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.

Ok, so, I'm new here, but I really like your idea's, Silo. Some questions/comments.

1:Love what you've done with the cover and pinning, I approve.

2: SO, for melee, I'm thinking of using the Wound chart for WS, except capping it at a 5 or 6 plus to hit.....

Why, exactly, 500 words? a few hundred words in any direction seems like a trifling sin if general improvement of the game is what's at stake.

Explodes on 7+ Makes vehicles absolutley awful though.wait a second......GREEENTIDE FOR DA WAAAAAAAAAGH!

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Conceptually Overwatch exists to make shooty armies not auto-loose if the other guy makes it to charge range. Implementation-wise it'd be better/faster to give small arms (rifles, pistols, grenades) a melee profile rather than increase the length of the Assault phase by 50% by giving the defender two phases of attacks.

To give an idea of how much of a waste of time overwatch is, imagine a squad of ten guardsmen charging a squad of ten space marines.

Those highly trained, heavily armed marines fire on overwatch. Normally at BS4 they hit 2/3 of the time and wound the T3 guardsmen 2/3 of the time, killing 0.4 guardsmen per shot. So a full squad firing at full BS and rapid fire is going to kill eight of those guardsmen. On over watch though, they're only going to kill 2 guardsmen, but spend just as much time rolling up those dice. And that's about the most favorable conditions for overwatch. Guardsmen overwatching against charging MEQ will kill one model for every 54 shots. All you have to do is multiply the charging unit's armor save by 1/6 to see just how ridiculous overwatch is. Let's say you're overwatching with a S4 Ap- weapon, here are the odds of killing something in overwatch per shot fired:

- ~11% Wyches, Gaunts
- 7.5% Guardsman, Guardian, DE Warrior
- 6.9% Orks
- 5.5% Tau Firewarrior
- 4.2% Necron Warrior
- 2.7% Space Marine, CSM

I get that people don't want to let it go because they're losing something, but it's really just a garbage piece of gameplay. If 9/10 of your S4 shots isn't even going to kill an Imperial Guardsman, then that attack is a waste of everyone's time. It's not an issue of balance. It's an issue of excess rules and wasted time. Generally with snap shots, if players want to take a snap shot with a heavy weapon that's fine because if that hull mounted lascannon hits the target it'll do some damage, but with overwatch we're letting the weakest weapons in the game snap shot. It's a waste of time and it's overly complicated game design.

I dislike the idea of melee profiles for guns because it is just more rules bloat and clutter. It's far easier to just incorporate their standard issue weapon into the model's WS and attacks. At this scale of combat it doesn't make sense to draw up different rules and roll different dice for the pistol carrying Sgt, the rifle carrying grunts, the heavy weapons trooper, and the special weapons trooper, that's just another tedious process to add that won't have a major impact on the game. A good example of this at work is the old wyches carrying three different specialist close combat weapons in addition to the regular squad, it turned resolving combat into a weird and overly complicated process ("oh this model over here gets one less attack because of the shardnet, I'm pulling that model 2" with my razorflail, this guy has hydraknives so resolve his wounds from this direction..." It's much better to just count up everyone's attacks like we do it now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mael Radec wrote:
Ok, so, I'm new here, but I really like your idea's, Silo. Some questions/comments.

1:Love what you've done with the cover and pinning, I approve.

2: SO, for melee, I'm thinking of using the Wound chart for WS, except capping it at a 5 or 6 plus to hit.....

Why, exactly, 500 words? a few hundred words in any direction seems like a trifling sin if general improvement of the game is what's at stake.

Makes sense for melee.

500 words because this game generally has a problem with rules that are overly complicated and difficult to understand. I wanted to try and show that it'd be relatively easy to fix the problems.

 TheSilo wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Conceptually Overwatch exists to make shooty armies not auto-loose if the other guy makes it to charge range. Implementation-wise it'd be better/faster to give small arms (rifles, pistols, grenades) a melee profile rather than increase the length of the Assault phase by 50% by giving the defender two phases of attacks.

To give an idea of how much of a waste of time overwatch is, imagine a squad of ten guardsmen charging a squad of ten space marines.

Those highly trained, heavily armed marines fire on overwatch. Normally at BS4 they hit 2/3 of the time and wound the T3 guardsmen 2/3 of the time, killing 0.4 guardsmen per shot. So a full squad firing at full BS and rapid fire is going to kill eight of those guardsmen. On over watch though, they're only going to kill 2 guardsmen, but spend just as much time rolling up those dice. And that's about the most favorable conditions for overwatch. Guardsmen overwatching against charging MEQ will kill one model for every 54 shots. All you have to do is multiply the charging unit's armor save by 1/6 to see just how ridiculous overwatch is. Let's say you're overwatching with a S4 Ap- weapon, here are the odds of killing something in overwatch per shot fired:

- ~11% Wyches, Gaunts
- 7.5% Guardsman, Guardian, DE Warrior
- 6.9% Orks
- 5.5% Tau Firewarrior
- 4.2% Necron Warrior
- 2.7% Space Marine, CSM

I get that people don't want to let it go because they're losing something, but it's really just a garbage piece of gameplay. If 9/10 of your S4 shots isn't even going to kill an Imperial Guardsman, then that attack is a waste of everyone's time. It's not an issue of balance. It's an issue of excess rules and wasted time. Generally with snap shots, if players want to take a snap shot with a heavy weapon that's fine because if that hull mounted lascannon hits the target it'll do some damage, but with overwatch we're letting the weakest weapons in the game snap shot. It's a waste of time and it's overly complicated game design.

I dislike the idea of melee profiles for guns because it is just more rules bloat and clutter. It's far easier to just incorporate their standard issue weapon into the model's WS and attacks. At this scale of combat it doesn't make sense to draw up different rules and roll different dice for the pistol carrying Sgt, the rifle carrying grunts, the heavy weapons trooper, and the special weapons trooper, that's just another tedious process to add that won't have a major impact on the game. A good example of this at work is the old wyches carrying three different specialist close combat weapons in addition to the regular squad, it turned resolving combat into a weird and overly complicated process ("oh this model over here gets one less attack because of the shardnet, I'm pulling that model 2" with my razorflail, this guy has hydraknives so resolve his wounds from this direction..." It's much better to just count up everyone's attacks like we do it now.

I get the point on complications; the melee profiles for guns are intended to replace Overwatch, not add more bloat stacked on top of it. The point is to make dedicated shooty units more flexible and to justify giving guns to dedicated melee units by making the guns more flexible while cutting down on the length of the assault phase. The short answer to "then what's the point of dedicated melee weapons?" is to give everyone the power to choose between making their normal CC attacks or making one attack at their gun's S and AP, so a dedicated melee weapon doesn't get the gunfire part but gets to hit a lot more in melee.

The problem with Overwatch is that any given model could theoretically attack four times in a given game turn (own shooting, own assault, enemy assault (overwatch), enemy assault (fight)); I dodged the issue in Aegis by rewriting the turn structure so that everyone gets one attack per turn (two in rare cases), but deleting Overwatch and cutting it back to three is a quick-and-dirty pruning setup.

From reading suggestions on this thread and others, I've come to the conclusion that many of the suggested mechanics were in place in 2nd edition. 2nd edition was too messy and slow. It was streamlined into 3rd, and it wasn't a bad job. Problem is they also ditched so many of the mechanics that made the game great. I think the solution would be to identify the best aspects of 2nd ed and current edition, and make a completely fresh game by integrating them.

Superior aspects of 2nd ed:
-Specific movement distances on profiles
-Reliable / constant charge and run ranges
-Generally just more stable. Less" roll a D6, for crucial game changing moments"
-Not allowed to measure distances before moving or firing.
-Cover, jinking and distance being incorporated into hit roll modifiers, not as a saving throw.
-Overwatch system (units have to forfeit standard shooting in order to overwatch. Overwatch triggerd when enemies moved into sight of th unit, which then got to resolve its shooting at a small penalty to BS)


Superior aspects of current edition:
-Simplified weapon and vehicle profiles
-Simplified codex entries and wargear options
-Shooting and close combat is handled better
-Morale system is pretty good
-Special rules for units are better. Keyword abilities work well, instead of reams of text.
-Difficult and dangerous terrain rules
-AV system and vehicle damage is great, except for this Hull Points nonsense.
-The AP system is better than the old armour save modifiers, but there's too much readily available AP2, (and AP5 small arms for that matter).

Splicing mechanics from 2 different systems and coming out with something pretty is easier said than done, but I think it's passed time GW turned 4ok back into a wargame, instead of the swingy tabletop arcade game it's become.

Anyway that's just my 5 cents...

@The greatchimp.
2nd ed 40k was a passable skirmish rule set , based on WHFB rules.
Very over complicated, (due to using WHFB rules.) But had lot of 'detail and charm' , so many players sort of forgave its many 'issues.'
3rd ed to 7th ed 40k ,just got rid of all the 'detail and charm' , and replaced it with special rules bloat and pointless randomness.

3rd edition to 7th edition 40k rules do nothing special , compared to the other games that have been developed since 1998.
In fact these other game with clear focus on game play allow the development team to work with the player base to actually refine the game play.
So they have much more straightforward rule sets that deliver far more game play than 40k does.

So ALL of the editions of the 40k rules are just over complicated and counter intuitive, compared to the other rule set out there.

The only reason to keep using game mechanics and resolution methods from a 1970s Napoleonic rule set,(WHFB.)Is backward compatibility.

I would agree that 40k rules written for the current game play, using game mechanics and resolution methods from this century.
Would deliver the best rule set for 40k.

If you have a car that is based on a god awful 1976 design.it does not matter how many times you re spray it, or customize the interior.
Unless you modernize the mechanics, the performance and ride characteristics are going to be rubbish , compared to modern cars.

@Lanrak fair point. I'll be honest with you, I can't debate what you're saying as I haven't properly played any other true tabletop battlegame system other than 40k and WHFB. That being said I haven''t found 3rd-6th edition overly complicated so much as I find aspects of it illogical to the point of annoyance. if there's superior "engines" with which to re-build the game around then by all means I'd llike to check them out. Are you referring to the 15mm scale games you mentioned to me previously?

One mechanic I've encountered a lot in strategic board games like Game of Thrones is a simultaneous turn, wherein both players place face down order markers on units, "defend", "attack", "covering fire", "run", etc. and they are resolved one by one. I think this mechanic could work very well in 40k, in place of the current turn system.

Actually, for the kind of warfare that 40k represents, it actually has very little competition. The other options, like infinity and tomorrow's war, while good games, aren't really in the same ball park.

@thegreatchimp.
Well I would suggest you look at 'Bolt Action' the game Rick P, and Alessio wrote.
(It is the WWII game finally finished that Rick used as his quick conversion for 3rd ed 40k.)

For a quick to learn and fun to play skirmish game I would recommend 'Dead Zone'.(Jake Thornton has done a excellent job on this rule set IMO.)
It beats 2nd ed 40k into the ground on so many levels.(pun intended.)

Or of you want lots of quick tactical interaction , then 'X-wing the minatures game' does it better than any other game I know of when it comes to making the simplest of rules deliver the most amount of game play. Fantasy Flight do write some excellent rule sets IMO.

@Mael Radec,
What exactly is the type of warfare 40k represents?
Because the games of Epic we played back in the 1990s, (Epic Space Marine,) are of a very similar game size to current 7th ed 40k.
But the Epic Space Marine games were fast and fun and full of narrative and character.(If a little bit more clunky than Epic Armageddon though)

I agree that 'WHFB in space battle game using completely inadequate core rules and umpteen special rules that result in a holostic mess' , is quite unique!

And trying to establish what 40k actually is supposed to be is quite difficult.

If it is supposed to be 'Epic with 28mm minatures ',then there is a clear way to proceed.(Modern battle game.)

If it is supposed to be 'Necromundia out doors', then there is a clear way to proceed.(Modern Skirmish game.)

If it is supposed to be 'WHFB in space to sell space minatures instead of fantasy minatures', then there is massive room for improvement, by picking one of the above 2 options instead!

 thegreatchimp wrote:
@Lanrak fair point. I'll be honest with you, I can't debate what you're saying as I haven't properly played any other true tabletop battlegame system other than 40k and WHFB. That being said I haven''t found 3rd-6th edition overly complicated so much as I find aspects of it illogical to the point of annoyance. if there's superior "engines" with which to re-build the game around then by all means I'd llike to check them out. Are you referring to the 15mm scale games you mentioned to me previously?

One mechanic I've encountered a lot in strategic board games like Game of Thrones is a simultaneous turn, wherein both players place face down order markers on units, "defend", "attack", "covering fire", "run", etc. and they are resolved one by one. I think this mechanic could work very well in 40k, in place of the current turn system.

I am very skeptical about simultaneous turns and unit by unit activation systems, primarily through my experience with various video games (40k and Mordheim are the only table top games I've played.

Games like Breach & Clear and Frozen Synapse use simultaneous turn based move mechanics and even using a computer to auto resolve everything I find this to be a clunky mechanic. Most of the time the orders don't occur in a logical way and the game devolves into a process of units moving back and forth trying to shoot one another but not actually killing anything. Mostly it leads to hyper conservative gameplay, which is something that 40k doesn't need more of.

The Banner Saga uses a unit by unit activation mechanic, and I've found that this turns even small scale battles into really boring skirmishes and anything that isn't your death star unit falls by the wayside as a useless paper weight. This mechanism works in chess and checkers because they are simple games that don't use HP or randomness, so each action is an easily quantified and known cause/effect. In The Banner Saga this mechanic wreaks havoc with the gameplay.

XCOM uses the 40k turn system, and it is by far the most superior of these four video games. Each turn you plan and execute your gameplan. So there might be major changes of fate in each turn, but that's what makes it so engaging and high-stakes. A single turn can kill your whole campaign. This is really how I envision 40k should be, no wasted space, actions and chocices should be deliberate and substantive.

- overwatch is basically an extra shooting phase at 1/3rd or 1/4th effectiveness
- look out sir is an extra sub phase just to protect individual models
- pile in moves are extra actions that have no effect on how the combat unfolds
- the physic perils chart comes up with random distinctions with no real difference
- giving every heavy weapon 48"+ range basically removes any substance behind positioning and maneuvering

In my mind gameplay should always come before realism.

@The Silo

Just giving a 2nd playthrough of XCOM myself, its superb, but i think the flaw with it is that (un)lucky timing tended to win and lose me battles more so than actual intellegent tactics.

Perhaps the order tokens in the games you mentioned are too beneficial and risky, or just otherwise imbalanced and that's what promotes the conservative gameplay? In Game of Thrones, granted, the orders give pretty big advantages, and you could really screw yourself with them, but that doesn't stop players making sweeping or risky moves because they needed to capture strongholds and supply points to build up their army, as well as maneovre their forces to repel enemy attacks and trap and annihilate enemy armies. Basically to be overly cautious in that game is to stagnate, and lose. My logic is that the same would apply to any 40k game that involved capturable objectives, linebreaker, etc.

In any case I wouldn't propose drastically game changing order markers, just something to provide added benefit, perhaps with an accompanying restriction. One already exists in the case of "go to ground" option . 2nd ed overwatch rules worked pretty well too and they were effectively an order marker. Orders not being visible to an opponent until they are resolved would also add a new dimension of cunning to the game.

Agree with your points about overwatch and heavy weapons.

Yes the priority is playability, but I'm sure you'll agree that the realism could be improved upon without losing playability.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ Lanrak Reading a teaser of the Deadzone rules now, seems good . Thanks for pointer.

If you look at the 'order/command counters ' used in other games, they seem to just give you the basic tactical game play options.

Here are some generic '2 action set' ones as an example.

Move then shoot,
Shoot then move,
Move then move,
Move then assault,
Ready then shoot,(Over watch )
Ready then move.(Go to ground.)

If you have not played a table top game with different game turn mechanics, alternating unit activation,alternating phase, or alternating actions.
With different structure types like fixed sequenced,variable bound, randomized activation.

It is hard to judge how they would fit into any particular game play type.

My only concern with alternating units activation in 40k, is the massive difference in unit power and size.
if this type of game turn is used, units would have to be standardized some what, and/or reaction mechanics would have to be used to help balance the interaction.

So I would favor alternating phases or actions for simplicity sake.

I n general all mayor gameplay flaws most people complain about are because of stepping AWAY from WHFB rules. In many respects the 2 ND edition was a fully working and in itself logical game system suitable for great balanced games between differentially layouted armysets. Mostly all gameplay tweaks since then ruined the logics of the games mechanics and its balance.

So To Produce A More Balanced And Satisfiing Experience For All Means Getting Back To The Root Which Is 2 Nd Edition Gameplay.

1st This means getting rid of all Formations, overpowered "newer" units gw threw on the market just to survive and make money, simply by nerfing or abandon EVERY single one of them.


GW was willfully sacrificing the balance of the game and hurting core gamers by instabilising their well thought about armies in favour of "Newcore" gamers who by my experience love those OP units and supplements and have no problems with destroying the old collectors,enthusiasts and painters in the battlefield just by unfairness of statlines not tactically kicking them out of the game almost entirely by what i ve read and herd over the years. Most of those "newcore gamers" i came across came in with 3rd, 4th, 5th edition never haerd about true 40 k mechanics of 2 ND edition.

TRUE WARHAMMER DOESN T NEED THAT!!

2nd you ve got to make yourself clear about WHAT you want to play. If you want to play a fast paced squad based action wargame for fun like you would play monopoly you aren t in the right place. The 28 mm scale will never be able to deliver such an experience rightfully. Go to 6 mm scale games like EPIC 40k they re made for it.
If you want a fast paced tournament game with less to no rolling of dice, go to Mantic games like Warpath or games of same sort.
Warhammer was intended and will never be a game for tournaments and quick skirmish games with big squads Witt playtimes unter/up to two hours.

It is indeed a game of REALISTIC battle simulations which can and will take a long time and eat up many yours to even days. Thats warhammer and it cannot change unless you are willing to accept broken game mechanics.

YES its NOT a family friendly board game everyone would be able and willing to play,it takes hours its a game for hardcore wargames fanatics in one word a game by and for GEEKS.

That's us and that's why we re here on this forum (hopefully)

3rd So we all agree about 40k beeing a middle sized STRATEGY game giving respect to long and short rangend squadrons, melee combat and individual character models. Cool.
So let it be about STRATEGICS and let the players MAKE DECISIONS. Do not rely on statlines only to make out who s winning a game do not let circumstances rule a game completely unless you play orks.

Get rid of all the USR's nobody ever uses. Fire the Crudd. Buff Nids and Orks. Lower the prices. Advertise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Get rid of all the USR's nobody ever uses. Fire the Crudd. Buff Nids and Orks. Lower the prices. Advertise.

Reset back to 5th, with some changes saved. No double force org. Allies are fine. No 'decurion' formations. Some formations are fine, but tone them down. That would be a breath of fresh air.

I concur with the above.

Use the majority of Fifth Editions rules. Keep/ change

Psychic phase (But get rid of warp charges, have it go back to being off leadership, simplify perils chart to one wound, no saves )
Keep Warlord Traits but allow them to be picked not random
Wound system same as 7th but no look out sir. If the Big bad IC wants to tank, then he needs to stand up front and take the blows.

Dump Decurian detachments entirely. Go back to using alternative CADS like in the DE or Orks book. Formations are still allowed but you must have have atleast one CAD like detachment. Three formations per army period.

GMCs redone, lose most of their silly immunities to poison, ID, etc.

Keep Hull points but raise the amount for all vehicles by 2.


Not perfect but it would be a start.

I agree with going back to 5th edition to set the basic battle game size .(Flyers and super heavies should be in a separate Apoc type expansion.)

When 40k moved from 2nd ed large skirmish size game to 3rd ed battle size game.
The rules focus should have changed from detailed model interaction to detailed unit interaction.

But instead GW just replaced the model focused methods of generating proportional results with large amounts of all or nothing special rules that bloat the rules and deliver little in the way of tactical game play.

A complete re-write of the 40k rules focusing on the game play , rather than short term minature sales is the way to save 40k IMO.