 21") instead of uncertain 11-21". Death company marine walk+charge range in zeta is 9+d6" for 15" maximum (instead of current 7th ed uncertain 8-18"). This means, that carefully placed, Banshees never get charged, they can either autocharge themselves risking only a single model to bolter pistol/rapid fire range or have 50% chance of succesful charge from completely safe distance, shoot and charge, deny overwatch, fight first and deny saves. People like Martel and Traditio are never gonna play your edition, as you just made the least effective Eldar CC unit as powerfull against marines as it was in 3rd ed

No need to apologise. I'd rather people miss things and question them than have people feel they shouldn't ask questions without reading every single word of the doc. And yes, it is long, so I understand completely. Heck, I wrote the thing and I keep forgetting what's in there.
Has acrobatic changed in the new book? The last Eldar codex I got was 6th ed. In that acrobatic only gives +3 to run, not to charge. But to answer your question; at the moment a banshee or slanneshi will have a run distance of 8+4+3=13". If the banshee is in a Warhost, ... I honestly haven't given that much thought. There is no d6" roll to max in my run rule, but let's pretend that's what the 0.5 multiplier is (ie the 4 in the previous equation). A banshee would now run 8+6+3=17" yes. Their charge range is still 8+4+D6 though, giving them 13-18" charge vs the Death Company 8-15". So it's likely that the banshees will get the drop on the 'Angels but not guaranteed. On a tangent, the Death Company can have jump packs giving them 12+3+d6"=16-21" charge range.

Martel and Traditio may find there are other parts of my edition which help them significantly. The ability to do multiple wounds to monstrous creatures, the restrictions on lords of war, the increased durability of vehicles...
Speaking of which, I've probably gone too far with vehicle durability changes. That's actually intentional as I'd rather go too far and dial it back during testing than do the reverse on that particular issue.

The reason I haven't put much thought into the Warhost and other such detachment rules is simple, and is probably in a section you haven't had a chance to read yet. It's not a 'rule' but it does sum up my feeling on all the snowflake detachments 7th brought in, and their disastrous affect on game balance.

Choosing your Army wrote:For standard gaming we recommend sticking to an army built according to the Standard Detachment chart and the following rules.

In other words, formations and detachments can sod-off until I've had a chance to playtest everything else.

Keep the feedback coming, it's very helpful.

Yes, Acrobatic is +3" to both run and charge moves in 7th, they charge guaranteed 16" in detachment, my examples and calculations are correct. In CAD though, it is the guaranteed 24" threat range on Fire Dragons a thing that will enrage half of Marine players, as now FD really don't need transports, so you can now take twice as many s8ap1 sv3+ models, making them effectively lower toughness marine meltabikes for 22pts per model.

Another "buff" for Eldar I have missed previously is that Battle Focus does not "work exactly as currently", because you have guaranteed run range outside of detachment. A bit shorter than in detachment, yes, but you always move 4", so now things like War Walkers can always jump out of cover, shoot and get back to safety. It is not a chance tactics anymore, but a shure thing. This means, that Eldar meta in Zeta edition shifts from scatterbikes spam to scatwalker spam (they are only 3pts more expensive per scatterlaser and now have 8"walk+battle focus 4"run, so are as fast as shooting bikes, have jump-shoot-jump capabilities and have increased durability thanks to your vechicle changes). Of course, your vechicle squadrons rule makes squadrons of three difficult to use this way, but squadrons of two are perfectly manageable, so CAD can have 12-18 scatterlasers in Fast Attack slots and another 12-18 in Elites if Forgeworld is allowed (those are 2.5 more points per laser).

My point for a couple of recent post is, that some of your changes in BRB, intended to buff certain type of units, can have deep and unpredictable effects on game balance, especially when some factions hinge on those core rules (see Death Company vs Banshees example, you actualy made one unit even more pointless to take than currently, while making another devastating, with a single, common change intended to buff CC units). With your Fleet rule, you have missed that in 7th it only rises up AVERAGE runs and charges, but in zeta it EXTENDS all moves by a flat rate, effectively speeding up entire Eldar codex in CAD to detachment movement rates (+5" guaranteed walk+run movement) and further speeding detachment up by 2". And while some CC units desperately need to be faster, changing fleet&charge rules in the way you did does more harm than good. One possibe way to fix those Fleet issues is to make it +1" or (+2" max) to run/charge moves - fleet is suposed to be only a sligt buff.

As I see it, your Zeta edition is not a 7th ed "cleaned up and streamlined, with some slight rebalancing changes", but a whole new system, with it's own exploitable flaws. And as an Eldar player I see this as a doom for my faction, as anti-Eldar hate will only increase substantially... I know, that you have put quite amount of work in this, but I fear that if you're not willing to change some core concepts again and rewrite some parts from ground up, this will never end up as a "community accepted standard". And you definately cannot "leave out codices for now", as my examples are only a tip of an iceberg of what OP mayhem hides in those...

Wow. Ok. That's what I get for playing in a meta with very few Eldar.
So if Fleet changed back to a special rule such as: When running units with this rule move an extra 1" you would be happier?
That's frustrating. I didn't miss the fact that "in 7th it only rises up AVERAGE runs and charges, but in zeta it EXTENDS all moves by a flat rate"; that was the actual intention. It makes no sense to me that fleet units (not Eldar) don't get to make use of their greater swiftness when wanting to shoot. I'm trying to get rid of the time consuming roll and make fleet something that is valuable to all units, not just those which want to charge. Likewise it makes no sense to me that assault focused units don't benefit from Battle Focus.

Maybe the problem is less with fleet and more with run? Which is the better rule:
A. Units have Base move rate (6" for infantry, 12" for jump, etc). All units may run in the movement phase for by moving up to 1.5* their base movement rate and may not then shoot. Fleet goes back to being a special rule which makes run 4" and charge 4+d6". Battle Focus still allows you to split your move.
B. Units have Base move rate (6" for infantry, 8" for Fleet, 12" for jump, etc). All units may run in the movement phase for an additional 3" and may not then shoot. Fleet has no effect on run or charge. Battle Focus still allows you to split your move.
C. As already specified in Zeta but using Battle Focus to 'run' after shooting is still d6" instead of a fixed value.
D. As already specified in Zeta but Battle Focus is removed entirely.

I kind of like B. It gets rid of my fear that I've boosted all jump units and cavalry by a crazy amount...

As much as I like my design, compatibility with 7th ed Codices is important. The point about 'leaving out the codices for now' is that I'm one man doing a lot of writing. I don't have the time or the reference material to re-write all of the codices at the same time as editing 7th edition's rules. If my running and fleet rules break the game with existing books then I am willing to put that idea aside for Eta where every army will have a brand new codex purpose built for the base rules.

Also to give me a better understanding; isn't a large part of Eldar-hate due to the fact that scatter bikes are small and easy to hide, while warwalkers are quite large and not easy to hide? And another part being that jetbikes are objective secured on top of this? It still seems to me to be a nerf to Eldar even if warwalkers are able to reliably move back into cover. Hmm. Would changing scatter lasers to a 10 point upgrade reduce your concerns? What about if battle focus went away or changed? I was trying to avoid nerfing anyone so much that they'd complain and not want to convert to Zeta, but if you're an Eldar player saying a nerf is required... I guess rather than throwing ideas at you I could just say, "What do you suggest to fix Eldar with a minimum of codex re-writing?" I'm looking for something which can be done in a few bullet points and doesn't require writing out the whole codex.