View Full Version : New 40k. A more advanced version. Needs feedback and later playtesting.

28-08-2008, 15:16
For a while I have been toying around with rewriting the rulesset for 40k. The state of it, as of now, is that there are a bunch of rules and ideas that are being roughly playtested, but are still in a mess and changes a lot, so i think it is the right time to turn to the trusty warseer community for ideas, feedback and possibly some people that would like to playtest the stuff later on.

The background for this little project is actually two things. The first is the fact that I have always been fond of 2nd edition. Sure, it had itís flaws, but I liked it better than later versions, and when the rumors for 5th started showing up, and I realised that it would still be more like 4th than 2nd, I decided to do something about it myself. The second thing is another little project, ďthe ultimate tabletopgameĒ, where it should be possible to play anything, i.e. every type of historical and future type of soldier should be able to fight on the same battlefield, equally supported b y the rules (more on this later) and than I thought, isnít 40k the ideal place to try out some of those ideas, since it is a game where we have stuff like laser cannons but it is still a viable tactic to run up to your foe and poke him in the eye with a pointy stick. In other words, the whole scale of warfare.

My design thoughts:
(or: whats so special about my idea?!)
Well, first I am looking back to certain things in 2nd ed, like the modifiers. I want to use modifiers for things, like shooting and armour. Cover is done by modifiers, range gives modifiers, and size, speed etc. Close combat will be tweaked so that an individual models skill becomes more important for avoiding getting hit, and also more model-focussed than now. Different movement will be back. Some other concepts will be used as well.

Second the whole thing is supposed to have a higher feeling of realism than current 40k. Mark me when I say that I donít want to have a simulation of reality, but rather a feeling of realism. (and that realism also includes lascannons and deamons, it shall give a feeling of things working as they should). If something works in a certain way in real life I will try to have the rules cover it. See upcoming posts on how this will affect the system.

Third, The complexity. In this phase of the development I will allow the system to get quite advanced and complex (and probably a little more reduced over time) to give a good base to build the system. I would rather that the system become a little more complex than bringing in a lot of special rules for things that could have been within the standard rules.
I will start out by using d10 instead of d6 to see if a greater variety of numbers helps with what I am trying to do. A more detailed scale will make it possible to show a more subtle difference between.

Fourth. The turn. The goal is to move away from the I-go-You-Go system to one where everything happens simultaneously.

Fifth. Morale will be much more important. Right now you either break or not. (in general I will try to move away from all-or-nothing-situations as much as possible). There will be several levels of morale, it will be important to keep the troops morale high, and shooting will affect morale more directly than just through causalties.

So I would of course like feedback on the thing. Tell me you opinion on anything.
More details will follow, and if you are interested, keep reading and there will be more things to comment on.

Later, when the rules are getting in shape, I would be happy if you want to playtest it some time. Who knows, maybe it will get itís own homepage. And it should definitively have a name...

28-08-2008, 19:21
I have been developing an new rule set that could work well in the 40k game setting.(On and off for the last 6 years!)
My idea is for a UNIT based rule set to cope with the current model count in 40k, but with a bit of tweeking I could work with you to change it to a detailed skirmish game.

And I am familiar with lots of alternative game mechanics.

Which game turn mechanic do you propose to use?

1/Alternating unit activation.

2/Variable length bound, awarness and /or leadership driven.

3/ Singular action IGO-UGO.

Or something else?

(I can list examples of each to help you decide if you like ?)

I have some basic game mechanics lined up that make for a very tactical game but are lots simpler than curent 40k rules.

Would you like me to post them?


29-08-2008, 07:15

Which game turn mechanic do you propose to use?

1/Alternating unit activation.

2/Variable length bound, awarness and /or leadership driven.

3/ Singular action IGO-UGO.

Or something else?

Well, I am always open to suggestions. I am not bound to a certain mechanic just because that was my initial idea. The initial idea anyway, is something like this:
-It is supposed to feel like it is happening at the same time, so the current 40k-way is out.
-Then I thought about alternating activation, but that was still not good enough, since units gould get shot up, without getting the chance to shoot back. (Not a realistic feeling, according to me. A shooting phase consists of a lot of shooting back and forth)

So I came up with this:

1: movement phase. Here and alternating activation is used. Either the players just take turns, or it could be initiative-driven. (units with best initiative gets to act last) but I have a feeling that the initiative-version will get a little messy if we get 15 or more units per side, it might be easier just to alternate. (charges are declared befor any other movement)
2: shooting phase. After everyone has moved everyone shoots. The order of shooting doesn't really matter, since causalties are removed after the shooting phase (i.e. they can shoot back first )

It shall be allowed to shoot at where anamy units were during their movement phase. IT will be a little bit messy to remember where they were, but I think it is the best way. (they will get some sort of cover for not being seen so much, if that's the case)
This is what overwatch was trying to cover. But overwatch was a bit wierd.

Would you like me to post them?

Yes definitely!:)

29-08-2008, 09:11
Have you tried the battlefield: evolution rules? Could be what you're looking for, or at least a better starting base than 40k.
It's still you go-I go, but if one of your units gets shot, or an enemy comes too close to it, the unit gets to make a reaction like shooting or moving themselves.
It's got a WWII, modern combat and Starship Troopers version, all based on the same rules. They're not fully compatible with each other due to balancing issues, it's very hard to give a Sherman rules/points costs comparable to a marauder battle suit with a nuke on it's shoulder while still making it worthwhile against other things from the 1940s.

29-08-2008, 09:48
I have been trying out the stuff like BFE, and while it is good, I don't think it is really what I am looking for. Of course, if no causalties are removed before the end of turn, it will be roughly the same thing as if everyone first moves and then shoots. It is just a question about which one feels best. On that score I am not sure, maybe it is more fun to move and shoot one unit at a time...

29-08-2008, 18:39
Hi Bathfinder.
As the game turn mechanic sets the feel of the game play, I think its important to get the basic concept set first.

I belive if we could use 'WWII' as a basic frame of reference .(DoW and CoH are very similar and if its good enough for THQ its good enough for me!)

As its important to make close assaults a viable option in a mode of warfare dominated by mobility and fire power.

I suggest we resolve close combat assaults after all movement and shooting has taken place.(To initiate an assault just move in to base to base contact with an enemy.)
Units may not move or shoot if 'locked in close combat'.

Ok, simplest game turn mechanic.(I can think of with a higher level of tactical concideration.)

Start of game turn.
Both players request off table support, reserves and artillery, attempt to rally units on poor moral.etc
Roll for initiatve.
(To determine who goes first in the action phase this game turn.)

Actions Phase.
Player A performs primary action with all units.
Player B performs primary action with all units.
Player A performs secondary action with all units.
Player B performs secondary action with all units.

End of game turn .(Resolve close combat assaults, plot arrivals etc.)

Units may perform different actions to other friendly units.

Actions .

Prepare.(Set up heavier weapons , take cover, dig in, hull down etc.)

Move.(Move up to units move distance in inches.)

Shoot.(Make a ranged attack.)

So units on good moral get 2 actions every game turn.

Prepare, shoot.(Fire to full effect.)
Move, shoot.(Advance.)
Shoot, move.(Evade.)
Move , move(Charge.)

Other simple game mechanics.

Weapons -armour -damage mechanic.
Weapons are developed to inflict damage, armour is developed to reduce-dissapate damage.

Simply deduct the Armour value (AR) from the damage inflicted by the weapon.(Strenght of hit.)

We could give all units an AR value, (all armour saves and toughness combined, we dont need to artificialy seperate them for a consolation 'AS throw' anymore!)

Vehicles AV = AR .
Infantry units each pip of AS = 1 AR, toughness 4and 5 +1AR toughness 6 to 8 +2 AR.Invunerable saves add 1 to 3 AR.

EG Orks and IG AR 2.
Carapace T3 = AR 3
Power armour T3 =AR 4
SM =AR 5
Termies AR 7.
Termie chappie AR 9!(5 for Termi armour +1 for T and +3 for Rosarius!)
Land speeder AR 10/10/10
Lanr Raider AR 14/14/14.

Eg an ork AR 2 is hit by a heavy bolter, dam 5.The ork needs to roll a 4+ to save on a D6. (5-2=3, therfore to roll over 3, the ork needs a 4+)

Some units are 'invunerable to small arms weapons ' so units carry support weapons to deal with these harder targets.(Heavy infantry monster and armoured bunkers vehicles.)
(Dont panic there will be supression to slow down those small heavily armoured infantry units...)

Simple fog of war mecahnic.

If we give all units a size rateing, smallest unit (single human, swarm base) size 1 up to size 5 for a very large vehicles and monstrous creatures.

We can give apropriate terrain features a cover rateing.
Eg a low wall hedge/scrub land could be 1, a ruined building, light wood a 2 intact building, dense wood 3.

So if a size 2 unit was behind a size 1 wall it counts as a size 1 target to enemy trying to spot it.(Deduct the cover rating from the unit size.)

Units have an awarness value(AW stat).
This is the distance they see a size 1 target at.

EG A unit with AW 10 can see,
Size 1 target at 10"
Size 2 target at 20"
Size 3 target at 30"
Size 4 target at 40"
Size 5 target at 50"

A simple to hit mechanic for ranged weapons.
All units are given a range skill value.(RS)
This is the distance they they will automaticaly hit a size 3 target at.

Eg RS 6'
Distance to target/ roll needed to hit.

Positive modifiers add to the dice roll.(Size 4 target+1, size 5 target +2,)
Negative modifiers add to the score needed.(Size 2 target +1, size 1 target +2)

Other modifiers, weapon accuracy, units disposition etc.

Simple command and control mechanics.

Moral .
All units are given a moral grade, (ML stat).
This is the units desire/ability to continue to fight.
ML 1,Fanatical/'Fearless'
ML 2 Elites
ML 3 veterans.
ML 4 standard.
ML 5 concripted-untested .
ML 6 VERY unreliable.

Simply roll OVER the ML value (on a D10) to pass the moral check.

All unit leaders and characters have a Command Value.
This has a magnitude and range.

The number represents how much the leader/character can modify moral /actions of units within range.

The range of the leaders influence is given as a raduis in inches.

So a unit leader with CV of 2, 6
Can add up to 2 to the moral dice result for any 2 units within 6" of this leader.

If a unit fails its moral check by up to 2, the unit becomes supressed.(It only gets a secondary action, it looses the primary action.)

If a unit fails a moral check by 3 to 5 it become neutralised, the unit can not take any actions at all.
It will fight back in assaults though.

If a unit fails a moral check by 6 or more it routes.The unit MUST move AWAY from ALL located enemy units.The unit will move to the closest table edge, if assaulted the unit will be destroyed.The routing unit will not shoot or fight at all.

If a unit passes a moral check it moves to the next moral state.

Eg routed to neutralised, neutralised to supressed , supressed to Ok.

Modifiers to dice roll.
Highest CV within range.(+1 to 4)
No enemy within awarness range +2
All enemy within awarness range on supressed or worse moral+1

Modifiers to ML value.
Unit suppressed +1
Unit neutralised +2
Unit routed +3.
Unit has lost over 25% of its HP.+1
Unit has lost over 50% of its HP +2

Command value could be used to modify artillery-reserve request rolls and 'fall of shot' for artillery if FOO.

Command range could also double up as communication range for handng on targets to other units perhaps?

Here are my initial ideas for unit stats.

How far the unit moves in inches per move action ,(M stat) and how it moves.
Eg Walker,(W) tyred wheel , Tracked,(T) Hover/skimmer,(H) flyer (F)and jumpjet enabled ( J) .

Space Marine M 4"(W)
Land speeder M 12" (H)
Land raider M 6" (T)

Terrian that has a negative effect on movment rate has M value reduction given on the terrain table.
(The terrain table lists the effects of terrain on the various movment types.)

Defencive capability.
How hard the unit is to dammage, a value representative of armour AND natural resiliance(toughness).
An (AR stat.)

How much damage the unit can take , hit points (HP stat).
(Similar to wounds or structure points on vehicles.)

How easy or difficult it is to spot the unit.Unit size (SZ stat.)

Offensive capability.
This is split into units basic abilities , and the weapons carried by the unit.

Units basic abilities.
Awarness ,(AW) how good they are at spotting enemy units.

Ranged skill,(RS) how likley the unit is to hit a target at range.
Assault skill.(AS)how likely the unit is to hit a target in close combat.

Weapons stats.
Effective range/ amount damage caused/ damage type / special effects.

Command and control.
The units basic willingness to fight is represented by a Moral (ML stat.)
The unit leader or characters ability to influence nearby units is given as a Command Value, (CV stat.)

Eg a SM tac Squad could be.

Assault,(weapons used in close combat)
combat knife. Rng BtB.dam 1

Small arms .(Standard ranged weapons of unit)
Boltgun. Rnge 24 " Fire zone 5" dam 6 .(Reduce effective range by 1" per casualty.)

Support.(Specialist weapons that can be fire on the move.)
Flamer. Rnge temp, dam 4 (Saturation.)

Fire suport .(Specialist weapons that can not move then fire.Need to take a 'prepare action' before shooting)
Lascannon. Rnge 42" , dam 9 'fire zone 1 model.' (Armour piercing.)

(How about using fire zones ala SST /BE ?)

Possible assault resolution ,Current HP +(AS x ass wep dam )= assault value
Compare the two values and then look up result on a chart?

I can explain anything in more detail, or change the bits you dont like .There are lots and lots of alternatives...