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.

HI Guys.
I agree that 2 special abilities that give 'opposite re -rolls' should just cancel each other out.

I posted up the example based on 'CBT' weapons and armour types.Just to show it is possible to have 'flavour' in the game using straightforward easy to use /remember rules.

I think it would be a good idea to get the basic core rules sorted out.
And leave the 'thematic flavour' and 'tweeks' to the core rules until a bit later...(But all the weapon armour ideas so far are great,IMO.)

But as we are on this topic.

Here is a summary of where I think we are...
All weapons are assumed to be kinetic types unless other wise stated.
All armour is asumed to be Ablative/Reactive.The standard armour that disapates kinetic energy , unless other wise stated.

I think vehicles/monsters and some characters could pay to add a SINGLE extra layer of specialised protection.
Eg
'Ceramic coating' to combat chemical /thermal attacks.(Melta flamer acid thermal lance etc.)
Or
'Refractive coating' to combat energy weapons,(lazer, conversion beamers, particle projection,etc.)

Allowing a model to have all 3 types is a bit overpowering IMO.

This gives us 3 basic weapon and armour types for physical damage.
1 standard for each, and 2 special for each.(9 different interaction types in total, should be enough?)

Alright, so I'm realizing that we've come up with fantastic ideas but I honestly don't know exactly where we're at right now.

So let's reel this in again haha

Turn order
-Roughly half way through play testing, will hopefully have a decision made soon.

Unit Type
-Done, covered in first post

Stats
-Most of the way done. I think we are at a point that we’ll come back to this after Assaults are done.

Movement
-Done, covered in first post.

New Universal Table
-Done, covered in first post.

Rolls to Hit (Shooting)
-I think this is done, but to make sure please review the first post.

Wound Allocation
-I think this is done, but to make sure please review the first post.

Wound Resolution
-We haven’t talked much about this, but I put up my opinions in the first post.

Running
-Haven’t started on this, but it will go quickly. We’ll cover it in the Assault section.

Charging
-Haven’t started on this, but it will go quickly. We’ll cover it in the Assault section.

Rolling to Hit (Assault)
-Haven’t started on this. We’ll cover it in the Assault section.

Morale
-We’ve covered a lot of things, but nothing conclusive yet.

Universal Special Rules
-This will have small things added along the way, but not fleshed out until everything is done.

Warlord Traits
-Very briefly mentioned, but we need to save this until just before the USRs.

Psychic Powers
-Not mentioned at all, we’ll cover it after the Assault section but before Warlord Traits.



So to recap, this is the order we need to take care of things.
1. Double check the first post and make sure the things I pointed out already are good to go.
2. Wound Resolution we should finish up. It shouldn’t have too much left if you guys agree with my post.
3. We’ll take care of Running and Charging in one go.
4. Rolling to Hit in Assaults would follow.
5. Morale would logically follow.
6. Psychic powers.
7. Warlord traits.
8. USR’s would be last.

I think the energy damage type was added largely to cover the weirder things, such as Gauss weapons D-cannons or Conversion beamers. But making them type-less is a minor change on that.

I think that perhaps command points should not give a couple of re-rolls, and instead should be spent in order to allow a friendly unit (potentially within a limited range) to be activated outside its usual initiative window. (same number of activations per turn, just earlier/later in the turn).

I don't realy think all amour would help kenetick or any of the others.
How dose miror plating sound because most energy wepons use infa red and a mirror would stop it they all use kentic energy as it moves and loses power even wepons like lascannons use kenetic energy other wise I would not hit.

I don't think any of the las weapons use kinetic energy actually.

Kinetic is what all modern day armor is designed to stop, so granted that may change in 39,000 years.

However, in 40k the majority of weapons are still kinetic so logically the armor would be designed to counter that.


But like I said we really need to reel this back in and talk about the core rules.

Please review the first post and tell me if there is anything you don't like/agree with. After we make sure everything so far is good, we can move forward.

Hi rabid.
Just read your revised summary at the start of the thread.

Here are my comments...

The game turn.
Having 3 order sets Green Amber and Red, is to let players decide how to use their units in the following turn.

Green orders is focusing the unit on ranged attacks.(NO movement !!!)Shooting,psychic / ranged attacks ONLY.(Shooting ordnance-heavy weapons ,before Amber orders.And small arms/light support weapons twice.Once before Amber orders, and once after Red orders.)

Amber orders are focusing the unit on movement.(NO ranged attacks at ALL)

Moving up to 2x movement value (Running!)
Moving up to 2x movement value INTO ASSAULT!!(Charging.)
Moving into/through terrain up to movement value making the most use of cover.(Increase stealth value of unit.)

Red orders is letting the units react to the battle field situation.Move up to movement value, and fire small arms/light support weapons ONCE.Or shoot then move.
Can not launch an assault , if units move into contact on Red orders .They are kept 1" apart and can only have a short range fire fight.

The game turn covers ''running'' and ''charging'' , so they do not need extra rules!

Making tactical decisions in the command phase is important IMO.And so clear defined choices is important to help players form a tactical plan in the command phase.

Unit type.
IF we use the right stats, the unit will be described by the stats!
We will not need to write out extra descriptions.

Even if the unit name .Leman Russ Battle TANK.
Fails to tell the player the unit is a friggin' TANK.

The fact it moves on TRACKS, is a MECHANICAL CONSTRUCT with Structure Points, and is HEAVILY armoured ,and carries a large battle cannon in a TURRET.Might sort of give them a clue...

The ONLY reason 40k artificialy labels unit types, is to make the models seem more special with exclusive rules writing.As GW are all about selling toy soldiers.

IF however we want to list units types , so that we can cover them all in the basic rules I have no problem with that.

But telling players that a Plasma pistol is a pistol, or that A Space Marine Bike is a bike, and a Leman Russ battle tank is a tank, sees a bit pointless IMO.

Body type.
Models /units have their physical presence on the table defined by ACTUAL physical size of foot print, base/hull size.
And in game by the stealth value .

I do not see the point of this extra definition?Unless its to let us define stealth values for units?

USRs .
I prefer the term Special abilities.As Universal Special Rules is an oxymoron.If something is universal it means it applies to everything.Special means it is applied to a few special cases.

Could you list the stats you want to use, and how they interact (resolution methods) ?
(And go over the universal resolution table again , I have forgotten how it works... )

So we can start refining them.. .

Haha, alright so I definitely had the turn order wrong. Good thing we did this double check!

Although it is super obvious when the model is on the table, it isn't obvious for things that don't have a model. Rather than playing the "well the name is this" game and having people be able to rules lawyer and break the game it is much simpler just to say "Large, Biological" for unit type rather than assuming the player knows that a Tyranid Warrior would be Large and Biological. It may seem obvious to most, but some might not agree.

After thinking more about the movement type, I think we should just rename them as such:
-Slow
-Agile
-Fast
-Flying

Slow is standard infantry movement and will cover the majority of models.
Agile covers tracked, beasts, and especially fast infantry.
Fast covers wheeled, cavalry, and really fast tracked vehicles.
Flying are jetbikes, flyers, and flying monstrous creatures.

Ignore Terrain allows for skimmers, jump infantry, jet packs, etc. noted with their movement type.
Here is a super fast example of each, with (IT) meaning they have the special rule Ignore Terrain.
Slow - Space Marine
Slow (IT) - Monolith
Agile - Hormagaunts
Agile (IT) - Crisis Suits
Fast - Rough Riders
Fast (IT) - Swooping Hawks

Flyers have enough different that I'm just going to cover them in a separate section on the front page. Here are my initial thoughts:
-The Hard to Hit rule is replaced by a high stealth value. These are covered in a table in the first post.
-Immune to templates and blast weapons I'd like to incorporate in some way.
-Instead of a 90 deg pivot at the beginning of their move, it should be at the end. Aircraft aren't maneuverable, helicopters are. Aircraft are just stupid fast and bring a ridiculous amount of firepower.
-Strafing run, hover strike, all that crap needs to go.
-Multiple movement types will be noted with two values. This covers "Hover" and "Flying Monstrous Creatures."

Here are two very quick examples of Unit Cards that I plan to use.



Some conversions I haven't covered:
-Com I just took as rank. 1 is standard infantry, 2 is trained infantry, up to 5 which is the Hive Tyrant.
-A Flying move is between 2x and 4x your movement value.

I think that covers them.


Running has it's own section to help the transition from current 40k to the new rulebook. That section I had planned on saying "Running is treated identical to moving, and may be done instead of shooting or charging." I don't know what else we'd really put there, but I reserved the section just in case. Granted, it can be covered in the movement section just as easily; however, same as before I just wanted to have the space available.


Changing USR to Special Abilities is fine, but I felt the more terms we keep from standard 40k the easier it is to understand. We have to dance between making it easier for current 40k players to transition and making it an easy game to learn from scratch. USR makes enough sense for both, hence why my plan was to keep it.


The Universal resolution table is pretty simple:
y axis - rolling player's stat (BS, Strength, WS, AV)
x axis - non-rolling player's stat (Stealth, RV, WS, AP)
Then you just consult the table to see what you need to roll. There is a simple way to memorize it that I mentioned before, and will stress in the actual document as well. Memorizing a single table makes the game play significantly faster.



I'm sure there are tons of things that I missed or don't make sense, but any information I can put on here that expresses what I'm thinking I hope will help.

I still have a really hard time trying to visualize what you are saying for the turn order, and had an idea.

Do you by chance have an Xbox with a gold account? A few weeks ago I did the play test through Xbox live. I have a Kinect so I was able to give a tour of the battlefield whenever it was needed, and he always knew what was going on. Additionally, it was real-time chat vs. waiting for each other to reply with multiple-pages of text haha.

Hi rabid.
(Sorry no X-box ..only PC.)

Well to expand on the game turn I proposed, it is based on Epic Space Marine,(GW 1992 to 1998,) And fan supported Net Epic (1998 to present day.)
(Play tested for 21 years is good enough for me! )

In the command phase, the players decide how their units(on good morale)are going to act in the next game turn. (Tactical command decisions.)

GREEN Order Counter - Fire Support..NO MOVEMENT!!!!
To remain stationary and fire to full effect and give the other units 'Fire Support'.(Stand still and shoot 'current heavy-ordnance weapons'.)

And weapons that can not move and fire are called 'Fire Support' weapons.This classification is based on the UNIT carrying the weapon.A Heavy Bolter in a IG squad is classed as Fire Support.(Can not move and fire.)But is a Support weapon on a Leman Russ tank.(can move and fire!)

AMBER Order counter-Special Movement.(NO RANGED ATTACKS!!!!)
Move up to 2x movement value (RUN.)
Move up to 2x movement value into close assault.(Charge.)
Move up to 1x movement value but maximum use of cover.(Move carefully to improve stealth value.)

RED Order counter -Responding to other units.
After units on Fire support have taken their first shots, and units have made all their special movement.
The units on RED orders;-
Can move up to 1x movement value, and fire NON Fire Support Weapons once.
OR
Fire non Fire support weapons once then move up to 1x movement value.

Players alternate activating units,(turning over order counters and takeing appropriate actions.)
Units on GREEN orders (Fire Support ) are activated first.
The units on Amber (Special Movement ,)order counters are activated after ALL units on Green orders have been activated..
Then units on Red order counters are activated ,AFTER ALL units on Amber orders have been activated..

Is this any clearer?

If the units stats tell the player how the unit performs in game .(Eg how good games use stats.)
Coupled with the unit name , we should not 'have' to describe the units seperately..

A large units have a LOW stealth value , and if it is biological it has WOUNDS not Structure Points.

I realy can not see the need to tell a player what a unit is, if the stats do the job properly.(40k stats are awful at describing units, thats why 40k use so many pages of extra rules....)

If you want to use descriptors for movement, we could end up with lots more than the 4 you posted.

Slow infantry , infantry, fast infantry, jump infantry,Slow Wheeled, Wheeled, Fast Wheeled, Tracked , Fast Tracked,Slow hover ,hover ,Fast Hover , Flyer.Etc.

Simply having a symbol for movement type followed by speed allows more flexibility with a simpler resolution.

Unless you want to artificialy restrict movement to 4 fixed values for some reason?

FoW gets away with describing movement types as there are less varied units in WWII.
(But uses 5 basic vehicle types with 6 special rules,and 5 support weapon types , based on standard infantry units all moving at the same rate. )

So to cover 40k properly we would be looking at a minimum of about 14 NAMED movement rules..

My only hesitation to use the term USR is it is an oxymoron>And some existing gamers MAY expect the excusivity of the current USRs?

'Flying' models are realy 1 of 3 types.
Models that JUMP short distances, (like flying M/Cs.)Jump Jets /wings.

Models that can hover and move , and are very varied in speed and agility, Eldar grav weapons platforms , to monoliths.. (Helicopter type mobility.)

Models that represent off table support type aircraft , that are used to drop off units/ or make ground attacks.
We only realy need to treat these as hover vehicles on table, with mobility restrictions like limited turning as you suggested.

Why not just improve the stealth value of fast moving flyers?As 'Stealth' represents how hard the unit is to target effectively?
(A summary of unit size, agility/speed and experience etc..)

If we are to make a streamlined rule set that increases game play and reduces complication, we have write rules directly opposite to the way 40k 6th ed was written!

Just a quick comment on the unit tables.

Why not put Movement type and movement value together under 'M for Mobility'?
EG
L 6", W 12", T 6", H 12" etc.(Use a symbol for movement types.)

This seems a lot easier to use than , 'Movement Name'' and then lots of additional special rules to put the variety back like 40k does...

Lanrak,

What you’re saying is beginning to make much more sense, but there are two questions that I have:
-Is there a difference between assault and rapid fire weapons? I like the difference in the current game hence why I kept it in amber instead of red.
-If one player has green units left, but not the other, do they finish their green units before the other player can start activating amber units? (e.g. if one player has all green units, the other all amber, does the amber player have to wait until the green player is done to start doing anything?)



No problem, we can keep doing this instead of video stuff. I just thought I’d ask



Honestly I found my movement stuff very simple, and I think you’re misinterpreting what I’m saying (or I’m really out of touch with simple haha.)

I do want to restrict it to 4 movement types (or mobility types), but that bears no restriction on their movement distance. I put slow-agile-fast-flying as placeholders until we come up with better names for all of them (slow is legged, but I attempted to avoid confusion by changing the name to a placeholder… whoops)

So let’s go back to the terms before:

Slow = Legged
Agile = Tracked
Fast = Wheeled
Flying = Flying (not to be confused with ignoring terrain!)

Ignores terrain is a single rule that makes a movement type ignore terrain. It only gets a little complicated for things like current Flying Monstrous Creatures that can land and walk.

Flying units cover actual flyers, and flying infantry (like gargoyles). These are meant to be things that don’t even have legs to land, not represent skimmers/jump infantry/etc. If they do have legs to land, they’ll have a second movement type like I mentioned earlier.

Now, the MOVEMENT VALUE (not type) is NOT dependent on the movement type. I really want to make sure that point gets across. I used standard values on the example cards, but these are just examples.



Here are some ways the above will be incorporated:
Legged, Tracked, and Wheeled all follow these rules (regardless of if they have the “ignores terrain” rule.)
-Move = move up to their movement characteristic
-Run = move up to double their movement characteristic
-Charge = move up to double their movement characteristic, must be into close combat.

Flying follow these rules
-Move = move between 1-2x their movement characteristic. May turn up to 90 deg at the end of the move.
-Run = move between 2x-4x their movement characteristic. May turn up to 90 deg at the end of the move.
-Charge = move up to double their movement characteristic, must be into close combat. May turn up to 90 deg at the end of the move.


Of course these are going to be balanced; but as you can see flyers aren’t dramatically different, just more restrictive.



Like I was saying before, 80% of units are very simple when it comes to the unit type. However, if there is even 1 unit that isn’t we need to accommodate that. Best example are units that don’t have a model, or units that are on the border.

What would a Zoanthrope be considered?
What about a Terminator?
Or an Ogryn?

They’re all on the same sized base. They’re all much larger than a standard infantry model. To me, a Terminator is still infantry sized but a Zoanthrope or Ogryn are not.

There is just too much up in the air, and rather than let people rules lawyer it I want to be able to point to a profile and say “there it is, it’s a ____.” You may think I have too little faith in the player, but I just don’t want to leave anything to chance; especially when everyone starts introducing converted models.


I hope everything made some sense and was clear, but that would be atypical now wouldn’t it

I think we are both having similar ideas, but express them using different words and terminology.
And get a bit confused as a result.

I like the range of weapon effects in 40k. But I think the way they are described in the rules is not that good.

What are the current definitions of 'rapid fire' and 'assault'?

Last time I looked.
'Rapid fire' move and shoot once.Remain stationary and shoot twice.

'Assault'. Can fire at full effect if the model moves or not.

The proposed rules already cover 'rapid fire',Non Fire support weapons fire twice if on Fire support orders,(Green.)And once on Reaction orders(Red)

Current assault weapons that are not special weapons (Which will be transfered to support weapon, classification.)Are called Small arms along with the pistols and rapid fire .

Add this note ;- Non Fire support weapons with an Effect(shots) value of 2 or more do not fire twice on Fire Support orders.

This gets the same effect as current rules I think?.

My definitions for weapons.

Close combat...(Only used in close assault)

Small arms..(Pistols rifle smg type weapons.)

Support..(Specialised weapons , flamers, grenade launchers etc.)

Fire support.(Can not move and fire.)

I may need to go over than again when I am not so tired.

As reguard the order sequencing..We will have to play test it .
In Epic all the units on First Fire shot before any units on Charge orders moved.(But there were huge armies and loads of units...)

However, with this new game it may be over powered, so to let the opposing player activate units on Amber orders, if they Run out of Green orders may be preferable.
(Other wise an gun line army might decimate an assaulting hoard?)

BUT ALL units on Green AND Amber order counters HAVE to be activated before any units on Red order counters are activated.

The idea is units that take decisive actions , activate before units 'reacting ' to events.

I did mis understand you idea for mobility.

Describing the way a unit moves and the distance it can move up to when taking a movement action is fine.
Can we use (L) (W) (T) (F) untill we get some cool legs , wheels , tracks and flying movement symbols?

I would prefer to be a bit more specific with 'ignores terrain'.

I would like to use Movement Special abilities of;-
Jump jets/ Wings.Unit can fly over interveening terrain. 8" for jump jets and 12" for wings.

Difficult terrain mod/Dozer blade,The unit counts light woods and rubble as open terrain.

Behemoth, the unit can use its bulk to smash through vertical obsticles like woods buildings walls etc.(Requires a momentum check?)

[b]Amphibious the unit counts water features as open terrain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Some more ideas...
After play testing , we might revise the game turn to something like this...

Command Phase.
(Place orders counters face down.)

Priority actions.(Green then Amber.)

Reactive actions ,(Red )

Resolution phase.
(Resolve assaults,rally units on poor morale , place arrivals , reserves and artillery /air strikes.)

The more I think a bout Epic the most obvious difference is the scale (10mm).Which allows a lot more movement into weapons ranges.
(Units on Fire Support orders will not be in range of some units.With 40k tables being more crowded this might be a big problem )

Anyhow I have managed to find an old copy of 5th 40k.(We have a common reference point , Yay!)

Weapon types
OLD..................................................................................New any changes...

Pistols can be used in close combat.................................No change.

Heavy (inf) and Ordnance. Can not move and fire.............Now called ''Fire support weapon'' , and needs a Fire Support order (Green ) to activate(Can not move and fire.)

Special weapons & Heavy weapons in units that can move and fire.....Support weapons (Name change only.)

Standard rifles and guns etc.................................................Catch all term of Small arms .(Name change only.)

The proposed rules cover assault weapons (fire Their number of shots(Effect.) if moving and shooting or stationary.)
And Move OR Fire weapons.(Fire support.)

If we class Rapid Fire in the weapon notes as...''Rapid Fire, the weapon can halve its number of shots and double it effective range on Fire Support orders.''

Bolt gun ER 12"/AP 5/ Dam 1/Effect 2/ Notes;- Small arms. Rapid fire.

This means running or charging a model armed with a Bolt gun can not shoot.

On reaction orders,( Red) they can move and fire 2 shots up to 12".

On Fire support orders, (Green) they can fire 2 shots up to 12" OR 1 shot up to 24" away.

Other special weapon rules like 'get hot' 'melta' 'lance' etc can be added to the weapon notes as neccissary...

I hope this clarifies how I would like to proceed with weapons profiles?

I realy find it difficult to understand how players can take advantage of making up the wrong name for a model, if the game play is defined by the rules clearly.

[b]Base or hull size.(This sets the PHYSICAL way the model interacts on the table.)

Mobility. this tells the player how the model(s) moves and how far it moves.

Armour value ,This tells the player how well protected the model(s) is(are).

Resistance value , This tells the player how hard the model(s) is(are) to damage.

Stealth value , this tells the player how hard the model(s) is to target.

Assault value , this tells the players how good the model is in close combat.

Morale value, this tells the player how willing the model is to fight on...

Command value, this tells you how good the model is at battle field command.

What is not clear?

In 40k , the following is NOT covered by the stats.
Mobility , how does the models move, how far can it move?

Stealth , how difficult is the model to target?

Unless you are told the unit is a Beast or a Bike or a Walker or a Fast vehicle or a Skimmer, you have NO IDEA how the unit moves...
And depending how you build/ model the minature determines how hard it is to hit and make ranged attacks !!!!

In the new rules calling a model a creature, beast ,abomination, monster, behemoth, makes NO difference to how it works in game.(Unless we have 'special abilities' using these names in the 'notes' of the unit/ weapon, which may be comfuseing to some, so should be avoided... )

The STATS (and weapons profile,)tell the player what the models do in game .
The model name is just a cool descriptor, is does NOT effect the game play.

TTFN

I think we have probably one of the strangest disconnects when it comes to unit stats haha.


Let me see if I can clarify my position.

I think we should define everything about the unit in their stats, and not leave anything up to the player to figure out.

The unit card I put up above covers all the stats I thought we needed.

Type: The first character is their size, the second is their type. So I/B means infantry/biological. M/M means monstrous/mechanical (there is a typo in the cards.)
M: This is the Movement characteristic we were talking about.
MT: This is the Movement type, and I separated it from the movement characteristic so we can have multiple movement types. The Winged Hive Tyrant is the best example of this.
BS: Ballistic Skill
S: Stealth
AV: Armor Value
RV: Resistance Value
WS: Weapon Skill. I'd like to keep this, I think it is a good stat.
Ld: Leadership
Com: Command Value


We'll get to the weapons section soon, but lets knock this out first.


With just these, what do you agree/disagree with? Most we have been over already, but please let me know if you have any questions.

Similar ideas expressed slightly differently.
I used different names for stats on perpouse. (As I dont want GW C&D to raise their ugly head if this development gets off the ground.)

My idea for 'mobility' displays the same info but in listed in a slightly different way.
Mobility.
(First symbol BASIC movement type),( then distance moved) , (then Special ability symbol).
EG
Winged Hive Tyrant.
(Legs) 6" (Wings)
So the basic movment is walking 6" BUT the special ability of Wings allows it to fly 12" over terrain features etc(is that how far they can fly?)

Chimera.
(Tracks )6" (Amphibious.)
Moves on track up to 6" AND counts water features as open ground.

This incoperates all elements of mobility, how they move how far they move and what IF ANY special abilities they have.

It would look a lot better with cool symbols rather than (writing ) Number (writing).
I am just trying to arrange the information to make it easier to read and use.I understand its just down to personal preference in presentation.
Some people like things spread out, other like to read it sequentialy in a line.(Guess what I prefer.. )

Stealth, Armour value .Resistance value ,WS (Assault value.) Ld (Morale value ) Command Value.
I think we ll agree on .
Battlefield Skill.(BS) used in opposition to stealth to dertermine targeting (to hit) I can see the merit in.

However you appear to have missed out the number of hits the model can take and how many model in the unit.Starting strength & Wounds/Structure points .

Along with the mobility information it should define the unit enough to drop the unit type perhaps?

EG
SM Tac Squad.
(Legs symbol) 4"
(Standard Infantry move 4")

(Wounds symbol) 10/1
Ten models 1 wound each.

Land Raider
(Tracks symbol) 6"
(Standard tank, move 6")

(Structure point symbol) 1/ 4
One model with 4 structure points .

Its just sorting out the fine detail IMO...

I was thinking this morning after I wrote all that up, and came up with something that might help.

No unit has more than two methods of moving, so why not have just Primary Movement, and Secondary Movement.

Most units would have just 1, but some have 2 (like the Hive Tyrant, or most Jump Infantry.)

Then it could be:
(movement type symbol) (movement value) (1 special rule with it)

The special rules that I can think of are:
Amphibious - like you were saying
Ignore terrain - ignores terrain like current jump infantry/wraiths/etc.
Move through cover - we'll come up with those rules eventually

Amphibious is definitely the most special, but ignore terrain and move through cover are pretty run of the mill special rules and are seen all over the place. Simply representing them by a symbol will make it much easier and not take up much space.

That really just leaves our difference on unit type.

I'm still in favor of what I put above (type/size.) The reason for that is not because most units are obvious; it is because there are some that are not obvious.

Tyranid units are a great example where the name of the unit doesn't necessarily make it obvious as to what size it is (they are all obviously biological.)

Additionally, I plan for the cards to be as universal as possible. I don't want some to say wounds, some structure points, etc. Personal preference, yes, but if anyone that plays this wants to use different terms/symbols they are more than welcome to. Also, I think combining unit number with wounds isn't the best move. It makes at home spreadsheets a lot harder to make, and I don't think it's necessary when unit sizes are variable.

Bottom line is I don't see a good enough reason to not do it compared to my reason of "I don't want there to be any sort of question as to what this unit is." I feel that assuming the player knows what it is supposed to mean, no matter how obvious, is how 80% of the threads start in YMDC.


I think that pretty much covers the unit stats though.


On to weapon stats:
I made the 5 columns up above (besides name, number, special, etc.)

Type - Weapon type (Ordnance, heavy, rapid fire, assault, pistol, close combat, or any of the psychic powers)
Range/I - Range, or Initiative step if Melee
Strength - Strength of the weapon or swing
AP - AP of the weapon or swing
Attacks - Number of shots or swings

Disregarding psychic powers until we get to that section...

I planned on having these weapon types mean these things:
Ordnance - vehicles must remain stationary to fire, infantry can't fire.
Heavy - vehicles may move and fire, infantry must remain stationary to fire.
Rapid - vehicles may move and fire, infantry may move and fire but it slows them down.
Assault - vehicles may move and fire, infantry may move and fire.
Pistol - vehicles may move and fire, infantry may move and fire in addition to this counting as a close combat weapon.
Melee - pretty self explanatory.

I strongly believe assault weapons should not slow the unit down besides preventing them from running. Rapid fire weapons are different. They are meant for standard infantry, for long range, and with a firing stance (think M16 vs P90.) Assault weapons are meant to be fired on the move, from the hip.

That's all I have time to write now, and this weekend is pretty busy for me. Expect the pace to pick back up on Monday though, and hopefully we can have a version 0.1 typed up by the end of the month

Well if you think using named unit types would help 40k players cross over to the new rule set.
What about having it in () after the unit name.
EG.
SM Tactical Squad.(Infantry.)
War-track(Vehicle)
Hive Tyrant (Monster.)

This would leave the unit stats 'cleaner'.
I totaly agree with the (movement type),( movement value) ,( special rule, if applicable.)

On to weapons ...here is my prefered layout , covering ranged AND close combat weapons...

Name - what the weapons is called.

Effective range , maximum (and minimum) range the weapon can engage enemy models.

Armour Penetration, how good the weapon is a defeating armour.

Damage (strength replacment) , how much damage the weapon does to the soft target behind the armour.

Effect - how many models/hits the weapon effects have.(template, small /large blast, 1,2,3,4,5,6, etc.

NOTES- weapon type , and any special rules ..

Is this ok for you?

Weapon types.

Melee only used in close combat.(yup no problems.)

We assume ALL ranged weapon can move and fire unless other wise stated.(Red orders move and shoot or shoot and move)

Pistols may be used in close combat.

Rifles and guns- standard ranged weapon of the unit.(This assumes all weapons are current 'assault' weapons,can move and fire )

Support weapons , special weapons for dealing with specific target better than standard weapons can.(Flamers, melta/plasma guns.etc.can move and fire )

If a weapon can not move and shoot, why not call it a 'Fire Support' weapon .As it can only be used if you put the unit on Fire support orders(Green)?
(Heavy weapons carries by infantry without special rules to counter act the no move and fire, and Ordnance.)

Special rule for Rapid fire.
Weapons that have rapid fire MAY fire ONCE (Effect 1)up to DOUBLE their effective range.(ER x2) when the unit is on Fire Support orders.(Green)
Representing the models taking careful aim rather than shooting from the hip on the move.

But will fire twice (Effect 2) at their effective range , when the unit is on Reaction orders.(Red)

Land rader should be anphibious. As it has sealed hull and tracks allow it to travers river beds. C:SM land rader page.

Hi wargey.
Yes, we can make a land raider amphibious , if it fits the background and design of the vehicle.

The point I was trying to make is that 'ignore terrain' is a bit to 'catch all' IMO.

The wide diversity of units found in the current 40k game .I think deserves more definition.

How a unit moves across the battle field is a very important characteristic , which is covered by lots of special rules in 6th ed.(ONLY standard infantry are covered in the core rules.)
I would like to include this information in the stat line .

I would like to cover ALL units with the 'core rules' .(Special abilities are part of the core rules , not '..special rules 'nailed on' as an after thought...' R.P.)

And I think , 'movement type',' distance moved','special ability' is a better way to define units mobility than clump them together in groups with exclusive rules.

Here is an example of some special movement abilites....

Movement Special Abilities.
Amphibiuos. Treats water features as open ground.

Behemoth. So large it uses its bulk to crush and bash its way through!
Treats all woods, and built up areas as open ground.But counts soft ground as impassible due to its massive weight.

Jump Jets , Can jump over terrain features up to 8"

Dozer blade.Can use its bulk or special equipment to bash through light woods or rubble, and treats this type of terrain as open ground.

Wings.Can fly over terrain features up to 12"

Terrain is classed as ,
Open ground.(No movement modifier.)

Impassible.(The unit may not enter or pass through this feature.)

Other terrain types modify movement rates in some way.(+/- 1" or 2")

Wheeled vehicles moving down a road get +2 movement .But -2 when moving through woods and rubble.

We could use a terrain chart , showing movement types vs terrain types and list effects...

Putting all the information on the unit reference card, rather than in pages and pages of rules in the rules book.Makes playing the game much easier for older folk with poor memories like me.

What differance will a seige shield do because dozer blade is pretty much the rules for a seige shield.

I agree with rabid that things should be made explicit. I would have liked to think that people could be trusted to make use of simple logic and common sense, but "You make da call" is perfect evidence that a large number of people read the rules in "machine language" and ignore all the advantages of conversing in a human language in which some ability to deduce intended meaning is assumed. (Discussions over whether chaos spawn can operate quad guns are the sort of thing that dominate,). In summary, YMDA is chilling evidence that huge numbers of Warhammer players are happy to "play stupid" suspend all logic and reason, in some pointless quest to obey the letter of the rules, while spitting in the face of their spirit.

Sorry, rant over.

Vertical (walls/cliffs)
Road/paved Open Soft Forested Rocky H<Unit H>Unit
Legged F F F F F D I
Wheeled B F F I D I I
Tracked B F F D D I I
Hovering F F F F F I I
Flying F F F F F F F

Above is a vague stab at how the movement table might work .Their is certainly lots missing from this one. The key is that F=fine, B=benefit, D=difficult, I=impassable. I have no idea if the table will be displayed properly, I have just pasted it in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
No, table didn't work. Rabid, how did you put tables into your posts?

Here it is, I was going about this in completely the wrong way.

Nice table Dast, very clear

Did you do yours through excel -> print screen to paint -> photobucket -> Dakka? That's how I normally do it.


Anyways, just a quick update before I make my wife too mad at me for checking Dakka on vacation


Our ideas for weapons are very similar, so I think I'll just combine a few of the things you said that I liked into what I already had. Expect to see that in the first version of the rulebook vs in the first post (it's too nit-picky to warrant it.)


I'm really liking the chart that Dast put up, and I think that covers most everything. Here is a new version, based on that, to take a look at.




Some of what you said I disagreed with, and I added actual values.

I'll create a special rules chart after we decide on all the mobility special rules. I'd like to keep it to a total of 6, and these were the ones I had in mind:

Move through cover - halve negative terrain modifiers.
Climbing gear - no negative vertical modifiers.
Urban vehicle - ignore rubble modifiers.
Dozer blade - ignore wooded modifiers.
Amphibious - ignore water modifiers.
Ignore terrain - ignore all terrain modifiers.


Now, to stop the glaring I should get off

@wargey.
Anything I post at the moment are just examples of how concepts could be applied.Names and values are just to show how it could work in the game.
Please do not think these examples are written in stone and are what will be.
(Also I have no idea what nomenclature and classifications are used in 6th ed, as I gave up on 40k in 4th ed, and used Warzone, Stargrunt II and FaD rules instead... )
Ill let those more familiar with current 40k descriptors and classification to put me right.

@Dast.
I agree that rules should be written with clarity brevity and elegance.
Marketing pamphlets should be written with the most inspiring hyperbole possible to promote short term sales of new products.
40k 6th ed has far more in common with a marketing pamphlet than a rule set. YMDC sort of proves this...IMO.
'..hyperbole leads to poor definition, and 'enthused' interpretation...'

Actually 40k serves as an great example how NOT to write a rule set...

Writing rules using consistent terminology and phrases helps, along with telling the players if the rules are written as;-
Enabling, (If it does not say you can do it.You can not do it.)
OR
Prohibitive,( You can do it unless otherwise stated.)

And then being consistent in application and design.Removes the bulk of confusion between RAW and RAI.(In my experience.)

A decent set of designers notes helps with rules interpretation.(Spirit of the rules.)
Many rule sets seem to cover far more complex and involved game play , without the problems of interpretation and execution 40k has.(And I was basing my ideas on these rule sets...)

@Dast and rabid.
The terrain -movement chart ,for legged/wheeled/tracks/ flying vs open paved, wooded, rubble, water, soft. etc, is exactly the sort of thing I was thinking of!
Just as a rough guide to help gamers to classify their own terrain before the game starts.

The size of linear terrain vs size of units and how they interact is the sort of thing I would expect players to agree on before the game starts.
Maybe using a 'rule of thumb' guide like..
Models with limbs..
If the linear terrain is;-
Up to the models hip it may move freely over it.(No penalty.)
Up to the the top of the model it may climb over it, -2" to movement.
Over the top of the model ,it is impassible unless there is a means of scaling.(Stairs, ladder etc.)
Where climbing is permitted ,climbing up one level costs 2" of movement.

Models without limbs , can only 'bash through' linear terrain if agreed upon,(taking special abilities into account.)

I think we should define the 'special movement abilities' after we finalise the movement table.So we know what terrain effects the special abilities can ignore!

I agree if the special movement abilities should be limited to about 5 or 6.And applied sparingly..

At this stage we are just doing the rough outline of resolution and mechanics.

We can refine and define in detail , after the core game is established..

Very nice table rabid, I was wondering how to bring size into it without making the table too complex. The modifier table does it very neatly.

I believe you that their is a typo for infantry, currently "high terrain" is impassable, whilst "sheer faces" are simply a 2' penalty.


In the size part of the table I think it might be appropriate to replace the word "infantry" with the word "medium". The word infantry implies that the unit is legged and biological, neither of which is necessarily the case. (For example a dalek style robot might be in this size category, but would be (old daleks) wheeled or treaded.) The only 40k units I can think of that would care about this distinction are grot tanks, but their are probably others.

Enjoy your holiday!

Hi again.
As the mobility type and terrain type chart seems to cover most area terrain types and mobility adjustment very well.
And Special Movement Rules, for Amphibious, Jump jets, etc to let certain models ignore the penalties for some terrain.

It just leaves model 'size' vs terrain 'size' for working out what walking units can stride or climb over what types of linear terrain.
As the vertical scale of terrain and models can be very abstracted,(worse in 40k,than in 10mm games.)

Then some way of classifying units and terrain 'height' is a good idea in a game like 40k.

So we have naming heights ,' low, medium, high, very high'.
And units 'swarm, small , medium , large , very large.
Which can be put in a chart like the mobility -terrain type chart.

Or we could just give units and terrain a height value 1 to 5?

This could also be used to define what (linear) terrain features give cover to units.

Eg a low wall (Size 1) would give cover to a size 1 and 2 unit.(Swarm and Grots.)
But would not realy benifit a large (size 4) model like a Monolith, and barely cover the feet of a Gargant or Titan!(Size 5).

If we used size values of 1 to 5, we could simply state:-
If the unit/model size is up to 1 higher than the terrain feature it may claim cover.
If the unit/model size is 2 or more higher than the terrain feature it can not claim cover from it.

Models with (Legs) movement type and linear terrain .
If the unit/model is smaller than the terrain , they class it as impassible.
If the unit/model size is equal or 1 higher than the terrain they may 'climb' over it with -2" movement modifier.
If the unit /model size is 2 or more higher than the terrain , they can 'stride' over it with no movement penalty.

If a terrain feature is going count as 'scalable' (eg models can climb up it) , then this is decided before the game.
EG a large fuel tank has ladder on the side, a tower of a building that is intact could have a staircase inside.

Just some basic ideas for discussion....

I like the idea of making it simply a guide and letting the players decide how they're going to apply it. If I say "X terrain does Y, and this is exactly what X terrain is and you have to have Z amount of it and blahdy blahdy blah" things are going to get old quick.

The table I made is just a very rough guide, and would in general be the standard for a game. Rather than saying "if it has limbs it can climb" it will be "that is Wooded and Medium Terrain."
Making those rules are perfect for house rules and friendly games. They make things much more cinematic; not the lazy GW rule-making version, but the actual more cinematic version. In the rulebook I will put a very important note saying that these are just guides for terrain and it is encouraged to modify it.
However, in a competitive situation there needs to be cut and dried rules that the players can look to and have no question as to what's going on. That is where the table is law.



@Dast,
Honestly that wasn't a typo, but I can't come up with why I did it in hindsight haha.

There really isn't a difference between high terrain and a sheer face. I'm thinking about dropping the sheer face column, but calling the high terrain sheer face. Also making it a -2 for infantry. I can't make the new chart (back at work :( ) but hopefully that explains it well enough.


Changing the term from infantry to something new I'm okay with, but using a term that starts with S, L, or M will make the unit cards a little more complicated haha.




It was brought up in another thread, but the next thing we should work out is how cover is going to work.

I had planned on there being 2 types of cover, plain and simple.
Light cover - trees, other things that don't stop bullets (current 40k gives 5+ cover)
Heavy cover - ruins, craters, other things that do stop bullets (current 40k gives 4+ cover)

Both types of cover are +1 stealth
Heavy cover is -1 to the AP of the weapon.

A unit is considered in cover if it is:
-In area terrain
-More than 25% is not visible
-The shot is fired through >2" of area terrain

*NOTE: only one condition needs to be met to grant cover, and fitting multiple does not help.

Finally, the last rule that I wanted was a "deep in cover" rule. This would double the effects of the cover, and would be granted if the shot is fired through >6" of area terrain. This is the only way cover is cumulative, and works in both directions.



These seem simple enough to me, but what do you guys think?

Hi rabid.
The way I see it , in 'friendly' game the effects of terrain is agreed upon before the game by the players.

In a tournament setting the terrain is classified by the organisers/ umpires , and the players are informed before the game.

All we need is a good 'guide line' for the readers to use as a reference.The table you posted up is the sort of thing we should use.
There is so many different types of terrain used from 'book' hills and 'tin can' towers,to finely sculpted detailed terrain.I agree trying to classify everything precisely would be a bit futile.

Totally agree with the cover rules!

I am a bit unsure about the 'deep cover' rule though..

I would class that a unit/model that is that deep(6" or more,)in cover would be 'out of sight' and not able to fire out or be shot at...

To stop players with high BS units 'abusing' cover.(You know they will camp a High BS unit deep in cover and shoot the snot out of opposing units that can not fire back effectively. )




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here is my basic thoughts on war games terrain .

Terrain has 3 types.

Linear.(Long thin obstacles.)
Walls , fences, ditches etc.

Area .(Areas that effect units movement through it.)
Woods, marshes, rubble,etc.

Interactive.(Features that units can move into climb.)
Buildings, Fortifications,Hills, etc.

Area Terrain definitions.

Open terrain , no effect on movement at all.

Hard Ground.May improves some units movement .
(Roads,runways, compacted sand, frozen flat land.etc)

Soft ground.(May slow some units movement.)
Wet land, soft sand, deep snow, muddy ground etc.

Light woods-Scrub-land.(May slow some units movement.)
Low bushes , intermittent vegetation, sparsely spread trees.

Heavy woods -Jungle (May be impassible to some units.)
Dense undergrowth, thick vegetation, and high trees density.

Rubble/Rocky ground.(May slow some units movement .)
Broken ground , low ruins , piles of rubble.

Water Features, (May be impassible to some units.)
Lakes ,ponds, rivers, streams etc.

Just a basic outline...to start with..

@Lanrak,

It looks like for once we are totally on the same page except for the the "deep cover" rule.

I don't want things to vanish from LOS when they hit this magical barrier. That was something I really hated about 3rd edition.

Instead, by having a "deep cover" rule you can still shoot at the unit but the cover is making more of a difference. Also, it works in both directions. So although being deep in cover makes you harder to hit and more likely to have the bullets go through something to stop it or slow it down.

Most units that can abuse that system are basically designed for that. Like Eldar Pathfinders; they're designed to strike from cover effectively but not really be able to be shot back at. The best way to flush them out is with artillery and flamethrowers.


Speaking of artillery and flamethrowers...

How are we going to incorporate that?
-Maybe doesn't suffer from AP penalties?

We probably should work out blast weapons and ignores cover weapons in one go.

My idea is this:
-Place the blast template anywhere
-Roll to hit
-If you hit, the marker stays in place
-If you miss, roll the scatter die a D6.
-If you roll a hit with the scatter die, it scatters D6"
-If you roll a miss it scatters D6 x 2"

Barrage weapons do the same thing, but D6 x 2 and D6 x 3"


Just a first draft, what do you guys think?

Have I broken something?
Everytime I click 'post reply' I get Dakka Server down screen?

If we are using BS vs Stealth= targeting roll required.(As you suggested.)

And allow units to 'go to ground-hull down ' with a special move.(Run or Charge or Go To Ground/Hull-down.{Amber})
(+1 stealth bonus.)
As I suggested.

This means units visibility is quite graduated anyway.
(Unlike current 40k.)

But a unit wanting to maximize the use of cover have to give up a round of ranged attacks to do so.
I prefer this to 'complicating' the cover rules.

Could we just leave 'Deep cover' to be decided by play testing , include if needed?

I agree template/blast weapons should ignore cover.
(Ignore AP modifiers for cover .)

Place teardrop template with small end touching the muzzle of the firing weapon.(Roll to target models under template.)

Place blast template anywhere in weapons Effective Range and LOS.

(LOS of any friendly unit, if the weapon has the Special Ability Indirect Fire..)

If the targeting roll is passed (to hit) the template is on target and stays where it was placed.

If the targeting roll was failed , roll for scatter.
Roll the scatter dice.
The blast template moves in this direction , the number the Targeting roll failed by x 2"

Barrage weapons scatter , the number the Targeting roll failed by x 4".

This way the difficulty of the targeting determines the amount the Blast/Barrage misses by.

This is intuitive as a 'near miss' (fail by 1 or 2) means it only scatters 2-4 inches.A wild shot (failed by 4 or 5 ,) scatters 8-10 inches...

Just an alternative for discussion.

Good call on waiting for "Deep Cover," we'll play test that and see if it adds to the game at a later date.


I will say that I don't want the teardrop template to scatter if it is something that stays in base contact. If it has the current "Torrent" rule where you set it out 12" then it should scatter.


Going to ground will add +1 to stealth, and would make it so a unit can no longer act that turn. A unit cannot go to ground if it has already acted, but can elect to at any time.


Here is the consolidated version of what I'm thinking for scattering:


I like this because it covers the whole spectrum and is very gradual. If nothing in the army has LOS, you're going to have a really hard time hitting the target. If you have LOS, you should have a pretty good shot at hitting where you are aiming.

The other thing is if you look at the chart it is incredibly easy to follow. It won't take long to memorize it, maybe 2 or 3 games.

Anything not placed in contact with the firing model will follow these rules.

Does this all make sense? If so I think that wraps up all of the shooting stuff. We can move on to morale and wrap that up next.

I think that the teardrop type template should only be used to show the gout of flame/chemicals sprayed from the muzzle of a weapon.(No roll for scatter as you say.)

If a flame or chemical weapon is fired over distance I would prefer to used a standard blast marker.
(As the flame /chemicals are fired upwards tend to 'ball' on return to the ground.)
And it makes it a standard 'area effect ' weapon , like other missiles and shells.

I would prefer to simplify your suggestion to.

Weapons need line of sight to attempt to target a enemy unit.

Exception, weapons with Indirect Fire ability, only need a friendly unit to have LOS to the intended target before they can make a targeting attempt.

If a targeting attempt fails with direct L.O.S. it scatters the amount the target roll failed by x 2" .

If a targeting attempt fails with indirect LOS, it scatters the amount the targeting roll failed by x 4".

This limits 'speculative shooting' to a more 'sensible and realistic ' way.IMO.

I would like scouts and recon to actually have an important role in the game.(Like scouting out enemy positions etc.)

I am limited to quick reply to this thread .Any idea why?

Lots of great ideas so far...

The justification I can see for keeping the teardrop template for ranged flame weapons is the fact they will spread out when they hit. If it was lobbed to the target, yes it will hit and go splat. But if it is a straight shot (just with a slight arc) it will spread out disproportionately when it hits. That is always how I interpret the teardrop template for ranged flamethrowers/etc.


I'm in favor of letting barrage units shoot blindly, to match other "no LOS" weapons like the Smart Missile System. However, if you follow the flow chart you can see that it is horrendously unreliable. But if you have a recon team that can see where the enemy is, you become much reliable. I did the math real quick and if you at the point of it being x1 vs x2 because of the scatter die, you have a 44% chance of landing within 4 inches, 77% chance of landing within 8 inches, and 22% chance of landing outside of 8 inches.

So although you can shoot at something you can't see, you're more aiming at a quarter of the board and hoping to hit something. This also gets rid of barrage sniping (which is stupid and counter-intuitive.)


No idea why you can't do an in depth reply, have you tried to contact the admins? Quick replies work for the time being because you can go back and edit, but I understand the frustration.


Also,
Hooray for breaking 100 posts!