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.

Like Age Of Sigmar!

It's pretty preliminary at the moment, but here's a basic outline of my ideas. The idea is to make 40k really simple and easy to play. But points are still in use. That I can't stress enough!

Lots of things, like unit coherency etc are pretty much unchanged. This idea creates a single system for all models with regards to wounds and saves. But there is still a difference between infantry and vehicles. Infantry Move 6 inches a turn, and can run D6 inches a turn on top of that at the cost of shooting and launching an assault. If it shoots, it cannot assault unless its weapons have the assault special rule, or they have a rule saying that they can. In order words, they're pretty much unchanged.

When launching an assault, check to see if the enemy are within 12 inches. If they are, roll 2D6. If this result gets them into combat then all is well. Initiative is gone, and instead, whoever has the turn goes first. So launching an assault will give you the initiative. This will help and reward previously low initiative armies like Orks, Tau and Guard. If it doesn't, then they still make it into assault, but have made a disorganized charge which has penalties. So no more random chances with assaulting.

Vehicles (bikes are now included in this category) either move at combat speed (up to 6 inches, can fire all of its weapons and launch an assault in the same turn) or cruising speed (moves 7-18 inches, can fire one weapon, and cannot assault). Declare what speed you're moving at before moving. Walkers are simply wrapped up into this system, and Ordinance weapons can only be fired at Combat Speed. Snap Shots are gone. Things like cavalry, fliers etc can be covered by simple rules added to this system.

I've reduced the stats of all models to these six:

Type: What type of model it is. This will either be infantry or vehicle.
Ranged: What a model needs to roll on a D6 to score a hit with a ranged weapon.
Melee: What a model needs to roll on a D6 to score a hit with a melee weapon.
Wounds: How much damage a model can suffer before it is slain.
Leadership: How brave, disciplined and trained a model is.
Save: What a model needs to roll on a D6 to prevent it from suffering damage.

Then there will be a list of traits for the model, which are it's special rules. Like Key Words in AoS.

Here's a Space Marine to give you an example:

Type: Infantry
Ranged: 3+
Melee: 3+
Wounds: 1
Leadership: 8
Save: 3+

Traits: And They Shall Know No Fear, Armies Of The Imperium, Chapter Tactics, Combat Doctrines, Space Marine.

One of the challenges of trying to make a sigmarised version of 40k is the vast wealth of wargear carried by the units. In fantasy, all the models in the unit will be armed with the same weapon, with only the champion carrying a different option. But in 40k, units will be carrying a variety of guns, grenades, heavy weapons etc. So how do you take that into account? I think I have a way. Here's the stats for weapons:

Type: What type of weapon it is (ranged or melee) which governs what skill the model uses to score a hit.
Range: The range of the weapon in inches
Attacks: How many attacks the weapon makes.
Strength: What the weapon needs to roll on a D6 to score a wound.
Damage: How many wounds the weapon inflicts.
Penetration: How the weapon effects armor saves.

Straight forward enough right? The only issue is, I can't decide if it's best to use an AP versus Save system like what is currently in use, or an Age Of Sigmar type rending system. So, a boltgun is:

Type: Ranged
Range: 24
Attacks: 1
Strength: 3+
Damage: 1
Penetration: yet to be figured out.

So the space marine uses his ranged skill to attack with it (thus he hits on a 3+). The weapon has one attack with a range of 24. Penetration is still undecided. In addition to this, there will be a series of traits for the weapon, like rapid fire (double shots at half range) and small arms (reduce strength against certain targets, like vehicles).

For Cover, should we use a cover save system or simply increase the units armor save?

Another thing, blast and flame templates are gone. Instead, blast weapons simply multiply into D6 hits if the target unit is 6 models or more (bigger blasts can be covered by some special rules). And 'Wall Of Death' weapons have a set number of attacks and simply hit automatically. That I lifted from Battle For Vedros. So a Flamer is:

Type: Ranged
Range: 9"
Attacks: 3
Strength: 3+
Damage: 1
Penetration: Still Don't Know
Traits: Small Arms, Ignores Cover, Wall Of Death (auto hits)

For reserves, simply roll a D6 and add the Turn Number to this. If the result is 7+, the unit arrives. So units can arrive in turn 1 but it's unlikely. And here's my suggestion for a streamlined Deep Strike. Instead of random scatter and mishaps etc, just pick a point on the board 12" away from any enemy units and not in terrain. Then deploy the unit. Then, for each model in the unit, roll a D6. For each 1 you roll, a model from the unit is removed as a casualty. The survivors then carry on as normal from that point on. Certain skills etc can help with this. For example, if they're within 12" of a teleport homer deep strike terminator models automatically pass this test.

What do you guys think so far? I know this is a bit all over the place at the moment but is it viable?

I like the look of this. I think I saw you post about this in the complete overhaul thread and I'm glad to read a bit more about it. This is well worth exploring in my opinion. I have wondered what 40k would look like with an Age of Sigmar format.
My personal intuition with armour penetration is that you should go with the "rend" save modifier system like in AoS. I feel that it allows the defending unit's stats to have a bit more control over its survival. Which is probably necessary if you're doing away with the Strength vs Toughness system. I am almost wondering if would be viable to have models with 1+ saves if you do this. Making them invulnerable to weapons with a penetration value of 0.

I think an equivalence like somewhat like this would be a good place to start:

AP Pen (new stat, whatever you to call it)
1/2 -3
3 -2
4 -1

I'm not sure that giving AP 5 & 6 a Pen. value would be a great idea. It might be too powerful.

Have you looked at 1p40k?

https://onepagerules.wordpress.com

toss out vehicle rules altogether. Replace with MC.

@ Marksman224

Thank you!

I think you're right. The AoS rend system is probably the best way to go. But if we do go down this route I'd want it to be scaled back a bit, so that people get armor saves more often. Only a few weapons will cut straight through armor rather than all of them.

That is a great idea too, about the 1+ armor save! Just make a clause saying that a model with a 1+ save just auto passes it, so no need to roll. I'm trying to make it so that Terminators cannot be harmed by thing like lasguns, flamers etc.

@ pinkmarine

Thanks for pointing this out to me! I'll check it out pronto!

@ Greif

Yes, that's what I want to do for simplicity.

I also had this crazy idea. Let me explain:

A unit can either shoot/run or assault in a turn, not both. Not unless they have a rule saying that they can. But if a weapon has the assault rule, then it can be used in melee as well as shooting. The idea is to create the sense that combat in 40k isn't just hand to hand fighting but close range gun fights as well. Lets take a Tactical Marine for example:

They have a Boltgun, Bolt Pistol, Combat Knife, Frag Grenades and Krak Grenades. And they're within 12" of a target. They can either stand and rapid fire their boltguns, or stand and shoot their pistols (for some reason). Or they can launch an assault and fight with their pistols and knifes. The pistol would be:

Range: 12"
Attacks: 1
Strength: 3+
Penetration: -2

And the Combat Knife would be:

Range: 1"
Attacks: 1
Strength: 3+
Penetration: -

So each Marine gets 2 attacks each, one similar to what they do now and the other slightly better. But the Sergeant will be packing a Chainsword instead of a Combat Knife:

Range: 1"
Attacks: 2
Strength: 3+
Penetration: -1

So the Sergeant gets 3 attacks, one pistol shot and two chainsword strikes. But as the Sergeant he can make an extra attack with his melee weapon. So he actually gets three chainsword strikes and 1 pistol shot.

What do you guys think of this idea?

Grief wrote:
toss out vehicle rules altogether. Replace with MC.

Ha! Like "Bolt Action".
I am looking at their rules and figure many stats can be easily swapped.

I'll try not to get bogged down in weapon stats at the moment, and focus on the actual rules themselves.

OK, some basic suggestions:

Cover: A unit in cover adds +1 to their armor save. As simple as that. Units behind an Aegis Defense Line add +2 to their armor save. So Space Marines behind one will get a 1+ armor save and thus require serious work to dislodge. An attack with the Ignores Cover trait prevents a model from receiving any bonuses to their armor save for being in cover.

Grenades:
Simplified to 3 types: Assault, Defensive and Anti Tank.

Assault Grenades have the following stats:

Type: Melee
Range: 6"
Attacks: 1
Strength: 4+
Damage: 1
Penetration: -

Traits: Blast, Assault Grenade (only one model in 5 in the unit can use them), Small Arms.

And that's it. So frag grenades, stikk bombs etc are all nicely covered by one rule. Other grenades can be covered by special rules added to this basic template. For example: models with the Plasma Grenades special rule (Eldar Units basically) increase the strength of their assault grenade attacks to 3+ and their Penetration is -2.

Defensive grenades inflict damage on units that assault their users. Basically, when a unit launches an assault against a unit with these, roll a D6 for each model. On the roll of a 1 they suffer a wound. Armor Saves can be taken as normal.

Anti tank grenades are troubling me though. And I feel like even these are too complicated. Any suggestions?

@Future War Cultist
I'm glad you liked my idea about 1+ armour saves. I also like you idea for cover granting a bonus to saving throws. In this game I think that's better than a penalty to rolls to hit. Would you give a +2 bonus to all fortifications, or just the Aegis Defense line.

I wrote out a table yesterday that converts strength values to to-wound and rend values in this system. Just another example to start from
Strength--To Wound--Rend
1---6+---0
2---5+---0
3---4+---0
4---4+---1
5---4+---1
6---3+---2
7---3+---3
8---2+---3
9---2+---4
10-1+--- 4

God I wish I could write tables in this forum.

I'm still fuzzy on which rend values to assign to which AP values.

The strength of the weapon in the current system is given the to-wound and rend characteristics listed next to it. If a weapon has gets a higher rend characteristic when converting from it's AP value then that would be used. I have tried to overlap the new stats so that every increase in strength carries its benefit over in either an improved to-wound, ro an improved rend value.. It still needs work, it's probably a bit generous at the high end,
I know you proposed the idea of bolt guns and the like being 3+ to wound but I worry that that would be too powerful in a system that needs to accommodate strengths 1-10. I think everything needs to scale into this new system which is what I wanted to achieve with the table above.

There's another thread looking towards Sigmarising 40k as well, so I've been thinking about this.

I wonder if an even simpler system might work; i.e- instead of each model having unique attacks, you roll the same ranged/melee attack profile for the squad, but multiplied by the number of models in range, then apply bonuses based on unique equipment in the unit. So for example, anti-tank options would give you a bonus against (surprise, surprise) tanks, such as 6's always Wound or something, rather than resolving this weapon separately at all? Either that, or each unit type could have a profile against specific target types, such as infantry, heavy infantry and large targets, and equipment will modify one or more of these?

This could cut down on the complexity of resolving unique profiles for every model.

Marksman224 wrote:@Future War Cultist
I'm glad you liked my idea about 1+ armour saves. I also like you idea for cover granting a bonus to saving throws. In this game I think that's better than a penalty to rolls to hit. Would you give a +2 bonus to all fortifications, or just the Aegis Defense line.

Thank you! It is far simpler isn't it? And yes, all fortifications give you a +2 bonus. I always forget about the others.

Marksman224 wrote:
I'm still fuzzy on which rend values to assign to which AP values.

Your chart is a start. I was thinking of something like:

AP:-/AP:6 is 0. AP:5 is -1. AP:4 is -2. AP:3 is -3 AP:2 is -4. And AP:1 is -5. With this system, armor saves will be more available. Which is how it should be!

Marksman224 wrote:
I know you proposed the idea of bolt guns and the like being 3+ to wound but I worry that that would be too powerful in a system that needs to accommodate strengths 1-10. I think everything needs to scale into this new system which is what I wanted to achieve with the table above.

I had a long think about it, and I think I have a solution, taking inspiration from Flames Of War. Here's a model's entry:

Ranged: What a model needs to roll on a D6 to score a hit with a ranged weapon. I might rename this ballistic.
Melee: What a model needs to roll on a D6 to score a hit with a melee weapon.
Toughness: What an enemy model needs to roll on a D6 to score a wound with any weapon against this model.
Wounds: How many wounds a model can suffer before it is slain.
Save: What a model needs to roll on a D6 to prevent a wound.
Leadership. What a model needs to roll under with 2D6 to pass Leadership tests.

Weapons now have this entry:

Type: ranged or melee
Range: the weapons range
Attacks: how many attacks it makes
Damage: how many wounds the weapon inflicts
Penetration: otherwise known as rending
Traits: its traits and abilities

Lets use a Guardsman for an example:

Ranged: 4+
Melee: 4+
Toughness: 4+
Wounds: 1
Save: 5+
Leadership: 7

And their Lasgun:

Type: Ranged
Range: 24"
Attacks: 1
Damage: 1
Penetration: -
Traits: Anti-Personal, Rapid Fire.

Pretty simple right? Weapons can then have rules to reflect what they can do. Boltguns and Pistols for example can have the 'explosive bolt' trait or something similar, giving them +1 to their To Wound results against Infantry. So they wound a Guardsman on a 3+, or an Ork on a 4+. Vehicles can be resistant or even immune to 'anti-personal' weapons.

@ Haravikk.

I want the system to be as simple as possible whilst at the same time reflecting the wide variety of equipment 40k has. Do you have a link to this thread?

 Future War Cultist wrote:

Toughness: What an enemy model needs to roll on a D6 to score a wound with any weapon against this model.

PERFECT!!
I have also thought that toughness could work like that, just like the target's skill in Flames of War. I think a few of us 40k players are looking at that game for ideas, it's very well designed. So sorry if this sounds like I am taking credit and claiming that I thought of it first This is a great way to keep toughness in the game and make low-mid armour MCs still make sense.

The use of both toughness/strength and Sv/AP is what makes 40k interesting for me. That units have two different ways of being tough and weapons have two different ways of being powerful, which makes the power leveling two-dimensional. It's just a shame that Games Workshop have no bloody idea how to control it and we end up with cheap, lazy ideas like Grav. Wepaons to fix a mess that didn't need to happen. I know they exist in the lore but the rule just seems dumb. Surely Toughness is more of an indicator of a model's mass. /rant over

Two questions: 1. with AP 5 converting to -1 rend, might that be enough of an advantage for bolt weapons, without an explosive bolt rule? 2. Should AP 1 & 2 convert to different rend values when in the current system they have the same effect on infantry/MC armour? We can probably only answer that 2nd question once we get to vehicles.

Marksman224 wrote:
PERFECT!!
I have also thought that toughness could work like that, just like the target's skill in Flames of War. I think a few of us 40k players are looking at that game for ideas, it's very well designed. So sorry if this sounds like I am taking credit and claiming that I thought of it first This is a great way to keep toughness in the game and make low-mid armour MCs still make sense.

The use of both toughness/strength and Sv/AP is what makes 40k interesting for me. That units have two different ways of being tough and weapons have two different ways of being powerful, which makes the power leveling two-dimensional. It's just a shame that Games Workshop have no bloody idea how to control it and we end up with cheap, lazy ideas like Grav. Wepaons to fix a mess that didn't need to happen. I know they exist in the lore but the rule just seems dumb. Surely Toughness is more of an indicator of a model's mass. /rant over

I'm glad you like it! FoW is a very well designed game (that I'm considering getting into) so it's only natural that you can gain inspiration from it. I was originally going to try a system that had no toughness values at all and instead went straight to saves, which were improved over what they are now (2+ Marines, 4+ Guardsmen etc) but after running the numbers it just didn't work. It's best to keep Toughness in the game.

As for Grav Weapons...great concept, poorly executed. Here's my suggestion. Go 'Bizzaro' and make them work the opposite way around! OK, lets say that you have a Guardsman. They're Toughness 3+ and have a 5+ save (more on this change later). With a normal weapon, you Wound them on a D6 roll of 3, 4, 5 or 6, and they Save that wound on a D6 roll of 5 or 6 (minus the weapons Rending, if it has any). With a Grav weapon, they're wounded on a 1 or 2, and they save that wound on a 1, 2, 3 or 4! It's the opposite way around!

Now look at a Space Marine. Toughness 4+ and Save 3+. When hit by a Grav Weapon they're wounded on a 1, 2 or 3. So the same odds as with a normal weapon. But now, they only save the wound on a 1 or a 2. A 3, 4, 5 or 6 is a failed save.

And they inflict double wounds on a model with the Bulky, Very Bulky, Extremely Bulky or Vehicle rules.

So the bigger, tougher and more heavily armored the target the easier they are to hurt, whilst smaller weaker targets are harder to hurt. This only works if Grav Weapons have no Rend value though. Here's a suggestion for a new Grav Gun statline as an example:

Type: Firearm Range: 18" Attacks: 2 Damage:1 Rend: - Rules: Rapid Fire, Concussion, Graviton

Rapid Fire: The weapon can fire an additional shot at half of its Range.

Concussion: I'm not sure how to work this into the game at the moment.

Gravition: All that stuff I said.

I would need help writing this rule so that's it's clear to understand. I mean it is easy to understand but it's tricky to explain.

Marksman224 wrote:
Two questions: 1. with AP 5 converting to -1 rend, might that be enough of an advantage for bolt weapons, without an explosive bolt rule? 2. Should AP 1 & 2 convert to different rend values when in the current system they have the same effect on infantry/MC armour? We can probably only answer that 2nd question once we get to vehicles.

I think that certain weapons will deserve a better rend to represent them. So for Boltguns, how about Rend -2? And as for that Explosive Bolt rule, now that I think about it, a better idea might be to create a rule called 'small arms', which subtracts 1 from the weapons To Wound roll, and is used to represent all those strength 3 weapons. Because most basic weapons in 40k are strength 4 after all. So let's compare a Guardsman with a lasgun to a Marine with a boltgun:

Guardsman:
Firearms: 4+
Melee: 4+
Toughness: 3+
Save: 5+
Wounds: 1
Leadership: 7

Lasgun:
Type: Firearms
Range: 24"
Attacks: 1
Penetration: -
Damage: 1
Rules: Anti-Personal, Rapid Fire, Small Arms

Space Marine:
Firearms: 3+
Melee: 3+
Toughness: 4+
Save: 3+
Wounds: 1
Leadership: 8

Boltgun:
Type: Firearms
Range: 24"
Attacks: 1
Penetration: -2
Damage: 1
Rules: Anti-Personal, Rapid Fire.

Anti-Personal: Weapons with this rule will have reduced effectiveness against vehicles and monsters.
Small Arms: Weapons with this rule subtract 1 from their To Wound rolls.

I think this adequately reflects what they can do in the current system right?

Vehicles are tricky. Here's a Leman Russ as an example:

Firearms: 4+
Melee: 4+
Toughness: 6+
Save: 3+
Wounds: 12
Leadership: 8

Rules:

Heavily Armored: A Leman Russ cannot be harmed by attacks with the Anti-Personal rule. Any hits scored by weapons with this rule will automatically fail to wound.

Lumbering Behemoth: A Leman Russ can only Move at Combat Speed (i.e, 6 inches a turn, fire all weapons, can assault afterwards). In addition, after a Leman Russ completes a charge move, you may select an enemy Infantry unit within 1"; that suffers D3 mortal wounds.

Wargear:

Battlecannon:
Type: Firearms
Range: 72"
Attacks: 1
Penetration: -4
Damage: 4
Rules: Artillery (always wounds infantry and light vehicles on a 2+, cannot be fired when moving at Cruising Speed), Massive Blast (roll 2D6 and pick highest result when generating blast hits).

Bare in mind that a Leman Russ can now fire this gun in addition to all of it's other guns

Crushing Tracks:
Type: Melee
Range: 1"
Attacks: D6
Penetration: -4
Damage: 2
Rules:

I know that I said that I didn't want to get bogged down in stats but it does help me figure out the mechanics of the system.

OK, this is proving to be a very interesting project to think about. I know that the boltgun works perfectly well in you example when it is used against a guardsman. Hitting on 3+ wounding 3+ and denying the guardsman an armour save just as it does now. However it will also wound a another marine on 3+ and reduce his armour save to 5+. That would more than double the effectiveness of botlguns against Space Marines, it's a huuuuge buff. If we make power armour a 2+ then we still have boltguns knocking that down to 4+.
I think you still might be able to make it work, but you need to look more at models with all varieties of toughness and armour saves. It's probably not a good idea to add special rules in to fix this problem, given that this is basic shooting and there are 100 combinations of strength and toughness values to work into this.
Like I said, this is an interesting project, but I do worry that there is a slippery slope of adding rules to make this fit which would result in the original system being easier to use. Still I don't think any part of this is a waste of time. Even if this doesn't work we will have learnt something about this game and the merits or necessity of the mechanics, if there are any.

Toughness worked like that in BFG and GW's Epic-scaled games too

Marksman224 wrote:
OK, this is proving to be a very interesting project to think about. I know that the boltgun works perfectly well in you example when it is used against a guardsman. Hitting on 3+ wounding 3+ and denying the guardsman an armour save just as it does now. However it will also wound a another marine on 3+ and reduce his armour save to 5+. That would more than double the effectiveness of botlguns against Space Marines, it's a huuuuge buff. If we make power armour a 2+ then we still have boltguns knocking that down to 4+.
I think you still might be able to make it work, but you need to look more at models with all varieties of toughness and armour saves. It's probably not a good idea to add special rules in to fix this problem, given that this is basic shooting and there are 100 combinations of strength and toughness values to work into this.
Like I said, this is an interesting project, but I do worry that there is a slippery slope of adding rules to make this fit which would result in the original system being easier to use. Still I don't think any part of this is a waste of time. Even if this doesn't work we will have learnt something about this game and the merits or necessity of the mechanics, if there are any.

And as an aspiring games designer that is good enough for me!

The issue with rendering is tricky though. And you're right. We can't start bolting on huge amounts of rules on top of them at this most basic stage. Especially since this is supposed to be the 'streamlined' version of the game! It can be done though, I'm sure of it. They did for Fantasy and I'm sure that we can do it for 40k.

Nothing is going to be perfect fit, so what one needs for this is values of best fit. So a Boltgun: Wnd 4+ Pen -1, is what I think will minimize the buffs and nerfs at either end.
You don't have to go through each profile and manipulate them one-by-one, which could end up being messy any way. What I think should be easy about this, as I have said before, is that you can have a few rules and just apply them to every attribute to convert them.
Other examples: Boost saving throws by 1 for toughness x+, boost by 2 for toughness y+.
That's if you're not rolling against toughness values to wound targets like you proposed. The question is do we roll to wound against the weapon stat, that target stat or have a rule that changes it in different circumstances?

Marksman224 wrote:

That's if you're not rolling against toughness values to wound targets like you proposed. The question is do we roll to wound against the weapon stat, that target stat or have a rule that changes it in different circumstances?

I'm wracking my brain trying to figure this out. That last question though; I was experimenting with a system of two different values for wounding against infantry (anti-personnel) and bigger targets (anti-tank) but it's not really working. Here it is anyway:

Range: Attacks: Anti-Personnel: Anti-Tank: Rending: Damage

It just overly complicates things though.

Something has to be done though, because we can't have lasguns having even the slimmest chance of damaging a Land Raider.

Did I discuss some ideas for the mechanics of the game? l was thinking for Reserves, simply roll a D6 and add the turn number to this result, and if it is 7+ they arrive. So reserves can arrive on Turn 1, albeit unlikely.

For deepstriking, I won't have a rule in the book (save space) but in a units warscroll (we need a 40K name for those ) units with deepstrike abilities will have it marked down there (teleporting for Terminators, Grav Chute Insertion for Militarum Scions etc). And they'll basically work like this:

Deploy the unit x amount of inches away from other units and terrain. Then roll a D6 for each model in the unit. On the roll of a 1 they're removed as a casualty (shot down, chute fails, get lost etc). The survivors then act as normal, with this counting as their Movement for the turn. To try and bring assault back, should we make them able to assault on the turn they arrive by deepstrike.

And elephant in the room...Overwatch. I think that units being assaulted should be able to shoot first, especially if assaulting from deep strike is possible. But I'm worried about the balance. What do you think?

Yes you did mention some of ideas for other mechanics. I like the one for reserves. It is stated very simply and has the feature of the odds improving as time goes on but it isn't difficult to describe or remember.
For deep-striking then I take it that the units don't scatter anymore, and the hazard is all in the the chance that models might might be lost? This is an interesting way to do it. I'm going to think about this. It certainly appears to make deep-striking more dangerous, perhaps that's good. Scattering always felt quite fiddly in my opinion anyway. I'm going to think on this one.

On the subject of scattering I have thought of a new rule for blast weapons that might fit your system quite well. It does rely on the current convention of ballistic skill.
Here' is how it works. For the blast weapon roll one dice to hit using the firing models ballistic skill. If successful the weapon scores a number of hits equal to firing models ballistic skill. Roll to wound normally for those hits. Large blast weapons score an extra 3 hits if the roll to hit is successful. The weapon cause more hits than there are models in the unit. If the BS (or BS+3) is higher then only one hit per model is scored. So like the current system both the chance to hit the target unit, and the expected number of hits are proportional to the firing models ballistic skill. I'm just applying them more directly. I am trying to think of a way that the weapon still scores one hit if it fails in a certain way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
How about for deep strike you roll a D6 for each model and each result of 1 causes a an instant death wound but they can take an armour save?

Marksman224 wrote:Yes you did mention some of ideas for other mechanics. I like the one for reserves. It is stated very simply and has the feature of the odds improving as time goes on but it isn't difficult to describe or remember.
For deep-striking then I take it that the units don't scatter anymore, and the hazard is all in the the chance that models might might be lost? This is an interesting way to do it. I'm going to think about this. It certainly appears to make deep-striking more dangerous, perhaps that's good. Scattering always felt quite fiddly in my opinion anyway. I'm going to think on this one.

Whoops, so I did! Glad you like the idea for Reserves. As for deep striking, yeah I thought that the scattering was always fiddly. I'm trying to do anyway with templates altogether. Also, there's no mechanic to show some of the unit dying but the rest arriving OK. It's all or nothing. Also, some units can arrive without the risk (flyers for example). And of course there can still be equipment to help out. For example, models with the teleport keyword can reroll the dice when within 18" of a friendly model with a teleport homer.

Marksman224 wrote:On the subject of scattering I have thought of a new rule for blast weapons that might fit your system quite well. It does rely on the current convention of ballistic skill.
Here' is how it works. For the blast weapon roll one dice to hit using the firing models ballistic skill. If successful the weapon scores a number of hits equal to firing models ballistic skill. Roll to wound normally for those hits. Large blast weapons score an extra 3 hits if the roll to hit is successful. The weapon cause more hits than there are models in the unit. If the BS (or BS+3) is higher then only one hit per model is scored. So like the current system both the chance to hit the target unit, and the expected number of hits are proportional to the firing models ballistic skill. I'm just applying them more directly. I am trying to think of a way that the weapon still scores one hit if it fails in a certain way.

It's good, but if the number of hits is equal to the model's BS it takes a little bit of the randomness out of the weapons. And I feel like Blast weapons should always be a little random, My idea was, if the target unit is 6+ models then blast weapons simply multiply each hit into D6 hits. And if the unit is 12+ models they can add +1 to their To Hit rolls. Either way, BS (or it's equivalent) will definitely need to play a bigger part with blast weapons.

Marksman224 wrote:How about for deep strike you roll a D6 for each model and each result of 1 causes a an instant death wound but they can take an armour save?

Not bad. A little safer than my idea.

Also, I want morale and fear to play a bigger part in the game whilst at the same time giving the player more control over what happens to their troops. And to readdress the balance between shooting and assault.

Don't you hate it when you spend time setting up a unit only for it to fail it's first morale test and run off the board after only 1 turn? Time to knock that on the head.

My idea is, a unit takes a Morale Test at the end of the shooting or combat phase if it suffers unsaved wounds, regardless of how many wounds it suffered. If this test is failed in the shooting phase, it is now Pinned, which is an involuntary Gone To ground. Can't move, run, assault (can maybe still shoot in some capacity?) but gains a bonus for hitting the deck. Even if it didn't actually suffer any wounds, because being shot at is scary. Then at the start of its turn a pinned unit can do two things:

Try to Regroup: Take another Leadership test. If passed, unit is no longer Pinned and can act as normal, but cannot assault. If the test is failed, the unit is still Pinned.

Fallback: The unit moves 2D6 (in any direction), so long as it ends up 3" away from all enemy models. Afterwards, it counts as having regrouped. A unit that makes a Fallback move cannot move any further that turn, and it cannot shoot, run or assault in the same turn.

If a unit is only 25% of its starting number of models and fails a Morale Test, it is immediately removed from play. But some units will have ways around this. Space Marines for example simply ignore this and just become pinned (and they shall know no fear). If an IG infantry unit fails a morale test within 3" of a Commissar, it suffers D3 mortal wounds and then retakes the test. Just some examples. Some models don't need to take Pinning tests.

I proposed the addition of armour saves to deep-strike casualties because I had this image in my head of a Riptide Battlesuit rolling a 1 for a deep-strike and having all 200 points of it die immediately. Which I would find hilarious even if it was my Riptide Now that I think of it, deep-striking feels like it should have some variability in where things land, aside from the mortal danger to the participants. Scattering for deep-striking is a bit easier than it is for blast weapons I think, because you have one model for a reference point then you move it. It's the scattering of blast templates that bothers me.

Morale definitely needs to be more of a feature in this game. I think in this scale which is more tactical than strategic, a unit that breaks or panics, would just run at full speed and be out of the game area within two turns, they wouldn't have time to stop and think. If a unit chooses to move away from the enemy then you have a tactical retreat, but if their moral is broken I think anything without a special rules should just leave the battle immediately. So in my opinion you have suppression of some sort, but if a unit fails an actual morale check it just rout, and be removed from the board. With esception for certain model with special rules or characters.

The key is in picking the right thresholds and triggers for suppression and morale checks. I liked 5th edition rules where units under half strength couldn't regroup if they were retreating. Now it's only under 25% but you still have to keep rolling to see if you get snake eyes, YAY!! Driving off squads of soldiers off without having to kill them to the last man should almost be the primary effect of shooting at infantry. Just as it in real life where soldiers try to stay alive, rather than stand there and die or just dash back 20 metres and immediately try again.

Sorry for the late reply, and the change of subject, but I've been wracking my brains trying to figure out a way to create a simple system that prevents really tough units (Land Raiders for example) from being hurt by small weapons (lasguns, frag grenades etc). In AoS it's possible for a dragon to be hurt by a crossbow, and for me that's OK. That works in a fantasy setting. But in a sci fi setting it just seems wrong.

And it just hit me...just use the current vehicle AV system for all models!

Example: A Space Marine is now Armor (? on the name) 8. Attack still have a strength value. A boltgun is Strength 4. So roll a D6 and add the strength of the weapon. If it equals or beats the armor value the target is wounded. If the weapon's strength is high enough, it might be possible to auto wound the target.

You raise good points about morale. But I think that we have to figure out how damage is inflicted first before we can resolve morale.

As for the Deep striking thing, what if the model had some sort of skill/save for such occasions? Like, you roll a D6 for each model, and on the roll of a 1 the model has suffered a mishap. If they then don't pass their save, they die?

I am still trying to put my finger on why, but I really like the fact that vehicles have a separate system to soldiers and monstrous creatures. That's a criticism that I have against other proposed rule-sets which have vehicles use the same system as everything else. Still I would like to talk more about your idea. How are you going to have toughness work into it? You can't really just combine everything into Armour I think. There are some high toughness monsters out there that I think should be brought down with high strength weapons that don't necessarily need good AP. Vice versa for Space Marines, and even more so for some Eldar Aspect Warriors.

If you combine the stats then would you perhaps make it work like the Dark Heresy RPG? That could work.

Roll a D6, add Strength; if the the total is greater than the target's Toughness plus Armour a wound is inflicted. Pen. is subtracted from the armour value of the target before the dice are rolled, to a minimum of 1.
Example: a boltgun against a guardsman; S3 P2 vs T5 Ar2 => a wound is scored on 3+.
So to convert to this system use: (S-1 & T+2) or (S-2 & T+1)

Botlgun vs Space Marine: S3 P2 vs T6 Ar4 = 3 vs 8 =>; 6+

Boltgun vs Fire Warrior: S3 P2 vs T5 Ar3 = 3 vs 6 => 4+
This is looking kind of OK here.
Lasgun vs Fire Warrior: S2 P0 vs T5 Ar3 = 2 vs 8 => 7+
Not looking so good with this one.

Sorry I am just running with this version and wanting to see how it comes out. The trick I think is to keep toughness and armour effective independent of each other. Not let high strength negate armour nor high Pen negate high toughness. This system has sort have been proven in the world of 40k through Dark Heresy, but it was designed on a D10 basis and as you can see it has problems with low strength items like lasguns.
This raises an interesting phenomenon I have noticed before but not so clearly. If you want to have both Strength/Toughness and Armour/AP be balanced and not override one another then you either need bigger dice or you need to use separate D6 rolls.

Sorry about the tangent but I found this little experiment quite interesting. I don't like being too negative either.

No need to apologize Marksman224! If we're serious about this we need to explore all options and figure out what works and what doesn't.

Your system is interesting. I also came up with a simple system to help work out a single armor value in a D6 system. Take the models current armor save number and subtract that from 7. Then add this number to the models current Toughness value. So a guardsman: 7 - 5 (flak armor) = 2. 2 + 3 = 5. A guardsman is now defense 5. For a space marine: 7 - 3 = 4. 4+ 4 = 8. A space marine is now defense 8.

Two problems however: how strength relates to this, and in cases where you have a low toughness and a high save (aspect warriors, scions etc) or a high toughness and a low save (orks, ogyrns etc).

Assuming that you need to roll higher than the models defense to wound it, a boltgun would now kill IG infantry on a 2+. They would also kill Ork Boys on a 2+! And that's not right.

There's got to be a way around this though. All the pieces are here. We just need to put them together in the right order.

Hi folks.
Just a quick post from me to try to help you avoid lots of problems later...

The current problem with GWs 40k rules is the core rules have been over simplified.(Lack enough granularity of results in the core rules.)WHich means GW HAD to add on lots of additional systems and rules to put the granularity back!

So to actually streamline (not simplify,) the 40k rules you need to expand the core rules to cover more.

Eg if you use a D6 resolution system three times, 'to hit' , 'to save' , 'to wound'.
That gives 216 results if we use the full 6 results from a D6.(As opposed to the 90 appx results GWs current 40k rules use.)

Thats over double the granularity at the front end.

If you use just 2 resolution methods, thats a maximum of just 36 results.

So if you goal is to actually streamline the rules , by cutting out all the pointless special rules.Then perhaps a fully utilized D6 based, 3 stage damage resolution system would be better?

Lanrak wrote:

Eg if you use a D6 resolution system three times, 'to hit' , 'to save' , 'to wound'.
That gives 216 results if we use the full 6 results from a D6.(As opposed to the 90 appx results GWs current 40k rules use.)

Thats over double the granularity at the front end.

If you use just 2 resolution methods, thats a maximum of just 36 results.

Lanrak I have no idea why you think granularity is better*. I see no fundamental benefit to increasing it whatsoever, and you have never even mentioned one when you have discussed it. What is needed is a system that insures that each attribute is not overridden by any others that aren't meant to. This is the reason why rolls to wound and saving throws are separate in this game; i.e strength doesn't effect armour, AP doesn't effect toughness. It has nothing to do with trying to get more than 36 variations out of the dice. The current rules for armour saves and AP are excellent precisely because they eliminate dice rolling in many circumstances and keeps the opposition of those two stats separate from any others.
I have seen you mention your proposals for a universal resolution table that applies three times for every variety of attack. However I see no merit in it. There is no advantage to having a system that works in steps of 1/216 over 1/36 or 1/6, provided that every stat remains effective when it should be. Though your proposals are not ineffective, they are however completely unnecessary. Also, and I wish to say this as politely as possible, the idea of rolling three times on the same table for six different stats for every attack sounds agonizingly boring. A variety of resolution methods (but not too many) is essential to keeping a game interesting and describing the differences of the entities that are interacting in the game.

Personally I think the best system for 40k would be one where most attacks a resolved with just two D6 rolls, with extreme cases being resolved with a single roll, or three rolls, but never any more.
Let's stick with the system that Future War Cultist wants to discuss in this thread.

*"Granularity" is completely the wrong term in my opinion. "More granular" would be more descriptive of something with bigger grains: i.e. 1/6 is more granular than 1/36. Though "granular" is in fact not a quantitative adjective at all.

I think this kind of dialogue is great, but it might be moot. I hear rumblings that 8th is on the way sooner than you think, and a shaken-up, and stripped-down 40k is on the agenda.

Some items for my wishlist would be:

-Get rid of I-go-you-go. Keep the phases, and players alternate with units, not alternate turns. One turn for both sides. This would make the game MUCH more tactical.

-Playtesting and balanced/ non-sales-driven points values, in particular a nerf for Flyers and SH/GC

-Far less USR's

-Basic Infantry and Assault getting a buff and being more of a focus of the game.

I heard these rumours about a new edition of 40k. How creditable are they?

What I'd to get 40k down to is a simple set of rules that can be explained in four to six pages, and for units to have all of their rules explained in a single source, like warscrolls for AoS. Admittedly this is harder to do because of the greater varienty of wargear that exists in 40k but I still think that it can be done. What I really want to get a hold of is the Battle For Vedros rules and work from there.

I'm definitely open to any ideas on how to improve the system but I do think one that doesn't require charts to compare things with is a good idea. That why I suggested this strength v armor system that already exists within 40k. It's not perfect though. That I will definitely admit.

Would a two teir dice system with an occasional third dice work ok? Say for example, for Terminators they're Defence 8 or 9, and have the 'Crux Terminatus' rule on their warscroll which grants them a save against all wounds. How's this look?

@ Weboflies

How about, for both shooting and assault, the player who's turn it is attacks with one unit, the other player attacks with one of theirs, and so on and so forth until all units have either shot or ran or assaulted?

 Future War Cultist wrote:

I'm definitely open to any ideas on how to improve the system but I do think one that doesn't require charts to compare things with is a good idea. That why I suggested this strength v armor system that already exists within 40k. It's not perfect though. That I will definitely admit.

Would a two teir dice system with an occasional third dice work ok? Say for example, for Terminators they're Defence 8 or 9, and have the 'Crux Terminatus' rule on their warscroll which grants them a save against all wounds. How's this look?

The reason I don't like Strength vs Armour for infantry is that I don't think it would be good for units in this game to suddenly rely on a single defense attribute. Some units have high toughness, others have good armour saves, and the powerful units are the ones that have both. For me this two dimensional power leveling is what gives 40k its magic. So there is a genuine practical distinction between Terminators, which are encased within thick armour plate, and carnifeces, who just suck everything up with their huge bulk. The addition of auto-passes and more auto-failures in the table would make SvT better, have more effect in the game, and reduce dice rolling as well.

I have thought of a system like AoS for 40k before. I think it might be time Future War Cultist for me to take a step back, and admit that I believe the Strength vs. Toughness system is what makes this game what it is. I have my own ideas for improving this game, which involve not changing any stats at all, but replacing some mechanics that I think don't work.

I trust the source. Wasn't any specifics beyond that though.

I couldn't agree more that the way the rules for units are spread all over the place has simply got to change.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

@ Weboflies

How about, for both shooting and assault, the player who's turn it is attacks with one unit, the other player attacks with one of theirs, and so on and so forth until all units have either shot or ran or assaulted?

That's more or less what I was getting at. An idea I had a while ago was to unify the movement and shooting phases and the charge sub-phase into one phase called the "Action Phase" which would follow the Psychic Phase. A unit would be allowed any combination of two moving, shooting or charging actions with certain restrictions. Maybe only rapid fire weapons could fire twice. The use of an Assault weapon would grant a third action that must not be shooting. Charge actions would end the unit's actions for the phase. Etc, etc. The players would trade off unit for unit performing one acton at a time. This would simplify the rules and add so much tactical complexity at the same time. Imagine being able to shoot and then move? Or provoking the enemy to draw fire or an assault from key units before moving your own key units from cover? It would require counters to keep track of which units had done what so far, but I think it would make the game so much more tense and fun.

Most importantly, no more alpha strike.

If you want a simple system that give proportional results.

Just add a D6 roll to the active player stat.And have that beat the opposing players stat for success.

This does give separate ranges of results for active and opposed stats. (To allow for the difference the D6 generates.)

However, when I tried this in alpha testing lots of existing 40k players did not like the 'untidy nature' of 2 separate stat ranges.

So I am now looking at using a single resolution method using ONE table for all 3 stages of combat resolution.(That is for all combat assault and shooting , and covers all unit types.)

I think It may be best if I write up the new rules ideas,to see if I can get it down to 6 pages.(1 side of A4 reference sheet is a doddle.)

It may be easier for people to see how it works if its written out in a simple PDF?