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.

My dream project would be to make two systems that both use a D10, one of which caters to small skirmishes with large amounts of detail, and a larger level game like what we have now. The detail level of 2nd WAS pretty cool, but the flagrant disregard for fairness was enormous. Loyalist marines were particularly embarrassing.

Martel732 wrote:
My dream project would be to make two systems that both use a D10, one of which caters to small skirmishes with large amounts of detail, and a larger level game like what we have now. The detail level of 2nd WAS pretty cool, but the flagrant disregard for fairness was enormous. Loyalist marines were particularly embarrassing.

Sounds like gates of Antares which scales small>high very well

If I were to streamline 2nd, I'd probably do the following:

1) Overhaul close combat completely. (make it a hybrid of 2nd/4th)
2) Streamline the magic phase, as we did within two minutes of conversation the last time we played 2nd --- and it worked brilliantly.
3) Change grenades, to reduce the absurd amount of templates needed when a squad threw grenades.
4) Remove the arc of fire except for overwatch, where I'd place a 90 or 180 degree zone they could cover. This would help minimize it a little bit.
5) I'd consider dropping the short range/long range modifiers.

Then go and polish/nerf certain weapons as needed, clear up confusion in some of the codices (no Terminators with assault cannons and cyclone missile launchers, etc.).

Biggest change of all would be some form of activation process (something missing from every generation of 40K). IGOUGO is dumb...and made even worse when you have 15-20 units on the board.

@nou.
I thought having different stat values for the models in the different game sizes was an obvious necessity.

The point remains, the game turn and all the resolution methods remain the same in both game rule sets.Just values and modifiers would be different.

If you want separate rule sets for 40k skirmish game and 40k battle game, then as there are at least a dozen great skirmish rule sets you can convert 40k to.(Beyond the gates of Antares was written by Rick Priestly , and I think it was the 3rd ed 40k GW would not let him write!)

My favorte 40k battle game rule set is Epic Armageddon.(Massive battles using sensible scale modes for the size of game.)

If you want to write rules for a 28mm heroic scale minature battle game , then a complete new rule set is the best way to go.
If you are doing this you may as well incorporate a new skirmish rule set in the basic game rules , so players can simply grow with the rule set.

Just increasing the dice size without sorting out the resolution methods used in 40k, is ignoring the core problem!

If you use the most suitable resolution methods first.(That give proportional results by using a much wider range of stats.)You may find a D6 works just fine.

nou wrote:
Because OP of this thread is the same person who started "project Zeta", I treat this thread more like a "sister thread" intended to be a "general view on core goals" think-tank for a more detailed rules discussion in "zeta thread".

Pretty close yes. It's a way of collecting ideas and opinions, though it's less for Zeta and more for the 2nd project: Eta. It's also a very useful way of 1) reminding myself of how exactly 2nd played 2) Finding all the bits of 2nd that I used to get wrong due to my brother and I playing by rules memorisation since we didn't have the rule book.

For those that haven't been following along: My intention is to use Project Zeta as a patch on 7th ed so that people can keep playing an improved and maintained version of 7th if they don't like what GW does with 8th.
Once that's playable/done I want to start Project Eta which will be a major re-write of 40k, using 2nd edition as a starting point and using all of the ideas and problems of 3rd-7th as a guide for what to do and what not to do. This may only end up being a thought experiment rather than a playable ruleset- who knows. I don't really expect a lot of people to jump on board though.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elbows wrote:
If I were to streamline 2nd, I'd probably do the following:

1) Overhaul close combat completely. (make it a hybrid of 2nd/4th)
2) Streamline the magic phase, as we did within two minutes of conversation the last time we played 2nd --- and it worked brilliantly.
3) Change grenades, to reduce the absurd amount of templates needed when a squad threw grenades.
4) Remove the arc of fire except for overwatch, where I'd place a 90 or 180 degree zone they could cover. This would help minimize it a little bit.
5) I'd consider dropping the short range/long range modifiers.

Then go and polish/nerf certain weapons as needed, clear up confusion in some of the codices (no Terminators with assault cannons and cyclone missile launchers, etc.).

Biggest change of all would be some form of activation process (something missing from every generation of 40K). IGOUGO is dumb...and made even worse when you have 15-20 units on the board.

Those are some really good ideas. Can you tell me more about how you streamlined the psychic phase in 2nd ed?

Lanrak wrote:
@nou.
I thought having different stat values for the models in the different game sizes was an obvious necessity.

The point remains, the game turn and all the resolution methods remain the same in both game rule sets.Just values and modifiers would be different.

If you want separate rule sets for 40k skirmish game and 40k battle game, then as there are at least a dozen great skirmish rule sets you can convert 40k to.(Beyond the gates of Antares was written by Rick Priestly , and I think it was the 3rd ed 40k GW would not let him write!)

My favorte 40k battle game rule set is Epic Armageddon.(Massive battles using sensible scale modes for the size of game.)

If you want to write rules for a 28mm heroic scale minature battle game , then a complete new rule set is the best way to go.
If you are doing this you may as well incorporate a new skirmish rule set in the basic game rules , so players can simply grow with the rule set.

Just increasing the dice size without sorting out the resolution methods used in 40k, is ignoring the core problem!

If you use the most suitable resolution methods first.(That give proportional results by using a much wider range of stats.)You may find a D6 works just fine.

It wasn't obvious at all, thank you for clarifying.

I'm not so convinced, that in an environment as rich in models/units "twice the stats" approach is that much better than "some minor rules differences". And it definately falls under "two games of common core" category, not a "single universal, perfectly scalable and unified solution". I now play two 40Ks - one heavily modified and one common, depending on who I play with. And for me personally, it is harder to track how any given unit can practically perform within each system, than following different core rulesets. And I have no problem at all in switching between Necromunda and 40K, because everything is different enough not to get confused.

One reason why I prefer OP approach of reevolving 40K from 2nd ed ancestry is familiarity. With completely reinvented ruleset you have to start over not only writing the rules, but most importantly, all players must start over with learning the rules. Rewriting all codices entries and rebalancing all point cost under new ruleset will take A LOT of effort, no matter the approach, but it is a bit easier if at least some of core concepts and functionality remain familiar, so you can have at least some intuition on how different units will perform to set some initial point cost values. And with GW constantly makin new models and units, this is "constant maintenance" type of endavour. Geting familiar enough with 7th ed rules (just two factions only and being familiar with 2nd and 3rd eds earlier), so I could pinpoint what is broken and how to approach rebalancing/fixing things took me about 50 games. And another 50 games of gradual changes and playtests to have quite nicely working version. I have no illusions, that writing any game system from scratch could produce ideally balanced game in the first go, as it is very, very easy to miss some interactions early on and being forced to redo half the work later. I wrote/modified couple of different games in my life and it simply cannot be done well without appropriate amount of "playtesting intended to break things" and bulletproofing findings.

This "effort invest" problem is a huge part of a reason why most folks in the community always play current edition only and none of the constantly emerging "fanrules" ever take enough momentum to become "an alternative standard". Things like Inquisimunda or Heralds of Ruins are somehow popular only because they have/had no official equivalent. Heck - a lot of players won't even agree to play anything outside of the "standard 1850pts Eternal War on 'fair table'".

Just as a footnote: I participate in many "proposed rules" threads, but mostly in seek of abstract 'puzzles' to solve and inspiration material for my personal changes, but I don't realy believe in any "holy grail" common alternative ruleset. So please, in any case, don't treat my posts as "this is dumb solution" type of criticism, more like "let's try to break this system or find it's limits" type of feedback.

I loved 2nd Edition...the editions that followed have spent a lot of time trying to deal with problems created by the dumbing down that 3rd Ed bought in.

However, it did need a significant amount of house keeping - there were instances where a rules were identically named but had slightly different effects.

I haven't played 7th but I don't like the sound of the formations with special rules, etc.

I am hoping that 8th brings radical changes to the game.

@nou.
I assumed the question was how to get both skirmish games and battle games using the same size minatures,(eg 40k minature range) to work using the same core rule set.

As GW has used the same basic rules, with different stat values for different game scales in the past.I was just suggesting this was the only viable way of achieving that goal, that actually can be proven to work.

Having two separate rule sets for different game scales , like Inquisitor , and Epic.Is probably the best option.

Trying to use Ancient warfare (WHFB) skirmish rules to cover a modern battle game, (40k) is probably the worst compromise in rules writing I have heard of.

Writing a rule set for the current expected game play of 40k , using familiar resolution methods and elements of the game mechanics that actually work.
Is something I have invested quite some time in.

@Souleater.
Have you tried any of the other rule set available ?
There a dozens of scifi skirmish rules you could use 40k minatures with.

I am of the options that when you change the scale of the game from large skirmish (2nd ed 40k). To battle game (3rd ed 40k).
The core rules have to change to meet the new scale and scope of the new game play challenges.

If you want a good skirmish rule set to use your 40k minatures in you have lots of options!

Unfortunately all the great battle game rules use 15mm or smaller minatures , so they need lots of work to cover the detail and diversity of 40k 28mm minatures.

IMO, there isn't enough bandwidth on a d6 to cover all of the variation that players seem to want. With the different flavors of army styles/specialties and troops from common soldier to superhero/MC/vdhicle you need more space than 16.666% per side to be meaningful. You don't want 2d6 cause you neee to roll pairs of dice for each roll. I've played enough White Wolf RPGs to know that throwing dice pools.of d10s isn't much different from pools of d6, d12, or d20. Since the 80s game/hobby stores have had a plentiful supply of these other dice cheap. It's not like we have to raid the boardgames cupboard for dice anymore.

2nd, we used to have two rulesets for skirmish/battle scales. It was called Epic. Unfortunately, 6mm scale isn't pretty or glamorous enough for players or sales departments.

@WaughGoff.
If you restrict the results from a D6 the way GW do in 40k, it is just bad game development.

However, if you use opposed stat values in a table , (Stat values from 1 to 10.)
It is possible to use 7 values proportionally allocated across 100 possible results , over all three stages of damage resolution .
Which gives over 200 possible results from combat resolution ,from the fast rolling easy to read D6.
(That is over 5 times the results the current core rules deliver in a non proportional way!)

Well IMO, a 40k battle game should be written based on the expected game play.(Eg More of a modified set of Epic rules, to take the new minature scale into account.Eg add detail to the straight forward rules.)

Not based on a WHFB skirmish rule set, because the minatures are the same size.(Eg hack lumps out the of the skirmish rules to speed up play.Then add poorly applied and implemented fixes that slow the game down and complicate the rules to the verge of unplayable.)

The current 40k battle game is unique in its scale and scope.So you have to write rules for this specific game play type.

Standard skirmish rules do not work, (too complex for the game size.)

Standard battle game rules do not work, (not enough detail to cover the scope of diversity expected from the minature scale.)

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elbows wrote:
If I were to streamline 2nd, I'd probably do the following:

1) Overhaul close combat completely. (make it a hybrid of 2nd/4th)
2) Streamline the magic phase, as we did within two minutes of conversation the last time we played 2nd --- and it worked brilliantly.
3) Change grenades, to reduce the absurd amount of templates needed when a squad threw grenades.
4) Remove the arc of fire except for overwatch, where I'd place a 90 or 180 degree zone they could cover. This would help minimize it a little bit.
5) I'd consider dropping the short range/long range modifiers.

Then go and polish/nerf certain weapons as needed, clear up confusion in some of the codices (no Terminators with assault cannons and cyclone missile launchers, etc.).

Biggest change of all would be some form of activation process (something missing from every generation of 40K). IGOUGO is dumb...and made even worse when you have 15-20 units on the board.

Those are some really good ideas. Can you tell me more about how you streamlined the psychic phase in 2nd ed?

Interesting. I remember the psychic phase being too powerful if anything, so the fact you made it more powerful intrigues me. Then again, that may just be because I played eldar. What armies were you using?

Eldar vs. Chaos Space Marines (one Sorcerer and one Farseer).

Hey, Remember when they tried to redo the vehicle rules in citadel journal. The problem was that certain weapons could take down a terminater easier than a dread or vice versa

So they did test rules going back to RT days and gave all vehicles a toughness. No one was interested.

The vehicle datafaxes of 2nd edition were the best part of 2nd edition

What if they had went in the other direction and got rid of toughness and gave everyone a datafax?

Sure most troopers would be a very plain datafax but some Marines and characters or Nids could have some interesting results.

What's a Datafax?

Not sure if you are jesting here since I'm new to the forums.

2nd edition introduced individualized cardboard cards for each and every vehicle in full color.

They had location charts and Armor Values for any area to be hit.

Speed, numbers of crew, options for weapons, wargear, etc.

The best part was from 2 to 5 different locations with 2 thru 6 results you could get on each location. I think 3rd + has just a generic for glancing/penetrating results.

MY fave was some elder vehicles would get their skimmer engins destroyed. The tank would do a mid air flip, with a half tuck and then crash on the ground inflicting much damaged to those under it. There was a ton of laughter and hilarity at times.

Thanks for the knowledge.

anytime.

I did enjoy my few years of 3rd edition and the VDR.

But 2nd edition was very fun as well.

the best of both should have been introduced by now ...maybe it has...I hear 5th was very good and parts of 6th and 7th.