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.

(Yes, what happened to Warseer and will it get back up? Please invite the others from the discussion, which took place at Warseer, to join this discussion.)

Edit: grammar.

Hi folks ,top of page two time for a bit of a recap- summary.

I listed the three levels of fixing a game at the start of this thread.

Level 1.
House rules/gaming event pack.
Superficial tweeks to fit the personal preference of the gaming group/people going to the event .
Everything from adding new scenarios, campaings, elements to agreed tournament restrictions, etc.

This is comparatively easy and can be lots of fun, and so practically every gamer I know does it to some degree!

Level 2
Rules redeux/rewind. 'Home-brew' army lists

If the rules are just suffering from rules bloat and balance issues.(Usually due to pressures from out side the game development team.Eg GW sales department.)

Re winding to an earlier edition and making a few tweeks can fix all the perceived issues with the rules, to a general level of acceptance .
IF the core rules are a good fit/in synergy with the intended game play.


IMO The 9th age of WHFB, is in this second tier of fixing.The core rules of WHFB are a good fit /in synergy with the intended game play.

Level 3.
Complete re-write
This is really only needed, and the only effective way of addressing game play issues if the core rules are not a good fit/ in synergy with the intended game play.

This is by far the most difficult way to fix a game , and only really a viable option if the core rules are causing serious issues with the end game play.

I am convinced 40k is in this last category,after being involved in, and witness to hundreds of attempt to fix 40k , by stage 1 and 2 methods.(By GW team of professional game developers, and lots of talented amateurs on sites similar to this one, over the past SEVENTEEN YEARS!)

Having established the current 40k core rules only cover standard infantry in the open. And because of this basic failure they are between 3 and 7 times more complicated than any other war game I am aware of.(Comparing rules complication to game play complexity.)

So yes I am looking at a complete re-write , changing the core game mechanics, resolution methods, and stat line.
To find something that is a better fit/in synergy with the intended game play of current 40k.

Looking at what professional game developers do in rule set when they are '..free to act as nature intended..' as Andy Chambers put it.
Is a good way to find alternatives to the '..sell toy soldiers to children..' mind set the GW sales Department seems to enforce.IMO.

And others have mentioned 40k is the ONLY battle game using 28MM minatures!

So you can cut and paste 40ks 28mm minatures in other 28mm skirmish games.Or even use 40k 28mm minatures in a 6mm to 15mm battle game rule set.

The first option caps the game size at large skirmish.(2nd ed.)With detailed model interaction.The second option with generic unit interaction , does not match the detail /size of the models.

So what we need has not been done before,as far as I can tell.

And as this is all new territory, I wanted to try to keep the discussion at the generic overview level.
But we obviously have to use examples in more detail from time to time to illustrate our points.

I have put forward some ideas for discussion.

Eg my outline of what I think 40k should be.

Game size and scope.

Company level modern* battle game.
(Game size.A infantry hoard force of about 100 infantry models.Unit types..Mainly skirmishing infantry supported by armoured vehicles*, or creatures and monsters performing similar in game roles.)

Game play
Detailed unit interaction.(Including the skill disposition and equipment of attacker and defender, where possible.)With a equal focus on mobility, fire power and assault.*

Welcome to the thread Chaospling, and Zustiur. Good to have you here!

@Chaospling, looking forward to developing Command and control ideas in 40k new rules with you.
(Warseer will be back after major technical issues have been addressed.)

@Zustiur.
I have to admit my rules detail on 40k 2nd to 5th is a bit sketchy in places , as we played heavily house ruled versions up to 5th ed.
But I hope the general points I was trying to make were not invalidated by my inaccuracies due to my poor memory.
Please correct any serious mistakes I make or points I miss.(I dont want this development to be based on flawed assumptions and erroneous data.)

Ill try to respond to you detailed intelligent and well presented comments. I hope this will help you better understand my reasoning and ideas, as your comments and questions help me understand your reasoning and ideas better.

1)Loss of tactical maneuver.
In (WHFB) and 2nd ed 40k units generally had to maneuver into effective weapons range.In 2nd ed 40k the to hit modifiers help off set the higher level of use, and importance of ranged weapons to keep this game play feature.

Increasing the game size in 3rd ed reduced the space between enemy units, and the removal of the to hit mods improved the effect of shooting considerably.As many units started or would be in effective ranged weapons range after turn 1. (Alpha strike issues anyone?)

These changes meant in turn one most forces equipped with ranged weapons, EG nearly all of them!Could make effective attacks in enemy units.
Unless extensive use of LOS blocking terrain/cover was used. Eg Cityfight.

This reduced the element of physically having to move tactically to get the best combat match ups.

And rather than the tactical choices in the Movement phase of ,
A)Stay still and shoot better,
B)Move and shoot
C)Move further
D)Charge into Assault.

With all movement taken in the Movement phase.(Intelligent intuitive game design.)

We got the 11th hour rushed 'bit of a bodge to try to balance shooting and assault'.

Move in the movement phase
Run if you dont shoot in the shooting phase,
Move into assault in the assault phase.

I hope that clarifies this?

2Mutating movement
The point I was trying to make about increasing movement values to 6 for infantry was.
Instead of replacing to hit modifiers with something more elegant, they just upped the movement speed to try to make assaulting units survive shooting by covering the distance to shooters quicker.
(Second part of the 'bodge'.)

3)Removing the close combat stats from the Stat line, by using weapon data on the unit profile.
I do seem to totally fail to explain this concept every time I approach it.
Ill try this one..

I have a terminator squad, what attacks can I make?
Is all the information I need on the stat line?

I have a predator Tank what attacks can I make ?
Is all the information on the stat line?

WHY do we automatically refer to the separate ranged weapons list,for ALL the information we need.And accept this as the way it is.

And accept that close combat weapons would have ALL their base stats on the stat line, and we are happy to refer to separate lists for some information to resolve close combat for some close combat weapons, and not others.

If we move S,A,I values from the stat line and use more usefule stats to cover more units.

We can simply present the Weapon net effect info under the stat line for the weapons that unit carries.

EG
Stat line example M/BS/St/WS/Ag/Av/Rs/Wd/M/C

Trooper weapons
(Name /Effective range/AP/Damage/Attacks/ type-notes.)
Combat Knife/2"/3/3/1/Close combat only.
Las gun 24"/4/3/1/Rifle.

Sgnt Weapons
Powerfist .2"/8/7/2/Close combat only.
Laspistol 12"/3/3/1/Pistol

Support weapon
Flamer/template/3/4/template/Chemical weapon/move and fire

Fire Support weapon
Heavy bolter. 36"/5/6/3/ move or fire.

This info can be filled in by the player on units reference cards, or on their army list, for quick in game reference.

Statline.
trooper weapons. Sgnt weapons
Support weapon fire support weapon

Vehicles and M/Cs could be set out like this.

Stat line
Fire support weapons. Support weapons
Ram/close combat weapons /attacks.

Just an example to try to illustrate weapons profile under the stat line on your army list for quick in game reference.

4)Using alternating phases to allow simultaneous resolution.
The simplest way I can explain this idea is imagine you are looking at a battle in real time, with one set of cameras recording one force and the other cameras recording the opposing force.

You look at the film for one force as it is happening, then you look at the recorded film to see what the opposing force did during the same time.

EG watch side A as it moves, then watch side B to see how they moved in the same time period.

Watch side A open fire, then watch side B open fire.(No casualties are removed until all units have finished shooting.)

Watch side A launch assaults and then see force B launch assault in the same period. (No casualties are removed until all units have assaulted and made close combat attacks.)

I hope that explains the idea a bit better?

Just to comment on this as it is quite important and the core of our difference of view point IMO.

''Without getting into the suggestive 'WHFB in space' argument, let's take a look at the statlines from a different perspective. Let's forget WHFB, 40k and all those other games for a second, and consider this from a blank sheet.
We have models, let's call them creatures. Each on represents a single distinct entity on the table and in the fiction. What are some of the features of a living creature that we may want to take from the fiction and represent on the tabletop?
* Its size
* Its speed in regards to moving across the battlefield. Let's call that Movement.
* Its reaction speed. Let's call that Initiative.
* Its martial skill in close quarters fisticuffs. Let's call that Weapon Skill.
* Its morale. Let's call that Leadership.
* Its intellect. Hmm, that might not get used much. Perhaps we should drop it, or combine it with leadership.
* Its physical strength. Let's call that strength.
* Its resillience. Let's call that Toughness
Hmm, looks sensible so far. There seems to be an awful lot of models on the board and combat looks like it might take forever. Perhaps some creatures should strike more often than others to represent cleaving through multiple opponents with a single blow? Let's call that Attacks. ''

You have just described WHFB range of creatures, mainly armed with close combat weapons !!(No mention of shooting or Ballistic Skill. )
And as far as I can remember shooting was quite important in 40k.

As I thought we agreed that 40k was a battle game and should focus on detailed unit interaction.
Most versions of the 40k rules state models in the game of 40k fight in units, units can be made up of a group of models or some times one powerful model like a character, vehicle or monstrous creature.

So lets look at the UNIT types in a game like 40k.(5th ed)

We have skirmishing infantry units, foot slogging mobile and mounted types.(Some armies have creatures/beasts/cavalry performing similar roles.).

And supporting armoured vehicles.(Some armies having Monstrous Creatures , biological versions of some of these types of support vehicles.)

(Artillery and characters can be covered by similar rules the these basic unit types.IMO.)
(Movement phase)
All these units move in different ways and different speeds.
Therefore a movement speed and movement type is a good way to represent this.

(Shooting Phase)
The majority of units have ranged weapons..
A skill to show how good they are at hitting things with ranged weapons is a good idea!

As there is a wide variety of unit sizes silhouettes and not wanting to be shot, perhaps a skill to represent this to oppose the shooting skill might be a way to get proportional results without loads of modifiers?Stealth

(Assault Phase)
A skill to show how good a unit is at hitting things in close combat.

A skill to show how good a unit is at avoiding being hit in close combat.Agilty.(To replace Initiative stat, and old function in the old game turn.)

Universal combat resolution

Most units have armour.
So an Armour value is important.(Weapon Armour penetration value can oppose it in a similar way to stealth and agility )

And all units have a natural resistance to damage. call this Resilence (Weapon damage can oppose this value in the same way as other resolutions so far.)

Wounds for organic units and structure for mechanical units can record number of models in unit, and the number of penetrating hits the models can take before becoming out of action/casualty.

Some form of morale/command and control stat will be important if we are to expand this area of the game play.

You seem to be more focused on the individual models and how they are different.
Where as a battle game benefits from looking at the next level up as it were.The unit level.

Hi all.
After recent discussions, It has become clearer to me what actually went wrong with 40k game development.
The expression '..can not see the wood for the trees.... Seems to sum it up.

Everyone was /is focusing on the minatures in 40k,and sort of lost focus/forgot about the game of 40k.

Its not really the fault of the players , as GWs focus has been increasingly all about selling minatures short term.

This coupled with the inspiring background and art style ,(I am not a fan of more recent sales department mangling of the older canon, though.)

Most peoples emotional attachment to their models, means they tend to look at the individual models as the focus of the game.
Which can be accommodated in the skirmish game , but as the models count goes up and the number of units in the game increases.
The disconnects/discrepancies resulting from the game needing to shift focus multiply.

Most attempts to fix the rules , seem to want to cover more differences between models and equipment.(Or find a better level of game balance.)
Or add on effects that should be a part of the natural resolution methods like suppression.

Does everyone agree that 40k battle game should be focused on detailed unit interaction?

And that an equal focus on mobility, fire power and assault would allow more units to be equally useful in game?
(Rather than the current imbalance between shooting focused armies/and assault focused armies for example.)

Does anyone think 40k should have a heavier focus on assault over shooting?

It's not so much that Assault by itself doesn't work, so much as it's a game that rewards "supertough/fast" units to do assault in the first place. Between Disordered Charges, the fact multi-wound monsters fight at full strength until they die, etc, the game is set up in a way that if you want to assault, you aren't going to run infantry or even "light" mobile models. Berserkers? Genestealers? Banshees? Assault Marines? They don't have what it takes to survive in assault, compared with the assorted "Knight" units (Wraithknights, Dreadknights, Knights, etc), Command Barges (neutered though they may be), Invisible Thunderwolves...

Either nerfing shooting some, allowing for some way to reinforce depleted rank-and-file units, increasing the penalties for "fast" units moving into rough terrain, etc, should make the game feel more about the PBIs with the monsters being more of a "support" rather than a centrepiece.

@Magic Juggler.
I have to admit I am not familiar with the latest edition of 40k.

But are you saying that GW has now made the 40k game all about specialist models with special rules that perform a particular specialist roles?
And the 'PBI' are a sort of compulsory filler/tax?

EG rather than allowing players to find new and interesting ways to use units, the rules more or less enforce a particular way of using particular models?

I would like to try to re-write the rules looking at balancing the importance of the units types.By making all combat functions equally important.

Looking at the 40k basic unit types, and their basic functions in other battle games.(Not the models in detail.)
Other battle games with similar unit types, seem to follow 'modern ' type game play functions.(DZC, Dirtside,Epic Armageddon, etc.)

Mobility to take objectives, fire power to control enemy movement, and assault to contest objectives.(VERY generalized!)

If we use an opposed stat for BS, eg Stealth, this means that it is resolved in a similar way to close combat.
And we can get proportional results without having to use lots of modifiers and special rules .

Here is an example universal resolution chart showing active unit skill vs opposing unit skill. (I have extended the range of D6 results as an example,)
BS is compared to Stealth. WS is compared to Agility, and AV is compared to AP.(We can adjust the stats to suit the 40k units in the new rules.)

A/O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1....,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7.n,n
2....3.4.4.5.5.6.6.7.7.n.
3....3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.7.7.
4....2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.7.
5....2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.
6....1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.
7....1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.
8....d.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5
9....d.d.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4
10..d.d.d.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.

Stat values run 1 to 10 to give a decent basic range.All results are a D6 roll you need to succeed.

d results meant you auto succeed and double up the success to count as 2 hits, 2 saves or 2 points of damage.(Wounds or structure.)

7 result means you half the number of 6 rolled rounding down to count as sucesses.(Quicker than re rolling 6+ followed by 4+ for 7+ to hit .)

n means no effect.Not able to hit /save or wound.

This way a unit with BS 4 does not hit everything on a 3+ within weapon range.(48" for some weapons.)
It only hits units with stealth value 2 or 3 on a 3+.
if a Ratling Sniper had a Stealth value of 8 a BS 4 unit would need 6+ to hit him!

Also we can use a FEW simple modifiers like light cover adds 1 to Stealth value,heavy cover adds 2 to Stealth value.(Non cumulative .)And add 1 to stealth if target unit is over X inches away.(X=what ever value we set as the 'Long range' for the game.)

I think this would help balance shooting and assault as they are resolved in the same way.(Opposed stats.)And they both get proportional results

However, the other issues 40k current rules have, is shooting is competing directly for the same function as assault, 'killing stuff.'

If we introduced a simple suppression mechanic as part of the basic shooting damage resolution.
Then shooting can have an effect in the game beyond 'killing stuff'.(Reducing units effectiveness .)

Games with suppression and tactical use of smoke(los blocking missiles/grenades.)Seem to have a much easier time of making all units types useful, as there are far more tactical options roles for them to perform.

Eg
Current 40k assault =running over no mans land having the sh!t shot out of units on the way in.(Requiring super units/special rules to survive all the gunfire.)

A 40k using simple suppression and tactical use of smoke can suppress the target unit before it is assaulted, and use smoke to reduce the amount of LOS along the assaulting units path of travel.

I will leave it there for now, for any comments and questions.

I have realized that a lot of the concepts I am referring to may not be that familiar to 40k players.
It may seem that I want to add lots more rules and 'unnecessary' additions complication to a game that took ages to get the hang of.(If you include all the information from all the codex books. )

So here is a simple analogy to try to get my concept of the current 40k rules using a generally understood idea.

Every one is familiar with the simple concepts of driving a car.
1)The car goes faster depending how far you depress the accelerator .
2)The car slows down depending how far you depress the brake.
3)The car turns in the direction you turn the steering wheel, proportionally to how far you move it.

If we use a off road rally as a competitive environment.(To simulate the war game type of environment.)
Each rally is mapped out as a series of turns ,and slopes in the road.(By the navigator/narrator.)

So the skill of the driver determines how fast they negotiate , 'Slow right hand 5, dropping into tight left 2,..''For example.

GW does not like the natural division between experienced drivers and new drivers,(It believes that loosing will drive new customers away, rather than inspire them to get better.)And tries to get them to be closer together in the following way..They replace the proportional controls on the car with Buttons to Press on a GW keyboard.(tm).

So rather than drivers using skill and experience reading the road and feeling the feed back from the car.
It has become detached button pressing exercise , with players obsessing over how their cars key board has been nerfed/buffed.

(EG special rules have replaced a lots of the natural proportional results that re-ward good in game tactical decisions.)

I am hoping if we can use concepts from other battle games, NOT copy paste the rules directly from other games into 40k .

But find a method that is in synergy with the 40k battle game with 28mm minatures.And keeping enough of the key stone elements to make it a recognizable as 40k tactical battle game.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here are the things I think work well in 40k and should be kept.(Because every time we got rid of them people said it did not 'feel like 40k.' )

Number 1.
The action phases of movement shooting and assault.(I am happy to use a separate psychic phase if we need to.)

When a player takes all their movement actions in the movement phase, all their ranged attacks in the shooting phase, and all their close combat attacks in the assault phase.
The level and type of interaction is well defined in a simple and elegant way.

Simply using alternating phases improves the level of player interaction, compared to alternating player turns.But keeps the phases players know and are quite attached to.And can incorporate 'simultaneous resolution ' easily.
(I am happy to develop an alternating units activation , or even variable bound game turn later for the advanced rules if it becomes a popular request. )

Number 2.
Using a D6 for resolution. D6 are great for resolution where you roll lots of dice,eg what some players really enjoy in 40k.

D10 , D12 and D 20 are excellent for resolution when you are rolling one dice at as time ,(Per model in skirmish games with detailed model interaction, and per unit /formation in some larger battle games.)

As I tried to show higher up in this thread, D6 can generate a much wider range of results than the current 40k rules use.

Number 3.
Using opposing stats on a chart,(Like the current Ws vs Ws , or the S vs T charts.)

This is a great resolution methods for lots of reasons.
1)It can generate a wide range of proportional results without complicated modifiers/maths.

2) The results can be shifted slightly on the chart/table to make fine adjustments that cant be applied directly to D6 as modifiers.

3)Applying modifiers to the models stats negates the 'awkward 'negative modifiers.'

EG models in cover are harder to hit so the attacker gets -1 to hit.
Compared to models in cover are harder to hit so get +1 to their Stealth stat.

Things that make the active players chance of success better add to their active stat.
Things that make the opposing players chance of success better adds to their active stat.

Number 4
Direct use of values on stat lines for units/weapons;
Distance in inches , number of dice rolled, and D6 required for success,(for simpler resolution if we want to use it.)
Again simple intuitive and effective.

Number 5.
The three stage damage resolution.
To hit , to wound ,to save.

However with the more interactive game turn, the order, to hit to save to wound is my preferred resolution order.
(As it allows a really simple suppression mechanic to be used. )

I think these core elements used effectively in a 40k re write focusing on unit interaction would provide a solid core rules set for the 40k battle game.

Do you agree these core elements are important in a 40k game?

Hello again,
Sorry about the delay in posting, but I have been suffering from a touch of flu.

But as no one seems opposed to the basic methods /mechanics I would like to use to re-write the 40k rules with, I suppose I had better try to get on with it.(Headache and runny nose permitting.. )

However, as many have said before the 'Flyers , Supers heavies, and Formations ' GW introduced in 6th and 7th ed, seemed to be more about maximizing returns on short term sales than careful additions to expand the basic game play.

So I would like to cover these elements in a expansion to the basic game , after the core rules for the 'basic game' has been refined and defined better and basically stabilized enough to carry the weight of these sort of expansions/additions.

So I would like to start with a 4th /5th ed sized game to start.

I also think it is important to write the rules to focus on all the races in the game .Rather than just the 'poster boys of 40k' and make one race the focus of all new players that skews the game balance.
If we focus on the 'bog standard human in 40k eg the IG,'
We get a better concept of how all the races/forces are different to an analogue we can identify with.

If we write the rules focusing on 7 ft tall genetically modified super humans,the rules tend to show how everyone is inferior in some way to the '..best soldiers ever..' (GW sales pitch.)

Outline for the new game turn,

Start of game phase.(Command Phase)
Players can decide to take turnson who activates first , Or can roll off in this phase to see who goes first if they prefer.(
Option to add strategy ratings .tactical advantage score if preferred later.)

Both players take compulsory movement eg routing troops,and roll for reserves etc, in this phase.
Eg get everything sorted out before combat begins.

Movement Phase,
Players take turns taking all movement actions they want to perform with their units.
Eg attacking player moves all units, then defending player moves all units.

Movement options.

Stay still and fire to full effect.

Optional rules...
Stay still and dig in . (*vehicles with dozer blades may entrench and go hull down?)Add 2 to stealth .(No shooting in the shooting phase,or assaulting in the assault phase this turn, obviously.)

Move and hide, gain +1 to Stealth but may not shoot or launch assaults this turn.

Move and shoot in the shooting phase.(Mover and fire weapons only.)

Move twice and do not assault or shoot this turn,

Move up to twice into contact with an enemy unit, 'Charge into assault.'

Shooting phase.

Units that have remained stationary (and not 'dug in') may make ranged attacks on any enemy units in weapons range with any permissible attacks,

Active player rolls to hit, compare attackers BS to opposing players Stealth value to determine D6 score needed to hit on the Universal Resolution Table.

Attacked player rolls armour save throws.Attacked player rolls one dice for each successful attacking hit Compare Defenders Armour Value to the weapons Armour Penetration value to find the score needed to save on the Universal Resolution Table.

Note.
If the number of failed saves exceeds half the remaining models in the unit, the unit becomes suppressed.

Active player rolls to cause damage.Compare the penetrating hits Damage value to the target models Resilience value on the Universal resolution table to determine the D6 score needed to cause a wound /structural damage.

Assault phase

Active player rolls to hit .Compare Active players WS to opposing players Agility to determine the D6 roll needed to hit in close combat.

Attacked player rolls armour saves. Attacked player rolls one dice for each successful attacking hit [/i]Compare Defenders Armour Value to the weapons Armour Penetration value to find the score needed to save on the Universal Resolution Table.

Active player rolls to cause damage.Compare the penetrating hits Damage value to the target models Resilience value on the Universal resolution table to determine the D6 score needed to cause a wound /structural damage.

At the end of the assault, the unit that has caused the most damage has won the assault.

A)If the winner of the assault outnumbers the loosing unit(s).They may break from assault and act without restriction next turn,

B)If the winner of the assault does not outnumbers the loosing unit(s)The winning umit may only hold ground.

C) If the loosing unit(s) out number the winning units(s) they may hold ground , or fall back from the assault.(Withdraw in good order.May not assault next turn.)

D)If the loosing unit(s) do not out number the winning unit(s), they route from the assault...

This is just a starting point for discussion tying to get a bit more game play in the core rules ?(But due to head cold flu I may need to explain things better?)

I have some thoughts about the result of an assault. Let's say we have a unit of Guardsmen, then it's a pretty huge deal to take out a Terminator rather than a Cultist - could this be worked in somehow or is it too complicated to do so or doesn't this concept have any merit anyway? It's too complicated to work out casualties in terms of points... If it could be done easily (and I mean very easily - just play along) do any of you think that it would be okay to say that one wound inflicted in close combat would count for different values instead of precisely one when working out who have won the assault? Or would it be too difficult to add up when you have different models part of the close combat?

Again concerning the difference between models - I don't think that outnumbering should be used to determine what can happen when the result of the assault has been determined, but I'm not sure. I mean I can see why you've come to this, but with such big differences between models, I'm not sure that cheap, "small" and inferior models should have this kind of advantage.

@Chaospling.
I probably should try to explain the ideas I had on assault resolution in a bit more detail.

Working from the very basic game play function of 'assault to contest objectives.'I was trying to look at the assault from the unit level, rather than the fine detail of the individual models.

I was looking at how we could get the winner of the assault to stay where they won the assault ,(and continue to fight in assault if the opposing units remains in contact with them).
Or to be free to act how they want if they make the opposing units route.(Having effectively claimed the objective.)

The looser only has the option to stay in the assault if they outnumber the winning side.Or they may withdraw in good order.(Leaving the winner to claim the objective.)

If the looser is outnumbered they automatically route.

If we have a units of 5 elite close combat specialists from army A.
That have skills/ equipped to survive sustained assaults and deal more damage than ordinary units.

And they assault a unit of cheap hoard infantry from army B on an objective.(EG 20 + lightly armoured models that are average in assault.)

The Elite close combat unit, will usually inflict more wounds than the hoard infantry.So will have a much higher chance of winning the assault(s).And have a better rate of attrition .
So the odds are that the hoard infantry unit will have their numbers slowly be eroded by the Elite infantry until they withdraw/route.

BUT this does not make elite assault units a guaranteed ' fire and forget' type option.

If the assault does not go as well as it should, you may need to have other units ready to step in to support /replace units that may withdraw or route from the assault.

I am just looking at simple ideas/methods to get the basic balance of mobility fire power and assault from modern war games into 40k.

They may need adapting to be a better fit with 40K , obviously.So any ideas and comments you may have are very welcome.

Eg
The options for units to move and focus on using available cover instead of shooting ,is sensible for some 40k units.(And removes the need for extra rules for 'going to ground'.)However the option to 'dig in' may not be a good fit with 40k game play?

Rules for a 28mm tactical battle game for the 40k universe , has not been done before, so its all new ground.

I am just putting forward some simple ideas for discussion that may be a good fit for the new rules. .

But if the 20+ models cost the same as the 5 elite models and both groups excel at the same things, then the elite models have the advantage of killing more each round, but as the hoard models through the fight outnumber the elite models, then they wont run. On the other hand, there's a chance that the hoard unit can win a round and as they outnumber the elite unit, there's a chance, that the elite unit will route. Just making the observation.

I'm currently working on a solution where kills from these unit will end up being equal even though 4 models from the hoard unit got killed and only 1 model from the elite unit got killed. Who ever loses, there's a chance that the unit will route - everything else equal.

@Chaospling.
If the 20+ hoard infantry cost the same as 5 elite assault models , then they should not both excel at the same thing.

Eg a mob of 20+Ork Slugga Boys , should not be equally as good in assault as 5 close combat terminators on a model by model basis.

If the units are of equal point values then the statistical chance of either winning the assault should be equal.
Therefore , the Terminators have the advantage of causing more wounds per turn, so are more likely to win the assault .
The Ork boys however, will tend to stay in the assault until they loose significant casualties, so have a chance of eventually causing enough casualties to win, in the longer battle of attrition.

Would the inclusion of a morale test to ignore the route from assault result , help the more elite assault units cause?

@Lanrak: I thought it were obvious that I meant equally good in assault on a unit by unit basis. I completely understand this example (although I disagree with your first sentence), it's just that I think that it should be possible for the hoard unit to flee if enough casualties were caused, just as if the hoard miraculously were able to bring down a certain amount of the elite models. The way you do it will be far easier rules-wise (I think) but it's the principle that it's only the elite unit which can flee that bothers me.

@Chaospling.
I have to apologize to you.My head cold, has made my skill of explaining , and understanding ideas in the written format quite abysmal recently.

Ill try to explain from the beginning this time , and hope I do a better job...

I wanted to have varied results from the assault .
A)Depending on the casualties caused, to determine the winner and loser of the assault.

B)Depending on the perceived threat level to determine the units level of functionality.

After MagicJuggler's post seemed to confirm others opinions that 40k has become all about specialist units with special rules being optimized for specialist roles to the point where ordinary troops are thought of as a tax you have to pay the get the good units.

I had a look at the way 40k rules seems to totally ignore qualities, so that some units seem 'worthless' in 40k.

A units survival on the battle field is down to stealth , armour, mobility,and numbers..

At one end we have a large bunker relying on just its armour to protect it.(It can not run or hide, and it is a single model.)
And the other the light infantry , no armour to speak of, but they do run and hide to stay out of trouble.And they tend to be deployed in larger numbers.

So one end of the spectrum is fast agile numerous, lightly armoured units.
And the other end fewer , slower , more ponderous heavily armoured units.

Reintroducing Stealth and Mobility to resolution values addresses the main short fall in the 40k ranged combat resolution .IMO.

Adding Agility as an opposed stat to WS,(to replace Initiative, ) and out numbering to be a simple method of determining the threat level in assault.Seemed a good starting point to add the missing parts of the game into the assault resolution.

Just to clear up a point.
If any unit is out numbered when they loose an assault they automatically route from that assault.

If the Elite Assault unit wounds enough of the enemy unit to the point the Elite Assault unit outnumbers the enemy, the enemy will route from the assault.

The elite assault unit has higher skill and better equipment, all the 'troops units' have is a starting numerical advantage.

EG A Squad of 5 Close Combat Terminators Deep Strike on to an objective held by 30 'Gaunts.

If the Termies kill 6 'Gaunts on the first turn of combat, still surrounded by 24 'Gaunts.Should the Termies be allowed to wander off as they please?

Or would they Hold their ground and continue to fight in the assault until the 'Gaunts withdraw/ or Route from the combat?

I was trying to add some tactical decision making in the the assault resolution.

For non elite units, do you risk the unit failing and routing from the assault ,(And being chased down and destroyed,)
OR do withdraw from the assault in good order while you have the numerical superiority to do so?

For elite units, do you want to engage a numerically superior enemy , without any supporting units to help you out if things do not go to plan?

However, I think I see your area for concern.(After more medication has kicked in. )

Would you prefer the threat level to be half starting strength rather than out numbering?

EG When a unit of 30 falls to 15 or less it routes from the assault if it looses.
When the Elite Assault unit of 5 models falls to 2 models left they automatically route if they loose the assault.

This still gives a simple gauge of 'threat level' but is not quite as biased towards big units as the outnumbering concept.

But still lets the 'quality of quantity' be a factor in the resolution.

Hi folks.
Do you think falling below half starting strength is a good level to set the 'fragility' of the units at?
I know the old Epic Space Marine rules used half unit strength to award half victory points for the unit(And full victory points for any units destroyed or routed off the table.)

This means units that rely on weight of numbers to see them through, (PBI) have the initial advantage over more specialist units that rely on specialist skills and specialist equipment to see them through.

In most other war games standard infantry is taken to hold objectives because they are the best at doing so in a balanced tactical war game.
As they have mobility stealth and numbers to see them through.

Specialist units are used to support and enhance to core units , not replace them entirely!

Should there be a set level of casualties based on starting strength that causes units to be prone to route?
EG 50% or 75%

Do we need another level for casualties incurred in one game turn?Or could this be a modifier to the morale test?

What do you folks think?

Hi Again..
I will leave the fine tuning of the 'assault break point' until play testing.(I am sure we will find the right levels quite quickly in practice.)

I would like to quickly go over the new weapon profiles to illustrate how I would like them to work, before moving on to the morale/command and control ideas.

If we use the following classification for weapons.

Close Combat .Only used when engaged in close combat, EG Combat Knife.

Ranged

Side Arm(pistol).May move and fire .(Possible option to make pistols a tactical option>May be used to fire into an assault the units is engaged in.Replaced the models Close combat attack if it is out of close combat weapon range.)

Small arms, (guns, rifles),Are assumed to be able to move and fire their number of attacks , up to their effective range.UNLESS STATED OTHER WISE.

Support weapons.General specialist weapons that can move and fire.(EG grenade launchers, flame throwers etc.)

Fire support weapon Specialized weapons that move OR fire.

IMPORTANT NOTE>
The weapon classification depends on the unit carrying it.
EG, A heavy bolter carried by an IG infantry man is classed as the units Fire support weapon.(Move or fire.)
The same heavy bolter mounted in the sponsons of a Leman Russ count as the tanks Support weapons.(Move and fire.)
A greater deamon or some other huge nasty beastie, might use a heavy bolter in one hand and class it as a pistol!

This way we do not waste time classing things as 'heavy weapons' that can only move or fire.Then have to use other rules to ignore the the first rule, (eg relentless.)

Some special abilities for weapons just to give some ideas..
Chemical Weapon, ignores effects of cover .

Poisoned , double damage to organic units.

E.M.P./Haywire, double damage on mechaniod targets.

Rapid fire .May be fired on the move.(1 shot max range 12".) If stationary the shooter may double range OR shots.(Eg 1 shot up to 24" away, or 2 shots up to 12" away.)

Chain Edged.May re roll any natural 1s rolled to damage.


So a SM tac Squad Weapons profile..
Name /effective range/attacks/armour peircing /damage/notes.

Sgnt Close combat.---------------------------Sgnt Ranged
Chain Sword.0-2" 1 5 4 Chain Edged.....Bolt Pistol 0-12" 1 4 4 Side Arm.

Marines Close Combat----------------------Marines Ranged
Combat knife. 0-2" 1 4 4 ........................Bolt Gun. 0-12" 1 4 4 Rapid Fire.

Marine Support Weapon------------------------------Marine Fire Support Weapon.
Flamer. Temp,Temp 4 4 .Chemical weapon.....Missile launcher Krak 48" 1 7 5
...........................................................................Missile Launcher Frag 48" 3" 4 3

This way the players get the net effect of all weapons for all their units as quick and easy reference.

So if they want a Vet Sgnt with power fist and plasma pistol.
They just use a different profile for the sgnt....
Sgnt Close combat.---------------------------Sgnt Ranged
Power Fist .0-2" 2 8 6 Power Weapon ..........Plasma Pistol 0-12" 1 5 5 Side Arm/ Gets hot..

<Values are just for illustration purposes, actual values will be arrived at by play testing obviously. >

This also gets round the issue when say shot guns are great option for IG, but under performing for SM scouts.So the SM scouts can get beefed up shotguns, and a higher price, without messing with any core reference weapon profile players have to try to remember.

As there seems to be little objection ( or interest ?) In the proposed new layout , so all in game data is on the unit card/army list .
And if we can accept that weapons behave differently depending who/what is using them.

Then I will move on and have a quick look at morale...

I am not a fan of all or nothing rules like 'fearless' etc.

The simplest way to have show a units will to fight on is in a simple stat. EG a Morale Grade from 1 to 5.
Units with the highest morale grade for 'fanatical ' 1 , pass morale checks by rolling 1+ on a D6
Units with the lowest starting morale grade 'cowardly' 5, pass morale checks by rolling 5+ on a D6.

The starting values could be..
Fanatical (Fearless)1
Elite ........................2
Veteran ..................3
Trained ...................4
Controlled/coward...5

Things that make units feel threatened , add to the Morale target score making it harder to pass a morale test.

EG
Unit already suppressed +1
Suffered 50% casualties +2
Suffered 75% casualties +4

We could make it that the degree of failure set the result.
Example..
Fail by 1, the unit may not launch an assault.
Fail by 2 or 3, the unit must fall back .
Fail by 4 or more the unit routes.

This means a fanatical/fearless unit automatically passes morale tests until it becomes suppressed,then has a 1 in 6 chance of not being able to launch an assault it it fails a morale test.

If the fearless fanatical unit has lost 75% of its starting strength ,it still passes morale tests on a 5+.Can not launch assaults on a 4+, falls back on a 3 or 2.And routes on a roll of a 1.

This makes units with better morale grades stick around longer, but does not make them totally immune to the effects of war.(More tactical depth IMO.)

This is just an idea for discussion, it probably needs more development to be a better fit in 40k?

The other area I would like to revise is Command and Control.

I would prefer to use a Command Value for leaders and Characters.
The first part is a distance, in Inches, This sets the basic coherency of the unit.And the area of effect the leader.character has.

EG A Vet Sgnt in charge of a IG Squad may have a Command value of 8"/1.This means all models in the unit must remain within a 8" diameter circle unit coherency. (Sort of an invisible base the unit moves on.)
This is to speed up moving models , and allow more freedom in models placement when moving over the games table.

The /1 refers to the fact the Vet Sarge can add 1 to a single dice roll the unit takes per turn.

Characters can have higher Command Ranges, and allow more dice adjustments per game turn.
EG Commisar Yarrick could have Command 12" /4.
This means he can add 1 to any 4 dice rolls per game turn, of any friendly unit within 12" of him.And any unit he is attached to has a 12" coherency.

An idea that may not be popular , but here we go...
Rather than giving characters extra wounds , to show their level of experience.
I would like them to contribute to a Heroic action pool for the force.
Each hero adds 1 or 2 ,(sometimes 3 for super special characters?) to the heroic actions available to the entire force.

These are ONE USE ONLY.They allow the player to chose the result on one dice without rolling it.Having used a heroic action to inspire a member of their own force to perform an heroic act, their heroic action is spent, and discarded.

I was wondering if these heroic actions should be limited to particular actions dependent on the army?
EG close combat rolls . ranged attacks rolls or command rolls.

I am just using these as a starting point, I am happy to look at other ideas and discuss how we can develop them .
As 40ks current morale and command and control is so underdeveloped and propped up on binary special rules.
I think is is an area ripe for game development.

Hi folks.
Perhaps its time to look at how the 40k units can be converted over to the new format.
Lets start with the standard IG Squad.

Ill rename the new stats to prevent confusion...
EG.
Mobility/Shooting/Stealth /Assault/ Agility/Armour/Resilience/HIt Points/Morale/Comand.

As IG are standard humaniod infantry, they move on legs(L) up to 5" per turn.
They have Mobility (L)5".

IG are slightly under average at shooting so a Shooting skill of 4, will mean they hit average Stealth 5 units on a 4+(Same as BS 3)

IG are 'frail humans' so tend to keep their heads down and so get slightly better than average Stealth of 6.

I would like to give multiple model units a second Stealth value for when they drop to/below half strength , So a 10 Man IG squad gets Stealth of 8 when they drop to 5 or less models.

IG are slightly below average in assault so get an Assault value of 4.

IG have average reactions so get an Agility of 5.

IG have an Armour value of 2 .

IG have a Resilience value of 4

IG Squads get Wound (organic unit) values of 1-10(1 wound per model, 10 models in the unit.)

IG are veteran units with an Morale of 3

IG Sgnt have a Command value of 7"-.

So..IG squad .
(L)5/4/6-8/4/5/2/4/1-10/3/7-

This covers a lot more in game information that the current stat line provides.When we add the weapon stat lines for the unit,that should cover ALL the information needed to use the unit in game.

I like where this is headed.

I was wondering about using a Symbol for the Stat in the stats line to make reading the info a bit more intuitive.
(Especially for players who are not using English as their primary language.)

Unfortunately I have zero skill in this sort of thing.Would some one like to help with this?

Is everyone happy with the new weapons profile for the units?

Name /Effective range/Attacks/Armour peIrcing/Damage/ Notes.

We can use the current basic armour save values and vehicle AV values to find the starting new AV values. Then we can give weapons the relevant new AP values to get the save rolls to be where we want them.

Eg if IG 5+ save = new AV 2.
Then Bolt guns can have an new AP value of 4 to start with .This gives models with new AV 2 an armour save of 5+ on the new table against bolt guns.)

And Las weapons can have a lower AP value to let armour get a better save.
EG if las guns have AV 3.So models with new AV 2 get a 4+ save against these lower powered weapons.

The idea of the universal resolution table is to allow saves to be proportional without the need to apply separate lists of modifiers .

Hi all.
Quick summary...
I think we have covered all the basic areas needed to clean up the rules and make them more in synergy with the game play that is the best fit for current 40k units.(An equal focus in mobility , firepower and assault.)

Change of Game Turn Mechanic...
Alternating game phase game turn , gives enough player interaction to remove the need for extra reaction rules , like over watch.
And can let players focus on each action in its own phase/(All movement in the movement phase!)

Tactical decisions are made in the Movement Phase.
Units that do not move get a bonus to shooting.Units that do not shoot, get a bonus to moving ,or can assault or the option to hide.

The units have 2 actions per turn,from the following actions.Move ,Shoot,set up*,hide**. Assault.
(*Units that do not move are assumed to be setting up heavier weapons /better firing positions.**Units can make full use of cover after moving instead of shooting, 'going to ground/hull down.')

This explanation makes the perception of the game turn more balanced IMO.

Stat line revision...
Mobility, fire power and assault all have 2 factors on the unit stat line.
Damage is resolved in similar ways across all units.
Morale and Command effects have their own stats , so can be more detailed.

Weapon data presentation.
If we present the UNITS weapon data under the UNITS stat line.
We can show the in game effects that particular unit/model has with those particular weapons they carry.
And the few remaining special rules can be noted on the unit data on the reference card/army list entry.

I think this basic over view covers most of the core issues with the core rules for 40k.

Is there any thing you think needs addressing I might have missed?

If most are happy with the proposed general rules changes, for the game.I would like to look at the alternative methods we can use for force composition next.
(Instead of the current F.O.C. and multiple add on things like Detachments, and Formations and Unbound etc..)

@Lanrak: Maybe I should have send this post as a private message, but from almost all your posts, I get that you're not exactly discussing 40k as an open problem, but more like presenting your own predetermined ideas; though throwing in words like "we" the proposals sometimes sound like the ideas have been worked out in plenum. I do read many of your posts over and over again because they're most of the time well thought out and well defended, but you also seem to move on to other subjects and somehow giving the impression that previous subjects have been worked out to a degree where everybody is happy.

Actually it's great that some have the energy to keep discussing this and move on to new areas of discussion, but if you already are so determined on the solutions and you don't present your ideas as open ideas and highlight both the positive and negative sides of your ideas, then why not just start writing your own alternative ruleset and present it at some point?

Remember I'm not looking for deep submissive posts, but I'm just not seeing subjects of Warhammer 40k, which need fixing, being discussed openly. I could be wrong to a certain point (I'm pretty hungry right now, so could probably be more clear-minded), and I want you to keep posting in these threads, but I just wanted to get this of my chest.

@Chaospling.
The ideas I am putting forward as possible solutions , are not all my own work.They have been developed with others, over many years.
So when I use the term 'we', I am trying to acknowledge the many people who have influenced and developed fresh ways of looking at the game play of 40k, and the way rules could work.
I am not trying to infer/imply that everyone agrees with these ideas.

I am happy to discuss alternative ideas, or cocerms other people may have.

So far some people said they would prefer alternating unit activation.So I am trying to develop rules that work with both game turn types.So players can use which ever they prefer.

And the 'outnumbering' concept in Assault was just a way to give the quality of quantity some in game value in assault.
And I changed that after concern was expressed that outnumbering was a bit biased to hoard type armies.
I did ask if falling below half starting strength was an acceptable break point, for play testing.

As no one seemed to offer objections I just carried on.

I suppose I would like to get the over all ideas discussed in general first.As lots of threads on here see really good concepts get bogged down in discussion of minutia in terms of current 40k rules.

I will probably type up the basic alpha out line of the rules at some point.But at least the people reading this thread can understand why the new rules I write up are so different to current 40k.

Do you have any concerns over the proposed rules ?

@Lanrak: Yes well... Maybe I was over-sensitive...

As much as I like to talk about this, I've realized that I'm set on writing a ruleset a certain way (which you'd probably like as it seems that we agree on lot of things), and I already have much in place so that's why I'm not heavily involved in these discussions. The result and outcome of assaults are actually something which I'm going to work out in the near future, and I need a solution which will work with routing units not getting sweeped but are instead caught and charged anew; I also need the solution to work with the possibility of units charging new units as part of them winning the assault. If I find out an idea that works, I'll not post it as I wouldn't need to discuss it

Other than that I don't agree with your arguments about putting movement back into the stat-line and your arguments about the number of stats in the stat-line are an expression of how focused the game is on the phases which these stats are connected to, but you've moved on and that's completely fine - keeps the thread fresh - and I'm set on using my solution anyway.

I wish some of the guys from Warseer was here; the thread would probably evolve a bit faster then.

Oh right... If you want outnumbering to be a factor, I think that if you have no mechanic in the game to offset this for elite models, you should at least be sure that any kind of such elite models (not just Space Marine variants) have a special rule which make them not care about how much they're outnumbered.

@Chaospling.
The problem with communicating in the written format is the lack of emotion and the ability to explain things as you go along.
It is really easy to write ideas down in ambiguous ways, and people to miss understand the concepts behind the words.

And as I have poor skills in this area, I often have to go over things a few times to clarify motives and ideas.

I think most players that have issues with GWs 40k rules are most concerned with rules bloat due to the inclusion of far too many special rules.
(As in most games with at least double the game play complexity of 40k, tend to have less than a quarter of the amount of special rules 40k has. )

This is a symptom of the core rules not covering enough of the game play.
I think most people would agree with this ?

So stepping back from the fine detail of the 40k rules , and just looking at the units found in 40k and how they act in game.
And comparing these types of units across lots of rule sets, we can see the elements of the interaction that are missing from units stats in 40k.

I was not trying to justify changing the stat line used for the new 40k game to a preconceived idea of how the stat line 'should look'.

But mainly to try to rationalize the resolution methods to try to cover the game play effectively and 'elegantly' with core rules where possible.

(And after this was done , the quick check on stat loading, was my idea to show the new stat line followed the basic expectation of the game play, far better than the WHFB based stat line does. )

Adding mobility values back , is a good example of correcting what 3rd ed 'over simplified.'IMO.

Everything moves 6" or D 6" through difficult terrain.Take dangerous terrain test for difficult terrain.)Core rule.

Replaced.. the model can move up to its M stat in inches per movement action , this value is halved when crossing difficult terrain, and quarter this value when crossing very difficult terrain .

This now has lead to the inclusion of how many USRs for movement, and extra vehicle movement rules..?

The last time I looked this change took the rules for movement from 2 pages of rules to rules spread over 14 pages !
(Adding the Mobility stat back tends to be a common change in most re-writes.)

If you do not want the mobility value on the stat line then fair enough.To include the mobility type in the 'unit description' similar to F.O.W is an option. (As long as there are clearly defined mobility rates , it keeps the game function in the core rules rather than relying on special rules. )

Just trying to clarify most peoples argument for mobility rates belonging in the stat line / core rules.

I have to admit assault resolution is an area where there are many ways to arrive at a better option than GWs 40k current rules.

I think having a more interactive game turn will go a long way to cleaning up the assault resolution.
In that one players unit will assault in their turn, , then the opponent unit fights in the assault in their turn before casualties are removed.

Latest ideas on assault resolution,
I think having the side that cause the most damage on the opposing units as the winner of the assault is simple and intuitive.
The side that suffered the least amount of damage wins the tie.
If damaged caused and sustained is tied then the side with the most remaining hit points wins .

I think this gives outnumbering a reasonable function in assault, without making it too powerful.

However, I think the unit 'functionality' after the assault should depend on the state the unit finds themselves in.
If they have sustained too much damage, they will NOT launch another assault next turn.

So if the winning unit has over half its starting strength it can act freely next turn.

If the winning unit is under half starting strength it can move and shoot normally, but can not launch an assault next turn.
And must pass an morale test before it can launch another assault.

The loosing side in the assault must 'Disengage' from the assault.

They must move away from the unit that beat them in the assault in their next movement phase.(Compulsory move.)

They may chose to 'fall back' by moving twice in the same direction.
Or they may make a 'fighting withdrawal' after the compulsory movement they can shoot 'move and fire ' weapons.

However, if the loosing side has fallen below half starting strength, it must pass a morale test, or '*route' from the assault.
(*The unit must move twice its mobility value away from the unit that beat it in the assault.The unit may not make any attacks until it is rallied.)

If the unit passes this morale test it must 'Disengage' from assault as above, rather than being routed.

@Lanrak: I just read your post but will have to read your comments about assaults and assault resolutions again to answer properly, but I'll throw this idea out: an assault which carries on for a while (either because of tough models which will not die or because of hoard units); would it be of interest if the assault moved a bit? Be it just D3" or 2" or 3" and maybe in a direction chosen by the loser; I don't mean because the losing units flee but they're pushed back. Could be some Terminators against traitor guard which maybe are fanatical but the Terminators push them back or maybe a quite even fight between hoards of Orks and Tyranids but the Orks have won the fight two turns now which is shown by the Tyranid units slowly losing ground. All the details could be worked out and it can have a negative side for the side which keeps winning but I think the basic idea is cool.

Lanrak wrote:
I was wondering about using a Symbol for the Stat in the stats line to make reading the info a bit more intuitive.
(Especially for players who are not using English as their primary language.)

I would caution against replacing words/letters with symbols. Symbols are great sometimes, and a hindrance at other times. I believe they'd be a hindrance here. Remember that this is a game which involves a lot of verbal communication. It's easy to communicate a letter or word verbally. Communicating a symbol or picture is next to impossible.

Eg if IG 5+ save = new AV 2.
Then Bolt guns can have an new AP value of 4 to start with .This gives models with new AV 2 an armour save of 5+ on the new table against bolt guns.)

And Las weapons can have a lower AP value to let armour get a better save.
EG if las guns have AV 3.So models with new AV 2 get a 4+ save against these lower powered weapons.

I'm not sure I understood that correctly. Can you please provide a few more examples? With the two examples presented so far, I can't tell if the oddity I'm seeing is a misunderstanding, an oversight, or if you have intentionally changed the game in a way I wasn't anticipating.

Try these:
Space Marine Power Armour vs Lascannon
Space Marine Power Armour vs Heavy Bolter
Ork Boy vs heavy bolter

I think I'll understand it after that.

@Zustiur.
Fair point about using symbols.

I was hoping to use one table (Universal Resolution Table)to compare opposing skills to cover all combat resolution.
(We may need to use separate tables for each resolution, we will find this out when we play test and finalize actual values. )

Attackers Shooting Skill(BS) vs Targets Stealth Skill to give the to hit roll at range.

Attackers Assault Skill (WS) vs Targets Agility Skill( Replaced Initiative.) to give the chance to hit in close combat.

Targets Armour value VS the Attackers Weapons Armour Piercing value , To give the target armour save roll value.

Attackers Damage Value vs Targets Resilience Value to give the chance to damage the target, (remove wounds/structure.)

The rolls are done in the following order, to be in synergy with the alternating phase game turn.

Attacker rolls to hit.
Defender rolls to save,
Attacker rolls to cause damage.

Here is the starting URT I was using as an example

A/O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1....,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7.n,n
2....3.4.4.5.5.6.6.7.7.n.
3....3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.7.7.
4....2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.7.
5....2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.
6....1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.
7....1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.
8....d.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5
9....d.d.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4
10..d.d.d.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.

The target is the Active player (A) when rolling to save.So they look up their AV on the left hand column.Then they look for the attacker weapon Armour Penetration value across the top of the table.The Opposing players skill.(O).Where these 2 values intersect, that gives the targets Armour Save Roll Score.

A Space marine in power Armour has AV 4.
If a Las Cannon has AP 8, the SM in power armour saves on a 6+

If a Heavy Bolter has an AP of 5, The SM in power armour saves on the roll of 4+

If Orks have an AV of 1, the Ork Boy saves on a 6+ vs the Heavy Bolter.

If a Land Raider AV 10 is hit by an AP 3 weapon, the shot is automatically deflected, (d).Deflected hits can no use any special effects, (like rending).The armour is too thick for this low AP attack to have any effect what so ever!

If the Ork boy , AV 1 gets hit by a Melta gun (Ap 9) in the face, he does not get any save at all!(n= no save possible.)

The table and values are just a starting point to illustrate how we can get variable and proportional saves, without having to use ASM.(We can change the values as needed when we get to play testing. )

I hope that explains the concept a bit better.

I was trying to cover the interaction in a simple way that allowed more intuitive and detailed results.

@Chaospling.
I have always imagined that assault in 40k would be fast and deadly.Rather than a WHFB 'scrum of 100s of bodies slowly pushing one way then the other'.

I admit I could be in a minority of one in this!

The way I see it the attacker launches an assault in their Assault Phase. They make their attacks, and damage is noted on the enemy unit.
(Either wound counters or a 'damage dice' perhaps.)

In the defenders Assault phase they make their attacks on the attacking unit and note the damage they cause.

Here is a summary, hopfuly a bit clearer than my previous post.

The assault is won by the unit that;-
1)Caused the most damage.
2)If tied the winner sustained the least amount of damage.
3)If tied the winner outnumbers the opponent.

The unit that won the assault may act normally next turn.

However, If the unit that won the assault has fallen below half Starting Strength, they can not launch an assault next turn.
Units that are below half Starting Strength must pass a morale test before launching an assault.

The unit that lost the assault will always 'break from the assault'/'be pushed back.'

This is a compulsory movement away from the unit that won the assault.

I was thinking this move could be taken in the units next movement phase, IF we mark the unit as 'Pushed Back.'
(I am not a fan of 'random movement' after the assault has been carried out.But if you prefer the loosing unit to be moved directly after the assault , that is fair enough.)

So the unit breaking from the assault may move again away from the unit that won the assault, or shoot 'move and fire' weapons, in their next turn .
They can NOT launch an assault next turn.

However, If the unit that lost the assault has fallen below half strengh.The may Route from the assualt if they fail a Morale test.
Routing units can not make any attacks , until they are rallied.

I hope that is a bit clearer?

Yep I get it now. Thanks for clearing that up. You'd probably already said all that but I didn't take it in properly. I was completely off track before.
Using the same table for armour saves is an interesting idea. I've got no way to evaluate it without trying, so won't comment for nor against.

Lanrak wrote:
@Chaospling.
I have always imagined that assault in 40k would be fast and deadly.Rather than a WHFB 'scrum of 100s of bodies slowly pushing one way then the other'.

I admit I could be in a minority of one in this!

The way I see it the attacker launches an assault in their Assault Phase. They make their attacks, and damage is noted on the enemy unit.
(Either wound counters or a 'damage dice' perhaps.)

In the defenders Assault phase they make their attacks on the attacking unit and note the damage they cause.

My problem with units only dealing damage in their own assault phase is that it takes time to get into close combat. A unit can theoretically do shooting damage in six turns, if it's a six-turn battle. A unit can also theoretically do assault damage in twelve assault phases, in a six-turn battle, so stopping here shooting and assault are not balanced. It could be fair to assume that a unit normally won't get a turn 1 charge and stay in the assault for the rest of the battle, so at least two (or three) turns out of six for movement seem more fair; that's four turns or eight assault phases. By saying eight assault phases is assuming that the one or two assaults, the unit is involved in, is won in the opponent's assault phase; if the assault is won in the unit's own assault phase, then it will not be in an assault in the opponent's next assault phase and so an assault phase is lost; that takes us down to maybe six or seven phases worth of assault damage and that's with only two turns of movement. Besides this unit take assault damage the same number of turns and takes shooting damage the turns it move whereas the other unit which focuses on shooting theoretically takes shooting damage in six turns. Besides making it "feel" like an actual fight which is fought simultaneously, this is my argument for letting units dealing assault damage in the opponent's assault phase.

I'll get back to you regarding assault resolutions.

Edit: Reading my post I can see that I have to state that when I refer to "turns for movement", this is turns only with movement, but movement (not including running) can, of course, also occur the turn a unit charges and has its first assault phase of the assault.