Blood and Thunder - your wishlist

[Mask]

Allright, a week ago I posted this thread (http://www.40kforums.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=55819) in which I declared my intention to write a Rouge Trader-eque skirmish ruleset for 40k and Warhammer Fantasy, based primaraly on the Necromunda game system, although modified. Not terribly original, maybe, but it's not trying to be. I've given it the workname "Blood and Thunder", because going around saying "Combat Patrol the Game" got real old real fast. I don't really have anything to show for it yet, but work has progressed and with a bit of luck I figure that I'll have a playable version of the ruleset done before newyear.

Now, the first thing I noticed when I talked about my idea was that people contacted me and wanted to give me input, generally about stuff that annoys them in 40k. Which was very useful. And, hell, I figured I might as well tap into the collective annoyance of this forum for the greater good.

So, right, my question to you all is; What annoys you about 40k? What was better before, or should just be diffrent alltogether? Doctrines back? Veteran Skills? Anything, really?

[Vampirion]

Most definitely veteran skills back, if you are doing a skirmish type game its a must!

What has annoyed me since 2nd ed. is the fact that WS plays a way too minor role nowadays. I mean, you can never hit better than on 3+ and even your average IG guardsman hits your eldar Autarch or GK grandmaster on a 4+ even though they are probably some of the most skilled combatants in the 40k universe! Difference in WS needs to show in combat more clearly.

Also, some rules for making strategies more varied, etc. might be interesting (based on strategy rating or something else entirely) because 40k at the moment relies solely on the player choosing units with very fixed rules sets. For instance, players could choose from alternative approaches to missions like stealth, go in guns blazing, diversionary tactics, etc. This could affect something like giving X number of units infiltrate if you chose stealth vs. special equipment if you chose the direct approach and so on.

One other annoyance is the fact that (besides wargear) you can't really customize characters to have special rules if you don't use ready made special characters. Maybe put in some kind of trait system where you could buy special rules for characters with points and alternatively make them cheaper by buying disadvantages?

[Mask]

What has annoyed me since 2nd ed. is the fact that WS plays a way too minor role nowadays. I mean, you can never hit better than on 3+ and even your average IG guardsman hits your eldar Autarch or GK grandmaster on a 4+ even though they are probably some of the most skilled combatants in the 40k universe! Difference in WS needs to show in combat more clearly.

Well, since the system I'm building is mainly necromunda-based I don't think this will be much of a problem. In Necromunda each fighter rolls 1D6 for each attack, adds the highest roll to WS and compares to the opponents result. The one with the lowest result suffers a number of hits equal to the diffrence. So a WS 7 model would only loose to a WS3 model if the weaker model rolled a 6 and the more skilled rolled a 1.


Also, some rules for making strategies more varied, etc. might be interesting (based on strategy rating or something else entirely) because 40k at the moment relies solely on the player choosing units with very fixed rules sets. For instance, players could choose from alternative approaches to missions like stealth, go in guns blazing, diversionary tactics, etc. This could affect something like giving X number of units infiltrate if you chose stealth vs. special equipment if you chose the direct approach and so on.

Hmm, like the strategems from Cities of Death, sort of?


Most definitely veteran skills back, if you are doing a skirmish type game its a must!

[....]

One other annoyance is the fact that (besides wargear) you can't really customize characters to have special rules if you don't use ready made special characters. Maybe put in some kind of trait system where you could buy special rules for characters with points and alternatively make them cheaper by buying disadvantages?

I think veteran skills and special rules are essentially the same thing, so if one is availabe there is really no reason why the other shouldn't be. I'm not going to go nuts on the special rules, though, and more keep them in line with the veteran skills and Universal Special Rules and so forth. Powerful abilities are a bitch to balance.

About the trait thing; Having been involved in the writing of several rpgs I'm wary of disadvatage-systems. It generally only results in everybody having the disadvantage with the least impact on the game, like Short, Mute or Disfiguring Facial Growth or whatever. I think just trying to balance the cost properly is a better idea.

Oh, and thanks for the input! More where that came from! :)

[Cho-Konnit]

Well, since the system I'm building is mainly necromunda-based I don't think this will be much of a problem. In Necromunda each fighter rolls 1D6 for each attack, adds the highest roll to WS and compares to the opponents result. The one with the lowest result suffers a number of hits equal to the diffrence. So a WS 7 model would only loose to a WS3 model if the weaker model rolled a 6 and the more skilled rolled a 1.

Yeah, that is 2nd Edition combat...

[Mask]

Well, since the system I'm building is mainly necromunda-based I don't think this will be much of a problem. In Necromunda each fighter rolls 1D6 for each attack, adds the highest roll to WS and compares to the opponents result. The one with the lowest result suffers a number of hits equal to the diffrence. So a WS 7 model would only loose to a WS3 model if the weaker model rolled a 6 and the more skilled rolled a 1.

Yeah, that is 2nd Edition combat...

Yeah, Necromunda is basically RT/2nd edition. I just thought I'd clarify for anyone reading that hadn't read the older rules. Part of the motivation of this project is to show the youngsters a bit of how the game used to be. I only know of it because my older friends have shown it to me, and everybody haven't got such luck.

At any rate, though, the older style of combat was a lot more brutal than the current system, especially since you could often recover from shooting wounds but not from CC wounds.

[ForlornAmour]

Uh...my problems with Necromunda were:

1. Plasmaguns = best gun in game.
2. Shotguns with multiple ammo. No thank you. Bolt ammo made them better than boltguns.
3. Good territories helped far too much compared to bad ones.
4. Sustained fire. Needs fixing.
5. Grenades. Ha. Bad system for them.
6. Leveling curve meant some of the most insane gangers ever. I recall quite vividly the 18 attack, 3 wound, WS 6, and powerfist wielding ganger that came up from a juve. He was unstoppable. Wounds makes a BIG difference.
7. Being "Down and out" if you lost your final wound in CC and were alone. There needed to be a cleaner kill instead of the curb stomp. It always felt like combat wasn't two-sided. I really wanted us to kill each other, or for them to have to invest in defensive items so they don't risk getting a lucky hit taking them down each CC.

And I think my points are pretty valid since I was one of the best (if not best) Necromunda players at my LGS. I'm modest too.

My problems with 40k:

1. Vehicles. Still doesn't feel like they fill the desired roll on the battlefield.
2. Kill points. But this shouldn't come up in a combat patrol. Or might work better actually. 3 for the leader, 2 for any elites, 1 for any grunts.
3. Balance issues. Very evident at low point levels. You'll have to tweak point values if you allow Space Marines, etcetera.

Pardon my grammar/spelling. In a rush. There is most definitely more, but that's a sample because you might not feel the same or whatever and I just wanted to help however I could.

[Fce Cmmr Sangre]

I don't really see vehicles coming in at a Blood and Thunder level except perhaps as objectives. Also, I don't think we can claim much in the way of campaign mapping.

Balance is everything. I rather feel that when the core ruleset is over and done, the real proof of the game is going to be in the lists - which I think should be very, very different to the equivalent 40k lists.

[Mask]

3. Good territories helped far too much compared to bad ones.
6. Leveling curve meant some of the most insane gangers ever. I recall quite vividly the 18 attack, 3 wound, WS 6, and powerfist wielding ganger that came up from a juve. He was unstoppable. Wounds makes a BIG difference.

These won't be a problem since I'm not planning on introducing a campaign system in the core ruleset, and as such no advancements or terretories.



1. Plasmaguns = best gun in game.
2. Shotguns with multiple ammo. No thank you. Bolt ammo made them better than boltguns.
4. Sustained fire. Needs fixing.
5. Grenades. Ha. Bad system for them.


I've felt similarly, acctually. While the 40k system of weapons might be a tad simplistic, Necromunda suffers a bit from trying to do everything at once, causing some oddities. Also, some things don't work out to well in a less backstreet setting and would just bog the game down a lot if shifted to a slightly larger scale, like ammo rolls, the grenade system, and possibly the Sustained Fire system too. All of these, and some more, are going to get looked into and either dropped or revised.



7. Being "Down and out" if you lost your final wound in CC and were alone. There needed to be a cleaner kill instead of the curb stomp. It always felt like combat wasn't two-sided. I really wanted us to kill each other, or for them to have to invest in defensive items so they don't risk getting a lucky hit taking them down each CC.

I'm not sure I understand this one. Is your objection against the fact that the winner of a fight suffer no negative effects, while the looser suffers a truckload of them?




2. Kill points. But this shouldn't come up in a combat patrol. Or might work better actually. 3 for the leader, 2 for any elites, 1 for any grunts.
3. Balance issues. Very evident at low point levels. You'll have to tweak point values if you allow Space Marines, etcetera.

I never really liked kill points either, so I haven't really thought about them. I figure that I'll focus on the Victory Point aspect a bit more. Regarding balance; Yes. While I would love to make the perfectly balanced game, there's probably going to be quirks to tweak all over the place. Regarding Marines, I figured I'd make the Core rules, followed by rules for human factions like Imperial Guard, Lost and the damned and the inquisition, followed by Space Marines and CSM, and then ultimately Xenos.



1. Vehicles. Still doesn't feel like they fill the desired roll on the battlefield.


I don't really see vehicles coming in at a Blood and Thunder level except perhaps as objectives.

Actually, I think that vehicles could fit rather well, but they'd be much more of an awesome presence. To translate into 40k terms, a Dreadnought would essentially be a Super-heavy, and the Rhino would be a Land Raider. I'm currently thinking about using a Warmachine-esqe system of, well, systems and damage boxes, only without damage carrying over between columns. That way you could make a system that feels very inorganic and guarantees that tougher vehicles are rather buff.



Balance is everything. I rather feel that when the core ruleset is over and done, the real proof of the game is going to be in the lists - which I think should be very, very different to the equivalent 40k lists.

I've started scetching on these already, acctually. Mainly as a bi-product of writing the rules, of course, but I've sort of started to make out a system that's pretty intuitive and easy. Basically the layout is sort of like how you buy units in 40k, only on model-by-model basis, and each "entry" is a certain Unit type.

Example:

XX - Imperial Guardsman
Unit type: Imperial Guard Basic Infantry
[statline]
Standard Equipment: Lasgun
• A Guardsman may replace its lasgun with one of
the following;
Free - Laspistol and Close Combat Weapon
XX - Flamer
XX - Grenade Laucher
XX - Meltagun
XX - Plasmagun
XX - Heavy Flamer
XX - Sniper rifle
• A guardsman with a lasgun may be equipped with
a Vox Caster
•A guardsman may have one of the following;
free -Flak vest...
XX -Flak armour
XX -Carapace armour
etc. etc.

Replace XX with points cost.
As far as a structure goes I think this is a pretty good one, because it's easier to balance. If the basic guardsman becomes to powerful with the plasmagun you just raise the cost of it rather than altering the plasmagun. Also, using Unit Types allow for me to write some rules that neatly simulate squad rules without acctually having them. :D

[ForlornAmour]

7. Being "Down and out" if you lost your final wound in CC and were alone. There needed to be a cleaner kill instead of the curb stomp. It always felt like combat wasn't two-sided. I really wanted us to kill each other, or for them to have to invest in defensive items so they don't risk getting a lucky hit taking them down each CC.

I'm not sure I understand this one. Is your objection against the fact that the winner of a fight suffer no negative effects, while the looser suffers a truckload of them?Sorry, my brain failed the test there. Bluntly, close combat was VERY one sided in every situation I ever saw. Whoever "won" got a number of hits depending on how bad they whooped ass. The other guy? Wormfood. No retaliation no matter how battle hardened.

Now I know this could be considered "decisive" and it definitely made you worry about risking your gangers in an up close fight! BUT!! I saw that this discouraged close combat from all but the best equipped and skilled. And combats either wound up in crazy massacre situations or stalemates that lasted several turns.

Make sense? Not sure I did. :?

(Side note: I would like to suggest you try the Fantasy approach of the charging unit strikes first rather than the +1A.)

[Mask]

Sorry, my brain failed the test there. Bluntly, close combat was VERY one sided in every situation I ever saw. Whoever "won" got a number of hits depending on how bad they whooped ass. The other guy? Wormfood. No retaliation no matter how battle hardened.

Now I know this could be considered "decisive" and it definitely made you worry about risking your gangers in an up close fight! BUT!! I saw that this discouraged close combat from all but the best equipped and skilled. And combats either wound up in crazy massacre situations or stalemates that lasted several turns.

Make sense? Not sure I did. :?

(Side note: I would like to suggest you try the Fantasy approach of the charging unit strikes first rather than the +1A.)

Hmm... I see what you're getting at, there should be some way for both fighters to go down. Hard to do within the necromunda system, though.

About the fantasy approach; I'm going to try to implement some things from the fantasy system. Charger Always Strikes First is being considered, but honestly one of the things I liked about the Necromunda combat system was that it wasn't like playing tennis with one part politely waiting for the other to be finished before attacking.