Hi all!

My idea is that instead of having a three phase game, 40k should be a single phase per turn game, and triple the turns. Each unit decides what they want to do: move, shoot, or assault. The same rules apply as they did for the game, such as if a heavy weapon toting squad has moved last turn, they can't move this turn, however, they can move next turn. Running just means that they can move and decide not to shoot, and move again (just giving them two movement phases) fleet means they can move, run AND charge into close combat in the same phase. Rapid fire means they can move the last turn, but can't assault the next turn, etc. It would make a much more streamlined game which requires much more tactical thinking than the current one.

I might be wrong, I might be crazy, who knows. It's just my idea and my two cents.

EDIT: for convenience, here's the post from 2011:
Old thread is really, really old, but it's mine so deal with it. I've been thinking about this whole thing again, and Lanrak's two-phase turn concept makes more sense every time I think about it. Turns are more engaging, there's more room for tactical deviancy, and it overall works better. About a year ago, not long after this whole thread died, I played a game using my rules, which fizzled and got boring quickly. I had the original question (why all of the needless phases?) again recently, and I was brought back to this thread. I have a few modifications to the proposition brought up by Lanrak, which I quote here:

Lanrak wrote:HI crazypsko666.

If we go with the' A performs ONE action with all thier units, B performs One action with all thier units.'(x3)
We have the restrictive practice of following set actions, move then shoot then assault.And some units doing nothing in a phase.(Heavy weapons teams rarley want to assault!)

Or we let players take any actions out of sequence, but this lets them react with unrealistic omnipitance.(Godlike knowlwedge of the battle field .)So player react to the actions of thier oponents 'unrealisticaly'.

If we let each player take 2 action with a unit a game turn, this allows reasonable levels of free interaction , also requires a bit of forward planning.

All the 'orders' are, is the 2 actions the unit will take in the action phases, and the 'order' in which they are performed.

Actions

'Move' , move up to the units movement value.

'Ready', set up heavier weapons , find best firing positions, make best use of available cover.

'Shoot', fire ranged weapons.

'Assault' move up to the units movement value and engage enemy unit in close combat.

The 5 'Orders' are made up of the 2 'actions' as follows.

Advance (A) move +shoot.

Double (D) move +move.

Charge(C ) move +assault.

Evade(E) shoot + move.

Fire support(F) Ready+shoot.

If a units weapon is classified as (F)Fire Support, it can ONLY fire when a (F)Fire support order is given to that unit.(Covers current Heavy/Ordmnance weapon type.)
If units are given a Movement stat like WH,and terrain modifies this by -1 or-2 inches.We dont need to use the 40k special rules for movement.

ALL units perform 2 actions per game turn, interleaved with oponents .

If we let assault actions be resolved at the 'end of turn' phase, this lets assaulting units pin enemy units, and stop them shooting.
Then assaults deminsh enemy manouvering and shooting akin to modern warfare annalogues.

The action phases are interleaved,

a-b-a-b.

Ill stop there so you can comment ...

TTFN
Lanrak.

And I'm wondering primarily why the restrictions on action-types (Advance, Double, Charge, etc.) are there at all. The whole point is to be more tactically flexible, to have the game feel more like it's playing out in real time, so why are there these restrictions at all? There was previous talk of a marker, or chip-like tool used to remind the player which action is being done for each unit. I've considered this, and based on the teachings of Sun Tzu, the art of war is based on deception. Why not give this marker two detachable sides, with a symbol representing the action being taken attached to each. The first action is immediately shown, whilst the second remains hidden, face down. This lets both players keep a tactical advantage over their opponent, making each move interesting and requiring extra consideration, due to Player A's first move being played out, then Player two's, then P1's second, and so on.


Moderators, please forgive the worst case of threadcromancy I've ever seen.

EDIT EDIT: I forgot to credit Nurglitch here, who had contributed immensely to the last, ancient iteration of the design.

can you...separate those thoughts out... it's kinda hard to make sense of it

You should go work for GW, because that sort of thinking is not what 40K needs.

Lacross wrote:can you...separate those thoughts out... it's kinda hard to make sense of it

Sorry about that....


My idea is that instead of having a three phase game, 40k should be a single phase per turn game, and triple the turns, essentially making it a fifteen turn game.

Each unit decides what they want to do: move, shoot, or assault. The same rules apply as they did for the game, such as if a heavy weapon toting squad has moved last turn, they can't move this turn and fire the heavy weapon, however, they can move next turn.

Running just means that they can move and decide not to shoot, and move again (just giving them two movement phases) fleet means they can move, run AND charge into close combat in the same phase.

Charging into close combat can include moving six inches, THEN charging in six inches into assault (possibly,) same rules apply with the above.

Rapid fire means they can move the last turn, but can't assault the next turn, etc. It would make a much more streamlined game which requires much more tactical thinking than the current one.

Better?


(Edited with more ideas)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

warpcrafter wrote:You should go work for GW, because that sort of thinking is not what 40K needs.

...Too bad i'm sixteen.

I don't really get why you would want to make the game so many turns, and why you would only be able to do one thing per turn, but I do agree that it should be one phase per turn per player, but that is for a separate reason:

If the players do not alternate phases (i.e. player 1 movement, player 2 movement, player 1 shoots, player 2 shoots, etc) then why does it matter that there are so many phases in a turn? It keeps it organized, I suppose, and makes it more rigid in terms of what you can do (no fighting retreats, like shooting first then moving away) which benefits the assaulty-armies.

Because then you can do more things. An army with no ranged weaponry (a 'nid army for example) can move significantly faster towards the enemy. Likewise, let's say the 'nids are playing against an IG enemy, now they get more opportunities to shoot at the bugs. It allows for more versatile playing, you're no longer limited to moving a maximum of 30" in the movement phases because you now have potentially 15 phases to move in rather than five dedicated (i'm not counting shooting phases for running and assault phases for charging).

I understand that GW was trying to do achieve this with some of their new rules, but it doesn't fully complete the job.

You do realize how nasty it would be to give assault armies more movement of more assault phases right? Armies like the IG or Tau would lose nearly every game if the enemy could move three times as fast even if they got shot at more.

Yes, it would totally unbalance the game.

It's just an idea, I haven't given it much thought or tested it. Yes, at first there would be some balancing issues, but a little tweaking and it could work very well.

You were clear enough the first time...

But, as mentioned, the thing about separating the game turn/player turn/phase into separate player turns is that much of the game's balance is predicated on limits - one shooting phase per player turn, two close combat phases per game turn, etc.

I'd suggest taking a look at Epic: Armageddon for a good way of amalgamating the actions taken in the Warhammer 40k phases into a single undifferentiated turn.

Hi all.
I think the OP might be asking for a more interactive game turn.
Rather than the yawn fest of waiting for your opponent to move everything, shoot with everything, assault with everything.....

Some alternatives for game turns are..
'Interleaved Phases'.

(Roll to see who goes first each game turn .)
Player A moves.
Player B moves.
Player A shoots.
Player B shoots.
Player A assaults.
Player B assaults.

OR
Player A moves.
Player B shoots.
Player A returns fire/assaults.

Player B moves.
Player A shoots.
Player B returns fire /assaults.

'Unit Activation'.
Player A picks ONE unit ,and moves shoots assaults with that singular unit.

Player B picks ONE unit , and moves shoots assaults with that singular unit.
Repeat untill all units have been activated!

Then if you make orders out of 2 action sets.
EG,
Move Shoot Ready and assault.
We could get the orders.
Fire support.(ready shoot.)
Advance (move shoot)
Evade (shoot move.)
Charge (move assault)

Then at the start of the turn players put order counters next to thier units.
Then players take turns activating units.(take the actions of the order counter.)
OR
Player A takes the first action of the order with all thier units.
Player B takes the first action of the order with all thier units.
Player A takes the second action of the order with all thier units.
Player B takes the second action of the order with all thier units.

With the 'order' game turn mechanic EVERY unit gets 2 actions per game turn.

TTFN
Lanrak.

Personally I like the way the game plays out. Its balanced so that people can follow whats happening when. If a player did all his shooting THEN moved, in large games, it could be prone to cheating. What my friends and I do when playing at our NFGS is allow for people to pop smoke/run during the movement phase. This cuts down on time in the shooting phase as we have less units to worry about.

Smoke Launchers are normally used at the end of the Movement phase...

Why do people want such radical changes to the game when the three-phase turns are so streamlined and work perfectly?

Hi Cheese Elemental.
It is obvious you have NO problems with the clunky counter intuative over compicated rule set of 40k.
So why do you post on a thread about changing the game to suit other peoples tastes?

IF you only have ever played 40k, then it is unlikely you would be able to see the need to change anything.

Anything written on this forum is to let people, (not as happy with 40k as you are,) try out some alternative ideas to get the game they prefer to play.
GW say you can and should do this if you want to!

One player performing all actions (in a set order) with all thier units, works for large scale games where fog of war and/or poor communication mean reaction times are slow.(Eg Warhammer.)

However most people belive that smaller scale of 40k (and the better communications,) mean more interaction make more sense to them in this type of game.

Adding a reaction mechnic into the 'army level IGO UGO ' game turn of of 40k would eliviate this abit.
But as 40k suffers from rules bloat as it is , perhaps restructured turn sequence is more user friendly?

I just posted some commonly used alternatives , to the 'army level IGO-UGO' from WH.

Zid .
I fail to see how 'I move , you move, I shoot ,you shoot, I assault, you assault ... is more complicated than I move then shoot then assault, you move then shoot then assault?

And the I move , You shoot , I assault. You move, I shoot, You assault, is just as easy to remember !

(And the orders mechanic can have what to do in what order written on the counter!)

The real bonus of having a more interactive game turn is increased tactical conciderations therfore incresed game play.

TTFN
lanrak.

There's lots of things to consider here that you would be changing about the game:

If you shake\stun a vehicle, how many turns does that last? If a land raider gets immobilized on turn 1, does that mean that a techmarine inside would potentially get 14 turns to repair it? How often would you roll for reserves to arrive? Do drop pods still arrive on turns 1 and 2?

Do you seriously want assault based armies having 15 turns of up to 18" movement for fleet troops (6" move + up to 6" run + 6" assault)? If not, will the fix for this hurt the Tau/Eldar Jump/Shoot(Run)/Jump? Would the Ork Waagh be limited to 1/15th of the game rather than 1/6th now? And how much more valuable would that make wierdboyz, giving them that many more chances at another Waagh?

How overpowered will strong defensive positions be now, if those heavy weapons now have 15 turns to shoot? On the flip side, how bad does it hurt to have 15 turns to deal with Without Number gaunts? Do you give the IG artillery pieces with limited ammo 3x that amount? Do you give vehicles with Smoke Launchers the chance to pop smoke 3x per game now? Then should Ammo Runts and Grot Orderlies work 3x as long? Slippery slope, does that mean we should give combi-weapons 3 shots in a given game?

Imbalanced as 40k may be at times, making these kind of sweeping changes go a long way towards breaking the game completely, all the above questions come to mind in no longer than it took me to actually type the above, I'm sure there's plenty of far more reaching and important questions that would have to be addressed before such an idea would be feasible, and I doubt that you'll find many people that will all give the exact same answers to the questions I've already listed here.

I've tried it before (player a moves, player b moves) and i have found it slows the game way down. I takes less time and there is less confusion if you have player a's move, shoot assult then player b's turn.

Malecus wrote:There's lots of things to consider here that you would be changing about the game:

If you shake\stun a vehicle, how many turns does that last? If a land raider gets immobilized on turn 1, does that mean that a techmarine inside would potentially get 14 turns to repair it? How often would you roll for reserves to arrive? Do drop pods still arrive on turns 1 and 2?

Do you seriously want assault based armies having 15 turns of up to 18" movement for fleet troops (6" move + up to 6" run + 6" assault)? If not, will the fix for this hurt the Tau/Eldar Jump/Shoot(Run)/Jump? Would the Ork Waagh be limited to 1/15th of the game rather than 1/6th now? And how much more valuable would that make wierdboyz, giving them that many more chances at another Waagh?

How overpowered will strong defensive positions be now, if those heavy weapons now have 15 turns to shoot? On the flip side, how bad does it hurt to have 15 turns to deal with Without Number gaunts? Do you give the IG artillery pieces with limited ammo 3x that amount? Do you give vehicles with Smoke Launchers the chance to pop smoke 3x per game now? Then should Ammo Runts and Grot Orderlies work 3x as long? Slippery slope, does that mean we should give combi-weapons 3 shots in a given game?

Imbalanced as 40k may be at times, making these kind of sweeping changes go a long way towards breaking the game completely, all the above questions come to mind in no longer than it took me to actually type the above, I'm sure there's plenty of far more reaching and important questions that would have to be addressed before such an idea would be feasible, and I doubt that you'll find many people that will all give the exact same answers to the questions I've already listed here.

I know that this rule would require lots of reconsideration of the common rules, but remember, this is just an idea. If I were to have taken this alot more seriously, I probably would've tried to come up with ways around things like this. I don't know. I'm just trying to see what people's reactions to this radical playstyle change would be. It's an experimental idea, and I'm not saying the game needs to change. I think the game is serviceable as is, but like all rule systems, there can always be room for change and improvement. If you're worried that the game will change too much, then you probably shouldn't be in proposed rules (sorry, it's just my opinion.) Changing any rule will usually force other changes. Changing something so concrete and determining of other things as the turn sequence will obviously do more of this than most other rules.

Have I made my intended purpose clear?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lanrak wrote:
The real bonus of having a more interactive game turn is increased tactical considerations therefore increased game play.

TTFN
lanrak.

THAT was what I was going at here.

Lanrak wrote:(And the orders mechanic can have what to do in what order written on the counter!)

My idea in consideration to that is that you do the orders in consideration to the phase type you have done (if there's an order that must be done in the shooting phase, it should be done when you shoot, if it's in the movement phase, it's done when you move, etc.)

Lanrak wrote:Hi Cheese Elemental.
It is obvious you have NO problems with the clunky counter intuative over compicated rule set of 40k.
So why do you post on a thread about changing the game to suit other peoples tastes?

Please don't flame on this thread. Just don't.
__________________________________________

The whole point of this is to find a balance so that the assaulting people get to do what they're going to do, let the shooting people shoot more, let the vehicles move more. Most importantly (to me,) just have a more tactical experience. The more thinking you get to do between phases (which is why I can appreciate Lanrak's idea) the better.

crazypsyko666:

Out of curiosity, what other games besides 40k have you played?

I have always said that 40k would be much more tactical and rely much less on who wins the roll off for first turn if players alternated taking actions in a turn.

The method that I found worked best was that both players rolled to see who went first. The player who won chooses a unit and moves/shoots/assaults with that unit. Then player B chooses a unit and moves/shoots/assaults with that unit. Play continues until both players consecutively pass. Once both players "pass" all close combats are resolved and turn one has ended. Now begin turn two, rinse and repeat. Rolling for reserves counts as activating a unit.

A few notes:

*All close combats are resolved at the end of the turn for timing issues. What if you wanted to assault the same unit with two units? Although the assault move is done during each unit's individual activation, the combat is resolved at end of turn. Having a separate assault phase at the end of each player's unit activation is annoying, clunky, and a bit unbalanced.

*Passing. You may pass even if you still have a unit that you have not 'activated' yet that turn. You may want to wait and see what your opponent does before you act. However, you risk your opponent also passing, thereby ending the turn and wasting that unit's activation. It adds a separate pokeresque element to the game.

*Set up should be done as it was in third and forth, with players alternating deploying units. I actually think that the fifth edition set up is by far the best with the current system of I go/you go but if players alternate activating units, they should also alternate deploying them.

Actually, something I noticed with 5th edition is that no one complains about who gets the first turn anymore.

Nurglitch wrote:Actually, something I noticed with 5th edition is that no one complains about who gets the first turn anymore.

Heh. I just edited my post to add that fifth edition has the best method of set up since second edition. Not that second edition was better, but it was an entirely different game. Not really comparable.

Admittedly, the system that I just listed was something I originally thought up back in third, when the game was often decided on the roll off for first turn. Although fifth has significantly decreased that advantage, I don't think that it is entirely gone. Nor will it ever be with an I go/you go system.

Have you ever played Epic: Armageddon?

Nurglitch wrote:Have you ever played Epic: Armageddon?

The last time I played epic was...six or seven years ago? So no, I believe the Armageddon version is much more recent than that.

Nurglitch wrote:crazypsyko666:

Out of curiosity, what other games besides 40k have you played?

None that are tabletop. I've played many a turn-based videogame, and plenty of them have been tactical/strategy. My favorites have probably been Civ series or Medieval II: Total War. They're extremely different games though, and I can't say that my inspiration came from any.

Battletech has an initiative system for 'you move i move you shoot i shoot'

Also, while I didnt get to read it yet, War of the Ring supposedly has a similiar set up.

In my opinion this is fantastic for tactical play but incompatible for the current 5th ed rules without drasticly slowing the game down.

The advantage of you move I move is that you can react to enemy movements better. The disadvantage is that with the current rules, you can move backwards as fast as the enemy moves forwards, meaning assaults are decidely difficult on a regular sized board since you can just squirm out of the way one unit at a time.

As for the idea of resolving 1 unit at a time and picking movement/shooting/assault, while it does add more depth, there is too much list variety in 40k. If you have one force with 3 units total in the list, and an enemy with 40 small units, the one with 40 small units will be at a huge activation disadvantage, needing 13 times the activations to equal you. This is basicly 'Mechwarrior clix'

DevianID wrote:Battletech has an initiative system for 'you move i move you shoot i shoot'

Also, while I didnt get to read it yet, War of the Ring supposedly has a similiar set up.

In my opinion this is fantastic for tactical play but incompatible for the current 5th ed rules without drasticly slowing the game down.

The advantage of you move I move is that you can react to enemy movements better. The disadvantage is that with the current rules, you can move backwards as fast as the enemy moves forwards, meaning assaults are decidely difficult on a regular sized board since you can just squirm out of the way one unit at a time.

As for the idea of resolving 1 unit at a time and picking movement/shooting/assault, while it does add more depth, there is too much list variety in 40k. If you have one force with 3 units total in the list, and an enemy with 40 small units, the one with 40 small units will be at a huge activation disadvantage, needing 13 times the activations to equal you. This is basicly 'Mechwarrior clix'

Something that could easily be done and tested is using the you, me, you, me system but also allowing any squad to do the phases out of order.

Damage is also simultaneous in BTech, so if I shoot higher in the initiative order than you and kill your 'Mech, your 'Mech doesn't die 'til the end of that phase (so it can still shoot).

I can't really imagine doing that on a scale like 40K's. Too many models to keep track of and remove at the end of a phase.

It also sounds like that's a much smaller scale game. I'd imagine it would be a horrifying prospect to keep track of all the little guys, especially for someone like a 'nid or guard player.

Norade wrote:You do realize how nasty it would be to give assault armies more movement of more assault phases right? Armies like the IG or Tau would lose nearly every game if the enemy could move three times as fast even if they got shot at more.

However, the Tau could shoot three times as much. So, in that example, the result would be the same.

There are systems that do this already - I'd suggest that the OP has a look at Stargrunt2.

Hi again.
I have to say most ideas to improve 40k lead to 'greater rules bloat', or the recomendation of other rule sets , or a complete re-write of the game from the ground up....

Unfortunatley due to legacy issues and mis handeling of 'streamlining ' the current 40k rule set is a bit of a hollistic abstract mess.
Its practicaly impossible to change anything without knocking somthing else out of line.(Usualy due to multiple systems/rules covering one function.)
So even a simple 'fix' leads to lots of re-writing.

As the team of professional game devlopers at GW have achived (comparitivley) very little in 10 years with the new encarnation of 40k.
(Other companies have developed new games to greater levels of game play-balance in far shorter periods of time.)

I tend to think a complete overhaul is getting to be the more efficient option.
However ,as long as just fixing pre planted errors and minor tweeks still bring in the cash, GW will styill keep on re-cycling mutated WH rules for 40k.

(I am also a fan of the free to down load StargruntII.)

But feel free to experiment with which ever rule set you like best,to get the game you enjoy playing.

Happy Gaming
Lanrak.

If they mean what I think your say thats a great idea. It would make the game flow much faster and smoother. you wouldn't get players taking 1 and 1/2 hours per turn (This happens at my games club im really not exagerating) and it would bring in another level of tactics.

It would also make the game more realistic as gunline or shooty armies like IG or Tau would spend more time shooting where as Nids or Orks would be able to move more and be more based on fighting. It would allow. this would also allow you to make a purely shooting or combat army without wasting phases.

So you need to write up those rules and send them to GW straight away, its exactly what they need to liven up the game.

@Lanrak: I know. It's usually the one complaint that I have on this section of the forum, that it would change the game too much. I see your point, and since I haven't played this game for very long, I don't know how slowly the wheels of games workshop turn yet. I do believe this is one of the less radical rules changes than some other things i've seen, so I'm going to stick with my opinion. Thanks for all the opinions.

@The Devourer: That's exactly what I was going for. (not exactly writing this up and sending it to GW, but you seem to understand the intent of this)


What could be done is vehicles could be slower (It's something I'm worried about, making mech lists even better) and changing the rules on RUN! and Fleet. (in fact, Fleet could become run, and then run could go away.)

Lanrak wrote:Hi all.
I think the OP might be asking for a more interactive game turn.
Rather than the yawn fest of waiting for your opponent to move everything, shoot with everything, assault with everything.....

Some alternatives for game turns are..
'Interleaved Phases'.

(Roll for who goes first reach turn.)
Player A moves.
Player B moves.
Player A shoots.
Player B shoots.
Player A assaults.
Player B assaults.

This is just me thinking here, but i could be totally wrong. Wouldn't this system always have Player A getting the charge? If both are moving towards each other and Player A is first in Assualt phase wouldn't that be an extremely unfair advantag?Or am i just thinking about this wrong.

Well it would require more thinking, because if you don't, by default, yes.

Hi folks.
Did you miss the , 'roll to see who goes first each turn?'
Let the dice decide who goes first each game turn.This means having to plan for loosing 'initiative' , and be in a good position to take advantage if you get it.

Most games that use interleved phases have some form of randomising who goes first .(Roll dice , strategy ratings, number of active units , etc.).

TTFN
Lanrak.

I was about to mention that..... thanks Lanrak.

I would love to see a basic write up of these rules. I can image that it would be complicated to do as there are many exceptions and special rules but they could probably be changed to fit in and have a similar effect.

I personaly think GW need to fully redo the rules as i'm finding many games become boring because the turns feel very long. As all the turns are together I find that large tactics do not play an important role as the game is to slow for you to make any large changes mid game.

I think that GW should aim for the feel of crazypsykos' rules and try and make rules that allow the game to change a lot faster than the present rules.

Hope i'm not going on too much... The Devourer

A while back I was toying with the idea of a single-phase modification 40k, but it basically came down Battlefield Evolution, which is perhaps an unsurprising result of covergent evolution given Andy Chambers' original authorship of what became Battlefield Evolution (aka: Starship Troopers). So I went back to the drawing board and thought a little bit more about what was characteristic of Warhammer, and what might be done with the phases.

One thing I figured as sticking with separate player turns in a single game turn. That's just Warhammer. Another thing was that 40k is already making some headway into mixed phases, by allowing movement in both the shooting and assault phase, assaults to be resolved in both turns, and so on. Plus, Jervis Johnson has already showed a way of integrating shooting and assaults in his phenomenal Epic: Armageddon game.

So, here's the idea:

There are three phases in the each player turn, and in each phase a unit may complete one action. Each phase the player picks a unit, resolves its action, and then moves onto the next unit. Normally a unit will only be allowed to make two actions, and thus only act in two phases, but some special rules and wargear will allow units to make a third action (Eldar Jetbikes, for example, Fleet for another). A unit can only make one kind of action per turn (so no Movement twice). A weapon may only be used in a single phase per player turn. In addition, any reaction that a unit makes in the other army's player turn (Fall Back after failing a Morale check, fight a round of close combat, etc) counts against the number of actions in their own player turn.

Actions:

Movement
As the current movement rules for the Movement phase.

Assault
As the current movement and combat rules for the Assault phase.

Shooting
As the current shooting rules for the Shooting phase.

Fall Back
A unit that is Falling Back must make a Fall Back re/action during the first phase of every player turn. Units that are Falling Back can only make Fall Back, Rally, or Shoot actions.

Rally
As the Rally rules in the Morale section of the rulebook.
Ready

Reactions
Fall Back
See Fall Back! rules in the Morale section of the rulebook.

Stand and Fight
As the current close combat rules in the Assault phase.

So notice that a unit can Stand and Fight during the opposing player turn, and then if it is still locked in close combat during its own player's turn, can fight again. If it had some rule permitting movement after an assault, like Hit and Run, then it can make a third action during on of its own phases.

I like that idea, nurglitch. Now, the only problem I see with this is when exactly are these reactions taken, can a unit fall back when another unit as moved? It would be helpful if you specified when this could happen. If a unit assaults, when do the reactions occur? because, if you're going by initiative (the unit with the higher initiative decides what they do first) then some pansy eldar shooty army (I'm looking at you, fludit!!) is going to get away every time. I think that unless stated otherwise, Fall Back should be dictated by a morale check and a morale check only. Perhaps certain HQs (Ethereals, Autarchs, Necron Lords, CCS, etc.) can allow you to decide to fall back, but other HQs, like the ones that are renown for fighting (not being intelligent in any way) can't.

In terms of USR, Run! is now Fleet, and if you look at it in terms of which phase the move is done in, it still makes sense. A rule that takes place in the shooting phase happens when you're shooting, a rule which takes place when assaulting happens when you're assaulting.

I'm not entirely sure about the whole Fall Back reaction, I think there should be some sort of dice roll involved. Like a morale test, but with initiative.

Something like: "If a unit is attempting to take a 'Fall Back!' Reaction, take their initiative, If it is 5 or lower, use a single dice, if it is higher, (automatically passed? counts as 5?) Roll 1D6, If it is equal to or lower than the initiative of the unit, The fall back test is passed and the unit makes a 'Fall Back!' move."

Another idea I have is that units cannot fall back more than once per game turn.

Just my 2 cents.

The reactions occur as and when they normally occur.

A unit would Stand and Fight when an enemy unit charges into close combat with them. A unit would Fall Back after failing a Morale check at the end of a phase due to shooting casualties or losing an assault, and immediately when getting tank shocked. The order is already in the rules; it's already dictated by morale checks.

Likewise, according to this set-up Run is still done instead of taking a Shooting action. Fleet simply allows an Assault action (movement and combat) in addition to another two actions that permit assault movement, such as Moving and Shooting or Running.

Interesting point about Fall Back actions, although that's already been covered in the prohibition against doing more than one of any type of action during a turn.

Hi Nurglitch.
I was wondering if it might be possible to 'stream line' the actions a bit , without loosing the exellent interaction.(Yes I am a fan of this game turn.)And maybe reduce turns to 2 each?

I we let 'assaults' happen naturaly when units move into contact.And units contacted in this way are assumed to 'stand and fight'?

Resolving assaults at the end of game turn , help balance shooting and ,assault as it ties up units in a lenghty 'fist fight.' (Thus reducing fire power.)
A burst of rapid fire only takes a few seconds, close combat usualy takes a bit longer to decide a victor!

And the effects of moral be summarised into 'OK' 'Supressed' 'Routed'.
(Supressed units will stay in cover, if NOT in cover will move to cover within 1/2 move OR or 'fall back' to cover.Routed unit must move to leave the 'battle area' by the shortest available route.)

Rallying could be part of the 'start of game turn'. turn?(Routed units go to supressed, supressed units go to ready?)

This would leave ,move, shoot , ready. actions.(Ready action is taken before shooting if wanting to use current 'move or fire weapons'.And the default action after rallying.)

Eg
'Start of game turn.'
Players roll for /determine initiative .
Call for off table support, (artillery,air strikes, reserves,). And attempt to rally supressed units.

Player A .
Player B.
Player A.
Player B.

End of game turn.
Resolve assaults, plot arrivals.(reserves air strikes and bombardments!)


Just a few suggestions ,for discussion.

TTFN
Lanrak.

Nurglitch wrote:The reactions occur as and when they normally occur.

A unit would Stand and Fight when an enemy unit charges into close combat with them. A unit would Fall Back after failing a Morale check at the end of a phase due to shooting casualties or losing an assault, and immediately when getting tank shocked. The order is already in the rules; it's already dictated by morale checks.

Likewise, according to this set-up Run is still done instead of taking a Shooting action. Fleet simply allows an Assault action (movement and combat) in addition to another two actions that permit assault movement, such as Moving and Shooting or Running.

Interesting point about Fall Back actions, although that's already been covered in the prohibition against doing more than one of any type of action during a turn.

Alright, I got more sleep last night, so I re-read your rules and understand them, lol. I think that two phases (like what lanrak just said) would make it more streamlined than three phases, but then, of course we need to add a few more turns. Three more? Mathematically to add in the lost phases we'd need 2.5, so 2 or 3 more turns?

I say two phases would be good because it retains the restrictions of not being able to move all the time, and you're forced to do other things. The problem I have with the three phase turn is it becomes the regular turns out of order. The two-phase turn makes more sense to me.

Having three phases maintains backwards compatibility with the existing 40k rules, particularly the ones like Fleet which enable a unit to get an Assault action if they also ran while engaging in a Shooting action.

I'd say resolve assaults at the end of the phase it begins, as usual, with units locked in an assault from a previous turn being resolved during the first phase of the turn (so fighting in combat and then possibly falling back would count as a unit's two actions for that turn). If a new unit engages a locked unit in the next phase, then any unit with re/actions left that turn could fight.

The current morale effects for 40k, keeping in minds backwards compatibility, would be normal, falling back, and gone to ground or pinned. There's no need to change these things if we simply want to play Warhammer with a more flexible turn structure. Indeed, they are superfluous to it, and if we want to change as little as possible and maximize backwards compatibility, what we already have in 5th edition is good enough.

Likewise the introduction of a Ready action is un-necessary because such actions are already presumed in the 5th edition of the rules: a unit that wants to fire Heavy Weapons in that turn cannot move or assault, either before or after the phase in which it shoots.

Basically what I'm proposing here is a way to loosen the strict move-shoot-assault order of 40k turns so that the following options are available.

In fact, in retrospect, I believe my proposal needs amendment, because the existing 40k rules already allow three actions per turn under the right conditions, without recourse to special rules. A unit of Ork Boyz, for example, can move, shoot, and then assault.

So I'd like to amed my proposal to lose the general restriction on two actions per turn, and to leave it at allowing up to one action per phase, pending other limitations. A unit that a player had engaged in shooting Rapid Fire weapons in a previous phase would not have the option of conducting an assault action, for example.

Likewise an assault action would preclude a unit from conducting a Shooting action with Rapid Fire weapons. And a unit that was engaged in a close combat that they lost would only have the option of Falling Back, and then possibly Shooting.

These limits already exist organic to the established system, and do not require additional rules.

So the Turn Sequence would be amended as follows:

Game Turn 1

Player 1 Turn 1

Phase 1 - Player 1, one by one, can declare and resolve a Move, Shooting, Assault, Fall Back, or Rally action, Player 2 resolves Stand and Fight reactions as units are engaged, Fall Back actions at the end of the phase, or during Tank Shock.

Phase 2

Player 1, one by one, can declare and resolve a Move, Shooting, Assault, or Rally action, Player 2 resolves Stand and Fight reactions as units are engaged, Fall Back actions at the end of the phase, or during Tank Shock.

Phase 3

Player 1, one by one, can declare and resolve a Move, Shooting, Assault, or Rally action, Player 2 resolves Stand and Fight reactions as units are engaged, Fall Back actions at the end of the phase, or during Tank Shock.

Player 2, Turn 1

As Player 1 Turn 1, but roles reversed.

Game Turn 2

As Game Turn 1, etc.

The only restriction would be that a unit cannot perform the same action or reaction more than once in one player turn.

Hi Nurglitch,
Ah I see now.
But is modifying a '3 phase interactive game turn' to suit rules developed for 'army level IGO/ UGO game turn' a good idea?

I belive this will lead to lots of wordy descriptions of conditions to be met , for all the conditional squences.

This appears to be a re-occuring theme with 40k development, any attempt to try to inject more game play, results in lots of wordy explinations due to a basicaly inefficient existing system.
And when they are made to be 'backwards compatable', this seems to make good ideas look 'over complicated'.IMO.

What about action-raction type game turn?

Eg.
Player A acts.
Player B reacts.
Player B acts.
Player A reacts.

As you have defined 'actions' and 're-action' opotions , would this make it easier for players to follow the sequencing?

Shorter game turn ,with less happening , but easier to follow?

Again just some ideas for discussion.
TTFN
Lanrak.

Lanrak:

I'm not modifying a '3 phase interactive game turn' to suit rules developed for 'army level IGO/ UGO game turn'.

Warhammer 40k already has a 3 phase interactive game turn developed for 'army level IGO/ UGO game turn. I'm not proposing to change anything except the options that a player has in each phase of the game.

All I'm proposing is giving players the option of what to do in each phase, and following a progression already established in the rules:

As a Warhammer 40k 5th edition player you can move in all three phases, for example, by moving, running, and assaulting (pending rules for combinations of weapons and actions). Likewise players have the option of shooting or running in the Shooting phase (pending rules for units).

In particular, I'm proposing a very conservative modification, one that should make it un-necessary to change much more than the turn sequence, or the content on p.9 and

So a player can assault, move, and shoot, or shoot, assault, move, or move and assault, or move and shoot, or rally and shoot, or fall back and shoot, and so on.

My proposal isn't about "injecting more game play", which remains to be seen since I haven't tried this myself yet, but modifying the rules to fit the original poster's design principles of streamlined play with increased tactical thought. The gameplay concepts are present in 5th edtion (acting in three phases, options in phases), and my proposal just increased the amount of tactical thinking said gameplay generates, while using off-the-shelf streamlining in the form of the existing rules.

If we define streamlined play as simplifying the number of tasks required of the players, and increased tactical thought as more tactical problems for the players to solve, and we add in the additional problem of ensuring retro-compatibility, so that we're still playing Warhammer rather than Stargrunt, Battlefield Evo, Epic Armageddon, Crossfire, or Chess, then I think my proposal is a good first approximation of what the original poster wants (okay, it's three phases per game, but that's Warhammer for you).

You may have noticed I'm naturally "wordy", but if you care to check compare my proposal to the wording of the 5th edition rules, I think you'll find that mine can be written in the same number of column-inches or less.

I could, for example, write it as:

Substitution for "The Turn", The Rules Section, the Rulebook, p.9 wrote:Game Turns and Player Turns
In a complete game turn, both players get a player turn, with each player turn divided into three phases (see Turn Sequence, below). Hence one game turn will comprise two player turns.

During each phase of their turn, a player picks a unit they control, declares an action, resolves that action, and moves on until they run out of units, or they decide to end the phase. A unit may not engage in more than one action of the same type in a single turn.

All close combat is resolved at the end of a phase, rather than before another unit resolves an action. Units already in close combat may declare an Assault action to resolve the close combat at the end of that phase.

Turn Sequence
1st Phase
Options: Movement, Shooting, Assault, Regroup, Fall Back
2nd Phase
Options: Movement, Shooting, Assault
3rd Phase:
Options: Movement, Shooting, Assault

Required Actions
If a unit is falling back at the beginning of the controlling player's turn, then that player must declare and resolve either a Regroup and/or a Fall Back action for that unit during the first phase of the player turn.

Actions/Reactions
- Movement (see Movement phase, rulebook)
- Shooting (see Shooting phase, rulebook)
- Assault (see Assault phase, rulebook)
- Regroup (see Morale, rulebook)
- Fall Back (see Morale, rulebok)

Who Gets the First Turn?
The mission you are fighting will specify exactly who gets the first turn, and how that first turn is determined.

The End of the Game
The standard missions presented in this book last a random number of game turns (five to seven turns), determined by a dice roll.

To reiterate what I said in an above post, certain contingencies of weapon use, unit type, and prior actions will limit the actions that a unit can engage in during any given turn. Firing a Heavy Weapon, for example, will require that an Infantry unit neither engage in a Movement action before engaging in a Shooting action with said weapon, or afterwards. Note that I've left out the reactions, as they're already implicit in the Assault phase and Morale rules anyhow.

so... um...3 phases in a turn means possibly 3 assaults

group A, B, C:
phase 1
A: Assaults(resolve assaults)
B: Moves
C: Moves

phase 2
A: Assaults(still in assault, Must resolve assault?)
B: Assaults(resolve assaults)
C: Runs(Fleet)

phase 3
A: Assaults(still in assault, Must resolve assault?)
B: Assaults(still in assault, Must resolve assault?)
C: Assaults(resolve assaults)

so Group A gets 3 Assault resolutions in a TURN?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Imagine having group A adjacent to a vehicle... that's 3 chances to wreck it.

Lacross:

No. See the second paragraph in Game Turns and Player Turns, "A unit may not engage in more than one action of the same type in a single turn."

Units: A, B, C.
Order by numbers.

Phase 1
1. B Moves
2. A Assault Moves
3. C Moves
4. A resolves close combat, loses, passes Morale

phase 2
A is locked in close combat
1. B Assault Moves
2. C: Runs
3. B resolves close combat, wins, enemy suffers No Retreat!

Phase 3
A & B are locked in close combat
1. C Assault Moves thanks to Fleet
2. C resolves close combat, wins, enemy Falls Back.

Because unit A is locked in close combat after the single round of combat that it can fight, it can do nothing for the rest of the turn. It cannot declare another Assault action, and thus resolve the close combat at the end of the phase, until the next game turn.

ok, i thought that the resolution of an assault in progress(making CC attacks)
was different from declaring an assault(making an assault move and possibly rolling for terrain)

I think I'm going to try some of these rules out with fludit on sunday after the regular game. I'll tell you all how it goes. I think you all should try it as well, otherwise some guy at games workshop could look at this, go OMFG!!! or something, and without testing it, put it in the book or something. We may then find it to be crap (and required.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think that (as a statement of common knowledge/sense) in the weapons section, The statements should become more general as to which phases are allowed, such as with a rapid fire weapon you can either shoot or assault, with assault weapons you can do all three phase types, heavy weapons you can shoot or do other things, etc.

Also, it should be noted that any unit can abstain from any phase (unless stated otherwise [effects of morale]) so that Gwar! doesn't go on a tirade about RAW you have to do everything.

Hi again.
Nurglitch, I didnt mean to infer there was anything inherrantly 'wrong' with what you proposed.
Other than the existing system of 40k rules are rather wordy due to 'artificialy created' interaction.As opposed to the basic interaction arrived at 'naturaly' from simpler game turn mechanics used in other games.

And as in so many cases, good ideas turn into 'very wordy rules explanations' , due to the 'poorly defined and wordy nature ' of the 40k rule set.

In short what you suggested was probably the best backwards compatable option for the current 40k rules.

But there are much simpler ,and easily expalined alternatives, more suited to greater gameplay options with fewer rules.

And if you want to eventualy arrive at a 'simple but elegant combat simulation with loads of game play options ' type game, 40k rules are the worst place to start.

Happy gameing.
Lanrak.

crazypsyko666:

Yeah, there would necessarily be some cosmetic changes In the play-testing and design phase, and pointing out inconsistencies and problems with the rules would aid in re-writing them. You actually kind of want people like Gwar! to test a set of rules, so that you can build in reasonable safeguards against that sort of end-user.

Lanrak:

I didn't think you were suggesting that there was anything 'wrong' with what I proposed. I thought you were proposing more radical changes.

It's the nature of rules that they more definition that they require, the more 'wordy' they'll be. I certainly agree that there are many simpler, more concisely written rules out there, but part of this thread is about tweaking 40k, not making a new game.

So which ones do you think I should end up testing? I was thinking my original idea (A acts, B acts, end game turn), the multi-action three phase per turn game (A acts, B reacts, x3, B acts, A reacts, x3, end game turn), and the same one but each player alternates every other phase. (A acts, B reacts, B acts, A reacts x3, end game turn.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and should I test out my rough idea for an initiative-based Fall Back! move?

I'd recommend testing mine, if only because I've set up a replacement for p.9 of the standard rues.

You should try all three (I'd recommend a Platoon of Imperial Guard vs a Platoon of Renegade Guard, for speed and testing the basics of the system), if you have the time.

Well, of course you'd suggest your own, lol. I'm probably going to play two SM proxies at 500. Same pieces.

The problem I see with the "I move you move, I shoot you shoot" is that it allows the person moving second to "duck for cover" after the first person moves. On a board like cityfight or with lots of tall hills it would annoy me if I moved a AT model (say Pred with tri lascannons) out from behind cover to shoot at another tank, only to have them move it back out of the way.

They already have cover factored into 40k, they are cover saves. Having units duck out of the way before you ever get to shoot at them and breaking LOS makes shooty armies weaker.

Hi TakamineG.

As 40k has a unsuitable and restrictive game turn mechanic, the rest of the rules have to artificialy inject the interaction that would happen naturaly with more appropriate game turn mechanics.
(BTW, cover should modify the chance of bieng seen or hit, not add a seperate level of optional physical protection.IMO.)

Most rules that use a more interctive game turn have far more game play options.
However, if the responce to seeing an enemy unit moving on your position is to move out of sight,(a valid option not currently available),you stop the enemy firing at you, but also loose the chance to shoot the enemy!
And how far can you run away before you run out of table and count as lost?
How many turns would a 'unit in hiding 'last with an artillery bombardment landing on top of them each turn?

Just plonking a sensible idea into an abstract system is often viewed as a bad idea.
Its is very difficult to improve 40k significantly,without replacing complete sections of rules.

And it would be quicker do a complete re-write, than try to modify 40k to get the game some people want.

TTFN
Lanrak.

This is all nonsense.

Irkjoe wrote:This is all nonsense.

I agree. Your post is nonsensical.

So I had taken a hiatus from 40k because all of my friends had started playing magic again, which got me thinking about this whole idea again. So, for those of you who don't know, magic has about 12 phases per turn, but each turn lasts about thirty seconds, which made me realize the problem with my original concept, which is that it is very unstructured. So off the top of my head, I can come up with one to better this system.


Turn Phases:


Begin Phase: All automatic abilities (such as epidemuses abilities, njal the stormcaller's abilities, etc.) and normal abilities (including psychic powers) are activated.

Action Declaration Phase: Players decide which units will Move, Shoot, CC, do nothing and Charge.

Activate Related Abilities: Abilities such as FRFSRF are activated for troops, psychic powers are activated, etc.

Action Phase: Units move, shoot, CC, do nothing or Charge. All psychic powers that shoot, assault, etc. are activated in this phase (fortune, holocaust, etc.)

Casualty Removal Phase: All casualties are removed from the game board.

Test Phase: Leadership tests, and other associated tests after combat or actions are now activated.

Retreat Phase: Units that have failed leadership tests now retreat.

End Phase: All abilities and actions are resolved, the turn ends and the next player starts their beginning phase.


Now, there are alot of things that need to be cleared up. One of the concerns I am aware of is of certain abilities that activate in specific phases, so I propose that these take place when a unit (or to a unit that) is using that action, or in one of the phases that allow psychic powers.

For shooting: the problem posed with shooting is, again, they rely on the three phases. So here, I have a simple solution to this problem.

Setting Up/ Bracing: A unit that attempts to fire a heavy weapon must first setup/brace their weapons. During the action phase, A unit may brace themselves for firing a weapon. (Note: a unit firing a heavy weapon MUST brace themselves) The next turn, they may fire their weapon. No abilities or psychic powers may be activated for the rest of the turn.

Repositioning/Deconstructing/Needs a much better name than one that I can come up with at the moment.... (Let's just call this Action 2): A unit that has fired a non-assault weapon must (better action name here) before assaulting. This takes one action phase, and no abilities or psychic powers may be activated for the rest of the turn. NOTE: A unit may fire as many times as they want once they are setup (if they need to be setup) and move after firing a weapon that requires this.

Weapon Types:

Assault: An assault weapon can be fired regardless of previous action.

Rapid Fire A rapid fire weapon requires repositioning before assaulting.

Heavy Weapons: Heavy weapons require setup/bracing before and repositioning after to move/assault.


Now, I have another Idea that applies to bracing, which is that it could be a BS modifier. A unit may brace for a turn before firing in the subsequent turn for an added +(1, 2?) to their BS. This may not affect every heavy weapon. Perhaps more accurate weapons, such as rocket launchers and snipers, but I doubt a heavy bolter would require it, so maybe allow this for snipers, and for specified heavy weapons?

C&C por favor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Now, I have revising of my ideas for actions: Units can move as many times in a row as they want, in fact, any unit can make any type of action as many times as you desire if it is possible.

For Fleet, I was thinking an added 3" to their movement, (up to 9" total) and a negative BS modifier to their shooting if they fire after a fleet movement, but they may still make a standard 6" move.

I think the OP is on to something. It is obviously not completely fleshed out but crzypsyko666 has obviously seen something worth fixing in the dynamic of the game.

OP, play test a few modified turn styles and see if they alleviate any problems you see in the current game. Be critical and find new problems that arise. Lastly try to keep the game sequence logical and fast. Much of the last 2 40K editions have put a lot of effort in streamlining games in order for them to move quickly and fluidly.

GL and props for thinking out of the box to solve a problem. don't listen to the haters.

Thanks, but I don't play 40k as often as I'd like. If anyone is interested in this idea, please try it out and tell me how it works. Outside feedback and lots of playtesting/playtesters is what makes a game good.

A friend and I tried to combine the turns into 1 turn: Moving characters in order of their initiative, when all movement done shooting and so on etc. Hard to keep track of stuff after a few turns. Also having slower initiative seemed to help a little since you could position your forces after they have taken up points etc. I suppose this could also be an advantage to high initiative models, you could "herd" the enemy into an area.

Anywho...GW has a turn based game I think due to simplicity. We were running into issues where orks with power claws moving at a speed of 1, or furious charge changing +1 and us having to adjust who goes same time etc. I just play regular now, no sense muddling up the rules for when I play other people.

J-Roc77 wrote:A friend and I tried to combine the turns into 1 turn: Moving characters in order of their initiative, when all movement done shooting and so on etc. Hard to keep track of stuff after a few turns. Also having slower initiative seemed to help a little since you could position your forces after they have taken up points etc. I suppose this could also be an advantage to high initiative models, you could "herd" the enemy into an area.

moving units in order of I: creative.

Well, J-roc, did you allow them to do all of the actions (if able)? Could you explain how you played it in more detail? If it was unstructured, of course it would have problems. An unstructured turn system tends to be clunky and broken.

Also: the whole 'who did what is getting confusing' is what markers are for. They are exceptionally helpful. I'd reccomend them to anyone.

Hi all.
I would like to say that using current 'I' values for who goes first doesnt work too well.(We tried this concept back when 1st ed SH came out.)The speed of close combat attacks is not representative of battle field awareness!

To increases tactics and KEEP IT SIMPLE.Issueing order counters to units is the most efficient method.

EG
Start of turn issue order counters to units on good moral.And request off table support.

Activate units in sequence.(Determined by prefered method.)

End turn resolve assaults, attempt to rally , plot arivals.

After order counters are placed , you can activate units taking( both actions)one at a time altinating between players.
Alternating unit activation can be controled by 'left to right-closest to farthest'.Or player choice etc.

OR let one player take the first action of the order ,

Then the opposing player takes the first action of thier orders,

Then the first player takes the second action of the orders,

Then the opposing player takes the second action of the orders.

Eg Alan turns over his order counters one at a time,after turning a counter face up he takes the first action with that unit.

Bob turns over his order counters one at a time,after turning a counter face up he takes the first action with that unit.

Alan turns over his order counters one at a time,after turning a counter face down he takes the second action with that unit.

Bob turns over his order counters one at a time,after turning a counter face down he takes the second action with that unit.

Even a simple set of orders like;-
Fire support(F) prepare+shoot.
Advance (A) move +shoot.
Evade(E) shoot + move
Double (D) move +move.
Charge(C ) move +assault.

Results in a far more interactive game turn and tactival game!

TTFN
lanrak.

What happens to the assaulting units? Do they get two phases to assault?

(I'm not being negative, I'm just trying to find holes to plug up.)

Hi crazypsyko666.
As this idea is so far removed for the current 40k game turn I expected questions.

At the start of the turn, the HQ issues the order to assault!
(The player places the assault counter face down next to the unit.)
On the first action the counter is turned face up, and the unit moves towards the intended target!
The opposing player then has the option to react to the enemy units !
On the second action the counter is placed face down, and the unit moves into assault the intended target.(if able to)The assault can be resolved now.(Or left to the end of turn if you prefer ?)
Units locked in assault continue to fight ,and will not respond to orders untill the assault is resolved. (Its difficult to aim or move coherantly when a homicidal xenos is trying to re-organise you internal organs!)

ALL units with orders perform 2 actions.
BUT only ONE action is carried out before the opponent can respond!

As the phases are ;-
Start of turn.

A primary action phase.

B primary action phase.

A secondary action phase.

B secondary action phase.

End of turn phase.

All orders happens over 2 action phases.

'FAQs'
Q, Whats to stop assaulted unit running away, or retreating and firing at the assaulting unit?
A,The skill of the assaulting player !
I intend to apply a simple supression mechanic to facilitate real world tactics of ,
Find them, (Locate and proiritize targets.)
Fix 'them, (Supressive fire to limit enemy movement)
Flank them, (out manouver enemy units to get assault units in position,)
Finish them!(wipe out enemy in close combat)

If shooting has supression AND direct damage effects ,it make weapon function AND game play more diverse!
Also units retreating off the table edge count as destroyed,(for VP,).

Current 40k is built around a simple but restrictive game turn mechanic.If we free up the level of interaction we can get naturaly occuring tactics.(Not having to write reams of conditional rules, leaves more room for intuitive simulation detail.IMO. )

Has this helped?
I can try to explain it in a bit more detail if you like?
Asking questions is all part of the development process, and a good thing!

TTFN
lanrak.

Hey Lanrak,

My main concern is what about the orders? It could be vastly simplified if you could just tell them to make two of the five actions I've mentioned. It just seems somewhat complicated (now, I'm not saying it sounds like a bad idea, so far it's a little under-developed and complicated) but my original point was to simplify and diversify what could be done in the turn. The idea was (and is still at its core) one action and (about) three times the number of turns.

So, flesh it out completely. Make every question anyone could have be answered. Worst case scenario, it doesn't work. If it's more complicated or doesn't make sense, make note, and if you need help, talk to me. It sounds like an interesting idea, but it has a long way to go. Remember, think idealistically, but work realistically. Think about ways to make something work, but if it doesn't, toss it out.

For assault, I was thinking that perhaps the first action phase the squad with the Initiative would strike, then for the second the squad attacks. Simple enough?

Why are there two phases per action?

What are the orders?

Are there weapon specific orders? (Like for heavy weapons setting up, then shooting?)

What happens with phase-specific special rules? (a la fleet?)

That's all I can think of for now, but I did just get back from school, so my brain has fallen out of my ears and must collect again.

HI crazypsko666.

If we go with the' A performs ONE action with all thier units, B performs One action with all thier units.'(x3)
We have the restrictive practice of following set actions, move then shoot then assault.And some units doing nothing in a phase.(Heavy weapons teams rarley want to assault!)

Or we let players take any actions out of sequence, but this lets them react with unrealistic omnipitance.(Godlike knowlwedge of the battle field .)So player react to the actions of thier oponents 'unrealisticaly'.

If we let each player take 2 action with a unit a game turn, this allows reasonable levels of free interaction , also requires a bit of forward planning.

All the 'orders' are, is the 2 actions the unit will take in the action phases, and the 'order' in which they are performed.

Actions

'Move' , move up to the units movement value.

'Ready', set up heavier weapons , find best firing positions, make best use of available cover.

'Shoot', fire ranged weapons.

'Assault' move up to the units movement value and engage enemy unit in close combat.

The 5 'Orders' are made up of the 2 'actions' as follows.

Advance (A) move +shoot.

Double (D) move +move.

Charge(C ) move +assault.

Evade(E) shoot + move.

Fire support(F) Ready+shoot.

If a units weapon is classified as (F)Fire Support, it can ONLY fire when a (F)Fire support order is given to that unit.(Covers current Heavy/Ordmnance weapon type.)
If units are given a Movement stat like WH,and terrain modifies this by -1 or-2 inches.We dont need to use the 40k special rules for movement.

ALL units perform 2 actions per game turn, interleaved with oponents .

If we let assault actions be resolved at the 'end of turn' phase, this lets assaulting units pin enemy units, and stop them shooting.
Then assaults deminsh enemy manouvering and shooting akin to modern warfare annalogues.

The action phases are interleaved,

a-b-a-b.

Ill stop there so you can comment ...

TTFN
Lanrak.

That looks pretty damn good! Thanks, Lanrak. I may be playing a game this saturday, I'll try out both rulesets and tell you how it works. My primary concern is (tell me if this isn't relevant) first, I have two more actions.

Run (R) Move+Move

Sustained Fire (S) Shoot+Shoot

And if these turns are interleaved, when you declare which units are doing what, wouldn't the person going second have a distinct advantage? Do these players need to declare which command they are doing before they can do it, or do they simply need to act a certain order?

E.G.: Action A, Move, do I need to decide whether or not I am going to (A) (D) (C) now, or can I decide which second action I'm going to do next?

Otherwise, it looks very interesting. I'm thoroughly enjoying this thread.

Cheers,
Psyko

Hi again,
I used the turn 'double'(D) to cover move+move. But if you want to call it 'run' feel free to do so!

Sustained fire (Shoots +Shoots,) may be a bit over powered, unless subject to restrictions of BS or range?

If you place an order counter face down next to the unit , this fixes the 2 actions they will be taking in the action phases for the game turn.

Eg if a unit gets an advance order (A) they move first, then the opponent takes thier action, then the unit shoots,, then the oponent takes thier action.

The orders stop players reacting to the opponents actions in an unreaistic way, the unit decides an action set,(order) , and performs the action set(order.).

You place the orders A,C,D,E,F, as you want, next to the units at the start of the game turn.
So you have to guess what your opponents are going to do,(like in real life!)

Has this explained it better?
I am not too good at explaining myself, sorry.

TTFN
Lanrak.

Scott, how would it give the same effect?

Basic game: Marines move, they get shot, they move, get shot, someone dies in the end.

Your way: Marines move, then move, then kill the tau.
Or if tau go 1st: they shoot, shoot more, and then kill them through shooting.

It would tip off the balance too much.
Fireline armies would simply gun down the other army too quickly for them to fight back.


In essence, its taken years to develope the game to how it is now, changing it would be impossible if you were to tinker about with how turns worked since there is alot more involved than just changing them around.

Lanrak wrote:Hi again,
I used the turn 'double'(D) to cover move+move. But if you want to call it 'run' feel free to do so!

Sustained fire (Shoots +Shoots,) may be a bit over powered, unless subject to restrictions of BS or range?

If you place an order counter face down next to the unit , this fixes the 2 actions they will be taking in the action phases for the game turn.

Eg if a unit gets an advance order (A) they move first, then the opponent takes thier action, then the unit shoots,, then the oponent takes thier action.

The orders stop players reacting to the opponents actions in an unreaistic way, the unit decides an action set,(order) , and performs the action set(order.).

You place the orders A,C,D,E,F, as you want, next to the units at the start of the game turn.
So you have to guess what your opponents are going to do,(like in real life!)

Has this explained it better?
I am not too good at explaining myself, sorry.

TTFN
Lanrak.

Having a 'face down' counter might fix the problem. There should also be single action commands, such as 'just fire' 'just move' or something like that.

JD21290 wrote:Scott, how would it give the same effect?

Basic game: Marines move, they get shot, they move, get shot, someone dies in the end.

Your way: Marines move, then move, then kill the tau.
Or if tau go 1st: they shoot, shoot more, and then kill them through shooting.

It would tip off the balance too much.
Fireline armies would simply gun down the other army too quickly for them to fight back.


In essence, its taken years to develope the game to how it is now, changing it would be impossible if you were to tinker about with how turns worked since there is alot more involved than just changing them around.

My foremost concern when developing this concept was backwards compatibility. All of the actions have been made reverse compatible with old rules. RTFP

Old thread is really, really old, but it's mine so deal with it. I've been thinking about this whole thing again, and Lanrak's two-phase turn concept makes more sense every time I think about it. Turns are more engaging, there's more room for tactical deviancy, and it overall works better. About a year ago, not long after this whole thread died, I played a game using my rules, which fizzled and got boring quickly. I had the original question (why all of the needless phases?) again recently, and I was brought back to this thread. I have a few modifications to the proposition brought up by Lanrak, which I quote here:

Lanrak wrote:HI crazypsko666.

If we go with the' A performs ONE action with all thier units, B performs One action with all thier units.'(x3)
We have the restrictive practice of following set actions, move then shoot then assault.And some units doing nothing in a phase.(Heavy weapons teams rarley want to assault!)

Or we let players take any actions out of sequence, but this lets them react with unrealistic omnipitance.(Godlike knowlwedge of the battle field .)So player react to the actions of thier oponents 'unrealisticaly'.

If we let each player take 2 action with a unit a game turn, this allows reasonable levels of free interaction , also requires a bit of forward planning.

All the 'orders' are, is the 2 actions the unit will take in the action phases, and the 'order' in which they are performed.

Actions

'Move' , move up to the units movement value.

'Ready', set up heavier weapons , find best firing positions, make best use of available cover.

'Shoot', fire ranged weapons.

'Assault' move up to the units movement value and engage enemy unit in close combat.

The 5 'Orders' are made up of the 2 'actions' as follows.

Advance (A) move +shoot.

Double (D) move +move.

Charge(C ) move +assault.

Evade(E) shoot + move.

Fire support(F) Ready+shoot.

If a units weapon is classified as (F)Fire Support, it can ONLY fire when a (F)Fire support order is given to that unit.(Covers current Heavy/Ordmnance weapon type.)
If units are given a Movement stat like WH,and terrain modifies this by -1 or-2 inches.We dont need to use the 40k special rules for movement.

ALL units perform 2 actions per game turn, interleaved with oponents .

If we let assault actions be resolved at the 'end of turn' phase, this lets assaulting units pin enemy units, and stop them shooting.
Then assaults deminsh enemy manouvering and shooting akin to modern warfare annalogues.

The action phases are interleaved,

a-b-a-b.

Ill stop there so you can comment ...

TTFN
Lanrak.

And I'm wondering primarily why the restrictions on action-types (Advance, Double, Charge, etc.) are there at all. The whole point is to be more tactically flexible, to have the game feel more like it's playing out in real time, so why are there these restrictions at all? There was previous talk of a marker, or chip-like tool used to remind the player which action is being done for each unit. I've considered this, and based on the teachings of Sun Tzu, the art of war is based on deception. Why not give this marker two detachable sides, with a symbol representing the action being taken attached to each. The first action is immediately shown, whilst the second remains hidden, face down. This lets both players keep a tactical advantage over their opponent, making each move interesting and requiring extra consideration, due to Player A's first move being played out, then Player two's, then P1's second, and so on.


Moderators, please forgive the worst case of threadcromancy I've ever seen.

EDIT: I forgot to credit Nurglitch here, who had contributed immensely to the last, ancient iteration of the design.

Hi again.
The reason I wanted to use order counters, is to add to the level of tactical thought involved.
And they map onto the general tactical order a unit leader might give. If you imaging the game turn is a short period of time , may be a minuite or less.
Then the unit leader decides what the unit should do next.(The 2 action contained on the order counter .)

The revised game turn I have been working on runs like this...

Actions .
Move, attack, ready.

Advance(A), Move + attack.

Creep (C)ready +move.

Double (D), Move + move.

Evade (E), attack + move

Full support(F) ready then attack.


Command Phase.
Players issue orders to units on good moral,(face down,) and request 'off table support'*.(*Reserves, air or artillery strkes.)

Action Phase.
Player A turns over order counters one at a time and takes the first action of the order with each of thier apropriate units.

Player B turns over order counters one at a time and takes the first action of the order with each of thier apropriate units.

Player A removes order counters one at a time and takes the second action of the order with the apropriate units.

Player B removes order counters one at a time and takes the second action of the order with the apropriate units.

Resolution phase.[b]
Attempt to rally units on poor moral, (supressed neutralised or routed, ) and plot arrivals of off table support.

The only problem I found letting players oick actions as the go along is it can get very confusing on what units did what and when...(The use of counters as outlined above make keeping track lots easier, for old duffers like me! )

I can post my latest rules re write (wip ) if you want , its only 14 pages and covers quite a bit of game play.

TTFN

Sure, go for it. (This was always one of my favorite projects, by the way).

You should develope your own game. It's too radical a change for an existing game.

If you have any questions on how I'd redefine terms relating to turns, feel free to ask. Criticism is extremely important as long as it's constructive.

This reminds me of Warzone. I thought Warzone was a better core set of rules than 40K back in the day. In Warzone every model/unit/vehicle had a set of action points. Each action point could be used to perform a specific action. For example most models have a movement rate of 3 inches in Warzone. Most of the common units in the game had three action points. At the start of each turn you roll for initiative, and whoever wins goes first. The winner then can activate a single character or unit/vehicle. Once activated, you can perform all it's actions. Once that unit's actions are complete your opponent then activates his squad of choice and it goes back and forth until all units have been activated, then you start the next turn.

Some actions you could perform were as follows (I haven't played this game since the 90s mind you)

-move
-aim (gave you a +2 to hit if you aimed)
-brace (heavy weapons require bracing)
-dive to cover
-wait (waiting units could activate at any time, like a sniper waiting for a unit to cross his cross-hairs)
-perform attacks in close combat

So, lets say you have a heavy weapons squad. The squad has three action points. You decide to move them once, then brace, then fire. Since heavy weapons require bracing. Now, if they did not move they could brace and fire twice, or brace and aim and fire once, but get a bonus modifier on their roll to hit.

I loved the action point system. It was a D20 based game. Also loved how you took turns activating models. So, if you got to go first that wasn't such a bad thing. I mean the game had some flaws and some loop holes where you could give characters like 12 action points and you could have your hero with a giant claymore move 36 inches in one activation and be with in killing range of everything next turn. I played the Imperial corporation and I had this hero with a power sword type claymore that was all decked out and could move a ton and hide super awesome. He had no missile weapons but it didn't matter. I also loved gaining ground like moving twice and reserving my third action to put a unit on wait. So, if you decided to run between those two buildings you got pew pew pew'd by my guns!

In my opinion the core rule system was superior to Games Workshop games. I guess later on the game developers sort of jacked up the game but I never really played past 1st edition. You could also play a fun game of almost any size. I remember going to other local gaming stores to play challenge games on Warzone and Necromunda. Those were my two favorite games. I still have my Warzone books too, in fact I just skimmed through one while typing this.

I often glance at my opponents army when I win an intiative role and then decide whether I will go first or second. When I don't I decide where I will place and whether or not I will be playing offensively or defensively. Nothing is wrong with the set-up of the game. (Aside from Space Wolves!!) But personal vendettas aside, losing and winning do not come from turn orders, they come from how you play the turn order given to you.

The game is not slow-paced unless your playing a huge army, in which case, you knew what you were getting into when you set-up.

The changes suggested are interesting but would most likely best be applied to special game types with selected force organisation to fit that type of gameplay. For instance
A move- B shoot A assault -- B move A shoot B assault
Each player must field one HQ, Two troops, and 3 additional units selected from Fast, Troop, or Elite charts, but No Psykers. Now that game is workable in 40k.

I move you move. I shoot you shoot.
A player may field 1-2 HQ choices, any number of Troops, and up to 3 Heavy choices. No Psykers.
That should make that scheme workable.

@Crom: That's a lot like what Nurglitch was discussing in (I believe it's) the second page. There are a lot of different possible ways that the turns could be re-arranged that would still cater to our rulesets, since 'phase-specific' abilities (psychic powers in the shooting phase, for instance) could simply be erratta'd to mean 'in a phase when a unit is shooting' or similar. Hell, you could even incorporate fleet and run by making every consecutive 'move' action a D6 roll, then a D3 roll, all the way down to a D2 roll if three phases were implemented.

@Runna: As I've said before, just because something works doesn't mean it can't be better. I'm fine with 40k's core rules, but why not try to improve them? There is so much that could be improved without 'ruining' what the game is about. Hell, if the stories I've heard are correct, squads used to have to be in base contact, rather than 2" of coherency. That's a dramatic change, right there, and when you combine that with squads giving other squads 4+ cover saves someone could easily defend the majority of their army with just a few spread out squads. You probably couldn't have done that in some of the previous editions. Grenades also used to be weapons that did damage, and their throw distance was determined by a static number and a fraction of the unit's strength value. Change isn't new, and I embrace it if it's worth having.

Keep in mind, I'm not interested in 'making the game faster', it just seemed to be a byproduct. My original goal, whether stated or not was that the current turn system seemed cluttered and needlessly strict. The 5th edition rules of charging, running etc. seemed like something of a half-assed way to get around this obvious bump in the system. I just thought 'if we're going to move in the shooting phase, why call it the shooting phase?' and the idea was born. Take of it what you will, even people saying 'no' gives me some answers.

@Crom: That's a lot like what Nurglitch was discussing in (I believe it's) the second page. There are a lot of different possible ways that the turns could be re-arranged that would still cater to our rulesets, since 'phase-specific' abilities (psychic powers in the shooting phase, for instance) could simply be erratta'd to mean 'in a phase when a unit is shooting' or similar. Hell, you could even incorporate fleet and run by making every consecutive 'move' action a D6 roll, then a D3 roll, all the way down to a D2 roll if three phases were implemented.

That is what the action points were for. You have a power stat, and it was for models that had psychic or supernatural abilities. Each psychic power cost a certain amount of action points to perform, depending on what it did, and then you had to roll a power check and pass to cast it.

Another cool thing about Warzone was armor saves. Every gun had a damage rating. The high the damage the better. Then every model had an armor rating. You took the damage rating, subtracted the armor rating and that was your save you had to get. So your saving throws were never constant since high damage weapons did more damage.

The idea behind Warzone is that everything in battle is happening all at once. That is why they did not go with the phase system. Some troops would sprint across the field looking for close combat, while others would cast psychic powers and so forth. If you were going to cast some buffs on a unit, you might as well have your psyker do it first, then for the rest of the actions that buffed unit performs that turn will be with the buffs. Alternating back and forth until every unit has been activated was also quite genius. It means going first wasn't that big of a deal.

Warzone was a really awesome game, and I still have my minis and the books. Maybe I will try to get a game going sometime.

The issue with Action Points is that there aren't any units with Action points in their profile. This could be remedied in a new core rules edition index, but for now (since I don't trust myself to redo the stats for every single unit) I think some simplification is best. I think the rules you gave as an example are FANTASTIC really, but the drastic change could cause enormous balance issues.

Out of curiosity, how many action points does the average grunt have?

EDIT: Though I guess you could do a simple fix for action points based on initiative. AP=Half I rounded down to a minimum of one (or should it be rounded up?). So an IG has one action point, a space marine or an Eldar Guardian has two, a Dark Eldar has three, and so on. Alternatively, you could round it up. Plaguebearers still get one action point, Imperial troops get two, (I believe Aspect Warriors get three?) Dark Eldar get three, and Keepers of Secrets get infinity.

I like the LOTR system, if it recall it correctly:

One player moves, then the other player moves. One shoots, the other shoots. One assaults, then the other assaults.

Is that what we are talking about here? I am a little confused by the OP's idea...

Sounds like some of you ought to invest in some 2nd edition rulebooks.

Hi all.
Here is a list of the game turn mechanics and terms generaly used to describe them.

Ill use the term 'elements' as this referes to models OR units depending on the game size.

1) Alternating Game turns.
Player A takes a series of actions in sequence, with all elements under thier control .(Eg Move then shoot then assault)
Player B takes the series of same actions in sequence,with all elements under thier control .(Move then shoot than assault.)

2) Alternating phases.
Player A takes ONE action with all thier elements.
Player B takes ONE action with all thier elements.
(Repeat untilll all action have been carried out.)

3) Alternating activation.
Player A takes all actions with ONE element.
Player B takes ALL actions with one element.
(Repeat untill all elements have been activated.)

In the above game turns , the actions can be in set sequence ,(move shoot assault.)Or determined by 'actions points ' or 'order counters' as apropriate.

4) Variable bound game turn.
Player A takes actions untill they fail an action or all possible actions are taken.
Player B takes actions untill they fail an action or all possible actions are taken.

If you just want a more interactive game turn to 'plug into' the current 40k rules , the 'alternating phases 'is the best to use.
(Big Sqig is working on a light re-working de kludging of the 40k rule set using this game turn mechanic and its looking good!)

Here is my new rules set basic outline .Its still under development.(Please excuse any typoes and spelling mistakes.)
I have simply use the simplest way to simulate actual interaction that I can think of.
The processes have been abtracted to improve game play, but the results are still reasonably intuitive and scalable.

Note;- I have used the term 'AP' to describe 'weapon damage rating'. As this can stand for 'Armour Piercing' vs large target like vehicles and monsters, or 'Anti Personell' vs other targets.
And 'AP' is easier to say/write than 'weapon damage rating.'

It does NOT work anything like the current AP system found in WH40k!

The target units deducts its AR (armour value) from the attackers AP value , to determine the saving throw value.

EG Alan fires AP 7 weapon at Bobs Trooper with an AR of 2.
7-2=5. Bob needs to roll 5+ on a D6 to save from the damage of the weapon hit!

This is scales well so is used for all units.

TTFN

crazypsyko666 wrote:The issue with Action Points is that there aren't any units with Action points in their profile. This could be remedied in a new core rules edition index, but for now (since I don't trust myself to redo the stats for every single unit) I think some simplification is best. I think the rules you gave as an example are FANTASTIC really, but the drastic change could cause enormous balance issues.

Out of curiosity, how many action points does the average grunt have?

EDIT: Though I guess you could do a simple fix for action points based on initiative. AP=Half I rounded down to a minimum of one (or should it be rounded up?). So an IG has one action point, a space marine or an Eldar Guardian has two, a Dark Eldar has three, and so on. Alternatively, you could round it up. Plaguebearers still get one action point, Imperial troops get two, (I believe Aspect Warriors get three?) Dark Eldar get three, and Keepers of Secrets get infinity.

In Warzone the average grunt had 3 action points. All actions cost 1 point to perform. In a game turn each player alternates between activating units of troops, characters, or vehicles. Once both sides activate everything the turn is over, and you start the next turn. You roll for initiative every turn and complete the game until it is over. Actually the games move rather quickly and it was fun at small and large scale points.

I honestly thought that Warzone was going to be real competition to GW because their core rules system was so solid. GW still made better looking models back then, but I think the game play in Warzone was superior.

At my war-games club at school we do something similar. We each do our movement then shooting then assault

Improvements can be made no doubt, but they've been making them for four editions, and the sequence your speaking of, the turn sequence, again I state it wouldn't work so well with the way the point balance system is, but it would be interesting and fun with rules behind it, most likely to make the point system fit the way phases were now unfolding.
My point is not that improvements can't be made, but based on personally trying out the phases and reverting back to the original way, I think it would be a great game 'type' option much like 'Planet strike' or something where friends would follow those rules or specific tournaments would carry it out. With it's on set of rules to counteract the disadvantages it applies to the current point system.
Yes, the whole system could be revamped, but no, if I worked in a buisness that was working and making money and being as succesful as it is right now, I wouldn't consider a revamp that large at this stage either. In or out of the box. Run it as an optional game 'type', see if it catches on and if enough people like it and start to enjoy it more than the original, a revamp at that point would be acceptable. *That is the logic behind my suggestion.*

I am currently working on a rules conversion of 5th edition to necromunda, but instead of gangs you have post apocalyptic little warbands. Think 40k with no vehicles and each model is an independent character that levels up like Necromunda. I plan on having the 5th edition modified rules, and then an optional rule set to test out action points.

Well Runna, I'm curious what kind of game type you'd suggest then and why. I don't see any specific setup that it would benefit more than any other (or less).

Runna wrote:Improvements can be made no doubt, but they've been making them for four editions, and the sequence your speaking of, the turn sequence, again I state it wouldn't work so well with the way the point balance system is, but it would be interesting and fun with rules behind it, most likely to make the point system fit the way phases were now unfolding.
My point is not that improvements can't be made, but based on personally trying out the phases and reverting back to the original way, I think it would be a great game 'type' option much like 'Planet strike' or something where friends would follow those rules or specific tournaments would carry it out. With it's on set of rules to counteract the disadvantages it applies to the current point system.
Yes, the whole system could be revamped, but no, if I worked in a buisness that was working and making money and being as succesful as it is right now, I wouldn't consider a revamp that large at this stage either. In or out of the box. Run it as an optional game 'type', see if it catches on and if enough people like it and start to enjoy it more than the original, a revamp at that point would be acceptable. *That is the logic behind my suggestion.*

GW doesn't have much competition though, so it is not like they have to worry about other scifi and fantasy games taking their market share. Just because Microsoft sells the most copies of their OS does not make them the superior OS. It just means in the market they were smart and got in at the right time and have never really had much competition, and when they did they bought them out or filed lawsuit against them.

I do truly think an action point based system in a skirmish scifi backed game is a superior framework to work with. It is like a game of chess. You activate and move one piece, and then your opponent activates and moves their piece and you go back and forth.

YOU THIEVES!

Seriously, I have been thinking of this type of game for a while. I call it "Move, Shoot, Fight".

Stop thinking about back and forth phases. Stop thinking about reactions. Forget action points. None of that will be accepted, and would create a totally new game.

You are the Battle Captain so you issue orders. There can be a mechanic here where units may have difficulty recieving and executing orders due to various factors. (fleeing, dead sgt., out of coherency)

The orders can be like those below. These are an easier transition from current 40k rules. My idea was 4 orders originally: move, shoot, fight, hold. I like the ideas below better.

Each turn is an order phase, and 2 action phases. Each order includes 2 actions. The results of those actions like fleeing and sweeping advances are a bit of an issue. I think they will best carry over to the next turn.

Actions

'Move' - move 6"

'Ready', set up heavier weapons , find best firing positions, make best use of available cover.

'Shoot', fire ranged weapons.

'Assault' move up to the units movement value and engage enemy unit in close combat.

The 5 'Orders' are made up of the 2 'actions' as follows.

Advance (A) move +shoot.

Double (D) move + 1d6move.

Charge(C ) move +assault.

Evade(E) shoot + move. is this for jump shoot jump?

Fire support(F) Ready+shoot.

So, lets resolve each of these 40k concepts within the framework above.

Both fleet and rapid fire weapons will have to change. I think both need to allow shooting and assault, because remember the enemy gets a turn, between what would have been 2 phases of our turn. See below ...

Weapon Types: These weapon types are allowed to be fired as specified, when their unit recieves the order indicated.

Rapid Fire - Advance (12" range, 2 shots), Fire Support (full range, 1 shot),
Assault - Advance, Fire Support (full range, full ROF)
Heavy - Fire Support (full range, full ROF)

Special Unit Orders
Jump Infantry, bikes - Advance = move (+ 6") and shoot
Jet Bikes - Advance = move

Vehicle Orders - Actions
Engage - ready and shoot (1 ordinance, or all defensive, and optional weapons)
Combat Speed - move and shoot (1 optional wpn + def wpns)
Fast Combat Speed - move and shoot (all defensive, and optional weapons)
Cruising Speed - move and move
Fast Cruising Speed - move (+ 6") and shoot (1 optional wpn + def wpns)
Flat Out Speed - move and move (+ 6")
Fast Flat Out Speed - move (+ 6") and move (+ 6")

Hi Army C.
Have you read my rough rules outline on page 3 of this thread?
I would value your input as we appear to be thinking about a similar modern simulation wargame...(I have been working on my rule set for about 3 years on an and off.I have been working on the fine detail for a WWII wargame based on these rules.)

Weapon classifications are;-
Assault , used in close combat.
Small arms ,general weapons used by infantry,
Suport weapons , either anti personell (bonus to supresion .) or Anti tank(Bonus to armour penetrtation)
Fire support weapons.Heavier versions of support weapons that need a ready action to be taken before they can be used.(Can not move and fire.)

If all weapons are given the same stat line, and just give the end result depending on the unit using them.
Then close assault weapons and ranged weapons do NOT have to be dealt with seperatly...

Name /Effective range/damage/ effect/ bonus effect.
(Weapon ) (The range the unit WILL hit a target if it aquires one.)(How many shots-hits or tamplate)(Bonus to supression OR ignore cover OR bonus armour penetration.)

These are listed under the units profile and include the units ability !

''This is my rifle there are many like it but this one is mine.Without my rifle I am nothing .Without me, my rifle is nothing.''

Why list an 'average stat line' for a weapon on its own, then modify it depending on who is using it?
When listing the effects on the unit using the weapons, is a far simpler more direct method .

TTFN

Action points are just like issuing orders, and the turn itself would represent probably a matter of second in real time but broken down into turns. You can only perform so many actions in an allotted amount of time.

ArmyC: This thread is over a year old. Get with the program, man!
As for the issues with assaulting: I have an idea, it's really simple. Units that fire heavy weapons or rapid fire weapons can't evade (or assault, see next sentence). I also have a suggestion for a command: Assault: shoot+charge. Think of all the assault units that wouldn't be able to shoot before getting into combat! Another suggestion which will be more controversial is an option called Heavy Fire: shoot+shoot. A lot of people will complain that 'shooting will be too powerful' but I don't think that's a problem with the oversaturation of close combat these days.

@Lanrak: I don't know how backwards compatible those weapons choices will be. How does it interact with the Ballistic skill? Could you give an example of a translation from an original weapon stat to yours?

Hi crazypsyko666.
My rules set is a completey new rule set.
The units offencive capability is directly represented in the weapons profile of the unit.

Eg A SM tac squad .

Mobility (L) 6"
(The unit uses legs and can move up to 6 " per move action)
Defence AR 5
(Models in the unit deduct this value from the attackers weapon damage to determine the to save roll.)
Hit points.10
(Number of wounds/models in the units , or mobility and armamanet hit points for vehicle and monstrous creatures.)
Stealth 5
(How hard the unit is to spot on the battle feild.The attacker has to roll over this value to make a sucessful range attack.)
Moral Grade 2
(The unit have to roll over their moral grade to pass a morale check)
Command Value.1
(The vet sargeant allows ONE re roll of any dice affecting his unit per turn.)

Weapons.
Name/ Effective range/ Damage /effect/Special.
Assault
Knife/2"/5/1/-

Small arms
Bolt pistol/12"/6/1/-
Boltgun./24"/6/1/-

Support weapons
Flamer/temp/6/temp/Ignore cover.

Fire support weapon
Heavy Bolter/36"/7/3/D6 to supression.

ONLY support and fire support(can not move and fire), have bonus effects.
Anti vehicle weapons get a bonus to armour penetration (same as now.)
Anti personell weapons get a bonus to supression.
Chenical weapons ignore cover.

TTFN

Would this be on the big fourteen page rules document I didn't get a chance to read yet? (Sorry, I'll get to it when the schoolwork quiets down.)

Hi again.
Thats the one!
Its just an outline of a new rule set.No fine detail as yet, but it covers the game play of the current 40k game ,in a more straight forward way.

It needs refining a bit , and more detail adding,But I belive the basic structure is sound.

TTFN

I think I am going to jot down a rule system here in the near future. I am going to take everything I liked about every war game I ever played, and remove everything I disliked and see what happens. The question is, if I do write this up, would people be interested in beta testing the game for me, to help balance and smooth it out?

Yes. Undoubtedly yes. I only have one requirement; the rules have to work with the current codexes without re-statting anything.

crazypsyko666 wrote:Yes. Undoubtedly yes. I only have one requirement; the rules have to work with the current codexes without re-statting anything.

I am taking the salad bar approach, this is a new game in some ways. I am taking every aspect I ever liked of table top gaming and combining it into one game. I already wrote a good 6 pages tonight to what I already had going, once I get a rough draft I will post it for critique.

Of course you can use any models for the game since there are no models for it.

Hi crom.
As long as you have a clearly defined end game play in mind , then you will get a coherant rule set.

I have seen lots of new rule set just 'copy & paste' chunks out of other rule sets , without modifying then to get the synergy required for smooth game play.

So, what is the end game paly you are aiming for?
It will help us make constructive critisisms and focus our sugestions on the right sort of end game.

Hope to see you WIP soon.

TTFN

Lanrak wrote:Hi crom.
As long as you have a clearly defined end game play in mind , then you will get a coherant rule set.

I have seen lots of new rule set just 'copy & paste' chunks out of other rule sets , without modifying then to get the synergy required for smooth game play.

So, what is the end game paly you are aiming for?
It will help us make constructive critisisms and focus our sugestions on the right sort of end game.

Hope to see you WIP soon.

TTFN

I am going for more of a living fluid end game. I don't want phases, I want each player to move piece and then rotate, like a game of chess. I want to make sense and I want to always have many different possibilities. It is an action point system, and I will probably finish up the beta/rough draft soon and post it here.

I also am not making characters super over powered in this game. Command units are meant as more of a support and tactical role versus heros barging and and destroying everything. I will also try to take the paper rock scissors approach so no one thing is over powered.

I am sticking with a D6 system since most war games are D6 based. My old version of this was D10 based game (thought use the metric system, everything is in 10s) but ultimately I want to not stray so far so that any person who plays games can easily adapt to it. As well as new gamers.

Hi crom.
Thanks for detailing you intended game turn mechanic.
'Alternating element activaltion, using 'limited resource'.(Action points, command points. activation cards etc.)

As we are talking on a 40k forum ,I am assuming its a 'near future/modern warfare simulation' wargame then?
Or are you going to follow 40ks modern units in a Napoleonic game structure.( 40k ,the only time bringing a knife to a gun fight is a great idea! )


Are you focusing on detailed model interaction?
Or are you focusing on detailed UNIT interaction?

Are you giving equal focus to physical or psychological damage?
40k just focuses on physical damage and plays down morale effects to the point on non existance!
Where as E.A models supression simply and effectivley ,to let it play an eqaly important part of the game.

Are you going to allow natural predeliction of attack method?
Or are you going to make ONE method , the prefered combat method of chioce?

Some games make close combat the primary focus to make the individual models seem more 'heroic' . Others relegate close combat to a single (modified)dice roll for speed of play.

You can use a d20 in a deterministic way to get 20 results.Or you can use a beter game mechanic to determine the chance of sucess and a D6 will work very well.
Its not about the size of the dice used, it the game mechanics that determine the level of scalability and intuitivness.

Eg
Deterministic method.(Limiting and abstract.)
Attacker will hit any thing any where in range on the roll of X+

Better method.
Comapre attackers awarness value to targets stealth value to get dice roll required to hit.

Looking forward to seeing what you come up with...
TTFN

Lanrak wrote:Hi crom.
Thanks for detailing you intended game turn mechanic.
'Alternating element activaltion, using 'limited resource'.(Action points, command points. activation cards etc.)

As we are talking on a 40k forum ,I am assuming its a 'near future/modern warfare simulation' wargame then?
Or are you going to follow 40ks modern units in a Napoleonic game structure.( 40k ,the only time bringing a knife to a gun fight is a great idea! )

It is scifi, because scifi is my favorite subject matter when it comes to things like this. Humans and alien races battle for control over systems, planets, resources, and so forth.

Are you focusing on detailed model interaction?
Or are you focusing on detailed UNIT interaction?

Both. Units act as one, and must all perform the same actions. However, if a unit has an upgraded veteran sergeant elite leading them, they may split some of their actions as the veteran uses his experience to command his squad and telling them to split their fire amongst two targets. Though, not every unit will have this upgrade available. Then I have commanding officers. COs may issue orders to units giving them more action points to spend. I am going to make COs more powerful than your average model, but they won't be as powerful as the GW ones which can sometimes destroy half of your opponents army. Commanding Officers (characters) have a huge support role in the game, but they can also be used to fight and are highly effective. You will need to decide how you want to play your CO models. They can call in air strikes, drop supplies to troops, they can issue orders, or they can fight alongside your troops if you wish.

Are you giving equal focus to physical or psychological damage?
40k just focuses on physical damage and plays down morale effects to the point on non existance!
Where as E.A models supression simply and effectivley ,to let it play an eqaly important part of the game.

Well, I am not sure if it is equal or not, but I do have things which half stats and half your action points, thus making your unit/model half as effective. Some of these do revolve around Morale.

Are you going to allow natural predeliction of attack method?
Or are you going to make ONE method , the prefered combat method of chioce?

Action points can be used for many different things. Really, it is up to the player to decide on how they want to spend them.

Some games make close combat the primary focus to make the individual models seem more 'heroic' . Others relegate close combat to a single (modified)dice roll for speed of play.

You can use a d20 in a deterministic way to get 20 results.Or you can use a beter game mechanic to determine the chance of sucess and a D6 will work very well.
Its not about the size of the dice used, it the game mechanics that determine the level of scalability and intuitivness.

Eg
Deterministic method.(Limiting and abstract.)
Attacker will hit any thing any where in range on the roll of X+

Better method.
Comapre attackers awarness value to targets stealth value to get dice roll required to hit.

Looking forward to seeing what you come up with...
TTFN

I am doing roll to hit and roll to wound, and there are close combat skills which give bonuses and/or execute certain things. For example, if you possess the parry ability your opponent must always reroll successful hits against you in close combat. There are going to be skills available to certain models and units you can purchase to customize. If you want to outfit them for close combat you can, if you want to outfit them for shooting you can, if you want them to be able to do both they can do both, but they will not be as good as the specialized units. The jack of all traits but master of none sort of philosophy. I need to sort out stats for weapons next, because I do not use the flat saving throw method. I like a method where a weapon has a damage rating and every model has an armor rating, you get the difference of them and then that is your saving throw. Different weapons will be more or less effective against armor.

Also, I do have a universal rule that a roll of a 1 always fails and that a roll of a 6 always passes.

I already have a concern about the parry ability. That effectively halves your opponents ability to hit, because it requires two hits, so my question will be how difficult is it to hit someone in close combat? Also, I have a suggestion (if you are using the Ballistic Skill method of shooting) Make cover saves a ballistics modifier. 25%-50% is -1, 50%-75% is -2, all to a minimum of one (or an equivalent)

crazypsyko666 wrote:I already have a concern about the parry ability. That effectively halves your opponents ability to hit, because it requires two hits, so my question will be how difficult is it to hit someone in close combat? Also, I have a suggestion (if you are using the Ballistic Skill method of shooting) Make cover saves a ballistics modifier. 25%-50% is -1, 50%-75% is -2, all to a minimum of one (or an equivalent)

the ability won't be available to anyone, and it is a work in progress. There are to hit modifiers if behind cover and cover adds bonus to the models armor rating. So far I have simplified cover as soft cover and hard cover. Each has it's own to hit modifier and each adds a bonus to to armor value.

I need to just crank it out and post it so you guys can look at it and critique it.

Good idea. Do that. But, regarding the OT, what other rules could be implemented to improve the current game of 40k?

Hi crazypsycho666.
If you simply want a de cluttered 40k game , Big Squig , has done a 'stage 1 re -write'.
He has just substituted the game turn for an alternating phse,(Like LoTR) brought back movement characteristic and other things from 2ne ed, that '...were needlessly changed for shortsighted reasons...'.

If you just want a cleaned up 40k game , this might be what you are looking for.( i belive he is now working on the codexes for the new rules.)

If you want a simple set of skirmish rules, FUBAR 1 page rules are about as simple as it gets.
No limits is similar to what 2ne ed 40k might have evolved into .
Stargrunt II is very good 'near scifi narrative driven' game.
Fast and Dirty is popular too.

What do you class as an 'improvment ' to 40k?
Depending on what you want the end game paly to be , determines the most suitable rule changes ...

TTFN.