Re writing 40k rules for the 21st century?

Hi folks.
Is anyone interested at looking at alternative game mechanics and resolution methods to develop a rule set specificaly developed for the current gameplay of 40k?

As there are loads of exelent detailed skirmish games which focus on individual models.

How do you feel about writing a detailed UNIT based rule set ?(Currently 40k is a unit based game with model focused rules , leading to massed abstraction, and unecissary confusion IMO.)

Nearly a quater of a century after 40k was released to help sell Citadels scifi range of minatures,its STILL using WHFB game mechanics .Even though 40k is now far more popular than WHFB!

I wondered if we use modern game mechanics and resolution methods , we might be able to get the game play of 40k with far less complication.
(40k is the most overcomplicated rule set compared to game play complexity , I know of!)

Why not use the best ideas from all the great games out there to make a great rule set for 40k?

I will stop there in case this is not an aprorpiate subject for this forum.

TTFN

I'd be interested in working on it with you.

My only real issue with making the game unit focused is that Warhammer is character driven, which is why I think it's model focused. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but it will be difficult for a seasoned Warhammer player like myself to empty my mind of preconceived rules perspectives.

There is no unappropreate ideas on a Rules Brain Storming Froum like this. This is a place for you to let loose wit good ideas and realy stupid ones all the same. If your ideas are liked they will blossom realy quickly.

I like where you are going with this. I unfortunatly do not have much experiance outsice the GW famely of games eacept say for alittle TSR. But I have dabbeled with rules systems of my own in the pasn and feel I will beable to spot and support a good rule when I see it. Who knows maybe some of my ideas will work also.

Hi folks.
When I say unit focused I mean PURLEY from a game mechanic and resolution method point of veiw.

I belive characters and leaders should have MORE influence on the game . Restricting all characters to 'close combat monsters' is just so silly IMO.

IF characters-leader can influence a units targeting, moral, weapon effects,use of cover,AND close combat ability, in varying degrees. It MUCH more characterful IMO.

I would like to reduce the amount of complication in the current rules , and increace the tactical conciderations.

MAIN CHANGES>
1/More interactive game turn.

Either unit activation OR alternating phases.
Eg
Player A takes all actions with ONE unit.
Player B takes all actions with ONE unit.
(Repeat.)
OR
Player A takes ONE action with all units.
Player B takes ONE action with all units.
(Repeat )

This allows for more interaction-reaction without having to use long and abstract conditional rules.

2/ Reduce the amount of resolution methods from 7 to 2.
I would propose

1/ skill check vs characteristic.(Roll over characteristic value.)

2/ opposed value resolution.(Roll over the difference in characteristics between attacker and defender.)

There are 2 chioces for modifers IMO.
Standard numerical values, +1 or+2 to target score or dice roll.

OR re roll dice for skill re roll, or specific scores for specific events.

This is just a general out line.Do you agree with this very basic outline?

IF we use characteristic that cover ALL interactions, we can remove the clutter of abstract special rules , ands be left with clear concise rules and faster game play instead!(I belive in special abilities NOT special rules!)

Eg Movement.

All units have a movement value.

This is the maximum distance the unit can move in inches,when it takes a movement action.

All units have a movement type.

Legs (L),Wheeled(W),Tracked(T),Hover(H).

This determines what effect different terrain has on unit movement.
Example Terrain Table.

Terrain type/Movement type.Legs.wheeled.Tracked.Hover.
Roads..................................+2"...+2"........+1"........0
Rubble..................................-1".....IM........0...........0
Water feature........................-2".....-2"........-1".........0
Buildings ...............................0.......IM..........IM.......IM
Woods ...................................0......IM.........-2"........IM/-2".
(Im = Impassible.)
Players should agree on what restrictions terrain features have before the game.
EG
Vehilces can enter that aircraft hanger but NOT that bunker.
That woods is impenetrable to all but infantry ...etc.

EG a Ork Mob (L) 4" can cross rubble at 3" per movement action.
But an Ork warbiker mob, 12"(w) can not move across rubble !

And have special abilities.
(A) Amphibiuos. The unit counts water features as open ground.
(D) Difficult terrain mod. the unit counts light woods and rubble as open ground.
(J) Jump jets. The unit can jump over terrain features. 8" over HL 1. 6" over HL 2. 4" over HL 3. 2" over HL 4.

This replaces 7 pages of rules in 40k, with 1 page of rules wich allows MORE detailed movement! It also adds the tactical concideration of planning advance routes to achive coherant attacks...

TTFN

I would love to see the reintroduction on the Move stat. It has long been missed. Though I am not sure that redusing movements to 4 would do much good for the game. I feel it is not fast enough. Now 5 as a starting point for most armys with the ocasional 4 for units that are perseaved as slow I could live with.

As for the terrain idea. I like it as a starting point but I feel it needs more clarification. While easy to implament there are soo many typrs of terrain that efect thinds in so many different ways it would be a big list. I feel things like snow and sand shoud have effects. Bogs and mires. I am sure other paople havo other ideas. It would end up being a very big list. The options for upgrades in some armys could be interesting. Orks canhave bikes with Wheals or Tracks for instance.

So I am not sure if it will work but I like it as a starting point.

Hi.
I just put up the values and table as an illustration to show how the basic method works.(Actual movement rates and types would be decided by playtesting and group development.)

As reguard to the 'terrain' type , as thier is such a wide variety available , players would have to decide on its effects, on a game by game basis anyway .(As now).

So a 'rough guide' is all we need IMO .In the same way the current 'difficult /dangerous terrain classification.
At least this method doesnt use 10 unit types, only 4 movement types. ;)So thier may be room for more elements like severe weather and maybe night fighting?

In my experiance, if the game uses a straight forward resolution method , the amount of modifiers and detail can be increased for more detailed games as the players gain confidence.

Eg in starter games of Firefly we just use 5 modifiers for artillery.(After 5 years we were using all 36 to get super detailed resolutions..becuase we like this sort of detail. )

Interactive game turn ideas in detail.
How do you feel about using a more interactive game turn.
Most people belive this would be the quickest way to increase tactical interaction.

SIMPLEST CHANGE.
As detailed by Big Squig on Warseer to work with the current rules and the minimum of fuss.(Check out his thread for more details.)

Player A moves.
Player B moves

Player A shoots
Player B shoots

Player A moves int assault
Player B moves into assault
Resolve assaults.

Common Game turn mechanics.

Alteranting unit activation.
Alternating phases.

MAXIMUM TACTICAL (I can think of excluding variable bound game turn.)

All units perform 2 actions per turn .
Actions available are .
Move , Attack, Ready.
(Ready action give a bonus to the following action.If Attack, it increases the range or number of attacks, if Move it ,increases the stealth of the unit.)

This gives action sets or 'Tactical Orders '

Advance (A), Move then Attack.

Creep(C), Ready then Move.

Double (C), Move then Move.

Evade (C), Attack then Move.

Full Support .(F) Ready then Attack.

The game turn runs something like ..

Command phase.
This is when the players ;-
1)Issue orders to their units, ( units can be given different orders to each other, and order counters are placed face down next to the individual units.)

2)Request off table support.(Call in artillery or air strikes, and reserves.)

Primary action phase.
This is when one player reveals their unit order counters one at a time , and performs the FIRST ACTION of the order with each unit as their order counter is revealed .

Then the opposing player reveals their unit order counters one at a time, and performs the FIRST ACTION of the order with each unit as their order counter is revealed .

Secondary action phase.This is when one player removes their unit order counters one at a time , and performs the SECOND ACTION of the order with each unit, as their order counter is removed.

Then the opposing player removes their unit order counters one at a time, and performs the SECOND ACTION of the order with each unit, as their order counter is removed.

Resolution phase.This is when players;-
1)'Rally' units with 'moral damage'.(Suppressed /neutralised units take a moral test.)

2)Plot arrivals.(See if /where reserves and off table firing arrive!)


So it runs like this.(As this is totaly alien to most 40k players, I have spent a lot of time explaining it.)

Place Order Counters face down next to your units ,and call in strikes reserves.

Turn over Order Counters and take first action.

Remove Order Counters and take second action.

Rally units on poor moral, place any arrivals on table.

I would like to make ALL attack resolution follow the same process, and have the same characteristics ON THE WEAPON PROFILE.(WHFB is all about close combat so half the characteristics can be assault based.40k should be more ballanced between ranged and assault.)

As the ability of the unit effects the weapon potential, each unit would get thier own INDIVIDUAL weapon profile.

So ALL weapon get a range value (BtB or 2 ,4,6,12,18,24,30,36,42, 48,54,60 inches.)

All Weapons get an effect value , number of shots /attacks/ or area effect.

All weapon get a damage value .(Re name the Assault based str value.)

All weapon get a Anti personel/Anti vehicle Characteristic.(A bonus dice for supression OR armor penetration on non small arms weapons, as appropriate.)

I an getting ahead of myself sorry.

What are you thoughts on a more interactive game turn?

TTFN

Hi folks.
As a re-write would entail rebuilding from the ground up.

I suppose the most important thing is to determine the end game play we want to achive.

Do we want to continue with WHFB in space, as GW is curently following ,(but avioding the abstration and overcomplication GW seem to go for...)

Or would we prefer to go for a modern tactical wargame, with proportional results?

If the results are proportional , its far easier to balance and cost units if that is what the end game play requires.

EG
How do you cost the AP system accuratley?
As the effectivness of ANY weapon AP value or armour save ,changes so dramaticaly dependant on the values of the opposing forces.Not to mention the massive steps in efficiency jumps .

IF we use weapon damage - armour value = save required.
Eg Damage 7 - Armour 4 = 3+ save.
Then as the damage and armour values give proportional results across the whole range of values.It is far easier to cost them proprotionatley.


Also why use a characteristic in conjunction with a table or a factor to work out the dice roll required?
Especialy as it can artificialy restrict results to just 3 outcomes.

(Eg WS VS WS on a table, 7-BS .)

Why not just use the characteristic directly?
Why not let the unit have a value to represent the chance they are going to be hit?
Eg WS 4 ,BS 3.
The unit is hit in close combat on a 4+ and by ranged attacks on a 3+.

The ranged accuracy of the unit could be incorperated into the effective range of the ranged weapons.
Eg Current BS 1 and 2 units have shorter than average ranges.BS 3 and 4 have average ranges , and BS 5+ have longer than average ranges.

Eg Ork with boltgun range 18"
IG with boltgun range 24"
SM commander with Boltgun range 30"
Eg The better you are a shooting , you can hit targets futher away!

And the better a unit is in assault just increases the number of attacks,(Potential hits.)

(Just some simple alternatives to de-clutter the game play.)

So where on the 'WHFB in space' - 'modern tactical wargame ' scale are we going for?

TTFN