Warhammer 40,000 Edition X

In the grim darkness of the far future, there is only war.To be a man in such times is to be a man amongst untold billions. It is to live in the cruelest and most bloody regime imaginable. These are the tales of those times. Forget the power of technology and science, for so much has been forgotten, never to be relearned. Forget the promise of progress and understanding, for in the grim dark future there is only war. There is no peace among the stars, only an eternity of carnage and slaughter, and the laughter of thirsting gods.



Between the stars the ancient unseen enemies of mankind wait and hunger. Every voyage into the nothing is a confrontation with horror, with the implacable things of the warp, and with man's own innermost fears.

Rejoice Brothers, for the darkest hour must precede the warm light of dawn. Though we tread in shadows, bare footed through the fires of the valley of death, choking upon the smoke, our bodies weep the tears of man's redemption. Though we shall die it is by the manner of our deaths they shall know us. Any task worth doing is a task worth dying for. And so if we abandon our fears, our hopes, and our lives, who can question the virtue with which we graced the world with our departure?

Blood in Blood out.
Earth to Earth.
Dust to Dust.
Ashes to Ashes.
For we all fall down.

So lets begin shall we?

WARHAMMER 40,000 EDITION X

How deliciously macabre.

If we're going to start, let's start at the utmost basic. What do we want in a ruleset for Warhammer 40,000?

Personally, I want a ruleset that does the following:

• handles everything from a squad-versus-squad skirmish to the siege of the Imperial palace
• represents everything from a Goblin to an Imperator Titan
• uses a model based characteristic set, similar to the way 40k does now (albeit with altered statistics)
• emphasizes the effect of tactics, using a datasheet system for formations and strategic assets as Apocalypse does now
• has a fluid mini-campaign system that can be used for small skirmishes leading up to big battles (credit to the Colonel for this idea)
• allows for a multitude of army configurations without requiring certain things from most armies, such as dedicated transports
• more vividly reflects the background (or put another way, has less focus on selling models)

I know a lot of that sounds ridiculously generic, but like I said, I'm trying to start at the most basic.

Like to add one to that:

-Doesn't use the most complex ruleset possible

Basically the rules should be designed for everything conceivable so that expansionary ideas are basic components.

Should we begin with the most basic stuff?

"Turn Structure:"
We've got to figure out the sequence.
We've got to figure out movement stuff.
We've got to figure out shooting stuff.
We've got to figure out fighting stuff.
We've got to figure out if psychic abilities are their own phase.

We've got to begin fleshing out mechanics and stuff.

I think we need to get rid of IGOUGO, or else reinstate a (streamlined) version of Overwatch.

So, first things first, turn sequence.

Possibilities:

Like LOTR SBG - roll off at the start of every game turn. The winner does movement, then loser does movement, winner does shooting, loser... etc.

Cross between Space Hulk and current 40K - have IGOUGO system (one person does whole turn, other person does whole turn, repeat), but incorporate an Overwatch system.

Concurrent turns - every model is imagined as moving, then shooting etc at the same time. Has some difficulties (like Assault, casualties before Shooting etc)

Based on model/unit statistics - for example, the unit(s) with the highest initiative moves first, followed by the next highest initiative etc.

My vote-

- decide priority
- in order of initiative, declare unit actions, with ties alternating by priority
- carry out actions in the same order they were declared
- resolve hand to hand combats
- determine morale
- resolve whatever else needs be resolved
- end turn

Herald of the Lost wrote:

My vote-

- decide priority
- in order of initiative, declare unit actions, with ties alternating by priority
- carry out actions in the same order they were declared
- resolve hand to hand combats
- determine morale
- resolve whatever else needs be resolved
- end turn

Sounds good - I don't think Initiative should have as widely changing a spectrum (from Fire Warrior - 2 to Phoenix Lord - 7 IIRC) as it currently does, otherwise Apocalypse size battles will be a pain to work through.

Unless, of course, Initiative and working out who strikes first etc are different statistics. Anyway, back to turn sequence etc, which basic PARTS of the turn should we include, and at which stages?

The current 40K system has:

Movement
Shooting
Assault

With Psychic Powers occuring anywhere amongst these, and Deployment taking place before (obviously, I think this is pretty necessary for a tabletop).

I'd like to see two action phases. You can move or shoot in either one.

Have declarable actions. In the first action phase, you can have your units:

• Advance: normal movement
• Charge: movement to initiate an assault
• Fall Back: normal movement in direction of deployment zone
• Shoot: Use ranged weapons
• Go to Ground: Unit holds, gets cover benefit

Repeat for the second action phase, though whatever you did in the first will affect it. So movement will affect which guns you can shoot, shooting in two consecutive action phases will make you unable to shoot in the following action phase (reload), etc.

I know to many this will seem to heavily favor shooting, but I'm trying encourage the use of cover and the ability of units to outflank.

Fall Back should be similar to what it is like now - a more random movement, but statistically likely to be further. The unit has to take some test of some sort to remain controllable and stop falling back.

That's an idea - do you think 40K should have a similar system to Napoleonics, in which units have to test to see whether they respond to your orders?

My thoughts with reguards the turn sequance. I am thinking an alternating action based on Initiative. Start at the begining of the turn by resolving Priority just like in LOTR. Then for each phase you use your units according to their Initiative. Highest acts first just like in Assult now. If both sides have units of the same Initiative then the side with priority goes first and you alternate between players using a unit at a time. Models in units that have different Initiaves act on their own Initative. What has to be discided is if leaders can make a unit act on his Initiative. I am thinking yes with an LD test.

The only problem with this is that armys of genericaly high I will always go first and visa versa. But it will remove the need for player turns with in the actual turn sequance. So a whole turn is just one turn and not 2. You do not get to fight in combat twice in a turn. You can have multipule forces playing and not need extra rules to incorperate more than 2 armies.

Oh Psychic Powers, I feel that they should have their own phase. But I am not sure how that would work for some powers. Powers cast in combat for instance.

Dwane Diblie wrote:

My thoughts with reguards the turn sequance. I am thinking an alternating action based on Initiative. Start at the begining of the turn by resolving Priority just like in LOTR. Then for each phase you use your units according to their Initiative. Highest acts first just like in Assult now. If both sides have units of the same Initiative then the side with priority goes first and you alternate between players using a unit at a time. Models in units that have different Initiaves act on their own Initative. What has to be discided is if leaders can make a unit act on his Initiative. I am thinking yes with an LD test.

I think the units should function on their lowest Initiative.

Dwane Diblie wrote:

The only problem with this is that armys of genericaly high I will always go first and visa versa. But it will remove the need for player turns with in the actual turn sequance. So a whole turn is just one turn and not 2. You do not get to fight in combat twice in a turn. You can have multipule forces playing and not need extra rules to incorperate more than 2 armies.

Agreed they will get to act first, but usually high Initiative troops are expensive or fragile, so the opponent will generally have more units and get more actions. I'm hoping it will balance out to allow you to play proactively or reactively, with benefits and drawbacks for both.

Dwane Diblie wrote:

Oh Psychic Powers, I feel that they should have their own phase. But I am not sure how that would work for some powers. Powers cast in combat for instance.

I don't agree. I think the system needs to be more expansive, almost to the level of magic in Fantasy, but I think the powers should be incorporated into the phases so that they feel more like weapons than a separate aspect of the game.

Psychic Powers at the moment seem to be just gimmicks to buff characters in a lot of Codecies.

Ideally, creating an Edition and the Codecies from scratch, I would have a seperate phase for Psychic Powers and other abilities (something like an Avatar should have a Psychic Power to give similar rules to Rage, Furious Charge and Counter-Assault USRs to all friendly units within a certain radius, etc).

However, I don't think Psychic Powers are as necessary for the building blocks of a tabletop as other things, eg movement - I like Initiative based movement, but what should stats be like, and how should movement work?

My vote is for a return to a stat for movement - a Space Marine would have 6, a Guardsman would have 5, an Eldar Banshee would have 7, and things like Gretchin would have 4 or even 3. Otherwise, movement should stay basically the same.

Initiative should stay, IMO.

Saves should be worked out later, as well as the combat stats (toughness, strength etc).

Leadership... Morale is something we need to think hard about, as the current 40K system seems to be clumsy, with all sorts of special rules patching up the gaping holes (ATSKNF, Stubborn, various rerolls etc).

So I propose:

Players roll for priority. The units with the highest Initiative move first, but in the event of a draw, the winner of Prority roll moves all his/her units with the highest Initiative one after the other at his/her choice. They can move as far as their Movement statistic dictates (terrain effects can be worked out later). These units are then followed by the opponent's units with the same Initiative. The units with the next highest Initiative are moved next... etc, etc.

My recommendations

• Mv- Movement
• Ms- Melee Skill
• Ac- Accuracy with ranged weapons
• St- Physical Strength
• Df- Defense including physical endurance and armor
• In- Initiative
• Cr- Courage
• In- Intelligence

Monsters, vehicles, heroes, and the like roll on a special table when they suffer a wounding hit. It removes the need for wounds and instant death and brings a little of the merciless nature of war in as there is a chance that a lucky shot kills your mighty general.

Courage and Intelligence separate the two features that Leadership represents now.

I also can't think of a singular word to represent skill in hand to hand combat, aside from Swordsmanship. Help me out here.

Is the special table sort of like the Hard to Kill or Very Hard to Kill tables in WotR?

I like that idea, but I think Fate points could be used too - but we could have, say, the number of Fate points is the number of times a unit with that Fate can ignore a hit (not a wound) in the game - they must choose at a particular time.

So a Gretchin unit would have Ft0 but the Avatar of Khaine would have... 3? 4?

They shouldn't be common, and perhaps could be a special rule rather than statistic. Note that it cannot save a wound once it has been rolled on the aforementioned special table, just a hit.

Yes, the table would be almost identical and it would apply to heroes, monstrous creatures, vehicles, etc.

I thought about directly porting Might, Will, and Fate, from LotR, but I think if we had a modification/save system like that for heroic figures, we should have it with a single points pool.

So a special statistic available only to characters called Hero Points or something, where you can expend a point to force a re-roll of a single die for or against that character.

Then we give Marneus the cheesy rule where he gets one free hero point per turn.

Its certainly a simple and elegant solution to my biggest problem with the current stats:

Extra wounds for heroes.

A Marine is one or two wounds. Rather then making Calgar 4 (or whatever he has I'm just tossing out a number) wounds, give him the Invulnerable save for his iron halo and his fists (which I've decided are heavy bolters, power fists, and storm shields rolled into one package as he caught the Wailing Doom with them :p) Feel No Pain his cybernetics justify and his regular "I'm a marine" wounds. Then throw him the Hero points he needs to justify his "ARES! I AM THE GOD OF WAR!"

Hi folks,
If you want to talk about alternative game mechanics and resolution methods I would like to help if I can.
Concidering Rick Priestly conciders he used '..old fashioned and clunky mechanics..' for WHFB and 40k.
I think an in depth and full discussion of all the alternative that could be used, would be helpful.

I love the 40k asthetics,but the rules are like some mutated beast that have got out of control IMO.

I totaly agree a more interactive game turn is necissary.
And the number of resolution methods should not exceed 3 .(40k currently uses 7!)

TTFN

What do you mean by resolution method?

Resolve to hit
Resolve to wound
Resolve armour save

In the D10 system I created, I have it as unit activiation. Roll to see which force has the Initiative and they get to activate a unit first. If that unit shoots or assaults an enemy unit, the enemy player has two choices. Take it on the chin (so much easier for the unit to break and suffer casualties) or activate the unit to fight back.

If they activate the unit, that's their unit activation for their turn. So the attacking player can dictate to some extent the flow of battle. If they choose to take it on the chin, then they can activate a different unit, but the one being shot/assaulted is caught 'flat footed' and has a higher likelyhood of taking casualties and breaking.

This last part was put in because in the original rules reacting to attack was free. However it meant that going second was always better than going first, so people would grind to halt waiting for the opponent to make the first move.

Add to this the 'Steal the Iniative' roll, which either side can do once per round (basically allowing them to attempt to activate one additional unit out of sequence) and you get a nice free flowing battle line.

EDIT: With this system I had a sliding scale of 'Elements'. What is defined as an element effectively defines what 'level' of game you're playing, from skirmish to company battle. An element could be 1 model, a fire team (~5 models), a squad (~10 models) or a formation (X number of squads/fire teams).

In the larger scale I put 5 infantry to a CD as a base. When the rules say 'activate an element' or 'shoot with an element' it can be a single Necromunda style skirmish model, or a formation, depending on how big you want to play the game.

This came about because my friends found 40k scale more appealing (larger models, more painting, more obvious story etc), even if EPIC was a better ruleset/representation. So I've attempted to produce the visual appeal of 40k within a framework that can expand or contract based on size of the game. A modular set of rules that use the same core mechanics at all scales.

At the company scale for example, a 'blast' weapon doesn't use a template (because the models are all on movement trays effectively). Instead, you target an element (eg Formation X) and roll to hit. The Formation takes a number of hits equal to the number given on the blast weapon (a battlecannon might be Blast(10) for example). However, if you miss, the formation takes 1 less hit per pt you missed by (this is on a D10 resolution using a matrix like GW's Strength vs Toughness matrix). So if you missed by 5 pips on the die (needed an 8+ to hit on a D10 and rolled a 3) then the formation takes 5 hits instead of 10. In reality large blast weapons are really hard to completely miss with.

Anyway, these are just some of the things I've done with my D10 rules.

Hellebore

That all sounds really good. Can you send me a copy of your work? I'd love to read further. My only issue is that it sounds like Blast weapons are far more effective than in the current 40k rules.

HI folks.
Just to clarify, game mechanics control how players-elements interact.
Resolution methods are how you resolve the interactions.

EG a game turn mechanic, determine what actions player may take and when.
A moral mechanic , determines the effect of friction, eg supression, fear , disorentation etc.

Roll over models characteristic to suceed.
A models attack value minus targets defence value = roll required to hit
Are examples of resolution methods...

As far as game turn mechanics there are 3 basic types...
1/ Phases.
2 Activations.
3 Variable bound


Hellebore is absolutly right in saying the detailed element interaction has to scale up with the size of the game.

If the detail is focused on models then any more than 30 models a side becomes a bit unwieldly .(Unless the rules are abstracted severly to accomodate more models, as in the case of 40k 3rd ed onwards.)

So finding a good set of game mechanics that allow alot of gameplay with the minimum of rules and resolution methods.To arrive at straight forward rules and complex gameplay that can easily scale up through element types to cover skirmish to regimental level.

Even though larger scale game may be all about UNIT interaction, individual /character abilities can be covered quite easily if the rules set is robust enough.

Is everyone happy with unit activation?
Or would you like to concider alternating phases?
Or alternating actions through 'order sets.'
I would discount variable bound game turns as these can require quite complex conditional rquirments for more detailed games.

TTFN

I would like unit activation, as I feel it is balanced between allowing smaller elite forces to retain initiative and allowing larger, more ponderous forces to be more overwhelming.

That said, I would like for the activation to scale up into formation activation where several units in a formation take identical actions to reflect that large scale battlefield orders are usually not squad dependent.

So in a small to medium game, you can order that Guard Infantry squad to charge. In a larger game, you can order that Guard platoon to charge.

That's how my element scaling works. For some reason I can't attach documents ot this forum...

Hellebore

If Dwane doesn't add something, you can e-mail me.

Hi all.
Well unit activation it is then.Probably a good chioce as most people are familiar with this type of game turn mechanic.

Now we have the options of how we detail this basic mechanic to allow for tactical conciderations to taken into account.

Do you want to follw a pre-set action sequence .
Eg when you activate a unit you move then shoot then assault with the unit.

OR would you prefer a more variable options in the form of action sets, or 'orders'?

EG if we use 'move', 'attack' , 'ready' as three basic actions.

1/Move, the element may move up to its maximum movement value.
2/Attack, attempt to attack an enemy eelement within weapon range.(Ranged or assault as apropriate.)
3/Ready ,prepare to carry ou an action at maximum effect.

These basic actions can be listed as the following 2 action sets or 'orders'.

Advance(A)move then attack.

Creep(C) prepare then move.(Move with more stealth.)

Double (D) move then move.

Evade(E) attack then move.

Full support(F)prepare then attack.(Attack with full effect.)

This allows MORE tactical chioce in what unit actions are going to be.And ONLY require ONE counter/ marker to be placed next to the element/ unit at the start of the turn.
(So its easier to keep track of what element/unit has done what...)

This also allows for a straight forward moral mechanic as unit that suffer from supression can not recive orders unitill the supression counter has been removed.
ONLY ONE counter/marker MAXIMUM per unit at ANY time.

So supression/neutralisation and routing could be the graduated effects of poor moral.
Rather than just OK or running away.

But I digress ...

DO you want to use 'fixed action sequence' or the more flexible and tactical 'orders' option?

TTFN