Librarium Online - View Single Post - 40k re-design, basic concepts and outline design requirements.

Lanrak · November 11th, 2006, 17:43

Dear Macmoss.
As I was not happy with the current version of 40k.I looked at other rules sets.(Some GW some non GW .)

I tried to find the concepts that best fitted the 40k universe,company level conflict.
So as all the games I looked at are from modern/scifi games,of varying complexity.
(There are very few company level rules sets out there.either skirmish level or battle group/army level.)
I may have inadvertantly included too much complexity/detail, in some areas, and not enough in others.

I picked,mixed, matched streamlined ,ammended,concepts from about a dozen games.
(So treat what I posted as a starting point, to be developed ,ammended and expanded
untill we are happy with it.)

In trying to keep things straight forward I decided to keep all ranged attacks as direct fire.(Rather than direct fire ,direct area fire ,and indirect area fire.)

Alternating actions at unit level,I belive works very well.(It 'feels right' in the few games I have played,more player interaction and keeps you 'in the game' to a greater degree.

I defined 3 possible action types ,(combinations of moving and/ or shooting,)to give a reasonable amount of tactical options.(In line with current vehicle options.)

Rather than just move shoot and move to assault if within range.
This is fine for units that are ok at shooting and close combat,but a bit poor for units that
are disposed to one or the other.

I felt a special assault declaration/move/action was redundant,just move into contact with enemy unit and hit them,if desired.

Rolling to save I belive is not realy required if more interative game turn is used.And feels out of place in modern/scifi combat perhaps.(NOT IN any other rules I looked at BTW.)
(Speeding the game up a bit perhaps.)

I kept the basic mechanic of roll to hit ,determine effect of armour,determine dammage.
This gives enough scope to describe the abilities/effects of units and equipment to a sufficent degree.IMO.

EG, ability in combat,(ranged and close quaters),protection from dammage,ability to cause dammage,resiliance to dammage.

Assuming all hits kill/destroy,is along the same lines as assuming all units move the same distance.IMO.

Speeds the game up, but possibley looseing an option to diferentiate between races/units/models?

I lothe the fleet of' rule,and other enforced random movment.Totaly disrupts tactical manuovering.

Returning to the M stat,and fixed penaties for moving through difficult (and very difficult,) terrain is imperative.IMO.

You are absolutly right about solving assaults as they happen,and removing restrictions of LOS.

I have edited original post.

I value you oppinion,and any other ideas and comments on the basic outline I posted will be greatly appreciated.

TTFN
Lanrak.

November 11th, 2006, 17:43	#5 (permalink)
Lanrak Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 325 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Rep Power: 40	Where my ideas came from. Dear Macmoss. As I was not happy with the current version of 40k.I looked at other rules sets.(Some GW some non GW .) I tried to find the concepts that best fitted the 40k universe,company level conflict. So as all the games I looked at are from modern/scifi games,of varying complexity. (There are very few company level rules sets out there.either skirmish level or battle group/army level.) I may have inadvertantly included too much complexity/detail, in some areas, and not enough in others. I picked,mixed, matched streamlined ,ammended,concepts from about a dozen games. (So treat what I posted as a starting point, to be developed ,ammended and expanded untill we are happy with it.) In trying to keep things straight forward I decided to keep all ranged attacks as direct fire.(Rather than direct fire ,direct area fire ,and indirect area fire.) Alternating actions at unit level,I belive works very well.(It 'feels right' in the few games I have played,more player interaction and keeps you 'in the game' to a greater degree. I defined 3 possible action types ,(combinations of moving and/ or shooting,)to give a reasonable amount of tactical options.(In line with current vehicle options.) Rather than just move shoot and move to assault if within range. This is fine for units that are ok at shooting and close combat,but a bit poor for units that are disposed to one or the other. I felt a special assault declaration/move/action was redundant,just move into contact with enemy unit and hit them,if desired. Rolling to save I belive is not realy required if more interative game turn is used.And feels out of place in modern/scifi combat perhaps.(NOT IN any other rules I looked at BTW.) (Speeding the game up a bit perhaps.) I kept the basic mechanic of roll to hit ,determine effect of armour,determine dammage. This gives enough scope to describe the abilities/effects of units and equipment to a sufficent degree.IMO. EG, ability in combat,(ranged and close quaters),protection from dammage,ability to cause dammage,resiliance to dammage. Assuming all hits kill/destroy,is along the same lines as assuming all units move the same distance.IMO. Speeds the game up, but possibley looseing an option to diferentiate between races/units/models? I lothe the fleet of' rule,and other enforced random movment.Totaly disrupts tactical manuovering. Returning to the M stat,and fixed penaties for moving through difficult (and very difficult,) terrain is imperative.IMO. You are absolutly right about solving assaults as they happen,and removing restrictions of LOS. I have edited original post. I value you oppinion,and any other ideas and comments on the basic outline I posted will be greatly appreciated. TTFN Lanrak.