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.
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.