40k re-design, basic concepts and outline design requirements.

[Lanrak]

Hi all.
As their are several folks on this board trying to re-design 40k game, I thought I would add my 2cent worth of ideas.

As I have worked on the development of advanced weapon systems, I thought I would apply the same type of 'design brief' assesment as we use.

So to start I will try and write a design brief of what I percieve 40K gamers would like 40K to be.

40k should represent the fast paced,tacticaly interactive conflict of the 41millenium.

The game mechanic and rules set should be based on well established/understood simple concepts of modern warfare.(The 40k units and armament bear more resemblance to modern warfare, than 'ancient conflict ,which works so well for WH.)

The rules set and game mechanics should be a simple as possible,so as to be easy comprehend and remember.

But must be broad enough to reduce the need for special rules ,additions and exeptions which currently confuse and irritate the gamers.

As random elements are required in the game (roll a D6 etc.) it is important that the results of this random effect are refined to comprehensible results by the use of tables,(dammage tables etc)and/or by a limited amount of modifiers.
So the results do not become too abstract.(A common complaint about the current 40k game.)

If I may be as bold to try to define 40k in wargame terminology.
A (mixed) company level game,with the modern warfare concepts of;
Unit level tactical decisions ,
Mobility and firepower as dominant aspects.(Assaults deny enemy units of both capabilities.)

I have a few basic concepts to develop with you ,if you would like to read them,Ill post them later.

Got to go now ,my bed is calling me.

ATB
lanrak.

[Macmoss]

Originally Posted by Lanrak

Hi all.
As their are several folks on this board trying to re-design 40k game, I thought I would add my 2cent worth of ideas.

As I have worked on the development of advanced weapon systems, I thought I would apply the same type of 'design brief' assesment as we use.

So to start I will try and write a design brief of what I percieve 40K gamers would like 40K to be.

40k should represent the fast paced,tacticaly interactive conflict of the 41millenium.

The game mechanic and rules set should be based on well established/understood simple concepts of modern warfare.(The 40k units and armament bear more resemblance to modern warfare, than 'ancient conflict ,which works so well for WH.)

The rules set and game mechanics should be a simple as possible,so as to be easy comprehend and remember.

But must be broad enough to reduce the need for special rules ,additions and exeptions which currently confuse and irritate the gamers.

As random elements are required in the game (roll a D6 etc.) it is important that the results of this random effect are refined to comprehensible results by the use of tables,(dammage tables etc)and/or by a limited amount of modifiers.
So the results do not become too abstract.(A common complaint about the current 40k game.)

If I may be as bold to try to define 40k in wargame terminology.
A (mixed) company level game,with the modern warfare concepts of;
Unit level tactical decisions ,
Mobility and firepower as dominant aspects.(Assaults deny enemy units of both capabilities.)

I have a few basic concepts to develop with you ,if you would like to read them,Ill post them later.

Got to go now ,my bed is calling me.

ATB
lanrak.

All of the above sounds good - looking forward to seeing your basic concepts.

Cheers

Mossmac

[Lanrak]

Ok Macmoss,
Heres my take on making 40k, a simulation of modern combat,rather than the current contrived abstraction.

Ill try to use the simplest concepts that are used in other modern rule sets.
Ill list examples of how these could be implemented in the game.

But these charts and tables etc are there as examples, and will need to be refined/optimised to get the game play required.

I only get infrequent games of 40k using limited armies.So as you play more than me ,perhaps you can help me out a bit ? .


THE GAME TURN.

Start of turn actions.(Try to rally troops,compulsory actions etc.).
Player A activates a unit.
Player B activates a unit.
This continues untill all units on the table have been activated.
End of turn actions .(moral status etc.),


Unit Activation.
ALL units in the game can perform 2 actions per turn.

These actions are a combination of moving and /or shooting.

Assaults occur when a unit moves into base to base contact with an enemy unit,
and are resolved as they occur.

(Declaring charges and complex manuvering of ridgid formations do not really fit with modern type combats,IMO.)

Ill use the terminology of the older version of the Epic system ,as it is fits quite well with the options available to units ,as I percieve them.

Tactical options for all units.(Similar to current vehicle options,which remain the same,BTW.)

FIRST FIRE.(shoot+shoot)
The unit concentrates on ranged attacks.
The unit remains stationary,(to represent the unit taking up the best firing positions possible.)

A unit adopting First fire (FF,) action may fire at enemy units immediatly AND/OR may fire at enemy units after all enemy movment has been carried out.

Heavy weapons may only fire once per turn,controlling player choses when to fire heavy weapons.

Rapid fire weapons may fire once at full range ,OR twice at half range.

Assault and pistol weapons may weapons may fire twice.

The controlling player can decide when and how many shots non heavy weapons fire.

Units on FF actions are not affected by friendly units that block LOS.(The unit takes aim and fires at the best opportunity.)

If units on FF are assaulted they may fire any remaining weapon shots at the assaulting enemy before combat ensues.BUT units on FF actions will alwas strike last in assaults.

ADVANCE.(move+shoot)
The unit may move upto its normal move distance (M stat !),and may then fire at any enemy targets.(Current weapons firing/ moving restictions apply,rapid fire weapons only fire once at half range ,as in 3rd ed.)
The unit fights in assaults as normal (based on models I stat etc.)


CHARGE.(Move+move)
The unit moves between its normal move distance ,and double its normal move distance.(M stat to 2xM stat.)
The unit may not make ranged attacks of any sort,but will strike first in close combat if it initiates an assault.(moves into BTB contact with enemy unit.)

Shots at charging units are -1 to hit,unless firing unit is the unit being assaulted,and it is on on first fire action.

Vehicle options stay the same and non vehicle units are brought into line with the tactical options open to vehicles.



ARMOUR WEAPONS AND DAMMAGE.

All attacks are rated by strenght value.(Str stat.)
All armour is rated by an Armour Rating.(AR stat.)

Dammage is worked out by subtracting the AR value from the STR of the hit.
This Modified Strenght (MS)is checked against the relevent dammage charts.

If each current 'pip' of AS is converted to AR of 1...
AS 6 =AR1.
AS5+ =AR 2.
AS4+=AR3.
AS3+=AR4.

Vehicles AV rating =AR rating.(May need to adjust this value up a bit, by 2 perhaps?)

If we increase all current str values by 2 ,this sort of keep the ballance between hits and chance to wound,ish.(Will need more refining and development but just a reasonable starting point.)

So we get a bolter shot ,now Str 6,causes a (MS) 5 hit on orks(AR1).casualty on 3+.

A bolter shot on a SM ,causes a (MS) 2 hit ,SM (AR4).casualty on a 6+.


ARMOUR TYPES.
I think we should distinguish between basic armour types.
Standard armour which has 'exposed' areas.Flack jackets open topped vehicles etc.
Any area effect weapon (weapons that use a template,flamers frag missiles etc,)add 2? to the MS against standard armour?

Possibly include a MS mod for current weapons with High AP, but low str?Or maybe limited ASM for these uniqe weapons ?

Sealed armour,( Denoted by a S suffix,EG AR 4s).SM power armour ,non open topped vehicles ,power feilds,etc ,is not adversly effected by area effect weapons.

Invunerable saves..
Power fields give a set AR bonus ,and makes the AR value of relevent model(s) comparable to Sealed Armour,EG refractor field +2ARs.

Dodge save /Holo fields give extra to hit modifiers to ranged attacks.-1 if unit is stationary,-2 if unit has moved.etc.

Eg IG character in carapce armour,AR 3 has a conversion field(+3?ARs),giving AR6s.
The IG character is now immune to str 6 or less ,shooting hits.


I am unsure if to give current AS 2+ save models AR 5 to 7 or not?
or give such models 2x modifier to thier unit strenght?

I belive the invunerable save on termis is to reflect a save better than 2+ ,which is impossible under the current system.

But the proposed AR system can represent basic armour 1(crude Ork body armour,) to the toughest of heavy vehicles AR 16?
All with linear progression and NO EFFICIENCY CLIFFS:w00t: .

WEAPON TYPES.

I think the weapon terminology in the BBB is more or less ok as is.
But I would like to suggest the following additions.

Small arms fire should be inffective vs vehicles.No +D6 for pen rolls!

All other weapons get the +D6 vs vehicles ,assault,heavy and ordnance.

Specific anti vehicle weapons (that get an extra D6 vs vehicles ,now just double the result of the D6 rolled.Melta, fusion ,lance,weapons and MCs etc?.)

Optional rules for high rate of fire assault and heavy weapons.(3 shots or more.)

Concentrate fire vs vehicles.
As heavy machine gun /AA cannon derivitives,generaly fire bursts of shots over a wide area, to be effective vs fast moving 'dodging' infantry, as vehicles cannot dive prone rtc the weapons could concentrate fire on a particular spot on a large taget,(Vehicle/MCs.)

The player may elect to fire at one spot on the target vehicle.
If the player choses to do this ,the weapon fires one shot(concentrated burst) which adds the ROF to the Str of the shot to increase armour pen ,rather than just D6.

EG Heavy Bolter.
Rng 36/str 5/heavy 3.
Using CF rules ,becomes,Rng 36/str (5 +3)=8 Heavy 1.

Assaultcannon .
Rng 24/str 6Heavy 4.
using CF rules,becomes,Rng 24/str (6+4)=10 heavy 1.

(Possibly what the GW devs were trying to achive with the assaultcannon 'rending 'rules ,but forgot the burst of fire have to hit the same spot on the target vehicle to 'jackhammer ',through the armour,and so should reduce the number of shots?)

VEHICLE DAMMAGE CHART.

Modified strenght......Result.
-1..........crew shaken on D6 roll of 5+

0 to 1 .....crew shaken.(2 or more of this result per turn ,upgraded to crew stunned result)

2 to 3 .....crew stunned.

4 to 5.......weapon destroyed.(If no weapons left upgrade this result to motor dammaged.)

6 ............motor dammaged (reduce movment by 1/3 per motor dammaged result)

7+...........vehicle explodes.

Notes..
If a vehicle sustains 3 motor dammaged results (possibly 2 for skimmers?) the vehicle is destroyed.
So vehicle structure points culd be represented by the number of hits required to immobilise the vehicle.As a value after the movment value?

Eg landspeeder,Movement value,(M)12/2.So the first M hit halves the movment.second M hit destroys the land speeder.

Lemanruss, Movment value,(M),6/3. So the leman russ has its movment reduced by 2(1/3of starting movment value) for the first Mobility hit,
reduced by 4, for the second Mobility hit.(2/3 of original movment value.)
And destroyed om the 3rd mobility hit.

I am working on the concept that a vehicle crew will bail out, if they turn unto sitting ducks for all th anti vehicle weapons to take pot shots at!!.

Ordnance and close combat hits add +1 to the modified strenght result.

TO HIT MODS.
Firing at targets at a range of 18 inches or more.-1
Firing at targets in light cover-1
Firing at units on charge orders-1.(As action description.)
Firing at targets in heavy cover-2
Firing at large targets ,(vehicles and MCs)+1.
Firing through other non vehicle units,-1?


MORAL.
Units not exempt from moral checks,must check moral when...

The unit looses an assault ,as current rules for LD mods.(Number of casualties ,out numbering etc.)

The unit falls below 75% of starting unit strenght.(The unit must test every turn if below 50% of starting unit strenght.)

Freindly unit within 6 inches is destroyed of Falling Back.

A freindly HQ unit within 12 inches is destroyed or Falling Back.

Out gunned ,the unit recieves twice as many potentialy dammaging hits ,as the unit strenght of the unit.(Within 2 enemy actions?).
(Only count hits that can dammage the unit.)


Modified LD...Result
8+..OK unit act normaly.
7....Shaken
6....Stunned
5 or less,Fall back.

LD Modifiers.
At 75% to 51% of starting unit strenght.-1
At 50% or less of unit starting strenght-2
For each ordnance template hit,-1.
1 or more hits from sniper ,-1
Unit has a unit leader (seargent etc,)+1
HQ within 12 inches on shaken or better moral +2.

Shaken.Unit counts as having Advance Action(compulsory action) but may only move standard distance OR fire ,as described in the Advance Action description.

Stunned .Unit counts as having First Fire action.But may ONLY fire at units assaulting it ,with one shot per weapon ,not two.The unit strikes last in any assault.

Fall Back,the unit must attempt to move away from all known enemy positions.It can move upto double its standard move distance ,but will not fire any weapons.The unit can ONLY rally if there are NO enemy units within 12 inches.
If the unit is surrounded it will not move, and if assaulted it counts a destroyed without fighting back.

I probaly have not explianed somthings very well, or given adiquate justification for using these concepts.But I am happy to elaborate upon them as required.


OVERVIEW.( What I am trying to achive.)

Shift the tactics in the game to the interaction of units on the table top,rather than unit selection.

Players have to decide what units to move and when,and how to respond to enemy actions and probable manouvers/ fields of fire.

Make the game more interactive.(NOT army level IGO/UGO.)

Make ranged attacks and manouvering(including closing down units by assaulting them etc. ).the main focus of the game ,rather than focusing on close combat to a disproportinate degree.
(Fine for WH ,but 40k is SHOULD NOT BE WH in space with lots of guns IMO.)

Give the opportunity to limit enemy unit effectivness by suppressing them.(Similar to current vehicle rules.)

large units have suvivability ,and can steamroller across the board, as the fluff describes Orks, Nids etc.

Multiple small units have more tactical options ,(they will have units to activate after an enemy with a few large units have activated all units.)
But smaller units would be more fragile ,they would be more susseptable to suppresion.(shaken/stunned moral.)

Smaller elite units have to be used with care and discretion,scalples making precision well timed attacks.


Thoughts and comment most welcome.
TTFN
Lanrak

[Macmoss]

Originally Posted by Lanrak

Ok Macmoss,


I only get infrequent games of 40k using limited armies.So as you play more than me ,perhaps you can help me out a bit ? .

I wish - now I am back at work playtesting will have to wait till xmas

THE GAME TURN.

Start of turn actions.(Try to rally troops,compulsory actions etc.).
Player A activates a unit.
Player B activates a unit.
This continues untill all units on the table have been activated.
End of turn actions ,(resolve any assaults,etc.)

Why have assaults at the end? By fighting them out as they happen it stops 'assaulty' troops 'hiding' in assault and not being targeted by shooty troops - admitedly units may end up recieving a large number of assaults in a turn, one after the other but by activating different units with different 'I' levels and having rules for shooting when recieving an assault as well as 'grouping' units together for a well cordinated assault you can make assaults very bloody and over very quick.....which in a guns and bombs game is where they should be....

Unit Activation.
ALL units in the game can perform 2 actions per turn.

These actions are a combination of moving and /or shooting.

Assaults occur when a unit moves into base to base contact with an enemy unit.

(Declaring charges and complex manuvering of ridgid formations do not really fit with modern type combats,IMO.)

Ill use the terminology of the older version of the Epic system ,as it is fits quite well with the options available to units ,as I percieve them.

Agreed

Tactical options for all units.(Similar to current vehicle options,which remain the same,BTW.)

FIRST FIRE.
The unit concentrates on ranged attacks.
The unit remains stationary,(to represent the unit taking up the best firing positions possible.)

A unit adopting First fire (FF,) action may fire at enemy units immediatly AND/OR may fire at enemy units after all enemy movment has been carried out.

Heavy weapons may only fire once per turn,controlling player choses when to fire heavy weapons.

Rapid fire weapons may fire once at full range ,AND once at half range.

Assault and pistol weapons may weapons may fire twice.

The controlling player can decide when and how many shots non heavy weapons fire.

Units on FF actions have 360 degree fire arcs,and friendly units(that block LOS,) do not block line of sight.(The unit takes aim and fires at the best opportunity.)

If units on FF are assaulted they may fire any remaining weapon shots at the assaulting enemy before combat ensues.BUT units on FF actions will alwas strike last in assaults.


ADVANCE.
The unit may move upto its normal move distance (M stat !),and may then fire at any enemy targets.(Current weapons firing/ moving restictions apply,rapid fire weapons only fire once at half range ,as in 3rd ed.)
The unit has a 180 degree fire arc to its front,(direction of facing.)
The unit fights in assaults as normal (based on models I stat etc.)


CHARGE.
The unit moves between its normal move distance ,and double its normal move distance.(M stat to 2xM stat.)
The unit may not make ranged attacks of any sort,but will strike first in close combat if it initiates an assault.(moves into BTB contact with enemy unit.)

Shots at charging units are -1 to hit,unless firing unit is the unit being assaulted,and it is on on first fire action.

Vehicle options stay the same and non vehicle units are brought into line with the tactical options open to vehicles.

By using two actions a turn it is possible to keep the game moving smoothly

Some of the above rules are starting to put restrictions on troops and weapons 'depending' on the action combination taken - For example Rapid Fire weapons - why not let them take one shot twice at long range over two shooting actions? - it is easier to do and keep actions the same whether they are performed as a first action or a second action.

Also I am not a big fan of arcs of fire - with the above rules there is the argument of why would a unit that is more 'mobile' (advance) have a more restrictive field of fire than a unit that is 'dug in' (First Fire) - in my experience (paintball only - thank goodness) it is the players who are stationary and 'dug in' who end up with tunnel vision...anyhow it is also restricting the 'effectivness' of guns in general - again I want 'corridors of fire' to be lethal and by giving units 360 degrees you make units more dynamic.

ARMOUR WEAPONS AND DAMMAGE.

All attacks are rated by strenght value.(Str stat.)
All armour is rated by an Armour Rating.(AR stat.)

Dammage is worked out by subtracting the AR value from the STR of the hit.
This Modified Strenght (MS)is checked against the relevent dammage charts.

If each current 'pip' of AS is converted to AR of 1...
AS 6 =AR1.
AS5+ =AR 2.
AS4+=AR3.
AS3+=AR4.

Vehicles AV rating =AR rating.(May need to adjust this value up a bit, by 2 perhaps?)

If we increase all current str values by 2 ,this sort of keep the ballance between hits and chance to wound,ish.(Will need more refining and development but just a reasonable starting point.)

So we get a bolter shot ,now Str 6,causes a (MS) 5 hit on orks(AR1).casualty on 3+.

A bolter shot on a SM ,causes a (MS) 2 hit ,SM (AR4).casualty on a 6+.


ARMOUR TYPES.
I think we should distinguish between basic armour types.
Standard armour which has 'exposed' areas.Flack jackets open topped vehicles etc.
Any area effect weapon (weapons that use a template,flamers frag missiles etc,)add 2? to the MS against standard armour?

Possibly include a MS mod for current weapons with High AP, but low str?Or maybe limited ASM for these uniqe weapons ?

Sealed armour,( Denoted by a S suffix,EG AR 4S).SM power armour ,non open topped vehicles ,power feilds,etc ,is not adversly effected by area effect weapons.

Invunerable saves..
Power fields give a set AR bonus ,and makes the AR value of relevent model(s) comparable to Sealed Armour,EG refractor field +2AR S.

Dodge save /Holo fields give extra to hit modifiers to ranged attacks.-1 if unit is stationary,-2 if unit has moved.

Eg IG character in carapce armour,AR 3 has a conversion field(+3?ARS).
The IG character is now immune to str 6 or less ,shooting hits.


I am unsure if to give current AS 2+ save models AR 5 to 7 or not?
or give such models 2x modifier to thier unit strenght?

I belive the invunerable save on termis is to reflect a save better than 2+ ,which is impossible under the current system.

But the proposed AR system can represent basic armour 1(crude Ork body armour,) to the toughest of heavy vehicles AR 16?
All with linear progression and NO EFFICIENCY CLIFFS:w00t: .

This is where I differ - IMO weapons are so powerful that a vital hit is a vital hit - and this comes down to the 'to hit' roll and did you hit something vital - In other words why does my lasgun sometimes kill an ork and sometiems not - because of where I hit it as well as is it a 'lucky' ork. Anyway suffice to say I really think 'scrapping' the 'to wound' chart was the most 'liberating gaming experience' I have done with my rules set - it just works so well on so many different levels - the game play is quicker and smoother - the feel of the game is far more 'stressful' and deadly and immediatly you have to think more about manuvering and cover for you troops.........:w00t:

We have approached this part of the game from two radically different stand points (between ours and the current system) that I think it will come down to playtesting to see which is best.

I am happy to go with your system if

1 - it is a smooth (or smoother) as mine

2- it makes guns 'feel' lethal in the game

WEAPON TYPES.

I think the weapon terminology in the BBB is more or less ok as is.
But I would like to suggest the following additions.

Small arms fire should be inffective vs vehicles.No +D6 for pen rolls!

All other weapons get the +D6 vs vehicles ,assault,heavy and ordnance.

Specific anti vehicle weapons (that get an extra D6 vs vehicles ,now just double the result of the D6 rolled.Melta, fusion weapons and MCs etc?.)

Optional rules for high rate of fire assault and heavy weapons.(3 shots or more.)

Concentrate fire vs vehicles.
As heavy machine gun /AA cannon derivitives,generaly fire bursts of shots over a wide area, to be effective vs fast moving 'dodging' infantry, as vehicles cannot dive prone rtc the weapons could concentrate fire on a particular spot on a large taget,(Vehicle/MCs.)

The player may elect to fire at one spot on the target vehicle.
If the player choses to do this ,the weapon fires one shot(concentrated burst) which adds the ROF to the D6 roll for armour pen ,rather than just D6.

EG Heavy Bolter.
Rng 36/str 5/heavy 3.
Using CF rules ,bcomes,Rng 36/str (5 +3)=8 Heavy 1.

Assaultcannon .
Rng 24/str 6Heavy 4.
using CF rules,becomes,Rng 24/str (6+4)=10 heavy 1.

(Possibly what the GW devs were trying to achive with the assaultcannon 'rending 'rules ,but forgot the burst of fire have to hit the same spot on the target vehicle to 'jackhammer ',through the armour,and so should reduce the number of shots?)

VEHICLE DAMMAGE CHART.

Modified strenght......Result.
-1..........crew shaken on D6 roll of 5+

0 to 1 .....crew shaken.(2 or more of this result per turn ,upgraded to crew stunned result)

2 to 3 .....crew stunned.

4 to 5.......weapon destroyed.(If no weapons left upgrade this result to motor dammaged.)

6 ............motor dammaged (reduce movment by 1/3 per motor dammaged result)

7+...........vehicle explodes.

Notes..
If a vehicle sustains 3 motor dammaged results (possibly 2 for skimmers?) the vehicle is destroyed.
So vehicle structure points culd be represented by the number of hits required to immobilise the vehicle.As a value after the movment value?

Eg landspeeder,Movement value,(M)12/2.So the first M hit halves the movment.second M hit destroys the land speeder.

Lemanruss, Movment value,(M),6/3. So the leman russ has its movment reduced by 2(1/3of starting movment value) for the first Mobility hit,
reduced by 4, for the second Mobility hit.(2/3 of original movment value.)
And destroyed om the 3rd mobility hit.

I am working on the concept that a vehicle crew will bail out, if they turn unto sitting ducks for all th anti vehicle weapons to take pot shots at!!.

Ordnance and close combat hits add +1 to the modified strenght result.

TO HIT MODS.
Firing at targets at a range of 18 inches or more.-1
Firing at targets in light cover-1
Firing at units on charge orders-1.(As action description.)
Firing at targets in heavy cover-2
Firing at large targets ,(vehicles and MCs+1.)
Firing through other non vehicle units,-1?


MORAL.
Units not exempt from moral checks,must check moral when...

The unit looses an assault ,as current rules for LD mods.(Number of casualties ,out numbering etc.)

The unit falls below 75% of starting unit strenght.(The unit must test every turn if below 50% of starting unit strenght.)

Freindly unit within 6 inches is destroyed of Falling Back.

A freindly HQ unit within 12 inches is destroyed or Falling Back.

Out gunned ,the unit recieves twice as many potentialy dammaging hits ,as the unit strenght of the unit.(Within 2 enemy actions?).
(Only count hits that can dammage the unit.)


Modified LD...Result
8+..OK unit act normaly.
7....Shaken
6....Stunned
5 or less,Fall back.

This is all todo with what style of game play you like - Modifiers is one appropriate game mechanic as well as recording reduced movement - and to be honest I have kept (at the moment) some LD modifiers but have tried to avoid any others ...

I lke your leaning towards making fearless troops not immuneto some of the 'basic core game mechanisms'

Basic core game mechanisms should be good enough in the first place that that are not 'overruled'....

LD Modifiers.
At 75% to 51% of starting unit strenght.-1
At 50% or less of unit starting strenght-2
For each ordnance template hit,-1.
1 or more hits from sniper ,-1
Unit has a unit leader (seargent etc,)+1
HQ within 12 inches on shaken or better moral +2.

Shaken.Unit counts as having Advance Action(compulsory action) but may only move standard distance OR fire ,as described in the Advance Action description.

Stunned .Unit counts as having First Fire action.But may ONLY fire at units assaulting it ,with one shot per weapon ,not two.The unit strikes last in any assault.

Fall Back,the unit must attempt to move away from all known enemy positions.It can move upto double its standard move distance ,but will not fire any weapons.The unit can ONLY rally if there are NO enemy units within 12 inches.
If the unit is surrounded it will not move, and if assaulted it counts a destroyed without fighting back.

Very similiar to my confusion rules - I am also changing my 'terminology' to shaken and stunned for infantry units that are badly 'confused' as these terms are also used in the game already with the same consequences as vehicles.

I probaly have not explianed somthings very well, or given adiquate justification for using these concepts.But I am happy to elaborate upon them as required.


OVERVIEW.( What I am trying to achive.)

Shift the tactics in the game to the interaction of units on the table top,rather than unit selection.

Players have to decide what units to move and when,and how to respond to enemy actions and probable manouvers/ fields of fire.

Make the game more interactive.(NOT army level IGO/UGO.)

Make ranged attacks and manouvering(including closing down units by assaulting them etc. ).the main focus of the game ,rather than focusing on close combat to a disproportinate degree.
(Fine for WH ,but 40k is SHOULD NOT BE WH in space with lots of guns IMO.)

Give the opportunity to limit enemy unit effectivness by suppressing them.(Similar to current vehicle rules.)

large units have suvivability ,and can steamroller across the board, as the fluff describes Orks, Nids etc.

Multiple small units have more tactical options ,(they will have units to activate after an enemy with a few large units have activated all units.)
But smaller units would be more fragile ,they would be more susseptable to suppresion.(shaken/stunned moral.)

Smaller elite units have to be used with care and discretion,scalples making precision well timed attacks.

All the above I agree on

I would just say don't be too restrictive when it comes to 'dishing out the damage' with guns.

While I think you want guns to play a bigger part some of your rules are still very conservative and there are many 'restrictions' on firing whether it is when rapid fire weapons can shoot, to range modifier, to arcs of fire - loosen up on these points and make the game far more 'dangerous' IMO

Thoughts and comment most welcome.
TTFN
Lanrak

Hope to hear from you soon

Cheers

Mossmac

[Lanrak]

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.

[Macmoss]

Originally Posted by Lanrak

Dear Macmoss.
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.

Lanrak.

How do you propose simulating 'fog of war' or are you just ignoring it - my current 'confusion' rules seem to work well but does 'enforce random movement' - I quite like this as it keeps commanders under 'stress' and constantly having to adapt their tactcs.

I think reintroducing a move stat is definatly on the cards however as I don't like the 'fleet of' rule eithr as it seems a very 'clunky' games mechanism. I do quite like the 'random' element of moving through difficult terrain however.

Cheers

Mossmac

[Lanrak]

Well I suppose it all depends on how realistic you think the game needs to be.

I will try to define fog of war.
The 'fog of war' is the term used to discribe the phenomenom that impede or resrict a combatant/units ability to assess the tactical/stategic situation and respond appropriatley/efficiently.

In ancient to napoleonic conflict,ALL orders were given by the commander on the field.(general/field marshal/king.)
These orders were relayed to the units by messengers.
So the army would act according to instructuions based on the assesment of the information available to the commander on the field.(Like WH.)

If messages were not relayed properly(charge of the light brigade,etc) or the commander was misinformed or unable to see what was going on, this caused tactical errors on his part.This is FOW in these types of battles.


In modern combat the main difference is the improvments in communication,and the tactical decisions are determined at unit level, by the unit leader.

Generals determine strategy,seargents determine tactics used!

Some games that are trying to be accurate simulation of modern factual conflicts/combatants represent FOW in the following way.

Aquisition tables.
This determines what the unit would be aware of.(Roll to see,in simple terms.)

Command control.
What level of communication is available to/between the units.(To give the unit wider awarness of the combat.)

Moral status.
The negative effects of psychological trauma upon the unit.

So in 40k ,perhaps LOS and the to hit modifiers may be enough to determine what the unit can directly respond to at range,and the moral (Shaken ,stunned ,fall back),could give a reasonable indication of psychological trauma.I tried to include command control effects by adding these conciderations to the moral modifiers.

As reguards random movment,I belive this was introduced by GW to arificialy add interest/(exitment?) to the game.

Again this is not included in other non GW rules sets.

Adjusting movment by a set amount for different types of terrain works fine.IMO.
(Determining everything by rolling a D6 is the main cause of the abstraction in GW games.IMHO.And while I am on the subject dictating the effects of fire by only considering casualty removal misses out the effects of supression etc,especialy as 40k has such a preponderance of ranged weapons. )

Please dont think I am doing anything but suggesting some ideas for discussion.

We all have some good ideas,I suppose if we discuss them we could chose the most apropriate ones for inclusion in a new version of 40K.

Clarification.
As a game turn is an arbitary period of time, and the actions that can be performed within this time sets the scope and scale of the game.
I stated a 'combination' of the basic actions move/shoot ,to give basic tactical stances for the units.

So a unit may adopt one of the three tactical stances,(first fire ,advance, charge)which determins how they act/react when activated.

My ideas are quite clear in my head ,untill I try to write them down,(slow typing speeds and poor spelling do not help.)then it goes a bit pear shaped.
I appologise for this.

Thanks for bearing with me.
ATB
Lanrak.

[Macmoss]

Originally Posted by Lanrak

And while I am on the subject dictating the effects of fire by only considering casualty removal misses out the effects of supression etc,especialy as 40k has such a preponderance of ranged weapons. )

Lanrak.

Agreed - and this is covered in my 'confusion rules' - do you think the reactions I give for units failing (or passing) confusion tests are appropriate?

Cheers

Mossmac

[Lanrak]

Dear Macmoss.
I think your idea of the moral checks and confusion is moving in the right direction.
But possibly may be concidered a bit random?

It is obvious you have put a lot of time and effort into you new rules set and codexes.
And I would hate to think I was being overtly negative about them.

I suppose my stand point is, in comparison to other wargames ,the 40k rules set and game mechanic is poorly contrived abtract and doesnt follow much logic or general perception of the gameplay intimated by the 40k universe.

Several people have stated that 40k is fantasy/fiction an has nothing to do with reality.

I would like to point out that the gamers live in reality, and need clearly defined and explained rules to play the game by!

The narrative for the 40k universe is based on reality,but given a subtle scifi twist.
It is important that the gamers can identify with the combatants and the combat at some level.
This sense of identifying/understanding should be in the way the game plays, to be insynergy with the 40k universe.

I am at a loss of how to write the next bit without sounding condecending or with a percived sense if self importance.This is not my intension.

Its is my impression that the way the current 40k rules have been 'developed' has influenced the way you have developed your new rules.
A predeliction to use random elements when not strictly necessary or benificial.
(I hope this doesnt cause offence.)

In the same way my interest in other wargames influences my ideas,so they can appear a bit disjointed and not in the 'theme' of 40k.(If you can help me merge /blend them into the 40k universe as required,this would be most helpfull).

Testing moral everytime a unit comes under fire seem a bit harsh.

But it is very difficult to structure in supression with only direct fire game mechanic to work with.

Thats why I suggested testing when a unit recives 2 x its unit strenght of hits.
Eg 10 man squad recieve 20 hits.So units with high ROF and template weapons would be more likly to cause supression.(In line with common perceptions perhaps?)

It would be a whole lot easier if an direct area fire system was used (like in SST) but I am unsure if this would be accepted ?As this system relates to the unit rather than the individual models in the unit.

This is accepted as standard in most 200th and 300th scale modern armoured conflict wargames, to deal with infantry effects on the games.

Would this be too broad a system for a 40k 'company level' game?

It could just be me,but I think 40k is most similar to modern warfare.And I am basing my concepts on this.

There are lots to chose from,so if you feel any are inapropriate ,I can suggest others we can discuss.

ATB
Lanrak.

[Macmoss]

Originally Posted by Lanrak

Dear Macmoss.
I think your idea of the moral checks and confusion is moving in the right direction.
But possibly may be concidered a bit random?

It is obvious you have put a lot of time and effort into you new rules set and codexes.
And I would hate to think I was being overtly negative about them.

I suppose my stand point is, in comparison to other wargames ,the 40k rules set and game mechanic is poorly contrived abtract and doesnt follow much logic or general perception of the gameplay intimated by the 40k universe.

Several people have stated that 40k is fantasy/fiction an has nothing to do with reality.

I would like to point out that the gamers live in reality, and need clearly defined and explained rules to play the game by!

The narrative for the 40k universe is based on reality,but given a subtle scifi twist.
It is important that the gamers can identify with the combatants and the combat at some level.
This sense of identifying/understanding should be in the way the game plays, to be insynergy with the 40k universe.

I couldn't agree more - it needs to be pointed out to 'these gamers' that 40K is set in our universe, based around our planet earth, in our galaxy, 38000 years from now - on a side issue if not a bit controversial it is based 40000 years after the birth of 'Jesus' (not wanting to offend anyone) - it is not a 'Tolkien' world which 'could do what it wants' - the reality does break down with the 'warp' - but that is the game mechanism for saying 'certain' creatures, places and things don't follow the normal rules of science as we understand them - but even then we are talking 'multi-dimensional (read the book 'Hyperspace' for a proper modern insight into the Physics of multidimensions).

Even Space Marines are based on a 'hopeful' advancement in genetics from present day knowledge (have you heard British Scientists last week have asked for permission to combine Cow DNA with Human DNA:w00t: - the ethics committee is debating it:cry: )

I am at a loss of how to write the next bit without sounding condecending or with a percived sense if self importance.This is not my intension.

Really not a problem so don't worry about it - I am enjoying the discussion

Its is my impression that the way the current 40k rules have been 'developed' has influenced the way you have developed your new rules.
A predeliction to use random elements when not strictly necessary or benificial.
(I hope this doesnt cause offence.)

You are right - in my defence I would say that I had to start from some where - I introduced some (big) changes but I haven't changed 'everything' (yet) - for example - ranges of weapons - due to only a basic knowledge of weapons (rifle shooting only) I have no idea if the 48" range for a 'Missile Launcher' is an accurate representation (let alone a 'venom cannon!?) - ignoring the fact that it is used for 'game balance' which is used far too much as an 'excuse' for poor game mechanisms - I much prefere putting 'game balances' into army selection rather than game mechanisms - hence the 'expence' of suppressive fire weaponary in the army lists-

More changes are/will be required and I am quite happy to totally rehash the rules (bit by bit simply because of the magnitude of it?!)

In the same way my interest in other wargames influences my ideas,so they can appear a bit disjointed and not in the 'theme' of 40k.(If you can help me merge /blend them into the 40k universe as required,this would be most helpfull).

Oh absoloutly - I am not looking for it to be 'my game' with 'my name on thebox' just a fast paced simulation game of 'squad' combat - no matter how we get there

Testing moral everytime a unit comes under fire seem a bit harsh.

But it is very difficult to structure in supression with only direct fire game mechanic to work with.

Thats why I suggested testing when a unit recives 2 x its unit strenght of hits.
Eg 10 man squad recieve 20 hits.So units with high ROF and template weapons would be more likly to cause supression.(In line with common perceptions perhaps?)

It would be a whole lot easier if an direct area fire system was used (like in SST) but I am unsure if this would be accepted ?As this system relates to the unit rather than the individual models in the unit.

I have heard a lot about SST (and Andy Chambers of course!:yes: ) but I havn't played or read the rules - I will probably order it from mongoose as it has got rave reviews from everyone I have heard of who has played it.....

The idea of my rules for taking a confusion test for coming under fire comes from 'Epic' - I like the idea that troops 'tense up' when someone sarts shooting at them even when no hits are scored - also there is a 'progression' with my confusion reactions - the more you fail the LD by the more 'tensed up' and confused the unit becomes ie the effects last longer - so failed by one and the unit moves 2D6 choose the lowest towards the enemy (this was to help CC armies and hinder Shooty armies) otherwise there is no lasting effect - on board this means most units will move 2.5" forward which can be a bit 'frustrating' for shooty commanders as troops suddnly move out of cover where in his 'all seeing all knowing' position he has carefully placed them.....I like this as it puts a 'pressure on the commander.

Fail the roll by two and the unit becomes far more disorganised with troops suddenly moving quite a distance in a 'random direction - I did originally have troops moving tpowards the nearest cover that would provide a save or block line of sight from the incoming shots but this could prove to much of a hinderence to CC troops and put little pressure in shooty armies - but maybe this is breaking my cardinal rule of 'game balance' - see above Again there is no lasting effect.

Fail by three and the squad has lasting effects that creep into the players next turn

Fail by four and the squad becomes affectivly pinned.

BTW although it sounds like a lot of dice rolls the Playtesting has shown it is very quick and easy to do the confusion LD test

This is accepted as standard in most 200th and 300th scale modern armoured conflict wargames, to deal with infantry effects on the games.

Would this be too broad a system for a 40k 'company level' game?

It could just be me,but I think 40k is most similar to modern warfare.And I am basing my concepts on this.

There are lots to chose from,so if you feel any are inapropriate ,I can suggest others we can discuss.

ATB
Lanrak.

Thanks again

Cheers

Mossmac (forging ahed wif veri bed spelin)