Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Rav1rn wrote:

Btw how would people feel bringing in warpaths system for buying units, where rather than buy individual models you buy one size of a squad? For instance if I wanted a tactical squad, I can chose a 5-man combat squad with just the combat squad options, or I can buy the full 10 man tactical squad with both the special and heavy weapon options? I rarely hear of people taking squad sizes other than the usual increments of 5 or 10, since these are usually the numbers the additional weapon options are available at, so buying individual models but having weapon available in increments seems a bit counter productive. Having squad sizes be set for purchase could also open up some interesting option for army construction and composition, so long as the depth of the current upgrade system is maintained.

Plague marines are often taken in sevens, as it's both Nurgle's number, and it gives them maximum TT efficiency.

That and:

1) Sometimes you'll be something stupid like 2-10 points under the points limit and have run out of wargear upgrades, and then decide to make up that gap with a single model.
2) Units like CSM cultists/zombies can go up to 35 models/unit. That'd result in a lot of increments to put into a codex (6 or 7 in this case).

Rav1rn wrote:

Units that are suppressed aren't really broken, they just can't shoot during the other player's movement phase. Maybe assault weapons can be used by Player A at any point during his turn (either before or after moving).

Now here's a thought: you can only shoot at moving units if they break cover, ie if they are not only in LOS but also aren't in terrain that gives a bonus to cover. Not sure about that, but would love y'all's thoughts.

Crazy thought, but if we moved shooting before movement, wouldn't that help these ideas along? I shoot, and any unit that is "under fire" or "suppressed" after my shooting cannot take reaction shots against me when i move my units. Then my assault phase, then my opponent can shoot, and any of my units that are "under fire" or "suppressed" cannot take reaction shots at him while he moves, then his assault phase, then the next game turn. It might help avoid some of the overwatch stagnation that would result from this direction anyways. It'll probably slow down the game somewhat, but there have been other ideas proposed that could speed it up, so hopefully those would help offset it.

You guys are definitely making a convincing case for suppression, because it works beautifully with overwatch/"I shoot while you move and creates a whole new dimension of tactical play. Just as in real life, it would be crucial to suppress enemy units before you move out of cover so they can't gun you down.

This would probably require adding some ranged suppression attacks to psychic powers and even Fear (all units in 12" must roll Ld to avoid being suppressed?) to let melee armies without much fire support (e.g. Daemons) still close with the enemy without getting shot to pieces.

This would also, as you say, require either changing the turn sequence to put shooting before movement or going to "your movement phase is my shooting phase," because then you suppress enemy units during their move phase so they can't fire at you during yours. One interesting wrinkle of suppression plus "you shoot while I move" is that you probably do not want to get the first move because then your guys are advancing before you can suppress any of the other sides' shooters.

Agree that the biggest problem is the clunky turn system, especially when there are more than 2 players [which is the majority of my games]

What about a turn system like in X-Wing, where the unit with the highest initiative gets to move last, but then take actions first? Players take it in turns to move each unit, with the lowest initiative first. Once all initiative 1 models have moved, on to initiative 2, etc. Then once everyone has moved, highest initiative unit gets to shoot/run/run and shoot/charge etc. Psychic powers/special characters could give additional actions.

Edit - also, was just having a look through 2nd edition rules. I like the cover rules in that edition, where the 'to hit' roll is modified by the type of cover the model is in. 'Soft' cover equates to a -1 to hit etc.

Plague marines are often taken in sevens, as it's both Nurgle's number, and it gives them maximum TT efficiency.

That and:

1) Sometimes you'll be something stupid like 2-10 points under the points limit and have run out of wargear upgrades, and then decide to make up that gap with a single model.
2) Units like CSM cultists/zombies can go up to 35 models/unit. That'd result in a lot of increments to put into a codex (6 or 7 in this case).

But that's exactly my point, you could make it so you buy the cult troops in the numbers of their patron god, with the appropriate amount of special weapons and other upgrades available, not just sticking to the rigid 5-10-15 etc that's in place now. For the really large units like gaunt swarms, ork Boyz, and cultists, a case could be made for purchasing them in sets of 10 rather than 5, and even if that direction wouldnt work too well, there no reason both styles have to be mutually exclusive. I can think of a couple units that really should be bought as individual models, namely most of the tyranid elites (zoanthropes, hive guard, lictors, etc) because they're a max of 3 units to a slot, so it makes sense to buy them individually in that small of a unit.

This would probably require adding some ranged suppression attacks to psychic powers and even Fear (all units in 12" must roll Ld to avoid being suppressed?) to let melee armies without much fire support (e.g. Daemons) still close with the enemy without getting shot to pieces.

Ooooooh thats a fun idea, i definitely want to play around with that. One of the ways i was looking at getting around problems like this is giving character models (both regular and independant) a rule where their shooting attacks count as having the suppression rule, even if their weapon doesn't. This way, its doesn't require some ridiculous number of minimal units to "suppress" a unit without access to suppression weapons, and to allow for situations like this. Plus it helps solve the problem of storm bolters making almost no sense as a weapon option for Space Marine and other imperial characters to take, because it didn't carry any of the bonuses a combi-weapon or pistol brought, nor was it so powerful or cheap in being a bolter that you could justify its use. Now it would give an additional suppression token that isn't possible with the other weapon options, finally giving it some sort of advantage that nothing else can bring. This idea isn't totally thought out yet though, so im sure there's going to be tons of holes and flaws.

This would also, as you say, require either changing the turn sequence to put shooting before movement or going to "your movement phase is my shooting phase," because then you suppress enemy units during their move phase so they can't fire at you during yours. One interesting wrinkle of suppression plus "you shoot while I move" is that you probably do not want to get the first move because then your guys are advancing before you can suppress any of the other sides' shooters.

I still think having a true overwatch as a tactical option is a better direction than shooting while i move, because i feel like we're going to keep running into situations like this where something is confusing or seems off with the interaction with other game mechanics. It's such a huge departure from the current game system that i don't know what will and won't work with it. Plus i'd rather add in tactical choice instead of just trading one restricted shooting system for another (albeit more interactive).

Rav1rn wrote:

Plague marines are often taken in sevens, as it's both Nurgle's number, and it gives them maximum TT efficiency.

That and:

1) Sometimes you'll be something stupid like 2-10 points under the points limit and have run out of wargear upgrades, and then decide to make up that gap with a single model.
2) Units like CSM cultists/zombies can go up to 35 models/unit. That'd result in a lot of increments to put into a codex (6 or 7 in this case).

But that's exactly my point, you could make it so you buy the cult troops in the numbers of their patron god, with the appropriate amount of special weapons and other upgrades available, not just sticking to the rigid 5-10-15 etc that's in place now. For the really large units like gaunt swarms, ork Boyz, and cultists, a case could be made for purchasing them in sets of 10 rather than 5, and even if that direction wouldnt work too well, there no reason both styles have to be mutually exclusive. I can think of a couple units that really should be bought as individual models, namely most of the tyranid elites (zoanthropes, hive guard, lictors, etc) because they're a max of 3 units to a slot, so it makes sense to buy them individually in that small of a unit.

I still feel that the current system works better. Says it all in the fewest words too.

I still feel that the current system works better. Says it all in the fewest words too.

Fewest words? Probably, but one idea I've seen a few times and liked was unit or reference cards that list the major traits of a unit and its associated models, and such a system isn't as achievable using the individual model purchasing system. Several of my friends who play the game very casually don't have unit / weapon stats or the comparison charts memorized, and have to constantly ask what a roll would be or look it up in the books, so such a resource could help get new players into the game faster. This would also open the door to using cards for other things too, like secret mission objectives, so some interesting potential there.

I have to agree with Rav1rn.
Current 40k sells the idea of a great game , and the illusion of game balance.(But fails to deliver either.)

In terms of game balance and under costed-over costed units. Jevis Johnson admits to a maximum 20% imbalance across all possible army choices. (If he admits to this it is probably worse! )

So you may take the extra 2 to 5 points to make your army up to a nominal 2000 pts.
But that 2000 pts could be ACTUALLY worth 1800 pts or any value up to 2200 pts.

So the illusion of getting exactly 2000 pts in 40k, means up to FOUR HUNDRED POINTS imbalance in a 2000 pt game!

Where as games costed at the unit level can achive 2% discrepancy across all army builds. That is within most peoples perception of balanced for competitive play.

Its just this way you can define what constitutes a balanced game, for those that want it.
For those that just want to lay some minis on a table roll dice and tell stories, they can move as far away from balanced as they want.

And the ability to have unit reference cards to reduce hunting through codex/rule books is a massive benefit.

Hi again.
On the topic of over-watch and suppression.
Would you prefer it to be built into the basic game mechanics and resolution methods?

If you allow interleaved 'un-assigned' phases,then over watch becomes a standard 'ready then shoot' sequence.
Using just the 4 simple actions 'move', 'shoot' ,'assault' and 'ready'.
(Ready is a 'catch all' for load/recylce,set up/prepare-aim/hold fire, etc.)

if you use a simple 2 step damage system that allows psychological damage to be represented as well as physical.
Weapons have an ACTUAL armour penetration value (like FOW) and a damage value (like Fow Fire power check.)

Eg damage that penetrates armour but does not wound , suppresses a model.And if the majority of models in a unit are suppressed the unit becomes suppressed.

Then fear can simply be given a weapon effects of range , and armour penentration value with no damage.
(Because a Greater Deamon is far more scary to a guardsman in a flack vest , than one inside a Baneblade!)

I can go into more detail if you like ?

Mechanically suppression "should" be directly integrated into the "attack" portion of the rules. Over watch "should" be likewise integrated into moving and action portions. But that doesn't mean it's the final word by any means. I would need more detail to know what your trying to get at Lanrak

if you use a simple 2 step damage system that allows psychological damage to be represented as well as physical.
Weapons have an ACTUAL armour penetration value (like FOW) and a damage value (like Fow Fire power check.)
Eg damage that penetrates armour but does not wound , suppresses a model.And if the majority of models in a unit are suppressed the unit becomes suppressed.

I'm assuming that 2 step damage does not include "To-Hit"? Because if so, while this system is mechanically simpler than the suppression system i proposed, it still suffers from the inaccuracy of representing weight of fire. I don't have to be hit by enemy fire to be pinned by it, if there's a wall of bullets between me and where i want to go, i'm not going to move until it's safe to do so or I'm too brazen to care. Also, I think many people want to simplify down to a 1 step resolution method, rather than have toughness and armor be separate saves, as that would greatly speed up damage resolution and in some regards make more sense.

And on that note, I've been playing around with some of the ideas brought up in this thread and wanted to see what people think of a new system using them. It's still very much in progress, but i think I've got enough wrinkles worked out to bring it up. So this system has a few of major changes:
1) Damage resolution has been consolidated into one step, with Toughness and Armor being treated as modifiers for the strength roll.
2) To keep damage results similar to current values, the dice used was changed to a D12. I'm not particularly happy about this, i would have liked to keep the D6, but the last time i tried that, it turned into a big mess.
3) Stats such as WS, BS, Strength, etc have been changed from a flat value that is compared to the targets corresponding value to get the dice roll, and cuts out the middle-man. These are now represented by the dice value expected (Such as 4+ instead of BS 3), which is then modified by the targets corresponding stat, such as toughness and armor modifying strength in the case of "To -Wound" rolls.
4) A new stat, Defensive Skill (DS) was added to correct for the fact that the old method of comparing WS values to find the expected dice roll is no longer possible using roll-values. Also allows for some more variety between units, as the more bezerk, aggressive units may not "defend" themselves, and the models that are supposed to be nimble and quick (such as Eldar / DE) have a naturally higher DS to show this.
5) Armor Penetration (AP) reduces the targets Armor modifier by the AP amount. So AP 1 weapons reduce Armor by 1, AP 2 by 2, etc. A models Armor bonus may not drop below 0. Melee weapons have AP similar to 6th edition rules.
6) As the D12 allows for a much greater range of results, more diversity can be injected into stat lines, which while not really shown in the attached photo, are in the works.
7) Cover provides a To-Hit modifier similar to 2nd edition rules (light cover = Modifer of 1, medium cover = modifier of 2, heavy cover = modifier of 3)
8) Increased movement variety is also in the works, represented by the unit type (Heavy == slower, medium == "normal", Light == Fast)

I've attached a photo with a few example stat-lines to show what this system would be like. You may notice that boltguns start at a strength of 4+, which leaves little room for higher strength weaponry to be represented. My current solution to this problem is by having weapons that would meet or exceed a 2+ receive a "Felling" special rule (Ranging from Felling 1 to Felling 4), which lowers the targets toughness modifier by the corresponding value. This serves a few purposes; firstly, if a models toughness is reduced to 0, it suffers from instant death, which replaces the system of "double strength == instant death". Second, it helps weapons deal with monstrous creatures, as the way the modifier system works with toughness, armor, and AP would have made them extremely difficult to kill with these weapons otherwise.

1) Rav1rn's idea

...seems complicated. Interesting, but complicated. The problem with making every stat a die roll (4+, 5+) is you have only five possible levels of stats, 2+ through 6+. Ok for infantry, a problem when dealing with vehicles, monsters, heroes, and anti-vehicle weaponry. Also limits the range of modifiers you can apply.

Also you have to figure out how to add and subtract modifiers, and people's brains don't subtract single-digit numbers as easily as they add them. That's why I prefer using (WS, BS, or Strength)+1d6 versus (defender's WS, Cover, or Toughness+Armor), so you only have to do addition: things that make success more likely add to the attacker's total, things that make success less likely add to the defender's total.


2) Suppression

 amanita wrote:
Maybe this is where a suppression mechanic can be introduced, though it might make things a bit more complicated: Player A shoots. Player B takes leadership checks based on casualties which may suppress their shooting this turn. (Ex. Space Marine squad with Ld 8 loses 2 guys, must roll a 6 or less or it can't shoot during the other player's movement.).....Units that are suppressed aren't really broken, they just can't shoot during the other player's movement phase. ....

Lanrak wrote:
On the topic of over-watch and suppression.... Eg damage that penetrates armour but does not wound , suppresses a model.And if the majority of models in a unit are suppressed the unit becomes suppressed.

I like these ideas much better than adding a whole separate suppression mechanic, complete with tokens, that's based on rate of fire.

To keep from bogging the game down by having units test for suppression every time they're shot at, how about this?





3) Fear at a distance

Lanrak wrote:
....fear can simply be given a weapon effects of range , and armour penentration value with no damage. (Because a Greater Deamon is far more scary to a guardsman in a flack vest , than one inside a Baneblade!)

If vehicles lose Fearless -- as I think they should -- they should get relatively high Leadership, so a Leman Russ would get Ld 9 or 10, a Baneblade might have 10 or even 11 (this one goes up to 11!).

Then if you keep my Distant Target Bonus system (+1 to your defenses if you're more than 24" away from the guys attacking you, +2 if you're more than 48", +3 for 72", etc.), you can simply add this rule to Fear:



Edited to add exception to Suppression rules for units with ATSKNF.

Sister Sydney, I like your suppression rules. I think they should be modified by wounds and not hits just as you have it, because it emphasizes the effective quality of incoming fire over the quantity.

I'm not a fan of range modifiers, even if they seem more realistic. We tried to implement them to some degree with little success (they were usually ignored due to inconvenience or forgotten). Also, at the table top ranges depicted a moving target at closer range is often HARDER to hit (target covers more distance in arc of fire, stress of engaging something close by, etc.). We instead use the following modifiers:
-1 to shoot moving skimmers, jump infantry or swarms
-1 when shooting defensive weaponry from a vehicle
-1 when throwing a grenade
+1 when shooting at a stationary vehicle or building.

We also gave all vehicles a Leadership of 10 in situations when they must test for something akin to over watch, but that's another story!

Quick idea though id like to ask.
I want to take out any instances of templates/blast/large blast/ as i find that those waste the most time in my games.

i was thinking something along the lines of d3 hits to replace the small blast, d6 for the large and something else for templates.

though something needs to be done with deep striking as well. perhaps they should land normally but with a DT, however rolling a d6 before hand to see if they will meet a terrible fate (the roll modifies a dangerous terrain test)

Getting rid of templates etc would definitely streamline play, but it takes away a significant dimension of the game, namely that clumping all your models together is no longer begging for a clusterfeth...

 amanita wrote:
Sister Sydney, I like your suppression rules. I think they should be modified by wounds and not hits just as you have it, because it emphasizes the effective quality of incoming fire over the quantity.

Huh. That's what I was trying to convey actually, just maybe not clearly enough: if you take any hits, you must test for Suppression, but then you get a -1 penalty to the roll for each Wound you actually took, a bit like close combat resolution.

I'm not a fan of range modifiers, even if they seem more realistic. We tried to implement them to some degree with little success (they were usually ignored due to inconvenience or forgotten). Also, at the table top ranges depicted a moving target at closer range is often HARDER to hit (target covers more distance in arc of fire, stress of engaging something close by, etc.).

The modifiers are mainly there to keep long-range weapons from sniping you across the board (there was a lot of discussion of this above): they only kick in at ranges above 24".
As for moving vs static targets, I played around with that for a while, then realized that static units could make better use of cover than moving ones, so basically everybody should either get +1 for moving or +1 for going to ground... which is a wash.

Ah, I see. Sounds good!

Long range weapons should be fairly accurate, it's just that TLOS in its current form is much too reliable for shots against distant targets between terrain pieces, especially when considering the targets are probably moving.

Our modifiers are based more on ease of targeting than necessarily movement...a static vehicle is large and obvious, individuals in a swarm are small while an airborne unit on the fly low to the ground presents its own problems. But I see your point.

As for grenades, we didn't want them to be just as accurate as a pistol, for example. Even a direct hit tends to bounce around, depending on its fuse.

Grenades aren't precision weapons.... but they don't have to be, do they? "Close only counts in grenades and horseshoes."

1) Rav1rn's idea

...seems complicated. Interesting, but complicated. The problem with making every stat a die roll (4+, 5+) is you have only five possible levels of stats, 2+ through 6+. Ok for infantry, a problem when dealing with vehicles, monsters, heroes, and anti-vehicle weaponry. Also limits the range of modifiers you can apply.

Also you have to figure out how to add and subtract modifiers, and people's brains don't subtract single-digit numbers as easily as they add them. That's why I prefer using (WS, BS, or Strength)+1d6 versus (defender's WS, Cover, or Toughness+Armor), so you only have to do addition: things that make success more likely add to the attacker's total, things that make success less likely add to the defender's total.

Yeah its got some complication in it. Also its not just the 5 possbilities, thats the point of using the D12, you can have a 2+, or a 9+, or a 12+. Vehciles and monsters are still being worked out, as are heros (though admittedly these are the more problematic of the bunch), and it still in the works, Plus the only subtraction going on is for AP and Felling, everything else is addition. 4+ strength weapon and the opponent's toughness and armor modifiers add up to 4? (4 + 4 == 8) i need an 8+ to wound.

Getting rid of templates etc would definitely streamline play, but it takes away a significant dimension of the game, namely that clumping all your models together is no longer begging for a clusterfeth...

Agreed. They're a bit slow, but both sides need to think about how best to use and defend against them, so i'd say its worth it.

As for the proposed suppression system, i still don't think it represents the effect accurately, plus it has the awkward effect of a single model being able to suppress a 20 man unit, because if he scores even one wound (regardless of whether or not it's unsaved) against, say, a 20 man group of sororitas, if they fail the test, they are now suppressed, which is a bit silly.

We currently use a suppression mechanic, but it only applies when a unit passes its moral check by the exact minimum number required. It works, but we are always looking for improvements and I like some of the ideas proposed on here.

I'd agree SisterSydney, that grenades don't have to be as precise but there are too many variables when throwing one. If it's an impact fuse it has to hit just right, and though they have a blast they also can bounce a fair bit away from their intended target, they can be seen (and thus avoided somewhat), and they can easily fall behind something that will direct the majority of the blast away from the target.

Hi folks.
As there has been some great discussion on how to model suppression in a game, could we refine it a bit?

I think a lot of over complication comes from trying to express suppression in terms of rules people already familiar with.And maybe if we discussed the effect directly it may make it easier to arrive at a simple mechanic /resolution method?
Some ideas...

1)A Suppression mechanic is basically just measuring the difference between unit confidence, and level of perceived threat.
If the threat is high enough the unit with act with more concern for self preservation, (simply reduce to one action per turn.return fire, or move to cover.)
After being suppressed , better trained units will return to normal operation faster than poorly trained /conscripted units.

2) Determining the level of unit INITIAL unit confidence could be simply the level of protection they have, AND the number of troops in the unit.
Its harder to suppress a hoard of 200 than it is to suppress a squad of 12

The speed and frequency of shaking off suppresion is simply passing their Ld (morale) test.

3) The level of perceived threat can be presented as total weight of fire.(EG number of shots on target.)
But just using this method allows heavy armoured vehicles to be suppressed by tons of small arms fire .Detailing this method can model suppression very accurately BUT can get very complicated very quickly.

The alternative is to ONLY count weapon hits that COULD threaten the target, EG ones that can defeat their armour .This is NOT a perfectly accurate representation of suppression , but for game purposes, it keeps it simple AND proportional.

These are just my basic ideas.

I can go into more detail with a full run through of how my new system would actually work in a game, if this would help?
(I have got my new (40k re write,) rules half way through Alpha test.)

Lanrak wrote:Hi folks.I think a lot of over complication comes from trying to express suppression in terms of rules people already familiar with....
Its harder to suppress a hoard of 200 than it is to suppress a squad of 12....The alternative is to ONLY count weapon hits that COULD threaten the target, EG ones that can defeat their armour ....

Rav1rn wrote:As for the proposed suppression system, i still don't think it represents the effect accurately, plus it has the awkward effect of a single model being able to suppress a 20 man unit, because if he scores even one wound (regardless of whether or not it's unsaved) against, say, a 20 man group of sororitas, if they fail the test, they are now suppressed, which is a bit silly.

Good points.

1) I should've said "only shots that could actually penetrate and wound," not any hit. I think that actually should be in the initial shooting rules: you can't attack something you can't possibly hurt.

2) I'm not sure that one shooter being able to suppress a horde as easily as a 5-man team is actually inaccurate. Remember that in real life a single sniper can make any number of soldiers hit the dirt -- and by "sniper" I mean "any idiot with a gun who shoots at you when you didn't expect it." The psychological effect is "holy crap, Bob just got shot, I'd better hit the dirt," not "Bob just got shot, but, y'know, there are still 19 of us left, so I feel pretty okay about that, actually."

Now y'all point it out, I certainly see how this could make blobs less powerful -- but as a practical matter, if you're putting that many models together and don't have a Commissar, Priest, Canoness, etc. to make them Fearless or at least Stubborn, you're already begging for trouble even in the current system.

Also units don't get bonuses for size when they face pinning or fear in the current system -- although as Lanrak said, we shouldn't feel confined by the current mechanics. You could conceivably institute some form of "mob rule" for all armies, though that might make blobs overly powerful.

I'm leery of creating entirely new mechanics, but if anyone has an idea for a simple way to modify leadership for unit size without a lot of fiddly addition and model-counting, I'm all ears.

Suppression... Interesting. When I first heard it mentioned here I thought you were referring to the rock-paper-scissors system in DoW2 (Assault Marines > Heavy Bolter > Slugga Boy horde > Assault Marines ad nauseam) but this seems good.

2) I'm not sure that one shooter being able to suppress a horde as easily as a 5-man team is actually inaccurate. Remember that in real life a single sniper can make any number of soldiers hit the dirt -- and by "sniper" I mean "any idiot with a gun who shoots at you when you didn't expect it." The psychological effect is "holy crap, Bob just got shot, I'd better hit the dirt," not "Bob just got shot, but, y'know, there are still 19 of us left, so I feel pretty okay about that, actually."

I would agree, for things like sniper weapons and barrage, attacks that fit this description. But one random guy charging across the battlefield brandishing a pistol? I can see Sly Marbo getting away with this, but beyond him, not so much. Trying to determine whether or not a shot is "unexpected" might be interesting. Some sort of flanking or rear attack bonus... Probably way too fiddly though.

If the one guy with a pistol actually hit somebody? Yeah, that's a morale check, even if it didn't penetrate. Marines should be immune (I edited my proposed rule above to exempt ATSKNF units from suppression checks unless they actually take unsaved wounds), but Imperial Guard?

"Jeez, look at that idiot running straight at us screaming and waving his little stubber like some kind of OWWW! [hits dirt by reflex] He fething hit me, man! That fething hurt!"

I always wondered if somebody in the community could write a solid set of rules for 40k that were superior to GWs. I am half tempted to try myself, and I definitely think rewriting from the ground up would be the best way to go about it. I think two principles are in order for rewriting 40k rules:

1.) KISS (keep it simple stupid) - if a rule, maneuver, or piece of equipment is not really adding anything to the game, omit it. Consolidate rules when possible. I also would avoid adding anything unless absolutely necessary.
2.) Eliminate Unnecessary Die Rolls: Dice still need to be part of the game, but every die roll is a chance for the dice to be cocked, slip, or fall off the table and travel halfway across the room. If a die roll is not necessary for a certain mechanic, omit it.


That being said, here are some of the things I would do:

1.) Abstract LOS: No questions here, make LOS easy and unambiguous to establish while increasing tactical depth.

2.) 4e Wound Allocation: Really can't improve upon this, the problem was already solved perfectly.

3.) Make cover a BS penalty: Cover now provides the same benefit for everybody.

4.) Fix Leadership: Moral test should be a major risk for the majority of the armies out there, rather than just a few.

5.) Consolidate Movement Rules: Give each unit a A/B movement stat. A is the movement distance, B is the assault distance. Units can move at 2A if they forfeit shooting and assault. All units in the game including vehicles now operate off the same set of movement rules, yet they can still be diverse. Special rules only needed for things like jump packs, jet packs and skimmers.

6.) Fixed Difficult Terrain Movement: Move at some fraction of total movement when moving through difficult terrain rather than roll.

7.) Cut the Fat - There are currently way too many rules that do little or nothing for the game that ought be scrapped:
7a.) Snapshotting - Don't waste time rolling for shots that probably won't hit
7b.) Overwatch - See 7a.)
7c.) Run - Covered in consolidated movement rules
7d.) Warlord Traits - No rolling for random benefits that may not even matter
7e.) Mysterious Terrain/Objectives - Just no
7f.) Challenges - Just needlessly complicated
7g.) Vehicle Damage Table - Just have them use wounds. I would still keep the directional armor though, as well as make them vulnerable in cc.
7h.) Dangerous Terrain - Rarely comes into play except with vehicles.
7i.) Probably a lot of things I missed

8.) Fix psychic powers: Not sure how, but they could use a rework.

9.) Arithmetic Checks: Eliminate most tables in the game by making most checks a matter of simple arithmetic. Four instance, the check to wound would just be strength + d6 >= toughness. Weapon values would need to be adjusted, but now the same effect could be obtained with no tables.

I probably missed a lot of other areas that could be improved, but I really think you could make a tight, unambiguous and smoothly running version of 40k that would still retain the flavor of the game.

Hi again.
Just to clarify.
I was going to simply suggest the following.

A model has 3 states in game.
Operational , suppressed, removed as casualty/damaged.

A MODEL is suppressed when it fails an armour save.

When a UNIT has OVER HALF its models suppressed or removed as casualties, it has to take a Ld test.
if it fails this test the UNIT become suppressed.

Suppressed units may only return fire on nearest enemy unit, OR move to cover.(Infantry can go to ground, and vehicles/MCs can turn to face instead of moving to cover.)

I hope thats clearer?

Lanrak wrote: A model has 3 states in game. Operational , suppressed, removed as casualty/damaged....When a UNIT has OVER HALF its models suppressed or removed as casualties, it has to take a Ld test. if it fails this test the UNIT become suppressed.

Well, I guess there's only one additional state to keep track of per model (suppressed), but tracking by model seems unduly complicated.

Phanixis wrote:
There are some of the things I would do:

[snipped: list of smart things]

I agree with all of these except maybe eliminating overwatch -- though I'm trying to work it as regular shooting rather than a special rule, specifically that any unit moving can be fired upon, not just a charging unit getting fired upon by the unit being charged.

Phanixis wrote:4e Wound Allocation: Really can't improve upon this, the problem was already solved perfectly.

How DID wound allocation -- and LOS for that matter -- work in 4th? I don't know that edition.

Its wounded player picks who is removed. aka i remove from the rear. which im actually warming up too.

for LOS. Big things mostly blocked LOS like vehicles, MC and close combat. while Skimmers and troops didn't.

 SisterSydney wrote:
If the one guy with a pistol actually hit somebody? Yeah, that's a morale check, even if it didn't penetrate. Marines should be immune (I edited my proposed rule above to exempt ATSKNF units from suppression checks unless they actually take unsaved wounds), but Imperial Guard?

"Jeez, look at that idiot running straight at us screaming and waving his little stubber like some kind of OWWW! [hits dirt by reflex] He fething hit me, man! That fething hurt!"

On the subject of things relating to ATSKNF, CSM should have that rule, too.
Traitor chapters don't suddenly become cowards, do they?

And then maybe a tactical CSM would be worth taking...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phanixis wrote:
I always wondered if somebody in the community could write a solid set of rules for 40k that were superior to GWs. I am half tempted to try myself, and I definitely think rewriting from the ground up would be the best way to go about it. I think two principles are in order for rewriting 40k rules:

1.) KISS (keep it simple stupid) - if a rule, maneuver, or piece of equipment is not really adding anything to the game, omit it. Consolidate rules when possible. I also would avoid adding anything unless absolutely necessary.
2.) Eliminate Unnecessary Die Rolls: Dice still need to be part of the game, but every die roll is a chance for the dice to be cocked, slip, or fall off the table and travel halfway across the room. If a die roll is not necessary for a certain mechanic, omit it.

Heh, if GW had followed those rules, we'd not have 50% of the current ruleset

On the subject of things relating to ATSKNF, CSM should have that rule, too.
Traitor chapters don't suddenly become cowards, do they?
And then maybe a tactical CSM would be worth taking...

I feel like thats the relatively excessive power of ATSKNF, and the needless complexity of the current regroup and falling back rules. Why not just have every unit be able to regroup, without all these conditions? Then have ATSKNF offer the kind of bravado and thick-headedness it's supposed to, rather than just sidestepping large portions of the morale system.

If the one guy with a pistol actually hit somebody? Yeah, that's a morale check, even if it didn't penetrate.

Exactly, this situation should be applied to the morale / losses system. Is that loss enough to cause the squad to break? No? Ok they're fine then. Suppression should be about unexpected attacks (snipers and barrage), and massive firepower, not damage or losses. There's already a system in place to take care of how units react to taking damage.

Oh, I'm not saying the one hit should cause a test to see if the squad breaks, I'm saying it might justifiably cause a test to see if the squad instinctively goes to ground, i.e. gets suppressed.

But clearly a lot of folks thinks that way overpowers a single shot; I'll ponder alternative triggering conditions. Maybe you check for suppression if you're attacked by people firing more shots than there are people in your unit, or if a template hits you even if it doesn't cause casualties?

And yes, ATSKNF probably could use a rework.