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.

morfydd wrote:
If your going to do intiative and have it meaningfull then Highest intiative moves last and shoots first ..giving it the greatest advantage(the higher initiative gets to pick where the fight will be)

That makes some sense but is a bit too rigid, sometimes moving first is better and sometimes shooting later is better.

The way initiative works (provisionally) in my game is higher initiative can choose to play an action (move or shoot for example) before a lower initiative opponent, but can defer their action till later.

That way higher initiative gets the larger range of tactical choices.

So like imagine an eldar facing off against an ork. Ordinarily the eldar would want to shoot that smelly ork in the face before the ork pulls off a charge and subjects the eldar's exquisite senses to his body odour (and axes and fangs and whatnot) but what if in between the ork and the eldar was a minefield and behind the ork was mega-ork? Then actually the eldar might prefer to let the ork dash across the minefield and blow himself up before the eldar shoots and so giving the eldar a clear shot at the mega-ork behind him...

Hi folks.
I have been looking at writing new rules for my favorite game setting since 4th ed 40k arrived.(Oh crap they still want 40k to be WHFB in SPACE! ).

And looking at the rules sets we have played and talked about for the last 30 years or so.(Yes I am an old fart. )

I have tried several combinations of game mechanics and resolution methods in new rules for 40k.(And we have had some great fun converting some other rules for 40k skirmish games.And had lots of fun with the two good Epic rule sets. ))

However, after several attempts, the one thing that lead the projects astray, is when we lost focus on the intended game play.

Including something because it works well in another rules set, that may be written specifically for that particular feature.Is NOT a good reason to include it in a new rule set you are writing.

In fact writing a simple and elegant rule set for 40k (5th ed size game.)Is very problematical, because GW have just converted a ancient rule set , added in lots of kool ideas, and not really thought about the impact on the game play.(GW plc write rules to inspire sales of the latest releases, NOT to arrive at a well defined and enriched game play.)

The scale of the models leads people to want to use detailed model resolution.But the scale of the game requires detailed unit interaction.

So the current rules are 'sub optimal', Skirmish rules do not fit the scale of the game.And Battle game rules do not fit the scale of the minatures.

The ONLY way to progress and stay on track is define the game play and focus on game mechanics and resolution methods that deliver it in the least complicated way.

I have quite a few alternatives we can try out.I am proposing the ones I think would be the best fit.But I am open to discussing others.

I am not keen on using the ideas based on ancient combat embedded in the core WHFB rules, that have been transfered by backwards compatibility into 40k.

In WHFB the majority of weapons use the models physical strength to determine the damage inflicted.(Swords and bows etc.)As weapons and armour in WHFB are all low tech
The focus of WHFB is close combat , the amount of attacks and the order those attacks occur in.deserve the place on the stat line.

In 40k most weapons have damage rating independent of the users Strength.
In 40k the level of tech often determines the number of attacks/rate of fire .

And as in 40k units are not large unwieldly regiments lining up in an orderly fashion to take turns striking at each other in close combat.

But are smaller skirmishing squads frantically trying to kill the opponent before they get killed themselves.

In 40k shooting should be equally important as assault.IMO.And how unit move across the gaming area is an important attribute that deserves its own stat.

So as a quick rule of thumb.Mobility , shooting and assault should have equal representation on the stat line.IMO.

Current 40k has, 0,1,and 4 loading.I proposed 2, opposed values for each in game resolution feature.

After lengthy discussion and diagnosis of suppression in the real world and the ways to model it in game.

The simplest model of threat /confidence interaction is this.

If a unit fails more saves from shooting , than it has 'hit points' left,the unit becomes suppressed.

I admit it is a simple abstraction , but it covers the wide range of unit types found in 40k , without the need for lots of complicated (special )rules.

large mob units rely on weight of numbers to avoid suppression .Elite units rely on better armour to avoid suppression.

And everything else is a proportional mix of armour and number of bodies, in between.

 SolarCross wrote:

morfydd wrote:
If your going to do intiative and have it meaningfull then Highest intiative moves last and shoots first ..giving it the greatest advantage(the higher initiative gets to pick where the fight will be)

That makes some sense but is a bit too rigid, sometimes moving first is better and sometimes shooting later is better.

The way initiative works (provisionally) in my game is higher initiative can choose to play an action (move or shoot for example) before a lower initiative opponent, but can defer their action till later.

That way higher initiative gets the larger range of tactical choices.

So like imagine an eldar facing off against an ork. Ordinarily the eldar would want to shoot that smelly ork in the face before the ork pulls off a charge and subjects the eldar's exquisite senses to his body odour (and axes and fangs and whatnot) but what if in between the ork and the eldar was a minefield and behind the ork was mega-ork? Then actually the eldar might prefer to let the ork dash across the minefield and blow himself up before the eldar shoots and so giving the eldar a clear shot at the mega-ork behind him...

I think that might make the game too complicated. The way Lanrak and I are formatting these rules will allow interwoven turns, but not of individual units. I thought about letting players alternate individual unit turns but not only is that tedious, it can be counterproductive if we factor in initiative- jetbikes will always move before dreadnoughts so players will have to counter jetbikes with either jetbikes of their own or outfit their heavier units with more armor to survive the faster unit's onslaught. Adding your system in where the faster units can reserve their action would solve this problem, but I think that might make the game too complex for a newcomer. Let's keep it in mind as we go on, so let me explain what I've been thinking of regarding turns.

The turn order will have alternating phases between players: Action phases. The two action phases can be used for a myriad of actions: Setting up heavy/salvo weapons, moving, shooting, charging, using psychic powers, and calling out challenges are just a few of the many actions. Keep in mind that only one can be carried out per phase, meaning that a sniper wouldn't be able to set up and shoot in one phase- he can set up in one phase and shoot in the next. While this ensures a shot each turn, it makes the sniper exposed to assault, balancing out the game and mirroring real combat. My grand idea for turn equality will be in how the turns are resolved. Both players will decide their unit's orders in their respective action phases, but their orders will only be resolved once both players' phases have concluded. For example:

Player 1 has an Ork Boy, and Player 2 has a Space Marine Scout. Player 1 enters Action Phase 1, and orders the Ork Boy to shoot the SM Scout with his shoota. He doesn't stand a good chance of hitting him, but he has the intention to charge and melee next phase. With his Phase over, Player 1 cedes control to Player 2, and Player 2 starts his Action Phase 1. He orders the SM Scout to return the Ork's fire. The Scout has a higher Ballistics skill than the Ork, so he stands a much better chance of landing a hit. Player 2 ends his Phase, and Action Phase 1 ends for both players. With the Action phase finalized, both player's orders will be resolved simultaneously. The Ork Boy shoots, but he predictably misses. The SM Scout shoots, and he hits the Ork Boy. The Ork Boy is removed from the game board, and Action Phase 2 begins with Player 2's action.

With this system, the Ork Boy and the SM Scout are given equal chances to shoot in the phase. 40k's current system of letting one army do three phases before the second army can do more than deploy is extremely one-sided and can result in heavily unbalanced gameplay. Here, the SM Scout's stats proved victorious over the Ork Boy, and the Ork Boy's dismal Ballistics skill was the only thing that saved the Space Marine.

I do have a qualm with this system, though. It does not reward taking fast and agile units more than it rewards heavy units since either way, both units go at once. An Ogryn and a Banshee would assault at the same time, and the Ogryn would be able to soak up attacks with upgraded armor while dealing devastating damage (in this new system, at least), meaning that there is no value in taking fast units other than getting to the objective quicker. What could be done here is reinstate the Initiative stat and have it take part during resolution. In the example I used above, the SM Scout would have higher Initiative, making his shots resolve first in the resolution chain. After his shots have resolved, Health is subtracted and the Ork is not allowed to shoot if his Health dropped since you can't really shoot once you're dead, can you? This would reward faster units while still giving heavy units an option to take better armor to tank through that first attack so they can hit back harder.

It is this way that both players get to move their units but their actions are resolved according to initiative (1) or simultaneously (2), taking away the unfair advantage that first turn players have. Of course, now the second player has a slight advantage since he can react effectively to the first player (avoiding crossfire traps, assault charges, etc), but we can act to curb that advantage later. What do you guys think about it? Is this (semi)instantaneous resolution method good, or do we do the individual phase mechanic? Remember that the point of the rule change is to make things easier, balanced, and less complicated.

And hey, to reply to your first post: It would be nice to do something like that, but I'm not a professional game maker nor do I want to be one. If this rule system can be used commercially, then I will do so. But for now it's just a project I'm working on to make the game more balanced. I'd be glad to use your help but keep in mind that I do not guarantee that this project will succeed or yield any profit.

Lanrak wrote:
Hi folks.
I have been looking at writing new rules for my favorite game setting since 4th ed 40k arrived.(Oh crap they still want 40k to be WHFB in SPACE! ).

And looking at the rules sets we have played and talked about for the last 30 years or so.(Yes I am an old fart. )

I have tried several combinations of game mechanics and resolution methods in new rules for 40k.(And we have had some great fun converting some other rules for 40k skirmish games.And had lots of fun with the two good Epic rule sets. ))

However, after several attempts, the one thing that lead the projects astray, is when we lost focus on the intended game play.

Including something because it works well in another rules set, that may be written specifically for that particular feature.Is NOT a good reason to include it in a new rule set you are writing.

In fact writing a simple and elegant rule set for 40k (5th ed size game.)Is very problematical, because GW have just converted a ancient rule set , added in lots of kool ideas, and not really thought about the impact on the game play.(GW plc write rules to inspire sales of the latest releases, NOT to arrive at a well defined and enriched game play.)

The scale of the models leads people to want to use detailed model resolution.But the scale of the game requires detailed unit interaction.

So the current rules are 'sub optimal', Skirmish rules do not fit the scale of the game.And Battle game rules do not fit the scale of the minatures.

The ONLY way to progress and stay on track is define the game play and focus on game mechanics and resolution methods that deliver it in the least complicated way.

I have quite a few alternatives we can try out.I am proposing the ones I think would be the best fit.But I am open to discussing others.

I am not keen on using the ideas based on ancient combat embedded in the core WHFB rules, that have been transfered by backwards compatibility into 40k.

In WHFB the majority of weapons use the models physical strength to determine the damage inflicted.(Swords and bows etc.)As weapons and armour in WHFB are all low tech
The focus of WHFB is close combat , the amount of attacks and the order those attacks occur in.deserve the place on the stat line.

In 40k most weapons have damage rating independent of the users Strength.
In 40k the level of tech often determines the number of attacks/rate of fire .

Therefore we use Weapon Damage and Armor Rating to demonstrate this independent technology level. An Ork boy is strong, but he can be stronger with a Power Klaw. He's resilient, but he can be ever tougher with 'Eavy Armor. Weapons and Armor will be very important, which will make players think about the equipment they outfit their squads with.

And as in 40k units are not large unwieldly regiments lining up in an orderly fashion to take turns striking at each other in close combat.

But are smaller skirmishing squads frantically trying to kill the opponent before they get killed themselves.

It could be argued that combat is combat is combat. No matter where it is fought, fast units will strike first and dodge better than, say, an Ork encased in metal. We need to stop comparing this new rule system to Fantasy and think about how an actual combat situation would play out- that is the point of the rule change, after all. We want this to be easy to learn, intuitive so that people can remember the rules, and we want it to be balanced and have it make sense so stuff like the inverted armor piercing table doesn't throw people off.

In 40k shooting should be equally important as assault.IMO.And how unit move across the gaming area is an important attribute that deserves its own stat.

So as a quick rule of thumb.Mobility , shooting and assault should have equal representation on the stat line.IMO.

Current 40k has, 0,1,and 4 loading.I proposed 2, opposed values for each in game resolution feature.

After lengthy discussion and diagnosis of suppression in the real world and the ways to model it in game.

The simplest model of threat /confidence interaction is this.

If a unit fails more saves from shooting , than it has 'hit points' left,the unit becomes suppressed.

I suppose that makes sense, but shouldn't suppression affect weaker units as well? Like, the way suppression works is that it doesn't kill a unit, it just pins it and forces it to be very cautious when moving so it doesn't get hit, limiting movement. If I shoot at you with a machine gun, you'll duck for cover, right? Well, you're not gonna budge from that position until I'm dead or I stop firing, so we have to keep that in mind. Maybe set up suppression so that its a separate action instead of shooting to kill? Say for example that you have a huge unit like a Meganob that you really don't want next to your Leman Russ. You have a group of Guardsmen nearby, so maybe they're able to suppress the Meganob instead of killing him, something impossible to do since lasguns tickle monsters like him.

Maybe suppression should be a different kind of roll? Kind of like shooting but with a reduced threshold. For example, lasguns could have a Weapon Damage of 2, and the Meganob would have an Armor Rating of 4. The lasgun will definitely have a tough time killing this tin can, but we could modify the "to hit" table so that a lower roll is required for the lasgun to suppress the Nob. Think about it in terms of combat- the Nob wouldn't be completely afraid of getting lasered, but he would be cautious of getting shot in the eyes or something by a stray shot. Therefore he'd march on close to the ground and shield his face, limiting his RoM and weapon range so that he can continue moving and shooting despite of the lasgun barrage. In this way, weak units can still have a chance to be useful by suppressing dangerous units so that they can be dealt with, and assault troops are given a great boost- suppressed units can't run away very fast and make great targets. Obviously I just made this up so it needs work, but what do you guys think?

I admit it is a simple abstraction , but it covers the wide range of unit types found in 40k , without the need for lots of complicated (special )rules.

large mob units rely on weight of numbers to avoid suppression .Elite units rely on better armour to avoid suppression.

No matter whether its a large blob of mooks or an elite unit of armored baddies, supression is suppression. The whole unit gets suppressed, I think. We need to work on ways to avoid suppression so it doesn't become an OP tactic, but I don't think it makes sense that big blobs can avoid suppression- it doesn't matter if there are five or ten guys next to you, getting shot still makes you dive for cover. And high enough armor will render suppression tougher to roll, so I suppose elites with high AR are saved from that.

And everything else is a proportional mix of armour and number of bodies, in between.

Hey Lanrak, good to see you today! My comments are in yellow.

What exactly did you think wasn't intuitive about the stat names I proposed?

The game as it is, plays very clunky. Like a 90s game.

My only input is that hit, wound, armor save, feel no pain/reanimation protocols, needs to be reduced to a single roll. High toughness can be represented by many wounds.

Movement needs to be reduced to a single phase.

The sheer clunkyness, randomness and pointless overwatch (though overwatch - as in shooting in opponents turn if he moves into your field of fire is a good -strategical idea), needs to go.

 triplegrim wrote:
The game as it is, plays very clunky. Like a 90s game.

My only input is that hit, wound, armor save, feel no pain/reanimation protocols, needs to be reduced to a single roll. High toughness can be represented by many wounds.

Movement needs to be reduced to a single phase.

The sheer clunkyness, randomness and pointless overwatch (though overwatch - as in shooting in opponents turn if he moves into your field of fire is a good -strategical idea), needs to go.

I'm not sure exactly how to condense those rolls into a single one. Like I posted earlier, what we're doing here is making the resolution methods easier to understand. Hopefully by interweaving the phases we can make games more interesting, but without radically changing how the game works (for example, simplifying combat so much that shooting and assault are one stat- attack) we won't be able to cut down on dice rolls. The problem with reducing the number of dice is that the game will feel barebones and will lack strategic depth. If the Strength and Ballistics stats are mixed together to constitute a single "Attack" stat, it'll get rid of the variety between units. A strong melee fighter like an Ork would have the same attack as a sharpshooter like a Tau soldier. Since the Attack stat counts for both types of combat, it would mean that a Tau warrior could theoretically stand up to an Ork.

I know that's not what you meant, but keep that in mind. Reducing "to hit, wound, armor save" and so on would have a similar detriment. If we mix the Evasion and Armor Rating stats together, it'll completely break down the difference between fast, agile fighters like Banshees and slow, heavy fighters like Ogryns who have high armor. Not only that, it would make armor upgrades redundant.

What we have indeed done is that units now have to endure only two rolls in a regular attack to see if wounds should be allocated or not: Evasion/Defense, and Armor Rating. The attacker rolls his Ballistics/Strength against his target's Evasion/Defense (one dice roll), and then Weapon Damage is rolled against Armor Rating. If the result is higher, 1 point of damage is allocated to the unit. Then, if the unit has FNP that roll will be applied. If the target has invulnerability saves, that save is rolled before the Weapon Strength/Armor Rating roll. If that save is failed, the attack makes it through to the armor roll like normal.

Movement is restricted to a single action. You have two actions per unit spread out between two phases. If you choose to move twice with a unit, it's your choice and you may do so. Just keep in mind that your opponent can choose to shoot that moving unit after moving himself, or even shoot twice and not move.

Not sure what to think about Overwatch. On one hand, I like the mechanic, but on the other, I'm not sure about it since it might make ranged units too powerful now that we're also adding a suppression mechanic to all ranged units.

And high toughness will be shown by high Armor Rating. One thing I really hate about the game is that armor doesn't count for much here. With these rules we can change that so that an Ork Boy can have obviously inferior armor to that of a Nob instead of the Nob having a second hitpoint. I don't know which units truly deserve more HP, but that's something else to consider later. It does make sense that tough units require more damage to die, but then again- everything can die with a lucky enough shot, so maybe increasing armor is the way to go since it still allows the attacker to have a small chance to succeed? Tell me what you think!

You could do a simple % calculation and just make an average attack number reach an average defense number to reach that would = that %.

And special rules that bump up the defense or attack number for things like evasion or lighting reflexes.

 Desubot wrote:
You could do a simple % calculation and just make an average attack number reach an average defense number to reach that would = that %.

And special rules that bump up the defense or attack number for things like evasion or lighting reflexes.

What do you mean with the calculation? What is it modifying/replacing? And yeah, adding points to defense, strength, etc thanks to special rules make sense.

Its just math.....

a guy should be able to 100% kill a dude 50% of the time?

then attack vs defense should be a difference of 4. on a d6

you want to make terminators REALLY hard to kill? then bump the defense as high as you need to get the % you are expecting.

or if you want armor penetration and stuff can add to the attack dice to make it easier to hit defense.

though honestly it might not work well as a d6 isnt granular enough.

 Desubot wrote:
Its just math.....

a guy should be able to 100% kill a dude 50% of the time?

then attack vs defense should be a difference of 4. on a d6

you want to make terminators REALLY hard to kill? then bump the defense as high as you need to get the % you are expecting.

or if you want armor penetration and stuff can add to the attack dice to make it easier to hit defense.

though honestly it might not work well as a d6 isnt granular enough.

I admit that what you just said kinda went over my head, sorry :/
I don't agree that it should be a guaranteed kill every time that a hit lands, so maybe triplegrim was right in saying that we should add more health to the beefy units, regardless of their armor?

Maybe.

Personally would rather not have to remove individual models but more along the lines of shooting them making the overall unit weaker by degrading moral and or adding certain weapons that are straight lethal that will do so.

that way models get to actually stay on the table instead of removed after de bagging. which is ALWAYS demoralizing.

i think this is more fantasy though.

 Desubot wrote:
Maybe.

Personally would rather not have to remove individual models but more along the lines of shooting them making the overall unit weaker by degrading moral and or adding certain weapons that are straight lethal that will do so.

that way models get to actually stay on the table instead of removed after de bagging. which is ALWAYS demoralizing.

i think this is more fantasy though.

Morale will have to be addressed later, I'm not sure what kinda system we'll be using now. I do know that if we do things like that it'll make the game too complicated. Maybe instead of making all weapons do morale damage and only some do lethal damage, let all do lethal damage and have some inflict morale damage? For example, the weapon the Dark Reapers use, flamers in general, and stranglehorns? They'd do a bit less damage but inflict a moral check upon weapon hit- if my Burna Boys hit your SM Scouts, your scouts have to pass a leadership test or run away. This could be a different sort of suppression that could make ranged weapons interesting- make ranged weaponry not only lethal, but give it the potential to interrupt enemy actions and formations. Adding a Nob to a pack of Ork Boyz and giving him a Bosspole would mitigate the effects of these weapons, for example, so the game already has a structure for supporting morale-loss and ways of countering it.

These simplified rules sound pretty awesome. You might want to try changing small things and then implementing them into a few games to see how they work out. For example, you want to change the phases to:

Player A move
Player B Move
Player A Attack
Player B Attack
Player A Charge
Player B Charge

Start with that for a few games, with all the other BRB rules intact and see how it plays out. If you try to change too much too quickly it'll be tougher to judge what doesn't work properly and might be too much at once.

I liked the idea of an "Action" per phase for each unit. This actually makes a lot of sense that you should chose to move or shoot or psyker.

Just a thought....

ixi_DUCK_ixi wrote:
These simplified rules sound pretty awesome. You might want to try changing small things and then implementing them into a few games to see how they work out. For example, you want to change the phases to:

Player A move
Player B Move
Player A Attack
Player B Attack
Player A Charge
Player B Charge

Start with that for a few games, with all the other BRB rules intact and see how it plays out. If you try to change too much too quickly it'll be tougher to judge what doesn't work properly and might be too much at once.

I liked the idea of an "Action" per phase for each unit. This actually makes a lot of sense that you should chose to move or shoot or psyker.

Just a thought....

Thanks for your input! I'll definitely try it out this weekend with some of my mates and I'll get back to you guys with the test results after we're done. In the meantime, I'll stay here to answer questions and discuss new rules as we come up with them. Now you've got me looking forward to playing that game

 urbanknight4 wrote:

And hey, to reply to your first post: It would be nice to do something like that, but I'm not a professional game maker nor do I want to be one. If this rule system can be used commercially, then I will do so. But for now it's just a project I'm working on to make the game more balanced. I'd be glad to use your help but keep in mind that I do not guarantee that this project will succeed or yield any profit.

If you make a better game than 40k then the only difference between you and the monkeys who wrote 40k is that they got paid for their work. I, of course, do not expect a guarantee of success or profit but only a reasonable probability. If you are starting this with proper commercial intentions then the probability of success and profit lies some unknowable chance in between 0% and 100%, which is good enough for me. If you are starting this with the intention of throwing away your time for free then that probability looks like it lies somewhere between 0% and 0% which is not encouraging. Anyhoo best of luck with your project. I hope you don't mind if I start my own separate independent project.

I'm an entrepreneur I play dice with life all the time, no stranger to risk.

I have seen it mentioned here that the game needs to have the resolutions reduced to single roll, instead of the nominal three rolls that it has now. I absolutely agree the attacking procedure needs to be shortened, but to two rolls instead of one. I think having to roll three times and sometimes four for each attack is too much. I have actually been experimenting with two different ways to reduce it.
The first was changing the to-wound chart to one that modifies each roll to hit. For example I made it that 4+ on the chart would instead be -2 to hit, with an increment of 1 in each direction accordingly. It seems to be fairly proportional, and modifying the special rules to fit it wasn't hard.
My second idea is to flip the to-wound chart around and make it a chart for saving throws based on toughness and strength. Saves that a unit can take instead of armour. With this there would need to be nerf to all scores needed to hit, or better yet the number of attacks/shots models can make, in order to compensate. I don't think that would be hard though. If it's a change that reduces the number of dice that one rolls in an attack I think it would be great.

Make to hit based on distance and remove ballistic skills.

The closer the easier to shoot. The farther away the harder.

1-12"=2+, 12.1-24"=3+, 24.1-36"=4+, 36.1-48"=5+, 48.1-60=6+

Make weapons with sniper rules work back wards, easier to hit far away and difficult to hit up close due to being rushed.

1-12"=6+, 12.1-24"=5+, 24.1-36"=4+, 36.1-48"=3+, 48.1-60=2+

Redefine soldier roles based on shooting range.
troops are infantry that only has guns that can shoot 12.1-24". Make that range a 2+

Fast attack moves fast and cant really concentrate on shooting as they ride a bike or horse or use jump packs or jet bikes. Fast attacks can be infantry, beasts, mc, cavalry, flyers and skimmers. Their effective range is 1-12"=2+. Treat all ranges above 24" as 5+. Scat bikes will be nerfed.

Flyers treat air to ground targets as if it was the sniper ranges where the closer the more difficult but the further away it becomes easier. Flyers shooting at ground targets treats the target as if it was closer by 12" thereby making it more difficult since it is using the sniper or inverted shooting range. Rules like strafing run can ignore this.

Flyers shooting air to air use the regular shooting ranges.
Ground units shooting at air treats the flyer as if it is 12" even further so long range guns and snipers are better at shooting it or putting the flyer out of range.

Heavy support are supposed to have access to long range guns. Their sweet spot is 36.1-48"=2+. Shooting at 24.1-36"=5+ due to calibration error. Shooting at 48 1-60"=6+ due to curvature of the planet. Rules with ordanace or heavy can treat ranges above 48" as 5+.

These rules will not affect template rules including torrent and therby making flame and blast templates more favored. Just check max range and roll for scatter.

Remove individual model upgrades from squads. Create Squad upgrades.

Not sure how to handle weapon upgrades atm.
I was considering what of the sergeant weapons or special or heavy weapon can be baton passed around if the original carrier died. This will eliminate precision shots, challenges, look out sirs.

Any way we can organize the rules for infantry to be in movement trays just to make movement of large armies even faster? Like give you the option for no tray and play regularly. If you have 10 or more then you can put them on a tray and get bonuses to mitigate flamer and blast damage for balance purposes. Like reduce all damage from flamer and blast by half rounded up even though they are bunched together. In a real sense one sees it coming and yells duck or to all leap out the way.

Marksman224 wrote:
I have seen it mentioned here that the game needs to have the resolutions reduced to single roll, instead of the nominal three rolls that it has now. I absolutely agree the attacking procedure needs to be shortened, but to two rolls instead of one. I think having to roll three times and sometimes four for each attack is too much. I have actually been experimenting with two different ways to reduce it.
The first was changing the to-wound chart to one that modifies each roll to hit. For example I made it that 4+ on the chart would instead be -2 to hit, with an increment of 1 in each direction accordingly. It seems to be fairly proportional, and modifying the special rules to fit it wasn't hard.
My second idea is to flip the to-wound chart around and make it a chart for saving throws based on toughness and strength. Saves that a unit can take instead of armour. With this there would need to be nerf to all scores needed to hit, or better yet the number of attacks/shots models can make, in order to compensate. I don't think that would be hard though. If it's a change that reduces the number of dice that one rolls in an attack I think it would be great.

In the game I'm writing I have reduced attack resolution to two rolls: a to-hit roll and a to-wound roll. To hit is not much different except "cover saves" are bundled in as a to-hit penalty modifier. For the to-wound roll three 40k stats are bundled into one stat plus modifier, instead of toughness + wounds + armour save there is one stat "resilience" which is modified by an armour bonus. I use a lot of modifiers in place of a lot of rolls. I stretch out the range of values that a d6 produces to accommodate the wider range of values that stats plus modifiers can give by requiring 6s and 1s to be re-rolled, when a 6 is re-rolled the new result is added to 5 and when a 1 is rolled the result is added to -5. The gives the d6 roll a range of values -4 to 11 with a bell curve of probabilities in which 2-5 are more common than 6-11 or -4 to 1.

Base chance is less than 3 success, more than 4 is fail. Stats + other modifiers are added or subtracted together depending on whether they assisting or opposing to make an overall modifier which is then applied to the roll result.
How this would work in practice:

Guardsmen gets hit by a regular small arm say an Ork shoota: Assisting factors are that the shoota has a strength of 4 and AP of 1 (AP is a damage modifier that is used against armour- contrary to 40k larger AP are more penetrating than smaller) and in opposition the guardsmen has a resilience of say 2 plus an armour bonus of 2. -4 -1 +2 + 2 giving an overall modifier of -1 to the die result. So on 1-4 makes a kill and 5-6 means the gaurdsmen survives.

Example edge cases:

So say an Ogryn gets hit by a grot blaster or similar weak weapon. His base resilience would be something pretty high because he is big, so say it is 8 (resilience can go higher than 10 in my game as it includes "wounds"). The damage of the grot blaster is say just 2 and the Ogryn has some armour which buffs his resilience by 1. The overall damage modifier is then 8 + 1 -2 = +7 means that for the grot blaster to get a die result which is within 1-3 for success he must roll die result of less than -4, if first rolls a 1 and then a 1 again the reroll he will get the needed -4 but he'd be wildly lucky to get it.

On the other end a grot is hit by a lascannon. Base resilience is 1 and has no armour lascannon damage is 8 AP 5. Grot has no armour so we ignore the AP. The overall damage modifier is 1 - 8 = -7. The lascannon wielder would have to be unlucky enough to roll 6 and then 6 again, result 11 - 7 = 4 for fail.

HI folks.
Writing rules specifically for the sci fi company level battle game with 28mm minatures.

Is a bit like trying to explain the concept of how a modern jet passenger airplane should work.When the only reference most people have is steam engines and hot air balloons.

People keep asking 'but where is the coal store, and how can you get lift without hot air?'
(If the game turn does its job properly you do not need things to artificially restrict scheduling like 'Initiative values' , and reactions like 'over watch.'See how alternating phases has added more tactical depth and reduced complication already! )

I would like to get to the simplest rule set that delivers the most tactical depth.

However, it has been my experience over the last 10 years or so, there are some things that are intrinsically 40k.

The three stage damage resolution is one of them.
Because players are using 28mm minatures , they want to see the difference between a 'tough monster' with no armour and a 'weak man' with lots of armour.
Other battle games using 6mm to 15 mm minatures in 'blob squads' do not require this level of detail, as the PLAYERS DO NOT EXPECT IT.So they can get away with 2 stage damage resolution.

What makes the 40k rules so SLOW, is not the basic three stage damage resolution, but all the badly applied and worded special rules rules tacked on to it.

Using D6 is also intrinsically 40k to lots of gamers.I know some folk want to just use D10.But I would rather try using the D6 in a more intelligent way first.

Using defined phases is some thing lots of 40 players feel comfortable with.This is why I think interleaved phases is a good replacement game turn mechanic for the new straightforward rules.

@Grief
Many 40k players want their units to be different to everyone else.So a flat to hit based on distance is not going to be popular.

Most games use the effective weapon range , as a limit on how far some one can accurately fire a weapon.
If we use Shooting skill vs Evasion skill to generate proportional to hit rolls at range from the Universal Resolution Table.We get a much wider range of results that take lots more factors into account, effectively and intuitively.

We could add a long range modifier for a set distance.
EG targets more than 30" away get + 1 to their Evasion value.
And we could include cover in a similar way.Targets in cover add 1 to their Evasion value.

This would cover the skill and disposition of the shooter and the target, simply and efficiently.Resulting intuitive rules that deliver proportional results.

The 'If a unit suffers more failed saves than it has hit points left' , method to determine suppression.Is the simplest method that gives intuitive results for ALL UNITS found in a game like 40k.(I know because we have play tested it quite heavily. )

Basic ideas for suppression.
A suppressed unit counts as having moved.(Diving for cover, moving to maximize protection.)
Therefore while suppressed a unit is classed as 'gone to ground''/hull down.'(+1 to Evasion.)

But this defensive disposition has a negative effect on the units actions.
A suppressed unit may move once, OR shoot counting as having moved.It can not charge into assault.(But will fight back if assaulted.)

A unit stays suppressed until it passes a morale(LD) test.A morale test is taken at the end each game turn for each unit that is suffering from suppression.

Lanrak wrote:

Using D6 is also intrinsically 40k to lots of gamers.I know some folk want to just use D10.But I would rather try using the D6 in a more intelligent way first.

I think there is a basically practical reason for trying to keep the d6 as mainstay for a new wargame despite its limited range. Unlike roleplay games (which typically use a great variety of die), wargames typically involve throwing down masses of dice at once. If you make a wargame that relies on D10 then the punter has to contemplate buying a ton of new dice whilst shelving his accumulated heaps of d6s. If you keep the d6 then the prospective punter has one less thing to buy. In a pinch he can just raid the die from that old game of Risk or Yatzee that has been sitting in a back cupboard for the past decade.

An acceptable workaround might be to find a way to do mass resolutions without mass die rolls. Or even, more controversially, make a game more like chess in which no die rolls are necessary at all for resolutions. Knight takes pawn.

 SolarCross wrote:

Lanrak wrote:

Using D6 is also intrinsically 40k to lots of gamers.I know some folk want to just use D10.But I would rather try using the D6 in a more intelligent way first.

I think there is a basically practical reason for trying to keep the d6 as mainstay for a new wargame despite its limited range. Unlike roleplay games (which typically use a great variety of die), wargames typically involve throwing down masses of dice at once. If you make a wargame that relies on D10 then the punter has to contemplate buying a ton of new dice whilst shelving his accumulated heaps of d6s. If you keep the d6 then the prospective punter has one less thing to buy. In a pinch he can just raid the die from that old game of Risk or Yatzee that has been sitting in a back cupboard for the past decade.

An acceptable workaround might be to find a way to do mass resolutions without mass die rolls. Or even, more controversially, make a game more like chess in which no die rolls are necessary at all for resolutions. Knight takes pawn.

Another alternative is the dystopian wars or legion style of dice. where each attack gives you a dice. you hit on your unit characteristics (so elites hit on 3+ while normal on 4 and chumps on 5s and so on) and any rolls of 6s gives you extra hits.
then take people off based on their DR.

its only really 1 roll for resolution which i like.

 Desubot wrote:

Another alternative is the dystopian wars or legion style of dice. where each attack gives you a dice. you hit on your unit characteristics (so elites hit on 3+ while normal on 4 and chumps on 5s and so on) and any rolls of 6s gives you extra hits.
then take people off based on their DR.

its only really 1 roll for resolution which i like.

Yeah I did consider something like that myself, luck or the random element effects to hit chance but damage is strictly deterministic. It is even fairly realistic, any number factors can throw a shot off its mark but if it connects then it imparts a particular amount of kinetic energy which isn't highly variable and the thing it hits can absorb that kinetic energy without damage or cannot, there isn't that much variation in that either. I suppose it makes some shots not even worth taking though. A work around might be where many weak weapons can combine their damage output to push over the damage resistance needed for the kill. So maybe an Ogryn who auto-shrugs off a single lasgun hit but who is auto-killed by a lascannon. Then isn't being hit simultaneously by 10 lasguns pretty much like getting hit by a single lascannon? If you are weak, gang up.

Grief wrote:

Ok, not to hate on what you just suggested, but did you just seriously suggest we modify range rolls to cover the planet's curvature?? I'm all for making the game as close to real combat as possible, but that's absurd. We want players to feel in control with easy-to-learn rules and intuitive mechanics, not super complex range parameters that define maximum range and bullet drop. That's a calculation for an FPS or something where the computer handles the calculation, but this level of complexity jsut drives up the learning curve for no real reason. Giving ranged weapons a flat range isn't accurate but its part of the game and adds to the strategy- for example, it doesnt make sense that pawns in chess can't attack a unit that's literally right next to them, but its a rule made to enhance the strategy of the game.

Lanrak wrote:
HI folks.
Writing rules specifically for the sci fi company level battle game with 28mm minatures.

Is a bit like trying to explain the concept of how a modern jet passenger airplane should work.When the only reference most people have is steam engines and hot air balloons.

People keep asking 'but where is the coal store, and how can you get lift without hot air?'
(If the game turn does its job properly you do not need things to artificially restrict scheduling like 'Initiative values' , and reactions like 'over watch.'See how alternating phases has added more tactical depth and reduced complication already! )

I would like to get to the simplest rule set that delivers the most tactical depth.

However, it has been my experience over the last 10 years or so, there are some things that are intrinsically 40k.

The three stage damage resolution is one of them.
Because players are using 28mm minatures , they want to see the difference between a 'tough monster' with no armour and a 'weak man' with lots of armour.
Other battle games using 6mm to 15 mm minatures in 'blob squads' do not require this level of detail, as the PLAYERS DO NOT EXPECT IT.So they can get away with 2 stage damage resolution.

What makes the 40k rules so SLOW, is not the basic three stage damage resolution, but all the badly applied and worded special rules rules tacked on to it.

Using D6 is also intrinsically 40k to lots of gamers.I know some folk want to just use D10.But I would rather try using the D6 in a more intelligent way first.

Using defined phases is some thing lots of 40 players feel comfortable with.This is why I think interleaved phases is a good replacement game turn mechanic for the new straightforward rules.

@Grief
Many 40k players want their units to be different to everyone else.So a flat to hit based on distance is not going to be popular.

Most games use the effective weapon range , as a limit on how far some one can accurately fire a weapon.
If we use Shooting skill vs Evasion skill to generate proportional to hit rolls at range from the Universal Resolution Table.We get a much wider range of results that take lots more factors into account, effectively and intuitively.

We could add a long range modifier for a set distance.
EG targets more than 30" away get + 1 to their Evasion value.
And we could include cover in a similar way.Targets in cover add 1 to their Evasion value.

This is definitely ok by me. Modifiers cut down on rolls and are more easily remembered.

This would cover the skill and disposition of the shooter and the target, simply and efficiently.Resulting intuitive rules that deliver proportional results.

The 'If a unit suffers more failed saves than it has hit points left' , method to determine suppression.Is the simplest method that gives intuitive results for ALL UNITS found in a game like 40k.(I know because we have play tested it quite heavily. )

Explain this. It doesn't make much sense since there's only going to be one save roll of any kind- either FNP or Invuln saves, and you can only roll whichever is the highest. I was thinking that suppressive fire could be a separate action that a ranged unit could take, for example: One Action Phase 1, a guardsmen squad fires upon a nob squad. Upon resolution, they land all the hits but do not manage to damage any of them. Therefore, on Action Phase 2, the IG player decides to suppress them instead of shooting to kill. Perhaps suppression fire is rolled exactly like ranged combat, but has a +1 to Ballistics because its not using accurate fire? It wouldn't make an armor roll because its not meant to damage but instead the suppression target makes a leadership roll. The reasoning behind this roll is that brave units will be less likely to be suppressed and so will serve as a counter to this mechanic.

Basic ideas for suppression.
A suppressed unit counts as having moved.(Diving for cover, moving to maximize protection.)
Therefore while suppressed a unit is classed as 'gone to ground''/hull down.'(+1 to Evasion.)

This sounds good.

But this defensive disposition has a negative effect on the units actions.
A suppressed unit may move once, OR shoot counting as having moved.It can not charge into assault.(But will fight back if assaulted.)

Are you saying that successful suppression will limit a unit's actions to just one instead of two per turn? That will not only be broken if used on the first phase, but it will be useless if used on the second phase since the second action will already have been taken. What I was thinking is more along the lines of reduced RoM and reduced weapon range. This effectively suppresses assault units since they will move less quickly to their target, and ranged units will have to get closer to shoot. Or maybe for ranged units, their Ballistics will go down and suffer a penalty? Maybe a -2 to Ballistics or something to demonstrate the unit's firing blind from cover.

A unit stays suppressed until it passes a morale(LD) test.A morale test is taken at the end each game turn for each unit that is suffering from suppression.

Comments are in yellow

And you haven't answered my previous posts, mate. They're above. The suppression mechanic and the morale weaponry just gives more weight to what I'm saying with initiative. If a quick unit with a flamer uses it on a slow unit, the flamer's demoralizing effect is lost if both actions are performed simultaneously. If initiative is used and, during resolution, the quick unit is allowed to fire first, the flamer shoots and the target immediately takes a leadership test. If they fail, the unit automatically retreats or whatever. This makes more sense than a unit shooting effectively at its attacker as heavy flame swirls around it. I mean, even the bravest man has to take pause at being set on fire, and his aim won't be the best after.

The same goes for suppression. If someone is shooting suppressive fire at you, you take cover regardless of what the situation is (Maybe Death Korps of Krieg arent affected by this mechanic) and will therefore affect your actions if it is done by someone quicker than you. I want to put this initiative in the rules because quite simply, it makes the most sense. Like you said, players want their tough units to feel healthy and hale, and their tanky troops should feel tanky. Likewise, the quicker troops should feel agile. Beyond Evasion, Initiative offers those units a chance to distinguish themselves and add strategic importance to buying them. They may not be the most durable or damaging units, but they serve an important battlefield function- that of a skirmisher.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SolarCross wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Another alternative is the dystopian wars or legion style of dice. where each attack gives you a dice. you hit on your unit characteristics (so elites hit on 3+ while normal on 4 and chumps on 5s and so on) and any rolls of 6s gives you extra hits.
then take people off based on their DR.

its only really 1 roll for resolution which i like.

Yeah I did consider something like that myself, luck or the random element effects to hit chance but damage is strictly deterministic. It is even fairly realistic, any number factors can throw a shot off its mark but if it connects then it imparts a particular amount of kinetic energy which isn't highly variable and the thing it hits can absorb that kinetic energy without damage or cannot, there isn't that much variation in that either. I suppose it makes some shots not even worth taking though. A work around might be where many weak weapons can combine their damage output to push over the damage resistance needed for the kill. So maybe an Ogryn who auto-shrugs off a single lasgun hit but who is auto-killed by a lascannon. Then isn't being hit simultaneously by 10 lasguns pretty much like getting hit by a single lascannon? If you are weak, gang up.

I plan on adding a concentrated fire mechanic to the rule system. Someone suggested in an IG thread that guardsmen should be able to trade ten of their lasgun shots for a single high powered, damaging shot in order to simulate concentrated fire. The tradeoff is that only one model will get hit, maybe two, but the higher Weapon Damage stat of the "concentrated fire" will make sure that guardsmen aren't totally defenseless when facing high armor opponents. Of course, they're really not supposed to be killing Termies with their pathetic lasguns, so the concentrated shot won't be that powerful. I'll fiddle around with the exact numbers but that's the mechanic I'll use to introduce balance to the squad sizes- big blobs are weak individually but can pack a punch together, and small elite squads can kill a lot but be overrun.

 urbanknight4 wrote:

I plan on adding a concentrated fire mechanic to the rule system. Someone suggested in an IG thread that guardsmen should be able to trade ten of their lasgun shots for a single high powered, damaging shot in order to simulate concentrated fire. The tradeoff is that only one model will get hit, maybe two, but the higher Weapon Damage stat of the "concentrated fire" will make sure that guardsmen aren't totally defenseless when facing high armor opponents. Of course, they're really not supposed to be killing Termies with their pathetic lasguns, so the concentrated shot won't be that powerful. I'll fiddle around with the exact numbers but that's the mechanic I'll use to introduce balance to the squad sizes- big blobs are weak individually but can pack a punch together, and small elite squads can kill a lot but be overrun.

Yeah sounds good. I would also like to see wider (even universal) access to the opposite "split fire", it seems unreasonable even implausible that a unit can't direct its fire at different targets. It is especially hard on the big blob, a 30 ork shoota mob should be able to spray lead with wild abandon in all directions if they want. It is generally better to throw down all your fire on one enemy unit at a time all the better to wipe it or make it run, rather than just tickle a couple of units but sometimes its overkill. Is it so hard for a squad sergeant to order his troops to "drop those bogies over there" whilst telling his special weapon bloke to pop a missile into that tank?

HI folks.
There are a few different ways we can use a D6 to get a wider range of results.
I just suggested we look at the 'opposed values on a chart' method first, as this is familiar to current 40k players. (I am happy to look at alternatives is they end up a better fit in the new rules. )

With D6s limited range of results , a FEW modifiers work well .But must be applied sparingly and with care.
(This is why I prefer a comparison chart as we can fine adjust the values, so a increase in stat does not automatically increase the dice score required to succeed by 1 if we do not want it too. )

@Urbanknight.
As there is JUST ONE save roll , that applies to ALL units,where targets Armour value is compared to attacker weapon Armour Penetration value.

This removes the need for ANY additional systems.(Removing pointless complication is the main reason for the new rules.)

EG
A Landraider is AV 10 a Grechin is AV 1.(Space marine power armour AV4, Ork Mega Armour AV 5)

This means Terminators end up having comparable armour to a light armoured vehicle .Which is more intuitive IMO.

We may have a bit of miscommunication here.For the simple new rules I thought we were sticking to alternating named phases?
I Move,
You Move,
I Shoot ,
You Shoot,
I Assault
You Assault.

And open phases would be in the advanced rules.(Some ideas are really good, but are a bit complicated for a new rule set to get new players to enjoy 40k.)

Anyhow Suppression.
In the shooting phase ,a unit will try to damage enemy units if they can.

So an IG Squad firing on a Ork mob is DEFINATLEY trying to kill them.
Suppose the IG shooting penetrates the armour of over half the ork boys in the mob.But fails to wound any.('A Team' the shooting as we used to say in the late 80s. )

In the current rules the IG player moans how his flash lights are useless , and wants to get them str 4, with rending and assault 4.

However, the new rules mean the Ork Mob is suppressed, as they have failed more saves than they have hit points (wounds) left.
IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MANY WOUNDS ARE CAUSED< OR HOW MUCH DAMAGE IS DONE>ITS JUST FAILED SAVES THAT CAUSE SUPRESSION
in the new rules .

It is not added on,it is not a separate thing, but a natural part of rolling to hit ,rolling to save, rolling to damage .(Wound)

The IG player has slowed down the rampaging Orks !His lasguns are NOT useless.Everyone is happier and we do not end up in a stupid arms race to sell codex books.(Codex creep.)

The volume of threatening incoming fire causes suppression.The morale/(Leadership) of the unit determines how fast the unit recovers from suppression.

Elite soldiers dive for cover as fast as new recruits, but elite soldiers regain combat effectiveness much faster.

That is why I wanted a morale test at the end of the game turn to represent this, A Grot mob is going to be less likely to recover from suppression, than a Nobz Mob for example.

NOTE,If the effects of suppression happens in the SHOOTING phase.
This is to allow shooty units to slow down assault units, without having to cause massive casualties
This is huge as it removes the need for shooting to be overpowered to cause massive casualties to be effective,and for assault units to need lots of complicated special rule buffs, and ablative wounds to be effective .

If you want reduce movement and reduces ranged weapon fire as a result of suppression .I agree with you.
Counting the unit as having already moved , is a simple way to arrive at this .

As it removes the need for complicated rules to explain all the restrictions and exceptions you HAVE to list for each weapon type,etc.If you go the route you propose.

INITIATIVE STAT was used in WHFB as it was decided to be the best fit with the alternating game game turn and the type of combat taking place.

Evasion and Dodge stat show how agile the unit is DIRECTLY when being attacked at range or in close combat in the new rules.As modern warfare is an equal focus on mobility fire power and assault .Having a reaction stat to each attack stat is a better fit with a more interactive game turn.

Concentrated fire.

I like the idea.
How about;-
Concentrated fire if a unit halves its rate of fire , it can add 2 the AP value of its weapons ,but can only suppress the target?

High rate of fire Heavy weapons , have the options to reduce the rate of fire to one, and add the difference to the AP value.(Representing pouring fire into one spot on the target , 'jack hammering' through the armour as it were.)

EG
A Heavy Bolter.
Range 36, Attacks 3, AP 4 , Damage 5.

Decides to Concentrate Fire , and now has Range 36. Attacks 1 , AP 6 , Damage 5.

I think this thread is extraordinary. I think that you're coming up with really simple and yet challenging game mechanics. I've loved the hobby since '90, but I've never played a lot. With the actual set of rules, I wouldn't even want to try: too complicated. So thank you for the thread and the work.
I like the fact of the “complete overhaul”: I never thought of it, of the fact that it is necessary (and simpler than putting “limits” or fixing here or there).
I like
- alternate phases
- 3 phases (move – shoot – assault)
- all actions of a type done in the dedicated phase (even assault or run moves)
- stat vs stat mechanics (no multiple resolution systems: BS vs evasion, WS vs dodge, Armour value vs Amour penetration, damage value vs resilience, or whatever names you choose)
- the idea that the strengh of the blow, in 40k should depend on level of tech (of the weapon), not “brute force”
- 3 stage damage resolution (roll to hit – save – damage)
- the order of the stages I like, also (armour before damage)
- the suppression system

Now, sorry if I go back to some points: just trying to abandon GW thinking.
If I understand correctly, the “cover save” as we know in GW would dissapear: it would give bonuses to evasion. It is right?
Is it going to be “the stronger the cover (like a bunker) – the higher the bonus?”?
On the “3 stage” damage resolution: every unit/model, even vehicles, are going to have all stats, like “resilience”?
On the level of tech vs strengh of the wielder determining the “strengh/damage value” of the blow:
a power fist wielded by a SM sergeant or by a Commissar will have equal damage value? Or some races/units/characters will have like a bonus to the strengh/damage value of blow?
On the “all actions of a type done in the dedicated phase”: if a unit assaults and gets “in contact” with the enemy, the enemy unit will not be able to move, I imagine. But will it be able (other units also) to shoot the assaulting unit?
(But I don't want to lead the discussion astray).

Lanrak's clear thinking, historical analysis and WHFB vs 40K comparisons was very insightful.

PS I'd really buy these rules, if it were a commercial product: hope you get to that!!!

Umagumo wrote:
I think this thread is extraordinary. I think that you're coming up with really simple and yet challenging game mechanics. I've loved the hobby since '90, but I've never played a lot. With the actual set of rules, I wouldn't even want to try: too complicated. So thank you for the thread and the work.
I like the fact of the “complete overhaul”: I never thought of it, of the fact that it is necessary (and simpler than putting “limits” or fixing here or there).
I like
- alternate phases
- 3 phases (move – shoot – assault)

I was thinking of tweaking even this. Maybe the fact that unit actions are determined and restricted by turn order can be the cause of some of 40k's clunkiness. What I propose is that instead of having three distinct phases, we make two phases and give each unit the opportunity to perform an action per phase. For example, an Ork Boy would be able to either move or shoot in the first phase, and he'll be able to do the same in the second phase. A sniper team would set up in the first phase and shoot in the second. A Banshee squad would move towards an enemy, but maybe that enemy isn't there anymore or died or got a massive buff from a psycher. Therefore, the Banshees use their second action to get the heck out of there and run. I think this gives more tactical depth to the game and allows players to do as they choose but keep in their mind that their opponent can, as well.

- all actions of a type done in the dedicated phase (even assault or run moves)
- stat vs stat mechanics (no multiple resolution systems: BS vs evasion, WS vs dodge, Armour value vs Amour penetration, damage value vs resilience, or whatever names you choose)
- the idea that the strengh of the blow, in 40k should depend on level of tech (of the weapon), not “brute force”
- 3 stage damage resolution (roll to hit – save – damage)
- the order of the stages I like, also (armour before damage)
- the suppression system

Now, sorry if I go back to some points: just trying to abandon GW thinking.
If I understand correctly, the “cover save” as we know in GW would dissapear: it would give bonuses to evasion. It is right?
Is it going to be “the stronger the cover (like a bunker) – the higher the bonus?”?

I'll have to think about that. It makes sense, but giving a unit a +1 for being in a crater and another a +3 to Evasion for being in a bunker might be too OP. Of course, that's the whole point of being in a bunker in the first place, to make sure the occupants don't die. Maybe if we make anti-armor units able to nuke bunkers that'll balance out the +3 the units inside get? It's a good point and I hadn't thought about it.

On the “3 stage” damage resolution: every unit/model, even vehicles, are going to have all stats, like “resilience”?

Vehicles will have different stats. The stats we listed are only for infantry and the like. Armor and vehicles are much different than infantry so we have to approach them differently- for example, a Leman Russ tank can hardly be expected to dodge out of the way of a hail of bullets. Likewise, an Ork Warbike isn't really going to have a Strength stat to hit other units- not only is it not autonomous, it doesn't really have any melee capability, the pilot does. We'll explore this later on as we solidify what we have now. I want to make our foundations sturdy and get everyone on the same page so that we can proceed with the other rules.

On the level of tech vs strengh of the wielder determining the “strengh/damage value” of the blow:
a power fist wielded by a SM sergeant or by a Commissar will have equal damage value? Or some races/units/characters will have like a bonus to the strengh/damage value of blow?

It'll do the same damage. I know that sounds weird, but stay with me: A Commissar and a Sergeant will have different Strength ratings in the first place, meaning that their combat prowess will be different. If they go up against a unit that has high Defense, the Sergeant has a higher chance of getting his blow to land since, obviously, he was made for this weapon and has trained with it more. However, the Commissar will do exactly the same amount of damage to a target because it's essentially the same weapon- weight, unwieldiness and all. If a regular mortal human has the ability to lift and effectively operate a weapon meant for superhumans (I'm looking at you, Commissar Yarrick), then I don't see why we should penalize him for being human. The one thing that will be different will be cost. It presumably takes more to train a regular human to wield a Power Fist than it takes a Space Marine, and its more expensive to get one if you're the Imperial Guard since you don't regularly get those weapons. Therefore, outfitting a Commissar with a Power Fist will be a bit more expensive than doing the same with a SM Sergeant, but they'll yield equal results.

On the “all actions of a type done in the dedicated phase”: if a unit assaults and gets “in contact” with the enemy, the enemy unit will not be able to move, I imagine. But will it be able (other units also) to shoot the assaulting unit?
(But I don't want to lead the discussion astray).

This is an interesting one. I always hated how an assault unit, no matter how pathetic, could potentially tarpit your expensive elite just because they're duking it out. Now, it makes perfect sense that shooting into a fray will be a lot more difficult than just shooting at a blob of baddies since you don't want to hit your friends, but it should be possible. Maybe shooting into an assault situation adds a Ballistics penalty to the shooter? -2 should be fine, demonstrating that the shooter is trying harder to shoot in a more precise fashion. Maybe critical failures hit friendly units or something I dunno, but a -2 sounds good for now. Like I said, let's solidify our basics and move on to the advanced rules after.

Lanrak's clear thinking, historical analysis and WHFB vs 40K comparisons was very insightful.

PS I'd really buy these rules, if it were a commercial product: hope you get to that!!!

Thanks for your comments, answers are in bold yellow. When I set out to change 40k's rules I just wanted to balance things out while keeping the regular game structure intact, but Lanrak and other users made me realize that the crux of the problem in 40k isn't D weapons or overpriced Bullgryns or reanimation protocols. Its the turn structure, the arcane and confusing rules, and the fact that ranged attacks are so OP. I'm going to try and fix these issues, but I don't know how long it'll take. Lanrak has been a huge help and a veritable fountain of info so I'm definitely happy to share the project's credit with him once it's complete- but first we have to get it done.

Lanrak wrote:
HI folks.
There are a few different ways we can use a D6 to get a wider range of results.
I just suggested we look at the 'opposed values on a chart' method first, as this is familiar to current 40k players. (I am happy to look at alternatives is they end up a better fit in the new rules. )

With D6s limited range of results , a FEW modifiers work well .But must be applied sparingly and with care.
(This is why I prefer a comparison chart as we can fine adjust the values, so a increase in stat does not automatically increase the dice score required to succeed by 1 if we do not want it too. )

@Urbanknight.
As there is JUST ONE save roll , that applies to ALL units,where targets Armour value is compared to attacker weapon Armour Penetration value.

This removes the need for ANY additional systems.(Removing pointless complication is the main reason for the new rules.)

EG
A Landraider is AV 10 a Grechin is AV 1.(Space marine power armour AV4, Ork Mega Armour AV 5)

This means Terminators end up having comparable armour to a light armoured vehicle .Which is more intuitive IMO.

We may have a bit of miscommunication here.For the simple new rules I thought we were sticking to alternating named phases?
I Move,
You Move,
I Shoot ,
You Shoot,
I Assault
You Assault.

And open phases would be in the advanced rules.(Some ideas are really good, but are a bit complicated for a new rule set to get new players to enjoy 40k.)

Like I told Umagumo, I want to get rid of those three phases since they restrict player actions for no good reason. Nothing in real life restricts me from moving after I've shot someone, so why should the game tell me so? Just like we got rid of the psychic phase and let players use the powers whenever they please, giving players 2 blank checks for 2 separate actions makes the game more intuitive and tactically deep for them to play. Actions can include stuff like shooting, moving, suppressive actions, setting up heavy/salvo weapons, and attacking in melee.[/b]

Anyhow[b] Suppression.
In the shooting phase ,a unit will try to damage enemy units if they can.

So an IG Squad firing on a Ork mob is DEFINATLEY trying to kill them.
Suppose the IG shooting penetrates the armour of over half the ork boys in the mob.But fails to wound any.('A Team' the shooting as we used to say in the late 80s. )

In the current rules the IG player moans how his flash lights are useless , and wants to get them str 4, with rending and assault 4.

However, the new rules mean the Ork Mob is suppressed, as they have failed more saves than they have hit points (wounds) left.
IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MANY WOUNDS ARE CAUSED< OR HOW MUCH DAMAGE IS DONE>ITS JUST FAILED SAVES THAT CAUSE SUPRESSION
in the new rules .

It is not added on,it is not a separate thing, but a natural part of rolling to hit ,rolling to save, rolling to damage .(Wound)

The IG player has slowed down the rampaging Orks !His lasguns are NOT useless.Everyone is happier and we do not end up in a stupid arms race to sell codex books.(Codex creep.)

The volume of threatening incoming fire causes suppression.The morale/(Leadership) of the unit determines how fast the unit recovers from suppression.

Elite soldiers dive for cover as fast as new recruits, but elite soldiers regain combat effectiveness much faster.

That is why I wanted a morale test at the end of the game turn to represent this, A Grot mob is going to be less likely to recover from suppression, than a Nobz Mob for example.

NOTE,If the effects of suppression happens in the SHOOTING phase.
This is to allow shooty units to slow down assault units, without having to cause massive casualties
This is huge as it removes the need for shooting to be overpowered to cause massive casualties to be effective,and for assault units to need lots of complicated special rule buffs, and ablative wounds to be effective .

If you want reduce movement and reduces ranged weapon fire as a result of suppression .I agree with you.
Counting the unit as having already moved , is a simple way to arrive at this .

As it removes the need for complicated rules to explain all the restrictions and exceptions you HAVE to list for each weapon type,etc.If you go the route you propose.

I don't know if I like that mechanic. It essentially guarantees that any given unit that gets shot at will either suffer casualties or be suppressed, with a small chance to come off unharmed. I propose that we make suppression a separate action. When I'm firing suppressive fire, I'm not shooting to kill you, I'm shooting to keep you pinned. This means that I'm shooting for effect, to make it seem frightening and damaging to morale- high volume fire with no regard to actual accuracy. It's not likely that you'll get hit much if I'm shooting at you like this, but if you're not particularly brave you're not risking it. Therefore (keep in mind that under my two-phase system players can do whatever they want in each phase), a unit can shoot to kill in the first phase, realize its not killing anything, and then opt to shoot suppressive fire in the second phase to pin the sturdy unit.

I'm not sure about making suppressive fire so powerful that it can just get rid of your movement if you're pinned. This effectively neuters assault units that have low leadership (which might be the point, but bear with me) so I think we need to approach this differently. How about we just halve everything for the pinned unit? Let's say that a Shoota Boy squad encounters a Banshee group about 40" away. Those Banshees can get withing melee range if they move and charge, easily achievable within the two blank action phases I have put in the turn. The Ork player knows that his Boys are no match for the Banshees in melee, and he only has one turn to save his squad before the Eldar players gibs them. So he opts to suppress the Banshees. Somehow he succeeds the roll and the Banshees are suppressed. He can breathe in relief because their movement range instead of being 30" is now 15". If they were Eldar Rangers, their shooting range would also be limited from whatever it is to half. This still lets the Banshees move, but it'll take them 3 movement actions to get to the Ork Boys- ample time for a squad of Stormboyz to rescue the hapless Orks.

As for getting out of suppression, that's what the command phase is for. You'll recall that I said Action Phase 1 and Action Phase 2. The reason they say Action and not Running or Shooting is because players can run in Action Phase 2 and shoot in Action Phase 1- I'm not limiting them. Well, before those two phases will be the COmmand Phase. This will be used for stuff like psychic powers that affect movement (so that any unit on Action Phase 1 that decides to move will be affected by the power) and other stuff- like suppression morale checks. In our aforementioned example, the Eldar player might be incredibly mad that his Banshees are now suppressed and can only move like their legs are broken. He sees the Stormboyz nearing, so he hopes that his Banshee unit will snap out of it during the Command Phase so that he can resume killing the Ork Boys. He makes a leadership roll, and the Banshees pass it. They are automatically not suppressed anymore and can now take their actions without any limits, meaning they can now move 30" again.

INITIATIVE STAT was used in WHFB as it was decided to be the best fit with the alternating game game turn and the type of combat taking place.

Evasion and Dodge stat show how agile the unit is DIRECTLY when being attacked at range or in close combat in the new rules.As modern warfare is an equal focus on mobility fire power and assault .Having a reaction stat to each attack stat is a better fit with a more interactive game turn.

Ahhh, I totally get what you're getting at now. We should change the stat names (some of them) so that they reflect the skill being used. What I understood is that first, melee/ranged attacks are measured against agility- the ability to move out of the way, or defend against a blow. Then, they are measured against how well-armored the unit is, and then against how tough the unit is. Therefore, tough units like Nobs and Ogryns should have low Evasion but high Armor Rating and high Health.

Here's what I'm a bit troubled on. Strength and Defense aren't very representative names of the skills used for combat- while a unit does indeed use Ballistics to aim a ranged weapon, a melee unit doesn't use Strength to see if it can crash through an enemy. The assumption is that it can already wield the weapon, so its strong enough to hold it. Maybe something like Weapon Skill or Prowess might be better? And for Defense, that sounds more like what Health and Armor Rating already do- provide a stalwart defense against damage. So maybe something like Agility or Dexterity should be used, to signify a unit's ability to either move out of the way or parry the blow.

I do have a problem with this system, though. It makes units like Ogryns, who will be high in AR and Health, very effective at soaking damage of any kind. That may sound good, but is it balanced? They'll get hit a lot since they're slow and stupid and so they'll have low Evasion and Dexterity/Agility, but they can glance off blows like nobody's business since they're likely have high armor and more than 1 HP. Not sure if that's ok since I've never played with Ogryns or super tough units, but is that fine? What I'm saying is that a unit high in Evasion would be good at evading bullets, like a Banshee squad. They're fast and can dodge easily. A squad like Chaos Assault Marines (or whatever the CSM version of the Jump-pack wearing guys are) will have high Dexterity since they're really good at melee combat and defending against it. But those two units are good at mitigating only one type of damage (ranged or melee), meaning they can be neutralized with the opposing type. However, this is not true for Meganobs and Ogryns since they don't give a feth whether they're being shot at or hit with a club, they'll soak up damage with high AR and Health and hit back hard.

Is that... ok?

And PS, no Initiative. I totally get what you're saying with what I wrote. Fast units are represented and tanky units are represented too.

Concentrated fire.

I like the idea.
How about;-
Concentrated fire if a unit halves its rate of fire , it can add 2 the AP value of its weapons ,but can only suppress the target?

No suppression. Concentrated fire is meant to kill and its the complete opposite of suppressive fire- its focused, accurate, and shoots to kill whereas Suppressive fire shoots to scare and its wildly inaccurate and imprecise.

High rate of fire Heavy weapons , have the options to reduce the rate of fire to one, and add the difference to the AP value.(Representing pouring fire into one spot on the target , 'jack hammering' through the armour as it were.)

EG
A Heavy Bolter.
Range 36, Attacks 3, AP 4 , Damage 5.

Decides to Concentrate Fire , and now has Range 36. Attacks 1 , AP 6 , Damage 5.

Ey. Comments in bold yellow.

I'll make a post soon solidifying everything we've discussed and to make a concentrated and coherent version of what I'm changing and what my decisions are on these rules. That way our readers don't have to crawl through two pages of complicated back-and-forth between us and other users in order to get an idea of what we're doing.

Umagumo wrote:

PS I'd really buy these rules, if it were a commercial product: hope you get to that!!!

There you go urbanknight, you have a punter already.

Hi again,
My take on a complete new rule set for 40k type game,would be to keep things as straight forward as possible , but keep some things familiar, so we keep the basic feel of 40k.

I am not very good at explaining things in the written format.(If we were in the same room pushing models around and rolling dice it would be much easier to explain. )

To translate the utter chaos and destruction actual battle, into a basis of a enjoyable intellectual pass time , we need to use some levels of abstraction.

It is important to keep the abstractions intuitive and constant to deliver a frame work players can easily understand and are free to explore .

And as this is a completely new approach to the way rules for a game like 40k are written, I want to minimize complication.
As that way we can see how the simple systems work together to deliver the game play.

The way I would like to look at the alternating phase game turn , is everything is actually happening at the same time.

But like the director of a war film we look at different aspects of the battle , so the audience (players) can make better sense of whats going on.

To get an overall sense of the flow of battle we look at what units are moving one one side of the battle field.Then we look to see what units have moved on the opposing side during the same period of time.(A moves then B moves.)

After the general flow of the battle , we zoom in to see what effects of the ranged attacks have on the flow of the battle.(Which units are damaged suppressed by incoming fire)Looking at the effects one sides shooting , then the effects of the other sides shooting.(A shoots then B shoots,remove casualties after both sides have made attacks)

The after this we zoom in closer still to see the assaults used to contest objectives, the fast and brutal close combat used to contest vital points in the battle lines.
(A fights in close combat, then B fights in close combat.Remove casualties after both sides have made attacks. )

I know this is an abstraction , but I hope this explanation sort of helps show we can use it to make sense of the utter chaos of actual war.

And to keep things simple I intended to use the same stats for all units.

Speed , the maximum distance a unit can move when it take a move action.(Ill put mobility type and various terrain effect into the advanced rules.)

Shooting skill, How good the unit is at hitting units at range.

Evasion Skill, How good the unit is at avoiding being hit by ranged attacks

Assault Skill. How good the unit is at hitting in enemy units in close combat.

Dodge Skill, How good the unit is at avoiding being hit in close combat.

Armour Value How well protected the unit is by Amour.(VS weapon AP value, )

Resilience How difficult the unit is to damage after it suffers penetrating hits. (VS Weapon Damage,)

Hit Points,How much damage the unit can take.

Morale Grade,How willing the unit is to fight on .(Roll over modified Morale grade to pass morale test.)
(Fearless Grade 1, Elite Grade 2, Veteran Grade 3, Trained Grade 4 , Conscript Grade 5.perhaps?)

Command Value.How good the unit leader/attached character is at commanding the unit.A value in inches that determines the units coherency.(A sort of invisible base the unit is on.)

Now all the talk about how weapon technology has overtaken the physical attributes of the combatants is to try to justify removing S, I,A off the stat line.

Units get their own weapon profiles, for ranged and close combat weapons,These stats are the combined ability of the users skill and the weapons technology.
And displayed under the unit profile, using the following format.(As a starting point.)

EG
Name.Range.Attacks.Armour Piercing.Damage.Notes.

So rather than having to memorize a load of weapon profiles, and then modify them depending on some attributes, and modify them again for certain special rules...

You just read the net result of the weapons attack off the units weapon profile, that is under the unit stat line.

This is mainly trying to improve layout and presentation of information.

As regard to cover modifying Evasion Stat.
We are currently play testing,
Light cover, that just makes the target harder to see , like long grass , smoke etc.Adds 1 to the targets Evasion Stat.

Hard Cover , is substantial cover that offers physical protection like walls /rubble, trenches etc.This has a chance of deflecting incoming fire so adds 2 to the targets Evasion stat.

Bunkers and Buildings could be given their own AV values, the attacker has to beat , to cause damage to the occupants , perhaps?

I will try to show some examples in my next post this may help illustrate how things work...