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.

Yeah, like I said there would be some flaws with it. Maybe Relic weapons would have a provision against' gaining the double Initiative benefit, to help with OP Daemon Princes with Black Maces

Templar_Grist wrote:
Yeah, like I said there would be some flaws with it. Maybe Relic weapons would have a provision against' gaining the double Initiative benefit, to help with OP Daemon Princes with Black Maces

Hardly Op when they get taken out by lascannons on turn 1/2

It would be great to make initiative more useful -- extra attacks, chances to interrupt enemy moves, whatever. It would also be great to revise all the range values. But both those things require redesigning and recosting every unit in every codex, which is a bit radical even for me: then you're talking something on the order of rebooting D&D in 4th edition, not just a complete overhaul of the core rules. A bit much even for me....

It would be great to take initiative beyond simply deciding who goes first in melee, it's kind of pointless to have a stat for something that simple, so expanding it out to shooting or reactions would be a good direction to go. Changing range values i'm not so sure about. I'm sure it works great for smaller skirmish games, but in 40K you can have multiple 30+ man squads shooting and charging at each other, even at 1000 points. shrink the ranges too much, and you'll not only give too much of an advantage to melee units, but the board will become a cluttered mess since you can only fit so many bases in an area. Dropping the ridiculous maximum ranges is needed though, if you can hide out of range of anything else i can field (I'm looking at you basilisk) then i can't do anything about it. It's not tactical, its not fun, its just me getting slaughtered. 48" should probably be the max, and even thats pushing it, so reserve that for the artillery.

But both those things require redesigning and recosting every unit in every codex, which is a bit radical even for me: then you're talking something on the order of rebooting D&D in 4th edition, not just a complete overhaul of the core rules. A bit much even for me....

Well, you said burn it to the ground . These changes were never going to be simple patches, there's too much to fix for a simple solution.

Let the record show that I have never claimed to be rational, let alone consistent.

I'd solve the Basilisk problem not by cutting its maximum range but by making long-range shots increasingly inaccurate (i.e. penalizing BS).

Making long-range shots harder rather than just cutting all the ranges also means the game plays much as it does now within 12" and even 24", without charges dominating too much or too much need to cram all your bases together to get in range.

I think....

Of what i did see in this thread is that people want 40k to go back to 1st and 2nd Ed type of rules; for each action you take you have 15 different subphases with each time a test to make...

Bs Vs Cover + the equation of the undies of my sister; NO!!

You roll to Hit, you Roll To Wound, your foe gets to roll to save, whats so complicated with this?...

Maybe a modificator given thetype of terrain and if you see more or less the model, but not of that nonsens, i see allready everyday players who can't remember wivh cover save is a forest or a ruin and be mistaken each time, so with 15 kind of stats and modifiers just for a cover save, Nope, bad idea.

The idea to break away from the turn based isn't bad, but it isn't new either.

Simply do it unit by unit, by following the Initiative of the Models.

If units as the same Initiative, roll a D6 and add it.

Or add a new charac to the army in general; "Chain of Command" or "Strategic value", where for each full fraction of 4 you get a +1 on your Init, during the activation phase.

And if the units in the same player are of the same Strategic value, the player decide the order.

I want to be able to run troops over, not just make them run like tank shock. So similar to the ram, but without the damage to the actual vehicle and directed at troops(squishy boyz aren't going to slow down an angry land raider are they?). Also with bikes and cavalry they can run troops over, but there is a chance they will get thrown off (Not so sure on this rule, as soMe riders are only available riding the mount. Perhaps they just die instead) also with flying stuff (can't remember the term, jetbikes and landspeeders etc.) should be able to dive bomb, (or maybe just kamikaze, killing everyone in the explosion) I'm not sure if there is a rule that covers this, please tell me if there is.

If there is unit by unit turn system I think there should be some sort of over watch system like with charges, but shooting at a unit moving into line of sight. What I mean instead of shooting (or doing anything at all, not sure which is more appropriate) a player can declare over watch. So if a trukk comes rampaging towards your tactical squad, they can dodge out the way, and your over watched snipers can lay some covering fire.

Slayer le boucher wrote:Bs Vs Cover + the equation of the undies of my sister; NO!!

You.... clearly feel strongly about this. I personally preferring adding up a few single-digit numbers to making 33% more rolls, but I can understand some people hate math.

Rory1432 wrote:I want to be able to run troops over, not just make them run like tank shock. So similar to the ram, but without the damage to the actual vehicle and directed at troops(some tiny tyranids aren't going to slow down an angry land raider are they?). Also with bikes and cavalry they can run troops over, but there is a chance they will get thrown off....!

If we go towards "vehicles are people too," we can replace both the Ram and Tank Shock rules with Hammer of Wrath, as already used by Bikes, Cavalry, and Chariots. Then maybe all tanks should get "hit and run" to reflect the fact that, no, your 7" Space Marines are probably not going to lock the 80-ton main battle tank in close combat if it wants to move on -- but there's always a chance.

Thanks for considering my running troops over concept

 SisterSydney wrote:

Slayer le boucher wrote:Bs Vs Cover + the equation of the undies of my sister; NO!!

You.... clearly feel strongly about this. I personally preferring adding up a few single-digit numbers to making 33% more rolls, but I can understand some people hate math.

.

Its not that i hate Math, its just that there is allready enough things to take into account and keep track of, not only for you, but also for your opponent, so making the Shooting phase Heavier then it allready is.

Sometimes i simply don't have my mind into keeping track of all of this, for different reasons( many loud and noisy people, or an opponent with wich its difficult to not argue with on everything etc etc).

Now i don't say that the rules should be something Mindless and automated, but it shouldn't be something overly complicated that you need each time to refere to the rules, only to be sure that you did not make a mistake.

there should be a balance, the Shooting phase rules should be tweeked, yes, but i don't think that this is the way.

Don't forget that this is more of an arcade type of game, if it becomes too much a Simulation game, there is a lot of people who will loose interest.

Its not that i hate Math, its just that there is allready enough things to take into account and keep track of, not only for you, but also for your opponent, so making the Shooting phase Heavier then it allready is.

Here's the thing though, the current cover system is a broken piece of garbage. For unit with a 4+ or better save, cover has no purpose beyond protecting from the occasional high AP attack. For anything with a 5+ or worse save, cover is a godsend, because it means they are almost never denied their save so long as they stick to cover. This problem is a result of tons of factors (AP5 being the default for troop weapons making 5+ all but useless is the biggest) but it mostly doesn't make sense that cover works the way it does in the game. So changing to something like light cover = -1 BS and heavy cover = -2 BS would make more sense, as cover is now a constant benefit to everyone. So yes, the math part kinda sucks, but having cover be terribly implemented is not a worthwhile tradeoff.

As for having BS be altered by range, and weapon ranges being changed to indicate what range increments the BS penalties for that weapon are applied, its an extremely cool idea, and would allow for some epic cinematic moments, but i'm not sure the added layers of complexity are worth it. While it wouldn't be too difficult, particularly once people have gotten used to working the calculation into the pre-measuring (If pre-measuring would even be allowed in this system?), having potentially 2 (or even 3 with a movement penalty) BS modifiers is starting to stretch past the point of acceptability. Instead of them being cumulative, maybe make it only the highest BS penalty is applied, so if you moved out in the open, firers get a -1 penalty for shooting at you, but if you moved while in heavy cover (-2 penalty) the firers still only get the -2 penalty, not -3.

Should AP1 weapons be able to burn through cover and blast weapons able to destroy it, or is that too complicated?

1) AP burning through cover : probably not


2. You're right, I'm adding too many modifiers -- let's strip some out



So, revised to-hit modifiers!

I think this thread has proved one thing beyond doubt.
Trying to improve 40k while making it backward compatible , leads to over complicated and confusing rules, leading to counter intuitive and restricted game play.(Well we knew this after 15 years of GW 'game development'.. .)

It is my opinion that a complete re-write from the ground up is the only way to get a well defined rule set in synergy with the 40k background.That has maximum game play and minimum fuss.

However, if you JUST want to make a few changes that make massive improvements...

I would suggest.
Using a more interactive game turn, preferably alternating phases like LoTR.(Or you may want to add order counters like ESM.)

Let cover give 'To hit modifiers'.Soft cover +1 to hit, Hard Cover +2 to hit.

Use LOS rules from Flames of War.

Use the SAME stat line for all units.(Convert vehicles to M/Cs stat lines.)

IF you are ok with slight tweeks in AP values and costings I would suggest a simple proportional resolution change for the AP system.

The AP value ignores NATURAL armour save dice rolls of the same value or higher.
This gives the same interaction as save modifiers without the maths.

EG
AN AP 5 weapon;-
Automatically penetrates units with AS 5 or 6.(As saving roll results of 5 or 6 are ignored.)

BUT units with AS 4+ ONLY save on the roll of a 4.(5s and 6s are ignored!-2 AS.)
Units with AS 3 +ONLY save on a roll of 3 or 4 .(As 5s and 6s are ignored.)
Units with AS 2 + ONLY save on rolls of 2,3,or 4.9As 5s and 6s are ignored.)

However you will probably end up with about 20 to 30 pages of rules adjustments to ADD to the hundreds of current pages of rules.

(My current NEW rule for 40k WIP set is less than 20 pages and covers ALL the core interaction of 40k.I would expect it to be less than 40 pages when finished.)

I quite like the vehicle damage system, but I don't like hull points

Rory1432 wrote:
I quite like the vehicle damage system, but I don't like hull points

I'm the opposite way on this.

It makes sense that vehicles gain progressivley increasing amounts of damage, and after a point, just fall apart, but after penning, there's a 1/6 chance of suddenly having a gun fall of, and an equal chance of detonating.

And in 5th, I had my Land Raider (due to lucky rolling) spend six turns being shot at by three las preds and loosing all it's guns, getting immobilised and being stun locked, but never getting destroyed.

The gun dosent fall off, a well placed shotgun could take out a gunner, "destroying the weapon" or a melta shot could just obliterate it. Most of the vehicle damage table only really make sense if you fired a missile at it.

The predator gunners were drunk, that's why they missed.

Rory1432 wrote:
The gun dosent fall off, a well placed shotgun could take out a gunner, "destroying the weapon" or a melta shot could just obliterate it. Most of the vehicle damage table only really make sense if you fired a missile at it.

The predator gunners were drunk, that's why they missed.

They were hitting, the triple lascannon setup made sure of that.

I see what you're saying about taking out the gunner, but on a vehicle with proper armour plating (almost all IOM vehicles), it makes no sense for the gunner to be taken out by infantry-standard weaponry, rear armour or not. Now, arguably, you may have shot the gun out or broke a component for the gun (which would generally be next to/on the gun anyway, but when you look at the main guns on most IOM vehicles, or the sponsons of a LRBT, it makes little sense for that to happen with no significant damage elsewhere (5th ed).

Just give them more Hull Points.

Lanrak wrote:

The AP value ignores NATURAL armour save dice rolls of the same value or higher.
This gives the same interaction as save modifiers without the maths.

EG
AN AP 5 weapon;-
Automatically penetrates units with AS 5 or 6.(As saving roll results of 5 or 6 are ignored.)

BUT units with AS 4+ ONLY save on the roll of a 4.(5s and 6s are ignored!-2 AS.)
Units with AS 3 +ONLY save on a roll of 3 or 4 .(As 5s and 6s are ignored.)
Units with AS 2 + ONLY save on rolls of 2,3,or 4.9As 5s and 6s are ignored.)

This sounds very interesting...

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Just give them more Hull Points.

But that still leaves the explodes result...

But, I suppose, if you want something done properly, DIY.
I'm following that proverb, and am researching people's opinions on game mechanics to make my own ruleset.

At the rate people are going "aw screw it I'll make my own rulebook" no one will be sure of the rules in a year

Rory1432 wrote:
At the rate people are going "aw screw it I'll make my own rulebook" no one will be sure of the rules in a year

We're not even sure of the rules now

Imagine introducing a new player, and he asks "What are the rules for WH40k?"
You're gonna have to explain that for full comprehension he must buy and read:

1 fatass BRB that contradicts itself every other paragraph
1 Apoc rulebook
3 Apoc Warzone rulebooks
9+ supplements/additional codexes (I've lost track now)
15 Codexes of extremely varying power levels, some of which will be replaced within the year
Alan Partridge in a pear tree..

That's at least 29 rulesets and costs £100's...

And they are full of contradictions, FAQ+Eratta needs, oversights, occasional cheeses

In the early morning hours, I had a vision, like unit a dream: we don't actually need separate Movement and Shooting phases. Or separate rules for moves and charges, for that matter.

Basically, a unit can move on your turn, or it may shoot if it didn't just shoot on your previous turn or during the enemy's turn on overwatch. If a unit neither moves or shoots on your turn, it's on Overwatch during your opponent's turn and can shoot at or charge his models as they move. If a unit moves into contact with an enemy unit, it's considered a charge.

So instead of running/turboboosting/moving flat out in your Shooting phase, you would just move two turns in a row.

The new cool option this allows is on any given turn, some of your units can fire and some can move (or charge), in any order.

In more detail:

I'm not sure whether or not my over watch idea helped bring this plan to fruition or not. Overall it seems a bit complicated but it would just take a few games to learn (like regular 40k)

@SisterSydney.
Are you familiar with the alternating phases used in Epic Space marine, and other war games?
As your idea seems to be based on these types of game turn mechanic.

Here is a basic out line.

Optional Command Phase, pick what 2 actions your units will perform this game turn.

Player A takes 1st action.
Player B takes 1st action.

Player A takes second action.
Player B takes second action.

Resolution phase.

Actions are Move, Ready, Shoot ,Assault.

If you want to use more tactical decision making , simply let players pick the 2 actions they are going to use at the start of the game turn in the Command Phase.
(By placing an order counter next to each unit.)

Order Counters could be ...

Advance, (move then shoot.)
Charge, (move then assault.)
Double time,( move then move)
Evade, (shoot then move.)
Fire support, (ready then shoot to full effect).(Heavy /ordnance weapons .)
Infiltrate, (ready then move).(Unit counts cover +1.)


Is this the sort of thing you were thinking of?

I've seen rules systems like that. I'm not fond of putting order counters on units (or writing hidden orders) in advance, though. I'd rather players be able to decide what a unit should do on the fly: "ok, that Exorcist didn't take out his Hive Tyrant, I'd better fire this one at it too, okay that worked, now I can charge those Gaunts with my Arco-Flagellants, and that means my Retributors can advance without getting bit by overwatch fire...."

About vehicles and HP.

Just allow the vehicle to function even if he has 0 HP, BUT, once he hit 0hp every Glancing or Penetrating hit, roll on the damage chart.

Fluff is full of stories of Vehicles doing their job even when nearly destroyed and that was only left with the chassis and a part of the hull, has long has it could still move/ shoot.

I personnaly don't see the logic behind how HP function, "the armor is breached, but the engine and systemes and weapons are still operational, ok its busted"...

The hull is only the outside of the vehicle, its only its protection, even if the hull is hole-drilled has Swiss cheese, it doesn't mean an automatic destruction.

But seeing that its protective armor is obliterated, the littlest shot could very well hit something important easier.

No more HP?, always throw on th damage chart, no matter what the Pen result is.

Well, a vehicle losing chucks of its frame could twist and break from the engine it self.

But i like that idea too.
just adding that pen should probably gain and addition +1.

Hi Sister Sydney.
That's why I put the Command phase as optional.(Lots of 40k players do not like tactical planning,hence 40k heavy strategic focus.)

You can just take ONE action with all your units , then your opponent takes ONE action with all their units, then repeat.
And after both players have taken both actions with all their units that turn, use the resolution phase to tidy up ,before the start of next turn.

The ONLY problem with 'unstructured turns' like this is it is easy to lose track of what units has done what. That is why all the battle games I know of have specific phases, or order counters/dice.

Are you saying having ONE counter next to a unit is too much book keeping for you?(The order counter could be replaced with a morale damage counter when the unit becomes suppressed or routed if you wanted to add more variety to unit status.)