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.

Just a few ideas I've seen that I'd like to add to the pot.

Like a lot of people have said adding movement stats back in would be great and could actually strip a few special rules out. I'd like to see something like this. Using SM as an example drop centurions to 4", terminators to 5" and Power armour & scouts to 6". Bikes, Jump Pack & vehicles could all get a similar thing.

What I would add to that though is that if this became a 3 part stat linked with shooting and assaults it could bring all movement in to just one phase, cutting down the dead time the other player has to sit through. If you make it in to contact, you've assaulted and no shooting (if you can fight) except pistols. Defense grenades prevent pistol fire

Moving through cover should reduce a units speed bands and fleet should be a counter, change unit entries to Fleet (X), X being the amount added back. Eg if a terrain piece is -3 movement and a HB has Fleet (2), they only loose 1" movement. Fleet shouldn't increase a units speed though, Speed 6" Fleet (3) should still be 6" moved in the open.

So linking this to shooting, units which don't move fire at full effect and one model can fire at a different target.
Units that move at the 1st speed fire as one, with Heavies snapfiring
units that fire at the 2nd speed can't fire heavies and rapid fire & salvo weapons can only snap fire
moving at the final speed only pistols may fire at snap fire.

relentless units, MCG.MC and vehicles fire at the step lower then their actual movements (so they can fire heavies normally at speed 1)

BS become a split stat, full/snap fire - this is more that it makes no sense that a vindicator assassin as the same poor chance of hitting with snap fire that a Ork does.

To help break up a player turn, bring back the old school Overwatch (unit doesn't move or shoot in there turn, but can fire during the opponents movement phase, no split fire) but using the snap fire BS score. Replace the current over watch with the option to fire as per this overwatch instead of making CC attacks as the defender on the turn you are assaulted at I10. Assault grenades prevent this.

Armour Save, invunerables & cover save Vs AP - replace the current AP with the AOS rending modifiers, then cover and invulnerable save modify the role as well. The difference being cover can be ignored by some weapons. Using the SM captain as an example his 3+ armour is improved to 0+ by his Iron Halo (a 1 still always fails), hit by a bolter (rend 1?) he still has a 2+ save but hit by a Meltagin (rend -5?) he is reduced to a 6+ save. The same captain behind a defence line (+2 save?) would then have a 4+ save against the melta but would still fail to the bolter on a 1.

Finally Leadership tests - these become D6 + factor. So in shooting and combat the factor would be casualties (like AOS) but units fall back rather then take more casualties. Fearless units could possible only be D3 + Factor.

Lanrak wrote:
@Lance845.
I am not asking you to agree with anything , or to discuss anything.

You have different ideas to me on how 40k rules should be developed.
So to give me (or anyone else), a chance on making any sort of meaningful contribution to this thread please tell me/us.

A) What YOU think the issues are with the current 40k rules,

B)How YOU want to address those issues.

C) What sort of game play do YOU want to end up with.

As Jake Thornton said,'.. there is no such thing as a bad ideas in game design, just ideas in the wrong place..'

As there are loads of different options to chose from, I would like to focus on the few that are closest to the solution you are looking for.

Just a quick note on the 40k F.O.C.
It is the ONLY one I am aware of that focuses on unit function, rather than unit rarity in the force.

Every other game I have played that uses 'point values' for in 'game value',and balances synergistic anomalies with a F.O.C based on limiting unit numbers and types available.
Eg how rare a unit is in a force is not controlled just by P.V. but by the theme of the force chosen.

And as a result every other war game I have played has a much simpler and far more diverse and 'narrative friendly' F.O.C .

Would you consider alternatives the the current 40k F.O.C?

From what I gather, is that Lance is done discussing from the perspectives you propose and have zoomed in and created something specific - why can't you just discuss the specifics in this thread?
From the specifics you can probably answer your own questions and come to the conclusion that they solve this and that but make other areas of the game worse - these areas, aspects and subjects may what you have in mind and something Lance has or has not thought about, but you can raise the subjects based on what Lance has proposed.

I know that when I some day post my alternative ruleset, I would like to hear everybody's opinions (also yours), but only opinions based on my alternative ruleset. Yes, to introduce specific ideas, starting by telling which vision one has or which problems one wants to solve may help folks to get interested, but long complex discussions/explanations, which your questions lean towards, are probably better and faster answered by yourself, if you emerged yourself into the rules.

I wont be able to respond in depth until late tonight or tomorrow. But i have seen some real neat ideas i want to get into. Thanks to those tossing their ideas out there. I am glad to have concepts bouncing around. I can already see some good improvements or easily implemented alternate methods. Woot!

Lanrak, you can answer questions a-c by reading the first post. Specifically the first section titled design goals. Its easy to extrapolate from those 4 goals what problems i see and from the mechanics i propose some ways to fix them. Feel free to comment on those and toss in both your own 2 cents or alternatives.

Further, design goal 2 says exactly how tied i am to gws foc. By reading even the very beginning of the first post you could answer all of your qusstions.

What i wont do is discuss what you think are the problems with gws designs or where you think we need to start to build a functional game. You and i could go back and forth for 10 pages and never come to a conclusion. I am politely trying to avoid that derailment so the thread stays productive.

I have discussed each persons ideas that have bothered to post any actual ideas and concerns. Contribute to the thread by reading the topic and staying on topic or stay out.

Dont respond here if your not contributing. Please. PM me. I would be happy to go over this with you ANYWHERE ELSE. I do not want it here.

@Chaospling.
I am not asking for any discussion or lengthy explanations.Just trying to get a better understanding of what Lance845 wants to achieve.

He has changed the game turn mechanic , added one stat , and made some minor changes to the 7th ed rule set.It is not clear from this what end game play he is trying to arrive at.

As the current 40k rules are a massive mess of different design concepts from lots of different game types , as a result of no clear development direction over the last 17 years.(Beyond the sales department pushing sales of more product.,)

A re imaging of 40k can be any thing from a skirmish game using WHFB based rules,( 2nd ed revisited).To a complete re-write based on the current battle game size and units types,(a 28mm version of Epic).And about 100 different games variants between these two basic game types.

I can not contribute in any meaningful way unless I know what Lance 845 thinks the issues with 40k are, and how Lance845 would prefer to tackle them.
As the title is asking for a simplified version of 40k. What is causing the complication in the current rules in Lance 845 opinion?

This is a simple question , and can be answered very simply too.

@Lance845.
If I could answer questions A to C by reading the first post, I would not be asking you directly.PM me you reply if you prefer.
If the basic 40k F.O.C was not the worst force organisation method I have ever come across,I would not have asked you if you would consider using an alternative.

@Lanrak:

Ok, I'll help you then:

A) What YOU think the issues are with the current 40k rules,

Answer:

"There should be as little looking up special rules as possible."

"There needs to be a simple and effective way for people to build their army list."

"Moral needs to play a part in the game for all forces."

"Too much of 40k as it is now involves lots of down time and waiting while the other player takes their many actions."

B)How YOU want to address those issues.

The explanation to this question is what this thread is about. The explanation is the entire work of making the rules. If he had the answers, the discussions would be over and the rules for 40k 7.5 would all be ready to download.

C) What sort of game play do YOU want to end up with.

I guess he wants Warhammer 40k, 7th edition, with the issues listed under A) solved by whatever solutions he arrives to.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lanrak wrote:
@Chaospling.

He has changed the game turn mechanic , added one stat , and made some minor changes to the 7th ed rule set.It is not clear from this what end game play he is trying to arrive at.

There you go - specifics. Ask him why he wants those changes.

Just in case anyone else might have the same kinds of confusion Lanrak is having I will answer these questions.

Lanrak wrote:
@Lance845.

A) What YOU think the issues are with the current 40k rules,

B)How YOU want to address those issues.

C) What sort of game play do YOU want to end up with.

 Lance845 wrote:
Simple Tight Rules: There should be as little looking up special rules as possible. The game should be easy to learn over the course of a couple games. Depth of game play should come from interactions. We want to reduce resolution methods. Reduce unique special rules to the things that actually need them. Fix complexity where ever we can find it.

I would like us to gut the game here if needed. Every mechanic is up for scrutiny. If something seems good enough lets rip into it and see if we can make it better.

Simple Army Construction: There needs to be a simple and effective way for people to build their army list. That starts with the FoC and logical restrictions to maintain a balance. I would like to start with the 30k method. I will expand on that more below. But returning to design goal 1, this is free to be torn down and rebuilt as something else entirely if there is a easier better way to do it. Nothing is sacred here.

No Immunity to Basic Mechanics Things like Fearless and ATSKNF are widespread in 7th. Whole parts of core mechanics don't function for large swathes of the armies out there. None of that. If Fearless exists it exists rarely. Moral needs to play a part in the game for all forces.

Active Game Play and Tactical/Strategic Counter Play Too much of 40k as it is now involves lots of down time and waiting while the other player takes their many actions. You often have no choice but to watch barrage after barrage come your way with little to no answer but whatever ends up weathering the storm to dump onto them when it's your turn. Too many mechanics are closed systems that leave players incapable of reacting to them. As much as possible we need to open up options for counter play. Players need to be able to react reasonably to the other player to allow for a more active game of risk and reward.

That is it. Lets not start the simple game with complicated goals.

Unless changed here, use the base line 7th ed rules to fill in any gaps in the game play for the time being. The goal will be to fill those gaps as we go.

From the first post we can see that the answer to A) is that I think there are too many special rules and too much having to reference the rule book. The game is overly complicated. We should simplify it. Army construction should be a simple affair. And that I believe the army construction is a good place to place restrictions that help maintain balance. That 40k has a lot of special rules that contradict core game systems or make them redundant. And that the game has poor counter play opportunity and a lot of down time.

The answer to B, is literally started with the rest of my post, but continues with the subject matter of the thread. Us here pooling ideas and trying to hammer them into the best possible configuration to meet the design goals outlined.

The answer to C, is a combination of the answers to A and B. It seems pretty obvious.

Just a quick note on the 40k F.O.C.
It is the ONLY one I am aware of that focuses on unit function, rather than unit rarity in the force.

Every other game I have played that uses 'point values' for in 'game value',and balances synergistic anomalies with a F.O.C based on limiting unit numbers and types available.
Eg how rare a unit is in a force is not controlled just by P.V. but by the theme of the force chosen.

And as a result every other war game I have played has a much simpler and far more diverse and 'narrative friendly' F.O.C .

Would you consider alternatives the the current 40k F.O.C?

Simple Army Construction: There needs to be a simple and effective way for people to build their army list. That starts with the FoC and logical restrictions to maintain a balance. I would like to start with the 30k method. I will expand on that more below. But returning to design goal 1, this is free to be torn down and rebuilt as something else entirely if there is a easier better way to do it. Nothing is sacred here.

I would like to start with the 30k method.

But returning to design goal 1, this is free to be torn down and rebuilt as something else entirely if there is a easier better way to do it. Nothing is sacred here.

I repeat Lanrak... your every question could be answered in the first part of the first post. I am convinced you just didn't even bother to read the first post. The next time you post here without respecting what I have requested of you I am contacting mods. I ask other participants of the thread to ignore him unless he decides he wants to actually contribute.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lanrak wrote:
@Chaospling.
I am not asking for any discussion or lengthy explanations.Just trying to get a better understanding of what Lance845 wants to achieve.

He has changed the game turn mechanic , added one stat , and made some minor changes to the 7th ed rule set.It is not clear from this what end game play he is trying to arrive at.

I believe in building a game based on simplified abstract goals. I am not tied to deciding whether it's epic at 32mm scale, or small skirmish. I believe that based on those 4 goals we can hammer out a fun way to play a game and the the size and scope of the game that fits that best will find us. We differ in this opinion. YOU think we need to define that first to know where to go. I don't. I wont discuss the differences with you here. What end game play I am trying to arrive at is the game play that best fits the criteria of the design goals to make the most fun possible within them. Any 40k rules that are currently still in tact from 7th edition are there simply for the sake of current testing purposes. ... again, stated in the VERY FIRST POST. They can, and likely will, be changed as this goes. I think it is both healthy for me to have ideas I might not think of tossed my way by the community AND fun for everyone to talk about it and build together.

Contribute or leave it alone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NInjatactiks wrote:
For unit activation, have you thought about doing the DnD/Dark Heresy route of giving action points to units or the option of doing an action and movement in any order?

Thanks for the post Ninja!

I am familiar with DnD but not Dark Heresy. How do you see the action points playing out over unit activations in a game at 40ks current scale? Like... say 1500 points?

Just curious if you can expand on this idea at all so I can make sure I am understanding it right.

ScarVet101 wrote:
Just a few ideas I've seen that I'd like to add to the pot.

Like a lot of people have said adding movement stats back in would be great and could actually strip a few special rules out. I'd like to see something like this. Using SM as an example drop centurions to 4", terminators to 5" and Power armour & scouts to 6". Bikes, Jump Pack & vehicles could all get a similar thing.

A couple people have suggested I place Space Marines at the 6" speed as use them as a base so far. Lemme ask you this, and anyone else feel free to answer, what do you think the largest effective range of base infantry should be? If marines are starting with a move of 6" and then can run and charge, then how far should hormagaunts be able to reach?

My initial thought was to maintain 40ks current rough numbers as the maximum for basic infantry. Do you feel like the game might start to fall apart if something like a blob of 30 hormagaunts could move 8 run 4 and charge 8 for a 20" effective threat range? And that is before gargoyles and shrikes get even faster for being jump.

No wrong answers, I just wanna hear what you guys think.

What I would add to that though is that if this became a 3 part stat linked with shooting and assaults it could bring all movement in to just one phase, cutting down the dead time the other player has to sit through. If you make it in to contact, you've assaulted and no shooting (if you can fight) except pistols. Defense grenades prevent pistol fire

Moving through cover should reduce a units speed bands and fleet should be a counter, change unit entries to Fleet (X), X being the amount added back. Eg if a terrain piece is -3 movement and a HB has Fleet (2), they only loose 1" movement. Fleet shouldn't increase a units speed though, Speed 6" Fleet (3) should still be 6" moved in the open.

So linking this to shooting, units which don't move fire at full effect and one model can fire at a different target.
Units that move at the 1st speed fire as one, with Heavies snapfiring
units that fire at the 2nd speed can't fire heavies and rapid fire & salvo weapons can only snap fire
moving at the final speed only pistols may fire at snap fire.

relentless units, MCG.MC and vehicles fire at the step lower then their actual movements (so they can fire heavies normally at speed 1)

BS become a split stat, full/snap fire - this is more that it makes no sense that a vindicator assassin as the same poor chance of hitting with snap fire that a Ork does.

For starters, I am not necessarily opposed to the idea that a unit either assaults OR shoots and that that is a choice the player makes in their movement phase. That could work. I will ruminate on how it could effect a few different armys.

Second, I feel like the different effects for shooting is adding the complication of current vehicles to every unit in the game. I would much rather get that complication out of the game in general then bring it to everyone across the board.

The idea for fleet is really interesting. I am making a note of it for sure for when I get to condensing and redoing the special rules. That is a very interesting idea!.

To help break up a player turn, bring back the old school Overwatch (unit doesn't move or shoot in there turn, but can fire during the opponents movement phase, no split fire) but using the snap fire BS score. Replace the current over watch with the option to fire as per this overwatch instead of making CC attacks as the defender on the turn you are assaulted at I10. Assault grenades prevent this.

I havea preference for the form of overwatch I have now. Snapshots just are not effective. It's more of a waste of time rolling piles of dice for little to no effect. Sacrificing your shooting and assault phase to enter overwatch as a tactical decision plays better into the goal of active counter play.

Armour Save, invunerables & cover save Vs AP - replace the current AP with the AOS rending modifiers, then cover and invulnerable save modify the role as well. The difference being cover can be ignored by some weapons. Using the SM captain as an example his 3+ armour is improved to 0+ by his Iron Halo (a 1 still always fails), hit by a bolter (rend 1?) he still has a 2+ save but hit by a Meltagin (rend -5?) he is reduced to a 6+ save. The same captain behind a defence line (+2 save?) would then have a 4+ save against the melta but would still fail to the bolter on a 1.

I have actually been considering this! AP is a penalty to Sv stat. Cover is a penalty to BS (minimum BS 1 -i.e. 6+) Invul saves as a design rule will never be better then 4+ and are uneffected by anything but destroyer weapons) which will just ignore all saves similar to AOS mortal wounds (you still have to roll to hit).

Finally Leadership tests - these become D6 + factor. So in shooting and combat the factor would be casualties (like AOS) but units fall back rather then take more casualties. Fearless units could possible only be D3 + Factor.

Good idea. Leadership is currently the only stat that tests the way it does. I would like to get it more in line with the rest of the attributes if for no other reason then simplicity.

HI folks. Ill keep this short.
(Ill PM Lance845 with more detailed information a bit later.)

Stating the 40k rules are over complicated with too many special and this is having a negative impact on the game play.
Is stating a symptoms/side effects of poor game design .
It does not look at why the 40k rules are so complicated compared to the simple game play of 40k, or why 40k has to resort to using so many special rules.(Eg why the 40k rules are not written with clarity and brevity to deliver intuitive game play.)

Example of stating issues with the actual 40k rules, and alternative solutions.

The alternating game turn , is the best fit in war games where tactical maneuver into effective weapons range is an important part of the in the game play.
Because of the amount of units on the table in current 40k , there is very limited (if any.) tactical maneuver into weapons range.

Therefore you can either reduce the amount of units on the table back to a skirmish game size, to fit the current game turn .OR use a more interactive game turn mechanic.(Lance 845. has chosen a more interactive game turn mechanic. )

So to address the issues with the rules, you can change the game play to fit the rules, or change the rules to fit the expected game play.This is the sort of info I was after.

Anyhow, enough of that.(Ill PM Lance 845 with actual detailed game design questions from now on. )

Lance845 could you clarify what happens when an 'assault death star' is assaulted by multiple MSU.(Ill keep the units names generic as I dont want to get bogged down in minutia.)

Does the Death star get to fight back just once ,eg the first attacking MSU.In which case the MSU get an unfair advantage compared to the current rule set?
Or Does the Deathstar, get to fight back with full efficiency on every MSU attack, Giving the death star unit an advantage over the current rules?

Have you any ideas on how current 'combined assaults' could be covered with single unit activation game turn?(Apologies If I have missed it .)

Hi Lance845,

In regards to something like the Hormagaunts, there has been a call in the past to make them beasts anyway, would give a potential move + charge or 24"

In general though I would probable put Orks, Humans & Tau as 5" and Marines, Eldar, Daemons and Nids at 6" basic and then move out from there within each race.

So as I've already given a marine example, may nids would be Gaunts, 'stealers & warriors at 6", Hive Guard & 'thropes 5" with ravaners & hormagaunts at 7" (other beasties as suits).

I take your point on making shooting to complicated but there does need to be some trade off between moving and shooting. How would you play it?

I think snap shot would work better if it was actually based on BS rather then a flat 6+. For a tau if they has BS 3/2 getting to shoot a pulse rifle at BS2 instead of trying to hit something with the blunt end would actually be better for them. With Marines being something like 4/3(or2) it would be more of a choice as to which would be better.

Lat bit, I've never really been a fan of cover effecting BS as some weapons (like lascannons) aren't going to care about that tree you're hiding behind. However anything a shot might have to pass through is going to take some of the sting out of it so maybe a "counter rend" would cover that. Feel no pain could work the same way and leave invuns as they are (agree to a cap at 4+)

ScarVet101 wrote:
Lat bit, I've never really been a fan of cover effecting BS as some weapons (like lascannons) aren't going to care about that tree you're hiding behind. However anything a shot might have to pass through is going to take some of the sting out of it so maybe a "counter rend" would cover that. Feel no pain could work the same way and leave invuns as they are (agree to a cap at 4+)

I've seen this complaint before. Cover isn't just about blocking the shot, but also partially blocking the view of the target.

Sure, a Lascannon will punch through 90% of the terrain that is on the board, but if it punches through that terrain and what they are trying to hit isn't behind that specific spot that the Lascannon punched through, then a hit will not be generated.

40k conflates cover (stops incoming fire) and concealment (makes you difficult to aim at) - as, IMHO, it should, because distinguishing them requires far too much mechanical goo.

Lanrak wrote:

Lance845 could you clarify what happens when an 'assault death star' is assaulted by multiple MSU.(Ill keep the units names generic as I dont want to get bogged down in minutia.)

Does the Death star get to fight back just once ,eg the first attacking MSU. In which case the MSU get an unfair advantage compared to the current rule set?
Or Does the Deathstar, get to fight back with full efficiency on every MSU attack, Giving the death star unit an advantage over the current rules?

Have you any ideas on how current 'combined assaults' could be covered with single unit activation game turn?(Apologies If I have missed it .

Death stars should mostly end up eliminated. That being said one unit can be more powerful in melee then another. But that isn't really your question.

Your question is, "What happens to a unit that is assaulted multiple times in a single game round? Do they a) attack at full efficiency during every combat or b) fight once and then sit back and take a beating from each additional unit that fights."

I have several thoughts.

a) The first is that a unit can only actively put itself into combat once each game round on it's own activation. If an enemy decides to engage it over and over again in the element where they have the advantage with different units that is their own choice. If this was the way we go, with each unit getting their full attacks each combat, then there are several mitigating factors in play.

Some mechanics that help to balance this idea out.

Attacking priority always goes to the attacker. There are essentially 6 initiative steps in the current proposed assault system. Attacker quick, defender quick, attacker "standard", defender "standard", attacker slow, defender slow. If one unit gets charged multiple times it has to weather at minimum 1 round of attacks from the attacking unit unless the attacker has only slower weapons then the defender (at which point the attacker is making the choice to give the attacker a round of combat before they get to hit). This means, in general, that a unit that gets assaulted should be suffering some losses before they get to attack. In return, they get to attack at their full remaining strength. Coupled with Tactical Retreats so tarpitting doesn't exist and nobody ends up locked in combat that doesn't want to be, this becomes all about choice and natural limiters. A unit is limited in what it is capable of doing naturally by it's full potential in a single activation. Any additional potential is given to it by the other player. Left alone it will simply sit until the next game round.

By this thought process a "deathstar" will only be as killy as the opponent lets it be. By the same token, an enemy could potentially throw hordes of lesser units onto a dog pile to try to overwhelm a powerful assault unit. Strength in numbers can come into play. But each round of combat they do not wipe out that assault unit, it gets to strike back and potentially do more. Do you think that unit is weak enough that you can overwhelm it? Risk it and find out. Risk and reward. Active game play


b) The other idea is that a unit should diminish over consecutive combats. My current thought on implementing this mechanically is that a model losses 2 attacks for each combat it participates in after the first to a minimum of 1 attack. A unit of models with 5 attacks on the charge would have 2 when the enemy charges them and 1 the next time. They would maintain 1 attack each until the next game round... or more likely their next activation.

I am currently not favoring this one. For one, again, nobody lets the "deathstar" deal its damage repeatedly that doesn't let it. The combat system favoring the attacker allows the person activating units to try to capitalize. It seems fair to let the defender go down swinging with all the might they have remaining.

I also feel like this both gives an advantage to MSU and Larger units. The MSU might be able to come in activation after activation taking attacker priority, but to really capitalize on that priority they want the biggest unit possible. A very large unit being attacked by multiple small units might be able to wipe out those MSUs if they cannot do enough damage first.



In conclusion, there is a lot at play. I would like to see how it functions on the table with the current system before I make a decision on whether it needs to be adjusted. Theoretically, it should just work right now and the things perceived as problems just are not really problems or more correctly a problem of your own making if you let it happen. I am aware that something might need to change and have some ideas for how it could, but the problem hasn't actually presented itself yet.

@Lance845.
I used the term 'assault death star unit' to mean a unit that is more powerful in assault than most other units in the game.
The sort of units current players assault with multiple less able units to have a chance of taking it down.
I do not want to use actual names of units as I am trying to look at basic mechanics resolution methods etc.

When you say 'death stars' will be eliminated, do you mean removed as an option from play?EG restrict what units a player can take to allow the single units activation game turn to work better.(EG improve the balance between units to remove issues with unit imbalance in the single unit activation based game turn?)

(I am basically asking these questions based on previous play testing of several alternative rule set for 40k we tried out over the last 10 years or so. )

The rules may work, BUT if players feel the rules give unfair advantages they ask for change.
If you let the 'assault specialist' fight the enemy MSU one at a time, they get to overwhelm the MSU with their close combat skills.
And some players may find loosing the ability to attack the enemy with multiple units at the same time to similar effect as the current rules, as 'unfair'.

Currently a player can launch multiple units into attacking an enemy unit.This is resolved as 'one combat in initiative order'.
Alternating phase game turn allows this to happen with similar results, (and no extra rules for sequencing required.)
And the majority of 40k players we talked to thought it was easier to transition to alternation phase game turn from the alternating game turn mechanic as the same familiar phases and tactical options could be used.

The old tactical loading in the movement phase(action.()From 1st and 2nd ed 40k.)

Remain stationary and get a bonus to ranged attacks,And can fire move or fire weapons .(Longer range or higher rate of fire for side arms?)

Move and shoot 'move and fire' weapons only.

Move up to double movement rate.(The only way to launch an assault, by declaring a 'charge'?)

This gives a tactical choice between moving and shooting.As previously mentioned.

This puts all the movement in the movement phase(action,) and speeds up play considerably.
(It actually does increase tactical depth and speed up play, play tested , proven and used in lots of good war games! )

Lots of games model the effects of cover as a 'to hit modifier.'
Eg light cover that makes the target harder to see /hit gives a -1 to attackers to hit chance.(Or a +1 to targets Evade stat.)

Heavy cover that makes the target harder to see/hit and may deflect the incoming shot , gives a -2 to attackers to hit chance.(Or a +2 to target Evade stat.)

I think this is preferable to a separate additional /optional cover save.(In terms of reduced complication and intuitive results.)

ScarVet101 wrote:
Hi Lance845,

In regards to something like the Hormagaunts, there has been a call in the past to make them beasts anyway, would give a potential move + charge or 24"

In general though I would probable put Orks, Humans & Tau as 5" and Marines, Eldar, Daemons and Nids at 6" basic and then move out from there within each race.

So as I've already given a marine example, may nids would be Gaunts, 'stealers & warriors at 6", Hive Guard & 'thropes 5" with ravaners & hormagaunts at 7" (other beasties as suits).

Why do you think, from a fluff perspective, that marines should be in the same classification as eldar and nids? I mean, lets keep in mind that the movement stat means we can assess each individual unit and give them a speed that is appropriate to them. I am just curious and want to keep the discussion going. I was concerned that necrons were going to be too slow by the numbers I have now and these could help "fix" that if it's actually a problem.

I take your point on making shooting to complicated but there does need to be some trade off between moving and shooting. How would you play it?

Welly current plan was a BS penalty for choosing to run. Once I get new weapon types those classifications would mesh well into that system. Different weapon types would be effected by different types of movement and potentially restrict it (run is -1bs in general, moving might be a -1bs to heavy (-2 if you do both) and if any of this reduces your BS to 0 you cannot shoot that type of gun. Shooting a "salvo" (just as an example) means you cannot charge.

I think snap shot would work better if it was actually based on BS rather then a flat 6+. For a tau if they has BS 3/2 getting to shoot a pulse rifle at BS2 instead of trying to hit something with the blunt end would actually be better for them. With Marines being something like 4/3(or2) it would be more of a choice as to which would be better.

Lat bit, I've never really been a fan of cover effecting BS as some weapons (like lascannons) aren't going to care about that tree you're hiding behind. However anything a shot might have to pass through is going to take some of the sting out of it so maybe a "counter rend" would cover that. Feel no pain could work the same way and leave invuns as they are (agree to a cap at 4+)

As has been stated cover saves cover a variety of things as it should for simplicity sake.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lanrak wrote:
@Lance845.
When you say 'death stars' will be eliminated, do you mean removed as an option from play?EG restrict what units a player can take to allow the single units activation game turn to work better.(EG improve the balance between units to remove issues with unit imbalance in the single unit activation based game turn?)

Im building from the ground up. The codexs as they are now won't function properly eventually. We have every opportunity for balance, both from a unit balance perspective and a mechanical perspective.

The rules may work, BUT if players feel the rules give unfair advantages they ask for change.
If you let the 'assault specialist' fight the enemy MSU one at a time, they get to overwhelm the MSU with their close combat skills.
And some players may find loosing the ability to attack the enemy with multiple units at the same time to similar effect as the current rules, as 'unfair'.

To be blunt, I don't care. Everyone will feel one way or another about everything. I only care if the game play is fluid and the interactions fun. Again, combat favors the person whos turn it is. They can pile on the MSU all they want. It has lots of advantages inherently. Giving some advantages back to larger more invested units is not a bad thing and I won't apologize for it or try to maintain the dominance MSU has now. It's a new game! Nothing here needs to adhere to anything that came before.

Currently a player can launch multiple units into attacking an enemy unit.This is resolved as 'one combat in initiative order'.
Alternating phase game turn allows this to happen with similar results, (and no extra rules for sequencing required.)
And the majority of 40k players we talked to thought it was easier to transition to alternation phase game turn from the alternating game turn mechanic as the same familiar phases and tactical options could be used.

Again, I just don't care. Develop new tactics. This is not 7th ed with patches. This is something new. The core mechanics of the game turn are going to be different. Some mechanics will transition in new forms. Some might get cut if they aren't helping. Some new concepts will likely slip in (Tactical Retreats). I would not put in this work if I was interested in just playing more of "7th - but this time maybe better?". This is meant to simplify the 40k experience and build it into a better actual game.

The old tactical loading in the movement phase(action.()From 1st and 2nd ed 40k.)

Remain stationary and get a bonus to ranged attacks,And can fire move or fire weapons .(Longer range or higher rate of fire for side arms?)

Move and shoot 'move and fire' weapons only.

Move up to double movement rate.(The only way to launch an assault, by declaring a 'charge'?)

This gives a tactical choice between moving and shooting.As previously mentioned.

This puts all the movement in the movement phase(action,) and speeds up play considerably.
(It actually does increase tactical depth and speed up play, play tested , proven and used in lots of good war games! )

This is a system I had forgotten about for some reason. Easily something to take into consideration. Likely something to be used. It's very quick and easy to activate a unit and pick one of 3 simplified options. I will begin writing something up to be released with weapon types.

Main post updated with a bunch of stuff. Added a change log to detail all the changes and make it easy to see whats new.

10/19/16
-Added the section "Unit Actions".
-Changed "The Game Round and Player Turn". Now there are orders you can give to an activated unit. These orders determine the permissions granted to a unit during their activation.
-Moved "Psychic Powers" into "Unit Actions"
-Added a "Special Thanks!" section for contributors of mechanics! Thanks everyone!

The nuts and bolts of this is that the unit activation is now working like some other games out there in that you have a set of predetermined orders that you can give to a unit.

You pick your unit, you select your order, and then you follow the permissions the order allows. Mostly these order will look like the normal 40k actions broken up among the various phases. Except now there are no phases. There is just the unit activation and it's permissions. Give them a look over. If you notice anything that seems to be missing or any action that is not covered please let me know. Mechanically and strategically speaking these orders and the actions they allow should function very similar to what you would expect from 40k as is (with the exception that they are now using the more streamlined and simplified rules we are developing here). I am currently unsure of Hold Position! I don't know if I should combine it with some kind of Go to Ground or what.... which reminds me I need to add Go to Ground later as well...

Future order additions will be something for occupying a building/terrain and using gun emplacements as a way to easily blend in stronghold assault rules.I will worry about those Orders/actions at a later date though. What I think I like best about this is how condensed it is. What was many many pages of rules spread all over the BRB explaining how various unit types interact with various unit types on a unit to unit basis is now just one list of permissions. Is this a good change? A bad change? Do you foresee problems arising from it? Let me know! Thanks to everyone who has been participating so far. MORE IDEAS!

And please. Feel free to convert a few units of whatever army you have to the new stat line and post the stat lines here for testing purposes. The general guideline I have used so far for which units to convert is 1 "main generic HQ", 2 iconic basic troops, an extra unit or 2 that adds some flexibility to the list and allows the list some of that armys flavor. Lets get more test games going to see how this all flows.

@Lance 845.
Is the proposed new stat line going to cover vehicles ,(EG do they get T W and a save, ) or do they get a separate set of stats like the current 40k rules?
If vehicles are to remain as part of the new game , should we not use stats that cover all unit types in a similar way?

Also, if you are changing the way players interact, tactics used, forces and units used, so everything apart from the minatures is ' new and different'.
How can the new rules set be recognized as' the game of 40k' by the existing player base?

If you just want a better rule set to use 40k minatures with , there are a quite few ,much better rule sets in terms of clarity and brevity already in existence.
(Depending what sort of game play you are after there is Stargrunt II, No Limits, One Page 40k, Dirtside, Warpath, to name a few. )


(I think the 40k game scale and scope should be unique , and deliver the game play the majority of 40k players expect. I could be in a minority in thinking like this? )

Lanrak wrote:
@Lance 845.
Is the proposed new stat line going to cover vehicles ,(EG do they get T W and a save, ) or do they get a separate set of stats like the current 40k rules?
If vehicles are to remain as part of the new game , should we not use stats that cover all unit types in a similar way?

Vehicles will likely have a T and Sv value. They should follow the same systems as everything else. There is no reason to create an entirely different resolution method just for a minority of the models in the game that are not even available to every army. They will also likely retain the facing system in current 40k unless something more interesting gets proposed or comes to mind.

Also, if you are changing the way players interact, tactics used, forces and units used, so everything apart from the minatures is ' new and different'.
How can the new rules set be recognized as' the game of 40k' by the existing player base?

Because space marines and orks will use bolters, chain swords, and orky dakka and choppy stuff to fight over alien worlds.

If you just want a better rule set to use 40k minatures with , there are a quite few ,much better rule sets in terms of clarity and brevity already in existence.
(Depending what sort of game play you are after there is Stargrunt II, No Limits, One Page 40k, Dirtside, Warpath, to name a few. )


(I think the 40k game scale and scope should be unique , and deliver the game play the majority of 40k players expect. I could be in a minority in thinking like this? )

Because I enjoy game design. I enjoy the process, I enjoy the conversation with the community and the pooling of ideas. I like making something new. Because those other systems are not, quite, right to me. 1 pg 40k is great for what it does but does not offer the depth of game play I am looking for. It's TOO simple for me. Not bad btw. I really admire their bare bones design. Excellent reductive design to get to the bare bones core of the game and get it playing quickly.

But I don't want to play Risk right now, I want to play twilight Imperium. And that means I need a little more meat on the bones.

You asked me these last couple of questions in the PMs we have going. I answered it here to clarify for the thread why I stated this and why I am investing my time. It's not up for debate here. I wont discuss it with you. Stay on the topic of brainstorming new ideas not referring me to games that already exist or opening a debate about whether it is still 40k if it's not using 40ks mechanics.

Lance 845.
If we are to cover all units with the same stat line, do you think we should change the names of the stats to be more generic, rather than 'biologicaly' focused?
Eg change the name 'wounds' to some thing more generic like 'hit points' perhaps?

It's a superficial change. One that is unimportant for the time being. Context vs mechanic. It functions exactly the same and can be adjusted in a clean up.

Haven't been in the thread for a while but I'll answer some questions you brought up in various other posts Lance.

Fluff reason for having Space Marines move at a base 6" instead of 5" like normal humans is simple, they're genetically engineered supe humans meant to keep up with Eldar and Daemons. I also agree with the previous posters delinations of having Orks, Humans and Tau (makes sense to add in Necrons to that list as well) at 5" with Marines, Eldar, Nids and Daemons at 6", taking those figures as a base for the factions and adjusting for specific units (e.g. Dark Eldar Wychs can be 7" because they are super fast gladiators whilst Wracks would be 5" because they're shambling Frankensteins).

Your specific example of Hormagaunts threat range at 20" with an 8" move, 4" run and 8" charge is a good one. I think I previously mentioned that I'm not in favour of having a unit both run and charge in the same turn for the worry you presented, the enormous threat ranges some of the really fast units can have. Just imagine what it would be like with Reaver Jet Bikes, who absolutely should be the fastest of the fastest and unlike most other bike units absolutely want to be in close combat with their Cluster Caltrops. Personally I prefer the idea of units choosing one or the other because doing both seems to be too much of a boost for assault units.

Regarding changing the terms for Wounds and Wounding, it might be superficial, certainly at the moment, but it will defintiely be something that needs to be considered especially if your changing vehicles to have a Toughness value and Save. At present you have to be very careful with wording things because To Wound and Armour Penetration are very different things.

 Imateria wrote:

Fluff reason for having Space Marines move at a base 6" instead of 5" like normal humans is simple, they're genetically engineered supe humans meant to keep up with Eldar and Daemons. I also agree with the previous posters delinations of having Orks, Humans and Tau (makes sense to add in Necrons to that list as well) at 5" with Marines, Eldar, Nids and Daemons at 6", taking those figures as a base for the factions and adjusting for specific units (e.g. Dark Eldar Wychs can be 7" because they are super fast gladiators whilst Wracks would be 5" because they're shambling Frankensteins).

And we could be looking at 7" Banshees/Guardians vs 6" Scorpions/Fire Dragons/Dark Reapers, as well. In other words, the "normal" Eldar being 7", but their heavy armored versions being slowed down.

One of the biggest problems I have had with the introduction of the M stat is that it usually starts with a severe global nerf to all but the "fastest" Infantry staying at 6". And yes, they may have been 4" for the most part before 3rd edition, but it has been 6" for quite some time since then. So, going from 6" to 4" for basic Movement will be seen as a nerf by anyone who sees it. It would be the equivalent of removing Run after so long with it.

If we're to have the Movement stat brought back in, we need to have the "baseline" Marines keep the 6", and the "average" Guardsmen being 5". Terminators might be slower to 5" to indicate the stodginess of their Armor, but that's about it.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Imateria wrote:

Fluff reason for having Space Marines move at a base 6" instead of 5" like normal humans is simple, they're genetically engineered supe humans meant to keep up with Eldar and Daemons. I also agree with the previous posters delinations of having Orks, Humans and Tau (makes sense to add in Necrons to that list as well) at 5" with Marines, Eldar, Nids and Daemons at 6", taking those figures as a base for the factions and adjusting for specific units (e.g. Dark Eldar Wychs can be 7" because they are super fast gladiators whilst Wracks would be 5" because they're shambling Frankensteins).

And we could be looking at 7" Banshees/Guardians vs 6" Scorpions/Fire Dragons/Dark Reapers, as well. In other words, the "normal" Eldar being 7", but their heavy armored versions being slowed down.

One of the biggest problems I have had with the introduction of the M stat is that it usually starts with a severe global nerf to all but the "fastest" Infantry staying at 6". And yes, they may have been 4" for the most part before 3rd edition, but it has been 6" for quite some time since then. So, going from 6" to 4" for basic Movement will be seen as a nerf by anyone who sees it. It would be the equivalent of removing Run after so long with it.

If we're to have the Movement stat brought back in, we need to have the "baseline" Marines keep the 6", and the "average" Guardsmen being 5". Terminators might be slower to 5" to indicate the stodginess of their Armor, but that's about it.

Agreed, 4" is just too slow for something that isn't huge an lumbering like a Tyrannofex.

Thanks for the feedback! I will get to answering this points. Been real busy with life stuff the last couple days so haven't been able to do to much work on this project.

 Imateria wrote:
Haven't been in the thread for a while but I'll answer some questions you brought up in various other posts Lance.

Fluff reason for having Space Marines move at a base 6" instead of 5" like normal humans is simple, they're genetically engineered supe humans meant to keep up with Eldar and Daemons. I also agree with the previous posters delinations of having Orks, Humans and Tau (makes sense to add in Necrons to that list as well) at 5" with Marines, Eldar, Nids and Daemons at 6", taking those figures as a base for the factions and adjusting for specific units (e.g. Dark Eldar Wychs can be 7" because they are super fast gladiators whilst Wracks would be 5" because they're shambling Frankensteins).

Your specific example of Hormagaunts threat range at 20" with an 8" move, 4" run and 8" charge is a good one. I think I previously mentioned that I'm not in favour of having a unit both run and charge in the same turn for the worry you presented, the enormous threat ranges some of the really fast units can have. Just imagine what it would be like with Reaver Jet Bikes, who absolutely should be the fastest of the fastest and unlike most other bike units absolutely want to be in close combat with their Cluster Caltrops. Personally I prefer the idea of units choosing one or the other because doing both seems to be too much of a boost for assault units.

I am in particular concerned about the out-liers with the movement stats. Too much speed and the threat range becomes VERY powerful. Too little and any piece of terrain becomes a slog you will never escape. A 4" move on all non canoptek crons with a -2" move for difficult terrain would just ruin their ability to move in any kind of terrain. There are potential answers. Like the crons getting some kind of move through cover to adapt their slow and steady march forward... But that's a patch for a problem in the baseline rules that ignores one of my design goals. No army wide immunity to core game mechanics.

I will definitely takes these numbers into consideration as I roll out the next update which should include some more units for some more armys with updated M attributes across the board. Unit types and Weapon types will also get updated and I think really streamlined.

Regarding changing the terms for Wounds and Wounding, it might be superficial, certainly at the moment, but it will defintiely be something that needs to be considered especially if your changing vehicles to have a Toughness value and Save. At present you have to be very careful with wording things because To Wound and Armour Penetration are very different things.

I agree. I also thought of a way to adjust the vehicle damage chart. Consider this idea and please give me some feed back.

Vehicle toughness is not based on facing but is based on highest current av on the vehicle.

av = t
14 = 10
13 = 9
12 = 8
11 = 7
10 = 6

armor saves would be based on facing and different facings would have different armor saves.

AV = Sv
10-11 = 3 (4+)
12-13 = 4 (3+)
14 = 5 (2+)

If a vehicle suffers 2 or more unsaved wounds in a single activation it rolls on the vehicle damage chart. (This means it can only ever roll on the chart 1 time in any given activation. No multi pen would be possible.

Vehicle Dmg Chart
roll 1d6
1-3 Nothing happens
4 = Shaken (snap shots only and a reduction to M... I am thinking 1/2 M currently but might be a flat reduction like 6" or maybe reduce it to combat speed only)
5 = weapon destroyed
6 = Immobilized
7 = Explodes

If the vehicle is already shaken and you roll a 4 add 1 to the result. If the roll is a 5 and the vehicle has no more weapons to destroy add 1 to the result. If the vehicle is already immobilized and the roll is a 6 move to explodes.

I think most vehicles would get an extra wound or 2 in addition to this. I would have to see how durable the toughness and saves make the vehicles first. Coupled with a 50% chance that nothing happens on a pen and only 1 pen possible from any given unit. Some weapon types, such as melta, might force a pen roll regardless of # of wounds or possibly give a bonus to the roll. Just some rough ideas at the moment. Thoughts?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Imateria wrote:

Fluff reason for having Space Marines move at a base 6" instead of 5" like normal humans is simple, they're genetically engineered supe humans meant to keep up with Eldar and Daemons. I also agree with the previous posters delinations of having Orks, Humans and Tau (makes sense to add in Necrons to that list as well) at 5" with Marines, Eldar, Nids and Daemons at 6", taking those figures as a base for the factions and adjusting for specific units (e.g. Dark Eldar Wychs can be 7" because they are super fast gladiators whilst Wracks would be 5" because they're shambling Frankensteins).

And we could be looking at 7" Banshees/Guardians vs 6" Scorpions/Fire Dragons/Dark Reapers, as well. In other words, the "normal" Eldar being 7", but their heavy armored versions being slowed down.

One of the biggest problems I have had with the introduction of the M stat is that it usually starts with a severe global nerf to all but the "fastest" Infantry staying at 6". And yes, they may have been 4" for the most part before 3rd edition, but it has been 6" for quite some time since then. So, going from 6" to 4" for basic Movement will be seen as a nerf by anyone who sees it. It would be the equivalent of removing Run after so long with it.

If we're to have the Movement stat brought back in, we need to have the "baseline" Marines keep the 6", and the "average" Guardsmen being 5". Terminators might be slower to 5" to indicate the stodginess of their Armor, but that's about it.

I don't have a problem with using marines as the jack of all trades average that we adjust the others to. But buffs and nerfs would all be relative regardless of where we put that line. If people are inclined to think it's a buff for eldar to move 6 while marines move 5 and guard move 4 then they will definitely feel the same way about eldar moving 7 marines 6 and guard 5. I don't put a lot of stock into those kinds of thought processes because of that. It's more about what effect the actual numbers have on the actual units and their intended purpose within the army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Imateria wrote:

Agreed, 4" is just too slow for something that isn't huge an lumbering like a Tyrannofex.

And I am inclined to agree. As above, the effect even just basic terrain could have on a 4" M is a bit too drastic for balance purposes. Those M4 armies would be crippled.

Yes, getting movement right is going to be quite the balancing act, I think setting 5 and 6 as the base movement for the "slow" and "fast" armies isn't a bad idea and it doesn't need to be universal across each army. Take Necrons, whilst Warriors and Immortals would be fairly slow, Flayed Ones should be quicker.

Completely agree on your changes to vehicles.

 Lance845 wrote:
I don't have a problem with using marines as the jack of all trades average that we adjust the others to. But buffs and nerfs would all be relative regardless of where we put that line. If people are inclined to think it's a buff for eldar to move 6 while marines move 5 and guard move 4 then they will definitely feel the same way about eldar moving 7 marines 6 and guard 5. I don't put a lot of stock into those kinds of thought processes because of that. It's more about what effect the actual numbers have on the actual units and their intended purpose within the army.

It's the amount of change which is being perceived that can trigger the response. People who played 2nd Edition won't have as big a problem with the average Infantry moving 4", many would like that back from what I've seen. But getting people who came in later to try and play this out without seeing it as falling down the nerf-bat tree is the reason for caution on it. I am only suggesting starting out with Marines at 6", test it, and then adjust from there so that you have some more data than a lot of these M-stat revival groups seem to do.

Keeping that in mind, do you plan on keeping in "pre-measuring" or not? If not, 1.5M for a Charge is fine. If not, may I suggest M+D6 or M+D3 as the average to allow some variability in the game?

 Charistoph wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I don't have a problem with using marines as the jack of all trades average that we adjust the others to. But buffs and nerfs would all be relative regardless of where we put that line. If people are inclined to think it's a buff for eldar to move 6 while marines move 5 and guard move 4 then they will definitely feel the same way about eldar moving 7 marines 6 and guard 5. I don't put a lot of stock into those kinds of thought processes because of that. It's more about what effect the actual numbers have on the actual units and their intended purpose within the army.

It's the amount of change which is being perceived that can trigger the response. People who played 2nd Edition won't have as big a problem with the average Infantry moving 4", many would like that back from what I've seen. But getting people who came in later to try and play this out without seeing it as falling down the nerf-bat tree is the reason for caution on it. I am only suggesting starting out with Marines at 6", test it, and then adjust from there so that you have some more data than a lot of these M-stat revival groups seem to do.

Keeping that in mind, do you plan on keeping in "pre-measuring" or not? If not, 1.5M for a Charge is fine. If not, may I suggest M+D6 or M+D3 as the average to allow some variability in the game?

Agree! I am happy to do a lot of data gathering. I want this to be done right.

I don't want variable charge distances. 1) it's a ridiculous extra roll for seemingly no purpose. 2) shooting doesn't have a variable distance on the guns.

I would like the game to try to make both melee and shooting as viable options for units, favoring one or the other, based on wargear and stat lines. Dice rolls for trying to hit. Not for the chance to try to hit.

First let me say this looks like a good effort. I'm in agreement on a lot of your ideas. I only skimmed this thread, but I want to ask, have you ever played Bolt Action? It has a few nice mechanics that hit your design goals and it feels more like a 40k game than 40k does (40k is more of a very complicated tooth pulling simulator).

In particular:

alternating activation via random draw from a dice bag, to keep MSU from holding actions till end of turn as effectively

morale test is often needed for activation, favors high quality troops

pinning that affects shooting and morale, a nice bit of realism that also has interesting interplay with the activation mechanic

unified damage system for infantry and vehicles

a simple set of orders with options for overwatch, rallying, taking cover, and penalties for moving and firing

It's written by some notable ex-GW designers and in my opinion it's the direction 40k should have gone to remain relevant as a ruleset. It's well worth looking at and possibly borrowing liberally from.

Updated the first post.

Change Log. Updated 10/19/16


Please look it over and let me know of any inconsistencies. This was kind of a big update. Lots and lots of information I had to keep track of as I chose what to cut and what to condense and what to keep. It's why Vehicles didn't quite get done yet.

Note that very few types of weapons now. You can take almost any weapon and figure where it would fall pretty easily. For instance most Salvo Weapons are kind of redundant in the game as is because they come on relentless platforms at which point they would be Heavy or Artillery(note the examples for how heavy works with bikes to see how heavy would be effected on Relentless platforms). The few that do not can be covered by the Heavy or Artillery Type and a Variable range/# of shots.

Fast and Heavy vehicles are made redundant by the M attribute.

Again... there is a lot. Please feel free to field any and all questions. Especially if you can think of odd ball or outlier units and weapons that don't quite fit within the given rules.

....A special Rules update is probably next...UGGH! ::head ache::


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
First let me say this looks like a good effort. I'm in agreement on a lot of your ideas. I only skimmed this thread, but I want to ask, have you ever played Bolt Action? It has a few nice mechanics that hit your design goals and it feels more like a 40k game than 40k does (40k is more of a very complicated tooth pulling simulator).

In particular:

alternating activation via random draw from a dice bag, to keep MSU from holding actions till end of turn as effectively

morale test is often needed for activation, favors high quality troops

pinning that affects shooting and morale, a nice bit of realism that also has interesting interplay with the activation mechanic

unified damage system for infantry and vehicles

a simple set of orders with options for overwatch, rallying, taking cover, and penalties for moving and firing

It's written by some notable ex-GW designers and in my opinion it's the direction 40k should have gone to remain relevant as a ruleset. It's well worth looking at and possibly borrowing liberally from.

Thanks for the post!

I have not had the chance to play Bolt Action myself. (Damn hobby is expensive to get into 1 game let alone 2). But I have read a lot about it and will be glad to look over the rules if I can find any. Please read over the rules in detail and give me all your criticism.

Question: How do people feel about firing arcs on vehicles? Does it really add anything to the game besides headaches? Is the game more fun because of them? Would it be easier to assume that any given vehicle is capable of rotating and positioning itself during it's activation to fire it's weapons at full effect?

 Lance845 wrote:
Question: How do people feel about firing arcs on vehicles? Does it really add anything to the game besides headaches? Is the game more fun because of them? Would it be easier to assume that any given vehicle is capable of rotating and positioning itself during it's activation to fire it's weapons at full effect?

Outside of turrets, the main body of a Vehicle tends to turn relatively slowly, but there is nothing in 40K which actually defines the actual time of a player turn/round like in Battletech.

But I guess it should be a general question as well, "Should there be firing arcs on anything?"

Firing Arcs could be kept/implemented if we are concerned with a unit type(s) being able to deploy too many Weapons in one direction at the same time.