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.

 Stormonu wrote:
It would probably only work well in smaller games or where you're only likely to be throwing one oddball die in a group, but I thought the concept might be worth kicking out. I seem to recall 2E 40K did this - I remember Terminators having an armor save of 2D6, for example.

Very true. With 40K, we are dealing with a level of detail that is halfway between Epic and Warmachine. In order for every single model to matter and keep the game moving, GW decided that they would stick to a D6 system. It is limiting, especially when you want your stats to run from 1-10. But it is freeing because it is so easy to get your hands on the numerous D6's you need for all the Attacks that will be going back and forth. Conversely, going to a multi-die system will get expensive quickly OR you have reduce the game to either a smaller model number ala Warmachine (or smaller) OR you have to minimize the impact of those models and make the system even more abstract ala Epic.

I don't think Lance is quite ready for any of those consequences quite yet.

@Lance845.
Ill try to answer your questions in the order you asked them.
I will try to brief as possible, and limit my answers to logic and basic accepted principals of good game development.

1) Have you ever play tested this system?

We were in the process of Beta play testing, (with some good feed back)when a series of unfortunate events stalled the process.(Garage roof partially collapsed, play test notes destroyed due to this.And a few illnesses etc.)We are happy the basic method works well, but the values used needed to be refined a bit more.(Hopfuly we will get back to it in the new year.).

2) I see 1s and 6s in that chart. Does that mean 1 is always a success? i.e. don't bother rolling.

The idea is to clearly display the proportional relationship between opposing values.
If a las pistol (AP 2 ) is fired at a Land Raider,(AV10 ) the Land Raider gets a 1 + save.(It shows the land raider is invulnerable to the attack without having to use separate systems and special rules.)

The value of 1 on the chart is an automatic success, and the N/A is an automatic failure.So dice do not have to be rolled for these results!
The values are there to show the proportional relation ship in the interaction throughout the range of results in a clearly defined (and quite easy to remembered way. )

3) Why do you think this fits for 4 goals of this project better then the current BS system?
Good war game rules abstract the resolution methods to speed up game play as much as possible, without abstracting results to the point the immersion in the game play is broken.

If the targeted enemy units at range are of a similar type, then this part of the resolution need not be represented.
(EG if you are just shooting at normal humans of a similar size and skill in a WWII skirmish game .)

Slight variations in unit size can be covered by limited modifiers.(+1 or 2 to hit for larger targets, -1 or 2 to hit for smaller targets.)

The range of unit sizes skills and abilities in 40k is one of the largest, (if not the largest,) in any war game I am aware of!

So the FIXED chance to hit any target any where in the weapons effective range,and always misses 1 in 6 times no matter what.
Abstracts the primary chance to hit at range too much.

This makes shooting far too powerful compared to assault, and leads to too many WTF moments when resolving to hit at range.
(EG missing the side of a large vehicle 1" away , where the model would physically have to fall over/turn round to miss the shot. )

This abstraction and lack of proportionality in the primary resolution leads to the use of multiple additional rules to try to correct this abstraction/ imbalance later.
(Ignoring morale to stop units breaking from excessive casualties taken from shooting, buffs to assault units requiring more dice rolls and special rules I care to mention here, but you know the ones. )

I am currently typing this out into a proper document so it is easier to read and navigate since a lot of the core rules seem to be up and functioning. Not that they can't or wont change. It's all still up for change if something better rolls around. But it's reached a point where 1 full document properly typed out would be more productive. So... that is the next update whenever I get that part ready.

I have another questions to pose to the thread in regard to ideas I have knocking around.

How do people feel about the AoS system of profiles that change as the models take wounds. Lower number of attacks, reduced speed, etc etc...

It would replace the vehicle damage chart and "penetrating hits" all together and would also apply to most MC and probably all LoW. Maybe even boost HQs with a few extra wounds and apply these adjusting profiles. I encourage everyone to look up a AoS battlescroll and search for something with this effect if you are unsure of the system. Just asking about general thoughts on the general system.

I'm massively in favour of it!

It's definitely a step away from quick or simple.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
It's definitely a step away from quick or simple.

The alternative is to allow something to have full power for all 12-20 Wounds it is carrying. Now, that may or may not be a problem if the model is rather low-powered at full strength to begin with, but it can be far more satisfying if a model with a high number of Wounds or resilience scaled down with the damage it receives.

Writing a game system is all about balancing what you want to do with what you can do and what people are willing to do. Inside that, the players have to feel a certain amount of investment and successes, otherwise people drop it. There is a surprising amount of psychology in game design, no matter the format.

For example, it is far more satisfying that you can drop Nagash from 6 Attacks to 4 after having removed half of his original Wounds, and down to 2 when most of his Wounds have been dropped. The recognition of progress is actually a huge motivator for many. Being able to make that monster almost useless in Combat can be as satisfying as taking a unit from 30 models to 10.

You thought a single unified chart for all action resolution was too complicated but having scaling profiles for every big thing in the game is ok? Make the vehicle damage table apply to MCs, done.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
You thought a single unified chart for all action resolution was too complicated but having scaling profiles for every big thing in the game is ok? Make the vehicle damage table apply to MCs, done.

Ah, you didn't read that post properly nor the follow up response to your questioning it. I never stated anything was too complicated, just more complicated. I was responding to someone who kept barging in asking about why it couldn't be more simple and then offered up something that was more complex then the current 40K system while (potentially) adding more statistics as well.

I have no problem with complicated rules, I stated it then, and I will reassure you now on that matter now. Complicated systems are what brings nuance in to a tabletop game and try to bring feeling in to the abstractness of a war.

Well whats more complicated is the real question.

Is it easier to roll on a damage chart. To have to remember what weapons are destroyed and what is not. To mark for shaken/immobilized etc...

Or is it easier to look at how many wounds it has and then check its stat line?

If the game keeps incorporating models which have massive impact by themselves, like hero lords of war and what not ; I am in favour of having changing profiles. I think it would actually be simpler than the traditional vehicle damage chart (provided the players would have to have the datasheets handy) and what I like the most about this is that it can help better the mechanic individuality of the models.
To me that's an important principle : a model should have rules that make it feel different form the rest of the other entries. Otherwise it's just a variant of something.
So I quite like this Idea.

 Lance845 wrote:
Well whats more complicated is the real question.

Is it easier to roll on a damage chart. To have to remember what weapons are destroyed and what is not. To mark for shaken/immobilized etc...

Or is it easier to look at how many wounds it has and then check its stat line?

They both require looking things up. Alternatively you could make blanket rules.

Injured: An MC that has lost half or more its starting wounds is Injured. It suffers -1 WS & BS

Crippled: An MC that has lost 3/4 or more of its starting wounds is Crippled. It suffers -1 S & T and always moves as if through difficult terrain.

Scale to taste.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Well whats more complicated is the real question.

Is it easier to roll on a damage chart. To have to remember what weapons are destroyed and what is not. To mark for shaken/immobilized etc...

Or is it easier to look at how many wounds it has and then check its stat line?

They both require looking things up. Alternatively you could make blanket rules.

Injured: An MC that has lost half or more its starting wounds is Injured. It suffers -1 WS & BS

Crippled: An MC that has lost 3/4 or more of its starting wounds is Crippled. It suffers -1 S & T and always moves as if through difficult terrain.

Scale to taste.

Well that was what I was kind of thinking of when I was thinking of the AoS system. Not so much that every model would have it's own unique profiles but that the profiles would follow some general guidelines.

But it does open up the possibility for certain model to have unique profile changes. For instance, it would no longer be needed to have the quantum shielding rules for necron vehicles. Instead, they would start with a higher T value which would drop off pretty quickly as hey suffer wounds. Just an example I was thinking of. Besides scrapping some special rules like that, you can scrap the glance/pen mechanics, the book keeping of what exactly has happened to what vehicles, and the removal and need to roll on another random chart.

I feel like the AoS system is just more streamlined.

I am interested in my thoughts on it in general. My mind is not made up on it. More feedback the better.

It's an interesting design space.

One way to approach this would be to give big things 3 (or whatever) wound stats, Like so: W 4/3/1 where the first number is its starting wounds, second is where "damaged" penalties take effect and third is for "crippled".

The penalties would be the same for the majority of models, something like in my last post. But some models could have rules ala:

Pain Response: This model gets +1 WS instead of -1 when Damaged and +1 S instead of - 1 when Crippled.

The trick would be getting a sufficient amount of granularity without a lot of memorizing or referencing.

I had hoped to have done some play testing by now but it's been hard to organise a game. When we do get together it's AoS. We're addicted!

@ Lance845

This system would be great for necron vehicles! They can start off at near land raider levels of durability but then they very rapidly deteriorate once the "shield" is down (first wound inflicted). This system can show the fluff on the table very well.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I had hoped to have done some play testing by now but it's been hard to organise a game. When we do get together it's AoS. We're addicted!

@ Lance845

This system would be great for necron vehicles! They can start off at near land raider levels of durability but then they very rapidly deteriorate once the "shield" is down (first wound inflicted). This system can show the fluff on the table very well.

An interesting point. If using a Wound system combined with the regressive system in the stateline, the stats of a Ghost Ark would be something like:

BS: 4/4/3
WS: -
S: -
T: 9/7/7
W: 4
I: 1
A: -
Ld: 10
Sv: 2+/4+/4+

* I was thinking about listing Ld as "F" to indicate "Fearless" aka autopassing certain Tests. But that may not be desirable. Such considerations should be part of the Unit Type's rules, and most Ld Tests that would affect a Vehicle are made at 10. In addition, I can see a Vehicle crew who had taken a certain amount of damage retreating just as much as a Squad that lost 25% of its group in a Phase.

Again, I urge for generic penalties and not multiple profiles for every model.

I agree with Lord_Blackfang. I'd prefer something I could put a token by the model to remind/show the stat change, and would prefer not to have to refer to multiple lines on the stat sheet.

Actually, my hope is one day you could do cards for 40K units, perhaps with a few token "add-on" cards - like X-Wing or Warmahordes, and the days of needing Battlescribe and Army Builder to keep your sanity putting together an army are gone.

I agree with Lord_Blackfang ; generic penalties, with rare exceptions.
And unit cards are cool !

There are reasonable reasons to do either way, actually. Having a simple evolving statline, as I noted above. It doesn't have to be a multi-line statline, each field would be set up exactly as I posted it. This forum doesn't support tables, though. You just have to remember when to implement the changes.

An interesting point about cards, though. The WarmaHorde cards don't tell you the ramifications when certain things are lost, such as filling in all the Body Spiral, or what happens when you fill in the C boxes on a Warjack.

Just in case any one is interested.

Before the great flood.(Garage roof partially gave way ,1/2 " of water all over my game table and play test notes. )

We were working on a damage systems that allowed slow loss of effectiveness for every point of damage taken that works for MCs and Vehicles.

For every damaging hit ...

Method 1.
That rolled an even number:-The model looses 1 weapon system/attack.

That rolled an odd number :-The model looses half its movement rate.

Method 2
The model looses 1 weapon system/attack.

When the model has lost all weapon systems, it looses mobility.

Rules that apply to both methods.

When a model looses all of its Wounds (organic units) or Structure points (Mechanical units.)It is destroyed.

Failed armour saves determine suppression, (Shaken ) results for all units as previously discussed.

A vehicle/MC model that looses all of its weapons/attacks must pass a morale test at the start of the turn , or it routes.

A vehicle/MC that looses all of its mobility, must pass a morale test at the start of the turn , or it counts as out of action,(destroyed) in game terms.(The crew abandons the vehicle or the MC succumbs to its wounds.

Any Vehicle MC that losses all of its remaining wounds/structure points in one turn, explodes .

(We used different coloured beads to track damage on units .)

When I first heard of data cards for WH 40k I thought for sure it was quick reference cards for all the units. What a disappointment.

I can very easily put together some "unit cards" with photoshop based on this system when we get to that stage. I very much agree with the utility and I have done it before for other games.

Keep this conversation going but I just remembered a second question I wanted to ask. What do people think of wound allocation?

I have seen suggested several times that it "go back" to the defender allocates the wounds instead of closest model with precision shots and such just changing it to the attacker gets to pick.

Is closest model best because positioning matters? Or is the tablescape enough of an abstract that we can have defender choose who dies?

On the one hand, it would allow you to put things like flamers in the front without worrying about them dieing off first. Also, Look Out Sir could just .... go away. On the other things like crypteks would ALWAYS be last to go.

To me, there is nothing better or worse about the various iterations (remove from front, remove from rear, defender picks). It's just a case of going with whichever method you feel like and deal with the ramifications. In each case, the defender is going to run his units so to best defend special models in the unit.

Moreover, target priority is a question - is there any benefit to requiring attackers to "shoot at closest unit" (optional ability to make a leadership roll to shoot a different target) or is the game better off with "just choose who you want to shoot at"?

 Stormonu wrote:
To me, there is nothing better or worse about the various iterations (remove from front, remove from rear, defender picks). It's just a case of going with whichever method you feel like and deal with the ramifications. In each case, the defender is going to run his units so to best defend special models in the unit.

Moreover, target priority is a question - is there any benefit to requiring attackers to "shoot at closest unit" (optional ability to make a leadership roll to shoot a different target) or is the game better off with "just choose who you want to shoot at"?

What if it was, firing at the not closest target was a -1 to BS? You could remove all the confusing mess of intervening units. If x unit is closer and y unit is behind them and you want to target y then -1 bs. No trying to figure out if the MC has a foot behind a building or if whatever is tall enough to cover z% of the model.


Additional question. I spent a lot of last night and this morning downloading and looking through alternate systems (I have been doing this for awhile now, but went a little overboard on it in the last 14ish? hours) and I think I came up with a neat hybrid of some other systems.

What if Toughness was a target number. So like T 7 meant you had to roll a 7+ to wound. And Strength was a bonus to your roll. So a bolter might be a +1. These are just examples, the numbers are not set, are basically meaningless. A T4 model would be wounded on a roll of 4, with a bolter that makes it a 3+.

Obviously the T values and Str values would need to be adjusted to more accurately reflect the current game, but it would eliminate the str/t chart and all relevant information for a model would be on it's stat line.

Ws/Bs to hit. Str to modify melee rolls. T to set target number to be wounded.

In addition things like melta could just have very high str. You could probably eliminate the special rule.



So in summary, what I really want some feedback on right now:

1) Allocating wounds

2) Change of Str and T to reflect bonuses to dice and target numbers

3) Adjusting profiles for some models namely vehicles, MC, and heroic commanders/LoW based on a pretty simplified and linear adjustment pattern with some fluctuation to reflect interesting flavor for units/armys.

1). I like it - simple & effective

2) I'm more than a bit biased on this, this is the system I used for my rewrite. If you do T+4, and the S of the weapon is added to the D6 roll, you get a very close approximation of the current S vs. T table as it is - you just lose that topmost 6+ to wound from the chart. Also, is essentially how S vs. vehicle AV works, so you can turn AV & Toughness into one single stat, instead of having two seperate "systems".

3) Sounds good - first off, can we give Carnifexes their old 10 toughness back? With #2 above, that'd be a target number of 14 - very ...ahem... tanky .


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Something I've begun to wonder - are there too many weapon options for units in the game? Would it be smarter to restrict units to an unalterable weapon set?

I ask this as the ability for many (marine) units to take a wide variety of weapons makes it difficult to create static "quick reference" cards; there's too much variety to cover all the options available.

Also, not giving or altering the basic loadout of a unit can dramatically change durability and function, and there are simply some wargear options that feel like they should be autotakes - or in other cases - are such feeble options they shouldn't exist.

 Stormonu wrote:
Something I've begun to wonder - are there too many weapon options for units in the game? Would it be smarter to restrict units to an unalterable weapon set?

I ask this as the ability for many (marine) units to take a wide variety of weapons makes it difficult to create static "quick reference" cards; there's too much variety to cover all the options available.

Also, not giving or altering the basic loadout of a unit can dramatically change durability and function, and there are simply some wargear options that feel like they should be autotakes - or in other cases - are such feeble options they shouldn't exist.

This is a very good point. My efforts to 'sigmarise' 40k are always thwarted by the multitude of special and heavy weapon options as well as grenades etc. It's ok in a fantasy setting because units are largely restricted to a few types across the board with maybe one special option, but 40k is way more diverse.

One idea I was trying to get around this was to create a common weapon profile and then use minor rules to separate the weapons. For example (and please bare in mind that this is an AoS style profile):

Leman Russ Turret Weapon:
Range: 48" Attacks: 1 To Hit: 4+ To Wound: 2+ Rend: -2 Damage: D3

Weapon Types (pick one):

Battle cannon: D6 damage, and if unit has 10 or more models it inflicts 2D6 damage.
Exterminator autocannon: reroll to hit rolls.
Eradicator nova cannon: ...something.
Vanquisher cannon: ...something again.

Maybe it's possible you guys do something similar?

Also, my opinion is, if an option is so bad it's never worth taking it might as well not exist. Which is actually what I hope to address with my one profile multiple weapon idea. If they share a common stat line then they become more inline with each other and thus previously crap options might now get a look in!

That idea is really work in progress though.

I really like the idea of toughnss being a target number ; it's not so far away from what it is now, but it's quite intuitive !

On evolving profiles : Yeah ! I like the Idea of being able to criple MC's and vehicles more easily instead of having to destroy them altogether.

I actually like the fact that wounds are allocated according to model positioning ; and that precision shots allow you to bypass that.
Look out sirs are a bit annoying though ... maybe a necessary evil for characters.
Maybe you could shoot at full BS but defender allocates or you shoot at BS -1 and allocation is done by closest model
Or -2 and you allocate. Just throwing ideas but hey.

I agree with Future War Cultist on the fact that if an option is available it should be viable. But to me that means that some options should simply be re-evaluated in terms of points cost / effectiveness.
I don't really like the idea of having one profile for several weapons tough. It means you actually have to now two profiles. Maybe in another form.

@Lance 845.
I think actual 'unit cards' as other games use, with in game data on is an excellent idea!
As it allows players access to the information they need in game, in a much more user friendly way.(And damage can be recorded on the unit card for MCs and Vehicles rather than on the models . )

On the topic off targeting.

Thanks for pointing out another issues a fixed value to hit at range produces.
It removes the natural tactical choice from the process.

Example , a Ratling Sniper Stealth 7 is in light cover +1 For a stealth value of 8.
A unit with a BS of 4 needs 6+ to hit this small well positioned target.

The IG White shield platoon Stealth 5 , in the open, is much easier to hit.A unit with BS 4 only need 4+ to hit them by comparison.

So the player has the tactical choice of taking the easy option of attacking a target that is easy to hit.
OR try to damage a target that is harder to hit,but would be more of a problem if left unchallenged.

As far as wound allocation goes , as long as the method is intuitive and follows the flow of the game play I am happy.

If you are honest and clear about the level of abstraction.
EG The the models represent the units type and equipment in this area defined by the outlying models.In the same way war games using smaller minatures use 'unit stands/bases' to represent units approximate position and composition.

Then letting the defender remove casualties, (with exceptions of special abilities perhaps.) Is simple fast and flows with the game play.

If this method was used the last models to be removed, would have to be valued appropriately.

Using one stat as the target number , and the other as the dice modifier is an effective way to get direct representation in all 3 stages of combat resolution.

We have play tested this for a bit now and it works well.

The only issue we had was some people did not like the odd range of stats.
Eg the 'modifier stat' could run 0 to 10, and the ' target stat' could run '3 to 15' for example.

This was the only reason we moved back to' table of D6 score needed'.As it was more familiar to current 40k players.

Here are some changes I would like the next edition of 40K to have.


After turn 5, the game continues to turn 6 on a D6 roll of 4+. There is no 7th turn.

Standard FOC applies with the following changes: Armies under 2000 points may only consist of 1 CAD, may only take 1 Ally and may purchase only 1 formation. In addition, they may not contain Monstrous Creatures (Gargantuan), Super Heavy vehicles or Lords of War.

Warlord traits and Psychic powers will be exclusively chosen non-randomly from each faction's codex.

MOVEMENT CHANGES
New Movement characteristic in profiles set at either 6 or 12, this corresponds to the number of inches they are allowed to move.

Units may only move half of their normal  Movement distance when moving into or through Difficult terrain.

UNIT TYPES CHANGES
All unit types not described below are removed.
*Note* Jump Infantry units will have 12 in their Movement statistic and their Jump Pack, Rokkit Pack, etc... War Gear entry will state that it grants the Deep Strike USR.

Infantry... (M6) No changes.

Infantry (Jetpack)... (M6) Always has Relentless USR, allows 2D6" Thrust move in Assault Phase.

Bike... (M12) Always has Relentless USR, is not slowed when Moving through Difficult terrain but must take Dangerous terrain test if they do so, Run move grants benefits of Cover.

Bike (Jetbike)... (M12) Always has Relentless USR, is not slowed when moving through Difficult terrain, may move over Impassable terrain and models, if starts or ends movement in Difficult terrain must take Dangerous terrain test, Run move grants benefit of Cover.

Beast... (M12) Always has Move Through Cover and Fleet USR's.

Monstrous Creature... (M6) Always has Move Through Cover, Relentless, Armourbane USR's, all attacks are AP2 unless has a Melee weapon with AP1, may fire up to 2 ranged weapons in Shooting phase and when performing Overwatch, if wounds are reduced to 50% or less they suffer -1 to their WS, BS, S and T characteristics to a minimum of 1.

Monstrous Creature (Flying)... (M24 in Swoop mode) Same as above, they may launch assaults on the same turn they land, may make 5+ Evade save against shooting attacks while in Swoop mode (must be declared before Hits are resolved), if the Monstrous Creature declared it is Evading it can only make Snapshots for the next game turn, no changes to Grounding tests, when not in Swoop mode Movement characteristic changes to (M6).

Monstrous Creature (Gargantuan)... (M12) Change Stomp Table result of 6 to "all models fully or partially under template suffer a Str10 AP2 hit with the Instant Death USR.

PSYCHIC PHASE CHANGES
Each Psyker generates their own pool of Warp Charge dice  that they can use to manifest the powers they know. Roll a D3 and add their Mastery Level to determine how many dice they get for that phase. When attempting to manifest a power select a number of dice from the pool and roll them. A power requires a 3+ result for each Warp Charge point it has in it's cost.

There are only 3 psychic power types.
Blessings, Maledictions and Novas.

Deny the Witch rolls may be taken by units targeted by Malediction powers and units in range of Nova powers. To Deny the Witch roll a D6, on result of 6+ the power is nullified. If the unit attempting to Deny the Witch has a Psyker that has a Mastery Level equal to or greater than the Psyker manifesting the power joined to it they add +1 to their roll.

SHOOTING PHASE CHANGES
Look Out Sir rolls may only be taken once on each Character and Independent Character per player turn.
Look Out Sir rolls for Characters change to 3+.

Units may make a Run move instead of firing ranged weapons, using the same distance shown in the Movement characteristic of their profile.

COVER CHANGES:
All models firing ranged weapons against models benefitting from cover suffer -2 to their BS characteristic to a minimum of BS1.
Units that count as being in Cover include: units that have Gone to Ground, units in terrain, units partially obscured by intervening models and/or terrain, Bike and Bike (Jetbike) units that have made a Run move, all models when Night fight is in effect.

ASSAULT PHASE CHANGES
After a unit or model declares an assault the target unit must pass an Initiative test in order to be able to perform Overwatch.

Charge ranges are D6 + half of Movement characteristic (Ex. Infantry charges D6+3").
Charging through cover is same (-2" to charge range).

May make D6" consolidation move into another assault with enemy models but does not benefit from bonus attack.

Units Outflanking and Infiltrated on Turn 1 can launch assaults.

GRENADES CHANGES
No grenades of any kind may be thrown in the Shooting Phase.
Assault grenades negate penalty to Initiative characteristic when charging through cover.
Defensive grenades have no change.
Krak grenades, Melta Bombs and Haywire grenades may only be used against Vehicles.

USR CHANGES
Removed USR's: Acute Senses, Jink, Smash, Vector Dancer, Shrouded, Hammer of Wrath, Ordinance, Fear, Strafing Run.

Blast and Large Blast weapons utilize BS of firer, with the exception of Snapshots if a miss occurs roll a D6 and a scatter die, if a Hit is rolled on the scatter die subtract 1" from the D6 result scattering in the direction of the small arrow, in the case of Snapshots misses result in having the template removed completely.

D-weapons stay the same except to change the table result of 6 to cause D3+3 wounds.

Stealth changes to, "Units firing at units that have this USR suffer a further -1 to their BS characteristic if the target unit is receiving the benefits of being in Cover".

Move Through Cover changes to, "Units comprised of all models with this USR may move their full Movement in the Movement Phase and when they Run, furthermore, they do not suffer the -2" penalty to their charge range nor do they suffer the penalty to their Initiative characteristic when making their charge into or through Difficult terrain".

Fleet changes to, "Units comprised entirely of models with this USR add +1" to their Run move and may reroll their Charge range".

And They Shall Know No Fear changes to, "Units comprised entirely of models with this USR automatically pass their Leadership test to Regroup and automatically pass Pinning tests".

VEHICLE CHANGES
Vehicle damage chart is removed.

No changes to Glancing hits.

Penetrating hits inflicted by AP2 and AP1 weapons roll a further D6 in addition to removing a Hull Point from the vehicle, for AP2 the vehicle Expodes a 6+ result, if the weapon is AP1 the vehicle Explodes on a 5+ result, add +1 to the result against Open-topped vehicles.

Extra Armour upgrade grants 5+ save against Glancing hits.

Flyers may make 5+ Evade save against shooting attacks (must be declared before Hits are resolved), if a Flyer has declared it is Evading it can only make Snapshots for the next game turn.

Artillery changed back to vehicle with AV 11 on front facing and AV 10 on all other facings, 2 HP's standard.


MISSION CHANGES
There are 6 missions, each has a set of secondary Objectives in addition to Slay the Warlord, First Blood and Line Breaker.

Clash of Titans... Slay the Warlord is worth 2 Victory points instead of 1. All Challenges won are worth 1 Victory point.

Interceptor... All FA choices can score objectives, destroyed FA choices are worth 1 Victory point.

Big Guns Never Tire... All Heavy Support choices can score objectives, destroyed Heavy Support choices are worth 1 Victory point.

Hold the Line... If at the end of each even numbered game turn and at the end of the game there are no enemy models in your deployment zone your objective is worth 2 Victory points instead of 1. Furthermore, if your opponent does not score Line Breaker you gain a point.

The Scouring... The objectives located in No Man's Land are each worth D3 Victory points instead of 2.

Purge the Alien... Kill points (No objectives).

There are D3+2 objective markers for mission except for Purge the Alien. Each player must place a single objective marker in their respective deployment zones at least 6" away from the table edge. All other markers must be placed in No Man's Land at least 12" inches away from all other objective markers and at least 6" away from the table edge. The objective in your deployment zone is worth 1 Victory point. The Objectives in No Man's Land are worth 2 Victory points each and the objective in your opponent's deployment zone is worth 3 Victory points. At the end of every even numbered game turn and at the end of the game each player will accrue points for each uncontested objective held by models with the Infantry unit type. The secondary Objectives will be tallied at the end of the game.

No more mysterious objectives.

@v0iddrgn.
The length of the game should be determined by the scenario, so fixed and random game lengths that fit the scenario are a good idea IMO.

I want to change the overly restrictive F,O,C to allow the options found in formations to be easily derived by the players without all the complication of the current GW system.(Fix the problem at it core , not just treat the symptom. )

Totally agree with removing random buffs. Point everything up and let players pick and pay for what they want.

If everything only moves one of two speeds , why bother with a stat, just call them fast or Slow!

If Flames of War names units mobility, and covers 10 (including fixed artillery that can only be towed.).
EG

Fully-tracked 12”/30cm 12”/30cm 8”/20cm
Half-tracked and Jeeps 16”/40cm 12”/30cm 4”/10cm
Wheeled 16”/40cm 8”/20cm 4”/10cm
Cavalry Wagons 10”/25cm 8”/20cm 4”/10cm
Wagons 6”/15cm 6”/15cm 4”/10cm
Cavalry 10”/25cm 10”/25cm 10”/25cm
Infantry/Man-packed Guns 6”/15cm 6”/15cm 6”/15cm
Light Guns 4”/10cm 4”/10cm 4”/10cm
Medium and Heavy Guns 2”/5cm 2”/5cm 2”/5cm

This description will be in the unit data.This clearly shows the movement rate for road/cross country/ rough terrain on a quick reference table.No 'movement stat'
does not mean everything has to move the same or have umpteen special rules !
I would want different speeds for the following unit types in 40k.

Slow infantry
Infantry
Fast Infantry
Beasts and cavalry
Vehicles
Fast vehicles
Bikes and skimmers.

With 2 movement special abilities.
Jump.Allowed to jump up to 8" over terrain.

Dozer,Counts obstructive terrain as open ground, and very obstructive terrain as difficult terrain .(As usual terrain effects are agreed by players before the game starts. )

Deep strike deployment should be determined by the deployment rules for the scenario.

I want to remove all USRs and special rules from the game ,(over eighty of the blighters!) and replace then with between a dozen and two dozen special abilities.
The new core rules should cover 80% of the intended game play, not just standard infantry in the open!

If you are happy with the basic rule set GW plc sell you for 40k ,and just want to house rule it to suit you better that is fine.

But if you want to really simplify the rules, you need to address the core issues IMO.

I disagree, I think the FOC has been completely thrown out this edition allowing for crazy OP stuff to exist such as armies consisting solely of super heavy's. Having a points value threshold so those who like those crazy "anything goes" styled armies help players who just want to play casual games without feeling like they don't stand a chance. You know, the thread's title states "a simplified game", the things I have suggested create just that. Sure, I kept 75% of the game mechanics very similar to what it is but people play 40K for a reason and I don't think changing the game to where it's barely recognizable is a good idea.