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.

So, looking at the main grievances people have with 40k we see the rather exorbitant entry level cost to pick up the hobby, the lamentation of codices not being released and updated for various factions, the lack of game balance and the loss of support for specialist games such as Necromunda. I think the core of the problem is the unwieldiness of the whole enterprise - with so many factions to cater to and the strange mindset that revenue is generated by pushing Imperial knights (by definition a product aimed at those who've collected for years) instead of making the game friendlier to new players, GW are shooting themselves in the foot.

So, what I propose is:

One BRB to rule them all.

What I would appreciate is a modular kind of basic rule book that could be used for many different kinds of games. Using a standard template of basic rules as our platform, we'd then have sets of specialised rules for different points levels. Want a small skirmish game with a squad of tacticals and a captain pitted against a warboss and his boyz? Sure, there are rules to make that kind of thing entertaining and immersive. Want an apocalypse game with squadrons of baneblades against hundreds of tyranids? Sure, there are rules for that too. Different points levels kinda require different rules though and that's why I propose the following:

Ruleset Necromunda:

See what I did there? These would be skirmish rules used for games up to, say, 500 points. Since you're playing with a small number of models, each model should have more actions available to them and missions etc would be designed with small warband affairs in mind. Slap on optional rules for character progression and whatnot et voila, we have Necromunda again. The existence of, and official support for, skirmish kind of games would lower the financial bar for people new to the game and would also be just GREAT in conjunction with starter packs and promotional games in LFGSes. I keep hearing good things about Deadzone by Mantic and there you get two balanced (from what I hear) armies and all the scenery and rules you need for pretty much the same money you get three centurions. You might say that the centurions are higher quality than the restic Deadzone models and you might be right, but still... something terribly off about that.

I'm pretty sure that, if there were more affordable starter packs with two balanced armies in them sold as complete games, more people would start playing 40k. The gaming aspect of 40k is a social activity and this is how you attract friends to the hobby. "Yeah, bought that 40k starter pack with Chaos Marines and Eldar in it, want to play a game on Saturday?" is how you expand the fanbase. Dark Vengeance was ok but too unbalanced, but let's not get into the gripes I have with DV now.

Ruleset Warband

Your standard ruleset for games between 500 and 2000 points or so. Here you see more tanks and stuff, and this is where people go when they feel they have outgrown ruleset Necromunda, or just want to try their hands at bigger games having expanded on their collection.

Ruleset Apocalypse

For the really big games, say 2000+ points, where rules have more emphasis on the actions of entire units instead of individual models. This is where flyers and knights and stuff really should come into their own.


Thing is, they could do all these things using the same model range! There is no real NEED for special Necromunda models if the expense of the moulds is an issue, they could support BOTH big apocalypse games and Necromunda-skirmishes using the same model range!


A different approach to codices:

Perhaps a bit controversial, but do we really need, what, seven codices for units in power armour? Looking at the new Marines codex and the introduction of chapter tactics makes me think there could as well just be one Codex: Marines. Want to play Blood Angels? Sure, look at the Blood Angels page in the Codex for additional rules and restrictions. Want to play Chaos Renegades? Sure, they have their own rules distinct from the Traitor Legions. Both flavours of Eldar could be one Codex, and Imperial Guard could have an addendum for Traitor Guard. I'm pretty sure that, by reducing the number of codices, you'll have less balancing issues and people wouldn't have to wait for entire editions for a new Codex.

Hi.
I agree with the whole principal you outlined.

If you write rules for the game play of 40k, rather than modify WHFB rules to try to make them fit, you get a much better rule set.

If you write a rule set to cover element interaction directly in an inclusive way.
You can simply make MODELS the element of focus in the smaller skirmish games, and the UNIT the focus in larger battle games.

So you can use the same core rules for the whole range of games from small skirmish up to large battle games.

I would prefer to use unit cards over codex books as this allows all the in game info to be 'at hand' when playing...

And rather than a codex book as such.I would prefer a theme book for each race listing the types of formations and forces, with a more thematic based force organisation.
These list simply show the rarity of the unit card in that particular themed list.
Eg a SM Assault Squad is Common in a 'Death from Above list, but Restricted in a 'Anvil of Faith' SM list.

In short the unit cards list the in game function of the unit, and the books list the various compositions of that particular race/faction.

Just my 2p worth.

As no one seems to disagree with the basic goals of this project.
How do you feel about hashing out a basic outline for the actual game development?

I think 40k should have an equal balance of mobility, fire power and assault.This allows the wide diversity of units to function in game intuitively.
(We can avoid the constant nerf then boost to shooting and assault swings the 'WHFB in space' rules seems to generate.)

The two core aspects of game play I think are the key stone of 40k game play , are players taking turns, and 3 stage damage resolution.
(Roll to hit , roll to damage , roll to save.)
All the alternative 2 stage damage resolution we tried with 40k over the last decade or so simply did not feel right.
Do you agree?

I believe using the stat line directly to cover the interaction is better than having to use additional tables and charts.
(Especially if we use unit cards like other more modern games.)
Is this in line with what you want?

EG
Direct representation .
The stat line would show the models maximum movement distance, effective weapon range in inches, and how many dice are rolled.
Also the base score required to succeed, or a modifier where necessary.
These are all direct representation stats.

The ONLY other type of resolution method I would like to use is opposed stats for the weapon AP and target armour interaction.

As this allows ALL units to resolve weapon hits in the same way, and we include a simple suppression mechanic with this system.

I could discuss these basic concepts in more detail with you if you like.

Are there any particular game mechanics or resolution methods you would like to include ?

I agree with your approach Rasclomalum. It really seems like having an updated Necromunda ruleset would really help attract people to the game. And I like the idea of being able to explore new armies in a skirmish setting, rather than having to go all in and buy a whole boxed set of 50 guys. At the Apoc level, it seems like the old Epic 40k rules would be useful.

The key is knowing what elements to add or remove as you grow the scale. In particular, I'm all for eliminating the micromanagement aspects at the Warband and Apoc levels, including: rolling for difficult terrain, running, pile-in moves, look-out sir. Terrain should be -2", running at +4" in the movement phase (not shooting phase so there's no moving them twice), no pile-ins you just move your guys in during the movement phase. Look-out sir is way to tedious, no matter the scale.

Bikes, jetbikes, jump infantry, jetpack infantry, gliding MCs, cavalry, chariots, beasts are all fast infantry (ground or air), so they don't have weird quirky rules. Any other benefits, like +1T should just be in their profile.

At the larger levels it'd probably be best to have simplified damage charts for vehicles, e.g. 1-2 Crew Shaken, 3-4 Crew Stunned, 5-6 Immobilized, 7 Destroyed.

The randomized warlord traits, psychic powers, etc., would probably be better with a points system for better game-to-game balance and faster set-up.

I also like the idea of a simplified modifier system for cover: soft cover is -1 to hit, hard cover is -2 to hit. Similarly, weapons have armor piercing of 0, -1, or -2.

I like the idea but I think that trying to collectively come up with a ruleset featuring a core and several sub-rule sets would be quite a big first step. I would start with streamlined versions of the current 40k rules and go from there, streamlining and condensing as necessary.

Hi folks.
I agree that re-writing the core rules for the current 40k game size , focusing on the game play, rather than short term product sales would be the best starting place.

Are you happy to change the resolution methods for more modern intuitive alternatives?

Here are the starting stats I would like to use for units.

Mobility.(How and how far the unit moves.)

Armour.(How much armour protection the unit has.)

Resilience.(How hard the unit is to damage )

Stealth(How hard the unit is to hit at range.)

Assault(How hard the unit is to hit in assault.And striking order.)

Morale.(How willing the unit is to fight on.)

Command.(How good the unit leader/character is at inspiring the unit.)

And each unit has its own weapons profile on the unit card under the unit profile.

Effective range/Armour pen/Damage/Attacks/Notes.

These are just a starting point for discussion.I can explain them in more detail as necessary.

What do you guys think the stats should cover?
Do you prefer direct use of stats or additional tables?

KommissarKarl wrote:
I like the idea but I think that trying to collectively come up with a ruleset featuring a core and several sub-rule sets would be quite a big first step. I would start with streamlined versions of the current 40k rules and go from there, streamlining and condensing as necessary.

I think it'd be relatively easy to streamline the existing ruleset, and then you could fit each supplementary ruleset onto one page.

Here are my proposed changes to streamline the gameplay:

Pre-game:
- warlord traits, players may freely select their warlord trait if using their codex's unique warlord traits. Codices without unique traits may freely select from the BRB warlord tactical, strategic, and personal traits (not command traits!). With the traits rebalanced for 7th I think it's fine to let people freely choose them. This allows for army lists that are built around specific traits instead of "hooray my Lord Commissar is relentless!" Making for much more tactical planning and less mucking about before the game rolling on charts. However, command traits are too powerful to let people choose (all models within 12" re-roll 1's in shooting, seriously? IG have to pay 60 points for a 6" preferred enemy bubble...), alternatively command traits would be fine if 5 and 6 were reduced to the warlord and his unit, preferred enemy in a 12" bubble is way too OP.
- psychic powers, may be selected by the psyker, all current restrictions apply (i.e. ML1 can only learn one power). Warp charge 1 powers cost 0 points. Warp charge 2 powers cost 10 points each. Warp charge 3 powers cost 20 points each. Primaris powers are unique and may be taken as individual powers or taken with psychic focus, however this power must still be paid for with points. I.e. a ML1 psyker with divination may take foreboding for 0 points and prescience for 10 points. This eliminates the impossible balancing act of managing random psychic powers and allows players to plan around their psykers.

Movement:
- difficult terrain, no more rolling, infantry move a flat 4". Move through cover units are not slowed by difficult terrain.
- running, no more rolling, everyone can run 4". Fleet, crusader, etc add 2".

Shooting:
- look out sir rolls, only one per unit per turn. When allocating a wound to a character or IC, the player may take a leadership test on that character or ICs leadership. If passed, then for the rest of that turn the character or IC may only be allocated wounds after all other models in the unit have been removed as casualties (the character absorbs any spillover wounds). Only one character or IC per unit may LOS in a given player turn. This means players can no longer abuse an ICs invul save to protect the much more numerous grunts around him.
- simplified vehicle damage table, 1-2 Shaken, 3-4 Stunned, 5-6 Immobilized, 7+ Explodes. Weapon destroyed is a hold over from before hull points and isn't really necessary any more. Before hull points vehicles could take tons of hits if you rolled poorly on the damage table, so you had lots of vehicles driving around with their guns shot off. With hull points, it's really not necessary and just adds more randomization and accounting "was it his lascannon or his multimelta?"
- cover, throw out true line of sight, bring back area terrain. Forests, high grass, twisted copses, and other natural foliage (light cover) confer -1 BS to shots fired at units in cover. Ruins, buildings, rocks, and debris (heavy cover) confer -2 BS to shots fired at units in cover. Fortifications (aegis lines, bunkers, trenches, etc.) are heavy cover and provide a 6+ FNP, this is cumulative with existing FNP and is nullified by instant death fire. Units count as in cover if every model is in base contact with the terrain feature (or b2b contact with a model that is in contact with the terrain) and there is at least 1" of terrain between the firing unit and the target...or if the closest firing model is shooting through at least 6" of intervening terrain. Firing through other units counts as light cover. Stealth/camo reduce incoming BS by -1. Shrouded confers a 6+ fnp.
- the weapon AP system is replaced by a modifier system, all weapons have Ap 0, Ap -1, Ap -2, or Ap -3, which modify the armor saves accordingly.

Assault:
- over watch, no more rolling buckets of dice on snap shots. Templates inflict d3 automatic hits. Pistols fire at full BS. Anything else had its chance in the shooting phase and may not overwatch.
- eliminate pile in moves. Everyone in a combat within 6" of an enemy model fights (close combat, short range fire, etc). In the movement phase, models in engaged units must move into base to base contact with an enemy model, or as close as possible.
- You hit lower WS on a 3+ (no change), if the opposing weapon skill is double your own you hit on a 5+ (slight buff to high WS models).

---

Scale-Specific Rules:
Skirmish (<1,000 points):
- combat squads: units of 10 or more models may be split into two smaller squads of 5+ men each during deployment.
- lucky glancing hits: when shooting at vehicles that they cannot harm, a roll of a 6 on armor penetration may inflict a lucky glancing hit if they roll an additional 6. A vehicle may only suffer one lucky glancing hit per turn (note that additional lucky hits on vehicle squadrons will carry onto the next available model).

Warband Level (1,000-3,000 points):
- standard ruleset

Apoc Level (3000+ points):
- charge moves are fixed at 6".
- non-apoc blast weapons roll to hit with BS, small blast inflicts d3 hits, large blast inflicts 2d3 hits.
- after making a fall back move, any units that fail to regroup are removed as casualties.
- units that fall back from close combat are automatically wiped out, unless the pursuer is engaged with a unit that didn't flee.

Difficult terrain / Running - Fine

Overwatch - theory good, but you'd have to compensate Tyranids as they don't carry pistols, or look at Pistols on the whole as options unless the idea is to heavily favor some armies and units over others.

Pile ins - fine, easier for large units to all get swings in though, that is hard to do at the moment.

LOS! , WL traits- fine

Powers - I prefer people having to roll with how powerful some are, personal opinion, I don't really want to be shooting at the enemy and 4/7 of their units are invisible.

Vehicle damage - Personal opinion, not 100% sure. If I take out a weapon I'm scared of I don't necessarily have to waste shots then taking the rest of the HP, but how often such occurrences? not that much difference.

If you take *cover saves* out of the game you have to rework a lot of units in a lot of codex's to compensate for such a loss - also any guns with ignores cover would go, removing a 'specialty' from the equation. -1/2 BS does not translate easily to what cover saves are now in % of wounds, especially with the likes of twin linked. Would need to be -3/4 and no ability to twin link weapons for cover shots.
Then you have to lower armor on all models as it's no a save instead of, but in addition to, which means all armor in the game is worth a lot more.
Don't mind the lack of TLOS, but then I feel you would have to heavily nerf vehicles to compensate for 'free shooting'. Removing C.S etc is a huge buff to some armies, and you have to change some armies a lot to re par them.

AP system - fine, but not less streamline, there more calculations and more die rolls in that method.

WS - for streamlining purposes sure, but overall could do with being placed something alike to the BS chart.

Interesting..only thing i find odd is the point levels

Skirmish 1<1000 Skirmish 4 x 4 table
Regular 1000<2000 Large Skirmish 4 x 6 Table
Large Battle 2000<4000 Regular 8 x 6 table
Battle 4000< 6000 12 x 6 table
Apoc...Large weird table setup composed of at least 6 "nornmal" sized tables) comprised of multiple factions in a free for all with an average of 10K per side
Trick is 3000 points is bottom of the road for armies (2 or 3 detachments) and collectors that are long in tooth..(ie been playing since the first hint of rules appeared back in the mid 80's ie pre Rogue Trader)
I agree introducing the newbie to fewer models is kool but a 4x6 table was left in the dust for serious players 25 years ago ..only tourneys stayed with the small skirmish format and those are few and far between ..compared to garage games that happen on a regular basis..most of the folk that still play in the long of the tooth age bracket don't care or read these net listings of ideas that have cropped up from time to time ecuase they already had that idea and fleshed it out ..but refuse to publish cause well GW gets all lawyery about such things

The only problem with simplifying 6th/ 7th ed, is you just end up regressing to the 'bland vanillia' of 3rd ed.
And then you have to add extra layers of rules on top to add the detail diversity back in.
To just arrive at a rule set that is slightly less complicated and clunky than what we currently have.

Where as a complete re -write would allow us to optimize the game mechanics and resolution methods for current 40k game play.
Which would allow a massive reduction in complication, while adding more depth to the game play.

I understand some people would not be very comfortable with this.
But the range of current modern war games out there prove simple rules can deliver deep and interesting game play.

Is anyone else interested in a complete re write?

Also if we write completely new rules , then GW cant get all 'angry lawyer' with us.Which is another bonus!

I think the notion of a vanilla rule set is a bit mistaken. A simplified rule set would allow players to focus on the actual game and strategy and move away from the rules abuse that characterizes the game now. ATM the best winning strategy has little to do with choices on the table and more to do with stacking the rules (I.e. Death Stars). Games like Chess and Go are as vanilla as you can get, yet the strategies and levels of mastery are endless. I think having a rule set as simple as possible should be the goal of any effort. If newer systems can do that, I'd be happy to test-play and help develop it.

On the vehicle damage issue, my problem with weapon destroyed is that it is just as good as destroying most vehicles. And the randomization is silly too, whether you destroy my basilisk's heavy bolter or battle cannon is the effective difference between a glancing hit and a wrecked result.

All randomization rules should also be fixed and applied to the plurality model type in a unit with the owning player choosing which models are affected. Ie 3 crisis suits and 2 drones, all the randomized hits affect the suits, the controlling player can choose to take the hits on lesser suits to protect a special weapons guy or Shas Vui.

Lanrak wrote:

Is anyone else interested in a complete re write?

Also if we write completely new rules , then GW cant get all 'angry lawyer' with us.Which is another bonus!

I am doing that now. Right now, I am starting slowly, because a) haven't played in years and basically don't remember how all the rules work, especially in 7th, and b) starting with basics, playing with my son to try them out and then add more to it as we play.

Lanrak wrote:
Hi folks.
I agree that re-writing the core rules for the current 40k game size , focusing on the game play, rather than short term product sales would be the best starting place.

Are you happy to change the resolution methods for more modern intuitive alternatives?

Here are the starting stats I would like to use for units.

Mobility.(How and how far the unit moves.)

Armour.(How much armour protection the unit has.)

Resilience.(How hard the unit is to damage )

Stealth(How hard the unit is to hit at range.)

Assault(How hard the unit is to hit in assault.And striking order.)

Morale.(How willing the unit is to fight on.)

Command.(How good the unit leader/character is at inspiring the unit.)

And each unit has its own weapons profile on the unit card under the unit profile.

Effective range/Armour pen/Damage/Attacks/Notes.

These are just a starting point for discussion.I can explain them in more detail as necessary.

What do you guys think the stats should cover?
Do you prefer direct use of stats or additional tables?

I was looking at XCOM, which is a ridiculously awesome turn-based tactical game. Even with just 4-6 soldiers on the field, each one only has four key stats:
- Health
- Aim
- Defense
- Will

Anything beyond that is a feature of their special abilities, armor, and weapons.

I think it'd be relatively easy to collapse Weapon Skill, Strength, and Initiative down to a single stat, say Combat Skill. Everyone strikes simultaneously, don't roll to hit. Instead, use Combat Skill against the target's Toughness or Defense stat.

Examples:
- CS 1, Tau firewarriors
- CS 2, Imperial Guard, Eldar Guardians, Orks, Gaunts
- CS 3, Dark Eldar warriors, Space Marines, Necrons, 'Nid Warriors
- CS 4, Terminators, Incubi, Hive Tyrant

An Ork fights a Space Marine. Ork has two attacks striking with CS 2 against a Space Marine's T4. Roll two dice, on a 6, a wound is inflicted. Space Marine gets his 3+ save. Space Marine has one attack with CS 3 against Ork's T4, rolls one die, on a 5+ a wound is inflicted.

Note that the Marine is now more likely to wound the Ork (1/3rd vs 1/4), but the Ork has the benefit of striking at the same time, not at Initiative 2, which is a huge boon. Frankly it doesn't make sense that a side in close combat strikes "first" anyway. This system would eliminate rolling to hit, and a whole squad wouldn't get wiped out without being able to do anything in combat (my poor guardsmen...). Overall, it would make close combat much more brutal for both sides. Special weapons would modify CS or provide armor piercing as normal. E.g. powerfist gives CS+2 and Ap2, krak grenades give CS5 and Ap -2 against MCs and vehicles, melta bombs give CS7 Ap -3 and melta. Use CS in place of strength against vehicles.

 TheSilo wrote:
. Instead, use Combat Skill against the target's Toughness or Defense stat.

So more like how Weapon Skill is used in Close Combat.

Have you read the Flames of war rules?

Their combat system is very good, and can easily be modified for use in 40k. Add in saves and so forth. That book is designed for gameplay first so a lot of that rule book is pretty streamlined but has depth where needed.

Personally I think you need to start from the very beginning and do it step by step rather than picking out bits here and there to be fixed. Get it dont systematically or you will have a hard time doing it.

HI all.
The point I was trying to make was 'WHFB in space' fails to work after a certain game size.

I think a complete re write if done slowly and methodically using MODERN game mechanics and resolution methods could allow a lot of complexity in the game with a massive reduction in complication in the rules.

Do you agree 40k should have an equal blend of mobility fire power and assault?

Do you think a more interactive game turn would work well?

@The silo.
The problem is if you simplify the core rules too much you end up with having to use so many special rules , the game bogs down.(This is what happened to current 40k game development at GW towers.)

If we a re using unit cards with all the stats on , we can start with more than we need, and just remove stats as we play test, and find any redundant ones.

Its much easier to combine stats after play testing if they become redundant.(Like how Cool, will , leadership and Intelligence were combined in to just Ld).

I agree we can use a single stat for close combat.

Currently we are play testing using an 'Assault value.'

This represents the dice score the OPPONENT needs to hit the model in close combat , and the striking order.
(We can add +2 for charging to the striking order , or +1 for special equipment like banshee masks etc.)

Eg a SM is Assault value 4, they are hit on a 4+ in close combat.And they strike before Assault value 1,2,and 3 models.

This lets use use assault values of 1 to 6.(If we use a D6).
Twice as much range as current 40k and no restrictive tables!

if we let the UNIT have their own weapon profile under the unit stats.
Eg SM Assault Squad.(Marine)

Bolt pistol , 12"/6/3+/1/ Pistol(May shoot into close combat up to 6" away.)
Chain sword, 0-2"/6/3+/1/ Chain edge, (May re roll natural 1's to penetrate armour.)

IF the same equipment is used by a SM captain..

Bolt pistol , 16"/6/3+/2/ Pistol(May shoot in close combat up to 6" away.)
Chain sword, 2"/7/3+/3/ Chain edge, (May re roll 1 to damage.)

The higher skills of the Sm Captain mean the NET effect of the weapons in game are improved.
Better BS increases the effective range/shots on target, close combat gains extra attacks, and better armour penetration.

We are currently using the same weapon/ armour resolution for all ranged and close combat across all units.
D6+ armour value vs Armpur pen of weapons.

AV of 1 to 15, and AP values of 5 to 20.

I can post examples of resolution if that may help.
I know I am not very good at explaining things , sorry.

WHFB in Space is not funny anymore. First time it was funny. Second time it was cute. Now it's just getting insulting.

@Davor.
'WHFB in space ' is what Rick and Brian called it when developing'Rogue Trader', before they sorted out the name.

Among the original releases for RT were 'Space Orcs' and 'Space Elves'!

'WHFB rules in space' was fun in 2nd ed when it was still a skirmish game.

16 years of GW corporate trying to make the WHFB skirmish rules work for a battle game has been the big insult . IMO.
(Not letting the developers actually develop the rules properly, and robbing the players of a better rule set.)

'Using WHFB skirmish rules in a space setting'.is an accurate decription of 40k development.
So Ill use that term from now on, not trying to be cute or insulting.

In terms of a game turn mechanic I do not think alternating unit activation would work that well for 40k.Due to the massive difference in unit size and abilities.

Alternating phases (or actions) would probably be a better fit , and allow better external balance.

Has anyone any thoughts on alternative game turn mechanics?

Thanks for explaining. This being the internet and to use to people being rude, ignorant etc, it was easy to take your WHFB in Space as an insult.

Good to know that is not your intent.

As for turn mechanics, in my Davor's 40K Rules, I am trying to keep the "spirit" of 40K. So there is I move everything, I shoot everything. Except doing the moving and shooting all at the same time, one person either moves or shoots, then it's the other persons turn to move or shoot. This way we don't have I move, I shoot all your guys up and there is nothing you can do.

I am going to add more stuff to it later, but that is the basics of it for now.

Hi Davor.
Do you mean something like this?

Alternating phases.

Player one moves.
Player two moves.

Player one shoots .
Player two shoots.

Player one assaults
Player two assaults.
(Eg like LoTR.)

Or interleaved phases like this..

Player one moves.
Player two shoots.
Player one moves or assaults.

Player two moves.
Player one shoots
Player two moves or assaults.
(You can vary the actions a bit in the above interleaved phases.)

Both the above game turns can roll off to see who is 'player one' each turn.

If we use simple order counters.
(Similar to Epic, eg Move then shoot , shoot then move, move then move, move then assault , ready then shoot, ready then move.)
We could use a more open structure.
EG.

Command phase.
Primary action phase.
Secondary action phase.
Resolution phase.

I can expand on this a bit adding some more detail if you are interested?

The problem with alternating phases, is that it would be almost impossible to get into assault. Any assault unit that moves towards a unit in their phase, the other player will move the unit away from the assaulter.

Well I am thinking something like that but a bit different. Not sure if you saw my Davor's 40K Rules thread.

Right now, I have is person rolls for Priority. This way it's not always someone goes first each turn, it can change. Roll for it.

Then there is 2 phases. Move Phase, shoot phase. Person who wins, can either go, or pass to their opponent. Then the person decides, does he want to move, or shoot? Then once he chooses this for all his minis, (yes counters will be used, I see everyone using this right now for 40K) then your opponent gets to either move or fire. Yes we still have the, I shoot before you can do something, BUT it's not all units, not all moving and shooting.

So if someone decides to shoot all their units, then maybe the left them in place where they can get shot up when your opponent decides to shoot back, OR move and claim the objective (I am thinking of doing scoring per turn when on an objective)

So this way we still have the "spirit" of 40K but it's just broken up. Not sure if my way is any good, just trying to put a Davor Spin on things so it's not so much like LotR and other game systems. Going to try it out soon so will see if it is actually fun or not.

As for TheSilo mentioned, when it's your turn to move, if you want to go into an assault you just move into Base to base to the unit you want to assault. Now if this unit didn't shoot, then he can Overwatch at full BS. (I hate how you can shoot twice in 40K right now)

You do this twice per turn. Person who wins Priority as I said can pick to move/shoot his units. When done, their opponent does the same thing. Then the person who lost Priorty that turn gets to either shoot or move, what he didn't do int he previous phase. This way we still have 2 I move and shoot, you move and shoot but it's broken up. If it doesn't work, then instead of mixing moving and shooting, it's either move all your units or shoot all your units. Then your opponent moves all his unit or shoot all his units. Then if you shot first in first phase then you move in 2nd phase.

That is all I got right now, and it needs to be tweaked quite a bit, but that is my idea for now.

@The silo.
.That is what suppression is for!
Pinning a unit in place and make them keep their heads down while your assault units outflank and charge them!
(Note this should happen naturally as part of the tactical options the core resolution methods and game mechanics offer!)

@Davor.
Ah I see know.
I totally agree about rolling off each turn to see who goes first.

So you are actually using the last game turn structure, but limiting the options to move then shoot or shoot then move.(With assault replacing a move action.)

Command phase.(Place order counters and request off table support, reserves, arty air strikes.)

Player A takes first action with all their units.
Player B takes first action with all their units .

Player A takes second action with all their units
Player B takes second action with all their units.

Resolution phase.(tidy up phase.)

If you let units shoot then assault or assault then shoot wont this make them overly effective?

I have no problem using a SINGLE counter next to each unit to cover status/ action set.

But rather than just move and shoot why not extend the number of counters to cover all current options, still using a 2 action set?
Eg rather than just move and shoot , use move,ready ,shoot ,and assault actions.

Expanded Order set.
Advance.........Move then shoot.
Charge...........Move then assault
Double-time. Move then move.
Evade............. Shoot then move.
Fire support... Ready then shoot.(Fire heavy ordnance.)
Infiltrate........... Ready then move.(Improve stealth, cover use.)

This follows your basic game turn but allows players more choice in what the units actually do in the 2 action set.

We have play tested this game turn and order set simply using cardboard counters with ,A,C,D,E,F,I, on one side.
It works really well.

Lanrak wrote:

@Davor.

If you let units shoot then assault or assault then shoot wont this make them overly effective?

What we did, when I assaulted my son, I gave him overwatch. Because he didn't shoot yet, and I always believe you should be able to shoot, during a turn, (but not twice) he got to Overwatch at FULL Ballistic Skill before combat. It was brutal but oh so fun. So this way, you either don't Overwatch and hope to win combat and shoot later, or in most cases, shoot at the unit charging you.

Again I am working on it, but it was fun, BRUTAL, and exciting but having CC built into the move phase seemed to work. Of course I have to play this a few more times to make sure this is what me and my son wants.

Something worked here, because my son was actually into the game that hasn't happened in a long time. So the changes we made worked. We kept it simple beginner rules so that helps too.

@ Davor.
I agree that alternating actions works really well.

But for the sake of clarity, I think it would be better to use 2 action order sets to specify what actions the units are taking each turn, rather than use multiple subjective conditional rules*.

(*As GW might write them...You can do A, or B, followed by A, or C , or B , but only do B if you have not already done B.However if you do C , the opponent can do B first , unless they have previously done B , or they want to do C as well. )


My preference would be something like this...
Place an order counter (face down )next to each of your units in the Command Phase.

In the Primary Action Phase , turn your order counters over one at a time and perform the units first action .
(The player with turn priority takes an action with all their units , then the other player takes an action with all their units.)

In the Secondary action Phase perform the units second action one at a time,then remove the units order counter .
(The player with turn priority takes an action with all their units , then the other player takes an action with all their units.)

The other bonus with using counters in this way is you can tell exactly what units have done what and when.(My memory is awful after 3 or 4 beers! )

And you could replace order counters with suppression/routed counters to marks units with poor morale.
(So a unit on poor morale has limited actions. Eg Take cover , retire , return fire.)

The orders are really only the choices that used to be made under 2nd ed, (with 2 more tactical options).

Move as fast as you can.(Added move as stealthily as you can)
Move then assault.
Move then shoot.(added shoot then move.)
Stay still and shoot to full effect.

Do you think there are too many options in the orders?
Would you prefer a different approach?

Each player turn is broken into two phases: primary movement, secondary movement (basically assault). Any time a unit moves, every eligible unit in both armies has the opportunity to shoot at any eligible target.

To keep track of who can shoot, the game turn is broken into four parts: (1) player one's primary movement, (2) player one's secondary movement, (3) player two's primary movement, (4) player two's secondary movement. When a unit shoots place a marker next to the unit indicating in which part of the game turn the shot took place. A unit with a marker in play is ineligible to shoot. At the start of each part of a turn, all markers for that part of the turn are removed. Some actions like moving with a heavy weapon require you to place a marker.

Shooting is happening constantly, and picking the right time to shoot becomes an interesting tactical choice. No player experience s significant downtime between decisions. Each player gets to move all his units before the other gets a chance to move any so that it doesn't just become a game of tag.

So you are saying each force can shoot 4 times in a game turn?Or did you mean the shooting counters are removes at the end of the game turn?
If you are having 4 movement phases, would it not be better, A ,B,A,B. rather than A.A.B.B?

I think it would be better to keep the current amount of moving ,shooting and assault in the new game structure.
Assigning order at the start of the game turn makes the tactical choices more prominent.(its one of my favorite game mechanics in X-wing.)

Would using similar orders to Epic SM be preferable?


First fire, (Fire heavy weapons , choose to fire before or after charging units move.)
Charge .(Move then move again or assault.)
Advance.(Move then shoot or shoot then move in the advance phase.)

Phases.
Command Phase.
First Fire Phase.
Charge Phase
Advance Phase.
Resolution phase.

Players alternate taking actions in each phase.And randomize who goes first each turn.

Each unit would only be able to fire once per game turn. At the start of turn one Player1 moves a squad of ork boyz during his primary movement phase. Player2 then has a squad of marines shoot at the boyz. Player2. Places a marker with "1" on it next to his marine unit. As long as the marker is in play the Marine squad can't shoot. At the start of Player1s next primary movement phase, all units that have a "1" marker remove their market and are eligible to shoot again. (The particulars of how the makers are numbered aren't too important and another option might be 1A,1B,2A,2B)

The secondary movement is basically the same thing as the assault phase and there would be restrictions on who can move and how they can move similar to how units now primarily can only move to initiate an assault, with a limited number of units having the ability to move as they wish. So it isn't a wide open two full movement phases before the other player gets to move. Also possibly place a restriction against initiating HTH combat during the primary movement phase. HTH attacks would be resolved after primary and secondary movements are completed.

I guess I didn't explain that very well earlier. Hopefully it is clearer now.

I admit I only skim read this, but nothing in here struck me as making 40k more "sleek". What you're doing is trying to make a more realistic timing system, but sleek it is not.

It might look good on paper, but having personally playtested a system with a similar alternating phase integrated turn, I can tell you it gets real confusing real fast and we kept asking things like "was this my first action phase or my second?" "actually it was your reaction phase, it's the middle of my turn..." It may sound silly now, but after you've activated 10 units and rolled 200 dice you really don't remember how the current phase began. We ended up using a turn phase dial, but of course we forgot to set it more often than not.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I admit I only skim read this, but nothing in here struck me as making 40k more "sleek". What you're doing is trying to make a more realistic timing system, but sleek it is not.

It might look good on paper, but having personally playtested a system with a similar alternating phase integrated turn, I can tell you it gets real confusing real fast and we kept asking things like "was this my first action phase or my second?" "actually it was your reaction phase, it's the middle of my turn..." It may sound silly now, but after you've activated 10 units and rolled 200 dice you really don't remember how the current phase began. We ended up using a turn phase dial, but of course we forgot to set it more often than not.

I've got to agree. I'm trying to keep pace but this doesn't sound more sleek at all. I think there are a bunch of BRB rules that can be consolidated and simplified, as I note in my post earlier. Breaking up player turns into alternating phases sounds very clunky.

To make the game more sleek you need to scrap unnecessary rolling and randomness, let people build a gameplan with their warlord traits and psychic powers, reduce all the crazy exceptions that every army has to the core rules, simplify d6 charts down to d3 charts (so you can remember them), etc. You should have a reliable understanding of what your army can do and looks like going into a fight, but right now the exact same army list looks like a very different army depending on your traits, psychic rolling, reserves rolling, and difficult terrain rolls. Your opponent's actions should be what brings the variety and randomness to the table.