Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I would use a D10 or D20 and rework every stat line in the game.

Under a D10,

marine armor is 4+
Eldar jetbike armor is 5+
Artificer armor is 3+
Terminator armor is 2+
Dire avenger armor is 6+
etc

Using a D10, one could keep the current AP system, or introduce modest modifiers, such as weapons that match the armor rating give a -1 to the save or something.

Marines could be T5, Orks T4, humans T3. Marines and Eldar could be WS/BS 6, Orks WS 5, humans WS 3, etc. We could have real variation on the stat lines.

But this also works with a D6 and the current AP system is crap because the all or nothing just makes weapons without AP3 worthless.

and AP system that modifies the save would help a lot to balance stuff

PS:
Another question is, to speed things up it would be better to write the necessary dice roll in the profile (like 3+ instead of BS4) and do the same for WS.
I don't think that comparing the WS in close combat is needed because in current 40k there is only 3+ and 4+ and re-roles. Changing this to 2+ to 6+ would also increase variation and would buff close combat

The problem with armor modifiers in a D6 system is that you have little flexibility. Once you get a -2 modifier on your weapon, you will turn virtually everything (bar 2+ armor units) to shreds with minimal effort. Autocannons and Heavy Bolters would likely become the most sought weapons in the entire game lol (imagine a Heavy Bolter forcing marines to save on 5+). With D10 however, flexibility is far greater and you have a lot more of possibilities. In example, marines saving wounds on 4+ by default would mean a 70% chance of doing so (as of current 66%). They would have it worse if being hit by boltguns (let's say AP5 = AM-1, so 5+ and that means 60% chance) but way better against weapons that almost auto-kill them now (if AP3 = -3, then 7+ against krak missiles which means 40% chance of survival).

The fact that heavy rates of fire from moderately powerful weapons (bolter - heavy bolter range) could become a serious issue for heavily armored troops would incentivate the use of cover. But of course cover needs to be an independent mechanic from other armor saves. Forcing someone to choose between his armor and a wall is really silly.

As I see it, an armor modifier system would be vastly superior to the current AP system 40k employs, but I consider the D6 system too limited to handle armor modifiers. D10 is the way to go in such an scenario.

 kodos wrote:
But this also works with a D6 and the current AP system is crap because the all or nothing just makes weapons without AP3 worthless.

and AP system that modifies the save would help a lot to balance stuff

PS:
Another question is, to speed things up it would be better to write the necessary dice roll in the profile (like 3+ instead of BS4) and do the same for WS.
I don't think that comparing the WS in close combat is needed because in current 40k there is only 3+ and 4+ and re-roles. Changing this to 2+ to 6+ would also increase variation and would buff close combat

I would completely rework hand to hand.

 koooaei wrote:

 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?)

It adds a bit more variance in the individual models, but it levels out dice rolls overall. It definitely needs further development to work properly, but as a base I thought it was worth a look. It does require adding a defense stat to the stat line. It could also remove the excessive use of Eternal warrior, and the like by simply increasing the Defense of a character to make them harder to hit, but they could still remain a living being rather than being a tank with standard stats.

Marines could have better overall attacking ability but an average defense stat, and Eldar a very high defense but with an average attack, together they would be close to the same for the to hit rolls. The weapons are the same strength and AP, so the marines have a slight edge in wounding the Eldar. The Eldar are faster, so can control the engagement range a bit more.

Maybe, have the short range go off of base stat, and reduce long range attacks by 1 or even 2(this might help Melee units in the grand scheme as well). Sniper weapons could do the reverse.

Maybe a further rule for anti armor weapons having a penalty to hit man size targets.

 Korinov wrote:
The problem with armor modifiers in a D6 system is that you have little flexibility. Once you get a -2 modifier on your weapon, you will turn virtually everything (bar 2+ armor units) to shreds with minimal effort. Autocannons and Heavy Bolters would likely become the most sought weapons in the entire game lol (imagine a Heavy Bolter forcing marines to save on 5+). With D10 however, flexibility is far greater and you have a lot more of possibilities. In example, marines saving wounds on 4+ by default would mean a 70% chance of doing so (as of current 66%). They would have it worse if being hit by boltguns (let's say AP5 = AM-1, so 5+ and that means 60% chance) but way better against weapons that almost auto-kill them now (if AP3 = -3, then 7+ against krak missiles which means 40% chance of survival).

Of course you cannot just change a basic rule without adjusting the rest.
Re-balance every weapon and special rule is necessary no matter if you use a D10 or D6 at the moment you change the AP System.

So when I write about minor tweaks and new rules, I assume that everything affect by that changes is reworked too.
This the one basic problem the original 40k has. GW changes rules without going one step further and change everything affected to it making units useless until a new codex is out which just add new rules without thinking about what that means to the game.


Main changes on the basic rules we made for our alternative 40k (M41, at the moment only available in german)

One major point on the D10 system and using modifiers and such is people with learning difficulty.

A few of my friends only play 40k and recently have started Age of Sigmar.

When you start using a D10 with multiple modifiers and stats attributing to things, some people can really struggle and will be driven away because it will seem you have to be good at maths to play the game.

Currently it is incredibly easy to pick up and learn as you just need to know one set of things for shooting. My space marines always hit on threes is much better for people that can't add very well than a system where it's you hit on your bs modified with their defence and then accounting for range and cover plus bonuses for weapons. This is especially true for a D10 system where I have to throw out 90 dice and then sift through them all looking for specific numbers in small print.

Learning curves happen. The best games have a player base regardless of said learning curve.

I like the d10 idea but i'm afraid people won't digest it. We're just too used to d6 and d10 will require a total rework of basically everything.

Let's decide on a shooting system. We have many options, each one of them with it's own advantages and drawbacks.

I think it's the current priority cause it stalls further advancement of the rules development.

Most people are leaning towards the 5-th edition system. But it has some serious drawbacks. It still requires different pools so that you wouldn't be able to abuse the "i pick who dies" system and make your important dudes always die last. Yet, the wound pool system itself proved to be abusable as it relies on model's gear and some models have lots of gear options. And the direction of shooting didn't matter cause you could remove any model you wanted no matter where the shots came from.

6-7-th edition system is not a bad idea actually but it introduced tanking characters coupled with look-outs and shooty armies mowing through hordes in a way that dudes with poor save are simply not moving forward. It's literally happening like this. The way to make it faster is to get rid of look out system and rerollable saves. Yes, i think we do need to get rid of rerolls for saves as they screw the game pretty badly from time to time. This way, characters can still tank with their 2+ or even 2++ but will never get look outs and rerollable saves. So, tank as much as you want but at your own risk. Oh, and something needs to be done with mellee wound allocation too. Cause yep, tanking characters.

Another system might be a complete per-model save system. It IS very time consuming compared even to 6-7th system, however, it completely gets rid of the problems like unkillable tanks of 6-7, regular dudes getting shot down faster than they go forward of 6-7, wound pool abuse of 5-th, direction of shooting of 5-th. Well, to be completely honest it is not always slower, in fact it is faster when it comes to the tanking characters that try to abuse los and many wound pools of 5-th. But in the majority of situations like when your regular dudes with all the identical saves get to make some saves, it's slowing down the game. It'd be an ideal system for smaller matches and i'm sure it's the best one but when you might have 150 bodies and forced to make like 50+ saves per turn, it's gona turn into a dice-throwing nightmare.

Keeping the system close to what we have now:

Try doing hybrid of the Closest, and the wound pool. Say you select a weapon type, and the opponent uses the model type that is closest to the firing unit, and can remove casualties from that model type anywhere in the unit. He can only roll the amount of saves for that type that is present, so if there is 7 guys he can roll 7 dice, any excess wounds would have to go to another model type.

 koooaei wrote:
It still requires different pools so that you wouldn't be able to abuse the "i pick who dies" system and make your important dudes always die last.

That's not an 'abuse' if it's how the system is supposed to work. I see absolutely no problem with the guys with the special weapons always dying last. Back when it actually worked that way, it was simply supposed to represent someone else in the unit picking up the weapon... which is far more sensible than the current system.

And, again, Torrent of Fire and Precision Shots allow your opponent to get around the 'dies last' issue anyway.

It is just the question if the controlling player should choose which model dies last, or the attacking player.

The only problem is that most people don't want to get back to an old system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A different questions

Do you guys think the community is open to change the phase system to some more flexible?

Like a 3 Phase system with an action phase (move, attack move), shooting phase and another action phase (move, close combat)

or making a per unit activation were every unit finish all their actions before the next unit activates (giving every unit 2 or 3 action points)

 insaniak wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
It still requires different pools so that you wouldn't be able to abuse the "i pick who dies" system and make your important dudes always die last.

That's not an 'abuse' if it's how the system is supposed to work. I see absolutely no problem with the guys with the special weapons always dying last. Back when it actually worked that way, it was simply supposed to represent someone else in the unit picking up the weapon... which is far more sensible than the current system.

And, again, Torrent of Fire and Precision Shots allow your opponent to get around the 'dies last' issue anyway.

Well, sometimes it does make sense. When a guy with a meltagun gets down,another one can throw away his bolter and pick up the meltagun. But when a terminator with missiles installed on his shoulders gets killed, how's his fellow termie mate is supposed to pick them up? Oh, and mellee. I doubt it someone's going to pick up the power glove and try to fit it on. So, it goes both ways.
Besides, some armies don't have access to sniper. Like orks or tyranids. And they're the ones who'd definitely want to get that flamer dude killed - especially if he sticks in front to always get beter shots.

Is there any way to maintain this system, still have pools to not get unkillable specialists yet avoid the poll system abuse?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:
It is just the question if the controlling player should choose which model dies last, or the attacking player.

The only problem is that most people don't want to get back to an old system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A different questions

Do you guys think the community is open to change the phase system to some more flexible?

Like a 3 Phase system with an action phase (move, attack move), shooting phase and another action phase (move, close combat)

or making a per unit activation were every unit finish all their actions before the next unit activates (giving every unit 2 or 3 action points)

Per unit activation won't work too good as you can have an army with 5 units vs an army with 15 units.

Re: Insaniak and hidden lascannons from fourth edition, rejecting that means missing some opportunities. For example, you can give characters more usefulness by allowing them to give up shooting to give out precision shot to one model. Tyranid would obviously use Synapse units instead of characters.

As another example, fourth edition was notable for using LoS and positioning sniping, not because of the model removal rules themselves, but because of how they combined with the cover system.

The most useful system is obviously owner chooses unless shooting player chooses. You can totally say must choose first from models in LoS, must choose first from TLoS, must choose from area-LoS, etcetera.

Subbing to this thread, looks interesting.

pelicaniforce wrote:
You can totally say must choose first from models in LoS, must choose first from TLoS, must choose from area-LoS, etcetera.

For a game at the scale of 40K, LOS should totally be an all-or-nothing affair. Determining which individual models in the unit are visible should be used for determining if the unit is in cover, nothing more. Otherwise, things just get too fiddly in larger games.

 koooaei wrote:

Well, sometimes it does make sense. When a guy with a meltagun gets down,another one can throw away his bolter and pick up the meltagun. But when a terminator with missiles installed on his shoulders gets killed, how's his fellow termie mate is supposed to pick them up? Oh, and mellee. I doubt it someone's going to pick up the power glove and try to fit it on. So, it goes both ways.

Sure, it's an abstraction that doesn't always make perfect sense. So is just about everything else in the game. But it fits far more often than the current system.

Besides, some armies don't have access to sniper. Like orks or tyranids. And they're the ones who'd definitely want to get that flamer dude killed - especially if he sticks in front to always get beter shots.

Hence Torrent of Fire.

 koooaei wrote:

Per unit activation won't work too good as you can have an army with 5 units vs an army with 15 units.

I did not mentioned player alternating their activations, just finish a unit completly before doing the next one but keep IGYG

Otherwise, things just get too fiddly in larger games.

40k had never a very fast system except the one in the 3rd edition.

We just have to choose, use a fast system, use a detailed system, use a per model system (you cannot kill what you cannot see) use a mix.
Do we want the Melter guy to be the last one or not.

Just avoid the fails were shooting more weapons leads to less dead enemys

I've got an idea about 6-th style wound allocation. Well, first of all, Look outs are reduced to one per phase for a character. This way we still get a measure of protection against sniping out and avoid look out-abusement. I suggest we remove the ability for saves to get rerolled. It is a bad design in the first place imo. Yep, it's gona require some codex adjustments but it's worth it imo.
Now as for the main issue that seemingly can't be overcome with a 6-th system - hordes getting shot back further than they move forward. We could introduce some sort of a mechanism for them to be able to pick casualties (from the majority of identical models) like they used to do in previous editions if they meet some requirements. Like changing up Swarm.
Swarm X. Means as long as the majority of identical models in squad exceed X, they can pick casualties from wherever the player wants (but saves are still taken on the front guyz). That might be complicated but...here you go. Any other ideas?

"Swarm" can work for big units and would help to speed things up.

No other idea to keep and simple without losing the details or were you can sniper with templates

PS:
currently I am translating alternative rules from german to English (hope to finish it this week) and therefore I am thinking about changes and streamlining

The current phase system is crap because we have a movement phase but movement is also done in other phases

So to keep it simple the actions of units should only be done in their phases (Movement only in the movement phase etc)

Or be completely free.
Every unit can perform 2 actions in any combination
move+shoot
shoot+charge
move+charge
shoot+move
etc.

Yes, I think ift can be built into the rules that every unit in the game can be assumed to be able to give one of its models precision shots if there is a character or synapse creature within 3", and that precision shots can be massively changed, and that apart from those cases and torrent of fire, that the controlling player should remove the models he wants.

I think it is a problem to use a special rule like swarm to fix the main rules when it's possible that units which need it might not get it and other units that don't need itight get it, because it would be hard to tell whether they need it or not.

As far as other ideas for 6th-style wound removal, I think the options are either to play that way because they are the published rules and people know them, or to not play them because whether they are official or fandexed, they are not fun for me.

I think there is merit to moving to a d10 system so long as people don't get lazy and are willing to change EVERYTHING. Modifiers on weapons seems like a bad idea. The rules are hard enough to remember as it is.

I must say, I really don't like your jet pack and jump pack system. Their design (in 5th especially) is actually one of the better things GW has done. Jetpacks are for shooters (stable, give up assaulting for extra move) where as jump packs are for assaulters (a quick jump to get into the fray, better at assaulting, does more damage when charging, as they are slamming into the enemy from above).

Making one purely better than the other with no downsides doesn't really work.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I must say, I really don't like your jet pack and jump pack system. Their design (in 5th especially) is actually one of the better things GW has done. Jetpacks are for shooters (stable, give up assaulting for extra move) where as jump packs are for assaulters (a quick jump to get into the fray, better at assaulting, does more damage when charging, as they are slamming into the enemy from above).

Making one purely better than the other with no downsides doesn't really work.

Jetpack still provides relentless. The idea is to get rid of abusive jump-shoot-jump mechanics. Maybe you could add something to jetpacks other than jsj? What'd be fair?
Jumppacks provide better charge possibilities as there's no restriction on using them only in movement or assault phase. You can use them whenever you like now. Just make those dangerous terrain tests and you're good to go.
Both can go pretty fast if you choose to make a run/flat-out move. But in exchange they don't get armor saves for slamming into dangerous terrain - identical to bikes and jetbikes. Sounds reasonable to me. If you want to go super fast, make sure you don't run into a wall.
I must say that no armor saves when taking dangerous terrain tests for flat-outing bikes and packs is a way to make dangerous terrain matter again - like it used to be in older editions. Cause currently, you just go flat-outing into a ruin, and still have to fail dangerous terrain + armor and feel pretty safe. There MUST be some significant drawback. Currently there is not.

As for swarm, i see it this way. This is an added special rule to a certain ammount of models. Not all get it. It mainly affects the models that have a tendency to horde up.

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.

This thread has inspired me to write up my own re-work for a number of rules. I'm not going to post the full ones until I've tested it, but here's the changed to Jump units, Jet units, and the new "Blink" unit type.


Jump units
Some forces in the 40k universe make use of powerful turbines, retro-thrusters, or simply strapping a rocket to their backs in order to make controlled "jumps" over intervening models and terrain. To make a jump move, measure the vertical height of the tallest intervening model or obstacle. The jump unit may move up to 12", reducing this distance by the height determined, to represent them jumping "over" the obstacles. Jump units may choose to jump less than the tallest obstacle (though not less than the tallest model) in order to move more quickly, but suffer Dangerous Terrain tests by doing so.

Jump units gain Hammer of Wrath special rule when charging, and may reroll their charge distance. Jump units may use their "jump" move when falling back, roll 3d6 inches for the distance, and reduce that distance as appropriate for any intervening obstacles.

Blink units
In the far future of the 41st millenium, some units use risky invocations or advanced technologies to momentarily step through the Immaterium to traverse great distances without passing through any of the intervening space. Such units are said to "blink" in and out of normal space. To make a blink move, mark a direction and a distance up to 12 inches to blink. Each model must be moved that many inches in the chosen direction. Such models can't choose to move less, but they can choose to appear at any height during the blink move so long as they end their move on a solid surface. A Blink unit that ends the move touching (or inside!) another model or obstacle reduces the blink distance until it is 1 inch away from that model or obstacle, and must make a Dangerous Terrain test with no armour or cover saves allowed.

Blink units may use their blink ability when falling back, and roll 3d6 inches for the distance, but the direction must be directly towards your board edge.

The following would now be Blink units, plus any others that "teleport" or similar things that I haven't thought of:
- Eldar Warp Spiders
- Grey Knights w/Teleport Shunters
- Gate of Infinity (though this becomes a blink with a much greater range)
- Necron Wraiths

Jet units
A number of xenos factions have mastered Jet technology, small thrusters and anti-gravity pods that allow them to gracefully move across the battlefield. A Jet unit may make a Jump move just like Jump units, but with a distance of only 6 inches instead of 12. However, a Jet unit may also make a jump move up to 2d6 inches in the assault phase if they did not run, charge, or declared a charge. They may not use this move to disengage from close combat.

With regards to shooting, I kind of prefer 7th shooting mostly. The only real difference I would imagine would be, rather than allocating to the closest models first, the defender can allocate the wounds to any models in range of the closest attacking model. Eliminate Look Out Sir! and you're set.

Oh, and rework Precision Shots so it's not based on flat rolls of 6.

I have my other in progress rework on here but if you were to crib anything from it, I think the main takeaways would be the alternating phase system and the reworked psyker rules.

 koooaei wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I must say, I really don't like your jet pack and jump pack system. Their design (in 5th especially) is actually one of the better things GW has done. Jetpacks are for shooters (stable, give up assaulting for extra move) where as jump packs are for assaulters (a quick jump to get into the fray, better at assaulting, does more damage when charging, as they are slamming into the enemy from above).

Making one purely better than the other with no downsides doesn't really work.

Jetpacks still provides relentless. The idea is to get rid of abusive jump-shoot-jump mechanics. Maybe you could add something to jetpacks other than jsj? What'd be fair?
Jumppacks provide better charge possibilities as there's no restriction on using them only in movement or assault phase. You can use them whenever you like now. Just make those dangerous terrain tests and you're good to go.
Both can go pretty fast if you choose to make a run/flat-out move. But in exchange they don't get armor saves for slamming into dangerous terrain - identical to bikes and jetbikes. Sounds reasonable to me. If you want to go super fast, make sure you don't run into a wall.
I must say that no armor saves when taking dangerous terrain tests for flat-outing bikes and packs is a way to make dangerous terrain matter again - like it used to be in older editions. Cause currently, you just go flat-outing into a ruin, and still have to fail dangerous terrain + armor and feel pretty safe. There MUST be some significant drawback. Currently there is not.

That is a tricky one. Maybe jetpacks can move 12" in the movement phase, bit if they do that they can't assault? That would restrict them simliar to how they are now, but getting rid of JSJ. Meaning they would be the same speed as jump packs still.

I love the change to your avatar Co'tor...

You guys really don't like JSJ? I know it's annoying to face off against, but I find the reason for that to be that it's so hard to pin down the unit without over-committing too many resources against them. It may be annoying (extra especially when those same units have weapons that don't need LoS), but I've always found it to be way more interesting than simply being indestructible against oncoming fire.

What if instead it worked more like a trigger? If an enemy shoots at the unit, then it may make a single jet move that turn after the shooting attacks from that unit have been resolved?

Can I execute blink micro with blink units?

Added a bit of stuff. Check change log.

I'm rewriting the rulebook into a D10 system with a lot of changes which I'm sure people will love and be blown away because of the new thoughts and ideas. I'm also rewriting codices in an appealing way which hopefully only will get players even more excited when designing armies - you cannot imagine the internal balance and internal cooperation between units in my system.

My question is: how to get this out?

First of all, I want this out to those with the same mind as me. Everyone should try it of course, but if we never wanted the same alternative to the original system, I don't want to be criticized by people to whom it definitely weren't designed for in the first place.

It would also be nice to be in contact with a group of people whom possesses several armies which could be trialed against each other to check balance though I make many calculations myself. It would also be great to see video battle reports.

But maybe more shortly: how and where to distribute my work?