Switch Theme:

Oh god why? A 40K practice in pain.  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in ca
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife





Hello! I'm currently working on a turn/round system for 2-6 players that keeps each player in the game fairly often, and morale system for the game with a rather disparate array of how certain units and creatures react when their morale is broken. The game is going to be mostly used as a war game, but I'm hoping to make the system diverse enough for other things should players choose to adapt it (what comes to mind immediately is something like Railroad Tycoon).

The turn/round system is fairly simple, as it's based on a solid principle (Phases and Active Players). My only worries for it are getting bogged down in the resolution phase - it has turned out to be a non-issue so far, as it only affects one or two small things, and really amounts to "a player rolls a couple dice for effects dice just before the next player starts."

To begin the game, players decide on (or roll for randomly) what sort of initial setup they'll have - anything from the classic "two lines run at each other," to more freestyle "put your forces in this area" like warhammer. Objectives will be based on another choice or randomization - This part doesn't really need help, as I can pull from the tried and true objectives that time has given us wargamers.

Once the initial setup is determined, Players roll off on 2D6's to see who goes first. This can be either at the beginning of the game, or at the start of each round in the beginning phase, depending on who has the fastest units available (as the if player 1 has the fastest character at the beginning of the game, there is no one to contest him until that character is dead!) and the winner of the roll-off gets to pick who goes first (himself for immediate play, or another if they want to sort of play the down-wind).

Players deploy their forces in activation order, and then the game begins with the first player.

In the beginning phase, players bring in resources from off-board if they have any, apply any blessings or curses if they have them, and attempt to regroup any of their units that have broken morale. Units can perform other actions, but this is the main schtick of the beginning phase.

The other phases (the tactical and Close Combat phases) provide similarly name-appropriate actions, such as shooting and moving and leading a charge - all that fancy warfare stuff - and then the Resolution Phase is something that was inspired much more by M:tG than wargaming.

The Resolution Phase happens between each activation - when the active player passes off, anyone whose assets changed during that players' activation goes ahead and resolves whatever morale (or other) effects have been applied to their units. This is intended to keep players' units from acting in a phase where they should be fleeing in terror, or charging in rage - i.e. it's used to update the game in pseudo-realtime.

The Damage System is somewhat inspired by Heroes of Might and Magic, and somewhat by Warhammer - though it's far more reliable, and can even be done without dice if players want. The attacking player rolls a D6 for each 'attack', and depending on the target's ranged or close combat Defense, that attack will only hit on a certain result (usually 3 or 4, but in rare cases 2/5, and in extreme cases, automatically hits, hits on a 6+, or can't hit at all). Each attack profile has a certain damage listed, and all of the damage from attacks at the same Armor Penetration value is added together. So, if a unit with 3 big guns and 3 small guns shoots at a target they hit automatically (say, the broad side of a barn), you would add up the damage from the big guns and the damage from the little guns separately.

Afterward, the part inspired by HoMM, is the 20-Tic; damage is broken into chunks of 20, and compared to Armour - effectively making armour penetration and armour into direct 5% modifiers for the damage. Heavily armoured vehicles and knight-tropes will be practically immune to weapons like small guns (though 1 damage for each 20-Tic is guaranteed, to speed gameplay), while big guns will have their effectiveness reduced against lightly armoured targets, as Armour normally can't go below 0.

The damage that goes through this system is subtracted from the units' durability (Basically a Health buffer) and when durability reaches 0, that unit loses 1 Health (humans have only 1 health!) Of course, units with 0 health die.

To add to this, units can be composed of multiple parts, like an infantry platoon or a swarm of bugs - similar to warhammer and HoMM. So, as the unit loses wounds, its effectiveness goes down.

It's... not as clunky as it looks. Dividing into 20-Tics is fast, and comparing Armour to AP is effortless. Most of the damages are in multiples of 5, as is durability, so what you end up with is a system that takes numbers like 345 (17 tics, we ignore the 5 unless AP+Dmg>Arm, as it will otherwise be negated) and tells you how much actual damage you take from 35% of that (119, into a durability of 5, is 23 dead humans and 1 lucky survivor!) in a couple simple steps.


The real problem I've been having has been implementing a proper morale system; On the one side, I have wargamers from historical wargaming wanting heavy suppression systems, which would greatly favour players who like fielding lots of small units (who can thereby simply suppress everyone else and take over). On the other side, I have players who dislike any form of morale, preferring to have brave and fearless heroes who stride through gunfire and carnage without flinching.

I decided to look to tropes for a nice, round variety of what kind of morales to include, and came up with the following system: Each unit has a grade of morale, from cowardly, average, good, excellent, and Fearless. (C,A,G,E,F). This determines how easily a unit will FAIL a morale test, which is simple enough. But then there's also the issue of the disparity between creatures - You don't expect a Soldier to break morale in the same way as a Space Bug does - The Soldier will run towards friendly troops or a supply line, or find a bunker to dig-in. A Space Bug will charge the enemy lines, or simply burrow where it is and hibernate. So then I had to devise modifiers;

Normal (what you'd expect humans to do), Heroic (For those shining paladins of light), Predatory (for the space bugs, and other creatures that you'd expect to get all in a tizzy), Craven (they'll run away, but if you stop chasing them they'll stab you in the back), and Robotic (Pretty much just shuts down).

The problem is - I don't have an actual mechanic for it. Should I do it like Warhammer, where a value is compared to 2D6? Or like FoW where it's on a single D6? Should I introduce other dice sizes, and use a set "Morale!" value, with each better grade of Morale getting a bigger die to roll against it?

tl;dr - Does anyone have experience in dealing with variable morale penalties (and how to apply them) in a system where units will be taking a broad range of damages? The basic idea is that I'd like small amounts of damage or casualties to affect groups less, while larger amounts will affect them more and more. (If possible, I'd also like to develop a system where large amounts of incoming fire will demoralize a unit, even if they don't take much damage from it)

I'll probably be expanding this post to gain feedback on the activation and actions system, as well as the unit profile blocks I'm hoping to use if I can get past these initial humps. I don't really have any worries about the game becoming 'too complex' as the player base is mostly into games with mechanical depths to plumb (mtg players and such). But I would like to make it feel somewhat warm and elegant, in comparison to the cold, sharp mechanics of mtg's "Comp Rules."

Thanks for reading if you got through that!

Edit: The following definitions were going to be spoilered, but the spoiler on this forum simply invisible's it, instead of putting it into a neat little tab.

Each Model has its own Statistics profile, made up of 11 Stats. The easiest way to relate to these Statistics is by looking at those of a human – More specifically, a Guard.

Name: Guard
Mv:5 Cs:5 St:5 At:1 Rs:5 Ev:5 Ag:5 Du:5 Hp:1 Ar:5 Mr:A/N

The Guard represents a human after a strict training regime – he is strong, fast, and tough. He obeys orders. Further explaining these Statistics, the next few paragraphs will compare a Human to the various creatures and races present in WARGAME

MOVEMENT (Mv):When determining how far a creature can move in general, the Movement Statistic is consulted. The higher the Movement, the faster a creature or vehicle is. A Guard has Mv 5, meaning he can Move up to 5”. Something more faster, like a Horse, might have Mv 8, allowing it to rapidly out-pace and out-maneuver our ground-pounder. Different forms of movement, such as Flying or Teleporting, will be described in the Movement section.

COMBAT SKILL (Cs): Combat Skill defines how skilled and vicious a warrior is with his weapons in close combat. The higher the score, the more likely the warrior will land blows on an opponent in close combat – and the more likely it is to dodge! Our Guard has Cs 5, a product of constant practice and drilling, while a Barbarian with decades of battle and training behind him will have WS 8!

STRENGTH (St): Strength shows how physically strong a creature is. St is mostly used for special rolls, such as escaping traps or moving objectives. For some creatures, St even tells us how hard they can hit in close combat. Guards have St 5, which, while not worthy of any awards, will let them escape a wrecked vehicle or wedge an axe into a foe!

ATTACKS (At): In the short amount of time each Close Combat Phase represents, most Guards only have time to let off a desperate chop or stab with whatever's at hand, or perhaps they're able to fire a couple shots with their pistols, or stuff a grenade down something's throat. The Attack value is how many attacks a creature makes in Close Combat.

RANGED SKILL (Rs): Ranged Skill shows how accurate a creature is with Ranged Attacks, such as bows, guns, or rockets. The higher this score is, the easier a creature finds it is to hit its target. The training provided to Guards with their Rifles grants Rs 5 – a deadly Elven Archer has much more of its training focused on accuracy, and much sharper eyesight – and so has BS 10.

EVASION (Ev): Evasion dictates the ability of a creature to avoid detection on the Battlefield – and their ability to dodge heavy zones of gunfire, incoming mortars, and other hazards from afar. Guards, with Ev 5, have a fair chance at dodging gunfire – especially once they've hit the dirt! However, Wraiths move throughout the Battlefield as dancers, drifting insubstantially through gunfire and flame with their obscene Ev 10.

AGILITY (Ag): A Model's Agility tells us both how agile and alert it is, and how quickly it reacts in the heat of battle. A Guard's AG 5 lets him be wary of many foes, at least enough to chuck a grenade and duck before a horde of Wolves (with I 8) are upon him! Ag dictates the order that Units are activated in, and the order Attacks are resolved at.

DURABILITY (Du): A creature's Durability tells us how much direct damage it can take before being injured. It's a combination of thick hide, stubborn willpower, and combat high – whether from adrenaline, or fouler substances. A Guard's Du 5 makes them great at protecting their Sergeant when present in numbers, as there's a lot of flesh to soak up any stray bullets that might happen his way! A Battle Tank might have Du 30, simply absorbing and ignoring most damage!

HEALTH POINTS (Hp): Simply put, when a creature runs out of Hp, it becomes a casualty. This doesn't always mean it's dead! It simply has no more fight left to give, and is removed from the Battlefield to reduce clutter. Some creatures, like Minotaurs, fight better when they've lost a number of Hp, their blood and pain spurring them onward – but our poor Guards have only 1 Hp to give.

MORALE (Mr): A Model's Morale shows us how well trained and resolute it is. The most complex Statistic, Mr has many modifiers that will alter how your Models and Units interact with the variety of situations to be found on the Battlefield. Following the trend, a Guard's Mr of A/N means he has an Average Morale, and reacts Normally when his Morale breaks. A feral Savage might have a Mr of F/P, which means he's Fearless, and breaking his Morale will only result in causing him to become even more Predatory!

ARMOUR (Ar): The best defense is to not be in the way of whatever's coming to kill you, but failing that, a sturdy suit of Full-Plate will do just fine! Unfortunately, Guards are equipped only with Leather Vests, and sent directly to the front line to protect the cavalry. Their Ar 5 means that only a small portion of Incoming Damage will be blocked before it rips into them – the mighty Ar 18 of a Knight Errant will block almost all incoming damage!

ZERO-LEVEL STATISTICS: Some models will have 0 for a Statistic; this means different things for different Statistics, and will be discussed later. Having 0 is different from having '-' for Statistics; a dash indicates that that Statistic is simply not used, such as Cs for a Bunker, or Mv for an outpost.

BRINGING IT ALL TOGETHER: The end product of a Model's Statistics is its Unit Profile. The Unit Profile lists how big that Unit can be, what types of Models it can be built with, or upgraded into, and what Wargears, Special Rules, and Unit Types it contains. Sample Profiles can be found later on when we discuss building your Army.

UNITS: In WARGAME, Warriors must fight together, or be eradicated – individuals are usually hunted down for sport, or manage to flee towards friendly lines. It's heartening having comrades with weapons on either side of you!

This is represented by Models being grouped together into Units – Models and Units are affected differently by different things, but often things that affect Models count as affecting Units – after all, if the guy beside you gets shot, you could be next!

In the long run, though, this relative safety allows your Models the freedom and breathing room to follow your commands better than they would alone – It also helps them find cover, enemies, or treasure better – two sets of eyes are better than one, after all!

Units represent the range of places your Models can be, and not their exact locations. To represent this, Models in a Unit are allowed to spread out, to within 2” of each other, in order to better protect them from explosions and traps, as well as to give them better firing positions or set up path-blocking ambushes.

MEASURING DISTANCES: In WARGAME, distances are measured in Inches (“). You may measure any distance at any time, with any method considered accurate and unobtrusive by every player involved.

This allows you to see if you're in range before you Shoot or Charge; after all, your Models are Soldiers and experienced generals who can easily gauge such things in the heat of battle.

When measuring distances between two Models, or between a Model and a location, always use the closest points of the Models'For Models supplied without a base (like some large vehicles) use the Model’s Hull or Body instead. When measuring distances between two Units, use the closest Models in each unit as your reference points.

So, for example, if any part of the Base of any Model in one of your Units is within 6" of the Base of a Model in an enemy's Unit, your Unit is said to be within 6" of that enemy Unit.

Sometimes a Game Effect will call upon a Unit or Model to move “Directly Towards” something, be it a Table Edge or another Unit. In this case, draw an imaginary line from the rough center of the Unit or Model, and move it along the line in the direction indicated until it's met the request of the Game Effect.

DICE (D6): In a Warhammer 40,000 battle you often need to roll dice to see how the actions of your Models turn out – how effective their shooting is, what damage they’ve done to a vehicle, and so on. Almost all of the dice rolls in Warhammer 40,000 use standard six-sided dice (usually referred to as ‘D6’), but there are some exceptions as noted below.

ROLLING A D3: In rare circumstances you may be told to roll a D3. Since there’s no such thing as a three-sided dice, use this method for determining a score between 1 and 3: Roll a D6 and halve the score, rounding up. Thus, a result of 1 or 2 is 1. 3 and 4 are 2 and 5 and 6 are 3.

SCATTER DICE: Some weapons are fairly random in their accuracy and require you to roll a scatter dice to determine where their shots land. The scatter dice is marked with arrows and special ‘HIT’ symbols, and is usually used to determine random directions for BLAST weapons or deepstriking.

DIVIDING RESULTS: Whenever you're called upon to divide a dice roll by some number, such as in half or by quarters, always round resulting fractions up. So, for instance, a roll of 3 halved is 1.5, rounding up is 2. 10% of 21 models is 2.1, rounded up is 3.

MODIFYING DICE ROLLS: Sometimes, you may have to modify the result of the dice roll. This is noted as D6 plus or minus a number, such as D6+1 or D6-2. Roll the dice and add or subtract the number to or from the score to get the final result.

For example, D6+2 means roll a dice and add 2 to the score, giving a total of between 3 and 8. Bases as your reference points.

You may also be told to roll a number of dice in one go, such as 2D6, 3D6, and so on. Roll the indicated number of dice and add the results together. So 2D6 would be rolled and added together, giving a result of 2-12.

Other methods may call for a number of D6 multiplied by another number – such as D6x5, which would result in a number between 5 and 30.

RE-ROLL: In some situations the rules allow you a ‘Re-Roll’ of the dice. This is exactly as it sounds – pick up the dice you wish to re-roll and roll them again. The second score counts, even if it means a worse result than the first, and no single die may be re-rolled more than once regardless of the source of the re-roll.

If you re-roll a 2D6 or 3D6 roll, you must re-roll all of the dice and not just some of them, unless the rule

ROLL-OFFS: If the rules require Players to roll-off, this simply means that each Player rolls 2D6 and the Player that scores the highest result wins the roll-off. If the Players roll the same result, both Players' dice must be rolled again until one Player is the winner – an exception to the regular rule for re-rolling dice.

RANDOMIZATION: Sometimes you'll be called upon to randomly select something – often a model, but sometimes an item or psychic power, etc. When this is the case, simply assign a D3 value to each of the things to be randomly selected, and roll a die to make your random choice. If you have more than 3 things to select from, simply use D6 values and a D6 instead.

If you have more than 6 items, simply divide the items as evenly as possible into groups of 3, randomize between the groups, and then randomize again on the selected group! You may scale this process up as necessary.

COCKED DICE: It's generally good form to allow Cocked Dice to be re-rolled (counting as having been re-rolled!). This includes dice that have landed in any manner that prevents them from being properly read by either player.

If you find that a lot of dice are being cocked due to your terrain or Battlefield setup, it may be best to begin rolling in a tray or shoe-box lid. Cocked Dice include any dice which have fallen on the floor, though some player prefer to simply count floor-bound dice as automatic failures!

BLAST MARKERS AND TEMPLATE WEAPONS:
Some weapons are so powerful, or affect such a wide area that they don't just target a single Model, but many Models, or sometimes entire Units! To better represent these weapons, WARGAME uses the following:

- A 3” “Small” Blast Marker
- A 5” “Large” Blast Marker
- An 8” Teardrop Template.

Copies of these Markers and Templates can be found both online, and at the end of this document. They are used whenever you need to determine how many Models have been affected by a Blast or Template weapon.

When an Attack or Ranged Attack uses a Blast Marker or Template Weapon, the description of that attack will state how to properly position the Blast Marker or Teardrop Template, as well as how to alter its position due to Scattering or other movement that might occur.

To determine how many models are affected, simply hold the Blast Marker or Teardrop Template in place as immobile as possible, and count the number of Models underneath it (including Models only partially underneath!) This number is used for whatever Game Effect the Blast Marker or Teardrop Template was used for, be it Mortar, Flamethrower, or Battle Blessing.

SCATTER: Sometimes a Game Effect will call for an object to Scatter – this object can be anything from a Blast Marker, to a Model, to an entire Unit! When this occurs, follow this procedure:

1) Follow the Effect's instructions for how to place the Object.

2) Roll the Scatter Die, and the number of D6 indicated by the Effect, to determine the direction and distance that your object must Scatter.

3) If a Hit! is rolled, normally the object is placed right where you've put it! Some Special Rules may interfere with this luck, however.

4) If an arrow is rolled, the object Scatters; it moves the indicated distance, ignoring intervening objects (unless otherwise stated).

5) Once the object has Scattered to its final position, resolve any additional Effects as a result of this Scatter.

VEHICLE PROFILES: WARGAME is home to all sorts of contraptions, ballistae, and other combat vehicles from every faction. To reflect the differences between creatures of flesh and blood and constructs, vehicles have many special rules that belong to them alone, which can be found in the Vehicles Section.

STATISTICS TESTS: During a battle, a Model might have to test one of its Statistics, normally its Strength, Durability, or Agility. For example, it might have to tests its Ag to avoid being crushed in a Vehicle Wreck.

Situations that require Statistics Tests will have a number associated with them called a Target Score - In order to take the test, roll a number of D6s specified by the test, and add the relevant Statistic. To succeed, your combined result must meet or beat the Target Score.

One thing to remember for Statistics Tests is that when a Model with a Statistic of 0 (or -) is called to make a Test on that Statistic, it always fails! Some Statstics Tests will have other Effects, which will be described by the Special Rules calling for them.

When an Effect calls for a Statistics Test to be made against an entire Unit, always use the highest value for that Statistic in the unit. It's assumed that the most suited for each task is there to lend a hand when needed!

MODELS WITH MULTIPLE PROFILES: When a Model has multiple values for a Statistic, it always takes Statistic Tests on the Highest value.

MODIFYING STATISTICS: Sometimes, Special Rules or Wargear will alter a Model's Statistics. One example is the Gauntlet of Power, which doubles its the Strength of a model who wields it – another is the Special Rule, Reckless Fury, which provides a set bonus to a Model's Strength, at the expense of its Combat Skill. Finally, there are Battle Powers, like Weaken, which set a Model's Strength directly to 1!

When applying modifiers to Statistics, or indeed, in general, follow the following rules:

1) Multiply first! Any Effects which Multiply a value are always applied immediately. Always round up unless a Rule specifies not to.

2) Add and Subtract! When multiple Effects grant positive and negative modifiers, they cancel each other out; only the remains of the largest modifier are left.

3) Finally, apply any Set Value modifiers, such as Weaken. Sometimes, there will be more than one Set Value wishing to apply to a Unit.

This is where Timing comes in – Once you've determined which Effects apply to each of the 3 steps above, The modifier applied Most Recently has priority in that step – it will be applied after all the others, and this will be the Effect we see used.

If two Effects are applied at the same time, the Active Player decides which Effect ultimately prevails. If, for some reason, this still doesn't resolve an issue, the modifier which is most beneficial to the affected Unit is applied.

If there's STILL any doubt as to which modifier is being used, simply Randomize between them.

Tests on Morale: Tests made on or against the Morale of a Model or Unit have many different names, as there are different ways to test a creature's resolve. These tests are explained in greater detail in the Morale section.

GENERAL VS. SPECIFIC: WARGAME is a game of allowance. The Rules enable your Models and Units to do things during the course of the game, such as Move and Shoot and Capture Objectives.

As such, there will occasionally be overlaps in the Rules, where it seems that a Model can or can't do something that might seem odd, or counter-intuitive.

When this is the case, remember that Specific Trumps General – If a Rule states that “Boys get Cake,” then all of your Boys will get Cake!

However, if the Rule states that “Good Boys get Cake”, then only the Boys you have that are Good get Cake – the rest are not entitled to any Cake because they do not meet the requirements for it.

Another, more counter-intuitive example of this is Shooting: Some Weapons may be able to Shoot Units their firers they can't see directly - Since the General rule is, “Units can't Damage Units they can't see,” even though there's a rule allowing these Weapons to Shoot them, they still won't Damage them without another supporting rule saying that they can.

To be fair, most of these Weapons will have such rules, but others might require Spotters and the like.

MAJOURITY STATISTICS: In some cases the majority of a certain Statistic in a Unit is used. If every Model in the Unit has the same value, the majority value is easy to determine – it's that value!

However, if the Unit consists of Models with different Statistics, an alternative must be used

- If at least half of the Unit’s Models have an equal or better value than the worst value in the Unit, this value can be used as the majority value of the Unit. If there are several such values, the Player controlling that Unit can choose any of them.

For Example: An Elven Unit consists of three Treants, with Du 15 and one Tree Singer, with Du 4. All Models have Du 4 or better, and 3 out of 4 have Du 15 or better. Both Du values would be eligible to be the Majority value of the Unit. The controlling Player chooses Durability 15, as it makes the Unit much more resilient.

UNIT TYPES: The abilities of a Model are not only described by its profile but also by its Unit Type. Most notably the Unit Type of a Model tells you in which ways the Model is able to move. In addition, it assigns a number of special rules to the Model. The Unit Types are described in detail later.

LINE OF SIGHT: Line of Sight is primarily determined by your Model; Non-Vehicle Models are assumed to be agile enough to get a good view around them at all times, and as such can see in any direction, any time.

The easiest way to determine roughly what they can see is to close in on the Battlefield for a Model's-Eye view; using a camera phone or even simply poking your head close to the angle of the Model to get an idea of what's blocking your Model's sight.

This Line of Sight is used to determine what Units can claim Cover from Battlefield debris and obscuring ruins, as well as other intervening Models and Units. Note, however, that a Model's own Unit never counts as obstructing its Line of Sight in any way – treat them as if they were invisible for this purpose!

A Model is Obscured if at least 25% of its Body or Hull can't be seen due to anything in the way. A Unit is Obscured if at least 25% of the Models in that Unit are Obscured.

GAME TURNS AND ACTIONS: Everything a Model does on the Battlefield is part of an Action. Actions are split up between the four Phases – Beginning, Tactical, Combat, and Resolution. This cycle is called a Game Turn, and as you might have guessed, starts at the Beginning. Phases will be described in this section, along with the main Actions that can be performed in them.

At the start of the each Game Turn is the Beginning Phase, and at the start of the Beginning Phase, you determine the Active Player, who proceeds to interact with the game in a process called Activation.

Activation passes Clockwise from the Active Player – In games with many players, canny Players will often place themselves later in the queue of Active Players, in order to gain tactical information at the cost of their Units' well-being.

During Activation, the Active Player chooses one of their Units that hasn't been Activated yet in the current Phase, and performs any available Actions with it. Each Phase has a number of available Actions to choose from, and any Actions not listed here will have a Phase associated with them for clarity. Once a Unit has no more available actions, the next Player becomes Active Player.

In the Beginning Phase, there are very few Actions available to most Units; Units in Reserve can attempt to come in from Reserve, and Units on the field can Wait, or End their Activation. A list of Actions that Units can perform each Phase will follow this summary of each of the Phases.

In the Tactical Phase, the Active Player may Move, Run, Shoot, and perform actions that are variations of these, such as Ramming or Diving for Cover.

In the Combat Phase, the Active Player can declare an Assault, or fall back, or even resolve special attacks or abilities – like Overwatch or Bracing.

The Resolution Phase is special – it happens after each Activation, right in the middle of the other Phases. It lets Players keep their Units up to date as the Turn goes by. After each Activation, a Resolution Phase allows players to assess any Effects applied to their Units, such as from casualties or Special Rules. No Actions are taken in the Resolution Phases – each Player simply applies any effects that happen “Upon Resolution” in Activation order, and then the next Activation begins!

Exceptions: Sometimes a Player may wish for a slower Unit to Activate before their Units with higher Initiative; in this case, the slower Unit makes an Initiative Test with a Target Score equal to the Initiative of their fastest Unit.

Alternatively, any Unit may perform a Wait action. Units that Wait are Activated dead last – as if their Initiative was 0.

Phase Timing: There are a many things which can happen over the course of each Phase, and certain Actions, Rules, or Effects will refer to things happening at specific times – such as the Beginning, the Start, the End, etc. For our purposes, the Beginning and Start of a Phase are considered to be the same thing.

If various Effects, Rules, or Actions would happen in the same timing, the Active Player resolves them in this order:

1) Static Unit Abilities or Effects which are not Psychic*

2) Blessings and Maledictions

3) Other Psychic Powers

4) Units entering the Battlefield from Reserves

5) All other Actions

If there are multiple Actions, Rules, or Effects which fall under the same category, the Active Player dictates which one happens first.

*A Static Ability is something that happens autoamtically, all the time – things like Characteristics Profiles and Special Rules that provide bonuses all the time are Static Abilities and Effects.

ACTIONS: Actions describe most of the activity your Units will be performing – whether they're Shooting or Falling Back. Actions are presented in the following format:

ACTION NAME
Phase: Which Phases this Action is available in. Members: Determines whether individual Models, or entire Units perform this Action.
Restrictions: All Members wishing to perform this action must not be affected by these restrictions.
Details: The rest of the Action's Details are described.


THE BEGINNING PHASE: The first thing Players do each Beginning Phase is Roll-Off. The victor of this Roll-Off chooses who will be the first Active Player during this Game Turn. The Beginning Phase provides the following Actions: End, Regroup, Reserves, Wait. Certain Special Rules and Unit Types will grant other Actions during the Beginning Phase.

END
Phase: Any Members: Entire Unit
Restrictions: None

Details: The Unit finishes its current Activation, and may perform no more Voluntary Actions this Phase

REGROUP
Phase: Beginning Members: Entire Unit
Restrictions: If Unit Morale is Broken, at least 25% of the Unit's original size must still be alive.

Details: The Unit immediately takes a Morale Check to remove Suppression.

RESERVES
Phase: Beginning Members: Entire Unit
Restrictions: Must be a Unit in Reserves

Details: The Unit enters the Battlefield according to its Reserves Type. It counts as having already Moved in the proceeding Phases.

WAIT
Phase: Any Members: Entire Unit
Restrictions: The Unit must not be Falling Back, Pinned, or have taken any other Actions yet this Phase

Details: The Unit takes the rest of its Actions at Initiative 0 this Phase

Explaining the Terms: Some of the terms above are new. Morale Checks, Reserves, Suppression Modifiers, Voluntary Actions – these have yet to be explained. After each Phase's description and Actions, we'll explain any new terms, or tell you where to find them.

Some of these terms have many of their own Rules and Effects, or are more appropriately explained elsewhere. If this is the case, a short summary of the term will be provided here, along with a Hyperlink to where you can learn more.

(So far, this is all I have; I've got the basic of which actions I'd like to have in each phase, as well as a few units ported over for playtesting.)

BoardGameGeeks wrote:

Dylan Green
(Jackhalfaprayer)
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmb
Total shooting from the hip here:

What if there were a menu of morale failure effects that could happen to your units. Maybe it's on your faction's play-sheet. Maybe it's on the back of the unit card. A roll of the dice (I would recommend using the same core mechanic as you do for everything else) answers the question "Does this guy chicken out and panic" and, depending on how the roll went the "attacker" (The big scary space bug who is doing the frightening) would get to pick what the result was. If it was a mixed result, the defender (the noble space marine) could "reserve" an option (take it "off the table" for this exchange), and then the Space bug could choose one. If the defender won the roll, maybe he would have a "rally" effect that could come into play.

That's kinda messy... Let me try to explain it this way.

RUN COWARD!
When you want to frighten your enemy roll 2D6 + your SCARY - Target's BRAVE. On a 10+ pick 2. On a 7-9 Target removes an option and you pick 1. On a 6- Target may use it's Rally Action.
*Target cannot move.
*Target cannot attack.
*Target suffer DEFENSE -X
*Target cannot offer support fire


Thumb up
tip
Thumb up

Posted Today 2:58 pm
QuickReply

QuickQuote

Reply

Quote

Chris Mazur
(Chrisrawr)
msg tools
new user
That's actually really nice; That way I could list all the common morale effects in the core rules, and simply state "Your Unit's Morale Type will tell you which ones to use."

With this, you can also have the modifiers all start really small, such as "Target's movement is reduced by 1" " instead of "target cannot move", and as more and more SCARY effects stack onto a unit (as it fails to rally and such), that unit becomes less and less useful.

So to run with your example,

RUN COWARD!
Your enemy is afraid of your attack! Enemies are afraid of attacks that hurt them (deal unsaved damage). Roll 2D6 + (SCARY modifier based on total damage done), and apply a number of effects to suppress your opponent.

And then have options such as,

Opponent's Morale:
Poor (You gain 1 SCARY if your roll is 7 or better, and another SCARY for each 2 your roll exceeds 7).

Average (You gain 1 SCARY if your roll is 8 or better, and another SCARY for each 3 your roll exceeds 8.

and so on; and then the Morale Types would list effects that you can spend SCARY on. Opponents then make Morale Checks of exactly the same type, with the modifiers switched - the better a unit's morale, the easier it removes scary effects.

I'll tool around with a few of these!

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2012/07/24 02:56:53


Pit your chainsword against my chainsw- wait that's Heresy. 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control





Silver Spring, MD

I'm liking it so far, keep it up!

One thing to point out, though. When doing unit-by-unit activation, if you only allow units to perform one Action at a time before switching to the next player, you will quickly lose track of which units have performed which actions in anything but a small game. I would honestly combine "Movement" and "Tactical" into one phase, "Tactical", and give each unit two Actions. This would cut down on the number of markers and such involved by a great deal, I would think.

I know it's a big change, but games with alternating activation that I've played always involve finishing out the actions for one unit before moving on to the next, and not returning to that unit later in the turn (until hand to hand combat anyway). This speeds up play and reduces confusion and still makes for some interesting combinations of Actions you can perform.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/04/06 18:18:40


Battlefleet Gothic ships and markers at my store, GrimDarkBits:
 
   
Made in ca
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife





Tactical was originally everything that wasn't beginning, assault and resolution. It's not difficult to change it back; I don't have a lot of the actions finalized yet. It also lets me condense Run and Shoot back into 2 sides of the same coin, something I think is necessary.

Pit your chainsword against my chainsw- wait that's Heresy. 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control





Silver Spring, MD

Good deal, I like the direction this is going. If you want any help with this, I'd be happy to contribute. It sounds like there's going to be a LOT of playtesting and rewriting of codices involved in this.

While this is still at an early stage, I suggest incorporating suppressing fire and overwatch/reactive fire in the rules from the ground up. There really needs to be a mechanism for pinning and suppression (and those should be two different things - pinning = reduced movement/shooting, suppression = no movement/shooting) for a game to have any sort of recognizable fire-and-maneuver tactics.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/04/06 18:54:40


Battlefleet Gothic ships and markers at my store, GrimDarkBits:
 
   
Made in ca
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife





Overwatch is one of the Basic Actions; it replaces Assaulting and (Consolidation Movement, for some units which have that). It's going to have some restrictions that disable it from simply being an extra shooting phase for a lot of units (There will be units, like ratlings, pathfinders, rangers, scouts, etc., that get to take advantage of firing normally and firing in the overwatch phase) but generally Overwatch will just be Reactive Fire with some fancy bonuses depending on when (which phase) you use it in.

I'm stealing from Fantasy a bit, and from 6e a bit, and from common sense a bit for pinning.

There's going to be Fearless 1, 2 and 3. Fearless 3 will literally not give a gak about anything and so help you god if you think they were going to give a gak because there will be no gaks given here.

Fearless 2 will be immune to things like Casualties, Snipers, and big scary dudes. It'll still be slowed by solid walls of bullets, but just barely.

Fearless 1 will be your standard, "Ignores casualties, can't be pinned, has seen some gak and doesn't give a flying -". It will be negate-able by some things, and other things will just ignore it.

Pinning will work similar to how it does now - Various penalties will be applied depending on the SOURCE of the pinning (such as Sniper Rifles or Ordnance or Psyker Powers), but it's more or less going to remain a blanet "Get your heads down and stop doing gak until the bad stuff goes away."

Suppressive Fire is trickier; It's going to be represented by a trade-off: Before you fire, you can choose to trade prospective Wounds (before Toughness Save) to force a Morale Test against losing movement. You trade Wounds for Inches at a 1-1 ratio, and Wounds for Ld Penalties at a 1-1 ratio. However, you must bid at least 4 Wounds, and you must still deal a wound for each wound you bid. That is to say, if I have a blob of 30 Guardsmen firing at 10 Marines in the open, 10 inches away! Uh oh, I'm in charge distance! I can look and see that I have a decent chance of slapping out 10 wounds; I'll bid 5, 4 to lower Leadership and 1 to reduce movement by 1! The Lasgun is S4 AP1 against T6 Sv6 - I hit on 4's, and require 5's to defeat his armour, I get 30 hits, and 10 wounds. The marines roll an 11 for morale, failing! They now have all movement reduced by 1" for the turn. (these aren't finalized Lasgun Stats. I'll probably have it Rapidfire 2, which is Fires Twice if stationary at full, and 3 times within half range!)

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/04/06 19:39:28


Pit your chainsword against my chainsw- wait that's Heresy. 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control





Silver Spring, MD

Different levels of Fearless sounds good to me.

The other stuff I have a bit of a problem with. I'll do my best to spell it out constructively.

Pinned, Suppressed, and Broken should all be on a continuum of results that can happen when a unit is shot at enough. You can call the various stages whatever you like, I base mine partly on Art Conliffe's Crossfire rules (look them up if you haven't heard of them, THAT's what Morale in 40k should be based on, not Fantasy rules - no offense).

So you come under fire from any type of weapon. If your unit freaks out just a little, they might be Pinned, meaning they have to keep low, but they can still operate with reduced effectiveness, and they get a bonus to their cover save or what have you. If the weight of fire is sufficient, or it's a particularly nasty type of weapon, or casualties are incurred, or maybe they get a Pinned result twice in a row, they are Suppressed instead. Now they can't move or fire at all, but they get a bigger bonus to their cover save from enemy fire (like Pinning works in 40k). If casualties are bad enough, or if you take even more fire while you're already suppressed, THEN you might break and run, and not a moment sooner. Your first instinct upon taking fire is NOT to turn and run, making yourself a bigger target, but to hit the deck and stay there.

Also like I hinted, this should flow naturally from ANY source of shooting, and you shouldn't have to gamble away potential wounds for the chance to keep the enemy's head down. It's innovative for sure, but somebody ducks whether you're shooting to kill or shooting over their head. Let your troops shoot to kill and then see if the enemy ducks of his own accord.

********

So here's what I've always envisioned for something like this:

1. Enemy declares they are shooting your unit. You apply some sort of simple test, like counting the number of shots fired, and compare to your unit's susceptibility to being pinned (number of models/number of wounds, or leadership value, whichever is higher) to see if you have to take a Pinning test. Some weapon types might force an automatic Pinning test (like Barrage weapons) and some might come with a leadership modifier, or count their # of shots double (Ordnance weapons come to mind). All those specifics are open for discussion.

2. You take your leadership test before the enemy even rolls to hit. Accuracy and lethality is not as important here as getting enough lead in the air to make you hit the dirt, whether voluntarily or out of fear. If you fail, you're Pinned. Maybe if you fail badly enough, you're Suppressed instead. Or if you're already Pinned, and you fail a second Pinning test, you're Suppressed.

3. Now roll to see the effects of the enemy's shooting. If the target was Pinned/Suppressed, that's going to give you a better cover save, just like in 40k.

As for effects, Pinned units might lose one Action in their next Activation, Suppressed units might lose both. You can have them rally automatically, but personally I prefer them using those missed actions to roll a leadership test to Rally in their next Activation, potentially keeping them in the dirt longer and letting you shift fire elsewhere.

You certainly don't have to do it just like this, but I think the basics are really important for getting a "modern" wargame to work right. Just by virtue of shooting at the enemy, you have a chance to Pin them and reduce their effectiveness, and the worse the shooting, or the more units that shoot, the more likely it is they're Suppressed instead. Nothing special should be required to achieve this, other than you trying to kill them, and them not wanting to die.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/04/06 20:21:59


Battlefleet Gothic ships and markers at my store, GrimDarkBits:
 
   
Made in ca
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife





I definitely see where you're coming from, but 40K is more of a cinematic game than that; This would result in whichever MSU army went first simply suppressing you for the rest of the game, and that's not necessarily the most intuitive, despite how much closer to real life it gets xD I think that those sorts of things are covered under the basic Ld and Movement stats already; it's assumed that your units are operating at a decent level of efficiency despite the apocalypse around them. I'll definitely be looking at the effects and how to apply a scaled pinning system, but it needs to be paid for in points cost somewhere, and the sniper rifle and te units that take sniper rifles are not them.

Also, dunno if I mentioned, but cover saves are a simple hit negation and to-hit modifier, with potential cover save (usually 5-6) assigned to them. What this means is that cover can be used like ablative models with a small beneficial saving throw - the save is insubstantial enough that you might wish for more a lot of the time, but the hit negation can really come through; I wanted to stay away from flat hit-reduction like fantasy because it really punishes heavy shooty armies with low BS like Tau and Orks and footguard, while does little against marines and gk and eldar.

The reason you gamble dollars to doughnuts with what I'm trying to do is because it 'feels' fair - I'm trying to incorporate some removal of anti-fun into the design principle, and getting nice things that your opponent feels you dont deserve is definitely anti-fun.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/04/06 20:38:11


Pit your chainsword against my chainsw- wait that's Heresy. 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control





Silver Spring, MD

I understand the point about being cinematic, but currently that's all 40k has going for it. It's pretty much the furthest thing from a tactically demanding wargame you can get, and a large part of that has to do with everything in the game flying around a cramped board at breakneck speed or appearing from nowhere, with no way to slow it down or counter it short of killing it dead. It devolves into a big game of rock-paper-scissors-meltagun-landraider, where it's just a matter of lining up the right units against the right other units and letting loose. "Tactics" as such emerge from the technicalities in the rules, and the rules themselves aren't even well grounded in the fluff, much less reality.

As long as you're re-writing things from scratch to include more finely graduated stats (which I like), more realistic armor penetration (which I like), clearer definitions of special rules etc (which I like) and alternating unit activation (which I really like) you may as well try to ground the game a little more in reality, such as that's possible.

Since you have players taking turns activating individual units, you're free to include things like pinning and suppression as a natural result of shooting rather than a situational trick to pull once in awhile. It doesn't matter which player gets the first turn, at most they *might* affect one enemy unit, and then the other side gets a chance. It's tit-for-tat, as it should be, since this is all happening simultaneously in theory. What you get is a few turns of jockeying for position and trying to suppress the enemy, pinning them down and maneuvering under your own covering fire before closing in for the kill. It's miles better than what we have now, where a super-alpha-turn-1-strike can basically cripple half your army.

Even MSU armies, who might gain an advantage in having more game pieces to activate and maneuver, are also more susceptible to being pinned down by superior firepower and less likely to pin the enemy due to their small unit sizes.

Coupled with your more detailed infantry statlines and some rules that make transport vehicles less like mobile fortresses and more like potential deathtraps, and I think you'd have a pretty interesting little company-level infantry wargame going.

In the end though it's your deal though, you can write it however you like. I just think if you're really going through the trouble to rewrite the game, you've gotta lay the groundwork with mechanics that best represent the sci-fi setting, and then write in the flavor afterwards, rather than the other way around. Set it up so it feels realistic and inspires real military thinking, so a guard-vs-guard engagement plays out like a good, tactically rich WWII wargame. Then since you're writing from scratch, you can make it so Space Marines are tough and brave enough to really stride across that deadly battlefield, or tyranids are fast and fearless enough to cover the distance under fire, or Eldar are maneuverable enough to embarrass the clumsy Guard, or Orks can charge in a green tide while a bewildering array of goofy weaponry suppresses their enemy. That, in my opinion, would be a much more fun and impressive game, and who cares if it doesn't cater as well to the middle school crowd.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ok I totally apologize for the rant haha. I didn't realize I'd written so much. I've said my piece, I'll stop derailing your thread!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/04/06 21:27:10


Battlefleet Gothic ships and markers at my store, GrimDarkBits:
 
   
Made in ca
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife





No no, that's perfect reasoning and exactly what I'm looking for; I have no qualms about expanding the tactical array of 40K, it just needs to be done in a way that doesnt reduce one player's fun too much.

I've got morale to be much more consistent while on 3d6, so there's lots of leeway to apply large modifiers to it. I've got the game in general looking a lot faster, which might be part of why I believe that having a larger system devoted to making your enemies do less is not the right direction.

We could have the pinning scale lower BS and Movement (outside of a morale test to Run) by certain amounts based on a number of morale tests failed; but we need to keep rolling to a minimum, the system has to be intuitive, and it has to be simple to determine if you've triggered it or not.

Looking closely at your system, we can reduce it to something like this:

During the Tactical Phase, when a Firing Unit inflicts more Hits than the number of Models in the Target Unit, the Target Unit may become Pinned. First, it takes a Pinning Test. This is simply a Morale Test to begin with, but each time a Unit takes a Pinning Test, a -2Ld Modifier applies - The 3rd Pinning Test is taken at -4, the 4th at -6, etc. If the Pinning Test is passed, nothing else happens.

If the Pinning Test is failed, the Unit becomes Pinned(1) for the Turn, and makes an immediate Compulsory Duck Action. Fearless units are Immune to the effects of Pinned(1), but apply the status to them in any case. For each subsequently failed Pinning Test, apply the next highest iteration of Pinned.


we can work out pinning effects I suppose?


Pit your chainsword against my chainsw- wait that's Heresy. 
   
Made in ca
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife





@Calgar; reading a lot of your stuff in other threads that I agree with - Psykers are going to be safer from normal Perils (3 6's on 3d6 is tough!) but psyker saturation and even certain powers are going to increase the chance of perils or other effects. Perils is going to have an optional table in the Homebrew suggestions section (default off, players have to agree on it before the game).

I'd actually almost want to add in a system similar to warmahordes character power points; psykers get a certain amount of points they can use each turn on their various abilities. I also want to introduce some basic abilities each psyker can do (A basic strength hit, a basic 6+ invulnerable save within 6", any other suggestions?)

For transports, I won't go quite as far as your suggestions - I want to speed up the game, but I don't want to have such binary resolutions. Unhappy effects should all have scaling resolutions and a chance to 'save' against by the suffering models' owning player. Despite its power, Jaws of the World Wolf has a very solid design. The player using it rolls to use it. The player it affects rolls to save his models. What rolling to wound does is allows for a complex math equation determining average models removed to be broken into easy to understand steps

But I digress - A system was proposed that I very much enjoyed;

Glancing Hits now only reduced by -1. AP1 by +1 still. Beating the Penetrating roll by 4 is +1, 6 is +2, 8 is +3, etc.

1 - Shaken. Additional shaken results Stun the crew.

2 - Minor damage. The vehicle loses its fastest speed for one round - this result stacks. If a vehicle cannot move because of this, it is Immobilized. IF it is already immobilized, it is stunned. If it is already stunned, remove a defensive weapon. If it has no defensive weapons, remove a weapon of the attacker's choice. If it has no weapons, it is wrecked.

3 - Damaged. Remove the vehicle's defensive weapons if any. If there are no defensive weapons, remove a weapon of the Attacker's choice. If there are no weapons, immobilize the vehicle.

4 - Immobilized. The vehicle can no longer move. If an immobilized vehicle suffers Minor Damage or Damage, it loses its defensive weapons. If it has no defensive weapons, it loses a weapon of the attacker's choice. If it has no weapons, it is wrecked instead.

5 - Wrecked. The vehicle becomes a wreck, Page XX. Passengers disembark as described by the Wreck entry.

6 - Explodes! The vehicle explodes, leaving a crater in its place. Passengers are placed on the table in its wake. (Also explain the d6 explosion radius, etc). Models inside suffer a number of hits equal to their unit size, at a strength of half the vehicle's AV rounding up. Models outside of the vehicle or in an open topped vehicle instead suffer these hits at a strength of half the vehicle's AV, rounding down, minus 1. The unit that was being transported then suffers the same penalties as a unit that had been transported by a vehicle receiving the wrecked result.

Wreck - same as now, except the unit is pinned(1) (suffers the compulsory Duck action (-1BS, movement, +1 hit negation).) and must pass a leadership test at -2 or become Pinned(2) (BS and Move reduced to 1, +2 hit negation, fearless units now suffer from pinned(1)).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/04/07 19:09:39


Pit your chainsword against my chainsw- wait that's Heresy. 
   
Made in ca
Lurking Gaunt





Allot of solid ideas here, I like the number of options available.
   
Made in ca
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife





Still working on converting the rest of pancake edition; I find its rules base is more solid and easier to convert.

Pit your chainsword against my chainsw- wait that's Heresy. 
   
Made in ca
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife





Multiple-wound models
Especially tough and heroic individuals as Space Marines or horrendous alien monstrosities such as Tyranid Hive Tyrants, can sustain more damage than ordinary troopers and keep on fighting. To show this, they have more than one Wound on their characteristics profile. When such a Multiple-Wound Model suffers an Unsaved Wound, it loses one Wound from its profile.

Once the model has lost all of its Wounds, it is removed as a casualty (so a model with 3 Wounds would only be killed after it had been suffered 3 Unsaved Wounds). Keep track of how many wounds a creature has left on a piece of scrap paper, or by placing a Dice or marker next to the Model.

INSTANT DEATH
Even though a creature might have multiple Wounds, there are plenty of weapons in the 41st Millennium that are powerful enough to kill it instantly! If a Model suffers an Unsaved Wound from a weapon that has a Strength value that exceeds its Toughness by 4 or more, it loses an additional Wound from its profile. If the Strength exceeds the Toughness by Six or more, the Model loses an additional Wound on top of that. For every 2 more the Strength exceeds the Toughness, an additional Wound is lost.

These Wounds cannot be saved – they're subtracted directly from the Model’s profile, because they result from an already Unsaved Wound. This has no effect on Models with a single Wound, as they are removed as casualty anyway. If a Model loses more Wounds than it has left, the surplus Wounds are discarded - they do not count toward any purpose. For most Models, this means that they suffer quite literally an instant death. It can be imagined they are vapourised, burned to piles of ash, blasted limb from limb or otherwise mortally slain in a suitably graphic fashion.

Example: a Space Marine Captain is Toughness 6 and has 5 Wounds. Ordinarily, he could survive being Wounded many times before he was removed as a Casualty on the 5th Unsaved Wound he suffers. However, if he were to have the misfortune to be wounded by a Chaos Dreadnought’s power claw (Strength 16), he would lose Four Wounds, because the Weapon’s Strength exceeds his Toughness by 10 – A most crushing blow to such an icon!

EXOTIC WEAPONRY
In rare cases, weapons use a different Characteristic than Toughness for the roll to Wound, for example Leadership or Strength. In this case, use this replacement value to see whether the Model suffers Instant Death or not.

CRITICAL HITS
Some hits are extremely lethal so that protective wargear is of no use. These critical hits are inflicted by exploding vehicles, the devastating weapons of a Titan or when a warrior is rammed by a tank. Other hits do not breach the defenses of a warrior but circumvent them instead - be it the ethereal strike of a psyker, quick sand, entangling roots or other hazards. Any attacks that have Critical Hits available to them will note so in their profiles.

You do not have to roll to hit or wound for a critical hit. A model suffers automatically a single wound. Only invulnerable saves can be used to prevent this wound. If a unit suffers a number of critical hits, the owning player of the target unit allocates the wounds as normal.




HITS AGAINST MODELS
Some weapons target individual Models instead of Units. This ability is very powerful, because the attacker has complete control over which Models are removed as casualties! If a Weapon, Special Rule or Psychic Power explicitly states that the Attack Targets a Model, treat this Model in every regard as its own Unit. For example, it does not use the Characteristics of the Squad Leader, it does not benefit from Universal Special Rules that it does not possess personally, it receives the benefits of Cover if it is concealed by models that aren't part of his Unit, it never uses the Unit’s majority value for cover, Toughness, or Weapon Skill. The Unit cannot perform a Look Out, Sergeant Action to save the Model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Changing some things about Wounding, to make the whole process more intuitive and much less arbitrary.

Wounding
Wounds are also resolved in an Allocation process, called Wound Allocation. It happens within the same Save Group used in Hit Allocation. To continue our above example, the Marines Save Group (5 Marines with Power Armour) have suffered 2 Wounds. The Neophytes Save Group (5 Neophytes in Carapace Armour) have suffered 3 Wounds. We now make our Toughness Saves – where the raw Will to Live, the mounds of flesh and muscle, or simply the luck of a flesh wound will determine if your models live or die.

To perform a Toughness Save, simply roll a Toughness Characteristic Test. A chart depicting the necessary Target for this test, depending on Attack Strength, is found on Page XX. The Target Unit's Owning Player Allocated Wounds, Model by Model, suffered by each Save Group. In this case, all 5 Marines are Identical (they have matching wargear and characteristics). He assigns them to a Marine in the back; when Allocating Wounds to Models with Multiple Wounds, special rules apply (Found on Page XX). The same happens to the Neophytes which are in a similar situation.

The Strength of a Bolt Gun is 6. A Marine has a Toughness of 6, and a Neophyte has a Toughness of 5. Using the Chart, we can see that the Marine will need a D6 roll of 4 or better to tough it out, and the Neophyte will need a 5+. Remember that sometimes, a Model may find itself extremely lucky. All D6 rolls of 6+ before adding Toughness are considered to have passed this final Test. Some special rules will cause a Model to fail against its Wound on specifically low rolls – a Sniper Rifle will always cause a -1 Modifier to the Roll, meaning Models can't normally Roll a result of 6. Others, such as Fragmentation Grenades, will allow for more luck than usual, applying a +1 modifier to this Roll, which allows many models that would normally bite the dust to find themselves standing, dazed, but alive. These and other modifiers will be described on Page XX, and in their relevant Wargear sections.

In this case, a Marine suffers an Unsaved Wound – Luckily, being the super-human he is, he has 2 of them, and can continue his relentless advance. Two Neophytes, however, are not so lucky, and their deaths are met with cheers from their enemies.


--------------------

What this changes:
Static, non-arbitrary rolls based on Str
Some models will not be able to survive some wounds.
Some models will always ignore certain wounds.
Weapon modifiers have much more variance and application.


A good example: Carnifex, Toughness 10, is being attacked by a Guardsman, Strength 4. The Guardsman has no special CC weapons, and so his attacks are an unmodified AP-. The Carnifex has a 6 Save, meaning the Guardsman must get lucky - Let's assume he hits, and rolls a 6 to penetrate Armour -

We check the chart and see that for a Carnifex to fail against an S4 Wound, and find that it's just within range to fail on a 1 - However, the Carnifex's Monstrous Creature unit type adds +1 to its Roll - it can never be wounded by a Guardsman's normal attacks!

Now, let's say the Guardsman instead has a Chainsword - a -1 to the Toughness Test Roll! Although he is not strong or fast enough to truly do much damage, his mighty weapon still chews through the plating and flesh of such a monstrous foe, who now CAN fail its test on rolls of 1!

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/04/11 20:11:44


Pit your chainsword against my chainsw- wait that's Heresy. 
   
Made in gb
Lieutenant Colonel




Hi chrisrawr.
Could I ask some questions?
If you want the game to be about unit interaction , would you be better off writing the rules to cover unit interaction rather than model interaction?

Why not alter the units characteristics so they DEFINE how the unit behaves on the battle field?
Rather than HAVING to rely on seperate rules for each unit type?

If you are going to have a squad leader model in ALL multiple model units , to help simplify interaction.Wouldnt you be better off writing resolution mechanics that revolve around these models?

Are you happy to ditch the current 40k game mechanics for ones that reduce the amount of rules you need to cover the game play?

Too keep everything on track, I find it helpful to focus on the end game play you want to end up with.Then try out different game mechanics and resolution methods untill you find the best fit.

Using alternating unit activation , and re-instating a Movement value is a great start!

Getting rid of the awful AP system without bringing back the armour modifiers would be the next logical step.(And unifying ranged weapon damage resolution to one system would be good too!)

I can offer some alternative ideas if you like?
   
Made in ca
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife





Yes, good idea actually - I'm honestly just going through Pancake edition and converting to U/U activation with modifications to lay a groundwork, so I'd love to get in on the big things I need to change!

Which unit characteristics would you suggest? Do you mean unit types like Infantry, MC, Vehicle, Jump, etc?

Yes, that's the plan - even if you are just designating one of multiple models, the Squad Leader will define a sort of 'pinpoint' for where that unit is - after all, the models are just representations The problem with writing resolution mechanics off of one model instead of average or majourity, however, is when certain units (like Boyz Mobs, with their Nob, or Aspects, with their Exarchs) have a very large power difference between the SL and the average - which could lead to some nasty abuse. Regardless of if this is or isn't what you're talking about, I'd love to hear your further thoughts on it!

Definitely, though there are a few I'd like to keep - The current Characteristics are separate and encompassing enough, as well as familiar enough, that I'd like to keep them more or less unmodified. I'd like to keep a Roll to 'damage', roll to 'save' basis for combat, as well as keeping the phases separate and distinct. Other than that, there are many ways to streamline the game that I have in mind, and many more I'm sure you can load me up with! My current "Damage" section, for instance, is very unwieldy and wordy - I usually go this route intentionally, to provide extra clarity and avoid lawyer abuse... as a rules lawyer myself, I purposefully abuse everything I create xD But I can definitely see where reduction is necessary and beneficial.

With ranged and close combat weapons, I do want to keep two separate values for the 'power' and the 'penetration' of the weapon; A laser is very bad at dealing with ablative armour, but very good at killing fleshy models, for instance. One thing that might end up happening is a "weapon type" and "armour type" system - It would need about 6 different armour types to completely cover the diversity of 40K, as well as some special instances, but something like...

"Ablative Armour - Usually metal plates designed to boil off excess energies and absorb kinetic impact, ablative armour is good against most weapon types."

Would moving toward a 'damage' system, with armours providing different types of reduction and weapons providing different types of penetration be a better direction? It does streamline the damage system, but I do really think that keeping the 'Saving Throw" for the passive player is a powerful psychological tool for dynamic gameplay.

I would love to hear any ideas you have on this

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/04/13 15:21:15


Pit your chainsword against my chainsw- wait that's Heresy. 
   
Made in gb
Lieutenant Colonel




I have had a go a writing a new rule set, and it is quite daunting but fun.(If you like that sort of thing and I do. )

If you want the rules to be a straight forward simulaition of modern warfare, its a good idea to have a solid idea how modern warfare works.
Modern warfare has an equal balance of , mobility to take objectives,fire power to control enemy movement, and close assault to contest objectives.

Does this sound good to you?

If it does then the unit characteristic should represent these element equaly.
Current 40k has NO characteristics for movement ,only 1 shooting and 4 for assault.(As it simply used WHFB game mechanics where close assault if the main feature of ancient warfare.)

May I sugest the following characteristics..(Just as a starting point.)

Movement rate/Movement type.(How and how far a unit moves.)
(Max distance moved , followed by legs, wheels, tracks, hover etc.)

Resistance to damage, (How hard the unit is to damage )(Repaces AV armour saves toughness,invunerable saves etc.)

Survivability, how much damage the unit can take.(Number of structure points for mechanical units / wounds for organic units.)

Stealth, How hard the unit is to spot on the battle field.(BS replacment)

Evasion . How hard the unit is to hit in assaults.(WS replacment)

Morale grade.How willing the unit is to fight on in dire circumstances.

Command, how much control 'the leader' has over the unit.

Notes, to detail any special equipment /abilites the unit has,(Jump packs, camo cloaks. night vision etc.)

And a weapon profile for the unit to show its offencive capability.

Name , -Weapon Name.

Damage, How much damage the weapon does.

Effective range , The range the user will hit an enemy model.

Effect, How many hits/ area of effect , the weapon has.

Notes.Any special abilites the weapon have.(Ignore cover, parry, bonus armour pen, bonus supression etc.)

The unit profile characteristics and weapon profile could be put on a small reference card for ease of use.

40k s core rules only cover 1 unit type (Standard infanty!)And the other 13 unit types have to have extra rules.

From a game mechanic P,O,V, there are only 2 unit type in 40k. descrete and indescrete.
Units that remove models to show damage, and units that record damage seperatley.

(I prefer to give leaders 'rerolls' per turn (command value ), rather than extra wounds.As this makes them more useful across a wider spectrum of game play not just combat .)

And writing game mechanics and resolution methods that apply to all units , mean everything but special abilites are covered by the core rules.

EG proposed damage resolution.(FoW)
All units have a Resistance to damage. A number from 1 (lowly grot) up to 14 (for a mighty land raider.)
When a model takes a weapon hit.
Roll a D6 an add it to the effected models Resistance to damage value. if the result is HIGHER than the weapon damage it has made its save and takes NO damage.
If the roll is equal to or less than the weapon damage , the model takes damage.

Eg Ork boy Rd 2.
Is hit by a Boltgun Dg 6.

If the ork boy rolls 5 or more he make the saveing throw.(5 +2 =7.7 is higher than the boltgun damage value 6.)

This is a scalable comparison that gives proportioanl results without modifiers.

Ill stop there, sorry for rambling a bit, its my age you know...



This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/04/14 18:21:24


 
   
Made in ca
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife





Lanrak wrote: I have had a go a writing a new rule set, and it is quite daunting but fun.(If you like that sort of thing and I do. )


Rawr, awesome

Lanrak wrote:If you want the rules to be a straight forward simulaition of modern warfare, its a good idea to have a solid idea how modern warfare works.
Modern warfare has an equal balance of , mobility to take objectives,fire power to control enemy movement, and close assault to contest objectives.
Does this sound good to you?


That's about what I'm aiming at - Mobility, Firepower, Close Combat. It's pretty core for WH40K. I'll also be taking a peek at other TBSG's such as Heroes of Might and Magic and M:tG.

Lanrak wrote:If it does then the unit characteristic should represent these element equaly.
Current 40k has NO characteristics for movement ,only 1 shooting and 4 for assault.(As it simply used WHFB game mechanics where close assault if the main feature of ancient warfare.)


Eh, Toughness and Save are used in shooting as well - but I see where you're coming from. I'm going to be condensing Strength into part of the units' wargear - Leaving Martial Skill, Ballistics Skill, Evasion, Toughness, Wounds, Attacks, and Initiative (which will be used for many more things, now) as the core set. Armour Save will also come from equipment, and be delegated to a damage reduction system - What I'm hoping to do is pull a mix of MTG's "Must remove all the Toughness in one go to wound" and HoMM's "Units deal damage, units take damage." sort of thing.

Lanrak wrote:Movement rate/Movement type.(How and how far a unit moves.)
(Max distance moved , followed by legs, wheels, tracks, hover etc.)


Yup, basically what I'm doing.

Lanrak wrote:Resistance to damage, (How hard the unit is to damage )(Repaces AV armour saves toughness,invunerable saves etc.)

Similar to what I'm doing - I intend to have certain types of damage and armour available, but I'm still looking for a way to keep rules down, and keep away from a rock-paper-scissors scenario.


Lanrak wrote:Survivability, how much damage the unit can take.(Number of structure points for mechanical units / wounds for organic units.)

Represented by Toughness - To Wound a model, damage equal to its toughness must be dealt to it from a single instance, or it 'resists' the damage.

Lanrak wrote:Stealth, How hard the unit is to spot on the battle field.


This is currently "Evasion", and it will be complementing, instead of replacing, Ballistics Skill - One big change will be that a BS of 3 against an Evasion of 3 will result in a 3+ roll needed to hit - making some special units normally unhittable and others get hit automatically - This is to further represent some models' extreme speed or special rules, or the size and presence of others. I really want to move away from abstractions in this sense - Many, many more avenues for destroying powerful characters or vehicles are going to be available - no model should be 'unkillable' by certain armies (like landraiders against some lists), but likewise models such as the Swarmlord or Lelith shouldn't be killable by such simple toys as lasguns and human fists without a supreme concerted effort.

Lanrak wrote:Evasion . How hard the unit is to hit in assaults.(WS replacment)


Martial Skill will still oppose martial skill - though now, damage bonuses or penalties will be applied to help grade differences, as well - So MS6 vs MS5 will both still hit on 3+, but MS6 will do +1 damage and MS5 will do -1 damage. The table is really quite fun to look at when comparing huge differences, in say a Human, MS3, with an Eldar Banshee, MS8 - Not only does the Banshee hit on a 2+, but she gets +3 damage (+1 for doubling, and +1 for each above double). The human gets a 5+ to hit, which will again be the 'normal' cap, but his damage will be at -2 for having less than half his opponents' MS (again a hard cap for normal rules). The intent is to speed up obviously uneven combats, and to put more of a focus on MS than weaponry in many cases. Fairly matched combats will still be decided solely on the rolls of the dice, as it should be.

Lanrak wrote: Morale grade.How willing the unit is to fight on in dire circumstances.

Command, how much control 'the leader' has over the unit.

A unit's leadership will be described in 2 chunks - I'm not sure how much influence I want the Squad Leader to have over a unit's morale, besides providing the 'best' morale for the unit.

The first is the 'grade, as you suggested -- Poor, Average, Good, Excellent, and Robotic. Most Morale tests will have a success requirement of 10+ on 3D6 - Poor morale units suffer a -2 penalty. Average roll 3D6 normally. Good roll 4D6, and Excellent rolls 4D6+2. Robotic units encompass vehicles, drones, and necrons, and do not need to roll for normal morale or leadership tests - they are assumed to have a roll of 10 automatically. Leadership or Morale Tests taken above a success requirement of 10+ are taken on 3D6+2.

The second is the modifiers - Fearless, Stubborn, Craven, and Cower.

Fearless units suffer no consequences from failing morale, but should have their own set of special attrition rules for their recklessness.
Stubborn units never have their morale modified - an Excellent Stubborn unit will always roll on 4D6+2, and a Poor Stubborn unit will always roll on 3D6-2.
Craven units who fail morale tests will flee away from the enemy to the nearest table edge instead of toward YOUR table edge. However, they will also launch an assault on units their path intersects pass along the way.
Cowering units will suffer from pinning - they simply hide.

There's a lot more we could add, but I feel this covers a vast range of consequences and combinations. For instance, a Robotic Cowering unit (Such as Servitors, maybe?) that fails a special morale test might simply be unable to adapt to a specific scenario, and shut down for further instructions or rebooting. An Excellent, Craven unit such as a pack of dirty Chaos Space Marines, might take flight at overwhelming odds, but be more than welcome to take on a new foe!

Lanrak wrote: Notes, to detail any special equipment /abilites the unit has,(Jump packs, camo cloaks. night vision etc.)

And a weapon profile for the unit to show its offencive capability.

Name , -Weapon Name.

Damage, How much damage the weapon does.

Effective range , The range the user will hit an enemy model.

Effect, How many hits/ area of effect , the weapon has.

Notes.Any special abilites the weapon have.(Ignore cover, parry, bonus armour pen, bonus supression etc.)

The unit profile characteristics and weapon profile could be put on a small reference card for ease of use.

More or less, this part doesnt need much changing and I agree that 'unit' cards with FAQs on the back would greatly aid many instances.

Lanrak wrote: 40k s core rules only cover 1 unit type (Standard infanty!)And the other 13 unit types have to have extra rules.

From a game mechanic P,O,V, there are only 2 unit type in 40k. descrete and indescrete.
Units that remove models to show damage, and units that record damage seperatley.

(I prefer to give leaders 'rerolls' per turn (command value ), rather than extra wounds.As this makes them more useful across a wider spectrum of game play not just combat .)

And writing game mechanics and resolution methods that apply to all units , mean everything but special abilites are covered by the core rules.

EG proposed damage resolution.(FoW)
All units have a Resistance to damage. A number from 1 (lowly grot) up to 14 (for a mighty land raider.)
When a model takes a weapon hit.
Roll a D6 an add it to the effected models Resistance to damage value. if the result is HIGHER than the weapon damage it has made its save and takes NO damage.
If the roll is equal to or less than the weapon damage , the model takes damage.

Eg Ork boy Rd 2.
Is hit by a Boltgun Dg 6.

If the ork boy rolls 5 or more he make the saveing throw.(5 +2 =7.7 is higher than the boltgun damage value 6.)

This is a scalable comparison that gives proportioanl results without modifiers.

Ill stop there, sorry for rambling a bit, its my age you know...


I tried something like this a bit ago, but it works better with a pool of dice rather than a static one - Add all the damage together, add all the resistance together, remove models to make up the difference. The problem with this is that it favours lots-of-shots weapons and high-strength weapons, but the 'average' weapon is left in the dust. It also favours having large packs rather than MSU's, which works against U/U activation :C


Thank you so much for your input though This is awesome.

Pit your chainsword against my chainsw- wait that's Heresy. 
   
Made in gb
Lieutenant Colonel




Hello again.
I was glad to put some useful ideas forward.

I suppose the only thing I was a bit concerned with would be continuing to use the current 40k resolution methods .As they dont do a great job of covering the game play.(And need a lot of other additional special rules to cover the gaps.)

I dont like looking results up on comparison tables that much.(Unless it is for very detailed historical accuracy reasons.Like the drop off in effectivness of different amunition over differnt ranges for example.) And realy dont see the need to use this in a straightforward game like 40k.(As more advanced games dont often use it either!)

If you concider using direct representation, eg the number value of the characteristic is' the number to beat' with a dice roll to be sucessful, or the maximum distance moved /range in inches.(Which you can add modifiers to easily if needed.)
Then we could use a second resolution method of simple comparison. (Eg targets Stat + D6, compared to attacker Stat.)

This is a fraction of the resolution methods currently used in 40k!

IF the new characteristic are going to be used differently in your new re-write, it may be better to re-name them to stop confusion.(If 40k players see 'Toughness' they may be looking for a table to compare it to 'Strenght', for examlple. )

As reguards to increasing the amount of command and control/moral in the game.
Splitting the LD into 2 parts IS necissary, as you say.
A stat for the general morale of the unit.And then the effect a good leader has on them.

Simply useing a Stat as the base score to beat for the unit to pass a morale test.
Eg,
Fearless 1+
Elite 2+
Veteran3+
Standard 4+
Conscript 5+

Gives you a wide range of morale displayed directly.Eg fearless troops have a Morale Grade of 1, conscripts have a Morale Grade of 5.
To pass a morale check roll equal or over the units morale grade.
This can be modified by +1 to morale grade for bad situations, or +1 to dice roll for good situations.

EG A n Elite units has taken over 25% casualties, is out numbered, and out of command chain .
2+1+1+1=5.
The elite unit now needs to roll 5 or more to pass a morale test!

Wherer as a Conscript unit , in prepared positions , with an attached hero, that outnumbers its oponent.
Add 1+1+1=3 to its morale dice roll.(Passing on a roll of 2 or more!)

IF we give the unit leader 're rolls ', they can infuence the units actions in a wide variety of ways.They can improve mobility ,attack and defenceof the units , AND self preservation.Where as just bunging an extra wound or two on the leaders/characters restricts the model to ONLY having improved self preservation.

Then models with physicaly more wounds like current Monstrous Creatures, can be put in with Vehicles to make them on par in game performance.(Use the same damage resolution methods for them to give them parity in effect.As M/C are filling the vehilce roles in those armies that use them.)

Comparing a BS with an Evasion stat using a table , works.(And is better than the current method used in 40k.)
And it brings ranged resolution into line with assault resolution.
BUT I prefer not to use tables unless absolutly necissary.

How would you feel about using the targets Evasion stat as the score to beat to hit the target with attacking units weapons in effective range?(Current BS could be shown as increased effective range .)
And just have simple modifiers to the target score?
Eg.
Target in cover/partialy consealed +1 to Evasion.
Over 36" away + 1 to Evasion.
Attacker supressed +1 to Evasion.

Attacker Stationary +1 to dice roll.
Less than 18" away +1 to dice roll.
For every 6" the target moved in LOS in the open +1 to dice roll.

I know some people cant handle simple addition in a game.And prefer to be given a fixed value to beat with a dice roll.But they have the current version of 40k to keep them happy!.
(As the modifiers are dressed up as special rules they dont notice them! )

The cool thing about modifers is you can start with a few simple to remember ones.(Range,cover, supressed.) And then add more as you get more experinced if you want to!
And as they can directly represent alot of conditions simply , you dont need loads of seperate resolutions methods.(Like 40k has.)

You have a lot of cool ideas.I just want to try to help you organise them and get them onto papre in an elegant and efficient way.







This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/04/16 09:49:52


 
   
Made in ca
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife





I think a lot of the things you're pushing to introduce grade things very harshly, and create a much less dynamic game than what I'm going for. Ideally, I'd have things like 'failing morale' be at a higher chance than they are now, but still not something that can be represented by single D6's with modifiers. I also feel like the less Modifiers that are included, the easier a ruleset can be picked up on - therefore, having dynamic modifiers with simple, intuitive rules is important.

The problem with close combat being static like your suggestion is that it unnecessarily punishes players for having low rolls. Ultimately, I want to speed the resolution of the game up; So in return, a counterproposal.

"To resolve damage in close combat, first compare the attacking model's MS to the defending model's MS. The Attacker normally Hits his target on a result of 3+.

If the Attacker has at least 5 more MS than its target, it hits on 2+. If the Attacker has both at least 5 more MS than the Defender, and double the Defender's MS (for example, 10MS against 4MS), then the Attacker instead hits automatically.

Similarly, if the Defender has at least 2 more MS than the Attacker, the Attacker hits at 4+. If the Defender has at least 5 more MS than the Attacker, the Attacker hits at 5+. If the Defender has both at least 5 more MS than the Attacker, and double the Attacker's MS (for example, 10MS against 4MS), then the Attacker instead hits only on a D6 result of 6.

The Attacking Model deals +1 Damage for each 2 MS it has more than the Defender, and -1 for every 2 MS it has less.



For morale, and most 'tests', I prefer to use similar systems to D&D's DC - the 'success' system has worked well so far in many games, and I'd like to keep it around.

For BS vs EV, you don't really need a table.

If BS = EV, you need 3+ to hit. Increase the To-Hit by +1 for each point of EV is higher, and -1 for each point it is lower, to a maximum and minimum of 2+/6. If BS at least 5 more than EV, you reroll to-hit. If EV at least 5 more than BS, you re-roll successful hits. Beyond 5 more either way, you hit automatically, or cannot hit. This type of dynamism allows for a HUGE range of different shooting scenarios, without penalizing low BS or low EV unnecessarily, and while rewarding units like Vindicares and other sharpshooters, or stealthy / eldarish units.

Yes, there will be an EV increase for moving. Yes there will be actions you can take like aiming which will increase your BS or lower your opponent's EV. Yes, ranges will be scaling - Weapons will have a Close/Medium/Far designation and will receive a -1BS penalty outside of their 'sweet' ranges - Bolters being a medium weapon with a 8" scale can shoot within the 9-16" zone comfortably, while being penalized for shooting too close or too far. This will drastically rearrange the feel of some armies, as well as further emphasize the need for longer ranged armies to stay far away from CC engagements.

I'm working on a few systems for damage and durability (toughness) still. HoMM3 is looking like my best reprieve in this endeavor - Damage reduction scales against damage instead of being flat reduction based on the number of models affected.

What it's looking like:

16 Guardsmen shoot at 5 Marines, dealing 50 damage (10 hits). All of the hits are allocated to Marines. Lasguns deal an extra D6 damage, so 10D6 are rolled. The damage total is 50+35 - 85 damage is dealt.
Marines wear power armour, which negates 5+1D6 out of 10 damage. That is, for every 10 damage Power Armour save group takes, it negates 5+1D6 of it. The marines negate 40+8D6 damage - 68. An optional rule can be half-modifiers - i.e. an additional 2+1d3 reduction for the 5 remainder - but we'll keep it simple for now. This leaves 17 damage going through; Let's give marines a durability of 6, for now, with 2 Wounds - removing models entirely before moving on, we find ourselves with one marine losing 1 wound, 2 wounds... and a second marine almost losing 1 - another damage more and he'd not have made it! About par for the course, I think.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/04/16 20:27:36


Pit your chainsword against my chainsw- wait that's Heresy. 
   
Made in gb
Lieutenant Colonel




If you dont like the idea of modifiers.(Which can cover alot of variables using one resolution method.)

How do you feel about opposed rolls?

Eg attacker stat +d6, vs Defender stat + d6.

Eg SM Shooting skill of 7+ vs a Eldar Rangers Stealth skill of 8.
Both p[layer roll a dice and add it to thier stat.
If the SM player get the highest result he has hit the Eldar ranger.
If the Eldar ranger gets the highest score he has avioded the shot.

This allows us to use any range of numbers to get the variation we need, independant of the dice roll.
(The stat becomes the dice modifier .)

Again its just one option of many...
   
Made in ca
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife





One way too few dice rolls, the other too many... Let's look at the 'necessary' components, from a "Fun" perspective

Attacker makes a roll to hit - necessary because we want a dynamic attack instead of a binary 'here's the numbers, compare to see if it hits or misses'. We want the guardsman Joe to hit the Harlequin sometimes, and other times we want the Vindicare to miss. It creates an aspect of Drama.

Defender rolls to save his models.

Defender rolls to save his models is necessary in a game like this, I feel. Not only does it provide a huge morale boost, it provides a sense of 'fairness' to both players - the game isn't just about picking up the biggest numbers anymore, it's about the engagements and where and how they're chosen. Defender rolls to save is the most important psychological aspect of 40K in many respects.




So we have 2 necessary rolls - To Hit, and To Save - rolling damage is there...

Well, in a system like this, it's not necessary, actually :V

The opposed rolls you're describing severely limit our available scenarios without an accompanying table of results - You've gone from a table of results, to an extra roll AND a table of results, unless you want to make shooting either useless or overpowered.

For example, the scenario you described there? Average roll of 5+ is required to hit the ranger. What if the ranger is in stealth? You've now reduced the marine to 1/6 shots hitting. Humans, at BS4 regular, cant even hit the ranger. You've created a binary play - pick the unit with the highest evasion and run the most of it you can, enjoy being unable to be dealt damage at range - unless you include additional rules involving results below 1 or over 6, in which case you're already back to where you were before.

This is not fun for both players.

Another problem becomes Units rolling to hit, instead of models.

What happens when I have 10 marines shooting? Do we have to roll off, 1 by 1, 10 times? Are there MORE additional rules for which dice are compare to which? What if I have 5 1's and 5 6's, compared to his 5 1's and 5 6's?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/04/17 12:21:44


Pit your chainsword against my chainsw- wait that's Heresy. 
   
Made in gb
Lieutenant Colonel




The amount of dice rolls and granularity in result is subjective, depending on who you are writing the rules for.

There is not an arbitary amount of fixed dice rolling in games.
Some games use more than others.

The numbers were just an example to show the method.

If you done want to use oposed rolls how bout oposed stats with dice roll?

Attacker stat + D6 vs defender stat.
Middle ground.(One dice roll , stat modifies the dice roll to give proportional results.)

I am just keen to use as few resolution methods as possible.And will keep giving you alternatives for you yo concider....
   
Made in ca
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife





Again, Attacker Stat+D6 vs Defender is fine, but it allows for too few gameplay instances. The moment you exceed the range of 6 that a D6 gives, you lose a lot of potential resolution time. I just want to stay away from binarity, which requires some abstractions, which in some cases requires result tables.

I might add, I would like for the average game to be 3 full rounds, lasting up to 6 and as little as 2 (for concede or unassailable advantage, usually the result of horrendously imbalanced list or counter-lists being presented)

For this, especially with U/U activation, a lot of damage has to be done. The sad fact of the matter is, Assault and Ranged firing require different resolutions for one simple reason - 40K is built on the practice that for some reason, charging your opponent works better than shooting him for over 3/4 the factions out there. I understand your wish to simplify and unify these things, but I do really want to stick with the sort of titanic fluff hard-on for CC and space-opera-ness 40K has going on. Which means dramatic tension is necessary, and CC resolution has to be about manly men fighting scurry monsters and tricksy elfs.

A lot of your suggestions are very helpful though, as is the perspective of other wargames.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/04/17 13:19:35


Pit your chainsword against my chainsw- wait that's Heresy. 
   
Made in gb
Lieutenant Colonel




I suppose throwing out alternative resolution mechnics without determining the game play focus first, is a bit out of order.

The reason current 40k has heavy close combat loading is becuase it uses WHFB game mechanics and resolutions.

IF you allow the amount of tactical interaction necissary to carry the game, the amount of fiddely detail CAN be reduced /abstracted with out too much detriment.(Some games have very simplified rules , but despite abstraction in some areas, STILL deliver a elegant uintuitive and rewarding playing experiance.)

SImply changing the game turn mechanic from alternating game turn to alternating activation, (or alternating phases.)Increases the level of tactivcal interaction and so the level of interaction CAN move from individual model to the 'unit'. And this allows reduction in rules complication too!

I think it may be benificual to look at 15mm to 6 mm battle game rule sets.(Eg Epic Armageddon.)To see how more suitable game mechnaics allow natural increase in tactical gameplay, and DONT need overly complicated rules '
I prefer to start with the simplest way to cover the desired game play and ONLY ADD a bit more detail IF necissary.

All my games of Epic seem to be far closer in synergy to the 40k backgroung that any games of 40k I have played.And they defime unit capability with far more straight forward rules.

The ONLY difference between ranged and close attacks is the range !(So dont need seperate resolution methods, but some people prefer them to be different .Its just personal preference.)

The skill of the target avoiding detection/being hit in close combat ,can be directly presented on the targetsstat line.The skill of the user being directly represented on thier weapon profile.

Eg if a UNITs wepons profile is set out like this.,
Name/Effective range/Damage/Effect/Notes.

The close combat weapons and ranged weapon effects can bes described in the same way.

Combat knife.0-2"/5*/2*/assault only.
(The strenght of the user and the skill of the user deterninse the weapon damage and the nuber of time the target is hit(effected.)

Laser rifle 4 -24"/5/1/small arms.
(The skill of the user detemines the effective range .)

So rather than list units characteristics and weapon profiles seperatley , and have to bring them together in game.
Why not just list the net effect on the unit card?

Are you familiar with the Epic Armageddon rules ?I belive this may be a better starting point than current 40k rules ...









   
Made in ca
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife





I am not unfortunately, though I really wanted to play it - there just wasnt enough of a base in my area, and vassal doesnt support it.

One big problem that arises from the system you propose is the great, huge varying degree of skill between characters who can buy wargear - characters are necessary and awesome part of 40K - changing wargear to be so much more important than base stats is going to require a lot of effort in the balancing department, compared to how little difference it made before. I'm up for that, though

Pit your chainsword against my chainsw- wait that's Heresy. 
   
Made in gb
Lieutenant Colonel




Epic Armageddon is avaibale FREE to download form the GW web site under specialist games.
You may want to look it over.

Currently the main role characters play in 40k is CLOSE COMBAT MONSTERS!!!!Which is a bit limiting and counter intuitive in some cases!

Commisar Yarrik a 80 year old human , who is supposed to be a brilliant tactician and inspiration to all aound him...gets to be mutated in to a close combat monster to take our ork warlord with!

Imaginge if we use ALL the facets of the revised charactersitics ...and give Commisar Yarrik a 'character bonus of being able to modify the dice rolls (+/-2)of ANY unit he is attached to!
A well as giving him the ability to re roll 4 dice per turn in HIS ARMY!

So unit leaders give thier unit limited re rolls.(1or 2 perhaps per game turn.)

Character get to modify ANY one dice roll of thier unit (+/- 1 or 2)per game turn, and thier re roll ability is extended to any unit in their army.

Lets characters have a wider impact on how the army performs .(And you can still use these bonuses in close assault if you want to!)
Just an idea...

   
Made in ca
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife





Yes, definitely - bringing in/back a strategy rating and linking it to dice rerolls of certain kinds is something that can easily represent leadershiip and guidance.

A large number of characters will remain close combat monsters - part of the core idea behind 80's metal space operas with giant walking space tanks is that they are going to be hitting each other with laser swords and crackle hammers. I can totally get behind this, because it is awesome. I was just pointing out that balancing your average knife along the various statlines is going to be difficult

Pit your chainsword against my chainsw- wait that's Heresy. 
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut







Is it possible to have wounds on low armored/survivability things worth their cost? At the moment high wound, low armored things die much more easily than low wound high armor. In your system, will this change?

"There's a difference between bein' a smartboy and bein' a smart git, Gimzod." - Rogue Skwadron, the Big Push

My Current army lineup 
   
Made in ca
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife





Very similar, actually - Things like MCs would probably have a lot more Durability+Wounds, letting their damage reduction be lower. This means that you'll need to do, say, 60 damage to take off a single wound - and if you don't deal 60 damage, no wound is taken at all!

Pit your chainsword against my chainsw- wait that's Heresy. 
   
Made in gb
Lieutenant Colonel




Hi again.
Just expanding my earlier idea...
If we give leaders/characters a command value.(Amount of re rolls.)

And let the war gear choices for characters determine HOW they can spend thier re rolls in game...

Eg Each piece of equipment could add 1 dice re roll in the following skills areas.(Characters are allowed up to a set number of dice re-rolls.(2 to 4, perhaps.)And each race has a loading to make sure the characters ARE characterful but in theme with the army!

Close Assault Specialist,(close combat rolls.) Sharp Shooter,(shooting rolls), Strategic Genius, (Reserves/Deployment etc.) Inspiring Tactician,(mobility and cover saves etc.)and others ...

Anyhow just an idea.

The reason 40k has REAL balance issues is becuase it uses multiple resolution methods to cover a single interaction type.
AND it choses to limit results to 3+ 4+ 5+ in a lot of cases.

They try to describe the vast and varied inhabitants of an entire UNIVERSE with such limiting game mechanics and resolution methods.

Thats why I suggested using characteristics of 1 to 10 DIRECTLY in a comparative way.
As this gives more PROPORTIONAL results while still allowing us to use a D6.

Eg Weapon Damage - armur value = saving roll.(D6 as now)

Boltgun Damage 6- Ork armour value 2=(6-2 =4 need to roll OVER 4 to save.) save 5+

Boltgun damage 6 - SM power armour value 4=(6-4=2 need to roll over 2 to save.)save 3+

Heavy bolter damage 7-SM power armour 4=(7-4=3 need to roll over 3 to save.) save 4+

This way changing armour values by 1 results in linear and EQUAL change in effectivnness.

The AP system gives and exponetial chages in effectivess.between 6+5+4+3+2+(Appx 11% 23% 45% 82%.)And doesnt cover vehicles,.And need aditional rules to cover things that fall out of its limited range, invunerable saves,eternal warrior/ instant death, FNP,etc.

IMO vehicles and M/C should be concidered in a similar way.As the ONLY 2 unit types in 40k from a game mechanics point of view are descrete and indesrete.
(Units that remove models to show damage and units that record damage seperatley.)

I would use a SINGLE damage resolution method, (to determine ALL weapon and armour interaction.)With slight differences in 'damage detail'.
MC/vehicles use a damage table .(similar to current one but modified to give steadier decline in efectivness.)

Non M/C vehilce units have supression test.

So M/Cs AND vehilces have thier effectiveness erroded over time , (Loosing effective range on weapons and maximum distance moved.)

Current 40k appears to be developed mainly using the 'rule of cool' to sell a wide range of minatures.Unfortunatley this is not good for the elegance or efficiency of the rules ,

But that maybe just me....(25 years as a conformance engineer... )

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/04/19 09:17:00


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: