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

Hi folks.
This is my latest endeavor to write a rules set for the tactical war game 40k could be.(For those of us who like that sort of thing. )

After a decade of talking about and play testing different ideas, I believe the most important element of a complete re write of the 40k rules is to clearly define the intended game play.

7th ed 40k has no clear design focus , its just a jumble of cool sounding ideas that are implemented without any serious thought about resulting game play issues.
(Beyond we can fix any issues with game play with even more special rules.. )

Note 1.
I would like to start with 4th -5th ed 40k game play which was much more clearly defined than 6th or 7th ed 40k.
And could be summed up as 'modern company level land warfare '.

As the game size was about a company (100 ish) of hoard infantry models.And the number of infantry would be reduced by the inclusion of 'elite units' and vehicles etc.
And the units used in the game were closest in in game function to modern warfare units.(Compared to 'ancient warfare' with ranged attacks in a supporting role, or 'naval warfare' with assault in a supporting role.)

Note 2.
A modern company level land based war game's game play should be based on a equal balance of mobility , fire power, and assault.

Mobility to take objectives, fire power to control enemy movement and assault to contest objectives.



These two important notes define the scale and scope of the intended game play quite well IMO.

Next we have to set up the criteria for vetting the rules we decide to use.

I would propose these two.

1)If multiple options present them selves, the most straight forward option should be used.


2)If multiple options are of similar complexity, we should use the one that is most familiar to the existing 40k players.

I think the three cornerstones of 40k game play, (from the people I have talked to.)-

A game turn with clearly defined action phases.

Using D6 for mass rolling for each model in a unit.(15mm and smaller minatures in 'blob squads' can be rolled for as a unit.But 40k players invest a lot in their 28mm minatures and want to roll for ech individual one!)

Using ONE resolution method from the current SEVEN 40k uses to cover all combat.(In addition to direct representation obviously. )

I am hoping to develop a very straight forward rule set that delivers more in game tactical options than 40k has had since 3rd ed.

This is not a 'perfect solution to fix 40k'.But my attempt with some discussion to see how much complication (bloat) we can remove from a 40k rule set, while increasing tactical complexity.IF we start from scratch, and ONLY use the best options as defined by the criteria above,

And try to do this with as much synergy with the expected game play of 40k , and sympathy to the original skirmish rules that simply can not cope with the battle game size in their current configuration.

Ill leave the introduction there for now.I understand you may or may not have any interest in this thread.
If you re interested feel free to respond.
If this is not what you want to discuss.I thank you for reading this far,I wish you well and say TTFN.

You know I'm going to be watching

Lots of full 40K rewrites of late, it seems.

40k rewrite part XVII: the revenge?

Eh whatever they're usually fun to check out, even if most people are too terrified of change to try them out.

Hi folks.
On to the first and most discussed 'fault' with WHFB based rules used for a 'modern company level land based war game.'

Lack of interaction in the game turn.
With the increase in model count ,(with models mainly armed with 24"ranged weapons,)the reduction in space between models.Has also reduced the amount of tactical maneuver into weapons range that is the tactical core of the alternating game turn .(IGO UGO, as some call it.)

There are 3 basic options,Alternating Phases, Alternating unit activation, and Variable bound.

Alternating phases is the least complicated, most in synergy with the current game play, and when used with a simultaneous resolution mechanic , removes lots of complicated scheduling mechanics and pages of rules bloat.

The proposed game turn would look some thing like this..

Command Phase.(Start of game turn , call for off table support, reserves, art/air strikes etc.)

Movement Phase.(ALL movement happens here.)
Players alternate moving units like A,O,S.(To stop over powered assaults.)
(I would like to bring back the tactical chioces found in other games i favor six basic orders, ,we can let more free decision happen in the phases ,or issue orders counters in the command phase. I will discuss them in detail later.)

Shooting Phase.(ALL ranged attacks happen here.)
Player A shoots player B records damage,Player B shoots Player A records damage (D10 damage dice next to unit.)
Casualties are removed at the end of the shooting phase.

Assault phase.(All close combat attacks are resolved here.)
Player A assaults player B records damage,Player B assaults Player A records damage (D10 damage dice next to unit.)
Casualties are removed at the end of the Assault phase.

Resolution Phase.(Tidy up phase, take morale tests, and place arrivals from reserves.etc.)

(I would like to see if psychic abilities work within the standard phases well enough , before dedicating an entire phase to them... )

This does not fix everything wrong with 40k by itself, but it does allow for a more robust foundation of game play to be built from it.

The second most discussed fault with the WHFB based rules used for a 'modern company level land based war game.'
Inadequate stat line values.
The stat line for ranked infantry/cavalry armed with hand weapons , and only using ranged weapons in support,(from WHFB) does not cover the diversity and depth of tactical functions the units in 40k should have.

This is why the rules for 40k are so over complicated.They HAVE to use lots of complicated special rules (EIGHTY SIX, ).
And completely separate resolution methods for different types of unit.(SEVEN resolution methods. )

It is my goal to cover all tactical differences with a stat line of the same length as the current one in 40k .(9 stats.)
And to Use the units weapon data to reflect the combined in game effect of the user and weapon.(EG rather than base strength of user doubled and add 1, with a re roll and a ....etc)

And this means we only need to use 2 resolution method types.

Direct representation,
Distance in inches for range of weapons and unit movement , number of dice rolled, and score needed to beat to succeed.

Compared values in a table for combat resolution.
Active players stat is compared to the opposing players stat, to determine the score needed to succeed from a table.

This is what I would like to use to determine the three stages of combat resolution.
To hit ,to save, to wound.
This resolution order allows for a simple suppression mechanic to be used.(1 rule to determine model suppression, and 1 rule to determine unit suppression A 2 rule system is the simplest I could think of that gives proportional suppression results..)

Here are the stats and resolution table we were play testing before the 'great flood.'As these stats are used for all units, we have tried to use less 'organic' focused names.

Mobility.The maximum distance the model may move when taking a movement action.(We can add a suffix for movement type to give more detailed interaction with terrain.In advance rules if you want.)

Hit points.How much damage the model can take before being removed as a casualty.(Wound , structure point replacement.)

Morale Grade.The score neede to beat to pass a morale test.(LD replacement.)

Combat Resolution.
The active player looks up the active stat of their model(s).
And cross references this to the opposing players model(s ) active stat on the resolution chart.
This gives the D6 roll required for the active player to succeed.

Stats may be modified in some situations, but these are listed in more detail in the appropriate section of the rules .
(New stat name in bold, old GW stat name in ()

Shooting.How good the model is hitting enemy at range.(BS replacement)

Evasion..How good the model is at evading enemy attacks at range.(Old target size modifiers from RT.)

Assault How good the model is hitting the enemy in assault.(WS replacement )

AgilityHow good the model is at avoiding the enemy models attacks in close combat.(Replaces I, as a direct stat rather than a summery of action stat )

Armour.How much armor the model has.(Sve, inv sva, AV, FNP, WBB, etc.)

Resilience.How resistant the model is to (unsaved) Damage(T replacement.)

Weapon data .
Attack How many dice the player rolls, or template used when weapon is used in game.(Attacks, Shots replacement )

Armour Piercing.How good the Weapons is at defeating Amour.(AP )

Damage .How good the weapon is at causing damage.)(S)

I would like to see if we could use one chart to cover all 3 stages of resolution.Using values from 1 to 10 to start with.
(We could increase the range to 1 to 15 or 1 to 20 if needed though.)

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

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


I probably need to explain that better?

.

Lanrak wrote:


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

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

If you follow "Why do you think 7th edition is too complicated?" thread, you should know, that one fundamental imbalance oportunity emerges from this comparative chart - T10 models are totally immune to all <S5 attacks. For sake of simple illustration, let assume for a moment, that this is a typical "combined arms" TAC game of two symetrical forces and the mission is simple Kill Points. This built-in immunity to large fraction of enemy models leads to obvious target priority and the side which disables enough S6 weapons in opponent army first, can then proceed to slaughter remaining models unrestricted (by enough I mean that remaining s6+ weapons cannot kill your unit untill the end of game). This problem grows even larger if you let armies like Imperial Knights and cheap hordes exist within same system. This leads to the same problem current 40K has - that some models/weapons are worth exactly zero or VeryLargeNumber points under some circumstances possible within a system.

Do you intend to mitigate this problem anyhow? FOC restrictions solve only an IK vs Hordes layer of this problem. Allowing hordes to tarpit Knights leads to further imbalance problems (you don't have to kill enemy models in non-Kill Point games, you just have to render them irrelevant).

One possible solution is to allow everyone to harm everything, with some sort of curve bell effectiveness and random chance, so that large enough blob of Grots can heroically render IK useless within game lenght (something akin to "reversed stomp") and systematically remove all immunity from the game.>

Hi nou.
Welcome too the thread.

As the chart is designed to cover all combat resolution for all models.It has to include auto fail and auto succeed.
As some things are simply not going to effect other things. EG a las pistol is not going to penetrate the armour of a Land Raider for example.

There is three things at play here.

Number 1, The values we use for model stats to resolve combat resolution may be changed slightly from the current values to arrive at the expected results.(Damage and Resilience values are going to fluctuate a bit as we play test the rules.And may move away from old S and T values )

Number 2.It is important for all units to be able to effect other units.
However, restricting the focus of effect to just physical damage has restricted the tactical depth of the game play in 40k.(Compared to other war games.).

If we use simple suppression mechanic to reduce the effectiveness of units without having to' kill' them.And allow the limited use of L.O.S blocking ammo to give units away to have a tactical effect on units they can not 'kill'.

Roll to hit.

Roll to save.
When a model fails a save it counts as temporarily suppressed.(Irrespective of if it looses any hit points from the penetrating hit.)
If a unit suffers failed saves that total over half its remaining Hit Points,the unit is *Suppressed.(*May only move or shoot counting as having moved,until unit is rallied in a Resolution phase.)

Eg an ork mob with 19 boys and a Nob (21 hit points,) is not suppressed when it fails 8 saves , from IG shooting.(It would suffer from suppression if it failed 12 saves though)
However, as the Ork mob suffers casualties and only has 11 Boys and the Nob left a turn later,(13 hit points) they suffer a suppressed result from taking 7 unsaved hits from enemy shooting.

Roll to damage.

Number 3.
I am not intending to add super heavies from 6th and 7th ed until we get the basic game sorted out, as defined in the initial post.

I intend to replace the F.O.C with a simple proportional system that supports narrative army construction.

Select a HQ unit/The HQ unit you select determines what rarity the units in the army are.(Core units, Support units and Specialist units.)

The HQ allows you to take 2 to 8 Core units.

For every 2 Core units you take you may take 1 Support unit.

For every 2 support units you take you may take a Specialist unit.



EG If I select a Big Mek on a warbike and War bike mounted retinue, from the Speed Freeks Ork list.War Bikes and War buggies could be Core units.

If I selected s Deff Skulls Warboss In a Battle wagon,Warbikes and War buggies could be Support units.

If I selected a Mega Armoured Warboss and retinue from the Goff list,warbikes and warbuggies could be Specialist units.

I understand it is a bit difficult to see the big picture, as I have to post a little bit at a time and explain as I go along.But I hope you will be patient , as explaining things in the written format is not some thing I am very good at..

Lanrak wrote:
Hi nou.
Welcome too the thread.

As the chart is designed to cover all combat resolution for all models.It has to include auto fail and auto succeed.
As some things are simply not going to effect other things. EG a las pistol is not going to penetrate the armour of a Land Raider for example.

There is three things at play here.

Number 1, The values we use for model stats to resolve combat resolution may be changed slightly from the current values to arrive at the expected results.(Damage and Resilience values are going to fluctuate a bit as we play test the rules.And may move away from old S and T values )

Number 2.It is important for all units to be able to effect other units.
However, restricting the focus of effect to just physical damage has restricted the tactical depth of the game play in 40k.(Compared to other war games.).

If we use simple suppression mechanic to reduce the effectiveness of units without having to' kill' them.And allow the limited use of L.O.S blocking ammo to give units away to have a tactical effect on units they can not 'kill'.

Roll to hit.

Roll to save.
When a model fails a save it counts as temporarily suppressed.(Irrespective of if it looses any hit points from the penetrating hit.)
If a unit suffers failed saves that total over half its remaining Hit Points,the unit is *Suppressed.(*May only move or shoot counting as having moved,until unit is rallied in a Resolution phase.)

Eg an ork mob with 19 boys and a Nob (21 hit points,) is not suppressed when it fails 8 saves , from IG shooting.(It would suffer from suppression if it failed 12 saves though)
However, as the Ork mob suffers casualties and only has 11 Boys and the Nob left a turn later,(13 hit points) they suffer a suppressed result from taking 7 unsaved hits from enemy shooting.

Roll to damage.

Number 3.
I am not intending to add super heavies from 6th and 7th ed until we get the basic game sorted out, as defined in the initial post.

I intend to replace the F.O.C with a simple proportional system that supports narrative army construction.

Select a HQ unit/The HQ unit you select determines what rarity the units in the army are.(Core units, Support units and Specialist units.)

The HQ allows you to take 2 to 8 Core units.

For every 2 Core units you take you may take 1 Support unit.

For every 2 support units you take you may take a Specialist unit.



EG If I select a Big Mek on a warbike and War bike mounted retinue, from the Speed Freeks Ork list.War Bikes and War buggies could be Core units.

If I selected s Deff Skulls Warboss In a Battle wagon,Warbikes and War buggies could be Support units.

If I selected a Mega Armoured Warboss and retinue from the Goff list,warbikes and warbuggies could be Specialist units.

I understand it is a bit difficult to see the big picture, as I have to post a little bit at a time and explain as I go along.But I hope you will be patient , as explaining things in the written format is not some thing I am very good at..

Could you please provide an example statline for typical tank type vechicle and explain vechicle suppresion (both ways)? Straightforward "port" of typical vechicle from current 40K seems to be permanently supressed by even small arms fire and cannot suppress infantry blobs efficiently due to small rate of fire. (Currently 40K Wave Serpent has maximum total of 7 shots per turn, 3 HP and T8 equivalent with no save. With max luck it takes full three turns of shooting to kill entire mob and suppresion kicks in only after two turns of perfect shooting...) "Anti-infantry" Night Spinner has similiar eficiency against an Ork Mob. Is there anything I'm missing here?

@nou.
I will try to explain the new damage resolution as best I can.

In modern warfare there are several factors in determining unit survival.

Some units rely on agility and speed to make them harder to hit.
Some units rely on thick armour as they are to large or slow to avoid enemy fire.
Some units rely on numerical advantage to see them through.
Some units rely on resilience to take a lot of punishment.

Current 40k rules fail to cover all of these factors , so they have a lack of depth when defining units tactical operation/.

Most war games do not have the wide variety of units that 40k has, and so can often split targets into a simple binary 'infantry/soft skin vehicles' and 'tanks /armoured vehicles. ' And give weapons 'anti personnel' or 'anti tank' status.
(This covers the light armoured more numerous and agile/faster infantry/light vehicles, and the fewer larger /slower nor heavily armoured target types.)

However, as 40k units have no clear definition between these unit types, as Terminators and M/Cs take infantry types well into the light,(or even medium) vehicle armour range .I think it is necessary to define unit /weapon interaction better...

High rate of fire is king for numerous targets.(Lower AP and damage.)
High AP value is king for heaviliy armoured targets.(Lower rate of fire)
High damage value is king for very resilient targets.(Lower rate of fire.)

Because we have 3 clearly defined weapon effects, and 3 clearly defined unit values that are used directly to get proportional results,we can cover the wide range of units in 40k in the same damage resolution method .While making each unit and weapon load out more tactically focused. IMO.

Usually the most numerous model type on the table is infantry, (AV 1 to 4) carrying anti infantry weapons . AV 1 to 4.
They may carry support weapons that are better at dealing with more difficult targets.Flamer for getting rid of dug in infantry, or a melta gun to take on heavy armour.

Here are the proposed starting armour values , based on current rules...

AV 1= 6+ save.
AV 2 = 5+ save.
AV 3= 4+ save
AV 4= 3+ save.
AV 5 =2+ save.
AV 6= old AV 10 and Terminator.
AV 7= old AV 11 and Terninator heros.
AV 8= old AV 12
AV 9= old AV 13
AV 10 = old AV 14

So looking at the save rolls Armoured vehicles get (active player) vs th AP values of the attacker.(opposing player.)

AV 9 and 10 are invulnerable to all infantry weapons.
AV 7 and 8 are invulnerable or get a 2+ save vs infantry weapons.

AV 6 is more likely to be suppressed by infantry weapons.(2+ and 3+ saves.)

I can see your concern.

There are 3 ways to deal with this issue.
1) Increase the range of the table to 1 to 15.

2)Compress the Armour values of vehicles to the top end of the table 8 9 and 10.(The more detailed damage resolution could allow for this.)
EG Old AV 10/11 p new AV 8.Old AV 12 /13 = new AV 9.AOld AV 14- new AV 10.
This give values of 5 ,6,7 to cover heavy infantry ,(Mega Armour to Centurions etc.)

3)Simply have an 'anti tank; classification for weapons.
Anti tank, This is the only weapon type that can only damage AV X and above.But can only targe Evasion Y or lower.

To your comment about tanks/APCs not being able to suppress infantry units.

Well most tanks/APCs are taken to support infantry and take on enemy hard targets. (EG heaviliy armoured targets.)

The infantry is suppoed to take on other infantry.Or Vehicles can be given anti infantry weapons like lots of heavy bolters/Big Shooters if they are to be effective vs infantry.




AV 6 is invunerable to AP 1, and gets a 2+ save vs AP 2 and 3 weapons.

Ok, I see where my confusion arose from. I do not know anything about typical statlines of things - and you are using the same abbreviation of AV for both proper AV and weapon AP, except for the very last line of your post But now I'm confused in another way - you compare vechicles AV to weapon AP, but currently we have vechicle AV vs weapon S. What how is vechicle Resilency connected to current AV, as I assume, that after failed saves I have to actually damage a vechicle using weapon's Damage value?

So while Wave Serpents are fairly immune to suppression from Mob fire, Space Marines and anything else with current 24" S4 ap5 weapons render all light vechicles (both Harlequin skimmers, War Walkers, Vypers, Venoms etc) useless by trivial suppresion (they are HP2 vechicles, so even single failed 2+ save manages that). And I cannot agree, that APC cariers are taken to shoot at hard targets - Venoms are purely anti-infantry with poison based weaponry, Starweavers have ap5 weapons, which just happen to be good at destroying Rhinos because how universal s6 weapons are, Shuricannons were always intended to be anti heavy infantry weapons. And if you intend to base rules on typical warfare scenarios, then infantry should be pretty scared of APC cariers carying high ROF antiinfantry machine guns...

I would probably have a lot less questions if you have provided a couple of different typical statlines for infantry units, MCs, Vechicles and Weapons and/or detailed transcription tables, so I could make some calculations not based on guessing...

One possible solution is to allow everyone to harm everything, with some sort of curve bell effectiveness and random chance, so that large enough blob of Grots can heroically render IK useless within game lenght (something akin to "reversed stomp") and systematically remove all immunity from the game.

AoS did this and it turned out pretty well.

AOS has the advantage of not needing to explain how a Land Raider can be threatened by an guardsman armed with a bayonet.

There are far too many units in 40K that have no business being able to damage other units unless they are using a special weapon of some sort to allow an everything can possibility damage everything design.

@nou.
I do apologize for my last post.I got part way though and my connection dropped out and I have not been able to edit my post since!

The idea is that all units resolve damage in the same way.
To hit..
Shooting VS Evasion at range.(Light cover add 1 to the targets Evasion value, heavy cover adds 2 to the targets evasion value.)
Assault vs Agility in close combat.

Just compare the attackers (active ) stat to the targets (opposing) stat, to discover the score needed to hit on a D6.

Currently units with special abilities /equipment that effect their chance to be hit at range need special rules.This new system allows things like different target sizes , camo cloaks , jink, invisibility etc, to be covered by different Evade stats..

I wanted armour saves to come next in the resolution as it is the next stage in modern combat.
(You may doge/block a sword swing/ arrow.But plasma bolts and high velocity rounds not so much.. )

New Armour value Av new Armour Penetration = Ap.(Current GW values will be referred to as AV and AP.)

Moving all units to the same scale for armour value 1 to 10.
Standard infantry save of 6+ to 3+ , occupy the new Av of 1 to 4.
Infantry weapons would have Ap of 1 to 4

The overlap units of heavy infantry, eg Mega Armour , Terminator armour and Hero terminator armour , occupy the Av of 5 to 7.

Vehicles fill the top of the chart. AV 14= Av 10.All the way down to AV 10+ Av 6.

To Save,
Simply compare the Av of the (active) player taking the save to the Ap value of the (opposing) weapon hit.
This determines the D6 value needed for the model to make its armour save.

This again covers ALL units.

If the units suffers a number of failed saves in excess of half its remaining hit points it becomes suppressed.
(It does not effect suppression if the failed saves are converted to loss of hit points or not.Its just failed saves that determine suppression.)

To damage.
Simply compare the attacking (active.) weapons Damage rating to the targets (opposing) Resilience value.

This gives the D6 score required to cause the target to lose of a single hit point.

Note for every 2 points better than the score needed to Damage , you score an extra damage point loss.

EG the more powerful the weapon the more likely it is to cause multiple wounds.

For example an Ork Warboss Resilience 5 , is hit by a penetrating las-rifle shot (Damage rating 3.)
The war boss looses one hit point on the roll of a 5+.(No extra wound possible.)

However, if he was hit by a melta gun Damage value 8. He suffers a wound on a 2+!
So if the attacking player rolled a 5 the Warboss would suffer an extra wound from the hit.

This is a simple alternative to the Instant Death and Eternal Warrior USRs we were play testing...

Vehicles get a Resilience value based on its crew.Obviously Monstrous creatures have higher Resilience values , as they generally have less in the way of armour.

To put Monstrous creatures and Vehicles on the same level.
I wanted to replace the current 'vehicle damage table' with a slightly extended stat line.

Vehicles and MCs now get the same Av front, Av side Av Rear.(As they are both large targets.)

In a similar way they get Armamant /Attack hit points, and Mobility hit points.

EG a
Land Raider
Hit Points A/A/A/M/M.

For every 'A' hit point lost, the Land Raider looses an Armament hit point and the use of one of its 3 MAIN weapons.

For every 'M' hit point lost the Land Raider loses half its mobility value,(First loss = half speed, 2nd loss immobilized.)

As 'shaken' result is now covered by the new suppression system.

losing weapons and immobilized results are taken care of by loosing the hit points.

A 'large model' that has lost all of its A hit points , must pass a morale test in the resolution phase , or route.

A large model that has lost all of its M hit points , must pass a morale test in the resolution phase or count as destroyed.

If a large model looses more hit points than it has left , it explodes.

I admit there could be an issue with lighter vehicles getting suppressed too much. I mentioned the options we were considering in my previous post.
(Extend the range of values, add a anti tank rule, or compress vehicles into the top 3 values.)

I was trying to explain how everything hangs together before showing some examples, as I dont want to argue the fine detail before I get the overall system explained.
(It may be better if I put some example in my next post though.. )

@alextroy.
Exactly 40k has the widest range of units and models of any game I am aware of.
I was trying to cover this wide range of abilities with more robust core rules , to allow more straightforward route to the intended game play.
We have play tested the basic concepts and were trying to refine them for Beta play tests.(Then a garage roof collapse stopped progress..)

@Future War Cultist.
One thing the last decade of trying to re write 40k rules has shown me . Is if you want a 40k battle game using 28mm minatures, then there are no existing rule sets you can port rules directly from.
40k is quite unique, in the fact the scale the game is too big for existing skirmish rules, and the scope of the game is too detailed for existing battle games.

So everything has to be adjusted to fit for 40k gameplay.

Hi all.
As I am trying to redefine the core rules that deliver the expected game play of 40k.And the whole system is slightly different to what the current GW system is.
I am trying to explain a lot , in short space of time, and may mess it up a bit.

A quick recap.
Part 1 the game turn and tactical options.

The game turn is alternating phases like A.o.S.
(But casualty removal happens at the end of each phase to model simultaneous resolution.To improve player interaction, and remove the need for resolution scheduling rules.)

Each unit has a choice of 6 tactical orders at the start of the game turn.

1)Fire Support.Remain stationary and fire to full effect.

2)Dig in Remain stationary and gain +2 to stealth.(Stealth bonus is lost if the unit moves for ANY reason.)

3) Advance , move up to mobility rate and make an attack in the shooting phase excluding Ordnance weapons.
(Ordnance weapons may ONLY be used if the unit remains stationary.Weapon classification depends on carrying unit)

4)Go to ground.move up to mobility rate and make maximum use of cover.+1 to stealth.

5)Run. Move up to double movement rates, but may not make any attacks at all.(The unit will fight back if assaulted.)

6)Charge. The unit may move up to double its mobility rate, and launch an assault.(This is the ONLY way assaults can be made, by moving into base to base/hull contact with an enemy unit..)

We have found the sweet spot for tactical orders is 6.
(And you can use a D6 to show unit orders on the unit card if you like.My gaming group is old and partial to beer, so our memory is not very good! )

Is this making sense so far?I am happy to explain any thing that is not very clear.

Part 2. using units stats that cover more of the game play.(To reduce the need for special rules.)

These values are either used
A) directly for non combat resolution as a measurement, or the number of dice rolled, or score on a D6 needed to succeed.
B)In opposed table , for combat resoluiotn to determine the chance to succeed.

Unit stats..
M= Mobility, how far the model may move up to in inches when taking a movement action.
S= Shooting Skill, how good the model is at hitting target at range.
E=Evade, how good the model is at not being seen at range.
A=Assault how good the model is at hitting targets in assault
D=Dodge how good the model is at not being hit in assault.(We replace the name 'Agility' for 'Dodge' as we had lots of 'A's in the profile!I forgot. )
Av=Armour value , how much external protection the model has.
R= Resilience , how hard the model is to damage when its armour has been breached.
H=Hit points,how many unsaved damaging hits the model may take before being removed as a casualty/destroyed
G=Morale grade,(modified) score needed on a D6 to pass a morale test.

Unit weapon profiles.
R=Effective range.
A=Attacks, number of dice rolled, or area of effect.
Ap=Armour Piercing value, how good the attack is a beating armour.
D=Damage, how likely the weapon is to damage the target, IF it beat the targets armour.

Notes. Any Special abilities.

Here are some starting profiles we were play testing.
IG
M/S/E/A/D/Av/R/H/G.
5.4.6.3.3.2.3.1.3

IG CCW,
R/A/Ap/D/notes
2"/1/2/3/assault only.

IG Lasgun
12"/2/3/3/ rapid fire.

Ork Boy.
M/S/E/A/D/Av/R/H/G.
5/3/5/4/2/1/4/1/3

Ork Choppa.
R/A/Ap/D/notes
2"/2/3/4/assault only.

Ork shoota
18"/2/3/4.

Space Marine.
M/S/E/A/D/Av/R/H/G.
5/5/5/4/3/4/4/1/2

Combat knife.
R/A/Ap/D/notes
2"/1/3/4/assault only.

Boltgun.
12"/2/3/3/rapid fire.

Eldar Guardian.
M/S/E/A/D/Av/R/H/G.
6/5/6/3/5/2/3/1/3


We have not arrived at any hard and fast values yet .
I just wanted to show how the new stat line lets you see the differences in the models without having to use lots of special rules.

I am happy to explain stuff in more detail if needed

Ok, now I finally understand where my earlier confusion came from. Because some values in earlier examples were intentionally or coincidentally at least partially same as "official" GW values, I was under the impression, that this system was somehow "backwards compatible" or "transcribable" to some degree and required only "filling missing stats and some tweaks". Now I see that it requires rewriting totally everything to a point of reinventing the actual game pretty much entirely ("actual game" is soooo much more than just core mechanics) leaving just bare models same.

So to conclude my replies in this thread, as I personally don't see anything that I could easily adapt in my 40K practice, so I won't follow this thread anymore:
it looks as a quite solid foundation for a 28mm wargame, but is more discouraging to dig into it than 3rd ed was to 2nd ed veteran. It would probably be more reasonable to develop this further as a separate game.

@nou.
I am a bit suprized by your last reply.
My gaming group are all old 2nd ed players, and have tried to keep the spirit of 2nd ed , but bringing the game play up to the battle game size.(Looking at good battle games for inspiration.)

I am aware the way the information required to play the game may look quite different.
But I am intending to use 'unit cards' (like lots of good battle game s do,)to put all the required info in the hands of the players during the game.

As I am intending to re define the core rules to cover the 40k battle game, as described in my introduction.
Making everything backward compatible to 3rd ed W.H.F.B including every bad decision and poor implementation of ideas GW have ever inflicted on 40k .
Seemed a very bad place to start.

The stats for infantry are converted to the new format for starting values for play test.
(We used 2nd ed movement rates to start but 'young uns' thought it was too slow for infantry.,So we added 1" to them, and condenced the other values a bit to clean things up .)

Mobility .
Slow infantry 4"
Standard infantry 5"
Fast infantry 6"

Beasts and cavalry 8"

Vehicle 6"
Fast vehicles 8"
Bikes and skimmers 12"


Shooting skill = BS+1

Evade,= new stat completely, average Evade is 5, we just work it from there.

Assault = old WS.

Dodge = Old Initiative.

Armour value= 1 point per pip of save or old AV -4.(We may have to adjust for inv saves where applicable.)

Resilience = old Toughness.

Hit points old Wounds, vehicles get one per weapon and one per durability of drive system.

Morale grade./(Old LD)
1= Fearless (Fearless special rule)
2= Elite.(9/10)
3 =Veteran(8)
4=Trained (7)
5= Conscripted/controlled.(6 or lower.)

So the unit stats have one new stat(Evade skill, made up to replace heaps of to nit modifiers and special rules.)The rest are based on current values and some are tweeked a bit , and may need to be tweeked a bit more after play testing.

As Strength and Attacks stats are ONLY used in assault nowadays as far I I can tell.(And can be altered by the weapon the model is carrying.)
I thought the best thing to do would be to list them as the net effect of the units assault weapon in the units weapon profiles on the unit card under the unit stat line.

Keeping the net effect of range weapons and assault weapons presented on the unit card.Is much more straight forward and used in many good battle games.

A 2nd ed vets viewpoint explained...
The game play remains pretty much the same, but brings back the tactical depth from 2nd ed .(That was thrown out with the rush to simplify the rules.)

The game turn is much closer to 2nd ed 40k game turn*, than 3rd ed 40k on wards..(*Using the house rule march moves(run) are taken in the movement phase.)

ALL movement happens in the movement phase. No multiple movements throughout the game turn, and random moving shenanigans.

Ranged attacks are resolved in the Shooting phase.

Close combat attacks are resolved in the Assault phase.

The main 4 tactical options from how far you move in the movement phase are straight from 2nd ed.(The Dig in and Go to ground options are added to take care of the massive decrease in tactical maneuvering due to higher model counts.)

2nd edition had to use over watch to add back some increased player interaction.This was rather clunky and some abused it.

Using alternating phases, increases the level of player interaction without resorting to extra rules like over watch.

2nd ed had the use of multiple sided dice, and a ton of modifiers to define the slight differences between model interaction.
3rd ed on wards was restricted to using a D6 , and lots and lots and lots of special rules.(And additional resolution methods..)

Rather than go this route of over complicated and poorly worded rules.
I would like to get the majority of the diversity back by simply using opposed values for combat resolution.

Just to explain my last post a bit more:

I use my own redefined ruleset and have invested almost entire last year to rebalance and tweak current rules to better resemble 2nd ed "feel" of 40K, make Tyranids and Eldar on par with each other and making the entire thing suit my needs. I follow "proposed rules" threads mostly because they give a lot of neat inspirations for homebrewing things further. But with such fundamental redesign as yours there is nothing to "borrow" from your refefinition and apply it to my current "nou40K" (except from maybe introducing some form of suppresion mechanism).

Switching to your ruleset and reworking all balance again would take a lot of time and effort just to regain gameplay smoothness I have now so I never intended to do so. I'm one of those players who play a lot (more than a 100 games last year) and like to know the game "as a back of my hand". And I cannot contribute to this thread further in any meaningfull way because of it - I just won't become good enough at bulletproofing "lanrak 40k" without actually playing it. It's just too far from official ruleset to do so.

@nou.
Thanks for the explanation.

Just as a matter of interest, how did you deal with the lack of player interaction in the game turn, and the imbalance between shooting and assault for you redefined 'nou40k'?

I know there are lots of 40k 're write' 'rewind' and redux' of various editions from 4th to 7th ed 40k.(I have read many of them).

However, they all seem to want to keep some of the compromises made in the 40k rules set.
The false dichotomy of the 2nd ed 40k way, or 3rd- 7th ed 40k way, totally ignores the last 30 years of game play development.
(Probably because it is easy to confuse presentation of rules with actual game play if you only mainly play one rule set type.)

I am not asking for anything but personal opinion and feed back on this new direction of developing rules for a specific game play for 40k.(Modern land battle game 4th -5th ed 40k sized game.)

We think we have a solid straight forward foundation to develop the game play on.

But if any one wants to comment on different ideas or discuss how these ideas can work with other systems I an happy to discuss them.

PS
If any kind folks could help type the rules up into a presentable doc/pdf it would be much appreciated.(My DTP skills are rubbish.)

Lanrak wrote:


Just as a matter of interest, how did you deal with the lack of player interaction in the game turn, and the imbalance between shooting and assault for you redefined 'nou40k'?

This seemingly simple question is quite complex to answer... So first a bit of preface:

As a 2nd ed veteran, I do have unpopular view on why exactly 7th ed is broken, because I don't mind playing long games, I'm not particularily attached to 1850pts and most importantly - I don't ever play Eternal War missions anymore, just custom Maelstrom or designed scenarios. On top of that, 40K has issues with broken survivability of units, both ways, which results in R/P/S gameplay and alpha strikes. Another important thing to note, is that my changes are aimed at increased replayability of 40K using limited range of available models and oponents, so many "randumb" things stay, but are severly reworked.

Some highlights of my changes/habits regarding CC vs shooting:
- always play on complex terrain, usually asymetric, with a lot of LOS blocking, area cover, area cover "lanes". This alone makes even "stock 7th ed" better balanced between shooting and assault;
- allow assault after deep strike/outflank/infiltrate on passed LD roll;
- run @initiative OR d6 roll (+1" for fleet)
- ignore all rules regarding assault/defensive grenades. Instead cover grants cover saves to defenders in first round of CC or +1" to charge roll for attackers (prepare/duck and supprise effects)
- WS has wider range of roll targets (you wound on 2+ if you are double WS and on 5+ if you are half WS)

Those are enough to make Genestealers deadly. Other changes include:

- totaly redefined survivability of units (AP does not negate saves, but instead drops a save by two points (AP 2 vs 2+ save results in 4+ roll) and any reroll can only grant this "penetrated" value, so 2+ rerollable is subsequent 2+/4+. This creates a smooth and logical series of quality of saves (rerollable saves are always worse than a step better saves).
- cover is either 6+ or 5+ with stealth, rolled on top of actual save (shrouded counts as always being in cover).

This may at first seem like a lot of dice rolled, but it combines 2nd-ed-esque rend and cover mechanics with ease of batch rolling, as everything is always at fixed value, no need for in-game calculation. Other than that, Instant Death is just two wounds (and I.D. from double strenght requires toughness test for second wound to happen) and vechicles have increased number of HP (minimum of three) and Exploded result is 1HP lost and another roll on the table (only last HP lost actually results in explosion). D weapons '6' result is just 2d3 wounds with saves possible as with other D results. Redesigned survivability results in much more equal gameplay, because of almost not important first turn order.

Other BRB changes include reworked Psychic disciplines (as a 2nd ed veteran, I like current Psychic Phase and despise 3rd ed dumbing down of psykers) and warlord trait tables consolidated, expanded and made thematic (with built in "after roll" choice system). Totaly different (generally faster and more flexible) reserve system, totaly reorganized army construction (semi-rigid FOC, and only some universal formation granting strategic options, not in game buffs) and dropped Battle Brothers mechanics (only Warlord Traits have armywide effects).

On top of that any faction I play is severly rebalanced/redone. Those include only Tyranid and Eldar subfactions at the moment (Hive Fleet, Genestealer, Craftworld, Harlequin and Exodite), but I will probably start AdMech and Necron collections at some point (which will probably trigger another round of rebalancing everything against eachother). Including further factions would probably result in some more changes required to incorporate and balance all playstyles of different armies (Drop Pods would probably break my LD charges after Deep Strike). I do not, in any way, claim that my solutions are universal or better than anyone elses.

All those are "evolutionary" not "revolutionary", incremental reworks of 7th ed, so final effect still does feel like 40K and new GW releases are easy to incorporate (I had a lot of fun with incorporating Genestealer Cults into my rework). They took about 100 games to establish, playtest and rebalance every bit of change, sometimes more than once, so you should understand now, why I won't just abandon all this work and switch to a system requiring all that work to be redone all over again

But as I said in one of previous posts - if your system were a complete alternative when 3rd ed happen, I would gladly learn it, as it feels solid and more in-depth than 3rd ed disaster, and at that time I had no interest in creating my own ruleset/modification.

Ah, I almost forgot - I didn't even bothered to deal with "lack of player interaction" during game turns, because if shooting isn't so dominant, then psychic and assault phases provide enough of it. Truth be told, combined with my custom Maelstrom/scenarios requiring in-game thinking and not just execution of "pre game plan", alternative activation/phases would probably made game longer because of no "overlap thinking time". Currently I can prepare for different expected outcomes of enemy turn during his movement (physical models manipulations incl. run and charge) subphases.

I totally understand the massive investment some people have made in the GW 40k game system.
If I was in that position, I would want to look at ways to maximize my returns from my investment.(There are loads of good ideas for 'house rules 'and ' work around' s all over this board! )

However, having said that, I can not help but notice GW sales strategy does play on the 'sunk cost fallacy' quite a bit.And that the next edition of 40k is getting closer.

The new edition of 40k could either be , more of 7th ed type sales driven focus.Or a complete re boot.(In a similar vein to W.H.F.B and A.O.S.)
Neither of which would really appeal to me.

So I suppose this thread is really looking at what would happen if we defined the scale and scope of the intended game play of a 40k game first.
Then developed rules accordingly.Although this is standard practice for most games it has never happened in 40ks rules history.

I understand that everyone has their own ideas on what 40k game play should be. However, I simply used my preference as an example to try to show how the process works.

What is the intended game play?

Do the current rules, (we are using/play testing ,) deliver that game play effectively?

If not what elements of the rules are out of balance with the perceived game play?

From all the information I have access to. GW game devs realized the issues with the core rules for 3rd ed before they released 4th ed 40k.
And actively pushed for a complete overhaul from 4th to 6th ed 40k. But were overruled by GW sales department at every turn.

@nou.
You are entitled to your opinions on preferred game size.
Adding pages and pages of alterations to a hideously over complicated rule set , seems like lots of hard work with very low return for the amount of effort involved.
When compared to writing rules from scratch.
But as our levels of investment in GWs 40k are obviously very different, it is not surprising our views vary.

With a complete overhaul, you can sort out all the issues at the core rules level,I would guess this new rules set for 40k redefined would run to about 50 pages.

As the most comprehensive and well written '7th ed 40k' fixes' projects are usually far more complicated than this, and need to be used with the existing 40k 7th ed mess of rules.

The idea of a free to down load 50 page rule set for 40k games, might appeal to some.

The war game hobby is full of fun and interesting things to do.There is no right or wrong way of enjoying it*, just what is right for you.
(*Obviously not respecting other people and their property is wrong!)

Discussing rules development for 40k game play is part of my fun.

I would like some opinions on how to handle units actions in the game turn.

A) Do you think it would be better to give units '2 action' orders in the command phase.(A marker face down next to the unit.)
That is revealed as the units moves.

Or,

B) Let the players decide in the shooting phase if they are going to hide or shoot.

I think we would need to use marker to show units that are suppressed and routing any way.

I am happy to include both options in the rules if there is not a clear preference.

We were currently play testing a new assault resolution method.We wanted to get the feel of fast flowing brutal assault we thought 40k should have.

We we trying out resolving assaults after one phase of combat.(Charger fights, defender fights .)

The winner of the assault can act normally next turn.
UNLESS they have fallen below half starting strength, then they HAVE to pass a morale test before they can 'Charge' into another assault..(Rolled for in the resolution phase.)

The loser of the assault must withdraw.(Compulsory move away from the winner of the assault.)
If the loser of the assault falls below half starting strength and loses an assault it automatically routes.