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 large re-write of what I'm calling "open source rules" for 40k. I'm essentially rebuilding everything from the ground up using tools I've developed to make it a lot quicker to create and maintain all the army data. And IMO the core rules are a lot cleaner. For those of you interested I'd love to collaborate with you on this. So far there are only a few of us building out the factions but we've got a decent amount done already.

Grim Darkness rules and factions: https://wargame.indiegamerules.com/games/grim_darkness
Main page with some project info and discord/github links: https://wargame.indiegamerules.com/

Any thoughts or feedback? I'd love to hear it.

So I assume that when you state that tests requiring a result greater than 10 automatically succeed, that takes precedent over a roll of 10 failing because you succeed before rolling? I think that’s clear but I can be stupid at times. Really digging the d10 system though.

macluvin wrote:
So I assume that when you state that tests requiring a result greater than 10 automatically succeed, that takes precedent over a roll of 10 failing because you succeed before rolling? I think that’s clear but I can be stupid at times. Really digging the d10 system though.

Yeah basically. It may get adjusted such that you can't be assigned Strain from weapons that don't modify your save below 10, but you always fail on 10s to give those weapons a chance. At the moment though if you shoot a rhino with a lasgun you will essentially do nothing.

Alright the rules look awesome. The D10 gives you more design space which you ambitiously used whilst keeping the game almost as simple if not more simple than 8th/9th, and maintaining the same tactical depth. It also looks more like a wargame than a collectible trading card game of combo spells like with the stratagems of 8th/9th, which I don’t mind the stratagems too too much, but positioning matters now, and leadership (or whatever it is you called it to not be sued by GW) matters in just the correctly subtle way it should... and the alternating activation looks exciting. You sir did a spectacular job of modernizing this game. No idea how the individual armies will play, but I would loooooove to try it out and I hope it spreads throughout the community.

macluvin wrote:
Alright the rules look awesome. The D10 gives you more design space which you ambitiously used whilst keeping the game almost as simple if not more simple than 8th/9th, and maintaining the same tactical depth. It also looks more like a wargame than a collectible trading card game of combo spells like with the stratagems of 8th/9th, which I don’t mind the stratagems too too much, but positioning matters now, and leadership (or whatever it is you called it to not be sued by GW) matters in just the correctly subtle way it should... and the alternating activation looks exciting. You sir did a spectacular job of modernizing this game. No idea how the individual armies will play, but I would loooooove to try it out and I hope it spreads throughout the community.

Hey man. I really appreciate this lol. Tbh most of the circles I've posted it in hasn't gotten much attention yet. Maybe that'll change over time as it gets built out. We have a discord linked on the home page of the site if you want to connect with us atm. Happy to play a game or two on tabletop simulator with ya.

I really like this! I'm curious if you have a proof reader/editor yet.

I took a quick look through the IDF (IG) and noticed a few things, but only two big enough to bring to your attention here. The first and lesser of the two is that for the Psychic, under Unit Options it says that he can replace 2x CCW (Light) even though he is not listed as having those equipment in his base stats nor under Weapons. This is most likely meant to say he can replace his Staff instead. A simple mistake with an easy fix.

The second and much more important problem is that on the Super Heavy listing, the sponson options do not have the Laser Cannon that is on top of them listed as part of what you are purchasing, nor is it listed under Weapons for the vehicle. I imagine this was simply overlooked when making the sheet as they are not quite as obvious when looking at pictures of the associated model, however it would be a problem when someone attempts to field one in play. Also, just so you know for when you take a look at pointing them, unlike the sponson they cap, the Laser Cannon turrets are technically fully rotational turrets. For obvious reasons however, their effective operational arc is somewhat less as they wouldn't shoot towards the hull of the tank. A more annoying mistake as you'll have to go over the points value of the sponson again and update the Unit Options and Weapons sheets.

Just a couple things I thought I'd point out. I'll let you know if I see any other issues of note when I look through the rest, but I like that you've brought back the Rough Riders and I hope to see Basilisk and Griffon equivalents show up as well. At first I thought that the Artillery Cannon upgrade (downgrade since it's actually negative points) for the Support vehicle was one of them, but it has neither the range and damage I would expect from an actual artillery gun like the Basilisk, nor the Indirect fire Special rule I would expect from either of them. I mean, if a two man mortar has Indirect, then a Griffon Mortar and a Basilisk Cannon artillery definitely should.

Anyway, keep up the good work! I really like how this is looking so far and honestly think I might enjoy it more than current 40k.

 SergentSilver wrote:
I really like this! I'm curious if you have a proof reader/editor yet.

I took a quick look through the IDF (IG) and noticed a few things, but only two big enough to bring to your attention here. The first and lesser of the two is that for the Psychic, under Unit Options it says that he can replace 2x CCW (Light) even though he is not listed as having those equipment in his base stats nor under Weapons. This is most likely meant to say he can replace his Staff instead. A simple mistake with an easy fix.

The second and much more important problem is that on the Super Heavy listing, the sponson options do not have the Laser Cannon that is on top of them listed as part of what you are purchasing, nor is it listed under Weapons for the vehicle. I imagine this was simply overlooked when making the sheet as they are not quite as obvious when looking at pictures of the associated model, however it would be a problem when someone attempts to field one in play. Also, just so you know for when you take a look at pointing them, unlike the sponson they cap, the Laser Cannon turrets are technically fully rotational turrets. For obvious reasons however, their effective operational arc is somewhat less as they wouldn't shoot towards the hull of the tank. A more annoying mistake as you'll have to go over the points value of the sponson again and update the Unit Options and Weapons sheets.

Just a couple things I thought I'd point out. I'll let you know if I see any other issues of note when I look through the rest, but I like that you've brought back the Rough Riders and I hope to see Basilisk and Griffon equivalents show up as well. At first I thought that the Artillery Cannon upgrade (downgrade since it's actually negative points) for the Support vehicle was one of them, but it has neither the range and damage I would expect from an actual artillery gun like the Basilisk, nor the Indirect fire Special rule I would expect from either of them. I mean, if a two man mortar has Indirect, then a Griffon Mortar and a Basilisk Cannon artillery definitely should.

Anyway, keep up the good work! I really like how this is looking so far and honestly think I might enjoy it more than current 40k.

Thanks for the thoughts. I'm sure there are a few typos out there heh. We definitely need some proof-readers for both the core rules and the faction sheets and some folks to generally review for consistency. At the moment I'm in the process of revising them for probably the third time as the core rules have evolved and many of the factions are in progress and need to be fixed. I'll file some tickets related to fixing those IG statlines. There are quite a few units so frankly we need all the help we can get lol.

If you have any interest the best place is our discord (linked on the website homepage) where we discuss changes and review work. Thanks again!

I skimmed over the rules and a couple of factions’ army data. Looks very promising and I plan to read it in more detail very soon. I definitely liked what I read. Good job on the simple and direct formatting.

I'm probably going to make a thread in 40k proposed rules as that seems to be where this should actually be. Thank you all for the kind words. The positivity keeps me going heh.

Here's the new thread for anyone finding this one:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/796770.page