How would YOU Reboot 40K? Let 100 Heresies Bloom!

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.

**amanita**

Instead of random charge distances and Overwatch, we’ve implemented a Reaction Phase before each Assault Phase. After the initial player moves and shoots, the opposing player is allowed to either move OR shoot. Movement is D6” (2D6 choosing the higher die for skimmers, jetbikes and jump infantry), and shooting is done with a –1 BS modifier. No heavy, barrage or ordnance weapons may shoot and templates use the scatter die: a hit and the flamer is placed where desired, otherwise the template follows the direction of the arrow. If it touches a friendly model it may not fire.

This allows defending units the chance to move out of harm’s way or shoot at their attackers before getting assaulted. It adds a variable charge distance, but only as an option for the defending player if moving back. It maintains the superiority of units with a higher ballistic skill and negates the need for an Overwatch mechanic.

To prevent some in-game shenanigans, a moving unit may contact the enemy in range during its Movement Phase and forgo its shooting, locking the enemy unit in combat until the Assault Phase. This denies the enemy its reaction move (vehicles exempted).

On a side note, we now use a suppression mechanic where a unit that passes a Morale test is suppressed (it may only move its next turn, and not toward the nearest enemy unit) if its test result is over its Leadership minus the number of enemy units firing at it. For example, a unit with Leadership 8 passes a morale check with a roll of 7, but since 2 enemy units fired at it becomes suppressed (Ld 8 – 2 units firing = 6 or less the unit is not suppressed). The more units firing at a target the more likely that unit will be suppressed.

**Kain**

All those vehicle designs are now made sensible while still retaining the general aesthetics of each faction and allowing some room for nuttiness and gunboatery.

The Leman Russ tank for example, now looks more like this. http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110621010124/tomclancy/images/d/d8/T-100_Ogre_02.jpg

40k's tech level is also made definitively superior to ours on all levels. So it becomes even more impressive the modern networking, fire control, and precision guidance of the guard is overpowered by the Orks because datz fer gitz see?

**Lanrak**

@amantia.
the only problem with including any type of fire to effect the suppression any type of unit.
Is low powered weapons can effect highly armoured targets, in a counter intuitive way.

That is why I wanted to use the failed armour save , to result in the target being suppressed.

If a weapon hit beats a models armour save it becomes suppressed.(Even if it does not result in loss of wounds/structure points.)
If over half the models in a unit become suppressed , the unit becomes suppressed.

The unit has to pass a morale test to rally , and return to normal level of operation.

This makes suppression a natural part of damage resolution, and scales well and is intuitive.(IMO.)

**Phydox**

I would simply expand on Kill Teams. Keep games in the 500-750 range. Skirmish like rules. looser restrictions on squad cohesion. Maybe 4" rather then 2".

Run smaller games with specific objectives or even map setup: Take generator so planets shielding drops and we can begin assault, run the Hells Highway gauntlet, assassinate a warlord...whatever. Its better the the generalized point system we have now. "I won cause I blew up a drop pod and got a point"- Well big whoop-d-do!

Run campaigns introducing experience for units, injuries results for squad members, supplies, similar to what is done with Morheim. Necromunda, and Bloodbowl. You build your army list to last for several games earning experience and taking casualties so some may be understrength for a battle but have bonuses based on experience. End of battle you roll for casualties and see what happens.

**AnomanderRake**

Phydox wrote:
I would simply expand on Kill Teams. Keep games in the 500-750 range. Skirmish like rules. looser restrictions on squad cohesion. Maybe 4" rather then 2".

Run smaller games with specific objectives or even map setup: Take generator so planets shielding drops and we can begin assault, run the Hells Highway gauntlet, assassinate a warlord...whatever. Its better the the generalized point system we have now. "I won cause I blew up a drop pod and got a point"- Well big whoop-d-do!

Run campaigns introducing experience for units, injuries results for squad members, supplies, similar to what is done with Morheim. Necromunda, and Bloodbowl. You build your army list to last for several games earning experience and taking casualties so some may be understrength for a battle but have bonuses based on experience. End of battle you roll for casualties and see what happens.

Smaller games are all well and good, but if it's possible to get a set of rules that can remain functional at a variety of game scales that would be a better solution. 40k as-is starts to break down at the low points values from the FOC, squad size minimums, and the degree to which individual die rolls can mess up expensive units, it starts to break down at the high points values because the inefficiencies make the whole thing go really, really slowly.

Specific objectives, map setup, and whatnot are all great points; one of the issues with 40k today is that the core rules include six missions that cater to specific sorts of army builds and the utility of a unit is highly dependent on how well it can handle those missions. More varied and narrative-focused objectives along the lines of the ones we had for unique scenarios back in 4e would be nice, Apocalypse-style points for holding objectives over the course of the game rather than just at the end for hold-objectives missions, victory points dependent on the cost of the unit instead of kill points per squad, and more benefits to holding objectives would all be big steps in the right direction.

Experience for units works on the very small scale but it doesn't work very well at all if you're planning to have armies; I looked more to the ideas in the now-defunct GW Lord of the Rings mini-campaign rules, the Battlefleet Gothic campaign rules, and a 4e-era precursor to Mighty Empires in terms of a campaign system. Basically speaking you've got a small force to start out with based on a set of points restrictions (I use several kinds of points values to judge the size of an army), and winning battles/controlling territory grants increases to your points limit in various ways; units will usually have an upgrade track of sorts (I still need to work out how Necrons (who are trapped in unchanging robotic bodies with unchanging minds) and Tyranids (who don't do veterancy/promotions in the same way as anyone else) fit into this model), depending on the army this is usually two to three steps (Scout to Space Marine to Veteran, or Aspect Warrior to Veteran Aspect Warrior, or Chaos Marine to Chosen, et cetera). Characters progress up the tiers as the army grows as well, all of this is limited by a unit doing something worthy of promotion (a unit earning a certain number of 'experience' from making their points back in a given battle, most likely, or a character passing an experience threshold and also doing something dramatic and awesome). Most of this is an afterthought to be reserved for an expansion, unfortunately, need to get some actual Codexes done first.

**Lanrak**

@AnomanderRake.
if you want a mutable upgrade system, then make the upgrades to weapons and equipment in the skirmish game.
Then for larger battle game allow the force commander to upgrade units for more elite /specialist versions.

The basic idea of 'credits to spend' on the force works across both of these formats.
Just change the name of the 'credits' to fit the force,to add the 40k chrome...

**AnomanderRake**

Lanrak wrote:
@AnomanderRake.
if you want a mutable upgrade system, then make the upgrades to weapons and equipment in the skirmish game.
Then for larger battle game allow the force commander to upgrade units for more elite /specialist versions.

The suggestion of upgradeable guys in the vein of Necromunda is where I take issue; moving each guy individually and tracking each guy's XP/upgrades individually works fine for games where you don't have to deal with more than about twenty models but when you get into larger games having differentiated statlines for everyone would be a challenge.

**CthuluIsSpy**

SisterSydney wrote:
Xx_ZLOBENIA_xX wrote:
....my opponent refuses to play on a board bigger than 2ft X 4ft....

What.

Isn't 4' by 6' the norm and 4' by 4' considered a little cramped?

4 x 4 appears to be the standard in GW stores. At least in Australia and France, anyway.

Also, he didn't say 4 x 4, he said 2 x 4...which is absurd. I advise finding a new opponent.

But yes, I agree that larger tables would be nice. Is there an actual rule though, saying that 6 x 4 is the max? I thought that size was due to convenience than an actual rule (6 x 4 is approximately the size of a dining table, iirc)

**AnomanderRake**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
SisterSydney wrote:
Xx_ZLOBENIA_xX wrote:
....my opponent refuses to play on a board bigger than 2ft X 4ft....

What.

Isn't 4' by 6' the norm and 4' by 4' considered a little cramped?

4 x 4 appears to be the standard in GW stores. At least in Australia and France, anyway.

Also, he didn't say 4 x 4, he said 2 x 4...which is absurd. I advise finding a new opponent.

But yes, I agree that larger tables would be nice. Is there an actual rule though, saying that 6 x 4 is the max? I thought that size was due to convenience than an actual rule (6 x 4 is approximately the size of a dining table, iirc)

No actual rule to avoid limiting people who want to try and play on non-rectangular surfaces, but convention dictates 4x4 as the absolute minimum (Kill Team up through 1,000-1,250), 6x4 as standard (1,250-2,500), and going up as needed for Apocalypse.

**amanita**

@ Lanrak - I disagree with your assessment that suppression should come from failed wounds alone. That's what the Morale test is for in the first place, and is done only after 25% casualties have been achieved anyway. Additional units adding their fire simply discomfits the enemy by creating crossfires, which suppress the unit already suffering serious casualties.

On a side note, we limited our number of reaction moves to 1 per 500 points in the army which will speed up the game a bit too.

**KnuckleWolf**

Odd, been lurking awhile here again and just realized no one has really brought up the 'fluff' as it were. Now that I think on it I might be tempted to hire writers to write a new canon based on the current but shined up a bit somehow. We did go into this with the premise of 'rebooting' the game. That would certainly do it. Since I haven't really made a claim to what I'd do. I'm making this my official statement on the issue. Cheers

**Quientin**

All codex books released simo. Playtesting for balance before release. No useless units. Make assaults and shooting on par with one another, put vehicles on par with troops. All of this via point cost/ benifit analysis and rules to enforce a balance.

however this is not viable from a $ perspective.

**Rav1rn**

This may be a bit out there, but one of the major complaints i hear about swarm armies is that they take forever to move, and tend to die in droves, so would it make sense to consolidate several models onto one base in the vein of Swarm or Team models?

We have an entire subset of units that are either ignored or downplayed simply because using them is not an enjoyable experience, and if an element of a game isn't fun to use, then we have a serious problem.

The prospect of moving 30 model units is a lot less daunting when there's only 6 bases to move. Assuming the bases were designed properly, It would also make sense thematically for these squads to be more difficult to place into cover, as there's really no way to easily hide a 50 man squad of infantry well.

It also subtly speaks volumes about the role these models play in the grand scheme of things, that they are so disposable and weak that they aren't even worth recognizing individually, and that they are only noticeable in large numbers.

IT would be interesting to have guardsmen squads have long, straight bases befitting their very rigid structure, while less organized swarms like Ork Boyz, Gaunts, and Gargoyles could have more amorphous bases to demonstrate their nature.

I'm not sure if the best route would be slotted movement trays similar to fantasy or simply 5 or so models on one large base, but I think it would make playing these large units more enjoyable, and potentially more practical for tournament games with time limits.

Not to mention it could make many of the notorious models more stable due to the larger base area, I'm looking at you Hormagaunts.

The potential to do some elaborate basing terrain has me itching to try this out. I have access to some 3D printers, I might churn out a couple prototypes and grab some gaunts and see how it goes.

**Lanrak**

@Rav1n.
That is why I suggested using coherency from the unit leader , rather than model to model.(It is less fiddley and speeds up model movement.)
The only problem with multiple model bases for hoards is the casualty removal considerations.(You can only base some up in multiples and some need to be in singles.)

**Rav1rn**

@Rav1n.
That is why I suggested using coherency from the unit leader , rather than model to model.(It is less fiddley and speeds up model movement.)
The only problem with multiple model bases for hoards is the casualty removal considerations.(You can only base some up in multiples and some need to be in singles.)

I agree with measuring coherency to the leader, it works well, but it doesn't help the fact that moving 20-30 models and then ensuring all of them are in coherency is an annoying action to perform. Models can fall or shift, and it's just a long, tiresome process. I believe that large squads are often less preferable for tournaments because of this factor, and any factor that isn't fun is bad for casual play.

There's also the issue that some squads, particularly Tyranid's like gaunts and gargoyles, lack leader units, so they would need another system to address them anyways.

As for casualty removals, you could just treat them similarly to an unusually large Multi-wound model. Hordes often die so fast that removing them 5 at a time would probably be beneficial, with stray wounds being counted on another "swarm" to tell you how many models are left in it for the purposes of firing and generating attacks.

Combine this with fixed unit-size purchases instead of PPM for your typical models, some more intuitive wound allocation rules, and I think it would be a pretty solid system. If you can only purchase these models in batches of 10/20/30 or only by groups of 5, then there's no problem with "odd man out" situations.

You likely wouldn't even need to change how blast and template weapons affect them, as each individual model is present and targetable, just without their singular base.

**AnomanderRake**

Rav1rn wrote:
@Rav1n.
That is why I suggested using coherency from the unit leader , rather than model to model.(It is less fiddley and speeds up model movement.)
The only problem with multiple model bases for hoards is the casualty removal considerations.(You can only base some up in multiples and some need to be in singles.)
I agree with measuring coherency to the leader, it works well, but it doesn't help the fact that moving 20-30 models and then ensuring all of them are in coherency is an annoying action to perform. Models can fall or shift, and it's just a long, tiresome process. I believe that large squads are often less preferable for tournaments because of this factor, and any factor that isn't fun is bad for casual play.

There's also the issue that some squads, particularly Tyranid's like gaunts and gargoyles, lack leader units, so they would need another system to address them anyways.

As for casualty removals, you could just treat them similarly to an unusually large Multi-wound model. Hordes often die so fast that removing them 5 at a time would probably be beneficial, with stray wounds being counted on another "swarm" to tell you how many models are left in it for the purposes of firing and generating attacks.

Combine this with fixed unit-size purchases instead of PPM for your typical models, some more intuitive wound allocation rules, and I think it would be a pretty solid system. If you can only purchase these models in batches of 10/20/30 or only by groups of 5, then there's no problem with "odd man out" situations.

You likely wouldn't even need to change how blast and template weapons affect them, as each individual model is present and targetable, just without their singular base.

I'm not sure about the idea of units coming in blocks on the same base; it ties you overmuch to predefined unit spacing, makes you more vulnerable to blast/template weapons, and makes it harder to move within terrain. Keeping everything within coherency of the leader is a better idea; as to units with no leaders I've been trying to rectify that issue, Tyranids are going to have small Synapse creatures (usually a Warrior or a Zoanthrope) as the character for Gaunt squads in the manner of the Dawn of War 2 campaign (Necrons are the other army I'm going to need to insert characters into squads for, low-tier Lords/Crypteks as squad leaders is the likely answer).

**Lanrak**

IMO you do not have to have a different model for the unit leader.

If we assume we have a particular gaunt that has the 'hive node connection' with the 'hive mind'.This creature becomes the control nid in the unit.(Acts as a point of communication.)

EG is the focus of the units action/decisions making , like a seargent/boss.

The unit leader can have the same profile and equipment as the unit, (maybe just a alight asthetic difference perhaps.)

So rather than the hive mind controlling 30 individual gaunts,it just tells one what to do and that one organizes the rest of the unit.
(To be closer to the command systems of other armies, without breaking the fluff too much.)

**SisterSydney**

So what effect does killing that controlling Gaunt have? The same as killing a human sergeant? Or none at all because the Hive Mind immediately switches to another nodal 'nid without an interruption in service (self-healing network!)? Or something in between?

**Hollismason**

I've always thought the turns should be reactive phases , meaning Player 1 Moves , Player 2 moves, Player 1 Shoots Player 2 Shoots Player 1 Assaults, Player 2 Assaults.

With a alternating of players going first in each phase.

Player 1 has 4 units ABCD
Player 2 has 4 units EFGH

Player one Moves A
Player two moves E
Player One moves C
Player 2 elects to not move any more models

Shooting
Player 1 was the last person to have an action he goes second.

Player 2 shoots E
Player 1 Shoots A
Player 2 Shoots D
Player 1 Declines to shoot
Player 2 Shoots F G

Assault
Player 1 now goes first in assault phase Assaults A
Player 2 Assaults D
Player 1 Assaults B
Player 2 Declines
Player One Assaults the Rest of his units

Next Movement Player 2 Begins the Phase as Player One was last to declare an assault

It would also make it possible to use actions that interrupt actions and special abilities that make sense.

**AnomanderRake**

SisterSydney wrote:
So what effect does killing that controlling Gaunt have? The same as killing a human sergeant? Or none at all because the Hive Mind immediately switches to another nodal 'nid without an interruption in service (self-healing network!)? Or something in between?

I did Warriors as leader units for Gaunts for that exact reason; the character is removed last unless he's killed in a challenge or by a sniper; a unit that's lost its character uses their own unmodified Ld and can't remove Pinning markers unless an Independent Character with the Command rule does.

**SisterSydney**

That's pretty brutal....a leaderless unit is likely to get Pinned and stay Pinned forever, isn't it?

Also, Hollismason: your idea makes sense to me, but a lot of people find unit-by-unit alternation (i.e. I move one unit, you move one unit, you move another unit, etc.) burdensome. I'd be happy to reopen that discussion because I'm not convinced, though.

**Lanrak**

@ Sister Sydney.
In respect to gaunt leaders being killed I was going to use both of the reactions you suggested.(Spooky!)

IF the unit is in synapse range , the unit leader is replaced with another gaunt selected by by the hive mind .
IF the unit is out of the synapse range the unit is automatically suppressed,and has to take any morale tests on base morale stats of the gaunts.(Until a Synapse creature comes in to synapse range of the unit .)

**Hollismason**

SisterSydney wrote:
That's pretty brutal....a leaderless unit is likely to get Pinned and stay Pinned forever, isn't it?

Also, Hollismason: your idea makes sense to me, but a lot of people find unit-by-unit alternation (i.e. I move one unit, you move one unit, you move another unit, etc.) burdensome. I'd be happy to reopen that discussion because I'm not convinced, though.

It allows for more tactical decisions and also prevents an army by being waylaid. It is a little more difficult to track as you have to put a counter by the units that have moved that turn. It also allows for interrupt actions such as Over Watch etc..

**AnomanderRake**

SisterSydney wrote:
That's pretty brutal....a leaderless unit is likely to get Pinned and stay Pinned forever, isn't it?

It is unless it's hanging out near an Independent Character (which are more accessible under my rules), but it's also pretty difficult to take out a squad's Sergeant before taking out the squad.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

SisterSydney wrote:

Also, Hollismason: your idea makes sense to me, but a lot of people find unit-by-unit alternation (i.e. I move one unit, you move one unit, you move another unit, etc.) burdensome. I'd be happy to reopen that discussion because I'm not convinced, though.

It's fairly cumbersome and gives a significant advantage to the person who has fewer units, yes.

**SisterSydney**

Wait, advantage to the person with fewer units or the person with more units?

It probably depends on how you implement unit-by-unit alternation. If we simply go "I move one of mine, you move one of yours, I move one of mine," etc. until both players have moved (or fired or assaulted with) everything, then the person with fewer units gets all his guys done first. Then the person with units left over gets a whole bunch of moves in a row to which the person with fewer units doesn't get to react.

So that seems like a big advantage for the person with MORE units.

If you add a way for the player with fewer units to "pass" -- which lets them choose when the guy with more units gets multiple turns in a row, and how many -- that would balance things better.

But maybe I'm hopelessly deluded? That happens.

**BaconCatBug**

Does anyone have a compiled list of suggestions? I would love to play a D10 or D20 based 40k game.

**SisterSydney**

No completed list, just a massive seething sea of often incompatible ideas -- which is all I was aiming for when I started the thread (actually I was expecting a nice pool of ideas, not the mighty flood that came). Some individual participants have written or are writing their own rules, though.

And d6 vs d10 vs d20 vs dwhatever is really one of the smallest issues here. We're talking about entirely new mechanics, new turn sequences , in some case re-starting every single unit in every codex....

**BaconCatBug**

Ha, fair enough.

Spoiler:

^^ Ignore that guff

How about:
At the start of each movement phase, count the number of units each player has, counting Dedicated Transports and Units as 1 unit.

The player with the least units gets the difference in unit numbers gets that many "pass points" where he can elect to not select a Unit to move but also not surrender the rest of the movement turn.Basically it is a "free turn" to allow reactionary tactics against an enemy with greater numbers. A player with no pass points remaining cannot do this and MUST select a unit.

Each player dices off (and adds their Army's Strategy Rating, defined in their codex, to the roll. < Maybe?) The winner of this roll decides if they wish to move first or second.

Next, player who is moving first selects a unit to move or may utilize a pass point. If a player has no pass points or does not wish to use one, they must still select a unit, though they may elect to not move it. It will not be able to be selected later on in the turn to move however. It has, in effect, "Moved 0cm".

Once this unit has been moved, the next player may move one of his units, declare that a unit will not move that turn (aka, they pick a unit to "Move 0" and they can't pick it to move in response to an enemy movement that turn) or they may utilize a pass point to skip that movement action without picking a unit.

This continues back and forth until all units have been moved. If the player with the least amount of units does not utilize all of their Pass Points and moves all their units before the player without, then the remaining player will simply move (or elect to not move that specific unit) the rest of their units in any order.

Players may at any time before moving a unit declare that they will elect to move no more units for the turn. If they do, then the remaining player simply moves their units in any order one at a time until they finish or also elect to not move any more units.

Shooting would also follow the same turn structure, though you would only count units that can shoot for the purpose of pass points (or not, depending on how the balance works out, not worked that out yet)

Assault would either follow the same pattern of alternating which combat to do between players (of course Player 2 can't pick a combat already resolved) or, if that is untenable simply dice off (and adds their Army's Strategy Rating, defined in their codex, to the roll. < Maybe?) each assault round then alternate picking fights, which I think might be a better solution.

Thoughts? Am I just rehashing tired old arguments? Complex for the sake of complexity? Should We drop the initiative portion all together and simply dice off to see who starts but keeping the "pass points" concept?

**SisterSydney**

Essentially sound, just a little overcomplicated -- just roll dice for first turn, don't worry about initiative at all.

**BaconCatBug**

SisterSydney wrote:
Essentially sound, just a little overcomplicated -- just roll dice for first turn, don't worry about initiative at all.

Aye i figured that as soon as I finished typing. Edited it to not mess with Initiative.