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.

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?

Because under current rules a difference of 1", even 2" isn't enough to make a unit play differently. When 18"-24" is considered the start of the standard infantry engagement range, 1" extra per turn cannot make enough of a difference. This is also why 3" movement wouldn't work under current rules, it's all relative to the other components of the system. Now if you wanted to go about changing everything that is dependent upon some sort of distance (that is to say weapon ranges, scatter, movement speeds, charging system, and just about everything else) then yes you could change it to have 1" differences in movement speeds. However, this has the risk of not playing well with 40K's 28mm scale, and honestly, if you're going to do all that work, there are undoubtedly systems that could be ported over that would play better with significantly less effort.

Alongside this, one of the main reasons so many Melee units suffer is that they need some sort of delivery system to be effective,as they are too slow without one and/or get shot-down too easily on the way over. Giving them that extra 3" (6" if running) really could make a difference, so it's not just about getting rid of clutter. As for why use words rather than a stat, look at unit types like jump infantry or bikers. Do I need a big block text or a movement stat on their unit listing telling me they move 12"? No of course not, and that one element neatly wraps up all the necessary information about their speed and terrain interaction. Having a stat depicting movement under current rules would only serve as a temptation for us as designers to make full use of the new diversity available, even though doing so would often add no real benefit for the additional complexity. Modifying unit types as such would allow us to inject an effective amount of diversity without additional clutter or unnecessary complexity. It's not about words vs numbers, it's about the right tool for the right job. Again, a different system could greatly benefit from the increased stratification that a numerical stat would bring, but the current system of 6" jumps would not need to be able to show that 1" difference.

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.

i think that this is an interesting idea, that the heavy weapon type inexpertly attempts to address. But this has a big risk in that armies that are shooting focused (guard, tau, etc) have no reason to move, you would put them where you want them to be and never touch them again, and parking lot games don't seem like much fun. However, this idea could help develop a system where standard infantry weapons are actually useful, rather than just necessary bodies to buy the truly effective weapons (specials and heavies), which I am 100% in favor of.

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 didn't mean special rules, i meant refined and standardized entry methods, that some armies would or would not have access to. Can you explain what you meant by "4 entry markers and 2 dice rolls" and give us some examples? It sounds promising

 SisterSydney wrote:
Let's face it: 40K is clunky. As my fellow cynics said in this thread, just fixing point costs isn't enough to "balance" the game. GW's layered edition over edition since Rogue Trader -- which in turn layered over Fantasy --

4) Bigger tables + more terrain = more tactics

Spoiler:

Big armies tend to crowd the table and end up on top of each other with little maneuvering room. (The Outflank rule doesn't really help much: It just lets units pile in to the traffic jam from another board edge). There needs to be some rule to scale up the size of the board with the size of the army. If tournament organizers don't like it because they can't stuff as many tables into the hall they've rented, FETH THEM. Or they can just go with smaller-points games.... And with your friends? PLAY ON THE FLOOR.
People also really need to use terrain more to block line of sight so gunline armies can't just camp and kill everyone from a distance like World War I on the Western Front, because boring.

quote]


I have to speak out here and be honest, personally I feel that 28mm scale games really do not work at being large scale battles, you cannot put sensible ranges on weapons without having the ability for units too camp in a corner of the board and shoot everyone at any range, also tanks and other vehicles let alone flying craft just really look out of it at that close of range . The solution for your game I feel is not making the board larger, which no one would play on as many gamers already have hard enough time with 4 by 4's from what I hear , let alone 6 by 4's!. The scale just doesn't work, 28mm is great for painting infantry and playing skirmish / RPG style games. However large scale wargaming I honesty and I am fine if you disagree , however I will say this, is better at 15mm scale or smaller, 28mm is just too large of a scale for it. Way too much terrain is needed and everything goes way out of scale, and nothing takes away any depth of any mobility and movement on the table like having units lined up on each side like world war 1 or the Napoleonic wars.

I just wanted too comment on that, it seems a rather un-balanced view on table sizes, you wont find most people playing on a 8 by 8 table or anything of the sort .

Hi folks.
Just like to thank Sister Sydney for starting such a cool thread!

The ONLY reason I would not suggest alternating unit activation in 40k is;-

The massive difference in unit size and effectiveness.
A 500 pt Death-star unit moving shooting and assaulting could be devastating.(Not as bad as 2000pts moving shooting and assaulting but it is still a problem.)
And at the other end of the scale we have the MSU swarms.
This HAS to be addressed in some way.
Usually some form of reaction mechanic, to break the action sequence up.OR re structuring the way armies are defined.

This leads to having to use lots of extra pages of rules.IF you are attempting to arrive at a clear concise intuitive rule set, why pick a more complicated game turn than necessary?

@ Rav1n.
I agree that movement rates do not really make sense in current 40k rules .As the 6th ed rules are just a random selection of cool ideas poorly implemented and presented.

I have used 40k minatures in some excellent rules , Stargrunt II, No limits,Tomorrows War etc.

However, I believe the BEST option is to write a new rule set specific to the 40k. Game play (The WIP Xenos and Zealots is our attempt..)

A rule set that uses direct representation in the stats and unit cards to make fast fun game play.

If you want to show more detailed terrain effects than no effect-unit /destroyed.Movement rates allow units to be slowed by different types of terrain , and LSM show damage by loosing movement rates.EG a Carniflex hit in the legs might only move 4 " instead of 6"

In the last 15 years we have tried to improve 40k rules by adding to them.it JUST adds more rules bloat.(As 3rd to 6th ed has done.)Without improving game play that much.
So we strongly believe a new rule set is the best option.

The Off Table Support rules I have been play testing .
Each army has 4 'entry point ' markers. 1 real , 3 dummy.
In the command phase the owning player places the entry point markers anywhere on the table .
HOWEVER!
A Real ground attack /deploying air craft entry point HAS to be on the owning players area edge.
The Real artillery bombardment marker has to be placed within LOS of a freindly unit.
A Real deep strike drop zone HAS to be within friendly LoS and X " from enemy units.

At the end of the game turn ,in the RESOLUTION PHASE the owning players roll a D6 (or 2 D6)to see if the support arrives.Based on command value (LD)
Roll for scatter, artillery and deep strikes roll scatter for entry point.

Air craft ALWAYS arrive at their entry point.The player then places the exit point for ground attack , or DZ for deploying air craft.Then roll for scatter for the intended exit /deployment point.

ONLY ONE enemy unit on the ground attack aircrafts flight path may be attacked.

This looks more complicated than it is written down...

If you want to show more detailed terrain effects than no effect-unit /destroyed.Movement rates allow units to be slowed by different types of terrain , and LSM show damage by loosing movement rates.EG a Carniflex hit in the legs might only move 4 " instead of 6"

I'm not sure how necessary extra terrain effects are, it seems a bit micro for 40K's scale. Having open, difficult, dangerous, and impassible terrain seems to cover all the necessary groups fairly well, though the implementation of difficult and dangerous could use some work. I see such a change kind of like giving Kroot move through cover (Forest); Yes it's extra depth and detail but it's a bit arbitrary. As for having effects like damage slowing monsters, it seems like this would be something better shown in the monster rules rather than the overall movement rules, though the idea is pretty cool.

The Off Table Support rules I have been play testing .
Each army has 4 'entry point ' markers. 1 real , 3 dummy.
In the command phase the owning player places the entry point markers anywhere on the table .
HOWEVER!
A Real ground attack /deploying air craft entry point HAS to be on the owning players area edge.
The Real artillery bombardment marker has to be placed within LOS of a freindly unit.
A Real deep strike drop zone HAS to be within friendly LoS and X " from enemy units.

Seems like this would lend itself fairly well to a Cities of Death style Strategem system, especially since the idea of using cards is already being explored for other things. Having commander's influence when reserves come in is how it should have always been. Using Lanrak's command point / range system, two ways you could run this is using a command point to increase / decrease the reserves roll by 1, or even just using 1 command point to bring in one unit from reserves, depending on what playtesting says. However, using all these markers seems problematic if they are only for deep striking, because the enemy can decide to camp them, and when your unit comes down, it mishaps. There needs to be more risk to getting close to these things, which is where a Strategem system might come in use. If that marker could be for an Orbital Strike, or an Artillery Barrage, or a Bomber Strike, or any number of other effects, camping them looks less appealing than knowing for certain that a unit is going to come down on one of them.

Hi Rav1n.
The point I was trying to make is the game mechanics stats and resolutions you use define how much detail you CAN cover with core rules.

IF you have a Movement rate for ALL units .
It allows more detail in terrain interaction .
EG Legs Wheels Tracks , Hover , movement types would get different bonuses/penalties from hard flat ground, broken ground/rubble and woods for example.
(Just +/- X ")

This covers ALL unit terrain interaction in detail IF you want to include it, without HAVING to add on special rules .

As 40k has 2 unit types.
Multiple model units that loose models to show damage.
Single model units that record damage separately.(M/Cs and vehicles.)

With a movement stat , you can reduce a M/Cs/ vehicles movement when it looses Mobility wounds/structure. And Attacks when they loose Armament wounds/structure.
This way ALL large model units can loose combat effectiveness slowly over time.

Covering Vehicles and M/Cs in the same way makes sense, as they cover the similar roles in game .
As all other aspects APART from how damage is recorded in game can be covered in the same way FOR ALL UNITS .Why do we not do this?
(I have done this in my new rules.)

I think the main problem with Current 40k rules is they use 'exclusive' rules to make new releases more appealing.
Which is the exact opposite to the inclusive rules writing needed for clarity and brevity found in the best games.

All the mechanics and resolution methods I used in my new rule set, were chosen to allow expansion of the detail in the interaction .(For advanced rules, or just using single model rules in a scaled down skirmish game.)

The reason for having 4 markers is its the sweet spot from play testing. its enough to keep the opposition guessing without cluttering the game area.

The markers are to depict ANY possible off table support.(Three dummy one real.)
There is not different ones for each type of attack .
As long as forces with deep striking units ALSO has some form of artillery strike , it is a MASSIVE deterent to stop folks camping around markers!(As you pointed out.)

Air strikes /landings are harder to defend against .
As the Aircraft travel along a flight path along the table.
The 4 possible entry points are known, BUT the exit points and the flight path is NOT Known until the aircraft arrives!

Aircraft flying over the battle at low altitude attacking ONE unit , or landing and dropping off ONE unit along its flight path.Is much more in keeping with the scale of the 40k game , than 6th ed aircraft rules IMO.

The 4 marker system also allows for more detailed strategic 'intel intercept'.
In advanced rules force commanders with Communications Specialist skill, can attempt to 'steal' a dummy marker from their opponent,so they get 4 dummy markers and their opponent is left with just 2 dummy markers. (for example.)

(I think having force commanders with one special skill ,selected from a range like Communications ,Mobility , Ranged and Assault to give slight buffs in certain areas to the whole force.Is preferable to the Warlord Traits 6th ed has.)

All interesting stuff. How do your rules handle infantry with multiple wounds, especially characters? It seems like degrading their abilities every time they took a wound would add a lot of complexity, especially for armies with multi-wound models that aren't characters , eg Ogryn.

Hi Sister Sydney.
I was referring to Vehicles and Monstrous Creatures having degrading abilities in the current battle game format.(Large multi-wound single model units need more detail IMO.)
So walkers and MC/s behave similarly, just one is mechanical with Structure points and the other biological with Wounds.
(The only difference is some weapons are better at damaging mechanical targets and others at damaging organic targets.
(Haywire, EMP, etc vs poison and BMC etc.)

The unit cards for non vehicle /MC s express the Number of models per unit , then wounds per model.

EG
IG Squad
Wounds 10/1.(10 models 1 wound each,)

Ogryn Suad
Wounds 5 /2(5 models 2 wounds each.)

In WHFB most units end up in close combat.(As the game is ALL about manuovering to get the best close combat match ups with ranged attacks in a supporting role.)
So in WHFB all unit leaders and characters experience in fighting can be represented by an extra wounds to keep them in close combat for longer.

However, in a modern battle game , there are many more ways a unit leader/character can influence their unit/nearby friendly units/ force abilities.
Commisar Yarrick is an eighty year old IG legendary force commander, with masses of tactical and strategic knowledge and knows how to get the best out of his units with inspirational speeches...

Current 40k can ONLY show this frail old man as a 2 dimensional close combat monster.

Where as IF we give unit leaders and characters A Command Value , expressed as a number of re rolls per turn , and a range of effect.
Then these can cover a wider range of leader abilities and effects.

EG Yarrick could have a Command Value of 4 at a range of 12".

This means he can influence the actions of ANY IG unit within 12" radius , the 4 re rolls per turn representing him lending years of experience to his units.
The players can then decide when Yarricks tactical brilliance would shine through.
(Re rolling off table support requests, re rolling off table scatter , re-rolling to hit, etc.)

Unit leaders can only use their Command re rolls for their own unit.(0 or 1 usually.)
Characters have a number of re rolls and ranges .
1,2 or 3 at 6",9" ,12"
(Special characters may have higher values.)

I probably did not explain this too well, sorry.
I am gak at explaining ideas, particularly when I have been partaking of Christmas spirit.(Jack Daniels has a lot to anwser for...).

Leaders who actually lead -- that's something I'm always in favor of.

Not a bad concept but do we really want massive re-rolling during each game turn? What if there are two or three HQ's within 12" of each other?

Yikes.

Hi amanita.
IF a character joins a unit they take over from the unit leader.Improving the units Morale(Ld) value .(And replacing the unit leaders re rolls if they have any.)
IF 2 characters are present in a unit , the unit ONLY uses the HIGHEST Command Value.(It does not get to use ALL the Command Values together!)
A dice can only be re rolled ONCE.
A re roll can only effect ONE dice.
A dice can only be re rolled ONCE.

If we assume 2 HQ are within 12" of each other,(thats the force commander with 3 re rolls, and a hero with 2 re rolls.)
So over the entire course of the turn , they can re roll 5 dice.

So that covers,
Command Phase.
(Strategic command roll off, if using advanced rules.)
Rolling for Off table support requests.

Primary Action Phase
Rolling to hit.
Rolling to save.
Rolling to Damage

Secondary action Phase
Rolling to hit
Rolling to save
Rolling to damage

Resolution phase,
Rolling to rally suppressed routing units.
Rolling for scatter.

if we assume an army has a force commander 3 other characters and 6 veteran unit leaders for a total of 15 re rolls.

So out of the total of the 50 to 100+ dice rolls per turn in an average game , you may PICK A SINGLE DICE, a MAXIMUM of 15 times, during the game turn, and re roll that SINGLE DICE ONCE.

And considering under the new rules we are NOT rolling for the 'randomness' of 6th ed 40k.
Making ANY re roll due to tactical expertise of the army leaders, or 'LIMITED special abilities,' under the new rules.
Seems to make more sense IMO.

Not to mention giving the armour a chance to prevent damage , before you roll for damage.(WITHOUT resorting to additional resolutions.)
makes A LOT more sense.

However, the amount of Command re rolls and range of effect can be adjusted during play testing if it becomes intrusive.

I am just putting forward some alternative ideas that may be more suitable /in synergy with the 40k background and our expectations of in gem representation.
I apologize about not explaining things too well.

I know this is going to make me a lazy git but I got about 3 pages in before deciding to post, call it sudden inspiration (or is it mental constipation?).

Instead of you go, I go. I propose the following:
1. Winner of initiative moves all forces then opponent moves all forces.

No random moves except through terrain or other obstacle or other inhibitor.

2. Shooting phase, winner shoots first followed by opponent.

BS of firer is reduced by 1 for each of the following conditions; target moved (moving targets are harder to hit), target is greater than 1/2 weapon range away from firing unit (not model, unit), target is in light cover (additional -1 for hard cover). Rolls of 6 always hit if target is within weapon range.

Types of shooting:
-suppressing fire
Units that contain weapons with the "suppression" profile may choose to suppress an enemy unit instead of damaging them. The firing player rolls the number of dice indicated in the weapon profile at full BS, regardless of other modifiers. Any "hits' are not resolved as damaging hits but are modifiers to the opposing unit's LD characteristic. At the end of the shooting phase, any unit which is subject to "suppression" must make a leadership check minus the number of "hits" that turn. If they fail, they may make no action the following turn; if they pass, nothing untoward occurred and they may act normally their following turn. Suppressed units are counted as being in hard cover on the turn they lose their ability to act.


3. Assault moves are made by both sides and assaults are worked out. No random moves except through terrain or other obstacle or other inhibitor.

Assaulted units choose a reaction. Overwatch, brace for melee or tactical withdrawal. All bonuses and penalties are for the initial round of assault only.

-Overwatch may only be chosen if the unit did not fire during shooting phase (tactics! you thought I was going to charge you but it was a feint!). Overwatch shots resolved as full BS -1 BS for each modifier that applies (-1 for target moving, etc.) Units with assault grenades count as being in light cover (so -2 BS to hit charging units with assault grenades). 6s always hit. Units who opt for overwatch are -1 WS in the ensuing assault. A unit that is reduced by 1/2 by overwatch fire from the number of models or wounds it started the turn with must make a LD check after the assault move or be -2 WS in the ensuing assault. Destroyed models from overwatch shooting don't count for combat resolution.

-Brace
Unit prepares for close combat; affixes bayonets, draws CC weapons, prays, etc. Units with defensive grenades are +1 WS in the ensuing assault if the Brace reaction is chosen.

-Tactical Withdrawal
Assaulted unit rolls LD check vs. highest leadership in the unit and subtracts 1 from the roll for each casualty received from this turn's shooting phase (Hey, it's not hard to convince a mauled unit it's time to back out). If the roll is not successful, the unit is disorganized and unprepared for the assault; the assaulting unit will receive a +1 WS bonus for this assault round. If the roll is passed, the unit makes a hasty but organized withdrawal; the defending player rolls 2d6" and moves the unit that number of inches directly away from the assaulting unit. The assaulting unit rolls 1d6 and adds this amount to their charge range; if the roll is enough to bring the unit into btb with at least 1 model from the defending unit, a normal close combat phase will occur (no bonuses or penalties to either side) but the defending unit can not win combat or otherwise force the assaulting unit to make a moral check, even if they somehow win combat numerically, the best they will achieve is a stalemate for that turn.

4. Repeat but on subsequent turns 1 reserve unit may enter the field per turn. (people have radios in the future, why can't they decide who's arriving or when?) Some abilities may inhibit or confuse reserve arrival.

Leaders:
I agree with the concept of leaders actually having some game impact other than generally providing an extra attack and a LD. Only one roll may be rerolled per turn.
- Sergeants.
Once per turn, a unit that contains a sergeant may reroll 1 non-combat roll. (i.e. leadership, moral, movement through terrain, etc.) If a sergeant dies, choose another model in the unit to receive a field promotion (but without any stat increases).

- Lieutenants
Once per turn 1 unit within 12" of the lieutenant may reroll one combat roll. (to hit, to wound, to save) If a lieutenant dies, all friendly units within 12" are -2LD but +1WS and +1BS vs. the unit/model that caused the lieutenant's death the following turn. No battlefield promotion possible.

- General
Uses warlord table. If the general dies, the entire army receives -2LD for the remainder of the game. No battlefield promotion possible.

Here's some ideas im toying with, having seen lots of talk about modifiers being used as a replacement for cover, jink, flyer rules, etc. Note that these are meant to be used in a system with D12 dice, so a modifier of 1 can be thought of as a half step on a D6 die. Only the highest adjustment to the units Cover Rating is applied. For example, if a unit moves 12" (increasing its cover rating by 2 for movement) but is on height level 3 (increasing its cover rating by 3), only the height modifier is applied. This is to keep these modifiers from mushrooming out of control, and to keep units from "dancing" behind cover to artificially increase their cover rating. A unit's cover rating may not drop below 0 under any circumstances. The unit's cover rating is a modifier for the firer's BS.

Height Levels
--There are 4 height levels above the table surface. Each height level is 3" high
--Moving up or down a height level reduces the units maximum movement by 3"
--May move up or down multiple height levels in one turn
--May not move up a height level unless the models may rest there unassisted, with the exception of flying models, who instead place a dice next to the unit, the top face of which indicates their height level
--For each height level above the firer, the target unit's Cover Rating increases by 1
--If a unit charges a unit that is on a higher height level than itself, the charge becomes a disordered charge. Non-Flying units may not assault a Flying unit unless both units are on the same height level
--If a unit of Jump Infantry or Flyers declares an assault on a unit that is at least 2 height levels below them, and can move into Base to Base contact with the associated movement penalty, they gain the Hammer of Wrath Universal Special Rule (More of a fun idea than a solid rule)

Cover
-Soft Cover (Fences, Bushes, Smoke) increases a unit's cover rating by 2
-Hard Cover (Ruins, Walls, Craters) increases a unit's cover rating by 4
-Area terrain might be placed between soft and hard cover, increasing the unit's cover rating by 3 (Very TBD)
-A unit's cover rating increases by 1 for every 6" that unit has moved this turn
-For units with models that have different Cover Ratings, split the unit into groups of models with identical Cover Ratings. The Cover Rating of the group with the highest number of models in it is applied to the entire unit for the purposes of batch rolling. Wounds must be applied to models with lower Cover Ratings first

Two very experimental ideas are range bonuses to Cover Ratings, and model sizes.

Size
Small (Gretchin and Ratlings) +1 to Cover Rating
Medium (Normal Models) No Change to Cover Rating
Large (Rhino, Chimera, maybe Crisis Suits?) -1 to Cover Rating
Huge (Hive Tyrant, Dreadnought) -2 to Cover Rating
Massive (Tervigon, Land Raider) -3 to Cover Rating

Hi Rav1n.
Totally agree with your ideas!
Having some form of 'height level' is important.
I was going to use a value to represent a 'floor height ' in a tower block(apartment building .)3" high is about right!
Having a standard movement penalty for INFANTRY to climb/desend each level is also important.
However I would allow 4 height levels for buildings and an extra level above this for low flying air craft.

Although I agree with the ideas you have for cover and unit size.There is a much simpler method to implement them.

If we give units a Stealth value. This is the dice roll needed for ENEMIES to hit them with ranged weapons.
This allows the chance to hit to be based on the size, skill and disposition of the target.(Same as FoW.)

Stealth values from 2+ to 6+ on a D6 (or 4+ to 10+ on a D12 )
This represents unit size ,agility and basic battle field skill in not getting shot!

Soft cover adds 1 to the targets Stealth value.(As the target is harder to see and so more shots would miss.)

Hard cover adds 2 to the targets Stealth value.(As the hard cover can deflect some of the shots, as well as making the target harder to see.)

Now if we use a stat line for the unit+weapons on the unit card to show the units direct in game effect.
We can cover the skill and disposition of the attacker AND size and skill and disposition of the defender when resolving ranged combat in simpler way than 6th ed that ONLY uses attacker skill!

Attacker checks to see if target unit(s) are in effective weapons range.Y/N
N ( attacker looses attacks that are not in effective range.)
Y attacker rolls to hit bases on targets Stealth value .(Modified for cover.)

Defender rolls armour saves.AV + D6 vs attackers weapon hit Armour Piercing value.
(EG Ork Boys AV 2 need to roll 5+ to save vs bolt gun fire AP 6.)
Models that fail the armour save are suppressed.

[b]Attacker rolls to damage targets that failed their armour save.
(Roll equal or over the damage value of the weapon, modified by the Targets Resilience.)
EG the damage value of a Bolt Gun is 3+, BUT the Ork Boys have resilience 1, to this means the SM player has to roll 4+ to damage the tougher Ork boys

Yes this is very similar to 40k current range resolution.
BUT it introduces suppression, proportional results to armour saves, and incorperates cover into the basic resolution process, and can be used on ALL unit types.
(Vehicles and Monstrous creatures just have more detailed damage , as prevously discussed.)

And it also resolves the interaction in a more intuitive way, to hit , armour save , to damage.it Also removes the need to use 'charts and tables' and spend ages looking up redundant special rules...(If we use unit cards instead.)

@Sister Sydney.
We have been trying out some new ideas to make unit leaders and characters more important.
We tried using the Command range as the unit coherency range from the unit leader, or attached character for their unit.
This made model movement faster (no checking model to model coherency,) and allowed more flexibility in the placement of models when higher command characters took charge of units.

We also used the unit leader /attached character to chose targets making them the focal point of the unit and directing the unit.So target selection was made a bit faster too!

However I would allow 4 height levels for buildings and an extra level above this for low flying air craft.

My original plan was to have 6 height levels, but the modifiers started getting too big, and the only way to prevent flyers from staying at height level 6 the whole game was to make it so strafing runs (regular flyer behavior) could only take place in the first 4 levels, while bombers could operate at up to the 6th level. Not a bad idea, but i'm not totally sold on the direction yet.

If we give units a Stealth value. This is the dice roll needed for ENEMIES to hit them with ranged weapons.
This allows the chance to hit to be based on the size, skill and disposition of the target.(Same as FoW.)

My early attempts at making a stealth value didn't end well. To keep damage levels similar current levels, stealth values started to be almost identical on 90% of units. It might be more achievable with a D12 though.

Also, if we alter Lanrak's proposed Suppression system a bit, it would work really well with changing vehicles to toughness/armor instead of the current system. If a shot "wounds" the tank, it receives some sort of suppression value or is glanced or something. Then, if the tanks armor stops the shot, no more damage is recevied, but if it penetrates, then additional damage is dealt, whether this is a damage chart, killing crewmen, or whatever.

Any idea's on what could be done with the AP and armor value system? The current system works decently and is fast, but it's lacking in depth and makes lower armor saves all but worthless, but going back to modifiers over-complicates things, especially with the higher AP value weapons. Something completely new would probably be best, but i have no idea what it is.

Hi Rav1n.
Why not just give a natural height bonus, EG you get a better LOS over interveening obstacles etc when higher up.Rather than trying to put in a forced to hit bonus?
This way low flying aircraft are considered to have the best view of the battlefield as they fly over it.

I was proposing the Stealth value replaced the 'BS system' to determine the chance to hit .
EG (Assigning values to units on their unit cards something like this.)
Target Unit Type/Stealth Value(D6 roll needed to hit.)

Individual infantry model./6+.
Small infantry units /5+.
Small vehicles medium infantry units/4+.
Medium vehicle /MC ,large infantry units /3+.
Large vehicle/MC/2+.

Modifiers to the target Stealth Value :-

+1 Target over 36” away.
+1 Target In soft cover
+1 Target On Infiltrate Orders
+1 Shooting Unit Suppressed

This is not really altering the chance to damage anything, unless I am mis understanding what you meant ?.

If you want to use the basic idea from the new damage resolution for vehicles.
I would suggest rolling the armour save first to see if the shot beats the armour.
If it does the vehicle is suppressed.(Shaken)

Then roll to see if the shot causes physical damage
Roll to 'wound.'

What do you think of assigning structure points to mobility and armament?
Its a simple way to show the DIRECT effects of damage, whether its wounded crew or damaged electrical mechanical systems.
Simply reduce the speed of the unit when it takes mobility hits, or loose weapon attacks when it looses armament hits.

Why not just give a natural height bonus, EG you get a better LOS over interveening obstacles etc when higher up.Rather than trying to put in a forced to hit bonus?

The more work i put into this, the more i realized having height reduce cover made it too complicated. If you want to treat all cover the same (area terrain, walls, craters, smoke, fences, etc) having height reduce some of them makes sense, others not so much, and having modifiers that modify other modifiers is a little too complicated for a system that should be fairly quick. So far as why a To-Hit penalty against models on higher height levels, because it is both harder to aim at targets higher up, and they tend to be more obscured by the platforms on which they stand. There are a lot of cool things that could be done with height levels, such as increasing firing ranges, clearing LOS, etc but just increasing cover values seems both the most straightforward, and the least like to drastically alter the game, because it doesn't take much of an advantage to change player behavior.

I was proposing the Stealth value replaced the 'BS system' to determine the chance to hit .
EG (Assigning values to units on their unit cards something like this.)
Target Unit Type/Stealth Value(D6 roll needed to hit.)

Individual infantry model./6+.
Small infantry units /5+.
Small vehicles medium infantry units/4+.
Medium vehicle /MC ,large infantry units /3+.
Large vehicle/MC/2+.

Larger model-count units being easier to hit, love it. Disconnecting the chance to hit from the skill of the model, not so much, unless i'm missing something really obvious.

Lots of interesting stuff here.
1) I particularly like Agnosto's idea of units having different options to react to charges -- could add a lot of tactical fun with relatively little complexity.
2) Lanrak makes the sensible point that single models should be harder to hit than small squads, which should be harder to hit than huge blobs.
3) I also like Lanrak's idea of measuring unit coherency from the leader rather than model to model to model -- could simplify matters a lot, and adds a tactical wrinkle that a low-command-value leader can only control a large unit by bunching them all up, which is a big "come and get it!" to template weapons. (Realistic, too).

I am veeerry leery of height levels, though. It adds a lot of complexity for very little tactical interest or realism: a Gretchin standing on a tree stump is higher up than a Space Marine lying in a ditch....
The only distinction in unit size I'd make is +2 to hit super heavy vehicles and gargantuan creatures, +1 to hit regular vehicles and monstrous creatures, and no modifier for anyone else.

And I'd like leaders to do something more interesting than just grant rerolls. For crying out loud, it seems like 50% of the special abilities in this game grant rerolls, I am rolling too many god damn dice already and do not want to have to roll any of them again thank you very much.

I think generals are still pretty well covered with warlord tables. You could import the fantasy mechanic of extending leadership to x" to benefit units within that range but some faction special characters already have that.

Lieutenants...I was also thinking along the lines of a lieutenant being able to direct fire from one unit per turn that would normally be out of direct line of sight of an enemy but within line of sight of the lieutenant. A unit firing in this manner would count their target as being in hard cover. I like the idea of being able to buy 1 lieutenant for every 2 troop choices without costing a FoC slot. Make them basically sergeants with different gear options and possibly +1 on a given stat and independent character. An intermediary step between a unit sergeant and an HQ.

Hi folks.
@ Rav1n.
I completely forgot to say that a simple way to incorporate natural height bonuses is a simple measuring mechanic.
The unit high up measures distance flat across the table , and all weapon ranges get + 2" per height level.(Actual range increase.)
The lower unit measures directly from unit to unit, EG along the long angle between the two units.(Naturally occuring range decrease without subtracting values.)

Thinking of cover, obstacles , walls fences etc, can be seen over from higher vantage points.Naturally covered by LOS improvement for being high up.(If we set 50% of model to be obscured by obstacles to grant cover from obstacles..)
However, area cover terrain , woods, jungle , ruins etc. still give cover no matter how high the attacker is.

I am trying to think of simple solutions that give intuitive results, they may not be super accurate or complicated.But if we are after a fun fast paced game they shouldnt be IMO.

You were not missing something, I just forgot to post it!
If most folks are happy with the basic chance of hitting a unit being set by how hard the unit is to see& hit.(Stealth Value.)

I forgot to mention how the skill of the shooter is represented in the new system .
In 40k the maxumum range of the weapon is used, and the skill of the shooter is represented by a chance to hit any where from point blank to maximum range.

IF we simply say the effective range is the range the unit CAN hit a target at.
So better shots can hit targets further away, UPTO the maximum range of the weapon.

I am not talking about variable ranges!

But each unit has a unit card.And on the unit card the units effective range with each weapon is listed.

For example
An IG white shield (Current BS2 ) only have an effective range of 18" with a las gun
A normal IG trooper (current BS 3) has an effective range of 20" with a las gun
A veteran IG trooper (Current BS 4 ) has an effective range of 22" with a las gun.
(Just examples to show how the system works.)

Its just most units in modern war DO NOT engage until they are sure they are going to be able to put rounds on the target.(They get into effective weapons range.)
Then its down to the skill of the target to avoid being seen -hit.

@Sister Sydney.
Re roll for command bonuses work better in the new system, because it has fewer dice rolls and re rolls!
However, you can substitute command modifiers .
EG Each command value allows the owning player to alter ONE dice by 1 pip per turn , that applies to any dice roll taken by friendly models within their command range.
This is less effective than allowing re rolls.So there is no need to reduce the number of command modifiers in a unit, from multiple leaders/characters.

@Agnosto.
I would prefer a list of warlord traits players could pick from and pay appropriate points for.

The proposed command value and range does perform a similar role to WHFB LD boost.
It also allows players to use command range to allow a network of comms to allow fire direction to units firing indirectly.
But I would prefer indirect fire to be limited to area effect weapons like grenade launchers missile launchers, mortars , artillery etc.
Because normal small arms fire has massivley reduced effect if not fired directly.

If anyone is interested, I figured this was approprietly related;

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/570043.page

http://proton-pixel.blogspot.fr/

Interesting outline, Pyreshard. Some ideas seem to add more complexity than they're worth, but it's hard to tell without seeing the exact rule as written -- do you have a full write up, yet?

Likewise, Lanrak, I really have to read your full ruleset -- I just keep going to Dakka from my iPhone, which can't download it....

Agnosto, I think the current Warlord tables are a mediocre implementation of a great idea. I'd prefer more traits that buff the whole army or all units within x inches, and I absolutely would want to change to "pick one" rather than "choose one." (Same with Psyker powers, actually).

I've added a link to my blog where pretty much all the rules are listed, it's a work in progress..

I'm actually considering going further away from the current 40k rules. I'd love to be able to right up something the community could use and appreciate however.

I think this thread is a very good place to start looking for insight on what gamers actually want.

What about the fake 6th edition rules that was supposed to have leaked from gw? That had a lot of interesting points.
Beasts of war made a vid about it.
http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/6th-edition-40k-play-video/

@IceBayPlanet.
Why do you think the leaked 6th ed rules were fake?
AFAIK, every time there is a new edition of 40k , the game devs TRY to make improvements to the game, and try out new ideas.(Apparently Andy Chambers left GW after corporate rejected his plans for 40k.)

They have some great ideas , they try to make work.BUT are limited to making everything backwards compatible.Which kills some concepts dead, despite being good for the game.
And some require so much revision and addition to get to be backwards compatible, they become over complicated to implement.

Did you not get the feeling that game devs were told to 'stop trying to fix the game play , just bung in some random stuff, and make these kits worth more in game so we can sell them for a higher price!'
Because I did.

I think the ideas expressed in the leaked 6th ed rules were worth exploring.And IF 40k was allowed a complete new rule set , they could have been included with a lot less complication!

@Pyreshard.
I think you are on the same path most people tread when trying to fix 40k.
They start making changes that improve what is in the current rules.

Then eventually realize there is so little right with WHFB in space v 3.4,(40k 6th ed.) they might be better off starting from the beginning and writing a new rule set !

I agree that IF we can get an agreement on what players want in a 40k rule set , we could try to write that rule set!

Basic requirement.
Clarity, brevity, and intuitive game play.

Requires proper proof reading and editing , along with a clear design brief.(And lots of play testing !)

Design brief.
Define the scale and scope of the game and the intended game play.

Scales.
Skirmish game with detailed MODEL interaction .(Infinity, Necromundia,etc.)

Battle game with detailed UNIT interaction .(Epic , FoW, etc.)

If it is to be an intuitive war game, it needs to reference the correct warfare type.
'Ancient' all about manouvering into the best close combat match ups, with range attacks used in support.

'Modern' an equal balance of mobility, fire power and assault.(Mobility to take objectives, firepower to counter enemy movements, and assault to contest objectives.)

I think a MODERN BATTLE game rule set would work best for 40k. Do you agree?

(I think its important to get the basic design brief sorted before we get into the asthetic and personal influences.)

You're quite right actually, Lanrak.

I've been trying to work on this seriously, exploring different ways to make a great game out of it, but its becoming a real headache. It's fun, and I love it, but the biggest issue in my mind is this;

Balancing the gameplay so that it is innovative and still feels as classic 40k at the same time.

I don't want to make a game nobody but myself is interested in, I want the grand majority of the player community to be satisfied with whatever version of 40k they play.

The current official rules in my opinion hide some great ideas and familiar concepts that we all love and should always keep, but are poorly designed in terms of balance for the sake of selling the overpriced kit for the newest OP unit out there.

This kind of design has to stop, as it is corrupting the very spirit of the game and the hobby. It divides the players.

A lot of people tell me; "If you don't like it, don't buy it, don't play it." I do agree on this to a certain extent, but I love the 40k universe, I love the models and all that makes the appeal of the hobby.

Games Workshop's latest decisions in terms of quite possibly everything have sucked the joy of being part of all this from me, so here I am trying to better a game that I do not "own", while quite frankly it is not my place to do so.

I think that what would really be great would be a serious "meeting" thread for all those who seriously want to work on a new ruleset and improve the game for all of us.

(And I agree with you 100% on the modern warfare style.)

 IceBayPaint wrote:
What about the fake 6th edition rules that was supposed to have leaked from gw? That had a lot of interesting points.
Beasts of war made a vid about it.
http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/6th-edition-40k-play-video/

Those had alternating unit-by-unit movement and allowed opportunity fire against moving enemies, right?

Lurking Cloak Devivce (aka the LCD) is currently off line.

One thing you might want to consider adding to your design criterion is how your rules and mechanics portray the setting, in this case "Grimdark". A mechanic that was universal to the game that could portray how insignificant an individual life is in the 40k universe for example. For instance (and don't use this, its an example for a reason) would be "Squads take morale tests when the ARMY has been reduced to half its UNIT strength." Or maybe "Once a unit suffers >/=50% casualties, they cease making morale tests. They have become numb to the horror." Just something to think about.

LCD fully charged! Re-engage the Cloak! *poof*

I disagree that we have to choose between "skirmish" and "Battle" style rules, because as i think as everyone has noticed, 40K doesn't fit into either category. There are element's of depth here that would be unlikely to see in a "Battle" game, but the large model counts and unit-focused gameplay are far from "skrimish" style gameplay. Rather than forcing the game into either extreme, id rather work towards a middle ground that combines the best of both camps. Take the depth that Skirmish rules provide, but work in the streamlining and large-scale unit-interactions that would be found in a Battle game.

Hows this sound as a way to get rid of the FOC and curb overpowered units / Spam.

1 HQ unlocks 3-4 unit selections. However, instead of selecting a unit, the player may choose a "formation", composed of 2-4 units. The units in these formations are preset, and every unit in this formation must be purchased, however, the size of the unit and it's upgrades are left to the discretion of the player. This way, players either must purchase formations to make maximum use of their points, preventing spam, or purchase additional HQ units as a tax to unlock more slots for units. This also allows for some units to be out of balance in terms of strength for cost, but still be balanced as they could only be purchased with other units. For example, if the only way to buy a wraithknight was to purchase a "formation" of wraithknight, wraithguard, and wraithblades suddenly that wraithknight is now much more expensive to field (in terms of limiting options and soaking up points). If a player wants to play a certain style of army, that choice can be represented using formations, and if they like a specific unit, they can still play as many of those as they want, for a price. Other things could be done as well, such as discounting formations vs individual units, or allowing entire formations to purchase upgrades / special rules that would benefit them, etc.

Hrmmm.... that sounds like making unit selection more restricted rather than less...

KnuckleWolf wrote:
.....Once a unit suffers >50% casualties, they cease making morale tests. They have become numb to the horror...

Ha!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
All: On a much less ambitious scale than this thread, I've proposed some rules for new Sororitas units and wargear and would love your comments:

Canoness Awesomeness, Palatine Standard-Bearers, & Alternative Acts of Faith

Just for a change of pace from the big, multi-page rule suggestions, would it make sense to lower the strength of typical non-heavy Plasma weaponry? Because they seem to be the weapon of choice right now (read: Spammed), for good reason. They're readily available, relatively cheap, ignore all armor in the game, easily wound everything but MC's (which they are above average at wounding), are decent at damaging light and medium vehicles, have a standard infantry shooting range, and can be rapid fired. And what is the penalty for this versatility? A very meager Gets Hot penalty? Seems like their role could be refined somewhat to exclusive Anti-Heavy Armor (say STR 4 or 5, AP 2), rather than them just being average to extremely good at everything.

This way, if we look at the other special weapon options, they have nicely defined roles. Flamer = Anti-Light Infantry, Plasma = Anti-Heavy Infantry, Meltagun = Anti-Tank. This leaves monstrous creatures, which Grav-Weapons would fit very nicely (Both fluff and crunchwise), with high fire rates to drop wounds. They likely need some work anyways, to keep from becoming the new Auto-Take weapon, as i've seen them spammed in a lot of lists as well (AP2 and 3 just seems to be a prime sign of potential spamming, oh the wonders of the current AP system). Also why is the Grav effect based on armor instead of toughness? The fluff makes it seem like it would be better represented if it was based on toughness instead, because there's no way a terminator "weighs" more than a carnifex or trygon.