Desire for an alternative rule set?

[Mauglum.]

Hi folks.
I have been loking through a lot of rule development forums latley , and most of the ones discussing 40k seem to want more 'realistic' rules.
EG they want to introduce proportional results, and elements of modern warfare like, moral effects, (supression etc,) command and control issues , scalable interactions etc.

Would a more straight forward tactical simulation based rule set be well recived by some 40k gamers?
A rule set that gives the players more options during the game , to improve the depth of game play in a simple way.

I know a lot of people like the strategy heavy focus of the current 40k rules .
But would their be enough interst in a more tacticaly focused rule set?

I would like a rough idea on how many people would be interested this type of rule set?

TTFN
Mauglum

[murrburger]

We actually had this, and it was Rogue Trader/Second Edition. It's complicated, sure, but the problem is it takes hours to finish a game and lots of different stats and crap to keep track of. (RT is worse for the latter).

Of course... 2nd edition had no game balance at all... and RT was an RPG. (You expect a bit more depth)

I think 40K is actually great the way it is. To me, it's a pick up and play game. The more rules to remember/tests to make, the more it slows the game down. It's better not to have complicated things, and keep the game easy to learn/hard to master.

[fuzbuckle]

I think 40K is actually great the way it is. To me, it's a pick up and play game. The more rules to remember/tests to make, the more it slows the game down. It's better not to have complicated things, and keep the game easy to learn/hard to master.

I have to agree. I came to 40K largely for the reason that I could play a game in under 2 hours. Previously, I played a great deal of battletech, but had to drop it since any more than a lance on lance game could take 4-6 hours or more. With a 2yr old and one on the way and a full time job, I no longer have whole days to devote to gaming, so if there was a vote, mine would side with keeping it as is.

[Gotthammer]

Yeah, 40k at the moment is not designed to play that way, nor does the background support it - for hard sci-fi I'd play Stargrunt or Hammer's Slammers.

[Melissia]

Dunno, if I want an in-depth roleplay, I'll go get Dark Heresy. Or if you want more marinewank, go play deathwatch.

[Nabterayl]

Every now and then I get the urge to play a version of 40K that better represents the fluff. I think the reason you only ever see gamers asking for that, though, is that 40K is already pretty abstract and streamlined. You can't really ask for a less complex 40K ruleset.

[Mauglum.]

Hi folks.
I think you may have misunderstood what I meant.
The current 40k has very simple game play yet comparitivley complicated abstracted rules.
There are loads of excelent RPGs and skirmish games.
The current 40k game is NOT either of these types of game.

The 40k game is about unit interaction,(pg 3 rule book.)

The units in 40k are similar to modern warfare type units.

Therfore alot of players belive that the units should conform to preconcieved ideas about this type of unit/warfare perhaps?

The current 40k rule set has a very heavy strategic bias, and perhaps some gamers might like more of a tactical simulation?

A simple simulation takes far less rules to describe ,than a complex abstraction!

(EG Firefly covers 45 army lists over 700 units and full competition rules for ground and air units in 100 pages.)

Eg 40k takes 14 pages to explain how to move models across the playing area.(Including all the special rules.)
Most rule sets I use only use 2 pages at the most to cover all movement rules.

The WHFB rules are not suitable for the 40k game play IMO, thats why GW have used more exceptions (USRs, special rules,)than there are basic rules!

Is there a basic rule in the 40k rule set, that is not contradicted /broken /altered by a USR or a specail rule?:D

I belive it would is possible to have a far simpler rule set that delivers more gameplay than the current 40k rule set.;)

Would there be any interest in a more straight forward, tactiacal simulation type rule set?

Just an inquiry to guage the amount of interest.

TTFN

[Rissan4ever]

I'm interested in seeing what you could come up with. Some elements that are missing from 40K:

Force Morale: The current morale system is on a squad by squad basis, with no account of the fact that a unit's morale is also affected by how much of the total force is left on the field.

Suppression Fire: This is a staple of modern combat. You lay down lots of fire to keep the enemy from moving. This is sort of approximated in 40K by the Go To Ground rule, but it's left up to the player, rather than the unit itself.

Overwatch: This rule existed in 2nd edition, but disappeared in 3rd. It allowed you to hold a unit's fire until the enemy moved into line of sight.

Charge Reactions: When you have a gun, and a maniac with a sword comes running at you, you shoot him. Yet, in 40K, you stand there and let him run at you. That makes no sense.

Fluid Turn Sequence: Real combat is a swirling melee of units reacting to one another on a constant basis. 40K's full turn by full turn sequence doesn't reflect this at all.

[Melissia]

Suppression is supposed to be represented by pinning, but almost nothing does pinning reliably and at good cost. The only thing I can think of is a Psyker Battle Squad in an Imperial Guard army reducing leadership for the purpose of making it easier to pin.

[DarkLink]

Overwatch: This rule existed in 2nd edition, but disappeared in 3rd. It allowed you to hold a unit's fire until the enemy moved into line of sight.

Charge Reactions: When you have a gun, and a maniac with a sword comes running at you, you shoot him. Yet, in 40K, you stand there and let him run at you. That makes no sense.


Well, there's no charge reactions in theory because the unit getting charged was distracted shooting at something else and got caught by surprise. However, the inclusion of overwatch would cover this as well.

Overall, I'd like to see shooting get a real boost. As it stands, outside of the Guard, shooting isn't very efficient at killing people in most cases. Not nearly as efficient as close combat, for the most part.

[Mauglum.]

Hi again.
IF you agree that a modern warfare simulation could be the basis for a NEW 40k rule set.

Then a completly new rule set with more suitable game mechanics and far fewer resolution methods would be needed.

I have a basic outline for a straightforward modern warfare simulation , we use as a inroduction into modern wargaming.(With suitable modification depending on game scale.)

It may be suitable for conversion to 40k?

But it is focused on tactical interaction, so some people may not like it !:eek:

It does require putting ONE counter next to every UNIT in the game ,(either an 'order counter' or a 'moral damage' counter,)And performing some simple addition and occasionaly subraction.

Eg A units Moral Grade is a value between 1 to 5 , they have to roll over on a D6 , to pass a moral check.
Positive influnces like being in cover, add to the dice roll score.
Negative influnces like being supressed, add to the moral grade of the unit.

All interaction ,apart from physical damage resolution, is handeled at the unit level to speed up gameplay.

Should I post the basic outline in the rules development forum ?

Would it be better to post the ideas bit by bit, or the whole thing in one go, then explain how and why afterwards?
(It is 14 pages of text.)

I realy just wanted to see if there would be any interest in a new rule set in this general 40k forum, before posting anything in the rules development forum.;)

Thanks for the feedback so far.:cool:

TTFN.

[Mauglum.]

HI .
I have posted my rough outline in the homebrew rules forum.
If you want to have a look and post and questions-sugestions-constructive critisisms, I would be gratefull.

TTFN

[Valkerie]

I'm interested in seeing what you could come up with. Some elements that are missing from 40K:

Force Morale: The current morale system is on a squad by squad basis, with no account of the fact that a unit's morale is also affected by how much of the total force is left on the field.

Suppression Fire: This is a staple of modern combat. You lay down lots of fire to keep the enemy from moving. This is sort of approximated in 40K by the Go To Ground rule, but it's left up to the player, rather than the unit itself.

Overwatch: This rule existed in 2nd edition, but disappeared in 3rd. It allowed you to hold a unit's fire until the enemy moved into line of sight.

Charge Reactions: When you have a gun, and a maniac with a sword comes running at you, you shoot him. Yet, in 40K, you stand there and let him run at you. That makes no sense.

Fluid Turn Sequence: Real combat is a swirling melee of units reacting to one another on a constant basis. 40K's full turn by full turn sequence doesn't reflect this at all.

I've had a lot of fun with Stargrunt II. It has most of what you are looking for. The rulebook is no longer for sale, so you'll be "forced" to go to the Ground Zero Games website and download a free PDF copy. It's also set up as a generic game, so it can be used with any models. In fact, they state that right in the game itself.

The main reason it's not played at my LGs is twofold: it plays completely differently from 40K, and it's not GW. Even some people who most complain about GW rules don;t want to play anything but GW. Go figure.

[odinsgrandson]

Thanks for the tip, I'll be taking a look at Stargrunt.

On the other hand, there are a number of other games out there, each of them has a very different focus from Warhammer 40,000. One of the most intriguing science fiction games right now is Infinity.

A lot the game mechanics for Infinity make the miniatures game play like Gears of War (ie- hug the cover, and if you move, you're exposing yourself a little). A lot of the game is about positioning your troops.

[Col.Gravis]

Or you could just pick up a copy of the 2nd edition rules from some source or another and have at it with those rules, they still work really well for small skirmish games, and as long as both players agree to avoid making it a simple game of hero-hammer and avoid the strategy cards it's still a great game, personally I indulge in it every now an again.

Just because it's an old edition it does'nt mean you can't play it - and the books are cheap.

[Mauglum.]

Hi again.
Yes there are loads of exelent skirmish games .Stargrunt II, Chain Reaction III, No limits (all free to down load,)Infinity, At43, BFE, etc.
However , there appear NOT to be any good rule sets to cover the 'detailed battle' game 40k appears to be set at.
(I mean good as in intuitive and elegant rules , not how to inspire impulse purchases with cool sounding specail rules ...:D)

The current game size of 40k is too big to use minature focused skirmish rules.(No matter how abstract GW make them.)

A simple simulation of modern warfare, giving DETAILED UNIT interaction is far less complicated , and easier to learn.Compared to 40k current rule set based on WHFB rules , and abstracted to a nonsensical amount.

I thought some players would prefer a straightforward tactical simulation rule set for 40k.
I could be very wrong?:confused:

ttfn

[TSINI]

I think you could go as mad as you wanted with your own rules set to make 40k more realistic.

you would have to ignore balance to begin with. realistic wars of this nature are going to be impossible to make.

but you could use them to recreate historic style events in 40k history etc.

I myself would love a full scale 40k game at over 3000 points a side, with no coherancy rules, no FOC, a more complex shooting system (infinate range of bullets for example, with high tech scopes and stabilisers for accuracy over long distances ((think what you can do nowadays with an old enfield rifle)) etc)

maybe a more complex morale system, and "autonomous" troops - rolling dice to make sure the troops do what you asked them to do, and go where you meant for them to go.



40k in itself though is a fine game system, its simplicity is the key to its ability to be bent and twisted and built upon by us simple folk :D

I was once chatting to a games manufacturer about their system, they heralded it as "like 40k, but with a more complex morale system" - to be perfectly honest, the morale system is the only bit about 40k i don't like, making it more complex just seems like a minefield in game smoothness terms.

If you're going to make the game more complex, expect it to double/triple in time to play it, you could end up with inquisitor on an unplayable scale.

[Mauglum.]

Hi TSINI.
I am aware of alot of 40k players quoting 40k being a simple game.The game play is straight foward I will agree.

But the 40k rules set is over complicated for what it does.(Far to many exceptions to the rules make the rules over complicated.)

I started from scratch an wrote an outline for a new rule set in a few months.(In my spare time.)Remenber 40k has been developed by a team of proffesional game developers for decades.

Complex game play can be achived with very straight forward easy to follow rules .(Blood Bowl, for example.);)

Simple game play can be covered with very complicated rules ,(40k for example.:D)

My out line for the complete game system , takes up less pages than 40k uses to explain unit types and movement...

In 40k you waste a lot of time making unecissaary dice rolls.(IMO.)

If resolution is handeled at the unit level not the model level(apart from physical damage), this speed up play conciderably.

And this is where you can ' buy time' for more detail.;)

Detailed 'unit focused' interaction , as opposed to 40ks 'abstracted model focused' interaction.

Why does 40k use so many different resolution methods?(7)

My system uses 2.(Rolling high is good.)
Roll D6 to beat a target score.
Roll D6 to beat a comparative value.

TTFN