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.

Hi folks.
I get the impression my approach to this re-write may not be fully understood. And as such there appears to be some disconnect -miscommunication, going on.

I am looking at this project as an objective overview of a game system sold as a functional system.That is failing to function as expected.

Basic concepts of writing a good war game.(AFAIK.)
1)The type and number of units/models on the table , influence the players expectation of scale and scope of the game play.

2)The expected game play should determine the most appropriate game mechanics and resolution methods.

3)The optimal choice of game mechanics and resolution methods, will deliver the required/expected depth of game play with the minimum pages of written rules.

Following these basic concepts, and the amount of issues players have with 'over complication' 'lack of interaction' and 'awful game balance on every level.'

An objective overview of the 40k game system shows serious flaws in the core rules for 40k.

The game play has changed radically from the RT /2nd ed skirmish games.But the core rules have not.
(Apart from,Removing the movement stat that TRIPLED the pages of written rules required to cover movement .Along with removing the modifiers/multiple dice to give proportional results and replacing them with randum and special rules, that has QUADRUPLED the page count for additional /special rules!)

In the last decade of so , GW plc has lost 2/3rd of its sales volumes ,I believe the majority of this is down to players wanting good rules, simply buying into other companies products.

If you agree that the core rules need re-writing to 'fix the 40k company level battle game system.'
It is important to accept the synergistic and compound effects of ANY change to the core rules,may have on the end game play.

For example,
The inclusion of a Speed stat to cover movement means we do not need to use special rules for movement like Fleet.. and Slow and Purposeful.We just give models higher or lower speed values..
If the game turn is more interactive, we do not need to add artificial interaction like 'over watch'.)

I proposed that ..
We need a more interactive game turn for the larger battle game size.
(EVERY 'finished' 40K re-write using a more interactive game turn, (Alternating phase or unit activation types.) showed improvement in game play , and was seen as an improvement to the game play by the players.AFAIK.)

We do not need over six separate resolution methods in addition to direct representation to cover the interaction of all the units found a 40k battle game.

We do not need to use larger dice sizes, like D10,D12, D20.

As a more interactive game turn has been proven to be a positive choice over the last 7 years of so.By many new rules, from many different sources.

I wanted to prove the concept of direct representation and one other resolution method , could cover ALL the combat interaction of all units in the 40k company level battle game.Without having to use larger dice sizes.

The example table we are using for Alpha testing in the new rules.Does give us proof of this concept.

One resolution table can cover all combat interaction of all the units found in the 40k battle game.

The actual finalized results and values and and generative formula, will be found in BETA play testing, prior to actual release of the finished rule set.

The table was not presented in a finished rule set sold for £50.But was posted in a rules development forum to try prove a basic concept.

An observation...
Anyhow, some people seem to fail to comprehend the effect the inclusion of a suppression mechanic, (and LOS blocking munition,) would have on the game play.

If shooting does not have to kill/destroy units to be effective,Then assault units do not have to be so large to include 'ablative wounds'

If we take this effect into account, hoard infantry assault units , (Orks and Nids) no longer have to be 30 models strong to be viable.
(We have found units of about 15 models to be as effective in the new alpha rules we are play testing, as units of 30 are in the current 40k rules.)

Also if the to hit score required is no longer tied directly to the dice score.But is proportional depending on the Evasion of the target,and the Shooting Skill of the attacker.

We can use skills values in the middle of the range , to cover all units.(With extreme values of the table generated by the modifiers.)
This means orks no longer need to roll 2 dice for every attack, we just use the wider range of values now available.

So this means an Ork boy unit is rolling 15 dice per attack NOT 60 Dice per attack, in the new rules.

As some clever bloke said, 'rolling hand fulls of dice is fun, rolling bucket fulls of dice is a chore'.

Basically as I am looking at 'fixing the game system used for the 40k company level battle game'.I am very wary of the effects any changes to the core rules have on the resulting end game play.

If people are just looking at resolution methods and game mechanics in isolation, it could explain the slight difference in perspective, perhaps?

@ Lanrak

Making nids & orks less hordey can easily be done with 40k's core rules as is, just give them tankier & punchier stats, but then they wouldn't be orks or nids they would be more like Deathwing termies with lightning claws or some such. The point of hordey orks and nids is to be hordey for its own sake. Having resolution methods that enable fast dice and so making hordey armies a viable option when it comes to the nuts & bolts of actual play is good thing to have in its own right, we do want the players to be able to play the widest range of tactical and strategic options as well as game scales and not narrow them to elite choices only, small games only.

Resolution methods are about as close to the foundation of a game as anything else, get that right early on and the game will have a solid foundation. Exploring all the possibilities, pros and cons of a good number of different options for core mechanics should be done early and done thoroughly. For a start you cannot pen a single stat with any confidence until you know what the stat will do once run through whatever resolution method is finally chosen.

-----------

I just made another "roll over to win" chart for method 2 in which the humble d6 is made more powerful against the assisting and resisting factors by doubling the values it produces. So a roll of 1 becomes 2, 2 becomes 4, 3 becomes 6 and so on until 6 becomes 12. The chart output values have been adjusted to show what number is needed to roll equal or over to make a win, and also which inputs produce Auto-Success/Fail just as I did for the Method 2 with straight d6. It might be that following the formula doesn't quite produce the same results as the chart because to make the chart you have to reverse the formula which means I have not so much doubled the d6 as halved the magnitude of the overall modifier, which doesn't necessarily produce the same result because halving odd numbers means producing fractions that must then be rounded and the rounding method I used may have been a bit eccentric.

Beefing up the power of the d6 in this way widens what I call the canyon of chances and consequently reducing the number of combinations that produce an auto success fail, over a straight d6.

Method 2 with doubled d6.



For comparison a recap of Method 2 with straight d6.



If am feeling brave I might attempt a chart for method 2 using the extended d6. It will be complicated to make, sigh.

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

Okay I did it! A "roll equal to or over for success" chart for universal oppositional resolutions using Method 2 "one modifier to rule them all and in the die bind them" utilising my patent pending xxd6 method to produce the random component. xxd6 is the xd6 roll extended again using the same formula and principles. This work of genius massively expands the "canyon of chances" wider almost chasing the auto results away completely and giving a fair approximation of a bell curve of probabilties. Amazing what you can squeeze out of a single d6!

A few days ago I wrote up a nice explanation of how to procedurally utilise the xxd6 Method 2 but doing up the chart really helps visualise how it works.

Alongside to the right I worked out what the equivalent %chance of success and fail is for a sample of rolls. Nice eh?

That's exactly how I did it in one of my games, but I used a d8 and only 5 possible values for any stat, so it was a lot smaller.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
That's exactly how I did it in one of my games, but I used a d8 and only 5 possible values for any stat, so it was a lot smaller.

I think it is desirable to keep the range of typical stats with a "low" being not more than 5 steps from "high" in order to keep a reasonable probability that a low can beat a high and high can lose against a low. So if we are thinking of making 6 our low stat (Ork accuracy), we should place our high stat at 10 (Space Marine Company Commander accuracy). One nice feature of this method is that it is much more scalable than the above chart suggests so we can use it for atomic mega weapons and impenetrable force fields as well as rolled up newspaper weapons and starved kitten damage resistances. So there is no need for "D-weapon" extra charts.

In fact the methods' inputs and outputs can be represented in a much cleaner, more concise and more readable way than the above chart as can be seen by the alternative representation below. Having a separate axis for assisting and resisting factors is redundant as in the method they are both combined to make a single number, the Overall Modifier, before rolling the die. So the chart below shows what xxd6 rolls are needed for each overall modifier. I have also shown the respective % chances for each which though not needed for the method are nice for getting a feel of the probabilities.

To the right I have made another chart in the same way for using method 2 with an xd6.

Hey man, not to criticize your work or anything (admirable job with the charts and the math hammer!) but even I am having a tough time understanding exactly what you're getting at and trying to decipher this new "expanded" d6.

Could you explain your system and what you're doing,exactly? I would love it if you could use simpler terms so that anyone looking at this can understand it. I know we're getting to the deeply technical discussion here, but I'm getting lost with all the stuff you're doing.

 urbanknight4 wrote:
Hey man, not to criticize your work or anything (admirable job with the charts and the math hammer!) but even I am having a tough time understanding exactly what you're getting at and trying to decipher this new "expanded" d6.

Could you explain your system and what you're doing,exactly? I would love it if you could use simpler terms so that anyone looking at this can understand it. I know we're getting to the deeply technical discussion here, but I'm getting lost with all the stuff you're doing.

Okay I'll see if I can help, once you understand it you will see it is very simple to operate. Method 2 has two components: The Overall Modifier and the Random Number Generator (d6, xd6, d8 or even d10 if you want). The Overall Modifier is a simple number in which the sign (- or +) shows the direction of a force and the number represents the magnitude of the force, small, medium or big. The Overall Modifier is the sum of all the relevant factors working for success and working against success. So I'm a marksman my accuracy is say 5 and I have a sniper scope which helps my aim a bit by 1, added together that makes a positive force towards hitting the target with a extent of 6. Working against that is my target which is say small -2, far away -3 and hiding in a hedge -1. So adding the positive factors towards success (hitting the target) to the negative factors working in the opposite direction we can get a simple number that tells us which was stronger and by how much. In this case the positive factors add up to 6 and the negative factors add up to -6 so they are balanced in opposition since when summed they give us 0 (6 - 6 = 0) and so this 0 is our overall modifier. When plugged into our random number generator we want our Overall Modifier of 0 to get as an output a 50/50 chance to hit, like flipping a coin, on a d6 a roll of 4 or more is a 50/50 chance. Method 2 has a process for adjusting for the bias of our random number generator (the d6) towards positive numbers but you don't need to know what it is if you use the last chart. You can just look for where the Overall Modifier of this to-hit resolution is on the chart and then see what you need to roll on the d6 to get a hit in the box just to the right.

If the positive factors are stronger than the negative factors then the overall modifier will have a positive sign and if the negative factors are stronger than the positive factors the overall modifier will have a negative sign. The greater magnitude of the overall modifier shows how much more greater the one was over the other. So for an overall modifier of +2 we can see that the positive factors were bigger than the negative factors by a difference of 2 and we would want our random generator to give a greater probability for success than 50/50. Using a d6 for a random generator our +2 modifier becomes a roll 2 or over (which works out as a 83% chance to hit.)

So that is how you find the overall modifier what it means and how you use it with the last chart.

Now for the second component of Method 2, the random number generator. On the last chart it is an extended variant of a d6 but it can be any other kind of die, though a different die will produce different probabilities for the Overall Modifiers.

The d6 just gives a small range of outputs, just 6 different outputs, usually labeled 1 through to 6, which makes it a pretty crappy random number generator but every wargamer has them in buckets so we probably should try to use it. if we can despite its serious limitations. The xd6 and the xxd6 is just a kind of magic trick to improve the range of results we get out of a d6. For any Overall modifier that when applied to our d6 is too great in magnitude for any chance for getting anything other than one result, like roll 7 or more or roll 1 or more, we reroll the nearest extreme that if could somehow be lower or higher enough to give an alternative to auto-success or auto-fail then we reroll it with a bias (in this case I have used a bias of +/-5) to see if somehow our d6 had more sides it could have given us a lower or higher result. So when even a roll of 6 would give a fail we rolled a 6 then we reroll the 6 and add the new result to a positive bias so our d6 can squeeze out a higher number than 6. Likewise when even a roll of 1 would give us a success and we rolled a 1 then we reroll the 1 and add the new result to a negative bias (so -5 here) to see if we can squeeze out a lower number from our d6. Doing this extends the output range of the d6 from 1 to 6 into -4 to 11. So that is the xd6.

xxd6 is the same except you do it for when even the xd6 cannot give you enough output range to avoid auto win / lose and apply another bias to tilt it further. You could also have an xxxd6 or xxxxd6 or so on. But frankly given the output probabilities there isn't much point, xxd6 is probably overkill as it is.

But you don't really need to understand any of that to use the chart, just roll what it tells you for the appropriate Overall Modifier, simple.

In the roll column a single number like 4 means roll 4 or more for success. If there is 1 followed by an 'r' (r means reroll) and then another number, that is shorthand for IF you roll a 1 roll again and if you roll higher than the second number that is success. If there is a 6 followed by an 'r' and then a second number then IF you roll a 6 roll again and if you roll higher than the second number that is success.

Where you have something like 1 'r' 1'r' 5 then I hope you see now that means IF you roll a 1 then reroll it and IF you roll another 1 roll it again and if the you then get 5 or more that is success. So it also goes with 6 'r' 6 'r' 3.

Does that help?

@SolarCross.
I totally agree that the single resolution method you use ,(along with direct representation).Is a very important component in determining the outcome of the game play.

To use the foundation for a building analogy, the outline of the foundation (the intended game play) determines the plan of the building.
The width and depth of the foundation,( game mechanics and resolution methods) ,determine how thick the walls can be, and how high you can build them.
(The walls represent the balance of strategic and tactical loading in this analogy, BTW.)

if you calculate the depth of the foundations using the most advanced maths and latest theories , it can be about as much use as a chocolate tea pot to you , if the outline plan is the wrong shape!

I am happy to explore ALL options available in terms of possible resolution methods we could use.

However, the resolution method we settle on must:-
A)Cover all the core combat interaction between all the units in the game .
(With slight variation between discrete and indiscrete units obviously.)

B)Be simple enough to understand and use, but still give enough varied results to cover the wide range of units found in the 40k game.
(EG a minimum of 6 possible outcomes from opposed stats/opposed rolls.)

C)I would like modifiers and special rules to be kept to a minimum.

As I have mentioned the intended game play again, I think I had better point out several problems with the GW plc '..selling toy soldiers to children..' development.

The most glaring omission for the 40k rules ,from a game play standpoint, is the lack of tactical functions for ranged attacks, found in most other quality battle games.

The basic concept shooting and assault ONLY causing physical damage, causes masses of problems in the resulting game play.
The imbalance in shooting and assault.
The need to mutate all aspects of the game play to try to hide this obvious omission.
(Speeding up movement , introducing several special rules to off set morale and massive casualties from shooting.)

And finally light armoured hoard units being over large.(GW $a£e$ department influence here.)In the current game this lead to lots of slowing down in the game.

Having to move 30 models in a unit every turn, (twice in the current game turn.) is slow. (Especially if you have to roll random movement as well!)

Having two over sized hoard armies opposing each other leaves sod all space for tactical maneuver!

Under the RESTRICTIVE current rules there is no way for units to counter being shot at other than high numbers of models or high armour.

If we include a simple suppression mechanic as part of the natural resolution,(and LOS blocking ammunition.)
Shooting can be effective without having to kill droves of enemy.And so horde unit sizes can scale down, appropriately.
(Especially if the lighter armoured units can get better Evasion stats?)

As shooting gains 2 tactical functions beyond just killing stuff. Breaking up the enemy advance ,( or support your own assaults) , by use of suppression.And blocking enemy LOS .(This would have to be used carefully though.)

A rough example...
If the average unit size is 10,
Elite units can be half that size , 5.(50% reduction to standard unit size.)
Horde units can be half as big again 15.(50% increase over standard unit size.)

The horde unit is still proportionally bigger than the elite and standard units.But is of a more practical size in terms of foot print on the game table and practical movement during the game.

The intended game play can give you the in game functions that are important in shaping the final rules.
Not the actual stats /values obviously, but they can give you a good idea of what should be included.

I'll read both your replies in a bit, Lanrak and Solar, but we have more problems abounding than just figuring out the resolution method: the turn order has some holes in it. I just got back from testing the turn order sequence and man...

Recall that I said that I would give players a flat two actions per turn to use as they wanted. Want to move twice? Want to shoot twice? Go ahead!

The problem with this is that shooty armies become incredibly powerful. As they're able to shoot twice, they get to absolutely wreck any melee army or slow army or whatever. At least, this is with the current stats. I found my Ork Boyz dying in droves to my opponent's Tau warriors before they could even touch bases.

I think radically changing stats and making movement ranges a bit different would be good here since it's absurd to have so many units die like this. I don't know about you guys, but has anyone tested this turn structure? I'd love to hear from someone else how it went for them.

Another issue was the psychic phase. Physic powers are really powerful, is it ok to use them twice per turn or should we limit them to only one use per turn?

Can I take a whack at explaining the chart?

Like with the 40k To Wound chart, you compare your relevant stat to the enemy's relevant stat to see what you need to roll. If they are equal, your odds are 50/50. So Strength 5 versus Toughness 5 is a 4+. Accuracy 5 versus Dodge 5 is also a 4+, and so on whatever your stats are.

If your stat is higher, for each point of difference your roll becomes easier by one result. Strength 6 versus Toughness 5 is a 3+. Strength 7 versus Toughness 5 is a 2+.

The reverse is true if the enemy stat is higher. Your roll gets more difficult. Strength 5 versus Toughness 6 is a 5+. Strength 5 versus Toughness 7 is a 6+.

The semi-innovation here (this same method was actually present in Warhammer Fantasy and in 40k back when To Hit modifiers were a thing and you could take difficulty above 6+ and is present in 40k now for BS above 5) is that you can get rolls that are harder than a 6+ but can still pass and rolls that are easier than a 2+ and still fail.

A roll that is one step harder than a 6+ is that you need to make a 6+ roll, roll the dice again and get a 2+. So you have a 1/6 chance of failing the roll after you've already made your 6+. The next hardest is a 6+ followed by a 3+, and so on.

You can make rolls easier than a 2+ by re-rolling failures in a similar manner. What is listed in the table as "1.r.6" means you pass on a 2+, but if you roll a 1, you roll again and pass on a 6+.

@urbanknight.
The suggestions I made for the 2 action order sets a few posts back were play tested quite a bit, to solve the problem of letting units do what ever actions they wanted each turn.(As you have found out unrestricted actions is a bit over powered )

I am not just posting up random ideas as they occur to me.But the suggestions I have made are based on years of 'research and development',(conducted by my gaming group and others,) and a fair bit of play testing.


@lord_blackfang.
Excellent explanation of the resolution methods.

However, I am not a massive fan of re- rolls, as they can slow the game down, in my experience.
(That was why we tried just halving the number of 6s rolled to count as a result of 7.Its the same as re rolling 6s needing 4+.)

If we look at the current core rules set up, the range of results in each of the 3 stages of resolution is very restricted.
Usually only 3 results to hit.
6 results to wound.
5 results to save.

That is a range of just 90 results.

If we extend the results so we have 6 results in each of the resolution stages...
This gives us 216 results.
Just using the ALL the D6 results in each stage over doubles the results we could use.

If we add limited modifiers to the stats we use.This may give enough spread of results to allow enough detailed interaction, without having to rely on multiple systems and so many special rules ?

This is another reason I prefer to keep the 3 stage damage resolution. It adds another level of multipliers to the range of results.

I admit I do not have any answers yet.But I do have a good idea about the sort of questions we should be asking.

Lanrak wrote:
@SolarCross.
Having to move 30 models in a unit every turn, (twice in the current game turn.) is slow. (Especially if you have to roll random movement as well!)

Having two over sized hoard armies opposing each other leaves sod all space for tactical maneuver!

Under the RESTRICTIVE current rules there is no way for units to counter being shot at other than high numbers of models or high armour.

If we include a simple suppression mechanic as part of the natural resolution,(and LOS blocking ammunition.)
Shooting can be effective without having to kill droves of enemy.And so horde unit sizes can scale down, appropriately.
(Especially if the lighter armoured units can get better Evasion stats?)

As shooting gains 2 tactical functions beyond just killing stuff. Breaking up the enemy advance ,( or support your own assaults) , by use of suppression.And blocking enemy LOS .(This would have to be used carefully though.)

A rough example...
If the average unit size is 10,
Elite units can be half that size , 5.(50% reduction to standard unit size.)
Horde units can be half as big again 15.(50% increase over standard unit size.)

The horde unit is still proportionally bigger than the elite and standard units.But is of a more practical size in terms of foot print on the game table and practical movement during the game.

The intended game play can give you the in game functions that are important in shaping the final rules.
Not the actual stats /values obviously, but they can give you a good idea of what should be included.

To be honest I don't find your obsessing over horde armies makes any sense. Your main objection seems to be that horde armies slow up the game, but that is a minor issue which fantasy players solved decades ago: movement trays. The average model count for 40k is way below that of a typical fantasy game where most if not all units will have 20-40 models in them sometimes a single unit will have as many as a hundred models if they are skaven or goblins. It is not even remotely unusual to have over 200 different models on just one side. Moving 40 models on movement trays is quicker and easier than moving even just 4 models without trays. And before you say yes but fantasy armies are mostly rank 'n' flank with few skirmishers while 40k is all skirmishers, you can buy or make skirmishing trays as easily as ranked movement trays. Moving 30 ork boyz or 30 Imperial Guard on 6 skirmishing trays with each taking 5 models would take no more time than moving just 6 models without trays. The fault lies not with slow armies but with slow witted 40k players who don't use trays when they should.

The number one reason it doesn't make sense though is that whether or not we want to spit our dummy out over horde armies is beside the point at this stage in development.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 urbanknight4 wrote:
I'll read both your replies in a bit, Lanrak and Solar, but we have more problems abounding than just figuring out the resolution method: the turn order has some holes in it. I just got back from testing the turn order sequence and man...

Recall that I said that I would give players a flat two actions per turn to use as they wanted. Want to move twice? Want to shoot twice? Go ahead!

The problem with this is that shooty armies become incredibly powerful. As they're able to shoot twice, they get to absolutely wreck any melee army or slow army or whatever. At least, this is with the current stats. I found my Ork Boyz dying in droves to my opponent's Tau warriors before they could even touch bases.

I think radically changing stats and making movement ranges a bit different would be good here since it's absurd to have so many units die like this. I don't know about you guys, but has anyone tested this turn structure? I'd love to hear from someone else how it went for them.

Another issue was the psychic phase. Physic powers are really powerful, is it ok to use them twice per turn or should we limit them to only one use per turn?

Melee troops dying in droves to gunfire.. sounds about right for a sci-fi game. You know the saying don't bring a choppa to a pulse rifle fight

Right but 40k isn't really a sci-fi game it is a FANTASY game with elves, demons, magic users, sword wielding heraldry clad knights in shining armour except in SPACE. So somehow melee has to be made viable despite all the shooting. I'm with you on that but is the reason your ork boyz are dying by the bucketful really the fault of your turn structure?

Making melee more viable to me sounds like a balance issue that can be solved by making them cheaper point wise and hit harder in cc if they any survive long enough to get there. If I could have 30 ork sluggas for the same cost as 10 firewarriors then I'm not going to be too sorry if even 25 die running up the table providing the remaining 5 that actually make into close combat with the shrimpy fish faces eat them alive in the end. Ever watched the film Zulu? Yeah that's what I call a fun fight.

Same with psyking, if it is too powerful then nerf it or make it cost more. But at this stage you can't be looking at balance, because you haven't even settled on stats and you can't settle on stats until you have settled on core mechanics.

When you evaluate your turn structure at this stage you should only be thinking of how smoothly it works and not worry if it is unbalanced, because balancing is all about point costs and you can't even begin to do that until you know what all your game mechanics, stats and core rules will be and are then ready to start making or adapting faction codices.

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

Ok brace yourselves I have a few more charts up my sleeve...

This time I have Method 2 using an extended d10 and also for comparison Method 2 with a regular d10.



This to my eyes is loveliest by far.. Nice range even without an extension, percentage chances in neat 10% increments for the centre range and tidy 1% increments on the extended. Extended it actually gives a variable chance for a larger range of Overall modifiers than even the xxd6 did. No joke that is one hot random number generator, if I wasn't a married man... well...

Well everything is about the pros and cons, so what is the trade off? Okay it is perfect as a number generator but what about the punters? They all have buckets of d6s right? They will cry and pout if you tell them they need to go out and buy 30 weird looking d10s so they can fast dice their orks. Really? I wonder if the punters could really be that dumb, that they would be willing to throw down around half a grand on models and paints, then spend almost as many hours painting them and then cry at the prospect of spending a fiver on 30 dice. I just checked on ebay you can get 30 new d10s for around a fiver including p&p.

So why not d10?

@SolarCross.
I am a bit perplexed that that from my last 3 posts, you have concluded I am.''... obsessing over horde armies...'

When I have tried to be a clear as possible in declaring my intentions, and my perspective.

Post at the top of this page...
''Hi folks.
I get the impression my approach to this re-write may not be fully understood. And as such there appears to be some disconnect -miscommunication, going on.

I am looking at this project as an objective overview of a game system sold as a functional system.That is failing to function as expected. ''

'' An objective overview of the 40k game system shows serious flaws in the core rules for 40k.''

'If you agree that the core rules need re-writing to 'fix the 40k company level battle game system.'
It is important to accept the synergistic and compound effects of ANY change to the core rules,may have on the end game play. '

''I proposed that ..
We need a more interactive game turn for the larger battle game size.
(EVERY 'finished' 40K re-write using a more interactive game turn, (Alternating phase or unit activation types.) showed improvement in game play , and was seen as an improvement to the game play by the players.AFAIK.)

We do not need over six separate resolution methods in addition to direct representation to cover the interaction of all the units found a 40k battle game.

We do not need to use larger dice sizes, like D10,D12, D20. ''

My second post addressed to you.


@SolarCross.
''I totally agree that the single resolution method you use ,(along with direct representation).Is a very important component in determining the outcome of the game play.

To use the foundation for a building analogy, the outline of the foundation (the intended game play) determines the plan of the building.
The width and depth of the foundation,( game mechanics and resolution methods) ,determine how thick the walls can be, and how high you can build them.
(The walls represent the balance of strategic and tactical loading in this analogy, BTW.) ''

''The most glaring omission for the 40k rules ,from a game play standpoint, is the lack of tactical functions for ranged attacks, found in most other quality (modern) battle games''.

''The basic concept shooting and assault ONLY causing physical damage, causes masses of problems in the resulting game play.
The imbalance in shooting and assault.
The need to mutate all aspects of the game play to try to hide this obvious omission.
(Speeding up movement , introducing several special rules to off set morale and massive casualties from shooting.)''


You appear to have skipped over all this and just focused on the section of my post prefaced by..

'And finally light armoured hoard units being over large.(GW $a£e$ department influence here.)In the current game has lead to lots of slowing down in the game. '

The last comment after a long and fairly detailed posts proposing how I think we could proceed in getting the game play in synergy with the units types and equipment weapons used to fight in fictional battles in the 40k universe.
Was in reply to your apparent assumption that just speeding up dice rolling would fix everything?

In you last post extending your assumption, that GW has had it right for the last 18 year.(40k is just Warhammer Fantasy Battles in space with guns)
By ignoring all the evidence of 40k using 'less than optimal' core rules.

You proposed using movement trays and a bigger dice size .D10.
And the imbalance between assault and shooting units can be fixed by making assault units bigger,by lowering the cost per model, and more powerful in assault?

You seemed to imply this was your solution , eg buy more stuff.(Do you work for GW sales department BTW? )


To be clear , I think 40k SHOULD HAVE RULES WRITTEN SPECIFICALLY FOR ITS INTENDED GAME PLAY. 40k SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO BE A WHFB CLONE.

I believe that 40k players are heavily invested in the inspiring background and art of the 40k universe.

And GW plc use this as leverage to get money from them without really providing a QUALITY rule set,.(The 40k game and the 40k players deserve quality rules for 40k , IMO.)

I want to try to get a straight forward, easy to learn and play , intuitive rule set.That has enough tactical depth to keep players interested long term, without having to force new purchases by heavy handed restructuring .

This perspective on re writing the rules seems to be in line with the title of this thread.If this is not in line with what you want urbanknight, please let me know.

Lanrak wrote:
@SolarCross.
I am a bit perplexed that that from my last 3 posts, you have concluded I am.''... obsessing over horde armies...'

When I have tried to be a clear as possible in declaring my intentions, and my perspective.

That was the only part of your posts I found interesting enough to respond to. The rest was more or less repeating some rant you made at the beginning of the thread. Yes 40k is flawed, we already know that, addressing those flaws is the point of the thread. You are telling us nothing new.

When I said 40k is fantasy in space I was referring to the fluff not the crunch. 40k is fantasy in space. If you want to make a game that is "modern warfare in space" then it might well be a great game but it won't have melee at all, or magic, or superheroes. It won't be 40k though and 90% of the models the 40k player has won't be appropriate for it. Urbanknight made this thread because he wants to make a better 40k with which he can use his 40k models in the context of 40k like fluff. If you want modern warfare in space you need to do it somewhere else.

@SolarCross.
I am trying to make reasoned arguments for measured changes to the core rules based on a wealth of evidence that proves them worthy of investigation.

A)
GW made battle games for the 40k universe using game play based on modern warfare.Adeptus Titanicus, Epic Space Marine, Epic 40k, Epic Armageddon.
In the Epic series of games GW game devs were allowed to develop the rules specifically for the game play of the large 40k battles,They used a more interactive game turn mechanics and simple suppression mechanics.
As these games use the same units that are found in 40k 5th to 7th ed,and these games managed to represent assault and psychic attacks, in a balance way alongside shooting.(And only used a fraction of the pages of rules 40k 7th ed uses.)This supports my argument for new rules.IMO.

B)
Andy Chambers was '40k Overfeind'(Lead game developer in normal speak.) He was convinced the errors made in the 3rd ed 40k , needed to be corrected by completely re-writing the rules from the ground up.
GW corporate management would not let him make the changes he thought were needed to fix the game play of 40k.
Andy Chambers left GW plc , (probably due to not being allowed to fix the game play of 40k.) and used his new ideas in Star Ship Troopers .
And Star Ship troopers game play was based on modern warfare.

C)
After Rick Priestly who originally co wrote the rules for RogueTrader to start the whole 40k game series.
Wanted to write a scifi war game at Warlord Games.(Allegedly the game he wanted 3rd ed 40k to be.)
Beyond The Gates of Antares was loosely based on the modern warfare rules Bolt Action.(Written by Alessio.)

In fact lots of scifi war games base their game play on modern warfare.
As modern warfare has an equal focus on mobility, fire power and assault.

What I have written so far I would class as a reasoned argument.

However, I would class this as a rant ...
''Okay it is perfect as a number generator but what about the punters? They all have buckets of d6s right? They will cry and pout if you tell them they need to go out and buy 30 weird looking d10s so they can fast dice their orks. Really? I wonder if the punters could really be that dumb, that they would be willing to throw down around half a grand on models and paints, then spend almost as many hours painting them and then cry at the prospect of spending a fiver on 30 dice. I just checked on ebay you can get 30 new d10s for around a fiver including p&p. ''

I am sure that urbanknight is intelligent and mature enough to speak for himself.
And if you actually bothered to read any of the discussion at the start of the thread, (Which you dismissed as a rant.)You would have seen that urbanknight agreed with me that modern warfare was the best fit to base the game play of 40k on.

Could you please explain what you mean by this?
When I said 40k is fantasy in space I was referring to the fluff not the crunch. 40k is fantasy in space.

Some of the factions in 40k have a similar look the the models found in fantasy games.
But the organisation of units, equipment and weapons is completely different to the fantasy games.

So if you were saying the superficial look of 40k is similar to fantasy,(fluff.)
But the 40k game play has nothing to do with fantasy games .(Crunch)
You are agreeing with me.

If you believe 40k is fantasy in space, then GW plc are making the 40k game you want.So why are you posting here?

Lanrak wrote:
@SolarCross.
However, I would class this as a rant ...
''Okay it is perfect as a number generator but what about the punters? They all have buckets of d6s right? They will cry and pout if you tell them they need to go out and buy 30 weird looking d10s so they can fast dice their orks. Really? I wonder if the punters could really be that dumb, that they would be willing to throw down around half a grand on models and paints, then spend almost as many hours painting them and then cry at the prospect of spending a fiver on 30 dice. I just checked on ebay you can get 30 new d10s for around a fiver including p&p. ''

Nope those comments may have been a touch brusque but they were far too concise to be classed as a rant. Rants need to be rambling and self-important posturing totally opposed to making a meaningful contribution, I have a lot to learn from you in that regard.

Lanrak wrote:

Could you please explain what you mean by this?
When I said 40k is fantasy in space I was referring to the fluff not the crunch. 40k is fantasy in space.

Some of the factions in 40k have a similar look the the models found in fantasy games.
But the organisation of units, equipment and weapons is completely different to the fantasy games.

So if you were saying the superficial look of 40k is similar to fantasy,(fluff.)
But the 40k game play has nothing to do with fantasy games .(Crunch)
You are agreeing with me.

If you believe 40k is fantasy in space, then GW plc are making the 40k game you want.So why are you posting here?

You don't understand Modern Warfare at all. Modern Warfare is launching cruise missiles from 1000 miles away then sending in stealth bombers to flatten anything the cruise missiles missed then sending in the armour for the photoshot because the public like to see tanks in the news reports and then sending in the infantry, not one of whom is armed with a sword, to wander around in the rubble "winning hearts and minds" by raping the locals and getting sniped at by terrorists. No demons, no swords, no magic and no superheros.

I'm sure bolt action is a fine game though I am not sure we can really call WW2 "modern warfare" anymore, (though even in WW2 melee was long obsolete, the submachine gun will win every time against a sword, powered by the sacred relics of Ultramar or not) but 40k is a collage of pastiches of every funky war related thing going including modern warfare memes but also huge dollops of fantasy tropes. To puff yourself up and loftily pronounce that ripping off bolt action is the right way to fix 40k is just vacuous grandstanding, because while 40k already has modern warfare elements it wants to be fantasy too with magic, knights in shining armour, demons and heroic melee. Ripping off bolt action will not give you that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
------------------

By now you are all probably expecting me to drop another chart.. and far be it for me to disappoint. So here is Method 2 with no random number generator at all..



Haha! after all that agonising over the poor range of probabilities that the d6 puts out, various fiendish torture techniques to stretch the d6 beyond its natural capabilities and even flirting with exotic lovelies like the sexy d10, all with the view to widening the "canyon of probabilities" as far as can be, I then go and throw up a chart with no random element at all, that canyon of probabilities snapped shut entirely. What am I trollling? Well maybe, well actually no. Ask yourself what is the best game ever, ever, ever created? Most people would probably say chess though myself I think wei chi, or "go" as the Koreans call it, is just a bit better than chess. Both chess and go have one thing that makes them go (pun intended), strict determinism no random element. Now what is the worst game ever created? For myself I would have to say Snakes and Ladders. Yes it is even worse than 40k or Age of Sigmar, much worse. Why is it the worst game ever created? Is it because of the simple rules? No the rules of chess and go are pretty simple and they are the best games ever, simplicity can't be it. The reason Snakes and Ladders is the worst game ever, is that playing only involves rolling dice, roll unlucky and you fall down a snake, roll lucky you climb a ladder, roll lucky enough often enough and you win. The player has no choices to make, no strategy to formulate, nothing to contribute at all except rolling dice.

Wargames are generally somewhere in between chess and snakes 'n' ladders in terms of determinism and randomness. There is a random element but there are also choices to make with somewhat deterministic consequences even if those choices can be upset by fickle dice. Also the more dice thrown the more the averages tend to win out over outlying probabilities. Throw down 1 die to win on a 4+ and you could get anything, but throw down 40 dice to see how many of your 40 spearmen successfully stabbed someone on a 4+ and you will tend to reliably get something pretty close to 20 stabs.

So this prompts me to wonder about a few things.. Could wargames be improved by reducing randomness? Could a wargame be created that had no random element at all? Would that game then have a chance to be considered in the same lofty realm as chess?

I have had a few ideas on how to do standard wargame stuff like to-hit and damage resolutions strictly deterministically and in playing around with it some really fun stuff pops out as options that otherwise would be unthinkable. An example is weapon range, normally weapon range is an either/or algorithm: if in range take a shot, if not do not. Sometimes there will be a roll modifier if the range is "short" or "long" but it is usually small like +1 or -1. This is all to fit with the dice. If you use a random number generator then every other factor has to be constrained by the dice properties in order to keep the random element relevant. If you ditch the dice entirely then the range itself becomes available as a modifier or factor in a much deeper way. So instead of if in range take a shot, or short range +1, the range itself becomes a variable for your computations. You can use 24" as -24 to hit, 23" as -23 to hit, 22" as -22 to hit. Combine it with target size, weapon accuracy, special actions, cover bonuses all without a single die roll and you get a deterministic system that borders on hard to predict yet powerfully driven by player choice rather than luck of the die.

So what do you all think? Is it too radical to make a wargame without any dice throws?

@SolarCross.
So let me get this straight.

You want to ignore all the evidence gathered by actual historians , that have actually studied the history of warfare ,and how and when the way it was conducted changed.

You want ignore the actions of some of the best professional game designers, when they are free from the influence of GW sales department.

You want to ignore how good rule sets are written by other companies, and why they are written differently to current GW 40k rules.

You want to cling to the idea that modern warfare is all about long range missiles,and 40k is fantasy in space because the models used look a bit like the fantasy counterparts.

And after refusing to acknowledge any of the facts presented to try to change your limited view point,by dismissing them as a rant.

You only appear to want to create 'special charts' , that you think will fix everything, because you are unwilling to acknowledge the real and serious flaws in the core rules of GWs 40k.

And any one who does not agree with you ''..will cry and pout.. ''..could really be that dumb,''

Your definition.
''Rants need to be rambling and self-important posturing totally opposed to making a meaningful contribution,''

Could you please explain what you mean by ..
''When I said 40k is fantasy in space I was referring to the fluff not the crunch. 40k is fantasy in space. ''

As this would be an indicator of how much you actually understand about game development and game design.

@UrbanKnight I like what you're trying to do here, even if I'm not sure I'll like the final result. I'm not a great fan of the idea that 'one resolution method' is a worthy goal. Having different resolution methods allow for different distributions of probability. Sometimes you want a bell curve. Sometimes you want a linear progression. That said, I find your writing very clear and easy to understand.

Your query around 2 activation phases per round causing an overpowering of the shooting option has been encountered before. I suggest you pop over to Warseer and have a good read through Lanrak's own thread there: http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?412143-Finding-and-fixing-40ks-core-faults
I think it was Commissar von Toussaint who often wrote in that thread about his two phase turn which is just like yours. Be warned, you need many cups of tea or coffee to get through all the wordy writers in that thread. If memory serves, the solution to your problem is to halve the number of shots per phase. e.g. a weapon which is currently 3rd-7th ed rapid fire would only get to shoot once per activation.

@Lanrak If I may try to answer for SolarCross on this one:
''When I said 40k is fantasy in space I was referring to the fluff not the crunch. 40k is fantasy in space. '' means that the stories told in 40k have more in common with fantasy tales of knights and dragons than they do with cruise missiles and assault rifles. We want 40k the game to reflect that type of story. There is nothing I'm aware of in modern warfare that even remotely resembles the many and varied assault units we have in the 40k universe. As a result, trying to model the 40k game on real life warfare over the last century would be a grave mistake.

@SolarCross "Is it too radical to make a wargame without any dice throws?" No, of course not. However, the unstated question is "Is it too radical to make a 40k game without any dice throws?" The answer to that one is a very solid YES. A big part of the charm of 40k (the game) is the simplistic pleasure you get from rolling a bucket-full of dice and seeing a lot of 6s turn up. This is the same reason that I disagree with you about Snakes and Ladders. You're over-intellectualizing the concept of a 'good game'. Put in its simplest form, a good game is one which the players enjoy. Snakes and Ladders is a good game, especially for small children, precisely because it evokes the hope and disappointment/hope and elation cycle of needing to roll a certain number and succeeding.
Related questions:
"Should everything in a wargame be random?" No
"Is 40k 7th ed too random, not enough random, or just right?" A bit too random.

As for switching to d10s? You clearly haven't seen as many people as I have struggle over spotting the difference between a d10 and a d8.
I am a DND player, I have many polyhedral dice. I do not like the idea of switching 40k to d10s. There are a number of reasons for this, some are subjective, others are objective. One of the objective reasons is speed. One of the benefits of d6s is you can get away with using pips instead of numerals because the numbers are low enough to do so. This means we can spot 10 cases of 4+ on 20d6 faster than we can spot 10 cases of 6+ on 20d10. 4 pips is 4 pips regardless of which orientation it lands in. A 6 looks an awful lot like a 9, even if they do have the _ underscore.
Sure for an individual roll, there is no appreciable difference, but for 5, 10, 20, sometimes even 40 or 50 dice in a single volley of shots in 40k? That time is going to add up.

Lots of interesting thoughts in this thread. I'm gonna skip most of it and say what I'd like from a new version of 40k.

SCALE
Generally, the same scale and size of game is preserved. I know people moan about it but we have a game with regular infantry, fliers and super-heavy walkers. We need to keep that. I'd also like to continue using d6.

TURN STRUCTURE
I very much like the idea of a 'Command Phase' where you set up any special abilities, cast psychic powers, bring in reserves. However, this shouldn't be a game in it's own right. Maybe in my turn I do my reserves, and that's it. Maybe I'll have psychic powers and reserves and Orders because I'm playing IG and that's their special thing. But maybe I don't do any of those things and we can skip it.

If you have too many stages before you move a model then it gets boring for me. I think MEdge suffers from this - before a model moves you generate command points, assign them to models, then do a bidding war for reinforcements etc etc etc. Too much stuff! Too complex!

I'd like the rest of the turn to be SUPER SIMPLE in terms of actions - Alternate Activation, or 'I go, you go', or you get to activate two units, then the opponent does, etc etc. Using individual unit Initiative is a bit too granular for a game with so many units. Frost grave does this really well, but probably wouldn't translate directly to a game like 40k. Anyway, I'd like it to be as simple as 'you can activate two units each', and then some slow units take up more activations or something.

CONSISTENT RULES
Can we have one method of playing and one set of stats for all models? Vehicles shouldn't have a whole different way of taking damage - they should just be extra-tough to extra-fast or something.

SIMPLE CONFLICT RESOLUTION
We need fewer steps to resolve any actions, like shooting or assault. However, we need to make the range of values much greater to accommodate all our weird units. However, I want to stick with d6. I think MEdge actually handles this really well. If your score is higher, its 3+, if your score is lower, it's 5+. If they're the same, it's 4+.

I could totally see a system where a shooting action is resolved in two rolls. Grab a number of d6 equal to the number of shots the weapon has. To hit, compare your 'Shooting' stat plus any modifiers to the enemy 'Not getting shot' stat plus modifiers. If you're double them, you hit on 2, higher you hit on 3, equal on 4 and so on. Then, the enemy rolls to resist. He compares his unit 'Toughness' stat (which includes armour) plus modifiers like cover, etc to your weapon's 'Strength' stat. EXACTLY the same dice rolls happen. Any that get through cause a wound.

The advantages of this are many. Both players participate in the action. Because it's based on higher/lower/double, the range of values can be HUGE. A regular human could be T10, but a Land Raider T50, and a lascannon S40. The range can be huge to represent the massive variety in 40k, but the rolls are still simple.

Special rules and exceptions are very easy to add as modifiers. Maybe Meltas have 'Anti-tank' which gives you a +10 bonus against vehicles. You can include range modifiers to the Shooting stat, or cover as a modifier to the Toughness stat.

Anyway, that's a rough idea but something with this combination of simplicity and range would be great.

Zustiur wrote:

@SolarCross "Is it too radical to make a wargame without any dice throws?" No, of course not. However, the unstated question is "Is it too radical to make a 40k game without any dice throws?" The answer to that one is a very solid YES. A big part of the charm of 40k (the game) is the simplistic pleasure you get from rolling a bucket-full of dice and seeing a lot of 6s turn up. This is the same reason that I disagree with you about Snakes and Ladders. You're over-intellectualizing the concept of a 'good game'. Put in its simplest form, a good game is one which the players enjoy. Snakes and Ladders is a good game, especially for small children, precisely because it evokes the hope and disappointment/hope and elation cycle of needing to roll a certain number and succeeding.
Related questions:
"Should everything in a wargame be random?" No
"Is 40k 7th ed too random, not enough random, or just right?" A bit too random.

As for switching to d10s? You clearly haven't seen as many people as I have struggle over spotting the difference between a d10 and a d8.
I am a DND player, I have many polyhedral dice. I do not like the idea of switching 40k to d10s. There are a number of reasons for this, some are subjective, others are objective. One of the objective reasons is speed. One of the benefits of d6s is you can get away with using pips instead of numerals because the numbers are low enough to do so. This means we can spot 10 cases of 4+ on 20d6 faster than we can spot 10 cases of 6+ on 20d10. 4 pips is 4 pips regardless of which orientation it lands in. A 6 looks an awful lot like a 9, even if they do have the _ underscore.
Sure for an individual roll, there is no appreciable difference, but for 5, 10, 20, sometimes even 40 or 50 dice in a single volley of shots in 40k? That time is going to add up.

Thank you very much Zustiur for your thoughtful response but with respect I don't quite agree on one or two things.

Of course you are right that a good game is a game that people enjoy, but when it comes to objectively gauging how much people enjoy a game the clearest signal comes from how long they continue to come back to it, wouldn't you say? How many people continue playing snakes and ladders after their first game? Small children in the right mood will give anything a fair shot, everything is new to them, but it only takes one game to learn that snakes and ladders is an exercise in futility. For the competitive, winning at snakes and ladders means nothing because really it is the dice that win not the player. For the problem solver, snakes and ladders is dull because there is nothing to solve, just roll and roll again. Only those that take a rather masocistic pleasure in being a helpless hostage to fortune could possibly sustain interest in a purely random game once the novelty wore off and that doesn't seem to be a great number of people. Your local town probably has a chess club or two, masses and masses of clubs for sporting games (which are invariably wholly deterministic) but I wonder if there is a even a single snakes 'n' ladders club anywhere in the world?

Anyway I think I shall make a entirely non-random wargame ruleset, because it seems to me the less random a game is the more interesting it is and because as far as I know such a thing does not exist yet for tabletop wargaming but should. Maybe most wargamers would prefer to have some random element but there are hundreds of wargame rulesets that have that already. Urbanknight would probably be well advised to stick to conventional formulas and keep the dice in his game though. It is a bit of a gamble to go against convention.

On the d10, yeah I can see that the 6 or 9 ambiguity could pose some significant difficulty with a lot of dice, but i can think of an easy fix. Just improve the distinctiveness of the 9s in contrast to the 6s by colouring in the number with a red, green or blue biro (depending on which would be a complementary colour the dice). So 6 is white and 9 red (on a green die).

Ok... admitting that I haven't read the whole thread, but wanted to throw some ideas out there.

First up, I also think 40k has become almost unplayable. The power divide is just too large between poorly built armies and competitively built army. Many, many games can be decided up front and the actual playing of the game feels like going through the motions. Because of this, I haven't been playing much 40k lately. Instead, I've been playing a little ultra casual Age of Sigmar as well as Star Wars: Armada, Star Wars: Imperial Assault and Warhammer 40k: Conquest. If you'll note, the last three games are produced by Fantasy Flight Games. It got me to thinking...

What would Warhammer 40k look like if Fantasy Flight Games rewrote the rules?

I've talked through this with my friends and have actually put together the better part of a rule set. I'll outline a couple of my thoughts here.

First, a couple of general points and then the game structure.

1. Each player builds an army and then picks three missions. Whoever has the lower number of points gets to decided who is the First Player. The Second Player get to pick one of the first player's missions.
2. Allies are allowed, but only one allied Faction and that Faction may not contain any HQ units.
3. The Independent Character rule simply goes away. Instead, ICs are buffed a bit to make them more survivable. Think along the lines of how Age of Sigmar handles heroes.
4. Each Unit has a Unit Deployment Card listing stats and abilities. Upgrades are represented by smaller Upgrade Cards. These cards would be exhausted (tapped) as abilities or special weapons are used. This would also allow for additional gear to be acquired in game by looting enemy units at the end of a combat or interacting with weapons caches/mission objectives.

Game Structure

SETUP PHASE
1. Mission is chosen.
2. Deployment Zones determined and Mission specific setup done. This includes terrain and objective markers. Both are placed alternatingly by the players.
3. First Player deploys a unit, then Second Player. Units are deployed in alternating fashion until both players pass. All remaining undeployed units are placed in the player's "Reinforcement Zone".

START OF TURN PHASE
1. Start of Turn Effects

ACTION PHASE
1. The First Player activates a unit. That unit may perform up to two actions, in any order. Units may not perform the same action twice. Available actions are ATTACK, MOVE, REST (takes up both actions and would be something like 'roll 1 die per damaged model in the unit and recover a wound on a 5+ result'), RUN and SPECIAL ACTION. Special Actions would be listed on Unit Deployment Cards or Upgrade Cards and would include things like Psychic Attacks/Effects or an IG HQ's ability to order other units to do things. Only one attack may be made per turn.
2. The Second Player activates a unit.
3. This continues in alternating fashion until all units have been activated.

END OF TURN PHASE
1. Remove Casualties... NOTE: Casualties aren't removed from play until this stage. That means a model that is "killed" still gets to take his action later in the turn. The idea is that all of these alternating actions are really taking place simultaneously from a fluff standpoint. This also allows a unit that took fire to rest instead of acting and recover some health. Casualties are placed in a "Casualty Zone".
2. End of Turn Effects
3. Reinforcements... Starting with the first player and alternating thereafter, each player either nominates a unit in his or her Reinforcement Zone and attempts to bring it in by rolling a 3+ or passes. This continues until both players pass. Units are deployed into a deployment zone as normal or deployed per special instructions on their Deployment Card (Deep Strike type thing, for example).

ATTACKS
Combat would be simplified a bit. Strength goes away with To Hit and To Wound rolls being rolled into one Attack Roll. Toughness goes away with tougher critters getting more wounds and rolling multiple defense dice. Melee Attacks would be something like...
1. Declare Target
2. Fire Assault Weapons
3. Determine Charge Move Distance (Unit's Move Stat, normally 6" + D6")
4. Move Models
5. Any models within 2" of an enemy combatant rolls attack dice
6. Defender rolls defense dice
7. Attacker assigns undefended damage.
Ranged attacks are basically the same without the move and allowing any weapons to be fired.

Example Upgrade Cards:

JET PACK THRUSTERS
Upgrade Type: Warear
[SPECIAL ACTION] RETREATING BLOW: The unit makes an attack and then immediately moves up to 2D6". If the unit has has already attacked this turn, it may not use this ability. If it uses this ability, it make not subsequently attack.

APOTHECARY TRAINING (20 points... or whatever?)
Upgrade Type: Special Training
[SPECIAL ACTION] BANDAGE: Roll D6 and remove that many damage counters from models in this unit.

LASCANNON (30 points... or whatever?)
Upgrade Type: Heavy Weapon
While making an attack, if the attacking unit has not moved this turn, the defending unit rolls 3 fewer defense dice.

IRON HALO (15 points... or whatever?)
Upgrade Type: Wargear
While defending, any number of defense dice may be rerolled.

SUMMARY...

This isn't fully fleshed out yet, but it's something I'm working on for me and my friends. Depending on the outcome, I'll probably post my freebie rules online. the idea is to end up with a 4-6 page "Learn to Play" book and a secondary "Rules Reference" book outlining the specific rule scenarios that might come up. MOST of the rules would just be on the mission cards, unit deployment cards and upgrade cards... like X-Wing or Armada.

HI folks.
As there has been lots of good ideas on game development and game design for the new rules, I would like to comment on a few of them .

But first it is most important to try to highlight the point I have failed to explain that well, or people seem to have misunderstood.

To quote John Stallard's excellent article from white dwarf a few years back.(I believe it was when he was the GW studio manager?)
''Warhammer and Warhammer 40k, are at their heart a war game like any other.The only difference is the carefully applied veneer of the fantastical over the top.''

War games only have 3 basic types of warfare to set the game play focus, and the type of 'game engine'.(Game mechanics and resolution methods.)

'Naval war', focus on mobility and ranged attacks.(X-Wing , Battle Fleet Gothic , Man O War, etc.)

'Ancient warfare', focus on mobility and close combat.(WHFB,KoW Ancients , Napoleonics etc.)

'Modern Warfare' , equal focus on mobility fire power and assault.(Epic Armageddon, Epic Space Marine, Drop Zone Commander, BtGoA, SST, Dirtside, Fast and dirty, and any rule set for land war set after WWI.)

When I say base the game play on modern warfare , it is because it is the best fit with the game play players expect 40k to have.(Based on the units organisation , weapons and equipment.)

The current rules for Ancient warfare game play,(WHFB) can not balance the increased amount of ranged weapons, with the assault focused rules.And Naval type warfare game play would relegate assault to a supporting role.

Anyhow..

@Zustiur.
If you can get the results you want off one resolution method ,( as well as using direct representation) , why add more resolution methods just to make the rules more complicated?

I do not have a problem with using more than one resolution method if it is needed though.

If you watch the intro from the very first Dawn Of War cinematic .(On You tube.)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REVRyOfS56Q
This is what I believe the game play of 40k should reflect.

Now looking at this , would you say it is closer to .'
Ancient /Napoleonic based warfare .(On You tube.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vlcuvrM1po
The current game play focus of the WHFB based game play and rules.
(Rick was heavily influenced by hi work on Napoleonic rules at WGRG when he wrote the rules for WHFB, apparently.)

Or modern based warfare.(On you tube.)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuaSi-H0oGY
The game play based on modern warfare, using new rules can allow shooting and assault to be equally important.(Like the rules for Epic! )

I totally agree with you that we should stick with D6 for the new 40k, rules.

@Arbitorian.
Scale.
I am happy to allow the current Apoc size games to be supported.
However, I would like to re wind back to 5th ed size to start with.So we can introduce the larger units into a well defined and balanced rules set, in a way that does not
overpower the other unit options in the game.

I agree with the rest of you basic outline over view.
(However, as previously stated, reducing damage resolution to just 2 rolls can cause problems as previously discussed.)

@Kriswall.
Increasing the range of missions is a great way of improving the game play options, from the top down.

Alternating unit activation is a more interactive game turn like alternating phases/actions.
However, I have found most rule sets that use it need additional scheduling mechanics,and/or reaction mechanics.

But alternating phases(or actions) and alternating unit activation can be can be swapped out easily if the rest of the rules are written with both game turn mechanics in mind.

You proposed Attack resolution seems a bit complicated though ,IMO.

The ideas for more standardized units with standardized upgrades seems interesting.(If that is what you are proposing. )

Lanrak wrote:
@Kriswall.
Increasing the range of missions is a great way of improving the game play options, from the top down.

Alternating unit activation is a more interactive game turn like alternating phases/actions.
However, I have found most rule sets that use it need additional scheduling mechanics,and/or reaction mechanics.

But alternating phases(or actions) and alternating unit activation can be can be swapped out easily if the rest of the rules are written with both game turn mechanics in mind.

You proposed Attack resolution seems a bit complicated though ,IMO.

The ideas for more standardized units with standardized upgrades seems interesting.(If that is what you are proposing. )

I'm hoping that by not removing casualties until end of turn, units will still be able to react when their activation comes up. It would also be very easy to implement interrupt abilities... "When this unit is nominated as the target of a ranged attack, interrupt to move up to 6 inches in any direction." Star Wars: Imperial Assault has tons of these and they work fine.

The Attack process is still pending. I know everyone loves rolling TONS of D6s, but I'm considering repurposing Armada, X-Wing dice and Imperial Assault dice. That would give individual models the chance to miss, hit for 1-2 damage, crit or get an "accuracy" which might do something special like prevent defense. Defense works the same way. Each defense die can prevent anywhere from 0-3 damage. It's a very intuitive system, but would be a solid step away from rolling tons of D6s. I haven't really fleshed this out fully yet.

In terms of standardized upgrades... close, but not exactly. In X-Wing and Armada, the Ship and Pilot cards have "upgrade slots". The various upgrade cards correspond to these slots. So, you could fill an "Officer" slot with any "Officer" upgrade cards of the applicable faction, with some being neutral. I'm envisioning something like this...

Tactical Squad (10 Marines)
1x Special Weapon Slot
1x Heavy Weapon Slot
3x Wargear Slots

Tactical Support Squad (5 Marines)
1x Special Weapon Slot
1x Wargear Slot

Assault Squad (5 Marines)
5x Melee Weapon Slots
1x Wargear Slot

Devastator Squad (5 Marines)
4x Heavy Weapon Slots
1x Wargear Slot

So, you could take a Dev Squad with 4 Lascannons and Marksmanship Awards OR 4 Missile Launchers and an Interceptor Node (making up names here). the Tactical Squad would be the most flexible as it would have the most generic Wargear Slots.

Still thinking about it. I think I'm going to try to mock up a couple of units this weekend to give people a better idea of what I'm thinking.

Lanrak wrote:

War games only have 3 basic types of warfare to set the game play focus, and the type of 'game engine'.(Game mechanics and resolution methods.)

'Naval war', focus on mobility and ranged attacks.(X-Wing , Battle Fleet Gothic , Man O War, etc.)

'Ancient warfare', focus on mobility and close combat.(WHFB,KoW Ancients , Napoleonics etc.)

'Modern Warfare' , equal focus on mobility fire power and assault.(Epic Armageddon, Epic Space Marine, Drop Zone Commander, BtGoA, SST, Dirtside, Fast and dirty, and any rule set for land war set after WWI.)

When I say base the game play on modern warfare , it is because it is the best fit with the game play players expect 40k to have.(Based on the units organisation , weapons and equipment.)

The current rules for Ancient warfare game play,(WHFB) can not balance the increased amount of ranged weapons, with the assault focused rules.And Naval type warfare game play would relegate assault to a supporting role.

Anyhow..

You are wrong and this is why: In ancient warfare ranged attacks and mobility were of equal importance to close combat and even then when ranged attacks were not so strong (bows) nor mobility (cavalry) so fast, armies focused on melee generally proved inferior to either mobile or ranged armies as can be seen in battles such as the Battle of Carnae where a Parthian Army composed of 9000 horse archers and 500 heavy lancers slaughtered to a man a much larger Roman Army composed of 45,000 heavy melee. Also we might mention the conquests of Ghengis Khan and his successors who conquered nearly the entirety of asia using armies composed entirely of horse archers and heavy cavalry with the horse archers being the larger proportion.

Real ancient warfare is an equal focus on ranged, melee and mobility.

WHFB carries an intrinsic nerf to ranged and an accidental nerf to mobility due to model vs tabletop size. Though even with that ranged focused or mobile focused armies can still beat melee armies without too much trouble.

We should also note that Fantasy Warfare has components that are never present in ancient warfare but is present in modern warfare. Dragons are armoured flying flame throwers, and thus tactically more akin to a helicopter gunship than anything you would find on a ancient battlefield. Magic spells have effects comparable to chemical weapons, combat drugs, or artillery barrages but comparable to nothing in real ancient warfare. Fantasy has to have rules to facilitate units "coming out of nowhere" as in demons or undead being summoned from other dimensions, again nothing in ancient warfare is comparable but there is in modern warfare ie paratroopers.

Real modern warfare does not feature melee at all. It is all ranged and mobility.

40k rules need to be a hybrid of ancient and modern because it wants to have both tanks and swords.

@SolarCross.
Perhaps a quote from a military historian might help explain why I name the different types of basic warfare the way I do.

''In ancient warfare , large blocks of troops are the the most efficient way of waging war.In modern warfare however large blocks of troops are a target rich environment.''

The massive improvement in the efficiency of ranged weapons during the First World War , was the watershed for ancient warfare tactics and strategies.

If the fastest thing on the battle field is a horse and the most effective weapon is a pointy stick , then it is ancient warfare. (Battle of Carnae is ancient warfare.)

I am not talking about the marketing narrative of the games.(Fantastical veneer/fluff/background.)But how the core game play is delivered by the core rules structure.

The reason GWs 40k 3ed to 7th ed has never been able to balance shooting and assault, is due to the imbalance cause by using WHFB rules.
In WHFB ranged attacks are only supposed to be used in a limited/supporting role.
Therefore when the number of units with ranged attack capability increase to nearly 100%, the game balance falls apart.

If you agree that 40k should have an equal focus on mobility, ranged attacks and close combat assault , then we agree.
I might use a different terminology to you, for this, but we want a similar outcome.

If this is the case ranged attacks need to have more tactical functions than just killing stuff.And assault has to have different tactical effects to shooting.
As this lets all units have multiple in game functions and can allow all units to have value and be worth taking.

@Kriswall.
I did not say your attack resolution would not work.But it looked more complicated than ones previously discussed in this thread.
If the action is supposed to be simultaneous, so casualties are not removed until all attacks are resolved(To simulate this).Then 'interrupts' are redundant , are they not?

It is possible to get those sorts of results from opposed rolling of normal D6s, without having to use special dice.But I am not sure the range of results would be wide enough ?
lots of games use special dice to make the games easier for younger gamers to pick up.
Which is fine if you are just using half a dozen dice.But the amount of dice needed for a game similar size to 40k makes it prohibitive.

I had a feeling the unit cards and upgrade cards was where you were going with this, but I was not sure.
I certainly think it is a more user friendly option when It comes to army building.I am looking forward to seeing your mock ups.

Lanrak wrote:
@SolarCross.
Perhaps a quote from a military historian might help explain why I name the different types of basic warfare the way I do.

''In ancient warfare , large blocks of troops are the the most efficient way of waging war.In modern warfare however large blocks of troops are a target rich environment.''

That is an oversimplification but broadly true.

Lanrak wrote:

The massive improvement in the efficiency of ranged weapons during the First World War , was the watershed for ancient warfare tactics and strategies.

No that happened earlier than WW1. The Napoleonic era was the turning point, if not even earlier (at least for europeans). In the Napoleolic era melee was only barely useful in a supporting role and then only in the form of sabre wielding cavalry slicing across the flanks of infantry blocks or going after artillery in the back field (which is arguably mobility as much as melee). Point of fact all infantry in the Napoleonic era were issued with firearms. Both the Scramble for Africa and the Crimea preceeded WW1, no european or middle eastern army fought in those with any melee troops. Okay so the Zulus didn't have guns but they got wrecked by British rifles. The Boer War also was guns vs guns.

Lanrak wrote:

If the fastest thing on the battle field is a horse and the most effective weapon is a pointy stick , then it is ancient warfare. (Battle of Carnae is ancient warfare.)

Yes but the Parthians won using ranged attacks and mobility, the melee army was brutally wrecked.

Lanrak wrote:

I am not talking about the marketing narrative of the games.(Fantastical veneer/fluff/background.)But how the core game play is delivered by the core rules structure.

The reason GWs 40k 3ed to 7th ed has never been able to balance shooting and assault, is due to the imbalance cause by using WHFB rules.
In WHFB ranged attacks are only supposed to be used in a limited/supporting role.
Therefore when the number of units with ranged attack capability increase to nearly 100%, the game balance falls apart.

Nice theory but it is bogus and shows a total ignorance of WHFB. Point of fact in WHFB the most dreaded composition to face is the "gunline" of massed archers or gunners backed by artillery. In WHFB crossbows and longbows have a range of 30" and apart from cavalry and flying units, a 5" move per turn is considered "fast". In 40k most small arms are only 24" (bolters, lasguns) and a 6" move for infantry is standard. Both in WHFB and 40k the writers have tried their best to keep melee relevant because melee is heroic or something. In both WHFB & 40k shooting is massively underpowered from a realism point of view but no ones plays 40k or WHFB for realism we play them for fun. If you want to make 40k more realistic then you will have to get rid of melee altogether. You seem very confused on that point. "Balancing" from a fun point of view means nerfing shooting and buffing melee but that means making 40k less like modern warfare not more like. "Balancing" 40k from a "realism" point of view means scrapping melee altogether and massively buffing shooting. Eldar players will have to throw away their Striking Scorpions and Howling Banshees, Marines will have to throw away their Assault Marines, Power Fists and Lightning Claws, Ork players will have to throw away half their army and Tyranid players will have to throw away almost EVERYTHING. Tau will do okay though, you play Tau don't you?

Moreover WHFB is NOT ancient warfare. Most factions have access to an airforce for eff sake, dwarfs even have helicopters. The Imperials have tanks and the high elves have a massive airforce capability, dragons, phoenix, giant eagles and even, get this, flying artillery in the form of the Lothern Skycutter. Name me one historical pre-Napoleonic Battle that featured an airforce and I will grudgingly admit you are not quite as slowed as you trying so hard to appear to be.

Lanrak wrote:

If you agree that 40k should have an equal focus on mobility, ranged attacks and close combat assault , then we agree.
I might use a different terminology to you, for this, but we want a similar outcome.

That means making 40k LESS like modern warfare and MORE like WHFB. Do you think anything through before you type?

Lanrak wrote:

If this is the case ranged attacks need to have more tactical functions than just killing stuff.And assault has to have different tactical effects to shooting.
As this lets all units have multiple in game functions and can allow all units to have value and be worth taking.

I am all for tactical options, and if you can plagarise some nice features from bolt action then fine, but never forget this:

WHFB is not "ancient warfare" it is SCIENCE FICTION in MEDIEVAL CLOTHING & 40K is not "modern warfare" it is FANTASY in SPACE SUITS!!!!!

If still in doubt consult the chart below....

@Solar Cross.
You appear to have' got lost in the narrative of the GW studio'.Which is hardly a surprise, because the core WHFB rules for 40k are such a bad fit for the 40k game play ,it has to be 'narrated' with over eighty special rules!

Game play elements are concerned with the basic interactions of the players , and how the units interact in the game.

The table you just posted highlights how you confused the 'story of the game', with the 'function of the game play'.

Anyhow moving on.

@All.
I think we all agree that a more interactive game turn would help the 40k game play.Here are the two most popular proposed changes.
And a third one which was developed by my group as a possible option.

We have a choice of;-
Alternating phases.

A moves,
B moves
A shoots
B shoots
A assaults.
B assaults.

Pros,
This keeps the phases that are familiar to current players , so it is very straight forward,and easy to learn and use.
It can model 'simultaneous action' if we leave the casualty removal until all attacks have been made in a particular phase.
it reduces the 'down time' for the opponent to a phase,rather than a game turn.

Cons.
The level of interaction is not quite as good as ,alternating unit activation.(And Alternating actions.)
The actions are taken in a set order.

Alternating unit activation.

Command Phase.(Issue orders.)

Action Phase.(Players alternate taking ALL actions with ONE unit at a time.)

Resolution Phase.(Tidy up .)

Pros
It allows units to perform actions in any order.
it has a higher level of interaction than Alternating phases.

Cons.
It is not as easy to learn and use as alternating phases.(Most games using this game turn , list 2 action order sets to mimic tactical options that are embedded in the alternating phase game turn.)
it usually requires additional controls to schedule the action.(Blind draw, random action generation,( by dice or card draw),or phase sequencing, etc.)
It still allows multiple actions to be taken by a unit unopposed.So some players may ask for reaction mechanics to be added .
The game has to have good internal and external balance to allow this type of game turn reach its maximum potential.

This very generalized view shows that alternating unit activation allows more freedom of unit actions,and better levels of player interaction , but comes at a cost of added complication when compared to Alternating phases.

We had a look at improving the level of interaction found in alternating phases , but keeping the level of complication lower than alternating unit activation.Result ing in ..

Alternating actions.

Command phase.(Issue 2 action order sets.)

Primary action phase(Players alternate taking the first action of the units order set.)

Secondary action phase .(Players alternate taking the second action of the units order set.)

Resolution phase.(Tidy up phase.)

Pros.
It allows a higher level of player interaction than alternating phases.
It allows equal amounts of freedom in the order actions are taken as alternating unit activation.
it only allows one action to be taken before the opposing player can respond.(Removing the need for reaction mechanics, as sequencing is embedded in the basic game turn mechanic.)
It is more forgiving in terms of unit balance than Alternating unit activation.

Cons.
It is more complicated than alternating phases.
It requires a single counter next to each unit to show its orders, actions taken.When the unit suffers morale damage (Suppressed or Routed,)the order counter is replace with a Suppressed or Routed counter


However, it is possible to re -write the core rules to suit alternating phases.As this is the simplest game turn, and familiar enough to get a good uptake for play testing.

And then swap out the game turn to alternating unit activation or alternating actions later on.(With very minor changes.)If we want to .
Maybe for the advanced rules perhaps?

Lanrak wrote:
@Solar Cross.
You appear to have' got lost in the narrative of the GW studio'.Which is hardly a surprise, because the core WHFB rules for 40k are such a bad fit for the 40k game play ,it has to be 'narrated' with over eighty special rules!

Game play elements are concerned with the basic interactions of the players , and how the units interact in the game.

The table you just posted highlights how you confused the 'story of the game', with the 'function of the game play'.

Anyhow moving on.

Sadly you are still wrong and this is why:

Special rules in any wargame are needed because simple numbers alone don't describe special functions well. A modern warfare game needs them too because you can't just give a paratrooper a simple numerical buff to his move allowance to simulate his extra initial mobility. So you need a special rule "Paratrooper" which describes how he can deploy which is so different from other unit types. The modern warfare game doesn't need as many special rules as a fantasy game like 40k because it does not have magic, xenos, monstrous creatures or superheroes. It has fewer gameplay elements that need to be described by special rules. If you want urbanknight's game to throw away magic, xenos and all the rest of the fantasy jazz and just have humans shooting at each other then you best come clean about it now.

There is a certain about of leeway between what you can describe with simple numbers alone and what you can use an algorithmic rule for instead. I think it is fair to say that there are some rules in 40k 7th that could have been done with simple numbers instead of algorithms. An example is the Fleet rule which allows units with the rule to re-roll run and charge moves, since this pretty much just results in a larger move this could have been implemented by a simple number buff to a unit's stat. Space Elves get that rule as standard for almost all their infantry units (not sure about wraithguard) but in WHFB, in contrast, fast Elves are represented by a higher move stat, a simple number, an average infantry move stat in WHFB is 4" but Elves get 5", also Elven horse have a move of 9" whereas human horse have 8". There is a special rule in there too as normally putting barding on a horse imposes a move penalty of 1" but elves get their barding without a move penalty. Right so could 40k be a bit more like WHFB and have fast elves represented with a better numerical move stat instead of an algorithmic rule that lets them reroll some moves? Yes, it could be. Should it be? Maybe, but as weird as it might sound GW did 40k with that rule instead of a stat buff like WHFB because they wanted to make the game less a game of number crunching and more a game of algorithms, like chess in fact only bigger and more complicated. They are thinking of their players who aren't good with numbers but who do get word based algorithmic instructions with memorable evocative handles like "fleet". I don't think that is a bad approach in itself because most games that are more algorithmic and less arithmetic are easier to learn to play for average joe.

The trouble is that the vision of 40k is so big, grandiose, so all encompassing, like Fantasy with a turbo charger, that a monstrous about of algorithms are needed to describe all that diversity, or indeed a monstrous amount of arithmetic, so that either way it strains against what average joes like yourself can handle.

Alright, so I haven't been on this thread for two days and already there are 10+ posts and three other people have joined us. Welcome, first, and stop fighting, second. I created this thread originally to simply modify unit values and balance out the various codexes so that exploits wouldn't be so common. I wanted to make the game balanced and fun, but to do that we can't just try to fix the game.

That's not gonna work. What we need to do is rebuild 40k from the ground up. I get that some people don't want to do that, and that's ok. I'm not here for universal appeal, I'm here to make a ruleset that makes sense and that I like.

To that intent, this thread's members are not anyone's group. This is kinda disorganized at this point, with everyone saying their piece and the discussion getting all over the place. If you guys want to join me and be in my group, go ahead and tell me and we'll work on this. I appreciate everyone's suggestions, but try not to go all over the place and instead let's do a concerned effort to do this in order. To that end, Lanrak, stop repeating yourself. Like Solar said, you're seriously copy pasting half your posts. This only adds to the bloat and length of posts and makes reading these threads more tedious.

Here's what's gonna happen. I'm going to impose a roadmap on this thread that my group will follow. My group is anyone that is interested in helping with this ruleset. Whatever we discuss, I'll decide the final outcome after we talk about it, and then it'll go on the actual ruleset. This ruleset will be a Word Document (like I said in the OP) and I'll distribute it via Dropbox so that everyone can keep track of what's going on and what decisions have been made. This way no one gets confused about what's in the actual rules.

There are a few things that we need to do before going into the fun stuff like managing point values for units and such. We need to establish what the resolution system will be, how the turn order will go, and unit stats. Unit stats will come after the first two, though. To reply to what Arbitorlan said, we do need a different system for vehicles than for infantry. It hardly makes any sense that a vehicle would have a Melee skill for melee capabilities. This isn't transformers, we need to handle vehicles differently than organisms.

With that said, you can indeed make suggestions of any kind, just keep in mind our timetable. We need to have these basic areas covered before we go on to more complex things like unit stats and prices. Don't derail the thread, don't argue with people. don't change existing rules unless you have a really good reason to, and definitely don't be a jerk.

I'll be reading the new posts and commenting on them as I get to them, so be patient. There is a lot I haven't read lol.

Hey, I'd love to put in my 2 cents on this page, I love game development and design and I think that 40k has a lot of great elements, ideas, and of course lore. Since you've talked about staying on topic and since so many previous posts are argumentative I'll kind of start from scratch. Are you looking for simultaneous turn order like LotR? So
I move- Opponent Moves
I Shoot- Opponent Shoots
Ect.

Or are we looking at keeping the same very base mechanics, of the Move, Shoot, Assault phases but re-working their principles and the profiles of units?

SplinteredShield wrote:
Hey, I'd love to put in my 2 cents on this page, I love game development and design and I think that 40k has a lot of great elements, ideas, and of course lore. Since you've talked about staying on topic and since so many previous posts are argumentative I'll kind of start from scratch. Are you looking for simultaneous turn order like LotR? So
I move- Opponent Moves
I Shoot- Opponent Shoots
Ect.

Or are we looking at keeping the same very base mechanics, of the Move, Shoot, Assault phases but re-working their principles and the profiles of units?

Here's where I'd like us to begin. Keep in mind that this isn't the ultimate concrete thing, it's just a starting point so you guys can see where I'm wanting to go.

First up. Turn order.[/u][/b][/color]

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 barn? 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!

All I haven't worked out is the resolution method for the game. Solar has some good ideas but they went over my head when they started getting complicated. And Zustiur is right, d6's are just more commonplace and simpler to use than d10's. It puts us in a bind where I'm not sure how to get a nice resolution system that incorporates our stats with random chance and also isn't too complex to learn since that would undermine the whole point of the rule change in the first place.