Switch Theme:

40/30K Fan edition  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in nl
Been Around the Block





I was already busy with creating a spiritual successor for old 40K at T9A forum. While there are people excited for the idea, most of their effort is needed for T9A. Therefore I was advised to go to DakkaDakka for help and feedback.

I began with:
I want to incorporate things like:

- Interesting and extensive rules for both models and scenarios. It should matter why you want to deploy one unit in a certain environment, how they will react to certain events and what they can do. Great elemental rules like old style Flamming Attacks and not the random nonsense like Soul Blaze.
- Speaking of random; An end to warlord traits, random generated psychic powers, rolling for if you can Deep Strike and other random tables that only ruin the strategic and narrative play on the long term. Customization must come back to encourage you to create your own hero and army. A list of relics, arcane items and weapons for your guys.
- Using Shooting, combat and Save modifiers. Also the comeback of save modifier through Strength, which begins at S5 since the amount of S4 is huge.
- Creating rules for both 40K armies and 30K. Forge Worlds offers tons of useful units and items that could work great. So expect Beakie Marines with Volkites.


After a while I got more ideas like:
Right now I'm thinking about using for the to hit charts either the D10 and D6. the D10 is really good for small armies, but it could be a problem when you have to roll more than 20 to hit rolls. In that case it could be useful to add the Multiple Wounds rule, since the to wound chart will use the D6.

For vehicles and giant robots I'm thinking to give them a D12 save with either a D12 or 2D6.

For dangerous terrain I want to to replace the "rolling 1 is automatic wound" test with an Initiative test whereby failed rolls means that the character or unit suffers a to wound based on the scenery's profile. Also the comeback of the Strider rules.

Poisoned will be split in 2 categories; normal poison for infantry, beasts and monstrous creatures and corrosion for robots and vehicles.

Instead of fear and terror I will change that into a leadership reducing fear. Like units/characters getting charged or affected by models with the Fear (-1) rule must do a Leadership test with a -1 modifier. models fighting each other with the same level fear will cancel each other's rules while one with a better fear still affects the one with a lower fear.
A monster with a Fear (-3) would force the one with a Fear (-1) to do a Ld test with a -2 modifier. There's always a bigger fish.

Instead of being a random chart, the Haywire rule will be a to wound attack that could let a vehicle or robot malfunction or get hit harder. Units with mechanic parts like Iron Hands and Mechanicum could be affected or malfunction too, same for normal infantry in humid areas like swamps or rivers.

Unit upgrades like chapter tactics should be a buy-able option, since some of them are stronger than the others and players using other chapters without their own tactics won't feel forced to take one if they don't want to.
Inspiration from VC's Vampiric bloodlines and HE's Honours.

And the comeback of combined profiles.

Sounds good?


What do you guys think?
   
Made in us
Witch Hunter Undercover in a Cult







Lionhammer wrote:
I was already busy with creating a spiritual successor for old 40K at T9A forum. While there are people excited for the idea, most of their effort is needed for T9A. Therefore I was advised to go to DakkaDakka for help and feedback.

I began with:
I want to incorporate things like:

- Interesting and extensive rules for both models and scenarios. It should matter why you want to deploy one unit in a certain environment, how they will react to certain events and what they can do. Great elemental rules like old style Flamming Attacks and not the random nonsense like Soul Blaze.
- Speaking of random; An end to warlord traits, random generated psychic powers, rolling for if you can Deep Strike and other random tables that only ruin the strategic and narrative play on the long term. Customization must come back to encourage you to create your own hero and army. A list of relics, arcane items and weapons for your guys.
- Using Shooting, combat and Save modifiers. Also the comeback of save modifier through Strength, which begins at S5 since the amount of S4 is huge.
- Creating rules for both 40K armies and 30K. Forge Worlds offers tons of useful units and items that could work great. So expect Beakie Marines with Volkites.


Yay. You may want to be more specific. Telling people "I want to make interesting rules for models!" is unhelpful and unlikely to lead to useful feedback.


After a while I got more ideas like:
Right now I'm thinking about using for the to hit charts either the D10 and D6. the D10 is really good for small armies, but it could be a problem when you have to roll more than 20 to hit rolls. In that case it could be useful to add the Multiple Wounds rule, since the to wound chart will use the D6.

For vehicles and giant robots I'm thinking to give them a D12 save with either a D12 or 2D6.


Die size isn't a useful 'fix'. It slows things down, makes the math more irritating, makes people get/carry more dice, and is generally not particularly user-friendly with no real upsides. You may go "but more granular..." all you want but granularity for granularity's sake is just game slowdown for game slowdown's sake.


For dangerous terrain I want to to replace the "rolling 1 is automatic wound" test with an Initiative test whereby failed rolls means that the character or unit suffers a to wound based on the scenery's profile. Also the comeback of the Strider rules.


I wouldn't. Initiative tests based on terrain in Mordheim made it way too much of a god stat (too useful for too many things), and the absolute Initiative order in 40k made Eldar crap in melee by necessity since if the Eldar could one-round you they had higher Initiative and would kill you before you could do anything, while if you could wipe them in one round it wasn't a problem because they'd get to attack first. As for Strider and classifying terrain the big issue with that is that people don't always have access to a large rotating collection of different classifications of terrain, so you end up with rules being useful or useless depending on factors that have nothing to do with the game and everything to do with who built the board (sort of like how the Wood Elf player always tried to get a game on a table with lots of forests in WHFB while their opponents tried to get them on a table with no forests). I'd suggest a more generic approach wherein models might ignore certain effects of terrain (you might have something like Ork Kommandos which are fast but clumsy, so they aren't slowed by terrain but they can still take damage from it, but Tau sensor-spine vehicles have advanced safety protocols but have to maneuver cautiously and can't get up to full speed so they're still slowed but don't take damage), or just a full or partial Move Through Cover the way 40k did it in 7th.


Poisoned will be split in 2 categories; normal poison for infantry, beasts and monstrous creatures and corrosion for robots and vehicles.


...As opposed to Poison versus Haywire in 7th?


Instead of fear and terror I will change that into a leadership reducing fear. Like units/characters getting charged or affected by models with the Fear (-1) rule must do a Leadership test with a -1 modifier. models fighting each other with the same level fear will cancel each other's rules while one with a better fear still affects the one with a lower fear.
A monster with a Fear (-3) would force the one with a Fear (-1) to do a Ld test with a -2 modifier. There's always a bigger fish.


Sensible implementation, I suppose. You may want to be careful about how much of this you include.


Instead of being a random chart, the Haywire rule will be a to wound attack that could let a vehicle or robot malfunction or get hit harder. Units with mechanic parts like Iron Hands and Mechanicum could be affected or malfunction too, same for normal infantry in humid areas like swamps or rivers.


...As opposed to making Haywire poison for vehicles?

The 'mechanical parts and water' thing is probably too fiddly/detailed for something on the scale of 40k, especially when you've got to start asking questions like "why do the guys in power armour remain unaffected while the guys in power armour with one cybernetic hand on one guy in the unit get screwed", or when you've got big chunks of the game that may just not be affected. Maybe as a scenario rule, but as a general rule I wouldn't if I were you.


Unit upgrades like chapter tactics should be a buy-able option, since some of them are stronger than the others and players using other chapters without their own tactics won't feel forced to take one if they don't want to.
Inspiration from VC's Vampiric bloodlines and HE's Honours.


Agree in principle, though I'd recommend digging up the 4e Space Marine book and the 3e Guard book with the customizable regiment system for ideas rather than the WHFB character upgrades since they're large army-wide alterations on the scale of Chapter Tactics (...some of them are Chapter Tactics, in point of fact...), not special skills for characters. I would recommend keeping the idea of that sort of character upgrade mechanism around, though, if only just to give generic characters more options/builds.


And the comeback of combined profiles.


?? This is a WHFB problem. "Combined profiles" are a weird edge case problem impacting Thunderwolves and Daemon character mounts by 7e, not a general issue. Set up a generic "independent attacks" weapon keyword (for things like the defense volkites on the Triarios, mount attacks, servo-arms...) and any obstacle disappears.

Sounds good?


What do you guys think?


Vague. Nonspecific. Probably more focused on simulation than on ease of play. Too early to pass judgement. Start writing it and I suspect I can be more helpful.

Victoria est autem vita.

Stories at https://knightofthegrey.wordpress.com/
Game-related musings at https://thescenicdetour.wordpress.com/
Both updated irregularly 
   
Made in kr
Veteran Inquisitorial Tyranid Xenokiller






your mind

I am down for a 41st age ruleset.
Time to open the doors to third party model vendors, with a wysiwyg open-source living rules system with different "builds" for different "metas" depending on the community.
Why not?

GW doesn't seem to take their rules construction very seriously, though things may seem to have improved, some major holes in the current "system" will end up with so many patches that soon we will all end up with three or four main rule books (after a couple of "chapter approved" iterations) plus codices plus datacards to keep all the unit-specific rules handy.
There is a major cluster on the horizon.
Maybe in eight months or so, you will see increasing demand for a community driven system.
Sure, GW is making some nice models, but these days the rules are too much determined by legal and marketing people.
For example, the reason that there were no rules for bike chaplains in the SM, or should I say AA, codex was simply that they don't make a model for it.
Who cares, really, except the bean counters?
I for one bristle at the notion of being administered by bean counters and worse, lawyer types.
Plus, there are the cover/scenario rules (lack thereof), the way that vehicles play including flyers without LoS and facing considerations at all...
Enough is enough.
Time to take the rules pen away from Timmy over in legal and his cousin Minny over in marketing, and give it back to the people who actually live in this world...
Just sayin'.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/09/07 16:11:04


   
Made in nl
Been Around the Block





 AnomanderRake wrote:

Vague. Nonspecific. Probably more focused on simulation than on ease of play. Too early to pass judgement. Start writing it and I suspect I can be more helpful.

It is more focused on simulation and scenario play indeed. I'm not so pleased with how some wargames are made to play easy and quick, because the gameplay depth and elemental parts of gaming are constantly botched.


 jeff white wrote:
I am down for a 41st age ruleset.
Time to open the doors to third party model vendors, with a wysiwyg open-source living rules system with different "builds" for different "metas" depending on the community.
Why not?

GW doesn't seem to take their rules construction very seriously, though things may seem to have improved, some major holes in the current "system" will end up with so many patches that soon we will all end up with three or four main rule books (after a couple of "chapter approved" iterations) plus codices plus datacards to keep all the unit-specific rules handy.
There is a major cluster on the horizon.
Maybe in eight months or so, you will see increasing demand for a community driven system.
Sure, GW is making some nice models, but these days the rules are too much determined by legal and marketing people.
For example, the reason that there were no rules for bike chaplains in the SM, or should I say AA, codex was simply that they don't make a model for it.
Who cares, really, except the bean counters?
I for one bristle at the notion of being administered by bean counters and worse, lawyer types.
Plus, there are the cover/scenario rules (lack thereof), the way that vehicles play including flyers without LoS and facing considerations at all...
Enough is enough.
Time to take the rules pen away from Timmy over in legal and his cousin Minny over in marketing, and give it back to the people who actually live in this world...
Just sayin'.


Rick Priestley was right when he advised that the creative team should have a say in the marketing team. But now the marketing and legal team are the ones leading the creativity and it even scared away good writers. And GW decided to focus on non-gamers, which didn't help on the long run.

I think it's up to the community too if we want a more complex and in-depth wargame.

P.S. I'm more active on T9A and 30Kheresy fora.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/04 12:21:39


 
   
Made in us
Pyromaniac Hellhound Pilot






Maryland, USA

I had, years ago (c. 2008) started working on what I called at the time "40k Advanced Play" that used d10 and incorporated a bunch of combat changes I desired at the time. Unfortunately I realized the number of people who'd be interested in playing it would be Exactly Zero, so it languished after a while and I do not believe I transferred it over when I set up a new PC.

There's also the issue of Split Playerbase, which probably isn't a desirable thing. I could put out rules that are appealing to me, but even if it got a decent following we would end up with the issue of not really being able to communicate across playerbases for anything. The systems I have in mind, how things interact, etc. would be too different from the real game for us to comingle, and that would be sad.

M.

Out-of-the-loop from November 2010 - November 2017 so please excuse my ignorance!
pismakron wrote:

Another way would be to simply slide the landraider sideways like a big slowed hovercraft full of eels.
 necrontyrOG wrote:
Sometimes a little murder is necessary in this hobby.

 
   
Made in us
Powerful Irongut




Interesting and extensive rules for both models and scenarios. It should matter why you want to deploy one unit in a certain environment, how they will react to certain events and what they can do.


write units that have native game objectives. Basilisk and Deathstrike can give up shooting to shoot off the table and score victory points, but they also yield extra points when they die. Titans and superheavies are so valuable that the faction can't afford to waste them. They can walk off the opponent's board edge mid-game to score extra points, but if they blow up or are still on the field at the game end, the opponent scores points, because the unit was needed somewhere else.


In addition to normal fire at will, models, especially infantry, can make aimed shots that do more damage. If they have a spotter or sergeant calling their shots, if they are lying prone in cover with a tripod, they can shoot specifically at tracks, hatches, turret rings, headshots, etc and cause more wounds with more armor pen.

Army-wide or contagious morale. If a friendly tank blows up, squad a takes casualties and fails a morale check, other units should have to also.

Veteran units are harder targets for basic units. E.g. basic recruits shooting at veteran chaos chosen should have a hard time.

Performance problems if a unit moves up to a place where it's outnumbered and fails to kill very much.

Real firefights (related): if you move up and shoot, enemy units should also be able to shoot and the side that does better can consolidate or something, the opposite of losing and running away.

More of the stats affect shooting. Three or more stats affect cc,: ws, s, and attacks, plus initiative/movement, t and ld. Shooting only has bs; more of a model's stats should work for shooting.

Prime259 wrote:
Thanks For The Help.
Thanks For The Help.
All the Best, George Bush:
My Life in Letters and Other Writings
Yoyoyo wrote:
I have a really great idea, why don't you use google to figure it out for yourself.
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: