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.

 Charistoph wrote:

 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.

Agreed.

I always assume that as the model moves it is positioning itself for it's attacks. For instance, a flyer should not be restricted to a 45% vertical fireing arc meaning that if any model is positioned directly below the front of it it would be unable to shoot it after it's move. It is very reasonable to assume that if that is the intended target of the flier then it moved in a dive and positioned it's weapons appropriately to fire on that target.

Likewise, a tank is not just rolling up, stopping, and then shooting. The point of the variable speeds of vehicles is that the guns are being fired as it goes and that has an effect on the accuracy of the weapons. If that is the case then you can assume that the tank has positioned itself appropriately to fire in any given round.

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.

This is fair. Outside of crazy things like super heavies and GC can you think of any vehicle that has "too many weapons"? In most examples off the top of my head they have 3 max. Would that be fixed by tying number of weapons a vehicle can bring to bear based on it's Order/Move?

For instance. If a Vehicle "Holds Position!" It may fire 1 weapon at +1 BS and all of it's other weapons at BS. A Vehicle moving at combat speed may fire up to 3 weapons at full BS. A Vehicle moving at Cruising Speed may fire 1 weapon at full BS and up to 2 weapons at -1 BS.

If a vehicle is holding position is it fair to assume that it can rotate in place to get the firing arcs it desires? It's actual positioning at that point is simply where it ends it's activation.

I like the approach and the design goal, though I've mostly been skimming through your proposals.

A quick question: Under Unit Types, you have the Skimmer subtype listed.

"-Skimmer
A Skimmer can move freely over all terrain treating it as open ground. However "

Presumably you intended to finish that with some for of dangerous terrain test discussion?



You've removed the jet pack and jump pack types, but I didn't see them added in anyway. Are they intended to be distinguished (like they are now), or will you be removing the ability to move in the assault phase outside of charging?

Also, will they be represented in wargear as granting the Skimmer subtypes (or its equivalent for infantry, if that needs distinguishing) and/or movement speed increases, for when models can take that sort of gear as an upgrade?

My apologies if any of this has already been answered.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
I like the approach and the design goal, though I've mostly been skimming through your proposals.

A quick question: Under Unit Types, you have the Skimmer subtype listed.

"-Skimmer
A Skimmer can move freely over all terrain treating it as open ground. However "

Presumably you intended to finish that with some for of dangerous terrain test discussion?

Correct! I am still working out a lot of the details on some of the unit types. As I was typeing it all up I noticed some snags and just sort of petered out while I was working out the kinks. Good catch. I will add it to my notes to update and finish that.

You've removed the jet pack and jump pack types, but I didn't see them added in anyway. Are they intended to be distinguished (like they are now), or will you be removing the ability to move in the assault phase outside of charging?

There is a piece of wargear for Assault Marines in the play test profiles that details a jump pack and what it does as a rough example. Similar wargear will exist for other armys that accomplish similar effects. Increases of M attribute, immunity to movement penalty from terrain and the such.

Some units may end up with the skimmer sub type. For instance Necron Destroyers will now be Infantry Skimmers instead of Jetpack infantry. It amounts to roughly the same thing so I figured why not condense it down and make it all a lot easier to remember.

Also, will they be represented in wargear as granting the Skimmer subtypes (or its equivalent for infantry, if that needs distinguishing) and/or movement speed increases, for when models can take that sort of gear as an upgrade?

My apologies if any of this has already been answered.

It depends on exactly what it is. In the marine example assault marines do not always have jump packs. So in this case it's wargear. However Destoryers only ever get around with their hover platforms. So they are themselves Infantry Skimmers. Skimmer does not offer a M increase inherently. Different units will have different speeds as would be appropriate. So the skimmer type would not on it's own be sufficient for Assault Marines to effectively become "jump".

I am always happy to clarify. Thanks for the feedback. Please feel free to offer up any more questions or criticism.

I stopped reading when you said "Shooting Attack: As per the Shooting Phase in the BRB pg.30 with some exceptions. The unit may target units locked in combat."

WHY THE feth WOULD YOU SHOOT INTO A BATTLE WITH YOUR OWN MEN IN THE WAY.

@Lance:

Regarding tanks, firing arcs and such: Have you made yourself some kind of overview of unit types where you state which areas the specific types should excel in?
For example, I completely disagree with the current rules that Walkers should be able to fire more weapons on the move than tanks - this is the one area which I think that Tanks should be good at.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
I stopped reading when you said "Shooting Attack: As per the Shooting Phase in the BRB pg.30 with some exceptions. The unit may target units locked in combat."

WHY THE feth WOULD YOU SHOOT INTO A BATTLE WITH YOUR OWN MEN IN THE WAY.

For several reasons.

To start, not allowing units to be shot at while they are locked in combat, from a purely mechanical/meta perspective, is an exploitable immunity state for the units in combat. Which is how it is used now. In particular units with Hit and Run (looking at you marine bikers) will get into a combat on their turn, sit there during your shooting phase, leave on your assault phase, shoot you because you are no longer in combat and then jump back in to exploit the immunity again. This is bull gak. Combine this with things like Tarpitting (also bs). The fact that melee is some kind of blanket immunity has pathed the way for exploitative tactics. Removing that immunity changes the meta in, what I feel, is a more productive way.

If you continue reading to the actual assault rules you should see a few changes that make assaults function fairly differently. Take it all in as a whole and see what you think.

But it can all change. We will see how it tests out in the long run.

From a fluff perspective almost every army WOULD fire into combats with their own guys. Commisars would gladly order strikes into combats with imperial guard. Nids give zero feths. Marines might charge in making a heroic sacrifice to hold the enemy while their brothers drop the bomb or whatever counting on their super human genetics and superior armor to carry them through. Necron lords would give exactly zero craps about the warrior dross and higher ranking lords would gladly sacrifice lower ranking lords. Tau are happy to sacrifice their lives for the greater good. Eldar would be the most hesitant to loose lives except that every life lost can be recovered in their soul gems and placed into the wraithbone constructs in times of war. In the Grim Darkness of the far future nobody gives a gak about individual lives.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chaospling wrote:
@Lance:

Regarding tanks, firing arcs and such: Have you made yourself some kind of overview of unit types where you state which areas the specific types should excel in?
For example, I completely disagree with the current rules that Walkers should be able to fire more weapons on the move than tanks - this is the one area which I think that Tanks should be good at.

I currently have walkers functioning more like armored MC. The idea was that

1) Walkers in the current game basically just suck. They have a lot of complicated exceptions to being vehicles that try to bring them closer to acting like non vehicles while still technically being vehicles. I figured I would reverse that. Make them non vehicles that have armor values and will either have a vehicle type or be immune to the things that normally do not effect vehicles. Still kind of sorting out the easiest way to place them and reach that effect. It simplifies everything when you can just look at all the tau battle suits, killa cans, dreadnaughts, etc... and say, "ok... it's a slow moving MC with different saves on different facings and a high T". Of course Tau will probably be quicker moving with generally lower T.... working all that out is a ways away.

2) Walkers can currently fire 2 weapons on the move. Tanks can fire 3 at full BS at combat speed and 1 at BS and 2 at -1 BS at cruising speed. Vehicles can fire more weapons on the move then walkers.

That being said, I am still working out the kinks on units types. Please feel free to ask questions and throw out suggestions. If you have some other ideas on how this could function I am all ears, but do please try to take into account the game as a whole.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Update 3.

Change Log. Updated 10/27/16


I need to add in Ram! order and unit actions to incorporate charging vehicles into other vehicles or vehicles into units. This includes trying to work out how Chariots will work. I may need to reintroduce them as a unique model type. I would REALLY rather not because only 3 armys in the game even have them and 2 of those only have 1 unit each that is a chariot. Seems like a silly small amount of models to have a whole unit type dedicated to it. I got a lot of ideas mulling about. Maybe another update tonight or tomorrow after I think on it a bunch.

As always... please look over the updates and let me know if you see any problems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I am about ready to jump into another phase of the play test. But it's impossible to know who has what armys and what models. So I am reaching out to the community who might be interested in helping out.

If anyone would like to try out the rule set I ask for you to submit a 800 point list.

- Use the 30k FoC. Do not use the secondary detachments for the time being. (No ally, fortification, low)

- Use only primary codexs. No minidex. So no Harlequin, Haemonculus Coven, etc etc..
--Also, please no deathwatch or Genestealer Cults for the moment. They are too new, I don't have reliable access to them, and some of the rules need major reworks to function in the new system (looking at cult ambush)

-No unique Named HQs. Only Generic. By the 30k rule set these Named HQs would be 1 for every 1000 points in the army and offer rites of war options. For now I would like to use generic HQs to keep the general flow of the test simple.

-No chariots yet. I just haven't quite worked out their functioning yet.

Any list I get submitted to me I will try to convert the wargear and stat lines for testing in the form of a comprehensive army list. The turn around should be a day or 2. You got two armys and a friend you want to test it with? Submit me two lists.

The point costs wont be balanced yet since I wont be changing any point costs. I will make notes on how any special rules should play out. The goal is a ramped up version of the first phase of testing. Namely:

-Is the game play smooth and easy to pick up on?
-Are unit interactions intuitive?
-Is this a general improvement over the core game play of standard 40k?
-Notate any rules inconsistencies or trouble spots you found in the game play.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
I stopped reading when you said "Shooting Attack: As per the Shooting Phase in the BRB pg.30 with some exceptions. The unit may target units locked in combat."

WHY THE feth WOULD YOU SHOOT INTO A BATTLE WITH YOUR OWN MEN IN THE WAY.

For several reasons.

To start, not allowing units to be shot at while they are locked in combat, from a purely mechanical/meta perspective, is an exploitable immunity state for the units in combat. Which is how it is used now. In particular units with Hit and Run (looking at you marine bikers) will get into a combat on their turn, sit there during your shooting phase, leave on your assault phase, shoot you because you are no longer in combat and then jump back in to exploit the immunity again. This is bull gak. Combine this with things like Tarpitting (also bs). The fact that melee is some kind of blanket immunity has pathed the way for exploitative tactics. Removing that immunity changes the meta in, what I feel, is a more productive way.

If you continue reading to the actual assault rules you should see a few changes that make assaults function fairly differently. Take it all in as a whole and see what you think.

But it can all change. We will see how it tests out in the long run.

From a fluff perspective almost every army WOULD fire into combats with their own guys. Commisars would gladly order strikes into combats with imperial guard. Nids give zero feths. Marines might charge in making a heroic sacrifice to hold the enemy while their brothers drop the bomb or whatever counting on their super human genetics and superior armor to carry them through. Necron lords would give exactly zero craps about the warrior dross and higher ranking lords would gladly sacrifice lower ranking lords. Tau are happy to sacrifice their lives for the greater good. Eldar would be the most hesitant to loose lives except that every life lost can be recovered in their soul gems and placed into the wraithbone constructs in times of war. In the Grim Darkness of the far future nobody gives a gak about individual lives.

The meta wouldnt be better, it would be worst, Tau would send Kroot, IG send body bags of guys, Nids would send swarms of gants, CSM hordes of Cultists, everyone would have 200-300 points of bad throw away units and 1200-1500pts of literally just the most OP firing units you could take, there wouldnt be marines, It would be3 Storm Surges, or 5 Wrathknights, It would be 15 Venoms + 6 Ravagers and 50 Hellions, etc...

It would literally be "Did I melee your shooting unit? Yes I win, No I lose"

ANY ARMY with Unkillable DS that can move fast.. Cugh Cough SM Bike star, Cough Cough Daemons.

You think the meta is bad now.. HAHAHA.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

The meta wouldnt be better, it would be worst, Tau would send Kroot, IG send body bags of guys, Nids would send swarms of gants, CSM hordes of Cultists, everyone would have 200-300 points of bad throw away units and 1200-1500pts of literally just the most OP firing units you could take, there wouldnt be marines, It would be3 Storm Surges, or 5 Wrathknights, It would be 15 Venoms + 6 Ravagers and 50 Hellions, etc...

It would literally be "Did I melee your shooting unit? Yes I win, No I lose"

ANY ARMY with Unkillable DS that can move fast.. Cugh Cough SM Bike star, Cough Cough Daemons.

You think the meta is bad now.. HAHAHA.

I am curious if you read the rest of the rules?

For starters sweeping advances do not automatically wipe the unit. They deal a number of unmitigatable wounds equal to the difference in the sweeping advance test.

No unit is locked in combat anymore that doesn't choose to be there. Tactical Retreats allow any unit that would be locked in combat to choose to leave.

Being locked in combat grants a 4+ cover save. A roll of 1 when shooting at a unit that is locked in combat hits friendly models instead.


There are several parts of this design that I was sure would have resistance. This being one of them. But in the games I have played testing it so far I have not seen any major exploitable results and primarily a massive decrease in the general crap tactics that happen so far. Granted, my tests so far have been with a limited number of units on smaller scale games. That being said, the general results have shown very VERY few instances when units remained locked in combat regardless. Primarily either the combats were decisive with units loosing and breaking away or the players making a choice to tactical retreat. In the rarer situation where units remained locked in combat, shooting at them was no different then trying to shoot at units who were attempting to advance up the field to get into assaults while receiving cover AND a chance to hit your friendlies. It doesn't seem to break anything.

Again, if the unit is not destroyed when breaking away anymore and you want to free up the unit for it's own activation you can make the choice to Tactical Retreat and break away. Go nuts!

I would ask you saw it in action, or even read the whole thing, before you decided it was broken. Otherwise the criticism is appreciated and I will keep my eye on the mechanics to see how it plays out. If it's not working as intended or promoting undesirable behavior it will be changed.

Right. B.c a MC that is amazing in Melee, 3x the height is going to let a unit "run" away from it.

Or Leaping Gants with legs like a kangaroos. Even Steeds ... yes run away from Steeds.

Its just that simple to walk away from Giant monsterous, daemonic, jumping, savages looking to eat you. You want to talk about it being fluffy, there is your fluff.

If you want Shooting into Melee to "work" it SHOULD be snap shots to represent you "trying to not kill your own team". Or, if your unit is at 25% strength THEN your commander might say "they are a lost casuse, lets shoot them"


I dont care if they are balanced or not. Honestly the idea of shooting into your team to get a couple extra kills and the thought that you can simply run away from any fight isn't smart.

FYI this is also what you said

"No unit is locked in combat anymore that doesn't choose to be there." and then you said "Being locked in combat grants a 4+ cover save."

You will never be in combat, you will walk out of combat, shoot them, then get back in..... so when will that cover save come into effect?

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Right. B.c a MC that is amazing in Melee, 3x the height is going to let a unit "run" away from it.

Or Leaping Gants with legs like a kangaroos. Even Steeds ... yes run away from Steeds.

Its just that simple to walk away from Giant monsterous, daemonic, jumping, savages looking to eat you. You want to talk about it being fluffy, there is your fluff.

There is a point where fluff comes into play and there is a point where game mechanics need to take over for the sake of the game. If the mechanics perfectly replicated the fluff then Shadow in The Warp would cover the entire table making it impossible for anyone but Nids to manifest powers and causing a Ld penalty to every enemy unit. Nids would be immune to perils of the warp because they don't actually access it to manifest their powers. That is just a single rule. However, as a game it needs to be reigned in for the sake of the game.

The test for sweeping advance is now based on the M attribute. Nids are more likely to catch basic infantry. Bikes are more likely to catch most things. And a giant MC depending on whether it's a slow lumbering monster or a crazy fast Diamacheron is more likely to catch nobody or 2-3 people from a group of 10 that decides to turn and flee.

Assuming that a single wound should be sufficient to wipe out a 29 man blob from the game because of a couple bad dice rolls is not fluffy, doesn't make sense, and is part of what makes assault so powerful in 7th. Which is why assault also has so many nerfs to balance it out. Remove the ability to totally wipe a unit regardless of it's size and you can start to bring the assault phase more in line with the rest of the game.

If you want Shooting into Melee to "work" it SHOULD be snap shots to represent you "trying to not kill your own team". Or, if your unit is at 25% strength THEN your commander might say "they are a lost casuse, lets shoot them"


I don't care if they are balanced or not. Honestly the idea of shooting into your team to get a couple extra kills and the thought that you can simply run away from any fight isn't smart.

Funny, I mostly only care if it's balanced or not.

Snap shots is a exercise in futility. It's a bunch of people rolling a bunch of dice to mostly get nothing done. So far there is no such thing as "snap shots" in this version of the game. There are BS penalty's which can bring you down to BS 1. But no inherent "snap shots". It's not the idea of shooting into your team to get an extra couple kills. It's that the enemy cannot use combat as exploitable immunity. It's still each sides choice on whether that is the unit they wish to target or not. Again, I recommend you see it in action.

FYI this is also what you said

"No unit is locked in combat anymore that doesn't choose to be there." and then you said "Being locked in combat grants a 4+ cover save."

You will never be in combat, you will walk out of combat, shoot them, then get back in..... so when will that cover save come into effect?

I assume this is coming from you still not having read most of the first post so I think you think the game is still using alternating player turns in which they use all their units in phases.

The game uses alternating activations. One player activates one unit. Next player activates one unit... etc etc.. If you can tie up a unit in assault early in a game round you may want to stay locked in combat to make use of the cover to protect yourself from future enemy unit activations. If the enemy is worried that they may loose the entire unit (or suffering an unacceptable amount of losses) in attempting to make a tactical retreat that unit might stay locked in combat. Now you have a 4+ cover save.

It's about giving the tactical choice to the player and making the choices interested by giving them pros and cons.

Update!

Updated the Necron and Tyranid unit Stat lines to include links to 800 point Tyranid and Necron lists for testing purposes. These are lists I built with the models I have regular access to.

If anyone would like to try out the rule set this might be the easiest way to do it. Since it's impossible for me to know what armys you have and what models you have at your disposal I am asking for you to submit your own 800 point lists. I figure 80 points will keep the games light and brisk. It's too low to involve Rites of War and too low to include Lords of War. Here are some guidelines for building your list to help keep things within the confines of this stage of the development process.

- Use the 30k FoC. Do not use the secondary detachments for the time being. (No ally, fortification, low)

- Use only primary codexs. No minidex. So no Harlequin, Haemonculus Coven, etc etc..
--Also, please no deathwatch or Genestealer Cults for the moment. They are too new, I don't have reliable access to them, and some of the rules need major reworks to function in the new system (looking at cult ambush)

-No unique Named HQs. Only Generic. By the 30k rule set these Named HQs would be 1 for every 1000 points in the army and offer rites of war options. For now I would like to use generic HQs to keep the general flow of the test simple.

-No chariots. I just haven't quite worked out their functioning yet.

Any list I get submitted to me here or via PM I will try to convert the wargear and stat lines for testing in the form of a comprehensive army list. The turn around should be a day or 2. You got two armys and a friend you want to test it with? Submit me two lists.

The point costs wont be balanced yet since I wont be changing any point costs. I will make notes on how any special rules should play out. The goal is a ramped up version of the first phase of testing. Namely:

-Is the game play smooth and easy to pick up on?
-Are unit interactions intuitive?
-Is this a general improvement over the core game play of standard 40k?
-Notate any rules inconsistencies or trouble spots you found in the game play.

Thanks for the participation!


Also, in case the last update was missed.

Update 3.

Change Log. Updated 10/27/16

Change Log. Updated 11/1/16

11/1/16
-Changed how WS functions.
-Updated Nid and Necron Lists to reflect new stat lines


After running 4 test games over the last couple of days I tried out a couple different WS mechanics. What we found to play the fastest and easiest is to just have WS function exactly like BS. It just speeds up game play and keeps the flow going.

General rules for determining the WS of units
If the unit is built for Melee WS 4 (66.6% chance of success) Example Tyranid Hormagaunts/Necron Lychguard
If the unit is capable of melee for one reason or another but it is not the focus WS 3. (50% chance of success) Example: Tyranid Warriors/Necron Troops
If the unit should never see melee WS 2 (33.3% chance of success) Example: Zoanthrope
If the unit is some kind of named and unique crazy unit built from the ground up for melee WS 5 (83.3% chance of success) Example: Possibly Swarm Lord/Old One Eye

Units with WS 5 or above should be exceedingly rare. Same as models with BS 5 or above.


I am currently putting together a Batrep video of the game being played to show the mechanics in action. So far I am getting a lot of good feed back and a lot of information. I got some tweaks to make but I think a video of the mechanics in action will help everyone get a good idea of the direction the game is heading in.

On firing into melee...

perhaps a middle ground can be reached. If you fire into a melee, the opponent chooses who is wounded unless you roll a 6 'To Hit', sort of like a precision shot. Would make it risky, but possibly worth it if the defenders are on the brink of being overwhelmed anyways.

 Stormonu wrote:
On firing into melee...

perhaps a middle ground can be reached. If you fire into a melee, the opponent chooses who is wounded unless you roll a 6 'To Hit', sort of like a precision shot. Would make it risky, but possibly worth it if the defenders are on the brink of being overwhelmed anyways.

It's an interesting idea. I will try out a few situations to see how it plays out and whether it makes any significant difference.

I am trying to understand where all the resistance to shooting units in a melee comes from. I understand it has been a staple of the game that you cannot shoot into a melee for a very long time. But if being in a melee is the same as being in pretty good terrain with a additional bonus of a roll of 1 actually hurts the enemy then I just don't see how it's any worse from when a unit gets into a melee and wins and ends up standing out in the open just exposed to the enemy.

Can someone please try to put into concrete terms what exactly falls apart because you can fire into a melee mechanically?




Side question, unrelated: How do people, in general, feel about the scatter dice mechanic? Do templates and scatter dice as a mechanic add a lot to the game? Is AoS's simplification to a to hit roll coupled with a d3/d6/2d3 wounds make the whole system easier/better? I haven't decided to remove templates yet. But I am considering it to remove another resolution method.

I just found this thread. Awesome work! Will have to dig in deeper to come with actual feedback, but I've been looking for something like this.

Any plans on putting everything into a document at any point (maybe I missed that its been mentioned allready)?

Subscribed.

Cayhn wrote:
I just found this thread. Awesome work! Will have to dig in deeper to come with actual feedback, but I've been looking for something like this.

Any plans on putting everything into a document at any point (maybe I missed that its been mentioned allready)?

Subscribed.

Yes actually. I wanted to hammer out the core rules and the resolution methods first. Then I will type it all out professional style into a document and replace the first post many spoilers style with Google Doc I can update regularly. When that is done I will convert it to a PDF format.

Once special rules get cut down and refined and everything seems to be working real smooth I am going to convert that stat lines/rules of every unit in the game 1 core codex at a time. This will be listed as (F8Tyranids-V1). This will make it so people have a chance to actually play. The points won't be balanced there will probably be some wonky rules but it will function. I will then start going back through every codex and update them for real into a V2. V2s will be a total overhaul with changes for balance and will introduce the Rites of War for every army.

Once I start working on codexes I may start looking for like minded designers to help out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Minor Update: Changed the Tyranid Test list to help be more balanced against the Necron List. Tyranid Prime Replaced with a walkrant, Lowered the number of Hormagaunts in each unit and gave Adrenal Glands to make up point difference/balance issues.

 Lance845 wrote:


Can someone please try to put into concrete terms what exactly falls apart because you can fire into a melee mechanically?

I don't think it's a mechanical issue, it's a moral issue. 'Friendly Fire' simply isn't. The soldiers are supposed to be on the same side, and there is trust they won't try to kill each other. Otherwise, why wouldn't they fall upon each other earlier? Consider this, if you have a rule for firing into your own troops if they get in melee - why wouldn't troops who had their own fellows fire on them turn around and return the favor if they survive, shooting those backstabbing traitors who took a potshot at them first? You could certainly make rules for it - a Leadership test to maintain cool to keep from lashing out and becoming part of the opposing player's force.

Do you really want to end up going down that road, mechanically?

I'm probably a bit biased here, but I take the opposite approach to Stormonu - I think the biggest worry would be mechanical issues (though I think your proposed "you can always get out of combat if you want" mechanic might mitigate some of them) and balance issues (shooting is already such a powerful tool, and one of the few limits is found when you engage a unit in melee - the models in the melee can't shoot, and no one can shoot them).

I do not find any substantial moral issues with firing into melee for the vast majority of factions, however, with the only exceptions being Eldar (every life is too precious), Space Wolves/Orks ("Don't interrupt them, you'll spoil their fun [ya gitz]!") and maaaaaybe the Tau (for the same reason, though they also have a strong "sacrifice for the Greater Good theme going, which might override that - shooting into melee would be such a Kauyon sort of thing).

AM? Throwing bodies into a meat grinder is their bag, baby, and there's always more soldiers to replace those you accidentally kill in the process of slaughtering the enemy. Hell, they've had rules in the past allowing models to call artillery strikes onto their location, IIRC.
SM? They'd be happy to bathe each other in Heavy Flamer blasts if it scours away the foes of the Emperor. Their skill is also sufficient to make their shots count, even in the chaos of melee.
Inquisition? See the AM, and add sneaky bastardness.
Tyranids? Friendly fire just means you'll need to reprocess some biomass. They're basically the AM on steroids.
Necrons? Who cares if a few Warriors need to be teleported back for repairs due to friendly gauss fire, they'll come back roughly as good as new in no time. What matters is cleansing the enemy from the face of existence.
Genestealer Cult? They've got slightly more limited numbers, but they're bound for Tyranid biomass processing if they succeed anyway, and success is all that matters. Self Sacrifice to protect their leaders and get the job done is in their genes and reinforced through psychics.
Chaos? Between backstabbing and a lack of empathy, I have a hard time imagining they wouldn't.
Dark Eldar? Set the backstabbing and lack of empathy dials to 11, then double the output.

Sacrifice is kind of a running theme for a lot of 40k factions, and shooting into melees doesn't seem all that much outside that theme, when it comes down to it.

If we wanted to get into more complex rules, you might require leadership rolls or a similar mechanic to see if the shooting unit actually obeys the order... But that's not the focus of this proposed ruleset, and so long as the mechanics make shooting into melee less effective, the abstraction of the reduced effectiveness is easily represented through forging the narrative.

I like the direction this is going, and have a couple thoughts:

For Tactical Retreat to function mechanically, the game would have to use some iteration of alternating activation. If it was used in the current system it would be useless as the retreating unit would just get assaulted again immediately, without a chance to deal with the assaulters (other than another round of overwatch, which would come at the cost of bonus attacks for the charging unit).

I think the cover save you get for being locked in combat should cause wounds to the enemy unit you are in combat with, since it is their bodies you are using for cover. So if Unit A is locked in combat with Unit B, and Unit A is targeted by a ranged attack from outside the combat, any cover saves they make should transfer that wound (or at least hit) onto Unit B. This would be in addition to any friendly fire hits from the shooting unit rolling 1s. Perhaps this would be a bit heavy rules-wise? I know the goal here is to make the game's core rules more simplified and streamlined, and adding this might be a bit much. Either way, I think the cover save should not be able to be taken by a unit that is taking friendly fire. It would be funny to see friendly fire shots being passed back and forth by successful cover saves though!

Will Challenges have a place in your rule set? My most regular opponent is challenge-happy and does it for every combat, which gets tiring. But I do like the idea of it, so I guess im looking for your thoughts on challenges.

The last point I can think of right now is the Look Out Sir! rule. I think it is fluffy and fun, but easily abused. It loses its thematic value when half a squad sacrifice themselves for a no-name sergeant. Maybe limit it to Independent Characters only, and can only be used once per game turn per IC?

I think it should be either 1s or successful cover saves hit your allies. Not both.

And Look Out Sir! should be able to be used as many times as you need it per phase. Otherwise, a single Dev Squad with Lascannons will double out your Chapter Master without an issue, since they hit with 3, wound with 3, one gets Look Out Sir!ed, and the other two get taken.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I think it should be either 1s or successful cover saves hit your allies. Not both.

Having both would make shooting into combat that much more risky and desperate a maneuver, which it should be. I dont think either way will resunt in more than one or two losses to friendly fire, but play-testing would certainly be needed.

 JNAProductions wrote:
IAnd Look Out Sir! should be able to be used as many times as you need it per phase. Otherwise, a single Dev Squad with Lascannons will double out your Chapter Master without an issue, since they hit with 3, wound with 3, one gets Look Out Sir!ed, and the other two get taken.

If your chapter master is caught in the open by several lascannons and fails his invulnerable saves, i dont think its unreasonable for him to die. Either you failed to keep him away from the edge of the unit, or the rest of the unit is already dead leaving you with no bodies to make those saves.

Or perhaps Eternal Warrior should be a perk for all Warlords? So whoever you make your warlord cant be one-shot from double-his-toughness weapons.

Colonel17 wrote:I like the direction this is going, and have a couple thoughts:

For Tactical Retreat to function mechanically, the game would have to use some iteration of alternating activation. If it was used in the current system it would be useless as the retreating unit would just get assaulted again immediately, without a chance to deal with the assaulters (other than another round of overwatch, which would come at the cost of bonus attacks for the charging unit).

The game does use alternating activation . When and how you choose to stay in combat or make tactical retreats is your choice. The disadvantage of assaulting early is placing yourself up in the enemy's gun line to be made a target for every unit they have not yet activated and potentially being assaulted yourself in return. The disadvantage or making a Tactical Retreat early is a second unit might just tie you up in assault again. The advantages of attacking late in the game round is most of the enemies activations are done and until next game round you can be sure those units cannot retaliate. The advantage of a tactical retreat in late in the game round is good positioning for the next activation.

Despite those advantages and disadvantages there are reasons to want to stay locked in combat and reasons to not. Last night a unit of Hormagaunts assaulted my Lichguard/Overlord unit. They got a couple kills but ultimately won the combat. Moral passes and we are locked in combat. I don't want to leave. Melee is where those guys thrive. Also, it doesn't actually matter if it's my activation or not, since Scything Talons are quick Melee and the Necron weapons are Melee the Gaunts will hit first regardless. So Necrons choose to sit and wait.

The Gaunts however realized that with Adrenal Glands they get +1 Str on the charge. So they choose to make a tactical retreat. 1, to expose the unit to shooting without cover, 2 because when they are activated next they can utilize the +1 strength again, and 3 because their higher M attribute limits the chance and the severity of any models they may loose if they fail the sweeping advance.

Choices were made and the game flowed on. Was a lot of fun (and a much more even match up this time around. Swapping the Prime for a Walkrant was a solid idea).

I think the cover save you get for being locked in combat should cause wounds to the enemy unit you are in combat with, since it is their bodies you are using for cover. So if Unit A is locked in combat with Unit B, and Unit A is targeted by a ranged attack from outside the combat, any cover saves they make should transfer that wound (or at least hit) onto Unit B. This would be in addition to any friendly fire hits from the shooting unit rolling 1s. Perhaps this would be a bit heavy rules-wise? I know the goal here is to make the game's core rules more simplified and streamlined, and adding this might be a bit much. Either way, I think the cover save should not be able to be taken by a unit that is taking friendly fire. It would be funny to see friendly fire shots being passed back and forth by successful cover saves though!

I don't know. I don't want shooting into a melee to be too punishing. I also don't want it to drift too far from just regular shooting. I will mull this idea over. A point to make though, the cover save in melee is not JUST from the enemies bodies being in the way. When whole groups of people get into a fight it's chaos. Dust is being kicked up from the ground everywhere, fluids are spraying, gasses are being released, flashes of light from alien technology. It's not just a physical body that is being represented by that cover save. It's the actual difficult nature of targetting anything at all.

Should the flat cover save be changed to a + to cover save? Like... If you are in a melee while in a crater should being in the melee ADD to the other cover save? Just a thought that popped into my head at the moment.

Will Challenges have a place in your rule set? My most regular opponent is challenge-happy and does it for every combat, which gets tiring. But I do like the idea of it, so I guess im looking for your thoughts on challenges.

I have not yet addressed challenges in my rules. For the time being anything not directly changed in the rules uses 7th edition. So keep on making challenges and handling them like you would with the normal game. I may get around to adjusting how that functions at some point.

The last point I can think of right now is the Look Out Sir! rule. I think it is fluffy and fun, but easily abused. It loses its thematic value when half a squad sacrifice themselves for a no-name sergeant. Maybe limit it to Independent Characters only, and can only be used once per game turn per IC?

As above. Keep using it as you would. I may change it I may not. It may become unneeded if I change how wounds are allocated. I have a few ideas knocking around and I just haven't gotten there yet.

JNAProductions wrote:I think it should be either 1s or successful cover saves hit your allies. Not both.

And Look Out Sir! should be able to be used as many times as you need it per phase. Otherwise, a single Dev Squad with Lascannons will double out your Chapter Master without an issue, since they hit with 3, wound with 3, one gets Look Out Sir!ed, and the other two get taken.

All things I am keeping in mind as I math out the effects of any rule changes. Thank you for pointing them out here though!

Colonel17 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I think it should be either 1s or successful cover saves hit your allies. Not both.

Having both would make shooting into combat that much more risky and desperate a maneuver, which it should be. I dont think either way will resunt in more than one or two losses to friendly fire, but play-testing would certainly be needed.

 JNAProductions wrote:
IAnd Look Out Sir! should be able to be used as many times as you need it per phase. Otherwise, a single Dev Squad with Lascannons will double out your Chapter Master without an issue, since they hit with 3, wound with 3, one gets Look Out Sir!ed, and the other two get taken.

If your chapter master is caught in the open by several lascannons and fails his invulnerable saves, i dont think its unreasonable for him to die. Either you failed to keep him away from the edge of the unit, or the rest of the unit is already dead leaving you with no bodies to make those saves.

Or perhaps Eternal Warrior should be a perk for all Warlords? So whoever you make your warlord cant be one-shot from double-his-toughness weapons.

EW as a default bonus to warlords is an interesting thought. I will take that into consideration when we hit the phase where I am really working on some units.

If you are going to go with shooting into melee, do give some thought to target size; a Carnifex batting around IG troopers feels like it should be an easier target than if the opponents were cultists.

 Stormonu wrote:
If you are going to go with shooting into melee, do give some thought to target size; a Carnifex batting around IG troopers feels like it should be an easier target than if the opponents were cultists.

Should a carnifex receive a lower cover save when inside of terrain?

This is my major confusion here. Nobody has ever made any of these arguments about any other form of a unit being inside of a scenario where they receive a cover save.

It has never been "well... if you miss shooting a unit inside a aegis defense line with a melta gun how come you don't start destroying the aegis defense line!?" Or, "Well, when a Carnifex is inside a crater how come it receives the same cover save as some Imperial Guards inside a crater!?"

Nobody has ever made these arguments. I eliminate a source of unit invulnerability and grant the units inside the highest cover save offered by standard terrain in doing so ALONG with the bonus that a to hit roll of 1 actually hurts the player that is trying to make the shot. But NOW the size of the model should come into play? NOW suddenly assault units have a vulnerability that will destroy them that somehow didn't exist before when they were left standing out in open ground (when the best case scenario of combats before was the enemy failed a moral test, got swept and eliminated, allowing the assault unit to move d6" to consolidate).

This is why I am so confused by the resistance. None of these arguments existed before. In a lot of ways these are just benefits either to assault units in general or to the game play as a whole. Assault units WANT to stay locked in combat. Not because they are immune (bad for the game as a whole) but because it is literally the best possible cover you could EVER have in the game (the only one with a chance to hurt the guys shooting at you).

Do you see where I am coming from?

Fellow rules enthousiast here !

First thanks for this ! It looks good ! I started working on a project very much like this one before coming here to do some research ... and well I could see myself using your rules and helping you develop them !

1 : Shooting melee : I always thought it had to be a thing. I would be fine with your proposed rules. But I think CD should come into play, because it's not the same for poor conscripts to shoot their friends, and for a captain to order an orbital bombardment on one of his squads.
2 : Size and cover : I actually always thought size should matter when it comes to the protection cover offers. In the current rules, vehicles need to be "masked" to receive cover. I like the idea of just looking at how much of the model / squad is masked to the shooter. Needs to be tested but hey.
3 : Fluff and rules : (pointless point) actually many of those shadow in the warp type things are up for interpretations in their actual effects. Because the sources aren't coherent. I actually agree with you though, just wanted to make that point.

42 : A design question (please don't kill me) (huehuehueh) : One of my main principles in my original (barely started) was that every model that had ever been made should have rules. Trying to make the rework as inclusive as possible by not excluding units form the game is important to me. Is it to you ? Just curious.

Luv bruh.

Welcome to the thread!

Thanks for your notes. To answer your questions: I don't know.

I think that models are nice and good but the game is most important. Many past units never had a model to represent them. Hell, many options NOW have no modeling options to represent them. Whats more important is that the game functions, that the options are interesting and serve a purpose. That doesn't just mean weapon options but unit selection. If 2 units fill the same role with negligible differences then cut one. The game will be better for it.

I'm going to watch this thread with keen interest. I've been trying to fix 40k too, and I definitely think that everyone can agree were it's went wrong, if not necessarily how to make it right!

I agree with you that the game should come first.
However we cannot forget that the game has a history and that people coming here for rules will want to play models they have, and that they were not able to play due to them having stupid rules. So I don't personally like the idea of cutting units that were a thing in the past. I understand that you want to make something entirely new and in that regard cutting units is fine, but if you plan on keeping all the 40k lore and background I think you should at least provide some sort of support for "unnecessary units" even if it's just an expected role or a few lines about what they should do.
Let's not forget the reason so many people keep being interested in the game even though it's rules are stupid is because the universe a GODDAMN GREAT.

Luv bruh.

Future War Cultist wrote:I'm going to watch this thread with keen interest. I've been trying to fix 40k too, and I definitely think that everyone can agree were it's went wrong, if not necessarily how to make it right!

Well don't just watch, join in! I am all about hearing other ideas. More than one idea here sprung from other peoples ideas or the discussion in general. A single designer making a game in the vacuum is significantly less effective then everyone working together.

GreedyPizza wrote:I agree with you that the game should come first.
However we cannot forget that the game has a history and that people coming here for rules will want to play models they have, and that they were not able to play due to them having stupid rules. So I don't personally like the idea of cutting units that were a thing in the past. I understand that you want to make something entirely new and in that regard cutting units is fine, but if you plan on keeping all the 40k lore and background I think you should at least provide some sort of support for "unnecessary units" even if it's just an expected role or a few lines about what they should do.
Let's not forget the reason so many people keep being interested in the game even though it's rules are stupid is because the universe a GODDAMN GREAT.

Luv bruh.

GW has a great rule that I loved called "Counts as." If you have a model and it would function as a Sgt or some such for another unit because it's own unit is gone... counts as. Keep on playing. A very good chunk of my nids are conversion I put on the table because of counts as. Do it up!

That being said, there is no room in the current Genestealer cults codex for a cult limo rules wise. It would be a lighter transport likely without gun when they already have fairly cheap transports from the Goliath. It would be silly to keep stacking on rules for models from the 80s to the detriment of what is currently looking like a pretty well rounded codex. Wanna use your limo as a "Counts as" Goliath? Ask your opponent. I am sure most would be happy to see some models from the 80s hit the table again.

1 : I submit to your majesty : Ok, I see what you mean ; It will not prevent me from making up house rules for old models, and stuff that has been scrapped as the editions added up.
But for the sake of building a well rounded up game, I'll go with your approach here.

2 : What about ID : There is another thread about how to deal with it, and the issue has been raised here because of characters and EW. But I feel certain units are made too weak in certain matchups because of it. Tyranid warriors can't do gak with their poor saves and get wiped by artillery ... Units that have 2+ saves are rarely unplayable because of this, but some units that combine a low save 3 wounds and T4 just seem to suffer too badly from the rule. I don't think it can be fixed by only tweaking the units that suffer from it. Maybe making high strength high AP weapons more scarce could work. I don't mind some stuff being wiped of the table by a leman russ, but sometimes it makes some units feel bad. I guess if you're not able to spam russes and basilisks and stuff like that anymore, it could be alright.

3 : Templates : I actually like template rules as they are ; they do feel rather heavy if you have multiple small blasts that are not multiple barrage. Flamer templates are definitely fine. Small blasts are the most questionable ones, since it takes a lot of time to set them up even though sometimes they don't have a very impressive effect (mortars ...) (for d-blasts I think it's fine to need to roll a few more dice). Maybe some of the traditionnal small blast weapons need to go the "roll the number of hits" way, or to be played only as multiple barrage.
It's not the worst issue but hey.