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.

So, I'm working on a full re-write of ProHammer, making it function as a complete independent rulebook, and I'm grappling with the best way to sequence the rules - or rather trying to see if there is a better way to do it.

For reference... in the 3rd-7th edition the rules mostly went like this:

(1) Introduction
(2) Base mechanics (die rolling, stat profile, measuring stuff) & terms
(3) Movement Phase
(4) Shooting Phase
* Ranged weapon types
(5) Assault Phase
(6) Morale
(7) Characters - usage rules
(8) Psykers - usage rules
(9) Unit types (non-vehicle types, special rules per type)
(10) Vehicles - usage rules
(11) Universal special rules
(12) Buildings & Ruins
(13) Organizing a battle (terrain and missions)

=======================================================

The 9th edition rulebook goes like this:

(1) Basic mechanics & terms
(2) Command phase
(3) Movement phase
* reinforcements
* transports
* special movement types (e.g. flyers)
(4) Psychic phase
(5) Shooting phase
* Ranged weapon types
* MAKING ATTACKS
(6) Charge phase
(7) Fight Phase
(8) Morale Phase
(9) Missions
(10) Battle forged armies (stratagems, detachments, etc.)
(11) Terrain features
(12) Open/Matched/narrative play missions
(13) Rules appendix / rare rules
(14) glossary

=======================================================

So here's what I'm trying to grapple with...

First - I feel like rules work better when terms are introduced properly and defined before they are used and referenced. Older + newer rulebooks are guilty of this at times, e.g. the terrain portions of the rulebook were often towards the back of the book, yet rules contingent on them (difficult + dangerous terrain) were referenced earlier in the rules. Or certain areas of rules (e.g. movement) don't cover all the ways that something else (e.g. terrain) affects movement, so in order to understand "movement" you are having to bounce between two different sections.

Second - I feel like the rules should build up in a way that important structural concepts in the game are presented earlier, to give readers a basis of understanding, before those get applied later. Maybe this suggests having more foundational rules presented earlier as a well-bounded concept, which can later be referenced in more procedural type rules. I think being very clear about defining line of sight for example is really important to cover more completely up front. Another angle to this is presenting things that follow the process of actually playing - e.g. assemble armies, then setup and pick missions and understand objectives, then get on with the procedural rule of play. But I can see a logic to reversing that too.

Third - avoiding repetition in the rules. The biggest thing I'm grappling with in the older editions is how all of the vehicles rules were put into their own chapter, as a sort of ruleset within a ruleset, complete with regurgitating how vehicles interface in each of the main game phases. Would it make the ruleset feel more integrated if vehicle movement was covered in the normal movement phase section? And vehicle shooting covered properly in the shooting phase? I think it would help tie certain universal mechanics and elements together better without having to be as repetitive. The downside, is that all the vehicle rules aren't in one spot - but maybe that's what the summary tables are for.

Anyone have any reactions or thoughts on what has made 40K rulebooks, in their sequencing and ordering of the rules, more or less effective? Any reactions to the questions and ideas above?

Thanks!

 Mezmorki wrote:
I feel like rules work better when terms are introduced properly and defined before they are used and referenced. Older + newer rulebooks are guilty of this at times, e.g. the terrain portions of the rulebook were often towards the back of the book, yet rules contingent on them (difficult + dangerous terrain) were referenced earlier in the rules. Or certain areas of rules (e.g. movement) don't cover all the ways that something else (e.g. terrain) affects movement, so in order to understand "movement" you are having to bounce between two different sections.

With the exception of ruins all the rules for moving around in terrain in 5th were covered in the Movement phase section and you could just move the rest of those rules back to the Movement phase section.

I feel like the rules should build up in a way that important structural concepts in the game are presented earlier, to give readers a basis of understanding, before those get applied later. Maybe this suggests having more foundational rules presented earlier as a well-bounded concept, which can later be referenced in more procedural type rules. I think being very clear about defining line of sight for example is really important to cover more completely up front. Another angle to this is presenting things that follow the process of actually playing - e.g. assemble armies, then setup and pick missions and understand objectives, then get on with the procedural rule of play. But I can see a logic to reversing that too.

If you are writing a 40k game write it so 40k players can understand it IE: follow one of the GW formulas.

The biggest thing I'm grappling with in the older editions is how all of the vehicles rules were put into their own chapter, as a sort of ruleset within a ruleset, complete with regurgitating how vehicles interface in each of the main game phases. Would it make the ruleset feel more integrated if vehicle movement was covered in the normal movement phase section? And vehicle shooting covered properly in the shooting phase? I think it would help tie certain universal mechanics and elements together better without having to be as repetitive. The downside, is that all the vehicle rules aren't in one spot - but maybe that's what the summary tables are for.

I could see that being a good change, but I wouldn't think too much about it. If you write in the same style as one of the GW rulebooks people will be able to understand for the most part. If you change something and it confuses someone they'll hate you for it, much easier to copy GW and blame them for any issues.

Vehicles were a mess, they were different mostly to be different, rather to serve any concrete purpose. Stuff like them using a unique type of profile and walkers using a different unique profile and writing rules for how different types of units fly three times was complete silliness. Tank shocks were dumb. Choosing which weapons to fire and not to fire was really damn annoying and cluttered up the rules. The whole thing with hull-mounted vs turret-mounted weapons could also have been simplified massively, simply treat them as a model but don't allow them to shoot through the hull of the tank, having to define whether each individual gun on a model is hull-mounted is just making things hard for your players. Ordnance weapons hitting the top (side armour) another needless minute detail that could have been included in the rules for the few ordnance weapons where it mattered. If you cut the rules down to just the ones you need to make vehicles feel how you want vehicles to feel it won't take more than a page or two and it won't matter whether it is baked into the rest of the ruleset or it is set apart.

Do you intend to make the rulebook a .pdf or a wiki? If so, you could probably get away with following the GW formula exactly by using links to tie separate sections together.

I'm writing it using google docs - which means I could hyper link around the document as needed for sure.

I'm getting close - I'm almost done with the assault phase and then just need to finish up morale phase and some special rule sub-sets like psykers and independent characters. I've mostly been able to, fairly easily, weave in the vehicle rules or other specific into the main flow of the document and it's working pretty well.

Style wise, I'm a big fan of bullet points and I do like how they summarize the key rules in the 8th/9th codex. BUT - it's also bad because you still need to read paragraphs for certain other details. So the bullet points are not all you need AND it ends up essentially having a sizable chunk of the rules spelled out twice.

So I'm going to adopt the bullet point format but make everything part of bullet lists with key phrases, headers, and all the like. It's getting there.

I think the structure of the 9th Edition rules are better than the previous versions. In addition to being a more compact ruleset, it presents the rules in a smooth flow of play with all major rules presented as they are needed. Then providing additional items after the basic rules allows you to build on them without bogging down the flow of the rules overall.

Terrain is actually a great example. It impacts multiple phases and would bog down the flow of the rules in an unnecessary way if you referenced them during the Movement, Shooting, Charge, and Fight phases. It is better to have the terrain rules compiled together after you have already learned the basic rules concepts.

I also love the Rules Term Glossary. My only regrets are that more concepts are not included and the rules do not themselves cue you in when a glossary term is referenced during the rules via a typeset difference like they created for keywords.

Here's the outline I'm working with, more or less, if anyone is interested!

================================

Intro to ProHammer
- About, how to use it, key changes from 5th edition)

Gameplay Overview
- 1-pager on the flow of the game, key terms/concepts

Core Elements
- Armies (terms for detachments, point limit, etc.)
- Models (types of models, defining the body/hull, facing, heights)
- Units (data sheet, coherency, engaged state, squadrons)
- Characteristics (profile for vehicle + non-vehicle, description of stats)

Core Methods
- Measurement (measuring distances, within/wholly within)
- Moving models (basics for all types of moves, turning, what counts as moved)
- Line of Sight (point of view, targetable areas on models)
- Blocking LoS (dense cover terrain, intervening terrain, intervening models)
- Rolling Dice (types of rolls, re-rolls, characteristic tests, roll-offs, etc.)
- Making Attacks (rolling to hit for ranged and melee, rolling to wound, saving throws, damaging vehicles)

Organizing a Battle
- Assembling an Army (point limit, detachments, force organization charts)
- Mission setup (battlefield, terrain setup, reserves, deployment general rules)
- Objectives (general objectives - specific missions later in the rules, secondaries, scoring, etc.)

Order of Play
- Describes the overall flow of play (battle round, player turns, phases)

Movement Phase
- Step 1: Rolling for Reserves (where they enter, deep strike rules)
- Step 2: Moving units (normal moves, advance moves, stationary)
- Moving through terrain (difficult, dangerous, obstacles, moving up/down, flying models)
- Unit Type Movement Chart - shows all movement rules per unit type (vehicle + non-vehicle)
- Extra movement rules (transports, tank shock, out of coherency)

Shooting Phase
- Step 1: Declare Targets & enter overwatch (who can shoot, splitting fire)
- Step 2: First Fire & Overwatch Fire sequence (also covers going to ground)
- Step 3: Normal & Reactive Fire sequence
- Step 4: Casualty tests
- Resolving shooting attacks (here’s the full procedure for making shooting attacks, determining eligible shooting models/weapons including vehicles, hittable targets, allocating wounds, removing casualties, etc.)
- Extra shooting rules: pinning, supresson, screening, shooting into melee combat
- Ranged weapon core types (i.e. rapid fire, assault, blast, barrae, etc.)

Assault Phase
- Step 1: charges, reactions, withdrawing from assaults, making charges
- Step 2: Resolve melee engagements (determine engaged models, make melee attacks, allocate wounds, etc.)
- Step 3: Close Combat Results (determine winning side, break tests, falling back, pursuits, consolidation)
- Melee Weapon Types

Morale
- Broken units & Fall back moves
- Regrouping

Special Rules
- Independent characters (joining units, shooting at or with, fighting in assaults)
- Psychic powers (tests, deny the witch, types of powers, mastery level, etc.)
- Flyers (these have some of their own nuances to cover)
- Universal Special Rules/Abilities

Mission Book
- Describe specific missions here