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.

hey ya'll i've being developing some new rules for 40k with some ideas coming from myself and others coming from other people on forums i've read. Atm i've not completed it, the of the revised goal is to make the rules more fluffier ,more asymmetric balanced and hopefully more realistic and fun to play.

The biggest change that ive made atm is the change to the ap system instead of ap values equal to armour values ignoring it, the ap value instead applies and armour reduction, like warhammer fb i think for example ap value weapon of 2 shooting a armour value model 3 would reduce the armour of the model to 5 (ie -2)
however when said ap is shot at armour value 2 the save would be reduced to 3 (ie -1 )
i hopes thats clear and easy to understand because of these changes high armour models are much more like to survive and nearly gives most models a chance to survive most weapons in the game however because armour is buff i've had to buff more ap of all weapons in order to balance it so that elite armies aren't op. However they are still more likely to survive than the older rules

so with that change the next thing i did was to redevelop the marines cause they are the base line to all other armies.
with marines i felt that state wise they were too close to human stats to be realistic however i didn't want to hero marines them with 2 wounds sort of thing so i decided to be more experimental in the str and toughest values let me explain

human stats ws3 b3 s3 t3 w1 I3 a1 Ld? so i agree that space marines are better fighters and shooters and are faster than the normal human so so far marines have ws4 b4 s? t? w1 I4 a1 Ld8
in the fluff marines are enhanced greatly in str and toughness so add one value to both of those, they also wear powerful exo armour that also enhances there strength so add another value. they also have really thick armour so another value to toughest.
think of it this way if ur confused armour save represents the quality of the armour sort of
and toughest and wounds represents its thickness, overall size, and support systems

so the new space marine base value is now ws4 b4 s5 t5 w1 i4 a1 Ld8 sv3
value of veteran marines have enhanced ws and bs and Ld and a for terminator honour represent theirs skills
veteran marines ws5 b5 s5 t5 w1 i4 aa Ld9 sv3

terminators are veteran marines with much bigger and better armour than marine armour so they get
ws5 b5 s6 t6 w2 i4 a2 ld9 sv2

centurions are normal marines in much bigger armour than terminators so they get
ws4 b4 s7 t7 w3 i4 a1 ld8 sv2
the rest of the values are pretty self explanatory
marine Sgts ws4 b4 s5 t5 w1 i4 a2 ld8 sv3

veteran sgt and honour guard our one and the same imo so they get 2wounds cause imo like in HH they are semi characters
ws5 b5 s5 t5 w2 i4 a2 ld9 sv2
captain ws6 b6 s5 t5 w3 i5 a3 ld10 sv2
chapter master ws6 b6 s5 t5 w4 i5 a4 ld

the weapons i haven't done yet but this is already a huge wall of text, so im looking for any kind of feedback opinions, advice,support for ideas if you like them, critics anything
PS everything is WIP but read goals for general directions im trying to take
-regards neal wilson

Your save mechanic is slightly difficult to parse; do AP values apply a differental penalty to the target's armour save depending on the target's armour save or is it a flat penalty?

Have you made any other changes to the core rules at all?

Hey yeah let me explain ap better.
for example ap value of 2
armour save 2 would be 3 (-1)
armour save 3 would be 5 (-2)
armour save 4 would be 7 (-3)
armour save 5 would be i cant make it lol cant make rolls above 7

So for ap value of 3 his would happen.
armour save 2 would be 2 (0)
armour save 3 would be 4 (-1)
armour save 4 would be 6 (-2)
armour save 5 still wouldnt get a save cause i cant roll 8s (-3)
I hope that makes more sense to you.
The other rules i have being thinking about, have being the order the game's played in. I think this changes have to be made to stop first strike comps and all that spank.

So first i purpose is that roll for who gets to go first.Then in the movement phase player 1 can move one unit and then player 2 moves one unit so the game more reactionary more akin to chess.
However to prevent op kiting to assault armies during the movement phase, you may declare to charge during the movement phase and the opposing play may chose to either stand and shoot, flee or shoot and flee at half distance than what they normally would.

so after determining which charges make and fail, you would then do shoot again alternate between units and then sort out cc

That's a little more math along the way. A flat penalty might be better.

AP 1 = -6 to save
AP 2 = -5 to save
AP 3 = -4 to save
AP 4 = -3 to save
AP 5 = -2 to save
AP 6 = -1 to save
AP - = No penalty

Could be nudged up or down a notch to fit balance of course.

If I have this right:
roll needed to be successful

save: 2..3..4..5..6
ap
1........4..6..-...-..-
2........3..5..-...-..-
3........2..4..6..-..-
4........2..3..5..-..-
5........2..3..4..6..-
6........2..3..4..5..-
-.........all normal


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It makes good armor a little bit better, which is honestly probably a good thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jefffar wrote:
That's a little more math along the way. A flat penalty might be better.

AP 1 = -6 to save
AP 2 = -5 to save
AP 3 = -4 to save
AP 4 = -3 to save
AP 5 = -2 to save
AP 6 = -1 to save
AP - = No penalty

Could be nudged up or down a notch to fit balance of course.

The issue there is that humble bolters would reduce terminators to a 4+ armor. yikes. Missile launcher devs would reign supreme among heavy choices, since ap3 would be effectively a death sentence, even to 2+ armor guys. Most 2+ armor guys in the game have at least a 5+ invuln, so ap2 wouldn't really matter there.

Overall with that chart, daemons, orks, guard, and other lists like Typhus zombies would be point-for-point so much better than anyone in any kind of armor.

bingo hit the nail on the head with both purpose ap systems niv-mizzetMade, just wish i was smart enought to create the table in the first place
ps AnomanderRakeMade ap system he used in his rules are pretty decent however the high ap value for some smaller infantry weapons doesn't leave much differentiation for the bigger vehicle weapons in warhammer 40k which i think is a HUGE problem in the game both for the game and the fluff

I also included 0+ and 1+ saves in my rules (auto-succeed if you don't get reduced back to 2+ or worse) and AP penalty values aren't tied linearly to what the AP value of the weapon in 40k today is, which helped immensely.

oh yeah i agree you'r system works better for both low armour value units and with that saves adjustment to armour also high value armour too which i think is great.
however for some of the ap value for weapon such as (all ap) for the laser cannon. i feel that making ap all doesn't really leave room for vehicle weapons or titan weapons
Like for example when i look at the laser cannon on a pred tank and compare it with the really small laser cannon held by a space marine do you really think they should have the same ap value or strength or range for that matter. I just thinks it makes the game looks silly when ya do that

Neal Wilson wrote:
oh yeah i agree you'r system works better for both low armour value units and with that saves adjustment to armour also high value armour too which i think is great.
however for some of the ap value for weapon such as (all ap) for the laser cannon. i feel that making ap all doesn't really leave room for vehicle weapons or titan weapons
Like for example when i look at the laser cannon on a pred tank and compare it with the really small laser cannon held by a space marine do you really think they should have the same ap value or strength or range for that matter. I just thinks it makes the game looks silly when ya do that

The big laser cannon on a Predator is actually the same size as the big laser cannon the Space Marine is using; the tank's gun has the advantage of being able to stabilize to avoid range penalties (that part is still being worked into the rules) and firing twice as fast. 40k is sort of weird in that a lot of tanks mount man-portable guns, the advantage tanks have is the ability to mount more guns and fire on the move more easily more so than having bigger guns. As to Titan weapons, when they appear the sheer scale is going to be more apparent in terms of the Multiple Wounds rule than anything else (a single lascannon shot isn't going to take more than three wounds off things, a turbo-laser destructor might take eight or ten).

haha really? cause i swear that the land raider and pred tanks, laser cannon were way bigger in model and fluff wise than the dev sm laser-cannon? even the heavy bolters and assult cannon and bolters lol .

I guess my second question would be, do you truly think a man-portable laser-cannon should have unlimited Armour penetration.Given the other exotic destructive weapons it must be compared to in the 40k universe.

Also what do you think about the auto cannon on the pred, or the assault cannon on the dreadnought, don't you think it needs their weapons need changing dude to the huge size difference between their man-portable versions?
-regards neal