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.

This is a lazy rough idea for a rule, so bear with me.
-Lower the leadership of most every unit in the game by 2, so Leadership 5 with a Leadership 6 Sergeant, etc. Leadership 10 should be for stuff like Chapter Masters, Autarchs, etc.
-Remove abilities that force Leadership Checks to be on 3d6. For things like Guard Orders, etc, add modifiers to taste.
-When a unit fails a Morale Check by 1 or two points, it is considered to be Wavering. This means it fights with -1 WS/BS/Initiative until the start of the current player's next turn.
-When a unit fails its leadership by more than 2 points, it is broken as normal.
-Some weapons have the Suppressive USR. For every 6 rolled to-wound with a Suppressive Weapon, place a Suppression Marker on the enemy unit. For each marker, the enemy unit suffers a -1 penalty for their morale check only for determining if the unit is Suppressed.

Maybe you could add something to specify that units that fail by a lot also get -1 bs, since otherwise they could flee as little as 2" and shoot at full bs.

Maybe a clarification of how a unit having suppression tokens is different than failing a test to see if it is suppressed.

Preferably do it without any system of tokens or things that need to be persistent on specific units for any amount of time.

I certainly think 'morale' needs to be more prominent in the game of 40k.
However, I believe using a revised damage mechanic that allows proportional results including 'suppression' before routing would be a better fit.

I take this to mean completely replacing the whole "to-hit/to-wound/to-save system" that's currently in 40k.

Mind if I crib a few ideas from your system/get an idea of what you're doing?

Hi MagicJuggler.

The rule set I have been working on is more of a re-working of 40k.Taking the familiar things we know and love about 40k and tweeking them slightly at the core mechanics and resolution method level , to get more tactical game play, AND reduce complication.

As we have moved to alternating phases game turn.(Keeping the distinct phases is important for a lot of 40k players.Alternating the phases like LoTR, helps improve the level of interaction in a simple but effective way.We use the tactical movement choices from 2nd ed BTW).

We decided to change the damage resolution order to.
Attacker rolls to hit.
Defender rolls to save.
Attacker rolls to damage.

(It mimics the 'me then you then me you' of the game turn.)

This allows failed saves FROM RANGED ATTACKS (that do not have to cause physical damage,) to be used to generate suppression.

If a unit fails a number of saving throws equal to or more than, half the number of remaining models in the unit ,That unit that failed those saves becomes suppressed.

A unit that is suppressed looses a 'movement action' .
So a suppressed unit may move up to normal movement rate.OR shoot counting as having moved.
A suppressed unit can NOT launch an assault, but may fight back if assaulted.

A unit will stay suppressed until rallied in the end of game turn.

I can go into more detail if you like .As I may not have explained it that well.

Lanrak, I like that suppression mechanic. That actually is simple but effective.

Sticking with alternating phases I disagree with. Unlike in LOTR, in a shooting-dominated game like 40k, alternating phases keeps most of the problems of I Go U Go and gives almost none of the benefits of alternating activation. In fact you introduce new problems. Player 2 is still vulnerable to alpha strikes from Player 1's shooting, and to make matters worse they now have to choose whether to seek cover to avoid it, or position themselves for their return shooting later - they can't do both because they don't get to move again before their turn to shoot. And that's just one obvious problem.

If you're serious about your rewrite, I'd think about whether it's worth introducing a massively flawed turn sequence just to hopefully appease some 40k players who have never seen another game system before (and thus would probably never try your game anyway - alternating phases is still very different and certainly isn't more intuitive).

@CalgarsPimpHand.
So me moving,using a psychic ability, then shooting or assaulting with a massively powerful 'death star unit', while you just watch and remove casualties.
is fine?
Or me having a massive selection of MSU so after you finish activating your units I still have half my army left to activate, is fine.

Or ALL the extra rules, and/or general balancing of ALL unit/force composition needed to get alternating unit activation working properly with current 40k units is fine?

Alternating unit activation works great for games written specifically for it!40k needs a great deal of work to get it to work properly!

However,Alternating Phases game turn mechanic, is stage one of a 3 stage process to get tactics back into 40k.
Bringing back tactical mobility options from 2nd ed (revised to simplify them.) Is stage 2
Making to hit at range an opposed table score, to make target selection a tactical part of game play.Is stage 3.

The current 40k rules are a mess because they started off as a compromise, then were rushed into a batle size game with skirmish based rules, and then had backwards compatibility thrust onto them.Even though the game play changed radically from RT days to 5th ed, and beyond.

The only way to 'properly fix 40k' is to find the core faults in the CORE game mechanics and resolution methods.
(Other wise you end up with a ton of special rules to cover the gaps!Any more than a dozen special/additional rules and things have gone horridly wrong!)

Basically , using Napoleonic skirmish rules from 1980s, to try to cover a (modern day )sci-fi battle game is a very bad idea that has lead to awful results!

There are 3 ways to make 40k better for you.
Add on rules.Where you add on extra rules to try to get the game to work more how YOU want it.(Adding complication and well as complexity.)

Redux, modifying to an earlier version of the rules , to try to get the game to work how you want it to.(Adding complexity to the game play, and may add complication to the rules.)

Complete re-write. Throw everything out, and focus on the current intended game play, and the expectations of the players .Then start writing the rules to fit this goal)
(Adding complexity to the game play AND reducing complication in the rules)

The bottom line is the 40k rules can not be' properly fixed 'with a few simple tweeks.(A team of professional game developers tried this for 17 years and failed spectacularly and gave up in 6th ed!)

It needs LOTS of changes , at the core rules leveL.(reducing resolution methods from 7+ to 2 is a good start!)

 MagicJuggler wrote:
This is a lazy rough idea for a rule, so bear with me.
-Lower the leadership of most every unit in the game by 2, so Leadership 5 with a Leadership 6 Sergeant, etc. Leadership 10 should be for stuff like Chapter Masters, Autarchs, etc.
-Remove abilities that force Leadership Checks to be on 3d6. For things like Guard Orders, etc, add modifiers to taste.
-When a unit fails a Morale Check by 1 or two points, it is considered to be Wavering. This means it fights with -1 WS/BS/Initiative until the start of the current player's next turn.
-When a unit fails its leadership by more than 2 points, it is broken as normal.
-Some weapons have the Suppressive USR. For every 6 rolled to-wound with a Suppressive Weapon, place a Suppression Marker on the enemy unit. For each marker, the enemy unit suffers a -1 penalty for their morale check only for determining if the unit is Suppressed.

This would destroy the Orks. We already have horrible moral issues so having grot moral means we die horribly to mob rule killing our own units until the numbers are too low and we run away. -1 to BS for wavering means we miss twice as many shots as before. Also in general flat number stat modifications tend to not hurt elite armies (Space Marines, Eldar, Necrons, etc) as much as it does for your horde armies like Orks, Nids, Guard (although Nids are usually either fearless or LD in the gutter so these changes won't impact them as much).

Lanrak wrote:
@CalgarsPimpHand.
So me moving,using a psychic ability, then shooting or assaulting with a massively powerful 'death star unit', while you just watch and remove casualties.
is fine?
Or me having a massive selection of MSU so after you finish activating your units I still have half my army left to activate, is fine.

You may not have noticed, but the two things you just complained about actually provide the balancing mechanism for one another. If you are crushing a single smaller enemy unit with your deathstar, you're getting outmaneuvered by a swarm of enemy units with a higher activation count. If you want to swamp the opponent with MSU, each of your individual units has little staying power and you will struggle to hold ground or deal damage. This tradeoff is present in every alternating activation game, and for what it's worth, alternating activation is common in modern games.

Lanrak wrote:
Or ALL the extra rules, and/or general balancing of ALL unit/force composition needed to get alternating unit activation working properly with current 40k units is fine?

Alternating unit activation works great for games written specifically for it!40k needs a great deal of work to get it to work properly!

However,Alternating Phases game turn mechanic, is stage one of a 3 stage process to get tactics back into 40k.
Bringing back tactical mobility options from 2nd ed (revised to simplify them.) Is stage 2
Making to hit at range an opposed table score, to make target selection a tactical part of game play.Is stage 3.

The current 40k rules are a mess because they started off as a compromise, then were rushed into a batle size game with skirmish based rules, and then had backwards compatibility thrust onto them.Even though the game play changed radically from RT days to 5th ed, and beyond.

The only way to 'properly fix 40k' is to find the core faults in the CORE game mechanics and resolution methods.
(Other wise you end up with a ton of special rules to cover the gaps!Any more than a dozen special/additional rules and things have gone horridly wrong!)

Basically , using Napoleonic skirmish rules from 1980s, to try to cover a (modern day )sci-fi battle game is a very bad idea that has lead to awful results!

There are 3 ways to make 40k better for you.
Add on rules.Where you add on extra rules to try to get the game to work more how YOU want it.(Adding complication and well as complexity.)

Redux, modifying to an earlier version of the rules , to try to get the game to work how you want it to.(Adding complexity to the game play, and may add complication to the rules.)

Complete re-write. Throw everything out, and focus on the current intended game play, and the expectations of the players .Then start writing the rules to fit this goal)
(Adding complexity to the game play AND reducing complication in the rules)

The bottom line is the 40k rules can not be' properly fixed 'with a few simple tweeks.(A team of professional game developers tried this for 17 years and failed spectacularly and gave up in 6th ed!)

It needs LOTS of changes , at the core rules leveL.(reducing resolution methods from 7+ to 2 is a good start!)

The rewrites you're making are already pretty massive. Don't fool yourself. You're changing a lot of core mechanics, you will need to rewrite a ton of special rules, and you will need to rebalance every codex. Why you're going through this much effort and intentionally settling on a problematic turn structure is beyond me. It's frustrating to hear. And if you and your group are the authority you're appealing to when you say professional game developers tried for 17 years to tweak 40k and failed, all I can say is good luck, because it sounds like you need it.

The only thing this game needs is a stop to the power creep we are assisting at, going back to a lower power level for all those unbalancing rules like invis. Or ignore cover or Str D weapons.

5 or 6 rule changes, no more, and you come back to enjoy the game.

@The Deer Hunter.
The problem is that the rules are so messy and holistic, a few tweeks here and there , mess the game up some where else!
If WHFB in space v3.X could be saved and fixed with a few simple changes, why did the game devs at GW towers not do it?
And more importantly why did they ask for a complete re-write every edition since 3rd ed 40k ?

You might 'fix your game' , for your army/ local meta, with a few tweeks.But it is going to break something else elsewhere in the game play ....

@CalgarsPimpHand.
The definition of a war game rule set is 'an instruction set to tell the players how the war game works.'
Therefore clear and concise instructions , are better than complicated and confusing instructions.

The definition of the current 40k rules is ' making up special rules for everything to help drive short term sales.'

Oddly enough if you focus on the game play when writing the core rules you do not need 70 + special rules.(Most games aim for less than a dozen.)

Eg movement rates, and opposed values for all combat resolution on a universal table , remove the need for a majority of the special rules currently in the 40k rules.

After chatting to ex GW game devs , they all wanted to write new battle game rules for the larger battle game of 40k.
And develop the 2nd ed sized skirmish game along side it.(RPs BTGoA is what he wanted 40k skirmish to be. )
But were not allowed to do this by upper management.

Back to our point of contention.
The current alternating game turn used in 40k,
1)Does not allow enough player interaction.
2) Allows some elements to perform multiple actions while others do nothing.

IF the elements on the table had several turns of tactical maneuver getting into effective weapons range , a simple reaction mechanic could fix it.
(Eg Charge reactions in early WHFB or ARO in Infinity.)

However, due to the current game size and scaleof 40k , most unit start in effective weapons range!
So adding on a 'Over watch' rule does little to address 40ks problems.

So the simplest solution issue 1) is to move to alternating phases . or alternating unit activation.
(Variable bound game turn is to complex for 40k IMO.)

Getting alternating unit activation to work with 40k units needs to have an extra layer of rules to control/balance the interaction .
And it does not address issue 2, where a unit will perform multiple actions while everyone else does nothing!

Alternating phases, can be used with 40k, with non specific action phases, (primary and secondary.)
Or with a 'simultaneous shooting' resolution, Where casualties are not removed until the end of both players shooting phase.
(To address any remaining alpha strike issues. )

The point is an alternating phases game turn works with 40k units at a core rules level.(No extra level of control/restrictions needed.)
Alternating unit activation needs to use additional timing/ reaction rules to balance the game play, to work with 40k units.

I just prefer to use alternating phases as it requires less effort to get to work properly.

My teenage sons are very aware of 'what is fair'.And whine like mad if they think a game gives their brother an unfair advantage!
(Hence my comments on Death star and MSU units balance issues with alternating unit activation.)
Perception of balance is important at the core level.
Other wise you end up adding on rules to try to address perceived balance issues,rather than actual game play issues....