Switch Theme:

How would YOU Reboot 40K? Let 100 Heresies Bloom!  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 SisterSydney wrote:
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.


Mathwise assuming points are equivalent the guy with fewer units gets to attack with X points in the same amount of time the other guy gets to attack with fewer than X points. It's like the problem of the person having higher Initiative in melee getting to hit with everyone while the other guy gets to hit with some subset of everyone since his guys have been beaten on.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Preacher of the Emperor






Aaah, I see. Had not thought of it that way.

BURN IT DOWN BURN IT DOWN BABY BURN IT DOWN

 Psienesis wrote:
Well, if you check out Sister Sydney's homebrew/expansion rules, you'll find all kinds of units the Sisters could have, that fit with the theme of the Sisters (as a tabletop army) perfectly well, and are damn-near-perfectly balanced.

I’m updating that fandex now & I’m eager for feedback on new home-brew units for the Sisters: Sororitas Bikers, infiltrators & Novices, tanks, flyers, characters, superheavies, Frateris Militia, and now Confessors and Battle Conclave characters
My Novice Ginevra stories start with Bolter B-Word Privileges 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 AnomanderRake wrote:
 SisterSydney wrote:
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.


Mathwise assuming points are equivalent the guy with fewer units gets to attack with X points in the same amount of time the other guy gets to attack with fewer than X points. It's like the problem of the person having higher Initiative in melee getting to hit with everyone while the other guy gets to hit with some subset of everyone since his guys have been beaten on.
This is why I added a method to pass in my proposed turn structure not as much as you want, only so it balances out the number of units (you only get to pass X times, where X is Higher Unit number minus Lower Unit number).

Or is that unfair? As I said I've not done any real maths on the matter.
   
Made in us
Preacher of the Emperor






If I understand Anomander aright, then the player with fewer units doesn't have to pass, they can just shoot unit after unit until they've unleashed 100% of their firepower on the enemy, who hasn't yet had a chance to unleash 100% of his, which means the side with fewer units is more likely to kill targets before they can fire back.

Of course that's still a lot better than the current system, where, if you go first, 100% of my army isn't getting to fire back until you've fired 100% of yours....

BURN IT DOWN BURN IT DOWN BABY BURN IT DOWN

 Psienesis wrote:
Well, if you check out Sister Sydney's homebrew/expansion rules, you'll find all kinds of units the Sisters could have, that fit with the theme of the Sisters (as a tabletop army) perfectly well, and are damn-near-perfectly balanced.

I’m updating that fandex now & I’m eager for feedback on new home-brew units for the Sisters: Sororitas Bikers, infiltrators & Novices, tanks, flyers, characters, superheavies, Frateris Militia, and now Confessors and Battle Conclave characters
My Novice Ginevra stories start with Bolter B-Word Privileges 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 SisterSydney wrote:
If I understand Anomander aright, then the player with fewer units doesn't have to pass, they can just shoot unit after unit until they've unleashed 100% of their firepower on the enemy, who hasn't yet had a chance to unleash 100% of his, which means the side with fewer units is more likely to kill targets before they can fire back.

Of course that's still a lot better than the current system, where, if you go first, 100% of my army isn't getting to fire back until you've fired 100% of yours....
I feel that's still as unfair as the current system. It would promote a small number of max size units of shooty squads over anything else.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka



Chicago, Illinois

 SisterSydney wrote:
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.



Obviously this is just a very rough draft and you know throwing things at the wall idea, but I'd just say the following,

Once all models have taken an action in the movement phase, they may move onto the next phase or initiate the firing phase. The player can still move his units and initiate fire.

Player 1 has units ABC

Player 2 has units DEFGHI

Player 1 Moves A

Player 2 Moves D

Player 1 Moves B

Player 2 Moves E

Player 1 Overwatches / interruptable action instead of moving C

Player 2 Moves G

Player 1 since he has used all move actions and move commands this turn initiates fire w/ A

Player 2 Decides to not return fire but instead finish his movement of I

Player 1 Fires B

Player 2 Moves I

Player 1 Fires C

Player 2 Begins Fire with D

Player 1 Declares Assault w/ A

Player 2 Begins Fire w/ E

Player 1 Has no more Movement, Shooting, or Assault

Player 2 still has Shooting but no assaults

End of Turn

It just makes the game more dynamic to split it up that way imo. Also obviously these are just tossed out there, with no addendum to what happens.

It favors small armies and large armies equally though, it plays to the strength of a small army with lighting fast units moving in for the kill and big armies with just mowing into you over and over again.

It's also the same basic sequence just alternating. I move , you move, I shoot , You shoot, I assault, You assault. It's just more dynamic.

You could do it that way as well.

Everyone moves end of movement Phase

Everyone Shoots end of shooting phase

Everyone Assaults, End of assault phase.

If I lose it is because I had bad luck, if you win it is because you cheated. 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






I agree the turn structure needs to alternate to stay dynamic, but for the sake of both clarity as well has having mental "checkpoints" to keep track of how the turn is progressing, I feel any such turn structure must have each of the three phases independent of each other.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 BaconCatBug wrote:
I agree the turn structure needs to alternate to stay dynamic, but for the sake of both clarity as well has having mental "checkpoints" to keep track of how the turn is progressing, I feel any such turn structure must have each of the three phases independent of each other.


I tried to go a different direction by keeping a turn order not unlike the current one (player A moves/player B makes reaction attacks/player A attacks) but making the combat sequence in each individual fight phase more reactive. No more *roll some dice* "Three of those guys are dead.", dialogue back and forth about what's happening every step of the way.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 AnomanderRake wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
I agree the turn structure needs to alternate to stay dynamic, but for the sake of both clarity as well has having mental "checkpoints" to keep track of how the turn is progressing, I feel any such turn structure must have each of the three phases independent of each other.


I tried to go a different direction by keeping a turn order not unlike the current one (player A moves/player B makes reaction attacks/player A attacks) but making the combat sequence in each individual fight phase more reactive. No more *roll some dice* "Three of those guys are dead.", dialogue back and forth about what's happening every step of the way.
I see what you are trying to do and in theory it would be awesome, but players are still only weak 'umies after all!
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka



Chicago, Illinois

 AnomanderRake wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
I agree the turn structure needs to alternate to stay dynamic, but for the sake of both clarity as well has having mental "checkpoints" to keep track of how the turn is progressing, I feel any such turn structure must have each of the three phases independent of each other.


I tried to go a different direction by keeping a turn order not unlike the current one (player A moves/player B makes reaction attacks/player A attacks) but making the combat sequence in each individual fight phase more reactive. No more *roll some dice* "Three of those guys are dead.", dialogue back and forth about what's happening every step of the way.



Do you mean a turn order where it's

MOVEMENT PHASE
SHOOTING
ASSAULT

Movement Player A moves Player B moves Player A etcc because I really like that system as well. I like the dynamic systems a little more as I get older maybe? I dunno.

Then the following turn it's the same way.


Also, what I wrote out is how it is now currently it's just broken up. As the rules are written now , you still react to your opponents movement. This just makes it more dynamic. Also players with more units currently move more than other armies with less units anyway.

How it is now:

Player 1 10 units
Player 2 5 Units

Player one gets to move more than Player 2 in the current rules and then shoot and assault. Player 2 does not get as many "actions".

In a Reactionary system:

Player 1 Moves
Player 2 Holds
Player 1 Moves
Player 2 Moves
Player 1 Initiates Firing and gets to fire one unit
Player 2 can end his movement phase and move directly into the shooting phase or continue to move his units.


You get the same amount of actions as you would now, what happens in a reactionary system though is you are actually able to actively react to actions immediately.

For example:

Player 1 Moves A
Player 2 Moves B
Player 1 Ends his move starts his firing phase


Also, I think we are honestly talking about a system I played at some point.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/20 05:39:47


If I lose it is because I had bad luck, if you win it is because you cheated. 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







Hollismason wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
I agree the turn structure needs to alternate to stay dynamic, but for the sake of both clarity as well has having mental "checkpoints" to keep track of how the turn is progressing, I feel any such turn structure must have each of the three phases independent of each other.


I tried to go a different direction by keeping a turn order not unlike the current one (player A moves/player B makes reaction attacks/player A attacks) but making the combat sequence in each individual fight phase more reactive. No more *roll some dice* "Three of those guys are dead.", dialogue back and forth about what's happening every step of the way.



Do you mean a turn order where it's

MOVEMENT PHASE
SHOOTING
ASSAULT



No. I've set up shooting/assault so that they use the same rules; right now under my rules player A moves all his models, player B makes reaction attacks (as per normal attacks but if you attack in your standard combat phase that unit can't attack in the following reaction phase), and then player A attacks with all his models. I've had a few test games with this now and it keeps things moving quickly while ensuring both players get to be actively doing things during all points in the game.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






Depricated

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2014/03/22 01:35:51


 
   
Made in us
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot




PA Unitied States

Lets face it no wargame is ever going to be truly balanced, that said I do feel GW can do better than thier "Beer and Pretzel" / "Forging a Narrative" type attitude. Becuase the wole attitude that your opponent is having fun while you punch his face in, is not work for them in the long run.

Out of your list I think multiple types of fixes are needed.

playtest playtest playtest....every new book needs to play every army multipule times (5-10 times) before it is released....Look for rule breaking army builds and eliminate or restrict them. Look for units cost that are too low or too high.......the list goes on and on

Honestly the whole thing needs to be redone. Massive playtesting needs to be apart of what they do.

22 yrs in the hobby
:Eldar: 10K+ pts, 2500 pts
1850 pts
Vampire Counts 4000+ 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka



Chicago, Illinois

I am kind of hoping for a major shift like we had between 2nd and 3rd. It was so shocking when 3rd came out.

If I lose it is because I had bad luck, if you win it is because you cheated. 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
Lets face it no wargame is ever going to be truly balanced, that said I do feel GW can do better than thier "Beer and Pretzel" / "Forging a Narrative" type attitude. Becuase the wole attitude that your opponent is having fun while you punch his face in, is not work for them in the long run.

Out of your list I think multiple types of fixes are needed.

playtest playtest playtest....every new book needs to play every army multipule times (5-10 times) before it is released....Look for rule breaking army builds and eliminate or restrict them. Look for units cost that are too low or too high.......the list goes on and on

Honestly the whole thing needs to be redone. Massive playtesting needs to be apart of what they do.
The only way this can happen is if they allow players to test for them. This means releasing a beta version of the codex for FREE and letting the playerbase go to town. GW are stuck in the past and would never allow this
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
Lets face it no wargame is ever going to be truly balanced, that said I do feel GW can do better than thier "Beer and Pretzel" / "Forging a Narrative" type attitude. Becuase the wole attitude that your opponent is having fun while you punch his face in, is not work for them in the long run.

Out of your list I think multiple types of fixes are needed.

playtest playtest playtest....every new book needs to play every army multipule times (5-10 times) before it is released....Look for rule breaking army builds and eliminate or restrict them. Look for units cost that are too low or too high.......the list goes on and on

Honestly the whole thing needs to be redone. Massive playtesting needs to be apart of what they do.
The only way this can happen is if they allow players to test for them. This means releasing a beta version of the codex for FREE and letting the playerbase go to town. GW are stuck in the past and would never allow this


The bigger problem is their insistence on releasing their rulebook once and not changing anything at all for years at a time. If they patched their rulebooks more often this issue would be less of one.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






So, I spent all of today typing up and formatting my thoughts on a D10 overhaul. The Base game itself is pretty good right now, so this is more of a mashup than anything else.

The downside is that this would need a complete rewrite and rebalancing of the codex's, but my vision for it would be a community driven effort where a one codex is given small tweaks/additional units if deemed necessary every month in a continuous rotation.

Here is the Google doc link if you would like to read: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9rcO5sQ7ReFdElFNTg1VlZWWnc/edit?usp=sharing
Proposal with just the changes to the Turn Structure, small Overwatch nerf, small change to Blasts against Vehicles, Glancing Hits cause Immobilise before wrecking and Bikes with "multiple riders" no longer shoot multiple weapons: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9rcO5sQ7ReFUGI4cEQxM2NjZkE/edit?usp=sharingS

If you cannot access Google Docs for some reason, the text will be placed below inside a spoiler tag, but you'll be missing out on the nice formatting and tables!

Spoiler:
Important Note: This document will only document instances were rules or dice rolls have changed. Basically, unless I say that something has changed, assume it has not. This not only will cut down on redundant lines saying that “Rule XYZ remains unchanged” but will also skirt any posibility of being accused of trying to copypaste rules wholesale. The main changes from the D6 system to the D10 system are the range of characteristics and the turn structure and thus the bulk of the information will be about them.

This gaming system is intended to be utilised with a complete rewriting of each armies codex’s into rulebooks that will take into account the expanded ranges of characteristics (i.e. actually use the full 0 – 10 range of stats rather than have everything clumped together into an effective 3 – 5 range) as well as transforming them into incrementally updating living documents rather than GW's antiquated method of overhauling them every 4 to 10 years for the sake of overhauling them.


The Rules
Models and Units:
All distances are converted into metric units, Millimetres and Centimetres. For convenience, 1 inch from the original game shall translate as 25mm (2.5cm) in all cases. Yes, there will be corner cases where this can affect something drastically. No, I really don't care.

Distance rolls are translated as follows:
D3” ≈ 2.5cm – 7.5cm > 2D5 cm
D6” ≈ 2.5cm – 15cm > D15 cm
2D6” ≈ 5cm – 30cm > 3D10 cm
3D6” ≈ 7.5cm – 45cm > 4D10+D5 cm

To roll a D15, roll a D10 and a D5 and add the two results. While it may seem strange to replace the D6 with 2 dice rolls, there is indeed a logical reason. The first is to ensure that the distance moved is always a minimum of 2cm rather than 1. The second is that it puts a very slight bias against the more extreme edges of the scale, thus still allowing for the occasional flourish of luck while toning down the amount of RandomHammer D40,000.

Unless otherwise stated, distance rolls are unchanged, simply translated. This applies ONLY to distance rolls. Other rolls will be translated individually as needed.

Characteristics have the same 0 to 10 range with the exception of leadership, which is now a 0 to 18 range statistic. Armour Saves also now range from 2+ to 10, along with -.

All non-vehicle models (with the exception of walkers) now have a “Base Size” characteristic defined in their codex entry. Walkers will have a base size. Values are 25mm, 40mm, 60mm, 25×50mm (Bike Base). This is to standardise model base sizes and end the arguments over Old Terminators once and for all.

General Principles:
The One Inch rule is now the 25mm rule.

Dice used will be D5 and D10. D5 is rolled exactly as you would expect, by rolling a D10 and halving the result, rounding up. D6 are still used for Mysterious Terrain, Deep Strike Mishap, Mission Selection and other miscellaneous uses so don't throw them all away just yet!

Esoteric dice such as D4s, D12s and D20s will not be used. D20s will explicitly be noted as usable as D10s by subtracting 10 if the result is 11+ like the D10s of old with different coloured 0-9s.

Due to one inch being translated as 25mm, Blast Markers and the Template will be slightly reduced in size, but by no more than 2.5 millimetres. It will be noted that pre-made templates are provided and to use these wherever possible. However, each Marker will be properly defined both for the purposes of creating custom markers and for clarity.

Small Blast Marker: A circle with a diameter of 7.5cm. Centre hole will be in the exact centre with a diameter of 1.5cm.

Large Blast Marker: A circle with a diameter of 15cm. Centre hole will be in the exact centre with a diameter of 1.5cm.

Giant Blast Marker: A circle with a diameter of 17.5cm. Centre hole will be in the exact centre with a diameter of 1.5cm.

Mega Blast Marker: A circle with a diameter of 25cm. Centre hole will be in the exact centre with a diameter of 1.5cm.

Apocalyptic Giant Mega Extreme Blast Marker of Crispy Doom and Taco Filled Death: A circle with a diameter of 37.5cm. Centre hole will be in the exact centre with a diameter of 1.5cm.

“Flamer” Template: The narrow end will remain rounded to stop Young Billy from stabbing his eye out. Defined as an isosceles triangle of side lengths Xcm, Xcm and Ycm with a semicircle of Radius X at the end. (I need these numbers!)

Characteristic tests remain the same, but with D10s instead of D6. Leadership uses 2D10 instead.

Line of sight rules remain unchanged with one exception. Rule added that explicitly states that if a player objects to a model that they feel is modelled in such a way that it would give it a significant advantage (explicitly call out crawling Wraithlords or tall bases) then the players will use as best as they can an unmodified place-holder for determining line of sight. Players should be lauded for their modelling skills but in the end, the game needs to be fair!

The Turn
Movement Phase:
This is where the biggest changes to the structure come in.
The Movement Phase is now split into three distinct sub-phases, the “Move Fleeing Units sub-phase”, the “Movement Pass Point Calculation sub-phase” and the “Move Units sub-phase”

Move Fleeing Units sub-phase:
If no player has any units that are falling back, then this sub-phase is skipped entirely.
If one player has units that are falling back, that player resolves each individual unit's Regrouping rolls and subsequent Fall Backs or Consolidations as needed until all fleeing units have been dealt with.
If both players have units that are falling back, select one player at random by dicing off and then alternate resolving the fleeing units as necessary until one player has no more fleeing units, at which point the remaining player will resolve them one by one as normal.

The reasons for resolving Fall Back moves before other movement is threefold. First is to ensure players don't forget (or “forget” as the case may be. You know who you are!) to move a unit that is falling back.
Secondly, it prevents the currently possible tactic of moving your own units to force the fleeing unit to have to go around the now in the way friendly unit, possibly buying an extra attempt to regroup.
Thirdly, with the alternating movement system now used, it is possible for an enemy unit to move into a position where the falling back unit will be destroyed before it gets an attempt to regroup or flee. While this will still be possible, it would be unfair to do so before the enemy gets a chance to regroup or get the hell out of dodge first.

Movement Pass Point Calculation sub-phase:
At the start of each Movement Pass Point Calculation sub-phase, each player counts the number units they own, though certain units are ignored for this calculation. Units that are ignored include:
* Units that are falling back.
* Units who have regrouped this turn (and do not have the ATSKNF special rule).
* Units who are pinned or have gone to ground or are otherwise rendered unable to move.
* Vehicles who are immobile for any reason, whether through damage or inherently immobile.

Units who are inside a transport, dedicated or otherwise, are counted in addition to the transport.

The player with the lower number of applicable units gets a number of “Movement Pass Points” equal to the difference in unit numbers. These Pass Points are used in the Move Units sub-phase in order to choose to not select a unit to move but also not surrender the chance to move later in the movement phase. 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 although of course they can elect to not move it that turn.
Example: At the start of the turn, Alice has three units and one transport with a unit inside. Bob has a total of 10 units, one of which is an immobile vehicle and one of which is a unit that is falling back. Alice thus has 3 Pass Points (8 minus 5) that she may use during this turns Move Units sub-phase.

Note that Pass Points are not rolled over between phases or turns and are freshly calculated each turn as needed.

Move Units sub-phase:
Determine a player at random by dicing off. That player decides if they wish to move first or second this turn.

Next, the player who is moving first selects a unit they control to move or may utilize a Pass Point. If that player has no Pass Points or does not wish to use one, they must still select a unit, although they may elect to not move it. However, electing to not move a unit means it will not be able to be selected later on in the turn to move. It has, in effect, "moved zero".

Once this unit has been moved, the opposing player selects a unit they control to move or may utilize a Pass Point. If that player has no Pass Points or does not wish to use one, they must still select a unit, although they may elect to not move it. However, electing to not move a unit means it will not be able to be selected later on in the turn to move. It has, in effect, "moved zero".

This continues with players alternating back and forth until all units have been moved or chosen to not move. If a player finishes moving all their units before the opponent due to not using all of their Pass Points or for any other reason, then the remaining player will simply move (or elect to not move) the rest of their units in any order until they have moved all their units or elect to not move any more units for the turn.

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 will simply move (or elect to not move) the rest of their units in any order until they have moved all their units or elect to not move any more units for the turn. A player who declares that they will elect to move no more units for the turn cannot then choose to move their remaining units after their enemy has moved, so be absolutely sure when deciding to declare this!

Remember that movement is now in centimetres!

Example of a movement phase:
Alice has 3 units of Space Marine Scouts and a unit of Tactical Marines mounted inside it's Rhino.
Bob has 3 units, 2 mobs of Boyz and 1 immobile Battlewagon.
Thus, Alice has a unit count of 4 and Bob has a unit count of 2
Therefore, Alice has 2 Pass Points she may utilise this Movement Phase.

Alice and Bob dice off and Alice wins the roll. She decides to move first. She selects one of her Scout Marine squads to move, then moves it however she likes, then passes the turn to Bob. Bob selects one of his Boyz mobs and moves it however he likes.

The turn now passes to Alice. She selects her second squad of scouts, but chooses to not move it this turn. Bob then elects to use a Pass Point and doesn't need to select a unit to move.

Alice now selects her Tactical Marine's Rhino as the unit to be moved and moves it into position. She wants to disembark the unit inside but must wait until her next opportunity to select a unit as the Rhino and Tactical Squad are separate units. Bob decides not to use his remaining Pass Point and now selects his second squad of Boyz to move and moves them.

The turn now passes to Alice again and she disembarks her Tactical Squad from her Rhino as per the rules for disembarking etc. Bob has no more units left capable of moving this turn, so instead of passing over to him unnecessarily, Alice moves onto one of her remaining units, in this case her third and final scout squad and moves it.

Neither Bob nor Alice now have any other units left to move, so the game proceeds to the Shooting Phase.


Shooting Phase:
The Shooting Phase is structured similarly to the Movement Phase detailed above.
The Shooting Phase is now split into three distinct sub-phases, the “Shooting Pass Point Calculation sub-phase”, the “Declare Shooting sub-phase” and the “Run sub-phase”.


Shooting Pass Point Calculation sub-phase:
At the start of each Shooting Pass Point Calculation sub-phase, each player counts the number units they own, though certain units are ignored for this calculation. Units that are ignored include:
* Units where no members have any ranged weapons or other abilities that fire as ranged weapons, including but not limited to psychic powers, special wargear and special rules.
* Units where no members have the ability to fire any of their weapons that turn. This includes but is not limited to units that are pinned and units that moved and only have Heavy Weapons that are unable to make Snap Shots.
* Units where no members have weapons that are in range of an enemy unit. If it is unclear if they are in range of an enemy unit or not, simply measure to find out. Note that only range is taken into consideration, a unit that is in range of an enemy that they could not possibly damage is still counted at this stage.
* Units who are embarked upon a transport vehicle where no members are capable of firing from it due to lack of fire points or any other reason.
* Vehicles that have no weapons remaining, whether this is the result of expending all their limited ammunition, through damage results or simply not having any weapons to begin with.

Units who are inside a transport that they can fire from, dedicated or otherwise, are counted in addition to the transport. Don't worry about not being able to count units without ranged weapons that you wish to Run or move Flat out with, this is done in the Run sub-phase. Also keep in mind that, as detailed later, units who could have fired but elect not to can still choose to Run or move Flat out in the Run sub-phase.

The player with the lower number of applicable units gets a number of “Shooting Pass Points” equal to the difference in unit numbers. These Pass Points are used in the Declare Shooting sub-phase in order to choose to not select a unit to shoot but also not surrender the chance to shoot later in the movement phase. 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, although of course they can elect to not shoot with it that turn.
Example: At the start of the turn, Alice has three units and one transport (with no fire points) with a unit inside. Bob has 8 units, one of which is a vehicle with no weapons remaining and one unit that has no ranged weapons. Alice thus has 2 Pass Points (6 minus 4) that she may use during this turns Move Units sub-phase.

Note that Pass Points are not rolled over between phases or turns and are freshly calculated each turn as needed. In particular the Movement Pass Points generated in the Movement Phase are completely separate to the Shooting Pass Points generated in the Shooting phase and in no way roll over or affect the number of Shooting Pass Points generated by a player in any way.

Declare Shooting sub-phase:
Determine a player at random by dicing off. That player decides if they wish to shoot first or second this turn.

Next, the player who is shooting first selects a unit they control to shoot with or may utilize a Pass Point. If that player has no Pass Points or does not wish to use one, they must still select a unit, although they may elect to not shoot with it. However, electing to not shoot with a unit means it will not be able to be selected later on in the turn to shoot. It has given up their chance to shoot this turn. Keep in mind that units selected this way that do not shoot can still elect to run in the Run Sub-Phase, so this is a good method to try and get the enemy to commit more of their shooting before unleashing yours by selecting units you didn't want to shoot anyway!

Once this unit has fired its weapons and resolved it's shooting and any aftermath of it's shooting completely, the opposing player selects a unit they control to shoot with or may utilize a Pass Point. If that player has no Pass Points or does not wish to use one, they must still select a unit, although they may elect to not shoot with it. However, electing to not shoot with a unit means it will not be able to be selected later on in the turn to shoot. It has given up their chance to shoot this turn. Keep in mind that units selected this way that do not shoot can still elect to run in the Run Sub-Phase.

This continues with players alternating back and forth until all units have shot their weapons or chosen to not shoot. If a player finishes shooting with all their units before the opponent due to not using all of their Pass Points, having units destroyed by enemy fire or for any other reason, then the remaining player will simply shoot with (or elect to not shoot with) the rest of their units in any order until they have shot with all their units or elect to not shoot with any more units for the turn.

Players may at any time before shooting with a unit declare that they will elect to shoot with no more units for the turn. If they do, then the remaining player will simply shoot with (or elect to not shoot with) the rest of their units in any order until they have moved all their units or elect to not move any more units for the turn. A player who declares that they will elect to shoot with no more units for the turn cannot then choose to shoot with their remaining units after their enemy has shot their weapons, so be absolutely sure when deciding to declare this!

Remember that weapon ranges are now in centimetres!

Run sub-phase:
After all shooting and any consequences that said shooting may cause has been resolved, the Run sub-phase begins. Pass Points do not roll over and are not utilised in the Run sub-phase.

Determine a player at random by dicing off. That player decides if they wish select a unit first or second this turn.

Next, the player who is running with a unit first selects a unit they control they wish to make a run movement or flat out movement with. These movements are done in the same way as the current game, translating the dice rolls and movement distances as needed. i.e. D15cm and 15cm respectively. Please note that unlike in the Movement or Shooting phases, a selected unit may not opt to not run or move flat out, although they can of course choose to not move anyway (such as if you roll a poor result and decide to not move in order to not trigger dangerous terrain tests for example) but the unit will still count as having run or moved flat out.

Once this unit has been moved, the opposing player selects a unit they control they wish to make a run movement or flat out movement with. These movements are done in the same way as the current game, translating the dice rolls and movement distances as needed. i.e. D15cm and 15cm respectively. Please note that unlike in the Movement or Shooting phases, a selected unit may not opt to not run or move flat out, although they can of course choose to not move anyway (such as if you roll a poor result and decide to not move in order to not trigger dangerous terrain tests for example) but the unit will still count as having run or moved flat out.


This continues with players alternating back and forth until all units able to run or move flat out have been moved or chosen to not move. If a player finishes moving all their units before the opponent due to not using all of their Pass Points or for any other reason, then the remaining player will simply move (or elect to not move) the rest of their units in any order until they have moved all their units or elect to not move any more units for the turn.

Players may at any time before moving a unit declare that they will elect to run or move flat out with no more units for the turn. If they do, then the remaining player will simply run or move flat out the rest of their applicable units in any order until they have run or moved flat with all their applicable units or elect to not move any more units for the turn. A player who declares that they will elect to run or move flat out no more units for the turn cannot then choose to run or move flat out their remaining units after their enemy has moved, so be absolutely sure when deciding to declare this!

Snap Shots remain the same despite the changes to hit determination.

Rolling to Hit utilises the same system currently used but subtracts the Ballistic Skill of the firing model from a value of 11 instead of 7 to determine the value needed to hit. Ballistic Skill 1 thus needs a 10 to hit, Ballistic Skill 5 needs a 6+ to hit and Ballistic Skill 9 needs 2+ to hit and so on and so forth.

A roll of 10 is always a hit and a roll of 1 is always a miss. The rare exemplary models that have Ballistic Skill 10 will thus still miss on a roll of 1 to hit but this means that effects that reduce their Ballistic Skill by 1 for some reason will have no real effect.

BALLISTIC SKILL
Value Needed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
to Hit 10 9+ 8+ 7+ 6+ 5+ 5+ 3+ 2+ 2+

Rolling to Wound follows the same method as the original game. 50% chance where the Strength matches the Toughness and moving by 1 notch on the die for each point of difference with low strengths being utterly unable to harm high toughness’s.


TOUGHNESS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 6+ 7+ 8+ 9+ 10 - - - - -
S 2 5+ 6+ 7+ 8+ 9+ 10 - - - -
T 3 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+ 8+ 9+ 10 - - -
R 4 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+ 8+ 9+ 10 - -
E 5 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+ 8+ 9+ 10 -
N 6 2+ 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+ 8+ 9+ 10
G 7 2+ 2+ 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+ 8+ 9+
T 8 2+ 2+ 2+ 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+ 8+
H 9 2+ 2+ 2+ 2+ 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+
10 2+ 2+ 2+ 2+ 2+ 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+

Rules regarding Saves all remain unchanged with the exception that the range for saves is now 2+ to 10.

Cover Saves are now the following:
Razor Wire: 9+
Forests and area terrain: 8+
Ruins: 6+
Fortifications: 4+

Example of a Shooting Phase:
SOMEONE ELSE WRITE THIS! o(╥﹏╥)o

Assault Phase:
The Shooting Phase is structured similarly to the Movement and Shooting Phases detailed above. The sub-phases are now the “Select Charging Units sub-phase” and the “Resolve Fights sub-phase.”

Select Charging Units sub-phase:
Unlike the Movement and Shooting phase, the Select Charging Units sub-phase does not use Pass Points. Determine a player at random by dicing off. That player decides if they wish to attempt a charge first or second this turn.

Next, the player who is declaring a charge first selects a unit they control to attempt a charge and declares it in the same way as the original game.

Weapons and Weapon Modes that fire multiple rounds during an Overwatch suffer a -1 shot penalty. Weapons that only fire a single shot to begin with may still fire this shot. e.g. Rapid Fire weapons only fire one shot each, a Heavy 3 weapon will fire only two shots and a Pistol will still fire a single shot.

Charge distance is translated as detailed in the Dice Rules section above. Don't be scared about the huge numbers, remember that it's 2.5cm to the inch. This has the same bell curve as the old value and results in the same distances: http://anydice.com/program/39

Once the charge has been fully resolved, the opposing player now selects a unit they control to attempt a charge and declares it in the same way as the original game.

Players alternate selecting units they wish to attempt a charge in this manner. If a player has no more units left capable of launching a charge they wish to attempt a charge, then the remaining player selects units one by one until they too have no more units left to attempt charges with. Remember that much in the same fashion as the Movement and Shooting phases, if a player declares they have no more units they wish to select they cannot go back later and change their mind!

Resolve Combats sub-phase:
Unlike the Movement and Shooting phase, the Resolve Combats sub-phase does not use Pass Points. Determine a player at random by dicing off. That player decides if they wish to resolve a combat first or second this turn.

Next, the player who is resolving a combat first selects a combat in progress and the combat is resolved. Once the combat is fully resolved, the opposing player selects a different combat to resolve and resolves it. (I know it shouldn't need to be said, but you can't fight the same combat twice in one turn!).

This continues with players alternating back and forth until all combats have been resolved this turn.

The minutiæ of how a Close Combat is fought remains unchanged. What does change is the To Hit table due to the changes in Weapon Skill range and the D10 system. What remains unchanged is the fact that having a higher weapon skill will always result in a better than 50% chance to hit. What has changed is the fact that the To Hit table is no longer dominated by the 3+ result. Under the old system a rampaging Dæmon Prince of Khorne with a Weapon Skill of 9 has the exact same chance of hitting a Space Marine Chapter Master as he does a Ratling. Under this new system, the Chapter Master has a slightly better chance of parrying the rampaging beastie!

There is slightly more variance at the extreme edges of the table, with a maximum chance of hitting of 80% as opposed to 66%, and a minimum chance of 20% as opposed to 33% (WS1 vs. WS10 doesn't count >:3) but this is balanced by the fact that this only occurs at the extreme edge of the scale in addition to the fact that under this system the codex’s will be able to properly utilise the 1-10 scale for Weapon Skill, Strength and Toughness instead of having to effectively clump everything at the 3-5 range.

↓ ATTACKERS WEAPON SKILL → TARGET'S WEAPON SKILL
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 6+ 6+ 6+ 7+ 7+ 7+ 8+ 8+ 8+ 9+
2 5+ 6+ 6+ 6+ 7+ 7+ 7+ 8+ 8+ 8+
3 5+ 5+ 6+ 6+ 6+ 7+ 7+ 7+ 8+ 8+
4 5+ 5+ 5+ 6+ 6+ 6+ 7+ 7+ 7+ 8+
5 4+ 5+ 5+ 5+ 6+ 6+ 6+ 7+ 7+ 7+
6 4+ 4+ 5+ 5+ 5+ 6+ 6+ 6+ 7+ 7+
7 4+ 4+ 4+ 5+ 5+ 5+ 6+ 6+ 6+ 7+
8 3+ 4+ 4+ 4+ 5+ 5+ 5+ 6+ 6+ 6+
9 3+ 3+ 4+ 4+ 4+ 5+ 5+ 5+ 6+ 6+
10 3+ 3+ 3+ 4+ 4+ 4+ 5+ 5+ 5+ 6+

When rolling for the value of a Sweeping Advance, roll a D10 instead.

Morale Checks continue to work the same way as before, just using 2D10 instead. The same penalties for losing a combat apply to these Morale Checks with an additional -1 modifier simply for losing the combat in addition the normal penalty for suffering more wounds than the enemy due to this penalty having a reduced effectiveness on the percentage chance to fail each point of Leadership lost causes.

Morale:
Morale Checks continue to work the same way as before, just using 2D10 instead. Values for Penalties and Bonuses remain unchanged.
The Insane Heroism rule applies on a result of 2 or 3.


Special Rules
Armourbane: Rolls an additional 2D5 for armour penetration.
Blast and Large Blast: Scatter is now 3D10 cm minus double the firing models Ballistic Skill minus 3. Example: BS3 model rolls 3,6,8. The blast will scatter 8cm (17-6-3= 8). BS4 model rolls 2,2,3. The blast will not scatter. (7-8-3= -4)
Crusader: Rolls a D5 instead.
Feel No Pain: Changed to 7+ on a D10.
Fleshbane: 3+ on a D10.
Deep Strike: Scatter is translated as normal. Deep Strike Mishap table retains the D6.
Gets Hot: Single shot weapons Get Hot on a roll of 1 to hit. Multiple Shot weapons Get Hot on a roll of 1 or 2 to hit. Weapons that do not normally roll to hit Get Hot on a roll of 1 on a D5 per shot, however the shot fires regardless but always scatter and may not take into account the firing models Ballistic Skill. Vehicle mounted weapons that Get Hot cause a glancing hit on a further roll of 1,2,3,4 or 5 on a D10.
HayWire: Same results but rolled on a D10 with the table structured as 1-2/3-8/9-10.
Interceptor: Remove the word “Enemy” from the first line. This is in addition to it's available shooting in the shooting phase.
It Will Not Die: Changed to 7+ on a D10
Jink: Changed to 7+ and 6+ on a D10
Lance: Lowers armour values down to 14.
Melta: Rolls an additional 2D5 for armour penetration when in range.
Move Through Cover: Roll an additional D10. Normally results in 4D10 and add the highest result with half the next highest result.
Outflank: Rolls a D10. 1-3 is left. 4-6 is right, 7-9 is either, 10 is either but can only half the short edge distance from your table edge. In effect 10 lets you deploy into your own half from the short table edge.
Rending: Triggers on a roll of 9 or 10 to wound. Against vehicles, roll an additional 2D5 and pick the highest result.
Sniper: Precision Shots for Sniper Weapons and Characters trigger on a result of 9 or 10 to hit.
Unit Types
Bikes and Jetbikes:
The vague rule regarding how many weapons Bikes and Jetbikes can fire is removed. Instead if a Bike or Jetbike equipped model can fire more than one weapon at a time it will be stated in their codex.

Weapons:
Template:
Template weapons now cause D5 hits when firing an Overwatch.

Power Weapons:
Due to the changes in the range of Armour Values, Power Weapons will need to have their AP values rebalanced. Typically, we will keep anything that is AP1 or 2 as AP1 or 2, AP 3 weapons will move to whatever the standard Power Armour save is, most likely 4+, and AP4 weapons will move to AP 6.
Strength Bonuses will remain unchanged unless play-testing suggests otherwise.

Grenades:
Characteristics not mentioned below remain unchanged.
Assault Grenades: S4, AP9
Plasma Grenades: S5, AP5
Krak Grenades: S7, AP6
Melta Bombs: S10, AP1

Characters:
Precision Strikes:
These trigger on a roll of 10 to hit.

Psykers:
While I personally disagree with the direction psychic powers have taken in this edition, it is not my place to insert my own petty feelings into this discussion.

Perils of the Warp:
PotW triggers on a roll of double one or double 10 and inflicts two wounds, although the Psyker may attempt to resist the Perils by rolling a 6+ on a D10. If the Psyker does resist the Perils, they suffer only one wound.

Deny the Witch:
Deny the Witch succeeds on a roll of 10+ of a D10.

Vehicles:
Armour Value:
Armour Value now can range from 10 to 18.

Blast Weapons:
Blast weapons that hit a vehicle but have no part of their hull underneath the centre hole of the Blast Marker strike the vehicle with -1 strength. If the centre hole is even partially above the hull the weapon hits at full strength.

Armour Penetration Rolls:
Weapons roll a D10 and add the weapons strength. If the result is equal to the armour facing or one below it, it is a Glancing Hit. If the result is greater than the armour value, then it is a Penetrating hit. Otherwise, no damage is inflicted.

Resolving Damage:
If a mobile vehicle would lose it's final Hull Point due to a Glancing Hit, it instead becomes Immobilised. If the vehicle is already immobilised, it will be wrecked as normal.

Wrecked Vehicles:
Wrecked Vehicles provide an 8+ cover save.

Obscured Vehicles:
Standard cover save for obscuration is now 7+. Heavily Obscured vehicles have a 5+ cover save.

Transport Vehicles:
Embark and Disembark ranges increased to 6cm.

Battlefield Terrain:
Difficult Terrain:
Normal Tests roll 3D10 and add together the highest result and half the next highest result as the maximum distance they may move.
Dangerous Terrain:
Roll a D5 instead.

Buildings:
Armour Values are as follows:
Bastion: 17
Plascrete: 16
Rockcrete: 14
Brick House: 12
Wooden Outpost: 11
Wood Shed: 10

Ruins:
Ruins provide a 6+ cover save and their bases an 8+ cover save.
The amount of movement required to traverse ruin levels should be determined pre game on a case by case basis.
Barrage Weapons that hit a unit with no models on the absolute highest level of a ruin now hit the uppermost models of the unit. Each level below the uppermost level that these models are on adds +1 to their cover save.

Forests:
Razorwing Nests trigger if a player rolls a 7+.

Rivers:
Dæmon Bile: Models lose 1D5 Warp Charges.
Industrial Ooze: Provides an 8+ Cover Save.

Battlefield Debris:
Unless otherwise stated, Debris that provided a 4+ cover save now provides a 7+ cover save and debris that provided a 5+ or 6+ cover save now provides a 9+ cover save.
Fuel Reserve: Causes Strength 4 AP 10 hits on detonation.

Archeotech Artefacts:
Virus Outbreak: A roll of 10 is always counted as failing by 1.
Force Dome Generator: Grants a 6+ invulnerable save.
Psychneuein Hive: Causes D5 hits.

Mission Special Rules:
Night Fighting:
As expected, Night Fights occur on a roll of 6+ on a D10. The rules for Turn 5+ Night fighting use 6+ on a D10 as well.

Reserves:
Reserve rolls are now made at the start of the Move Units sub-phase and thus do not count towards Pass Point calculation. After determining which units are to arrive from reserve the phase proceeds as normal, with the players naturally having to select a unit that is arriving from reserve before selecting other units until no more units are arriving from reserve.
Reserve rolls are now made on D10s, with a result of 6+ needed for Turn 2 reserves and a result of 5+ needed for Turn 3 reserves.
Units arriving from Ongoing Reserves do so at the start of the Move Units sub-phase and thus do not count towards Pass Point calculation.

Mysterious Objectives:
Retains the D6 table for effects. Sabotaged also retains the D6 roll to see if it detonates. Detonations remain unchanged. Scatterfield grants a 10+ cover save to units in the open.

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2014/03/22 12:47:21


 
   
Made in gb
Lieutenant Colonel




@BaconCatBug.
If you need to re write all the codex books just to swap to a d10 and make a few minor changes.
Why not address the core issues to arrive at a cleaner game system while you do it?

My opinion of the current game play is it is good right now.
However, the rule system that delivers the game play is possibly the most over complicated and diffuse rule set to be sold in the world.
(Free to down load rule sets have more intuitive and elegant rules.)

   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






I agree that the swap to D10 would be pretty intensive, but what do you think of just the turn structure change?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9rcO5sQ7ReFUGI4cEQxM2NjZkE/edit?usp=sharing

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/22 12:46:10


 
   
Made in gb
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant






Rather than one unit at a time, there should be a roll off at the start of each turn, and the winner decides which order units will move from the FOC, so the winner of the roll off is player two, so going second and states that the troops are to move first, then elites, then heavy support etc etc, so player one moves all his troops, then player two does, then player one moves elites.... etc etc etc.

Any choice that cannot be taken by your opponent goes last, so say your opponent hasn't got any elites for example, that stops you from moving all your troops, they moves theirs then you move your elits and heavy support straight after.

Shooting and assault would then work in the same way, so shooting would be staggered, and so would assault etc etc.

My hobby instagram account: @the_shroud_of_vigilance
My Shroud of Vigilance Hobby update blog for me detailed updates and lore on the faction:
Blog 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






That seems needlessly complicated for the sake of being complicated. It also punishes players for choices in the opponents army list they have no control over.

If you have a squad of Elites and your opponent doesn't, you're now forced to leave it there for last, allowing your opponent to move their Troops around to surround it rather than being able to react to the first unit move towards them.

Same for shooting, if you have 2 Heavy Support units and they don't, the opponent now has the chance to wipe them out before you get an opportunity to shoot with them just from the fact that the opponent has no HS left.
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




Here's an alternative to the suppression rules others have suggested.

A unit which has remained completely stationary may lay down suppressive fire against an enemy unit or on a particular spot on the battlefield.
To suppress an enemy unit, nominate a target which is both in range and in cover. Make no shots at this stage. If the suppressed unit breaks out of cover, resolve a normal volley of fire, measured to the starting location of the enemy unit, but ignoring the piece of cover that they were in. Other intervening cover applies as normal.

To suppress a location, place a small blast marker on that location. The first enemy unit to enter that area during the following player turn will be targeted. Resolve a volley of shots measured to the centre of the marker. All rules for shooting apply as normal, including cover.

If desired, it could require a leadership test for enemy units to trigger these shots by performing the suppressed action, but I don't feel that it would improve the rule. As others have pointed out, a single guy with a pistol shouldn't be able to suppress a whole unit and I cannot see a satisfactory way of placing limits on that without making the rules over-complicated.


A lot of the rules suggested by others sound far more like pinning than suppression to me. They'd be represented more easily by having high ROF weapons, like heavy bolters, gain the pinning rule - or by having a morale check exactly equaling Ld to cause pinning rather than actually pass.
   
Made in nl
Fresh-Faced New User




Bacon, your rules seem really solid and I am very impressed.
One thing I picked up was the use of rolling to see who goes first every turn. This strikes me as unnecessary as it add extra luck elements and the alternating phases means that there is not much gained/lost in who goes first. You could have one roll at the start of the turn if you really felt that it adds something but I just seems to be more effort.

Another was the keeping of random charge distance. Again I feel that less random would be better (hell, I think pre-measuring should be fine, no guess work).

Finally, I remember some mention of cutting down the shooting to only two rolls (to hit-includes cover modifiers, and to wound-includes armor). Personally I feel that is is a noble goal and would suit a more streamlined game. The main problem is bring the combined factors of BS, cover, toughness, strength, AP and armor in only two rolls. Especially using a chart system like currently used (4D charts!?).

Personally I feel a "I move everything, you move everything" etc. would work better for large numbers of units (which is where things are heading, especially with apoc). Can you imagine trying to coordinate alternating movement across 3 players a side with 15 units each? There is no real ability to move things simultaneously and so everything is moved in sequence, which may take a while. Just something to consider,
maybe you speed it up by saying that for every 4000 pnts on the table, you move that many units per subphase (1 unit a subphase: 0-2000 pnt games, 2 for 2000-4000pnt, etc.) I get this wont do much for most games but for large ones, being able to move more than one unit would really help.
Another option is one unit per player per subphase. This way everyone does something in their teams subphase and it is easier for calculating pass markers as everything is shared. (though you divide the number of units by the number that can be used each sub phase)

Just some ideas. keep up the great work. This heresy will rise yet!
   
Made in gb
Lieutenant Colonel




Hi folks.
Just some general comments.
Randomizing who goes first each turn , is a decent way to add tactical depth, as players need to plan for acting first or second.
(If the rest of the game has lost the pointless dice rolling, it is not that much hassle rolling off at the start of the turn.)

The variety of units and equipment in 40k needs a 3 stage damage resolution process .(But a more streamlined resolution with more appropriate methods to speed it up!)
After developing several different damage systems for 40k, all the 2 stage ones iether lost detail or became complicated with additional rules like the current system in GW 40k.

A simple 3 stage damage resolution that works both for ranged and close combat , that is quick and simple to use is what I am aiming for.
With unit and weapon stats on a unit card for easy in game reference.(To save looking through books in game!)

Roll to see/hit. (Based on target model skill value.)

Roll to see if hits penetrate the armour of the target.(Models AV + D6 vs Weapons AP value. as vehicles in FoW.)

Roll to damage .(Weapons have a base damage roll, target has a resilience modifier.)

Example.
Roll to hit .
SM fires a boltgun at an ork, in light cover.
Ork has a stealth value of 3, which is incresed to 4 because the ork is in light cover.
SM needs a 4+ to hit!

Roll Armour save.
The Ork has a AV of 2, the Bolt gun has a AP of 6.
The Ork needs to roll 5+ for the armour to save .(2+5=7)
If the ork passes the armour save it takes no damage.If the ork fails the armour save it is suppressed.(And may be wounded.)

Roll to damage .(If the Ork fails the armour save roll.)
The SM player has to roll the damage value of the boltgun,(4+) to wound the Ork.
This is modified by the Orks resilience value (+1) to make a damage roll of 5+
if the SM player rolls a 5+ the ork is wounded..

Having base values on the stat line, with limited modifiers , makes for fast intuitive game play.IMO

I may need to explain that better.
   
Made in nl
Fresh-Faced New User




I approve of the removal of charts, they are a pain in the butt.

However I find the idea that shooting is done based on the target's stat strange. While the accuracy of a space marine and an ork differ wildly, the capacity of them to take cover doesn't. While i can see some use to make larger targets easier to hit I think that sicking to BS makes more sense.

As for a two roll system here is my idea (it's a bit rough and would me all stats need to be re written), also it is done in D10 to work with bacon's rules above:

Roll to hit: Roll under your ballistic skill
For example, normally a marine has a 2/3 chance to hit (3+) so he would have a ballistic skill of 7.
(note: i realize the idea of trying to roll low is strange but otherwise low stats are good, or you use a chart like GW)
Cover saves can now be included as negative modifiers to your BS (-1 to -4) and this opens the door for future abilities to edit the BS of units (a D10 scale makes this less powerful than it currently is).
You could include +1BS for shooting at a target within 15cm or something similar for far away. Also you could include some modifiers to take into account the size of the model you are shooting (based on ratings of bulky, very bulky, etc.)

Roll to wound/includes armor:
use this equation to determine what you need to roll under:
5+Weapon Strength - Target Toughness - (Sv - AP)
(Note: the part (Sv-AP) is at least 0)
I know it seems complicated but it's not, you just take 5, add the weapons strength, subtract the target's toughness, and finally subtract the Sv minus the AP.
This way, much like it is now, a unit being shot by a weapon with the same strength as its toughness has a half chance of being wounded (not including saves)

The idea of including the armor save with the strength test is so that a armor can be beaten by high strength weapons an AP isn't so "save or no save" but rather a gradient)

On both these roll you might want to put in something like 1 always succeeds and a 10 always fails. and all weapon and unit stts will need to be re-calibrated.

Its a bit rough (and I too suck at explaining) but it's only two rolls without any charts needed (just an equation :p)
   
Made in us
Preacher of the Emperor






Actually, the Ork and the Marine may have very different skill levels when it comes to taking cover. One significant factor in the Arab-Israeli wars, I've read, was that Arab tank crews tended to just roll on ahead while Israelis used every slight dip and rise in the terrain to make themselves a smaller target. A "being harder to hit" stat would be a great thing in a tactical game.

BURN IT DOWN BURN IT DOWN BABY BURN IT DOWN

 Psienesis wrote:
Well, if you check out Sister Sydney's homebrew/expansion rules, you'll find all kinds of units the Sisters could have, that fit with the theme of the Sisters (as a tabletop army) perfectly well, and are damn-near-perfectly balanced.

I’m updating that fandex now & I’m eager for feedback on new home-brew units for the Sisters: Sororitas Bikers, infiltrators & Novices, tanks, flyers, characters, superheavies, Frateris Militia, and now Confessors and Battle Conclave characters
My Novice Ginevra stories start with Bolter B-Word Privileges 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






Well, if anything Orks and Space Marines should be bad at taking cover while Imperial Guard are better.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Wichita, KS

I like the direction you are going. Rolls to hit could be affected by cover.
BS - 1 (light cover) or 2 (heavy cover) or 3 (airborne) - 1 if suppressed. Can't go below 1 (6+) or above 5 (2+)

Hits auto wound, but Saves are modified:
Armor + 1 (if Toughness > Strength or Vehicle armor facing > 2 * Strength) + 1 (If unit type MC or Vehicle type Tank) - 1 (if S>T or 2*S > AF) - 1 (if unit type light Infantry or vehicle type light vehicle) - AP

Max save is a 2+ Min is 6+

If you could get it down to 1 attack and 1 save, It would move faster, but keep each player engaged in the combat. By fixing the stupid AP system, you remove the need for invuls and can simply bump up the Armor value to a high number (say 10), while keeping the AP values 6 or less. Also this would enable GW to incooperate their beloved super heavies without breaking the game. Everyone always has a chance to hurt them.

I would also add that Vehicles could lose a weapon every time they lose 25% of hull points, and become immobilized when they have lost 75% of HP.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/03/25 04:49:09


 
   
Made in gb
Lieutenant Colonel




@BaconCatBug.
Yes, IG being rather more concerned with self preservation, than heavily armoured super humans and homicidal fungus.Would be harder to hit!(Stealth value 4+).
The ability/desire to use stealth to survive is usually inverse to the amount of resilience/armour the target has
40k has massive variety in unit types and motivation.(Unlike WHFB where most targets are large block of troops in close formation.)

@All.
If we simply use the shooter skill as a base.
Then we need modifiers for,target size /agility/skill .(Stealth, for a general term.)And situation dependent things like range and cover.

However , if we use target skill as the base to hit score, and effective range as an indicator of shooter skill.(Number of attacks for close combat ability.)Values on unit card.
There there is only situation dependent modifiers to take into account.

I was going for the simplest resolution I could think of.(Fewest modifiers and values to get a decent level of interaction and detail.)

If You drop to a 2 stage resolution method.
It leads to the use of more modifiers , range, cover, toughness ,etc.And the position of where these modifiers take effect can be a bit ambiguous.
Does toughness modify the to hit and damage roll or the save roll.Do you need a separate suppression mechanic?
They do work , but tend to get a bit complicated.

A 'cleaner 3 stage system' runs just as fast, and actually faster in some cases.
Player perception is also important.2 stage resolution methods are standard in game with infantry on bases.(6mm to 15mm) .
But players expect more detail in larger scale minature resolution.(20mm and higher.)

I think most people are happy with cover effecting the to hit roll.(To get rid of the additional cover saves.)

However, I prefer to use the system where things that make the action harder increase the target score.(EG 3+ to hit becomes 4+ to hit.)And things that make the action easier adds to the dice roll.

-1 to hit, making the to hit score GO UP by 1 , is a bit counter intuitive for new players.
ADDING 1 to the stealth score of the target is much more intuitive.(That IG unit are 4+ to hit, but they are in cover that is 5+ to hit .)
   
Made in nl
Fresh-Faced New User




@Lanrak
I can get behind the idea of a single stat which covers how easy a unit is to hit (Stealth, for a general term) and when rolling to hit you compare BS to stealth (much like WS vs WS in combat). I can also see the idea of increasing stealth (evasion might work better) based on cover and equipment (camo cloaks, etc.)

With respect for two roll systems, I agree that you do end up applying lot's of modifiers (for added detail), however I like the idea that a weapon can be strong enough to blast through your armor and kill you without AP (like an explosion or a big rock falling on you), and the idea of a gradated scale of AP vs Sv rather than "yes or no" makes more sense. Any ideas in how to incorporate this level of interaction between the two stats? I find carrying over details from one step into another is hard.

@all
I also agree that players expect I high level of detail with warhammer so I have to wonder about what level of gaming abstraction we want. Would there be an evasion stat for vehicles or will we work with line of sight and the obscured rule, allowing players to take the roll of the tactical tank crew rather than the dice. Would a unit that is moving get the same evasion stat as a stationary one? Does the range effect the units accuracy? Can you always have a chance of surviving a hit, no matter how strong the weapon? Does your armor have the same chance of stopping a pistol as a rifle (as long as its AP is high enough)? There are many abstractions in warhammer and any re-writing of the rules will need to think about what level they are planing to play at (oh, and keep it balanced too)
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: