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.

Rav1rn wrote:
Paper Scissors Rock is a good game mechanic, etc

Yeah ok mate, I am definitely out now.

Wish you'd mentioned this days ago during one of the many times I've said I'm strongly opposed to pretty much everything you just supported, so I could have saved a bunch of time and effort and quit then

Toughness will be back soon, I can feel it. This game is turning into 40k with alternative activations and bigger numbers, a vastly different creature than it was even on page 2. While such a game is not necessarily a terrible thing but not something I feel the need to contribute to.

Good luck guys. Feel free to use any ideas and stuff that I've posted up if it serves a purpose here.

I'm not saying that that style is the best route to go, or even a particularly good one, but it's one option that works without undue complexity, and would be familiar to people who already have experience with it in standard 40K.

However, if you want to drop out, I'll respect that and thank you for all your contributions.

Ok, there's a lot to reply to here

One interesting idea is that instead of having every unit have an influence stat, why not have only leaders (Sergeants, HQ's, Independant characters) have a command stat instead of a morale stat? That way they still influence their squad and nearby squads, but won't run themselves (they're the heroes after all), and only run when the squad they're attached to runs? Essentially making these hero units fearless?

Well, I don't think I'm quite understanding you but I wouldn't want them to have a different stat, nor would I want a fearless unit xD I think we should have characters with the same influence stat but slightly larger, along with an +1 influence aura. That way the Fortitude and Influence tests can be the majority of the unit - you have to get the majority of the unit in the aura for you to get +1 to the test. Then independent characters can give double bonuses of a character at 6", but normal bonuses at 12", if you know what I mean.

1 inch isn't enough of a difference, 2 inches is borderline, 3 inches is a distinct difference

Technically one inch difference is 2 inches borderline from a 3 inch difference (lol) :3 Essentially you want to magnetise all the movements into 3 inch distances. So where do Necrons and Tyranids go? You want them to be slower and faster than the other armies but they just end up gravitating towards the same thing? Also I'm sad Mobility didn't get a place -.- Why put it elsewhere on the stat card, why not just have it there? C'mon it looks cool, you already agreed to have it on the card, it's info, and we need it.

Rav1rn, we will find different mechanics about power and poison weapons, its ok Maybe poisoned weapons should actually poison the target and not just do extra damage? Oo, perhaps some power weapons can smash Safeguard? (Safeguard being invulnerable saves)

Lanrak has some sweet ideas for missions and morale. Although it shouldn't be TOO much to do with modern warfare, I mean, we are playing with aliens 40,000 years into the future. (and you didn't read the rest of the thread haha, we scrapped armour saves already) But we shall use some of your mission ideas, they're great

To explore initiative more, have all models hit at the same initiative, with a roll off deciding who goes first. But special rules can change this a bit, essentially giving us initiative tiers that dont need a stat, where we start at the highest tier, working our way down, with models at the same tier rolling off.

Ouch I want to make this point clear about the initiative system:

I do not want a system where a whole squad strikes before another; it's preposterous
I want a system that works with multiple dexterities (we scrapped initiative)

So I proposed something to dakkamite earlier on in the thread

Models that have a higher Dexterity than the model they are attacking get a number of attacks that strike before equal to the difference in Dexterity.

So a Space Marine charges an Ork. 5-4=1. The Marine gets 1 attack before the Ork.

You know how, in combat, you remove the closest models first? Well I would say that each model must attack the closest model. This removes the multiple dexterity problem.

Instead of units getting extra attacks when charging, they should get +1 Dexterity.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dakkamite wrote:

Rav1rn wrote:
Paper Scissors Rock is a good game mechanic, etc

Yeah ok mate, I am definitely out now.

Wish you'd mentioned this days ago during one of the many times I've said I'm strongly opposed to pretty much everything you just supported, so I could have saved a bunch of time and effort and quit then

Toughness will be back soon, I can feel it. This game is turning into 40k with alternative activations and bigger numbers, a vastly different creature than it was even on page 2. While such a game is not necessarily a terrible thing but not something I feel the need to contribute to.

Good luck guys. Feel free to use any ideas and stuff that I've posted up if it serves a purpose here.

Thank you, bye

Models that have a higher Dexterity than the model they are attacking get a number of attacks that strike before equal to the difference in Dexterity.
So a Space Marine charges an Ork. 5-4=1. The Marine gets 1 attack before the Ork.
You know how, in combat, you remove the closest models first? Well I would say that each model must attack the closest model. This removes the multiple dexterity problem.
Instead of units getting extra attacks when charging, they should get +1 Dexterity.

I do not want a system where a whole squad strikes before another; it's preposterous
I want a system that works with multiple dexterities (we scrapped initiative)

This is a really neat idea, but wouldn't this have no effect most of the time? As most of the models in squad will have identical stats, how would this play any different, other than having another step to think about? Also, there's just too many ways in which this waters down assault, because if a unit assaults a unit with 1 higher dexterity, they get no bonus for attacking that unit, and as we can assume they that since their dexterity is lower, they'd be at an automatic disadvantage for being there, as afterwards they'd be attacking a squad better in combat than they are? Unless they have extra attacks, but i don't think we can count on that situation too often. Or if that space marine squad assaults something less dexterous, say a Tau Firewarrior squad, they only have 1 attack anyways, so what difference would getting 2 or 3 attacks before them make if they can't take advantage of them?

An interesting idea would be to make that difference the number of attacks a unit gets against them, but that could be waaaay too powerful.

As to why relocate mobility, the more stats we have on the Statline, the larger we have to make the Statline on the card to accommodate them and maintain readability. So the smaller the Statline, the larger we can make things like character art, which would be really nice on the card from a visual design perspective. And we're already moving wounds off, so lets go ahead and get it as short as possible.

Edit: forgot to bring up the influence/command thing

Why would standard units need to influence each other? It could be a cool mechanic for hordes, but many units selling points are they deploy ahead/away from the main force, so would they just deal with the disadvantage, or have a special rule that makes them immune to such instances?
And I didn't mean the HQ's make their unit fearless, but that they themselves don't bother themselves with petty annoyances like fear and danger. I mean, hive tyrants are literally immortal so far as consciousness goes, why would they ever run? Space marine captains are hundreds of years old, and have fought thousands, if not tens of thousands of battles, why would they be afraid on this particular occasion? Or warbosses, or autarchs, or any of the other HQ's. They would only flee if you wanted them too, such as keeping them in a squad thats fleeing.

As such, they don't need the morale equivalent trait, they could just have the command/influence trait, and if thats the case, why not just replace morale with command for characters/leaders and let morale be the worries of lesser beings? I know its a fairly radical departure from the systems proposed but i think its interesting.

Then independent characters can give double bonuses of a character at 6", but normal bonuses at 12", if you know what I mean.

I love this idea.

As an impulsive statement: But Mobility beloooooongs on the statline

Yeah my idea is a bit rough, we'll have to think of something else.

I've just had a spur of the moment idea for plasma weapons:

Overheats: If a weapon with this special rule is used two turns in a row, the controlling player rolls a D6 before he rolls To Hit. On a 1 or 2, the weapon doesn't fire and it automatically inflicts a single hit on the user at the weapon's Power.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS: Do you want me to stop those PMs? lol..


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: Just saw your edit lol

Lol i don't mind them, but i do my best to check as often as possible, so they get a bit redundant.

Taking your plasma idea and running with it, for every turn in a row a plasma weapon is used, a roll must be made, with the save increasing by one for every turn that weapon was fired in a row.

Dont like the shut-down idea for it though, could be annoying as that weapon gets really unreliable, and not worth taking.

As such, they don't need the morale equivalent trait, they could just have the command/influence trait, and if thats the case, why not just replace morale with command for characters/leaders and let morale be the worries of lesser beings? I know its a fairly radical departure from the systems proposed but i think its interesting.

I think that all units still need an influence value, if you think about it in a battle, if you're near another squad you're influencing it and they're influencing you kind of thing.

As for independent characters I could easily make them fearless by giving them Fortitude 9, look at the chart, 9 to 4 is N/A, automatic pass. That way in normal circumstances ICs can appear fearless but if they see such a horrific situation like their loyal men being eaten up by daemons they will get a modifier and maybe even run away crying to their mummies!

Rav1rn wrote:
Lol i don't mind them, but i do my best to check as often as possible, so they get a bit redundant.

Taking your plasma idea and running with it, for every turn in a row a plasma weapon is used, a roll must be made, with the save increasing by one for every turn that weapon was fired in a row.

Dont like the shut-down idea for it though, could be annoying as that weapon gets really unreliable, and not worth taking.

Well it's better than the one in Grimdark where you can't fire it at all in consecutive turns. I made this so that if you really wanna fire it again you have to take the risk. And 1/3 isn't really that high enough to make it unreliable, but definitely something you'll regret if you get overconfident. (Plasma at S9 is 2+ to wount for Resilience 5 and instant kill at 4 or lower)

How about this:

Overheats: If a weapon with this special rule is used two turns in a row, the controlling player rolls a D6 before he rolls To Hit. On a 1 or 2, the weapon overheats. Instead of firing, it automatically inflicts a single hit on the user at the weapon's Power. If it is used three turns in a row, it overheats on a 1, 2, 3 or 4. If it is used four turns in a row it automatically overheats.

Do you think it should still fire even if it overheats?

That way in normal circumstances ICs can appear fearless but if they see such a horrific situation like their loyal men being eaten up by daemons they will get a modifier and maybe even run away crying to their mummies!

It's the grimdark 41st millennium, horrors of war are a daily thing. But beyond that, my favorite stories are the ones where a strikeforce is trying to fight their way through far superior enemies, and one man pushes on, past the death and screaming of his brothers and friends, knowing that should he fail, their deaths were in vain, and with his last breath, successfully completes their mission.
Read the grandmaster Mandulis short story in the Grey Knight omnibus for a great example, as he led a strikeforce of 300 Grey Knights onto the surface of a daemonworld, knowing that every man was doomed, but going anyways as it had to be done. He lefts squads behind to die in order to get time for him and his retinue to move forward, and he then left his retinue behind to be slaughtered by lords of change, just so he had a chance to reach the Daemonprince in time. That kind of dedication is what I think leaders should exhibit, so i wouldn't like to see these models run in any situation.

And yeah, each units going to be influencing each other, im just not sure that the in game results would be worth it, it might make castling too prevalent as players want to maximize the influence bonus, and make tactics such as simultaneous flanking weaker, when it should be incredibly powerful.

Edit: to the plasma overheating

Yeah, otherwise it could make it so that people leave plasma weapons behind, as they don't want that risk, because the current overheat rules are a bit weak, but people are willing to take the risk, as it still fires, and they can defend against the overheat. Taking away the defend might not be too bad, but taking out the continuing to fire would put off a lot of players, particularly serious tournament players, who despise randomness in its every form.

Ok, Fortitude 10, 11, 12 for all I care


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: Ok, It will still fire but still overheat


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ou, what about these changes

Stealthy Relocation: Instead of moving the unit's maximum Mobility, they can choose to move at up to half their Mobility and receive +1 Stealth until the end of the opponent's next turn.
Run: Instead of shooting, a unit may make another move at half their Mobility.
Charge: In the Assault Phase, a unit may charge at a target within half their Mobility.

Wasnt stealthy relocation basically one of the orders that Lanrak suggested?

Run: Instead of shooting, a unit may make another move at half their Mobility.
Charge: In the Assault Phase, a unit may charge at a target within half their Mobility.

cool idea, i like it, but some players might complain about there not being a unified charge distance for all nits, but this looks really good for an alternative.

Maybe fleet becomes move up to your full mobility instead of half while running?

Edit: still really confused on how BS and Stealth would interact for shooting, can we get some examples posted? Otherwise im still favoring cover as a system, and special rule stealth

Yes ,stealthy relocation was based on Lanrak's suggestion. Credits to Lanrak.

I think fleet would be too strong in that sense. There are a LOT of units with fleet. Fleet should be good, but not overpowered.

Aha.

Here's the chart again if you forgot:



To Hit (Shooting): Compare roller's Marksmanship to target's Stealth
To Hit (Assault): Compare roller's Dexterity to target's Dexterity
To Damage: Compare roller's Power to target's Resilience
Take a Statistic test: Compare statistic to a target's value of 4

........................................M..Mk.S...R...D..F...I...Type
Space Marine...................7...6...5...5...5...6...5...Infantry
Imperial Guardsman..........6...5...5...3...4...5...5...Infantry
Tau Fire Warrior...............6...6...5...4...3...4...5...Infantry
Eldar Guardian..................9...6...5...3...5...5...5...Infantry
Ork Boy............................6...3...5...4...4...4...5...Infantry
Tyranid Hormagaunt..........8...3...5...3...4...4...5...Infantry
Necron Warrior.................5...6...5...5...5...7...5...Infantry
Plaguebearer of Nurgle......4...0...5...5...4...7...5...Infantry

If this needs explaining just ask..


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually, now that I think about it, Rav1rn, I propose against your statement that 1" difference is negligible

When a model moves 5 inches instead of the "standard" 6, does that make you rethink its tactics? Does your opponent have to evaluate it differently when forming a plan? No, its only going to move a maximum of 7 inches less than the "standard" over the course of a 7-turn game

When you take into account that Mobility is not just for the Movement phase, it's for Running AND Charging (neither of us took this into account until now) a difference of 1" is going to be stacking and stacking and multiplying and multiplying the more you move. Sure, it doesn't make you rethink its tactics, but it doesn't have to. You said 3" is a distinct difference.

If, for example, I bumped Tyranids up from 6 to 7, The max range is no longer 12" in a turn (6" move, 3" run, 3" charge), it is 15 (7" move, 4" run, 4" charge). Something to think about.

Hi folks.
Was everyone ok with the 2 action order counters I posted earlier?

And were the references to how 1" difference in mobility MASSIVELY effects tactics made with these in mind?(Because it does make a massive difference over the length of a game !)
Because if we have mobility values , all the special rules like SAP,fleet, fast vehicle etc etc will become REDUNDANT!

Are you happy with placing order counters at the start of the game turn , and these counters being replaced with morale damage counters, when units become suppressed neutralized etc.?

Proposed Order counters ...

Advance , Move Then Shoot.
Evade , Shoot Then Move.
Charge Move Then Assault.
Dash,Move Then Move .
Fire Support.Ready Then Shoot.
Infiltrate Ready Then Move.

(I think these 6 will give a wide spread of tactical interaction! )

Because as soon as you have more interactive game turn , these counters help you keep track of whats happening, and what units have done what, and what they are going to do next...( this is very important is beer drinking is going on at the same time... )

Here are the resolutions as I see them .(Taken from IcyFireKnights list above.)

To Hit (Ranged.)Roll over Targets Stealth value.(Modified.)
(Attackers Marksmanship modifies this/or sets effective range.)

To Hit (Assault).
Roll over targets assault value .(Modified.)

To Damage.
The target rolls a D6 and adds its AV value , If it beats the weapon hit Damage , the target passes its armour save.
If the target fails the armour save roll.It compares how much it failed its AS by to its resilience value determine how much damage it takes.(Physical or psychological.)

To take an characteristic test, roll the score on the unit profile.
Eg to pass a morale test beat the score on the unit profile.
(EG SM Morale grade 2+)

Resolution methods
A)Roll over the stat on the unit profile.(With modifiers.)
(A few simple modifiers to target score/dice roll as required.)

B)OR add a D6 to the unit stat.(And compare it to the opposing enemy stat.)

No charts no fuss.

@lanrak,
I like the 2 action order idea, but i think we should let them issue two, so long as they don't do the same thing (IE, no advance, then evade) as we'd have to totally rethink how some units and armies work, since a lot of strategies depend on move, shoot, charge. Grey knights in particular are built with this in mind.

Or maybe come up with an alternative way of doing all three types of action in one turn thats even more exciting? Maybe choosing to move/shoot/assault would make you forfeit your charge bonus?

Counters are probably the best idea for the unit activation system icyfireknight and i like, lets explore ways to implement that

And I just realized this, but isn't the current 40k thing the same as the direct comparison idea you have, just consolidated for reference on a table?

@icyfireknight
Yeah, that combination of move, run, assault makes it look crazy, but if you can't assault after running, its not a big deal, and 90% of units won't be running every turn, they do need to shoot after all. Also, id suggest round down on running and assault, rather than up if you want to have mobility do that instead of a standard distance.

As for making the tyranids ridiculously fast as a result, id say lets go for it, lets make people worry constantly about their speed and aggression, and have to play accordingly.

We need a name for Lanraks Force Organization Chart idea, im tired of writing HQ, common, specialist, and rare,
Second, id suggest 1 HQ unlocks 4 common units, rather than 8, just based on personal feel, as i think thatd make it feel like an HQ is leading a smallish (max 7 units) detachment, instead of this monstrous army? Maybe have both be part of variant rule sets, idk.

And im on board with the stealth and marksmanship interaction, i think it'll open up some cool situations, even if i still think the current BS system is still an option with modified cover systems.

@Lanrak, we've already discussed that although your resolution method is easy, no chart no fuss thing, the issue that we have spent ages trying to amend, LACK OF VARIETY, isn't being addressed by your resolution method. Yes, I would use your one, but I wanted to go further. I am willing to sacrifice just one chart which I already know by heart, for increased variety and the staying of the D6, as well as being completely UNIVERSAL. Even for characteristic tests.

Sadly, imho I am still reluctant about the counters thing. Can we try to make it work without counters?

No counters no fuss.

Haha, they're just a small burden, it's another thing you have to bring to the game, do you have to make them or something? I'm SURE we can make it work without counters.


As for the force org chart:

One HQ unlocks 4 Core, 1 Support and 1 Specialist


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ok, some feedback on the direction I'm going with these special rules!

Stealthy Relocation: Instead of moving the unit's maximum Mobility, they can choose to move at up to half their Mobility and receive +1 Stealth until the end of the opponent's next turn.
Run: In the Shooting Phase, a unit may make another move at half their Mobility. A unit that does this may not fire any of their weapons in that Shooting Phase.
Charge: In the Assault Phase, a unit may move directly towards a target within half their Mobility. A unit that does this gains +1 Dexterity in that Assault Phase.
Snap Shot: If a model moves in the Movement Phase, it may only fire Heavy weapons at -4 Mk (down to a minimum of 1). This modifier is done after any positive modifiers.
Split Fire: If a model passes an Marksmanship test, it may fire at a target up to 12" away from the unit's original target. Up to than a third of a unit has the chance to Split Fire.
Fleet: A model with this special rule adds 1" to their Run and Charge distances.
Seasoned Marksman - A model with this special rule may allocate any wounds it causes at range however it wishes.
Nimble Fighter - A model with this special rule gains +1 Dexterity when being attacked in combat.
And They Shall Know No Fear - A model with this special rule gains +1 Fortitude when rolling for morale checks.
Furious Charge - A model with this special rule gains +1 Power when it Charges into combat.
Safeguard (X+): A model with this special rule may roll a D6 for every wound it suffers. On a (X+), the wound is ignored.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Damnit Rav1rn, reply D;

Hi folks.
Do you want to call the new FoC Proportional Rarity Composition.(PRC.)

The amount of Common units would be finalized when play testing .Remember current units found in Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support can be Common units in the new composition..

Maybe 8 is too many Common units per HQ unit?How about 6 as a compromise .(As 4 seems to few to me.)
I would like the option to take an extra HQ + 2 minimum Common units ,when you have taken maximum Common units with your first HQ.

I wanted to recreate a composition method with more synergy with actual army composition, but without the complication of mapping OOB for each force.
The proportion of 1 specialized to 2 common units and 1 restricted unit to 4 common units is the corner stone of this idea.

Current 40k has heavily strategic focus.

Reducing the actions per game turn to 2 , and deciding what actions you are going to take is part of improving the tactical focus.
The increase in interaction between units and players will invalidate current strategies anyway.

When I say counters, ANY sort of marker will do, (A bit of paper with a letter/number written on one side,a D6 when each face maps to 1 of the 6 orders, colored disc buttons etc.)

The other alternative is declare the order for the units at the point of activation.(if we use alternating unit activation.)

My method of using the stats directly does not limit the interaction to ,3+,4+,5+ as the WS chart does in 40k.

But allows us to use 1,2,3,4,5,6 directly .TWICE as much variety and no chart!

And using modifiers allows us to extend this range as much as we need to.(Eg some units that are very hard to hit in assault may have assault values of 7,8,9,10.And need units armed with specialized equipment that gives modifiers to assault. to hit them.)

The good thing a bout modifiers is you can add as many as you like.
Want a fast play game use up to 6 .Want a highly detailed simulation use 20 or more!

I think it is best to sort out the core rules and resolutions before we try to work out what special rules we need.
If you have only played 40k it may be hard to comprehend how much game play can be covered by core rules.

Maybe 8 is too many Common units per HQ unit?How about 6 as a compromise .(As 4 seems to few to me.)
I would like the option to take an extra HQ + 2 minimum Common units ,when you have taken maximum Common units with your first HQ.

Personally, i'd like to have to take a second HQ to play above the equivalent of a 1500 point game right now (which would probably be around 7ish units and an HQ) since it would mark a very clear distinction between small and large games, as well as making sure your every choice of units is critical, since they're heavily limited, but yes, play testing is key here.

Edit: each HQ unlocks the same number of units, but you don't need to max out the first HQs PRC choices before taking another HQ. Maybe have players set a unit limit before the game starts.

The proportion of 1 specialized to 2 common units and 1 restricted unit to 4 common units is the corner stone of this idea.

Yes, I agree, I like that logic, it feels very progressive and would allow us great control as designers to decide what goes in which category.

When I say counters, ANY sort of marker will do, (A bit of paper with a letter/number written on one side,a D6 when each face maps to 1 of the 6 orders, colored disc buttons etc.)

i agree that counters are just going to be the best way to mark effects and activations on the models. I don't like making people bring more stuff, but if we're already pursuing the cards idea, that battle's lost anyways, plus whats a few poker-chip sized counters when youre already bringing 30-100 models, plus a few dozen dice?

But allows us to use 1,2,3,4,5,6 directly .TWICE as much variety and no chart!

I agree that the current WS chart is dumb and values should be expanded to 2+ to 6+, but wouldn't a roll of 1+ just be an automatic pass?

Reducing the actions per game turn to 2 , and deciding what actions you are going to take is part of improving the tactical focus.
The increase in interaction between units and players will invalidate current strategies anyway.

Not totally on board with this, but lets see where it takes us, could be revolutionary.

Proportional Rarity Composition.(PRC.)

For a fan designed alternative ruleset, this is starting to sound very well done, i love it.

Damnit Rav1rn, reply D;

sorry been working for the last 11 hours non-stop

Edit:

One HQ unlocks 4 Core, 1 Support and 1 Specialist

as stated above i like the 4-2-1 PRC idea, but the idea of having a support slot could be interesting...maybe place things like rhinos, chimeras, transports, etc in this category that don't affect the PRC such as unlocking a specialist or rare, but could reduce your options in other ways...

I've got some ideas for Tyranid unit revisions that would fit nicely with such a system...

Second edit: Id like to see some sort of shoot, then assault order, not exactly tactical, but definitely brutal in the right situations.

Hi Rav1rn,
Ooops mis-understood about the Support unit option(s) for HQ.

That is a good idea.

The support option(s) could be a retinue and/or transport for the HQ , a fire base or air support directly under the command of the HQ unit.
(This would follow the theme of the HQ /army.)

So each HQ allows you yo take ..
1 Support unit
6 Common units
(Revised after play testing ... )

The game play from 2 action sets and interleaved/alternating actions is pretty standard in modern war gaming .(Epic Space Marine now net Epic has been using it for over a decade!)
It promotes tactical use of combined arms

As far as shoot then assault.
As most units in 40k have some form of ranged attack that puts the defender slightly on the back foot.(Even just screaming loudly to unerve the enemy counts, .)
Then that is why we let assaulting units strike first.
It sort of includes the shooting spitting screaming in the general direction of the target unit, allowing the attacker to strike first.


We could use rough Unit Values to set the size of game .
Eg
Weakest units =1 UV, then allocate Unit values at 2,3,4,5 etc as apporproate.
Eg start with the weakest unit, and work out how much better every other unit is.
(Rather than start with the elite super human army and work out how every other army could beat it... )

So rather than pretend 1500pts from any list is EXACTLY equal to 1500pts from any other list.

We simply say 15 UV is ROUGHLY equal to 15 UV of another army.
I want to focus on fun and exiting game play with themed armies and cool missions.

NOT get bogged down in working out unit competitiveness...

IcyFireKnight wrote:

Spoiler:

Yes ,stealthy relocation was based on Lanrak's suggestion. Credits to Lanrak.

I think fleet would be too strong in that sense. There are a LOT of units with fleet. Fleet should be good, but not overpowered.

Aha.

Here's the chart again if you forgot:

[spoiler].........1.....2.....3.....4.....5.....6.....7.....8.....9....10...11...12
.....1|4+...5+...5+...6+...6+...---...---....---...---....---...---....---
.....2|3+...4+...5+...5+...6+...6+...---....---...---....---...---....---
.....3|3+...3+...4+...5+...5+...6+...6+...---...---....---...---....---
.....4|2+...3+...3+...4+...5+...5+...6+...6+...---....---...---....---
.....5|2+...2+...3+...3+...4+...5+...5+...6+...6+....---...---....---
.....6|---....2+...2+...3+...3+...4+...5+...5+...6+...6+...---...---
.....7|---....---....2+...2+...3+...3+...4+...5+...5+...6+...6+...---
.....8|---....---....---....2+...2+...3+...3+...4+...5+...5+...6+...6+
.....9|---....---....---....---....2+...2+...3+...3+...4+...5+...5+...6+
...10|---....---....---....---....---....2+...2+...3+...3+...4+...5+...5+
...11|---....---....---....---....---....---....2+...2+...3+...3+...4+...5+
...12|---....---....---....---....---....---....---....2+...2+...3+...3+...4+

To Hit (Shooting): Compare roller's Marksmanship to target's Stealth
To Hit (Assault): Compare roller's Dexterity to target's Dexterity
To Damage: Compare roller's Power to target's Resilience
Take a Statistic test: Compare statistic to a target's value of 4

........................................M..Mk.S...R...D..F...I...Type
Space Marine...................6...6...5...5...5...6...5...Infantry
Imperial Guardsman..........5...5...5...3...4...5...5...Infantry
Tau Fire Warrior...............6...7...5...4...3...4...5...Infantry
Eldar Guardian..................8...6...5...3...5...5...5...Infantry
Ork Boy............................6...3...5...4...4...4...5...Infantry
Tyranid Hormagaunt..........7...3...5...3...4...4...5...Infantry
Necron Warrior.................5...6...5...5...5...7...5...Infantry
Plaguebearer of Nurgle......4...0...5...5...4...7...5...Infantry

If this needs explaining just ask..


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually, now that I think about it, Rav1rn, I propose against your statement that 1" difference is negligible

When a model moves 5 inches instead of the "standard" 6, does that make you rethink its tactics? Does your opponent have to evaluate it differently when forming a plan? No, its only going to move a maximum of 7 inches less than the "standard" over the course of a 7-turn game

When you take into account that Mobility is not just for the Movement phase, it's for Running AND Charging (neither of us took this into account until now) a difference of 1" is going to be stacking and stacking and multiplying and multiplying the more you move. Sure, it doesn't make you rethink its tactics, but it doesn't have to. You said 3" is a distinct difference.

If, for example, I bumped Tyranids up from 6 to 7, The max range is no longer 12" in a turn (6" move, 3" run, 3" charge), it is 15 (7" move, 4" run, 4" charge). Something to think about.[/spoiler]

You've still got Tau Fire Warriors waaay too high in marksmanship. I suggest bumping them down to 4 or 5. Remember that Tau use Markerlights as a core mechanic in order to compensate, extend, and modify their shots. Marksmanship 6+ should be reserved for grisled veterans (Kasrkin for example) or genetically designed races (certain Tyranid broods, Space Marines and Eldar) or simply the technologically superior Necron. This is not what I wanted to address though, my point is to the D10 system in general:

You guys need to alter weapon ranges. The primary reason for GW to have 6" increments on all weapons is that this means they are compatible with D6 rolls. With D10 rolls the 6" increments are no longer compatible. Additionally, you have the opportunity to bring the game down from being 1st turn alpha strike to become more about tactics and have shooting begin around the 2-turn mark.
If guns are 5" base range (and let's ignore the idiotic non-metric system of 12 inch per foot) with the standard speed for an infantry at 5" (meaning 10" for bikes, beasts, and cruising vehicles)
If the standard range of a gun was 20" with 10" as rapid fire range and most long-range weapons at 30" (Bright Lance, Heavy Bolter, Pulse Rifle, etc)
If the standard no-mans land was 30" instead of 24" (and yes, the silly boards would still be 48" with 9" deployment zones, can't really do much about that) or at least 25"
-> you would have better ability to both preserve the random distance modifications by dice as well as preserve your army from first round alpha strikes.

Ideally movement, running and charging would be done in the same phase. Have you guys had a glance at other systems where it is like that?

Welcome to the thread mahtamori,

You've still got Tau Fire Warriors waaay too high in marksmanship. I suggest bumping them down to 4 or 5. Remember that Tau use Markerlights as a core mechanic in order to compensate, extend, and modify their shots. Marksmanship 6+ should be reserved for grisled veterans (Kasrkin for example) or genetically designed races (certain Tyranid broods, Space Marines and Eldar) or simply the technologically superior Necron.

agreed

Also we've more or less abandoned the D10 in favor if D6 in new systems, feel free to look through some of the other pages to see all of that.

NOT get bogged down in working out unit competitiveness...

we are going to have to work out some sort of standard for each PRC slot though, right?

Hello:

I think we can do this without counters - NEVERTHELESS - you guys put forward some great ideas and I'd like to compile them into a strong mechanic.

Primary Phase:

Players take it in turns to move their units. Bonuses are given for moving units minimal distances or not moving them at all.

Secondary Phase:

Players take it in turns to operate their units, either by shooting, charging (charging now allows you to shoot a little bit as well) or fleeting.

When people take it in turns to move units one by one, it introduces a WHOLE NEW aspect of tactics. What to activate first and what to delay will be key to a successful mindset.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Force Org. Chart

My idea: 1 HQ, 4 Core and 2 Support is compulsory. You can choose to take up to: 1 more HQ, 4 more Core, 2 more Support and 2 Specialist. I don't like the idea of "restricted" because in real warfare since when were some things "restricted". In reality there are always support units. If you don't have support units its like having a human body without a skeleton.

I still think the points system is concise.

@Mahtamori, I am oblivious to Tau and everything about Tau. I think Marksmanship 6 is right for Tau, because it shows that they are good at shooting compared to everything else. I think you made a good point on 1st turn Alpha Striking. I have always thought 24" is stupid; a DA squad can get Guided, then move, run and shoot on the first turn...I would actually think 36" away is better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hey Rav1rn, sorry to bore you again with my stubbornness...

I suddenly thought that...well...what I said earlier about Power and Attacks was wrong.

I'd much much much prefer Power and Attacks to be on the statline. We can't just disregard them purely to shorten the statline. I believe that simply shifting them to the melee weapon is neither justified nor realistic. Strength and number of attacks should be innate - just like Marksmanship. I think that Power is definitely IN. Again.

As for attacks, they're like wounds - would you want them in, boring the statline with 1s? Or have them as a special rule?

Rav1rn: Yeah, I noticed the discussions on D6 but the thread is still called D10

IcyFireKnight: That's the thing, Tau are rather crap at shooting. They're near-sighted and have an average lifespan of a third of a human's (naturally a Fire Warrior's life expectancy is drastically shorter, which is common among all warriors throughout the ages)
They are on par with humans only because they are the genetically best suited specimen for the job and they have been thoroughly trained.

Typically light infantry like Dire Avengers are not the problem, sadly it's the long range stuff that are far too good at taking out tanks and artillery.
Roughly speaking, artillery in 40k has lost it's tactical meaning because they reach everywhere and because just about everything fits the mold.
Try playing a game of Warmachine where 30" is a huge distance that no piece (that I am aware of) can reach. Position plays a massive role in that game in comparison. (And also, you get benefits for shooting people in the back.)

Yeah, wait you want me to bring them down to Mk 5? So they hit on a 4+. What exactly do Markerlights do?

Also I completely agree with you that artillery have lost their meaning...Especially 48 inches or more, more than likely to be barrage...

Rav1rn: Yeah, I noticed the discussions on D6 but the thread is still called D10

its just been more convenient to stick to this one thread rather than make a new one, anyone feel like migrating? Otherwise it seems to have worked out fine this far.

Typically light infantry like Dire Avengers are not the problem, sadly it's the long range stuff that are far too good at taking out tanks and artillery.
Roughly speaking, artillery in 40k has lost it's tactical meaning because they reach everywhere and because just about everything fits the mold.

Agreed, i think nothing should have range over 48", as it just creates too many problems, and isn't exciting since nothing can hit back at ranges beyond that. Having unlimited as the range is just insanity and i think everyone knows it too.

When people take it in turns to move units one by one, it introduces a WHOLE NEW aspect of tactics. What to activate first and what to delay will be key to a successful mindset.

we have two different ways to doing things here, and both have good points. IcyfireKnights idea will be more familiar to 40K players, but Lanrak's orders have so much potential. Since icyfireknights idea is basically a reskin of 40K with the new activation system, i dont think too much exploration beyond playertesting will be necessary, but lets keep it as a viable option.

I still think the points system is concise.

i agree that there's no problem inherent in the points system, its just much harder to balance perfectly. The choice of options and upgrades can make it rewarding though. But lets keep the PRC idea going, i like its ease of balance and all the potential it has.

As for attacks, they're like wounds - would you want them in, boring the statline with 1s? Or have them as a special rule?

i dont think tyranid players would be bored with all the multiple attack special rules in their codex. The fact is, there's just too many units, regardless of codex, to make that solution simple. Veteran marines, terminators, HQs, tyranid troops, orks, ogryns, necron wraiths, there's just too many.

Also, here's an idea, using the new activation system, instead of activating your first unit, you may instead select to bring a unit in from reserves. You may then continue rolling to activate further units as normal.
It makes reserves, particularly deep strikes, much more reliable, so people might actually like them as a mechanic.

I am oblivious to Tau and everything about Tau

tau are very frail and weak physically. They make use of technology to supplement this, hence why markerlights play such a large role in their tactics, and why GW has kept their BS at 3 despite many people's arguments to the alternative.

Oh BS3? lol...I'll bump them down to 5 then...

I think my idea isn't a "reskin" but a more interactive and tactical alternative. Also, I want to steer a little bit away from Grimdark, so we can explore a different path.

I think your reserves idea is good, but perhaps to bring on reserves your HQ has to take an Influence test? If we make HQs Influence 7 then they'll bring em on on a 2+. You have to take into account that anything could happen to those reserves - intercepted by a Tyranid brood, orbitally bombarded, or loss of communication...

It is more interactive and tactical, but it is still at its heart the 40k system we all know. So yes it could represent a marked improvement, particularly when coupled with the new activation system, but we can easily theorize on how itd play out, so we don't need to explore it as much as Lanraks order system.
Edit:
And those effects would only need to come into play with deep striking, for normal reserves i dont think it'd be as big a deal.

We do need to find a way to limit this though, as players could potentially bring their whole army in from reserves in one turn.

Well I think Lanrak's system has been explored, in the form of Grimdark. I think that if we do counters again, we''ll end up not far from Grimdark. Don't get me wrong Grimdark is awesome, it's just I want to try to create something a bit different.

Profiles should have wounds written on them. This will become apparent why when you start doing the Tyranid and Chaos Daemon codexes. Or when you stick the HQ in the same table as non-hero HQ or non-HQ units.

Also, if you are redesigning from scratch, have you considered removing armour value in favour of straight up toughness and wounds for vehicles? Mechanical units would have a special rule which said they are immune to poison, shred, fleshbane and instant death but vulnerable to tank hunter, armour bane, lance*, haywire etc.

* although it makes sense if lance worked just fine against monsters as well.

IcyFireKnight wrote:
Yeah, wait you want me to bring them down to Mk 5? So they hit on a 4+. What exactly do Markerlights do?

Everything, basically. Each marker sticks a one-use token to the hit unit which other Tau can use to improve ballistics skill, remove cover, force pinning and a couple more that I don't know because no one ever uses them for anything except the godly +1BS (stacking) and stripping cover (which costs two lights)

We have merged toughness and Sv together into Resilience. To kill something all you need to do is to hit and to wound. Vehicles still have front side and rear armour but it's on the same scale as resilience. Lances now always wound tanks on a 4+.

I kinda thought that too. The statline is fine whatever length. In fact, the more stats, the better. When we start trying to shorten the statline we are faced with dozens of consequences, and it's just not worth it.

Also, if you are redesigning from scratch, have you considered removing armour value in favour of straight up toughness and wounds for vehicles? Mechanical units would have a special rule which said they are immune to poison, shred, fleshbane and instant death but vulnerable to tank hunter, armour bane, lance*, haywire etc.

The route we've taken is consolidating armor and toughness into resilience, and wounds have become universal Hitpoints. We've brought up several ideas on how to differentiate different types of units (Monsters, Infantry, Vehicles), but the symbol for Hitpoints on vehicles is a Gear, for organics its a Heart, as well as having different unit Types on their card. I like the idea of having lances affect Monsters more though, maybe have them do double wounds? Though that feels insanely overpowered.

Well I think Lanrak's system has been explored, in the form of Grimdark. I think that if we do counters again, we''ll end up not far from Grimdark. Don't get me wrong Grimdark is awesome, it's just I want to try to create something a bit different.

I agree its very similar, but having units only able to do 2 kinds of actions (Move, Shoot, Assault) each activation could have a very large impact on how the game is played. I personally would like to have all three be represented each activation, but i want to see where this system leads under our rules, it seems very interesting. And if we're doing Unit-By-Unit activation, there needs to be a way to show which unit has been activated and which hasn't, regardless if we use the orders system, or all three phases in one activation, and unfortunately thats going to have to be a counter of some sort, be it a piece of paper, a poker chip, a die, etc.

The statline is fine whatever length. In fact, the more stats, the better. When we start trying to shorten the statline we are faced with dozens of consequences, and it's just not worth it.

Whoa now, lets not just throw away work, remember we're using a card template, so things like wounds and mobility don't have to be on the Statline to be represented in an easily visible and intuitive way. And the more space we dedicate to the Statline, the less space we have for things like Artwork, special rule space, weapon profile space, etc. and taking Strength off the Statline would work fine if we just gave everything some sort of CCW profile (Knife, bayonet, claw, teeth, etc) or even just added a Melee profile for their gun, all of which would be very easy to do and look good on their card.

I'll try to upload some sort of early format for what the card could look like under various versions of our system, gimme a little bit.

Hi all .
To be clear I would like to take the basic Grimdark mechanics , and use more straight forward resolutions (direct comparisons,) to maximize game play while minimize the rules.
I understand most current 40k players like all the 'chrome'.

But I would like to get to the most elegant and efficient rules possible for 40k,And the rules deliver the most tactically deep yet intuitive game play.

Counters work fine for adding tactical decision making , with either alternating unit activation, OR interleaved phases.
(One counter next to a unit is minimal book keeping , that allows the condition /actions and order sequence to be easily tracked.)

As soon as you start using more PLAYER interaction the harder it is to keep track.

EG
Current 40k.
I move everthing I want to.
I shoot /run with everything I want to.
I make any assaults I want to,
Then its over to you..not hard to remember whos turn-what phase it is...

NEW alternatng activation.
I may activate 1,2,or 3 units ,
The you activate 1,2 or 3 units ,
We are drinking beer, and after a toilet break mid game we cant remember EXACTLY which unit activated last or if my ordnance has fired yet...(it happens believe me! )

New Interleaved phases.
Similar problem as above, did that unit stay still in the first action phase?can it can fire at full effect now?(etc.)
(Maybe its just my gameing group and our love of beer?But an order/status counter next to the units make keeping track a doddle. )

I agree we need to use a stat line that covers as much of the unit interaction as possible.
AND the stat line needs to apply to ALL units.
Not separate stats for different unit/weapon types.