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.

Karol wrote:
Wouldn't an AA system require all codex, which are build around stacking of multiple units doing multiple things or stacking multiple buffs to work, to be rewriten at the basic design level, because they wouldn't be working at all. Same with armies that focus a lot on one phase of the game.

No, many people (including myself) already play 40k with alternating activations and the "wombo combos" are still there, its just that you get to do something about it instead of taking it up the ass.

Definitely more diceless, decision-based/player-driven resolution (like in Cry Havoc/ Rising Sun/ Blood Rage/ aGoT or, differently, Gloomhaven).

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:
Wouldn't an AA system require all codex, which are build around stacking of multiple units doing multiple things or stacking multiple buffs to work, to be rewriten at the basic design level, because they wouldn't be working at all. Same with armies that focus a lot on one phase of the game.

No, many people (including myself) already play 40k with alternating activations and the "wombo combos" are still there, its just that you get to do something about it instead of taking it up the ass.

I was thinking the other way around. If you need to have combination of multiple units doing stuff over 2-3 phases, I struggle to imagine how it is suppose to work, when your opponent can just kill the lynch pin unit and your army stops working. Or worse you have to cast specific psychic powers to protect your whole army, but to do it your opponent will get at least one activation to just stop you every turn, while before you could have cast it every turn.

Karol wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:
Wouldn't an AA system require all codex, which are build around stacking of multiple units doing multiple things or stacking multiple buffs to work, to be rewriten at the basic design level, because they wouldn't be working at all. Same with armies that focus a lot on one phase of the game.

No, many people (including myself) already play 40k with alternating activations and the "wombo combos" are still there, its just that you get to do something about it instead of taking it up the ass.

I was thinking the other way around. If you need to have combination of multiple units doing stuff over 2-3 phases, I struggle to imagine how it is suppose to work, when your opponent can just kill the lynch pin unit and your army stops working. Or worse you have to cast specific psychic powers to protect your whole army, but to do it your opponent will get at least one activation to just stop you every turn, while before you could have cast it every turn.

I play AA phase by phase so both armies get to move, then both armies get to cast psychic stuff, then shoot/charge, fight.

Karol wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:
Wouldn't an AA system require all codex, which are build around stacking of multiple units doing multiple things or stacking multiple buffs to work, to be rewriten at the basic design level, because they wouldn't be working at all. Same with armies that focus a lot on one phase of the game.

No, many people (including myself) already play 40k with alternating activations and the "wombo combos" are still there, its just that you get to do something about it instead of taking it up the ass.

I was thinking the other way around. If you need to have combination of multiple units doing stuff over 2-3 phases, I struggle to imagine how it is suppose to work, when your opponent can just kill the lynch pin unit and your army stops working. Or worse you have to cast specific psychic powers to protect your whole army, but to do it your opponent will get at least one activation to just stop you every turn, while before you could have cast it every turn.

So your opponent would have counterplay to your plans...? Shock, horror, say it ain't so! You also realize that you can do the same thing back and that the meta of the game may become about protecting key characters, which order to activate things in, and you'll be forced to change your entire plan on the fly. That sounds like a better game to me.

Flanking, crossfire, suppression, pinning and other morale effects (with no unit fully or virtually immune dangit) would add a lot to the game for infantry imo.

with the current state of the game, it would be easier to just take a SciFi rule system that has all the things required (like Warpath, Gates of Antares or Starhip Troopers) and write 40k lists for it

 kodos wrote:
with the current state of the game, it would be easier to just take a SciFi rule system that has all the things required (like Warpath, Gates of Antares or Starhip Troopers) and write 40k lists for it

I've tried doing that to Antares, and it's harder than it looks, simply because 40k assumes melee is a thing you might build units/armies specifically to do and the vast majority of other sci-fi wargames consider it incidental.

What ideas from other games do I want to see in 40k? *rubs hands, inhales deeply"

AA. I know, I know, but every fun/cool/balanced thing I want in 40k, that could be in 40k, is contingent upon it.


Malifaux

Asymmetrical objectives ala the schemes and strategies system- more interesting ones, too, that aren't "stand here for 5 turns," or "kill everything." Hidden information- objectives, abilities etc. Think that one DA objective from 7th.


Infinity

Infinity and Malifaux both have "intact" action that allow models to place something, use a computer, etc.

IGOUGO w/ reactions system is a possibility for KT.

Maelstrom's Edge

Versus rolls. Fantastic method for resolving actions, allows stats to vary, one formula used for everything makes it easy to remember. It also makes a soldier's physical and mental characteristics, training, etc. more impactful and shifts things away from unnecessary special rules.

Activation checks. Before a unit an act it makes its activation (morale) check. If it fails, it makes an involuntary action- what the action is, is dependent on the level of........

Suppression Seriously. 40k needs this- badly. Makes the game less about killing, more strategy, more cool abilities and rules......... In MEDGE, some weapons, like grenades, even have a Suppress (X) SR.


Actions, not phases (AA again, I know) move-shoot, hold-shoot, double move, charge (double move, make attacks) hit-and-run

Shooting and melee use the same skill (may not work for 40k, because ) But maybe Orks don't need to suck at shooting to be balanced?

No saves. None, of any kind. Saves are not interactive, they do not represent how hard to hurt something is, and they really screw with weapon/unit design and balance. Good riddance!

Resolving an attack: pick target, roll attacker's SKILL vs. defender's EVASION, weapon PENETRATION vs. defender's ARMOR, apply damage.

Imagine Eldar, with low armor but high evasion.

Units have a MASS stat. For a mini to lose a wound, here called FORTITUDE, it must take damage at least equal to its MASS. All damage that does not cause a lost point of FORTITUDE is discarded at the end of the game turn. Something like this could be a nice way to improve durability without saves.

Pistols can be used in place of swords 'n' stuff, resolved the same way. Who wouldn't pull out their sidearm in close quarters? Even T'au aren't that stupid

Cover and los rules are Just- read 'em. There's a lot there. Great stuff. Rules are free now, with V2 on the way *crosses fingers it's still amazing*
Unit types, with their own rules like we had before.

"Big" units' # of weapons that can be fired, and degradation based on wounds- NO TABLES.

List building is far more structured. Detachments are 8 units, maximum. 1 HQ, 0-2 Hammer- 1-3 Core- 0-2 Vanguard, 0-2 Anvil. The # of Hammer, Anvil, and Vanguard choices must not exceed the # of core units.

Different HQs have different units available for Hammer, Core, Anvil and Vanguard, like Sammy and Belial used to in 40k.

Command points actually represent orders. They reduce suppression, activate Epirian robot abilities, Artarian Remnant gundam dudes do cool things with them......

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


I play AA phase by phase so both armies get to move, then both armies get to cast psychic stuff, then shoot/charge, fight.

That is interesting. I thought it worked that one units goes through all phases, then opponents one unit goes throuhg all etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

So your opponent would have counterplay to your plans...? Shock, horror, say it ain't so! You also realize that you can do the same thing back and that the meta of the game may become about protecting key characters, which order to activate things in, and you'll be forced to change your entire plan on the fly. That sounds like a better game to me.

No that is not how it works. If my army is weaker, and requires multiple things to go of for one unit to work, and I can't build it for redundancy, because of how GW structured the rules ( units can't use PA powers, there is tide weaving, unit need to pass psychic powers to shot through LoS blocking terrain etc) and pointed my army, that someone whose army tactic is I plop down 6 and 4 of the same unit and swarm the objectives will always win. Plus fewer units means fewer activation, meaning someone with larger armies, which isn't hard vs an elite one, would get the old style turn structure for their important units anyway.

it i only a good thing, if your army was designed by GW to change plans on the fly. If they designed it to do specific things with specific units in all or most turns, then such system would not make the game more enjoyable, it would actualy do the opposit.

One idea that MANY games I've played have that I quite like is range and movement penalties. someone running at long range should be harder to hit then someone standing out in the open at point blank range

Karol wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:
Wouldn't an AA system require all codex, which are build around stacking of multiple units doing multiple things or stacking multiple buffs to work, to be rewriten at the basic design level, because they wouldn't be working at all. Same with armies that focus a lot on one phase of the game.

No, many people (including myself) already play 40k with alternating activations and the "wombo combos" are still there, its just that you get to do something about it instead of taking it up the ass.

I was thinking the other way around. If you need to have combination of multiple units doing stuff over 2-3 phases, I struggle to imagine how it is suppose to work, when your opponent can just kill the lynch pin unit and your army stops working. Or worse you have to cast specific psychic powers to protect your whole army, but to do it your opponent will get at least one activation to just stop you every turn, while before you could have cast it every turn.

It is easier than you think, if you are able to move your models in a coordinate way, keeping in your mind what you are doing, why and if you are able to adapt your tactics to the opponents reactions.

Karol wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


I play AA phase by phase so both armies get to move, then both armies get to cast psychic stuff, then shoot/charge, fight.

That is interesting. I thought it worked that one units goes through all phases, then opponents one unit goes throuhg all etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

So your opponent would have counterplay to your plans...? Shock, horror, say it ain't so! You also realize that you can do the same thing back and that the meta of the game may become about protecting key characters, which order to activate things in, and you'll be forced to change your entire plan on the fly. That sounds like a better game to me.

No that is not how it works. If my army is weaker, and requires multiple things to go of for one unit to work, and I can't build it for redundancy, because of how GW structured the rules ( units can't use PA powers, there is tide weaving, unit need to pass psychic powers to shot through LoS blocking terrain etc) and pointed my army, that someone whose army tactic is I plop down 6 and 4 of the same unit and swarm the objectives will always win. Plus fewer units means fewer activation, meaning someone with larger armies, which isn't hard vs an elite one, would get the old style turn structure for their important units anyway.

it i only a good thing, if your army was designed by GW to change plans on the fly. If they designed it to do specific things with specific units in all or most turns, then such system would not make the game more enjoyable, it would actualy do the opposit.

If a game is well done the various armies should be balanced, unless you haven't done some mistakes in your armylist.

Now while I do agree that AA could improve 40k, I'm not so sure if it can be implemented at that scale. AT uses AA, and in my mind AT is one if the best GW rulesets I've ever come across, but the game only has around 8 different units (Warlord, Nemesis, Reaver, Warhound, Questoris, Cerastis, Acastus and Maegara), so overall you'll usually only ever have to keep track of 6 units. Trying to implement this in 40k where you could have at least a dozen units at a time may cause more hassle than it fixes.

As to what I'd like to see changed, I'd like to see an overhaul to how the units move around the field; in that, I mean preventing scenarios where a Guardsman could consolidate into a Land Raider, and just like that the Land Raider's locked up. While he could shoot the Guardsman, it makes no sense while he's suddenly unable to target anyone else except the bloke in front.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:
Wouldn't an AA system require all codex, which are build around stacking of multiple units doing multiple things or stacking multiple buffs to work, to be rewriten at the basic design level, because they wouldn't be working at all. Same with armies that focus a lot on one phase of the game.

No, many people (including myself) already play 40k with alternating activations and the "wombo combos" are still there, its just that you get to do something about it instead of taking it up the ass.

I was thinking the other way around. If you need to have combination of multiple units doing stuff over 2-3 phases, I struggle to imagine how it is suppose to work, when your opponent can just kill the lynch pin unit and your army stops working. Or worse you have to cast specific psychic powers to protect your whole army, but to do it your opponent will get at least one activation to just stop you every turn, while before you could have cast it every turn.

I play AA phase by phase so both armies get to move, then both armies get to cast psychic stuff, then shoot/charge, fight.

That sounds like whoever goes second has a massive advantage for getting to outmaneuver anything the opponent does first. How is that fair? o.O

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 kodos wrote:
with the current state of the game, it would be easier to just take a SciFi rule system that has all the things required (like Warpath, Gates of Antares or Starhip Troopers) and write 40k lists for it

I've tried doing that to Antares, and it's harder than it looks, simply because 40k assumes melee is a thing you might build units/armies specifically to do and the vast majority of other sci-fi wargames consider it incidental.

yeah, problem here is that you cannot make 1:1 copies of 40k armies for other systems as 40k tries to be Fantasy in Space, which is one reason why the system does not work well as modern combat is different
yet you can make pure melee armies work with such a system, they won't just work as they do in 40k (melee must be devastating, so that no matter what is left to arrive in close combat, it will kill anything but the hardest targets on the charge to balance it with alpha striking ranged weapons)

but this is also a reason why just taking good ideas/rules from other games and put it on top of 40k won't work that well, as not all armies (or play styles) will work under those without changes

you can re-imagine the army rules for those systems based on the fluff or playstyle people expect from it but this will change how the armies look like on the table
there are rules around for Space Marines in Starship Troopers, but for a 2k point game, there will be 10-20 Marines, 1 Tank and 1 Elite unit, which is not what people who have 5 Tanks, and lots of Marines want to play with

 Valkyrie wrote:
Now while I do agree that AA could improve 40k, I'm not so sure if it can be implemented at that scale. AT uses AA, and in my mind AT is one if the best GW rulesets I've ever come across, but the game only has around 8 different units (Warlord, Nemesis, Reaver, Warhound, Questoris, Cerastis, Acastus and Maegara), so overall you'll usually only ever have to keep track of 6 units. Trying to implement this in 40k where you could have at least a dozen units at a time may cause more hassle than it fixes.

Nah, having played AA 40k with 2000+ point armies it works just fine. Lots of games have large numbers of units but manage to do that just fine, like various forms of Epic. If tracking who has activated gets problematic, that is pretty trivially solved by using little tokens next to the units on the table or by a hand of corresponding unit cards next to it. Unlike many of those games, 40k units also die quickly in large numbers and bring that hindrance down quite a bit by turn three.

Karol wrote:

No that is not how it works. If my army is weaker, and requires multiple things to go of for one unit to work, and I can't build it for redundancy, because of how GW structured the rules ( units can't use PA powers, there is tide weaving, unit need to pass psychic powers to shot through LoS blocking terrain etc) and pointed my army, that someone whose army tactic is I plop down 6 and 4 of the same unit and swarm the objectives will always win. Plus fewer units means fewer activation, meaning someone with larger armies, which isn't hard vs an elite one, would get the old style turn structure for their important units anyway.

it i only a good thing, if your army was designed by GW to change plans on the fly. If they designed it to do specific things with specific units in all or most turns, then such system would not make the game more enjoyable, it would actualy do the opposit.

you mean like tau that just don't work in 9th because its so centered on holding objectives all game and being able to melee?
I thought you were happy with that change, why would it be bad if your GKs got affected with a similar fate?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DornScorn wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:
Wouldn't an AA system require all codex, which are build around stacking of multiple units doing multiple things or stacking multiple buffs to work, to be rewriten at the basic design level, because they wouldn't be working at all. Same with armies that focus a lot on one phase of the game.

No, many people (including myself) already play 40k with alternating activations and the "wombo combos" are still there, its just that you get to do something about it instead of taking it up the ass.

I was thinking the other way around. If you need to have combination of multiple units doing stuff over 2-3 phases, I struggle to imagine how it is suppose to work, when your opponent can just kill the lynch pin unit and your army stops working. Or worse you have to cast specific psychic powers to protect your whole army, but to do it your opponent will get at least one activation to just stop you every turn, while before you could have cast it every turn.

I play AA phase by phase so both armies get to move, then both armies get to cast psychic stuff, then shoot/charge, fight.

That sounds like whoever goes second has a massive advantage for getting to outmaneuver anything the opponent does first. How is that fair? o.O

Armies don't all have the same number of units to activate. So going first doesnt necessarily mean your opponent will have the last word.
Also, 40k is already skewed towards the player that goes first.

And going first gives you the first activation, meaning that i can charge into a big shooty unit or just outgun their big shooty unit. Its a lot more balanced than just having zero reaction and getting blasted from across the map with no chance at counterplay



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sherrypie wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
Now while I do agree that AA could improve 40k, I'm not so sure if it can be implemented at that scale. AT uses AA, and in my mind AT is one if the best GW rulesets I've ever come across, but the game only has around 8 different units (Warlord, Nemesis, Reaver, Warhound, Questoris, Cerastis, Acastus and Maegara), so overall you'll usually only ever have to keep track of 6 units. Trying to implement this in 40k where you could have at least a dozen units at a time may cause more hassle than it fixes.

Nah, having played AA 40k with 2000+ point armies it works just fine. Lots of games have large numbers of units but manage to do that just fine, like various forms of Epic. If tracking who has activated gets problematic, that is pretty trivially solved by using little tokens next to the units on the table or by a hand of corresponding unit cards next to it. Unlike many of those games, 40k units also die quickly in large numbers and bring that hindrance down quite a bit by turn three.

Its especially easy if you play it AA per phase, the mental load is basically the same as in regular 40k when it comes to remembering which units were already activated. And yeah, tokens fix that problem if it really becomes one.

BrianDavion wrote:
One idea that MANY games I've played have that I quite like is range and movement penalties. someone running at long range should be harder to hit then someone standing out in the open at point blank range

Yeah, like MEDGE's Fleeting Target rule, that gives a bonus to Evasion. (I knew I forgot something from that game!)

Shorter weapon ranges across the board would be fantastic, as well.

Blastaar wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
One idea that MANY games I've played have that I quite like is range and movement penalties. someone running at long range should be harder to hit then someone standing out in the open at point blank range

Yeah, like MEDGE's Fleeting Target rule, that gives a bonus to Evasion. (I knew I forgot something from that game!)

Shorter weapon ranges across the board would be fantastic, as well.

Really sounds like you should just port 40k armies to MEdge, dude, rather than trying to turn 40k into MEdge.

 Dysartes wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
One idea that MANY games I've played have that I quite like is range and movement penalties. someone running at long range should be harder to hit then someone standing out in the open at point blank range

Yeah, like MEDGE's Fleeting Target rule, that gives a bonus to Evasion. (I knew I forgot something from that game!)

Shorter weapon ranges across the board would be fantastic, as well.

Really sounds like you should just port 40k armies to MEdge, dude, rather than trying to turn 40k into MEdge.

The whole point of this thread is to say what other games got better than 40k when it comes to mechanics....

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Armour facings, weapon fire arcs, some kind of restriction on moving and firing freely, some kind of penalty for Deep Striking, weapons that can't damage all targets, melee anti-tank grenades, better-controlled gun stats/size creep, and detachment restrictions out of older Warhammer, certainly.

I really wasn't hoping to rehash past editions of 40k for this thread...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mozzamanx wrote:
Abstract line of sight is a big one for me. Something simple like a 'height' stat; models of the same height confer cover, smaller models do not, and bigger models block sight entirely.
Infantry are Height 1, Vehicles are Height 2-3, Beasts are Height 0, etc. No need to bend down and draw sight, or worry if your HQ pose is too dynamic.

I'm also a big fan of limiting what units can do in any one turn. This is a big change, but the need to make actual decisions on what your unit does is important IMO.
For example, you can make a Move action and a Fight action per turn. That Move action might be a normal move, an Advance, or a Charge. That Fight action might be shooting, combat or overwatch.
But you are not Advancing, Shooting and Charging all in the same turn.

Mind trying to explain which games had this and how it impacted your gameplay?

Malifaux uses a Hight stat. It can impact the game a lot because terrain also has a hight value so if a HT2 model is standing behind an HT2 crate and you can't draw a line between bases it can have wings and weapons and scenic bases out the wazoo and it doesn't matter, you can't target it.

Second one I'm not sure on. Probably some historical game has it but I'm not so well versed in that.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
One idea that MANY games I've played have that I quite like is range and movement penalties. someone running at long range should be harder to hit then someone standing out in the open at point blank range

Yeah, like MEDGE's Fleeting Target rule, that gives a bonus to Evasion. (I knew I forgot something from that game!)

Shorter weapon ranges across the board would be fantastic, as well.

Really sounds like you should just port 40k armies to MEdge, dude, rather than trying to turn 40k into MEdge.

The whole point of this thread is to say what other games got better than 40k when it comes to mechanics....

Exactly. MEDGE has a lot of inspiration to offer an improved 40k. 40k armies won't, and can't, simply "port over" to a shooting-focused game with roughly 30 minis per side, with no official vehicle rules, no psychic powers/magic, only 4 factions, etc., etc.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Second one I'm not sure on. Probably some historical game has it but I'm not so well versed in that.

most games that use per unit activation do this
Starship Troopers, Warpath, Deadzone, Stargrunt, Gates of Antares, Bolt Action, Kings of War, SAGA, and so on

may it be with specific orders (shoot, move+shoot, advance, charge) or that each has a limited amount of actions, or as simple that all movements happens in the movement phase which means that units that charge are not able to shoot

the possibility of moving full speed, shoot, and charge is something very unique to 40k as all others either limit the movement if you want to shoot, do not allow shooting if you charge etc.

Blastaar wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Spoiler:

 Dysartes wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
One idea that MANY games I've played have that I quite like is range and movement penalties. someone running at long range should be harder to hit then someone standing out in the open at point blank range

Yeah, like MEDGE's Fleeting Target rule, that gives a bonus to Evasion. (I knew I forgot something from that game!)

Shorter weapon ranges across the board would be fantastic, as well.

Really sounds like you should just port 40k armies to MEdge, dude, rather than trying to turn 40k into MEdge.

The whole point of this thread is to say what other games got better than 40k when it comes to mechanics....

Exactly. MEDGE has a lot of inspiration to offer an improved 40k. 40k armies won't, and can't, simply "port over" to a shooting-focused game with roughly 30 minis per side, with no official vehicle rules, no psychic powers/magic, only 4 factions, etc., etc.

There becomes a point, though, when you're trying to port in so many rules from one system that it's very obvious that the extant game is not what you want to be playing.

I wasn't meaning to use models "counts-as" an existing MEdge army, Blastaar, but to come up with new lists within that framework. A 2,000 point army might not fit with the scale, but the units within it might.

 Dysartes wrote:


There becomes a point, though, when you're trying to port in so many rules from one system that it's very obvious that the extant game is not what you want to be playing.

I wasn't meaning to use models "counts-as" an existing MEdge army, Blastaar, but to come up with new lists within that framework. A 2,000 point army might not fit with the scale, but the units within it might.

You're still missing the point of this thread.

I could very well come on here and say that <wargame> has the perfect rules system but that i like 40k's lore better. Its still a perfectly valid point in regards to OP's question

 Valkyrie wrote:
Now while I do agree that AA could improve 40k, I'm not so sure if it can be implemented at that scale. AT uses AA, and in my mind AT is one if the best GW rulesets I've ever come across, but the game only has around 8 different units (Warlord, Nemesis, Reaver, Warhound, Questoris, Cerastis, Acastus and Maegara), so overall you'll usually only ever have to keep track of 6 units. Trying to implement this in 40k where you could have at least a dozen units at a time may cause more hassle than it fixes.

Bolt Action allows every model to activate individually, and you can easily have 20-30 models per side without it bogging down. A token to mark which units have activated is pretty easy and it can be coins, beads, basically anything.

Or, you can go a step further with an orders system (eg in Apocalypse, there are three orders- move+shoot, shoot at +1, or move twice+melee), and have both players secretly assign orders (via tokens) face-down next to units. When a unit is activated, its order token is turned face-up. Anything with a face-down token has yet to activate. Simple.

In some ways, it can reduce the cognitive overhead- if units perform their full activations one at a time, then you don't need to, for example, remember exactly which units moved or advanced when it comes time to shoot.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:


There becomes a point, though, when you're trying to port in so many rules from one system that it's very obvious that the extant game is not what you want to be playing.

I wasn't meaning to use models "counts-as" an existing MEdge army, Blastaar, but to come up with new lists within that framework. A 2,000 point army might not fit with the scale, but the units within it might.

You're still missing the point of this thread.

I could very well come on here and say that <wargame> has the perfect rules system but that i like 40k's lore better. Its still a perfectly valid point in regards to OP's question

I mean if you go to the thread about what GW did right in 40k, most of it has nothing to do with rules or there's arguing on the fact that GW did a lot wrong. Right now it's on the implementation of the AV system (which honestly was fine to abandon).

the AV system is a very good example of what rules could you take from other games and implement it in a way so that it doesn't work any more

overall, with AP values being a modifier everything using the same Thoughness value is fine, back than a simple change of "against AV weapons use the sum of Strength and 6-AP for to wound rolls" (Autocanon S7+6-AP4 = 9 -> 6+ to wound AV11; Lasercanone S9+6-AP2 = 13 -> 2+ to wound AV11)



overall, I tried to fix and add stuff to the 40k system, yet everyone skips it as soon as GW adds their own "bugfix" no matter if it works or not (but it is official and therefore needs to be better)

so my conclusion is, for better rules take an existing system that has everything you want from a game and supports the scale you want to play (for 1k or less of current 40k, Gates of Antares, for 1.5-2k or larger, Warpath) and write army lists for those systems