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.

Cover which is a accuracy mod
Suppression which would need to be worked but works with moral points.
Weapons and armor having resistance and damage modifiers which could be percentaged out.


I think suppression could be added in very easily by making certain weapon or conditions that remove points from your Ld. eventually if you hit 0 you are auto pinned or something of that nature.

I wouldnt add in the health/heroic nonsense, just the base mechanics.

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

I don't know. They were in a Chapter Approved, that I can no longer find.

http://www.ageofstrife.com/tools/vdr/index.html

Not sure if that worked. Or google "Age of Strife" or vehicle design rules.

@Desubot.
I agree with including MANY of the concepts from DoW and DoW II.
(Modern warfare based interaction.)
However, most of the resolution processes in these games are 'number crunching' based and handled by the processor not the players.

In a table top minature games we can get much more 'user friendly' interaction.(Using unit stats directly ,with appropriately applied dice rolls.)
Lots of good games simplify the resolution of the process without distorting the process.This is the direction I would prefer.

If we use modifiers,
Things that make the action harder add to the target score required.Things that make the action easier add to the dice roll score.

EG a Unit has a Stealth value of 4+
It is in cover (+1) and over 30" away(long range.) (+1)
The attacker needs to roll over 4+1+1 =6 to see/hit the target.

However,if the Attacker has 'targeting equipment', (+1 to hit enemy at long range.)
So can see/hit the target on the roll of 5+(Add 1 to the dice roll score.)

(No need for PLAYERS to work out percentages for anything . )

Suppression can be covered with simple proportionality.(If we use armour value , as a simple indicator of confidence to threat level.)

Weapon and armour interaction can be a simple comparison to give a proportional (intuitive ) save value.

Weapon damage to the soft target behind the armour can be a base value modified DIRECTLY by the targets resistance to damage (resilience.)

I agree with concepts from Dow games being in the new 40k rules.But would prefer as straight forward resolutions as possible , to deliver intuitive game play, without bogging the game down in uneccessary complication.

@Sister Sydney.
The vehicle design rules from GW were fun to use, but not very good at resulting in balanced designs with accurate cost in PV, unless players put in quite a bit of work(A bit like 40k. )

@ Rav1n.
After you ideas for special rules to allow the lunacy /bravery of 40k into the game. I intend to try out a special rule , at the next round of play testing.

Iron Will. Units with or lead by a character with this Special Skill, can ignore the effects of suppression for the rest of THIS game turn.

Place An Iron Will counter on top of the unit suppression counter.

Next turn the Unit puts the Iron Will Marker UNDER the Suppression marker.The unit will be suppressed this turn , AND CAN NOT be Rallied.

In the following turn remove the Iron Will Counter, the unit remains suppressed but can be rallied normally in this turns Resolution phase.

Basically ignore suppression this turn, but then remain suppressed for the next 2 turns instead.Delaying the effects, means the effects last twice as long when they take effect.
.

@Lanrak

... 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.)

Can you give us an example of a replacement system for morale? Because I actually rather like the current morale system. The stats don't stick out too much on the statline, its a fairly straightforward 2D6 roll with the necessary bell curve for proper probabilitiy, and the 3 main morale USR's (Fearless, ATSKNF, and Stubborn) are set in solid increments with good mechanics, though ATSKNF definitely needs some work. Add in a No Retreat! USR that can be handed out and i'd be pretty happy with the system, though many of the particulars built off of the mechanics need work (sweeping advance, regrouping rules, etc).

Iron Will. Units with or lead by a character with this Special Skill, can ignore the effects of suppression for the rest of THIS game turn.
Place An Iron Will counter on top of the unit suppression counter.
Next turn the Unit puts the Iron Will Marker UNDER the Suppression marker.The unit will be suppressed this turn , AND CAN NOT be Rallied.
In the following turn remove the Iron Will Counter, the unit remains suppressed but can be rallied normally in this turns Resolution phase.
Basically ignore suppression this turn, but then remain suppressed for the next 2 turns instead.Delaying the effects, means the effects last twice as long when they take effect.

Seems like an unnecessarily complex way of sidelining Suppression, as it's spread out over 3 turns, or half of a average length game! Also seems like it would only be useful to melee units, because if they can make it into assault before the iron will penalty kicks in, then they're golden. All others would likely never use it, since there's very little that a unit can do in one turn that would make up for 2 turns of inoperability. I like the system knucklewolf suggested way back when about allowing a unit to "Ignore" suppression at the cost of additional hits, sort of like a ranged version of No Retreat!. Same idea of 40K level tactical crazyness, but much more immediate effect that doesn't need to be accounted for over multiple turns.

Though you could do something like spending a command point to allow a unit to act as if its under a lessened version of Suppressed for the turn (say make snapshots instead of no firing), though there would need to be some other way to use that command point to overcome suppression to make sure that players wouldn't just use that order anytime their unit became suppressed. Maybe an order that allows a unit to slowly move while suppressed, and another that lets them try to overcome suppression? I'm not sure, things to think on.

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

As something standardized in the morale rules, im not a fan, but it would be a fantastic option if brought into your Command System. A Sergeant / Leader uses his command point to pump up his troops, getting them ready to charge into assault. The main strength of your Command system is the variety of effects it allows for, yet still keeps them relatively balanced due to the extreme opportunity cost of holding onto them for most of the turn, because then your'e not re-rolling that critical die, or making reactions, or doing any number of other things the system provides for.

@Mania_nmt

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.

I highly recommend a D12 over a D10, as it's a far simpler conversion for D6 and still allows for the same advantages of the higher number dice. They're also more stable and thus less likely to move during dice removal. I've been running D12 in the rules im working on and i've been very pleased with the results.


Also, i had a really out there idea of a way to play 40K with minimal dice rolls, but it uses more modifiers than might be preferable, and is a much higher "View" of 40K than is currently in use. Basic idea is for every group of 5 models in a squad, you get a D6 on the roll (1-5 models is D6, 6-10 models is 2D6, etc). Then the unit's stats such as WS, BS, S, etc are added as modifiers to every dice in the relevant rolls (multiple attacks/shots just add multipliers to the number of dice thrown). So for example, a full Tactical Squad shooting would roll 2D6 to see how many hits there are, then would add their BS bonus (say 3) to each die (for a total bonus of 6 + 2D6). This determines the number of hits. Then the defending unit, say 20 Ork Boyz, would roll 2D6 (the same number of dice as the marines threw) and add their toughness bonus (they get no armor bonus due to AP), and the difference between the number of hits and the number of saved wounds detemines how many die. Obviously this system is far from solid and has tons of problems, but thought it up an hour or two ago and figured i'd put it out there.

@Rav1n.
I would prefer to split the morale system into the 'units will to fight on' (Morale Grade) and the ability of the unit leaders/characters to inspire near by units.(Command value.)

Units simply have a Morale Grade,
Fearless 1+
Elite 2+
Veteran 3+
Trained 4+
Conscripted /mindless 5+

To pass a morale test simply roll equal or over the units morale grade.
This is modified by,
Being :- Suppressed, out numbered in assault ,out of command,(coherency,)charged by units that cause the target unit Fear. etc.
Add 1 to the units morale grade ,(Making it harder to pass the morale test) for each condition that applies.

Leaders/ Characters with Command value MAY add their Command value to their OWN units morale tests.(Use highest if multiples apply.)(May not have put this in my rules write up. )

This is just the basic system , each race can have slight variations to get them in synergy with the background .

The problem is I am posting ideas for my new trial rules set, not 40k 6th ed.

in my game turn units only take 2 interleaved actions and most games run to about a dozen turns.(Faster game turns but more of them!)

If you want to fire to full effect, move to full effect or assault, Suppression WILL NOT LET YOU.

IF you use Iron Will to get into Assault,you will NOT be able to launch another assault for 2 turns.And you will give any enemy a bonus to assault you .
I do not see this as 'golden'.

I will see how it works when we get to play testing .(If its too fiddely I try other methods.)

An alternative might be the unit can not use any bonuses from friendly command Values when they become ''Stressed'' from ignoring suppression.
The length of time a unit is 'Stressed' for depends on morale value.
Fearless/Elite 1 turn.
Veteran /Trained 2 turns.
Conscript 3 turns.


I am a bit unsure about 'fixed' physical damage penalty though.
It may work for IG /Orks where a trooper is shot by the leader to 'inspire the rest of the unit to get on with it.'
But other races /armies not so much.(SM , Eldar etc.)

(We are using D6 ATM. Unlike 40k we are not using them is such a limited binary way.But may move to D12 for unit rolls if needed.)

IF you use Iron Will to get into Assault,you will NOT be able to launch another assault for 2 turns.And you will give any enemy a bonus to assault you .
I do not see this as 'golden'.

Ah the only effects i saw you list for suppression was unable to move and shoot, not any melee effects other than being unable to charge. And without a system for consolidation charges, either the unit gets stuck in melee long enough to avoid the iron will problems or it wins and then can't assault again anyways, so it didn't seem like much of a problem.

This is modified by,
Being :- Suppressed, out numbered in assault ,out of command,(coherency,)charged by units that cause the target unit Fear. etc.

I like these conditions, but does your system allow models to be out of unit coherency? I think there was an idea a while ago that higher level command models would allow the units to be more spread out than lower level command models? Did you put this into practice because id like to hear about it.

Iron Will seems awfully complicated....

amanita wrote:http://www.ageofstrife.com/tools/vdr/index.html

Not sure if that worked...

It worked. Thanks.

Lanrak wrote: If we use modifiers, things that make the action harder add to the target score required.Things that make the action easier add to the dice roll score.

Yes, this is the way to do it. Death to subtraction!

Lanrak wrote: Suppression can be covered with simple proportionality.(If we use armour value , as a simple indicator of confidence to threat level.)

Weapon and armour interaction can be a simple comparison to give a proportional (intuitive ) save value.

Okay, this I'm not sure I understand at all. What number is proportional to what other number here?

Did this thread seriously go this long without anyone realizing the "let 100 flowers bloom" joke?

As a middle ground between 4th and 5th edition scoring rules, how about any unit can capture an objective, but if an objective is captured by a troops unit, the owning player receives an additional victory point?

 ductvader wrote:
Did this thread seriously go this long without anyone realizing the "let 100 flowers bloom" joke?

Thank you!

Yes, I am the Mao Zedong of the Proposed Rules forum.

 SisterSydney wrote:

 ductvader wrote:
Did this thread seriously go this long without anyone realizing the "let 100 flowers bloom" joke?

Thank you!

Yes, I am the Mao Zedong of the Proposed Rules forum.

Not sure if you're tearing yourself down or putting yourself up...

Hi folks.
Thanks to the ideas, and comments on this thread.I have been re thinking some game mechanics .
I do seem to fail to explain things very well some times, sorry.

After more consideration,(slow day at work.)I agree that Iron Will idea is too much faffing about with counters.
(And I want the rules system to be clean, ONLY a maximum of one counter next to each unit.)

So I got to thinking about a revised morale-command system that includes , unit morale, leader/character inspiration, and heroic acts of leadership .

Here is the new proposal.

Units Morale grade.
'Fearless' 1+
'Elite' 2+
'Veteran' 3+
'Trained '4+
'Conscripted /mindless' 5+

To pass a morale test simply roll equal or over the units Morale Grade.
This is modified by,
Unit suppressed.
Unit out of coherency
Unit out numbered.(More enemy unit within 12" than friendly units.)
Unit is fighting a unit that causes them Fear.

Add +1 to the units Morale Grade for each effect cumulatively.(Making passing a morale check harder.

EG an Ork Boys Unit has a Morale Grade of 4+.
However after an artillery bombardment the unit is left suppressed (+1)and out of coherency(+1)
And so now need to roll a 6+ to pas its morale test.

Command Value.

This is expressed as a Command range, eg 4" 8", 12".
This is the command range of the units leader, or character.
Models MUST remain within this distance from the unit leader, or Attached character.(Use the highest value if multiple characters are attached to a unit.)
This determines the 'coherency range' of the unit.(We have a option for transposed coherency for Nids.)

EG if the unit is lead by a Sgnt, the unit may only have a coherency range of 4".(All models have to be within 4" of the Sgnt model.)
However, if a Captain joins the unit ,Command Value 8"/2 the unit CAN use the Captains 8" coherency range!

The Command Value is the amount of influence the unit leader/attached character has on units within their Command Range per game turn.AND the mount of times the modifier can be applied.
Unit leaders can only use their Command Value on their own unit.Characters can effect their own units , and unit within their Command Range.

EG IF a Captain has a Command Value 8"/ 2.
The Captain can add 2 to 2 Morale dice rolls of units within 8" of the Captain model per game turn.

We have decided that VETERAN unit leader,and character re rolls might be better off as;-
[b']Battlefield Skills.'[/b]

This would be listed under special skills on the unit card.
And give veteran leaders and characters a set number of re rolls they can use in set situations.

ALL Battlefield skill re rolls can be used to Dodge, (force opponent to re roll successful roll to hit on the owner of a Battlefield skill .)

Bathed In Blood , the owner can re roll one dice, (per level,) in any Close Assault, (roll to hit, opponents roll to save,roll to damage.) Applies to owning character or attached unit.

Honed by Hell-fire. , the owner can re roll one dice , (per level) in any Ranged Combat, (Roll to hit, opponents roll to save, roll to damage.)Applies to owning character or attached unit.

Characters only.
Forged in Battle , the owner can re roll one dice , (per level, ) in any request for off table support, or morale test for his own unit.(This is the option that is the alternative to ignore suppression mechanic.)
(We were thinking about this skill allowing a strategic roll off to gain one of opponents dummy arrival markers for off table support perhaps?.)


Note ;- opposing re rolls cancel out each other out.
EG the SM player wants to use his Battlefield skill to force the Ork Player to re roll a save roll.The Ork player uses his Battle field skill to cancel this out and leave the result as it stands.



@ Sister Sydney.
I was using 'general terms' and 'short hand' for general game mechanic options.

1)A brief look as what suppression is and how we could cover it in game.
My view ...
Suppression takes effect when the unit feels under enough threat to prioritize self preservation over carrying out tactical objectives.
.(EG go to ground, find cover, panic shooting at nearby enemy units etc.)
So in its simplest terms a Suppression mechanic is a comparison of unit confidence, to the threat the enemy units puts them under.

Unit confidence is generally a sum of protection, experience, and weight of numbers.

Threat level is generally amount of 'hazardous' effects placed on the unit.
(Weight of fire that can cause damage to the unit. LMG fire may suppress infantry, but NOT a heavily armoured tank for example)

We could try to represent all these factors in one go , and have detailed charts and tables working out % threat to % confidence reduction.

However, we could resolve it in several 'simple steps' instead .

If we only count shots that could potentially damage the unit .(By counting the shots that beat the armour save of models in the unit.)

And say this number has to be greater than half the number of model in the unit.(This covers weight of numbers.)

This only leaves experience, which we can cover with a morale test to remove effects of suppression at the end of the game turn.
(All units take evasive action , experienced units recover faster than inexperienced units.)

We can cover quite a complex effect in simple easy to understand stages.

Individual models become suppressed if they fail their armour save.(Simple way to gauge threat level per model.)

A unit becomes suppressed if over half the models in a unit become casualties/suppressed.(Simple way to account for number of model in the unit.)

A unit looses the suppression effects if it passes a Morale Test in the Resolution phase.(Simple way to account for units will to fight on/battle experience.)

2)Proportional results from simple comparison resolution method.(In detail.)

If you give all units Armour Values from 1 to 15 for example.(Extend AV to cover non vehicle units.)
And represent weapon AP as a direct numerical value also.(5 to 20 for example.)

Then state a model passes its armour save, IF a D6 score Added to its AV beats the weapon hits AP value.

Then a SM wearing Powered Armour with an AV of 4,
Needs to roll a save of
2+ against weapons with AP 5.(Las gun.)
3+ against weapons with AP 6 (Bolt gun)
4+ against weapons with AP 7 (Heavy Bolter.)
5+ against weapons with AP 8 (Gauss cannon.)
6+ against weapons with AP 9.(Plasma gun)
No save against weapons with AP 10.

An imperial guardsmen with AV of 2 needs to roll 2 higher on all save rolls vs all weapon AP values.
EG needs to roll 4+ vs las gun, and 5+ vs bolt gun.
And gets no armour save roll against AP 8 or higher weapons.

This means the armour saves are proportional to the diffeence between the targets AV value and the weapon hits AP value.

Aha. I see what proportional means now. For ease of reference, I'd definitely need to have that in a table: cross index AP and AV to get the number you must roll to save. (Although I still like testing armour and toughness in a single roll...).

And I like your suppression system more the more you explain it. I'd still suggest that a model becomes suppressed once it is hit by a weapon that could wound it , not only when it fails an armour save. For many squishier units, e.g. Guard, a failed armour generally equals death - so suppression would become a moot point precisely for those units for which it should be most important.

Speaking of Moral systems. after thinking about the DOW2 system here is my WIP so far.

DOW2 Suppression system: can be plugged into current 40k for now. gauges a units moral and combat effectiveness.
In the Vida game, units have a courage bar that once depleted become suppressed.
Table top i propose a units highest LD is the total courage avalible, taking unsaved wounds (or perhaps removed casualties) causes a unit to take suppression points against the LD. if a unit has 25% of there LD rounded up, there movement and BS is quartered rounded up, at 50% its reducied to 50%, at 75% and so on, at 100% they are pinned and cannot move or shoot.

Taking hits (not wounds) from a heavy weapon, also adds suppression. at the end of the phase or turn (haven't decided) they can take a LD check. and remove the amount of counters = to the amount passed by.

If the unit Flees for other reasons (25% model check) it breaks suppression.

Simple add, Moral from an IC should be 6-12". characters like sergeants should only effect there own unit.

For now ATSKNF: removes the 25% suppression point.
Fearless: ignores all suppression.

% can be tweaked or simplified further.

Lanrak wrote:

Units Morale grade.
'Fearless' 1+
'Elite' 2+
'Veteran' 3+
'Trained '4+
'Conscripted /mindless' 5+

To pass a morale test simply roll equal or over the units Morale Grade.
This is modified by,
Unit suppressed.
Unit out of coherency
Unit out numbered.(More enemy unit within 12" than friendly units.)
Unit is fighting a unit that causes them Fear.

Add +1 to the units Morale Grade for each effect cumulatively.(Making passing a morale check harder.

This looks interesting, but I think we'd lose some of the grading in 40k. But, then again, this does remove some random, and it's a straight 1D6, rather than an obscure 2D6 mechanic.

That 2D6 is actually very important as a mechanic, because it ensures that results are normalized, and actually less random than they would be on 1D6. 2D6 makes sure that the extreme results are less likely, which makes sense, as extreme morale reactions should be far less likely than the "usual" ones (say the range of 6-8). It seems out of place because 2d6 isn't really used anywhere else in the rules except scatter (though you could argue it should be used more often).

@ Sister Sydney.
There really is no need to use tables.
Just roll OVER the weapon hits AP value on a D6 .Modified by the target models AV.

To make an Armour Save roll on the new system.
Roll a D6, and ADD your models AV value to the score.

Eg if you roll a 3 and add AV 4 for your Sisters of Battles Power Armour.Total armour save roll =7

If the weapon hits AP value, (on the attacking units 'Unit card' ) is less than you total armour save roll( 7 )you save that hit.
If the weapons hits AP value is equal or over the total armour save roll ( 7), you fail the armour save.

It really is very easy to do when you play the game .(With units cards.)

(This is just simple comparison of 2 values , to determine the proportional chance of success.Much better than fixed results.IMO.)

The new rule set you roll for armour save before you roll to wound.So a weapon hit HAS to beat he armour before it can possibly cause any physical damage to the soft target behind the armour.
So for the new rule set letting failed armour saves determine model suppression is the simplest and most intuitive method we could think of.


@Rav1n & Selym.
IF you are ONLY using a 2 D6 LD test to cover ALL morale resolution effectively, Then that is absolutely fine.(Some systems JUST use this and a few limited modifiers.)

However, 40k seems to need lots of special rules , Mob rule, ATSKNF, Fearless , Synapse , etc.As well as 2D6 Ld values.(Which are often ignored because of these special rules!)

I understand a straight D6 roll has not got a bell curve like 2D6 has.
But this bell curve gives more unequal changes , the further away from 7 you go.(Moving from Ld 7 to 8, 8 to 9,9 to 10, 10 to 11 is NOT equal improvements in game effect, is it?).

However a simple D6 roll with a few SIMPLE modifiers, can cover a similar diversity , but with EQUAL efficiency jumps between each 1 point increase in morale grade.

And the simplest systems , are much easier to adjust to cover special abilities with slight adjustments...In my experience.


Please note;- we just wanted to see IF we could devise simple resolution methods using D6s that would cover 40k current game play.
What we have is NOT perfect or 100% finished.
But it does appear to be getting closer to the game play of 40k without the level of complication GW plc seem to need.

Hi all.
What do you folks think about allowing grenades to be a thrown weapon type again.(With a range and effect based on 2nd ed.)
HOWEVER, a unit may ONLY throw ONE grenade per turn .

This represents the limited number of grenades troops carry.(usually a couple each.)
So only ONE model in the unit may throw a grenade in a shooting action instead of firing their gun.

Does this sound OK?

Lanrak wrote:
Hi all.
What do you folks think about allowing grenades to be a thrown weapon type again.(With a range and effect based on 2nd ed.)
HOWEVER, a unit may ONLY throw ONE grenade per turn .

This represents the limited number of grenades troops carry.(usually a couple each.)
So only ONE model in the unit may throw a grenade in a shooting action instead of firing their gun.

Does this sound OK?

What was 2nd ed effects like?
I think all models in a unit should be able to toss grenades.
It never made sense to me why only one in a unit of 10-20+ would chuck a grenade.

It would certainly make wyches and EMP grenades far more useful.

I read a battle report where someone misread the 6th ed rule and had everyone in a squad chucking grenades at once: They were bringing down fliers and basically never needed to fire any other weapons.... a trifle OP.

Perhaps make it so you cant throw grenades at fliers?

Though i suppose with S6 against vehicles might be a little strong.

Just imagine fire warriors throwing EMP grenades. That's 12 haywire.

It was a bit nasty when I played Kill Team a while back (Before the latest rules) and all my Marines threw frags at once. (Separate units, remember?)

Wiped a looooooooot of boyz with so many blasts, where they would just have laughed at bolters.

It's in part a problem of scale. Modern infantry survive against grenades by taking cover and spreading out, but 40K infantry can't spread out enough to get out of the Blast template.... Grenades really need a smaller-radius form of Blast.

@Desubot.
The reason we do not let ALL models throw grenades, eg 10 x 3" blast templates.
Is because in 40k it is too over powered .(Like it was in 2nd ed!)

In reality only one or two members of a squad lob grenades , while the rest give covering fire.(In modern warfare.)
As soldiers generally only carry a limited amount of grenades.Everyone throwing them all at once just means a limited tactical option is wasted in overkill.
And IF we mimic this in 40k, and just show the effect of 1(or 2) grenades.It reduces the effect of grenades to a more appropriate level for the game.

If we use coherency from the unit leader/(attached character.)This allows units to adopt more tactically flexible positioning.(Under the new rules.)

I was going to use these values in the new rules.(Only one grenade per unit per turn maximum.)
Grenade type.

Frag= Range 8" 3" blast AP 5 Damage 4+ (Only useful vs light infantry.)
Krak= Range 6" 1 AP 13 Damage 3+
EMP= Range 6" 1 AP - Damage 4+ Concussive vs mechanical targets.
Stun = Range 8" 3" blast AP - Damage 4+ Concussive vs organic targets.

Smoke/Blind = Range 8" 3" blast AP- Damage - Block LOS.(used in close assault.)

Melta/Plasma range 2" 1 AP 17 Damage 2+ (These have to be placed on target model from close range.)

For reference/alternative/inspiration "Tau Dream Dex" has a take on grenades out of Tau carbine: Dream Dex (See Firewarrior; Pulse Carbine)

Also it doesn't appear that anyone is interested but I tried starting a thread for creative design thinking exercises. Find it here: Design Excercise

Hi KnuckleWolf.
I think the implementation of Tau having grenade launchers under their carbines is a great idea.And the values you proposed seem about right for current 40k.

However, I would be wary of letting half the unit use grenades in the same shooting phase, as this could make them over powered IMO.
(Have you play tested this idea? Would you try just letting 1 or 2 fire grenades as a comparison?)

I could be very wrong, but most people seem more open to thinking about game design in a more concrete way.
(EG here is a problem, how could we fix it?)

There are no 'wrong answers' in game design.
ANY group of ideas put together can result in a game people COULD enjoy playing.(Just look how inventive people are in general at making up stuff to have fun!)

However, there are some 'answers' that work better together to deliver a well defined concise and intuitive rule set.And these are the ones MOST players prefer.

Having a CLEAR design brief on what the end game play is supposed to be, helps to hone the end rule set into a well defined concise and intuitive one.

You are absolutely right there are literally HUNDREDS of ways to cover the current game play of 40k BETTER than the 6th ed rules do.(In terms of clarity brevity and elegance.)

The problems seem to be some 40k players have got attached to the 'GW ' style of rules writing.And so judge ANY idea against the current GW rules style.
Many seem to think you NEED complicated rules to get complex game play.And we know this simply is not true.

If you were going to do a re write of current 40k rules, what design brief would you use, as a matter of interest?(Scale and scope of game play , type and level of interaction etc.)

If you want to play 40k as a skirmish game there are loads of great options already available .(2nd ed battle bible ,Warpath II, No Limits, and Stargrunt II for FREE downloads to start with!)
if you like making up you own narrative and rules FUBAR one page rules are great jumping off point for skirmish games!

This is an idea i had to make the boltgun a bit more...interesting... since so many of the other standard weapons outshine it. Ork and Guard have volume of fire, Necrons have Gauss, Tau have increased weapon stats, Eldar have Bladestorm etc, but the boltgun isn't particularly excitng, so i had an idea to give it it's own little trait. Bolt weapons are supposed to be brutal weapons, even by the standards of 40K, as it can literally spray everyone in he vicinity of the victim with whatever's left of him. Unlike lasers or plasma which would cauterize wounds, gauss weapons that dissolve matter, shuriken weapons that are lethal but in a very refined manner, being covered in whats left of your squadmate would likely be pretty traumatic, not to mention the concussive force of the blast itself.

Bolt: If a model in a unit is killed by a weapon with this special rule, the unit receives a -1 penalty to their morale for the remainder of the game turn.

Not a game changer to be sure, but there's very little that can be done to the boltgun itself (barring DA banner buff style, which i am a huge fan of) to make it more unique or interesting without it becoming overpowered. Thoughts?


Also, i've run into a problem with my rules, in that i can't decide how to represent stats. The system itself is fine, but representing them on the statline/unit card is tricky. For reference, I use a D12 and cover / movement provides a penalty on the "to Hit" roll of shooting. I'll rank them based on what i think the more preferable option are (lower is better), let me know what you think/ prefer/ propose.

Option A) Represent stats as the roll necessary to pass (IE 2+, 5+, 9+ etc) [Ranked 2]
PROS --Easy to read, modifiers are added instead of subtracted,
CONS --Stats above the equivalent of current strength 5 cannot be represented in this system without additonal rules/complexity, lower values indicate higher skill, which is confusing, also vehicle are difficult/impractical to make work with these rules

Option B) Values represented as they are currently, where you subtract the skill value from a set value to find the necessary roll [Rank 3]
PROS --Higher numbers indicate higher skill
CONS --Limited range of results, as seen in current rules where exceeding BS 5 means you need to reroll, slowing things down, modifers are subtracted from the skill rather than added, complex system of calculating necessary roll (means unwanted reference charts)

Option C) Values are indicated as the value you need to roll equal to or under (similar to current Ld checks, but not on 2D6) [Rank 1]
PROS --Allows for very high values that don't require rerolls (they stick at an 11 or lower [2+ equivalent] until modifiers bring their value down to the necessary level for a 10 or lower ), higher stat values indicate better skill
CONS --modifiers are subtracted instead of added, could be strange to players as higher roll values indicate worse results

Option D) Instead of the value itself indicating success, you roll to beat the targets defensive component of the roll, and add your models relevant skill value to your roll (think current vehicle rules applied to infantry) [Rank 4]
PROS --Higher stat values indicate better skill, doesnt require modifiers on the attackers part, as the modifiers are instead added to the relevant value of the defender
CONS --Stat values for defenders are very large (Especially on my D12), defensive stats start looking very samey and add unnecessary complexity

Option E) Do something similar to current S vs T values, where the comparison between the two values indicate the necessary roll [Rank ?]
[I literally thought of this while writing this post, so i haven't had time to explore it properly]

Rav1rn wrote:
... the boltgun isn't particularly excitng, so i had an idea to give it it's own little trait...

Aieeee! Don't add any more special rules to this game, IT WILL FETHING EXPLODE. We're trying to get rid of special rules and exceptions!

Rav1rn wrote:
For reference, I use a D12....
Option A) Represent stats as the roll necessary to pass (IE 2+, 5+, 9+ etc) [Ranked 2]
PROS --Easy to read, modifiers are added instead of subtracted,
CONS --Stats above value 5 cannot be represented in this system without additonal rules/complexity, lower values indicate higher skill, which is confusing.

Wait, I'm confused about something else: If you're using a d12 and give 9+ as an example stat, why can't you represent values above 5? Or is that a typo for "11"?

Rav1rn wrote:
Option C) Values are indicated as the value you need to roll equal to or under (similar to current Ld checks, but not on 2D6) [Rank 1]
PROS --Allows for very high values that don't require rerolls (they stick at a 2+ until modifiers bring their value down to the necessary level for a 3+), higher stat values indicate better skill....

Maybe I'm too tired to be doing this, but I don't get this one either. Do you mean "stick at a 12+" instead of "2+"? I can see how a stat of say, 15 is functionally equal on a d12 roll-stat-or-below system to a stat of 12, but the 15 is more resistant to negative modifiers.

Also, if low # = good stat is too confusing, why not just saying rolling LOW is good? Lots of games do that....