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.

I am currently working on a rules conversion of 5th edition to necromunda, but instead of gangs you have post apocalyptic little warbands. Think 40k with no vehicles and each model is an independent character that levels up like Necromunda. I plan on having the 5th edition modified rules, and then an optional rule set to test out action points.

Well Runna, I'm curious what kind of game type you'd suggest then and why. I don't see any specific setup that it would benefit more than any other (or less).

Runna wrote:Improvements can be made no doubt, but they've been making them for four editions, and the sequence your speaking of, the turn sequence, again I state it wouldn't work so well with the way the point balance system is, but it would be interesting and fun with rules behind it, most likely to make the point system fit the way phases were now unfolding.
My point is not that improvements can't be made, but based on personally trying out the phases and reverting back to the original way, I think it would be a great game 'type' option much like 'Planet strike' or something where friends would follow those rules or specific tournaments would carry it out. With it's on set of rules to counteract the disadvantages it applies to the current point system.
Yes, the whole system could be revamped, but no, if I worked in a buisness that was working and making money and being as succesful as it is right now, I wouldn't consider a revamp that large at this stage either. In or out of the box. Run it as an optional game 'type', see if it catches on and if enough people like it and start to enjoy it more than the original, a revamp at that point would be acceptable. *That is the logic behind my suggestion.*

GW doesn't have much competition though, so it is not like they have to worry about other scifi and fantasy games taking their market share. Just because Microsoft sells the most copies of their OS does not make them the superior OS. It just means in the market they were smart and got in at the right time and have never really had much competition, and when they did they bought them out or filed lawsuit against them.

I do truly think an action point based system in a skirmish scifi backed game is a superior framework to work with. It is like a game of chess. You activate and move one piece, and then your opponent activates and moves their piece and you go back and forth.

YOU THIEVES!

Seriously, I have been thinking of this type of game for a while. I call it "Move, Shoot, Fight".

Stop thinking about back and forth phases. Stop thinking about reactions. Forget action points. None of that will be accepted, and would create a totally new game.

You are the Battle Captain so you issue orders. There can be a mechanic here where units may have difficulty recieving and executing orders due to various factors. (fleeing, dead sgt., out of coherency)

The orders can be like those below. These are an easier transition from current 40k rules. My idea was 4 orders originally: move, shoot, fight, hold. I like the ideas below better.

Each turn is an order phase, and 2 action phases. Each order includes 2 actions. The results of those actions like fleeing and sweeping advances are a bit of an issue. I think they will best carry over to the next turn.

Actions

'Move' - move 6"

'Ready', set up heavier weapons , find best firing positions, make best use of available cover.

'Shoot', fire ranged weapons.

'Assault' move up to the units movement value and engage enemy unit in close combat.

The 5 'Orders' are made up of the 2 'actions' as follows.

Advance (A) move +shoot.

Double (D) move + 1d6move.

Charge(C ) move +assault.

Evade(E) shoot + move. is this for jump shoot jump?

Fire support(F) Ready+shoot.

So, lets resolve each of these 40k concepts within the framework above.

Both fleet and rapid fire weapons will have to change. I think both need to allow shooting and assault, because remember the enemy gets a turn, between what would have been 2 phases of our turn. See below ...

Weapon Types: These weapon types are allowed to be fired as specified, when their unit recieves the order indicated.

Rapid Fire - Advance (12" range, 2 shots), Fire Support (full range, 1 shot),
Assault - Advance, Fire Support (full range, full ROF)
Heavy - Fire Support (full range, full ROF)

Special Unit Orders
Jump Infantry, bikes - Advance = move (+ 6") and shoot
Jet Bikes - Advance = move

Vehicle Orders - Actions
Engage - ready and shoot (1 ordinance, or all defensive, and optional weapons)
Combat Speed - move and shoot (1 optional wpn + def wpns)
Fast Combat Speed - move and shoot (all defensive, and optional weapons)
Cruising Speed - move and move
Fast Cruising Speed - move (+ 6") and shoot (1 optional wpn + def wpns)
Flat Out Speed - move and move (+ 6")
Fast Flat Out Speed - move (+ 6") and move (+ 6")

Hi Army C.
Have you read my rough rules outline on page 3 of this thread?
I would value your input as we appear to be thinking about a similar modern simulation wargame...(I have been working on my rule set for about 3 years on an and off.I have been working on the fine detail for a WWII wargame based on these rules.)

Weapon classifications are;-
Assault , used in close combat.
Small arms ,general weapons used by infantry,
Suport weapons , either anti personell (bonus to supresion .) or Anti tank(Bonus to armour penetrtation)
Fire support weapons.Heavier versions of support weapons that need a ready action to be taken before they can be used.(Can not move and fire.)

If all weapons are given the same stat line, and just give the end result depending on the unit using them.
Then close assault weapons and ranged weapons do NOT have to be dealt with seperatly...

Name /Effective range/damage/ effect/ bonus effect.
(Weapon ) (The range the unit WILL hit a target if it aquires one.)(How many shots-hits or tamplate)(Bonus to supression OR ignore cover OR bonus armour penetration.)

These are listed under the units profile and include the units ability !

''This is my rifle there are many like it but this one is mine.Without my rifle I am nothing .Without me, my rifle is nothing.''

Why list an 'average stat line' for a weapon on its own, then modify it depending on who is using it?
When listing the effects on the unit using the weapons, is a far simpler more direct method .

TTFN

Action points are just like issuing orders, and the turn itself would represent probably a matter of second in real time but broken down into turns. You can only perform so many actions in an allotted amount of time.

ArmyC: This thread is over a year old. Get with the program, man!
As for the issues with assaulting: I have an idea, it's really simple. Units that fire heavy weapons or rapid fire weapons can't evade (or assault, see next sentence). I also have a suggestion for a command: Assault: shoot+charge. Think of all the assault units that wouldn't be able to shoot before getting into combat! Another suggestion which will be more controversial is an option called Heavy Fire: shoot+shoot. A lot of people will complain that 'shooting will be too powerful' but I don't think that's a problem with the oversaturation of close combat these days.

@Lanrak: I don't know how backwards compatible those weapons choices will be. How does it interact with the Ballistic skill? Could you give an example of a translation from an original weapon stat to yours?

Hi crazypsyko666.
My rules set is a completey new rule set.
The units offencive capability is directly represented in the weapons profile of the unit.

Eg A SM tac squad .

Mobility (L) 6"
(The unit uses legs and can move up to 6 " per move action)
Defence AR 5
(Models in the unit deduct this value from the attackers weapon damage to determine the to save roll.)
Hit points.10
(Number of wounds/models in the units , or mobility and armamanet hit points for vehicle and monstrous creatures.)
Stealth 5
(How hard the unit is to spot on the battle feild.The attacker has to roll over this value to make a sucessful range attack.)
Moral Grade 2
(The unit have to roll over their moral grade to pass a morale check)
Command Value.1
(The vet sargeant allows ONE re roll of any dice affecting his unit per turn.)

Weapons.
Name/ Effective range/ Damage /effect/Special.
Assault
Knife/2"/5/1/-

Small arms
Bolt pistol/12"/6/1/-
Boltgun./24"/6/1/-

Support weapons
Flamer/temp/6/temp/Ignore cover.

Fire support weapon
Heavy Bolter/36"/7/3/D6 to supression.

ONLY support and fire support(can not move and fire), have bonus effects.
Anti vehicle weapons get a bonus to armour penetration (same as now.)
Anti personell weapons get a bonus to supression.
Chenical weapons ignore cover.

TTFN

Would this be on the big fourteen page rules document I didn't get a chance to read yet? (Sorry, I'll get to it when the schoolwork quiets down.)

Hi again.
Thats the one!
Its just an outline of a new rule set.No fine detail as yet, but it covers the game play of the current 40k game ,in a more straight forward way.

It needs refining a bit , and more detail adding,But I belive the basic structure is sound.

TTFN

I think I am going to jot down a rule system here in the near future. I am going to take everything I liked about every war game I ever played, and remove everything I disliked and see what happens. The question is, if I do write this up, would people be interested in beta testing the game for me, to help balance and smooth it out?

Yes. Undoubtedly yes. I only have one requirement; the rules have to work with the current codexes without re-statting anything.

crazypsyko666 wrote:Yes. Undoubtedly yes. I only have one requirement; the rules have to work with the current codexes without re-statting anything.

I am taking the salad bar approach, this is a new game in some ways. I am taking every aspect I ever liked of table top gaming and combining it into one game. I already wrote a good 6 pages tonight to what I already had going, once I get a rough draft I will post it for critique.

Of course you can use any models for the game since there are no models for it.

Hi crom.
As long as you have a clearly defined end game play in mind , then you will get a coherant rule set.

I have seen lots of new rule set just 'copy & paste' chunks out of other rule sets , without modifying then to get the synergy required for smooth game play.

So, what is the end game paly you are aiming for?
It will help us make constructive critisisms and focus our sugestions on the right sort of end game.

Hope to see you WIP soon.

TTFN

Lanrak wrote:Hi crom.
As long as you have a clearly defined end game play in mind , then you will get a coherant rule set.

I have seen lots of new rule set just 'copy & paste' chunks out of other rule sets , without modifying then to get the synergy required for smooth game play.

So, what is the end game paly you are aiming for?
It will help us make constructive critisisms and focus our sugestions on the right sort of end game.

Hope to see you WIP soon.

TTFN

I am going for more of a living fluid end game. I don't want phases, I want each player to move piece and then rotate, like a game of chess. I want to make sense and I want to always have many different possibilities. It is an action point system, and I will probably finish up the beta/rough draft soon and post it here.

I also am not making characters super over powered in this game. Command units are meant as more of a support and tactical role versus heros barging and and destroying everything. I will also try to take the paper rock scissors approach so no one thing is over powered.

I am sticking with a D6 system since most war games are D6 based. My old version of this was D10 based game (thought use the metric system, everything is in 10s) but ultimately I want to not stray so far so that any person who plays games can easily adapt to it. As well as new gamers.

Hi crom.
Thanks for detailing you intended game turn mechanic.
'Alternating element activaltion, using 'limited resource'.(Action points, command points. activation cards etc.)

As we are talking on a 40k forum ,I am assuming its a 'near future/modern warfare simulation' wargame then?
Or are you going to follow 40ks modern units in a Napoleonic game structure.( 40k ,the only time bringing a knife to a gun fight is a great idea! )


Are you focusing on detailed model interaction?
Or are you focusing on detailed UNIT interaction?

Are you giving equal focus to physical or psychological damage?
40k just focuses on physical damage and plays down morale effects to the point on non existance!
Where as E.A models supression simply and effectivley ,to let it play an eqaly important part of the game.

Are you going to allow natural predeliction of attack method?
Or are you going to make ONE method , the prefered combat method of chioce?

Some games make close combat the primary focus to make the individual models seem more 'heroic' . Others relegate close combat to a single (modified)dice roll for speed of play.

You can use a d20 in a deterministic way to get 20 results.Or you can use a beter game mechanic to determine the chance of sucess and a D6 will work very well.
Its not about the size of the dice used, it the game mechanics that determine the level of scalability and intuitivness.

Eg
Deterministic method.(Limiting and abstract.)
Attacker will hit any thing any where in range on the roll of X+

Better method.
Comapre attackers awarness value to targets stealth value to get dice roll required to hit.

Looking forward to seeing what you come up with...
TTFN

Lanrak wrote:Hi crom.
Thanks for detailing you intended game turn mechanic.
'Alternating element activaltion, using 'limited resource'.(Action points, command points. activation cards etc.)

As we are talking on a 40k forum ,I am assuming its a 'near future/modern warfare simulation' wargame then?
Or are you going to follow 40ks modern units in a Napoleonic game structure.( 40k ,the only time bringing a knife to a gun fight is a great idea! )

It is scifi, because scifi is my favorite subject matter when it comes to things like this. Humans and alien races battle for control over systems, planets, resources, and so forth.

Are you focusing on detailed model interaction?
Or are you focusing on detailed UNIT interaction?

Both. Units act as one, and must all perform the same actions. However, if a unit has an upgraded veteran sergeant elite leading them, they may split some of their actions as the veteran uses his experience to command his squad and telling them to split their fire amongst two targets. Though, not every unit will have this upgrade available. Then I have commanding officers. COs may issue orders to units giving them more action points to spend. I am going to make COs more powerful than your average model, but they won't be as powerful as the GW ones which can sometimes destroy half of your opponents army. Commanding Officers (characters) have a huge support role in the game, but they can also be used to fight and are highly effective. You will need to decide how you want to play your CO models. They can call in air strikes, drop supplies to troops, they can issue orders, or they can fight alongside your troops if you wish.

Are you giving equal focus to physical or psychological damage?
40k just focuses on physical damage and plays down morale effects to the point on non existance!
Where as E.A models supression simply and effectivley ,to let it play an eqaly important part of the game.

Well, I am not sure if it is equal or not, but I do have things which half stats and half your action points, thus making your unit/model half as effective. Some of these do revolve around Morale.

Are you going to allow natural predeliction of attack method?
Or are you going to make ONE method , the prefered combat method of chioce?

Action points can be used for many different things. Really, it is up to the player to decide on how they want to spend them.

Some games make close combat the primary focus to make the individual models seem more 'heroic' . Others relegate close combat to a single (modified)dice roll for speed of play.

You can use a d20 in a deterministic way to get 20 results.Or you can use a beter game mechanic to determine the chance of sucess and a D6 will work very well.
Its not about the size of the dice used, it the game mechanics that determine the level of scalability and intuitivness.

Eg
Deterministic method.(Limiting and abstract.)
Attacker will hit any thing any where in range on the roll of X+

Better method.
Comapre attackers awarness value to targets stealth value to get dice roll required to hit.

Looking forward to seeing what you come up with...
TTFN

I am doing roll to hit and roll to wound, and there are close combat skills which give bonuses and/or execute certain things. For example, if you possess the parry ability your opponent must always reroll successful hits against you in close combat. There are going to be skills available to certain models and units you can purchase to customize. If you want to outfit them for close combat you can, if you want to outfit them for shooting you can, if you want them to be able to do both they can do both, but they will not be as good as the specialized units. The jack of all traits but master of none sort of philosophy. I need to sort out stats for weapons next, because I do not use the flat saving throw method. I like a method where a weapon has a damage rating and every model has an armor rating, you get the difference of them and then that is your saving throw. Different weapons will be more or less effective against armor.

Also, I do have a universal rule that a roll of a 1 always fails and that a roll of a 6 always passes.

I already have a concern about the parry ability. That effectively halves your opponents ability to hit, because it requires two hits, so my question will be how difficult is it to hit someone in close combat? Also, I have a suggestion (if you are using the Ballistic Skill method of shooting) Make cover saves a ballistics modifier. 25%-50% is -1, 50%-75% is -2, all to a minimum of one (or an equivalent)

crazypsyko666 wrote:I already have a concern about the parry ability. That effectively halves your opponents ability to hit, because it requires two hits, so my question will be how difficult is it to hit someone in close combat? Also, I have a suggestion (if you are using the Ballistic Skill method of shooting) Make cover saves a ballistics modifier. 25%-50% is -1, 50%-75% is -2, all to a minimum of one (or an equivalent)

the ability won't be available to anyone, and it is a work in progress. There are to hit modifiers if behind cover and cover adds bonus to the models armor rating. So far I have simplified cover as soft cover and hard cover. Each has it's own to hit modifier and each adds a bonus to to armor value.

I need to just crank it out and post it so you guys can look at it and critique it.

Good idea. Do that. But, regarding the OT, what other rules could be implemented to improve the current game of 40k?

Hi crazypsycho666.
If you simply want a de cluttered 40k game , Big Squig , has done a 'stage 1 re -write'.
He has just substituted the game turn for an alternating phse,(Like LoTR) brought back movement characteristic and other things from 2ne ed, that '...were needlessly changed for shortsighted reasons...'.

If you just want a cleaned up 40k game , this might be what you are looking for.( i belive he is now working on the codexes for the new rules.)

If you want a simple set of skirmish rules, FUBAR 1 page rules are about as simple as it gets.
No limits is similar to what 2ne ed 40k might have evolved into .
Stargrunt II is very good 'near scifi narrative driven' game.
Fast and Dirty is popular too.

What do you class as an 'improvment ' to 40k?
Depending on what you want the end game paly to be , determines the most suitable rule changes ...

TTFN.