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.

Lanrak wrote:
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, )

No. Armor Value goes against Weapon Damage, period. We have five different people just in this thread saying that they hate 40k's multiple steps to resolving attacks, and now you want to add an Armor Piercing vs Armor step? Its completely unnecessary and makes the game longer and more complicated for no good reason. You yourself said it, we need to make this game easy. So no.

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?)

Inverted scales don't make sense. We've used a 1-10 scale for literally everything, why would you pull a GW and randomly crowbar a different scale in there?

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?

Now you're talking like the "planet curvature" guy from a few posts ago. Long grass? In an age where we have superhuman walking tanks and alien insect things that are psychically connected? Dude, long grass has a 0% chance of hiding you from anything in this universe. I understand smoke a bit, but how would you even show smoke in a tabletop game? This is how it's going to be: cover of any kind gives you a +1 to Evasion, period. It doesn't matter what kind of cover it is unless its a bunker, in which case it is subject to different rules that we'll talk about later.

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

No no no, what happened?? We had a good thing going, don't go off injecting weird ideas.... Read what I'm writing in response to your posts. Its getting frustrating trying to communicate with you if you're doing your own thing and not taking into account what I'm saying.

Guys, listen. We're trying to make this game simple and while I appreciate that everyone is pitching in, you're all missing the point. I'm not doing these rule changes because I want to inject a million gimmicky mechanics to make this game cool and whatever, I'm changing the rules so the game is elegant, sleek, and balanced. If we bumrush too many mechanics here its going to turn out exactly like 40k is right now: bloated, incoherent, and extremely unfriendly to new players because hey, who has the time to memorize all the random special rules and circumstances and procedures in a game? I sure as heck don't. So while I appreciate the enthusiasm, don't just inject random stuff.

Here. This compendium has been long overdue. I'm going to concentrate all the new rules I've decided on and add more to this post later. This will go on a Word Doc and I'll post a dropbox link in the OP so that you can all keep up. It'll have versions and changelogs so that everyone can be on the same page. If you're reading a previous version of the rules, get the new version because we'll be talking about different things. This is the OFFICIAL rule set, alright? It's what I'll be putting on the actual project, so bear that in mind.

First up. Turn order.

A single turn will encompass gameplay for both players through a system of interwoven phases. Before, you had the running phase, the shooting phase, the buttering your toast phase, etc, but not anymore. I'm done with that. I don't particularly care for restricting players and I know that if you want to shoot before moving, you should get to. Therefore, I'm giving each and every unit in a player's army two actions per turn. Just two, but you can do a lot with those two. One action can consist of moving, shooting, whacking someone with your weapon in melee, setting up a heavy weapon, using a psychic power, etc. You can only do one of these actions per phase. So with that in mind, here's the actual turn order:

Command Phase: Psychic powers that affect unit movement or deployment happen here. Reinforcement happens here. Suppression and leadership morale tests happen here. I know it doesn't make much sense and its ambiguous, but we need this phase. Ignore it for now, but keep in mind its here.

Action Phase 1: Here you get to do anything you want, but only one action per phase. Player 1 goes through AP1 first, and then Player 2 goes through AP1.

Phase Resolution 1:[/b] All the actions you took during AP1 are resolved here. Did you shoot someone? Move somewhere? Did you call an Ork Warboss' mother dirty in a challenge? All the dice rolls and resolution stuff will be here in order to emulate things happening simultaneously. Two squads line up in their respective AP1 and shoot, and during this phase their combat plays out. That way nobody complains about how "he went first, of course he won" or "my units would have trounced yours if you hadn't gotten lucky and gone first". Enough of that. Actions get resolved [b]simultaneously.

Action Phase 2: Same as AP1.

Phase Resolution 2: Same as PR1.

End of Turn: Everyone take a breath, because now it's time to do this alllll over again.

That's it- your turn is no longer composed of 3/4 phases where you're locked into doing something you might not want. You get to do whatever you want, see it play out in front of you, and then the next turn rolls around. Period.

Stats:

Everyone is gonna be confused about what to call what, and since I haven't received any suggestions as to what to call the skills I'll invent my own. This is what we'll be using when we discuss stats. Not AP, not Assault, not any of the current 40k stats. We use these so that nobody gets confused and starts talking about rules that we're not using.

Melee: This stat gauges how awesome or crap your unit is at hitting stuff. A Guardsman will be weaksauce compared to a mighty morphin' Banshee. Scale of 1-10, 1 being the weakest.

Dexterity: Can your unit catch a sword with their own weapon and prevent their untimely demise? Well, this stat will tell you. This gauges how good your unit is at either dodging Melee strikes or at parrying them. A CSM is supposed to be good at parrying since he's a couple millennia old, and a Banshee is good at being annoying and darting all over the place, so expect both of these units' Dexterity to be high. This directly counters Melee, so if your Dex is higher than your opponent's Melee, your unit will either dodge the blow or catch it like the ninja it is. Scale of 1-10, 1 being the slowest.

Accuracy: Can your unit hit the broad side of bard? This stat obviously gauges that, so units like Grots will suck at it and units like literally anything the Tau have will be great at it. It will gauge if your shot lands the target or if you missed. Scale of 1-10, 1 meaning that you should turn your lasgun in and sacrifice your life for the Emperor.

Evade: Gauges if your unit can dance around enemy fire and not get hit. Banshees and fast units like the Harlequins will have an insane amount of Evasion, so don't expect to hit them that often as, say, an Ork Boy. This counters Accuracy, meaning that if your Evade is higher than their Accuracy, you stand a good chance of maintaining structural integrity of your body.

Armor Rating: Is your armor good, or should you have spent a bit more on not dying? This stat will show just how bad or good your unit's armor is. Grots will have low armor, but a Meganob will have an ungodly amount of it. Scale of 1-10, 1 being laughable.

Weapon Damage: How powerful your weapon is. Whether is a pitiful lasgun or a formidable Power Fist, Weapon Damage will go against your opponent's Armor Rating. If it's higher, your opponent had better get used to the new hole they have in their face. If your weapon is lower, you stand a very good chance of your weapon glancing off their armor. Should have brought a bigger gun. Range of 1-10, 1 being the worst damage.

Health: How healthy and hale is your unit before you send them off to their inevitable deaths? Units like Ogryns will have 2 or more Health, symbolizing the ungodly punishment they can take before dying, and Guardsmen will have one to symbolize the way they fold like wet tissue paper when they're shot at. If your enemy succeeds at a Weapon Damage roll versus your Armor Rating, one health is subtracted from your unit. No ifs or buts, its happens. Scale of 1-10, 1 being pretty normal for the average bear. 10 meaning you'd better have a lot of pointy sticks.

Range of Movement: How far your unit can move. Values can vary between units and different terrain types can affect your movement. I'll talk more about this later.

Weapon Range: This will be described along with whatever weapon you choose, next to the Weapon Damage of that weapon. It shows how far it can shoot. If its a melee weapon, it has no range. Why would you throw a Power Klaw?

Leadership/Morale: This shows how courageous your unit is. Is it cowardly, like a grot, or brave like a Terminator? This stat affects such things as squads taking casualties (take too many and you have to do an instant morale check. Fail and go into instant retreat.) and being under suppressive fire. If your unit isn't particularly courageous, expect to be suppressed for a long time. Scale of 1-10, 1 being a wuss, 10 being fearless and as such, immune to suppression and morale breakdowns.

AAAand that's it! Those are all the skills we'll be using because at this point we have a lot. Add any more and we risk turning into an RPG. On to the next thing on our list: Special rules.


I've decided on two things for ranged units. Right now they're pretty good if your weapon can do more than tickle your opponent, but not if you're a humble Guardsman. So what do we do help out the lasguns and the grot blasters of the world? We give them the ability to suppress and do concentrated fire. The first one is kind of complicated. Here's what's up:

Any unit that can shoot can also suppress. If you see your unit isn't doing jack to kill that squad of Ogryns charging at you, and you'd like to not die, why not suppress them? This will be a separate action, like shooting to kill or melee, which means that (per phase) you can either suppress or shoot to kill. If you choose to suppress, here's how it's resolved. You shoot normally and do an Accuracy roll. If you pass, your target goes on to make a Morale check. If it fails, great! You've succeeded and your target is now suppressed. What this process is meant to simulate is that your unit shoots at the enemy, right? Since there's a volley of fire coming at it, your target decides whether its brave enough to stand in front of it or dive for cover. If it chickens out, it becomes suppressed.

When suppressed, units have half Range of Movement and take a -2 to Accuracy, meaning that assault units can't move as fast as normal and shooty units are essentially firing blindly from cover. However, all's not terrible for the suppressed units. Since they've technically gone to ground and dived behind cover, they get a +1 to Evade. That doesn't prevent your melee units from getting in there and roughing them up, though.

Remember the Command Phase? Yeah, at the beginning of every turn you roll for Morale for every suppressed unit you have. If you fail, they stay suppressed. But if you succeed, they automatically snap out of it and aren't suppressed anymore. Another thing to keep in mind is that the unit suppressing cannot do anything other than move, but they cannot move farther from their target than their weapon range will allow. What this means is that if you have an IG Guardsmen squad suppressing some Ork Boys, and there are 15' between you, you can move away from them. Lets say that the lasgun's range is 30. That means that the Guardsmen can only move 15', because they're still suppressing the Orks. If the Guardsmen move out of weapon range so that they're not in range of the Orks, they stop suppressing the Orks and the Ork BOys immediately stop being suppressed. The same happens if the Guardsmen decide to take another action, like shooting or setting up a heavy weapon. It immediately diverts the squad's attention to the new action and the suppression order is cancelled.

Alright, that was long. On to concentrated fire, an easier topic.

Guardsmen (I love IG, sue me) have terrible weapons, the lasguns. Not terrible as in good, but terrible as in "we could play laser tag with these". Therefore, I give you weak players another weapon in your arsenal: concentrated fire. Unlike suppressive fire, this actually kills things. Do you see that Nob over there? Yeah. Using your combat training, you order your Guardsmen to shoot and concentrate their fire at a single target- the Nob. This limits the number of attacks they can make to one quarter (If you had 10 Guardsmen, you can only make 2 of these shots since 10 divided by 4 is 2.5 and I'm rounding down because this is the grimdark future) but it exponentially does more damage. Concentrated fire gives you a +2 to Weapon Damage since instead of only one lasgun shooting ineffectively at the Nob now you have ten of them shooting at the same spot. So remember kids- if you're weak but you have friends, gang up on the big guys! Concentrated fire is just like Suppressive fire in that its a separate action. Your Guardsmen can do Concentrated fire on Action Phase 1, and then Suppress the survivors on Action Phase 2. Just like that, your puny humans are fixed and now serve a deep tactical function in the battlefield.

Last thing (there are more but this is a summary so whatever). You can shoot into assault.

*Cue hundreds of outraged voices*

Let's be honest. If you're a soldier in the 41st millennium, you shoot to kill. You might also value killing an enemy over saving an ally. Be it as it may, you're a fething trained soldier. Act like it and shoot into that mob of allied soldiers and bad guys duking it out.

A unit can shoot into assault, but will take a -2 to Accuracy (a -2 might be too much, so I'll test it and see if a -1 is needed). A critical failure (rolling a one) means you hit your friends and damage calculation ensues as if you had hit an enemy. Hahaha, guess that's why you don't shoot into assault!

Anyways, that's that. I'll take suggestions and more ideas for new rules that build upon these, and I'll change what I've already written if you convince me that something sucks or is unbalanced or whatever. Remember, I'm here to make this easy, fun, and balanced.

@urbanknight.
I HAVE tried to address the points you keep raising,But I do not seem to be able to make my points clear enough.

My two main concerns, from my experience talking to GW devs and trying to write new rules for 40k over the last ten years or so.

1)The reason 40k rules went so horribly wrong in 3rd ed was because the core rules did not cover enough of the game play, and so needed extra rules piled on top.
So in the rush to make the rules simpler , we have to make sure the new ideas do not follow this trend.

2)It does not matter how clever the new rules are, if the game play does not feel like 40k, 40k players will not touch it.


Here are my direct responses to you proposed out line.

Game Turn Mechanic.
You want to use an alternating ACTION game turn mechanic.

Concerns..
1)It breaks with the familiar phases 40k players are used to, so may negatively impact uptake by existing players.

2)This is more suited to more experienced players.However if players overcome the 'analysis paralysis ' of working out what two actions they want to take with their units in the command phase.(Which some might .)

The lack of defined structure in the game turn as you wrote it, would lead to confusion IMO.
if we look at a large game say 15 unit a side, could you remember which units took what actions and when ,if you had several distractions , and a few beers?
You come back after a bathroom break and try to take an action with a unit, and your opponent says you already activated that unit this turn,is there any way to know who is mistaken?

If you want this sort of game turn to work you need to add a more defined control structure to it.
I have found a combination of non attack action and attack action , in a two action order sets work best.(Especially if a order counters are placed next to the players units in the command phase.)

Here are the orders I would start with.

Advance, move then shoot.

Breakaway shoot then move.

Charge, move then assault

Go to Ground move then ready .(+1 to Evasion stat.+2 to Evasion stat if unit is in cover)

Support fire, ready then fire .(Only way to use move or shoot weapons.)

Top Speed move then move again.


I use the term ready, to describe the unit setting up heavier weapons, OR going to ground /going hull down to maximize cover.It keeps the turn structure balanced .

So the revised alternating action game turn looks like this.

Command Phase.(Players place the appropriate order counters face down next to their own units on good morale.)

Primary action phase.(Players alternate turning the order counters over and taking the first action of the order with their units.)

Secondary action phase.(Players alternate taking the second action of the order with their units , and then removing the order counter.)

Resolution phase.(Tidy up phase before the next turn.)

The same big game with 30 units on , mid game bathroom break ,( after a few beers).looking at the order counters next to the units we can see exactly what units have done and the exact state of the game.

We can use ONE counter next to the unit to show its orders. what actions it has taken, and replace the order counter with a Suppressed or Routed counter to show units that are not on good morale perhaps.

The Stat line
Concerns..
Moving to a 2 stage damage resolution system removes some detail and character from the units that players tend to want with 28mm minatures.
It also removes the ability to include a simple suppression mechanic based on failed saves..

If you are having weapon range and weapon damage on the stat line, what happens to number of attacks ?Does the stat line include close combat weapons and ranged weapons?How is this information displayed clearly?

This is why I wanted the units weapon stats displayed separately underneath the units stat line for clarity.

I think it is better to separate unit morale, from the leadership of the unit.As it allows more flexibility in showing cowardly units being lead by inspirational leaders.

I wanted to include a SIMPLE rating of how willing to stay in a fight the unit was.
Using ONE resolution method for all units and ALL combat resolution , is in addition to direct representation.The distance in inches, the number of dice rolled, the score needed to succeed on a D6.

The convention of rolling high is good, is not broken.(Unlike GWs leadership where rolling low is good,)
The dice rolling convention of using one D6 is not broken.(Unlike GW leadership where you roll 2 d6.)
it covers a similar range ,6,7,8,9,10, vs 1+2+3+4+5+

I admit making low numbered stats good to fit the direct roll COULD be seen as breaking the theme.(But using the term GRADE , instead of VALUE , should be acceptable.)

But if you wanted morale to be resolved in the same way as combat , what would be the opposed value in the chart?


I prefer to have a wider set of core rules/stats than we actually need to start with , so we can rationalize them later, IF the play testing shows them to be redundant.
(In the same way, Cool, Intelligence, Willpower and Leadership , were rationalized down to just Leadership, for 2nd ed 40k.)

As it is much simpler to get a good result from rationalizing stat values, than it is trying to cover gaps in the core rules with special rules patching!

It would be interesting to see one of these threads not be taken over by you just once, tho.

Lanrak wrote:
@urbanknight.
I HAVE tried to address the points you keep raising,But I do not seem to be able to make my points clear enough.

My two main concerns, from my experience talking to GW devs and trying to write new rules for 40k over the last ten years or so.

1)The reason 40k rules went so horribly wrong in 3rd ed was because the core rules did not cover enough of the game play, and so needed extra rules piled on top.
So in the rush to make the rules simpler , we have to make sure the new ideas do not follow this trend.

2)It does not matter how clever the new rules are, if the game play does not feel like 40k, 40k players will not touch it.

I'm willing to take that risk. How different is the 40k we have today to the one first released? I'd say very. Is 40k dead now because the 1st Ed players decided they weren't gonna play? No. So that point is irrelevant. As long as my rules are balanced and fun, I'll find someone to play them. And unlike what SolarCross thinks, I have no immediate plans to sell or market this rule set. I'm not ruling out selling this set, but you're thinking with the assumption that I'm here to make profit or get a cult following. It'd be nice, but it doesn't matter.


Here are my direct responses to you proposed out line.

Game Turn Mechanic.
You want to use an alternating ACTION game turn mechanic.

Concerns..
1)It breaks with the familiar phases 40k players are used to, so may negatively impact uptake by existing players.

Mate, that's the point of a rules overhaul. I'm not here to gently ease you into the next rule set or post a few patches, you yourself and many others in this thread said that we need to start from the ground up. I consider the strict phases an issue, therefore I'm getting rid of them. If I want to shoot during my first phase and run afterwards, I'd better be able to since I've probably paid over $200 USD for this game.

2)This is more suited to more experienced players.However if players overcome the 'analysis paralysis ' of working out what two actions they want to take with their units in the command phase.(Which some might .)

Now you're just underestimating the players. Anyone willing to seriously invest money in this game (which is quite obviously strategical warfare) had better know what to do once the pieces are in front of them. Saying a player is going to be paralyzed as they analyse the battlefield is in front of them is like saying a chess player will take forever to analyse the board before him. Yeah, so you're having trouble figuring out what strategy to pursue and what orders to give out. But that's not really a rule problem, that's a player problem. Chess doesn't have an "easy" mode, so I don't see why we should hold players' hands and tell them what to do.

The lack of defined structure in the game turn as you wrote it, would lead to confusion IMO.
if we look at a large game say 15 unit a side, could you remember which units took what actions and when ,if you had several distractions , and a few beers?
You come back after a bathroom break and try to take an action with a unit, and your opponent says you already activated that unit this turn,is there any way to know who is mistaken?

Counters. Place markers. Getting reliable opponents that aren't going to cheat. There are a lot of ways that the players can resolve this issue, but just to humor you we'll add a counter system. It'll have two different sides so that you can clearly tell when a unit has taken an action that phase or not. If you forget what action you took, then... I don't know what to say. I'm trying to make the game simple and easy to understand precisely so that players can focus on this kind of thing. We'll see how it goes on playtests.

If you want this sort of game turn to work you need to add a more defined control structure to it.
I have found a combination of non attack action and attack action , in a two action order sets work best.(Especially if a order counters are placed next to the players units in the command phase.)

Here are the orders I would start with.

Advance, move then shoot.

Breakaway shoot then move.

Charge, move then assault

Go to Ground move then ready .(+1 to Evasion stat.+2 to Evasion stat if unit is in cover)

Support fire, ready then fire .(Only way to use move or shoot weapons.)

Top Speed move then move again.


I use the term ready, to describe the unit setting up heavier weapons, OR going to ground /going hull down to maximize cover.It keeps the turn structure balanced .

No.

This is weird AND limiting. The entire point of giving the player the choice of what to do in his action phases is to get away from the illusion of choice 40k gives us right now. I don't feel free running in the movement phase, shooting in the shooting phase, etc. So I changed it. And now you want to bring back that illusion? What you're saying doesn't even make tactical sense. Let's pretend that we're using your rules:

I order my GUardsman unit to "Advance". On Action Phase 1 they move accordingly. Fantastic. However, upon Phase Resolution Phase 1 I see that my opponent has two Stormboy squads close by, and he gave them "Charge" orders, which means that next phase they'll melee my Guardsmen. You want to know what I can do about that? Nothing, because according to your rules I can only shoot on my Action Phase 2. So I shoot, kill maybe 3 of the 12 Stormboyz charging at me, and on his Action Phase 2 my opponent rips my unit to shreds and laughs.

Under rational rules I would have been given a choice. A choice to either run away and hope I have a unit that can save my Guardsmen, or try to suppress one Stormboy squad while another unit suppresses the second, solving my problems.

See? This is why we want free choices. Reactionary gameplay works like counters in real life. If I have a bowman shooting at your heavy spearmen, you don't continue to plod through slowly to reach me. You'll be too dead to attack me. So instead you order your men to raise their shields and sit tight while your calvalry unit smashes into my lightly armored archers. Problem solved, and it was a reaction. I think we'll stay with my system, I don't feel like restricting people just because some will be confused or whatever. Play enough games and you'll stop being confused.

So the revised alternating action game turn looks like this.

Command Phase.(Players place the appropriate order counters face down next to their own units on good morale.)

Primary action phase.(Players alternate turning the order counters over and taking the first action of the order with their units.)

Secondary action phase.(Players alternate taking the second action of the order with their units , and then removing the order counter.)

Resolution phase.(Tidy up phase before the next turn.)

The same big game with 30 units on , mid game bathroom break ,( after a few beers).looking at the order counters next to the units we can see exactly what units have done and the exact state of the game.

So... you just answered your own question in this very same post here. There ya go, turn counters.

We can use ONE counter next to the unit to show its orders. what actions it has taken, and replace the order counter with a Suppressed or Routed counter to show units that are not on good morale perhaps.

The Stat line
Concerns..
Moving to a 2 stage damage resolution system removes some detail and character from the units that players tend to want with 28mm minatures.

And moving to a 3 stage damage resolution system makes resolving attacks extremely slow and tedious. I don't want this game to feel like a chore 60% of the time. Armor and Armor Piercing is nice, but it only makes sense in videogames or something where the computer does the calculations for you. I'm NOT subjecting players to having to roll three times per attack per model. In huge games that's just gonna make people not even want to attack.

It also removes the ability to include a simple suppression mechanic based on failed saves..

I think you haven't been reading. Literally the last post explains in detail how I'm handling suppression. I don't like your failed saves idea, it doesn't make sense, and it makes suppression OP because if your unit doesn't get killed, it gets suppressed. I'm treating suppression like a separate action, etc etc. Read the post above you, I'm getting tired of rewriting the suppression mechanic and using the same Guardsman example.

If you are having weapon range and weapon damage on the stat line, what happens to number of attacks ?Does the stat line include close combat weapons and ranged weapons?How is this information displayed clearly?

You got me there. Thanks for pointing that out, I'll add number of attacks to the stat line. And I think our players are smart enough to know that they shouldn't be using Power Fists to engage in ranged combat, nor should they be throwing bayonets at an enemy shooting plasma at them. But fine, I'll have the weapons say what kind of weapon they are. There are indeed some weapons like the Tyrannid weapons that are very ambiguous.

This is why I wanted the units weapon stats displayed separately underneath the units stat line for clarity.

They.. will be. I can't list them attached to the unit stats because the units have a choice of weapons to choose from. I'm not listing of all them next to the unit stat lines, so I don't see why you'd think I'd do that.

I think it is better to separate unit morale, from the leadership of the unit.As it allows more flexibility in showing cowardly units being lead by inspirational leaders.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you implying that what I wrote is exactly as its going to appear in the codexes and the rulebook? Because its not. Of course inspiratinal leaders will override cowards. Units will use the leadership/morale of the bravest unit. But I still need to list the individual morale of each individual unit in their codex entry in case 1. the brave unit gets gibbed and 2. there is no brave unit since those are more expensive.

I wanted to include a SIMPLE rating of how willing to stay in a fight the unit was.
Using ONE resolution method for all units and ALL combat resolution , is in addition to direct representation.The distance in inches, the number of dice rolled, the score needed to succeed on a D6.

The convention of rolling high is good, is not broken.(Unlike GWs leadership where rolling low is good,)
The dice rolling convention of using one D6 is not broken.(Unlike GW leadership where you roll 2 d6.)
it covers a similar range ,6,7,8,9,10, vs 1+2+3+4+5+

I admit making low numbered stats good to fit the direct roll COULD be seen as breaking the theme.(But using the term GRADE , instead of VALUE , should be acceptable.)

But if you wanted morale to be resolved in the same way as combat , what would be the opposed value in the chart?

Fair enough point. I'll probably end up using GW's system or something, I haven't thought about that.


I prefer to have a wider set of core rules/stats than we actually need to start with , so we can rationalize them later, IF the play testing shows them to be redundant.
(In the same way, Cool, Intelligence, Willpower and Leadership , were rationalized down to just Leadership, for 2nd ed 40k.)

As it is much simpler to get a good result from rationalizing stat values, than it is trying to cover gaps in the core rules with special rules patching!

I'm not patching. Patching implies that you have a finished product, people complained, and now you're fixing what you put out. We literally just started these rules, I see no reason to patch. I'm going to continue working on the rules, which will take a long time, and then when I'm done hopefully they'll be good, fluid, and balanced. They'll need patching because I highly doubt it'll be perfect when it leaves, but I'm not adding a ton of unnecessary rules just to create a headache for my future self. We keep things concise and easy and if we forgot something we go back and redo things. There's no time limit on this, no rush. If people want it out faster, they're free to help. But I'm not rushing this project nor am I compromising my orignial goal just because it might be easier or whatever. This project is gonna take as long as it takes, and that's that.

... how would you even show smoke in a tabletop game?

Making smoke markers isn't particularly difficult, people have been doing it for years to show wrecked vehicles.

You pull apart some cotton balls, spray it black/grey, give it some red, yellow and orange highlights, and boom, smoke markers.

As far as gameplay goes, you could have players put one of these smoke markers on any unit that has thrown smoke, or if you want to be really crafty, have it be a small line similar in size to one piece of the aegis defence line, and make it so that any targeted unit whose line of sight passes through this smoke line gains the smokes cover save.

This helps to bring more tactical choices into the game, and makes the game more visually interesting, since smoke is actually part of the battlefield, rather than simply saying "this unit has cover from smoke".

I understand they had something in 2nd edition where battlefield effects could "drift" around the battlefield, and while i'm not sure its a good idea, you could consider having smoke move around using scatter dice, to make a dynamic battlefield.

 Rav1rn wrote:

... how would you even show smoke in a tabletop game?

Making smoke markers isn't particularly difficult, people have been doing it for years to show wrecked vehicles.

You pull apart some cotton balls, spray it black/grey, give it some red, yellow and orange highlights, and boom, smoke markers.

As far as gameplay goes, you could have players put one of these smoke markers on any unit that has thrown smoke, or if you want to be really crafty, have it be a small line similar in size to one piece of the aegis defence line, and make it so that any targeted unit whose line of sight passes through this smoke line gains the smokes cover save.

This helps to bring more tactical choices into the game, and makes the game more visually interesting, since smoke is actually part of the battlefield, rather than simply saying "this unit has cover from smoke".

I understand they had something in 2nd edition where battlefield effects could "drift" around the battlefield, and while i'm not sure its a good idea, you could consider having smoke move around using scatter dice, to make a dynamic battlefield.

Hmm. That makes sense, yeah. I see where you're getting at. Besides, throwing smoke grenades is a perfectly acceptable thing for a soldier to do. However, maybe only sergeants and the like can do it? Like, you have a squad of Ork Boyz. The Nob can throw smoke grenades and shield the unit from enemy fire, giving the unit and any who are behind the smoke cover a +1 to Evasion. I'm not sure if this should be a separate action or if it should be a limited use item in order to prevent players from abusing it. For example, if it turns into a separate action then the player has to choose between launching a smoke grenade or performing any other action. In this case though, the smoke grenade would have to be worth it so I might bump up the Evasion buff to +2. On the other hand, if we make it a limited use item, the Nob can throw it during the Command Phase and thus shield the unit for longer and not interfere with the two actions the unit can take. However, the Nob only carries one grenade and the smoke save only buffs Evasion by +1.

On that note of revising what is already there, anyone have any ideas as to how to resolve for leadership/morale? There is no opposing stat in the rules so it'll have to be an independent roll, I just don't know how to implement it.

Thanks for the smoke suggestion, Rav1rn!

 urbanknight4 wrote:

On that note of revising what is already there, anyone have any ideas as to how to resolve for leadership/morale? There is no opposing stat in the rules so it'll have to be an independent roll, I just don't know how to implement it.

You can very easily make it an oppositional roll by introducing a default constant called the Fear Factor (or whatever you like). Make it a value equivalent to an average leadership stat. Maybe some weapons / troops could have a bonus to fear factor. So say if hit by Noise Marine you take your leadership test against the fear factor plus noise marine fear bonus.

 SolarCross wrote:

 urbanknight4 wrote:

On that note of revising what is already there, anyone have any ideas as to how to resolve for leadership/morale? There is no opposing stat in the rules so it'll have to be an independent roll, I just don't know how to implement it.

You can very easily make it an oppositional roll by introducing a default constant called the Fear Factor (or whatever you like). Make it a value equivalent to an average leadership stat. Maybe some weapons / troops could have a bonus to fear factor. So say if hit by Noise Marine you take your leadership test against the fear factor plus noise marine fear bonus.

Ok, that makes sense but the only thing keeping me from implementing that is that the "Fear Factor" stat would only be used for cases of suppressive fire and maybe melee attacks. I like the idea of fearsome units like CSM, Daemons, and some Tyrannids having a bonus to something or affecting morale but I don't see a good way of implementing that. Is there a way to just make morale and independent roll? I'm not sure if I should use GW's system or not for this.

 urbanknight4 wrote:

Ok, that makes sense but the only thing keeping me from implementing that is that the "Fear Factor" stat would only be used for cases of suppressive fire and maybe melee attacks. I like the idea of fearsome units like CSM, Daemons, and some Tyrannids having a bonus to something or affecting morale but I don't see a good way of implementing that. Is there a way to just make morale and independent roll? I'm not sure if I should use GW's system or not for this.

I think you misunderstand (I didn't explain it well) the Fear Factor would be a Game Constant not a unit stat. It would not be on a unit's profile. It doesn't matter if it is rarely used, it just has to be available when needed.

A Game Constant effectively makes it an independent roll. There are probably many other ways to do it but if you want a method that behaves the same as all your other oppositional resolutions then a constant that stands in for an opposing stat is just the best way.

--------

On a related note I don't think I quite get exactly how you will carry out oppositional rolls, maybe I missed it or you haven't got to it yet.

I get that there is a stat and an opposing stat and there will be some modifiers and a random element. But how does it all go together? Specificaly will you use a d6 result added to a stat + modifiers and another d6 result added to the opposing stat plus modifiers and then see which is highest? If so there are problems with that. It is fine on its own but doesn't work for "fast dicing" in which multiple dice are thrown down at once because then it not clear which die thrown pairs up with which opposing die. A work around might be to have the "pro" dice lined up in order and then the opposing die lined up in order and compared against each other. But that will be clumsy with a lot ot dice, you will make Ork shootas cry at the thought of letting rip.

The other way to do it is do it the way I already mentioned above on another page which uses just one die per resolution. The difference is found arithmetically between the poposing factors and he opposing factors (relevant stats & modifiers) to find a single overall modifier to a single die roll... This allows fast dicing and also fewer die rolls but has the drawback in requiring players to do some basic math... Not everyone is good at that, but then if one can't do math why would one be playing a nerd game?

-------------

Actually I just thought of a way to modifiy the first method above (the one that uses a die for pro and one for opposed) which avoids fast dicing altogether. Just use one die (or rather two) result and say it applies to all resolutions in the batch. An example 5 eldar are shooting at 10 guardsmen, accuracy is 4 and they have sniper scopes or something with gives them +1, the gaurdsmen have evasion 3 and are behind a smokescreen giviing them +1 (or whatever). Rather than have the eldar roll 5 dice one for each shooter and the guardsmen roll an equivalent number to evade, the eldar could roll just one die and the gaurdsmen do the same. So the eldar roll high 5 and guardsmen rolls low 2. 5 + 4 + 1 = 10 for the eldar and for the guardsmen 2 + 3 + 1 = 6. 10 beats 6 so 5 gaurdsmen get hit. If the eldar roll too low and the guardsmen roll high enough then the opposing beats the proposing and all 5 guardsmen avoid being hit.

Doing it that way avoids fast dicing but produces all or nothing results. Which I don't find satisfying personally, but it might work for you if you want to keep it simple.

Hi mate I love how these alternative rules are looking

Like solar cross I too am interested as to how to use the dice with these rules

Maybe I've missed the explanation but I'm eager to have a few games with these rules as they really do seem fun and in a way a lot more cinematic if you get my meaning

Edit @solar cross, that sounds like a good idea but what about say a 10 man tactical squad with a heavy weapon and a special weapon? And say the sarge has a plasma pistol would that mean 4 dice? E.G. 1 for the heavy, 1 for the special, one for the pistol then 1 for the 7 other marines? (that's still better than the current system as it's still going to be less dice) If so which would you roll for 1st? especially if say it's a template weapon firing

 SolarCross wrote:

 urbanknight4 wrote:

Ok, that makes sense but the only thing keeping me from implementing that is that the "Fear Factor" stat would only be used for cases of suppressive fire and maybe melee attacks. I like the idea of fearsome units like CSM, Daemons, and some Tyrannids having a bonus to something or affecting morale but I don't see a good way of implementing that. Is there a way to just make morale and independent roll? I'm not sure if I should use GW's system or not for this.

I think you misunderstand (I didn't explain it well) the Fear Factor would be a Game Constant not a unit stat. It would not be on a unit's profile. It doesn't matter if it is rarely used, it just has to be available when needed.

A Game Constant effectively makes it an independent roll. There are probably many other ways to do it but if you want a method that behaves the same as all your other oppositional resolutions then a constant that stands in for an opposing stat is just the best way.

--------

On a related note I don't think I quite get exactly how you will carry out oppositional rolls, maybe I missed it or you haven't got to it yet.

I get that there is a stat and an opposing stat and there will be some modifiers and a random element. But how does it all go together? Specificaly will you use a d6 result added to a stat + modifiers and another d6 result added to the opposing stat plus modifiers and then see which is highest? If so there are problems with that. It is fine on its own but doesn't work for "fast dicing" in which multiple dice are thrown down at once because then it not clear which die thrown pairs up with which opposing die. A work around might be to have the "pro" dice lined up in order and then the opposing die lined up in order and compared against each other. But that will be clumsy with a lot ot dice, you will make Ork shootas cry at the thought of letting rip.

The other way to do it is do it the way I already mentioned above on another page which uses just one die per resolution. The difference is found arithmetically between the poposing factors and he opposing factors (relevant stats & modifiers) to find a single overall modifier to a single die roll... This allows fast dicing and also fewer die rolls but has the drawback in requiring players to do some basic math... Not everyone is good at that, but then if one can't do math why would one be playing a nerd game?

-------------

Actually I just thought of a way to modifiy the first method above (the one that uses a die for pro and one for opposed) which avoids fast dicing altogether. Just use one die (or rather two) result and say it applies to all resolutions in the batch. An example 5 eldar are shooting at 10 guardsmen, accuracy is 4 and they have sniper scopes or something with gives them +1, the gaurdsmen have evasion 3 and are behind a smokescreen giviing them +1 (or whatever). Rather than have the eldar roll 5 dice one for each shooter and the guardsmen roll an equivalent number to evade, the eldar could roll just one die and the gaurdsmen do the same. So the eldar roll high 5 and guardsmen rolls low 2. 5 + 4 + 1 = 10 for the eldar and for the guardsmen 2 + 3 + 1 = 6. 10 beats 6 so 5 gaurdsmen get hit. If the eldar roll too low and the guardsmen roll high enough then the opposing beats the proposing and all 5 guardsmen avoid being hit.

This mechanic sounds interesting but I'm not sure. It does sound simple, but then again... I have my doubts. I like how easy and straight to the point it is, but I have yet to test it. Right now it might work and it would be balanced since the Guardsmen might have higher armor or something than the Eldar can penetrate, so it doesn't matter if they get hit because the Eldar are unlikely to do any damage. Again, this adds an interesting mechanic where there is indeed a random element but at some point it'll be impossible to overcome the odds, like in the Weapon Damage 10 weapon hitting the Armor Rating 1 Grot. This system offers a saving grace of 6 points, but your opponent could also roll high. So your 9 point deficit isn't going to be overcome no matter what lol. We'll see how this turns out, but good job on spotting an alternative!

Doing it that way avoids fast dicing but produces all or nothing results. Which I don't find satisfying personally, but it might work for you if you want to keep it simple.

Here is a chart that Lanrak proposed a while ago:

Here is the universal resolution chart we are currently using for play test.(We have tried extending the range of the D6 a bit , to see how it goes.

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.

7= halve number of 6s rolled = number of successes.
n= no effect what so ever.
d= automatic success that denies any special abilities of the opponent.

I like the fact that skill equals have a 50% chance to succeed and fail, but I don't know what to do about the 1's and the 7's. The 1's are troubling because they essentially mean an automatic success since the lowest you can roll on a die is a one. The sevens trouble me since they don't make much sense. You have to roll a six first, and then divide it by half to suceed three times?? I don't understand that very much. I'm not very proficient at math hammer and I admit this is the first time I think about die values, so I hope you guys can help me work this out. So far I like the middle values and the d values- automatic wins are ok if, for example, a weapon with a damage of 10 hits a puny armored unit, like a Grot. Its an instakill and its wishful thinking to think that the Grot might have survived, say, a Power Klaw attack.

Any suggestions? Remember that we're using d6's just because I don't want people to have to buy d10's or d20's on top of the counters that we discussed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LancsHotpot wrote:
Hi mate I love how these alternative rules are looking

Like solar cross I too am interested as to how to use the dice with these rules

Maybe I've missed the explanation but I'm eager to have a few games with these rules as they really do seem fun and in a way a lot more cinematic if you get my meaning

Edit @solar cross, that sounds like a good idea but what about say a 10 man tactical squad with a heavy weapon and a special weapon? And say the sarge has a plasma pistol would that mean 4 dice? E.G. 1 for the heavy, 1 for the special, one for the pistol then 1 for the 7 other marines? (that's still better than the current system as it's still going to be less dice) If so which would you roll for 1st? especially if say it's a template weapon firing

Hey man, thanks for the interest I like hearing from people that they like the rules, it helps me figure out what I'm doing right.

To answer your question, you choose what to roll for. In 40k you choose what weapon to fire first, and we're keeping that system because it makes sense. The only caveat is that you can't fire one bolter, then fire a missile pod, and then fire another bolter. You either fire ALL the bolters or you fire the missile pod, no mixing. Keep in mind that dice rolls happen in the Resolution Phase, so even though you get to choose your weapon order, so does your enemy and both results are simultaneous.

 LancsHotpot wrote:


Edit @solar cross, that sounds like a good idea but what about say a 10 man tactical squad with a heavy weapon and a special weapon? And say the sarge has a plasma pistol would that mean 4 dice? E.G. 1 for the heavy, 1 for the special, one for the pistol then 1 for the 7 other marines? (that's still better than the current system as it's still going to be less dice) If so which would you roll for 1st? especially if say it's a template weapon firing

It could be a different die for a different weapon type but you could have the die as a random factor that is applied to all weapons in the unit (if you are really keen on reducing die rolls to a minimum). There are other possible permutations too. As far as Urbanknight's game is concerned how it is done is up to him, his thread his game, he has final editorial control. I'm just chipping in ideas and advice not decisions.

Since you mention template weapons, it might be an idea to address how that is done. In particular I would be interested in a game mechanic that produces a template effect without templates or even special scatter dice. If anyone has ideas for that? Not saying it should be in UrbanKnight's game or the one I'm writing, but just interested in whether it is a possible option.

 SolarCross wrote:
As far as Urbanknight's game is concerned how it is done is up to him, his thread his game, he has final editorial control. I'm just chipping in ideas and advice not decisions.

Oh definitely, I was just wondering what you're thoughts were on the multi dice issue

In fact I'd like to put that question to urbanknight also as, like I said before, I'm very interested in trying out these rules

I think if it is possible, still including heavy weapons as a separate thing, either using another roll or whatever can be thought up, would add (for me at least) that entertaining element of planning the battle ahead (what squad load out would be best for the scenario I'll be facing etc)

@Lord_blackfang.
Well thank you so much for that insightful look in to your wealth of game development experience.You mastery of all aspects is breath taking.
The way you can argue the case for for all you brilliant ideas, and provide help full suggestions to all these new rules ideas is an example to us all.

Its not like you just bitch about some one being active in a forum they are interested in is is..Oh wait.


@urbanknight.
You go do your thing.


TTFN

 LancsHotpot wrote:

 SolarCross wrote:
As far as Urbanknight's game is concerned how it is done is up to him, his thread his game, he has final editorial control. I'm just chipping in ideas and advice not decisions.

Oh definitely, I was just wondering what you're thoughts were on the multi dice issue

In fact I'd like to put that question to urbanknight also as, like I said before, I'm very interested in trying out these rules

I think if it is possible, still including heavy weapons as a separate thing, either using another roll or whatever can be thought up, would add (for me at least) that entertaining element of planning the battle ahead (what squad load out would be best for the scenario I'll be facing etc)

Why should heavy weapons have a different ruleset for them? Shouldn't high rate of fire/high damage be good enough? I'm not putting you on the spot, I'm just curious as to what you'd like to be in the rules. I'll take everyone's suggestions but explain what you'd like. What did you think about the rules I've introduced so far?

And damn, @Lanrak. Being real classy right about now

 urbanknight4 wrote:


Hey man, thanks for the interest I like hearing from people that they like the rules, it helps me figure out what I'm doing right.

No problem mate and thanks for the clarification

I'll be following this thread with interest. Luckily enough the misses is also an avid 40k player so I'll be having a few games with this rule set, play testing as things develop


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 urbanknight4 wrote:


Why should heavy weapons have a different ruleset for them? Shouldn't high rate of fire/high damage be good enough? I'm not putting you on the spot, I'm just curious as to what you'd like to be in the rules. I'll take everyone's suggestions but explain what you'd like. What did you think about the rules I've introduced so far?

Haha don't worry you didn't

The higher rate of fire/high damage is great, it's template weapons that I'm a little fuzzy on

As for the value table, I agree 7's seem weird and for me the 1s don't make much sense to me as wouldn't the d value (basically the action succeeded and nothing can stop it) apply here too?

I do like the value table as well, but what do you think of the 7's? I didn't understand too well what was going on there. Could you also try out SolarCross's resolution method? I kind of like it and I hope it works because its the cleanest way to resolve conflicts without having a table that players need to look up mid-game.

Haha just edited my last post answering that very question :p

Sure we'll try solars method out too, definitely would be nice to not have to keep referring to a table!

I will be gone for a bit so I won't be posting, but I'd like to solve this 1's and 7's issue for the table method. At least, if anything, so we have a backup method to Solar's resolution, which I really like.

Hope you have a good playtest!

 urbanknight4 wrote:
I do like the value table as well, but what do you think of the 7's? I didn't understand too well what was going on there. Could you also try out SolarCross's resolution method? I kind of like it and I hope it works because its the cleanest way to resolve conflicts without having a table that players need to look up mid-game.

My personal preference is to keep charts to a minimum. Players of wargames will inevitably have to do a lot of referencing during a game looking up stats, weapon profiles and situational modifiers, this much is probably unavoidable, but every second searching the book for the answer is a second that disrupts play and slows the game. An easily memorable simple process that produces a clear result from dice rolls and unavoidably referenced factors (stats, profiles & modifiers) is golden.

That said I forsee a few problems with the three different methods of performing oppositional resolutions that i mentioned above. Well there were really two different methods and a variant of one.

I should probably give names to these methods for clarity and recap the process for each.

Method 1 I will call "a die for each direction biggest wins". This is the method where each oppositional vector has its own die roll which is added to the its respective vector to see which vector is the biggest and biggest wins.

Example: A to-hit resolution, Accuracy + modifier + d6 vs Evasion + modifier + d6 for each shot taken. If modified accuracy is greater than modified evasion the target is hit, if modified accuracy is less than evasion the target escapes the hit. Nice and neat, easy to remember, but can't be fast diced which for a wargame is a big problem.

Also the sharp eyed will notice it can produce a third outcome of a even draw! Example a guardman shoots at another guardsman: Accuracy 3 + roll of 3 vs Evasion 3 + roll of 3 means to hit is 6 and to evade is also 6, so did he hit or not? This is a tricky one, you could just say unless the "attacking" value is greater than the "defending" value it is a fail or alternatively unless the "defending" value is greater than the "attacking" value it is a success but this breaks symmetry and feels like a fudge. Alternatively a draw could produce some other resolution output so for a draw on a to-hit we could say it hits at half strength. This is okayish but means every oppositional roll will have to have an extra rule explaining what happens in the event of a draw... Not looking so simple after all.

The Method 1 variant I will call "a die for each direction by batch". This variant of method 1 is the same as one in all respects except to get around it inablity to do clean fast dicing the die roll result is applied across a batch of resolutions at once. Again really this is another fudge, or more politely a work around, which has its own problem in that it tends to produce all or nothing results, in the case where the same stats and modifiers apply across the whole batch then they will either all succeed or they will all fail, all or nothing. I don't particularly like it but it is there as an option. This method also has same problem as method 1 in that it can produce draws.

Draw results might be blessing in disguise though if you would like a third possible output to a resolution besides success or fail.

Method 2 is my favourite but it is the more math intensive. I will call Method 2 "one modifier to rule them all and in a single die bind them".

In this method "attacking" or assistive stats are added to assitive modifiers and then "defensive" or resistive stats are added to resistive modifiers and then the modifeid assistive value and the modified resistive value are differenced by subtracting the resistive from the assistive to produce a single overall modifier. Given a modified assistive value is equal to the modified resisitve value this produces an overall modifier of 0, which is nice and symmetrical, balanced, which is excellent. Then a single die is rolled and the overall modifier applied to the result to see in which range of numbers it lies, if it is 4 or more then it is a success, if it is 3 or less then it is a fail. Again given the assistive and resistive factors are equal this results in balanced 50/50 chance of success. Even better this method can be safely fast diced.

Optionally the range of the d6 can be enlarged by requiring a reroll of 6s and 1s and then adding 5 to the rerolled 6 and adding -5 to the rerolled 1, to produce an overall d6 range of -4 to 11 with a bell curve of probabilities in which 2-5 is much more common than numbers -4 to 1 or 6-11. This adds a little to the total number of die rolls but greatly adds to range of values a d6 can produce and so reducing the number of resolutions that will be auto-win/auto-lose whilst still enabling safe fast dicing!

In my game i shall be using method 2 because seriously despite the arithmetical overhead it is the best possible method for doing oppositional resolutions.

@urbanknight.
If you want to use a simple proportional table results table to cover everything.
At one end you have to have automatic success,and automatic fail at the other end.IMO.

EG 1 to hit is an intuitive result if a SM is firing a meltagun at the side of a Chaos Land Raider 2" away.(He has to turn 90" to the land raider to miss it! )
A land raider should auto pass an armour roll vs a lasgun, for example.

A auto fail on 16.666% of the time, no matter what the situation .Is what messes up the results in the current rules , and makes it a 'gamey' game, not a 'war game'.IMO.

7s on a D6.
Roll the dice , pick out the dice that score natural 6s. Discard half the dice that rolled 6, to determine the number of successes.
Or just replace it with 'n' result if do not like the '7' resolution.

On returning from the pub last night I looked at this thread to see what new ideas were being discussed.
Being drunk I took exception to the comment by Lord_blackfang.(I would have just ignored it normally.)

If you feel I have 'taken over' this thread by posting ideas and putting forward the arguments for and against ideas.Please let me know yourself. It is your thread after all.

@Solar Cross.
IF you want to get rid of tables all together you could ...
Simply list opposed skills, and use the D6 roll as the random, element in the resolution.

EG Shooting skill of 5, Evasion skill of 8.The shooter needs to roll 4+ to hit.
(Shooting skill +Dice score beats Evasion skill to hit .)

The only problem with this is it is 'maths up front' , which some 40k players do not like.And the range of values are not contained in a scale of 1 to 10.Opposed values are larger than the primary skill values.

Lanrak wrote:


@Solar Cross.
IF you want to get rid of tables all together you could ...
Simply list opposed skills, and use the D6 roll as the random, element in the resolution.

EG Shooting skill of 5, Evasion skill of 8.The shooter needs to roll 4+ to hit.
(Shooting skill +Dice score beats Evasion skill to hit .)

The only problem with this is it is 'maths up front' , which some 40k players do not like.And the range of values are not contained in a scale of 1 to 10.Opposed values are larger than the primary skill values.

I think that makes profiles too hard to read, in the sense that having oppositional values higher to compensate for a natural d6's bias towards positive numbers warps the sense of which stat values are average, low or high. I think a better way is to put the compensation into the d6 not the stat. So average accuracy is say 4 and so is average evasion. The d6 result is read as 1 = -3, 2 = -2, 3 = -1, 4 = +1, 5 = +2, 6 = +3. The simple rule here is the value of a d6 is x -3 (where x is the natural roll), so in conventional nomenclature we would call this a d6-3 . If consistently used I think even the thickest players will readily get to the point where they auto-read the right compensated result from the die and don't need to make the small subtraction consciously.

I think we should just bite the bullet and accept that wargames need to have an arthimetic component, and they all do. We aren't even talking calculus or n-dimensional topology, it is only basic arithmetic, primary school stuff. Pandering to the lowest common denominator (pun intended) is what reduces so many activities to simple minded dross which might be nice for the dunces but not so much for the rest of us, example WHFB becoming Age Of Sigmar!

-------
On Charts vs Arithmetic

Actually it is generally true that from an arithmetic process you can derive a chart and from a chart you can deduce an Arithmetic Process.. So actually there is no harm in having both in the rules as different ways of presenting the same information. Some people have good memories but poor reasoning skills, others have bad memories but good reasoning skills. Memory people like charts and hate arithmetic processes because they like to just see the answer and not work it out. Reasoning people like arithmetic processes but hate charts because they like to follow a chain of reasoning to find the answer and don't like to just see it. If you complement your arithmetic processes with appropiate charts you cater to both types of player.

@SolarCross.
So you have no problem with charts if they support proportional results that would be derived from a basic maths model of the system?

I prefer charts as you can alter the values slightly , to get more graduated results if needed.

Just writing a bit between breaks (I'm busy today but tomorrow I'll give fleshed-out answers. I like Solar's first resolution method, the stat+roll vs stat+roll. I know that there are currently two problems with this method: no fast dicing, and ties.

As for fast dicing, can someone explain what it is and why it's good?

And with ties, what about rerolling to resolve them? I don't want to give either side an unfair balance so I'm open to suggestions as to how to resolve ties here

Lanrak wrote:
@SolarCross.
So you have no problem with charts if they support proportional results that would be derived from a basic maths model of the system?

I prefer charts as you can alter the values slightly , to get more graduated results if needed.

Yes charts, or at least charts with simple number inputs and simple number outputs, should (actually MUST), be derived from an mathmatical model. This ensures that A) the pattern of numbers as outputs are actually logical, B) the chart can be expanded for a greater range of inputs if neccesary whilst still retaining the same logic, and C) that the entire chart can be accurately reproduced providing the formula at least is known wihout resorting to memory or guessing. I consider that crucial.

Another reason for beginning with the formula and then making the chart rather than beginning with a chart and then from it deducing a formula is that making a chart from a formula is easy whilst deducing a formula from a chart (that might not even have been made from a formula) is non-trivial. Like it is easy to get an egg yolk out of an egg shell but very difficult to put it back again...

If you have derived your charts from a good formula then the chart should NEVER need adjusting. If it is producing results that are not what you wanted then it is the values of the imputs that need adjusting... If you mathhammer your grot blaster and find it insta-gibs a terminator 95% of the time and this not a result that you wanted but the formula was providing a good and logical distribution of values then the failure was in the values assigned to the grot blaster and/or the values assigned to the terminator. Adjust the imputs not the chart.

And your chart, I hate it. Sorry but there it is. I have ignored it as far as I can. Right because I hate charts, I see a chart and anal math dweeb that I am I must know what formula produced it because if I am to allow it into my head and become part of my mental furniture I must understand its logic (if it has any). And if the producer of the chart has not provided the formula used then it is a pretty obvious assumption to take that he did not use a formula at all, just plucked whatever numbers looked pretty at the time and slapped them down according to touchy feely whimsy. That being the case I will hurt my head trying do the work deducing a formula which the chart maker should have saved me by giving the formula in the first place, to no avail as there wasn't one to deduce in the first place. So then there is no way to let it into my head without memorising it which I just hate to do especially if the thing to be memorised is garbage.

If I bought a book with that chart in it, I'd want a refund or maybe ritually burn it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 urbanknight4 wrote:
Just writing a bit between breaks (I'm busy today but tomorrow I'll give fleshed-out answers. I like Solar's first resolution method, the stat+roll vs stat+roll. I know that there are currently two problems with this method: no fast dicing, and ties.

As for fast dicing, can someone explain what it is and why it's good?

And with ties, what about rerolling to resolve them? I don't want to give either side an unfair balance so I'm open to suggestions as to how to resolve ties here

Fast dicing is where you save time by rolling multiple resolutions at once. Like you have 30 Ork shoota boy mob laying laying down the dakka at a bunch of panzie space elves. How many hit? They get 2 shots each, so that will be 60 dice rolls using 40k's one die to-hit method. If you have to do that one die at a time it will take a LOOONG time AND you will probably lose count along the way, so fast dice it, work out what die result you need to succeed and then throw down all 60 dice at one time, (or break it up into 2 or more big batches if you don't have enough dice) and just count out the the winning dice. Quick and simple.

Fancy trying that with method 1? Don't! It will not work and you will have to do twice the number of dice rolls too because not only are the orks rolling to hit, the elves are also rolling to evade.... 120 dice rolls, rolled one at a time... It will not do, not for a wargame, not model by model. Unit by unit resolutions maybe, but not model by model.

Rerolling ties, is not really great either, because it is more die rolls plus they feel like wasted die rolls, moreover the rerolls could tie as well, every now and again they might tie many times in a row and then the players will really think it sucks.

If you are going to have a method that produces ties, it is better to make creative use of them, turn the bug into a feature (if you get programming analogies). An example from 40k is the vehicle armour test. Roll less than AV = fail, roll on AV = glance, roll over AV = penetration. A method that produces ties is just a method that gives three output types instead of two. It is only really bad if you only want two (success or fail). If you can use a third then a method that produces ties is actually just exactly the thing you want.

Merde, you're right. I don't think we can use this system then, in that case. I was thinking about what you said on the charts and my thinking is that there has to be a way to both make a simple formula that encompasses die rolls and stat values that can also make a chart. This way, we can give players both a chart and an easy way to predict rolls so fast dicing can happen without referring to the codex.

What if we make a system where we show the minimum roll on a d6 needed for any given stat to surpass its counterpart? It doesn't have to be an extensive list- just one chart will do since all our stats are universally scaled from 1-10.

I have no idea. I'll review what you wrote and since we've nixed the first method, let's try out number 2.

 urbanknight4 wrote:
Merde, you're right. I don't think we can use this system then, in that case. I was thinking about what you said on the charts and my thinking is that there has to be a way to both make a simple formula that encompasses die rolls and stat values that can also make a chart. This way, we can give players both a chart and an easy way to predict rolls so fast dicing can happen without referring to the codex.

What if we make a system where we show the minimum roll on a d6 needed for any given stat to surpass its counterpart? It doesn't have to be an extensive list- just one chart will do since all our stats are universally scaled from 1-10.

I have no idea. I'll review what you wrote and since we've nixed the first method, let's try out number 2.

I might make something up for you. I'm just downloading a spreadsheet program (had to switch computers recently due to technical issues) when it's done I'll see what I can do.

Btw if you are going to use modifiers ie cover bonus to evade, then really you will probably want your range of inputs to be greater than 1-10. What if the super evading hyper elf with evade 10 has cast hyper evade buff +2 to evade whilst sitting in a smokescreen +1 evade? Adjusted evade is now 13... That might not even be an auto succeed either if he is being targeted by the 8 Accuracy Vindicare Super Sniper with +1 accuracy combat drugs and HQ auto targeting support +2 accuracy.. adjusted accuracy 11.

 urbanknight4 wrote:


I also know that I would like a system of counters. Just like in Fire Emblem there is a system of counters, in here there should be something like that to encourage strategic gameplay. Oh, so your brought a melee heavy army? I brought a ranged heavy army. But to counter that, you could add walkers or skimmers or tanks or something that would smash into my ranged units like a battering ram. Of course, that was a very simplified example but you see where I'm going. No longer will Necron warriors be able to blow up Rhinos, nor will a super-slow melee unit be able to transverse a bullet-hell to clobber the shooters.

I'm going to need the help of everyone who's interested in this, then. Rules are complex to fix since you have to not only make sure the fix isn't OP, you have to make sure it fits in with the rest of the rules. Building a new set of rules is another headache entirely. The good thing is that by the end, we'll have a system that not only works, it rewards creative and strategic players over those that simply burn a couple hundred bucks on whatever the meta is.

Counters are a fine idea - if you can instigate them in the middle of the game and rearrange or adapt your force to meet the counter. The problem with the current game is that your army list is static. If you "brought the wrong army" for the fight with counters implemented, you've likely lost before the first mini hits the table. Not fun. Either you have to be able to change the army mid-game (Reserves would be great for this), or if the army is static, counters can only be a mild annoyance - and in the latter case, what's the point?

 Stormonu wrote:

 urbanknight4 wrote:


I also know that I would like a system of counters. Just like in Fire Emblem there is a system of counters, in here there should be something like that to encourage strategic gameplay. Oh, so your brought a melee heavy army? I brought a ranged heavy army. But to counter that, you could add walkers or skimmers or tanks or something that would smash into my ranged units like a battering ram. Of course, that was a very simplified example but you see where I'm going. No longer will Necron warriors be able to blow up Rhinos, nor will a super-slow melee unit be able to transverse a bullet-hell to clobber the shooters.

I'm going to need the help of everyone who's interested in this, then. Rules are complex to fix since you have to not only make sure the fix isn't OP, you have to make sure it fits in with the rest of the rules. Building a new set of rules is another headache entirely. The good thing is that by the end, we'll have a system that not only works, it rewards creative and strategic players over those that simply burn a couple hundred bucks on whatever the meta is.

Counters are a fine idea - if you can instigate them in the middle of the game and rearrange or adapt your force to meet the counter. The problem with the current game is that your army list is static. If you "brought the wrong army" for the fight with counters implemented, you've likely lost before the first mini hits the table. Not fun. Either you have to be able to change the army mid-game (Reserves would be great for this), or if the army is static, counters can only be a mild annoyance - and in the latter case, what's the point?

That's not quite true at all. Counters work in all instances and even in a "static" game like 40k they can work wonders. Say that, for example, I have a mob of Ork Boyz rushing at your Guardsmen. Ranged beats Melee and acts as its counter, so the Guardsmen will be countering the Boyz. But how, you say, if the Guardsmen are super weak? They can simply suppress the Boyz and cut my charge short. In the same way, if I have a squad of Ork Bikes, I can direct them to charge at the Guardsmen. I plan to give jetbikes and skimmers a charge bonus and good frontal armor but bad side armor so that they're good shock troops. Shock troops historically make mincemeat out of ranged units like archers, and so you can expect to not only lose your Guardsmen, my Boyz won't be suppressed anymore. This is the way that counters will be implemented here and the reason why they'll be necessary to have in your army.

I want players to realize the importance of building a balanced and coherent force, kind of like you would in the Total War game series, because being prepared is half the game. I don't mean have specific counters to any given enemy, just have a good balanced force. For example, let's say I'm facing someone that doesn't know how to balanced armies. He's playing Space Marines and brings half ranged and half melee infantry. My army is Orks and has ranged, melee, a squad of warbikes (count as shock cavalry), and a War Trukk that can transport troops. The reason why I'm going to win is because every move he takes I can immediately counter with one of my squads. His marines are shooting at my Slugga Boyz? That's fine, I'll just direct my PK Warboss and his bike squad to take out the shooters. Is he bringing in melee to kill my warbikes? I'll use my ranged to suppress them while my Warboss escapes. Are his shooting units really powerful, powerful enough to kill my melee or suppress them? I'll stick them on the War Trukk and give them much more survivability. Since he doesn't have a dedicated anti-armor unit he'd better hope he has a strong enough weapon to blast open my Trukk (I know the rules right now say that Trukks are terrible and you can pop them open with anything, but I want to change point values and stats because honestly, why put your men on a transport if its going to be just as vulnerable as if they were just footslogging?) The Trukk whill survive most of the ranged damage and maybe he'll kill it, but by the time he does, my Slugga Boyz can pour out and ravage his front lines. Heck, I could even do a hammer-and-anvil attack where the warbikes hit the ranged units my Slugga Boyz are attacking from the back, and get a bonus to damage or the Melee skill for one turn since they're getting hit by a giant metal motorbike in the back.

Of course, he could just bring really awesome troops and be better than me at strategy, so its not like bringing a Trukk and some Warbikes makes me the automatic winner. He just has to play with that fact in mind, that I could do a back charge with my bikes, counter his ranged, drop my Boyz closer without casualties, and suppress his melee. Counters are supposed to reward army diversity and forward planning. Its supposed to add strategic depth and more options to people. Ork warbikes are no longer just really fast shooting platforms- they're shock cavalry like they're supposed to be. The dakkaguns they have are for guerilla warfare since they have bad armor and I don't want them to decimate a line at once.

@ urbanknight4

The trouble with a balanced force with counters for every situation is that it must have only a few counters of each type. The way to gain an intrinsic advantage over a balanced force is to go large on one particular counter, overwhelm the balanced army's natural counter then mop up the rest. A notorious example of this in 40k is the "flying circus" an army composed entirely of flyers... A balanced army should have a hard counter against flyers but if it is balanced it won't have many. The flying circus only has make those few AA guns its target priority and maybe take a few hits, overwhelm it, and then spend the rest of the game slaying with the wild abandon that only impunity can bring as nothing else in the balanced army can effectively touch them. This is where Stormonu still has a point, if you brought a sensible all comers balanced army to a fight and found yourself playing against a player with a very focused army then there isn't much you can do at that point to alter your chances because the lists are fixed at that point, you can't just dial in more anti-air guns to compensate.

Of course this not so much a failure of 40k's rules as just a limitation inherent to simulating war with physical painted objects instead of computer pixels. It takes a large amount of time and money to make up an army and especially if you are playing wysiwig having a mid game ability to dial in more troops of a particular type is limited greatly by what models a player has available to him.

I have thought up a reasonably good solution on how to introduce a more adaptable to the moment (less static) component to an army's capabilities without requiring an extensive model reserve. Not sure if I should share it here though as it I think it might be a good enough feature that I should consider it "commercially sensitive".

---------------

I have done up a chart for the Method2 overall modifier and a chart adjusted to give the appropriate "roll over to win" (plain d6 not extended d6 or other d6 variant. The numbers in the roll over to win chart should have a + next to them but couldn't figure out a way to do that in the spreadsheet program without monkeying up the formula. S = Auto succeed, F= Auto Fail. You will note that most possible combinations of Assistive and Opposing values produce auto-win/lose results with only a narrow canyon of either-way chances running from top left to bottom right. This is because of the d6's small range (1-6). If you want to make that canyon of chance bigger you will have to make the d6 put out a wider range, which can be done though my extended d6 method or a simpler one that involves applying a multiple to the d6 before factoring it in with the overall modifier. It would still be the humble d6 under the hood though.

Assisting blue top, Opposing red left.

----------

Method 2 - Overall Modifer



Method 2 - Roll over to win



----------------

Going back to the nixed Method 1and its variant, I just had a glorious idea for how to fix it so that it can be safely used for fast dicing by means of another variant that is a hybrid of Method 1 and the batch variant. To recap: Method 1 provides a variation of results but can't be fast diced. The batching variant avoids the need to fast dice but produces all or nothing results which is not a good thing really as it would mean a 30 Ork mob's dakka would either ALL hit or ALL miss with no permutations inbetween. The reason method 1 can't be fast diced is because 2 not 1 rolls are used for per resolution and that makes pairing one to another really hard to the point of being impossible. However we can keep both rolls and enable fast dicing by making one die rolled per model/resolution and one die batched per unit.

So for example: 30 Orks with 2 shots each lay down the dakka on 5 Eldar. How many hit? The eldar roll one die for their whole unit's response and add it to their evade. Once this is determined we now have a single function constant for the whole eldar group. From this we can work out what die roll the Orks need in this round of firing to get a hit. They can then fast dice all 60 shots without worrying about which die pairs with which oppositional and pick out all the hits. This way you get your fast dicing, a larger range of chances due to effectively using a 2d6 instead of a d6 and avoid all or nothing results though ties will still happen. With ties though I'd be inclined to treat them as feature and use them creatively even if it means a few extra rules for how to handle them.