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.

New ruleset:

Units coming from normal reserves are allowed to assault in the same turn, this excludes special reserves (e.g. deep strike, outflank, flank march, daemon portals and webway portals)

A unit can charge after embarking from a vehicle, however this will count as a disordered charge unless it is an assault vehicle.

If a non-assault transport vehicle gets destroyed then units that were within the transport are still allowed to assault, however this will count as a disordered charge.

Units are allowed to move the highest die rolled for charge distance, even if it is not enough to make the charge.

Ignores Cover does a -2 modifier to the target's cover save, templates still ignore cover completely.

When a challenger declares a challenge, the opponent must first choose a challengee. If the challengee has a higher leadership value than the challenger, then the challenger has to take a leadership test. When failed he is not allowed to issue a challenge this turn.

Rules to be playtested:
First roll a d6 and then choose a Warlord Trait Table

Infiltrating units are allowed to assault in the first turn

Vehicle Damage Table:
1-2 Crew Shaken
3 Crew Stunned
4 Weapon Destroyed
5 Immobilised
6 Wrecked
7 Explodes!

More feedback please

HP system Overhaul; when a vehicle has 0HP , he isn't Wrecked, he instead continue the battle like normal.

instead, when he suffers a Glancing Hit, you throw on the Damage chart, just like the vehicle was Hit by a penetrating Hit.

Units that disembark from an immobile transport, can assault that turn.

No need for Disordered charge or Init 1, because with all those restrictions, people will simply play them has they are now, and there will be no change.

Shooting in this game is allready Powerfull enough, no need to make GW-nerfs style on CC even more.

Somone i know suggested Sweeping advance like in 3rd Ed, meaning that if a Unit comes in contact with ennemy models when making a Sweeping Advance, they count has they have assaulted that unit, the assaulted unit can Overwatch if they are not allready engaged in CC.

Change to WS chart, it can work in two different ways, 1) just like with Ballistic skill, if you have WS6 you can reroll all your attacks, but you only hit on 6's, with WS 7 you reroll and hit og 5's etc.
Or 2) for each 2 points of WS above WS5, you get to reroll ONE dice, so WS7 you reroll ONE dice, while WS 9 you reroll 2 dices.

Units that have the Fleet special rule, can assault, even if they come from reserves, the only exception is if they come into play from Deep Strike.
They also reroll the dice on the Assault range.

Assault range is 6"+1D6, if you assault through difficult terrain you Throw 2 dices and discard the highest.

 Slayer le boucher wrote:
HP system Overhaul; when a vehicle has 0HP , he isn't Wrecked, he instead continue the battle like normal.

instead, when he suffers a Glancing Hit, you throw on the Damage chart, just like the vehicle was Hit by a penetrating Hit.

I've never understood this particular change. That'd mean vehicles were MORE survivable than in 5th.

Not really, because even on a Glancing hit, there is chances for the vehicles to get Exploded, while you only could do that in 5th if you had a Penertating Hit.

Updated rules. Left out the experimental rules for clarity's sake

Units coming from normal reserves are allowed to assault in the same turn, this excludes special reserves (e.g. deep strike, outflank, flank march, daemon portals and webway portals)

A unit can charge after embarking from a vehicle, however this will count as a disordered charge unless it is an assault vehicle.

If a non-assault transport vehicle gets destroyed then units that were within the transport are still allowed to assault in their next assault phace, however this will count as a disordered charge.

Units are allowed to move halve the charge distance, even if it is not enough to make the charge.

Ignores Cover does a -2 modifier to the target's cover save, templates still ignore cover completely.

a challengee can decline a challenge without penalties if he has a higher leadership value than the challenger

Assault range is 4"+1D6, if you assault through difficult terrain you throw 2 dice and discard the highest.

I don't think vehicles need to be more survivable. 5th edition had far too many metal boxes rolling around. The HP system is a good idea, honestly.

If anything I would just add an additional hull point to every vehicle. This way vehicles can still be killed, but it will require more attention.

The misconception that vehicles just randomly fall apart isn't true. In the average game I see far more vehicles explode than simply get hull pointed to death (Necrons excluded)

Well an additional fix would be no FB on Dedicated transports (or certain types)

as it seems to be one of those complaints.

 Desubot wrote:
Well an additional fix would be no FB on Dedicated transports (or certain types)

as it seems to be one of those complaints.

FB?

small update: a challengee can decline a challenge without penalties if he has a higher leadership value than the challenger

 elzadar wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Well an additional fix would be no FB on Dedicated transports (or certain types)

as it seems to be one of those complaints.

FB?

small update: a challengee can decline a challenge without penalties if he has a higher leadership value than the challenger

I honestly think Challenges should be removed altogether.

It is fluffy/cinematic for a select combination of factions or scenarios, but overall it is clunky and doesn't make sense for the vast majority. Going a bit further, challenges actually obsoleted a large amount of viable wargear choices (eg powerfists on sergeants), and they can be used to gimp legitimately expensive melee characters from doing anything, save outright murdering a single sergeant model with no upgrades, while their squad is free to attack

 elzadar wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Well an additional fix would be no FB on Dedicated transports (or certain types)

as it seems to be one of those complaints.

FB?

small update: a challengee can decline a challenge without penalties if he has a higher leadership value than the challenger

First blood

Since challenger nominates if the opponent declines, i think the challenger should be allowed to nominate a model or character with lower LD.

 Desubot wrote:

 elzadar wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Well an additional fix would be no FB on Dedicated transports (or certain types)

as it seems to be one of those complaints.

FB?

small update: a challengee can decline a challenge without penalties if he has a higher leadership value than the challenger

First blood

Since challenger nominates if the opponent declines, i think the challenger should be allowed to nominate a model or character with lower LD.

That would make duelist characters, such as aun'shi, Lucius the Eternal, and some Dark Eldar characters completely awful. So it is important challenges stay in place, but lesser champions shouldn't be able to tie up larger opponents.

Err i mean the challenger, IF the opponent has declined to accept a challenge, should nominate an opponents character that has lower LD to not fight.

AKA, Tau charges with aun'shi against a tac squad that has a chap master. Tau declares a challenge and tac refuses.
Tau can only pick the sergeant and not the CM.

XenosTerminus wrote:
I don't think vehicles need to be more survivable. 5th edition had far too many metal boxes rolling around. The HP system is a good idea, honestly.

If anything I would just add an additional hull point to every vehicle. This way vehicles can still be killed, but it will require more attention.

The misconception that vehicles just randomly fall apart isn't true. In the average game I see far more vehicles explode than simply get hull pointed to death (Necrons excluded)

This.

HP was a very neat idea, however was executed poorly when giving out how many HP to the tanks of 40k.

But I would strongly suggest doubling the HP of all tanks, as it shows that tanks are still tough as they are in modern day warfare and would make sense from a fluff perspective (with LR/BW/Monoliths would be shown as they would be in the fluff with 8HP as a mighty fortress that advances for example).

 happygolucky wrote:

XenosTerminus wrote:
I don't think vehicles need to be more survivable. 5th edition had far too many metal boxes rolling around. The HP system is a good idea, honestly.

If anything I would just add an additional hull point to every vehicle. This way vehicles can still be killed, but it will require more attention.

The misconception that vehicles just randomly fall apart isn't true. In the average game I see far more vehicles explode than simply get hull pointed to death (Necrons excluded)

This.

HP was a very neat idea, however was executed poorly when giving out how many HP to the tanks of 40k.

But I would strongly suggest doubling the HP of all tanks, as it shows that tanks are still tough as they are in modern day warfare and would make sense from a fluff perspective (with LR/BW/Monoliths would be shown as they would be in the fluff with 8HP as a mighty fortress that advances for example).

Doubling Hull Points on higher AV vehicles won't really do anything, except nerf Gauss.

I can probably count the number of times a Land Raider or Monolith has been glanced to death on a single hand over the course of 6th edition games up to this point. Typically these things get one-shotted by melta or punched to death by MC Smashes.

Conversely, doubling HP on lower AV tanks is a bit much, as you will likely never see anything actually wrecked. If vehicles suddenly become twice as survivable to the prevalence of High Str low AP weapons that tend to flood the board, more people would take dedicated anti-tank weapons, and would rely on 'Explodes' results (just like 5th).

The key, I feel, is to slightly increase their longevity to glances without reverting to unkillable tanks, especially for some armies.

XenosTerminus wrote:

 happygolucky wrote:

XenosTerminus wrote:
I don't think vehicles need to be more survivable. 5th edition had far too many metal boxes rolling around. The HP system is a good idea, honestly.

If anything I would just add an additional hull point to every vehicle. This way vehicles can still be killed, but it will require more attention.

The misconception that vehicles just randomly fall apart isn't true. In the average game I see far more vehicles explode than simply get hull pointed to death (Necrons excluded)

This.

HP was a very neat idea, however was executed poorly when giving out how many HP to the tanks of 40k.

But I would strongly suggest doubling the HP of all tanks, as it shows that tanks are still tough as they are in modern day warfare and would make sense from a fluff perspective (with LR/BW/Monoliths would be shown as they would be in the fluff with 8HP as a mighty fortress that advances for example).

Doubling Hull Points on higher AV vehicles won't really do anything, except nerf Gauss.

I can probably count the number of times a Land Raider or Monolith has been glanced to death on a single hand over the course of 6th edition games up to this point. Typically these things get one-shotted by melta or punched to death by MC Smashes.

Conversely, doubling HP on lower AV tanks is a bit much, as you will likely never see anything actually wrecked. If vehicles suddenly become twice as survivable to the prevalence of High Str low AP weapons that tend to flood the board, more people would take dedicated anti-tank weapons, and would rely on 'Explodes' results (just like 5th).

The key, I feel, is to slightly increase their longevity to glances without reverting to unkillable tanks, especially for some armies.

This, I find HP works as good as it is now


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Updated rules. Left out the experimental rules for clarity's sake

Units coming from normal reserves are allowed to assault in the same turn, this excludes special reserves (e.g. deep strike, outflank, flank march, daemon portals and webway portals)

A unit can charge after embarking from a vehicle, however this will count as a disordered charge unless it is an assault vehicle.

If a non-assault transport vehicle gets destroyed then units that were within the transport are still allowed to assault in their next assault phace, however this will count as a disordered charge.

Units are allowed to move halve the charge distance, even if it is not enough to make the charge.

Ignores Cover does a -2 modifier to the target's cover save, templates still ignore cover completely.

a challengee can decline a challenge without penalties if he has a higher leadership value than the challenger

Assault range is 4"+1D6, if you assault through difficult terrain you throw 2 dice and discard the highest.

open40k etc

Well considering GW "is not concerning itself with game balance or competitive play in any respect" I don't know why anyone would think its a good idea to use their rules for the competitive play that they themselves say they don't give a damn about. They also give their full blessing to TOs to alter their rules to improve them, so I honestly don't see why this would be anything but a good idea.

I suppose elitist players and all that, but to a lesser extent thats what every proposed rule is, and theres no reason why people can't just say "ha, your rules suck, I'll use the BRB thank you"

Between your proposal to allow Infiltrating and Outflanking units to Assault the turn they arrive, AND giving Assaulting units 6" +D6, you're going way too far. Outflanking Assaulters would be too powerful.

I'd keep Assault at 2D6 as it is now. Allow Outflankers to Assault the turn they arrive, but they halve the charge distance rolled.

Also, allowing a unit to move its charge distance, even if failed is a bit crazy. That means I could declare an Assault against a unit that can't Overwatch me, such as some Genestealers. Then I could use my failed charge movement to move AWAY from the Genestealers.

Here's my two cents:

Vehicles
If a Vehicle with no hull points suffers a glancing hit, treat it as a Penetrating Hit and add +1 to the Vehicle Damage Table. If a Vehicle with no hull points suffers a penetrating hit, add +2 to the Damage Table result.
Keep Vehicle Damage table as it exists in 6th Edition. However, change result 6 to "Wrecked". Whenever a vehicle is "Wrecked", roll a D6. On a result of 1 or 2, the Vehicle Explodes!
In Assault, an Immobile Vehicle is hit automatically. A Moving Vehicle is treated as WS1. A Fast Vehicle adds 3 to the WS. A Skimmer adds 3 to the WS. (Thus a Skimmer is WS4, a Fast Skimmer is WS7). If a Vehicle moved Flat Out, add 2 to its WS.

Monstrous Creatures
Smash - Smash attacks happen at I1 and AP3. Monsters aren't able to make full use of their arrange of weaponry when using their bulk to try and crush a target.

I have other ideas but that's all I have time to write right now.

Murrdox wrote:
Also, allowing a unit to move its charge distance, even if failed is a bit crazy. That means I could declare an Assault against a unit that can't Overwatch me, such as some Genestealers. Then I could use my failed charge movement to move AWAY from the Genestealers.

Good point, I'll allow them to only move towards the unit they charged

Our playgroup has been working on a 6.5 of sorts for a while now.

I plan to post separately about it when it is closer to being done (right now we are beta testing a lot of core changes). My intention isn't to derail your thread/conversation, just add to the overall discussion with a similar thought process.

That being said, I can mention a few things we are working on or testing just in case it helps you with potential thoughts or ideas, as well as open it up for constructive C&C.

Deployment
__________
Each player rolls off. The winner determines if they want to deploy a SINGLE unit first or second. Players then alternate deploying individual units. List secrecy is encouraged to discourage setting up based on what your opponent has overall.

The Turn Structure
______________
Units now activate individually. This is not based on Initiative or any stats. Any unit can be chosen and activated. Players then alternate activating units until none are left. This is a complete game turn. When a unit activates they carry out everything they can do.

Steal the Initiative
______________
This is now done at the beginning of each turn. The player that rolls higher activates a unit first that turn. The player that activated second then gets a +1 result to their roll each subsequent turn, cumulative.

Movement Profiles
______________
Units have specific movement values- it is not nearly as consistent across the various units types anymore.

Difficult/Dangerous Terrain
_____________________
Moving through these types of terrain and/or assaulting confer a -1" modifier. That's it.

Running/Flat Out/Turbo Boosting
_________________________
Double your movement value by sacrificing Shooting.

Shooting Bonuses/Penalties
______________________
+1 BS to targets within 12". -1 BS to targets outside of 36".

Overwatch
________
This is an activated ability (different from Defensive Fire, which is what Overwatch currently is). The unit does not move or shoot, but can shoot at a target that moves within range/los of at least one weapon in the unit. They may then elect to fire at -1 BS.

Supressing Fire
_____________
A unit may choose to fire at -1 BS but cause Pinning.

Assaults
_______
Your charge distance is equal to your movement profile. Fleet allows you to assault after running. Pistols can be used in CC as one of your attacks based on your BS. Challenges removed. Consolidating = your movement value.

Morale Test Modifiers
_________________
25%: Standard
50%: -1 LD
75%: -2 LD

Pinning
______
A -1 modifier is applied to the test for unsaved wounds beyond the first, cumulative.

Snipers
______
+1 BS, Wounds infantry on a 2+. MC's on a 4+. Only capable of harming open-topped vehicles.

Look out Sir
_________
Removed

And They Shall Know No Fear
_______________________
Marines are subject to Fear, but only receiving a -1 penalty instead of being reduced to 1 for the associated stats. When regrouping from ATSKNF, you cannot move (only consolidate) but can act as normal.

Furious Charge
____________
+1 I and S

Jink
___
You must move a MINIMUM of 6" to benefit from a Jink





This is just off the top of my head. We basically went through everything in the book and redid things that needed work.

Thoughts?

XenosTerminus wrote:
Our playgroup has been working on a 6.5 of sorts for a while now.
This is just off the top of my head. We basically went through everything in the book and redid things that needed work.

. . .

Thoughts?

Not that I disagree with some of the rules you've written, but your change to the turn structure, and other changes would essentially require re-writing the entire game, and a lot of the codexes. Some of my Ork units would become unplayable with your "-1 to BS outside of 36"" rule.

Allowing any unit in the game to cause a Pinning check would get pretty ridiculous. If I was playing with my Eldar, I'd just use this ability by default whenever I was shooting at something that wasn't fearless.

I'd like to lose the "I go, you go" structure of 40k as much as the next gamer.

I cut my teeth on Battletech, and honestly I'd love it if 40k borrowed a page from how the Battletech turn structure goes. Everyone alternates moving models until all models have moved. Then everyone alternates fire until all models have fired. All casualties are still allowed to shoot, because damage is universally applied at the end of the shooting phase. You could "knock over" casualty models to indicate they should be removed at the end of the phase.

Unfortunately Assault is where it gets dicey. A lot depends on whether or not you assault or your opponent Assaults. Making this alternate would be tricky, and a lot of special Assault rules wouldn't work very well or would need to be re-written.

Why don´t you cover the basics of core

Murrdox wrote:
Also, allowing a unit to move its charge distance, even if failed is a bit crazy. That means I could declare an Assault against a unit that can't Overwatch me, such as some Genestealers. Then I could use my failed charge movement to move AWAY from the Genestealers.

The hell? I thought this was a given. Why would they be able to move away? Why would you think that?

More than anything else, this sums up the issue. People abide by RAW far too much, leading to ridiculous situations where you charge *away* from the genestealers.

Yup, you'd have to be careful with a thing like this.

I could declare a charge that I'm very unlikely to succeed at, and I could use that movement to sling-shot myself into Area Terrain, or out of LoS. Since charge range is 12", I can declare a charge on anything within 12". So if a unit is 10" away, I could get away with 7 or 8 inches of free movement out of a charge that I really had no intention of pulling off. Suddenly you're letting a unit move almost 24" over the course of ONE turn! One of the other potential rules the person stated was to allow Assault after running... and running is just a flat out DOUBLE of my movement.

So let's say you have a unit with these hypothetical rules that has a movement characteristic of 5 and Fleet. That'd mean I could move forward 10", and intentionally place myself within 11" of another unit. Then I declare a charge against that unit that's 11" away. I roll a 9 for my charge distance, but who cares, I never intended on making it. Now my unit has managed to move 19 inches in a single turn! That allows for a heck of a lot of movement shenanigans.

I think the best way to go about this is to decide what exactly is broken in the system, according to popular consensus. Once you've got a specific list, address those issues with fixes.

What comes to mind is;
-IGOUGO; Alpha strikes and boring, "watch the game and roll saves for 45 minutes" periods between your turns. Modern games are far more interactive, and 40k should follow suite.
-Shooting and Assault are not balanced. Shooty is more powerful, easier to pull off, and more versatile than choppy. Theres no reason to take assault lists from a rules point of view, only from a fluffy one.
-Shooty is mindless and effortless; "My 120" range S10 AP1 pie plate dropper deletes your unit. Your turn."
-Assault is gimped in a bunch of stupid ways; Double standards re; 2d6 assault range vs reliable shooting distance, assaulting vs shooting from deep strike or outflank or infiltrate, transports, getting disordered charge and 3d6 charge range from one model putting one foot into a piece of terrain, requirements for base to base contact - if unit A surrounded the enemy when they charged, unit B cannot attack / if enemy kills enough of your guys with their attack, your remainder are too far away to even swing because none can pile into base to base, and choppy troops being stranded after a victorious assault (no sweep into another unit)
-Game is based on hard counters system; To beat terminators, you don't use your force intelligently to engage them on your terms no... you just blast them with your terminator eraser AP2 cannon. Likewise if they have a terminator erasing AP2 cannon and you have terminators... game over man, nothing you can do. Hard counters makes the game all about what you bring and less about what you do with it. It does not take skill to realize that the best targets for your AP2 eraser are 2+ saves, or to go "hmmm I think my skyfire flak guns will target... your flyer! Genius!"
-Combohammer; Synergy and combohammer are different things. Bringing markerlights to improve shooting as needed is one thing, combining Azrael with 50 guardsmen for the maximum number of 4++ saves, or using tzeench magic for a 2+ rerollable, or battle brothers shenanigans to power up your list is something else. Despite arising from how units interact, a heavy combo focus removes focus from how you use your guys and shifts it to "what combo did you bring"
-Vehicles and Monstrous Creatures; Vehicles are far too easy to pop due to an ease of getting AP2/AP1, and Monsters are just randomly ten times harder to kill than their Dreadnaught or Flyer counterparts.

 Desubot wrote:
"deserve to be dragged into it!"

Is a strong word.

Because I feel pretty strongly about it!

If you put your guys too close together, they'll all be hit by a blast or flamer template. Why should assault be any different?

Murrdox wrote:

XenosTerminus wrote:
Our playgroup has been working on a 6.5 of sorts for a while now.
This is just off the top of my head. We basically went through everything in the book and redid things that needed work.

. . .

Thoughts?

Not that I disagree with some of the rules you've written, but your change to the turn structure, and other changes would essentially require re-writing the entire game, and a lot of the codexes. Some of my Ork units would become unplayable with your "-1 to BS outside of 36"" rule.

Allowing any unit in the game to cause a Pinning check would get pretty ridiculous. If I was playing with my Eldar, I'd just use this ability by default whenever I was shooting at something that wasn't fearless.

I'd like to lose the "I go, you go" structure of 40k as much as the next gamer.

I cut my teeth on Battletech, and honestly I'd love it if 40k borrowed a page from how the Battletech turn structure goes. Everyone alternates moving models until all models have moved. Then everyone alternates fire until all models have fired. All casualties are still allowed to shoot, because damage is universally applied at the end of the shooting phase. You could "knock over" casualty models to indicate they should be removed at the end of the phase.

Unfortunately Assault is where it gets dicey. A lot depends on whether or not you assault or your opponent Assaults. Making this alternate would be tricky, and a lot of special Assault rules wouldn't work very well or would need to be re-written.

Regarding the BS penalty outside 36"- for Ork that would mean essentially snap shooting, which doesn't drastically change the outcome in most cases, and only effects a small amount of weapons. Look at the opposite end of the spectrum though- Orks within 12" would be shooting at BS3. It benefits things as much as it hurts them, and makes more sense. 40k is always the most entertaining as things get closer to eachother, and conversely more carnage ensues when in close proximity (as it should be).

On the Suppressing Fire rule- it has a BS penalty. If you tried to just long range pin with everything you would miss a lot of shots, then have to actually cause casualties, and then they would have to fail Leadership. It may make sense to relegate this to Infantry only, but from testing it hasn't proven to be overpowered. It's a situational option that you can use. It's nice for units that you don't expect to deal a ton of damage to a specific unit, but try for a shot at pinning them to aid other units. We have found that in most cases shooting as normal is more effective, but trying for pinning is a nice alternative for interesting tactical interactions.

XenosTerminus wrote:

On the Suppressing Fire rule- it has a BS penalty. If you tried to just long range pin with everything you would miss a lot of shots, then have to actually cause casualties, and then they would have to fail Leadership. It may make sense to relegate this to Infantry only, but from testing it hasn't proven to be overpowered. It's a situational option that you can use. It's nice for units that you don't expect to deal a ton of damage to a specific unit, but try for a shot at pinning them to aid other units. We have found that in most cases shooting as normal is more effective, but trying for pinning is a nice alternative for interesting tactical interactions.

That's my point with Eldar. I'm BS4. Decreasing my Ballistic Skill to 3 isn't that big a deal. On top of that, most of my firing units are going to have Guide or Prescience on them, so I get to re-roll everything. Math-wise that means I've only added a small number of additional misses for my firing in exchange for causing a pinning test. So as long as I'm firing at something that isn't fearless, why wouldn't I do it? A couple misses in exchange for a Pinning test that could disable the entire unit I'm shooting at is pretty strong.

Other races besides Eldar would be able to pull similar shenanigans.

Still not a fan of the BS modifications. So my Guardians with their 12" weapons become BS 5? That's crazy powerful. My Orks with their Lootas are almost always going to be firing Snap Shots? Why would I ever use Lootas ever again? It's a pretty big nerf for the Lootas. You've HALVED their effectiveness at 36". Speaking as an Ork player who frequently has to use Lootas as anti-aircraft support, and thus frequently fires Snap Shots with them... I can tell you it blows. If I fired Snap Shots with them at ground-based things too, I'd just start taking other units. For other races with higher ballistic skill it might not be that bad.

IMO, your penalties for firing long range weapons are taken into account with Cover Saves. Another reason I'm not a fan of the rule is that it would make shooting more complicated. If I'm shooting at a unit with my Lootas, now not only do I need to measure range for the Lootas, I need to measure range to see who is within 36" and who isn't. If the unit is half in range, now I have to separate out my to-hit rolls.

Hi folks.
If you look at the list of problems Dakkamite listed.
Its is quite clear lots of people see the symptoms of a severe core problem.

The rules of 40k are not written for 40k, but are written for WHFB. And then modified with randomly applied and poorly conceived series of special rules.

If you want a 40k rule set that is quick to learn and fast and fun to play , with intuitive game play in synergy with the 40k background.
A complete re-write would be the most efficient way to proceed.

I would suggest a modern battle game rule set using game mechanics and resolution methods from modern battle games.
Rather than 1970s Napoleonic war games that were the core of WHFB, and by enforced extension 40k.

Land raiders are not chariots, Bolt guns are not bows, swords and shields are not multi-lasers, and flack armour!

Modern war games have an equal blend of mobility fire power and assault .And so I think this would be the best starting point for a re-write.

What sort of game turn mechanic do you think would work best for 40k?
An alternating game turn mechanic or interleaved phases?

Murrdox wrote:

XenosTerminus wrote:

On the Suppressing Fire rule- it has a BS penalty. If you tried to just long range pin with everything you would miss a lot of shots, then have to actually cause casualties, and then they would have to fail Leadership. It may make sense to relegate this to Infantry only, but from testing it hasn't proven to be overpowered. It's a situational option that you can use. It's nice for units that you don't expect to deal a ton of damage to a specific unit, but try for a shot at pinning them to aid other units. We have found that in most cases shooting as normal is more effective, but trying for pinning is a nice alternative for interesting tactical interactions.

That's my point with Eldar. I'm BS4. Decreasing my Ballistic Skill to 3 isn't that big a deal. On top of that, most of my firing units are going to have Guide or Prescience on them, so I get to re-roll everything. Math-wise that means I've only added a small number of additional misses for my firing in exchange for causing a pinning test. So as long as I'm firing at something that isn't fearless, why wouldn't I do it? A couple misses in exchange for a Pinning test that could disable the entire unit I'm shooting at is pretty strong.

Other races besides Eldar would be able to pull similar shenanigans.

Still not a fan of the BS modifications. So my Guardians with their 12" weapons become BS 5? That's crazy powerful. My Orks with their Lootas are almost always going to be firing Snap Shots? Why would I ever use Lootas ever again? It's a pretty big nerf for the Lootas. You've HALVED their effectiveness at 36". Speaking as an Ork player who frequently has to use Lootas as anti-aircraft support, and thus frequently fires Snap Shots with them... I can tell you it blows. If I fired Snap Shots with them at ground-based things too, I'd just start taking other units. For other races with higher ballistic skill it might not be that bad.

IMO, your penalties for firing long range weapons are taken into account with Cover Saves. Another reason I'm not a fan of the rule is that it would make shooting more complicated. If I'm shooting at a unit with my Lootas, now not only do I need to measure range for the Lootas, I need to measure range to see who is within 36" and who isn't. If the unit is half in range, now I have to separate out my to-hit rolls.

The Suppressing Fire ability is largely ignored by our playtesters, so I am not sure it will stick around for the entirety of the project. I will admit that it could be better utilized by certain armies.

On the topic of range penalties- these were put in place to discourage gunlines sitting on the opposite end of the board and firing at you with pinpoint accuracy, and encourage you to actually move within rapid fire range. While this hurts and buffs certain units, this isn't an issue with the mechanic so much as something that would need to be addressed within specific army books (IE Ork has weak anti-flyer- they need more answers for fliers instead of decrying the entire concept as flawed because of one unit).

The key to balancing the core mechanics is to view the game from an overall perspective, and not just from individual armies. If a great core ruleset is established it is much easier to balance armies around it, not the other way around.

Lanrak wrote:
Hi folks.
If you look at the list of problems Dakkamite listed.
Its is quite clear lots of people see the symptoms of a severe core problem.

The rules of 40k are not written for 40k, but are written for WHFB. And then modified with randomly applied and poorly conceived series of special rules.

If you want a 40k rule set that is quick to learn and fast and fun to play , with intuitive game play in synergy with the 40k background.
A complete re-write would be the most efficient way to proceed.

I would suggest a modern battle game rule set using game mechanics and resolution methods from modern battle games.
Rather than 1970s Napoleonic war games that were the core of WHFB, and by enforced extension 40k.

Land raiders are not chariots, Bolt guns are not bows, swords and shields are not multi-lasers, and flack armour!

Modern war games have an equal blend of mobility fire power and assault .And so I think this would be the best starting point for a re-write.

What sort of game turn mechanic do you think would work best for 40k?
An alternating game turn mechanic or interleaved phases?

Like I said when 6th first landed "welcome to fantasy 40k"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This isn't a new idea.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/311702.page

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/574168.page

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/372631.page

Not that it isn't a good idea. Plenty of ideas in those links.

Murrdox wrote:
Between your proposal to allow Infiltrating and Outflanking units to Assault the turn they arrive, AND giving Assaulting units 6" +D6, you're going way too far. Outflanking Assaulters would be too powerful.

I'd keep Assault at 2D6 as it is now. Allow Outflankers to Assault the turn they arrive, but they halve the charge distance rolled.

Also, allowing a unit to move its charge distance, even if failed is a bit crazy. That means I could declare an Assault against a unit that can't Overwatch me, such as some Genestealers. Then I could use my failed charge movement to move AWAY from the Genestealers.

Here's my two cents:

Vehicles
If a Vehicle with no hull points suffers a glancing hit, treat it as a Penetrating Hit and add +1 to the Vehicle Damage Table. If a Vehicle with no hull points suffers a penetrating hit, add +2 to the Damage Table result.
Keep Vehicle Damage table as it exists in 6th Edition. However, change result 6 to "Wrecked". Whenever a vehicle is "Wrecked", roll a D6. On a result of 1 or 2, the Vehicle Explodes!
In Assault, an Immobile Vehicle is hit automatically. A Moving Vehicle is treated as WS1. A Fast Vehicle adds 3 to the WS. A Skimmer adds 3 to the WS. (Thus a Skimmer is WS4, a Fast Skimmer is WS7). If a Vehicle moved Flat Out, add 2 to its WS.

Monstrous Creatures
Smash - Smash attacks happen at I1 and AP3. Monsters aren't able to make full use of their arrange of weaponry when using their bulk to try and crush a target.

I have other ideas but that's all I have time to write right now.

Just a rude question about the MC rules. First of all, why AP3? That means they are weaker when smashing then hitting. Along with that, the I1 is variable. On Khorne (who is one of the more crummy MCs), it really isn't helpful as it makes him weaker and crippled him from his I9. Slaanesh also loses I10. Then you have Tervigons and even riptides where a nerf from their initiative... isn't really worth a slight note. Finally, from what I gather, the MCs that are really dooming others isn't really the CC ones but more of the shooy ones. The problem with MC seems to primarily be that they are not only good at CC, but are also tanky, mobile, and extremely good shooting platforms. For the riptide, being able to kill things is the icing on the top. But that's not what you get the riptide for. YOu get it for devestating firepower and extreme survivability as well as above average mobility.

Anyways, I concur. Simply put, the only answer to 40k is to break it down and rebuild it. The rules are crippled with a problem with identity. Fantasy is written for armies where shooting is less common, whilst in 40k it is a heavy aspect in comparison. In 40k more than fantasy, there must be balance between shooting and assault. There are too many armies that rely on shooting and too many relying on assaulting to cripple that. 40k is Sci Fantasy, the very nature that assault is a big component and there are psykers (and generals fighting in CC often) makes this very apparent, but you can't play just fantasy in space. You need to acknowledge both the sci-fi part and the fantasy part. Merge them. Which is the biggest problem. All we can do is put bandaids but the patient is still bleeding out. Any changes we host here have unintended side effects and the pricing of units would need to change to respond to this (admittedly they already do need to)