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.

@Sister Sydney .
A more interactive game turn was proposed by game devs for every edition of 40k, from 4th ed on wards.(According to some ex GW devs.)
However, the corporate response is 'people still buy it, just make it better at driving SHORT TERM sales of minatures.'

I totally agree that a more interactive game turn would be the single greatest change for good, in a new/improved 40k rule set.

@KnuckleWolf.
When it comes to getting the 'feel' of the setting into a rule set.It is much better to do it with subtlety, than trying to shoe horn in SPECIAL RULES to try to fit preconceived ideas ideas into the game in a restrictive/ restricted way.
It is important to get the basics right, when the scale scope and warfare type are clearly defined in the brief.(Determined by the game play 'setting '.)

It is SO much easier to get a wide range of interactions and effects,in a simple way.That can portray the genre and feeling of the setting in an unobtrusive way.
But I totally agree with the point you made!

@Rav1n.
I think on closer examination,you will find 40k is a battle game.(The game is all about unit interaction, single model units and multiple model units.)
The fact that GW force an old skirmish rule set on it for its core game mechanics and resolution methods , and uses skirmish sized minatures .(28mm)
Does not stop 40k being a battle game.it just makes it a over complicated and poorly defined one!

Lots of battle game have just as much if not MORE depth than 40k.(Epic Armageddon, Dirt-side, Challenger, Firefly etc.)

And this is where I want to head.DETAILED UNIT interaction.This may be the point you were trying to make?
Take all the detail from the skirmish game but put it into UNIT interaction.

So we treat the UNIT as a fully detailed 'element ' in a battle game.
In the same way we treat a MODEL as a fully detailed 'element ' in a skirmish game.

I believe using a UNIT CARD , with all the in game info on one side, and the FOC on the other would be a step forward.

I would like to use a proportional FoC based on theme set by the HQ.(The HQ chosen determines if the units are Common Specialized or Restricted.)
For each HQ unit selected,
You MUST take 2 to 8 Common units.
For every 2 Common unit you MAY take a Specialized unit.
For every 2 Specialized units you MAY take a Restricted unit.

This allow theme to be arrived at without the need to use special characters, and negates the need to alter PV to reflect strategic importance.
(A good ranged unit in a assault focused army is NOT worth more PV, just limited in availability.)

And the classification of units Common, Specialized, Restricted , to each theme is a much less restrictive way to deal with game balance.IMO.

I saw an idea on another forum, and it was a more solidified version of an idea i had to replace the current AP and Save system, since it overvalues AP 3 and AP 2, completely devalues 5+ and 6+ saves, and generally doesn't make a bunch of sense. This system does rely on the unit cards a lot more than others might though. My experiments with a 2nd edition style Armor Save Modifier (ASM) system got too complex too quickly, though the additional depth brought to infantry weapons were nice.

Weapon fit into 4 classes(1 more might be necessary to represent AP 6 and AP (-) )
AP 1: Models get their normal save (roughly AP 5)
AP 2: Models get their first reduced save (If available) (roughly AP 4)
AP 3: Models get their second reduced save (If available) (Roughly AP 3)
AP 4: Models get no armor save (Roughly AP 2)

So, for example, a space marines Sv profile might look something like (3+/4+/ - ), whereas a guardsman's would look like (5+/ - / - ). Obviously a lot of work re-balancing would be necessary, but at least low value saves actually show up outside of close combat, while AP 3 / 2 weapons aren't such a massive jump in efficiency. I also like how it opens up the possibility of exploring armor of different qualities in a better fashion. For example, Eldar mesh armor should be massively more advanced than imperial flak armor, but right now, they have the same effect. Under these rules, you could make it so this advancement is shown in the reduced saves. Guardsman flak armor might be (5+/ - / - ), but the Eldar mesh armor could be (5+/ 6+ / - ), showing the benefit of additional technological advancement. Under a D12 system, this works even better, because you can have values between D6 values that help show these differences to a greater degree.

Huh. Interesting -- but a lot of work to implement and play test, precisely because it's so different from what we have now.

Speaking of armor modifiers, im trying to work on it my self but am having issues coming up with something simple and intuitive. as it is the system works entirely on characteristics test so to have minimal charts.

as it is now its

To hits (cover and other modifiers go here)
To pen (id like to change armor from the 2+ 5+ type system to actual armor value so say marines get a (armor value of 4 (which is still 4/6 chance to save (aka 3+)) id like it to be modified by the apposing AP but my attempts (difference = the modifier) grossly helps higher armor (from like a 1.11 wound per hit from a marine to marine, to like .08 if i recall.
To wound (same as current)

Perhaps making it so that if AP = AV = -1 to armor while AP > AV = -2 and so on, that way lower armor units still have a better chance at surviving.

Also if this is the case id probably have to make auto pass a thing as to not let certain weapons hurt vehicles.


also making stats go up instead of down lets me add in vehicles walkers and mcs into the same system. im thinking a failed roll on a 6 on the to wound = vehicle or MC damage chart or something. with specific weapons like melta guns giving that a boost to like 5 or 4.

Hi folks.
If we are talking about a new AP system to work with current rules.(With some re evaluating of PV and stats.)

Simply remove the successful save rolls that are equal or higher than the weapons AP value.

EG An AP 6 weapon ignore ALL saving throws that roll a NATURAL 6.
So vs
6+ save NO SAVE.
5+ save only saves on 5.
4+ save only saves on a 4 or 5.
3+ save only saves on 3,4,or 5
2+ save only saves only on 2,3,4 or 5.
(Like a -1 to save , but more intuitive,)

An AP 4 Weapon ignores NATURAL 4+,5+ and 6+ saves .(Like a -3 save modifier.)
3+ saves only save on a 3.
2+ saves only save on a 2 or 3.

Then we can simply say invunerable saves ignore AP modifiers that are higher than the invunerable save.

Roll saves as normal, discard dice that are equal or higher than weapons AP value.
Invunerable saves allow the MODEL to keep the save rolls that are equal or higher than thier invunerable save, no matter what the value of the weapons AP value.

But this only works for non vehicles models.(Unless you want to convert vehicles to use the same stats as all other units?).


The system I use in my new rules is to simply give ALL units a armour value from 1 to 15.
And ALL weapons have an AP value from 5 to 20.

Simply roll a Dice and add the models AV .
If this combined value is higher than the weapon hits AP value , the model makes it save roll.

This allows ALL models to be represented and covered by the same system that give more proportional results.(And much easier to balance.)

It also allows natural invunerability, when a models AV is the dice value higher than the AP value of the weapon , the weapon can not penetrate it.(Eg tanks are not effected by small arms.)
This also means some models get no save vs some weapons.(But a grot being hit by a melta gun should not get an armour save IMO.)
We are currently play testing using a D6.( but may move to a D10 to get a wider spread of results IF we need to.)

Ill attach the latest version of or new rules , (being Alpha play tested.)There are rough conversions to use 40k units in the new system at the end.
We are trying to make sure the core rules delivers the level of good game play with 40k units, as it did with modern factual units .
(We used these rules with WWII and modern battle games to make sure the system worked as a good modern battle rule set.)

Please note these are still WiP , so the sections about organizing a battle and army lists are still being worked on.
If you want to read through it , comment or try out the rules please feel free to.(Please PM me any comments or questions .)

Lanrak, thanks for posting the latest Xenos & Zealots.

I confess I'm confused by all these ways to fix AP without changing the AP scale... I think it may just be simpler to turn the AP scale upside down -- renaming the stat for clarity -- and say

AP (-) => Penetration 0
AP 6 = > Pen 1
AP 5 => Pen 2
AP 4 => Pen 3
AP 3 => Pen 4
AP 2 => Pen 5
AP 1 => Pen 6

If Pen < Armour, then add Armour to Toughness when rolling to wound.

If Pen > or = Armour, then ignore the Armour and add nothing to Toughness when rolling to wound.

I may have something on the leaders being leaders side of things.
assuming we are alternating turns
during my turn I select one unit who will move, shoot, charge I also pre select a enemy target unit that is within range
the primary target unit takes a initiative test before I do anything
if he passes roll a D6 and add the LD of the unit, and consult the following table, if the unit has a character +1 if he is an independent character +2 , if the unit lost its character the unit suffer a -1 penalty on this table as they no longer have a specified commander (ie command goes to who shouts loudest, or is biggest in case of orks) note if you roll higher you can pick everything lower than your result ie roll 14 and you can also use commands 13, 12, 11, and 10. you only get one command so use it wisely

10, fall back
unit can move 6 inches back in after a shooting attack has been resolved, but suffer a -1 LD penalty against any morale tests this unit makes this turn after all you have started running and may not want to stop

11 take cover
if in cover unit gets increased cover bonuses in response to a shooting attack but a suffers a penalty to initiative, as you cant see the enemy

12 counter fire
rather than hide from incoming fire you take advantage of the enemies exposed firing positions. both players resolve shooting attacks in initiative order, both shooting parties suffer a penalty to cover saves

13 requesting fire at....
another unit within 12" of your unit can make a shooting attack against the enemy, that unit then gets a marker while the maker is on that unit cannot shoot, next time the unit goes to shoot at the end of the shooting phase remove the marker

14 form up
in response to enemy movement you may move your models 3" in any direction they spotted hostiles approaching and adjust positions to meet them, guns ready

15 brace for impact
in response to a charge, you may over watch without penalties, or gain +1 to initiative in the proceeding combat

16 into the breach!!
in response to a charge, you charge!, your opponent must pass an initiative check to fire over watch as they were not prepared for your sudden assault

17 tactical brilliance
your unit can use 2 different orders, providing they are not in the same phase

18 inspired leadership
your men trust in your command utterly, even unto death they obey, you may use one order in every phase this turn, in addition they become fearless for the rest of the game providing the character issuing the order is still alive

I will take any suggestions into improving this system as I think its awesome

I'm curious, and I hope this breaks everyone out of the box in their thinking. What have you thought about armor mechanics in Star Craft 2?

How do those work? I've never played.

I stopped playing in Season 2 of WoL, and assuming nothings changed in HotS, every unit (model) has Hitpoints, Armor, and sometimes a penetration value. For instance, a unit (model) with armor 2 reduces all incoming damage by 2, but if the attacker has penetration 1, that defender instead only reduces that attack by 1, and so on and so forth.

In a small skirmish game, this would be amazing. At the scale 40K plays at, I'm not so sure, as you'd have to treat every unit as a collective whole instead of a group of smaller models to avoid excessive counters, or have some really strange wounding rules to account for "damage" rather than wounds. I'd imagine something like a space marine can sustain 3 "wounds" before dying, an ork could withstand 2, while eldar and guardsmen could sustain 1. This would make the current wound system obsolete, unless it changes, maybe to something like they ignore a certain amount of "wounds" before actually losing "health". Thought provoking if nothing else.

However, for vehicles and monsters, this could be a fun system, as well as a way to make some guns more viable than others (Personally, Id much prefer Melta do double effects/damage instead of this 2D6 nonsense that turns AV14 into Swiss cheese). The system I'm working with right now can't represent strength above 5, so i compensated with a "Felling (X)" rule which reduces the targets toughness bonus (and explains Instant Death) instead of just increasing the guns strength, which is a bit like penetration from Starcraft 2. I'm just not sure how well these ideas mesh with the rest of 40K, you'd have to to build from the ground up to make sure this doesn't feel crammed in, though seems like we've got plenty of people starting from the ground up anyways.

PS: Starcraft's been "borrowing" from 40K for so long, I say we give them the same treatment and give Nids a unit based on the Baneling. Nid swarm, with the ability to destroy cover and a reliable method to take down vehicles without supporting monsters/zoanthropes/hive guard...yummmm.

Just a point I would like to make.

IF a team of professional game developers, can not make 'WHFB in space battle game ' work properly after 15 years.AND ALL the best of the 1000s of 'fixes' provided by the fan base add a similar level of complication when increasing complexity.
And when free of GW plc influence Allessio ditched fantasy in space battle game rules after the 1st year, as 'an idea that just did not work that well'.

Maybe current 40k rules are just not worth the effort to try to fix?

There are lots of good ideas, and well though out alternatives to the current game mechanics and resolution methods 40k currently uses discussed in this thread.
If we try to make them backwards compatible,or fit the current rules.
Are we not handicapping our potential in the same way GW corporate handicap the GW game developers?

Do you agree a complete rewrite would be the best way to get the best rule set for the current game play of 40k?
It may be quicker and more efficient to start from scratch , that try to fix 15 years of failed /poorly applied patches?

As far as damage resolution goes.
I believe most 40k players WANT to keep the 3 stage process.
Roll to hit.
Roll armour saves.
Roll to damage.

(As this allows a wider degree of weapon/target interaction than if you add 'armour and toughness' together to get a 'defence' value.)

If we can use a SINGLE appropriate resolution process for each , it would make game play as fast and fun as other games without loosing the depth of interaction.
(Eg loose the special rules bloat, without loosing the detail.)

The only reason I posted this is lots of good ideas may be dismissed as 'not working with current 40k rules '.
Well most of the ideas in the current 40k rule set do not work that well with the rules in the 40k rule set!

So perhaps saying this thread is for a reboot =new rule set, would free up the amount of ideas and concepts discussed?
(I have put the best ideas my group and I can come up with in the Xenos and Zealots rule set WIP.)
But if the folks on here get together they would probably come up with some better concepts and ideas.

My personal model here is the reboot of Dungeons & Dragons in 4th Edition. A lot of people hated it, but it sure streamlined play and got rid of a lot of the problems of the old game (e.g. fighters do the same thing every round, magic-users do a different thing until they run out of spells....).

I've become more focused on making changes work with the current codexes -- which has always been GW's strategy -- but you're right that that may just not leave enough room for real improvement.

Hi again.
The thing is because 40k 6th ed rules are a 'jack of all trades and master of none'.

If you make a new rule set for the current 40k game play, you are not going to be able to please every one.

That is why it is important to get a clear design brief .IMO.Then at least all the people working on the rules know what they are trying to achieve.
Eg A 'modern warfare' based battle game.
Then folks wanting a skirmish game , or a ancient close combat focused game ,will look else where.

When I look at other good modern battle games.Most of them tend to be using smaller scale minatures.(6 mm to 20mm.)
And multiple model units like infantry are mounted on unit bases.

The solution we came up with was making the unit coherency from the unit leader/attached character.This is a 'virtual base area'.That seemed the most appropriate with the larger sized minatures in 40k.(And simplifies /speeds up multiple model unit movement.)
(I do not think gluing 40k minatures onto a CD sized base is very practical. )

So far you hit one side of the SC2 mechanics. But the interesting part to damage resolution in SC2 was that there were two sides to it. Notably weapon type versus target type mattered. This is what I'm curious to see you play with. It seems simple on paper, but led to very deep unit interaction. It was easy to forget entirely that there was even numbers attached to the mechanic, or that there were only three types of damage, play just fell to 'okay I need X to counter Y, And A to hit through B and live long enough to kill C'. Enter perfect imbalance...

Here's a link to the SC2 wiki damage notes: http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Damage_types

Hmmm interesting ideas on that front, some of which have been brought up in one form or another (such as larger units/models being easier to hit than others). I did have one idea similar to the marauders concussive shell idea for tyranids, that stranglewebs could reduce infantry's maximum movement by 3". Limit them to gargoyles, and it could result in some really nice interplay between gargoyles and gaunts, as the gargoyles fly overhead, slowing / locking units in place so gaunts can run up and maul them.

There have been ideas floating around about creating a "mechanical" trait that could be applied to necrons to make them immune to poison, maybe expand it out to apply to vehicles as well, perhaps reducing incoming penetration. Splash is sort of in place with blast and template weapons, perhaps a new type could do something like D3 hits for blast weapons that don't deserve the full blast effect, such as the specialist frag rounds on sternguard / deathwatch. Damaging hard cover / ruins , reducing the saves and destroying them outright would be interesting, if it wasn't too complex a system. Having certain weapon types affect "light" units more than "heavy" units seems doable, but I'm not entirely sure how that would work without an appropriate damage system, so 40Ks AP system (not the current version, but a better version) seems to be decent at this differentiation.

GO AWAY
I like my 40K as the broken gak it is!

@ Knuckelwolf.
I like the idea of more detailed weapon and unit interaction.
Could we look at what the basic resolution methods , (roll to hit, to save, to damage.) could allow us to cover?

If we look at the basic unit types in 40k, they range from;-
Units with very light armour protection , that rely on speed/ stealth, or large numbers for them to survive as an effective unit through the battle.
To large single model units with large amounts of armour , that rely on these high levels of armour to survive as an effective unit through out the battle.

This gives us a range of weapon types that are effective vs different types of target.
LOW AP, high rate of fire/large area of effect weapons are most effective vs lightly armoured units that rely on speed/stealth numbers to be effective.

And HIGH AP, single shot /single point of contact make the best 'anti tank' weapons.Delivering a huge amount of damage to a single point on larger heavily armoured targets.

So if we use the STEALTH value to represent the TARGET unit size and skill at remaining hidden form its enemies.

And the comparative armour save , based on the units armour value , compared to the armour peircing value of the weapon hit.

This would give us a basic distinction between those units that rely on armour for protection , and those that rely on agility/numbers.And the weapons effectiveness against each type of unit.Using a single resolution method to cover all units would allow a natural proportional and intuitive weapon and target interaction.
This covers 'normal' weapon hits quite well IMO.
(Basic weapon Damage roll score modified by target Resilience covers different 'soft target' physiology.)

Explosive weapon and chemical weapons 'splash damage' can be represented by current blast and flamer templates.

Concussive weapon types could be represented by weapons that do not roll to beat the armour value , but just roll to suppress the target instead of physically damaging the target.?.Representing units being winded or temporarily concussed , perhaps?

I am assuming as we use models to represent the units in 40k , would allow varied effects on units from different weapons to be generated directly and intuitively.(Removing casualties, or recording incremental damage form large single multi wound/structure model units.)

Perhaps It would be helpful if I used some examples to illustrate these ideas?

I've been toying around with the idea to combine the vehicle damage rules used in 5th and 6th. Would work something like this. These would only apply to non-superheavy vehicles, until I can get a good look at the new apoc/escalation rules.

Roll to hit, then for penetration. Pen/glance happens the same way.
Roll on damage table. Both Pen and glance roll on this. glance gets -2 on chart.
AP2 gets +1, AP2 +2, if vehicle open topped +1, AP- is -1 [along with a few other ideas, not sure on how they would work.]
If you get a 3 or higher on the chart, vehicle loses a HP.

Table is something like this:
1. Shaken (only snap fire)
2. Stunned (Cannot move)
3. Shaken + Stunned
4. Weapon Destroyed
5. Immobillized
6. Wrecked
7. Explosion (S4 ap- to occupants if transport, S3 AP- to outside)
8. Heavy Explosion (S6 AP [equal to best weapon AP] occupants, S5 for those outside, same AP as inside);

Concussive weapon types could be represented by weapons that do not roll to beat the armour value , but just roll to suppress the target instead of physically damaging the target.?.Representing units being winded or temporarily concussed , perhaps?

I like this idea, make them do no/minimal damage, but their effects are what hurt the most. Make them suppressing weapons, and id like to see effects that slow models / treat them as being in difficult terrain even if they don't become suppressed. Thunderfire cannons slowing units to a crawl is fun, as would be things like tyranid mawlocks / trygons emerging from beneath, or Artillery Strikes.

7. Explosion (S4 ap- to occupants if transport, S3 AP- to outside)

I saw this on another thread a while ago and it was the best idea i'd seen in a while concerning vehicle Damage Tables. As it is, i think the best way to treat Monsters and Vehicles would be to create a Critical Damage chart based on the Vehicle Damage Chart, similar to what was used in 2nd edition i think. This way both Monsters and Vehicles can suffer these effects, like blowing arms and legs off of monsters, or hitting the heart or brain. A fun way of running explosions on monsters would be to make it so it stumbles around and falls over, with a scatter die showing which way it falls, and the distance die telling how far it falls. Regardless, it helps solve some of the problems of the current rules, and incorporates some of the ideas Lanrak has suggested.

Now we get back to flavor. I am wondering if you want 'suppression' as a mechanic in the world of Warhammer 40,000. While yes it is a real world tactical phenomenon it doesn't necessarily belong in the grimdark setting. I like looking at the epic art on the covers of the codecies and seeing these epic visceral lethal battle scenes, many do, and want to play the game for those moments. That feeling needs to be prevalent. It may do better to make suppression not a factor and make 'epic future combat' more prominent. Strategic tools like 'effects' are still important of course so you need to find a way to incorporate them still, this is going to be a game after all. In the same vein, a 'stealth' statistic that every unit has might be inappropriate as well. It is a unique unit that bothers overly much to use this in 40k, the ones that do achieve it through special rules. There is so much mechanical space left to be explored. I'm just trying to encourage you all to break out of the box in big ways and really invent, not just innovate. The stumbling monster above is a good move. That's starting to ask big questions about your models and rules together.

Something interessting in the rumors for 5th Ed or 4th Ed back in the day, was a modification of the Ap Vs Armor saves chart.

Technically if an AP was equal with an armor save, the model still had a small chance that the armor was robust enough to withstand the penetration of the incoming shoot.

in substance a model with a 3+ save still could attempt a save Vs an AP3 weapon, but it would only be saved on a 6.

An armor of 4+ Vs an Ap4 could be saved on a 6 etc etc.

of course if the Ap was better then the armor, there was no save at all, since the Penetration power of the shoot was higher then the protective power of the armour.

i've always regretted that there wasn't some kind of rule going like this.

Simply doing it like this for everyone, or implement a new USR rule " Reinforced; models with the Reinforced rule, can attempt a save roll Versus shoots/attacks that have the same AP value has their armor, if the roll give a 6, the model is saved and the attack/shot bounced off the armour, if any other result is given, the armour couldn't withstand the attack/shot penetration force"

KnuckleWolf wrote:I am wondering if you want 'suppression' as a mechanic in the world of Warhammer 40,000. While yes it is a real world tactical phenomenon it doesn't necessarily belong in the grimdark setting. I like looking at the epic art on the covers of the codecies and seeing these epic visceral lethal battle scenes, many do, and want to play the game for those moments....

Lanrak wrote:40k 6th ed rules are a 'jack of all trades and master of none'. If you make a new rule set for the current 40k game play, you are not going to be able to please every one. That is why it is important to get a clear design brief .IMO.Then at least all the people working on the rules know what they are trying to achieve. Eg A 'modern warfare' based battle game. Then folks wanting a skirmish game , or a ancient close combat focused game ,will look else where.

I agree with KnuckleWolf that any reboot needs to capture the feel of 40K -- which means it should not be a "modern warfare" game. It should incorporate elements of modern warfare where appropriate (and already does in many places) but we need to keep the (often literally) larger-than-life elements like heroes who survive hits that would kill an ordinary man and headlong charges into hand-to-hand combat.

Specifically regarding charges, I had a brainstorm about how to make them more feasible in the face of all the additional overwatch/opportunity fire we've been contemplating:

1) You may not move models into close combat with enemy models without declaring a charge against the specific unit or units to which those models belong.

2) When you declare a charge, before you move your units, the target enemy unit(s) must take a Leadership test with the following modifiers:
-1 if the target unit is Suppressed.
-1 if the target unit has taken one or more Wounds in the previous turn.
-1 if the charging unit has more models than the target unit or all the target units combined.
The enemy player may choose to deliberately fail this test.
Exceptions:
Units that are already Falling Back automatically fail this test.
Units that have the Stubborn special rule ignore the modifiers listed above.
Units that have the Fearless special rule, or that are already locked in combat, automatically past the test, even if their player does not want them to.
Units that have the And They Shall Know No Fear special rule automatically pass the test unless their player decides they fail it.

3) If a target unit passes this Leadership test, there is no effect.
If a unit fails this test, it may not fire Overwatch and instead immediately makes a Fall Back move. It is immediately Suppressed (if it wasn't already).

4) Move your charging unit twice its normal movement distance. (You must do this even if the target units have all fallen back).
If you can move none of your models into contact with any enemy model, the charge has failed: no close combat occurs.
If you can move at least one of your units into contact with at least one enemy model, then
- if that model's unit is Falling Back, the entire unit is destroyed. Fleeing and unable to defend themselves, the unit's members are either cut down or driven in panic from the field.
- if that model's unit is not Falling Back, it is immediately Locked In Combat with the charging unit. Neither side may fire on either unit for the rest of this turn. At the end of this turn, resolve the Close Combat.

Hi folks.
I think I need to clarify, that a battle game rule set BASED on 'modern combat'.
Simply means it is a battle game using units that are SIMILAR to 'units found in modern warfare' EG small(5 to 30 troops) units of skirmishing infantry, supported by (armoured) vehicles , artillery and air craft.(Or 'Monstrous Creatures ' performing similar roles.)

Rather than large blocks of infantry or cavalry in close formation, supported by limited 'ranged attack' units .(As found in ancient warfare.)

And a the GAME PLAY of rule set BASED on modern warfare has an EQUAL mix of firepower, mobility and assault.(All equally important,Mobility to take objectives, Fire power to control enemy movement, and Assault to contest objectives.)

As opposed to game play of a rule set based on ancient warfare, which is focused on manouvering into the best close combat match ups ,and ONLY using ranged attacks in a supporting role.

The game mechanics and resolution methods do not define the flavour of the game .But determine the clarity and brevity of the rules.(As instructions to play the game.)
Epic Armageddon covers EVERYTHING found in current 40k and ALL its expansions, and ALL of E,A,s army lists,(balanced for competitive play,) in just 138 pages of rules.

NO ONE has ever claimed Epic Armageddon was NOT in synergy with the 40k background.Or that it was needlessly OVER COMPLICATED.
(You can not say the same for 40k... )

We live in the real world, and this influences our expectations.IF the rule set delivers game play that follows our expectations we say the rule set is 'intuitive.'
Getting the game mechanics and resolutions that mimic the closest real world annaloge , make the game play 'intuitive.'

This is why I propose basing the rules on 'modern warfare'.(Not restricting the elements allowed in the game to real world limitations, but just making the unit interaction more'intuitive.')
ALL the current units and unit interaction found in the 6th ed rule book would be covered by the new rules.AND there would be more tactical depth in the game play, from more DETAILED unit interaction.SIMPLY because the core game mechanics and resolution methods cover the majority of unit interaction in an intuitive way.

I hope that clarifies things a bit.I am not very good at explaining myself in the written format.Sorry.

@ Sister Sydney.
I totally agree with declaring charges /intended target before moving any models. (it just makes the intended action clear.)

However, running away from an enemy unit that just 'burst into view' , is a VERY BAD IDEA!
(STAND UP AND TURN YOUR BACK on an enemy unit within small arms range? )And it does not fit in with the 'heroic nature' of 40k does it?'

I would rather give the charger a bonus for passing a Morale/Ld test.
I was thinking about a 'Determination test' for the attacker .
If the attacker passes a 'morale'/Ld test , they strike first on the charge.(To represent the charging unit psyching themselves up!)
If they fail, the combat returns to normal 'assault value'/Initiative order.

Give a bonus if
The charging unit out numbers the target unit.
The charging unit causes 'fear' in the target unit.( The most appropriate use of the concept of fear/terror in a modern warfare type game IMO.)

After the unit has been assaulted , determine the state of the looser:-(Using my new rules as an example.)
Routes,(Looser counts as Routed.)
Withdraws from combat, (Looser counts as Suppressed.)
Withdraws in good order,(Looser may act normally next activation/turn)

Note, interleaved actions allows 'Fire support' /over watch to become a natural game turn choice along with 'charge', 'advance', 'double move', 'evade',and 'infiltrate'.
And a less binary morale system removes the need for 'stubborn' fearless' etc,' special rules.'

Is it just me that finds 40k 6th ed rules very complicated, for the game complexity they deliver?

I agree with KnuckleWolf that any reboot needs to capture the feel of 40K -- which means it should not be a "modern warfare" game. It should incorporate elements of modern warfare where appropriate (and already does in many places) but we need to keep the (often literally) larger-than-life elements like heroes who survive hits that would kill an ordinary man and headlong charges into hand-to-hand combat

I'm interested in Suppression as a new vector of tactics more than anything else. Right now the goal of most units is pretty simple. Kill enemy units, and grab objectives, with a few exceptions of true "Support" units like Venomthropes, several Psykers and their associated powers, and the occasional effect like the Thunderfire Cannon's Tremor special rule. Similarly, attacking Vehicles is one directional, my only option is to kill it, or ignore it and try to mitigate damage. A new system for "Suppressing" vehicles would look similar to the current meta (lots of autocannons/plasma), but rather than the somewhat dumb hull points system, which just opens up an easier way to kill vehicles, it would focus on taking them out of action for a turn, through crew effects or minor systems damage. A Suppression system lets units interact in more ways than just killing each other. If i can Suppress a unit with a Devastator Squad, then have an Assault Squad jump on them for additional bonuses, not only do those units become more desirable due to potential synergy, but brand new ways to plan and make tactical decisions open up. So far as it perhaps not being 100% true to fluff, systems like ignoring suppression at the cost of extra damage, the old "No Retreat!" rule, extensive Melee combat, and others could help make sure that the bravery (read stupidity) often found in the 40K universe is represented properly, but still found within a balanced and engaging system. Fluff should inform the rules, not dictate or limit them, this is a game after all.

1) You may not move models into close combat with enemy models without declaring a charge against the specific unit or units to which those models belong.

2) When you declare a charge, before you move your units, the target enemy unit(s) must take a Leadership test with the following modifiers:
-1 if the target unit is Suppressed.
-1 if the target unit has taken one or more Wounds in the previous turn.
-1 if the charging unit has more models than the target unit or all the target units combined.
The enemy player may choose to deliberately fail this test.
Exceptions:
Units that are already Falling Back automatically fail this test.
Units that have the Stubborn special rule ignore the modifiers listed above.
Units that have the Fearless special rule, or that are already locked in combat, automatically past the test, even if their player does not want them to.
Units that have the And They Shall Know No Fear special rule automatically pass the test unless their player decides they fail it.

3) If a target unit passes this Leadership test, there is no effect.
If a unit fails this test, it may not fire Overwatch and instead immediately makes a Fall Back move. It is immediately Suppressed (if it wasn't already).

4) Move your charging unit twice its normal movement distance. (You must do this even if the target units have all fallen back).
If you can move none of your models into contact with any enemy model, the charge has failed: no close combat occurs.
If you can move at least one of your units into contact with at least one enemy model, then
- if that model's unit is Falling Back, the entire unit is destroyed. Fleeing and unable to defend themselves, the unit's members are either cut down or driven in panic from the field.
- if that model's unit is not Falling Back, it is immediately Locked In Combat with the charging unit. Neither side may fire on either unit for the rest of this turn. At the end of this turn, resolve the Close Combat.

Some really interesting ideas here, my biggest problem is the Leadership check before the charge, because even leadership 10 units will fail every now and then, and having an entire terminator squad slain to the man by a gretchin would be quite infuriating. Its a similar problem to what sweeping advance does right now, its an unnecessarily abstract result in an extremely well defined and detailed combat system. Why not just have 1 free round of combat for the victors, rather than completely destroy the enemy? I do, however, love the idea of this pre-combat leadership test being used as a system for Fear. For that matter, Fear itself should probably be fleshed out more anyways, its a really great concept that could influence many aspects of the game, yet is rather limited in its current iteration. As for the changes to overwatch (and snapshots), i suggest just dropping them entirely and looking for a smoother system, as i really hate the mechanics. It seriously supports armies like Ork's who can now move and fire for minimal penalty, while more elite units are treated as being just as bad at firing on the move as less skilled models. Moving extra distances to catch up to fleeing units seems fun, but double the normal movement speed is incredible, bikes would be able to declare a charge from 24" away!

Units that have the Fearless special rule, or that are already locked in combat, automatically past the test, even if their player does not want them to.

This may just be a pet peeve of mine since i love old school Grey Knights, but why do i see Fearless treated as a bad thing so often? I realize its rules used to be terrible for close combat, but done right Fearless should essentially be the full, upgraded version of ATSKNF, its not like they forget about tactics and logic, which is where a No Retreat! special rule would come in handy to pass out.

Lanrak wrote:Hi folks.
I totally agree with declaring charges /intended target before moving any models. (it just makes the intended action clear.)
However, running away from an enemy unit that just 'burst into view' , is a VERY BAD IDEA!
(STAND UP AND TURN YOUR BACK on an enemy unit within small arms range? )And it does not fit in with the 'heroic nature' of 40k does it?'

But in real life people do suicidally stupid things in combat all the fething time.

Lanrak wrote:I would rather give the charger a bonus for passing a Morale/Ld test.
I was thinking about a 'Determination test' for the attacker .
If the attacker passes a 'morale'/Ld test , they strike first on the charge.(To represent the charging unit psyching themselves up!)
If they fail, the combat returns to normal 'assault value'/Initiative order.
....

Rav1rn wrote:my biggest problem is the Leadership check before the charge, because even leadership 10 units will fail every now and then, and having an entire terminator squad slain to the man by a gretchin would be quite infuriating. Its a similar problem to what sweeping advance does right now, its an unnecessarily abstract result in an extremely well defined and detailed combat system. Why not just have 1 free round of combat for the victors, rather than completely destroy the enemy?

[

Either of these would be a good fix. THanks.

Rav1rn wrote:I do, however, love the idea of this pre-combat leadership test being used as a system for Fear. For that matter, Fear itself should probably be fleshed out more anyways, its a really great concept that could influence many aspects of the game, yet is rather limited in its current iteration.

Good idea.

Rav1rn wrote:As for the changes to overwatch (and snapshots), i suggest just dropping them entirely and looking for a smoother system, as i really hate the mechanics. It seriously supports armies like Ork's who can now move and fire for minimal penalty, while more elite units are treated as being just as bad at firing on the move as less skilled models.

Yes, we're really looking at Overwatch using the normal shooting rules -- and allowing you to shoot at any moving enemy, not just one charging you -- with maybe a penalty for firing at a moving unit rather than a stationary one.

Rav1rn wrote:
I'm interested in Suppression as a new vector of tactics more than anything else. .... If i can Suppress a unit with a Devastator Squad, then have an Assault Squad jump on them for additional bonuses, not only do those units become more desirable due to potential synergy, but brand new ways to plan and make tactical decisions open up.

Yes! Yes!!! YES!!!!

Hi Rav1n.
I think we both would like similar things in the revised 40k game play /new rules , but may express them slightly differently.(I am an expert at talking at cross purposes! )

I agree with you 40ks primary problem is it has over simplified the interaction to binary conditions.
100% fighting fit OR dead.
100% fearless killing machine OR running away!

This means 40k relies heavily on special rules to make the interaction less boring/predictable.(Resulting in over complicated rules and clunky game play.)

If we used an interleaved, (Players alternate taking ONE action with ALL their units, move shoot ready or assault.) 2 action game turn.

Command Phase.(Issue commands, request off table support.)

Primary action phase.(Units perform first action.)

Secondary action phase.(Units perform second action.)

Resolution Phase.(Rally units , plot arrivals.)

We could implement suppression, by saying a suppressed unit may ONLY MOVE OR SHOOT in a restricted way in the Secondary action phase.
(Suppressed units can NOT launch assaults!)

Move (up to movement value) towards cover OR away from enemy units, (or turn to put highest AV towards enemy, if vehicle /MC?.)

Shoot at nearest enemy unit, or return fire on enemy unit that shot at them last.
(Suppressed units count as having moved before shooting , and are ONLY able shoot at enemies in effective weapons range obviously.)

I totally agree with you how having suppression as an intergrated part of damage resolution,, and a more developed morale system for 40k, would open up a massive amount of options in the game play.(Reducing the need for 'counter intuitive' special rules.)
IF the new core rules cover 90% of the intended game play in an intuitive way.And you just need a few special rules to add the 40k flavour to the other 10%, thats pretty much what I think would be optimal.(As you put it 'allow all the options for over the top stupidity/bravery'. )

I also agree that a LD check to stop units fleeing from a charge is a bit counter fluff/counter intuitive.

What do you think of the test for a' charging unit bonus' ?

The concept of 'Fearless' units seems to be able to be implemented in a simple and intuitive way in most other war games I play.
Only 40k devs could produce something that sounds cool , but generates such counter intuitive game play .





.

I don't know about a full homebrew heaven, but bringing back the Vehicle Design Rules would be very welcome. They were a fun, easy to use, easy to understand system that added a lot. Given that building something exactly the same as a codex model tended to make it cost a little bit more than the base model kept it from being to abusable.

I would also second the D10 system. The Firewarrior should shoot better than the average guardsman, he's evolved to be a highly skilled rifleman.

Are the old vehicle design rules downloadable anywhere? I've never seem them myself.

Has it been suggested to use the DOW 2 system mechanics?
It seems easy enough to do.

 Desubot wrote:
Has it been suggested to use the DOW 2 system mechanics?
It seems easy enough to do.

Which mechanics, specifically, do you refer to?

DoW2 can balance it well, since Tactical Marines effectively have 330 wounds in that game (And Termagants 80, and so on) and Bolters do 14.58 wounds per second. And there's a helluva lot of turns in that game.

In a 5-7 turn game it is harder.