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.

Change Log: latest 22.10.2015


Introduction

Hello there, fellow dakkanaughts. It's no secret that 40k rules are not too great at the moment and have some glaring problems coupled with loopholes, needless annoyances and things that needn't have been there in the first place. All of this can be changed for better. Both Core rules and Codex rules. The aim of the following work is to make the game more coherent and balanced. Take note that it's WIP and that you can affect the outcome greatly. Looking for feedbacks and ideas.

Dying for feedbacks

Swarm(X) - As long as the number of models with Swarm(X) in this squad is equal or higher than X, whenever a model with Swarm(X) gets wounded and fails it's save (fnp will also count as save to avoid situations when "save that's not a save"), you can reallocate this wound to any model with Swarm(X) in the squad with the identical save. In this case, the 'identical save' is the save that the model would have gotten as if it was the target of the attack itself. For example, an imperial guardsman with Swarm(X) in cover that provides a 5+ save gets shot by a plazma gun. He can't reallocate the wound to another guardsman in the open just because he also has 5+ armor. He can only reallocate to those who'd also get 5+ save against that plazma shot. Swarm doesn't apply against wounds caused by torrent weapons and precision shots.
For example: Ork boyz get Swarm(15), Imperial guardsmen get Swarm(20), Chaos space marines get Swarm(10), Hormagaunts get Swarm(15). Only regular models get it - in case of orks, only boyz and not boss nob. Or maybe even special weapon dudes won't get it - needs further discussion.
And take note that it affects models - not units, to avoid abuse. So that you don't get a unit of csm with Swarm(10), attach 10 unbound lords in there and play around with wounds. And only for models with an identical save so that you don't get, say, a unit of boyz with a MFF with front dudes rocking 4++ and discarding wounds to someone in the back without save whatsoever.
Yep, i know it's an extra rule that sounds somewhat complicated but can't figure any other way to make 6-th wound allocation not punish hordes too much. And after some research i surprisingly start to think that this wound allocation is more advanced and fitting 40k than 5-th.

MC firing arc. What do you think is an adequate way to formulate this? MC can have many heads, no heads, etc. But the way they can currently shoot out of the ass is simply odd.

Core rules

To make it easier and less wall-of-text-ey the rules below are going to be changes to current 7-th ed rules. For example, if you don't see Toughness(T) characteristic it doesn't mean it's not in the game - it's simply treated as if it's from a 7-th ed book

Movement Phase:
Units can declare a Run/Flat-out move. Models in the unit can now use their Run/Flat-out move if they wish. Some models might choose to forego it or simply can not perform it but it does not prevent the rest of the models in this unit from performing their Run/Flat-out move. In any case, all models in the unit that chose to Run/Flat-out can not shoot in their shooting phase, use psychic powers in their psychic phase or assault in their assault phase this turn.

Shooting Phase:


Model types:

Base charge value is 6".

- Infantry models move up to 6", run up to 10". Difficult terrain slows down Infantry models by 2" both when they perform movement and assault. For example, a model that would normally move 6", moves only 4" (6-2) if it has to move through difficult terrain. The same model that would normally run 10", can only run 8" (10-2). However, the rest of the squad is not slowed down. But they must still maintain coherency.
- Jetpack models are relentless. Jumpppack and Jetpack models can use a jumppack or jetpack to move up to 12" for jumppack and up to 6" for jetpack. If a unit declares a run/flat-out move, models equipped with a jetpack or jumppack can use them to move up to 15" for a jumppak and up to 10" for a jetpack but if they choose to do so, can't take armor saves against wounds caused by dangerous terrain. Can choose to use a jumppack or jetpack when they perform charge, in this case they are not slowed down by difficult terrain and get Hammer of Wrath special rule. Whenever they use jumppack/jetpack, they treat all difficult terrain as dangerous. Note that you can use jumppack or jetpack both in movement and assault phase if you wish.
- Bikes and Jetbikes are not relentless. Models with a separate gunner like Space marine attack bikes will be allowed to shoot their gunner's weapon as if they're relentless. Bikers and jetbikers treat their toughness as +1 against shooting attacks and not in mellee or when they're required to pass toughness tests.
Bike and Jetbike models are not slowed down by difficult terrain, however, they treat difficult terrain as dangerous terrain. Bike and jetbike models can choose to slow down to avoid dangerous terrain. You choose the models that slow down and they can only move up to 4". Note that the rest of the squad can move normally. Bike and Jetbike models that used a flat-out move instead of regular move, can not take armor saves from wounds caused by dangerous terrain. Bikes and jetbikes can be affected by Pinning, however, they don't go to ground but are forced to jink if they fail their pinning test.
- Beasts and Cavalry can move up to 12", run up to 16". This allready includes Fleet (+1" to run, +1" to charge) bonus.
- Monstrous creatures and Flying monstrous creatures can claim cover only if at least 25% of the model is obscured. Monstrous creatures and Flying monstrous creatures have a 180 degree firing arc. The firing arc is measured from where model's eyes (or whatever the way they feel direction) are supposed to be. If it is hard or impossible to find out where to measure from, nominate the 180 degree firing arc beforehand. All monstrous creatures get MoveThroughCover(difficult terrain slows them down only 1" instead of 2"). Flying Monstrous creatures can Jink only in Swooping mode. While in shooping mode, they can be affected by Pinning, however, they don't go to ground but are forced to jink if they fail their pinning test.
- Flyers move for 18-35" and Flat-out for 36-48". Can start the game on board. If they choose to do so, they must start the game in Hover mode and can only enter Zooming mode if they moved flat-out. If it's a flyer squadron, models in it can only enter Zooming mode if every model from this squadron moved flat-out if they chose to start the game on board.
- Transport vehicles. If the transport vehicle chooses to jink, passangers are forced to make snapshots for the next turn. Crew is no longer forced to make LD checks to see if they must make snapshots when the vehicle suffers damage, instead they are forced to make snapshots if the vehicle suffered Shaken or Stunned result on the vehicle damage table.
- Non-vehicle transports. If a non-vehicle transport chooses to jink, it's passangers are forced to make snapshots for the next turn.

Special rules:

- Multiple Barrage hits rolled for blasts after the first one can not be reallocated by a player but instead hit the exact same spot as the first blast.
- Ordnance gets Pinning and Strikedown.
- Pinning is resolved at the end of the shooting phase (it is just one check - does not stack up) after morale tests. Models that are falling back, automatically pass pinning tests.
- And They Shall Know No Fear no longer grants immunity to fear but instead gives +1 to LD to a maximum of 10 for fear tests. let's make fear matter again - at least some times...and they shall know less fear but still a little bit.

We had some similar ideas some time ago here and just to add something we tested for wound allocation was to use the Starship Troopes rules for it.

-wound against the majority toughness (or the lowest but in the end there are just very few situations were it makes a difference).

- allocate the successful dice from front to back of the unit starting with the highest role (first model gets the 6, second model the 5 etc.) and if there are more dice than models start from the front again when every model in the unit has at least one dice allocated

- compare the dice role with the actual toughness of the model to check if it is wounded or not.
(skip this point if all models in the unit have the same toughness)

- saves for identical models are rolled together and the controlling player choose which one is removed (beginning from the front of the unit)


@movement
to add a movement value to the model profile is one of the most important things for a better 40k
this will just solve a lot of problems regarding balancing.


@cover & armor
Cover is always per unit if at least >50% of the unit is behind cover or cannot be seen by the attacker

If cover is added to armor, the armor needs a change to a system were AP reduces the armor save

Than cover should also apply in melee if the unit is inside terrain.

I this as a good option to just change the actual AP values to 7-AP (AP1 would be AP6) and reduce the armor save with the AP value of the weapon

Some special models can two armor values which represent the unmodified save (this cannot be modified by AP or cover)
Like terminator armor is 2+/4+, which means their worst possible save is 4+


@tank armor

change tank armor to work like toughness (armor = toughness+save)

Models with armor are wounded normal like every other model.
Weapons with special rules (melta, tank hunter, armorpiercing etc.) add 7 minus AP value to their strength (melta in range has S14 against tanks)


@to hit & to wound tables

Change the tables to be the same and cut them down to +/-2

X : X-3 = auto hit/wound
X : X-2 = 2+
X : X-1 = 3+
X : X = 4+
X : X+1 = 5+
X : X+2 = 6+
X : X+3 = not possible

 kodos wrote:

- allocate the successful dice from front to back of the unit starting with the highest role (first model gets the 6, second model the 5 etc.) and if there are more dice than models start from the front again when every model in the unit has at least one dice allocated

Didn't get it, what means highest role? So, is it basically when where there's a total wound pool and you allocate wounds from front to back and than make saves separately for each model?

 kodos wrote:

- saves for identical models are rolled together and the controlling player choose which one is removed (beginning from the front of the unit)

I think that's very close to how it works in 6-7.

 kodos wrote:

change tank armor to work like toughness (armor = toughness+save)

Models with armor are wounded normal like every other model.
Weapons with special rules (melta, tank hunter, armorpiercing etc.) add 7 minus AP value to their strength (melta in range has S14 against tanks)

Personally, i'm not a fan of merging tanks and fleshy things. I think that tanks do need some changes - especially in transportation department. I'm planning on making them sturdier, yet more expensive. Paired with increased point cost of special weapons and decrease of their avaliability, hope it's gona balance out


Change the tables to be the same and cut them down to +/-2

 kodos wrote:

X : X-3 = auto hit/wound
X : X-2 = 2+
X : X-1 = 3+
X : X = 4+
X : X+1 = 5+
X : X+2 = 6+
X : X+3 = not possible

As for to hit's especially in mellee, they shouldn't be as sensitive as this way, mediocre mellee will be very vulnerable to elites.

 koooaei wrote:

Didn't get it, what means highest role? So, is it basically when where there's a total wound pool and you allocate wounds from front to back and than make saves separately for each model?

the highest number the dice show

For example:
Unit of 3 models in line, two with T5, last one T6
5 hits with S5, wound against 5 (majority) and the dice show the numbers 6,5,4,4,2 = 4 wounds to allocate

first model in line gets the 6, second the 5, third the 4, starting from the front again and the first model get the last dice with a 4

the last model with T6 got a 4 which is not enough to wound it with S5.
the other models are identical and make 3 armor saves.
1 save fails and the first model is removed

 koooaei wrote:

Personally, i'm not a fan of merging tanks and fleshy things.

And were to you draw the line?
Edlar Wraithguards/Lords/Knights are not fleshy but count as infantry/monstrous creatures, Sentinels are a Pilots in an open topped walker and count as tanks, Striders are pilots in an open walker and count as monstrous creature.
All Necrons are not fleshy things at all but are mixed between infantry, monstrous creatures and tanks

There is no clear line in 40k what a fleshy thing is and would should be a vehicle/walker, just the fact that vehicles/walkers are worse than monstrous creatures in every fact.

The get the balancing done it would be necessary to remove the vehicles/walkers part completely. But this is too much for the game, so the best thing is to reduce the difference between monstrous creatures and vehicles to a minimum.

Is There another game with great rules we can copy and paste?

Suggestion on movement & Run/Flat Out. Rather than do "Movement × 1.5", which is rather complicated and leads to a lot of roundup/down issues, why not just have Run/Flat Out be "Make a move equal to the unit's charge distance. This unit cannot shoot or charge this turn."

This MASSIVELY reduces complexity, and makes intuitive sense that a player can do this instead of charging, so it feels like they're always getting their charge distance.

I'll post up more as I continue reading through the responses already posted.

EDIT 1: Movement Stuff
I'm strongly of the opinion that the game should, first and foremost, be about infantry. I don't like things that reduce units that are already pretty weak. They're weak because they're slow, so making them even slower is just making them worse. I'm not saying to increase or decrease their movement stats (on the contrary, I agree that Terminators should move 4", while Marines move 5", and Scouts 6"), but that Infantry should be the unit type that ignores terrain. Have a race between a motorbike and a person climbing up a rocky hill and sees who gets up their faster. Skilled riders can do it more quickly (because they know "tricks" to help them climb), but usually the regular person will be faster, and a "skilled" mountain runner could maybe even still beat them.

As such, I'd recommend Infantry, Jump Infantry, Beasts, and Swarms not being slowed by difficult terrain, and other unit types (bikes, cavalry, vehicles) being slowed AND dangerous terrain instead. These units should be allowed to ignore the slowing effect at the cost of -1 to their dangerous terrain roll (making them traverse it faster, but with greater risk). Jink saves only against wounds/penetrating hit results from dangerous terrain.

EDIT 2: Shooting Stuff
Keep the system as it stands, but allow "Look Out!" saves on anyone, not just characters (getting rid of the "Sir"). A successful "Look Out!" save allows the wound to be allocated on anyone else in the unit instead. This means some models die based on position. Again, this helps infantry squads, as they're not having their movement be quite as controlled by enemy shooting (which can effectively push models back by shooting at them). Also very useful in making sure that Overwatch isn't as powerful by reducing the squads numbers more often than increasing a squad's required charge range.

EDIT 3: AP Stuff
The current system is balanced by saves, invulnerable saves, and cover saves. A modifier can get complicated quickly, and is such a massive shift that it'd be hard to accurately gauge the changes to 40k that such an adjustment to the base rules would cause. I would say that, at least for a 40k Rework 1st edition, keep AP as it is.

However, if it must be changed, how about "if an AP value is 1 higher than a model's armour save, that model saves against the wound with a -1 modifier to their save (a 3+ armour save would only be saved on a result of 4, 5, or 6). This is a simple rule, but it makes Terminators save on 3+'s against Missile Launchers, while a Boltgun still won't reduce a Space Marine's save. Otherwise, AP stays the same. EDIT-EDIT: Alternatively, keep AP the same, but make a new special rule called "Shatter" or "Sunder" something, where the weapon inflicts a -1 penalty to the save.

EDIT 4: Stat Modifiers
There used to be a great system where a unit's "base stats" were normal, but their modified stat was in brackets. It was never fully embraced, but I think it should be. A model's base stats are normally printed, and a modified stat is in brackets. The stat-line should put ANY modified stat in brackets - including attacks! New players often forget that their Squad Sergeant often has 2 more attacks than their basic troop, as their sergeant is often armed with a pistol and close combat weapon with an effect not included in the profile.

Players should use the modified stat at all times, unless specifically told otherwise. Characteristic tests should be based on the "unmodified" test. I'd say put Instant Death on unmodified toughness, but I personally am learning to dislike the Instant Death rule. It's extremely flavourful, but very un-fun. I hate telling new players that they have to remove their special pretty HQ model they love that it died instantly because something big munched on it. I'd reserve Instant Death for being a special rule of certain weapons, such as "activated" Force weapons, or a Harlequin's Kiss.

 Filch wrote:
Is There another game with great rules we can copy and paste?

Starship Troopers post Klendathu
Stargrunt 2

Regarding the current AP rules against armor modification.

I'm a huge fan of armor modification, however I find the D6 system too limited for it to cope well with an armor modification mechanic. If you want such a mechanic to replace the current AP system, I'd advice to switch save rolls to D10, which provides more flexibility. Something like 2+ (terminator armor), 3+ (centurion), 4+ (power armor), 6+ (carapace) and 8+ (flakk) in a D10 system would work pretty well with an armor modification mechanic where a Lascannon meant a -4 modifier while a Boltgun provided -1.

In fact, if I were aiming for a complete rules rewrite, or just writing my own rules from scratch, I'd go for D10 over D6 for everyting.

In any case, regardless of the dice system employed, I'd heavily recommend to make Cover saves totally independent of Armor/Invulnerable saves. That would actually make Cover mechanics as important as they should be, forcing players to design battlefields with a realistic amount of terrain. Also Cover saves should be rolled after the to Hit rolls but before the to Wound rolls. I don't think it would slow down the game too much, while at the same time increasing a bit the participation of both players in the shooting mechanics.

Choosing between Armor and Invulnerable is ok, but between that and Cover is silly. The fact that you take cover behind a wall doesn't mean you're discarding the protection from your armor. Some bullets being stopped by the wall would perhaps have bypassed your armor, while your armor may be able to stop some bullets after they penetrate the wall and lose punch.

I would strongly recommend against a D10 system. Part of the reason D6's work is that people are comfortable with D6's even if they've never played an rpg-like game before. As such, D6's are also much less expensive to buy and fabricate in bulk and people can take D6's from any game if they're running out of dice. This is important for newer, younger, buyers. A rework needs to remain accessible to them.

I could strongly advise against D6s in a counter point. I'd certainly go with D10s or D20s. Dice are a trivial cost compared to the models and paint anyway.

To really get all the fluff represented, Martel is correct. I'm not sure on D20's (though I'd consider them more reliable than D10's), a D10 system can work pretty well.

 Yarium wrote:
I would strongly recommend against a D10 system. Part of the reason D6's work is that people are comfortable with D6's even if they've never played an rpg-like game before. As such, D6's are also much less expensive to buy and fabricate in bulk and people can take D6's from any game if they're running out of dice. This is important for newer, younger, buyers. A rework needs to remain accessible to them.

Nowadays you can get sets of D10 dice on eBay for cheaper than many, many D6 sets. I actually have two sets of 10 D10 each, with transparent colors. Each costed me 3€ on eBay, brand new and including shipping. So cost is hardly an excuse.

 Korinov wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
I would strongly recommend against a D10 system. Part of the reason D6's work is that people are comfortable with D6's even if they've never played an rpg-like game before. As such, D6's are also much less expensive to buy and fabricate in bulk and people can take D6's from any game if they're running out of dice. This is important for newer, younger, buyers. A rework needs to remain accessible to them.

Nowadays you can get sets of D10 dice on eBay for cheaper than many, many D6 sets. I actually have two sets of 10 D10 each, with transparent colors. Each costed me 3€ on eBay, brand new and including shipping. So cost is hardly an excuse.

Cost is only one part of the equation. Regardless of how much they cost, it's something else that people have to buy... and gamers by and large really don't like having to buy anything that isn't miniatures.

If this is aimed as a replacement for the 40K rules, people are going to dismiss it the moment they realise that they'll have to go out and buy new dice.

 koooaei wrote:
Movement (M) - Represents the ammount of inches a model can move in it's movement phase.

Charge distance (CD) - Represents the ammount of inches a model can charge in it's assault phase.

It seems uneccessarily complicated to have these as separate stats. Fewer stats to remember is always better.

Units can declare a run or flat-out move depending on their unit type instead of their regular movement. If the unit decides to do so, it's models can move up to their Movement * 1.5 rounded up.

Multiplying by decimals is not ideal if you're aiming for clean and easy rules. I would either add a base amount or just stick with doubling it.

A unit that chose to run or flat-out in it's movement phase can not shoot or assault this turn.
If models that performed a flat-out move end their move closer to the starting position than their flat-out distance, they take a dangerous terrain test and fail on a roll of 1 or 2

What's the logic behind this?

.

Do we want 5-th ed style shooting with player-determined wound allocation where special and front dudes never die and shooting positioning doesn't really matter out of cover + cover system is based on the percentage of unit covered. This way we can even go back to to-hit modifiers but it does have a bunch of drawbacks.

This would always be my preference, with the addition of a 'torrent of fire' style rule and Precision Shots both allowing the attacker to choose casualties in specific situations.

- Bikers and jetbikers treat their toughness as +1 against shooting attacks and not in mellee or when they're required to pass toughness tests.
Bike and Jetbike models are not slowed down by difficult terrain, however, they treat difficult terrain as dangerous terrain if they start or end their movement in it. Bike and jetbike models can choose to slow down to avoid dangerous terrain. You choose the models that slow down and they can only move up to 1/4 of their normal Movement distance rounded up. Note that the rest of the squad can move normally. Bikes and Jetbikes that used a flat-out move instead of regular move, can not take armor saves from wounds caused by dangerous terrain.

I would also like to see Bikes not be locked in close combat, and a return to large models being able to walk away from combat with anything smaller than themselves.

As soon as you leave the D6 system, you're venturing into RPG territory. Sure a D10 is "better" for showing differences in weapons, strengths, and accuracy, but you know what? So is a D20, or a D100. This is a game, not an exercise in realism and simulation. If that's what you want, then computer games and D&D-type RPGs may be a better thing to try and design. D6's are tried and true. They're simple, and they'll approachable, and everyone already owns a million of them. When you roll 30 of them at a time, you're looking for a 3 or higher, and that's easy to see and grok. More accurate doesn't necessarily mean more fun.

For example; Rock-Papper-Scissors is an insanely simple game, and Rock-Papper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock has yet to develop any real level of acceptance. Having more options (more throws for RPS, or more die results for Warhammer) doesn't necessarily make a game better if the core fun comes from an experience rooted in other factors. Rock-Papper-Scissors is about quick duels, and wargaming is about moving models around a dynamic battlefield. There are moments where it feels like a hero defeats a villain, and those are the D&D-esque moments that some people enjoy, and greater variance in dice rolling will help create those moments, but then you'd might as well just play D&D.

It isn't like a D10 would be more complex though. If anything it would mostly follow what we have now I imagine; it would just need everyone to be redone for stats, and ain't nobody got for that (on their own).

I suggest 2 categories of cost. Points and $Price. Use GW box price divided by number of units. If you can scrap build cheap it doesnt matter. A marine will cost $35/10=$3.5 heck we csn do British poundd or euro.

That way you can compete with armies of same value. The good stuff will some how be priced higher because when they relaease a new model it maybe over powered and under costed in points but was expensive on the wallet. And a wraith knight still cost less than an imperial knight. Atleast each scat biker costs $12-14.

I'm glad there are so many replies with SO many great suggestions. I'll try to respond to everything soon. Busy working atm.

Must say that i've issued a game this sunday to test out different wound allocation time consumption in worst-case scenarios.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Added some stuff - check Change Log up there. Will respond to everyone's suggestions later today, want to hear your ideas on changed stuff so far.

I do not like that you made the Run/Flat-Out something that happens in the Movement Phase. I'm very confident that people consider running and moving flat out to be fun is that it occurs often after they've made their shooting attacks, so they get to respond to a battlefield that has been slightly altered by the turn's events, allowing for both more tactical control and a greater sense of dynamic movement. The game is about moving models around, and allowing movement to occur at nearly any point of the game is fun. In fact, I'd go as far as to say allow units a single "run" action per turn if they haven't and will not shoot/declare a charge/cast psychic powers, and that this action can be done during any phase of your turn. The default will be to do the run during the assault phase (when they have the most info), but players can and will take advantage of it during other phases (for those times where you want to know something's outcome before doing something else).

Again, I'd recommend making difficult terrain more penalizing for Bikes/Cavalry, and less penalizing for Infantry.

You mean movement + charge? Also thought about it but Flyers and Vehicles make it more complicated and will require special rules anyway. So, for now will go back to movement described in model's type like it is now. Made a static run distance of 10 for infantry. Charge distance is 6. So, you move 6 in your movement phase and than move 6 in your assault phase like in 5-th. I think that we'll keep fleet and it will grant +1 to move and +1 to charge distances and will work on a per-model basis. Means the other guyz don't suddenly loose fleet if someone doesn't have it.


Well, i really like this -1 to dangerous terrain thing. Bikes and Jetbikes really should be faster than infantry but they should not be superior in every way other than transports. So, i think this -1 to dangerous terrain is cool. However, i'm hesitant as they allready got some nerfing (see Model Types - Bikes and Jetbikes). I also think about some way to limit their rediculous ability to climb ruins like it's no big deal. And implementing a dangerous terrain modifier like you've suggested be it -1 or even -2 seems a good solution. Failing at least 50% of the time is pretty logical when you want to ride a bike up/down the stairs at high speed. Well, if it was a regular person, it'd be like 99% of the time but we're talking about skilled soldiers, so 50% will do. Can still climb normally if they go slow like infantry - the sugested 4". Do you think that jetbikes and skimmers should get dangerous terrain tests? They're hovering above stuff. Maybe they should get some other balancing factor?


I am strongly opposed to look out stuff as it is pretty unrealistic, time-consuming and abusive. This is a necessery mechanics to keep your characters alive sometimes but i still don't like it. I'll first try out how long would every method of wound allocation take and report here. It's gona be easier to decide what to choose.


It used to be a modifier some time ago. Now it's a total armor denial and it led to 2+ armor being nothing to write home about without an invul with current arms race. Needs more opinions to decide.



It gets complicated when a model has lots of wargear options. Yep, he might have more attacks when he comes with a by-default pistol+ccw but he can get rid of it. I think that we should not include a modified characteristic in model's profile at all. So there are gona be no debates like Wolf cavalry str ones.
This way, space marine ikers will still have t4 in profile, but as Bikes are listed in their wargear, they recieve +1t vs shooting.

Will answer to other uggestions asap.

I think...that you don't want to change too many rules it will make it too hard to play for existing 40k players to adapt.

It would be great to have quick/easy fixes for rules that just don't make any sense or are very easy to abuse by creating a list of easily adoptable house rules.

HOUSE RULE SUGGESTIONS

-run/flat out in the movement phase (I already do this with my orks, it saves much time moving twice - my opponents don't mind)

-Look Out Sir is NOT optional (this fixes the tanking issue, plus really how much time would a trooper have to figure out weather he should dive infront or not?)

-NO battle brothers (eliminate drop pod and death star shenanigans and the loss of unique imperium armies)

-Deep strike can start rolling turn 1 on a 4+ (seriously turn 2 feels like forever, and 3 or 4 they might as well be lost in the warp) and should auto arrive by turn 3 (not 4, seriously)

-Outflankers should be able to assault the turn they arrive (coming on board and standing still while being shotup flies in the face of flanking tactics)

-drop pods should roll to arrive (so much drop pod shenanigans, especially since they already can't misshap) make them 10 points cheaper to make up for it

-use the 6th edition eldar codex (I think we all agree the new one needs to be sent back to the manufacturer)

-first blood should use the FAQ tourney version where anyone can claim it if they kill a unit on their first turn (because ork trukks and rhinos make the regular rule just plain unfair)

-regular infantry should get some kind of ability to make them unique (possibly all of them should get objective secured, +1 cover saves (sort of a perma go to ground just for being infantry) and +1 to hit when firing overwatch (because their feet are firmly planted)

-if a bike or jetbike is hit (not even wounded) it should have to make a dangerous terrain check because it is moving at high speeds and might flip out and crash horribly

-anything with an engine should be a walker NOT a monstrous creature (i'm looking at you dreadknights and riptides) MC should be reserved for things that are more flesh than machine

-vehicles with armor should get an armor save, and the ap reduces the save instead of outright cancel (for example land raider has a 3+ save but if hit with an ap 2 weapon it becomes 4+ or ap1 weapon it becomes 5+) seems not fun to never get to roll saves for vehicles

I could write these all day

 insaniak wrote:
Cost is only one part of the equation. Regardless of how much they cost, it's something else that people have to buy... and gamers by and large really don't like having to buy anything that isn't miniatures.

If this is aimed as a replacement for the 40K rules, people are going to dismiss it the moment they realise that they'll have to go out and buy new dice.

I acknowledge what you're saying, but at the same time, I would feel such an argument as a terrible excuse for not even giving a different dice system a go. In this hobby it's not uncommon for gamers/players/hobbysts to spend quite high sums of money on special dice sets. And you don't even have to go for dice, just take a look at the models, the rulebooks and the armybooks. How many people bought the 7th edition rulebook despite being quite similar to the 6th edition one and coming out barely two years after 6th? 40k is precisely infamous for its codex creep evolution and overpowered new kits which force players to buy more and more models to stay competitive.

Anyone citing the issue of spending a few bucks on a bunch of new dice as a major deterrent for not trying a revamped game system, specially in the case of D10 which are both cheap and easy to obtain, would be an hypocrite here.

 Yarium wrote:
As soon as you leave the D6 system, you're venturing into RPG territory. Sure a D10 is "better" for showing differences in weapons, strengths, and accuracy, but you know what? So is a D20, or a D100. This is a game, not an exercise in realism and simulation. If that's what you want, then computer games and D&D-type RPGs may be a better thing to try and design. D6's are tried and true. They're simple, and they'll approachable, and everyone already owns a million of them. When you roll 30 of them at a time, you're looking for a 3 or higher, and that's easy to see and grok. More accurate doesn't necessarily mean more fun.

For example; Rock-Papper-Scissors is an insanely simple game, and Rock-Papper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock has yet to develop any real level of acceptance. Having more options (more throws for RPS, or more die results for Warhammer) doesn't necessarily make a game better if the core fun comes from an experience rooted in other factors. Rock-Papper-Scissors is about quick duels, and wargaming is about moving models around a dynamic battlefield. There are moments where it feels like a hero defeats a villain, and those are the D&D-esque moments that some people enjoy, and greater variance in dice rolling will help create those moments, but then you'd might as well just play D&D.

I don't see why leaving the D6 system means "venturing into RPG" territory. It's true D6 are the most common dice around, but for a wargame with the complexity and micro-management of 40k, it's nowhere near an ideal dice system. D10 is actually vastly superior, as it offers much more flexibility for nearly everything, plus it works on a decimal scale thus making probability calculation way easier for both players and game designers. It's also simple enough (from 1 to 10, just "natural" numbers if you want to call it that way) and not a clearly RPG-oriented dice, like D12 and upwards.

In any case, 2nd edition employed several kinds of dice and it was clearly an skirmish wargame, unlike the more RPG-themed Rogue Trader. It's merely an issue of potential, D10 offers way more potential in terms of game design than D6, and the game systems you can build with it are potentially vastly superior to what you can get with D6.

 Korinov wrote:
In this hobby it's not uncommon for gamers/players/hobbysts to spend quite high sums of money on special dice sets..

For those who like dice, sure. I've spent quite obscene amounts on pretty dice, because I like them. I have a D30 that I paid $30 for 20 years ago that I've never actually had a use for, but I bought it because it was cool...

But those people are, from my experience, a minority. For most people, they're just dice.

 Yarium wrote:
I do not like that you made the Run/Flat-Out something that happens in the Movement Phase. I'm very confident that people consider running and moving flat out to be fun is that it occurs often after they've made their shooting attacks, so they get to respond to a battlefield that has been slightly altered by the turn's events, allowing for both more tactical control and a greater sense of dynamic movement. The game is about moving models around, and allowing movement to occur at nearly any point of the game is fun. In fact, I'd go as far as to say allow units a single "run" action per turn if they haven't and will not shoot/declare a charge/cast psychic powers, and that this action can be done during any phase of your turn. The default will be to do the run during the assault phase (when they have the most info), but players can and will take advantage of it during other phases (for those times where you want to know something's outcome before doing something else)..

Having run/flat out moves in the shooting phase isn't really anything to do with it being more fun to move in different phases... it's simply a way to prevent people from forgetting that they did it and shooting with those units, which was a common issue when those moves happened in the movement phase.

 Korinov wrote:
Regarding the current AP rules against armor modification.

I'm a huge fan of armor modification, however I find the D6 system too limited for it to cope well with an armor modification mechanic. If you want such a mechanic to replace the current AP system, I'd advice to switch save rolls to D10, which provides more flexibility. Something like 2+ (terminator armor), 3+ (centurion), 4+ (power armor), 6+ (carapace) and 8+ (flakk) in a D10 system would work pretty well with an armor modification mechanic where a Lascannon meant a -4 modifier while a Boltgun provided -1.

In fact, if I were aiming for a complete rules rewrite, or just writing my own rules from scratch, I'd go for D10 over D6 for everyting.

In any case, regardless of the dice system employed, I'd heavily recommend to make Cover saves totally independent of Armor/Invulnerable saves. That would actually make Cover mechanics as important as they should be, forcing players to design battlefields with a realistic amount of terrain. Also Cover saves should be rolled after the to Hit rolls but before the to Wound rolls. I don't think it would slow down the game too much, while at the same time increasing a bit the participation of both players in the shooting mechanics.

Choosing between Armor and Invulnerable is ok, but between that and Cover is silly. The fact that you take cover behind a wall doesn't mean you're discarding the protection from your armor. Some bullets being stopped by the wall would perhaps have bypassed your armor, while your armor may be able to stop some bullets after they penetrate the wall and lose punch.

D10 is interesting. Have you playtested it? There's a lot of controversy here, though. In most cases d6 is enough for a rough representation of what's happening on the table.
As for cover, there is a possibility to make it a separate save but it depends on the wound allocation system that we choose to embrace. For now, i'll try to stay away from rerolls as much as possible. And extra saves like fnp and potentially extra cover are needless rerolls. What we might want is a to-hit modifier for solid shots and to-wound modifier for blasts. This way, we minimize the ammount of rolls but cover still affects shooting effeciency greatly. However, well armored models will surely benefit more from it. I'm afraid that we can't get away from the current goofy cover system without a complete point cost remake.

Using D10 has its advantage over using a 2D6 System.

But for 40k it will bring nothing to the game as long as the model profiles stay below 5.
So the problem that a D6 System has not enough flexibility come with the fact that the difference between profiles are to small.
With Toughness 3 for weak humans, T4 for genetic modified elite warriors and T5 for living metal robots a D10 will not solve any problem

Using the whole amount of the possible stats, giving marines a all 5 profile, keep humans at 3 and add automatic and impossible hit/wound (1+, 7+) and a D6 System will work fine again.

PS:
Starship Troopers use D10, but also has a more streamlined hit/wound mechanic and use the whole amount of the 1-10 stats.
But for a 40k like game with hit+wound+save I would stay with D6

Agreed. Besides, it's even more complex when it comes to flyers. Reverted movement back to description in model type.


Doubling won't work cause we have things like bikers and beasts. So, seems we'll have to stick to model type movement once again.


Well...on second thought it does seem a bad rule. Removed.


The 5-th system seems quick and clean but it still takes time to get this 50% cover. And different pools for models with different gear is also time-consuming and abusive. If you can suggest a way of implementing 5-th ed wound allocation system without a gear-pools abuse...I'm all ears.

That'd be a HUGE advantage. And it's pretty hard to balance out. However, i'm currently thinking of implementing some sort of hit and run system for this exact case. Something like a sweeping advance. I would also like to change how current sweeping advance works cause it seems pretty awful how one model can somehow sweep the whole squad. So, here are some current ideas that need suggestions for sweeping advance (and so, the voulanteerly disengagement system alike "our weapons are useless"): Initiative roll-off: The enemy's stats should matter. Whenever you try to do so (or when the enemy is close enough but doesn't manage to catch you?), the enemy gets a free round of close combat attacks (or one automatic hit?) against your unit. If that's a walker, they hit it's rear armor.
Need suggestions here.

Also, what do you guyz think about charge moves? Maybe the models should still move even if they don't make it due to overwatch casualties?

Indeed, that's a way to fasten the game even now. Also, the way to avoid abusive mechanics like jsj and vehicles flat-outing to grant blos.

I'd probably get rid of look outs whatsoever. Special characters allready have multiple wounds to help them out. I'm also planning to get rid of or at least rationalize duels.


Well, i think that allies is a good thing, to be honest. The way it's implemented, however, is open for a lot of abusive builds. Need some more suggestions here. Maybe just some limitations, not complete removal of characters joining other units?

Not sure about it cause it opens doors to alpha-strike builds like GK one. Not great. Droppods at least have a limitation for the ammount of pods arriving. Maybe it's not a bad idea to make deepstrikers auto-arrive but only half of them rounded up can arrive 2-d turn. The rest arrive 3-d? It actually makes it quite tactical and both you and your opponent can plan for it. What do you think? I agree with you that we need to address the deepstriking problem somehow. Cause it's an awful thing when in one games you just get everyone 2-d turn and other games just nothing arrives till it's too late. Some less randomness could help here. On the other hand, it would allow to abuse min-deepstriking squads to propel whatever you need tuen one. Like they do with pods. So, need suggestions here.


Well, i remember 5-th edition where outflankers were very powerful. The balancing factor was only arriving on 4+ and that you could not get non-outflanking characters in that units. What do you think about balancing it out in a way similar to this?


I think we'll address it in codex FAQ section when we come to this. I think it should not contain many changes but it should be coherent with core rule changes and common sense

Like this idea. Will definitely include something like this when we come to missions and victory points.


Tried to address the infantry problem by nerfing bikes and jetbikes. Not sure if infantry should get +1 cover as it's allready phisically easier for them to get cover saves. They can climb ruins and dt more safely, can ride vehicles, go to ground and stuff like that.


Nerfed bikes and jetbikes allready. Check out the Bike and Jetbike part. Would like to hear your thoughts on it. Don't want to overnerf them, really.


Great idea about some sort of armor save for vehicles. What about save against glancing hits? It's gona be an easy formula like: 5+ base, +1 if tank or super-heavy, -1 if open-topped or skimmer. Same save would apply against overheats.



That'd be great. The more ideas - the better.

 koooaei wrote:
And different pools for models with different gear is also time-consuming and abusive.

Indeed, the pool system was just painful. I'd go with 4th edition-style Majority Armour instead. Allow the owner to choose the casualties, starting with the models in the majority - and in the case of multi-wound models, wounds would go first onto already-wounded models.

That'd be a HUGE advantage. And it's pretty hard to balance out.

Not entirely. In 2nd ed, if a model voluntarily left combat, the opposing models got a free hit as it moved away. So if you're in combat with something that can hurt you, it's a risk to turn your back. If you're in combat with something that can't hurt you... well, there is no logical reason for you to be locked in combat unless there is a special rule forcing you to kill whatever you can see.

Also, what do you guyz think about charge moves? Maybe the models should still move even if they don't make it due to overwatch casualties?

That's going to cause issues with people trying to find the most advantageous way to move their models that they know are going to be left standing in the open... While not moving doesn't make a lot of real world sense, it removes potential abuse and arguments.

I have always thought that the D6 dice 10 point system for stats would work great as an additive style system.

So a Marine BS 5 would target a unit Defense 10 would need a 5 or better to hit. It could add a bit more variance to unit stats, the Tau could be a BS 4, Imperial Guard a BS 3, Orcs BS 2 and then the untrained penal legion guys BS 1. Cover reduce the BS by 1 or 2 depending on whether or not it is soft or hard cover.

The current rules also have way to much AP, a SV of 6 is useful against maybe a dozen weapons. But if the Save of 6 became a Strength reduction of 1, then it could remove that roll, thus a S 9 attack would become a S 8 attack. Change AP to increase the strength of the attack, to the maximum of the attacks original strength, so a S 5 AP 4 attack against a unit with SV 3 would still attack at S 5 (5-3+4=6 Capped at 5)

Toughness would be the Target number to wound a model so the Strength of the attack(figured from the above) plus the D6 would have to equal this number to wound the model.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
I have always thought that the D6 dice 10 point system for stats would work great as an additive style system.

So a Marine BS 5 would target a unit Defense 10 would need a 5 or better to hit. It could add a bit more variance to unit stats, the Tau could be a BS 4, Imperial Guard a BS 3, Orcs BS 2 and then the untrained penal legion guys BS 1. Cover reduce the BS by 1 or 2 depending on whether or not it is soft or hard cover.

The current rules also have way to much AP, a SV of 6 is useful against maybe a dozen weapons. But if the Save of 6 became a Strength reduction of 1, then it could remove that roll, thus a S 9 attack would become a S 8 attack. Change AP to increase the strength of the attack, to the maximum of the attacks original strength, so a S 5 AP 4 attack against a unit with SV 3 would still attack at S 5 (5-3+4=6 Capped at 5)

Toughness would be the Target number to wound a model so the Strength of the attack(figured from the above) plus the D6 would have to equal this number to wound the model.

That's an interesting system. Minimizes the ammount of rolls. However, another problem is that we get even less variation. (or don't we?)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another idea about bikers and jetbikers. They are immune to going to ground but why doesn't pinning force them to jink if they fail ld at the end of the turn?

 koooaei wrote:

D10 is interesting. Have you playtested it?

I've playtested with a custom-built (although WHFB-inspired) medieval fantasy game. There's truth in what kodos says, in order to get real benefits from a D10 system you have to develop skills beyond the 3-5 thing GW usually does. In such a game, in example, zombies were WS1, untrained humans WS2, levy/militiamen WS3, professional humans WS4, elite humans/militia elves WS5, exceptional humans/professional elves WS6, elite elves WS7 and so on... only drow assassins reached up to WS9, and they were pretty much kings of the hill in regards to WS (which I opted to rename as "Dexterity"). You actually need such a diversity in order to take advantage from what D10 offers.

In terms of 40k a space marine would need to have most of his stats on 5, while a regular guardsman would be left on 3s.