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.

Oh dear here we go again.

I've have long been thinking about the differences between Fantasy and 40k, and what makes either game cool to me, and have generally reached the conclusion that there's a lot of stuff in 40k that's not really needed, as have most of us. So, here's my own try on making a modified system fo 40k, but with many of the rules that Fantasy has, or 40k ditched earlier. It's simply me making a list of stuff I'd make in a changed 40k game, for my pleasure. You are welcome to add your opinion to it, if you so desire.

I will now write a list of stuff that I'd change and how, starting with the General Stuff, and later going into specific rules and Phases. When I get around to it, I'll also add specific faction changes, as many has to be changed to accommodate the new system. Keep in mind, this list will by no means be comprehensive as a start, and will lack several rules I actually want to change, mostly because I'll forget about them.

Warning: This ruleset change is not meant to be for everyone and everything. This is not supposed to be the be-all end-all 40k game, just the one I'd like to play with. It won't fit all, and will not be balanced at first (though we'll get to that later on). It will also really shake up the game in general, allowing some models to change position and use in the meta. This is intentional, and while I won't care for what or how this happens, feel free to ask me about things you like or don't like. I will read it, and if there's a change I didn't think about, I might do something about that.

With that out of the way... Let's get fantasising!

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

Warhammer 40.000 - Fantasy Edition.

General Stuff.

*Formations, Detatchments, Allies and the Force Organisation Chart are removed: Simple cleanup. While some of these rules will make a comeback, it's necessairy to remove it first. I aim at making the game fairly simple and remove additions as a start to make room for basic changes to the formula.

*A Percent Organisation system is added: While it will work mostly like Fantasy, there'll be changes. I suspect the >25% Core/Troops, <25% Lords, Heroes and Rare will stay, but what has to happen after this is a bit unsure. I suspect you could break up the Special section with most of the Heavy and Fast choices, and move some around to make them fit as a full choice. No matter what, there'll be changes to where certain units fit. E.g, in the SM codex, Assault Marines might be a Core choice instead of Fast, alongside the Predator, when we get that far.

*All models will now have a Move stat: Simple, easy. Guardsman will have 4, Tacticals and Guardians 5 and Necron Warriors 3, for example.
**Fleet, Crusader and other movement-enchancing USRs are removed: With specific M values, these are mostly pointless.

*All Vehicles will now function as regular units: A big one for me: Vehicles now loses Armour Values, facing and other some such stuff, and instead gain a Toughness rating and an Armour value (Trukks would have T 6 5+, Land Raiders T 10 (!) 3+). This also means that the Damage Chart isn't gonna be in the game. Hull Points are now Wounds. These changes are drastic, but essentially just for making the game simpler to play and understand. Much of this might sound extreme, but there's more to it, because...

*There is no To Wound Cap: As with Fantasy, all attacks ALWAYS wound on a To Wound roll of 6, and ALWAYS fails on a To Wound roll of 1. This works all over the game, and so also with Vehicles. That Land Raider isn't so tough now, huh? But there's more...

*Armour Reduction replaces the AP value system: ... This. It's one of the tasty ones - Like in Fantasy, Armour Saves are reduced relative to the Strength of the attack in question, but not just like Fantasy: Instead, every second Strength value with and after 4 decreases the enemy Armour Save with - 1, so 4, 6, 8 and 10 decreases Armour Saves to a maximum of - 4. Notice that this can't reduce Terminator Armour below 6 +, and remember that certain weapons might get a special USR representing armourpiercing, adding more armour reduction.

*Fliers, Super Heavy Vehicles and Gargantuan Creatures are removed: But not for good. Until I've found out how to do them, I won't be doing them. Besides, I think they fare better in larger games, and not 40k games, who I see as more of a Skirmish game.

*Invulnerability Saves can be taken after Armour Saves like Ward Saves: A bit unsure on how this will function, but we'll see. I think it's for the better, especially for some Lord choices, who'll want the resilliance.

*Models cannot be instantly killed with a weapon with double the targets T in S: There's a simple reason for this: There's simply way too many high strength weapons in the game that take advantage of it. Some models, like Nobs, are really weird to use for this very reason, and other changes shown later will further boost troops like these.

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

That will be it for now. Please tell me your thoughts, and I'll be back to write about the Movement Phase very soon!

- The Wise Dane.

*Formations, Detatchments, Allies and the Force Organisation Chart are removed: Simple cleanup. While some of these rules will make a comeback, it's necessairy to remove it first. I aim at making the game fairly simple and remove additions as a start to make room for basic changes to the formula.

Oh boy, I'm seeing IK and Riptide spam.

*All models will now have a Move stat: Simple, easy. Guardsman will have 4, Tacticals and Guardians 5 and Necron Warriors 3, for example.

Why? it would just complicate everything.

*There is no To Wound Cap: As with Fantasy, all attacks ALWAYS wound on a To Wound roll of 6, and ALWAYS fails on a To Wound roll of 1. This works all over the game, and so also with Vehicles. That Land Raider isn't so tough now, huh? But there's more...

So... Necrons lose half their Anti-Tank?

*Invulnerability Saves can be taken after Armour Saves like Ward Saves: A bit unsure on how this will function, but we'll see. I think it's for the better, especially for some Lord choices, who'll want the resilliance.

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the 2+/3++ saves I'm taking.

 Matthew wrote:

*Formations, Detatchments, Allies and the Force Organisation Chart are removed: Simple cleanup. While some of these rules will make a comeback, it's necessairy to remove it first. I aim at making the game fairly simple and remove additions as a start to make room for basic changes to the formula.

Oh boy, I'm seeing IK and Riptide spam.

*All models will now have a Move stat: Simple, easy. Guardsman will have 4, Tacticals and Guardians 5 and Necron Warriors 3, for example.

Why? it would just complicate everything.

*There is no To Wound Cap: As with Fantasy, all attacks ALWAYS wound on a To Wound roll of 6, and ALWAYS fails on a To Wound roll of 1. This works all over the game, and so also with Vehicles. That Land Raider isn't so tough now, huh? But there's more...

So... Necrons lose half their Anti-Tank?

*Invulnerability Saves can be taken after Armour Saves like Ward Saves: A bit unsure on how this will function, but we'll see. I think it's for the better, especially for some Lord choices, who'll want the resilliance.

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the 2+/3++ saves I'm taking.

Most of these have rules coming for them later, so here's what I'm thinking:

1. Indeed, which is why most of these are either 1) not gonna be in the game from the start (As IKs are technically Super Heavies) or 2) will prop. be a Rare option, which, at most, means the Riptide will have two Riptides in one army. Alternatively, the Riptide might get a "Only one per army" rule.

2. Maybe it will be complicated, maybe not. I personally think the Fleet, Crusader, Charge, Run, Difficult Terrain and asorted other movement rules are bloated and tough to remember, but whatever.

3. Not exactly. As far as I remember it, Gauss makes To Hits of 6 hit with double strength, which is nice when you have to Wound next sub-phase. Suddenly you are wounding a T 6 Vehicles (Trukks, for example) on a 2+, rather than a 6+, which you gotta admit is freaking brilliant.

4. This is a legitimate concern, though. While mostly that would be 3+/3++ (as most hits would be S 4 or higher, from Bolters, for example), it's still very resilient against normal firepower, which Termies aren't right now. If we're imagining a Assault Termie, this will mean that its general resilience will go way up, shrugging of even Demolisher hits like normal, and being more resilient to handguns. I'm thinking that Storm Shields need some sort of nerf, though, as the current rules for them wouldn't help in this envoirment. The shield rule from Fantasy could give the Termies 1+ Armour Saves, and a 4++, but only in the shooting phase (as they are power-fields after all). Then, the Parry Save (which I'll cover later) will be your normal 5++ in combat (It'll be something about any weapon giving a 6++ in combat, and if you have a shield, that goes to 5++. A general rule, which Champions in Command Squads will like)

I do believe your being deliberately obtuse. If you think movement will complicate the game then you have ridiculous standards. Chaos chart of unfortunate events complicates the game, random warlord traits complicate the game and random objectives complicate the game needlessly. But a movement value makes sense! Should a Guardsmen move at the same speed as a Space Marine which moves at the same speed as a Trygon.

Your concern about 2+/3++ saves is also not well thought out, did you read it all? They only get a 2+/3++ vs Str 3 or less, at strength 4 it's a 3+ re-rollable which is only a little better then a 2+. Terminators SHOULD tank lots of Las shots, again a lack of thought is seen.

My only concern is that i'd argue that vehicles should keep being such and not turned into creatures. Vehicles make 40K unique from fantasy and can be fixed without much change, Las Guns shouldn't be able to beat a Land Raider no matter how many shots or how much luck. Apart from that i will be watching this threat with interest.

It hasn't even been a day, and I'm already ready with another post? I think I mean it. Proberly.

This time, we'll look at a phase, with the power to entertain you, with the power to win you games... It's a phase with the power to move you!

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

Movement Phase

*New Phase, taken directly from Fantasy - Start of Turn, Charge, Compulsory Moves and Normal Moves: There are several reasons to do this. First, by allowing a model to charge as the first thing when the turn starts allows the model to sorta charge after running, as the model will be allowed to run in the last movement phase, and then charge directly after in the next. It will let the enemy shoot at the enemy and move away for a turn.
**Start of Turn: All effects that end or start in the start of a turn go here. What these are, I have no idea... Yet.
**Charge: I really, reaaaaally wanted to make the charge range a fit range a la Warmachine and Hordes, but looking at it, it will just make people stay juuust out of the charge range of enemy models. I don't want that. Instead, we'll keep the old Fantasy rules: 2d6" + the M of the unit in question. This means an average charge for an Ork Mob is around 11", not withthinking 'Ere We Go. You can only elect to charge an enemy unit you can actually reach.
***The charged unit can now choose what Charge Reaction to do:
****Hold: The charged unit braces and prepares weapons: The unit takes the charge as normal.
****Overwatch: The charged unit shots into the enemy bearing down upon them: The unit may shoot one shot per model with whatever weapon they want with -2 to hit, but get Always Strikes Last until the end of the Combat Phase. Cannot be used if the enemy unit is within their M of the enemy in question when charging. This is sorta experimental, and I'm not sure of how it's gonna work.
****Fall Back!: The unit flees from the enemy with all haste: The charged unit immideatly makes a 2d6" move away from the enemy unit (away meaning that the unit has to move from the charging unit, and can't use the move to get closer to them in any way, shape or form. The Charging unit may now charge as normal to see if they catch the enemy unit - For every charging model that comes into base contact with an enemy model, remove a model. The two units are then counted as being in combat like normal. The removed models are counted towards Combat Resolution.
****EXPERIMENTAL IDEA - Last Stand: The unit gathers its faith and courage, and charges the foe in a last defying act. The unit must take a Ld check - If failed, the unit Falls Back instead. If succesful, the unit gains the Frenzy, Fearless and Furious Charge USRs for the following fight sub-phase, but automatically loses 1d6 models per 10 models originally in the unit after the Fight Sub-phase. (Alternatively simply removes the entire squad instead of 1d6 per 10 models)
***CHAAAAARGE!: Now, the charging unit makes its charge, as long as it passed any Panic test that might have occured. If at least one model is in base contact with an enemy model at the end of the charge, both units are in combat. Leave them for now.
**Compulsory Moves: I suspect Frenzy will be in this version of the game, so look out for that. Other models might have something similar, that'll use the Compulsory phase.
***Rally: Units who are fleeing take a Ld check to see if they regain their will to fight. Units with only 25% of their models left may only Rally on a double 1.
***Flee: Units who does not do this, must flee 2d6" towards their table edge. If touching the table edge with as much as one model, the unit has fled the battle completely.
**Remaining Moves: All models move their M in inches. Exactly what it sounds like.
***A unit can choose to Double Time (Run) in the Normal Moves phase, by doubling their M and move those amounts of inches. The model cannot shoot in this turn: This happens fully in the Movement Phase, for simplicity's sake. It's called Double Time, as other models like Bikes and Vehicles will use these rules too.

*All Infantry moves normally in Difficult Terrain: Yep. I've found that the slowed movement in Difficult terrain rarely adds to the game, and often is generally counter-intuative. The point to footed infantry is, that they'll get through ruins, fields and swamps, that a tank would be stuck in. In the game, it seems that there's supposed to be a choice of "Do I put my vulnerable Infantry in open ground, where they'll move normally, or in the safer cover, that'll slow them down?", a question I don't feel is needed in a game like this.

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

And that's basically it. There's more to it with the different unit types, but we'll touch upon that later. Now, I'm going to paint some stuff. Please leave comments if you have some sort of concern

- The Wise Dane

Comin' in from downtown with a new section for ya'll, here's the Shooting Phase, combined with a few notes on how to do casulties in general. I'll be jumping over the Psychic Phase with grace and easy mind, simply because I don't really know what to do about it. I mean, it seems like it works pretty well overall, and while it does has its own phase, I don't feel like it has the same impact as Magic does in Fantasy. If someone has ideas for the Psychic Phase, you are free to write me.

Where were we? Right, Shooting Phase. Here we go.

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

Shooting Phase.

*All cover, no matter which type, bestow a -1 To Hit modifier on a unit shooting the squad in cover: Simple, effective. It's something many have wished for in quite a long time, and I feel it fits the game better than what we have at this time. It might be a bit excessive, as we now lack any special sort of cover that might have made the game more tactical. but whatever, it's better for simplicity.

*Units shooting a weapon at an enemy with all models outside half the weapon's range has a -1 To Hit modifier: No, put that pitchfork down. Sure, this seems pretty hardcore, but at least I'm not penalizing movement too. Some weapons will ignore this, though - We'll get to that.

*All guns shoot one shot standard, unless stated otherwise: While this might seem a bit "too much" for some units, I feel it is needed for a more melee-centered game than what we know. Certain weapons will of course have more shoots, or stuff like "1d6" shots, to compensate.

*Blasts will usually have one strength value for the center, and another for the rest of the blast: Are you tired of Ion Accelerator Riptides? Let me hear you say "hell yeah"... Me too. This is mainly to make Blast weaponry more useful on Tanks, by making them less useful against infantry. F.eks. The Battle Cannon is mostly used as an Anti Infantry weapon, but if you made it into a, say, S 8 (6), with 1D3 Wounds in the middle, we have a weapon that can do several things, depending on what you feel like slapping.

*Blasts will be shot like were they regular shots, using BS to determain if you hit or not - If not, you'll Scatter like normal: A bit of inspiration taken from your Warmachines and your Hordes, this is just to make the going simpler.

*When taking Wounds in combat or by shooting, remove regular models in the squad, who are as far away from from the attacking squad as possible. When regular models are gone, you remove Specialists and then Squadleaders. If targetting a squad, you'll never hit ICs - If targetting ICs, you can make a 5+ Look Out Sir! save, and if succeeded, the unit takes the wound like it was targetted instead: Fantasy, but not. This is very abstract, but with a ruler in hand and a bit of fair measure, this should be alright.

*If a unit takes over 25% casulties in the Shooting Phase, make a Ld-check - If failed, the unit immidieatly flees 2d6" towards your table edge. When failed, any friendly unit partly within 12" must take a Panic test or run too: Oh gak it just got right real. Is this heavy heanded? Is this excessive? Maybe. But I feel Leadership is gravely lacking in the game at this time, so this' how it's gonna be.

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

I think that's it. It seems a bit weird now I imagine, but we'll cover different weapons soon enough, and some USRs will mitigate a good load of these.

Do you have comments? Please comment, like and subscri- I mean write your comments to the phase, or ask, if you've got any questions.

I love fantasy and I love 40k, but people already whine about over complicated rules, and this wouldn't help that. plus I feel that you are missing that fantasy is a much larger scale game, as in whole armies rather than a platoon.

Eh. the percent system is little to no better than the force org chart misses the scale of 40k.
having a move stat works against the feel of a smaller conflict.
and no, making vehicles have a toughness is not a clever idea. If I can lasgun a land raider to death, why ever take transports or vehicles?
I like the idea of invuln after armor to better represent the protection.
if I hit a space marine with an anti tank fire storm of death, it should be instakilled, only change I would make is still allow invulns.

the current phase set up works just fine, this just over complicates it, again.
Last stand would make sense in some cases, but be beyond broken in others, if you wanted to fix it, give them frenzy, but make them NEED a double 1 to stay in combat or something.

Having a -1 to hit made sense for bows and javelins, but not so much on rather accurate firearms.
All cover gives a -1 is dumb, as a Forrest will not be as effective as a building.
Again over complicating by adding strength differences in blasts. making you roll before you roll scatter is not simpler, its MORE dice rolls.
the first half of the LD rule is there, though making the others flee is not representative of the scale, again.


All in all, this is not a very good idea. I see why you would want this, but if you have fantasy, why change 40k into fantasy in space rules wise? so you can play the same game twice? My issue, as I have repeatedly pointed out, is a portion of fantasy's rules come from the fact that it is an army scale game, while 40k is a large scale skirmish/platoon game. Cover giving different saves, the same base movement, and no penalties to shooting is a result of this. I mean at the rate you are going, why not add loose and tight formations to infantry squads, also a point to the scale they are squads in 40k, not regiments like they are in fantasy.

I like your Armour Modifier system and think it could be very useful in regular 40k. With those modifiers in place, I could see all saves being taken as legitimate (Invuns and Armour, etc) though I'd consider making Cover a modifier again too in that case.

I also like the idea of multiple Charge reactions, and Overwatch not always being a good choice.

But after that I'm getting less interested in the ideas here.

OH YEAH! charge reactions, I liek that Idea and actualy tried a few games with my own implemented.
1) Brace: go at initiative, i.e. regular charge
2) Over watch: fire guns, -1 initiative
3) fall back: treat as being over run.

Since your post is quite elaborate, I'll try and answer each seperately.

I love fantasy and I love 40k, but people already whine about over complicated rules, and this wouldn't help that. plus I feel that you are missing that fantasy is a much larger scale game, as in whole armies rather than a platoon.

First off, I just want to make sure you understand that this is a ruleset for myself, and not a shot at making the "perfect 40k system". I like the Fantasy rules more, and therefor want something remiscent of that. Writing it here mainly helps me remember it all, and lets people critize it, like in this case. I myself have no problem with complicated rulesets, as long as we don't have specific rulesets for different things. I'll get to that in a minute.

Eh. the percent system is little to no better than the force org chart misses the scale of 40k.

Yeah, it's about right. What I do like about it is, that it means that you have to have a core of models to take other models - Right now, a Tac player takes two minimum Scouts and is over with it. I think that misses the point to the game, and isn't very 40k to me, Infantry lover me. I don't see how it misses the scale, though. If anything, Fantasy is SMALLER than 40k, simply because there's less units at a time. I just prefer it. Okay, it does needs tweaking... Ideas?

having a move stat works against the feel of a smaller conflict.

... Okay? I don't see that, though. I can agree that it might need further tweaking too (Marines and Eldar 6", Humies 5" and Necrons 4", for example), but it'll make some units more unique in the way they function, and doesn't force me to remember three different ranges per unit type... Also simplifies Running for all units. I'll get to that in a later post, though.

and no, making vehicles have a toughness is not a clever idea. If I can lasgun a land raider to death, why ever take transports or vehicles?

Can you clarifiy? I did the math: a full 50 Lasguns on one Land Raider, and it gives me around 2-3 wounds, with a 3+ save. Agreed, that's a lot, and it might need tweaking - Remember, no units have been reworked yet, so the Land Raider could very well end up with T 10, 3+ and 8 W, or T 10, 2+, 6 W. Plus, that's over the amount of pt a Land Raider costs: My goal is to make Infantry a bit more worthwhile by, for example, giving them options against regular tanks and such. Besides, if thats a whole platoon focussing one model - It isn't doing much to the rest of the army!

I like the idea of invuln after armor to better represent the protection.

My goal of buffing regular units

if I hit a space marine with an anti tank fire storm of death, it should be instakilled, only change I would make is still allow invulns.

Nobody said they'd only take one wound. Who knows, as stated, a Battle Cannon who hits the target spot on might do up to three wounds! That could remove a lot of characters...

the current phase set up works just fine, this just over complicates it, again.

Meh, it's about the same. Just keeps movement in one phase, barring Flee! moves.

Last stand would make sense in some cases, but be beyond broken in others, if you wanted to fix it, give them frenzy, but make them NEED a double 1 to stay in combat or something.

Good idea. It's still experimental, as stated, but your idea is nice.

Having a -1 to hit made sense for bows and javelins, but not so much on rather accurate firearms.

This one you might get me at. I was very much disagreeing with myself over it - Make it so there would be a penalty on movement, or on less than half range. I chose the latter, because it promotes aggressive play and mobility, and not static firelines. I don't care what "makes sense" or does not, somply because I'm thinking about the game, and not about what would make the game the most cinematic. That's the problem with the current Vehicle ruleset (Oh, tank? Lets EXPLODE it, because this is an action movie, right?), and much else: It's simply not coherent enough for my liking. A lot of stuff in Fantasy doesn't make sense either, and don't even get me started on Warmahordes, but I want a fun to play game, and this' the way I'm going

All cover gives a -1 is dumb, as a Forrest will not be as effective as a building.

Same case as above. I was thinking about it, but really, a -2 To Hit modifier? Rerolls or something like that? I couldn't find a passable solution. If you can, please write, I'd love to hear it!

Again over complicating by adding strength differences in blasts. making you roll before you roll scatter is not simpler, its MORE dice rolls.

But follows the standard gameplay better. It's more dice, but less divergence.

All in all, this is not a very good idea. I see why you would want this, but if you have fantasy, why change 40k into fantasy in space rules wise? so you can play the same game twice? My issue, as I have repeatedly pointed out, is a portion of fantasy's rules come from the fact that it is an army scale game, while 40k is a large scale skirmish/platoon game. Cover giving different saves, the same base movement, and no penalties to shooting is a result of this. I mean at the rate you are going, why not add loose and tight formations to infantry squads, also a point to the scale they are squads in 40k, not regiments like they are in fantasy.

We've covered most of this already. My point is: I'd like a game that follows Fantasy in Space. I like it. 40K is, to me, not a Skirmish game (as long as you're not playing Kill Team), but it's not a Battle or Army game either. It's neither. So, I thought, lets go with the Fantasy route: Make a plain percent table, and roll up the size slider! Fantasy isn't too balanced at either 500 pt or 3000 pt, and ther'll be some time for this game to find it's optimal place on the slider, and that's just it: There's no "40K is" to me. Theres "40k doesn't know what the hell it is", and that's not good enough. It's in my sig, there's no coherent size, no coherent system, no coherent army-building - Nothing in the core game is coherent, other than it uses d6's.

Maybe you feel different, but I like this. It'll be different, it'll take work, but it believe it can be done.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Brennonjw wrote:
OH YEAH! charge reactions, I liek that Idea and actualy tried a few games with my own implemented.
1) Brace: go at initiative, i.e. regular charge
2) Over watch: fire guns, -1 initiative
3) fall back: treat as being over run.

Thank you Just something to get Snap Shots as far, far, far, far, far away as humanly possible. *shudder*

ok, so after your post, that clears it up, i might have missed it, but pointing out that you want to make a ruleset for yourself and others as a nice side I like a lot more than what I took as wanting to game to go that way.

1) hmm, how about leaving the force org. chart, but give core troops some more intensive, things like objective secured do that now, but it isn't enticing enough.

2)the move stat in fantasy, to me, was more representative of the difficulty in moving in formation, along with the more diverse racial differences in fantasy. instead of having a move stat, if you wanted to simplify, give everyoen a base 6" run, but give eldar and other fast units d3 more, or something the like.

3) I feel like treating tanks like infantry just messes with the aesthetic and idea of big lumbering vehicles being a large threat on the table. maybe instead of switching around and doing a ton of balancing to make it fair, how about either a hard limit on vehicles, or a point increase to vehicles? possibly an infantry special rule that gives them some sort of bonus vs. vehicles.... vehicle dangerous terrain imobilises on a 4+ w/o dozer blade or the like, 6+ takes a glancing hit?

4) Agreed, invulnerable after armor is a yay!

5) I still feel like ID should still be there to make things feel more massive, but still allowing invulns and feel no pain would balance it out.

6) it kind of is, the only difference is moving assault till after shooting, which I feel better represents the fact that guns, again, are much faster than bows and arrows.

7) I would either leave it as a separate roll, or possibly a +1 to armor roll for light and +2 for heavy cover, still leaving 1's as isnta fail.

8) I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one, I feel that having the outer rim be a different strength is just going to lead to more issue. unlike fantasy where you can aim near a unit (if I remember correctly), in 40k you HAVE to center on a model, so maybe only having the center dot be a higher strength might work.

9) Now that I know you more or less want another game system, I think this could work as well, though It will be a rickety bridge to not go insane with changes.

10) I too like my charge reaction idea

 Brennonjw wrote:
ok, so after your post, that clears it up, i might have missed it, but pointing out that you want to make a ruleset for yourself and others as a nice side I like a lot more than what I took as wanting to game to go that way.

1) hmm, how about leaving the force org. chart, but give core troops some more intensive, things like objective secured do that now, but it isn't enticing enough.

2)the move stat in fantasy, to me, was more representative of the difficulty in moving in formation, along with the more diverse racial differences in fantasy. instead of having a move stat, if you wanted to simplify, give everyoen a base 6" run, but give eldar and other fast units d3 more, or something the like.

3) I feel like treating tanks like infantry just messes with the aesthetic and idea of big lumbering vehicles being a large threat on the table. maybe instead of switching around and doing a ton of balancing to make it fair, how about either a hard limit on vehicles, or a point increase to vehicles? possibly an infantry special rule that gives them some sort of bonus vs. vehicles.... vehicle dangerous terrain imobilises on a 4+ w/o dozer blade or the like, 6+ takes a glancing hit?

4) Agreed, invulnerable after armor is a yay!

5) I still feel like ID should still be there to make things feel more massive, but still allowing invulns and feel no pain would balance it out.

6) it kind of is, the only difference is moving assault till after shooting, which I feel better represents the fact that guns, again, are much faster than bows and arrows.

7) I would either leave it as a separate roll, or possibly a +1 to armor roll for light and +2 for heavy cover, still leaving 1's as isnta fail.

8) I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one, I feel that having the outer rim be a different strength is just going to lead to more issue. unlike fantasy where you can aim near a unit (if I remember correctly), in 40k you HAVE to center on a model, so maybe only having the center dot be a higher strength might work.

9) Now that I know you more or less want another game system, I think this could work as well, though It will be a rickety bridge to not go insane with changes.

10) I too like my charge reaction idea

Insane with change? I like where this is going...

nuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

Funnily enough I implemented a lot of this in Aegis; #1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9, to be specific. I'm working on a special-weapon-points system similar to how Infinity works in place of #2, I went the opposite direction on #5 (some things should automatically fail; a lasgun hit shouldn't have any chance of stripping a hull point off a Land Raider, stuff like that), and as for #7 I do have a solution for Flyers (combine them with Fast Skimmers) but I'm still working on Gargantuan Creatures and Super-Heavies.

One thing I did that I don't see mentioned here is to-hit modifiers; I replaced cover, snap shots, and the weapon type mechanics with to-hit modifiers in certain circumstances.

(Link is in my signature, I'm revising it at present because I went too far and made everything too tough, but it's still in progress)

Hi folks.
I think 40k F.O.C is overly restrictive and could be improved.
However the percentage system that WHFB uses is a bit finnicky for some.

Would you consider using a variation of a different WHFB method.

EG
For each HQ unit.
You must take 2 to 8 Common units.
For every 2 Common units you may take one Specialized unit.
For every two Specialized units you may take one Restricted unit.

This way each themed army can class units as common, specialized and restricted , depending on the HQ chosen.

(Based on WHFB lord/hero ,core , special and rare unit selection ratios used in 5th ed WHFB?.)

I believe movements rates and limited simple modifiers can get rid of lots of rules bloat in 40k.

However, do we need to add a movement stat?Could we not simply use the unit description better?

EG
Slow infantry =3"move.
Infantry = 4" move.
Fast infantry =5" move.

Creature/walker =6" move.

Cavalry/beasts= 8" move.

Vehicle =6"

Fast Vehicle = 8"

Bikes /Skimmers = 12"

(Jump jets/jump pack allows the unit to jump over 8" of terrain, instead of a normal move.).

I am not a fan of ID and EW.

I would like to propose the use of 'if you roll 2 over the score needed to wound, you cause an extra wound on the target..

Eg
If you normally wound on a 2+ and roll a 4 or 5 you cause an extra wound.Causing 2 wounds in total. .If you roll a 6 you cause 2 extra wounds, causing 3 wounds in total.
If you normally wound on a 4+ and you roll a 6 you cause 2 wounds in total.

This just makes powerful high strength weapons more likely to cause more wounds when they beat the armour .
Rather than automatically cause 2 wounds if the strength is double the target toughness.

Just some ideas for consideration.

Wow, so much lovely feedback! Let me go through this, and my thought on it.

EG
For each HQ unit.
You must take 2 to 8 Common units.
For every 2 Common units you may take one Specialized unit.
For every two Specialized units you may take one Restricted unit.

This way each themed army can class units as common, specialized and restricted , depending on the HQ chosen.

(Based on WHFB lord/hero ,core , special and rare unit selection ratios used in 5th ed WHFB?.)

I can understand that you'd like to have a system like this, but it's simply too easy to misuse, in my opinion. Right now, we basically have a "1-2 HQ per 2 Troops", and, while you are allowed to take more than two Troops, you won't do that if you are allowed all kinds of smart stuff. Think about, say, Tau: A Tau could go with four-five Ethereals, two Fire Warriors and then a Riptide (which would go in restricted) for each Ethereal. Fluffy? Maybe, but not very balanced.

I believe movements rates and limited simple modifiers can get rid of lots of rules bloat in 40k.

However, do we need to add a movement stat?Could we not simply use the unit description better?

EG
Slow infantry =3"move.
Infantry = 4" move.
Fast infantry =5" move.

Creature/walker =6" move.

Cavalry/beasts= 8" move.

Vehicle =6"

Fast Vehicle = 8"

Bikes /Skimmers = 12"

(Jump jets/jump pack allows the unit to jump over 8" of terrain, instead of a normal move.).

Again, I see what you are proposing, but what I have problems remembering is the different move values for individual unit types, so writing them on the stat-line instead simplifies that. In most Codeces, the M rate will be very much the same, baring some changes (I could imagine Orks having 5", but Nobs having 6"). The Move value just makes it easier to look up your unit and instantly remember what it's supposed to be doing - I hat when there's, like, "Fleshbane", and I go "What the hell was that again?".

I am not a fan of ID and EW.

I would like to propose the use of 'if you roll 2 over the score needed to wound, you cause an extra wound on the target..

Eg
If you normally wound on a 2+ and roll a 4 or 5 you cause an extra wound.Causing 2 wounds in total. .If you roll a 6 you cause 2 extra wounds, causing 3 wounds in total.
If you normally wound on a 4+ and you roll a 6 you cause 2 wounds in total.

This just makes powerful high strength weapons more likely to cause more wounds when they beat the armour .
Rather than automatically cause 2 wounds if the strength is double the target toughness.

Just some ideas for consideration.

John's your uncle and Fanny's your aunt, again a good idea. What I have a problem with is, that the mindset of most players are "Let's shower that model in bombardments", which severely hampers any cool stuff that could have happened in close combat. It's not like most HQ models have more than 3 or 4 wounds anyway, so they'll still feel it. No matter what though, I think I'm wanting to use a "1d3/1d6 wounds" system for the hell of it, often in the center of blast templates and on really big melee weapons like Fists and Claws, to compensate for the lack of ID.

Overall, some good ideas, and some that would absolutely work. I like mine more, naturally, but your could definately work

Hi again.
I forgot to say that a HQ must take its at least 6 of its Common unit choices, before a new HQ accompanied by 2 of its Common units, can be added.
(EG 8 common units have to be taken to allow 2 HQ in the force.)
Specialized and Restricted units must be taken from the primary list, before any Specialized or Restricted units can be taken from any additional lists.

The idea is the themed force will follow its theme to completion.
A HQ unit allows 8 common units that allows 4 specialized units that allow 2 Restricted units.

Or you can minimize the selections to get another HQ unit and supporting common units.
Eg HQ 6 Common units.2nd HQ with 2 Common units .

You can class units how you need to to maintain balance in the force.The heavier the theme some units would become unavailable.

This allows lots of the Chapters, Klans, Regiments , Craftworlds, Kabals etc to be represented, using the same basic F.O.C system.

The proportion of at least 4 Common units for each Multiple HQ taken.
2 common units for each Specialized unit taken
4 Common units and 2 Specialized units for each Restricted unit taken,

Means this new F.O.C scales up and maintains the ratios , just as good as the percentage system does,(If the units are classed correctly.)

I hope that explains the idea better...

If all the other stats on the model profile were direct representation, adding a movement stat is the way to go.
But as 40k has 7 resolution methods for the values on the models profile.Lots of people think another value on the profile is just adding complication,
So I just suggested using the unit description to give finite movement values rather than groups of special rules as an alternative.

Shooting being more powerful than assault by default is a core flaw in the 40k game.When the playing area was not as crowded, it was not quite as obvious as it is now.

However, allowing LOS blocking rounds, like smoke/blind , would mitigate the problem a bit.(Along with some simple to hit modifiers.)

Scaling the effect of the hit by how much it succeed by does the same thing a multiple wound (D3) system .But gives proportional results rather than just random ones.
The chance to wound is already in place.So why not maximize its use , rather than add on another system ?

Your game your rules . I would like to give you some alternative to ponder though..




.

Some good ideas have been suggested, and some have left me with food for thought. I'm happy to see you supporting my idea

Anyway, can't let it hinder me now: Must keep writing! Here's the Fight Phase!

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

Fight Phase.

*At the start of each Fight Phase, all models not in base contact with an enemy model, or in base contact with a friendly model in contact with an enemy model move 3" to get into base contact to do so. Then, the opposing player moves his models in the same way. If all models aren't in base contact with an enemy model or a friendly model in contact with an enemy model in one move, keep taking turns moving until all models are in base contact with a model: Not much to say, really. It's just for getting models into close combat as fast as possible - The Initiative move isn't bad now, it's just complicated in places I don't feel is needed.

*Models in contact with an enemy model and models in contact with a friendly such as this can attack in close combat: I don't remember if this is how it is in 7th or not, but that's at east what It's supposed to be.

*Before attacks are rolled, if there's an IC in the unit, you can choose which attacks hit the enemy unit or the IC. The attacks hitting the IC can be LoS'ed: Instead of targetting individual models, you target the unit in general. If there are splitted Toughness values in the unit, you can split just like in Fantasy.

*As with Shooting, casulties removed by removing normal models first, then Specialists, then any Standard Bearer and at last Squad Leaders: As a continueation of the rule above, instead of counting each model as an individual, the unit takes wounds by itself. I also suppose models are removed in the back here, with not-fighting models being removed first, then Supporting models and then models in base Contact with enemy models.

*Wounds do not spill out of Challenges anymore, but are instead counted towards Overkill: For those of you unfamiliar with Overkill, it simply means that every wound that could have been taken by the challenged model, but are discarded, as there where more wounds than the model had, are counted towards Combat Resolution. This will create incensive to actually Challenge people, instead of doing it to lock away a large killy character from the combat.

*Combat Resolution bonuses are Charging (1+), Wound caused (1+ for each), Standard (1+), Defending a Structure (More later on that) (1+), Overkill (1+ for each excess wound caused), Charging a Unit in Combat (1+) and Battle Standard (1+, plus Standard Bonus): I'm inspired by Fantasy, who knew. This is mainly to clear up the next section...

*The loosing unit takes Break test to see if they flee with a negative modifier equal to the amount of wounds it took: I've always felt that this was lost somewhere in the 40k system - We all know that the actual work isn't done in combat, but in Sweeping Advances.

*A unit counts as Steadfast (taking the Break without the negative modifiers) if it has double models of the opposing unit at the point when the Break test were taken: Essentially the Steadfast we know and love/hate from Fantasy, this will allow tarpits to tarpit as tarpits do best.

*If the losing unit fails its Break test, the unit immideatly Flees away from the opposing unit, and the opposing unit must now take a Ld check, to see if they restrain pursuit - If they do not make the check, they pursue 2d6" too. If the opposing unit catches up to at least one fleeing enemy model, the unit is destroyed: It's essentially just the Sweeping Advance, but with a bit of a backlash to the winning unit.

*When a unit is destroyed under Sweeping Advances or simply during the Fight phase, all friendly units within 12" takes a Panic test: This is a bit more experimental, but I was thinking the other day, "What if Sweeping Advances generated Panic, and Night Lords had a special Legion Tactic that made any unit within 12" take the Panic test on a -2, because of their gruesome nature?". I want stuff like that to be a thing. I was thinking about making a Panic test when a unit Breaks too, but I'm not sure about that, because I want to emphazise that Breaking doesn't have to be "fleeing", but more "falling back" in an orderly manner. I dunno, maybe it will be in, maybe not.

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

And here you go. I'll take a break now, because writing these are nbeliveably hard, and I'm tired. Maybe I'll go for some candy or coffee. Write if you have comments, as always.

- The Wise Dane.

HI again.
The long and protracted close combat found in WHFB is good for WHFB where units represent regiments of 100s of fighting men arranged in close order.

However , 40k is representing 5 to 30 man units in a fast and brutal melee.IMO.

So the way combat is resolved needs speeding up and simplifying IMO.

I would prefer it if close combat was resolved after one round.

All models within 2" of base to base(or hull) contact.May make all their close combat attacks including any special abilities,on enemy models models within 2".

All models within movement distance on an enemy model in close combat.May make one close combat on an enemy model within the attackers movement distance.
(This replaces mechanics to move more models into contact.)

Models equipped with a pistol may fire one shot into the close combat ,they are engaged in , ,(up to the maximum range of the pistol).
instead of making a close combat attack.

The unit that caused the most wounds wins the combat.
If it is a tie the unit with the most remaining wounds wins the combat.

The winning unit may act normally next turn.
Unless they have lost more than 25% of their remaining wounds this turn.In which case they must consolidate.(They lose a movement action next turn.)

The loosing unit must fall back their full movement rate , and consolidate .(The loses a movement action next turn.)
Unless they have lost more than 25% of their remaining wounds this turn .In which case they route.(Move double rate away from enemy units next turn.)

I prefer a game turn structure where all movement ,(including compulsory movement ).Happens in the Movement phase.

EG
Stay still and shoot to full effect in the shooting phase.
Stay still and go to ground / hull down /dig in.
Move then shoot in the shooting phase .
Move move into assault up to double move rate. .(Fight assault in the assault phase.)
Move up to double movement and not shoot or assault.

EG chose between fire support, stealth, advance, assault , run, type orders.

Lanrak wrote:
HI again.
The long and protracted close combat found in WHFB is good for WHFB where units represent regiments of 100s of fighting men arranged in close order.

However , 40k is representing 5 to 30 man units in a fast and brutal melee.IMO.

So the way combat is resolved needs speeding up and simplifying IMO.

I would prefer it if close combat was resolved after one round.

All models within 2" of base to base(or hull) contact.May make all their close combat attacks including any special abilities,on enemy models models within 2".

All models within movement distance on an enemy model in close combat.May make one close combat on an enemy model within the attackers movement distance.
(This replaces mechanics to move more models into contact.)

Models equipped with a pistol may fire one shot into the close combat ,they are engaged in , ,(up to the maximum range of the pistol).
instead of making a close combat attack.

The unit that caused the most wounds wins the combat.
If it is a tie the unit with the most remaining wounds wins the combat.

The winning unit may act normally next turn.
Unless they have lost more than 25% of their remaining wounds this turn.In which case they must consolidate.(They lose a movement action next turn.)

The loosing unit must fall back their full movement rate , and consolidate .(The loses a movement action next turn.)
Unless they have lost more than 25% of their remaining wounds this turn .In which case they route.(Move double rate away from enemy units next turn.)

I prefer a game turn structure where all movement ,(including compulsory movement ).Happens in the Movement phase.

EG
Stay still and shoot to full effect in the shooting phase.
Stay still and go to ground / hull down /dig in.
Move then shoot in the shooting phase .
Move move into assault up to double move rate. .(Fight assault in the assault phase.)
Move up to double movement and not shoot or assault.

EG chose between fire support, stealth, advance, assault , run, type orders.

You have some really great ideas, but I think you are kinda missing the point that I'm trying to merge Fantasy and 40k, and not make a new system for the game. Your ideas are great, and would do well in a new version of the 40k system, but I'm trying to use the Fantasy rules as effectively as possible for 40k.

So, now that we've got all that boring regular stuff out of the way, we can finally get to have some fun!

First of the many things we need to talk about are unit types. I'm gonna say it now - it ain't gonna be pretty. A lot of these changes might seem weird to you, but, as I've stated before, this is just the way it's gonna be

Anyway, here we go: Unit Types.

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

Unit Types.

*Infantry: No special rules. All regular rules are meant to be used by Infantry first and foremost: Well, yeah.

*Cavalry: There are essentially three types of Cavalry: Wheeled, Hovering and Hooved. All Cavalry take Dangerous Terrain tests when Double Timing or Charging through Difficult Terrain. All models on Cavalry are treated as having one higher point of Armour. Cavalry cannot be Pinned or Go to Ground, volentarily or otherwise. Cavalry can never take Cover. All Cavalry has the Fleet, Impact Hits and Jink USRs: Oh dear here we go again. I already feel you cringing.
**Hooved Cavalry (I.e actual cavalry) moves just like Infantry, though often at a higher Move stat than Infantry, and takes Dangerous Terrain tests as Cavalry. Hooved Cavalry has a statline for both the rider and the beast itself, and the beast can attack in combat as well. The rider is always targetted, though. The mobile infantry. Very few factions in the game has these guys, so I'm just gonna give a bone to them by not giving them the rules explained below...
**Wheeled Cavalry (I.e Bikes and such) use slightly different rules for Movement: Wheeled Cavalry must ALWAYS move forward, with the rounded edge of the base that holds the front wheel counting as the front. However, when starting a normal move, you may pivot each model up to 90 degrees about the center, and then take your move. If you are Double Timing, you may only pivot 45 degrees. If standing still and not moving your models, you may pivot them as much as you like. Weapons mounted on the bike have a 45 degree firing arc, going out from the front of the base. Wheeled Infantry has the Relentless and Impact Hits (d3) USRs: Okay, easy now. Need a breather? Yeah, I'm just gonna wait, it's okay. Digested it all? You fine? Is your heart-rate even? Great - So, when I said that there where some changes coming, this is mainly what I meant. This makes Wheeled Infantry more of a unit you use to charge the enemy with, and fits them more as a sort of "Heavy Cavalry" sort of role from Fantasy. I have not idea how this is to play, but I suspect it can be a bit messy. Let's wait and see.
**Hovering Cavalry: As Wheeled Cavalry, but ignores models and Terrain while moving, but must take Dangerous Terrain tests if ending within terrain. Hovering Cavalry can make an additional Move in the Fight phase, with all the rules that count for that, if the unit isn't in combat: Your Jetbikes. Simple, effective.

*Jump Infantry: Jump Infantry can be combined with other Unit Types to create a Jump version of that model. A Jump model can choose to make a Jump Move during the Movement Phase: Move double the amount of M the models has, and ignores intervening terrain, instead of a normal move. This move can also be used when Double Timing, resulting in the models in question moving four times their M value. Jump models have the Fleet, Impact Hits, Bulky, Jink and Deep Strike USRs: Did I just buff Jump Infantry into the skies? I think I did. This is gonna be fun. I don't know if this is a smart move, really, but it seems fair to me, and isn't to much changed from the actual 40k rules.
**Jet Pack Infantry: As Jump Infantry, with the added rule that the unit can make a Jump Move in the Fight Phase, as long as they are not in combat. Additionally, Jet Pack Infantry has the Relentless USR: Jump-shoot-jump is back, baby! And it's pretty good, if I do say so myself... Much the same as the Hovering Cavalry, this allows the unit to dart in and out of cover as they wishes. This also means that the unit can, in theory, move six times their M value in one turn, if they ignore Shooting...

*Monstrous Infantry: Monstrous Infantry functions just like regular Infantry, with the added rule of having Stomp and Impact Hits: Essentially only Ogryns, but, whatever. Maybe there's others who will get this rule, like Nobs and MAYBE Crisis Suits, maybe even Terminators. We'll see...
**Monstrous Cavalry: Monstrous Infantry functions just like whatever type of cavalry they are, with the added rule of having Impact Hits (d3). Wheeled Cavalry gain Impact Hits (d6) instead, and Hooved Cavalry has Stomp: Why Monstrous Wheeled Cavalry? Because there should be an option to make a Daemon Prince Biker!

*Monster: Monsters function like Infantry, and has the Thunderstomp, Impact Hits (d3), Large Target and Relentless USRs. Monsters can shoot two ranged weapons in the Shooting Phase, and can choose who to shoot with both: I removed Fear from the mix, as I really feel it should be a specific rule to some units - a Riptide is big, but not scary. Also, notice the lack of Smash. That is deliberate. Also, I'll scoot easy and peasy over Flying Monstrous Creatures, simply because it might have rules more like Fliers than Monsters. It's also called Monsters, because Walkers will go under this category from now on, alongside the Monstrous Infantry side.

*Swarms: Swarms move like Infantry, and has the Fearless and Vulnerable to Templates USRs: Nothing's changed here, really.

*Beasts: Beasts move like Infantry and has the Fleet USR: Moving on.

*Artillery: Artillery have a splitted statline, with a W and T value for the Machine and a full statline for the crew. You always use all the stats from the crew, unless the unit is shot at, in which case the unit uses the T and Armour Save of the Machine, or when charged, in which case you use the T and Armour Save of the crew. When the unit takes wounds, you remove the same amount of Crew. If the Crew is completely removed, remove the Machine as well. Artillery can only Move normaly, and never charge or Double Time. To get into close combat with Artillery, the charging unit just have to come into contact with either the Machine or the Crew, whichever is easiest, but are still considered to be hitting the Crew. Artillery can only Hold. All Artillery have the Move or Shoot. Artillery never Pursues, and will Go To Ground instead of Fleeing when losing a Panic Test. Artillery Machines have the Mechanical USR: A mouthful ain't it? Well, this won't be used much in this game, so the complicated rules won't do much I feel, but it's still important to have them in.

*Vehicle: Vehicles are counted as having a base the size of the model itself. Vehicles move by moving forward (I.e the way the front of the Vehicle points), and can pivot as many times as needed during movement. A Vehicle can choose to move directly backwards, in which case it moves half its normal M, rounded up. A vehicle can only charge forward. Vehicles can always shoot all their ranged weapons. If a Vehicle loses a fight with another unit in the Fight Phase, it immideatly makes a normal Move backwards (ak a moving half its Value rounded up) and are counted as not being in combat from that point onwards. If a Vehicle or Vehicle Squadron are made to Flee, the Vehicle can choose not to pivot around, but back up instead, moving half of 2d6" rounded up towards your table edge. Vehicles can never benefit from Cover, and takes Dangerous Terrain Tests when moving through Difficult Terrain. Vehicles cannot be Pinned or Go to Ground. Vehicles have the Impact Hits (d3), Terror, Stubborn and Mechanical USRs: This is where the changes are beginning to rear their ugly faces. First of all, you might notice that I'm making it look like a Vehicle can charge... Which is exactly what it can. I always loathed the Death Or Glory rules, and found them distractive and pointless, when you could just make it a part of the regular rules (Here: Terror).
**Heavy Vehicle: Heavy Vehicles ignore all Terrain rules beside Impassable Terrain, and have the Relentless and Slow USRs: Basically Slow and Purposeful in Vehicle form.
**Fast Vehicle: Fast Vehicles have the Fleet and Relentless USRs: Let me hear you say Hellhound! Let me hear you say Hellhound!
***On Skimmers: Skimmers will now be represented by Jump Vehicles, which is simply a combination of the Jump Rules and Vehicle rules.

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

Howly sheet, what a lot of work. I must say that this went better than expected, and I'm really looking forward to seeing what the different codexes will be like with these new rules!

Next up is USRs... This is gonna be fun!

- The Wise Dane.

so you want to go back to second edition rules basicially?

Varnos wrote:
so you want to go back to second edition rules basicially?

I dunno, never played it. Way too young for that. I've heard good things about 2nd, though.

2nd edition was a large skirmish game with lots of detail , character and tactics.
Unfortunately it was also very complicated, and close combat resolution took ages.(Some elements like Virus and Vortex etc were far to over powered too.)

The original 3rd edition that Rick wanted to develop never saw the light of day.(A tidied up better balanced version of 2nd ed, with much streamlined close combat rules.) GW sales department wanted to increase the model count to a similar level to WHFB.
So we ended up with the rushed '11th hour' bodge that the dev team managed to cobble together for 3rd ed.
(Which was never a good fit with the '40k battle games' inferred/intended game play.

Some resolution methods and mechanics from WHFB make sense in 40k.Others are so out of place they will never work 'properly'.

Lanrak wrote:
2nd edition was a large skirmish game with lots of detail , character and tactics.
Unfortunately it was also very complicated, and close combat resolution took ages.(Some elements like Virus and Vortex etc were far to over powered too.)

The original 3rd edition that Rick wanted to develop never saw the light of day.(A tidied up better balanced version of 2nd ed, with much streamlined close combat rules.) GW sales department wanted to increase the model count to a similar level to WHFB.
So we ended up with the rushed '11th hour' bodge that the dev team managed to cobble together for 3rd ed.
(Which was never a good fit with the '40k battle games' inferred/intended game play.

Some resolution methods and mechanics from WHFB make sense in 40k.Others are so out of place they will never work 'properly'.

Sounds great! What I'm mostly trying to do with this is to make something that allows big units, tanks and whatnot, but not at the scale we see today.

I personally think 40k is a lost cause in the sense that it lacks the incencive that WFB has. With WFB, you design a unit to do a thing exactly, and then let that unit do that thing. In 40k, you just pick whatever. Riptides are popular because they kill things better than other things, while big blocks of, say, Skavenslaves in Fantasy are taken to hold up an enemy, as everybody knows how useful those are in combat - Pretty much not at all. It's something I want to try and emphazise in with this, but I cannot say if that'll work or not. Time will tell.

Others have mentioned this; but essentially what you've outlined is 40k second edition.

I'm currently enjoying a second ed revival at my FLGS (games between my Tyranids and a friend's Squat army are a regular fixture). As much as I love second edition it is incredibly clunky and slow to play.

Seventh edition, despite it's many flaws, is a far sleeker animal. I can't help but feel that the changes you propose would complicate the game rather than simplify it.

Berserkerblade wrote:
Others have mentioned this; but essentially what you've outlined is 40k second edition.

I'm currently enjoying a second ed revival at my FLGS (games between my Tyranids and a friend's Squat army are a regular fixture). As much as I love second edition it is incredibly clunky and slow to play.

Seventh edition, despite it's many flaws, is a far sleeker animal. I can't help but feel that the changes you propose would complicate the game rather than simplify it.

Hmm, you might have a point, have been fearing that myself. Can you point something out? Maybe it's just because I'm actively making this, but I can't see it myself.

@Beserkerblade.
Seventh Edition despite its many flaws, is not 'far sleeker' than 2nd edition.
In fact as soon as 40k grew larger than the 'large skirmish size' the WHFB rules set failed to cover enough of the game play to be worth considering.IMO.

if you compare the current '40k battle game' to other battle games ,The rules are needlessly over complicated,

Some of the mechanics of WHFB will work fine in a 40k battle game.
Movement rates and simple modifiers for example.

However, some are too limited and restrictive, (like the damage resolution. )
So several systems have to be used to cover the bits the core resolution misses.(Separate vehicles rules, USRs special rules etc.)

WHFB rules work well for WHFB because they were written specifically for WHFB game play .

40k needs rules written specifically for its game play too.
(Trying to make it backwards compatible to WHFB 3rd edition /RT when the game size and scope has changed so dramatically is why 40k rules are so over complicated.)

I think a rule set written for the current intended game play would reduce complication, AND add more depth to the game play.
However, using the most appropriate game mechanics and resolution methods would be necessary.

Just using ideas from one game , is not the way forward IMO.

There are lots of really good battle game rule sets out there, with ideas that can be adapted to bring the 40k game to life, with a lot more clarity and brevity than the current rules do.

I do not know if this is the thread to discuss them in though?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
@The Wise Dane.
If by Fantasising Warhammer 40k, you want to write rules specifically for 40k.In the same way WHFB has rule written specifically for it.

I have lots of ideas we can explore.

If you just want to try to make WHFB rules fit 40k no matter how counter intuitive or over complicated it gets.
I have nothing to add.

Lanrak wrote:

If by Fantasising Warhammer 40k, you want to write rules specifically for 40k.In the same way WHFB has rule written specifically for it.

I have lots of ideas we can explore.

If you just want to try to make WHFB rules fit 40k no matter how counter intuitive or over complicated it gets.
I have nothing to add.

Well, it's great to see that you are up to the challenge! I have a lot of ideas too, most of them army-specific, and many of these you'll see soon enough...

I do think I've made some changes to the WFB formula here, to make it fit the world of 40k better. The Vehicle and Wheeled Cavalry sections are rather new, and stuff like Rank and File are lost, because, what the hell should we use that for? It's just that I find most mechanics in WFB to be better at representing what they want to represent than the game we have now. Also, I like relativety.

But, if you wanna help, be my guest - I'd love some ideas! As you've seen, I have the basics laid out, but now we get to the fun part - The game itself, and the different rules within it. As I'm writing this I'm thinking about the USRs, and how to implement some of them...

Specifically And They Shall Know No Fear is giving me trouble. What I want to do with the Marines is a combination of Stubborn (The unit always counts as Steadfast, the unit Goes to Ground instead of Fleeing when losing a 25% Shooting test) and Immune to Fear and Terror, as that will allow them to be Swept (which I feel is fair, given even Marines can be trampled or destroyed completely by overwhelming force). Problem is, I feel this might be a bit... Too little. They sorta need something to keep them Regrouping, like some sort of USR that allows them to always Regroup on their regular Ld.

I'm also very much in two minds about the Chaos Marines. I will 100% make a Legion Tactics system like the Loyalist's, but that leaves out Renegade Chapters, and how they might be... What could I then do with all the Marks? Remove them? I'd rather have them removed, actually, since it's way too difficult to make each Mark equally worth taking - I'd rather have the Legion Tactics represent the mark on the Marines then. Also, what do we then do with Cult Units? Restrict them to each Legion? Make them easier or cheaper to access for some units? My own thought was that Cult units easily could be upgrades that you pay for (Regular Chaos Marines can be upgraded to Bezerkers, exchanging their Chainswords with Chainaxes and gaining Fearless, Furious Charge and Frenzy), because the fluff states that Cult Troops are everywhere and in all sorts of Warbands, but you could also make it an anonymous change that happens to your models upon picking a Legion Tactic (For example, Emperor's Children could give Havocs the option to take Sonic Blasters for 3 pt each, and let all models in the force have the option of getting Sonic Shriekers (1+ I when Charging) for 1 pt per model). You could of course say that Renegade Chapters would adapt to a specific way of fighting that would fit the Legion Tactics after turning, but... Yeah, I'm in a loss of ideas here.

I do know that I want to give all - And I mean ALL - Chaos Marines Fear, which also renders them immune to Fear. Why? They are f***in' Chaos Marines, THE big bads of the setting. They live in hell, literally. Surely all those severed heads and spikes should do something... Also, something that I want to port from WFB directly is the fear and panic a Chaos Lord instills in their opponent. As of right now, Chaos Lords aren't exactly weak, but that's not good enough... Not at all. And I'm not even a Chaos Marines fan.

I dunno, Chaos Marines are complicated, simply because of how random their fluff is. Sometimes they are just Warband upon Warband of Marines sorta like Chapters, but less organized and with no ties to the ones who fostered the Warband like Loyalists have, others are more organized and, and... Holy hell there's a lot to consider here.

So, what do you think? Have any ideas?

Well my ideas a re more of a re-write than a WHFB conversion.

All units have the same unit profile.

All resolution is simply roll a D6 and add the relevant active player stat.Then compare it to the target stat to see if you succeed.

A ranged attack uses the attackers shooting skill +D6,compared to the targets Stealth value .(New stat to cover target size/disposition.)

EG a model with a shooting skill of 4 firing at a model/unit with Stealth 8 , needs to roll a 5 or more to hit.(Shooting skill 4 +5 =9. And 9 beats 8.)

A close combat attack uses the attackers Assault skill +D6 , compared to the targets Agility Skill (New Stat, to replace initiative.)

Rolling to save is targets AV + D6 compared to attackers weapon AP value .

Rolling to damage is just weapon Damage (replace strength.)+D6 compared to target Resilience .(replace Toughness.)

All the current morale boosts /special rules , are just to allow units to take horrendous casualties while they close in close combat.Added on special rules just add more complication to the rules than they do complexity to the game play.

As we could use the tactical use of smoke,( L.O.S blocking rounds), and a simple suppression mechanic.This would allow shooting to be more tactical than just killing stuff.
Which is the only thing assault can do.(Apart from tar pitting.)
If shooting and assault are NOT competing to do exactly the same in game function , then they can be balanced easier.(And we will not have to flip flop between shooting OR assault biased metas.)

My take on morale is to allow models to become suppressed when they take penetrating hits that do not cause wounds/structure damage.
If more than half the remaining models in the unit become suppressed , the unit becomes suppressed.

If suppressed units are not rallied before the start of the next game turn they have restricted actions, next turn.(May only move to cover, retire at full speed or return fire.)

Ill stop there as this may be too far away from what you are looking for?