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.

Played a test game today. Oh, how glorious the 4th edition terrain/LOS rules are. It actually matters where you put your units!

We didn't really get to test the suppression system much, because we foolishly played Nids vs Eldar and both armies have huge Fearless bubbles.

Our aircraft system worked well, I thought.

Basically you have two elevations. Low flight for ground attack / combat air drop, and high flight (what are the proper terms for these???) for combat air patrol. You declare your elevation at the start of your move. Fliers in low flight can attack ground units and be shot back (on 6s) but cannot shoot upwards. Fliers in high flight can only attack other fliers at their level or below and cannot be hit from the ground (except with Skyfire).

Gunship type craft then get a special rule that they cannot fire weapons if flying at high elevation, preventing them from dogfighting with interceptors while still allowing them to travel at a height where they can be safe from ground units.

At the end of the day, it does most of what Lanrak posted, just in a slightly different way. CAP doesn't really interact with ground units, gunships can't shoot interceptors.

@Lanrak

That actually makes sense to me, cheers for the explanation.

Are you guys looking at shrinking the game a bit? I've found with this much detail and that many models its a bit of a slow and clunky mess.

I just want the game to stop getting in the way of fun. That'd be my goal for any sort of rewrite. Just the other day I had a dreadnaught ready to assault something but my boyz were already in combat with him, and they were unable to move out of the way at all... so the dread just sat there for a turn! Not fun.

@ Dakkamite.
My group and I are looking at focusing on the detail at the level of the element interaction .So detailed unit interaction in a battle game , and detailed model interaction in the skirmish game.
Both games types can use the same rules and stats.(So players can start with a few models a size for skirmish game to get the hang of the rules .And eventually as their collections grow , they can play the battle game if they want to.)

We are also focusing on writing rules to reflect 'modern warfare' in a straightforward and intuitive way. As you can use the fluff to explain any rules effects.Using modern warfare type units with modern warfare type rules need a lot less explaining!
It is preferable to base the interaction on modern warfare.An equal blend of mobility , firepower and assault fits our perception of what 40k should be.)

So far we have been playing a few games , to sort out the core mechanics and resolution methods.The action phases play through quite quickly.
Because we use the same resolution methods for all units.And use stats in a direct way to reduce the need to look up charts.

I am rubbish at explaining ideas, but I hope you get the basic concepts?

@lord _blackfang.
We both have developed different ways to solve fliers in 40k.

Mine was to introduce realistic time over table ..To get fliers to behave in a more synergistic way with modern warfare.


As you are writing a 'revised 6th edition' , your solution is probably the best fit for what you want to achieve.

Remove challenge

Remove Eldar turbo boost of 36", so stupid

Give furious charge +1 initiative

Remove fluff pages from 6th book and codex

Edit Vanguard deployment

FAQ Eldar and Tau codex

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Played a test game today. Oh, how glorious the 4th edition terrain/LOS rules are. It actually matters where you put your units!

We didn't really get to test the suppression system much, because we foolishly played Nids vs Eldar and both armies have huge Fearless bubbles.

Our aircraft system worked well, I thought.

Basically you have two elevations. Low flight for ground attack / combat air drop, and high flight (what are the proper terms for these???) for combat air patrol. You declare your elevation at the start of your move. Fliers in low flight can attack ground units and be shot back (on 6s) but cannot shoot upwards. Fliers in high flight can only attack other fliers at their level or below and cannot be hit from the ground (except with Skyfire).

Gunship type craft then get a special rule that they cannot fire weapons if flying at high elevation, preventing them from dogfighting with interceptors while still allowing them to travel at a height where they can be safe from ground units.

At the end of the day, it does most of what Lanrak posted, just in a slightly different way. CAP doesn't really interact with ground units, gunships can't shoot interceptors.

All interesting. What were the LOS rules from 4th? I missed that one.

@Lanrak,

have you considered opposed rolls or face to face rolls, where the attacker and defender roll their die at once? Maybe if you really love the 40k to hit, to wound, to save sequence you might also like that better participation involved, just sayin'.

If you and your buddies are bothering with a complete rewrite of 40k rules I'd at least look at all the different options for rolling dice.... there are a ton out there that give far better variation even if you are sticking to D6's.

Complete rewrite is the only way to go, unless you are houseruling with a group (we call them garage gamers) that rarely play with others or pickup games, in that case houseruling you are better off. But everyone has their own opinion on how to fix 40k, and they will all disagree. Granted there are clear winners like the charge range rules and random list creation rules for 6E 40k that are the most unpopular.

As someone who plays infinity way more than 40k these days I can say that face to face rolls are a great game mechanic

 SisterSydney wrote:
All interesting. What were the LOS rules from 4th? I missed that one.

Area terrain blocked LOS between units on opposite sides, and models inside could only see and be seen within 6" of the border. Models and terrain had height categories assigned so you could exempt large models (so MCs and vehicles typically could be seen over forests and ruins but infantry could not).

This, together with the restriction that wounds could only be assigned to models within LOS of the attacker, meant that clever positioning actually prevented your models from being shot, as opposed to the "everyone can always see everyone else" we have now. And most units couldn't "Run" back then, so difficult terrain formed good choking points for assault armies, and shooty armies had to anticipate routes of approach and set up actual fire lanes. Good times.

Yes, that sounds WAY better than the current "let my squish my face against the table to see if my guardsmen can see your Daemon Prince's left butt cheek through these ruins, ow ow ow now I have one of your Bloodthirsters stuck in my ear."

I'd actually simplify further and say only Titans and Gargantuan creatures are tall enough to see over forests and buildings -- even a Baneblade can't fire its main gun over a typical house.

@Meade.
I agree that opposed rolls speed up resolution and keep both players involved.However, this resolution works great for element vs element single dice rolls.
Eg My model/unit rolls a single dice roll vs your model unit single dice roll.(So great for skirmish model to model interaction or 'blob unit' to 'blob unit'.)

But as most players see 40k as lots of guys shooting or assaulting , they like to roll multiple dice, one for each models attack. This resolution method could work if we disconnect the number of dice rolled from the number of models attacks.But this may prove too counter intuitive /radical change for some players.
(How would you handle 30+ dice rolled vs 30 + dice rolled ?)

I suppose I want the end game play resolutions to be similar enough to current 40k resolution methods , that it is familiar to people that play current 40k.
(Just far more straight forward and intuitive.)

I know there is a wide range of opinion on what 40k is supposed to be.Because GW just chuck a load of cool ideas into 40k and hope it inspires enough people to buy 40k product.
And this wide range of cool ideas cover just about every type and style of game .So players just pick the bits they like and assume everyone else sees 40k the same as them.

That is why 40k is such a shambles , and a clearly defined design brief is so important.

Everyone knows I want a modern warfare battle game re write rule set for 40k.

And lord_blackfang wants to improve the current 6th ed rules using some complimentary alternate systems.

There are not any right answers to this , just 'better' versions of 40k rules in varying degrees of 'better' depending what you want 40k to be.
(We can all agree 6th ed 40k is very poor in terms of clarity and brevity!)

If you're looking to bring in infinity style face to face rolls, i agree with lanrak in that it doesn't really fit the idea most players have of 40K (huge piles of dice being thrown at a time) and probably wouldn't work too well with the scale 40K runs at, at least, not as the main mechanic for things like damage resolution.

However, you could probably bring the face-to-face rolls into making leaders feel like leaders by letting the leaders of each unit roll off against some value to benefit or punish the units performance. Having started to read net-armageddon, i liked the idea of "action tests" that determine how well a particular unit responds to orders, IE necrons would follow orders without fail, but guardsman might be a bit flimsy, while orks would be outright rebellious. Mixing that with "leader" face-to-face rolls can really help bring that factor out without completely stopping the unit in its tracks if it fails, as if one unit fails its roll, it show the unit failing to accept the order in time to gain an advantage, but if both pass, then it comes down to which leader commanded his troops better.

For example, an ork boyz squad led by a nob (say leader: 3) tries to shoot at a tactical squad led by a veteran sergeant (Leader: 5). Before the boyz shoot, the marine sergeant could declare a face-to-face roll to see if he is able to get off a quick order to his troops. Maybe he tells them to duck in cover, or to brace for impact, or to keep moving to perhaps negate a bit of the suppression effects they would have received otherwise.

A similar version could be applied to melee as well, by having the leader order the squad to back up slightly to avoid assaulters, or to overwatch, or just to pump them up for the coming assault. You could probably bring it into the challenge mechanics as well, though im not entirely sure how it would function there, maybe bonuses to attacks or saving wounds, or penalizing/benefiting the units in combat seeing the leaders either triumph or be slaughtered.

You would of course by limited to doing maybe one of these actions per game turn per unit, otherwise it would be far too slow, and you would never have to think tactically about when it would be best to use or hold onto that test. Could also create a nice divide between leaderless units and those with an officer in their ranks, as leaderless units will be much less...reactive? reliable? than units that have a leader in their ranks, more so than just the leadership system allows for.

 SisterSydney wrote:
Yes, that sounds WAY better than the current "let my squish my face against the table to see if my guardsmen can see your Daemon Prince's left butt cheek through these ruins, ow ow ow now I have one of your Bloodthirsters stuck in my ear."

I'd actually simplify further and say only Titans and Gargantuan creatures are tall enough to see over forests and buildings -- even a Baneblade can't fire its main gun over a typical house.

That leaves me wondering if that has happened to you.

No, actually. In fact I love Baneblades and kinda wish they could shoot EVERYTHING, ALL THE TIME. And Scout. And Infiltrate. And Deep Strike via parachute dealing an S:10 wound to every model underneath them instead of mishapping.

But I wouldn't write a codex around my personal favorite unit. I'm not Matt Ward.

@Rav1n.
I see what you mean about using face to face rolling off for unit leaders/characters.
But this could devolve in to multi-layered multiple function command systems , that could end up very complicated and confusing if we are not careful.

But if the game turn mechanic had this as part of ts core it could work as the core activation system.
However, it would need careful balancing and costing as 'friendly values' may become of variable value depending on 'opposing values'.
(A bit like how 6th ed AP values depend on the opponent for their efficiency and in game value.)

This is why I would prefer the rolls to be made vs values on the models stat line.(With modifiers.)
As this allows player to use tactical advantages that are availble to them to increase their chances.

As far as area terrain goes, 4th ed system makes sense with the scaling discrepancies found in 40k.(TLOS only really works if both ground and vertical scales are equal.)
I am not sure vertical scale needs to be defined in finite ways.(With height levels etc.)
As most terrain is in scale with minatures vertical scale, and its quite easy for players to agree what terrain&obstacles give cover to what units before the game starts.
Because peoples terrain options and uses varies wildly from place to place, trying to define it in too detailed ways can be counter productive.

Thinking about FtF rolls

i think one place of improvement could be using it for things like psychic powers or even in challenges of some sort. seems like a good place for it.

What i've been wanting to work into the rules set is a way for units to feel "heroic" if on a smaller scale - Let me explain:

While i enjoy big mission large point games, sometimes I want my Kill Team to feel heroic. Thats why any rules set we would propose would need to have a "Intro" beginner style game to allow players to understand the rules while using their new models. All LOS / Terrain is 4th edition of 40k

All units taken are 200 points max
1 model has a USR
All Wargear open to the squad (within reason)
Individual movement
No AV at all

Imagine this: Two (new) players are learning the game and playing a mission. They roll on the table and get "PoW rescue"

Player A has to get his squad of 10 into the enemy camp in the middle of the table and rescue the captured solider.

Player B has to get his "guards" (10 man squad) to protect the objective before Player A can get there.

They both roll off for turns and player A goes first. He moves his guys forward.

Player B then gets to use his Auspex upgrade he took to "scan" for any intruders. One of his guards spots a enemy solider .

Now, a effect like overwatch comes into play. Player B can attempt to "raise the alarm" or go for the hand to hand combat roll. To raise the alarm he must role a leadership check, to go into hand to hand 6 inches is required.

Player B fails his leadership check, now player A has a chance to silence the enemy in hand to hand with his assault role or open fire with his gun and blow the mission parameters.

Player A opts to go into hand to hand combat and "eliminates" the target with a knife kill. (gains +1 VP for not breaking mission parameters)

Combat ends..

Repeat and rinse. alternating between player A and B. Much more interactive but at the same time keeping the UGOIGO system.

@Rav1n.
I see what you mean about using face to face rolling off for unit leaders/characters.
But this could devolve in to multi-layered multiple function command systems , that could end up very complicated and confusing if we are not careful.

I don't know why i didn't think of this before, but there's already a convenient stat in place to run this off of, it's even appropriately named: Leadership. Right now Ld is basically used to represent morale, which doesn't really make a lot of sense. But if it's changed so Ld actually denotes how well that model can command their squad, while special rules would help differentiate the models "morale" (IE stubborn, fearless, ATSKNF, etc) it makes more sense.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Another idea i liked from net-armageddon was the "triple move" action, which got me thinking more seriously about using epic's system of actions, but making it able to encompass 3 actions instead of two. The main problem i had with the epic system was not being able to move, shoot, and charge in the same turn, but being able to do 3 actions in one activation would solve that issue. So for example you could have actions like

Full-Fire = Unit may not move, all weapons may be fired.
Advance = Unit may make one move action, then fire. Heavy weapons must fire at reduced BS.
Double = Unit may make 2 move actions, then fire. Heavy weapons may not be fired, and all other weapons fire at reduced BS
Sprint = Unit may make 3 move actions.
Engage = Unit may make one move action, one shooting action, then assault
Charge = Unit may make two move actions, then assault

Epic's system is also much better suited to the style of command interrupts i'm working on than a phase type system. So you can spend a command point to interrupt your opponents turn and activate one of your own units, but i was struggling to define at what point in your opponents turn you were allowed to declare your interrupt. Using Epic's system, I would say you were allowed to declare an interrupt whenever your opponent begins an action. So for example, Sprint would involve one "action", which is moving 3 times your movement speed. But engage would have 3 "actions", the movement, the shooting, and declaring the assault.

I much prefer this over allowing intercepts in between phases, because firstly breaking actions into phases gets annoying in unit-by-unit systems (If i'm running, why do i have to do movement phase move, then shooting phase move, rather than just one double movement), and second it allows for actions that should take more "time" without taking more than one turn to be more interruptable. If a unit is sprinting, it's never stopping to do anything else, it's just moving as fast as possible, and as such should less interruptable. Compare that to "Engage", the unit has to move, then stop, ready their guns to fire, fire, then prepare for the assault and charge. That should take a whole lot more "time" than just sprinting somewhere, even though they both count as an entire activation.

Also I've been thinking how to do alternate order systems. Loving the maneuver system from x-wing, I'd love a system of 40k that does the same sort of thing... you pre-set your orders (maneuvers are literally preset using cardboard guidelines) for each unit on a little face-down marker and then reveal them simultaneously (that way each player makes moves without knowing the opponents move... it is a more true-to-life simultaneous system and adds a gambit element). Sorry, I can't love gambit elements enough. Making moves simultaneously instead of planning each turn based on the knowledge of your opponents last turn... well it really is a third elements in games that I would place just as much importance on as using dice. It adds unpredictability because you never know what your opponent will do, and rewards knowledge and experience and even knowledge of your opponent and what moves they like to make. Not to mention playstyle... you can be the maverick and do crazy things a little harder to predict, or you can be a systematic commander advancing with precision and using careful positioning.

The problem is that orders and moves are so difficult for 40k that it's difficult to replicate. Although, a squad's movement in a battle is very straightforward and orders need to be simple... "assault that position!" "fall back!" "take aim! "take cover!" "advance in cover!". Perhaps these orders could be like guidelines, that basically govern all the movement in a squad for a turn. For example, you give an assault order and that requires your unit to move their full move distance in the direction of the enemy. Of course you could have some choice mixed in like how you move your troops or take cover... but it's a guideline basically. The idea is that both commanders are giving their orders on a changing battlefield simultaneously.

Shooting could then be done as a separate phase... perhaps in alternating activation or according to initiative stat (units with highest initiative shoot first counting down) or as part of another order system. mixed in with opposed rolls, every unit you shoot has the opportunity to back at you, depending on their order... if they did some kind of passive order like take aim or something, it would allow more shots back to the attackers. If they were suppressed they would get very few shots. If they were advancing with assault weapons they would get normal shots, etc.

Of course then assault becomes a little clunky, you would need to plan the assault in advance so do it as a move order, but it would also have to give you and the enemy opportunity for shooting once you get into assault. I don't see why it can't be done as a part of the shooting phase though, sort of a 'assault and shoot' move.

Movement could also be broken up into two parts, with shooting sandwiched inbetween. That would dovetail nicely with assault moves and consolidations. That way units moving free and not being harassed would move fast, units assaulting would move the same speed (unless they are tied in assault, but that should be extremely rare) and units encountering heavy fire would be taking cover or suppressed (normally).

The other problem is that if you want to introduce some kind of direction to a squad's movement (similar to x-wing, where maneuvers are done according to a ship's orientation), it has to be done with some point of reference.. oh wait that is what unit leaders are for. And it's even easier to implement with vehicles....

 Desubot wrote:
Thinking about FtF rolls

I think one place of improvement could be using it for things like psychic powers or even in challenges of some sort. seems like a good place for it.

I tried volunteering a "Duel" mechanic to use instead of "Challenge" some time ago in another thread. It was met with some disgruntlement. :(

@ KnuckleWolf.
A FtF roll for duels instead of challenges does sound cool.
It may not fit with current 40k but it may fit with new rules quite well!(Could you post it here or put a link in for it?)

@ Meade and Rav1n.
I totally agree order counters placed at the start of the turn is the best option for a more advanced interactive game turn.
Command Phase.(Place orders call in off table support.)

Actions Phase (Units take actions as the orders they are given.)

Resolution phase (Resolve all outstanding actions effects, and try to rally units on poor morale.)
(Alternating actions can have 3 action orders, if they include a option for reactions.But interleaved phases and alteranating unit activation without reactions work better with 2 action sets, in my experience.)

However, I would class assault as JUST fighting in close combat with an enemy in contact.(Not include another movement into contact with the assault action.)

And I would prefer it if all orders had the same amount of actions.(Rav1n had 1 action with Full Fire order, and 3 actions with the other orders!)

If you want to use a reaction /interupt mechanic , why not use a variable bound game turn instead like Blood Bowl /Crossfire uses?
(Players take actions until they fail to complete an action successfully. Eg move without being detected, shoot without supresing the target, etc.)

However, I would class assault as JUST fighting in close combat with an enemy in contact.(Not include another movement into contact with the assault action.)

And I would prefer it if all orders had the same amount of actions.(Rav1n had 1 action with Full Fire order, and 3 actions with the other orders!)

If you want to use a reaction /interupt mechanic , why not use a variable bound game turn instead like Blood Bowl /Crossfire uses?
(Players take actions until they fail to complete an action successfully. Eg move without being detected, shoot without supresing the target, etc.)

I disagree about not moving into assault, it's hard enough to get into assault as it is, even more so if the average movement speed gets dropped from the current 6" to 4" to accommodate a triple move option. With the charge movement, an average speed model will have a max charge range of 12", about the same as now. Take away that charge move, and now they'll have a charge range of 8", which is only slightly higher than the current move distance! How often are players able to get into a an 8" charge range under current rules, where that 2" charge is the absolute minimum possible?

As for having all orders have the same number of "actions", i don't think it's a huge issue, because under current rules that's already what happens. If you don't move and fire, you can fire all weapons and don't have to snapshot heavy weapons (1 Action). If you move and shoot, you have to snapshot heavy weapons (2 actions). If you move-shoot-charge, you can't fire heavy weapons (3 actions). If you run, you can't fire any weapons (2 actions).

The number of "actions" per order is already not equal, but i've never heard anyone having a problem not being able to perform the same number of actions, because that's how the system works, and it makes sense from a realistic perspective. This system basically just added another step between standing still, moving and shooting, and running.

That being said, i am looking at a "Spotter" action that would allow that unit to pierce the Fog of War and inform other units where the enemy is. Of course, if you are already performing 3 actions (Move-Shoot-Charge, Triple Move, Move-Move-Shoot) you wouldn't be able to call out enemy locations, you're too busy with your own actions. So only orders with 2 or fewer actions (Move-Shoot, Stand-Shoot) would be able to "Spot" the enemy.

This does leave Stand-Shoot as the only order with less than 3 actions, but i'm worried about attaching any bonuses to this order, as it's already an action that avoids risks. You get to stay in cover, have some protection from assault, fire heavy weapons without penalty, take advantage of any height bonuses that may be in place, and "Spot" assuming that action is added. Adding BS bonuses would promote parking lot games, as would bonuses to piercing the Fog of War.

So far as the variable-bound turn lengths, that's really interesting. Not sure how well that would work though, seems like it could easily abused. I do like the interruption system though, because only certain HQ's and select few other models would be able to issue an interrupt order, making them feel like they are actually in control of their army, rather than simple beat-sticks.

Thinking about FtF rolls

I think one place of improvement could be using it for things like psychic powers or even in challenges of some sort. seems like a good place for it.

I tried volunteering a "Duel" mechanic to use instead of "Challenge" some time ago in another thread. It was met with some disgruntlement. :(

I agree with lanrak, i'd love for something along the lines of FtF to replace challenges, because currently challenges seem lopsided and boring. When I read the multi-page, epic duels between two characters in a black library novel, it' always exciting and cinematic and OTT. Then you go play the game and you see "my sergeant challenges your nob...Plink Plink...Your nob's dead". Not what i'd like out of the system.

The system needs some serious changes to make sure it's not just one character hitting first, killing the other, and winning the challenge immediately. That outcome should be a fairly unlikely result, like my sergeant weathering several attacks while preparing his thunderhammer, then getting a lucky shot in and breaking the opponent in half.

Maybe something like deuce in tennis, where the two players can in theory play for an infinite amount of time, so long as neither player wins 2 serves in a row. One player gets an advantage, the other player shifts it back to neutral, then one player gets an advantage again, until one of the players wins a serve with the advantage, thus winning the game.

Also, Psychic Duels where the model's combat stats are ignored and it's just the two models wrestling with each other using their mental strength? Yes, immediately. If not as core rules, as optional rules.

---------------------------

As to the idea of being able to "ignore" suppression at the risk of taking a lot of additional damage, why don't we simply expand the "Death or Glory" action for attacking vehicles to cover any of these stupid but potentially powerful risks? The name already fits very nicely and the idea of the rule is along the same lines.

This way that one system can cover as many ridiculous stupid ideas as we can come up with, such as a desperate charge that would let you gain an additional charge range (say D3" or D6"), or facing down that tank, or standing up when there's more bullets than air above your head. Done right, the system may not even need a set list of possible actions, the player could just declare a "Death or Glory" action and see if they pull it off or get shredded.

Sorry guys, I tried finding the post but there are 300+ posts and after scanning the ones in what I expected to be the right place, had no luck. Wondering if my memory is failing me :( Though I seem to recall it being called "Blade Duel" and that I offered it to someone else who was already doing a rewrite.

@Rav1n.
I did not express myself clearly sorry.
What I mean was , Move then move then assault is ok.(2 moves then fight a round of close combat.)
But not move then move them move into assault range then assault.(3 moves and fight a round of close combat)

So movement and assault are separate single actions like move and shoot are separate single actions. Unlike 40k where assault is a move and fighting a round of close combat, I would like assault to mean just[u] fight a round of close combat.

This is just so we get clearly defined single actions.I hope that is clearer?

If we can use 'Ready ' as an action to cover 'setting up /preparing' weapons and equipment.

Then Fire support /Full Fire orders is 'ready' action then 'shoot' action.

If we used 2 action sets for orders.This would allow the following actions.

Advance, move then shoot.

Charge, Move then move into close combat range of enemy unit.(The only way to get into 'assault' is to give a Charge order!)*

Double Move, Move then move again.(No closer than 1" away from enemy units.)

Evade, Shoot then move.

Fire support , Ready then Move.(Fire all weapons.)

Infiltrate, Ready then move (Increased stealth.)

* I was thinking about both sides resolving 'assault' at the same time , to speed up play.If we used this version.

Using a single assault value to determine the chance to hit and the order combatants fight.(And weapon effects displayed directly for each unit.)

We have been using 2nd ed movement values + 1" for infantry in our play test.
SnP 4" , standard infantry 5" fast infantry 6" with 2 action sets seems to work well.(As it means sacrificing a significant amount of mobility to shoot , and even more to shoot with everything.)
And as I was aiming for an equal blend of mobility firepower and assault it seems to be on track so far.

What if 'assault' wasn't an action you actively take? I am thinking take everything in terms of moving and shooting except when you have moved your troops close to the enemy they switch from shooting rolls to melee rolls? Even going so far as to allow situations where some of the squad is shooting and other members are in close quarters?

@ KnuckleWolf.
I think that idea could be cool!
In the new rules all weapons have the same profile, (Effective Range,Attack, AP , Damage, )
So which weapon the models in a unit use to make an attack could simply be use the weapon with the shortest effective weapon range to the enemy .
Eg
Base to base out to 2" use close combat weapons,
2" to 12" use pistols , (If friendly models /unit in close combat with target,)
2" to max effective range (Non pistol weapons can not fire on enemy units in close combat with friendly models/unit.)

And weapon hits are resolved in the order of shortest effective range to longest effective range perhaps?

Eg a Mob of 30 Ork Slugga boys charge in to a 10 man IG squad,the 12 Orks within 2" of the IG models make 2 attacks each with choppaz.The 18 orks further than 2" away from IG targets, can shoot thier sluggaz at the IG targets. (18 pistol shots.)

I still think it is important to have a 'Charge' order to determine the difference between actively wanting to get close enough to use close combat weapons.(And get a bonus to the charging units assault value.) And just moving towards an enemy unit.

We could use the term Attack , to cover shooting and assault if we followed this idea to its logical conclusion.
So actions would be;-
move,(move up to the model/units mobility rate.)
Attack, attempt to hit a enemy with weapon in effective range.
Ready , prepare weapons /equipment to improve effectiveness of the next action.

Is this the sort of direction you were thinking of?

You could let a unit use only their assault weapons/pistols on a turn they charge or are charged, instead of using their melee attacks.

I love this idea. So much simpler and yet more fun than 10 pages of rules on who can consolidate into what and what attack wounds whom. "Hey, I am next to you, I'm going to chop your head off now!"

KnuckleWolf wrote:
What if 'assault' wasn't an action you actively take? I am thinking take everything in terms of moving and shooting except when you have moved your troops close to the enemy they switch from shooting rolls to melee rolls? Even going so far as to allow situations where some of the squad is shooting and other members are in close quarters?

Brilliant! Treat close combat as just another attack.... that allows for a lot of cool possibilities!

-close combat weapons that have a secondary ranged attack... if you don't get close enough to swing your axe, you can still throw it!
-some ranged weapons can still attack in close combat, only with severe penalties on the 'to hit' roll, like rifles/automatic weapons. And pistols would dovetail nicely into that.
-expanding the initiative stat to serve the same function it serves in cc, to shooting. So shooters with a higher initiative get to shoot first (hopefully the defenders would still get to fire back reaction style).

Also solves a problem I have with the combat and shooting phases being separate... in battle everything is happening all a once, you have guys shooting and assaulting in haphazard order. I can see the sense in having a separate move and then shoot phase because they are things that also can happen simultaneously without conflicting... movement is always happening, and to some degree is planned on a higher level than the various sort of attacks that are just split level decisions. i still think the best is the sandwich type structure, where you have two separate move phases sandwiching a 'meat' of shooting/assaults/actions.

Possible complications: shooting at your own unit in cc... other games allow for this but you need to make a random roll to determine if you hit your own model or the enemy. This could also function as just part of the 'to hit' roll.... you roll to hit, and if you miss, you hit your own dude instead of the enemy! That way if you're a better marksman you might have a better chance of hitting the enemy (another overused action movie trope that has almost zero presence in miniwargames... the badass shooter saves the hostage/person about to be killed in a fight with a well placed shot.

If some members of a squad are in cc and some are not, then you have to also determine where the attacks go.. are you allowed to shoot at only one enemy unit? if so, then do some members of the unit shoot at the enemy in cc (with their own unit) and some make a melee strike? Although now come to think of it, that can solve itself... if you have rules in place for shooting into cc. Some would be able to make attacks with a pistol or gun (within a range of 2in) and some models could just opt not to shoot rather than hit their own guy?

Might also solve the crazy problem of a big blob of deadly shooting units being held up by one enemy unit in cc... where in RL they would just shoot their weapons....

As this concept appears to be accepted as a good way to reduce complication , and it is just cool so I want to include it !
Can we discuss the ways we could implement it?

I am just going to post some ideas/questions..

Is everyone ok with giving ALL weapons an 'Effective Range ' To determine when models can attack other models within the 'Effective Range' of their weapons?

And resolving weapon hits in the order of Effective Range shortest to longest. (So the models closest to the enemy models attack before models further away?

Would it be better to make shooting in to close combat permissible but with penalties. (Rather than ridged restrictions which could be more complicated...)

EG
Models in the same units as models engaged in close combat , may shoot at surviving enemy models that were engaged in the same combat after the close combat hits have been resolved.

The penalties for friendly models firing weapons into combat that contain(ed) models from the same unit are.
Pistol type weapons -no penalties.
Other weapons , any misses are applied to friendly models.(Note Heavy -Ordnance weapons are too bulky to fire effectively into close combat!)

Other units firing into close combat containing friendly models not from the same unit .Fire after all the attacks from the units engaged in close combat have been resolved.

The penalties for friendly fire into close combat are.
All misses are applied to friendly units.
If any of these hit cause a failed armour save of a friendly model, the unit containing the model that failed armour save automatically Route!

This allows friendly unit to 'hose down' armoured vehicles with small arms fire to get rid of enemy infantry assaulting the friendly vehicle with relative safety.
However, firing a similar volume of small arms fire , from behind, into an lightly armoured infantry unit that just been assaulted from the front is likely to have negative effects on their morale!

I believe in letting the players decide to take calculated risks , rather than dictate what they should and should not do ....(I may be in a minority of 1 though! )

I'm worried this change will shift the balance of power too far from assault. Many assault units are extremely fragile against shooting, so allowing units to fire at them while in melee could completely destroy these unit's usability. So the units usable in melee will shrink to pretty much only huge blobs of weak units (Ork Boyz), or smaller units of extremely hard models (Terminators). Combined with the loss of a move action during a charge, and I think it's a 1-2 punch that dwarfs even the change to 6th edition rules.

This could also essentially reduce the number of tactical options players have to deal with units instead of increasing them. If i can no longer prevent a unit from shooting by locking them up in assault, then my options are now just killing them at range, or suppressing them assuming the system allows for it.

I also see this option being incredibly selective about who can use it, particularly with the "If a model is killed due to friendly fire, the unit runs away" clause. This means that the only units that could reasonably use this option are extremely hardy units with good BS (Marines), while anything with a poor save and/or BS will never use it (Orks, Guardsmen, etc). If all it takes is 1 dead model, and an Ork boy will hit his own models 2/3 times, with the gun ignoring his armor and wounding on a 4+, why would i ever choose to fire into melee, except to force my unit to retreat, which could be done through a better system?

No matter how realistic it may be, a rule that is only reasonably usable by a few select unit's / armies isn't something i'd favor. Also, the current explanation for the "May not fire in melee" rule makes a lot of sense

There are some cool possibilities here, like halberds and spears actually extending the melee range, but these elements seem like a better fit in WHFB than 40K. Having monsters be able to attack models without having the targets being able to hit back, like you would expect from humans attacking creatures the size of a tyrannofex, would be cool as well, but again, not sure it's necessary or fitting.

Shooting down infantry models assaulting a vehicle makes a lot of sense, and would let infantry protect vehicles in a way other than bubble-wrapping it, though this option could create some problems.

So far as this system being simpler than current assault rules, i think that's the fault of GW for complicating it rather than an inherent problem with the system, and even there it seems like this would confuse things further
Declare assault, move into assault range, enemy consolidates, models attack in order of initiative and remove casualties, determine who won / lost melee and roll to prevent running away.
They didn't need to break into into some complicated mess of different assault phases.

Simple Fix:The only models that may participate in a melee are models in base to base contact with an enemy model, and models in base to base combat with friendly models in base to base contact with the enemy. No measuring, if they touch, they are in melee, if not, they're out of melee and must move in ASAP when their turn comes around

I'd rather see something like a "Keep Firing!" order a leader model could issue that would allow the unit to get off one last round of shooting (not at the assaulting unit), but they are immediately destroyed in the melee, and the assaulters may consolidate. This way if you absolutely need to have this unit fire, you can make it happen, but only at great cost. This would actually fit nicely into the "Death or Glory" stupid choices rule, ignoring the enemy charging at you with chain-axes would be an incredibly stupid thing to do. Would also speed up combat resolution, because if i know i'm going to lose and don't care about trying to tie up the unit, i could just declare this order and try to get one last round of shooting off before destruction, rather than spend time trying to fight through it.

Building off that idea, you could also make this a replacement to overwatch, where if i choose to fire at the assaulting unit, remove casualties from the front, but if they still manage to get into assault, i'm immediately destroyed.