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.

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"?

Equivalent of current value of 5. For example, a boltgun might have a strength of 4+ (the system had toughness modifiers to bring this back up). So working down, the lowest roll i could assign was a 2+, but the way the system worked that was equivalent to a strength 5 weapon. With no room to go lower, a new weapon trait that lowered the targets toughness modifier instead of increasing the weapons strength was introduced. I actually really liked the system, and it was a cool way of doing instant death (instead of double your toughness, if your toughness modifier dropped to 0, it caused instant death), but the point of testing is you find where the system breaks down, and it unfortunately did that at the higher skill level HQ's and characters. Things like assassins, greater daemons, many Xenos HQ's, etc all couldn't be represented properly (offensively anyways, i experimented with some defensive changes to have a similar effect, good direction, not quite the result i wanted though). To represent them right i'd have to inject either another system or special rules to compensate, neither or which i was too keen on doing.

More importantly, with strength being represented this way, getting vehicles to work would involve twisting their rules into unrecognizability, giving every weapon a secondary "Anti-vehicle" value which would be messy and strange, or treat them as 100% monstrous creatures (which would involve truly massive modifiers, were talking modifiers in the 8 or higher region for something as simple as a rhino).

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....

Whoops let me correct that, and because the player base of 40K (in other words people most likely to look at this project) would be used to the opposite. It works perfectly fine, i'm just not sure how well received it would be. Also, modifiers under those rules would involve subtraction rather than addition, which isn't ideal.

Hi Rav1n.
I do like the list of resolution methods you posted with pros and cons.

If we assume we use direct representation , (maximum distance unit can move , range of effect in inches, and number of dice rolled.)As a matter of course.
I do not think using just ONE other method would cover the game play of 40k..(But it does not need the 7 40k currently uses!)

Maybe using a COMBINATION of TWO other resolution methods should be flexible enough to cover the 40k game play .What do you think about this ?

If we use a target roll as a stat, (eg 3+) with a list of simple modifiers, it can cover quite decent range, even just using D6.(With a D12 it doubles this obviously.)
(Eg the chance of hitting the target in close combat , and at range as a target score stat works great in other games.)

And if we just say things that make success harder JUST add to the target score. And things that make success easier add to the dice roll score.Its is a lot clearer and intuitive!
' Units in cover adds 1 to their Stealth Value'
Is much clearer /intuitive than 'unit in cover gets -1 to hit'

And using the opposing stat as a modifier is much easier than using tables.
(Although tables are often used to limit range of results ,but we want to avoid this IMO.Resolution charts have their place.Mainly in DETAILED complex resolutions covering lots of factors.NOT really 40ks current game play though.)

EG list the value on the 'str vs T table' vs Str 3 as the Weapon Damage BASE SCORE required.
Then models Toughness score is just a damage modifier.(T 4 becomes +1 Resilience for example.)
My weapon hit NORMALLY wounds on a 3+, but your model has 'Resilience +1' so I need to roll a 4+.No need to look up the result on a table!
(If you can not add 1 or 2 or 3 to a base score, then you should not be allowed to play a war game IMO. )

I agree this resolution method has its limitations , and where a HIGH degree of difference is found in an interaction range , it may not be broad enough to cope.

That is why I suggested we use another resolution method.If we look at the scale of factors in 40k.
Most things seem to look like they would work well with target score(d6 or d12) and limited modifiers.(If we use direct representation for movement value and weapon ranges an attacks/shots.)

The only thing in 40k that does not fit is weapon and armour interaction .The range of weapon AP and armour values is far to wide for d6 or d12 to cover IMO.
Thats why I would suggest using 'free values'(not ties to the number of sides on a dice.) in direct comparison.With the dice roll as the variable that determines success of failure.

So instead of armour saves, invunerable saves, and AP,USRs and special rules (EW, ID etc.)

We simply list a range of armour values that covers the wide diversity of units found in 40k. (1 to 20 or 1 to 100 if needed!)
And list a range of armour penetration values , that are in relation to these Armour values.

So the target player rolls a Dice and ADDS their Armour Value. This Armour Save Roll Value .
If this is HIGHER than the Weapon Hit Armour Penetration value , the model passes its save roll.

In short we use the dice as the variable , to cover the difference in armour thickness in near vents visors etc , angle of strike , target movement etc.
I know this means some armour is ACTUALLY invunerable to some hits.And some armour is automatically penetrated by some hits .
But that IS how weapon and armour interaction actually works.(I should know , given my past employment in weapons development .)

I think there is a prejudice against using D6, because of the way 40k resolutions use them in a limiting , binary way.
Lots of other good rule sets use the humble D6 to much better effect.(KoW Warpath II, FoW, Epic SM, Epic EA, etc.)

However, if there is an actual need to use a larger sized dice, (D10 or D12) proven by play testing , that is fair enough.

Kindly see these Rules For Competitive Play, here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/568772.page

@Lanrak
I may just be reading your post wrong, but it looks like you're advocating the use of 3-4 different systems. My main concern with using cover as a "+X to the targets ranged defensive stat" is that to make the shooting values work out similar to current values, everything's base ranged defensive stat would be identical (using a D12 allows for slightly more variety but ultimately the same result), which seems like a waste and a somewhat unsightly system. So we either have to roll to beat the defensive score (which means HUGE numbers which stick out on the statline and arn't fun to compute), or you do it similar to the current S vs T system, which has similar (though admittedly lesser) problems.
I have similar problems with your proposed changes to the AP and Armor system, yes the additional depth is nice, but how much do we really need? Does it really matter that the an ork slugger is 1 point lower in strength than a boltgun when the scale is 1-20? And yes having some non-vehicle units literally immune to damage is not a good idea, just look how badly received the 2+ rerollable save is right now, where damage is at least possible.

I think there is a prejudice against using D6, because of the way 40k resolutions use them in a limiting , binary way.
Lots of other good rule sets use the humble D6 to much better effect.(KoW Warpath II, FoW, Epic SM, Epic EA, etc.)

However, if there is an actual need to use a larger sized dice, (D10 or D12) proven by play testing , that is fair enough

I don't have anything against D6, but i wanted to try a system with higher resolution and got hooked. I highly recommend anyone writing rules to consider at least trying the larger dice, the additional options are wonderful. A great example is "cover" bonuses provided by movement. With a D6, putting movement bonuses into 12 inch "blocks" would be easiest, but slight increases in movement speeds don't really come into play (a unit with movement speed 6" will earn at most a +1 to cover, but so will a unit with 9" movement" who can go 50% "faster").On a D12, however, you can have values "Between" D6 values, so you can have movement bonuses based on 6 inch movement blocks, so that unit moving 50% faster can actually get 50% more cover. (+3 max vs +2 max for a 6" unit)

@Deuce11
I love a lot of the ideas on your thread, such as firing pistols in close combat, consolidating into close combat, changes to challenge rules, etc, but its like putting a bandage on a bullet wound rather than taking them to the hospital. It helps, sure, but its neither a long term solution nor does it fix the underlying issues.


One idea i've been toying with for a while is "dual stats", to represent things like snapshooting. Rather than a flat "hit on a 6+" which is neither balanced nor realistic, if a unit wants to fire a snapshot, they fire using their snapshot BS, which is typically 3 worse on a D12 (for example an ork might have BS 9+ / 12+ to show their regular BS and Snapshot BS easily). Another way to use this while focusing the game more on that 24" sweet spot rather than units 36+ inches away blasting away at each other is an idea i had inspired by 2nd edition (who would have guessed?), is that if a unit wants to fire past 24", they have to fire using a reduced BS (whether or not this would stack with / use snapshoting penalties, or prevent snapshooting altogether is still up in the air).

I've considered how to apply this idea to different values, like strength to represent the difference between a "charge" value and a "regular combat" value to replace furious charge, the difference between "offensive" WS and "defensive" WS, etc. In particular, i love the idea of separating WS into offensive and defensive components, because many units just aren't going to concern themselves with protecting themselves as much (Khorne Bezerkers, Orks, Gaunts, etc), and it means they can be further defined into their roles as heavy offensive units, since points that would otherwise be dedicated to defending themselves can now be exclusively assigned to their offensive power, rather than one stat awkwardly defining both elements.

 SisterSydney wrote:


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!

Eh.

I don't have a problem with the amount of rules.

I am not against adding more special rules, honestly. Cutting away too much uniqueness just turns the game into a bland grey soup.

One can argue that a truckload of special rules is not the ideal way, but just removing them won't add anything.

Oh, if I just wanted to nuke special rules, I'd go to another system altogether. The challenge here -- the design brief, I believe Lanrak called it -- is to make something that captures the feel of 40K, including the glorious diversity of units that SRs make possible, but in a much more streamlined way that does not REQUIRE special rules to band-aid problems in the basic mechanics.

Diving down from that high level into actual mechanics:

I'm with Lanrak (I think): don't cap your scales. "IF stat + die roll > difficulty, THEN success" allows you to deal with as large a range of numbers as you want without being restricted by the number of sides on your dice.

Oh, if I just wanted to nuke special rules, I'd go to another system altogether. The challenge here -- the design brief, I believe Lanrak called it -- is to make something that captures the feel of 40K, including the glorious diversity of units that SRs make possible, but in a much more streamlined way that does not REQUIRE special rules to band-aid problems in the basic mechanics.

Diving down from that high level into actual mechanics:

I'm with Lanrak (I think): don't cap your scales. "IF stat + die roll > difficulty, THEN success" allows you to deal with as large a range of numbers as you want without being restricted by the number of sides on your dice.

I think incorporating many of the special rules into the main mechanics could result in worse gameplay, despite resulting in a cleaner system, because even with the problems mechanics like Feel no Pain and Invulnerable Saves have, they do at least involve the other player. I'm not just sitting there taking models off the board, which is another reason why i'm hesitant about combining Armor and Toughness into one save, rather than keeping them separate. I saw an idea recently about ditching armor for most of the non-special Ork models altogether, and replacing it with a system of varying FnP saves, which i thought was a wonderful, fluffy idea that wouldn't be the same otherwise. While it would be relatively easy to make FnP part of the normal damage resolution (say adding a value to the models toughness for determining wounding that does not affect Instant Death), having it as a separate save ensures that i have a say, no matter how small, in the fate of my models.

That being said, doing something along those lines with "on the roll of 6" rules would be great. Something like the Deathwatch RPG system of "Degrees of Success" would be welcome, assuming it wasn't too complicated. Take rending for example. Instead of "on the roll of 6, you ignore armor saves" it could be " for every degree of success, the AP of this weapon improves by 1". Admittedly this could cause problems, particularly in a system of armor saves that vary based on AP, but its no longer a binary, odd result, where the weapons are regular most of the time, then suddenly jump in effectiveness against everything. I could just be biased in this regard though, because "on the roll of 6" rules are causing problems in my D12 system, since they either need to be "on the roll of 11 or 12" (which feels weird), or just sit at 12 and are severely nerfed since their effects are now twice as uncommon.
-------------------------------------
Also, i may have found a way to sidestep some of the problems with unit by unit activation, though it involves some hefty changes to the FOC and requires that the purchasing of HQ units be as regulated as points cost limits are. So units are classified into 4 groups (Troops, Support, Specialist, and HQ). For every HQ unit you buy, you unlock 4 (maybe 6, still deciding) "slots" that can be filled with any unit purchase, or with a formation of units. A formation is any group of 2-3 (maybe more, still in progress) units that includes at least one Troops unit. You must have at least 2 Troops units and one HQ unit in your army. You have as many activations per game turn as slots filled, and players alternate activating one "slot" each, whether this contains a single unit or a formation, until all "slots' have been activated, at which point the next game turn begins. All units in a slot go through the 4 phases (Movement, Shooting, Assault, and Resolution), after which the opposing players activation begins.

This means that players who chose to put only single units into each slot will have very "reactive" armies, that don't have to act until the controlling player decides it is most advantageous for them to. However, losing these units means losing an activation, which means your opponent will have activations that you cannot react to. Additionally, if you place many key units that would interact into a formation, your opponent cannot react to them until all of them are done, allowing units to chain effects and results together more effectively, though hopefully reducing the effectiveness of Alpha Strike strategies as the entire army cannot act together to wipe the opponent off the board. This also helps reduce the problems caused when one side has significantly more units than the other side, as both player have the same number of activations, but their units will be grouped together differently. This is why HQ's would have to be more tightly regulated, or have some sort of compensation system in place, because if one side takes 2 HQ's and the other side takes only 1, the first player will have many more slots, and therefore activations, than the second player.

Hi Rav1n.
I am great at totally messing up my explanations.
Ill have another go!

IF you do not count 'direct representation' as a resolution system.(Eg distances in inches and number of dice rolled as stats.)
If we use the addition of ' the Base Score required for success is also a stat'. (EG 3+).Many developers think the 'score required for success' is direct representation too.
(Direct representation is using the stats directly, NOT looking up charts or subtracting them from seven , etc.)

This means we are using NO resolution methods so far , JUST DIRECT REPRESENTATION.(The unit does exactly what it says on the tin! )

And we can use simple modifiers to these base (score )values to get the proportional diversity 40k needs.
(That add to the base score required to make success harder,OR add to the dice score to make success easier for example.)
The modifiers can be for situation or ability .

I was trying to say how using a simple D6 (or D12 ) ONE resolution system (direct representation with simple modifiers.) could cover MOST but Not ALL of the game play in 40k.

The ONLY thing that it would struggle with is the weapon and armour interaction IMO.

I want to use ONE ADDITIONAL RESOLUTION method to cover ALL units and weapons interaction .(Use the Armour Value stat as a dice modifier, compared to the weapon hit AP value.)

Because it has to cover Armour values representing a 'tee shirt' all the way up to a 'Titan',And weapons from a Got blasta all the way up to a Planetary Defence Laser and Orbital Bombardments!Allowing us the freedom to use values that are most appropriate , rather than limited by the dice size we use,Is ONE logical solution.(Not the only solution but the one I like best!)

Allowing natural automatic penetration , and natural invunerability in this proportional resolution is intuitive.
A las pistol AP 5 is never going to burn through the side of a Land Raider, AV 14.That is why there are lascannons AP 17 to deal with heavy armoured targets!

And an IG flack vest AV 2 is not going to stop a melta AP 15 hit is it?

The most numerous targets in 40k,(Light and meduim, infantry.)Can be delt with using the most frequently carried weapons , small arms and ccw.)
The number of HEAVILY armoured targets is a small fraction of the most numerous targets , and so the weapons needed to deal with these are limited in number.

So each 'level of armour', has a corresponding 'set of weapons' to deal with it. And we also have the option for specialist weapons that partially ignore armour, that JUST suppress the target, (EMP, concussive blast.)etc.

And the wide level of tech found in 40k weapons and armour types adds a lot of the character 40k has.The fact the 40k 6th ed rules HAVE to use additional vehicle AND USRs AND special rules because of poor choice in Game Mechanics and resolution methods , does NOT mean we have to.

I am talking about ideas in the context of a complete re write where we will be using a more interactive game turn .(No waiting around for hours to get your turn!)So players are much more involved in the game anyway.In this setting FNP , USRs in general, Inv saves, additional vehicle rules, etc, JUST add unecessary complication.

I do agree that a 3 stage damage resolution process is better choice for 40k than a 2 stage one.(40k needs the more detailed interaction options because of the wide tech levels and variety of operation.IMO)

Unit by unit activation would only work in a heavily modified version for 40k.
Either some organisation based restrictions ,(similar to your proposal,) or order sequencing , like Epic SM.Or introducing some form of ' limited reactions'.
(And as the game turn is supposed to deliver the player and unit interaction cleanly and simply as possible , I would rather use interleaved phases. )

I hope that has made things a bit clearer?

Some folks are looking at more incremental & patchwork changes in this thread. Some worthy ideas to look at and plagiarize.

@Sister Sydney.
Would you like to keep this thread for ideas for a complete re boot/re write.And use the other one for listing 'patching with alternative /additional rules?'

I'm happy with individual heresies in this thread, as long as they overturn some established aspect of 40K rather than just try to patch it. That's a subjective call, of course, and there'll be inevitable overlap between threads.

Ideas for a complete rewrite/reboot are great, but hard -- remember my own original post was a list of ideas for overturning specific aspects of the game (e.g. IGOUGO) rather than even the outline of a coherent system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Basically, if your idea requires throwing out a chunk of the existing rulebook, put it here.

If your idea can be added as a special rule or patch to the existing rulebook, I'd prefer you post it in that other thread.

If you and your opponent can't agree which thread your post belongs in, roll 1d6!

I prefer patching, simply because it is realistic. I may be able to threaten, bully and convince my local meta to accept a large amount of fixes, but an actual major overhaul is probably a bit much.

But much luck.

@ BrotherHaraldus.
I agree it is easier to patch up the game a bit with house rules.if you are playing in a friendly group that can agree on what to patch!

But unfortunately the current 40k rules are so 'diffuse and holistic' its is very difficult to 'correct' anything without it impacting other areas of the game.(Even if it is JUST perceived buffs and nerfs to particular units.)

And the significant types of change Sister Sydney is referring to , where you change out a game mechanic or a resolution process, can have massive implications elsewhere .

In short you 'fix something' , and some thing else goes further out of whack, so you 'fix that' and then you notice something else , etc etc. (The sort of cycle the professional game developers at GW towers appear to be locked in. )

I think our last attempt at trying to patch 40k ,( 4th ed,) ran to nearly 60 pages of amendments! (No points adjustments , just re definition and clarifications!)
(And yet complete new rule sets only seem to need 30 to 40 pages.)

I honestly believe a re write is the most efficient option.
As game mechanics and resolution methods effect much bigger changes , faster than altering or adding rules one at a time.

Game mechanics are like the chassis engine transmission steering and suspension of a car.If you get these right ,the driver gets enough feed back to make it an enjoyable drive.
Get it wrong and you have to add in lots of additional systems that try to correct the basic flaws in the mechanics.And this just leaves a massive disconnect between the driver and the car.
(This is the best analogy I could think of. )

How does this sound as an idea to create a suppression system for vehicles, giving armies that traditionally lack a way to affect vehicles (Orks, Tyranids, etc) a more reliable way of doing so, as well as opening new ways to build lists with anti-tank elements, while avoiding some of the problems hull points introduced. Reduced BS is the working name for the system replacing snapshooting (instead of hitting on 6's, its now just a lower BS value). It also helps incorporate some of the elements of making vehicles more like Monstrous Creatures.
------------------------------------------
All vehicles have a number of Crew. Each game turn, the vehicle receives a number of Crew Points equal to the number of remaining Crew. These Crew Points may be spent to have the vehicle perform actions. Moving Combat Speed costs 1 Crew Point, and moving Cruising Speed costs 1 additional Crew Point on top of the Crew Point necessary to move at Combat Speed. Firing a Weapon requires 1 Crew Point, while firing an Ordinance Weapon requires 2 Crew Points, as these weapons are so large they require a loader to assist in operating the system. A Defensive Weapon may be fired without using a Crew Point, however, it may only fire at the vehicle's Reduced BS if chosen to do so.

A vehicle may fire at full BS with Primary and Secondary Weapons if stationary. A vehicle may fire their Primary Weapons at full BS at Combat Speed, however, Secondary Weapons must fire using the vehicles Reduced BS. At Cruising Speed, all weapons must use the vehicles Reduced BS.

For some examples, a Rhino might have 2 crew, with the Storm Bolter being a Defensive Weapon, while a Razorback still has 2 crew, with the turret weapon being the vehicle's Primary Weapon. A Predator might have 4 crew, with the turret weapon as a Primary weapon, but the sponson weapons as Secondary Weapons. A Landraider, meanwhile, might have 6 crew, with both sponson weapons as Primary Weapons, and the hull mounted weapon as a Secondary Weapon. Similarly, a Leman Russ might have 5 crew, with the turret weapon as a Primary Weapon, and any hull or sponson weapons as Secondary Weapons (note that this system allows for the special rule allowing the Leman Russ to move 6" and still fire all weapons to no longer require a special rule, as the Crew System fully represents this).

All Vehicles have a Toughness value, as well as the traditional Armor Values to keep that tactical element in place. When attacking a vehicle, first roll to wound the vehicle, representing whether or not the attack has enough power to cause damage. For each attack that "wounds" the vehicle, the vehicle either loses that many Crew Points, or receives that many fewer Crew Points during the next game turn. For every attack that "wounds" the vehicle, then roll for penetration, with the weapon's AP Value to beat the vehicles Armor Value. For each attack that penetrates, roll on the critical damage chart.

1-3 Crew Killed
4 Weapon Destroyed, per current rules
5 Mobility Damage, Movement Speed decreased by 3"
6 Wrecked
7 Explodes!
-----------------------------------------------
This system also opens the doors for new vehicle upgrade options, such as a commander upgrade that might allow the vehicle to receive 1 more Crew Point per turn so long as at least 2 crew members are alive, or a mechanic / technician / techpriest upgrade that allows for a weapon destroyed or mobility damage result to be ignored or repaired. Extra armor could allow the vehicle to ignore the first "wound" each turn, so they don't lose a crew point for that first hit, unless the attack penetrates and actually kills a crew member, etc.

Hi Rav1n.
Is this proposed system more like giving vehicles an amount of 'wounds'.
And so as when crew get 'wounded' they can not operate the vehicle system/equipment they are crewing.
So the vehicle unit loses in game effectiveness slowly , in the same way other units do.

(EG rather than a group of models in individual armour and carrying individual weapons, the group of models share a big armoured shell that has fewer but more powerful weapons.)

This could be represented by points in armament and mobility.(Weapons and speed.)And these could be applied to Monstrous creature wounds too?
So each loss stops a weapon from working, or slows the unit down.

However, if you just let the vehicle be wounded , without counting the armour save.Wont this make the vehciles very fragile.(Or have I got that wrong?)

Would it not be better to allow some weapons suppressive effect.(EG suppressed vehicle can only move D6" or shoot at nearest enemy unit.)
EMP, psychic scream, concussive weapons automatically bypass armour , but ONLY cause suppression on a 5+.
(This way we can give some units the ability to reduce the effectiveness of vehicles without physically damaging them.)

I certainly think these basic concepts are very good and is worth discussing further.

Has anyone tried this simple game turn alternative with the current rules?

Player A moves.
Player B moves.
Player A shoots.
Player B shoots .
Player A assaults.
Player B assaults.

In the movement phase, players declare if they are charging into assault , or moving at double rate (No shooting.) or moving at normal speed and shooting , or remaining stationary and shooting at full effect.It may work with little in the way of adjustment needed.

it allows more interaction in a straightforward way..

Hi Rav1n.
Is this proposed system more like giving vehicles an amount of 'wounds'.
And so as when crew get 'wounded' they can not operate the vehicle system/equipment they are crewing.
So the vehicle unit loses in game effectiveness slowly , in the same way other units do.

Yeah that was pretty much the idea. The idea behind Hull Points is really solid, I dont have to break the vehicle's armor to cause non-insignificant damage. Just rocking the tank could throw crewmen out of seat, force computer systems to reboot, etc. However, killing a vehicle in so few hits was a shift too far in the other direction.

This could be represented by points in armament and mobility.(Weapons and speed.)And these could be applied to Monstrous creature wounds too?
So each loss stops a weapon from working, or slows the unit down.

That was why it was a "Critical Damage Chart" rather than a "Vehicle Damage Chart". You can take the arms and legs off of a monster just like you would a tank, for similar effects. Other things like wrecked == killed or Explodes! == falls over onto other units would be good comparisons as well. I don't really have a good plan for how to implement "crew killed" on monsters though, im thinking it just takes off another wound to represent a particularly grievous injury, but that would result in monsters dropping like flies, unless their wound counts are buffed considerably to compensate. Otherwise just ignore results 1-3? Ideas would be appreciated for what these lesser effects could be.

And so as when crew get 'wounded' they can not operate the vehicle system/equipment they are crewing.
So the vehicle unit loses in game effectiveness slowly , in the same way other units do.

(EG rather than a group of models in individual armour and carrying individual weapons, the group of models share a big armoured shell that has fewer but more powerful weapons.)
...
However, if you just let the vehicle be wounded , without counting the armour save.Wont this make the vehciles very fragile.(Or have I got that wrong?)

I'm not porting over the idea of using "armor saves" like infantry and monsters have for vehicles. Treating vehicle armor like infantry or monster armor leads has weird results, so i'd rather stick to the current method of rolling a die + the weapon value to beat the vehicle's AV (or something like the S vs T system but using AP and AV). The only difference is that the weapons AP value is what determines how well it penetrates (as it logically should be?), though this requires a significant departure from current AP rules.

Would it not be better to allow some weapons suppressive effect.(EG suppressed vehicle can only move D6" or shoot at nearest enemy unit.)
EMP, psychic scream, concussive weapons automatically bypass armour , but ONLY cause suppression on a 5+.
(This way we can give some units the ability to reduce the effectiveness of vehicles without physically damaging them.)

The idea is you can do this using the Crew System (just hit it enough times to where it loses all its crew points for the turn, or doesn't get any the next turn). The catch is that since hitting the tank hard enough to take out a Crew Point would be much easier than penetrating to get a serious effect on the Critical Damage Chart, you can't just take one weapon which automatically applies the "suppression" effect, you have to hit it several times to take it to that level of reduced effectiveness. Lower Strength weapons (5-7 instead of 8-10) with a higher rate of fire are what would be ideal for this purpose. The Higher strength weapons typically have a lower AP and rate of fire, which means that you aren't trying to "suppress" the vehicle for a turn or two so you can maneuver around it or prevent it's firing, you're trying to kill it outright.

That being said, a concussive effect from blunt force weapons, things like thunderhammers, powerfists, etc, would be great. A simpler implementation might be they just take off an additional Crew Point if they "wound" the vehicle.

Has anyone tried this simple game turn alternative with the current rules?

Player A moves.
Player B moves.
Player A shoots.
Player B shoots .
Player A assaults.
Player B assaults.

I'm not sure how much testing would really be necessary, but I don't see alternating phases being the best direction. There's two problems with 40K's turn structure: Interactivity, and Alpha Striking. Solving one will improve things, but solving both should be the goal. Alternating phases solves the problem of interactivity, without solving the problem of Alpha Striking. Unit by Unit interaction solves both, but has it's own problems in regards to game-speed , so a serious altered version might have to be devised. Similarly, "reactions" can solves both, but again has a negative impact on game-speed.

Welp Reworking my rough draft so i can re plug in numbers, so far at:
IGUG
low to high characteristics system for all stats including ap and armor.
Auto pass and fail is possible.
each unit performs a set amount of actions per turn:
Primary (moving shooting assaulting)
Secondary (running, alert, suppressive fire)
Reaction (snap shots, gtg, fall back)(requires test like Initative and can be done during opponents turn within LOS and stuff)

Shooting: shooters BS test> opponents armor test> wound against T. cover is integrated into BS test as modifiers. AP to Armor as well perhaps.
Moving: Difficult reduce speed in fractions depending on type, Dangerous: Failed causes concussive no wound (thats dumb i fall on rock and now im dead hurp durp)
Assault: move + d6 for the charge, the rest im not 100% sure

4th style wound allocation but add in precision strikes + i like the higher terrain lv idea (every 3inch = +1 to PS)

4th style model classification, small +1 cover, med nothing large -1 cover, very large -2 cover and so on.

Vehicles gain T and armor save, like MC
against them natural rolls of 1 or 6 dunno which way yet causes a critical hit. roll on table. rear armor on vehicle gives +1 to critical chance or some flavor of that as does the AP of the weapon OR weapon type like melta or armorbane.

Moral: DOW2 style suppression system:
Taking casualties or getting hit by certain weapons like heavy bolters goes against your highest LD, at certain % your BS/Move is cut by a % eventually at 0 you flee or something.

The numbers need to be heavily worked on.

but i think it can work in the majority of game scales. as well additionally at higher value games you can move 2-3+ units per turn to speed it up.

Hi Rav1n.
So just to re -cap on what we both want on the new vehicle damage system.

Vehicles/Mcs have damage points (structure/wounds ) assigned to weapon attacks and movement.
This brings these units into line with other units that lose in game efficiency as they take physical damage.

And some attacks can just bypass armour and temporarily suppress the units not cause any permeant physical damage.

Could we not use this instead of a damage table when the armour is breached?
Eg attacker rolls a D6, 1 to 3 target looses a armament wound/structure, on a 4 to 6 target looses a mobility wound /structure .

When the vehicle -M/C looses all its armament it takes mobility hits.

After a unit looses all of its armament attacks , it has to take a morale check or route.

When a unit looses all its mobility points , it has to pass a morale check or counts as destroyed,(Abandoned /it or crew died from wounds.)

Just a simple alternative we could use...

This is a good way to track physical damage and brings all units into line in terms of loss of efficiency through the game .

I am not sure about temporarily loosing crew points and then putting them back .It seems a bit too much faffing about!(IMO.)

If the effect is only tempory could we not just list the end result, without removing damage points and putting them back.
Eg equal the armor value , or make a successful suppression roll with a special weapon.the target vehicle or M/C can only chose between 2 limited actions.(Move or shoot in a limited way.)

Could you please explain what the 'alpha strike' problem is ?I take it to mean when one side gets to attack with all of its units before the opponent gets to respond.
Both alternating unit activation and alternating phases address both problems.

I see we have 2 options to improve on the Alternating Army Activation Game turn.

1)Reduce the amount of elements acting to the unit level to make it alternating unit activation.
Where one unit moves shoots and assault while the other units stand around and watch.You still allow a 'temporal shift' but it only applies to one unit , rather than an entire army.
(Which needs some form of reaction mechanic , or severe unit restriction to work with current 40k units.)

2)Reduce the amount of actions units can take , before the opponent responds.Alternating phase.
This is like looking at one army to see what they are doing over a few seconds , then looking to see what the opposing army did in the same time.
This is the simplest way to approximate concurrent actions.(IMO.).

Rolling off to see who goes first, in each method is preferable.As well as adding order counters allows a freedom of choice in the actions you can take and the order you take them .

@Desubot.
Here is just a basic comment on your outline.

Do not use current game turn.(Alternating phases and Alternating activation are much better!)

Using a stat range that cover ALL units is a good idea.

Auto pass and auto fail are intuitive!

Fixing the amount of actions per game turn is a good thing.

If the basic actions are the same ,but their effect is dependent on the phase they are used in, I would look at alternating phases as a prefered game turn mechanic.
EG
Command phase.
Primary action phase.
Secondary action phase
Reaction phase.

Cover modifies the chance to hit , how it should be!

Armour modifies the effect of the weapon hit, not the other way around.(This removes the need for modifiers , as armour value becomes the modifier.)

Terrain alters movement rates, rather than killing units , how it should be.

Assault rules in 6th ed 40k are to diffuse for me to make a coherent argument how to improve them.(I would just start again from scratch!)

Wound allocation and model classification I would again start from scratch ...

Making vehicles like other units with T and save is one way to improve the system to remove unecessary complication.
(The other is to re write the entire system using Armour values for everything.)

I prefer to handle morale in stages rather than try to model it all in one go.(Because looking at the interaction a bit at a time makes it easier to include and gets more intuitive results in my experience.)

I just played a game of 40k with reaction rules, vehicles with toughness, cover as hit mods / AP negation and other tweaks. Was interesting.

Tell us more!!!

Now that I've had at least half a good night's sleep...

We playtested a ruleset we call 40k Potica Edition. So far it's more or less a 10 page errata for 6E. To summarize:

1) Movement phase:
A unit can do either a Guarded Move (that's the normal type and is not slowed by terrain), a Rushed Move (usually double speed, cannot go through terrain, can't do anything else that turn) or go on Overwatch.

There are no random movement distance rolls ever.

2) Shooting phase:
The unit can either Regroup (removes suppression), Snap Fire (max range 24", no heavy weapons) or Aimed Fire (requires unit to be on Overwatch, which ends; fires any weapon, may split fire).

The deal with needing Overwatch to fire at full effect is just so that you have an overwatch marker on the unit to remind you it hasn't moved and is eligible to aimed fire. Or it can keep its Overwatch status to actually shoot during the enemy turn.

When you declare a shooting target, one of the target units may attempt a reacion. This is done by taking an initiative test, if successful it can do one of the following:
Snap Fire back (resolved simultaneously), Fall Back (make a Guarded Move away from aggressor and become suppressed) or Go To Ground. Only one reaction per unit per turn.

Rolling to hit: Compare BS to Initiative on the Weapon Skill chart. Apply modifiers:
+1 to hit with rapid fire weapons at close range
-1 to hit if target has soft cover or Jink
-1 to hit with reaction fire

Casualties must be taken from within range and LOS.

Blast and template weapons do not scatter. Instead, make as many to hit rolls as there are models under the marker.

3) Assault phase:
Charge range is the same as your Guarded Move. When you nominate a charge target, it can try to react, as above. Other possible reaction includes Countercharge (after attacker moves you pile in and also count as charging).

Charging out of vehicles is allowed but unless the vehicle is stationary or an Assault Vehicle, you lose the charge bonus.

Charging is also allowed after Outflank or Deep Strike as the enemy gets reactions anyway.

Tank Shock is done in this phase and also covers walkers and MC charges. You push lesser models out of the way, any model that needs to move takes a hammer of wrath type hit. In the case of a walker or MC, if any models remain, you are engaged.

4) Morale:
The current rules are scrapped entirely and replaced with a suppression system. I'm not totally happy with how it played out, so I'll skip this part for now.

5) Characters:
Challenges and Look out Sir are gone. Characters add a bonus to reaction and regroup tests.

6) Vehicles:
Converted to the Toughness and Wounds system (but keep facings), get normal armour saves based on front AV. A Predator would be T9/7/6, 3+ save.

AP negates saves as normal, no bonus on damage rolls.

MCs also make rolls on the damage table when they lose wounds. Reduction of Strength and Toughness added to table.

7) Cover:
Soft cover is -1 to hit.
Hard cover negates weapon AP.
No cover saves.


Then there's a bunch of USR changes to accommodate all the above, like the Jet subtype allowing you to Fall Back voluntarily without being suppressed.


It plays very differently, you really need to watch out for reactions and force your opponent to use them up before you declare the really important attacks or else your targets can just waltz out of range.

Yeah, there'd be a lot more tactical depth involved in "what do I move/shoot next?"

I like your move and shooting options. The reactions to reactions -- ie the different things a unit can do when its move is interrupted by overwatch fire -- strikes me as complicated: how the complexity added balance vs the fun added?

How did the vehicle vs monstrous creature balance change? Monsters have a Damage Chart and vehicles have an armour save are big changes to tone down MC and toughen the tanks.

We had an Avatar, War Walkers, a Dreadnought, Land Speeders, Predators and Whirlwinds on the table. We felt their survivability was appropriate, but having 4 rolls to resolve each shot was a bit much (hit, wound, save, damage).

Turns obviously take longer what with reactions and all, but with the increased movement rates (no random difficult terrain, run as a double move is MUCH faster than +1d6, option of moving as a reaction) things start happening sooner so you can shave a turn off the normal game length.

 wowsmash wrote:
Leave my d6 alone.

There needs to be clear terrain placement as well as fort placement rules to fixs the current shenanigans.

All hail the d20 master race.

No more Allies, if you can not win with picks from just one army then take us a different game....

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
No more Allies, if you can not win with picks from just one army then take us a different game....

Seems a bit extreme, not sure if this is the reason I would state for such a change. Codex design taking allies into account would be another thing.

If they had designed 40K with D20s or at least D10s to begin with everything would have been so much better.

At this point, I doubt I'd manage to convince my meta to buy hundreds of D20s in order to keep using their Green Tides, should we try a D20 system.

KnuckleWolf wrote:

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
No more Allies, if you can not win with picks from just one army then take us a different game....

Seems a bit extreme, not sure if this is the reason I would state for such a change. Codex design taking allies into account would be another thing.

Someone did suggest making allies count against your FOC , rather than having slots of their own.

I personally love the options Alies add to the game, especially for different Imperial forces to work together.

I'm curious what people think of Tarrasq's Fog of War idea? Seems like a good way to focus the game in on the 24" range, while also helping units (particularly infiltrators) be more useful.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
If they had designed 40K with D20s or at least D10s to begin with everything would have been so much better.

At this point, I doubt I'd manage to convince my meta to buy hundreds of D20s in order to keep using their Green Tides, should we try a D20 system.

I really dont think D20s will work, at least not in the numbers needed. d20s are great in skirmish games where you dont really need to roll that much like infinity. (which if i had too id play that system instead)

Imagine the mess of throwing 80 D20s on the table every time you get into double tap range of a 12man fire warrior squad with a ethereal and fire blade.