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.

I'm one of those guys who likes AoS and wants to see if it's possible to do the same for 40k. And I just wanted to run a few ideas past you all here. There is another thread about the same thing here but that one is talking about using a D10 system, which I'm open to, but I'd like to try a D6 version as well.

First, I've narrowed down all model characteristics to these six:

Movement, Ranged, Melee, Save, Wounds, Leadership

Ranged and Melee are the scores on a D6 needed to hit with an attack for their respective weapon types. For example, Ranged: 4+ needs a 4, 5 or 6 to hit with a ranged weapon. The others I'm sure you can guess.

And weapons have been reduced to these five characteristics:

Range, Attacks, Strength, Rending, Damage

Range and Attacks I'm sure you can guess. Strength is the score need to wound on a D6. For example, Strength: 4+ needs a 4, 5 or 6 to wound the target. Rending is how much the attack reduces the targets armour save by, and Damage is how many wounds the attack inflicts on the target if unsaved.

Finally, what about this idea:

Units who have made a shooting attack cannot launch an assault in the same turn at all, ever, unless it says so on their Dataslate. But if they do launch an assault, the system goes like this:

In AoS, assuming you sucessfully get into combat, first you pile in, then you attack with all your Melee weapons. In this system, first you make a shooting attack with one ranged weapon, them you pile in, then you attack with all Melee weapons. It's to create a sense that in 40k, assaults are close range gunfights as well as hacking and slashing fests. Weapons that were previously assault weapons can instead get bonuses when used like this (+1 to hit for example) whilst others can get penalties (for example, if a model shoots a heavy weapon it cannot pile in afterwards).

I know that is a bit odd out on its own but I'm trying to tackle each section on their own before I present the complete set of rules you know? What do you think?

Honestly, I don't care for AoS' flat-number-to-hit and flat-number-to-wound mechanic. It does mostly work there, but it would produce some really odd results in 40k. There are very good reasons why a bolter should have an easier time killing a ratling or a gretchin than a human or eldar, and an easier time killing them than a Space Marine (and in turn, easier there, than say, wounding a Tyrannofex or a Bloodthirster).

I like Lanrak's suggestions of making both melee and shooting to-hit rolls based on an evasion stat, instead.

What I do like, though, is the rend/damage mechanic. That goes a long way toward making single-shot weapons interesting again without multiplying the one-shot-kill problem (which just makes infantry spam more interesting than multi-wound models or vehicles).

As for mostly eliminating shooting before assault, I think this mostly just nerfs CC more than has already been done, which is mostly not necessary. In AoS, CC reigns supreme because most things don't have a lot of shooting (and those that do, mostly don't want to fight at all). In 40k, where even choppy armies tend to have a lot of guns, I suspect this won't work out as well.

Worth a try - the current WS chart is a joke and results in most things hitting each other on 3's or 4's anyway so not sure what the problem is.

Even God of War only hits a Gretchin 2 /3 of the time FFS.

Simplified is good

We just need modifiers to hit like Fantasy had, and a Wound mechanic on everything (vehicles and MCs alike) with a damage chart that makes them weaker the more damage they take. Then just have D-weapons/Ordnance Weapons and AP1/2 weapons do multiple wounds of some kind.

40k would be in a much better place with those fixes. Boom.

@Future War Cultist.
I totally agree that the rules for 40k need re writing and streamlining.Putting the movement stat back is a very sensible idea.

However, you seem to have identified only one of the two issues 40k rules have.

A)They are pointlessly over complicated, using lots of different resolution methods for no good reason.

B)The rules are not written for the current game play.

As Jade Angel points out , when the units are a varied and diverse as they are in 40k, just having an unmodified D6 roll to determine the out come just is not varied enough. (Which leads to the inclusion of lots of separate systems and additional rules that bloat the rules to unplayable levels.)

As the current rules do not have enough proportionality in them even when using multiple systems and tables .Reducing the variation in results even more is just going to rely on more 'special rule fudges' to make the game work right.

@Mr Morden and krodarklorr.
Totally agree that the limited and restrictive tables are next to useless for showing the diversity between units.But rather than ditch them entirely , or replace them with additional modifiers.

Why not look at making the opposed values on a universal table work for all combat resolution?

This way the skill of the active players models , and the skill of the opponent players models are taken into account.
(The following is the table we are using in our latest alpha test.)

A = Active player ,(rolling the dice) Stat.
O= opposing player. stat.

A/O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1....,4,4,5,5,6,6,n,n.n,n
2.....3.4.4.5.5.6.6.n.n.n.
3.....3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.n.n.
4.....2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.n.
5.....2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.
6.....1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.
7.....1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.
8.....1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5
9.....1.1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4
10...1.1.1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.
(n= no effect,)


To reflect the diversity of units in the stat line, I think the following stats would be more in synergy with the game play.I have added to the OPs list of stats where I believe it is necessary to add depth/diversity to the core resolution methods/rules.

Movement value. (Maximum distance in inches the model may move per movement action.)

Ranged attack skill.(How good the model is hitting enemy with ranged weapons.)

Evasion skill.(How good the model is at avoiding being seen /hit.)

Melee Skill (How good the model is at hitting enemy with close combat attacks.)

Dodge skill(How hard the model is to hit in close combat.)

Armour value (How much armour protection the model has.)

Resilience (How hard the model is to be damaged by penetrating hits.)

Hit points (How many damaging hits the model can take.)

Morale (How willing the unit is to fight on.)

Command.(How inspiring the unit leader/character is leading the unit *If you want characters to be more then just close combat monsters that is )

I would give all weapons the following stats.
Effective Range, Attacks,Armour Piercing , Damage, Notes.

I would keep the 3 stage damage resolution.
Roll to hit .(Ranged vs Evasion, or Melee vs Dodge.)
Roll to save (Weapon AP vs models AV )
Roll to damage (Weapon damage vs model Resilience.)

In a slightly more intuitive order.(That allows a simple suppression mechanic to model suppression if you want to add it.)

I am in favor of using alternating phase game turn, (like AoS) instead of the current 40k alternating game turn.(As it allows a simple option to model simultaneous resolution if you want to.)


I am happy to discuss any thing in more detail if you want to...

I generally like Lanrak's suggestions here. I think I might have said as much on similar threads to the same effect, belike.

The only thing I quibble on is saves before damage. While I like that from a simulationist perspective (did the armor/shields bounce the shell? No? How much did it hurt?), from a psychological perspective, it feels better and causes less salt if the defender gets the last "action". In other words, roll for damage, then the defender rolls to save.

This is purely a psychological thing, and it's mostly about making people not feel like they got robbed, as opposed to an actual balance consideration or a mathematical matter. I could be persuaded otherwise, possibly.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Worth a try - the current WS chart is a joke and results in most things hitting each other on 3's or 4's anyway so not sure what the problem is.

Even God of War only hits a Gretchin 2 /3 of the time FFS.

Simplified is good

Yeah that's what I say too.

jade_angel has a point though. It's part of the problem with trying to make a simplified 40k system. Under no circumstances should a boltgun even scratch the paint of a landraider.

One idea we could try to get around this problem though is to take the current strength+D6 versus armour value that 40k uses for vehicles and instead make that the norm for everyone. Like, a space marine can be AV 8 for example.

I like the idea Kodarklorr has for units getting weaker has they suffer wounds, but I worry about things getting complicated. I want this to be as simplified as abolsutely possible.

EDIT:

Whoops, I didn't see Lanrak's post there. I'll take a better look at it before I respond.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Worth a try - the current WS chart is a joke and results in most things hitting each other on 3's or 4's anyway so not sure what the problem is.

Even God of War only hits a Gretchin 2 /3 of the time FFS.

Simplified is good

Yeah that's what I say too.

jade_angel has a point though. It's part of the problem with trying to make a simplified 40k system. Under no circumstances should a boltgun even scratch the paint of a landraider.

One idea we could try to get around this problem though is to take the current strength+D6 versus armour value that 40k uses for vehicles and instead make that the norm for everyone. Like, a space marine can be AV 8 for example.

I like the idea Kodarklorr has for units getting weaker has they suffer wounds, but I worry about things getting complicated. I want this to be as simplified as abolsutely possible.

Or, just as easily, use a Toughness-like mechanic for everything, together with saves on vehicles. (As if they were MCs/Infantry - we have no shortage of examples for the type, ne?) The S-vs-T chart might need some tuning to make total immunity come one toughness step earlier to avoid bolters cracking open Razorbacks, but even that's not utterly unreasonable. Fishing for sixes plus a 3+ armor save is not exactly reliable, after all, but it can work if there's enough of it. Maybe that makes up for not having a weak rear facing anymore.

@jade_angel.
In my opinion the only reason the defender having the last roll 'feels right' , is when it is used in an alternating game turn when..
The attacker moves,
The attacker shoots/assaults
And right at the end of all these actions taken by the attacker , the defender gets a 'consolation prize' of rolling to 'save' some models.

If both players get to move in the movement phase.
Both players get to shoot in the shooting phase .
And both players get to assault in the assault phase.

Eg
I move , you move
I shoot, you shoot,(Remove casualties after we both have resolved attacks )
I assault , you assault.(Remove casualties after we both have resolved attacks .)

Then
Attacker rolls to hit
Defender rolls to save.
Attacker rolls to damage.

Follows the ''alternating between the players'' that is in the game turn.

However, it would be possible, because we are using opposed values ,to change it to
Attacker rolls to hit.
Attacker rolls to penetrate armour
Defender rolls to save the penetrating hit.(Resilience vs weapon damage.)

If players want to change the resolution order to the current ''me, me, you.'' After play testing.

I also agree that all units should have armour saves,(Based on comparing the defenders armour value and the attacking weapons Armour piercing value.)

And a to damage roll based on 'toughness'(Resilience as I called it so its more generic to cover vehicles and organic models.Compared the the weapon hit damage.)

And if vehicles and monsters loose attacks /weapons (maybe speed reduction too?)As they take damage.It would be much better than the all or nothing for M/Cs in the 40k rules.

There are lots of excellent ideas so far in this thread.I am just trying to see how they could fit together in a straight forward rule set...

Ok, that's a fair point. I rescind my objection unless play-testing demonstrates that there's an issue.

@Future War Cultist.
Can we just re cap on the ideas suggested so far. As I think there have been some really good ideas.And I just want to explore some options for discussion .

Game turn mechanic.
I assumed you would want to use the alternating phase game turn.(Used in A,o,S and LoTR etc.)

Player A moves.
Player B Moves.
Player A shoots
Player B Shoots.
Player A assaults.
Player B assaults.

To make the rules more streamlined , would you like to have all movement in the movement phase ?(This concept is based on the options in 2nd ed when 40k last used movement rates.)

Eg in the movement phase the unit can.

A)Stay still, (set up and aim ) and fire 'ordnance' weapons in the shooting phase.
(I would like to use the term ordnance to describe weapons that can not move and fire .'Heavy' is used as a descriptor on too many weapons to denote weapon function IMO.)

B)Move up to movement rate and fire non ordnance weapons in the shooting phase.

C) Move up to double movement rate and not make any ranged attacks at all..

D)Move up to double movement rate into base(hull) to base(hull) contact with an enemy unit.And fight in close combat in the assault phase.
The unit that performs this movement has charged into assault , and both units in base (hull) to Base (Hull) contact are locked in assault and can not shoot out of the assault at other units.

This puts a bit of tactical loading back into the front end of the game turn .

Is this the sort of thing you were thinking of?

An options for armour saves is to give all models an AV value .And all weapons an AP value .
To pass the save roll the D6 roll + the AV must be higher than the weapon AP value.(Similar to F.O.W )

This works fine, but several players did not like using the 'odd ranges' 1 to 14 and 5 to 19 for AV and AP respectively.
(That was why we adopted the opposed stats and used the familiar ranges of 1 to 10.)

I am happy to discuss alternative options and ideas in more detail.

@ Lanrak

Yeah I was aiming for the alternating phase system myself. Although my idea was to use AoSs system, but extend to I go you go system to the shooting phase as well.

You know how in combat in AoS, the player who's turn it is picks a unit to fight with, then the opponent picks a unit to fight with and so on and so forth? Well in my system, we would do this in the shooting phase as well. This is to try and show how chaotic a gun battle actually is, and to give the opponent something to do in the meantime. Also, this would be the 'overwatch' of the game.

And yes, I would have all movement in the movement phase. Your idea looks very good actually! I like the four options for the movement phase. Gives it new life you know?

That armour plus d6 versus AP idea sounds brilliant too! What would the total system go like? Is there still a save?

@Future War Cultist.
There are lots of variants of the alternating phase game turn.All of them give more interaction than the alternating game turn 40k currently uses.

You can alternate taking actions with units in each phase.Or you can alternate players taking actions with all their units.

You can leave this up to the player to decide what they prefer.
If the armies are fairly evenly matched in number and power of units, alternating units in a phase may be ok.
But if one army is 'MSU' and the other is more 'death star', it may work better with alternating player phases.

In either case you can leave casualty removal until all the attacks have been made in each phase, to simulate simultaneous resolution if you want to

The idea of using an amour value vs an armour penetration value to generate a proportional save roll is used in lots of games.

The fixed save values and fixed AP effects do not let the units have the variety of interaction they should.

Basically units get an armour value of 1 to 15.(Extend vehicle AV down to cover infantry)
And all weapons get an Armour penetration value of 5 to 20.

When a model is hit by a weapon. The owner of the model rolls a D6 and adds the models Armour value.
If this total is over the weapon hits AP value , the model passes its save.

The models armour value is fixed, the weapons AP value is fixed, but the D6 represents all the variables in the interaction.

However, after a bit of playtesting and player feed back.Most 40k players prefered to use an opposed values chart to generate the save rolls .(Like the to wound roll.)

For example using my chart from the above post.
(Armour value down the left hand column, AP across the top.)

If we say a SM has an Amour value of 4.
And the SM is hit by a las gun AP 1 the Sm saves on a 2 +.
Hit by a Bolt gun AP 3 the SM needs a 3+ to save.
Hit by a Multi melts AP 9 the SM needs a 6+ to save.

The idea is the roll you need is generated by comparing opposing values for all combat resolution.
This gives proportional results from the basic rules so you dont need to use so many special rules.

I may need to explain this a bit better?

You explained it pretty well!

It's certainly an interesting idea and I'm definitely open to it. But I just want to make sure that I got this right here:

Step 1: roll to hit using the models skill
Step 2: take the AP of the attack and roll a D6. If this beats the models armor they wound it, yes?
Step 3: this there a step three? Maybe a save to represent toughness? Effectively turning the current system around on its head?

Sorry if this is wrong or stupid. I'm just trying to make sure I fully understand it correctly.

Just in case you find it helpful, someone already came up with some very simple rules for 40k (and other games).

Hope it's informative:

https://onepagerules.wordpress.com/

@Selym.
The one page rules system has been around for ages.(I think it was developed from the old FUBAR one page war game rules?)

It works fine, but it does not represent the detail in the units as much as some players might want.(Its one page rules after all. )

This is the area myself and others including jade_angel would like to address.

The current rules may use lots of different resolution methods, ( and pages of poorly worded rules.)But the results they generate are not proportional or diverse enough to cover the expected range of interaction in the game of 40k. That is why the current 40k rules use over EIGHTY special rules !!!

I am sure many players are happy enough to house rule the current 40k rules, or just use other rule sets for 40k.

But 40k is unique in the fact it is trying to cover ''company level combat'' with 28mm minatures.

A 28mm skirmish game is much easier to write rules for.And a company level game using 6mm to 15mm minatures is easier to write rule for.(There are lots of good rule set for these types of games and appropriate minature sizes.)

@Future War Cultist.
Over the last decade all my attempts to re-write rules for 40k has led me to believe, it is very difficult to get the balance right between the amount of change and the amount of familiarity you keep.

If the game play does not change enough , players are not willing to put the effort in , as they see little reward for their effort.
If the rules are too new players will not recognize the rules as '40k'.

Alternating phase game turn hits the sweet spot IMO, for keeping the phases players know, but allows much more tactical interaction.

The three stage damage resolution is also seen to be important to lots of 40k players.As they want to differentiate between armour and toughness to make units reflect the background.(It is also sensible from a game mechanic POV for helping balance, but that is a whole thread all of its own...)

Using D6 effectively with more efficient resolution methods is much better than trying to use larger dice size with restrictive resolution methods.
If we can keep D6 it will make the rules much more approachable for existing players IMO.

So if we keep the 3 stage damage resolution, but resolve it in a more intuitive order.If we are using opposed values for all combat resolution, we can let the attacker roll, or the defender roll, depending what feels right when we play test.

EG all combat resolution ,(close combat and ranged combat,) is resoved in the same way.
Roll to hit.

Roll to save (or penetrate armour.)

Roll to wound,(or save penetrating hit.)

Attacker, defender, attacker sequence, or attacker (,attacker .defender.) sequence.

There are basically 3 ways to represent the opposing skills .

1)Active player has fixed value for success, opposing player has modifiers.

EG active player gets a flat chance to hit eg 3+ , target skill is represented by modifiers for size,speed, , range, and cover etc.

2) Active player has a stat range lower than the opposing stat range.And rolls a D6 to beat the opposing roll.

EG active player rolls a dice adds its AP value to see if it beat the Armour value.OR roll a dice and add the Armour value to see if it beats the AP value of the weapon hit.

3)use a table with the opposing stats listed down the left hand column and across the top.Simply read off the score need to succeed where the values cross.

EG the current S vs T table used in 40k .

Having the opposed stats in the core rules for combat resolution cuts down on the special rules you need to add on later.

@ Selym

I'd completely forgotten about that! Thanks for reminding me!

@ Lanrak

I like the second method a lot!

So to try it out:

A space marine could have a ranged and melee skill of 3+, which means flat to hit rolls of 3+ for all attacks. Seems right, right?

They could have an armour value of 7, meaning that a lasgun (strength 3?) needs a 5 or 6 to breach the armour, which matches the current system. Some weapons will be able to breech the armour right away.

Then they could have a save of 3+, which represents all the super human powers they have. Weapons can have a rending value to reduce this, whilst medics etc can increase this.

So the space marines stats can be:
movement: 5 (AoS seems to like that number)
ranged: 3+
melee: 3+
armour: 7
save: 3+
wounds: 1 (although I feel like marines should have 2 in this system)
leadership: 8

Seven stats. I don't like the odd number. I'd prefer a multiple of three, like 6 or 9.

Am I on track or this going off the rails?

@Future War Cultist.
I was trying to say we use the same resolution method for all three stages of combat resolution.
EG flat stats are just for movement and morale/command values.

Each stage of combat has opposed stats to generate a proportional dice roll for success.

To hit has.
Ranged vs Evasion.

Melee vs Dodge,

Save roll has,
Amour value VS Weapon Armour penetration

Damage roll has ,
Weapons Damage value (strength) Vs Resilience,(toughness)

EG a SM Ranged 4 is shooting at a land raider Evasion 5, the SM only needs to roll 2+ to hit the land raider.(As 4+ 2=6 and 6 is higher than 5)
The same SM Ranged value 4 is shooting at a Ratling sniper Evasion 8, jn cover (+1 to Evasion score ) for a total Evasion score of 9.
The SM needs to roll a 6+ to hit the Ratling sniper in cover.

This would give the stat line of..

Movement.
Ranged
Evasion
Melee
Dodge
Armour
Resilience
Hit points(Wounds or structure points.)
Morale.

That is 9 stats on the unit stat line.

Are you OK with the weapon profile I posted higher up?This is used for all weapons melee and ranged and psychic attacks perhaps?

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

Flat stats work fine if the opposing model /units are the same. (EG Ancients Napoleonic , or skirmish games with all human sized targets.)

But with the wide range of units found in 40k, the opposed skill range of the units make a massive difference!

So rather than add these on later in umpteen special rules, and additional systems .Why not simply include them on the stat line to start with.

I understand its is quite different to what you do in current 40k.

But using opposed stats for each stage of the combat resoluiotn to generate proportional results.Delivers much more diversity and depth in the game play,with a FRACTION of the pages of rules in total.

I'd actually want Strength and Damage to be separate stats on a weapon profile: Strength versus a unit's Resilience gives your to-damage roll, Damage represents how many hit points are lost on a failed save/successful wound roll.

That way, single-shot weapons could still be interesting without proliferating instadeath mechanics everywhere, or having to bring spamcannons to kill the tough stuff (as we have now in 40k).

@ jade_angel.
A good point raised there. Multiple wound causing hits.

Are you happy with the..

To hit roll
Ranged vs Evasion.

Melee vs Dodge,

Save roll,
Amour value VS Weapon Armour penetration ,

Now if we use Weapon Damage (Strength replacement stat), vs Resilience (toughness replacement stat.)

To generate the score needed to cause a wound/structure damage.(If we used the universal resolution table I posted earlier.)

Example,
Weapon Damage 4 vs Resilience 4 needs a 4+ to cause a wound/structure damage.

If you roll 2 higher than the score needed , you cause critical damage and cause an extra wound/Structure damage.

Eg in the example above if the attacker rolled a 6 (2 higher than the 4 needed to wound.) They would cause 2 wounds not just one on the TARGET MODEL ,

If the same target was hit by Melta Gun penetrating hit ,Weapon damage 8, This only needs to roll a 2+ to wound.Causes 2 wounds on a 4+, and 3 wounds on a 6!

This way more powerful weapons are more likely to cause more than one wound on less resilient targets.(It removes the need for ID and EW too! )

Its just a simple way to incorporate proportional chance of multiple wound hits .(Used to good effect in a few war games.)

Its just one option we could use.

That's not a bad idea, overall, though I like the idea of a "damage per successful wound" stat as a separate element, because it allows more ways to balance weapons vis-a-vis each other without too many special rules. Age Of Sigmar already has this, for example.

With your proposed system, for example, a plasma gun and a meltagun would be functionally equivalent against Resilience 4 targets (I think, unless I'm misunderstanding the charts), but giving them different damage stats (say, 1 for plasma and 2 or 3 for melta) would make plasma better against heavy infantry (more shots) while melta is better against monsters and tanks (more damage per shot). It would also make it easier to deal with the "grav problem", where grav has to fire a ton of shots to do its job - but because it does, it's pretty much just better than everything else. This would also allow certain special rules like Melta to be simply implemented as "+1 damage within half range", for example.

Now granted, that does give a weapon four effectiveness stats to keep track of (Strength, AP, damage, ROF), instead of just three, but I think it could help with internal balance and avoiding special rule proliferation.

However, either idea would allow the doubled-out mechanic to be removed or replaced with "take extra damage". That'd have a lot of balance consequences, but mostly good ones I think: T3/multiwound guys like Lord Commissars or Archons might now actually survive a hit...

@jade-angel.
We can give the new Damage(Strenght ) value to weapons to how we like.
EG Plasma Damage 5, and Melta Damage 8 for example.(Wounding a Resilience 4 model on a 3+ and a 2+ respectively.)

As the AP value applies to all models including vehicles , we do not need Damage value ( 'strength') to do double duty for to wound vs creatures and AP vs vehicles.

So Armour Piercing values are ONLY used to generate armour saves.

Damage values (strength replacement) is ONLY used to generate damage .

As we can have high armour low resilience models ,(resilience 3 crew in vehicles ) and low armour high resilience models.(High toughness monsters,)
We can also have high AP value low damage weapons .(like haywire EMP .) And low armour piercing high damage values .(Like HESH /Airburst.).
*(sorry cant think of good 40k examples right now, brain locked on day job mode... )

This range of weapons and resistance/armour is quite unique to 40k.And adds to the '40k ness' of the game IMO.

However, as the majority of weapons only cause 1 wound/structure loss.

Rather than add an extra stat to all weapons.How would you feel about just adding 'D3 damage' in the weapon notes for the relevant weapons? (If we do not use the roll 2 over to cause extra wound idea.)

As this effect would only apply to a few support weapons in practice?

OR It could be implemented as a special rule if you preferred?

EG
Chain edged weapons re roll 1s to wound.
Critical damage,weaponsWeapon can do critical damage, roll a D3 for damage,not just 1 damage like standard weapons.
Chemical weapons , ignore the effects of cover.

This sort of highlights some of the pitfalls in writing rules.
if you do not cover enough of the game play with the core rules, you end up with too many exceptions to the core rules bloating the rules into a complete mess.

If you add too much to the core rules they can become too diffuse and loose focus on the core game play.

I think it is important to be able to discuss all the alternatives , so people can see the options and pick the ones that fit their ideas of the 40k game they want rules for.


For example I have not been happy with just giving heroes extra wounds and attacks .
(It makes sense in WHFB where the game is close combat focused.)
But in 40k where some leaders would avoid close combat at all costs, it sort of is counter intuitive in these cases.
I have tried to give heroes fate points ,(similar to LoTR.)As this allows 'non close combat/monster type heroes' contribute more to the game in our limited play tests.

I think the key is to keep the game play everyone likes, but to arrive at it with streamlined rules.

I'm sorry for the late reply guys. I've been super busy.

There's some awesome ideas here. I really mean that, and I do like them a lot.

However, I want to literally make things as absolutely simple as possible. I had a think and I'm ok with odd numbers of stats if they where creatively arranged on the data slate.

What do you think of this;

Model stats:
Movement
Ranged
Melee
Armour
Save
Wounds
Leadership

Weapon stats:
Range
Attacks
Strength
Rending
Damage

Models can move up their movement value in inches. They roll to hit using their range and melee skills respectively (and these are a flat stat). Take the strength of the attack and add d6. If this beats the targets Armour value they wound the target (so some attacks can punch straight through the armour). Then the target takes its save, which represents its resilience. The Rending value of the attack reduces this save. Damage is the amount of wounds an unsaved hit inflicts. Wounds and Leadership are the usual. Make sense?

I've played around with it and here's some examples:

Space Marine:
Movement: 5
Ranged: 3+
Melee: 3+
Armour: 8
Save: 4+
Wounds: 2
Leadership: 8

Bolt gun:

Range: 24"
Attacks: 2
Strength: 4
Rending: -1
Damage: 1

So the marine can fire two shots a turn with their bolygun, hitting the target on 3+ on a D6. It's strength 4 plus D6 to penetrate the armour. So it penetrates another space marines armour on 5+. Then the marine target gets a 5+ save, which if it fails, will reduce it to one wound. Now that is a bit different to how things currently work but if we've changing the game I'd rather go a bit radical in that regard.

We could adjust it so that things remain as they were, but all that aside, what do you guys think?

@Future War Cultist.
That proposed stat line would only work in a smaller skirmish game with limited number of units.(Eg similar to the Battle for Vedross.).

The lack of differentiation on to hit and to wound between units, by giving them flat rolls.Simply removes any proportional results from the interaction.
This would need additional rules similar to the special rules and additional systems used by 40k.

The added complexity of opposed values in the core rules would remove the need for this extra bloat of special rules and add on systems later.

If you can see the benefit of opposed rolls for weapon and armour interaction.Why not use it for the other parts of the combat resolution?

@ Lanrak

You're right. I'm sorry I skipped your idea. Is is good. It's still a simple system but allows for a lot of varied interaction.

OK, if we add your evade and dodge stats to the mix:

Space Marine:
Movement: 5"
Ranged: 4
Melee: 4
Evasion: 5
Dodge: 5
Armour: 8
Save: 4+
Wounds: 2
Leadership: 8

Yeah, that seems ok.

However, do you think it's possible to merge evasion and dodge together, and use the units dataslate to cover any special rules? Like, for example, eldar jet bikes can have an ability on their slate that allows them to double their movement and evasion stats in exchange for not being able to shoot or charge? And Banshees increase their evasion against Melee attacks and so on?

You're right that it's best to get all the rules covered by the core rules as much as possible, but we can still use the dataslates to add flavour right?

Again, I'm sorry for skipping your idea. I should have read the thread closer.

@Future War Cultist.

If we are using opposed rolls for all three stages of combat resolution ,then the 'save' stat would change to 'Resilience'.(Or what ever we call the new toughness stat. )


The problem with having an 'Evasion stat' doing double duty for close combat and ranged combat.
Is some models would have higher 'Evasion' stat vs ranged weapons. but lower 'Dodge' stat in close combat.(EG a Eldar Vehicle with Holo fields , would be hard to hit at range, but much easier to hit in close combat.)
And some models might be much easier to hit with ranged weapons , and harder to hit in close combat.(EG a Greater Deamon of Khorne.)

If we use separate values we can easily reflect the abilities of models in each of these areas as the attacker and the target.

EG both an Ork and an Eldar might have the same chance to hit in assault,(EG Melee 4.)
But the clumsy muscle bound Ork may only have a Dodge skill of 2 , where as the elegant and agile Eldar could have a Dodge skill of 5.

(If we are using simultaneous resolution, we could use the current Initiative value as the basis for the new Dodge skill.As this is a simple transition from striking schedule from alternating game turns, to the chance to land the first hit in assault. )

This is all new ground, obviously .But I think its good to discuss alternative ways to do things.
I am happy to explore other ideas and explain any thing in more detail If you want.

@ Lanrak

That all sounds good to me. Only play testing will tell though, but I think this will work!

I was thinking about pyshic powers too. What about this; we take the system for casting spells from AoS and add in a mechanic for perils of the warp.

It would go like this; the power has a manifestation value. You roll two dice. If the result equals or beats this value the power is cast. However, if you roll a double 1 or 6 you suffer from the perils of the warp. Take a leadership test. For each point you fail it by, you suffer a mortal wound. So long as you met the casting value you will get the power off, even if you suffer the perils.

In AoS, all wizards can unbind spells. In 40k, I would make it so that only certain units can do it, like Librarians with physic hoods. So in comparison to AoS, your powers are more likely to go off but they run the risk of backfiring on you.

And mortal wounds are just automatic wounds, like they are in AoS.

I would have Arcane Bolt and Mystic Sheild in the game, but renamed with more 40k names. Call Arcane Bolt 'Smite' for example. Because it doesn't matter how the pysker is doing it. They're 'smiting' the enemy with their powers.

Thoughts?

I would prefer to finalize the rest of the game play first before we add psychic powers.

However, I would prefer to use psychic abilities in the relevant phase, rather than having a separate phase if possible.
I also would prefer to cost abilities appropriately for the units using them.
(Random generation of abilities at the start of a game can be done if players both agree to do it.But the core rules should cost any upgrades and abilities appropriately, IMO.)

I think that psychic powers in 40k should just add a bit of character to armies , rather than define them.Also if you make psychic powers too strong they can over shadow the rest of the game play.

Your example of casting and negating psychic abilities seem straight forward enough to me.

I would look here. This is quite polished, https://onepagerules.wordpress.com