Jump to content

Welcome to The Bolter and Chainsword
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Creating a better 40k, Initial version of Rules finished

rules A better 40k

  • Please log in to reply
272 replies to this topic

#1
Black Cohort

Black Cohort

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,930 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Chapter Name: Black Cohort

Link to current Google doc

https://docs.google....t5G-M1Ymf6jxyC0

The last few months of 6th and with the release of 7th, GW has shown that it doesn't care at all about having a functional game system for using it's models, just a way to push more plastic out the door. This has led me to consider the merits of finding others who like me want a fun but balanced system that works either for tournament or casual play. The GW system of each new edition largely being a patch over the old one while pushing larger and larger games has led to a confusing system that cannot be fixed with simple patch jobs. Thus I am looking for others interested in writing a new set of rules for playing 40k games, one that draws inspiration from the best parts of all editions but is written from the ground up. To me this would also require all the codexes to be re-written once the core rules were finished.

I do not wish this thread to become a debate on if you think the current system is broken or not but one where those that are interested in such an idea can discuss a way forward on this idea.


Edited by Black Cohort, 24 June 2014 - 02:17 AM.

  • DasPanzerIstUber likes this
Follow the link to help make "A Better 40k"<p> http://www.bolterand...types-finished/
ETL_2014_Banner_V2_03D_Custos_Fidei.jpg

#2
Olis

Olis

    ++ REDEMPTIO CALIDUS ++

  • ++ MODERATI ++
  • 13,828 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wiltshire, England

I can certainly think of a couple of parts of past SM codices that deserve reincarnation. This seems to be an interesting idea, Black Cohort, and I firmly reckon a game system that's somewhat simpler (say, closer to 40k third edition than 40k sixth) would be the way forward. Ditch the dozens of rules, special rules and universal rules and condense them down to some 'core' rules that are functional and easily understood.


gallery_60566_6038_13258.jpg
gallery_60566_6038_15153.png

Cowriter of the Guilliman Heresy Project. First Thread. Second Thread.

Like Volkite weapons? Visit the Martian Death Ray Club! Say it with me now: CHOOM! 

B&C forum rules: Linky. Octavulg's IA guide: Linky. DIY Article Templates: Linky.

He that never changes his opinions, never corrects his mistakes, will never be wiser on the morrow than he is today. - Tryon Edwards

#3
Gentlemanloser

Gentlemanloser

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 12,085 posts

Remove random tables.  Warlord abilities are great, but give them a point cost.  And allow them to be purchased.

 

First though, start with an overall Point Cost formula, to try to keep equivalent units around the same cost.


QUOTE (Seahawk @ Jul 30 2011, 05:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how things are written.

#4
Black Cohort

Black Cohort

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,930 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Chapter Name: Black Cohort

Remove random tables. Warlord abilities are great, but give them a point cost. And allow them to be purchased.

First though, start with an overall Point Cost formula, to try to keep equivalent units around the same cost.



I completely agree random tables should go for the most part.

By point cost formula you are talking about having an excel sheet (or similar) that would give you a rough point value based on stats?
Follow the link to help make "A Better 40k"<p> http://www.bolterand...types-finished/
ETL_2014_Banner_V2_03D_Custos_Fidei.jpg

#5
Hellios

Hellios

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 5,157 posts

My thoughts are this, if you want to do this it will be a lot of work. You will need to do the core rules, the codices, and any expansions that you consider worthwhile. Which I know you know, but some codices will need significant time put into them.

 

If you really want to push your rules, I would consider trying to get some tournaments set up. Small tournaments at first, and then who knows. Campaign events might work as well. This won't be easy, but there are a number of  tournaments that do things like using the old RT rules.

 

Also, each codex, rule book/whatever needs to have a lead designer who is the boss. A big group of people will never agree. So it is a good thing for the leader to be flexible, but firm when needed. Naturally someone needs to be watching over everyone to try and maintain the internal balance. I'd suggest doing the rules for C:SM first. SMs are the base for half of the armies out there, they're also the most popular army(???).



#6
McFisty

McFisty

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 162 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Francisco Bay Area

I agree and I have already worked on both; a streamlined balanced set of rules with some of my 40K friends and a system that applies to every unit in the game to make the points costs rational and consistent. Neither one is complete yet because I don't have the time I would like to devote to 40k. Black Cohort, you are not alone. It is clear that GW only wants to change rules for the sake of selling more models. I don't mind that they want to sell more, I do mind how they have gone about it. I think the fluff, models and game mechanics all work together to create a comprehensive and amazing system that I have not found anywhere else. Sadly, the most recent changes to the rules (both 6th and 7th ed.) have undermined the quality, collectability and playability of the hobby as a whole. 



#7
Black Cohort

Black Cohort

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,930 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Chapter Name: Black Cohort
Let's not get ahead of anything here, tournaments can't be set up without rules. Organizationally I will maintain final decision power, not that I want to stifle debate just that someone has to be the guy with the final say. Individual codexes would likely be headed by different people so more progress could be made simultaneously. I want to keep the group actually writing rules relatively small (max a dozen) so things don't get too out of control, but will welcome feedback from everyone.

@Mcfisty
i would be very interested in seeing that algorithm
Follow the link to help make "A Better 40k"<p> http://www.bolterand...types-finished/
ETL_2014_Banner_V2_03D_Custos_Fidei.jpg

#8
Gentlemanloser

Gentlemanloser

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 12,085 posts

By point cost formula you are talking about having an excel sheet (or similar) that would give you a rough point value based on stats?

 

Totally.

 

Stats x, y and z are worth a.  Armour save modifiers the cost.  Upgrades costed based on it.  That sort of thing.

 

There was something like this originally, way back in RT.  I'm sure some folk must still have info on it somewhere.


QUOTE (Seahawk @ Jul 30 2011, 05:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how things are written.

#9
Hellios

Hellios

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 5,157 posts

Let's not get ahead of anything here, tournaments can't be set up without rules. Organizationally I will maintain final decision power, not that I want to stifle debate just that someone has to be the guy with the final say. Individual codexes would likely be headed by different people so more progress could be made simultaneously. I want to keep the group actually writing rules relatively small (max a dozen) so things don't get too out of control, but will welcome feedback from everyone.

@Mcfisty
i would be very interested in seeing that algorithm

 

Yes, rules first, but you should have an end game. You should have a plan to try and spread your rules... or like so many homebrew rules... They'll sit somewhere looking pretty... maybe being used once of twice before being forgotten.



#10
Black Cohort

Black Cohort

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,930 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Chapter Name: Black Cohort

While I have a chance to be able to sell a re-written 40k to local people, the reality is I cannot spread the rules outside of my area.  Doing so requires that people on one or more major 40k message boards acknowledge that the re-written rules are better/ have people discussing using the different rules.  Doing that requires a solid ruleset to be able to convince people they should switch.

 

To me the 3 key selling features of any game system (separate from the background and models) are balance, logic and simplicity.

 

Balance because even a pickup/ casual game is much more fun when it is your skill at playing the game that matters, not that your army auto wins.

 

Logic because things that are done logically are easier to remember, easier to explain and generally contribute to a more functional rules system.

 

Simplicity because it is easier to remember, easier to teach and less confusing to understand and balance.


  • Gentlemanloser, McFisty and Sn4k30r like this
Follow the link to help make "A Better 40k"<p> http://www.bolterand...types-finished/
ETL_2014_Banner_V2_03D_Custos_Fidei.jpg

#11
tdemayo

tdemayo

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 563 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA
A few years ago, I worked out the basic rules adapting Flames of War for both Epic 6mm and 28mm 40k models. I got as far as IG, SM, and CSM.

FoW is the most durable and balanced game system I've encountered, but it needed some tweaks to handle stuff like power armor and monstrous creatures. It has a very good internal balance between infantry and tanks.

I can send my docs along to anyone interested.

Edited by tdemayo, 28 May 2014 - 03:15 AM.

Call_of_Chaos_7_Banner_01f_zps8c8c944c.j


 


#12
Joasht

Joasht

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 2,489 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Chapter Name: The Emperor's Fury

I introduced a very simple solution to this some time back:

 

1) The game follows a single normal Force Organization Chart. So no allies/separate detachments/Unbound/etc. Pretty much the old 3-5th ed FOC.

 

2) While the FOC remains the same (e.g. 2 HQ, 3 Elite, etc), all codex choices become 0-1, except for Troop/Dedicated Transport that becomes 0-3 instead.

 

3) Ideally 1,500 points; which I believe is a sweet spot for 40k balance.



#13
Olis

Olis

    ++ REDEMPTIO CALIDUS ++

  • ++ MODERATI ++
  • 13,828 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wiltshire, England

 

By point cost formula you are talking about having an excel sheet (or similar) that would give you a rough point value based on stats?

 

Totally.

 

Stats x, y and z are worth a.  Armour save modifiers the cost.  Upgrades costed based on it.  That sort of thing.

 

There was something like this originally, way back in RT.  I'm sure some folk must still have info on it somewhere.

 

Do you mean this?

 

165891_sm-Copyright%20Games%20Workshop,%


  • McFisty likes this
gallery_60566_6038_13258.jpg
gallery_60566_6038_15153.png

Cowriter of the Guilliman Heresy Project. First Thread. Second Thread.

Like Volkite weapons? Visit the Martian Death Ray Club! Say it with me now: CHOOM! 

B&C forum rules: Linky. Octavulg's IA guide: Linky. DIY Article Templates: Linky.

He that never changes his opinions, never corrects his mistakes, will never be wiser on the morrow than he is today. - Tryon Edwards

#14
Gentlemanloser

Gentlemanloser

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 12,085 posts

Awesome! TY!

 

Edit: I'd add in Armour Save to that.

 

So if we take as base;

 

WS:3 BS:3 S:3 T:3 W:1 I:3 A:1 Ld:7 And say Save:6 as 5 points.

 

Using the same formula as above (without Save) would make a marine (I'd probably swap WS/BS around, as BS is so much better these days...  Or keep them the same...)

 

+1/2 +1/2 +1 +1 +1/4 +1/4

 

A marine before Save would be 5 + 3.5 = 8.5

 

Then add 2/3 points for each point of armour save to get to something like 14.5 to 17.5 for a basic marine (Edit: You round up).

 

Scouts would be 5 +1 +1 +1/4 +1/4 +2 to +6.  Something like 9.5 to 13.5

 

It's a start at least. msn-wink.gif

 

(Terminators work out to be significantly cheaper, but well, they should be! tongue.png)

 

Forgot that modifier at the end.

 

If you get a marine in TDA to around 20 points, the x2 modifier takes them to current values.


Edited by Gentlemanloser, 28 May 2014 - 09:48 AM.

QUOTE (Seahawk @ Jul 30 2011, 05:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how things are written.

#15
Olis

Olis

    ++ REDEMPTIO CALIDUS ++

  • ++ MODERATI ++
  • 13,828 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wiltshire, England

I'd be tempted to make the baseline cost a smidge cheaper, so that units in general cost less. You'll get more units into a 1500 point game, then.

 

 

Edit - Or maybe make the armour save points modifier cheaper. Say 1/2 cost instead of 2/3, or something. Would that unbalance things towards heavier armour?


Edited by Olisredan, 28 May 2014 - 10:34 AM.

gallery_60566_6038_13258.jpg
gallery_60566_6038_15153.png

Cowriter of the Guilliman Heresy Project. First Thread. Second Thread.

Like Volkite weapons? Visit the Martian Death Ray Club! Say it with me now: CHOOM! 

B&C forum rules: Linky. Octavulg's IA guide: Linky. DIY Article Templates: Linky.

He that never changes his opinions, never corrects his mistakes, will never be wiser on the morrow than he is today. - Tryon Edwards

#16
maartendp

maartendp

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 38 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Antwerp, Belgium
  • Chapter Name: Dark consuls

I have been thinking about changes to get a more balanced and simple game, has anyone of you looked at the no limits rule system?  It seems to me that's rather balanced and simplified.  It even includes a system to calculate point cost per unit



#17
Black Cohort

Black Cohort

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,930 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Chapter Name: Black Cohort

I introduced a very simple solution to this some time back:

1) The game follows a single normal Force Organization Chart. So no allies/separate detachments/Unbound/etc. Pretty much the old 3-5th ed FOC.

2) While the FOC remains the same (e.g. 2 HQ, 3 Elite, etc), all codex choices become 0-1, except for Troop/Dedicated Transport that becomes 0-3 instead.

3) Ideally 1,500 points; which I believe is a sweet spot for 40k balance.


In my opinion the problem goes deeper than just the abandonment of the force org chart. And while I agree that 0-1 should make a comeback applying it to all non#troop choices is too extreme in my opinion.
Follow the link to help make "A Better 40k"<p> http://www.bolterand...types-finished/
ETL_2014_Banner_V2_03D_Custos_Fidei.jpg

#18
Black Cohort

Black Cohort

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,930 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Chapter Name: Black Cohort
I think the only problem with that chart is that the multipliers for large point units is too high, as gentlemenloser pointed out terminators would be 40 points before wargear.
Follow the link to help make "A Better 40k"<p> http://www.bolterand...types-finished/
ETL_2014_Banner_V2_03D_Custos_Fidei.jpg

#19
Black Cohort

Black Cohort

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,930 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Chapter Name: Black Cohort

To get things rolling I will begin with some key concepts of the core rules.

 

I see no reason to move away from the I go you go system.

 

As much as I feel that a d10 based system would provide much more depth to a tabletop game, for the sake of simplicity I think d6 should remain the dice type.  Similarly I see no need to add or remove any characteristics from stat lines.  The point of this project is to create a better more balanced game, not one that looks nothing like 40k.

 

I like the phases that most editions of 40k has had so I see no reason to change the type or order of phases significantly.  I have mixed feeling about a separate psychic phase but overall it probably keeps things simpler if all psychic stuff happens in one phase.

 

As I said earlier, most random tables will be removed.  This means that things like psychic powers and warlord traits will have costs (with the least useful/ most situational being free).  However some random tables may remain like the random generation of wyrdboy powers.

 

Mission and deployment options hugely effect game balance.  My idea for how to approach missions is that each player will have a deck of missions that they draw from.  Each player will draw 3 cards from his deck and must chose one of those as his mission. he must only reveal his mission to the other player at the end of the game.  Yes this might mean that one player is trying to remove an item from several objectives while the other player is only concerned about kill points but in the relatively small portion of the battlefield that a game of 40k takes place in the chance that both armies want to accomplish the exact same thing is small.

 

Special rules are an important part of the game, but in recent editions there has been a bloat of both USRs and unit specific special rules, one of my goals is to reduce the number of both of these.

 

Lastly (for now) saves, I feel pretty strongly that invul saves should not be re-rollable.  I also feel that ignore cover should be accessible to all armies but that no army should have a super easy way of getting it.

 

Thoughts?


  • McFisty and Space Truckin like this
Follow the link to help make "A Better 40k"<p> http://www.bolterand...types-finished/
ETL_2014_Banner_V2_03D_Custos_Fidei.jpg

#20
Joasht

Joasht

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 2,489 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Chapter Name: The Emperor's Fury

 

I introduced a very simple solution to this some time back:

1) The game follows a single normal Force Organization Chart. So no allies/separate detachments/Unbound/etc. Pretty much the old 3-5th ed FOC.

2) While the FOC remains the same (e.g. 2 HQ, 3 Elite, etc), all codex choices become 0-1, except for Troop/Dedicated Transport that becomes 0-3 instead.

3) Ideally 1,500 points; which I believe is a sweet spot for 40k balance.


In my opinion the problem goes deeper than just the abandonment of the force org chart. And while I agree that 0-1 should make a comeback applying it to all non#troop choices is too extreme in my opinion.

 

Not really; it forces options and diversity means not only does the player get to experience different facets of his/her army, but it also opens up a ton of unit vs unit interactions with the opponent as well.

 

Essentially, each slot becomes a specific tool with a specific function. You can take something with a similar role, but it won't accomplish the same goal in the same way.



#21
Black Cohort

Black Cohort

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,930 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Chapter Name: Black Cohort


I introduced a very simple solution to this some time back:

1) The game follows a single normal Force Organization Chart. So no allies/separate detachments/Unbound/etc. Pretty much the old 3-5th ed FOC.

2) While the FOC remains the same (e.g. 2 HQ, 3 Elite, etc), all codex choices become 0-1, except for Troop/Dedicated Transport that becomes 0-3 instead.

3) Ideally 1,500 points; which I believe is a sweet spot for 40k balance.

In my opinion the problem goes deeper than just the abandonment of the force org chart. And while I agree that 0-1 should make a comeback applying it to all non#troop choices is too extreme in my opinion.
Not really; it forces options and diversity means not only does the player get to experience different facets of his/her army, but it also opens up a ton of unit vs unit interactions with the opponent as well.

Essentially, each slot becomes a specific tool with a specific function. You can take something with a similar role, but it won't accomplish the same goal in the same way.

While I understand where you are coming from, the point of my idea isn't to apply a simple fix to some problems, it is to start from the beginning and create a better if similar system.
Follow the link to help make "A Better 40k"<p> http://www.bolterand...types-finished/
ETL_2014_Banner_V2_03D_Custos_Fidei.jpg

#22
tdemayo

tdemayo

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 563 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA

I introduced a very simple solution to this some time back:
1) The game follows a single normal Force Organization Chart. So no allies/separate detachments/Unbound/etc. Pretty much the old 3-5th ed FOC.
2) While the FOC remains the same (e.g. 2 HQ, 3 Elite, etc), all codex choices become 0-1, except for Troop/Dedicated Transport that becomes 0-3 instead.
3) Ideally 1,500 points; which I believe is a sweet spot for 40k balance.

In my opinion the problem goes deeper than just the abandonment of the force org chart. And while I agree that 0-1 should make a comeback applying it to all non#troop choices is too extreme in my opinion.
Not really; it forces options and diversity means not only does the player get to experience different facets of his/her army, but it also opens up a ton of unit vs unit interactions with the opponent as well.
Essentially, each slot becomes a specific tool with a specific function. You can take something with a similar role, but it won't accomplish the same goal in the same way.
While I understand where you are coming from, the point of my idea isn't to apply a simple fix to some problems, it is to start from the beginning and create a better if similar system.
If you are going to build a game system from scratch, in my experience, you will first want to create the basic rules and determine the characteristics of the different forces. Test their mathematical interrelationships and behavior before attempting or testing a point system.

This is what I have been doing with the game I am designing at http://www.buildingabetterwargame.com. You might find it useful to look at my back posts and follow along with the process as I document the project.

Designing a whole game from scratch is quite labor-intensive, but I think it is the only way (at this point) you can get a tight, balanced replacement for 40k. Bear in mind too, that the 40k universe is GW's property, and they could ask you to remove your 40k game from the internet at any time. (At least in theory. Net Epic has been around for years.)

Edited by tdemayo, 29 May 2014 - 03:08 AM.

Call_of_Chaos_7_Banner_01f_zps8c8c944c.j


 


#23
tdemayo

tdemayo

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 563 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA
You might also wish to consider (if you have not already) what your game will do differently (and hopefully better) than 40k.

My game grew out of an attempt to adapt 40k to Flames of War. Eventually, I decided I wanted a whole new game, with my own universe.

I was really bothered by the fact that 40k does not represent modern fire and maneuver tactics very well. In 40k, models just stand there, getting shot and dying until 1) they run or 2) they are all dead. Only rarely are they pinned. In modern combat, however, weight of fire disrupts units, even if they don't suffer casualties. So many tactics involve fixing and pinning a unit with a rapid fire weapon, then moving another element close enough to make a kill. Elite units are elite because they better react to this sort of thing (they are better trained) not necessarily because they have better equipment. I decided these factors what I most wanted to model in my game, and what would make it different than 40k, even though my game would also involve space fantasy, armor, and big monsters.

I still toy around with using 40k armies in my game system, even though I'm working primarily on my own universe. The biggest difference is that machine gun like weapons, such as the heavy bolter have a powerful role distinct from weapons with less rate of fire (like plasma guns). Tanks are proportionately more fearsome, and the scale is smaller, closer to platoons than companies.

So what do you want your game to do different than 40k? What's your take on how the universe should be modeled in a game?

Call_of_Chaos_7_Banner_01f_zps8c8c944c.j


 


#24
tdemayo

tdemayo

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 563 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA

To get things rolling I will begin with some key concepts of the core rules.

I see no reason to move away from the I go you go system.

As much as I feel that a d10 based system would provide much more depth to a tabletop game, for the sake of simplicity I think d6 should remain the dice type. Similarly I see no need to add or remove any characteristics from stat lines. The point of this project is to create a better more balanced game, not one that looks nothing like 40k.

I like the phases that most editions of 40k has had so I see no reason to change the type or order of phases significantly. I have mixed feeling about a separate psychic phase but overall it probably keeps things simpler if all psychic stuff happens in one phase.

As I said earlier, most random tables will be removed. This means that things like psychic powers and warlord traits will have costs (with the least useful/ most situational being free). However some random tables may remain like the random generation of wyrdboy powers.

Mission and deployment options hugely effect game balance. My idea for how to approach missions is that each player will have a deck of missions that they draw from. Each player will draw 3 cards from his deck and must chose one of those as his mission. he must only reveal his mission to the other player at the end of the game. Yes this might mean that one player is trying to remove an item from several objectives while the other player is only concerned about kill points but in the relatively small portion of the battlefield that a game of 40k takes place in the chance that both armies want to accomplish the exact same thing is small.

Special rules are an important part of the game, but in recent editions there has been a bloat of both USRs and unit specific special rules, one of my goals is to reduce the number of both of these.

Lastly (for now) saves, I feel pretty strongly that invul saves should not be re-rollable. I also feel that ignore cover should be accessible to all armies but that no army should have a super easy way of getting it.

Thoughts?


I used an I go u go system myself, for my own game. But I think you might wish to consider other options more fully. You could look at LotR or Saga for examples. Force on force/tomorrow's war, too.

I think d6s are the way to go. Mathematically, using d10s instead of d6s does not create that much greater a spread in possible results. You can create much greater differentiation by following the initial roll with a second roll than by a imply increasing the size of the die type. 6 siders have numerous advantages - most players have buckets of them, and you can obtain them anywhere.

My problem with ignores cover, as a designer, is that it removes a major element of play. Essentially, maneuver becomes less relevant, as does interaction with the terrain. In my own game, I allow cover saves to be reduced, but never eliminated entirely. It keeps players interacting with the terrain.

Over all,I wonder if you are not thinking too small. The game you're describing seems like a minor modification of 40k. You should survey other games, sci if, or ww2 and modern, if you have to already. There is a much greater range of possibility to how a game can be constructed.

Edited by tdemayo, 29 May 2014 - 04:01 AM.

Call_of_Chaos_7_Banner_01f_zps8c8c944c.j


 


#25
Black Cohort

Black Cohort

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,930 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Chapter Name: Black Cohort
The main problem with games workshop's rules are details, the core foundation is fairly solid. So why start completely from scratch when I can strip down to a good foundation and rebuild from there. And deviating too far away will make the game harder to convince people to try. I have seen and played many other systems. If I wanted a relatively realistic game, I wouldn't be using the 40k setting for it.
  • McFisty likes this
Follow the link to help make "A Better 40k"<p> http://www.bolterand...types-finished/
ETL_2014_Banner_V2_03D_Custos_Fidei.jpg





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: rules, A better 40k

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users