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.

I've always thought that if you inverted the save and AP values and made the save a reduction to the Strength of an attack, and the AP a reduction to the save(or an increase in strength up to, but not greater than, the value of the save) and left the damage rolling to be the same would be a simpler fix.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
I've always thought that if you inverted the save and AP values and made the save a reduction to the Strength of an attack, and the AP a reduction to the save(or an increase in strength up to, but not greater than, the value of the save) and left the damage rolling to be the same would be a simpler fix.

I actually tried this. When Strength and AP are on the same linear spectrum you end up with a two-roll game and the problems with the limited possible spread of unit power get worse; for an example of this problem, try GW's Lord of the Rings game.

Two-rolls works if you've got multiple dice for rolls and multiple hit points (see: vehicles most of the time, Warmachine), but if you're committed to one model/one wound and one-die rolls you can't really get rid of three-roll in something with as broad a spread of models as 40k.

Does it matter if the rules say roll to hit, then wound, then save or roll to hit, then save, then wound? Its the same mathematically. I get that one is more cinematic, but to me it is also more cumbersome. Count number of hits, count that number of dice, roll save, count number of failed saves, count number of dice, roll to wound. Simpler to roll, remove misses, roll, count wounds, count dice roll to save. Bottom line if you want cinema over effeciency, do it. If you want efficiency over cinema do it. Rules just need to say there are three steps that you can perform in the order you think is best: roll to hit, roll to save, roll to wound.

--

I don't think the reason GW has failed to balance assault vs. shooting is just a matter of their basic system. It is more about swinging the rules around wildly from version to version instead of tinkering here and there to make the system better. Instead of nerfing assualt in 6 ways because it is too strong, just pick 2 or 3. If that isn't enough try a couple more. If it is too much, take one away.

--

I think a system with every model having a toughness value and armor save would work well. Reserve high toughness and saves scores for monstrous creatures and vehicles. If value scale is 1-10 expect vehicles/monstrous creatures to have T/AV in the range of 7+/7+. This is assuming you flip the way saves are done now so that higher save numbers are better instead of lower save numbers.

You would have to redo all the weapon stats and model defensive stats though, but in so doing could probably carve out special rolls for some weapons that are mostly afterthoughts now, and minimize weapons that are great at everything.

It's not about the order of rolls, it's about having two rolls versus three.

I was referring to earlier comments. Guess I should have used quotes.

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
Does it matter if the rules say roll to hit, then wound, then save or roll to hit, then save, then wound? Its the same mathematically. I get that one is more cinematic, but to me it is also more cumbersome. Count number of hits, count that number of dice, roll save, count number of failed saves, count number of dice, roll to wound. Simpler to roll, remove misses, roll, count wounds, count dice roll to save. Bottom line if you want cinema over effeciency, do it. If you want efficiency over cinema do it. Rules just need to say there are three steps that you can perform in the order you think is best: roll to hit, roll to save, roll to wound.

I agree with your point but, as you also note, it's a small issue. I think it's a matter of clarity. When the rules have a narrative structure, it takes less effort to remember. Was he hit? Did his armor save him? Was the wound bad enough to kill him?

I do, however, think that settling on a single order is important so that special rules can interact with it in interesting ways. I'm working on some modifications to special rules, such as poisoned and sniper, that play with wounding as the last step.

I should mention my idea for wound allocation, as that's an important component to the order. I think that pulling from the front is good idea, both narratively and to prevent conga-lining. (I remember my introductory game at a GW against my friend, where I asked the supervising employee if my flamer could kill the front Genestealers to push them back.) So the shooter rolls to hit the squad, tallying the number of hits. The defender allocates hits to each visible model, starting from the front. All models with the same wargear, stats, and special rules roll their saves and wounds together, pulling from the front. That will get rid of majority toughness, hiding special weapons, and that damnable Look Out Sir! It also, importantly, means characters are (finally) extremely important in leading assaults because with multiple wounds they won't be killed by incoming fire while they charge (thus losing the squad charge distance).

You would have to redo all the weapon stats and model defensive stats though, but in so doing could probably carve out special rolls for some weapons that are mostly afterthoughts now, and minimize weapons that are great at everything.

Were I a game designer and not a physicist I'd release my own game with blackjack and hookers. This project should be restricted to what can be changed in the core rules, because each codex is its own Pandora's box of potential.

Hi folks.
Having read the comments , I would like to sumerise a bit if that is ok?

Should we use a 2 stage damage resolution, (roll to hit , roll to damage.)?
Every time we have tried over the past eight years, it does not give enough variety in the interaction , so people want to add specials rule in , and say it does not 'feel like 40k.'

So I think the three stage damage resolution, of roll to hit , roll to save,roll to wound ,(in some order), is the best fit for 40k .

As DarkHound pointed out roll to hit, roll armour saves ,roll to wound.Follows the logical progression /narrative of the interaction.And is much more intuitive and makes it easier to put special effects in the right order.
(As mathematically the order of roll to wound/roll to save makes no difference at all .)

As some people do not like using 'free values ' but would like to use set numbers tied to dice size .
Here is an alternative armour save method, that uses the current 2+ to 6+ saves , with slightly different use of AP values and Inv saves.

A models armour save gives the score needed to roll to make its save as now.

The AP value gives the armour save roll score the weapon ignores.

EG a Space Marine with an armour save of 3+ , is hit by a weapon with AP 6,
So any natural dice rolls of 6 are removed by the attacker and not counted as a successful save.

This means the Space marine actually saves on a roll of 3,4,5. when hit by an AP 6 weapon

If 3+m armour save model is hit by an AP 5 weapon , the model only saves on the roll of a 3, or a 4.

This would require AP values to be revised a bit, and vehicles to be given saves and 'toughness' like the rest of the units in 40k.

In effect the AP becomes a modifier to the dice roll, but just discounts armour roll values ,rather than requiring players to 'use maths'.

Invunerable saves would then ignore the effects of AP for the given values.

Example .
A terminator with a Save of 2+ and inv save of 5+
is hit by a weapon with AP 3.
This would normally reduce the terminators save to JUST 2+.But the Invunerable part of the terminators save meant they always save on a 5 or 6 .
So the terminator actually saves on a 2,5 or 6.

So to recap,
Things that remain the same..
Use the current armour saves and invunerable saves.(Cover saves are removed, just add a modifier to the to hit roll.)

Things that change
Revise the weapon AP values as they are now modifiers .
Change vehilce Av to saves and toughness values.
How do you feel about letting vehicles rolling 2 dice for their save and picking the highest, to make them harder to penetrate?(melta type weapons reduce this to one dice.)

Sorry about the delay, meat space snuck up on me.

The trouble with giving every vehicle a toughness and an armor save is that you have to keep their durability statistically the same anyway. It feels like change for change's sake, rather than an effort to simplify gameplay. Vehicles are fundamentally different due to the damage table (and we are not getting rid of the damage table). I think it's useful to make a fundamental distinction between things that are alive (or resemble life) and things which are not alive because they respond to damage differently. Take the legs off a Carnifex and it will flail in blind anguish and bleed out. Take the legs off a Dreadnought and he doesn't have any pain, only an impaired firing arch.

I like Lanrak's new alternate model because it includes all the saves in a single set of rolls (and it requires no stat revision). I'm also fine with the standard strength vs AV as a generalized interpretation of destructive power against structural integrity. AP can then be used as a modifier to the damage table so that better APs are able to cause critical internal damage, while worse APs will be reduced to dealing external and superficial damage. I still want a 2D6 roll to create average results, and it would make the math simpler to flip the damage table so lower is better; then you just add the AP to the roll, so an AP4 can't roll lower (read: better) than a 5 and has an average roll of 11. At that point it's worth throwing out glance modifiers because they don't add functionality for their complexity, and this damage table would otherwise make vehicles slightly more durable.

After all that, weapons will have a different average damage result based on their armor penetration and infantry will make use of all parts of their saves, and none of them will have any excess rolls or math.

Hi Darkhound.
I just think having two separate damage resolution systems in 40k is just pointless over complication. And makes it harder to balance the units that use the different systems , even though they fill the same role in different forces.(MCs and vehicles..)

So to get the core rules to cover everything, (no separate damage resolution for some units.)
I believe all units should use 'Armour Values , or all units use 'armour saves'.

Letting MCs/vehicles roll 2 dice and pick the best dice result result is a simple way to improve their armour saves values as required for some units.
(And allows current weapons that roll and extra dice for amour penetration to cancel the extra dice roll out.)


In terms of the damage roll, what do you feel about listing the score required to cause damage directly on the weapon profile.(Eg 'Damage Value 4+' wounds enemy target on 4+)
And targets Resilience value adds to the base score to make the damage roll harder to achieve.
Eg SM have resilience 1 , so a bolt gun Damage value 3+ now needs to roll 4+ to damage the SM.(3+add 1=4+)
Simply to replace the need for a to wound chart.

If we are using a 'unit card'.How do you feel about listing the number of wounds/structure points vehicles MCs have , split between mobility and armament?

And every penetrating hit removes damages either 'mobility or armament '.
Every damage point mobility takes the model looses movement speed. Every damage point armament takes the model looses a single weapon/attack.

The number of hits can be recorded on the card or the model, using different coluors for mobility and armament hits.

This would allow all milti wound/structure point models to lose effectiveness slowly as they sustain damaging hits...

I may need to explain this a bit better..

Lanrak wrote:
I just think having two separate damage resolution systems in 40k is just pointless over complication. And makes it harder to balance the units that use the different systems , even though they fill the same role in different forces.(MCs and vehicles..) So to get the core rules to cover everything, (no separate damage resolution for some units.) I believe all units should use 'Armour Values , or all units use 'armour saves'. Letting MCs/vehicles roll 2 dice and pick the best dice result result is a simple way to improve their armour saves values as required for some units. (And allows current weapons that roll and extra dice for amour penetration to cancel the extra dice roll out.)

I think making the act of playing concise is more important than making the rules concise, but we were close to a simple unified system before. Let's give it another thought.

I think non-vehicles are just about perfect rolling hit, save (modified by AP and Invuls), and strength vs toughness to wound. It's easy enough to convert all armor values into saves (all AV14s are a 2+, all AV13s are 3+, etc.) so that vehicles also roll hits and saves. But then we have to figure out the damage. 40k is already so bloated that I don't want to add on any more stats; even Structure Points are ugly to me. I think Strength+D6 against a damage table is simple and effective: small arms can't roll high enough to cause significant damage, and big guns always deal some amount of damage.

If consistency is the goal, the trick then is to have non-vehicles roll against a similar table such that multi-wound/MCs lose effectiveness with damage while simultaneously preserving the normal wound rate. Then you've got to figure out how to factor in toughness and the whole thing looks like a pain to actually play.

How about everybody rolls to hit, saves, then split the damage rolls. For some parity between MCs and vehicles, have each lost wound reduce toughness by 1. That way vehicles get worse as they take damage, but remain relatively as durable, while conversely MCs continue to function but become more susceptible to damage. It also avoids any issues where Warbosses and Nobs could move slower than their squads due to a "reduced movement" injury.

Hi Dark Hound.
If we assume that all units/models roll to hit roll to save roll to damage.
And all models use Armour save roll, with AP modifying armour save, and inv saves modifying AP values.(As discussed.)

When it comes to damage there are basically two types of unit.
Units where models are removed to show damage, reducing number of attacks and total number of wounds.(Basic infantry type unit.)
Eg unsaved hits are recorded by the unit loosing models.

And units where damage is recorded separately.
Monsters and vehicles fall into this category.

Why not keep the basic format that each hit reduces the units effectiveness .
If vehicles and monstrous creatures have 'wounds' allocated to weapons/attacks and movement speed.

Then each successful armament damage reduces weapons/attack by one.
And each mobility hit reduces movement speed by X"
(Any new type pen hit suppresses the model as normal.)

Then a simple damage marker can be placed on the effected model, to show it has been hit.(This replaces damage tables.)

I may need to explain that better?

I am assuming the lack of responces was due to my poor explanation.

I am assuming that we will be using either unit cards, or force lists, so the stas are readily available in game.

So a land raider for example would have ;-

Structure, Mobility 3/Armament 3.

With a movement rate of 6", the first mobility hit would reduce the land raider to a movement rate of 4", the second mobility hit would reduce it to a movement rate of 2".
And the third hit would immobilize the land raider.

Each armament weapon hit removes the ability to use one main weapon system.(Eg standard land raider has 2 Twin linked Lascannons and a Twin linked heavy bolter.)

If a model looses all armament hits it must pass a morale test before start of the game turn , or it will fall back.
If a model becomes immobile, it must pass a morale test before the start of the turn , or it will count as destroyed.(Crew abandons the vehicle/ dies of wounds.)

This system can be applied to monstrous creatures too.
EG hive tryrant.
Wounds , Mobility 2, Armament (attacks) 3.

After the first mobility hit , the HT only moves 3".After the second hit it can move at all.
It looses one base attacks per armament hit.

There are several ways to decide what type of damage the penetrating hit does.(Pen dice rolls Even number=mobility, odd number armament.)

The damage can be shown on the model.
(We use black smoke,wire wool, for mobility hits, and white smoke , cotton wool for armament hits on vehicles.And red counters for mobility hits on monsters and black counters for armament hits.

Has this made the idea a bit easier to understand?
No charts or tables, just direct visual representation to go with direct use of stats.

I was thinking about current heroes and characters in 40k, who seem to just get extra wounds /close combat attacks , than a normal models.
Which is fine if the main function of a character is just to go toe to toe in close combat.(Main feature of WHFB.)

But what about a frail old man who is a tactical genius?
Would having the ability to automatically pass , a set amount of tests per game without having to roll dice be better?
(Heroic Actions , is the term we are currently using.)
EG automatically rally a key unit that is falling back, or automatically call in reserves , when they are desperately needed?

Would this be more in line with the narrative,than HAVING to tool every character up for close combats ?Or having to BUY special characters to get more flexible and useful heroes!

Just a thought...

I don't know if you've seen the Cosmic Dust game off boardgamegeek :
http://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/106825/cosmic-dust-rules

This is an alternating activation, skirmish type of 40k system that overcomes many of the problems discussed so far in this thread.
As with all AA games, it doesn't give the feel of marshalling and commanding a massive army in set piece battle. So a lot of the present 40K meta game is missing, but for me at least, that is worth it to play a straightforward, easy to learn game.

Hi, I've been also thinking about few improvements for 40k and as the armour save dilemma seems to be the main issue here, I'd like to share my version:

Ap is changed to a simple save modifer, starting from ap5 giving -1 and increasong fro there to ap1 giving -5. Added to this, I would change the coverto be a simple +1 to armour save, with very heavy cover like bunkers being +2 and maybe light cover like tall grass or speed a -1 to hit.
Then I would up the armoursaves of the more resilient stuff. As example marines should have 2+ and terminators a 2+ re-rollanle save. That would make them more reilient against lighter weapons, but still quite easily killable with antit ank weapons. This system wouldn't need a too big overhaul on the current rules which is a bonus.

I would also make the vehicles work like all the other units with same kind of statlines and armour saves as other models. But I would add a vehicle special rule to cover the movement rules, vehicle damage (from caused wounds, no instant destruction) etc.

And also the alternate activation would fix many problems in the game.

 jamopower wrote:


And also the alternate activation would fix many problems in the game.

I agree that AA tends to give a really good game, with nailbiting choices during the turn. But don't you think that the loss of the "epic" feel of comanding a whole army would be bad for the type of game that 40K is?

I don't understand. You have the same amount of units, no matter if you move them all at once or one at a time?

 jamopower wrote:
I don't understand. You have the same amount of units, no matter if you move them all at once or one at a time?

A lot of people feel that moving one unit at a time, alternating with the enemy, doesn't give the sense of an army co-operating together, different arms supporting each other? The I go You go system feels more like commanding a cohesive, co-ordinated force to many people.

Hi folks.
In terms of game turn mechanics,the interleaved phases/actions, where one player performs one action with all units, then the other player performs one action with all their units, increases the level of interaction, while letting the force operate as a cohesive whole.

(We have experienced the imbalance in game play of 40k when alternating unit activation game turn is used.UNLESS other systems or restrictions are used to counter it.)

And in limited play testing over the last 6 or so years shows alternating phases/actions do seem to fit current 40k gawnme play the best.(In our opinion.)

I agree that the armour /weapon AP resolution needs to be proportional, but I have posted two much simpler and more elegant options, higher up in the thread. (Can we leave the needless lists of additional modifiers to 2nd ed?)

Basing current 40k on WHFB rules is just so limiting and counter intuitive, When there have been lots of much better resolution methods and game mechanics developed THIS CENTURY!

marlowc wrote:

 jamopower wrote:
I don't understand. You have the same amount of units, no matter if you move them all at once or one at a time?

A lot of people feel that moving one unit at a time, alternating with the enemy, doesn't give the sense of an army co-operating together, different arms supporting each other? The I go You go system feels more like commanding a cohesive, co-ordinated force to many people.

The inherent problem is more that the guy that brings the giant deathstar gets to obliterate parts of the MSU force before they get to hit back; it's a more complex game that doesn't actually solve any of the problems unless both sides bring a roughly equal number of units.

My focus in Aegis was on making individual turns shorter and more reactive so as to not reward or punish people for bringing the wrong number of units while still speeding up play; another concept I've been tossing around is to tightly control unit sizes such that everyone will be bringing roughly the same number of different units even if they do have radically different model counts because someone's spamming Cultists and the other person is running Grey Knights.

The inherent problem is more that the guy that brings the giant deathstar gets to obliterate parts of the MSU force before they get to hit back; it's a more complex game that doesn't actually solve any of the problems unless both sides bring a roughly equal number of units.

I'm not so sure this is a real problem, because if someone wants to send a 600 point deathstar against my 50 point guardsmen squad, i'm perfectly OK with that. Even deathstars can only attack one unit at a time.

A bigger problem is the deathstars themselves, and the rules regarding unit interactions, since any unit can target anything they want, meaning the game is basically reduced to picking the best target available, with no way for me to affect my opponent's choices through things like stealth, maneuvering, and unit placement. The only factor in your control is cover, and with the increased prevalence of ignores cover and assault grenades, even this is becoming less relevant.

---------------------------

More importantly, instead of a straight 1 to 1 activation system, look at something like the alternating activation system from bolt action, where you and your opponent get a colored activation token for every unit you have, put these tokens in to a bag, and alternate drawing tokens, with the players whose color was drawn getting to activate a unit. At the end of the game turn, you just put the activation markers from all the units left back in the bag, and start over.

This system means that even if you put a massive number of points into a unit, your opponent gets to activate approximately the same number of points in return before you can respond, regardless of the number of units taken. These tokens then also conveniently serve as activation markers to show which units have yet to be activated.

Once you get out of the "I-GO-U-GO" system, you can then experiment with reaction mechanics that allow me to do something other than stand there and idly take a hit, and/or the ability to interrupt the enemy unit's activation.

Imperial guard armies might need some sort of special rule to recreate a minor version of I-GO-U-GO though, as it makes thematic sense for them to be clunky and focused on brute force over quick reactions. Also, infantry squads would all count as separate units as opposed to Boyz squads and Gaunt broods of 30 models, and i'd hate to have to resolve so many weak units so slowly.

The problem with the Bolt Action setup is that the game could end up being decided by drawing dice out of a hat. I thought we were aiming for less randomness, not more? Warmachine seems to do very well on alternating turns simply by having shorter turns than 40k, it's not like interleaved activations are 100% essential to good gameplay flow.

The problem with the Bolt Action setup is that the game could end up being decided by drawing dice out of a hat. I thought we were aiming for less randomness, not more? Warmachine seems to do very well on alternating turns simply by having shorter turns than 40k, it's not like interleaved activations are 100% essential to good gameplay flow.

The odds of the game being decided by the activation draws is incredibly, almost laughably, low. And even then, the absolute worse case is that we have a game turn that plays exactly the same as what we have right now.

If I have 5 200 point units, and my opponent has 10 100 point units, the odds of me being able to activate all 5 of my units before my opponent gets to activate a single unit is 1 in 3003 turns. We would have to play an average of 500 games to have this happen just once. In practice, as I get more activations in a row, probability swings the odds in favor of my opponent to balance it out.

------------------------

As for the topic of randomness, the problem with GW's style of randomness is that it all too often is something that happens rarely, but affects the game in massive (or incredibly unimportant) ways, such as the warp storm table, random psychic powers, and the champion of chaos rule. An example of randomness done well would be Ork Lootas, because even though they fire D3 shots each turn, it happens every turn, meaning there are enough instances for the law of averages to come into play, rather than pure chance, so they are quite reliable despite their randomness.

Randomness in moderation can make the game more interesting, as it can create tension and intrigue where there would be none otherwise. Imagine if we played the game without dice, and merely used the average results expected from every unit's actions. This doesn't sound very interesting to me, yet it's inarguably less random than what we have now.

I would argue that a little bit of randomness in the right places, for example game length and the activation system, is in the best interest of the game.

The bolt action mechanism combined with possibility for reaction with some sort of test (as in Battle of Antares rules) combined with possibilty for leaders to break the sequence by commands on some sort of command radius by succesful leadership tests would be really cool.

Edit. My take on activation would be that you have two actions for each unit out of moving, running, shooting, charging or psychic powering. After all units have been activated, the needed morale checks are taken and there would be a close combat phase with all the extra moves like battle focus and jet packs. After combat, the objectives are scored, stuff tidied etc. This would keep the game playable with minimum amount of rule rewriting. I'm sure it would have its issues, but it's not like the game currently would be perfect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lanrak wrote:
Hi folks.
In terms of game turn mechanics,the interleaved phases/actions, where one player performs one action with all units, then the other player performs one action with all their units, increases the level of interaction, while letting the force operate as a cohesive whole.

(We have experienced the imbalance in game play of 40k when alternating unit activation game turn is used.UNLESS other systems or restrictions are used to counter it.)

And in limited play testing over the last 6 or so years shows alternating phases/actions do seem to fit current 40k gawnme play the best.(In our opinion.)

I agree that the armour /weapon AP resolution needs to be proportional, but I have posted two much simpler and more elegant options, higher up in the thread. (Can we leave the needless lists of additional modifiers to 2nd ed?)

Basing current 40k on WHFB rules is just so limiting and counter intuitive, When there have been lots of much better resolution methods and game mechanics developed THIS CENTURY!

I like the system where the ap is the value you remove from succesful saves. Only problem would be that it would make the units with high armour save without invulnerable save quite easy to kill. Perhaps reducing the ap values of guns all round would help, otherwise stuff like bolters would kill marines in droves.

Hi jamopower.

If you change the way the AP values act on the armour save, then AP values would have to be revised.
(I thought I posted that revised values would be necessary in my explanation.)

If you are writing the rules with a set game turn mechanic in mind, then you control the level of interaction of the elements and players to suit that particular game turn.

IF you have to add lots of restrictions/extra rules to a game turn mechanic to make it work how you want.It probably is not suitable for the game play you want..

If we list the basic single actions[i] a unit may take as .
move , attack*, ready.

(*The type of attack the unit makes depends on range to target and weapons /abilities .Ranged, close combat and psychic attacks are all attack actions.)


And use two action sets and call them an order/command.(Most game use 6 different orders/commands, so they can use order dice.)

The simply use a alternating action game turn.
eg .
Command phase.

First action phase.

Second action phase.

Resolution phase.

Man you guys have been busy. Sorry, organic chemistry is time consuming.

Starting from the top, I did managed to run half a dozen abridged playtests on Vassal with Lanrak's structure point system (choosing the kind of damage by a 50/50 roll). What I saw was under the structure point system, while scoring damage happened at about the same rate as normal, the significance of that damage was much lower. For mid-ranged guns like Autocannons the system was fine, but Lascannons and particularly Melta-weapons suffered. Because Meltaguns couldn't score incapacitating damage, their short range left them perpetually vulnerable. Landraiders with Tech-Marines were actually unkillable; even if a repair result doesn't replenish a structure point, and even if AP1 weapons deal double structure point damage, the Landraiders or their cargo can kill any Melta wielders first. I feel that a damage table modified by the weapon's stats is easier to balance.

I don't think that AP values need to be changed in the system Lanrak devised because proper use of cover typically averages out a model's durability to normal values. What this means is that every player needs to consider cover as a priority, instead of Space Marines and Terminators walking out into heavy weapons fire without a care in the world. As an MEQ player, I didn't care about cover because old systems didn't reward me for using it; even artillery could only hurt a couple models if I spaced out properly. This system is negative feedback instead of positive but as an avid Dark Souls player I think that's fine so long as it increases tactical consideration.

At this point, I'm opposed creating phases in the normal 40k sense because that's where the majority of rules conflicts and incongruity arise. The point of my action system is that the player follows one sequence exactly as it is written in the action with no interruption and no confusion. The potential to react (such as Defensive Fire or whatever) is then written into the action, instead of having to take the initiative to find rules written in other places.

I have definitely been looking into ways to make leadership a more valuable stat by making morale and pinning tests very common. I don't recall if I mentioned it, but I'm going to get rid of instant-death on double strength because the only thing it does is render independent characters useless; why have a useless feature in the game? Coupled with their use in leading charges, beatsticks are back in vogue. That leaves your IG Command Squads and Ethereals. I was actually working on a way for IG to give orders, and I think that system can be expanded for all armies, with IG having additional advantages. It's similar to the orders introduced in 5th: you activate the command squad to make an Order action; the action then specifies target unit's weapons are all twin-linked and that unit makes a shooting attack against an enemy MC (for example), at the end of which the target is exhausted and not the command squad. So long as the commander is alive, you just keep activating him to give orders to new units, rather than activating the unit itself. Of course there'd be range restrictions and leadership tests, but it would have an interesting affect on army compositions and target priority.

I think the rulebook could have a suite of orders divided amongst a few categories (ordnance commander, assault commander, etc.) where, much like Warlord traits, you picked a category for your commander that game. It could run into issues about what constitutes a commander, though I feel like continuing the trend of player freedom is fine. An Ork Warboss might be an assault commander, but the horde has a leadership of 6 or 7 so good luck getting an order to actually pass without wasting a turn (same with Nids). Perhaps you choose a category for each detachment and all HQ units can give orders in its detachment. That would reward intelligent and organized force compositions. For instance, an infantry-focused primary detachment with a Captain to give movement and cover orders, with a Chaplain leading a secondary assault detachment with close combat marines.

I think, having again read through the alpha play test rules of Battle for Antares by Warlord games (Rick Priestley), that it will address most of the needs and ideas in this thread. I guess the playtested version of the rules should be released some time from now?

Rav1rn wrote:

The problem with the Bolt Action setup is that the game could end up being decided by drawing dice out of a hat. I thought we were aiming for less randomness, not more? Warmachine seems to do very well on alternating turns simply by having shorter turns than 40k, it's not like interleaved activations are 100% essential to good gameplay flow.

The odds of the game being decided by the activation draws is incredibly, almost laughably, low. And even then, the absolute worse case is that we have a game turn that plays exactly the same as what we have right now.

If I have 5 200 point units, and my opponent has 10 100 point units, the odds of me being able to activate all 5 of my units before my opponent gets to activate a single unit is 1 in 3003 turns. We would have to play an average of 500 games to have this happen just once. In practice, as I get more activations in a row, probability swings the odds in favor of my opponent to balance it out.

------------------------

As for the topic of randomness, the problem with GW's style of randomness is that it all too often is something that happens rarely, but affects the game in massive (or incredibly unimportant) ways, such as the warp storm table, random psychic powers, and the champion of chaos rule. An example of randomness done well would be Ork Lootas, because even though they fire D3 shots each turn, it happens every turn, meaning there are enough instances for the law of averages to come into play, rather than pure chance, so they are quite reliable despite their randomness.

Randomness in moderation can make the game more interesting, as it can create tension and intrigue where there would be none otherwise. Imagine if we played the game without dice, and merely used the average results expected from every unit's actions. This doesn't sound very interesting to me, yet it's inarguably less random than what we have now.

I would argue that a little bit of randomness in the right places, for example game length and the activation system, is in the best interest of the game.

The inherent problem is that you're increasing the degree to which you can make a battle plan and then have the plan shot in the foot and tossed out of the airlock by the dice. I'm not trying to suggest we're supposed to make 40k work like chess here, I'm suggesting that it's bad when a single randomly-generated number has inordinate influence on the outcome of the game. It's the same reason I hate Escalation, it's not about any individual thing being too good at killing things, it's about one die rolling a 6 deciding the entire game.

I know, I know, I'm exaggerating, but the fact remains that creating shorter/more reactive turns (where the person whose turn it isn't has more to do) would solve the same problem without needing to give the drawing of a die inordinate influence over the outcome of the game.

An example, briefly: Two Space Marine Sternguard squads are 18" apart. It's the top of the turn and we're drawing dice out of a hat. What determines which one dies?

@jamopower.
Gates Of Antares is more of a large skirmish game.(Based on Bolt action rules.) And it does look good !

However,current 40k is a larger battle game.

@All
And this is the thing, getting the game turn to fit the current preconceptions of 40k game play is quite difficult.
If we use the current alternating game turn, extra reaction rules are needed.
if we use alternating unit activation, extra work is needed to restrict unit variety to control imbalance/ and or control activation order/sheduling.

However, using alternating phases or actions , interleaves the interaction in a simple way.That is more intuitive and allows tactical planing, as a player activates all their units at the same time.
BUT only takes one action before the enemy units get the opportunity to take an action.

@Darkhound.
I intended to give armour busting weapons the ability to cause multiple damaging hits .(Special ability where they get bonus damage rolls , for every 2 pips the target fails its save by.)
AP values of 1 and 2 may be e bit excessive under the new proposed use of AP values.But revised by play testing is possible the best way to go.