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.

With random senarios , you get more narrative focus, where you try to complete your mission first and formost, and try to guess what the opponent is trying to do...
(6 Attacker and 6 defender mission cards would give 36 random senarios. With wide and varied mission types there would be no Auto win army list!)

This is a great idea. And we will have lots of fun making missions! Lanrak, +1!

However, I have already pointed out that there are so many negatives about direct comparison:

It doesn't provide ANY more variety than the current 1 point difference=1/6 chance.
It will make the statlines jagged - some stats will be naturally 4 points higher.
What about Weapon skill vs. Weapon skill? You can't have one higher than the other, if you want them to be the same.

Nevertheless, your idea about "how penetrated the armour got, the more damage it does" is an extremely good one.

Can you clarify your idea of rolling to see if the weapon is in range?

Liking the stance idea, it adds depth to the assault system that has been sorely missing it for a while now. The only problem i see is that there would be options that one unit would just always take. A mob of Ork Boyz would never use a defensive stance, since doing so would effectively be to refuse additional Melee strength, and since they are cheap and usually found in larger numbers, why not? If they die its not a large loss, but you maximize damage potential. So the option of stances could essentially become just an expected enhancement, rather than a tactical choice, or essentially a counter system to have a unit become more effective against that unit at that moment, rather than working towards a tactical goal, such as tar-pitting a unit.
so either find novel ways to have stances affect combat, or make sure that the changes a stance brings arn't so drastic as to make it an auto choice over another?

Having units receive first strike bonuses instead of extra attacks would be an interesting way of deciding combat, exploring that as an option would definitely be a good idea.

@lanrak
As for using a reaction move that allows shooting units to leverage their shooting and assault units to leverage Melee, i dont see why this would be better than just using an action system you mentioned earlier. Using a reaction move means that there's going to be one option thats always the best choice, rather than units trying to find ways to minimize the effects of their weakness in one phase, while maximizing their strength in another phase.
Supposing you use the actions system mentioned earlier, i like the sound and idea of it, so long as there's restrictions such that units must still deal with their shortcomings.

Your idea of having HQ, Common, Special, and Restricted units sounds interesting, as its straightforward and offers an alternative to the current Force Organization Chart, and breaks away from the current classification of units within the FOG. However, its straying awfully close to the system in Warhammer Fantasy, which may or may not be a good thing. Also, it would reduce Min Maxing, which im 100% in favor of. However, some army builds are built off the idea of using non-standard units as the core of the army, such as Draigowing, Deathwing, Ravenwing, nidzilla, mechguard, etc, so expanding this system to allow such situations would be a good idea. Maybe make it so that HQ choices let you take certain units/classifications without needing the common pre-requisite?

Random scenarios with each side getting mission goals and victory conditions sounds incredible, but lets not ignore that simply killing everything in sight can be fun from both view points, such as facing off against a pure Death Company army that makes holding objectives a nightmare.
So if we're using victory points, do we want killing units and capturing objectives give victory points, then have cards give minor and major victory conditions, such as slay the enemy HQ, prevent the enemy from capturing any objective, kill all non-common/troop units, etc? So that a major victory defeats a minor victory condition which defeats max victory points, and have victory points decide ties on victory conditions?

Your comparative system sounds really cool for determining damage or whatever were calling it now, but i don't see how this is much different from the current charts, though id like to see this way of doing things in action. Idea of having a threshold under which a unit takes physical damage and above which it takes moral damage is a neat idea, and would definitely make morale and leadership have a much greater impact in game, and combined with the shaken, stunned, routed mechanics, would be a very very exciting way of going about things.

Orks are also used to tarpit scary stuff like Dreads/MC/heroes. If I want maximum tarpit value I can chuck them on the defensive.

Gotta stress it though, stances that vary from STANDARD should always be less efficient overall.

Super keen on the missions man. As fun as "kill everything" can be, theres no reason why that can't just either be another mission option or that the players can't simply decide before the game to play like that.

Edit;

Ok, finally got around to reading some of these text blocks

Why change the assault phase for a reaction phase?
Because it allows more tactical flexibility.SOME unit that are good at close combat want to assault.Others that are better at shooting would NOT assault but shoot.And some units want to move to a better position. (EG towards cover, into weapons range , out of enemy attack range.)

If I've read this right, then I strongly, strongly disagree with this.

A dedicated shooty phase and no dedicated assault phase is a massive nerf to stabby armies. A unit can move, shoot, then move to ensure its out of assault phase - or even shoot twice based on what I've quoted above. But where is the ability of stabby units to move and then assault twice? Or assault and then move towards the next target? Double standards like that are what is putting me off of 40k right now

I'm all for broader phases, but make it ACTION and REACTION as opposed to SHOOTING and REACTION - give assault units the chance to benefit from forgoing shooting just as much as shooty units do from sacrificing their assault phase.

Or we could use the counter system from Grimdark(Based On Net Epic, another of my favorite games.)

+1 to the counter system. Not necessarily that one (and not necessarily not), but counters are definitely cool in my book.

As the strategic organisation was mentioned.
He is my idea.

I like this. I'm against limiting players to X Fast Attack, X Heavy Support etc, and more in favour of stuff like this or like the Fantasy army building rules.

IF the target fails its armour save .
Compare the amount the target FAILED its armour save by to the targets Resilience .

Not 100% behind this, but I do like the direction its going in. The big problem is what to do if say, two models in a unit are shaken but the others are fine.

This is a simple roll to target enemy in weapons range .
If successful
Target rolls to save.
If target fails save it takes physical or morale damage.

I'm not sure what I think about random shooting ranges. I absolutely hate gak like "I'm 24.1 inches away, your 24" gun can't hit me!" but we could really just make it a system where guns have *infinite* range but get less and less accurate the further the target.

Your comparative system sounds really cool for determining damage or whatever were calling it now, but i don't see how this is much different from the current charts, though id like to see this way of doing things in action. Idea of having a threshold under which a unit takes physical damage and above which it takes moral damage is a neat idea, and would definitely make morale and leadership have a much greater impact in game, and combined with the shaken, stunned, routed mechanics, would be a very very exciting way of going about things.

I'd like to hear more about this. If its exactly as worded, having attacks do physical or morale damage sounds dumb. I'd prefer to see it do both - perhaps if an attack doesn't do damage it does only morale, and if it does do damage it does both physical and morale damage

I got a few ideas on stances.

Standard: No modifiers
Offensive: +1P -1R
Defensive: +1R -1P
Reactive: +1D -1P
Nimble: +1A -1D -1R

Just to get started...

Gotta stress it though, stances that vary from STANDARD should always be less efficient overall.

This. Great way to implement stances without being too strong. On the one hand, I'm afraid that stances would benefit generalist armies more so than others that may be more specialized, however, I've always felt that generalist armies struggled in the adaptability area anyways, so this might be a welcome addition.

Taking the action system from earlier might be a good alternative to using the 4 phases, using move/shoot/assault as the actions, with a choice of 3 per turn per unit, but then having units start in assault, move out of assault, and charge back in could be odd, without combat rules to dictate how this would work? Maybe have command be used to make a "tactical retreat" from combat, which would let the other player's unit make a sweeping advance or something. This would mean the current strengths of melee are preserved, as in a player can tar pit a unit or get into combat to avoid getting shot at, while allowing them a way to get out if they really need to, without being able to do so free of consequence.

Otherwise i don't really see a problem with the current turn phases, as they're a nice standard against which things can be measured and compared, and make everything pseudo-balanced, as everything has to handle the same phases. Not terribly exciting, but functionally stable.

I'm not sure what I think about random shooting ranges. I absolutely hate gak like "I'm 24.1 inches away, your 24" gun can't hit me!" but we could really just make it a system where guns have *infinite* range but get less and less accurate the further the target.

Interesting idea, i like it much better than other alternatives i've seen. But there would still need to be a way to determine if something is long/short ranged before taking that into account, to know if something is under or over its "Ideal" range. This could also take lanrak's ballistic skill determining range into effect, as ballistic skill could ignore up to a certain amount of negative range modifiers, or enhance the shooting bonus for shorter ranges? Or maybe have higher ballistic skill reduce the range necessary for a positive modifiers to be applied, and increase the range for negative modifiers to be applied?

Yeah doing physical OR morale damage would be really dumb. This idea seems to have a lot of potential though, so lets keep at it. Maybe a model lost would reduce morale by 1 for shake/stun/rout, while receiving 2 hits would reduce moral by 1 for the purpose of shake/stun/rout, which could be negated by a command roll to keep the squad in line?

Also, having finally gotten around to reading Grimdark, the counter system seems interesting, but it just seems like a complicated form of an "Action" system. Using Command, Action, and Resolution as the three phases is a great idea for the system they built, and prevents the need for all those rules stating they happen before a particular phase.

Splitting Fire as a morale/command check would be a cool idea.
They suggest recovering models as a core mechanic. Not a good idea, keep it in the Necron's where it defines them.

Combining Leadership and Command together to determine activation. There's an idea!!! NOT A CLUE how that idea could be implemented outside of their counter system, but even just the idea of combining the unit's leaders trait (Command) with it's general members trait (Morale) could be very exciting if applied correctly.

And I really hate to keep harking on about it, but if you need movement to be varied, use systems in place to determine that. They use a "Movement Value", which they say goes from 3 (Plaguebearers) to 10 (Dark Eldar Reavers). How much variety and interest would that system really create besides having one more minor element to keep in mind? Heavy/Medium/Light Infantry in the Unit Type (Which is also included), with a 3" difference between each, Heavy 3", Medium 6", Light 9", with different types (Jump, Jet, Bike, etc) would create the same idea with less complexity.

Otherwise i don't really see a problem with the current turn phases, as they're a nice standard against which things can be measured and compared, and make everything pseudo-balanced, as everything has to handle the same phases. Not terribly exciting, but functionally stable.

This. I still think the "choose one unit, do everything with it, then 3+ to use another then 5+, then your opponents go" is very good.

I don't like the idea of BS determining range. What if you had a BS10 Avatar shoot his 12" lightning-bolt firing sword, suddenly able to fire it 72"? Similarly a Leman Russ being controlled by a normal Guardsman, suddenly BS3 only allows it to shoot 12"? The normal system works well. I would maybe add a dynamic of +1 Marksmanship if within 1/2 range, or something like that.

I'm not completely on board with the "morale damage" idea, but I'm willing to embrace it if you make it more clear.

Also imo don't really want the counter system.

And I really hate to keep harking on about it, but if you need movement to be varied, use systems in place to determine that. They use a "Movement Value", which they say goes from 3 (Plaguebearers) to 10 (Dark Eldar Reavers). How much variety and interest would that system really create besides having one more minor element to keep in mind? Heavy/Medium/Light Infantry in the Unit Type (Which is also included), with a 3" difference between each, Heavy 3", Medium 6", Light 9", with different types (Jump, Jet, Bike, etc) would create the same idea with less complexity.

It's really up to personal opinion, whether you want Mobility as a stat or a special rule. I really wouldn't care, but I like having it as a stat because it looks nice. Adds "more flavour" as you were saying earlier. Less rules that you have to look up and more numbers in front of you make things seem more ordered, more balanced, cooler.

Edit: I just checked, it was you that said you don't want special rules for multiple wounds and attacks, because it would make it so crowded in the special rules section. So why should Mobility be any different? You don't want it as a stat but you want Wounds and Attacks?

Personally I'd have all 3 as stats, whereas Dakkamite would want none of them as stats. Where are you?

I agree that BS determining range would be problematic, but i see no reason it couldn't be part of some sort of range modifier system. Say that BS 10 Avatar can shoot his 12" sword at 12" with no penalty, but could shoot it as 24" at BS5, or at a -5 modifier? Or that guardsman can shoot the Leman Russ at its normal 48"? (i don't know IG very well), but could shoot at 24" at BS 6 rather than 3? or at a +3 modifier? Not sure, it could be over complicated or just plain broken, but it would be interesting.

And the Heavy/Medium/Light system isn't a special rule, its added to the Unit Type. No-one complains that you need to look up the movement distance of Jump Infantry or Bikes, because we know how to apply those differences quickly, and they're the basis that all units use, save for rare exceptions like Slaanesh Daemons with their extra D3 movement. This would just be an extension of that system. And to adding more "flavor", i'm all for flavor, but past a certain threshold it becomes a problem. It's like trying to set the stats at 1-20 rather than 1-10 or 1-12, you end up with too many possibilities, and feel obligated to use all those possibilities, even for minimal in-game effect. I just don't feel that having a Space marine move 6", an Eldar move 8", and a Necron move 4" would have enough of an in-game effect to deserve a stat dedicated to that, when there could already be upwards of 10 stats. Not to say that units of the same type shouldn't have different move distances based on fluff or style, but i disagree that a high level of variety is necessary. However, yes it is a matter of personal taste at the end of the day.

Having read that edit, I'm in for Attacks and Wounds as stats but obviously not for mobility.

Moral damage wouldn't really be accurate to describe it, but lets go. I'm kinda building this off of Lanrak's examples and ideas, so should i have misinterpreted it, or you guys see a better way, please point it out.

A Wound gives a -1 morale/command modifier, 2 non-wound hits give a -1 morale/command modifier.

A Guardsman Squad is being shot at, they get hit 5 times, causing 3 wounds. So, having been shot at, they take a morale/command roll, at a -4 modifier (3 wounds, and 2 non-wounding hits). If they pass the save, they are unaffected by the violence. Should they fail by X, they are shaken. Should they fail by Y, they are stunned. Should they fail by Z, the unit is routed, and immediately flees. Where X < Y < Z

Edit: there's no real reason why we couldn't use that warpath-style unit-by-unit activation system, and still explore other systems that the unit could follow during that activation

Battle cannons shoot 72" I gtg, I'll reply in 2 hours

I would say that the weapon has a maximum range (i.e. a bullet running out of energy or plasma disintegrating), then, at closer ranges, the target's Stealth value decreases. The range doesn't depend on Marksmanship, Marksmanship depends on the range. The closer you are to the target, the easier it is to see them, therefore the less Stealth they have, hence the easier it is to hit them. That's it.

Mobility as a stat is no different from Attacks and Wounds.

And to adding more "flavor", i'm all for flavor, but past a certain threshold it becomes a problem. It's like trying to set the stats at 1-20 rather than 1-10 or 1-12, you end up with too many possibilities, and feel obligated to use all those possibilities, even for minimal in-game effect. I just don't feel that having a Space marine move 6", an Eldar move 8", and a Necron move 4" would have enough of an in-game effect to deserve a stat dedicated to that

That's like saying Orks and Tyranids don't deserve their own stat, it's easier just to have a special rule. That's contradicting to what you said earlier, you made a very good point and you persuaded me to keep Attacks. So why didn't you persuade yourself?

As to ditching attack stats in favor of a multiple attack USR, not really a fan of that idea. I think one of the best parts of 40k is the variety created between troops through their stats alone, before any special rules get thrown on top.

Seeing the Ork Boy, Hormagaunt, Death Company, Daemonette, Bloodletter, and Genestealer profiles all demonstrate their position as powerful close combat units through their number of attacks, even before taking Wargear into question, makes them unique compared to other options.

or you make the standard 1 attack and save multiple attacks for higher level units, which seems like itd be really REALLY bland on a unit by unit basis, which was kinda the whole point of working on a new system, not to mention counteracting the purpose and design of many units.

Oups, just saw the rest of your message.

That was an idea at the back of my head which you dug up - losing Fortitude (morale) when being hit. Maybe...

When a unit suffers 5 or more hits, it must take a Fortitude test immediately after those hits have been resolved. The unit's Fortitude is lowered by 1/2 for every 5 hits it has suffered.
When a unit suffers 3 or more wounds, it must take a Fortitude test immediately after those wounds have been resolved. The unit's Fortitude is lowered by 1 for every 3 wounds it has suffered.

Remember to always round up.

Fortitude is a grey area for me, I haven't figured it out yet, but right now I only have it scaling from 1-6, Marines being 5 (4+1 for ATSKNF), Eldar 4, Tau 3. Idk yet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If Fortitude and Influence is based on Leadership right now, perhaps:

If a model is within 6" of a Character it gains +1F and +1I.
If a model is withing 6" of an Independent Character it gains +2F and +2I.

@ IcyFireKnight

Mobility as a stat is no different from Attacks and Wounds.

I see where your'e coming from on this point, but the reason that Wounds and Attacks should be stats, besides those reasons i brought up before, is that that slight variation from 1-2, or 2-3 is a massive difference in abilities. When something has 2 attacks, you just doubled its strength in close-combat compared to a unit with the same stats, but only 1 attack. 2 wounds makes something twice as survivable as a similar unit with 1 wound, barring Instant Death and the like.

Another reason is that by changing those two stats, you start to directly affect how players view their uses. When you see a unit has 2 attacks, players are going to think, "This model is powerful in Close Combat, how can i get it into Melee faster to take advantage of this?". The opponent has to think "That unit is dangerous in Close Combat, how do i want to minimize the effect it will have on my army? Shoot them down? Counter-Assault? Deploy further away from them?"

The problem is that mobility doesn't meet either of these requirements, except for at the extreme differences. 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, up to 14 if you run every turn, which would be silly.
But at the extremes, the Plaguebearer (3" movement) is going to make you rethink its uses. Is it worth the points when it cant keep up with your other forces? Do you want to pay for it to sit on an objective? How about deep striking it to try to tarpit a powerful enemy unit, or take fire to prevent other units from getting shot.

So if mobility doesn't need the level of granularity that a stat provides, and doesn't make you rethink strategies except in the extremes, why not just take the idea currently in place with the difference between infantry and bikers (6" movement vs 12" movement) and expand it to create variety within the category of troops, which could also apply to vehicles and other units too. No one confuses the use of Tactical Marines and Biker Marines, because if you tried to use one like the other, you'd fail miserably, and the difference between the two is just that one is Unit Type Infantry, and the other is Unit Type Biker.

That's like saying Orks and Tyranids don't deserve their own stat, it's easier just to have a special rule.

The current statline already well-represents the differences between these two armies, before special rules and without a difference in movement. Orks are all about high-volume shooting at low BS, while the Tyranids shooting tends to be more generalistic shooting. Orks tend to favor high WS, low initiative attacks, whereas the Tyranids focus on high Initiative volume of attacks.

Say you add a movement difference though. If an Ork Boy moves the "standard" amount, they become focused on utilizing as much shooting as possible while advancing towards the enemy as fast as possible, whereas if the Tyranid Hormagaunt moves faster than "standard", the players can actually focus on getting it into close combat as fast as possible while hugging terrain as much as possible, rather than just being a meat-shield to keep wounds off the more important units.

But a movement difference of 1 inch isn't going to drive home that difference, it needs to be higher, at least 2, more likely 3, inches difference. So if you need that big of a difference in movement to create true variety, why not just standardize it into something similar to the difference between bikers and infantry, rather than create another stat that doesn't need the lesser variety. Otherwise, you're going to feel the need to use the extra possibilities such a system provides in order to justify it, even when there's minimal effect for the complexity it's adding, and things will start feeling schizophrenic as nothings standardized, and values are all over the place.

Moving away from Mobility, max range with bonus modifiers for being close might be a cleaner alternative to the system i suggested, i like it, but its just an enhancement of an existing system, so i kinda feel like we'd just be throwing away some of the great potential ideas that have been brought up.

I think that Volume of hits should affect morale as well as losing models, so your system looks good in that area. But yeah its a really undeveloped idea, i think we'd really need to play around with it to see how it feels and make the requirements higher/lower as necessary. Too low and it bogs the game down, too high and it has minimal effect.

f Fortitude and Influence is based on Leadership right now, perhaps:

If a model is within 6" of a Character it gains +1F and +1I.
If a model is withing 6" of an Independent Character it gains +2F and +2I.

Very interesting idea, i particularly like how adding the Independent Character has a larger effect, thats pretty cool and would make for a good in-game and list-building mechanic.

Hi folks.
Ill try to answer questions comments , and put forward a summary .

Game Turn.(Basic outline.)

Command Phase.
Players place order counters next to units on good morale.(Units that are shaken/stunned /routed do NOT receieve orders but act according to morale state.)
Request off table support.

The order counters are made up of 2 actions from move ,attack ,ready.(As listed prevousily.)
Orders counters ,
Advance, (Move shoot.)
Evade, (Shoot ,move.)
Charge,(Move Assault)
Fire Support.(Ready, Shoot.)
Infiltrate.(Ready move.)

Now we can use alternating phase,(Interleaved single action) or the unit activation (1 to 3 units activated ).

Resolution Phase.
(Attempt to rally units on poor morale.Plot arrivals.)
We can finalize a game turn after a bit of play testing.

I will write in capitals to correct some misunderstood ideas /concepts

THE REASON TO USE STATS DIRECTLY IS TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT OF UN NEEDED TABLES/SPECIAL RULES TO SPEED UP PLAY.
We just use the unit cards and that it...No looking up tables etc.
MORE GAME PLAY but with less fuss.

And if we use a WIDE RANGE OF NUMBERS , we can COVER ALL UNITS with ONE RESOLUTION METHOD.

THE SHOOTING RANGES ARE NOT RANDOM.
The effective range of the UNIT with THEIR weapons is in the unit card.

Ill try to explain this a bit clearer...
What strenght is a close combat weapon in 40k?
it depends on the user right.
How many attacks has a close combat weapon got?
it depends on the user.

So if we extend this logically we can say weapons in game effect depends totally on the model using them.
So we can use a universal weapons table for ALL unit cards.

So rather than having to modify the weapon or user stats, (A,S,BS,WS,)we simply list the net effect on the unit card.

EG A las-gun fired by a unit of White Shields has a effective range of 20"
The las-gun fired by a standard IG squad has an effective range of 24"
The las-gun Gun in a Veteran squad, has an effective range of 28".

The units with better shooting skill simply are able to TARGET ENEMIES FURTHER AWAY.
(The roll to hit is base on the TARGETED MODELS STEALTH.)

Is that clearer?
It is a massive departure from current 40k but it is simple and intuitive.But if you want to add BS as a Stealth modifier (EG +1,+2,+3,+4 etc, to hit roll)That is an alternative we could use.

As reguard to the proposed Army composition, and mission cards.
I put in VP scaling on Common, Specialized and Restricted units just to show how it could be done to set game size.
I do NOT like fidely PV as found in 40k.
NO battle is exactly balanced or fair.
So just broad strokes on army comp , and VARIETY in mission type mean there is no 'auto win' 'cost effective ' list.
You pick YOUR list and learn how to use it YOUR way.

The mission cards set victory conditions.
EG The players try to meet victory conditions of their mission card.
This decide who did best in the game.
If your force got a minor victory and you opponent scored a major victory , you did not 'GET BEATEN' , but you opponent managed his objectives better.

MY PROPOSED MORALE CONCEPT.
If a model takes a hit that penetrates its armour .
it will take Physical damage if the roll beats it armour by its over the targets resistance value .
if it does not cause physical damage the model becomes shaken.
Shaken models may ONLY Move OR SHOOT.

If a unit has lost more than a 25% of its starting Hit Points.In Shaken or Damaged results.
The whole unit counts as SHAKEN. (Will not take orders until rallied.)

If a unit has lost more than 50% of its starting Hit Points.In Shaken or Damaged results.
The whole unit counts as STUNNED.(Can not perform any action, but will fight back if assaulted.Will go to Shaken status if rallied.)

if a unit has lost more than 50% of its starting hit points to physical damage .The unit ALWAYS counts as Shaken.Must take a rally test at the Resolution phase of each turn.If this test is failed the unit routes!

A morale test is simply rolling the value on the units Morale Grade to succeed..
1+Fearless.
2+Elite
3+Veteran
4+Conscripted
5+.Cowardly

Some simple modifiers.
25% casualties +1
50% casualties +2
Out numbered(more enemy within 12" than friendly units.) +1

Highest Command value in range +CV.

EG SM assault squad (MG 2+) is behind enemy lines.(Outnumbered +1), and has taken over 25% casualties from withering heavy weapons fire.+1.
They now need a 4+ to rally.

A Grot mob (MG 5+) is right in front of Warlord Ghazghkull Thrakka (CV 18" 3.)
As the grots are far more frightened of the warlord than they are of death.(Deff only 'appens once,he would 'appen every day!!!)
The grots morale is boosted to 2+!

I hope that makes some ideas a bit clearer...



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry about the double post .
Just a quick thought on unit cards.Do you think symbols on the cards would be better.(As this makes them more intuitive to read, and easier to translate in to different languages.... )

EG
Shield = Armour
Heart= Hit points for organic units.
Gear= Hit point for mechanical units

This way we have a pictoral descriptor , and a numerical magnitude.

Do you think this would make the stat cards more intuitive to read?

Symbols would be good, I'm not digging "Dexterity" and such as stats and can never remember what any of the abbreviations stand for.

When I tried to play that fan variant called inquisitor or whatever seeing that it no longer used basic 40k stats was enough to make me close the pdf and never look back. This is why I've been calling things by extremely basic, utilitarian terms such as MELEE and DEFENSE

@Lanrak

Players place order counters next to units on good morale.(Units that are shaken/stunned /routed do NOT receieve orders but act according to morale state.)

Can you explain how acting on Morale would work?
Edit, just made the connection. I dont know if id want rallying twice to be how one gets out stunned status, it seems like a rather ham-handed approach. Only being able to move OR shoot while shaken sounds solid though, but if you take damage while trying to move in for a charge with a non-shooting unit (Genestealers) you've essentially neutered them.

Also, loving the orders you set down, their names give them a great feel and would make announcing what a unit is doing exciting to say.
Would you be able to execute more than 1 order in a phase/activation? Otherwise units that can move, shoot, assault in one turn effectively, such as Grey Knights, are going to be hit hard.

We just use the unit cards and that it...No looking up tables etc.

I think we need to make an executive decision here and now, do we want to stick to the current unit index in codexs (Codi?), or break off into unit cards? Or some combination of the two, such as having a unit index, and unit cards being references similar to the psychic power cards of 6th edition?

EG A las-gun fired by a unit of White Shields has a effective range of 20"
The las-gun fired by a standard IG squad has an effective range of 24"
The las-gun Gun in a Veteran squad, has an effective range of 28".
The units with better shooting skill simply are able to TARGET ENEMIES FURTHER AWAY.
(The roll to hit is base on the TARGETED MODELS STEALTH.)

The idea of having the units effective range with a weapon being on the unit card is a system that i think will only feel right in that card system. But even then, i'm not sure how i feel about it. Your example makes a ton of sense, as does your logic behind it, i'm just not 100% sure which side of the issue i fall on.

I put in VP scaling on Common, Specialized and Restricted units just to show how it could be done to set game size.
I do NOT like fidely PV as found in 40k.
NO battle is exactly balanced or fair.
So just broad strokes on army comp , and VARIETY in mission type mean there is no 'auto win' 'cost effective ' list.
You pick YOUR list and learn how to use it YOUR way.

I agree with the premise, but there are certain elements to customizing a unit that i like. I like taking that general Tactical Squad, and saying i'm going to use this as Anti-Tank, give it a Missile Launcher/Meltagun, or Anti-Horde, Heavy Bolter and Flamer, or Anti-Heavy-Infanty, Plasma-Cannon and Plasmagun. But you can mix and match all these options to suit what you want to do with that unit, which is exactly what you just described. Additionally, maybe i want my Sergeant to be able to handle vehicles/monsters/tough units and give him a Powerfist. Maybe I want him to be able to shoot and kill MEQ reliably, i give him a plasma pistol. I want to take advantage of his extra attack as a close combat option, i give him a Power Weapon.

Id like to see these kinds of choices in Wargear and Upgrades be represented in the system you suggested, though i don't know how it could be done. I don't like the idea of the game telling me what i can and can't do with that vanilla unit. I agree the points system is often what leads to those auto-win lists and focus on cost-effectiveness, but that's as much a fault of the poor execution of the points system as it is rules and systems that allowed such lists to emerge in the first place.

Maybe have each common unit get 3 upgrade selections from a list, (1 Heavy, 1 Special, 1 Sergeant) that have no points cost, but would create a meta-game as people try to figure out what weapon selections work best, as they're situation choices that determine how you use that unit? Or a number of army-wide upgrade "points" that can be distributed to any of the units you take, so you can have that uber-HQ monster, and less specialized troops? or a weaker general directing more powerful troops?

Loving your moral concept, it's both streamlined and has depth. I disagree with the outnumbered modifier, as it would make deepstriking/outflank/infiltrate completely pointless. Having Command affect the Morale Test is a very cool idea.

Just a quick thought on unit cards.Do you think symbols on the cards would be better.(As this makes them more intuitive to read, and easier to translate in to different languages.... )
EG
Shield = Armour
Heart= Hit points for organic units.
Gear= Hit point for mechanical units
This way we have a pictoral descriptor , and a numerical magnitude.
Do you think this would make the stat cards more intuitive to read?

Probably the best idea for international systems ever suggested. Unfortunately, it might be a bit more difficult to read than the current system of abbreviations (as the symbols would probably be really small to make everything fit as a statline), but could be amazing once you get used to it.
Shield == Armor
Heart == Hit Points (Organic)
Gear == Hit Points (Mechanical)
Sword == (Melee Skill)
Bullet == (Shooting Skill)
Cloak == Stealth
Boot with motion lines == Movement

Btw, having though about movement in this system, if be fine with movement so long as it something like 3", 6", 9", 12", 18", 24", etc, and nothing more granular than that.

@Dakkamite

When I tried to play that fan variant called inquisitor or whatever seeing that it no longer used basic 40k stats was enough to make me close the pdf and never look back. This is why I've been calling things by extremely basic, utilitarian terms such as MELEE and DEFENSE

This. Simple is better when it comes to terms.

Well...it wasn't hard to remember things like Ballistic Skill and Weapon Skill, why not make it a bit fresh and fun?

Also for the icons:

Mobility - Boot
Marksmanship - Red+white target
Stealth - Dark silhouette with motion lines
Power - Fist
Resilience - Shield
Dexterity - Two swords forming an x
Attacks - Maybe a few fists punching through the air?
Vitality - Heart
Fortitude - no clue
Influence - flag in the ground?

We're stuck when it comes to icons for Range and Front/side/rear armour.

THE REASON TO USE STATS DIRECTLY IS TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT OF UN NEEDED TABLES/SPECIAL RULES TO SPEED UP PLAY.
We just use the unit cards and that it...No looking up tables etc.
MORE GAME PLAY but with less fuss.

I can't seem to make that a good enough justification seeing that there are many underlying problems, the main one being not enough variety.

(The roll to hit is base on the TARGETED MODELS STEALTH.)

I don't like this. Rolling to hit should be based on two things: marksmanship AND stealth. Not just stealth. You're right, models with a better BS can target things further away, but that doesn't mean they have the same chance to hit when they are the same distance. Guardsman vs. Avatar both 12" away, and they both have the same roll to hit?

But if you want to add BS as a Stealth modifier (EG +1,+2,+3,+4 etc, to hit roll)That is an alternative we could use.

This isn't intuitive either. They shouldn't modify each other, but you should compare them to each other. Imagine IRL, being a better marksman doesn't make a sniper's camouflage worse, it makes it easier to hit them. Similarly Stealth shouldn't modify how good they are with a gun, it just makes it harder to hit them. If you think about it, they shouldn't affect each other at all, only compare with each other.

But I'm on board with your Army Composition ideas, might need a few tweaks but it's good.

I don't think the names should be shaken and stunned, since a person isn't exactly shaken like a vehicle, more like shocked, even shell shocked.

(Deff only 'appens once,he would 'appen every day!!!)

I rofled lol

Another reason is that by changing those two stats, you start to directly affect how players view their uses. When you see a unit has 2 attacks, players are going to think, "This model is powerful in Close Combat, how can i get it into Melee faster to take advantage of this?". The opponent has to think "That unit is dangerous in Close Combat, how do i want to minimize the effect it will have on my army? Shoot them down? Counter-Assault? Deploy further away from them?"

I can see where your coming from. But don't you think Mobility adds a bit more flavour and USPs (unique selling point) of an army? If you look just at the statlines alone you see: "Ah, orks and tyranids are good in close combat, but wait! Space Marines are good all round units, but look at Eldar! 9" movement! Necrons look tough, except they move slowly and react slowly. Woah! Tau are great shooters! Except they suck at combat! Oh my god Plaguebearers. Tough, lumbering daemons, that's what I want! Hmm. Humans suck 40 thousand years in the future. Why are they so bad?" And then you proceed to tell them they cost half as much. "Cool so I can have 1000 on the field! huehuehuhuehueuhe".

Idk, just, my gut instinct is that Mobility is great, it's harmless, and although not as much as Attacks and Wounds, it makes an impact on the overview of an army, and adds some flavour. When you see Plaguebearers move 4 and Eldar move 8, while Necrons move 5 and Tyranids move 7, it not only looks cool and engaging but does add a good amount of strategic impact, even if it's not as much as Attacks or Wounds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: Not to mention vehicles, I've got ideas like "Land Raider 7, Devilfish 9, Wave Serpent 11" kind of thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ANNOUNCEMENT RAV1RN LANRAK AND DAKKAMITE, (I think) We are all onboard with the great idea of having 6 offensive and 6 defensive mission cards each. The player that DIDNT set up first can choose to have offensive or defensive cards. That's 12 chances for us to make (40k) extroomously epic! So if you have any ideas, put 'em here and the rest of us can polish it!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS: I know Lanrak practically wrote Grimdark, try not to take ideas from that! Or if you have to, make them better!

Before we set up mission cards we need to decide what the game will look like. Personally, I'm in favor of having Objectives that need o be captured in order to ensure the action on the board can have focal points, in addition to the mission Goals. No offense Lanrak, but there needs to be ways of saying who wins and who loses, and how we break ties, just saying he managed his objectives better won't cut it if we want serious tournament players to get on board.

After getting that squared away, how much of a degree of difference do we want between minor and major mission goals? How many do we want on a card? I'd suggest 1 major victory goal and 2-3 minor victory goals, maybe say achieving all the minor goals is equivalent to achieving a major mission goal?

Also, are we agreed on the HQ, Common, Specialized, Rare system Lanrak brought? Or at least using it as a basis to work off of.

If we assume all these things others ideas for Major mission goals could be:
Slay the enemy HQ
Take every objective
Prevent the enemy from capturing any objectives
Wound every enemy unit?
Lose no units?
Protect your HQ ?

Minor mission goals could be:
Take (x) Objectives
Kill (X) number of units
Kill all the enemies Specialist Units

I don't really have the handle on what minor goals could be.

Idk, just, my gut instinct is that Mobility is great, it's harmless, and although not as much as Attacks and Wounds, it makes an impact on the overview of an army, and adds some flavour.

This is incredibly dangerous thinking. If you start making changes and decisions based on, "we'll how much impact could it really have?" Is what leads to many of the broken, ridiculous, game-breaking rules, units, and weapons found in games. When you're considering something as critical to the functioning of a system as movement, that mindset is deadly.

Well:

But a movement difference of 1 inch isn't going to drive home that difference, it needs to be higher, at least 2, more likely 3, inches difference.

There are higher differences, but just having Tyranids with 1 extra inch gives the feel that they are a swift brood travelling across the battlefield wanting your brains.

Anyway, can you think of any reasons why Mobility ISN'T harmless?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for the missions, one idea (neither offense or defence):

..................................................
|Player 2....................Player 1's|
|.................................Survivors|
|................................................|
|................................................|
|................................................|
|................................................|
|................................................|
|................................................|
|................................................|
|................................................|
|Player 2's................................|
|Survivors....................Player 1|

Escort
Primary Objective: You have to get your survivors (10 basic infantry) to your own table half whilst trying to finish off the opponent's ones. You gain 3 VP if you either kill the opponent's survivors and/or get your survivor's to their your edge.
Secondary objective: The battlefield is scattered with extremely valuable research data. After setting up terrain, take it in turns to place 3 counters within 12" of the centre line. You gain 1VP if you manage to bring one set of blueprints back to your table edge for analysis.
There is a quad-gun in the middle of the table.

(This is an idea, but not polished at all)

Edit; Nobody even commented on any of what I posted here, so I'm sure nobody will mind if I remove it from the thread

Mission Idea; Extraction

There is a spy (or something) lurking behind enemy lines, with something that we need. Your mission is to get in, extract this objective, and get out again.

Nominate a piece of terrain in the back 12" of your opponents deployment zone. You need to get any scoring unit into this terrain, and have it stay there until the beginning of your next turn, to gain (X) VP(s). If you do so, you may then attempt to evacuate the unit from any table edge on your side of the board, including the 'neutral' table edges from any point on your side of the centre. If you do so, the VP gained is doubled.

You gain the first set of VP even if the unit is later destroyed, however, *any* scoring unit that makes it to that terrain, stays there, and then evacuates will get you the bonus points. So feel free to use multiple units, or send a unit in at a later point to get the bonus. However, you only recieve that bonus once, you cannot evacuate the spy multiple times as that wouldn't make any sense!

This mission does not need to be revealed at any point until the end of the game. So feel free to move a scoring unit into a piece of backfield terrain, then try to evacuate him to psyke out your opponent and think he's worth a bunch of points!

Mission Idea; Something you should know

An enemy commander is sympathetic to our cause, he only needs a little... persuasion.

Note down on a piece of paper one of your independent characters, or a squad leader type model (Sergeant, Nob). Then note down a squad leader model (not a IC) in your opponents army.

If at any point, these two models come within 6" of each other, the target enemy model and his squad betray the enemy and join your forces! You also gain a small number of victory points.

The latter could be a victory card, or instead, we could also have some "Tides of War" event cards like this that each player draws - in which case there would be no victory points gained.

Why add systems or rules in for minimal effect? Its just one more thing to keep track of, with no real impact. If you want to make something feel like a swift brood moving across the tabletop, actually make them a swift moving brood. You can have simple, fluffy movement systems in place that arnt granular, because do i really need to differentiate Plaguebearers from Necrons, rather than just saying they move slower than normal? Or differentiate Eldar from Tyranids, instead of them just being faster than normal? A better comparison than Wounds or Attacks would actually be the discussion we had on Initiative.
From Dakkamite

Do these RPS elements add anything of value that simply saying a unit is "Assault 5" or "Assault 10" or even "Really Good in Assault" doesn't achieve much more simply?

From IcyFireKnight

I think low skill but fast units can be dealt with simply. Some sort of special rule for high initiative low weapon skill models like hormagaunts; Swift Attack: "A model with this special rule gains +1 Dexterity for To Strike First rolls only."
Or indeed low initiative high weapon skill: Sluggish Strike: "A model with this special rule has its Dexterity reduced by 1 for To Strike First rolls only."

If we're willing to take out initiative because there's a simpler model that doesn't require its own stat to provide depth, why would we add such a system to govern movement?

And movement is something that every unit, and by extension every weapon, rule, and plan relies on. Taking a "what harm can it do" approach to something that every element of the game depends on is not wise. And the danger is that some player somewhere might be able to find a way to take advantage of that fact in a way that non-one could have expected to be used as such, its happened before. Serious players will find cheese wherever they can, doubly so if it will give them a legal edge in a tournament.

instead, we could also have some "Tides of War" event cards like this that each player draws - in which case there would be no victory points gained.

This is a very exciting idea, im just not sure i want it to be a mandatory element of play rather than a optional rule that players can use for fun. Kinda like 6th editions battlefield terrain system.

If we're willing to take out initiative because there's a simpler model that doesn't require its own stat to provide depth, why would we add such a system to govern movement?

Why would you quote me as being pro-seperate movement stat?

I'm at the other extreme, wanting all the superfluous stats removed. I'd prefer movement that deviates from the norm to be a Special Rule

I just wanted to show that we used the same argument for removing initiative, not that you were on a particular side, though i like hearing that we're on the same page.

I'm also in the 'no initiative' camp.

Pretty much, all I want to see is MELEE, SHOOTING, DEFENSE, MORALE with optional STRENGTH, COVER and COMMAND.

Strength is probably needed but I dislike it because it does just one thing, and that thing is just part of a larger thing. Cover can be represented with a special rule. Command is great if we have something it can be used for, such as the NEW ORDERS roll in my proposed turn system.

I loathe the idea of INITIATIVE or ATTACKS, the former can be folded into something else and the latter can be a special rule.

Just wanted to get this on here if we're exploring the card idea (which i love). Look up Warmachine cards for references on using icons, card layout, Statline sizes, weapon representation, etc.

Edit: the following paragraph means using cards like the ones from warmachine.

If we want to take out strength, i dont see why we don't just have strength be a factor of the Melee weapon that model carries. This could work especially well if we use Lanraks varying max distance idea, as that weapons distance on this model could be right there and easy to reference. So Melee weapons could have all the stats of ranged weapons, but have range: Melee or something. Models without Melee weapons could instead have their ranged weapon be listed a second time with its Melee stats represented. Maybe even list the Melee component of a Ranged weapon below the main Weapon Profile in a smaller box with a symbol marking it as the Melee stat (as it only has to cover the weapons Melee Strength, since AP and range and Type are all irrelevant for all of 40Ks Ranged weapons used in Melee that I'm aware of.)

Yes I know saying i want attacks on the Statline but not strength makes no logical sense, but i just like seeing attacks immediately as it makes me see its a powerful CC unit before i delve into Wargear and special rules.

I like exploring what using stealth and alternative cover systems can do, but im currently still in the "Using cover and a special rule (Stealth) and having them add negative modifiers to the firers BS/increase Armor" or equivalent terminology camp. The current shooting system isn't dynamic or terribly interesting, but you could have movement (Both yours and/or the targets) reduce BS, firing at ranges lower than max increase BS, and cover/stealth decrease BS/Increase armor, and it would be much more exciting without needing additional stats or too much complexity.

Im all for the command/influence ideas coming out, the ideas taking advantage of them have so much potential that they can't be ignored.

but i just like seeing attacks immediately as it makes me see its a powerful CC unit before i delve into Wargear and special rules.

It's the same with me. I like seeing mobility AND the way it varies between armies. It makes me see a swift army from a slow army. You have argued; and I take it. Having one inch or so difference isn't going to make an impact. But I still like it. I believe that Mobility as a stat does add flavour, and it adds it at no extra cost, except for just being a stat.

So Dakkamite wants everything to be as a special rule,
Rav1rn wants attacks and wounds but not movement,
I want movement, and I'm impartial about attacks and wounds. Movement doesn't make the statline boring, but attacks and wounds does. With the majority of armies with just 1 attack and practically all with just 1 wound, I find it futile. But I do recognise Rav1rn's point that some armies rely on their attacks/wounds to attract players. I don't mind, but I just add it anyway for now. Still, I'm all for Multiple Attacks 2.

If we want to take out strength, i dont see why we don't just have strength be a factor of the Melee weapon that model carries.

I have thought about this. Intuitively I would think that it is how strong the wielder is that determines how hard his blows are. But now that S and AP are merged into Power, I wouldn't mind having the CC weapon with the Power. I think, to differentiate a Space Marine with a close combat weapon and an Guardsman with a close combat weapon, each army should have their own CC weapons that represent their strength. So Marines could have a combat sabre; Power 5, range 2-3. Meanwhile Guardsmen would have bayonets; Power 4 (or 3 depending on how strong you want IG to be), with a longer range since they're bayonets.

Im all for the command/influence ideas coming out, the ideas taking advantage of them have so much potential that they can't be ignored.

I completely agree, this kind of stat is pure gold.

I am against the idea of a counter/marker/token system.

Mission Idea; Something you should know

An enemy commander is sympathetic to our cause, he only needs a little... persuasion.

Note down on a piece of paper one of your independent characters, or a squad leader type model (Sergeant, Nob). Then note down a squad leader model (not a IC) in your opponents army.

If at any point, these two models come within 6" of each other, the target enemy model and his squad betray the enemy and join your forces! You also gain a small number of victory points.

Genius

This is what I've been working on.

Universal Comparison Chart

.........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+

I have faith in it. It has been working splendidly so far, but lemme hear the criticism.

PS: The average for infantry is going to be 4. So, a statistic test is comparing their stat to a value on 4. This works much better than the "initiative tests" right now where you have to roll equal or under the stat, or you fail. So a Necron (with a Fortitude of 7) passes a Fortitude test on a (compare 7 to 4) 2+.

What would you say to this: the model no longer has attacks, power or wounds. Wounds are naturally 1, but the power and attacks are determined my the close combat weapon? So in wargear, you'd have a specific close combat weapon which basically represents the model's CC.

So each model would have a ranged weapon and a CC weapon. The CC weapon would reflect the strength and number of attacks each model has right now. E.g.

............................................Rg...P...A...Type
Bayonet (IG).........................4....4...1...Melee
Combat sabre (SM)...............3...5...1...Melee
Burst device (Tau).................3...3...1...Melee
Guardian spur (Eldar)............3...3...1...Melee
Kleava (Orks)........................3...5...2...Melee
Scything claws (Nids)............3...4...2...Melee
Flayer (Necrons)...................4...5...1...Melee
Devilish blight (Demons)........3...5...1...Melee

Names are filler.

Basically this means that we took all the combat stats from the model (bar WS/Dexterity) and put them in the weapon, just like in ranged warfare. Thoughts?

Yeah the easy solution might just be to give everything a close-combat weapon of some kind, be it Knife, bayonet, claw, talon, scythe, etc.

If we're gonna have unit cards i dont mind having Movement/mobility directly on the card as much, but lets try to keep it from getting into that 1-2 inch difference zone shall we?

As for Close-Combat weapons, how do we want to represent power weapons since the AP system is more or less defunct? Or maybe just drop them all together, though im not a huge fan of that idea.

Also, i just realized this but power weapons kinda filled a nice niche in CC, as they helped you get more efficient at killing high-armor targets while making that upgrade less effective against hordes of weaker units. In fact, the howling banshees and striking scorpions of the Eldar rely on this difference to define their specialties.

I know we decided on consolidating armor and toughness, but this distinction offers the first really important case for separating the two. If we used the upgrade system i talked about earlier in conjunction with Lanrak's HQ, common, specialized, rare system, that plus the included CCW every model carries could let players further specialize a unit using that upgrade point. Do I want that sergeant to have the power weapon replace his CCW for killing MEQ? Or do i want to give him pistol of some kind to get the extra attack to maximize his anti-Melee-Horde strength?

I know its not really worth bringing up, but i think we focused on how AP and armor/toughness interact with shooting, and didnt really discuss Melee? Because we could either drop power weapons altogether, or increase their strength, but that would make them more like power fists than power weapons, and would let them affect bigger, tough units (vehicles/monsters) when that isnt really their domain.

Charts looking good, it feels odd that things need 1 point of difference for the roll value to change, then 3 to change again. Id almost say i want the change to be at 1 point of difference in stat to result in a +/- 1 to the roll, with 2+\6+ going until the the points where the values transition into (--) on your chart. Otherwise, say a guardsman is WS 3, a Sister of Battle is WS 4, and a space Marine is WS 5, that space marine is going to be hitting both models on a 3+, when clearly the sister should be a tougher combatant. This lets us show variety between similar models (+/- 1-2 in that area) while more distantly skilled opponents still have a chance to dodge/hit.

The D6 is, as always, the weak link, but we may just have to deal with that.

Having strength and attacks listed under the Melee weapons stats has been brought up by Dakkamite? before, and i'd prefer attacks stay in the statline, but if we use the card idea, its not as big a deal where that information goes, since its all right there anyways and there's no shuffling around a codex to find those values.

Maybe a middle ground when talking about wounds, again with the card idea providing a solution. Wounds is set in a little circle off to a side, away from the Statline, maybe close to some character artwork on the card. This way it's not being turned into a special rule, but is still represented numerically on the card?

Edit: actually no, id rather have high leadership represent strong leader ship rather than lower. A) it just makes more sense that way, and B) that sort of low scores == good scores is already in place with armor, and it kinda clashes with the other mechanics where high scores == good scores, so lets minimize that problem. Maybe have 12 be the standard, so a Ld 10 unit only needs a 2+, and a Ld 6 unit needs a 6+, though i would greatly prefer the two dice system already in place, i feel it works quite well.

Hey, you brought up a good point on power weapons. I say we drop the idea altogether. We can fill the void with something more "of our cause" kind of thing, if we drop them, we don't have to worry about reworking them, and we can be more creative Models with power swords can instead have something cooler!

And I see where you're coming from with the chart. I've never met Sisters of Battle. But if you want them to be the tougher combatant then I would bump em up to WS 5. What I wanted was more distinction between different units, but not so much that they become UP/OP. I think this chart is a solution, because, while maintaining differences, it doesn't affect the balance so much as a chart where 3s, 4s and 5s both wound 4s on a 4+. That didn't feel right.

What I want is for all stats to be better when higher. So what was the issue with leadership? As previously stated, right now my take on a "Statistic test" is to compare that stat to 4. That way numbers that are 6 or higher benefit now, as well as every stat being better when higher. So if you look at the chart, Orks (F4) and Tyranids (F4) both succeed Fortitude tests (morale) on a 4+ without modifiers. Whereas plaguebearers and Necrons succeed on a 2+ (F7), with Marines and Eldar (F6 and F5) both succeed on a 3+. I think this gives us enough room for Fortitude modifiers like losing combat (every model that you lost by means -1/2 leadership) or morale damage as discussed.

Idk, I like the idea of having attacks in the melee weapon since it is perfectly in sync and in line with ranged weapons. So the weapons possess the range, power and attacks stats while the models provide the rest.

Do you think we should do the same thing to Hull Points? As in, each vehicle has 3 Hull Points unless stated otherwise?

Been working on a cheesy start to the rulebook, explaining model statistics
And infantry stats (let me know if some are a bit off!!)

And vehicle stats!

Finally some weapon stats (only Imperial and Eldar soz )

IcyFireKnight wrote:
With the majority of armies with just 1 attack and practically all with just 1 wound, I find it futile.[/u].

If we're flabbing out the stats with attacks and wounds we might as well have INT and movement and so on, and then we defeat one of the major points that this project is built around - streamlining the game to avoid unnecessary baggage.

but i just like seeing attacks immediately as it makes me see its a powerful CC unit before i delve into Wargear and special rules.

If a model is better at melee, you'll see this because it's MELEE stat will be higher than that of other armies. If anything this will make it easier to tell who is better in a fight. It also avoids instances such as the 40k Orks - giving them heaps of weak but accurate attacks is the sort of arithmetic (and nonsensical fluff destruction in this case) I'm looking to just fold into MELEE as much as possible.

In almost every case of non-solo models, we can represent superior hand to hand ability with just better MELEE and better attack strength (whether that is a stat or a weapon stat). Multiple attacks are only *needed* for solo models like dreads, monsters and heroes, because giving those models one attack, no matter how strong, is gonna get them tarpitted first time every time in every game by any unit at all. In all honesty, incorporating ATTACKS on squad models is no more necessary than we have decided that stats like INITIATIVE or TOUGHNESS are. Those few models that *really* need it can get a special rule to cover it - something like "at the start of each assault phase, choose to allre-roll missed attacks or all enemy hits on this unit"

It's the same with me. I like seeing mobility AND the way it varies between armies. It makes me see a swift army from a slow army. You have argued; and I take it. Having one inch or so difference isn't going to make an impact. But I still like it. I believe that Mobility as a stat does add flavour, and it adds it at no extra cost, except for just being a stat.

As I'm sure your already perfectly aware, I reckon we can just give certain units Swift (x) (moves an additional x") or Sluggish (x) (the opposite)

Strength etc represented with weapon stats

I don't like this idea, but thats just because I've never liked representing abilities with wargear and its purely personal taste. In this situation, for what we're looking to achieve, it'd work great IMO. I'd still rather see Attacks removed from all non-solo models, but you know that already.

Im all for the command/influence ideas coming out, the ideas taking advantage of them have so much potential that they can't be ignored.

Definitely behind COMMAND, as you can see from my use of it in proposed rules. Not really sure what your intending with INFLUENCE though.

I have faith in it. It has been working splendidly so far, but lemme hear the criticism.

Dislike any comparison chart that doesn't have a smooth transition of say, 4+/3+/2+/1+. Doesn't mean it won't work, I just always err towards the simplistic when there are two options available. So I'm neutral towards this pending seeing that it works and works better than the smoother ones, and as long as it is indeed 'universal' - the difference of shooting and melee attack tables in 40k is infuriating to me!

Edit; wtf, only saw one of the three posts. Now to make this post even bigger than before with more replies.

but lets try to keep it from getting into that 1-2 inch difference zone shall we?

We're talking a 20% - 33% movement difference. Thats heaps! The fact that it is so unimportant is an issue with the system and it's "feth Movement, More Dakka" ethos. We need to *make* movement more important than it currently is, as least as important but ideally much more so than anything else in the game, because movement is the purest form of strategic input by the players - everything else, when it comes down to it, is just rolling dice.

As for Close-Combat weapons, how do we want to represent power weapons since the AP system is more or less defunct? Or maybe just drop them all together, though im not a huge fan of that idea.

I covered this earlier. They're just stronger CCW now. Because really, a lightning covered sword would just hit harder than a normal sword - it wouldn't just 'bypass armour' and so do the same thing to unarmoured stuff

Also, i just realized this but power weapons kinda filled a nice niche in CC, as they helped you get more efficient at killing high-armor targets while making that upgrade less effective against hordes of weaker units. In fact, the howling banshees and striking scorpions of the Eldar rely on this difference to define their specialties.

I call that Paper Scissors Rock personally.

I know we decided on consolidating armor and toughness, but this distinction offers the first really important case for separating the two. If we used the upgrade system i talked about earlier in conjunction with Lanrak's HQ, common, specialized, rare system, that plus the included CCW every model carries could let players further specialize a unit using that upgrade point. Do I want that sergeant to have the power weapon replace his CCW for killing MEQ? Or do i want to give him pistol of some kind to get the extra attack to maximize his anti-Melee-Horde strength?

This is the reason I proposed the merger of toughness and armour - to both streamline the game and to remove this exact thing from it.

streamlining the game to avoid unnecessary baggage

But simply moving stats into special rules (which take a lot longer to read!) is the OPPOSITE of streamlining the game. The whole concept of a statline is to make it easier for players. Rules are only the icing on the cake, cool things which add a dynamic to the game; NOT the place for simple things like Multiple Attacks x.

If a model is better at melee, you'll see this because it's MELEE stat will be higher than that of other armies.

Not necessarily. The armies are reflected upon their very core troops' stats. I DO NOT want it so that Space Marines have the same or even lower "Melee" than Orks. They NEED to be kept separate under the feel of the army. Orks ARE NOT an army where every attack hits and wounds. Now, I agree, this is the same issue with Strength and AP. But that is a very subtly different cause. Things like Meltas, plasma, they can afford to lose their AP in favour of more strength. This is because AP and strength are fundamentally linked - You can believe meltas are S9, you can believe lascannons are S10, but you can't believe Orks have the same or even more melee skill than Marines. Whereas Melee, strength and attacks are not. Melee armies need the stats that reflect themselves, and make them different. For example:

Orks need high strength, low skill, moderate amount of attacks.
Tyranids need medium-strength, low skill, high amount of attacks.
Chaos need high strength, moderate skill, low amount of attacks.
etc.

I would hate to see if these were merged; you'd have all of them with the same "Melee" even though we KNOW they are different to each other.

Low skill and a large volume of attacks =/= High skill low volume of attacks.

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?

Ok so if we move wounds off the statline, and put strength on the weapons entry, put mobility on the card but off the statline, and exchange the Hero units morale for command, we've got WS, BS, Amor/Toughness, Attacks, Morale/Command on general troops and hero units respectively.

If we drop power weapons, what mechanic would replace them? They're fairly common, so it can't be anything too ridiculous.

Also, how are poisioned weapons going to work independent of Toughness? We cant just drop that, as it's a major component of both the Dark Eldar and Tyranids.

I call that Paper Scissors Rock personally.

I don't really see anything wrong with rock paper scissors type strength and weaknesses. It adds depth to system in a very simple and straightforward way.

They're just stronger CCW now

That just feels kinda lazy though. Power Weapons had a cool mechanic working for them, i think losing that element in favor of them just being stronger would be a bit disappointing.

We're talking a 20% - 33% movement difference. Thats heaps!

Is it though? at 1 inch difference, i'm moving an extra 6 inches per 6 turn game without running. at 2 inches, i'm moving 12, at 3, i'm moving 18. 1 inch isn't enough of a difference, 2 inches is borderline, 3 inches is a distinct difference. And yeah movement may not be as powerful a factor in gameplay as it probably should be, but we need to be careful as we don't want these models to be taking massive strides across the board each turn.

Hi folks.
IMPORTANT NOTE.
A lot of the ideas I post up are just some examples of how we could implement concepts.(The actual modifiers and magnitude are open to revision when we actually finalize design. )


Also if we are designing a game from scratch , PLEASE do not judge ideas based on how they would affect/fit in with 6th ed 40k.
(I get the feeling some people may be being a bit harsh on new ideas because of this ?)

I am looking at the game playing like modern warfare.(And discussing resolution methods and mechanics found in these types of games to see which ones might fit best...)

I was working on the idea A player EITHER chooses their deployment area first ,(Defender, ) or goes first (Attacker.)
Or roll off if they can not agree.

Example Attacker Mission Cards.

Operation Overlord.
Establish and hold a beach head .
You must clear ALL enemy units out of your area of operations in preparation for a major assault..
If you clear out all enemy units from your deployment zone by turn 3, and keep it clear you have a MINOR Victory.
If you clear out ALL enemy units from your HALF of the playing area by turn 6 you have a MAJOR Victory .

Operation Barbarossa.
Clear a corridor of advance for a following Armoured Spearhead.
If you Clear a 18" wide corridor from your deployment area to the enemy deployment area, by turn 6 you have a MINOR Victory .
if you Clear a 18" wide corridor from your deployment area to the enemy deployment area , by turn 6 , and suffer less than 25% casualties you have a MAJOR Victory.

Operation Damocles
A surgical strike on enemy lines!
You must neutralize the enemies ability to retaliate in this sector by demoralizing or destroying ALL enemy Specialized and Restricted units for a Minor victory.
If you DESTROY ALL Specialized /Restricted enemy units you gain a Major Victory.

Example Defender Missions.

Operation Mincemeat.
This is a mission of attrition you must wear down the enemy assault!
If you cause 50% casualties on the enemy force you gain a MINOR Victory.
If you cause 50% casualties on the enemy force while taking less than 50% casualties yourself you gain A MAJOR Victory.

Operation Totalize.
The enemy have destroyed a forward strategic objective it is vital that it is repaired/rebuilt so we can launch an effective co-ordinated counter attack!
Take and Hold Objective X , for 3 turns , for a MINOR Victory .
Take and Hold Objective X , for 3 turns , and holding units are kept at 75% starting strength to gain a MAJOR Victory.

I always thought of 40k as a small section of a MASSIVE war, raging on all around.
So wanted to re-enforce this with the narrative.And leave the mission objective varied but not overly complicated.

I am not very good at this mission development stuff.(I am using actual WWII operation names because I know them, how sad it that ...)But I hope you get the basic idea ..

Take and hold areas, destroy particular enemy unit types, PRESERVE a friendly unit type,(Saving Private Ryan style,), take and hold particular marked objective etc..

(Place 4 objectives on the table , 2 in each player half.BOTH players draw a number card relating to an objective marker in secret at the start of the game.To determine which objective markers they MIGHT use IF they get that type of mission card.)

On to stat discussion.
Could we say that morale is the same for a particular race?And the Command value of unit leaders and characters modify it accordingly ?
This gets rid of it from the stat line.(And maybe use ONE iconic special rule per race/ army?)

How do you feel about dual stats with symbols?

Eg
SM Tac Squad

(Symbol for legs ) 4" .(Going back to 2nd ed as reference here as place holder .)
(Sight symbol B.S.) +2(Modifies to hit dice score for ranged weapons.)
(Knife Symbol W.S) 4
(Shield Symbol)4/2 (Armour value /Resilience value.)
(Heart Symbol) 10/1 (Number of starting models /wounds per model.)
(Cloak Symbol ) 3+
(Shouting Face symbol?) -/1(Command range /command value.)

Looking at this units stat card we can see.
Its a heavy armoured , organic infantry unit, thats above average at shooting and close combat , and has a unit leader.

As reguards strength and attacks.
This can be directly represented in the units weapon profile.
Ill list them down the page so I can explain better.
EG
Weapon profile
(Weapon )Name
Close combat weapon.

(Weapon)Range
0-2 "(Longer weapons like Two handed weapons Force Halberds etc, may be 0-3 ")

(Weapon )Damage
6 (This is determined by the user strength for close combat weapons.)

(Weapon )Effect.
(Attacks/Shots/Area of effect, I called 'Effect' to cover all weapon effects on target )
1 (This is how many hits the user can inflict with the weapon, or the area of effect for some ranged weapons.)

(Weapon )Notes.
This is where weapon type , 'close combat', 'small arms',' support or 'fire support' {can not move and fire}.)
And any special abilities of weapons are written.
Eg-(Some ideas based on using D6)

Parry , model may re roll ONE failed save throw in a close combat.

Chain edged, enemy model must re roll successful armour saves when assaulted by a chain edged weapon.

Power weapon, enemy model only rolls D3 for armour save rolls when assaulted by a power weapon.

Fire support - may not move and fire.

Ignore cover - units loose any modifiers for being in cover /obscured.

Etc etc..

To be fair I am trying to look for common ground to describe all units and weapons .
40k is a game about UNIT interaction.

Vehicles and Monsters would have a slightly different layout of stats.

Armour value would have Front/ Side/ Rear.(As 6th ed 40k.)

And Hit points would be more detailed.
As multiple model units loose effectiveness as they loose models .
I think the same loss of effectiveness to single model units..
Split the wounds /structure points into Mobility/ weapon attacks.

Eg
Predator Battle Tank.
(Symbol for Tracks.) 6"
(Sight Symbol) +2
(Knife symbol ) 0
(Shield Symbol) 13/12/10
( Gear/track symbol )2 (Gear /Sight symbol.) 3
The above is mobility /attacks structure points.
(Cloak Symbol ) 2+
(Shouting face symbol) -/1

IF the predator takes PHYSICAL damage ,
It can lose one mobility structure point and move at HALF speed.Lose TWO mobility and be IMOBILIZED.

If it loses Attacks , it looses one weapon system per structure point damage.

A note on morale .
I will use proper names from now on.

Suppression ,The unit may only move OR shoot.They can not launch an assault , but will fight back if assaulted.

Neutralized. The unit will do nothing, but will fight back if assaulted.

Routed.The unit MUST move as fast as possible away from all known enemy units, and towards its deployment zone.If the unit is assaulted while routing it will be destroyed.

While under the effects of negative morale , the unit has a morale counter placed next to it INSTEAD OF AN ORDER COUNTER.
(Units suffering poor morale must be rallied before they can follow orders.)

It may seem a bit harsh, BUT morale is important part of modern warfare, and sadly lacking from 40k.
Running across no mans land into the heavy machine gun/ artillery fire should not be a preferred tactic.

Why not use the 4 Fs , as armies have been doing for over half a century?
Find the enemy.
Fire on the enemy to suppress them.
Flank the enemy.
Finish the enemy off in close assault.

TTFN

Your mission ideas are exciting, especially mincemeat.

I like the idea of using a flag over a face for command, i think it'd just look better and be less ambiguous. Having two values on each stat could be confusing but its already done with armor/invulnerable saves so i dont think it'll be a problem

Not sure i'd like for Melee weapons to have ranges, rather than just granting an initiative bonus like in the current system, which could work nicely with the weapon abilities you granted, as base-to-base Melee works pretty well.
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.

First Strike (Special characters, extreme cases of speed like Lictors, keeper of secrets,etc)
Swit Strike (Strikes before normal initiative cases) (hormagaunts, Genestealers, eldar,etc)
No special rule (space marines, guardsman?, etc)
Sluggish Strike (strikes after normal initiative)(orks, necrons)
Last strike (powerfists, etc)

So Grey Knight Halberds could grant that squad Swift strike, powerfists would grant last strike, and could put these abilitiess right there with the others you suggested

Also, are you suggesting keeping armor and toughness separate?

Hi Rav1rn.
I only listed some ideas for symbols as place holder examples .(I am not very artistic )

I am sure there would be better ideas from other people and you proved me right ...

Could we go for a really simple idea for replacing initiative.

The Assault value =WS+initiative eg how good the unit is in assault!

The unit / model that launches the assault strikes first.

Then it reverts to highest MODIFIED Assault value strikes first.

Models that are suppressed are placed (carefully) face down , casualties are removed.
The difference in suppressed results and physical damage (wounds) is added to the winning UNITS Assault value.

Weapons that are clubersome to use, just have the 'always strike last' rule in the weapons profile ?

Just a thought....