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.

The reason I prefer to issue orders before the action , is simply to re create the tactical decisions of the force commander .To help the player feel they are in control of a military force.

Eg , Alpha and beta squad give covering fire , Delta advance along the left to draw fire, Echo find a way round the right flank.etc.

Rather than 'erm attack in some sort of way in some sort of order .Just make it up as you go along basically because I cant think of tactical plan of action ...'

My problem with this line of reasoning is that 40K is not a 100% accurate military command game. I mean, we have daemons popping out of inter-dimensional portals, super-humans dropping from orbit to scream and smack people around with maces, and officers whose entire purpose in battle is to shoot their own men! This is a game, games are supposed to be fun, and spending 10+ minutes planning for every possibility only for my opponent to stay perfectly still and out of sight, essentially wasting my time, is not fun.

I also disagree with the assertion that "making it up as you go" means you don't have a plan in place. You still have to think about how and when you use units, there's just a much lower probability of what you choose to do to be worthless or immediately countered, and less time spent planning instead of playing.

It's like the argument that speed-chess is a much less "real" version of chess than normal chess. There's an element of truth in there, you have less time to plan and think about every possibility, and thus it's less strategic, but its still a game where skill, thought, and practice are key elements in victory. And if i had to choose the more engaging version to play, i don't think anyone would say normal chess is more engaging, where it's perfectly legal for a player to spend 4-5 minutes thinking about every possibility before touching so much as a single pawn.

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

Also, to revise my earlier AP system, i think i've found a nice solution that avoids a lot of the math, but still gives the outputs and diversity wanted. Still requires both a Save (Sv) value and an Armor Class (AC) value.

If AP is lower than AC, use the base save.
If AP equals defenders AC, reduce the defender's save by 1 (3+ becomes 4+)
If AP is 1 higher than defenders AC, their save becomes a 6+, unless they would receive a 6+ or worse save if the AP was 1 lower (a 3+ would become a 6+, but a 5+ would get no save)
If AP exceeds AC by 2 or more, the model receives no save.

On orders:

First of all if you haven't played x-wing, you are missing a big part of how much fun it can be to make simultaneous orders. Yes as has been pointed out, you might have alternating activations where player A moves a mini, then player B, and tbh, combining this with pre-planned orders does complicate things. Thus, it seems like an extra chore of just marking something down you would be doing anyway, to produce an effect that you just could replicate with a UGOIGO system.

I really think it is none of those things. Done right, it can be the most enjoyable part of the game. In fact, it is one of the most enjoyable phases of x-wing for me.. since so much is on the line in those moments.

It's been suggested that this is like agonizing over a chess move... in fact it is the opposite. You are forced in one phase (and without waiting for your opponent) to choose the general range of possibility for your moves.... this means that you decide all your moves in one shot and as part of one plan in your mind's eye, and all the while having to guess what your opponent is going to do (again... exciting!). That prevents you from agonizing over the rest of your turn, or your activations, or however you want to do it. It actually limits your ability to agonize over all your moves, athough the small decisions you make while carrying out those moves can be incredibly important.

Personally, I hate the idea of the epic-style activations where one unit goes, another unit goes, etc. I think it is incredibly boring and uninspired, and tedious. It is a huge turn-off for me. I would much rather play an active/reactive system, or like x-wing, simultaneous orders but higher initiative units get the advantage in movement and firing.

Of course, those who just want a simplified version of 40k will avoid this like the plague. If that's what you want, it really seems like you'd be better off playing a tweaked version of mantic's warpath ruleset... you'd have a lot more chance of getting games in.

On 40k vs. modern battle game:

Yes 40k is a game of lasers, space orks and daemons and elves. This is exactly why we should avoid using a system of AP values that shoehorns all these incredibly diverse and fantastic beings into a system that is more apt to describe a WW2 tank battle game.

You simply need to encode information about these diverse beings into the statline, and not into the special rules. You need to build these things into the most basic, core structure of the game (the statline of the unit), and not on the periphery in the form of either a weird special rule that can potentially break the game the way it interacts or a simple special rule that merely the changing of a stat. And the best way to do that is through the expression of weapons, and the way they affect different units.

I've also invested in the Tomorrow's war rulebook... and reading that through it is very interesting as well! I think before anyone tries making up rules they absolutely need to get their hands on as many rulesets they can and try different games.

I've been working on a rewritten set of rules distinct from 40k and I came up with a few concepts that I thought I'd share and see what people thought. All of this is tentative and depends at least partially on stats for all models rewritten around these rules, it's also a work in progress badly in need of feedback/testing.

Armour: The normal armour saves with a stat on a weapon to determine whether it ignores it or not seems overly linear and static to me, I much prefer Warhammer Fantasy's penalty applied to armour save system. I untethered it from Strength such that every weapon has Strength and Armour Piercing much like it does now but instead of flat-out ignoring saves above a certain level AP applies a penalty to them, which removes the hard dividing line between effective/worthless weapons shooting at hard targets like Terminators.

Movement/Shooting: I drew from Warhammer Fantasy a bit again here, models have a Move stat usually between 3 and 6 inches for infantry models, and they can choose to not move and fire everything (including move-or-fire weapons), move their full movement stat and fire non-move-or-fire weapons at a penalty, or move double and not shoot. The increased move range of models allows me to make the game more mobile and makes closer-ranged weapons more valuable, plus I can differentiate between different bikes/jump packs.

Assault: I did away with the assault phase entirely; it's byzantine and needlessly complicated. Instead there's one 'Combat' phase where you attack either with shooting weapons or if you're in combat radius of an enemy unit close combat weapons. Models have a close combat radius of 6", if you're inside that you can only fight other people within that close combat radius with melee weapons, and most small arms have a melee profile so non-assault units/armies aren't left entirely out in the cold and a player's tactical options are increased. The restrictiveness of 40k close combat lock is dialed back some, you still can't shoot into or out of close combat but you can move freely within close combat radius and you can move out of it, though at the penalty of the enemy getting a free out-of-sequence attack against you when you depart. This is intended to simulate close-range firefights in addition to the straightforward base-contact in-your-face punching matches in the standard 40k rules. This also cuts the complexity of the game turn down by ensuring that a given unit can only attack once (very occasionally twice) in a turn instead of potentially three times (own shooting/own assault/enemy assault) with the intent of speeding things up. Removing the in-combat/out-of-combat arbitrary distinction also makes the game feel more natural and removes a lot of clarification necessary to ensure models can't get within 1" of enemies they're not locked in combat with that's necessary under the current rules.

Stats: In 40k the vast majority of models have all their stats between 2 and 6, with the 7-10 range reserved for giant monsters, demons, and the like; unfortunately this means there's very little differentiation between models when 3 is "human recruit who's been through boot camp" and 4 is "veteran genetically-modified super-soldier with decades of battlefield experience after being raised on a death world". I aim to cut out things like Greater Daemons, Daemon Princes, and high-level legendary Special Characters to allow for a wider range of stats and cut away the ceiling on stats in a few cases; I'm aiming to expand the former 2-4 range where almost everyone's WS/BS/S/T stats fall to 2-6, with 7s and above reserved for special cases. Additionally I cut the Initiative stat (with the redesign to close combat it doesn't mean much anymore) and the Attacks stat (for reasons I will explain in a moment), and added the Reaction stat (which I will explain in a moment). Tentatively considering making everything a multi-Wound model (1 Wound would be reserved for cannon fodder like Grots or Gaunts, 2-3 would be for most infantry, 4+ would be characters and things that come on 40mm bases, 6+ you'd start to see Monstrous Creatures and vehicles), with good wound allocation rules the bookkeeping wouldn't be too strenuous and it'd allow for more flavourful games in terms of the numbers involved (a dozen Space Marines standing against a hundred-strong Tyranid Swarm, for instance).

Weapons and Combat: Explaining some of the above changes briefly shooting attacks are rolled as Ballistic Skill versus Reaction, which permits me to have harder-to-hit infantry units represented in a manner that doesn't require me to go overboard on passing out alternate types of saving throws and allows me to apply modifiers to shooting attacks simply and easily; this includes cover giving a +1 (soft) or +2 (hard) bonus to Reaction for the sake of defending against shooting attacks, hopefully limiting the arguments over what type of cover something is. Attacks got cut because now every weapon's got a Rate of Fire stat (this includes close combat weapons); attacking multiple times with a weapon incurs a penalty to hit, so faster fire isn't always good. Going back to some of the things mentioned above I'd also like to touch on armour saves here; armour saves are sometimes as high as 0+ or 1+ (auto-succeed unless you're getting attacked by a weapon that penalizes armour saves), but AP- is only found on basic close combat weapons and light small arms (splinter weapons, lasguns, shotguns, the like); heavy small arms (bolters, pulse weapons, shuriken weapons, gauss weapons, etc.) will have an AP of -1, machine-gun equivalents one of -2, and heavier weapons go up from there (out to -7 (ignores all armour saves) on heavy ordnance, lascannons, lances, meltaguns, and the like). I also implemented a vehicle toughness system; vehicles have most of the same stats as infantry (point-defense weapons are the only ones with melee profiles, Strength is only really relevant if you want to ram something, and Leadership works slightly differently), heavy armour (battle tanks and the like) will have a 0+ save, skimmers, flyers, and light walkers will have a 1+ save, this makes them immune to small arms while still opening up the door for a lucky heavy bolter hit to do a bit of damage. Invulnerable saves are still present and not modified by armour penetration; they're almost exclusively the province of characters, can be taken in addition to armour saves, and are absolutely never better than 4++.

Vehicles: As mentioned above vehicles have pretty much the same stats as infantry; they're usually higher, but you've got Move for varying vehicle speeds, WS for point-defense weapons firing in melee range, BS for long-range/unwieldy main guns, S with potential applications in ramming, T for getting attacked, W for hull points, Ld for the pinning rules I'm going to get into next, and an armour save for getting attacked. Without overmany special-case rules I'm hoping the game will run more smoothly.

Pinning: I drew on Epic and Battlefleet Gothic for this one; every time a unit is attacked by a distinct enemy unit and every time a model in said unit is killed in a turn put a marker by them, plus one extra marker per unit shooting at them if they're being shot by a pinning weapon (rapid-fire machine-gun types, barrage weapons, snipers, the like). At the beginning of their turn roll a Morale test applying the number of markers as a penalty to their Ld (certain things can also provide bonuses back here, cover helps, as does wearing really heavy armour, some special rules help too), if they fail they have to either hunker down (can't move, attack at a penalty that turn and are hit more easily in close combat next enemy turn) or bolt (make a double move either towards the rally point or away from whatever was attacking you in CC, can't do anything else, must pass a morale test to regroup in subsequent turns), then remove all the markers. This also covers morale tests in close combat, mind.

Army Organization: This is where it starts to get really weird; it occurred to me that the reason behind the Force Organization Chart is that we don't want people to be spending a hundred percent of their points on Riptides, but then we run into the problem of unnecessarily byzantine rules tacked on to correct for the fact that the current linear points system is flawed. Real-time strategy games manage to be more balanced without restrictions on what you put in your army with the simple expedient of having more than one kind of resource you have to expend to get guys, I had the idea that it might be interesting to have things cost more than one kind of points for balance purposes and potentially to allow for ease of scenario control. Current theory includes three: "Requisition" points, used for pretty much everything, adjusting this adjusts the absolute size of the game; "Glory" points, used for elite/specialist troops, heroes, and relics, adjusting this adjusts the 'specialness' of the scenario; and "Arcana" points, used for upgrade weapons and vehicles, adjusting this adjusts the blastiness of the scenario. This allows for army composition to be controlled easily and simply with just the points values, though it'd also be a nightmare to balance and annoying on bookkeeping while building your army list. The only restrictions on your army list are going to be requiring a certain number of guys to support vehicles or characters, more in the vein of Battlefleet Gothic than anything else.

Psykers: I'm a bit fuzzier on how I'm going to do them, but the idea at this point is to make powers less drastic than in 40k today (nothing like JotWW), most powers will be a minor shooting attack or a short-term buff. Additionally psykers can roll opposed Ld tests against nearby enemy psykers trying to use powers to shut them down, representing Ravenor-style psychic mental struggles.

These are the general concepts I built around that apply to everyone, there's plenty more around how each individual army would function within this system but I'm not going to go into that here and now.

@Sister Sidney and Rav1n.
I will try to explain my ideas for having the 3 levels of complexity in the rules .
Rather than quick start, basic and advanced, perhaps it would be better to give them names like Alpha , Beta,and Gamma?

So players can pick the game turn they are happy with.And the damage resolution they are happy with, and the morale system they are happy with from any of the 3 levels of tactical complexity.

I understand current 40k players cover a wide spectrum of people with different levels of tactical and strategic loading /preference in their games.So to write single rules set to please everyone is impossible!

But starting with simply placing counters next to units as they activate.(basic 3 options.)And then advancing to placing orders before the actions starts IF players want to.
Then increasing the orders to 6 types placed before the action starts in a game turn that simulates simultaneous actions.(Interleaved actions .)IF players want to .
Is a way to cover a wider range of gamers and play style preferences.

In the same way keeping the rules focused on element interaction , where the element can be a single model in a detailed skirmish game, or a unit in a detailed battle game .
Allows the same core rules to be used in a variety of ways...

But to achieve this level of 'mutability' , we need to have clearly defined and straight forward rules.

And so it is important to focus on a real world counterpart to base the rules around.(So game play is intuitive!)
And in modern combat we have special forces popping up unexpectedly , and helicopters and VTOL planes dropping troops and support in tactical close air support roles , and Russian Commissars(NKVD,) killing thousands of their own men...So using modern warfare as a base for the rules actually fits 40k quite well.

And as Meade pointed out;-
''It's been suggested that this is like agonizing over a chess move... in fact it is the opposite. You are forced in one phase (and without waiting for your opponent) to choose the general range of possibility for your moves.... this means that you decide all your moves in one shot and as part of one plan in your mind's eye, and all the while having to guess what your opponent is going to do (again... exciting!). That prevents you from agonizing over the rest of your turn, or your activations, or however you want to do it. It actually limits your ability to agonize over all your moves, athough the small decisions you make while carrying out those moves can be incredibly important. ''

Which in my experience is pretty much how placing orders before the action starts works..
You commit to a plan then execute it , rather than prevaricate over every units action when you come to activate them.

@Meade.
I included the 'alternating action' option in the game turn levels for people who prefer more 'simultaneous' type activation.

And I agree the stat line should cover 80%+ of the game play .With special rules just covering the things that are actually special in game .
I prefer to use the term 'special ability' , to show the unit/weapon is different to the way other units weapons work in game.(Not just in the fluff!)

EG
Special ability of chemical weapons 'Ignore Cover'.As liquid acid,or burning chemicals find their way around and through small gaps etc.
Models claiming cover get no bonus from cover when hit by a chemical weapon.
This makes sense as most weapons fire single point contact projectile(s) (kinetic or energy,) directly at the target.And so chemical weapons are a special exception to this.

(I agree X-wing is an excellent game!I hope you enjoy Tomorrows war as much as we did! )

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I've been working on a rewritten set of rules distinct from 40k and I came up with a few concepts that I thought I'd share and see what people thought....

Mostly, I think "cool" to "awesome."

Assault: I did away with the assault phase entirely; it's byzantine and needlessly complicated. Instead there's one 'Combat' phase where you attack either with shooting weapons or if you're in combat radius of an enemy unit close combat weapons...

Ruthlessly elegant.

Stats: In 40k the vast majority of models have all their stats between 2 and 6, with the 7-10 range reserved for giant monsters, demons, and the like; unfortunately this means there's very little differentiation between models when 3 is "human recruit who's been through boot camp" and 4 is "veteran genetically-modified super-soldier with decades of battlefield experience after being raised on a death world". I aim to cut out things like Greater Daemons, Daemon Princes, and high-level legendary Special Characters to allow for a wider range of stats and cut away the ceiling on stats in a few cases....

Yes. If you don't care about backwards compatibility with current Codexes, this is absolutely the way to go.

Tentatively considering making everything a multi-Wound model....with good wound allocation rules the bookkeeping wouldn't be too strenuous...

Yes, it would, it would, oh merciful Emperor it would....

Vehicles: As mentioned above vehicles have pretty much the same stats as infantry...

Yay.

[quoet] I had the idea that it might be interesting to have things cost more than one kind of points for balance purposes and potentially to allow for ease of scenario control. Current theory includes three: "Requisition" points, used for pretty much everything, adjusting this adjusts the absolute size of the game; "Glory" points, used for elite/specialist troops, heroes, and relics, adjusting this adjusts the 'specialness' of the scenario; and "Arcana" points, used for upgrade weapons and vehicles...

Vehicles: As mentioned above vehicles have pretty much the same stats as infantry; they're usually higher, but you've got Move for varying vehicle speeds, WS for point-defense weapons firing in melee range, BS for long-range/unwieldy main guns, S with potential applications in ramming, T for getting attacked, W for hull points, Ld for the pinning rules I'm going to get into next, and an armour save for getting attacked. Without overmany special-case rules I'm hoping the game will run more smoothly.

Wow these are some great ideas for vehicles, i'd never considered having WS be used for defensive shooting in melee.

Stats: In 40k the vast majority of models have all their stats between 2 and 6, with the 7-10 range reserved for giant monsters, demons, and the like; unfortunately this means there's very little differentiation between models when 3 is "human recruit who's been through boot camp" and 4 is "veteran genetically-modified super-soldier with decades of battlefield experience after being raised on a death world". I aim to cut out things like Greater Daemons, Daemon Princes, and high-level legendary Special Characters to allow for a wider range of stats and cut away the ceiling on stats in a few cases; I'm aiming to expand the former 2-4 range where almost everyone's WS/BS/S/T stats fall to 2-6, with 7s and above reserved for special cases.

This is pretty much what i did in my rules. I extended the scale from 1-10 to 1-12, with 2-6 being used for something like 80-90% of the models in the game. Surprisingly, there doesn't seem to be a large need for point cost changes, due to the relationship between the resolution system and modifiers like movement penalties.
Example: BS
2 == Ork Boy
3 == Imperial guardsman
4 == Veteran Guardsman / Eldar Guardian
5 == Space Marine
6 == Veteran Space Marine

Then using a D6, you have these rules to follow to resolve most effects.
Attacker's value exceeds defender's value by 5 or more == 2+, causes instant death for "to wound" rolls
Attacker's value exceeds defender's value by 3-4 == 2+
Attacker's value exceeds defender's value by 1-2 == 3+
Attacker's value matches defender's value == 4+
Defender's value exceeds attatcker's value by 1-2 == 5+
Defender's value exceeds attacker's value by 3-4 == 6+
Defender's value exceeds attacker's value by 5 or more == Failure

This leads to some really cool situations like BS4 and BS 5 are both hitting on a 3+ against a stationary target (cover 3), but BS5 is still hitting on a 3+ if they move enough to gain a +1 modifier to their cover rating, while a BS4 model would not be hitting on a 4+

Current theory includes three: "Requisition" points, used for pretty much everything, adjusting this adjusts the absolute size of the game; "Glory" points, used for elite/specialist troops, heroes, and relics, adjusting this adjusts the 'specialness' of the scenario; and "Arcana" points, used for upgrade weapons and vehicles, adjusting this adjusts the blastiness of the scenario.

This is interesting, ill have to think about it. The primary concern is how incredibly complex this could get. I'd say at most 2 types, along the lines used in the Deathwatch RPG, so requisition for most things (general units, upgrades, etc) and then i like the name glory points that you used. Maybe tie glory to your HQ somehow, like the more points you put into your HQ, you receive more glory points to be spent on specialist units and the like? Idk i feel like there's a lot of potential here, but bringing it out will be a long and arduous process.

Rav1rn wrote:
Then using a D6, you have these rules to follow to resolve most effects.
Attacker's value exceeds defender's value by 5 or more == 2+, causes instant death for "to wound" rolls
Attacker's value exceeds defender's value by 3-4 == 2+
Attacker's value exceeds defender's value by 1-2 == 3+
Attacker's value matches defender's value == 4+
Defender's value exceeds attatcker's value by 1-2 == 5+
Defender's value exceeds attacker's value by 3-4 == 6+
Defender's value exceeds attacker's value by 5 or more == Failure

This leads to some really cool situations like BS4 and BS 5 are both hitting on a 3+ against a stationary target (cover 3), but BS5 is still hitting on a 3+ if they move enough to gain a +1 modifier to their cover rating, while a BS4 model would not be hitting on a 4+.

This is very good, may I use it?

Also on the subject of working out wound allocation for multiple-wound models my theory was to track the wounds for a unit as a single entity, and every time you get enough wounds to pull another model you pull it from the nearest guy to the attack's source, so a given unit of two-wound infantry wouldn't need to track more than a single wound counter next to them at a time; this would also allow me to do medics (Apothecaries, Guard Medics, Ork Painboyz, the like) and techs (Techmarines, Bonesingers, the like) very simply and efficiently since all they do is at the beginning of the turn pull some number of loose wound counters off of one unit within their radius (Medics do non-vehicle units, techs do vehicles).

Hi everyone, Sorry I didn't get here sooner.

How I would reboot 40K:

Simplify, simplify, SIMPLIFY.

First, get rid of as many re-rolls as possible. Next, get rid of as many Universal Special Rules as possible. (Especially the ones that give re-rolls.)

Acute senses, ATSKNF (just use Fearless), Armorbane, Blind, Crusader, Fleshbane, Furious Charge, Hatred, Interceptor, It will not die, Monster Hunter, Poisoned, Preferred Enemy, Rampage, Shred, Shrouded, Smash, Tank Hunters, Zealot... all gone. In fact, with very few exceptions, I'd relegate all special rules to the codices.

FOC: No more "makes _____ a troops choice/scoring unit." It happens way too often. Need proof? http://dracusjournal.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/to-many-troops.html
You want to capture objectives? You're gonna need grunts.

Roll off D6+ Warlord's Initiative. (Makes this pretty useless stat a little less useless.)

The Game Turn:

I move, you move, I shoot, you shoot, I charge, you charge. Close to the current, familiar method, but more organic, with less waiting. The second player has a chance to be more proactive each turn, and avoid being slaughtered by Alpha Strike. No clunky "unit activation phase" nonsense or superfluous morale checks to see if a unit does anything or just stands there.

MOVEMENT PHASE:

Normal rules apply for moving. Unit cohesion, climbing levels in buildings, vehicle facing, etc. If an infantry unit is going to cross Difficult Terrain at any point during their movement, they roll 2D6 and move up to that distance, even if that distance is not far enough to allow them to enter the Difficult Terrain.

SHOOTING PHASE:

IC's/Sergeants issue Orders. Someone mentioned making Leaders/ICs/Sergeants more relevant. Great idea, but instead of some convoluted mathematical system involving tokens or "command points," just use the "Junior" or "Senior" Officer rules the IG has. Orders can be in each codex and tailored to reflect each army's fluff. (Ork orders should be hilarious.)

Any grunt can tell you that concealment does not always provide cover, but cover always provides concealment. (e.g., shrubs aren't bulletproof, walls are.) The 6th ed. cover rules don't reward the tactical use of terrain as they should. Shooting at something in cover is harder to hit, therefore "a unit shooting at a target IN COVER does so at -1 Ballistic Skill."

Instead of having Rapid Fire, Assault, Heavy weapons, etc, that have different movement requirements, I suggest a simple, one-size-fits-all solution:

Normal infantry may:

1. Remain stationary and fire at full BS.
2. Move up to 6" and fire snap shots. (Flame Template weapons fire normally)
3. Move up to 12" and fire nothing at all.

If the unit rolls the 2D6 for Difficult Terrain, it may:

1. Choose not to move and fire at full BS.
2. Move up to 6" (if the distance roll allows it) and fire snap shots. (Flame Template weapons fire normally)
3. Move further than 6" (up to the distance rolled) and fire nothing at all.

Grenades: (One per unit/shooting phase regardless of distance moved.)
Frag Grenades: 6" range, S5, Large Blast, Suppression, D3" Scatter.
Krak Grenades: 6" range, S8, Small Blast, Suppression, D3" Scatter.

Closest casualties are removed first. This is realistic and objective. Why would the models closest to the shooter NOT be hit first?
With Template weapons, models under the Template are removed.

Shooting units cannot target units in Close Combat. Template weapons may scatter on to units in CC, though.

No more "Look out, Sir!" It's overused, bogs the game down with endless re-rolls and if you want to keep specialists alive longer, teach them to stand behind the cannon fodder.

Suppression. No overly complicated "value system" with "light" or "heavy" suppression. It’s too complex to be a part of the core rules. Just make it a Special Rule given to certain weapons. (Storm Bolters, Heavy Bolters, Flamers, Big Shootas, Punisher Cannons, Stubbers, Autocannons, Sniper Rifles, Ordnance, etc.) A unit fired on by a Suppression weapon forces a Leadership test. If the test is failed, the suppressed unit can’t Shoot, Assault or Overwatch. This also adds another facet to the importance of leaders/SGTs. Fearless units cannot be suppressed. Suppressed units may use Grenades (1 per shooting phase.)

Shooting damage and Wound allocation. This seems to be one of the biggest points of contention. The schools of thought seem to be:

1. Streamline the 6th ed. system. Roll to Hit, Roll to Wound, Roll to Save. It's not a terrible system if you just cut out all the ridiculous re-rolls given by all the damn special rules.
Pros: Everybody already knows the system. One could focus on fixing the individual units without spending months play testing a new system.
Cons: The ruleset is an "accumulation of band-aid solutions that never fixed the fundamental problems." There are broken units and power imbalances everywhere.

2. Use an earlier edition to avoid having to rewrite every single stat line from every single unit in every single codex.
Pros: Avoid rewriting everything in every codex.
Cons: The ruleset will still be an "accumulation of band-aid solutions that never fix the fundamental problems"

3. Create a streamlined system integrating Armor Saves into Toughness that would require rewriting every single stat line from every single unit in every single codex.
Pros: You will actually have balanced units that will probably never need updating.
Cons: It will take forever.

Before finding this thread, I read this: http://theback40k.blogspot.com/2011/07/why-do-we-roll-so-many-dice-in-40k.html

In it, the author offers up a promising solution. Instead of a saving throw, Armor is worked into a stat called Evasion, which is how hard the target is to hit.
Roll to Hit, Roll to Wound. Done. Instead of multiple charts to memorize, there's just one.



Stat lines would have to be rewritten like so:



Same thing for vehicles:



ASSAULT PHASE:

The 2D6 charge range is good. It means that casualties from shooting (and overwatch) may cause a charge to fail. This is realism.

The charging unit will move into BtB contact with their target unit, as in 6th ed. The attackers will receive +1 attack for charging, +1 attack for having two weapons. Attacks will proceed in Initiative order until all members of both units have struck. Casualties will be removed and models will pile in 3".

At the start of the next turn, the first player may break contact by passing a Leadership test. If he succeeds, the unit may move as normal. If the test fails, the unit remains locked in CC. The second player may also attempt to break contact the same way. If neither unit successfully passes its Leadership test, the assault continues, even if both players wish to break contact.

Issuing and accepting Challenges will be at the discretion of the players, but there will be no penalties for refusing.

The Next Turn:

Once the Assault Phase is complete, start the next turn. Player 1 can start each turn, or players may begin each turn with a new Initiative roll-off. Perhaps with an arbitrary bonus going to the Warlord whose forces gained the upper hand?

Regardless, the next Movement Phase will begin with Player 1 moving unengaged units, and using Leadership tests to break units out of Close Combats. Continue until the game is complete.

Beyond that, I'd rework the Allies Matrix to coincide with the fluff, and I'd keep Apocalypse a separate game and keep Apoc units out of 40K.

 SpaceNinjaJetPilot wrote:

Before finding this thread, I read this: http://theback40k.blogspot.com/2011/07/why-do-we-roll-so-many-dice-in-40k.html

In it, the author offers up a promising solution. Instead of a saving throw, Armor is worked into a stat called Evasion, which is how hard the target is to hit.
Roll to Hit, Roll to Wound. Done. Instead of multiple charts to memorize, there's just one.

I'm sure the author will realize how terrible this idea is the first time he actually tries it on the table and realizes that he has turned the game into a giant match of rock-paper-scissors. I hope he plays against Eldar and realizes nothing in his army can ever hit the Avatar.

The 2D6 charge range is good. It means that casualties from shooting (and overwatch) may cause a charge to fail. This is realism.

Nothing I've ever seen in war footage would make me think that if the guy in front dies, all his buddies teleport back to where they started.

Nothing I've ever seen in war footage would make me think that if the guy in front dies, all his buddies teleport back to where they started.

That's probably why Overwatch is resolved before the assaulting player rolls the charge range or moves any models, eh?

@SpaceNinjaJetPilot.
Just using alternating action phases is a good fix for current 40k's poor level of player interaction.(And it allows for a lot more tactical decision making. )
And most house rules include it as a primary fix.(Yes, it does improve the game the most with the minimum of fuss!)
(I have extended it to cover multiple action sequences in a dual activation game turn for the most tactically advanced version of the new rules my group is working on.)

@All.
For several reasons previously discussed, a 3 stage resolution process, roll to hit,roll to save, roll to damage, is the most appropriate for a 40k re write.
Also why use charts and tables, when we can use stats directly ?As this seems the most elegant way to cover interaction.
Especially if we use 'unit cards' with all the unit info on them.We can just play the game without having to look anything up!

@ AnomanderRake.
I agree with most of your observations and comments
(However, I would prefer to look at good modern battle games for solutions , rather than WHFB variants.)

Could I ask folks make it clear if their ideas are for house rules/ modification to 40k 6th ed.Or a brand new rule set?

Because sticking with 40k stats and resolution methods /game mechanics makes sense for house rules and current game mods.

But makes less sense for a complete re-write.

Lanrak wrote:
@ AnomanderRake.
I agree with most of your observations and comments
(However, I would prefer to look at good modern battle games for solutions , rather than WHFB variants.)

Could I ask folks make it clear if their ideas are for house rules/ modification to 40k 6th ed.Or a brand new rule set?

Because sticking with 40k stats and resolution methods /game mechanics makes sense for house rules and current game mods.

But makes less sense for a complete re-write.

The WHFB parts are specifically for design aspects 40k and WHFB share that WHFB does better. I also looked at GW's side games, Flames of War, WARMACHINE, and Bolt Action while setting this up, I didn't straight-up grab stuff from any of them in quite the same way but some bits of design philosophy certainly impacted my rules.

Lanrak wrote:
Could I ask folks make it clear if their ideas are for house rules/ modification to 40k 6th ed.Or a brand new rule set?

Because sticking with 40k stats and resolution methods /game mechanics makes sense for house rules and current game mods.

But makes less sense for a complete re-write.

House rules are little things. They're another "Band-Aid on the accumulation," to quote the OP. And Warpath (the self-proclaimed answer to the current 40K mess) is what a brand new rule set would look like. It's not 40K anymore, and it will never gain traction, imho. Anytime I bring any of this up in my gaming group, they take another swig of the Kool-Aid and tell me to "go play Infinity." Or Flames of War. Or any other game that isn't 40K.

A solution to 40K still has to be 40K. Just fixed.

So I'm going for something in the middle. A "re-boot." A 7th Ed. If GW said, "Hey you, take a crack at this mutha." Then this is what I would do...

That's why I'm against "activation phases." Say what you will about the 40K game turn, its simple. "I do all my stuff, then you do all your stuff." An I move, you move, I shoot, you shoot, I charge, you charge game turn is infinitely more tactical, and realistic, without being a wholesale departure from what 20 million players are used to. That's why I suggested the Movement rules I did, and their effect on shooting. (And why I'd cut things like "Look out, Sir" and Challenges.) It's streamlined, but its still 40K.

That's also why I'd dump 75% of the USRs and relegate the rest to the codices. 40K players love their special rules, but keep them out of the core set, and in the codex where they belong. (If you want a core rule set that's under 20 pages, this is a no-brainer.)

I would not completely rewrite the core rules. I would, however, completely rewrite all the stat lines. For everything. They're not balanced. A bare-bones "troop" choice from one codex should equal the same choice from any other codex. Not identical, but equal. If one unit is better at CC, the other should shoot better. If one unit's troops are better everywhere, they'll cost more and have less of them, etc. Certainly, all units in all categories won't be perfectly even, but basic troops should.

Which brings up the only really big change I have. Getting rid of saving throws. Working that resilience into the Toughness stat. Roll to hit, then to wound. Bada bing, bada boom. ICs, HQs, MCs, psykers... sure, let them have a save. A psychic power, a piece of war gear, whatever... I'm fine with that, but everybody having one is for the birds.

Without completely restating everything in my first post, that's what I'll be working on. Not just house rules, and not a completely new rule set, but a streamlined, simplified 40K.

@ SpaceNinjaJetPilot.
I did post '... for house rules and current game mods. '

So if you want to modify WHFB in space in any way that keeps WHFB core game mechanics ,resolutions ,and stat lines in some way.
As it does make sense to keep the rules 'looking familiar' if the target audience has only played 40k/WHFB.

However,I have found more experienced war gamers are able to see past the 'rules sold with the minatures' bond.
And are very happy to switch out rules and minatures as they want to.(And obviously not GW plc core demoghraphic.!)

We have used several rule set mods,) for games of 40k, depending on what size game and level of detail we want.
From FUBAR, Stargrunt II, Tomorrows War, Fast and Dirty,Epic Armageddon and NET Epic. etc.

Yes you can make a better rule set than 6th ed 40k, simply by using an alternating phase game turn , and clearing out the inane amount of special rules.In fact lots of people have proposed this type of thing since 4th ed!

This is absolutely fine, and as valid as a complete re-write as a method to improve 40k rules.
But we need to keep the developments separate with clear definition to avoid confusion!

Would you be happy to use '40k modified' and '40k new ', as a simple distinction between re working current rules/stats to arrive at a better rule set.
And completely new rules stats and game mechanics to achieve a better rule set.?
As some ideas may fit one type of development very well but be unsuitable for another.

Just my few bolter shells on turns:

The army with higher average initiative always starts, unless they make a "tactical pause" giving the other army first go

Movement phase happens to any unit in first army
Movement phase happens to any unit in second army
Rinse and repeat until all units have moved/not moved if decided to

Then above is repeated with shooting phase, but with a difference: reaction sub-phase, happens just before shooting where a unit can take cover,then afterwards is allowed "pot shots" (25% of troops can take snap shots)


Assault phase follows movement phase and current assault phase.

 Dannyrulx wrote:
Just my few bolter shells on turns:

The army with higher average initiative always starts, unless they make a "tactical pause" giving the other army first go

Movement phase happens to any unit in first army
Movement phase happens to any unit in second army
Rinse and repeat until all units have moved/not moved if decided to

Then above is repeated with shooting phase, but with a difference: reaction sub-phase, happens just before shooting where a unit can take cover,then afterwards is allowed "pot shots" (25% of troops can take snap shots)


Assault phase follows movement phase and current assault phase.

At that point you would probably want to just make a new characteristic. Because initiative is only used in CC this would severely harm any unit that is not a dedicated CC unit. Or eldar.

Hi folks.
if you want a variant on interleaved phases.
Eg rather than simple.

A moves.
B moves
A shoots
B shoots
A assaults
B assaults.
(With a roll off to decide who goes first each turn)

We could use.

A Moves.
B Attacks (Shoot or assault depending on range.)
A Reacts.(Move or Attack)

B Moves
A Attacks (Shoot or assault depending on range.)
B Reacts (Move or Attack)

If we keep the Initiative stat it in the 40k mod , it can only be used for close assault order,If it gets used for any other reason it needs to be re-named or replaced IMO.

I ended up dancing around the issue of turn order in a way that eliminated the need for an Initiative stat entirely:

Player 1 Movement
Player 2 Reaction Fire
Player 1 Combat

Player 2 Movement
Player 1 Reaction Fire
Player 2 Combat

The Combat phase covers both shooting and CC depending on how far away from the enemy your are, but barring a few special cases only one army is attacking in any turn so there's no need to determine who goes first. A unit that doesn't attack in the Combat phase may attack in the Reaction Fire phase after the enemy's turn at a penalty.

@ Larnak
I see your point. Mine's a mod. Not a rewrite.

Lanrak wrote:
Hi folks.
if you want a variant on interleaved phases.
Eg rather than simple.

A moves.
B moves
A shoots
B shoots
A assaults
B assaults.
(With a roll off to decide who goes first each turn)

We could use.

A Moves.
B Attacks (Shoot or assault depending on range.)
A Reacts.(Move or Attack)

B Moves
A Attacks (Shoot or assault depending on range.)
B Reacts (Move or Attack)

I like the idea of Player B being able to affect Player A's movement phase (while sticking with my stodgy ol' A moves, B moves, A shoots, B shoots, A assaults, B assaults game turn.)
I thought about expanding Overwatch to once per turn, instead of just in the Assault phase.
Player A declares which units are moving. Player B's units can choose to fire Overwatch and possibly suppress them, or hold onto it in case they get charged.

Lanrak wrote:
Hi folks.
if you want a variant on interleaved phases.
Eg rather than simple.

A moves.
B moves
A shoots
B shoots
A assaults
B assaults.
(With a roll off to decide who goes first each turn)

How do you prevent player B always moving out of A's assault range?

I like the other one better, esp. AnomanderRake's version.

@lord blackfang.
I prefer the second one too , that is why I proposed it!

The idea that the opposing army gets to 'react' to your movement ,(with the opportunity to launch an attack of some sort.)Before you can continue with the rest of the actions you want to take.Was the core idea I thought was worth discussing.

AnomanderRake has proposed a cool alternative!
However, just limiting the 'interupt'' to a shooting action, might be seen as an unfair to more assault based armies.

How do you feel about?

Player 1 moves.
Player 2 reaction attacks
Player 1 attacks.

Player 2 moves
Player 1 reaction attacks
Player 2 attacks.

This way we can simply define what a reaction attack can be and what a standard attack can be,(for close assault and ranged attack options.)

Lanrak wrote:
AnomanderRake has proposed a cool alternative!
However, just limiting the 'interupt'' to a shooting action, might be seen as an unfair to more assault based armies.

Sorry if I didn't express myself clearly; there's no functional difference between a "shooting attack" and a "close combat attack" beyond range and a simple rule governing the fact that you can't shoot into close combat and limitations on using melee-range weapons against airplanes. A unit that chose to hold for reaction may make a free melee attack if an enemy unit moves into their combat radius.

SpaceNinjaJetPilot wrote:
That's also why I'd dump 75% of the USRs and relegate the rest to the codices. 40K players love their special rules, but keep them out of the core set, and in the codex where they belong. (If you want a core rule set that's under 20 pages, this is a no-brainer.)

No no nononono!
There may be a few too many USR's, but you absolutely want them in the main rulebook.
Back in the bad old days before USR's, there were at one stage 4 differently worded versions of "And They Shall Know No Fear" going around. I remember in Fantasy at one stage, there were some magic armours/items that gave 'Always Strike First'. But their resolution system if two models has ASF different between the four items: One said roll off, one said go with highest initiative, one was with highest weapon skill, and the fourth had no guidance.
Until GW gets significantly better in the exactness of their rules ala Warmachine, having only a single definition of the rule in one book is the way to go,

I would not completely rewrite the core rules. I would, however, completely rewrite all the stat lines. For everything. They're not balanced. A bare-bones "troop" choice from one codex should equal the same choice from any other codex. Not identical, but equal. If one unit is better at CC, the other should shoot better. If one unit's troops are better everywhere, they'll cost more and have less of them, etc. Certainly, all units in all categories won't be perfectly even, but basic troops should.

I'm sure this is the plan, but cost functions are pretty difficult to work out. Is a 5+ invulnerable worth more or less than 3+ armour? How much better is 2 S5 WS5 attacks than 1 BS4 S4 shooting attack? How much better is fleet than fear?
You have the issue of 'force multipliers' and 'target saturation' - where eg 90 points of pathfinders makes X unit twice as good through buffs, or 3 Helldrakes is more than 3 times more powerful than 1 Helldrake. Cronair is good not because the flyer itself is good, but because you can take 6 of them! Or you have the units which are only good because you can take special weapons - you'd happily pay 60pts for 10 guardsmen plus 40pts for the special weapons, but not 60pts for the 10 guardsmen.
There is also the occurrence where GW sometimes prices based on theme. They directly admitted to this once for th Dark Elf 6th Edition Errata, where warriors dropped by 3pts in order to underprice them and encourage more 'thematic' armies.
... so yeah, they TRY to do that. But its hard.

Which brings up the only really big change I have. Getting rid of saving throws. Working that resilience into the Toughness stat. Roll to hit, then to wound. Bada bing, bada boom. ICs, HQs, MCs, psykers... sure, let them have a save. A psychic power, a piece of war gear, whatever... I'm fine with that, but everybody having one is for the birds.

While I'm all for merging some of the statline together (looking at you, WS+I) I don't think that Sv should be one to go. The design decision behind Sv is that you have at least SOME input during your opponents turn, some control over whatever dies. I personally find it quite frustrating when an opponent rolls a bunch of AP3 wounds and says 'remove that many guys'. Whaa?




One of my favourite rule sets at the moment is Dust Warfare. The action/reaction system is quite cool.
Essentially it is:
Each unit usually gets 2 actions per turn (eg move+shoot), or one long action (eg, sprint)
INITIATIVE PHASE:
Players roll one dice for each unit. The amount of 5+s you get is your Initiative. Whoever gets the lowest initiative goes first.
COMMAND PHASE: Your opponent cannot react to actions that you make during the command phase.
Player 1: Pick up to (initiative) units and perform ONE action with them. Mark the unit as 'reacted'.
Player 2: Same as player 1, but you have more initiative.
ACTION PHASE:
Player 1: One unit at a time, do remaining actions for the entire army.
Your opponent can react to actions that you do! As long as unit has not already reacted and is not suppressed, they can react to your actions by eg running away or shooting back.
If someone manages to engage you in close combat, you can't run or shoot, but you can spend your reaction fighting back,
Player 2: Same as player 1.

Its a highly engaging turn sequence which definitely feels as though it is one player's turn, but has enough opportunities that the opponent doesn't get bored.

I'm very partial to systems where each unit completes its full activation all at once. I find that 40k with its Move/Shoot/Assault sequence ends up with a LOT of tracking and unnecessarily missed opportunities and rules. Its a lot harder to forget to shoot with a unit when you only need to activate it once per turn instead of thrice.

Two other things that I think need to be added to 40k:
1) Bring back the movement stat. There are so many 'this unit is fast', 'this unit is faster', 'this unit is fasterer, but in a weirder way' rules. Just give each unit a speed (6") and give +3" instead of fleet.
2) Rename a Game Turn to a Round. A Round consists of one Turn per player which is made up of 3 Phases. Easy.

Trasvi wrote:

SpaceNinjaJetPilot wrote:
That's also why I'd dump 75% of the USRs and relegate the rest to the codices. 40K players love their special rules, but keep them out of the core set, and in the codex where they belong. (If you want a core rule set that's under 20 pages, this is a no-brainer.)

No no nononono!
There may be a few too many USR's, but you absolutely want them in the main rulebook.
Back in the bad old days before USR's, there were at one stage 4 differently worded versions of "And They Shall Know No Fear" going around. I remember in Fantasy at one stage, there were some magic armours/items that gave 'Always Strike First'. But their resolution system if two models has ASF different between the four items: One said roll off, one said go with highest initiative, one was with highest weapon skill, and the fourth had no guidance.
Until GW gets significantly better in the exactness of their rules ala Warmachine, having only a single definition of the rule in one book is the way to go,

I'd suggest going to the exact opposite extreme; fewer USRs, yes, but also stick to USRs for units in specific Codexes as much as possible. Standardize the rules, set up to have fewer special-case arguments. This would also help avoid the problem of people needing to read and understand every single Codex to be able to play; when 95% of what the other guy's doing is covered under USRs you'll be able to strategize more effectively since you know what everyone can do.

I would not completely rewrite the core rules. I would, however, completely rewrite all the stat lines. For everything. They're not balanced. A bare-bones "troop" choice from one codex should equal the same choice from any other codex. Not identical, but equal. If one unit is better at CC, the other should shoot better. If one unit's troops are better everywhere, they'll cost more and have less of them, etc. Certainly, all units in all categories won't be perfectly even, but basic troops should.

I'm sure this is the plan, but cost functions are pretty difficult to work out. Is a 5+ invulnerable worth more or less than 3+ armour? How much better is 2 S5 WS5 attacks than 1 BS4 S4 shooting attack? How much better is fleet than fear?
You have the issue of 'force multipliers' and 'target saturation' - where eg 90 points of pathfinders makes X unit twice as good through buffs, or 3 Helldrakes is more than 3 times more powerful than 1 Helldrake. Cronair is good not because the flyer itself is good, but because you can take 6 of them! Or you have the units which are only good because you can take special weapons - you'd happily pay 60pts for 10 guardsmen plus 40pts for the special weapons, but not 60pts for the 10 guardsmen.
There is also the occurrence where GW sometimes prices based on theme. They directly admitted to this once for th Dark Elf 6th Edition Errata, where warriors dropped by 3pts in order to underprice them and encourage more 'thematic' armies.
... so yeah, they TRY to do that. But its hard.

No. Absolutely not. A Tactical Marine is never in any realm of the imagination going to be even remotely equivalent to a Termagant. The idea of 40k is that it's an asymmetrical game with points costs to balance things out such that if you want to play a themed game about a wave of Tyranids trying to overwhelm a Space Marine bastion and have the Space Marines outnumbered ten to one you can do it and it's balanced (at least in theory). Resetting the game back to "one soldier = one soldier" is absolutely the wrong direction.

Which brings up the only really big change I have. Getting rid of saving throws. Working that resilience into the Toughness stat. Roll to hit, then to wound. Bada bing, bada boom. ICs, HQs, MCs, psykers... sure, let them have a save. A psychic power, a piece of war gear, whatever... I'm fine with that, but everybody having one is for the birds.

While I'm all for merging some of the statline together (looking at you, WS+I) I don't think that Sv should be one to go. The design decision behind Sv is that you have at least SOME input during your opponents turn, some control over whatever dies. I personally find it quite frustrating when an opponent rolls a bunch of AP3 wounds and says 'remove that many guys'. Whaa?

I have another issue with that: granularity. With two rolls needed to wound you've got eleven possible results with linear progression in the odds, with three rolls needed to kill you've got 214 possible results with a bell curve of results and minor changes to stats impact the odds much less. The more rolls you take out of the game the more the game is decided by the dice since each individual die now has a much bigger impact on the outcome of the game.

Two other things that I think need to be added to 40k:
1) Bring back the movement stat. There are so many 'this unit is fast', 'this unit is faster', 'this unit is fasterer, but in a weirder way' rules. Just give each unit a speed (6") and give +3" instead of fleet.
2) Rename a Game Turn to a Round. A Round consists of one Turn per player which is made up of 3 Phases. Easy.

Move stat, absolutely. No reason a Terminator and a Harlequin should be able to run the same speed, no reason a Valkyrie (maximum speed 3 according to AI) should be just as fast as a Thunderbolt (maximum speed 6 according to AI). The Round consisting of a Turn is semantics; referring to Game Turns versus Player Turns is perfectly fine so long as you keep the wording consistent.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
No. Absolutely not. A Tactical Marine is never in any realm of the imagination going to be even remotely equivalent to a Termagant. The idea of 40k is that it's an asymmetrical game with points costs to balance things out such that if you want to play a themed game about a wave of Tyranids trying to overwhelm a Space Marine bastion and have the Space Marines outnumbered ten to one you can do it and it's balanced (at least in theory). Resetting the game back to "one soldier = one soldier" is absolutely the wrong direction.

Just to clarify, nowhere did I say 1 solder = 1 soldier. Obviously 1 Space Marine is not going to be equal to 1 Guardsman/Ork/Fire Warrior etc. I said that troop UNITS should roughly balance out. If that's 5 Space Marines to 10 Guardsmen or 20 Ork Boys or 16 gaunts...

Varying move stats was brought up before in this thread and others. Since it seems roughly half the forum writers (personal observation) do want to use it, despite being more practically argued against than for, I'm curious to know: How would you do it/like to see it done. For arguments sake lets say you must use a 6'x4' board and of course the model scale can't change. Please post your modified deployment zone size/area and rough turn by turn or round by round lay out of a games progress using some various units with these new speeds. Also, melee combat must NOT be possible in round one or until player turn three. I'll explain why if needed but that one should be mostly obvious.

KnuckleWolf wrote:
Varying move stats was brought up before in this thread and others. Since it seems roughly half the forum writers (personal observation) do want to use it, despite being more practically argued against than for, I'm curious to know: How would you do it/like to see it done. For arguments sake lets say you must use a 6'x4' board and of course the model scale can't change. Please post your modified deployment zone size/area and rough turn by turn or round by round lay out of a games progress using some various units with these new speeds. Also, melee combat must NOT be possible in round one or until player turn three. I'll explain why if needed but that one should be mostly obvious.

I've got Move stats ranging from 3" (slow things like Obliterators and Wraithguard) to 20" (Flyers), I rolled movement, running, and charging into the Movement phase such that you have three options for what to do:
Remain stationary: Attack with any weapon at no penalty
Move a number of inches equal to your Move stat ("Full" move): Attack with non-Heavy ranged weapons at a penalty or melee weapons at no penalty
Move a number of inches equal to double your Move stat ("Double" move): No ranged attacks, melee attacks at a penalty.

This means the absolute fastest melee-capable units (Eldar/Dark Eldar Jetbikes at Move 15 (16-20 are reserved for Flyers)) are going to have a potential melee threat range of thirty-six inches once the combat radius rule (which I covered in my really long post earlier on this page) is factored in as compared to a maximum melee threat range of twenty-four inches in 40k today (12" move and 12" charge from a Jump model or someone hopping out of an open-topped transport or a Land Raider); with the standard 24" no-man's-land zone in normal 40k games that means you could potentially see melee on turn one easily but that's not a big change from 40k. If you really don't want to see melee combat on turn one you'd pick a scenario map that has further-apart deployment zones (though expecting players to start sixty-six inches apart to ensure that player A's Eldar Jetbikes can't charge player B's Eldar Jetbikes in round one isn't likely), but if one player really wants to get into melee and the other doesn't all the second person has to do is deploy back away from the edge of their deployment zone. The combat radius mechanic, however, also mitigates some of the problems with CC by making fights much less one-sided since non-Heavy guns actually matter in CC; if you think overmuch charge range isn't fair to people like the Tau consider that Fire Warriors are shooting at a penalty to accuracy with their pulse rifles in melee combat and they've got (*gasp*) playable Kroot for countercharges.

So the way I read that was an Eldar Jetbike, can engage in melee, turn one, covering a gap almost twice the base speed of your fastest flyer?

Second question(s): If the "response" to this is to start further back, are you still using fall-back-to-death morale style? Part and parcel to that is are you still using objectives in the middle of the board that said further back unit now has to work harder to get too if at all? To summarize are you still using punisher mechanics against a playstyle? You can of course do that if you want, (to control the game experience for example) I just want to know if that's the goal.

Lastly, if a even remotely strategic war game is your goal, which it may well not be (see O.G.R.E., Battleship, current 40k lol) you need to eliminate turn one engagement as much as possible from it, and maybe turn two if the scale calls for it. Sometimes difficult to do in war games as they have, y'know, guns, but if you really want a good strategy layer your first turn almost needs to be 99% maneuvering and positioning. That statement can be backed up by almost any successful and enduring strategy game. (e.g. Chess, Go, Starcraft, Catan, etc. More recently the Flight Path system for Star Wars and Star Trek. Some have argued technicalities supporting variation on this theme in even Risk and Axis and Allies despite turn one combat)

 AnomanderRake wrote:

KnuckleWolf wrote:
Varying move stats was brought up before in this thread and others. Since it seems roughly half the forum writers (personal observation) do want to use it, despite being more practically argued against than for, I'm curious to know: How would you do it/like to see it done. For arguments sake lets say you must use a 6'x4' board and of course the model scale can't change. Please post your modified deployment zone size/area and rough turn by turn or round by round lay out of a games progress using some various units with these new speeds. Also, melee combat must NOT be possible in round one or until player turn three. I'll explain why if needed but that one should be mostly obvious.

I've got Move stats ranging from 3" (slow things like Obliterators and Wraithguard) to 20" (Flyers), I rolled movement, running, and charging into the Movement phase such that you have three options for what to do:
Remain stationary: Attack with any weapon at no penalty
Move a number of inches equal to your Move stat ("Full" move): Attack with non-Heavy ranged weapons at a penalty or melee weapons at no penalty
Move a number of inches equal to double your Move stat ("Double" move): No ranged attacks, melee attacks at a penalty.

This means the absolute fastest melee-capable units (Eldar/Dark Eldar Jetbikes at Move 15 (16-20 are reserved for Flyers)) are going to have a potential melee threat range of thirty-six inches once the combat radius rule (which I covered in my really long post earlier on this page) is factored in as compared to a maximum melee threat range of twenty-four inches in 40k today (12" move and 12" charge from a Jump model or someone hopping out of an open-topped transport or a Land Raider); with the standard 24" no-man's-land zone in normal 40k games that means you could potentially see melee on turn one easily but that's not a big change from 40k. If you really don't want to see melee combat on turn one you'd pick a scenario map that has further-apart deployment zones (though expecting players to start sixty-six inches apart to ensure that player A's Eldar Jetbikes can't charge player B's Eldar Jetbikes in round one isn't likely), but if one player really wants to get into melee and the other doesn't all the second person has to do is deploy back away from the edge of their deployment zone. The combat radius mechanic, however, also mitigates some of the problems with CC by making fights much less one-sided since non-Heavy guns actually matter in CC; if you think overmuch charge range isn't fair to people like the Tau consider that Fire Warriors are shooting at a penalty to accuracy with their pulse rifles in melee combat and they've got (*gasp*) playable Kroot for countercharges.

Good luck fighting jetseer councils all around with a bunch of ork boyz that can move...how fast?

Hi folks.
I prefer using direct stats because it speeds up play.
Eg Mobility 7".(Move 7" per movement action.)

Mobility , 'Special name 'for slightly faster than the other vehicles but slower than the really fast vehicles'. look up this value in the vehicle rules....

40k has tons of strategic decisions, (list building and deployment options for synergistic use of units and unit load out combos.)
What is actually lacking is in game tactical choice.

Limiting the rapidity and frequency of combat engagements by LOS blocking terrain, and tactical use of smoke/blind , coupled with a system based on target stealth,(skill for not being seen shot at!)Is a lot more practical and sensible IMO.

There is nothing wrong with using a movement stat.
OR using a range of clearly defined fixed values.(Like FoW, eg, Infantry Jeep, Half track , Tank , Fast tank, Slow Tank.etc.)

But simply saying everything works like this , than contradict this with lots of exceptions is poor rules writing.

If we were going to keep the 'names' for units mobility .I would prefer to do it like this...
Slow and Purpuseful =4"
Standard infantry =5"
(Fleet)Fast infantry =6"

Vehicles =6"
Fast vehicles/jump packs= 8"
Bikes and skimmers =12."