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.

 loki old fart wrote:

If you can’t see it. You can’t shoot it. So your weapon can fire 72 inches. How far can you see? 24 inches that’s tough you need push someone forward to spot for you....Gives scouts more reasons to be on the board. Makes things more realistic. Introduces the possibility of command vehicles...

Interesting idea, but 24" visibility is probably too short. And except for artillery, very few modern-day systems can outshoot their sensor range. It'd be weird if an M1 tank can see spot targets at its maximum range but a Leman Russ can't.

 loki old fart wrote:

Any soldier can tell you that concealment does not always provide cover, but cover always provides concealment. (e.g., shrubs aren't bulletproof, walls are.)

Depends on the wall and what you're shooting at it. That's part of the reasons police officers fire hollowpoint rounds, so they don't go through the wall behind the suspect into the next room....

If you can’t see it. You can’t shoot it. So your weapon can fire 72 inches. How far can you see? 24 inches that’s tough you need push someone forward to spot for you.

i like this, it's basically what I've been toying with, except i said you can see 24", but anything outside 12" must be fired at with a reduced BS (BS is one lower than normal). If you have another unit within 24" of that same unit, you ignore the BS penalty.

Shooting at something in cover is harder to hit, therefore "a unit shooting at a target in cover does so at a reduced skill level.
(all effects are cumulative if more than one applies)
To Hit Modifiers:

Target behind light cover: -1 to rolled
Target behind medium cover -2 to rolled, example: behind a wall or in ruins:
Large Target: +1 to die roll.
Medium range. the target is over 24 inches away. -1 to roll.
Maximum range -2 to roll
If firers ranged weapon skill (rws) - cover - range +d6 => toughness + armour target is hit, unit takes one wound.

im against cover as modifiers, and against model size as to-hit modifiers, because it adds complexity in all the wrong places. If cover is a modifier, players with weakly armored units (GEQ) will almost never get to roll their saves, which means the player has less of a say in the fate of those models. Putting models down to immediately pick them up again isn't much fun, even if the models are supposed to die in droves. Keep cover a distinct save, and just let cover saves stack with armor saves so it doesn't overly favor one type of model over another.

Another mark against it, if I have a list of X number of potential modifiers, then I have to keep that list on hand to make sure im remembering them all, then do some math to add it all up and modify the value, which is not ideal.

You brought up a great Fog of war system, put model and unit sizes in there. Huge models 12" further than normal, massive models 18" further, etc. smaller models and units would require being closer to be seen. A 1 man Lictor would be nigh impossible to see with stealth, shrouding, and a micro-unit size of 1 model, but a screaming squad of 30 orks is not exactly hard to detect, even with the fog of war. Change stealth and shrouding to work with the fog of war too while you're at it, it makes more sense than providing or improving cover saves.

That equation is way too complex for new players to get into, which is a point the current resolution system has in its favor. It's nicely broken into steps by its nature. Also, consolidating toughness and armor into one value can streamline things, but at the cost of diversity and overall simplicity, because you have to come up with all sorts of strange systems to bring damage levels back down to current levels. Taking out that 3rd step in damage resolution has huge impacts.

@Lanrak: That's the general idea on the FOC, though I'm probably going to need to elaborate better in the rules document.

As for the modifiers-to-Evasion it lets me put a lot of different rules that otherwise have to be described separately under one roof, and it lets me distinguish between units in terms of how easy they are to shoot in a more granular manner. I'm going to need to do some testing to see how well it works but I don't think it's going to end up being too complicated for gameplay. To Rav1rn's concerns about giving the defending player something to do between the rewrite of AP/Sv (it's much harder to outright ignore armour saves) and the medic mechanic I don't think incorporating cover into Evasion and removing cover saves is going to be a serious problem. Differentiating Evasion even allows me to roughly simulate the fog of war system you guys are bringing up; an Ork or a Space Marine crunching through the rubble shooting a loud gun is going to be much easier to spot and therefore to hit than an Eldar Pathfinder crouching under a camo-cloak, therefore the Pathfinder has much higher base Evasion.

Evasion stats seem better to me than maximum ranges at which you can see things -- you may see something but not well enough to fire accurately, but then again hosing the area down should always be an option.

Also, "medic system"? I'd love to see your rules for that.

Rav1rn wrote:
if I have a list of X number of potential modifiers, then I have to keep that list on hand to make sure im remembering them all, then do some math to add it all up and modify the value, which is not ideal.That equation is way too complex for new players to get into, which is a point the current resolution system has in its favor. It's nicely broken into steps by its nature. Also, consolidating toughness and armor into one value can streamline things, but at the cost of diversity and overall simplicity,

Which is why I thought of target profile, Size, toughness, and armour are constant, so can be rolled into one profile. when you fire you roll against that profile.

You brought up a great Fog of war system, put model and unit sizes in there. Huge models 12" further than normal, massive models 18" further, etc. smaller models and units would require being closer to be seen. A 1 man Lictor would be nigh impossible to see with stealth, shrouding, and a micro-unit size of 1 model, but a screaming squad of 30 orks is not exactly hard to detect, even with the fog of war.

and you think my system is complicated If I fire at a large target at distance, the range modifier and the size modifier cancel each other out. If I fire at small model only range modifier applies, so small models are harder to kill at range.

Change stealth and shrouding to work with the fog of war too while you're at it, it makes more sense than providing or improving cover saves.

agreed already working on it. Also working on suppression and intervention. Want to create a system that encourages
realism. and ability to upgrade models buy purchasing bionic eyes etc. Hardest part will be costing upgrades. need to work out system for that. Want it to be compatible with most 28-30 mm models, not just 40k

Edited for spelling

 SisterSydney wrote:
Evasion stats seem better to me than maximum ranges at which you can see things -- you may see something but not well enough to fire accurately, but then again hosing the area down should always be an option.

Also, "medic system"? I'd love to see your rules for that.

Medic and Tech units can remove d3 unsaved wounds from a single unit within 12" of the model at the end of the Combat phase before models are removed. Medics to this to non-vehicle models, Techs do this to vehicles; multiple repair units can't fix up a single unit in a turn. Holding onto the idea that most models are going to have multiple wounds (one to three for most infantry) you treat a squad as a single entity that takes wounds as a single entity, at the end of the combat phase you pull wounds with Medics/Techs and then remove models until the number of wounds on the squad gets below the wounds value of the guys in the squad.

 SisterSydney wrote:

Spoiler:

 loki old fart wrote:

If you can’t see it. You can’t shoot it. So your weapon can fire 72 inches. How far can you see? 24 inches that’s tough you need push someone forward to spot for you....Gives scouts more reasons to be on the board. Makes things more realistic. Introduces the possibility of command vehicles...

Interesting idea, but 24" visibility is probably too short. And except for artillery, very few modern-day systems can outshoot their sensor range. It'd be weird if an M1 tank can see spot targets at its maximum range but a Leman Russ can't.

 loki old fart wrote:

Any soldier can tell you that concealment does not always provide cover, but cover always provides concealment. (e.g., shrubs aren't bulletproof, walls are.)

Depends on the wall and what you're shooting at it. That's part of the reasons police officers fire hollowpoint rounds, so they don't go through the wall behind the suspect into the next room....

Should auto cannons and lascannons shoot through hard cover then?

Arguably hard cover should be extra armour or Toughness, while the soft cover/concealment aspect should be a modifier to enemy to-hit rolls.

 SisterSydney wrote:
Arguably hard cover should be extra armour or Toughness, while the soft cover/concealment aspect should be a modifier to enemy to-hit rolls.

If a 7.62 gpmg can reduce a cinder block wall to rubble. Should an auto cannon or lascannon be able to destroy cover. I.E. remove from board.

 SisterSydney wrote:
Arguably hard cover should be extra armour or Toughness, while the soft cover/concealment aspect should be a modifier to enemy to-hit rolls.

The biggest issue with this is it slows the game down with arguments over what counts as what, plus when we're talking about .75-caliber fully-automatic armour-piercing rocket-propelled grenade launchers as the infantry small arm against which most things are measured arguing about what could actually stop a bullet starts to become very theoretical. I tried to roll the concerns together with "cover stops bullets" and "cover obscures target" both making it harder to connect a shot to the target.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 SisterSydney wrote:
Arguably hard cover should be extra armour or Toughness, while the soft cover/concealment aspect should be a modifier to enemy to-hit rolls.

The biggest issue with this is it slows the game down with arguments over what counts as what, plus when we're talking about .75-caliber fully-automatic armour-piercing rocket-propelled grenade launchers as the infantry small arm against which most things are measured arguing about what could actually stop a bullet starts to become very theoretical. I tried to roll the concerns together with "cover stops bullets" and "cover obscures target" both making it harder to connect a shot to the target.

Exactly what happens in real life, doesn't may for good gameplay.
so light cover makes it harder to fire at target -1
And hard cover makes it harder to fire at target plus offers physical protection -2

Hi folks.
I agree with Loki.
Good game design simplifies resolution but keeps the results intuitive and proportional.
Bad game design simplifies concepts , but complicates and/or abstracts the resolution.

So the first will reduce the amount of rules required to deliver the game play.

As 'fluff reasoning' can justify anything in a fictional game, it is best to focus on the game play requirements IMO.

 loki old fart wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 SisterSydney wrote:
Arguably hard cover should be extra armour or Toughness, while the soft cover/concealment aspect should be a modifier to enemy to-hit rolls.

The biggest issue with this is it slows the game down with arguments over what counts as what, plus when we're talking about .75-caliber fully-automatic armour-piercing rocket-propelled grenade launchers as the infantry small arm against which most things are measured arguing about what could actually stop a bullet starts to become very theoretical. I tried to roll the concerns together with "cover stops bullets" and "cover obscures target" both making it harder to connect a shot to the target.

Exactly what happens in real life, doesn't may for good gameplay.
so light cover makes it harder to fire at target -1
And hard cover makes it harder to fire at target plus offers physical protection -2

We have come up with the exact same thing (adjusted for our different to-hit mechanics), though.

 loki old fart wrote:
If you can’t see it. You can’t shoot it. So your weapon can fire 72 inches. How far can you see? 24 inches that’s tough you need push someone forward to spot for you. Bit of a nerf to long range alpha strikes. Gives scouts more reasons to be on the board. Makes things more realistic.

This is not realistic at all. You can see much farther than you can accurately shoot. Leave weapon ranges alone. Let's pretend that Space Marines, Guardsmen, Fire Warriors, etc, are trained to use their weapon to its fullest potential. If you want Scouts to do more, give them homing beacons or let them help reduce artillery scatter.

Shooting at something in cover is harder to hit, therefore "a unit shooting at a target in cover does so at a reduced skill level.
(all effects are cumulative if more than one applies)
To Hit Modifiers:

Target behind light cover: -1 to rolled
Target behind medium cover -2 to rolled, example: behind a wall or in ruins:
Large Target: +1 to die roll.
Medium range. the target is over 24 inches away. -1 to roll.
Maximum range -2 to roll
If firers ranged weapon skill (rws) - cover - range +d6 => toughness + armour target is hit, unit takes one wound.

im against cover as modifiers, and against model size as to-hit modifiers, because it adds complexity in all the wrong places. If cover is a modifier, players with weakly armored units (GEQ) will almost never get to roll their saves, which means the player has less of a say in the fate of those models. Putting models down to immediately pick them up again isn't much fun, even if the models are supposed to die in droves. Keep cover a distinct save, and just let cover saves stack with armor saves so it doesn't overly favor one type of model over another.

Found this in another tread

knas ser wrote:

It would be better in many ways, but I would not use Initiative, but Leadership. Also I would not do everything in order as for certain army match-ups it would still turn into Your Turn My Turn and removes an interesting tactical choice.

There's a similar approach (so you get the realism and interesting variance between unit types) but which avoids the problems that come with it. Instead of strict initiative or leadership order, it's just regular I Go You Go but allow an interrupt based on the relevant score (Initiative in your case, Leadership in mine). This adds a whole new tactical aspect to the game with knowing that if you move init X (low score) first, you're giving your opponent a chance to squeeze in an extra move before you actually move it. (To be clear only one interrupt is allowed). And it reflects the real benefit of high leadership on a battlefield, This would increase the value of the relevant attribute and so some re-costing would be useful. It would also lead to more interesting differences and play-styles between otherwise similar armies. It also avoids the problem if high Initiative / Leadership trips being trapped into going sooner than is tactically desired which would be the opposite of how a better leader / troop should behave - as others have pointed out, going first can be a disadvantage.

It plays pretty quickly, also:
"I'm moving these Boyz, leadership 6"
"Marnius Calgar is interrupting"

Lets you bait your opponent into making mistakes also by moving their best troops when they shouldn't so you can get them to commit wrongly. It's a whole new aspect of tactical play for almost zero additional complication.

In my humble opinion, this is... absolutely brilliant. I would limit it to the Warlord (and the unit he is attached to, or perhaps a unit within 6"), but the concept is amazingly good.
It would show the leaders as truly leading.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mike94656 wrote:
I like it simply for the back and forth. You get to be reactive to the other player. They move and shoot, you can counter, but instead of waiting for an entire army to move, you go unit by unit. Giving priority to faster units before slower.

It also leads to more tactical decisions in a game. Do you want to move unit Y first and charge those Eldar before they get away, or move unit X and seize those ruins before your opponent does.

^This is important too, and another reason for the change.

 SpaceNinjaJetPilot wrote:
Has anyone on this thread that's recommending stat line changes (Evasion stats, Movement stats, Toughness profiles, etc.) or dice other than D6 actually begun rewriting stat lines or reworking point values? That seems like the elephant in the room. We can talk rules until we're blue in the face, but until someone actually rewrites every stat line for every unit in every codex, it's all a moot point.

I've got tentative statlines written for a fair number of things under my rules. First, the to-hit/to-wound table:

Target's Combat Skill/modified Reaction/Dur versus attacker's Combat Skill/Marksmanship/Str
5 higher: Impossible
3-4 higher: 6+
1-2 higher: 5+
Equivalent: 4+
1-2 lower: 3+
3-4 lower: 2+
5 lower: Automatic. If this is a to-wound roll the attacker's weapon gains Multiple Wounds (d3) on this shot.

Next, the stats in the statline:

Move: You can move this far and still attack with ranged weapons or double this distance as a charge move and only attack with melee weapons. Infantry range from 3 (for big lumbering things like Terminators and Wraithguard) to 7 (for quick, light things like Wyches and Hormagaunts), walkers usually move 6, rolling ground vehicles 6-8. Skimmers, Flyers, Jump Infantry, and Jetbikes move further.

Combat Skill: The rough equivalent of Weapon Skill. This governs close-range shooting (targets within 6") and melee weapons, all rolled together into "melee combat". This ranges from 2 (for a Tau junior soldier or a Grot) to 7 (a veteran Assault Marine or Aspect Warrior) amongst regular troops, characters can have a higher stat.

Marksmanship: The rough equivalent of Ballistic Skill. This governs longer-range firepower, usable when you're not in melee range. This ranges from 2 (for melee Orks) to 7 (a veteran Devastator or Aspect Warrior) amongst regular troops, characters can have a higher stat.

Strength: Raw brute force. Impacts the weapon Strength of most melee weapons. This ranges from 2 (Grots) to 6 (Terminators and Wraithguard) amongst regular troops, vehicles and monsters can push this past 10.

Durability: Works like Toughness. Exactly like Toughness, in point of fact. This ranges from 2 (Grots) to 6 (Terminators and Wraithguard) amongst regular troops, vehicles and monsters can push this past 10.

Reaction: Used to defend against ranged attacks and solve Difficult or Dangerous Terrain. This ranges from 0 (stationary objects and really big lumbering tanks like Baneblades and Land Raiders) to 6 (very fast Eldar infantry) base, but Skimmers, Flyers, and Jetbikes will have a lower base Reaction and a higher Reaction after the modifiers for moving.

Wounds: The number of unsaved wounds a model can take before going down. 1 is for cannon fodder (Grots, Gaunts), 2 is for almost all infantry, 3 is for big, tough infantry (Space Marines, mostly), 4 is for big things (Terminators, Battlesuits, Wraithguard), characters will have 4 and above. Vehicles will have at least 6.

Tenacity: Leadership. Roll against this to see if you piss yourself and run away screaming. This is a little flatter than in 40k today; non-elite infantry (Guardsmen, Orks, line Tau) will have a 7, elite infantry (Space Marines, most Eldar, Stormtroopers, Battlesuits) will have an 8, first-tier HQ can have a 9, and 2nd-tier HQ can have a 10.

Armour: Armour save. Unlike in 40k this is modified by the weapon rather than ignored by some and unaffected by the rest; values are 0+ (auto-succeed unless the other guy modifies you back to a 2+, this only appears on battle tanks), 1+ (auto-succeed unless the other guy modifies you back to a 2+, this is for skimmers, flyers, and Terminators), 2+ (power armour), 3+ (Aspect armour, carapace), 4+ (flak), and 5+ (improvised), pretty much nothing has a 6+ armour save.

Weapon Stats: These are also slightly different from 40k
Range: Melee or a number. Melee weapons are only usable inside combat radius, weapons with a range are usable outside a combat radius. Most small arms will have a shooting profile and an assault profile. This is mostly unchanged from 40k.
Strength: An absolute number for guns and user or modified user for melee weapons. 3 is for really puny things (lasguns, the like), 4 and 5 are where most small arms fall, 6 and up is for heavy weapons. There are no Strength-multiplying melee weapons, they'll usually modify your Strength by up to +4.
Armour Penetration: The amount you reduce the target's armour save by. Very little has no number here (lasguns, shotguns, splinter weapons, that sort of thing), most heavier small arms (bolters, shuriken weapons, pulse weapons) will have a -1, machine-gun-equivalents (heavy bolters, shuriken cannons, burst cannons) will usually have a -2, -3 and above is mostly for heavy weapons. A very few guns (mostly lascannons and melta weapons) may have AP All, they ignore all armour saves.
Rate of Fire/Speed (still working on a name for this): The number of attacks you can make with a given weapon. Pistols and big, heavy close combat weapons are usually 1, most small arms and basic close combat weapons will have 2, really fast things can have 3 or 4, but it's a rare gun (and rarer close combat weapon) that can make more than 4 shots. Note that there's a -1 penalty to your CS/Marks for making multiple attacks and unless a weapon has the Selective Fire rule you're not allowed to voluntarily make fewer attacks.

Sample Statlines (I'm sticking to Marines, Guard, and Eldar for the time being but I have stats for more things)
Space Marines
Scout: Move 5, CS 4, Marks 4, Str 4, Dur 4, Rea 4, W 2, Ten 7, Arm 3+
Tactical Marine: Move 4, CS 5, Marks 5, Str 5, Dur 5, Rea 3, W 3, Ten 8, Arm 2+
Tactical Veteran: Move 4, CS 6, Marks 6, Str 5, Dur 5, Rea 3, W 3, Ten 8, Arm 2+
Tactical Terminator: Move 3, CS 6, Marks 6, Str 6, Dur 6, Rea 3, W 4, Ten 8, Arm 1+
Tactical Sergeant : Move 4, CS 6, Marks 6, Str 5, Dur 5, Rea 3, W 4, Ten 8, Arm 2+
Force Commander: Move 4, CS 7, Marks 7, Str 5, Dur 5, Rea 4, W 5, Ten 9, Arm 2+
Captain: Move 4, CS 8, Marks 8, Str 5, Dur 5, Rea 4, W 6, Ten 10, Arm 1+* (*Artificer Armour)
Chapter Master: Move 4, CS 9, Marks 9, Str 5, Dur 5, Rea 4, W 8, Ten 10, Arm 1+* (*Artificer Armour)
Rhino: Move 6, CS 5, Marks 5, Str 8, Dur 8, Rea 1, W 8, Ten 8, Arm 1+
Land Speeder: Move 9, CS 5, Marks 5, Str 6, Dur 7, Rea 2, W 6, Ten 8, Arm 1+
Predator: Move 6, CS 5, Marks 5, Str 9, Dur 10, Rea 1, W 10, Ten 8, Arm 0+
Land Raider: Move 5, CS 6, Marks 6, Str 11, Dur 12, Rea 0, W 12, Ten 9, Arm 0+
Space Marine Weapons
Combat Blade: R Melee, S User, AP -, ROF 2
Chainsword: R Melee, S +1, AP -1, ROF 3
Power Weapon: R Melee, S +2, AP -3, ROF 2
Power Fist: R Melee, S +6, AP All, ROF 1, Unwieldy
Bolt Pistol: R 12", S 4, AP -1, ROF 1/R melee, S 4, AP -1, ROF 1
Bolter: R 24", S 5, AP -1, ROF 2, Selective Fire/R melee, S 5, AP -1, ROF 2, *Unwieldy (*Unwieldy melee weapons cause their user to fight at -1 Combat Skill since they're not designed to be fired in close combat or are otherwise slow and unusual)
Storm Bolter: R 24", S 5, AP -1, ROF 2, Flurry/R melee, S 5, AP -1, ROF 2, *Flurry, Unwieldy (*Flurry weapons don't take the multiple shots penalty)
Heavy Bolter: R 36", S 6, AP -2, ROF 3, *Heavy (*Heavy weapons can never be fired in melee and can't be fired after making a half move unless you've got the Stable rule (which is mostly on vehicles))
Flamer: R Template, S 5, AP -1, ROF 1/R melee/Template, S 5, AP -1, ROF 1, Unwieldy (Template weapons work like they do in 40k, but you still use the template in melee)
Meltagun: R 12", S 8, AP -5, ROF 1, *Haywire 4+/R Melee, S 8, AP -5, ROF 1, *Haywire 4+, Unwieldy (*Haywire weapons never require worse than their listed value to wound a vehicle and cause Multiple Wounds (d3) to vehicles on a 6 to wound)
Plasma Gun: R 24", S 7, AP -4, ROF 2, Selective Fire, *Overheat/R Melee, S 7, AP -4, ROF 2, Unwieldy, *Overheat (*Overheat weapons inflict a single hit on their user at their S and AP if you roll a 1 to hit)
Lascannon: R 48", S 12, AP All, ROF 1, Heavy, Haywire 3+

Guard
Conscript: M 5, CS 2, Marks 3, Str 3, Dur 3, Rea 3, W 1, Ten 6, Arm 5+
Trooper: M 5, CS 3, Marks 4, Str 3, Dur 3, Rea 3, W 2, Ten 7, Arm 4+
Veteran: M 5, CS 4, Marks 5, Str 3, Dur 3, Rea 3, W 2, Ten 8, Arm 4+
Veteran Sergeant: M 5, CS 4, Marks 5, Str 3, Dur 3, Rea 3, W 4, Ten 8, Arm 4+
Stormtrooper: M 6, CS 4, Marks 5, Str 4, Dur 4, Rea 4, W 3, Ten 8, Arm 3+
Stormtrooper Sergeant: M 6, CS 5, Marks 6, Str 4, Dur 4, Rea 4, W 4, Ten 8, Arm 3+
Lieutenant: M 5, CS 5, Marks 6, Str 3, Dur 3, Rea 3, W 5, Ten 9, Arm 3+
Senior Officer: M 5, CS 6, Marks 7, Str 3, Dur 3, Rea 4, W 6, Ten 10, Arm 3+
Stormtrooper Lieutenant: M 6, CS 6, Marks 7, Str 4, Dur 4, Rea 5, W 6, Ten 9, Arm 3+
Sentinel: M 6, CS 3, Marks 4, Str 5, Dur 7, Rea 1, W 6, Ten 8, Arm 1+
Chimera: M 6, CS 3, Marks 4, Str 7, Dur 8, Rea 1, W 7, Ten 8, Arm 1+
Russ: M 5, CS 3, Marks 4, Str 8, Dur 10, Rea 0, W 10, Ten 8, Arm 0+
Guard Weapons
Laspistol: R 12", S 3, AP -, ROF 1/R Melee, S 3, AP -, ROF 1
Lasgun: R 24", S 3, AP -, ROF 2, Selective Fire/R Melee, S 3, AP -, ROF 2, Unwieldy
Lasgun Bayonet: R Melee, S +2, AP -1, ROF 1
Combat Shotgun: R 18", S 4, AP -1, ROF 1/R Melee, S 4, AP -1, ROF 1
Autocannon: R 48", S 8, AP -3, ROF 2, Heavy

Eldar
Guardian: M 6, CS 4, Marks 4, Str 3, Dur 3, Rea 4, W 2, Ten 7, Arm 4+
Veteran Guardian: M 6, CS 5, Marks 5, Str 3, Dur 3, Rea 5, W 2, Ten 8, Arm 4+
Aspect Warrior: M 6, CS 5, Marks 5, Str 4, Dur 4, Rea 5, W 3, Ten 8, Arm 3+
Veteran Aspect Warrior: M 6, CS 6, Marks 6, Str 4, Dur 4, Rea 5, W 3, Ten 8, Arm 3+
Warlock: M 6, CS 6, Marks 6, Str 3, Dur 3, Rea 5, W 4, Ten 8, Arm 4+
Junior Farseer: M 6, CS 6, Marks 7, Str 3, Dur 4, Rea 5, W 5, Ten 9, Arm 4+
Farseer: M 6, CS 7, Marks 8, Str 3, Dur 5, Rea 5, W 6, Ten 10, Arm 4+
Exarch: M 6, CS 7, Marks 7, Str 4, Dur 4, Rea 5, W 4, Ten 8, Arm 3+
Xentarch: M 6, CS 8, Marks 8, Str 4, Dur 4, Rea 6, W 5, Ten 9, Arm 2+
Autarch: M 6, CS 9, Marks 9, Str 4, Dur 4, Rea 6, W 6, Ten 10, Arm 2+
War Walker: M 8, CS 5, Marks 5, Str 5, Dur 7, Rea 3, W 6, Ten 8, Arm 1+
Wave Serpent: M 10, CS 5, Marks 5, Str 7, Dur 7, Rea 3, W 8, Ten 8, Arm 1+
Fire Prism: M 10, CS 5, Marks 5, Str 8, Dur 8, Rea 3, W 10, Ten 8, Arm 1+
Eldar Weapons
Monosword: R Melee, Str +1, AP -2, ROF 3
Shuriken Pistol: R 12", Str 5, AP -1, ROF 1
Shuriken Catapult: R 18", Str 5, AP -1, ROF 2, Flurry
Shuriken Cannon: R 24", Str 6, AP -1, ROF 4, Flurry, Heavy
Bright Lance: R 36", Str 8, AP All, Heavy, Haywire 3+

I don't have points costs written up yet (mostly because I haven't settled what everything does yet) but that's a good sampling of a variety of people. If people want to see stats for more things just ask.

On another tangent, I've been trying to alter the IGOUGO system without reinventing the wheel. How about:

Side A - moves
Side A - shoots
Side B - moves OR shoots with a successful Leadership test for each unit
Side A - assaults

This cleans up a bit of the IGOUGO abuse without hamstringing the current player's turn too much. It also reduces the need for Overwatch in any of its forms, while adding value for high Leadership stats. Just a thought.

@AnomanderRake: That's pretty impressive. I'm looking forward to seeing it develop. Have you been able to test much of this yet?

 loki old fart wrote:

So assault is dead then? So a unit can move 6 inches lay x number of templates down (each covering 3-4 models)spare wounds going into wound pool, killing models not under the template, and then assault anything that survives. Not overpowered much.

Way I see it, assault was dead long before I got here.

Full BS Overwatch makes sense for a stationary unit. A unit that holds its position and sacrifices movement is going to be set up to deliver withering fire. And anyone who charges a unit that is set up for that is going to rue the day.
Meanwhile, it seems stupid to penalize flame weapons, which would be great at shooting on the move, the same way you'd penalize other ranged weapons that wouldn't be.
But if you think that's too powerful, just go with the template overwatch rules: D3 hits. And, in my 40K reboot, only models under the template would be wounded by it.

 SpaceNinjaJetPilot wrote:
@AnomanderRake: That's pretty impressive. I'm looking forward to seeing it develop. Have you been able to test much of this yet?

 loki old fart wrote:

So assault is dead then? So a unit can move 6 inches lay x number of templates down (each covering 3-4 models)spare wounds going into wound pool, killing models not under the template, and then assault anything that survives. Not overpowered much.

Way I see it, assault was dead long before I got here.

Full BS Overwatch makes sense for a stationary unit. A unit that holds its position and sacrifices movement is going to be set up to deliver withering fire. And anyone who charges a unit that is set up for that is going to rue the day.
Meanwhile, it seems stupid to penalize flame weapons, which would be great at shooting on the move, the same way you'd penalize other ranged weapons that wouldn't be.
But if you think that's too powerful, just go with the template overwatch rules: D3 hits. And, in my 40K reboot, only models under the template would be wounded by it.

I my mind overwatch would pin/suppress against leadership, fearless like khorne berzerkers, large mob of orks etc would ignore it.

 SpaceNinjaJetPilot wrote:
@AnomanderRake: That's pretty impressive. I'm looking forward to seeing it develop. Have you been able to test much of this yet?

A bit. I initially had set up a system where attacks were on 2d6 and I rolled armour save into Durability, but the first proved unscalable and the second destroyed too much granularity between units. I'm planning to post a development thread when I have working copies of the rules to let people mess around with it.

L.U.R.K.E.R. device deactivated

I was playing X-wing at my flgs yesterday and when I was done turned around to watch some 40k and was stuck pondering the two both in active memory. While I absolutely abhor planned actions unless they are unavoidable, it dawned on me that maybe, just maybe, the pilot skill system and two phase resolution might work. Someone may have brought it up already but if not there is that slim possibility.

 loki old fart wrote:

I my mind overwatch would pin/suppress against leadership, fearless like khorne berzerkers, large mob of orks etc would ignore it.

Yes! I completely agree that Overwatch should pin/suppress. I think that's a real missed opportunity. Most people on this thread want to break up the "I do all my stuff, then you do all your stuff" routine that leaves the 2nd player twiddling his thumbs. They've offered alternative turn sequences, "activation phases," etc., because it would be better if players could somehow interfere with their opponents plans before they happen. Not just stand there and get shot at, then charged, etc.

I'm personally a fan of an "I move, you move, I shoot, you shoot, I charge, you charge" turn sequence, but I'd also like to expand Overwatch. I'd make it an attack that units could use once per turn, either during their opponent's Movement phase OR Assault phase. They can try to suppress a unit before it moves, or hold on to it and try to suppress a unit that assaults them.

The turn sequence would go something like this:

Players Roll for Deployment and 1st turn.
Roll-Off 1D6 + Warlord’s Initiative. High roll wins.

Player 1 Movement Phase
Player 1 declares which units will move.
Player 2 units that are able, attempt any Suppressing Fire (Overwatch) attacks. Player 1 rolls necessary Leadership tests. Suppressed units cannot move. Fearless units cannot be suppressed.
Player 1 rolls any Difficult terrain tests and completes movements.

Player 2 Movement Phase
Player 2 declares which units will move.
Player 1 units that are able attempt any Suppressing Fire (Overwatch) attacks. Player 2 rolls necessary Leadership tests. Suppressed units cannot move. Fearless units cannot be suppressed.
Player 2 rolls any Difficult terrain tests and completes movements.

Player 1 Shooting Phase
Able units declare targets.
Roll to hit, wound, etc.
Allocate wounds and remove casualties. Leadership tests for Suppression.

Player 2 Shooting Phase
Able units declare targets.
Roll to hit, wound, etc.
Allocate wounds and remove casualties. Leadership tests for Suppression.

Player 1 Assault Phase
Able units declare charge.
Player 2 units that did not attempt Suppressive Fire attempt Overwatch.
Player 1 moves models into base to base contact.
Attacks are completed in descending Initiative order, followed by 3” pile-in move.

Player 2 Assault Phase
Able units declare charge.
Player 1 units that did not attempt Suppressive Fire attempt Overwatch.
Player 2 moves models into base to bast contact.
Attacks are completed in descending Initiative order, followed by 3” pile-in move.

Roll-Off 1D6+ Warlord’s Initiative. Highest roll becomes Player 1 for next turn.

Player 1 Movement Phase.
Player 1 declares which units will move. Leadership test to break any units out of Close Combat. (Another thing I'd let units attempt.)
Player 2 units that are able attempt any Suppressive Fire attacks. Suppressed units cannot move.
Player 1 completes movement.

Following turns continue same as first.

I don't know that the turn order needs to be quite that complex, and rolling off based on your Warlord's Initiative seems like a fast track to making some Codexes strictly better than others. I set up the turn order such that you've got:

Player 1 Move
Player 2 Reaction Attacks
Player 1 Attacks

Player 2 Move
Player 1 Reaction Attacks
Player 2 Attacks

I incorporated a more sophisticated Pinning mechanic directly into attacks such that you can still interrupt the other guy's cunning plans by locking down one of his scary units right before it tries to do something, I haven't done a lot of testing on it but I like how straightforward it is.

Hi all.
I think that playing 40k makes you look for complicated rules solutions.Because 40k is so over complicated!

I agree with AnomanderRake.
IF we are go with alternating phases, this lets us get good interaction, and simulates overwatch /reactions in a straight forward way.

Is it really that complex though?

Its just the current 40K turn with the pieces moved around. I was told by somebody people are playing a better game with that change and little else:

Lanrak wrote:
@ SpaceNinjaJetPilot.
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!

The only real difference is that players have the option to try Overwatch in their opponent's movement phase.

I think Suppression is something that is ignored way too much in 40K. In a real fight, suppressing your enemy, restricting his movement, and denying him the ability to act is paramount. (And I'm speaking from experience.) The most basic tactic drilled in to a soldier is to establish fire superiority and suppress your enemy, while your comrades maneuver on him.

It's not just a Battle Drill. It's "Battle Drill #1."

Surely if written out in detail, your turn sequence would be longer than this, right?

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Player 1 Move
Player 2 Reaction Attacks
Player 1 Attacks

Player 2 Move
Player 1 Reaction Attacks
Player 2 Attacks

 SpaceNinjaJetPilot wrote:

Surely if written out in detail, your turn sequence would be longer than this, right?

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Player 1 Move
Player 2 Reaction Attacks
Player 1 Attacks

Player 2 Move
Player 1 Reaction Attacks
Player 2 Attacks

Oh yeah. Each "Attacks" can be replaced with "Subphase 1: All guys who can attack, attack. Attack sequence: Roll to hit, roll to wound, roll save, sometimes roll Ward. Place Pinning markers and Wound markers. Subphase 2: Leadership. Defending player removes Wound counters with all Medic and Tech units, removes Pinning markers with all Command units. Subphase 3: Resolution. Remove models and equalize Wound counters, roll Tenacity."

The biggest advantage to my system over yours is each unit can potentially attack in two phases per game turn instead of potentially four, which means there's a lot less to keep track of between phases. I think the philosophical difference here is that you're putting pieces on top of the current 40k system while I'm building a new one mostly from the ground up, which means yours is probably going to end up more complicated however you slice it; it's up to the observer to make a value judgement on the subject.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The biggest advantage to my system over yours is each unit can potentially attack in two phases per game turn instead of potentially four, which means there's a lot less to keep track of between phases.

A unit can attack in:

Their shooting phase.
Their Assault phase.
They can fire Overwatch in ONE of their opponent's phases. (Either Movement or Assault)

More than your system, yes, but only by one. I don't think you can say outright that my system is more complicated. How are these "wound counters" removed exactly? Or equalized? And how are "pinning markers" removed? "Tenacity is what your models use instead of Leadership, yet this roll isn't done in the Leadership sub phase, but in another one entirely.

The biggest advantage to your system is that you're rewriting all the stat lines, which could bring armies back into balance, but the stats you're using are hardly simplified. Just different. One or more are probably more complicated. You're not reducing the number of rolls made during combat, etc.

Philosophically, you're right. I disagree that I'm "putting pieces on top of 40K," but I am working inside its frame. If anything, I'm stripping as many things away as I can from 40K (like 75% of the USRs) to streamline it. My game would still be 40K. It'll be familiar to current players. Yours will be "AnomanderRake's Wargame," but yes, its up to the observer.

Player red moves unit A into cover
Player orange moves unit A into cover
B moves to cover
B moves to cover
c runs to cover
c moves to cover
Attack phase
B decides to assault A which overwatches suppressing B
B decides to shoot A
C assaults A who's already overwatching and gets into base to base contact
C moves to better position, to attack C next turn

Remove Centurions destroy the STC...
Remove Riptides destroy the STC....
Remove Lord of Skulls destroy the STC....
Redraw up allies table...
Retconn the Necron - Blood Angels connection to be a misreported incident and the Inquisition cover it up.
No Allies of convenience.
Bring back non-aligned Renegade Space Marine chapters - Soul Drinkers, Badab Wars etc.
Bring back Squats.

Bring in a Warhammer 29k - Unification Wars - Fight as Thunder Warriors etc on Terra.

Bring in a Warhammer 35k storyline - The Goge Vandire Heresy / The Reign of Blood / Age of Apostasy. As this was an internal battle, release plastic Sisters of battle, Brothers of Battle (as men at arms could serve in the Ecclesiarch at this time) reboot the Agents, Arbites , sisters, inquisitors, Inquisitor troops, Sisters of Silence, Custodes etc etc .

Streamline/ simplify the rules, but introduce modifiers for various upgrades.

Bring in a basic Plastic boxed sets, with separate upgrade sprues to stop the endless releasing of the same models with slight differences. E.g you pay £20 for 10 Plastic Orks, then £10 for an Evil Sunz upgrade sprue, Deff Skulls or whatever.

Make the Orks fun again, chop up the retain network, into bigger regional stores, Allow Click and Collect for FW at GW Stores to save on the (Frankly astonishing) 12% Shipping and handling fee!

 SpaceNinjaJetPilot wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The biggest advantage to my system over yours is each unit can potentially attack in two phases per game turn instead of potentially four, which means there's a lot less to keep track of between phases.

A unit can attack in:

Their shooting phase.
Their Assault phase.
They can fire Overwatch in ONE of their opponent's phases. (Either Movement or Assault)

More than your system, yes, but only by one. I don't think you can say outright that my system is more complicated. How are these "wound counters" removed exactly? Or equalized? And how are "pinning markers" removed? "Tenacity is what your models use instead of Leadership, yet this roll isn't done in the Leadership sub phase, but in another one entirely.

The biggest advantage to your system is that you're rewriting all the stat lines, which could bring armies back into balance, but the stats you're using are hardly simplified. Just different. One or more are probably more complicated. You're not reducing the number of rolls made during combat, etc.

Philosophically, you're right. I disagree that I'm "putting pieces on top of 40K," but I am working inside its frame. If anything, I'm stripping as many things away as I can from 40K (like 75% of the USRs) to streamline it. My game would still be 40K. It'll be familiar to current players. Yours will be "AnomanderRake's Wargame," but yes, its up to the observer.

It's not apparent from your earlier turn order document that you've set up the Assault phase such that only one person attacks; sorry if I confused that with 40k wherein both people fight in every Assault phase.

I'm taking the opposite approach as to USRs; I'm trying to strip down army-specific rules such that armies are differentiated less by what sneaky way they have to break the rules and more by what combinations of things within the rules they can pull off; it's a little more like WHFB in terms of limiting access to unique unreplicable rules in favour of a pool of common rules, made abstract enough and implemented in enough combinations with just a few unique rules left in to leave each army with a distinct character. I'm not decreasing the number of rolls made, no, because I tried that and I found that cutting down from 216 possibilities on three dice to 36 possibilities on two dice cuts a lot of the granularity between units out of the game and I didn't want to do that. The biggest streamlining element here is the fact that I threw out almost the entirety of the Assault phase rules; I tried to make melee and ranged combat use the same rules as much as possible in an attempt to make things move faster by only requiring players to know/reference one set of rules instead of two.

What makes 40k 40k is debatable, if you go back and read the Rogue Trader rules I'm not sure I've changed the rules that much more than it's changed on its own over six editions of revision. In the sense that I'm binding myself to the spirit of the game and the lore of the universe I do think this is still 40k, if I were writing my own game there would be a lot of changes I'd make to this.

Details on the rules:
Elements are subgroups of squads, you get to pick out an element to attack. Once you resolve the attack you don't pull models right away, you leave dice of two different colours down for wounds and pinning markers and move along until you've finished all attacks. Medic and Tech units (Apothecaries and Techpriests, for instance) get to pull a number of wound markers off of non-vehicle (Medic) or vehicle (Tech) units. You can't fix up a unit with multiple Medic/Tech units in a turn and they can only remove counters from one unit each. Command units do the same thing with Pinning markers. Once you've done that you pull the closest model to the attackers along with a number of Wound counters equal to his Wounds value (most models have 1-3 Wounds, characters, vehicles, and really tough things can have 4 or more) and repeat until you don't have enough Wound counters to remove another guy; those counters carry over from turn to turn, overkill wounds are discarded. Once you've done that count up the remaining Pinning markers and take a Tenacity test with the number of Pinning markers as a penalty for the unit, if they fail bad things happen. I don't understand your issue with not doing this in the Leadership sub-phase, by the way; this is the Leadership sub-phase, I just renamed the stat because the name GW gave it didn't make a lot of sense to me.

I don't know yet how well this is going to scale since I haven't tested games larger than fifteen or twenty models right now; it's entirely possible that I'm going to need to cut the idea of treating Elements separately in larger games (currently they have to stick close together but they attack and are attacked as separate entities) and use them as a construct of the army list only. Visually distinguishing rules-wise identical Elements could easily become a nightmare if you didn't paint the edges of the bases in different colours or some such other sneaky trick.

I'm not trying to suggest one approach is superior to the other, and I'm sorry if I come across that way; I'm just trying to talk about how I solved the problem in the current draft of my rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mwnciboo wrote:
Remove Centurions destroy the STC...
Remove Riptides destroy the STC....
Remove Lord of Skulls destroy the STC....
Redraw up allies table...
Retconn the Necron - Blood Angels connection to be a misreported incident and the Inquisition cover it up.
No Allies of convenience.
Bring back non-aligned Renegade Space Marine chapters - Soul Drinkers, Badab Wars etc.
Bring back Squats.

Bring in a Warhammer 29k - Unification Wars - Fight as Thunder Warriors etc on Terra.

Bring in a Warhammer 35k storyline - The Goge Vandire Heresy / The Reign of Blood / Age of Apostasy. As this was an internal battle, release plastic Sisters of battle, Brothers of Battle (as men at arms could serve in the Ecclesiarch at this time) reboot the Agents, Arbites , sisters, inquisitors, Inquisitor troops, Sisters of Silence, Custodes etc etc .

Streamline/ simplify the rules, but introduce modifiers for various upgrades.

Bring in a basic Plastic boxed sets, with separate upgrade sprues to stop the endless releasing of the same models with slight differences. E.g you pay £20 for 10 Plastic Orks, then £10 for an Evil Sunz upgrade sprue, Deff Skulls or whatever.

Make the Orks fun again, chop up the retain network, into bigger regional stores, Allow Click and Collect for FW at GW Stores to save on the (Frankly astonishing) 12% Shipping and handling fee!

Riptides are conceptually a reasonable idea, they were implemented in an imbalanced manner in an imbalanced Codex.

Centurions and the Lord of Skulls, however, look dumb and add very little gameplay-wise.

I can't speak to most of the fluff discussion; I could go out and write a comprehensive 40k story bible without any of the silly bits, but that'd be vastly more subjective, harder to defend myself on, and even more work than rewriting the rules. The Allies table is more of a fluff thing than a rules thing; I do agree that some changes need to be made, but the easiest solution would be to declare it an optional scenario special rule not recommended for competitive play instead of a universal right. Ruleswise there's no reason you couldn't take the Space Marines Codex and declare it to represent a renegade Chapter, it's been done before.

The Age of Apostasy would be expansion rules/campaign rules/variant army lists in the style of an Imperial Armour main series book rather than implemented in the core rules, I don't know that we've got enough fluff written on the subject for the M.29 campaign idea.

As for Squats I honestly don't think they fit with the tone of the game very well; they were sort of silly. The Demiurg haven't been seen much but wouldn't be a bad place to go for a "space dwarf" army, though.

I can't do anything about the marketing/pricing/distribution decisions unless I get someone who's a lot better at 3d modeling than me and somehow avoid getting sued to the Eastern Fringe and back for putting 40k dudes up on Shapeways.

"Streamline/ simplify the rules, but introduce modifiers for various upgrades.": This is the thing we can do more about but if your suggestion is this vague we don't know what to do with it. "Streamline/ simplify" how? What sort of upgrades?

And finally I'm trying to come up with a living ruleset that I can update in real time as I get feedback such that nobody ends up with an unplayable two-edition-old Codex, so hopefully I'll be able to make the Orks fun to play.