Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
As my original post outlining my thoughtss on re designing 40k seemed to be acceptable .Iwill now try to outline some basic concepts to build the frame work to hang the 40k game on .
I belive the game would be enhanced by a more interactive game turn.
Rather than player A performs all actions with the entirity of his force ,and player B just removes casualties.
Then player B performs all actions with his force and player A just removes casualties.
There are two basic options available ,IMO.
Alternate phases between players.
Start of turn actions for both players.(Rally troops etc.)
Eg player A moves,
Player B shoots,
Player A reacts.
Player B moves,
Player A shoots,
player B reacts.
End of turn actions for both players,(resolve close combats etc.)
Units are 'activated' one at a time alternating between players.
Player A takes all actions with one unit.
Player B tales all actions with one unit,
untill all units on the table have been 'activated'.
A common critism of the current game is that most of the tactical conciderations of the game are decided by unit selection.
So to put the rock paper scissors into the game play rather than the unit selection.
A well recognised method of conveying modern combat is giving units set orders /actions.
As modern combat is all about mobility and fire power.
It sort of makes sense to give units 2 actions per turn.And these actions could be a combination of moving and shooting.
Assault occurs when a unit moves int base to base contact with an enemy unit.
(Wh require charge declarations etc because of the restricted movment of the unit formations ,and close combat is thae main objective of the game.)
So a unit can move and shoot in a restricted way,move double distance but not make any ranged attacks ,or not move and shoot to full effect.
(similar to the current options for vehicles.)
I dont want to write out specific orders for individualy units before the turn,so dont panic.
What I feel works well is decide what action a unit is going to take ,perform the action ,and then place an order marker next to the unit.This helps to keep track of what units have been activated ,and what actions have been performed.
(I have quite a poor memory,and I am easily distracted by the wombles vs clanger debate etc,LOL.)
Re introduce M stat.
Re introduce limited to hit modifiers for shooting.
Dammage caused to target is Str of weapon hit minus the armour rating of the target.
this works for all units,and gives natural invunerabilityto certain units from certain wepons.
Ork AR 1 ,str 6 hit modified to str 5 ,roll on the to wound chart at str 5.
SM AR 4,str 6 hit modified to str 2, roll on the to wound chart at str 2.
Land raider AR 14 cannot be dammaged by weapons str 6.
We eould need to alter weapon str ,and develop ar as apropriate.
rather than just rolling 2D6 and comparing to LD.
How about having a set table for moral status.
6 to 5 stunned.
4 or less fall back.
obviously there will need to be some limited modifiers to act on this table.
got to go now ,ill update this post in a bit.
I think you are onto something here, I do have to say that some of these ideas are covered in Mossmacs thread New Rules and Codex (which I have to admit I have become incrasingly impressed with) check it out and maybe give some ideas. It would be great if you guys could combine projects.
As far as I can tell the main things that we agree on is the need for tactical choices to play a role and the need for firepower to be more decisive (though obviously assault armies shouldn't be crippled). In terms of the turn sequence I agree that this needs to be changed thogh I don't know what Mossmac has to say on this issue. The moral table is similar to Mossmac ideas of Confusion some scope for collaboration here prehaps?
As for modifiers there are two sides: they do slow the game down slightly(not a big deal for me but some peole don't like it) but they also can allow you to be more precise with the rules.
some great starting points for discussion, its good to see other people think WH40K need a rehaul.
"God is dead" Nietzsche- 1886
"Nietzsche is dead" God- 1900
Why are there scams? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q71FLDIMBc8
Lanrak - happy to see that you found this forum and that you're getting some positive feedback with your ideas. :yes: I would like you to consider, however, posting all of your ideas in a single thread from here on out - not only does this keep all of your ideas in the same place for people to read, but it also keeps down the clutter of threads floating in the forum. Appreciate it!
One thing to bear in mind is 'What are we looking for with the game' at the end of the day.
As it stands the 40K game mechanism can be simply put as a game of 'attrition'
The detail of shooting, to wound, and wounds recorded is such a gradual affair that most armies do make it in HTH if they want to.
I believe this has come about because GW wanted some CC armies but also because gamers always hanker after the fact the their models shouldn't die easily - at least not in droves.
Because of this you do not have to put much thought into tactics in the game - overall strategy yes but 'in game tactics', no.
If that is all you want from the game (which is a pretty basic game like monopoly) then 40k as it stands is 'fine'
But if you want pressure, thinking ahead, tactics, guns actually firing deadly bullets then 40K as it stands now is not good enough.
Lets give an 'extreme' example (one that is interesting if a little too extreme)
Someone pointed out (on this or another board) that some napolionic games don't even bother to roll dice for shooting - they just refere to historic precedence and say that that number of soldiers would kill that number of enemy - so the models are just removed when they get within range.
Now I am not suggesting that we go the whole hog like the above example - but the above does have some merit in the fact that it places all the emphasis on strategy and especially tactics and support tactics and requires a far more intelliegnet style of gaming.
In some respects, after thinking about it, that is what my new 'lethal' rules are slightly leaning towards - by scrapping 'to wound' there is a bigger certainity of troops dying and so players have to start thinking far more where there troops are, what is supporting them and where the enemy is weakest or most strongest.
Just some ideas.........
Last edited by Macmoss; November 7th, 2006 at 12:41.
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 you folks who play more can help me out a bit ,hopefully .
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.)
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.
Tactical options for all units.(Similar to current vehicle options,which remain the same,BTW.)
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.
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.)
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.
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+.
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.
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: .
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.
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.
-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)
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?
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.)
8+..OK unit act normaly.
5 or less,Fall back.
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.
Last edited by Lanrak; November 9th, 2006 at 23:23.