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: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.

The issue with "sniper" type weapons in 40k is that, in the battle you're playing out, whether a guy is shooting from concealment with a silenced weapon or not should be almost irrelevant from the target's point of view. There are lots of enemy units relatively close to you, you could be taking fire from a whole squad of enemy machine guns, but the one sniper weapon is what causes you to put your heads down?

The whole morale system is piss poor, honestly. There should be a natural progression from "Ready" to "Broken" with various states of combat effectiveness in between. Pinning is a bandaid on 40k's very binary morale system, and we'd be better served with a generic suppression mechanic that applied to all shooting, with sniper and barrage weapons getting bonuses toward that end.

----

SisterSydney, I'm actually digging your suppression mechanic. I've been thinking on and off for a long time about how to integrate suppression into 40k in a relatively seamless way, and your method makes a lot of sense.

I think the "one random guy with a pistol" scenario is an outlier that we would have to live with, as I wouldn't want a single shot from a heavier weapon to not affect a unit, and I wouldn't want massed pistol fire to not affect a unit either.

Good points -- especially the ones where you agree with me, of course! Maybe the "one guy with a pistol" is one of those "hard cases make bad law" situations where trying to rule out all extreme possibilities means you have rules that don't work well for the things you'll probably deal with most of the time.

4th Ed. wound allocation was done simply by letting the defender choose ANY model from a unit as a casualty. Only when wounds surpassed the models remaining in a unit could the attacker declare a a specific model to make a save. The issue was that wounds seldom exceeded models in a unit and it lead to abuse when the special/heavy weapon was always the one remaining, even if that model was the only one exposed to fire. Instead of tweaking the system and allowing for a way to occasionally target specific models in a unit, GW threw the baby out with the bath water and designed a totally lame, counter-intuitive and corrupt wound allocation mechanic for 5th Ed. That along with the rigid TLOS really blew any chance for 5th to be any better than 4th. 6th Ed simply changed wound allocation to another inferior method, though many do seem to like it.

@ Sister Sydney.
I should have said that we simply lay the model carefully on its side when it fails its armour save.

In my new rules I have tried to resolved shooting in a more straight forward and logical way.

Roll to hit. based on target units Stealth value.

Eg If a Model/Unit has a Stealth value of 4, the enemy need to roll 4+ to hit it with ranged weapons!
(This is modified for :- cover, long range ,etc.)

Roll armour save.
Roll a D6 an add the models Armour Value. If this total is equal to or higher than the enemy weapons Armour Piercing value the model takes no damage.
If the total is less than the enemy weapons Armour Piercing value the model becomes suppressed.

Roll for Damage to models that FAILED their armour save..
Every weapon has a damage value .If the weapons damage value is 3, it wounds on a 3+
This is modified by the targets Resilience value .Eg add the models Resilience value to the Weapon Damage score.
(All current T3 models have Resilience of 0 , so use basic weapon damage values.Current T 4 models have Resilience of 1)

EG Las pistol has damage value of 4. A Ogryn has a Resilience of 2, so the las pistol needs to roll 6 on the damage roll to wound the Ogryn.

No need for tables and charts !

Can any one see any potential problems with this resolution process.(it works for the basic 40k units we have been units for Alpha play testing.)

Ill post up a my alternative casualty removal sequence next if you like ?

Any ideas on what to do about the FOC? I feel like it introduces restrictions that don't really need to be there, if i want to play an all terminator army i shouldn't have to compromise and use grey knights or dark angels. We're halfway there anyways with all the FOC changing HQ's coming out. In a perfect world, with everything properly balanced, you could just choose any units you wanted, maybe purchasing a scoring trait or something to let armies without scoring units have a chance in objective missions. However, this is at best a long way off, so what other ideas are out there?

I think an easy way to remedy it is to just make the infantry type scoring and remove Force org.

I dont get how stern guards are like "nope. dont want to pick up that relic to busy"
unless pedro is there.

Lanrak wrote:....Roll to hit. based on target units Stealth value.....Roll armour save.....Roll for Damage to models that FAILED their armour save...

Some of the individual steps are simpler this way, and you've made cover a part of the to-hit roll, but you're still taking three steps, instead of combining Toughness and Armor into one thing so you can get rid of a separate armor save step -- you've just changed the order.

Ill post up a my alternative casualty removal sequence next if you like ?

Please!

Rav1rn wrote: In a perfect world, with everything properly balanced, you could just choose any units you wanted...

Sigh. Yes, in a truly well-crafted game, the rules wouldn't have to require you to take a reasonably balanced combined-arms force, they would just make sure that if you spam one kind of super-unit you lose, because everything should have some vulnerability it needs another type of unit to cover. Unfortunately, 40K is so patchwork and has suffered so much escalation/codex creep over time that there are overpowered units you can spam and win.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:
I think an easy way to remedy it is to just make the infantry type scoring and remove Force org. I dont get how stern guards are like "nope. dont want to pick up that relic to busy" ...

That honestly makes a lot of sense. No infantry, can't hold ground -- it's true in real life, why not in 40K?

Speaking of casualty remove.

I think we could return to the 4th ed style allocation as long as we add in more ways of precision shots.

My alt has additional precision for:
being a character, +1
having a sniper weapon, +1
and being higher up on a level (3") +1

So a sniper on a high vantage point (3 levels up) will gain a precision strike on a 3+

so long as its in range and los ofc

Interesting -- variable chances for precision shots, I like.

Mind ya my alt also has it so you can wreck ruins further to make upper areas inaccessible so it would be dangerous to camp.

Mind ya my alt also has it so you can wreck ruins further to make upper areas inaccessible so it would be dangerous to camp.

Seem's like a dangerous route to take. "camping" isn't really as relevant in 40K as other games, because for one it's turn based, and secondly there are are only 5-7 chances to move in the game. Add onto this the fact that heavy weapons make firing after moving impossible, and creating a situation where its "dangerous to camp" could seriously hurt less mobile units. That being said, destructable cover would be very exciting, its just a question of whether or not the mechanism of doing so was simple enough to not get in the way. Maybe take a page from cities of death, and treat ruins like vehicles, with armor values, give them hull points equal to the number of floors, and each hull point lost takes out a floor. Some sort of critical hit / "Collapse" effect would be worthwhile as well. Making blast weapons literally destroy single level cover like chest high walls might be interesting, but i'm a bit hesitant to give blast weapons more power than they already have.

and being higher up on a level (3") +1

This would be very nice as a component of a system to replace TLOS. Abstract height bonuses / penalties relegated to "floors".

That honestly makes a lot of sense. No infantry, can't hold ground -- it's true in real life, why not in 40K?

This works, but i'm not so sure there's not something better out there, because even though they're all infantry, it makes sense that the more elite units are unable to score, because they cannot stick around to defend objectives like a troops squad could, their numbers are far more limited so they need to go to other areas of the battle where they can make more of a difference. This is one area where fluff and crunch collide though, since they're there now, they should be able to take it for the length of the "battle", so who knows.

Well what i ment by camping is heaving some heavy weapon on top to rain hell all day while sitting there taking cover forever. or even troops.

i want there to be a risk for the benefits of precision shots. (if the thing is wrecked you take a fall test and stuff.)

I think the armor and hull points work great. probably along the lines of av10 or 11 with lv hull points. i dont have CoD, what do you think would be comparable?

After its wrecked though, id like to keep it so that you can still use the piece, as it still BLOS and the bottom level is still usable. just put a token marking the piece as "unstable".

Just some thoughts (sorry it there's overlap, just got to this thread and can't read it all from week)….

If we're going to keep the 2d6 rolls for Charges, how about making the difference some kind of added bonus. E.g., a target unit 5 inches away and you roll and 8, you get 3 free Hammer of Wrath hits or something. As it is, the roll only punishes for falling short, yet does nothing to reward a high roll/careful calculation. You can argue it being combat momentum or as a rallying war cry that especially riled up the blood of the chargers. That could open a whole slew of abilities/USRs based on modifying Assault Charge rolls.

Shotguns. Oh for the love of gawd, make them hit on a 5+ on Overwatch or something. As it is, they just a useless weapon that are outclassed by everything else.

There's more on the tip of my brain, but that's would I'd like to see addressed for the time being….

Another option being your regular movement + a d6. that way its more reliable.

then drop it to 2d6 for difficult terrain and stuff. 3d6 for bikes? it never made sense that a bunch of guardsman can suddenly move as fast as a 60mph bike.

 Desubot wrote:
Another option being your regular movement + a d6. that way its more reliable.

then drop it to 2d6 for difficult terrain and stuff. 3d6 for bikes? it never made sense that a bunch of guardsman can suddenly move as fast as a 60mph bike.

I would so welcome this as well. Makes sense that Difficult Terrain would impede movement to something unpredictable. A fixed value +d6 makes it random enough but far more reliable as a tactical decision . No one ever plans to gamble on a 12" charge, that's asking to get shot in the face. And coming up with a 2" (which I've heard happens more often than one would expect) falling short is not "creating a narrative", it's needlessly crippling a player where it's not even comical. Take models, flush them down toilet….

i don't know 6" + D6 is a huge charge range for normal infantry, thats an average of 9.5", or more than 150% of the current movement distance. 3" + D6 might be a bit better, even though the average is less than it is currently. Ideally we could just have different movement speeds for models, then have the charge distance adjust itself accordingly, and even then i'm not convinced random charge distances are necessary. We have standardized movement distances, and i don't really see how the added randomness improves the game. Ditto with running.

Death to random move distances!

Setting aside the added complexity of rolling instead of just having a set number, it makes movement much too random: As others have noted, if you roll 20 dice to see if your attacks hit, the results will form a reasonably tidy bell curve where the extremes cancel out, but if you have to roll to see if you can make a charge, then two dice rolling low can deny you the opportunity to attack at all (or may get stuck in difficult terrain or whatever).

Also, death to charges as a separate set of movement rules!

My very simple alternative is that a charge is simply a double move that brings you into contact with enemy models. Period.

So, in your movement phase, you can
1) move normally and be able to fire later
2) not move and be able to fire heavy weapons at full BS
3) move double your normal distance, but not be able to fire anything later (equivalent of running, turbo-boosting, or going flat out today)
4) move up to double your normal distance until your models are in contact (1") of enemy models, at which point you get as many of 'em in contact as you can and are locked in combat until one side dies or runs away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, death to the wound allocation rules!.

Returning to 4e but adding precision shots/strikes seems to me by far the best way. To pull together several posts (starting here) from the death to TLOS thread:

Phanixis wrote:

SisterSydney wrote:What were the 4th edition rules that folks like so much? I don't have that edition.

Rules were incredibly simple. You established a majority armor/cover and toughness save for the unit, and then just rolled all saves as a single batch. Failed saves were removed as wounds at the opponents discretion, although spreading wounds over several multiwound models was forbidden.

For example, say I inflict 6 bolter wounds and 2 plasma wounds on a tactical marine squad with an attached IC with a 2+/5+. Because the majority of the models are just tactical marines, my opponent would have a majority armor save of 3+ and no invulnerability save. So he would roll 6 3+ saves and remove the failed saves as casualties. If he failed two armor saves in this example, he would have to remove four models total of his choice from the squad as casualties. This made armor saves very easy to resolve and their was no way to exploit the system, so no tanking wounds and no wound spreading.

It had a single drawback in that your opponent had complete control over the order in which casualties were taken. This meant for your standard tactical squad, typically the sergeant, the heavy weapon marine and the special weapon marine would be the last three to die. However, compared to the problems 5e and 6e created, this was nothing, especially because those units that tended to benefit the most from this kind of wound allocation tended to be the weakest in a power gaming environment. Compare, for instance, a tactical marine squad to the Nob Bikers and Paladin Stars mention by Deuce that benefited from 5e wound allocation. Which units would you give an edge through the wound allocation rules?

SisterSydney wrote:Sounds like adding 6th edition precision shots & strikes to the 4th edition system -- i.e. the occasional chance for the attacking player to pick the victim -- would solve 4e's only real problem and make a near-perfect system.

That is pretty much the case. Although I never really felt and overwhelming need for precision shots back when I was playing 4th. Honestly, even in 4th edition playing against the likes of a tactical marine squad was a treat. It meant you weren't going up against Nidzilla, or holofalcons, or double lash, or Tzeentch bikers, or 3x3 obliterators (notice how wound allocation has no effect on any of these units).

Hi Sister Sydney.
A three stage damage resolution process is pretty much standard across most war games.(And many use this resolution to include a simple supression mechanic.)

(IF you just use roll to hit then roll to damage , then it can get incredibly complicated to introduce suppression in a reasonably realistic way.)

What actually slows the damage resolution in 40k is all the exceptions to the core resolution process, and constantly having to look at charts tables and double checking rules in the rule book.Not to mention all the additional dice rolling for no real reason!

Both Kings Of War and Flames of War use three stage resolution process, but play much faster than either Warhammer game.

I think its important to keep the rules straight forward, and define things in an intuitive way.

As far as casualty removal goes, here are the basic concepts I would use.

After declaring the intended target for shooting.
Determine if any models in the targeted unit are in cover.

IF any models are in cover,they can only be hit by shots that roll high enough on the to hit roll.

EG an IG tactical squad has 4 models in area terrain counting in cover, and 6 models in the open.
The CSM unit shooting at them needs to roll 3+ for the models in the open.And 4+ for the models in cover.

After rolling to hit, the dice that ONLY rolled high enough to hit the models in the open are separated out.

Apply all these ( 3+) hits to the target models in the open ,closest to the attacking models first.Resolve these hits.

Then resolve the remaining (4+) hits on the target models closest to the attacking unit in the OPEN first,then on the models closest to the attacking unit in cover.

You MUST apply damaging hits to the closest model to the attacking unit , until it is removed as a casualty , BEFORE applying hits to the next closest model.

MIXED UNITS.
If a unit has multiple model types ,ignore the models that are harder to damage until ALL the models that are easier to damage have been suppressed or removed as casualties.(Attacker may choose to apply hits to either model type after the ALL the easiest models to damge have been at least suppressed.)

EG a mixed unit in Terminator armour and Power armour.
Apply all hits to the power armoured models until they have ALL been suppressed or removed as casualties , BEFORE the models in terminator armour have hits allocated against them.

Special models.

Unit leaders and Characters.
(To replace the 'look out sir' type rules)
Duck Back.
The more skilled warriors have a sixth sense when in danger, and always seem to be in the right place at the right time!After a SHOOTING attack has been declared, but before the to hit rolls are taken .A unit leader or attached character model MAY swap places with any other model in their unit , IF they pass a ld test.

Specialist weapons.
The models carrying the specialist weapons in a unit can be removed as casualties from shooting .However, in the targeted units next game turn , the weapon MAY be picked up by other unit members.(Simply swap the specialist weapons model for a normal model at the rear of their original unit at the start of the next game turn/resolution phase..)

My attempt at Cover rules.
40k models and terrain are not all to true scale so they are ABSTRACT representations.

So cover falls in to 2 types.
Area Terrain and Obstacle.

Area Terrain is a represents a large area where models can hide.Like woods, long grass, rubble -ruins, etc.

Models inside area terrain , within 2" of the edge of area terrain can claim cover from it.AND can see out and be seen by models outside the area terrain.
Models in the SAME area terrain can see each other up to 4" through the area terrain.(And count as in cover.)
IF there is more than 4" of area terrain between models they can not see each other the area terrain block line of sight.

Obstacles, represent walls ditches, single buildings and large KO vehicles etc.
A model may claim cover from an obstacle if it is at least 1/2 the height of the full height of the model.Or it is equal or higher than the model and it obscures at least HALF the models width from the attacking models view.

PS I total agree that you should decide what the unit is going to do at the start of the turn, to determine what movement (and other) actions the unit takes.
(Rather than move in the movement , shooting and assault phase!)

Eg.
Stand still (Ready) then shoot to full effect.(fire heavy weapon ordnance/Over-watch.)
Move then shoot.(Or shoot then move.)
Move then move again
Move then move to assault.
(Optional Ready then Move with +1 to stealth.)

Just some ideas...

Lanrak wrote:
Hi Sister Sydney.
A three stage damage resolution process is pretty much standard across most war games.(And many use this resolution to include a simple supression mechanic.) (IF you just use roll to hit then roll to damage , then it can get incredibly complicated to introduce suppression in a reasonably realistic way.) ....Both Kings Of War and Flames of War use three stage resolution process, but play much faster than either Warhammer game.

I don't know the Kings/Flames of War games -- what are their three steps?

And I guess the system I'm proposing (err,and constantly changing based on y'all's feedback) is 3-step: roll to hit (factoring in cover), roll to wound (factoring in armor), roll leadership for the whole unit to see if its suppressed or breaks.... Hmm, that third step is an opportunity to consolidate our proposed suppression mechanics with the current morale rules, isn't it?

Whereas Warhammer 40K right now has
- roll to hit
- roll to wound
- roll armor or cover saves
- roll leadership if casualties exceed 25% of the unit
So that's four steps and still doesn't factor in suppression.

IF any models are in cover,they can only be hit by shots that roll high enough on the to hit roll.

Hmmm. Doesn't this make it too easy to hit the models in cover? All the best to-hit rolls are automatically allocated to them....

So cover falls in to 2 types.
Area Terrain and Obstacle.....

Yes, this is a good distinction.

Hi again.
The basic 3 step damage resolution most games use is ;-
Roll to hit.
Roll for armour.
Roll to damage.

If we run with this order, we get an intuitive stage by stage resolution as we go a long.

Did the attack hit?
No, take no further action.
Yes, continue and resolve weapon hit effect .

Does the weapon penetrate the targets armour ?
No, take no further action.
Yes,the model becomes suppressed, continue.

Does the penetrating hit cause physical damage to the target?
No , take no further action.Model remains suppressed.
Yes, apply physical damage effects.

If we then set a simple , condition , EG when over half the models in the unit are suppressed or removed as casualties, the unit becomes suppressed.
We get a very straight forward damage system that includes the effects of suppression.

(If we run with a command phase, action phase, action phase , resolution phase type game turn.We can say players have to wait until the resolution phase to attempt to rally perhaps.)

THE ONLY reason to separate out the hits that were only good enough to hit models in the open, was to ONLY APPLY THESE HITS TO MODELS IN THE OPEN .BEFORE resolving the hits that could hit ALL models including those in cover.

Rather than give a unit of 30 orks a blanket cover save because some models are in cover.

We simply resolve the hits that were only good enough to hit models in the open first, then apply the hits that COULD hit models in cover AFTER all the models in the open have been removed!

If the attacker needs 3+ to hit the Orks in the open, and 4+ to hit the Orks in Cover.
And the attacker rolls 2,2,3,3,3,4,4,5,5,6.
The two dice that rolled 2 are discarded.(Missed.)
The three dice that rolled 3 are resolved against the closest models in the open first.
Then the dice that rolled 4,5,and 6 are resolved against the models in the open, then models in cover after ALL the models in the open have been removed as casualties.

The alternative is to only count shots that would hit the models in cover,(4+),and / or only allow cover saves if ALL models in the unit are in cover.

The method I suggest allows intuitive resolution of shots on units partly in cover , without unnecessary abstraction/restriction.

I hope that makes it easier to understand what I was trying to illustrate.

THE ONLY reason to separate out the hits that were only good enough to hit models in the open, was to ONLY APPLY THESE HITS TO MODELS IN THE OPEN .BEFORE resolving the hits that could hit ALL models including those in cover.
Rather than give a unit of 30 orks a blanket cover save because some models are in cover.
We simply resolve the hits that were only good enough to hit models in the open first, then apply the hits that COULD hit models in cover AFTER all the models in the open have been removed!

Yes please. This could create some confusion with a more abstracted cover/LOS system, but it shouldn't be too difficult. This plus precision shots are two solid elements that should be carried over into a Cover/LOS/Allocation system.

Did the attack hit?
No, take no further action.
Yes, continue and resolve weapon hit effect .

Does the weapon penetrate the targets armour ?
No, take no further action.
Yes,the model becomes suppressed, continue.

Does the penetrating hit cause physical damage to the target?
No , take no further action.Model remains suppressed.
Yes, apply physical damage effects.

My main concern with this is that its going to buff large units too much. A 30-man Ork Boy squad is scary enough without the added threat of them suppressing my unit before charging and crushing them even more than they would have normally. Yes, it's realistic that such a large unit's shooting would make someone duck for cover, but i don't think it would be particularly enjoyable to play against. Beyond this, it doesn't seem to offer enough incentive to take high rate of fire / low strength weapons, since the worst case with high damage weapons is that they cause suppression. Yes higher rates of fire with lower strength means there will likely be more models suppressed, but when i can take a high damage weapon to a similar effect, it seems a bit off.

(If we run with a command phase, action phase, action phase , resolution phase type game turn.We can say players have to wait until the resolution phase to attempt to rally perhaps.)

Again, this system runs into the problem of executing move-shoot-assault in 1 turn. A nice middle ground would be a unit can either do a movement or shooting phase first, then the other, then the assault phase before going to the other player, but such a system plays havoc with any attempt to create a true overwatch/"Shoot while i move" system. Maybe you can only shoot at units that choose to move before shooting?

Hi Rav1n,
I do seen to be able to mess up my explanations with out even trying,lol.

The more straightforward cover definition I proposed, for Area terrain and Obstacles works cleanly and quickly with the proposed shooting in to cover method.
(And remember the simpler resolution I suggested helps this too!)

The sample damage resolution was just showing the GENERAL lay out that most games use, and the reasons most game use this type of damage resolution.

It is the system I use in my new rules for 40k.

IF you are re-writing, developing NEW rules then it is MUCH better to develop a solid system THEN port units over to the new system.
Rather than try to bend and twist a system to fit the existing unit profiles.This usually breaks the system and needs lots of additional fixes.
(This is what went wrong with 40k development from 3rd to 6th ed IMO.)

Lets look at your area of concern a 30 strong ork Boys mob.

3 Orks COULD have a Big Shoota, range 36".
Thats 9 shots at BS 5.
That is most likely only 3 or 4 hits , NOT enough to suppress ANY unit is it?

The shootas that make up the BULK of the Orks shooting only have a range of 18".

Here is MY proposed game turn.

Command Phase.(issue orders to operational units , call in off table support.)

Primary Action Phase.(Player A takes ONE action with ALL units.Player B takes ONE action with All units.)

Secondary Action Phase.(Player A takes ONE action with ALL units.Player B takes ONE action with All units.)

Resolution Phase. Plot arrivals of off table support, attempt to rally units on poor morale.

Actions , Ready, Move, shoot , Assault.

Orders.

Advance, Move then shoot.

(Break , Assault, then move, can be used depending on assault resolution ?)

Charge , Move then Assault.

Double , Move then Move.

Evade , Shoot then Move

Fire support, Ready then Shoot.

Infiltrate, ready then move.

If we assume the Ork Mob is moving up to charge an IG line, they would be given Advance,(Move then shoot) or Double (Move then Move ) orders .

I use movement rates from 2nd ed in in my rules as a starting point.(As it allows more TACTICAL manouvering and shooting !)

So the first game turn the Orks can move 4" and shoot their Big shootas , OR move twice and hope to get some cover from some where!
(Not supressed any of your units yet!)
IF we assume the IG have put heavy weapons on fire support, there are lots of heavy weapons blasting away at the advancing ork line in the second action phase!

Having used our 40k minis in other games for about 8 years, we found they seem to fit much better with games written for modern warfare.That why Epic is such a good Game IMO.

I have put the best fit of mechanics and resolution methods I am aware of in my new rules .
Its still a WIP, (hence the different coulured text, and the art work used to block out the layout.)
But the core system works well in our Alpha testing .
However, we still have not finalized all the unit stat lines..(Real life keeps getting in the way!)
(I have attached a PDF of the lastest WIP document if you are interested?)

I am hopeing to use a more thematic FoC, and random senario generator.

You MUST Select a minimum of 1 HQ unit.

You Must Select a minimum of 2 and a Maximum of 8 Common units.

For every 2 Common units you MAY select a Specialized unit.

For every 2 Specialized units you MAY select a Restricted unit.

Current Elite, Fast Attack, Heavy Support and Troops definitions ARE TOTALLY FORGOTTEN!

An IG leman Russ tank is COMMON in a Armoured Company, Specialized in an Armoured Infantry Company and Restricted in a Re-Enforced Infantry Company, and completely missing from a Planetary Defence force.

This way we can get thematic lists using just the HQ to determine what units fill what slots.

I was hopeing to develop 6 attacker mission cards and 6 defender mission cards.
Combined with 3 basic table set ups, to give 108 random senarios...

I would change movement to 2 d6 dice, and lower point costs for units for larger battles

Why not use a Movement values?These allow MORE variety and tactical options without having to resort to pages of special rules...

Lanrak wrote:
Why not use a Movement values?These allow MORE variety and tactical options without having to resort to pages of special rules...

I've always thought this. Why GW removed it, I cannot fathom.
The whole concept of movement would be so much simpler:

"Jump Pack equipment: +6" Movement, May move over impassable terrain and other models."

Increased diversity in movement speeds? Yes. Movement as a stat? No. Because really, does a unit moving 7" instead of 6" feel or play any different? It's just another factor to overlook or get in the way. Doing something for infantry like Heavy (Slow and purposeful, 6" movement), Medium (6" movement), Light (9" movement) would be nice though. There are just too many rules in place trying to make units feel faster when they could just be faster (Fleet, the Slaanesh movement bonus rule, etc). However, you can't really cut a units movement speed below 6", lest they become unplayable since they will never be able to get anywhere.

Building off of this, there needs to be more interesting ways of entering the table available, and deep strike needs a complete overhaul, it's basically unusable without an army specific special rule. When there is an entire mechanic being largely ignored by your player base, it time to go back to the drawing board. Scatter, mishaps, inability assault out of deep strike, and having to roll for reserves makes deep strike virtually useless beyond suicide shooting units that are downright infuriating to play against. Things like the necrons gate of infinity or the dark eldar webway portal are interesting ways to enter the table, and if refined and expanded some more, would be a force to be reckoned with. I could also see some sort of warp portal for chaos daemons/CSM to enter the table from. Making tyranid tunnels a deployment method rather than a special rule for the Trygon would be exciting as well.

Hi Rav1n.
IF you just put movement rates into the current game of 40k, it would NOT really make that much of an improvement.(JUST remove some clutter of special rules.)

Why do you think NOT having a stat for one of the corner stones of modern combat,MOBILITY , fire power and assault is a good idea?

Why bother with numbers on the stat line at all?
Why not just use words to describe ALL the unit stats?
And then remember what words are associated with the values?

IF the stat line covers ALL the unit interaction in the game , (AND its on a handy unit reference card, along with any special abilities.)This makes for faster game play!
Less looking up rules and more playing the game !

Ever ask WHY would lower movement rates not work in the current 40k game?

Because it is WHFB rules with shooting so over powered it unbalanced the game.And so GW had to put cack handed fixes in rather than address the core problem.

Because of the upped the model count , (reducing space between the minatures and ability to manouver.)AND removed modifiers from WHFB.

Models would die in droves before they got into combat.So they upped the movement speeds and put in artificial leadership bonuses to let the mass punch up in turn 3 still occur...

BUT in a new rule set where ALL the in game interaction was covered by the Stat line, movement rate is a primary requirement for the game IMO.
3 speeds for infantry ,.(3,4,5 as 2nd ed. OR 4, 5,6.)
3 speeds for vehicles beasts and MCs ,(6 ,8,12.)
JUMP ability gives the unit a movement of 8". (That can jump over interveening obstacles, area terrain.)

IF we allow the choice of 3 movement states, no movement maximum fire power.Normal movement with normal fire power, and double movement and no fire power.

Then units charging across the battle field for 2 turns would have quite different rates of covering the ground.
A SAP unit would have moved 12" a standard infantry unit would have moved 16" and a fast infantry unit would have moved 20" (Using 2nd ed movement rates.)

I agree about deep striking units , BUT I do not think resorting to special rules is the way forward.
Like most of the problems with 40k.IF you replace the bodged WHFB rules with the most appropriate rules, the solution can be found elegantly.
(Just 4 entry point markers and 2 dice rolls can work very well for ALL off table support..)

I suppose I am not a fan of WHFB in Spaaace with overly complicated rules , and poor game play.

I think 40k would work better with a modern battle game rule set, developed specificly for it.

Unit by unit turns would be nice. Especially in bigger games.

That was my initial thought, but people kept saying it would slow play down unbearably....

I can see it in larger games yes, at which point my not make it scale with size, say for ever 500 points past 1000, they move 2 units per instead of 1.

it should still curve T1 alpha face stomp.