EDIT: We've moved on far past many of the ideas on these first few pages. I'll keep these here for record keeping though.
After my local group and I got tired of the lack of variety among different models stats, I decided to try to make a D10 conversion for 40K. I know this has been a topic numerous times on many sites, but i've never been terribly impressed on how those systems work. I've changed the stat range so a non-monstrous creature can have value between 2 and 10, the cover system and armor penetration systems have likewise been changed from flat saves to modifiers.
Using Weapon Skill as an example:
Tau Firewarrior WS == 2
Guardsman WS == 4
Space Marine WS == 6
Chaplain WS == 8
Chapter Master WS == 10
Cover saves offer a negative modifier for the shooter when the target is in area terrain, while ruins and solid terrain (like a low wall) give a positive modifier to targets when being shot at.
Armor Penetration gives a modifier rather than the normal ignoring armor up to a certain value, so a Boltgun is Strength 6, AP 2, which would reduce the targets armor save by 2 ( a space marine would go from a 3+ to a 5+).
In addition, i've developed a formula for determining D10 models pricing based on the units D10 stats, and its been accurate within acceptable ranges on 90% of the models i've evaluated with it. The change in armor penetration was partially a result of this formula, as a modifier is much more reliable and easier to account for in a formula than the current armor system.
With these changes in mind, i'm having difficulty in decided how to handle High strength weaponry, vehicle armor, and particularly monstrous creatures.
Option 1)
The obvious solution would be to allow values to go from 1-20, similarly to how currently, nearly no infantry have stats over 6, with values of 7+ reserved for special characters, powerful weapons, and monstrous creatures. The vehicle armor values would likewise have to be adjusted to be brought back into line with the D10 system from the D6 values. While this is by no means terribly difficult (especially after working out a pricing model for D10 units, i'll be having nightmares about those charts for weeks to come), i feel that since i've already created a system that deviates from the 40k norm so much, itd be a shame to not try a more creative solution.
Option 2)
Allowing nothing to exceed a value of 10, and instead adding the weapons strength and AP together, then rolling a D10 to determine penetration rolls, rather than using just the weapons strength on a scale that goes above 10. I actually like how this idea works on paper, as you could have greater differentiation between weapons, such as autocannons and plasma guns having the same strength, but plasma guns having greater AP values, and thus being better at cracking armor than the autocannon. However, this would require a significant change to not only weapon values, but how weapons are used, priced, and whether or not people would even like this system. Most importantly, however, i have literally no idea on how to handle monstrous creatures under this system.
If i get enough community interest in this idea, ill try to provide more information on specific units and statlines that have been more or less finalized.
Please avoid favoring option 1 due to "if it aint broken don't fix it" thinking. It should be clear that logic does not suit the goals of this project.
I'm welcoming any advice, questions, and suggestions on what people think about this D10 conversion and any of the changes i've made to standard 40K rules, how some of these problems might be solved, and especially creative solutions on how to handle monstrous creatures under option 2.
The biggest problem with this proposal is that its based on space marines. A space marine captain or chapter master is no rival for an Autarch or Archon. If you were to re-adjust your values for every codex appropriately, I'd be interested in what you would come up with,
Blacksails, you are 100% correct that this was designed around Space marines. Being the most prolific, and frankly simplistic, army in the game, as well as the army i have the most familiarity with, they were where i began with this project. Interestingly enough, your comment shows two weaknesses im still working out.
First, HQ, and other high cost units, are still being adjusted, as they start pushing the borders of the stat limit, making differentiations between high power units very tricky, and their high cost means the formula for working out prices and stats in the D10 system deviate wildly from the values given to regular troops, so making sure everything translates correctly is more guess and check than anything else, until enough samples are used to stabilize it.
Second, I've run the formula on troops from all but 3 codexs, which i have no access to at this time, which are chaos daemons, dark eldar, and eldar. Ork boys, space marines, scout marines, sisters of battle, imperial guardsman, tau firewarriors, necron warriors, tyranid hormagaunts and termagants, and grey knights, both power armor and terminator armor, fit the formula well, though admittedly necron immortals are under costed for reasons im still trying to work out. I dont have full access to anywhere near as much codex and unit information as id like, and until i can get that sorted out, its not going to be the finished and highly polished system i hope it will become.
However, as to your point on how captains and chapter masters are no rivals for autarchs and archons, considering those units are in some of the most highly player-skill based armies, and have access to wonderful special rules and Wargear, id much rather that be the way in which the skilled player defeats the somewhat mediocre space marine options than a pure statistic competition. Purely a personal view on the matter, but worth mentioning
@Rav1rn.
I can understand why lots of people look to improving the graduation between results in 40k by upping the dice size.(D10 to fit in with the stat values, or D12 to simply double current values.)
However, this still means it is using dice in a deterministic way, so artificialy limits results .
Instead of the WHOLE UNIVERSE being crammed into 2+,3+,4+,5+,6+.it improves the limitation slightly.
So the whole universe of diverse and massively varied creatures have to be covered by 9 values instead of 5.
No wonder 40k has to uses multiple resolution methods and tons of special rules!
Have you thought about simply using different game mechanics and resolution methods?
EG direct stat comparison.
This way you can use stat values range to 10 to give 18 possible results, or to 20 to give 38 possible results, and STILL use a D6.
I agree that using simple modifiers is the way to go to get rid of needless additional rules and resolution methods.
@lanrak can you explain in greater depth how such "direct stat comparison" could be implemented? I dont really understand how such a system would work and how the element of chance (rolling the dice) would be a part of determining the game. Any examples, be it a situation or non 40k game system would be extremely helpful
This has been one of the biggest problems that faces 40k right now, at least from my perspective. Many people have pointed out that the rules of 40k have been problematic for years. They're either too abstract, too open for interpretation, or just dont fit the game that 40k has evolved into over the years, as it changed from a smaller scale skirmish type game to a battle game, as model costs dropped and game point levels rose.
Im worried that any change such as what youre suggesting would mutate something using 40k as a base and trying to improve upon it, into something completely alien. And yes people have brought up the point that adding granularity doesn't really solve anything, but with the current state of 40k, id say that there needs to be a greater variety in ways to differentiate units and models besides special rules and the like, at least to some extent. If we had a binary system, where units could only be represented as strong or weak, i dont think anyone would be opposed to adding more variety than just those 2 classifications, regardless of what the game around those two units played out as. On the other hand, i briefly experimented with a D20 system, and quickly abandoned it, as in order to justify the additional level of detail, minute variations between units had to be represented, such as devastators, assault marines, and tactical marines all having subtly different WS and BS scores. This felt bulky and unnecessary, and took away something from the game, though it would've been great for smaller, squad-level gameplay.
So yes, I think there will always be abstraction within 40k, and its not necessarily a bad thing, but the game's been suffering from the limitations of diversity that earlier versions of the game set in place, and our only options to change those are increasingly ridiculous exceptions and special rules, an overhaul of the systems core, or increasing granularity. Increasing granularity, be it through a D8, D10, or D12 lets us add variety without excessive amounts of work or overtly changing the feel of the game.
Personally, im all in favor of changing the games core to be more streamlined and better suited to its new form, but i havnt the foggiest idea of how to even begin that, never mind making it as interesting as 40k is now.
Hi Rav1rn.
If i was going to write rules for 40k i would start with deciding on the type of warfare 40k is supposed to be.
If its mainly small groups of skirmishing infantry mainly armed with ranged weapons, supported with artillery /air strikes and armoured vehicles(or monster equivelants.)
Then modern warfare seems like a good starting point. Modern warfare is an EQUAL blend of Mobility to take objectives, Firepower to control enemy movement, and Assault to contest objectives.
Modern warfare is fast and fluid, squads dont hang around waiting for the enemy units to run up and punch them in the face...
So an interactive game turn is step one.
(Alternating phases, or alternating activation.)
Step 2 is determining the unit charactersistcs and stat values.
Step 3 is determining the resolution methods.
EG
Direct representation. and opposed stats, for example.
Anyhow.
Here is a simple alternative to 40ks damage resolution, (AP armour saves , AV, etc.)
All weapons have an ARMOUR PENETRATION (AP) value from 5 to 20.(Replaces current str/AP.)
All units have an ARMOUR VALUE(AV) from 1 to 15.(Extend vehicle AV down to cover all units.)
When a model is hit , roll a D6.
Add this dice roll to the units AV value.(THE ARMOUR SAVE)
If the total is higher than the weapon AP, the armour makes its save.
If the value is equal or lower the model takes damage
EG an IG trooper with AV 2, is hit by a bolt gun , AP value 6.
The IG trooper saves on a 5+.
This gives proportional saves without additional modifiers.(its just the difference in the stats.)
This covers ALL weapon and armour interaction for ALL units.
The next thing is a universal damage resolution.
(If the armour is beaten, the weapon does damage to the soft target behind.)
All units have a Resilience value .(3 to 10)(How hard they are to damage, toughness replacement that covers mechanical and organic units.)
All weapons have a Damage value.(1 to 8)
If a model fails its Armour Save, the attacker rolls to wound/damage the model.
The attacker rolls a D3 or D6 (dependant on weapon target types.) and adds it to the weapon DAMAGE value .
If this is more than the models Resilience it looses a Hit point.(Wound/Hull point replacement.)
If it is more than DOUBLE the models Resilience it looses 2 hit points .
if it is more than TRIPLE the models Resilience it looses 3 hit points.
EG a SM captain fails an armour save(he has Resiliance 5) , is hit by a Meltagun Damage 5.
If the attacker rolls 1 to 4 the SM captain loses 1 hit point (Wound.)
If the attacker rolls 5 or 6 , the SM captain looses 2 hit points .(the damage is double the Sm Captains Resilience.)
Sorry if I did not explain things that well.
(I can go over it a gain if you like?)
@ lanark, that may be one of the best alternatives to the current system that i've ever run across.
Assuming i understand your system right, i love the combination of consistency and simplicity that the system provides for, so that its not arbitrary differences between organics and vehicles that mean that low strength weapons cannot hurt vehicles. It also allows for fine tuning of monstrous creatures to decide what can and cannot affect them, which could prove to be interesting.
The change to how multiple wounds are inflicted seems like a great idea, though it's so far from anything i've ever experienced, i'd have to experiment with it to see how it plays out.
The biggest concern i see is that the values used to describe each stat are all over the place. Theres a set of 5-20, 1-15, 1-8, and 3-10. While i'm sure this wouldn't be a problem for anyone used to this system, it is a serious change from the current 40k system of everything being on a scale of 1-10, except vehicle armor.
I love the core of this new system, and am looking forward to tinkering with it to see how to take advantage of it. Since you've set up the "firepower" of your take on modern combat, any ideas on how to implement the "mobility" and "assault" aspects?
Hi Rav1rn.
The only reason I used the odd ranges of stats was to fit the current/previous 40kD6 results reasonably closely.
(Eg simple 40k stat conversion to the new system .)
With compared stats one range is usually higher then the other .(To give positive results , and clean maths.)
But as the number ranges can be altered during play testing as necessary.
But reading a number is easy, and gives a better idea of the unit capability.
Put the following in order of magnitude...
Average, Good, Elite ,Excellent Awesome, Super , Super Duper,etc.And how much better is one to the other?
Where as , 4,5,8,9,12,16,20.Is easy to understand the order and magnitude of values.
For Mobility simply list the units speed, (a distance in inches.) and mobility type.
Mobility type , Legs, Wheels, Tracks ,Hover.
EG
4" L , infantry that walk.
12" W infantry on bikes,
12 " L beasts or cavalry mounted on beasts.
6" T tank.
12" H jetbike
(The movement speed can be based on 2nd ed if you like?)
This way the stat line tells you how the unit moves , and how far the unit may move each turn.
And a simple terrain chart listing Terrain type , vs Movement type , can show -1,-2,0+1,+2 inch modifiers for each movement type per terrain type.
EG
Roads,L +1, W +2, T+1 ,H +1
Rubble, L 0, W-2,T+0, H,0.
etc etc.
This covers unit mobility and terrain interaction in a simple and easy way.(Nothing blows up!)
There are lots of ways to cover the roll to hit part of the unit interaction, (Shooting and Assault..)
If we assume shooting can be done this way.
The TARGET Stealth value is the BASE score to hit .
(the stealth stat takes unit size , agility etc into account.)
This is modified by some simple modifiers EG
Target over 30" away +1 to Stealth value.
Target in cover +1 to Stealth value
Target using Stealth equipment (camo /holo/smoke,)+1 to Stealth value.
Target under 12" away +1 to hit roll.
Target moved towards Attacker +1 to hit roll
Attacker remained stationary /has Scout skill +1 to hit roll.
(Units with 'Scout rule' count as stationary for to hit rolls even if they move!)
(PS , hard cover simply adds +1 to the AV of the target behind it.)
This makes rolling to hit simple as looking at the targets stealth value and applying modifiers.
EG SM land raider Sth 2+, over 30" away , in cover =4+ to hit
A single SM character Sth 4+ at short range ,being shot at by Scouts is hit on 2+.
This covers size ability and disposition of target, and attacker!
Where as current 40k to hit just takes attacker skill into account...
I planned to use universal weapon profile , and a Universal Unit profile .(So we can use unit reference cards ...)
Hey I'd just like to budge in here, Lanrak, firstly you are a boss, secondly:
All weapons have an ARMOUR PENETRATION (AP) value from 5 to 20.(Replaces current str/AP.)
All units have an ARMOUR VALUE(AV) from 1 to 15.(Extend vehicle AV down to cover all units.)
When a model is hit , roll a D6.
Add this dice roll to the units AV value.(THE ARMOUR SAVE)
If the total is higher than the weapon AP, the armour makes its save.
If the value is equal or lower the model takes damage
EG an IG trooper with AV 2, is hit by a bolt gun , AP value 6.
The IG trooper saves on a 5+.
This gives proportional saves without additional modifiers.(its just the difference in the stats.)
1. How can we regulate all these numbers all over the place like Rav1rn said? Although it might be easy and a straight-forward alternative, HOW can we make it not look messy and how can we make it modulated?
2. The system you put in place is much like the current Strength vs AV of a vehicle. This may be one of the reasons the numbers are all over the place, however why does this system work better than a comparison chart system, where the numbers are on the same scale? I have yet to think about it thoroughly, but I don't know how bypassing a chart system and instead directly comparing two stats along with a D6 affects the mechanics.
3. For the current Weapon Skill, how do you plan to change it since they ARE on the same scale, which means they cannot use the same method of "add D6 to your stat and if you're higher than their stat then proceed".
4. Rav1rn, I have had a few ideas on my thread too, check my signature. Maybe we can share ideas? Maybe even all three of us can come forth?
Automatically Appended Next Post: After thinking for a bit, I came to the conclusion that using direct comparison is no different from using a typical strength vs toughness chart. Think about it.
A Bolter hurts AV10 on a 6+. It also hurts T6 on a 6+. So all you are doing to change it from a S/T chart to a direct comparison is adding 4. Now:
- A chart you have to remember, whether it be as simple as an S/T chart or a more complicated one like the one on my thread or the way BS works (rerolls after BS5)
- Direct comparison needs no chart - however the receiving end's value is 4 above the roller's value; also there is a problem like I said before with something like weapon skill where the values should be the same; chart comparison doesn't have this issue
Both of these mechanics have mutual problems - they aren't versatile enough. Each point difference is 1/6 chance, which, frankly, can't fit much variety into it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, on a different note, making 40k a D10 conversion is not only hard to moderate but, D10s are really weird. I googled them and they aren't regular polyhedrons like cubes. I say D10 is completely out of the question, but we can still make it work with D6s by using clever and effective mechanics.
Welcome to the thread IcyFireKnight, im a big fan of the ideas in your "A new way to play 40k" Thread.
You brought up a good point about managing Weapon Skill in this direct comparison system. While it works well so long as the attacker has a lower WS than the defender, it doesnt work at all for the opposite situation, so if were going to use direct comparison, we need to think of a solution to this problem.
As to your other thread, i really like ideas like the cover system, the idea of using stealth as a ranged to-hit value, and especially to change to how blast weapons work. All good, interesting ideas, all of which should be explored. As to the talk on Snap-Shots, i really dont like the snap-shot system. The idea of being able to shoot a heavy weapon without being stationary is a great idea, that should make the game less about stationary encampments of troops with heavy weapons, as troops that want to move can do so. But i think something like halving range would be a better alternative.
As to your comments about 1 point in difference being too large a distance between two stats, i totally agree. That's one of the reasons that unit statlines feel so samey, because the designers simply couldnt make different without making them ridiculously powerful. This mostly applies to regular infantry (Guardsman, Space Marine, Necron Warrior, etc), as thats where the majority of units will be, and i feel that HQ's stats are more just representatives than anything else, so they need big differences between models.
Work update, Having explored my problems with eldar/dark eldar, the best solution ive found is actually making the general stat range 2-12, which gives me two extra values while still allowing a representative of 10 in the old system. Gonna have to rework things to better suit this new system, but i like it better. Also, if we can get Lanrak's direct comparison system using a D6 worked out, i'd definitely like to keep that dice in use, as D10 are rather odd dice.
@Lanrak
Im not sure there's much reason to change the current movement system, its easy to remember and plan around, and is robust enough to handle a variety of unit types. As to the modifiers used to adjust movement based on terrain, i feel thats getting slightly to Micro for just the movement system.
Your modifiers for shooting such as range and movement seem like a good idea, but without testing im not sure howd they play out. Again, it just feels a bit too micro for my tastes.
And YES!!! UNIT REFERENCE CARDS! Ive always loved the idea of using cards as well as units on the board. My first experience with that type of gameplay was an old Star-Wars squad-level tabletop game, and i loved it. It made keeping track of units stats and status easy and interesting. I've been thinking about trying something similar with 40k, but i never came to a solution that satisifed me, the best idea i came up with was having a unit card, such as Tactical Squad, and being able to put counters on it for how many marines are in it, then adding heavy and special weapon cards, as well as a sergeant card. Far from a perfect system, but its the best i got.
And yeah i think a collaboration would be amazing, but rather than it just being the three of us, i think getting the entire community involved would be best way to go about this, it only takes one persons good idea to change everything, and who knows where that could come from.
Hi guys .
The ideas are just basic outlines on how the resolution could be done.
My favorite games make the stat line do all the work.(Eg no added complication from charts and tables to look through.)
And in this, they make all resolution UNIVERSAL.So the same straight forward process is used to cover ALL units.
So we can use the information on one side of the 'unit card' to resolve ALL in game interaction.
(And the other side of the card outlines the strategic structure of the army and the units place within it.)
I know this may seem a radical change from 40k's heavy reliance on wordy special rules.
And the modifiers may seem a bit like micro managing.(But we can use them as place markers, and add or remove them as we get further into development.)
if we give each unit card the unit stats .
EG,
Mobility(How and how far the unit moves.)
Stealth(How hard the unit is to hit at range.)
Armour Value(How well protected the unit is.)
Resilience (How hard the unit is to damage.)
Hit points (How much damage the unit can take )
Assault(How good the unit is in assault.)
Morale (How willing the unit is to fight.)
Command.(How well led the unit is.)
And weapon profile.
Name/Effective range/Armour Piercing /Damage/Effect/Notes
The weapon profile is UNIQUE to that unit.
The NET effect of user and weapon is displayed.
The effective range is dependent on user skill firing ranged weapons .(Better shots hit target further away.)
The damage is dependent on user strenght for Close Combat weapons
We can cover everything but special abilities with core rules /stat interaction.
(I like keeping special abilities simple like allows re roll failure, or forces enemy to re roll success.)
Here is a simple alternative for Assault.
Both players roll a D6 and add their units Assault value.
The highest score strikes first.
(In the event of a tie the highest assault value goes first.If both scores are tied, and both Assault values are the same alternate hits between the models in Assault,.)
To score a successful hit simply roll over you opponents Assault value.(Some weapons close combat weapons modify Assault values.)
(Resolve damage in a similar way to shooting.)
I have lots of ideas we can review.
(Do you like the turn structure of Grimdark?)
I reckon Assault should always be attacker first, or at least have some heavy bonuses for the attacker, because we want to reward the player who takes the fight to the enemy and charges into combat - not the guy whose on the recieving end.
However, I gotta ask, is there really a need for both AP vs AV and damage vs resiliance? Its two sets of stats and two rolls for what is essentially the same effect - seeing if you damage a target. But I reckon we could make it more straightforward by removing DvsR and making it To-Hit (which is good because of all the modifiers etc) followed by just a single AP vs AV roll, though applying that doubling/tripling effect to potentially cause extra damage. Particularly accurate or inaccurate shots might strike with modified attack strength against the opponents defense.
Different elements, such as Strength, AP, Armour Save, Toughness as we see in 40k just seem to lend themselves to adding layers of paper scissors rock to the game IMO. And the less dice rolls, the faster everything goes!
@Lanrak
I'm having mixed feelings about the new statline basics youve laid out.Stealth and Assault are definitely worth pursuing, though ive no idea how to go about redesigning things with these in mind. Armor Value, Resilience, and Hit Points are basically standard 40k stats with different names, so i don't see much point renaming them, as it would be possible to retain an element of familiarity with 40k players, even with the changed rules. I don't really understand how Morale and Command would differ from one another gameplay wise, as the current leadership system seems to provide for these elements already, though knowing Lanrak hes got some crazy, interesting mechanic in mind for that.
Making the Effective Range of a weapon dependant on the user would be a really cool idea, but i worry that it'd just add levels of complexity that wouldn't justify the reward. Plus, such a system would drastically alter how we look at shooting, even making some factors really strange. For example, would the lasgun have to have longer range than a bolter, that way the space marine ballistic skill brings it up to 24", while the guardsman brings it down to 24"? Because otherwise your going to have Space marine players just sitting and shooting outside the guardsman's range.
A cool thing to do would include such a system for firing rapid-fire and heavy weapons on the move, so the higher the models Ballistic Skill, the closer to its stationary range it can achieve. Perhaps make moving with a rapid-fire weapon reduce BS by 1, and heavy weapons by 3 or 4, then use the remaining BS to determine what range the model may shoot at. This is equally complex, but seems like an interesting alternative to snap-shooting.
I noticed there's a lack of attack and initiative characteristics in your suggested statline. Any idea how to include those elements without them being in the statline? Also, loving how you handled ties with your assault system, that's a really great, elegant solution.
I havn't looked at grimdark yet, but i think either alternating-phases, or unit by unit type systems could work well. As a matter of preference, i like unit-by-unit systems, as alternating phases still means that leaf-blower situations can occur. I saw a thread recently talking about warpaths unit activation system. Essentially every turn the players would roll for initiative. Player who won would activate one unit, and go through all 4 phases with them (Movement, Shooting, Assault, Resolution), then roll again, and on a 3+ they could activate a second unit, taking it through its phases, then on a 5+, they could do the same with a 3rd. If they fail an activation check, or activate 3 units, it becomes the next players turn, where they do the same. Obviously this system has its problems, but its interesting, and helps to avoid or minimize leafblower situations.
@Dakkamite
I agree that there should be some bonus for assaulting units, and i think the current bonus attack and furious charge ideas works pretty well. As to getting rid of Armor Penetration, Armor Value, Damage, and Resilience, in favor of a set of offensive and defensive parameters that encompass both of these traits, i like the idea, but the execution could be difficult. Sure models with higher toughness are typically accompanied by higher Armor Saves, but the new unified statistics would have to be fairly granular to allow for situations such as the difference between an Eldar Fire Dragon (T3, 3+ Sv) and a Space Marine (T4, 3+ Sv). Not to mention that Toughness and Armor Saves are already somewhat unified, as they affect both shooting and melee, its just the offensive stats that are so complex. But if we go the route of unifying those, how would we represent the difference between a low skill, high strength Carnifex and a low strength, high skill Eldar Autarch? Not impossible goals, but i just don't have an elegant solution that suits such a goal, though i'm all in favor for shortening the statline.
Also feel free to continue complementing that doubling/tripling idea, seriously, its genius.
Not to stop the flow we've got going on here, but with all these recommendations and ideas, i think we need to better organize these to get a good feel for how this new system would work out. So lets start by saying which parts of the game we're talking about, (Statlines, special rules, movement, shooting, assault, etc), which parts of this system we more or less plan to keep from 40K, then outline the changes or alternatives being introduced. Hopefully we can get all these elements a bit more coherent and formalized this way.
@Rav1rn, concerning your first post replying to mine, I think that Weapon Skill would not work in a direct comparison, and if we were to use direct comparison for everything, we'd have to split weapon skill into two, something like Combat Skill and Dexterity. I'm changing the names because the familiarity wholly stays, it's just a name change. And why not, might as well make things sound fresh.
I think a cover system would work, HOWEVER, the reason why modifiers are so sparsely used is DIRECTLY CORRELATED to the flawed system of 1 point difference = 1/6. If 1 point difference was something like 1/12 then our ability to add a variety of modifiers and stalines is DOUBLED. I am on the verge of considering D12, because the die looks nice and the problem of carrying it is countered by using a bag. Unless the tesselate. Do they tesselate?
Not only cover, but all these things like snap shots, firing from half range (Just had an idea, if you are firing through your own troops your total number of shots is halved, as one of your own men prevent you from getting a clear shot), ignoring specific cover (idea of heavy cover increasing armour) and gradients of cover (Reveal 2).
@Lanrak, I like your idea, but I think some things are missing. I totally approve of leadership being divided, because that allows for more fruitfulness and oppurtunities for cool things. Where is BS? I think the first and easiest step is to figure out all the statistics.
Mobility (M) How fast the model moves across the battlefield.
Marksmanship (Mk) How good the model is at shooting.
Stealth (S) How difficult the model is to be shot at.
Power (P) How powerful the model's attacks are.
Resilience (R) How good the model is at taking wounds and shaking them off.
Dexterity (D) How agile and skilful the model is in combat.
Fortitude (F) How strong the model's mind is and how willing the model is to fight.
Vitality (V) How long the model can survive after taking wounds.
Armour (Ar) How strong the model's armour is.
Influence (I) How much the model affects his friends and foes on the battlefield.
This is the best I've got. I think, at first glance D12s look really tasty, so I would give it a go. D12s are tasty because it not only allows for variety in close numbers but also allows for a larger scale; so that Avatars and Ork Boys AREN'T just 3 points from each other :')
........................................M.Mk.St...P..R...D...F...V...I...Ar...Type
Space Marine...................6...6...5...5...5...5...5...1...5...5...Infantry
Imperial Guardsman..........6...4...5...3...3...4...3...1...5...3...Infantry
Tau Fire Warrior...............6...7...5...3...3...2...2...1...5...4...Infantry
Eldar Guardian..................7...6...5...3...3...5...5...1...5...3...Infantry
Ork Boy.............................6...2...5...5...5...4...2...1...5...2...Infantry
Necron Warrior..................5...5...5...5...5...4...3...1...5...5...Infantry
Tyranid Hormagaunt...........6...2...5...4...3...5...7...1...5...2...Infantry
Plaguebearer of Nurgle.......6...0...5...5...6...3...7...1...5...3...Infantry
I want to be scraping the lowest stats with normal infantry, so that there is more space for stronger characters. And I'm looking for an average stat value of 5, so that if one's stat was lowered to 1, it would succeed vs. 5s on a 10+ (6+).
@Dakkamite, Assault is still an issue. I don't think it should be attacker first, if eldar were being attacked by orks they would dodge out of the way and stab them in the head with the daggers on their backs in half a second. I say charger gets +1 Dexterity. However I don't like how Initiative works right now; not all the time the Eldar will strike first, maybe two Orks gang up on an Eldar so although he deflects one attack another Ork strikes first. How about:
Roll-off D3, whoever has the highest Dexterity has +1 to their roll. Whoever scores higher goes first. If it's a tie, strike at the same time.
This has a big problem: what about multi-dexterity squads e.g. sergeant with power fist?
I think we need strength and toughness as a mechanic both to make things harder to kill and simply because it's necessary (not necessarily). The former can be eliminated by making the other rolls harder to achieve, and the latter, I'm taking about the things that have no armour but are tough as rock (Wraithlords maybe).
However, if we can eliminate all this, we will only have to roll two times to kill! One to hit, one to penetrate. Everything as modifiers? I'm in.
@Rav1rn again, like I said, I'm changing the names because the familiarity wholly stays, it's just a name change. And why not, might as well make things sound fresh.
I think the ranges of guns should be a bit more varied instead of 99% of the time in a multiple of 6. I think something like this would work tremendously:
+2 Mk for under 1/3 range
+1 Mk for under 2/3 range
-1 Mk for in light cover
-5 Mk (minimum of 1) for moving and firing heavy weapons (this makes a marine heavy bolter hit a stealth value of 5 on a 10+)
Alternating phases is a BIG contender, and it works well with the current assault situation where both sides play.
I havn't looked at grimdark yet, but i think either alternating-phases, or unit by unit type systems could work well. As a matter of preference, i like unit-by-unit systems, as alternating phases still means that leaf-blower situations can occur. I saw a thread recently talking about warpaths unit activation system. Essentially every turn the players would roll for initiative. Player who won would activate one unit, and go through all 4 phases with them (Movement, Shooting, Assault, Resolution), then roll again, and on a 3+ they could activate a second unit, taking it through its phases, then on a 5+, they could do the same with a 3rd. If they fail an activation check, or activate 3 units, it becomes the next players turn, where they do the same. Obviously this system has its problems, but its interesting, and helps to avoid or minimize leafblower situations.
This. Looks. Interesting.
Also feel free to continue complementing that doubling/tripling idea, seriously, its genius.
I imagine Command will have something to do with controlling the unit. Theres heaps of games out there where you get like, limited Orders to give, or units only follow your commands some of the time. Could be interesting here.
Eldar Fire Dragon (T3, 3+ Sv) and a Space Marine (T4, 3+ Sv). Not to mention that Toughness and Armor Saves are already somewhat unified, as they affect both shooting and melee, its just the offensive stats that are so complex. But if we go the route of unifying those, how would we represent the difference between a low skill, high strength Carnifex and a low strength, high skill Eldar Autarch? Not impossible goals, but i just don't have an elegant solution that suits such a goal, though i'm all in favor for shortening the statline.
Essentially my whole point was that we don't need to have several stats to show that difference.
Is there really anything gained by having a Fire Dragon have T3 3+ and a Space Marine T4 3+, when we could simply say one is "Defense 5" and the other "Defense 6"?
Since the AP rules are being ditched (AP2 penetrates 2+, etc) theres now very little to differentiate the two stats. All that remains really is a paper scissors rock element, such as "Poison weapons beat tough guys but lose to armoured guys", which in turn leads to paper scissors rock list construction, and players forgoing tactics in favour of "whose list beats the other by default" in extreme cases
Likewise a slow, strong melee attack and a faster weaker one... does it matter? Or having units that are INT 5 vs those that are INT 4 and INT 1 - it gets the same benefit against both, so you could say that INT 5 counters INT 4 by spending the minimum number of points needed to get the first strike bonus, while the INT 1 units 'counter' INT 5 by not having wasted points on more INT value that wouldn't give any bonus. Do these RPS elements add anything of value that simply saying a unit is "Assault 5" or "Assault 10" or even "Really Good in Assault" doesn't achieve much more simply? Even the 40k rules as is back that up - a unit hitting on 5+ wounding on 3+ is exactly the same as a unit hitting on 3+ wounding on 5+.
Edit; Ok, IcyFireKnight posted while I was writing mine up. Will reply in a sec
Edit #2;
Roll-off D3, whoever has the highest Dexterity has +1 to their roll. Whoever scores higher goes first. If it's a tie, strike at the same time.
Not a big fan of this idea, for the same reason allowing first turn alpha strike auto-win to the guy who rolls the highest d6 in vanilla 40k is a poor idea as well. Who goes first is really important to the outcome of the combat. Leaving it to pure chance is a bad idea. If INT was even going to be used, and not just folded into ASSAULT or whatever (which I highly recommend, but thats just me) I'd say give it modifiers the same way you'd apply modifiers to shooting. Or of course, just let the attacker strike first.
However, if we can eliminate all this, we will only have to roll two times to kill! One to hit, one to penetrate. Everything as modifiers? I'm in.
Sounds like you and I are on the same page. I want to see how far the stats can be amalgamated. INT could go into Assault, but it could also come under some other stat such as mobility or stealth and be involved in things other than "who is striking first".
I was gonna edit this in but might as well make it another post.
If First Strike is to be determined by something other than ASSAULT or ATTACKING UNIT, I'd say have it be determined by the same stat that represents the COMMAND or LEADERSHIP or w/e of a unit The one that represents not bravery/morale, but the effectiveness of the chain of command, and the ability of units to act effectively on their own initiative (not the 40k one =/).
It's almost the INTELLIGENCE of a unit to be honest.
Units that score highly here (Eldar, Space Marines) will always follow your commands and such, and be more likely to strike first. Units that do poorly here (ie Orks, Imperial Guard) are more inclined to hunker down at the first opportunity rather than take the fight to the enemy - or the opposite, to blindly WAAAAAAAGH straight into the nearest foe if a Boss aint about to smack sum 'eads togevva and keep da boyz in line
Also good god we gotta use an Alternative Activation rule of some kind, IGOUGO is pure gak in a game with so much crazy ranged firepower. Was Grimdark the one with the 'traffic light' system of Green/Yellow/Red orders? That'd work well either as is or as a base to modify to whatever works best for this
Personally I don't like the traffic light system, but the one Rav1rn mentioned, I like a lot.
Why can't first strike be determined by Assault/Dexterity? The model that is the most skilled in combat should be able to either dodge incoming attacks or simply strike a fast blow.
To be honest first strike being determined by a command stat is farfetched. It's not like we are the commanders and they don't have to listen to us, we ARE the unit and we choose to charge/defend. Then, it is up to the skilfulness of the unit to strike as many blows as fast as possible.
If you look closely at my posts you'll see I *want* it to be determined by Assault. Or by a stat (such as Dexterity) which would cover several elements as opposed to just being a stat for 'first strike'
All it takes is one game of paintball to see how farfetched the idea of 'every solder in every unit working with perfect harmony' is - ergo why some games use a command stat.
Ok, so having taken some time to think through some examples, i'm starting to agree with dakkamite.
First off, yes we can probably consolidate armor and toughness into one "Defense" stat, i was stuck thinking like standard 40k, so i never really considered how the change to the AP system would let us treat toughness differently, good call there.
So we seem to be agreed on the goal of getting the statline as low as possible...
1) Basing "Initiative" off of an "Assault" stat would probably be the best idea, done as lanrak suggested.
Here is a simple alternative for Assault.
Both players roll a D6 and add their units Assault value.
The highest score strikes first.
(In the event of a tie the highest assault value goes first.If both scores are tied, and both Assault values are the same alternate hits between the models in Assault,.)
While this is a pretty substantial change from the set initiative of standard 40k, its the only way i can think of doing it without adding a dedicated stat, besides Dakkamite's idea of using leadershit to determine initiative, which, while i am against as the general rule, i think it would be an interesting special rule for the likes of Orks, Imperial Guard, or Tyranids.
However, doing this would remove some of the flavor of 40k, such as Space Marines being a better combatant than a Hormagaunt (being WS 4 Str 4 vs WS 3 Str 3), but the Hormagaunt is faster and has more attacks. How could we represent this type of situation using just the assault stat?
2) One critical factor i'm noticing that is being ignored is multiple attacks. If we want to remove the attack stat from the unit, wed have to represent it another way, such as the standard 40K's having a pistol and close-combat weapon / two close-combat weapons, and then special rules to describe other situations, (such as old-school grey knights True-Grit special rule). But the problems with this are that then how would we represent the additional attack profiles of the likes of Sergeants, would we just slightly buff their combat abilities instead? That would require a pretty sbstantial recalculation on pricing and stats.
And to Dakkamite
a unit hitting on 5+ wounding on 3+ is exactly the same as a unit hitting on 3+ wounding on 5+
This is true for all cases, except for multiple attacks. The difference between these two situations is HUGE when multiple attacks are involved, especially if you multiply that difference by 30 Hormagaunts.
3) Using a mobility/agility/dexterity stat to describe movement and initiative.
Well, if you look at the chart IcyFireKnight provided (looks good btw), mobility only varies by 1 point at most from 6, so trying to make standard move distance a variable stat just wouldnt feel right, hence why i like the idea of special rule alternatives that build off of a standard move distance, such as having a 6" move as standard for infantry, but Necrons get slow and purposeful, Eldar get their new move-shoot-move special rule, and Slaanesh Daemons get an additional D3 movement range.
Lets look at dexterity then. If we use dexterity in combat, such as the value to beat for assault value or however it'd be implemented, we again have the problem of low skill but fast units such as a hormagaunt, not being represented properly, as theyd be the correct speed, but be far too hard to hit.
So, assuming we need an Initiative stat, the absolute smallest unit statline i think we can have is:
Defense
Marksmenship
Assault
Morale
Hit Points
Attacks (Maybe)
Initiative
With weapons having stats such as:
Damage
Penetration
Range
Type
This is definitely a much simpler statline to keep track of, and would probably look good on a reference card, having 5 combat stats, 4 weapon stats, as well as attacks and wounds. Some cool card designs leap to mind for this idea.
Now lets delve into some other topics. Assuming we transition to the "Defense" consolidated stat, and with the changes to the AP system, how do we want to go about representing Invulnverable Saves and Power Weapons?
Power Weapon Ideas: Let them have a set AP value which the normal weapons AP would be added onto, for example, as close combat weapon should probably have better AP than hitting someone on the head with a bolter, let them be AP 1 or whatever value we assign. Power Swords, being an improved version of a standard CCW, could instead have AP 6, which is CCWAP with a power weapon bonus of +5 added, staying true to the idea of modifiers, while not being as schizophrenic about AP3 and AP2 as 6th editions system is. Not really a solution for stuff like powerfists, but maybe a jumping off point.
Invulnerable Saves: Have them be "Anti-AP", so an invulnerable value of 2 would reduce the incoming weapons penetration by 2?
Not really sure about this idea, i think it would make shooting more realistic towards units such as terminators, as normal weapons don't have much of an effect on the model, but a Lascannon would still be a huge threat. It could also represent agility or insubstantiality , so units with only Invulnerable saves under standard 40k (Harlequins, certain daemons, etc) are affected less, while again, using only modifiers over rules and special situations.
Also, would you guys like to see stealth as a stat used for shooting to beat? or just as a cover system using modifiers on shooting and defense? Personally, i prefer the latter, especially since it keeps the statline as low as possible.
Sorry for rambling on and making this a long post, but might as well get this all out in one go.
Here is a simple alternative for Assault.
Both players roll a D6 and add their units Assault value.
The highest score strikes first.
(In the event of a tie the highest assault value goes first.If both scores are tied, and both Assault values are the same alternate hits between the models in Assault,.)
This also has the problem of units with multiple Initiative/Assault/Dexterity/Agility values.
I don't know how we can merge strength and AP, and toughness and armour together, then yay-ok, but until someone finds a solid idea I'm sticking to keeping them seperate.
Let's see how we can shorten the statline.
We don't need Mobility; all infantry move 6 unless a rule.
We don't need Vitality; all infantry have 1 wound unless a rule.
We don't need Attacks; all infantry have 1 attack unless a rule.
So, most of these stats come under the words under Type.
We can try to merge Initiative and Dexterity.
I don't want to do this but if you want the shortest possible statline then you can remove stealth and rules that "decrease stealth" like a Tank rule instead "increase aggressors Marksmanship."
Marksmanship (Mk) How good the model is at shooting.
Power (P) How powerful the model's attacks are.
Resilience (R) How strong the model's armour is and how tenacious the model is.
Dexterity (D) How agile and skilful the model is in combat.
Fortitude (F) How strong the model's mind is and how willing the model is to fight.
Influence (I) How much the model affects his friends and foes on the battlefield.
Type (T) Type of model.
Range (Rg) How far the weapon can shoot.
Power (P) How powerful the weapon's projectiles are.
Attacks (A) How many strikes the weapon does.
Type (T) Type of weapon.
.......................................Mk..P..R...D...F...I...Type
Space Marine...................5...5...5...5...5...5...Infantry, Legged, Biological
.......................................Rg...P...A..Type
Boltgun............................24...5...1...Small Arms, Rapid Fire
I think low skill but fast units can be dealt with simply. Some sort of special rule for high initiative low weapon skill models like hormagaunts; Swift Attack: "A model with this special rule gains +1 Dexterity for To Strike First rolls only."
Or indeed low initiative high weapon skill: Sluggish Strike: "A model with this special rule has its Dexterity reduced by 1 for To Strike First rolls only."
One thing to point out with regards to my interpretation of Command - its the same thing as what 40k does with Leadership. The bravery of a unit doesn't determine it's ability to cast psychic powers - in this case Leadership is giving us a value for the mental fortitude of a model. Same deal here - Command, if its used (which I'm not necessarily saying it should) would be both ability to Command a unit and the Initiative (40k stat *and* dictionary definition) of the troops
However, doing this would remove some of the flavor of 40k, such as Space Marines being a better combatant than a Hormagaunt (being WS 4 Str 4 vs WS 3 Str 3), but the Hormagaunt is faster and has more attacks. How could we represent this type of situation using just the assault stat?
Is it flavour though? Does it really add anything meaningful to the game? If your ok with folding toughness and armour into defense, you shouldn't have any issue with folding WS and S into one stat too because its the exact same thing. Two 'defense' stats become one, their 'offense' counterparts do the same, forming the MELEE stat or some such thing.
I do understand what your getting at though. The penalty to abstraction is that you *can* potentially lose flavour. I suggest you take ten minutes and look up Mantic's Kings of War rules - see how they've managed to reconcile flavour and abstraction to get a fast game that retains differences between strong and weak characters, better or worse skill, etc.
2) One critical factor i'm noticing that is being ignored is multiple attacks. If we want to remove the attack stat from the unit, wed have to represent it another way, such as the standard 40K's having a pistol and close-combat weapon / two close-combat weapons, and then special rules to describe other situations, (such as old-school grey knights True-Grit special rule). But the problems with this are that then how would we represent the additional attack profiles of the likes of Sergeants, would we just slightly buff their combat abilities instead? That would require a pretty sbstantial recalculation on pricing and stats.
And to Dakkamite
a unit hitting on 5+ wounding on 3+ is exactly the same as a unit hitting on 3+ wounding on 5+
This is true for all cases, except for multiple attacks. The difference between these two situations is HUGE when multiple attacks are involved, especially if you multiply that difference by 30 Hormagaunts.
Good point on the multiple attacks thing. Its very important that certain units, namely Dreads, Heroes, and Monsters, get more than one hit. However, its not necessarily something that needs to be handed out to rank and file or even elite troops. If it was kept to just independent models such as those, it could be represented with whats essentially the 'universal special rule' of Multiple Attacks(x)
I stand by my 5+/3+ statement though, and the math does as well. If two units attack one another with thirty attacks...
~the 5+/3+ will get 10 hits, 6.66 wounds
~the 3+/5+ will get 20 hits, 6.66 wounds
In all standard combat situations its the same. Basic maths tells us that the order in which you multiply or divide stuff doesn't matter - 100 x 5 x 3 is the same as 3 x 100 x 5 or 5 x 100 x 3. Same applys to this.
It matters only if one unit had a power like "always wound on 2+", in which case the 3+/5+ is way better off, or an opponent had "all opponents always hit on a 6+" in which case the 5+/3+ is better off. Some people might like that, because of the possibilities it gives for list building combos ("I know, I'll take Poison man with the 5+ to-hit dudes.... wow, this list is unstoppable now!") - but those are the sorts of effects I'm looking to avoid when I propose ideas for this.
Also, would you guys like to see stealth as a stat used for shooting to beat? or just as a cover system using modifiers on shooting and defense? Personally, i prefer the latter, especially since it keeps the statline as low as possible.
What I suggest is that certain units recieve Stealth (x) and if needed something like Blundering (x). These are simply universal special rules that apply a negative or positive modifier to incoming shooting.
With weapons having stats such as:
Damage
Penetration
Range
Type
I thought we'd decided to fold damage and penetration into one stat now? That was the whole "ditch power vs resiliance and just apply the doubling/tripling thing to the anti AP roll" IIRC
Now lets delve into some other topics. Assuming we transition to the "Defense" consolidated stat, and with the changes to the AP system, how do we want to go about representing Invulnverable Saves and Power Weapons?
Power Weapon Ideas: Let them have a set AP value which the normal weapons AP would be added onto, for example, as close combat weapon should probably have better AP than hitting someone on the head with a bolter, let them be AP 1 or whatever value we assign. Power Swords, being an improved version of a standard CCW, could instead have AP 6, which is CCWAP with a power weapon bonus of +5 added, staying true to the idea of modifiers, while not being as schizophrenic about AP3 and AP2 as 6th editions system is. Not really a solution for stuff like powerfists, but maybe a jumping off point.
Invulnerable Saves: Have them be "Anti-AP", so an invulnerable value of 2 would reduce the incoming weapons penetration by 2?
Not really sure about this idea, i think it would make shooting more realistic towards units such as terminators, as normal weapons don't have much of an effect on the model, but a Lascannon would still be a huge threat. It could also represent agility or insubstantiality , so units with only Invulnerable saves under standard 40k (Harlequins, certain daemons, etc) are affected less, while again, using only modifiers over rules and special situations.
If we have merged damage and AP then power weapons just have more damage. Just think, a glowing death sword is certainly gonna cut through somebody easier than a regular old metal one. The S/AP stats from 40k are very... to use the term sparingly... 'unrealistic'.
Invulnerable Saves could really just be better defense. I know, I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but its really that simple because ask yourself this; what should a forcefield *actually* do? Is it a magic barrier that randomly deflects 33% of incoming projectiles? Or more of a wall of force to be overcome by incoming shooting - something that simply makes someone 'harder to damage', just like armour or an Orky physique or anything else
Good point on the multiple attacks thing. Its very important that certain units, namely Dreads, Heroes, and Monsters, get more than one hit. However, its not necessarily something that needs to be handed out to rank and file or even elite troops. If it was kept to just independent models such as those, it could be represented with whats essentially the 'universal special rule' of Multiple Attacks(x)
Very good idea. No really, very good idea. There could also be, for fortifications, "Stealth 1, Fortify 1" Fortify (x) being +(x) Resilience.
What I suggest is that certain units recieve Stealth (x)
Also, very good idea, there could also be Reveal (x), negating up to that much Stealth.
I don't know how we can merge strength and AP, and toughness and armour together, then yay-ok, but until someone finds a solid idea I'm sticking to keeping them seperate.
This line really confused me. On the one hand, your absolutely 100% right about Strength needing to be seperate from Assault (or Dexterity, or whatever determines melee hit chance), I just totally had a brain-fart there with regards to that.
On the other, your saying you don't want to merge toughness and armour... but then thats exactly what you went and did with the resilience stat. Under the stats you've posted, to shoot a dude you would
~roll to hit the dude (marksmanship vs modifiers)
~roll to see if you killed them (weapon power vs armour)
Melee I imagine is;
~Roll to hit the dude (Dex/Assault vs same stat on opponent)
~Roll to see if you killed them (model strength vs armour)
If thats correct, then its exactly what I was wanting, I just stuffed up with the strength thing.
We don't need Mobility; all infantry move 6 unless a rule.
We don't need Vitality; all infantry have 1 wound unless a rule.
We don't need Attacks; all infantry have 1 attack unless a rule.
So, most of these stats come under the words under Type.
+1. This is the sort of shortening I can fully support, as I mentioned pre-edit with stuff like Stealth (x) instead of a Stealth stat and as you've mentioned below. It appears we're on the same track here.
We can try to merge Initiative and Dexterity.
I don't want to do this but if you want the shortest possible statline then you can remove stealth and rules that "decrease stealth" like a Tank rule instead "increase aggressors Marksmanship."
What I want to avoid is a stat that is nothing more than "what order the models will strike in in hand to hand". Thats a waste of a stat. I have an idea to get around this though, to put it as elegantly as you did earlier; "We don't need Initiative; all units strike simultaneously unless a rule"
Very good idea. No really, very good idea. There could also be, for fortifications, "Stealth 1, Fortify 1" Fortify (x) being +(x) Resilience.
Again, +1 to that. We're definitely on the same wavelength here.
Yeah my vocabulary went cucumber just then. That's what I meant, roll to hit then roll to wound.
What I want to avoid is a stat that is nothing more than "what order the models will strike in in hand to hand"
I agree. Having a whole squad hit before the other squad has even noticed is stupid. Either find a way to make it varied, or have them hit at the same time. If this is the case then weapons with the Cumbersome special rule go after everyone else, and have their Dexterity reduced by 3.
.....................................Mk..P..R...D...F...I....Type
Space Marine.................5...5...5...5...5...5....Infantry
Imperial Guardsman........4...3...3...4...4...5...Infantry
Tau Fire Warrior.............6...3...3...3...4...5...Infantry
Eldar Guardian................5...3...3...5...5...5...Infantry (SR: Battle Focus, Swift Attack)
Ork Boy..........................2...5...4...4...3...5...Infantry
Necron Warrior...............5...5...5...4...6...5...Infantry (SR: Slow and Purposeful)
Tyranid Hormagaunt........2...4...3...4...3...5...Infantry (SR: Swift Attack)
Plaguebearer of Nurgle....0...5...6...3...6...5...Infantry
I have adapted the guns so that weapons with AP1/2 have +1P and weapons with AP5/6/- have -1S.
.................................Rg...P...A...Type
Boltgun......................24...4...1...Rapid Fire
Lasgun......................24...3...1...Rapid Fire
Pulse rifle..................30...5...1...Rapid Fire
Shuriken catapult.......12...4...2...Assault
Gauss flayer..............24...4...1...Rapid Fire, Gauss
Ranger long rifle.........36...5...1...Heavy, Sniper
Scatter laser..............36...5...4...Heavy, Laser Lock
Starcannon................36...7...2...Heavy
Plasma gun................12...7...1...Assault, Gets Hot
Melta gun...................12...8...1...Assault, Melta
Bright lance................36...9...1...Heavy, Lance
Lascannon.................48...9...1...Heavy
Wraithcannon.............12..10..1...Assault, Distort
I want to expand this later, guys help me by giving the current weapon profiles for other weapons....
Quick and dirty Ork stats. Its hard to do this without more of an idea of what, say, DEFENSE 8 would be. Where is a vehicle, a dreadnaught or monstrous creature on these rankings? Because of that I imagine I put them too high for stuff like the Warboss.
As I said before the edit, I'm not sure what exactly we are doing here. Are we simply adapting 40k as is with new stats? Or are we fully embracing what was said earlier (turn it into a small scale skirmish game, modern tactics style) in which case we're essentially making stripped down fandexes?
I assumed the latter when I slapped this together. As for Imperial Guns, I've misplaced my BRBatm but I'll find it in the morning and send you whats in there
Wow I had some derp math there with the 5+3+ vs 3+/5+, i think i was thinking about how changing rending from to hit to to wound changed things, signs i need to stop staying up all night.
As to ditching attack stats in favor of a multiple attack USR, not really a fan of that idea. I think one of the best parts of 40k is the variety created between troops through their stats alone, before any special rules get thrown on top. Seeing the Ork Boy, Hormagaunt, Death Company, Daemonette, Bloodletter, and Genestealer profiles all demonstrate their position as powerful close combat units through their number of attacks, even before taking Wargear into question, makes them unique compared to other options. So our options kinda come down to keep the current attack system, create a multiple attack special rule that would have to be applied to all 6 of the units i listed above, and those are just Troops, never mind FA and Elites, or you make the standard 1 attack and save multiple attacks for higher level units, which seems like itd be really REALLY bland on a unit by unit basis, which was kinda the whole point of working on a new system, not to mention counteracting the purpose and design of many units.
As for making two units that get into Melee strike at the same initiative, unless otherwise noted by a special rule, i think that could be a cool idea, as you'd have fast, normal, and slow, with special cases like strikes last for power fists and the like. I would avoid doing the cumbersome 3 thing though, as your basically just recreating the initiative system in a stranger way, which defeats the purpose.
Also, i'd like to avoid using special rules for determining stats as much as possible (except for the new initiative idea you had, thats a cool idea). Otherwise youre gonna have the fun situation of paladins being Preferred enemy(Daemons), ATSKNF, 2 wound universal special rule, multiple attack (3) special rule, brotherhood of Psyker's, deep strike, the aegis, and anything else i forgot, and thats already 7 special rules before a character joins them for fearless, titans hearld, and anything else.
As for merging stats, i dont see why you couldn't merge WS and S into one stat, so long as you treat the Melee weapon as a ranged weapon with range 0 or something, rather than the models strength itself. A space marine could have Assault 5, and to reprint his strength,the chain sword he carries could be Dmg 6, so the Assault 5 of the space marine and a bonus for being a close combat weapon rather than a stick he hit over someone's head, or his fist.
Combining AP and Damage is probably the best way to go about it, but id be willing to look for a way to keep them distinct. I think that system just has a bit more flavor in it than just pure damage. Even if a Dmg 6 AP 2 weapon and a Dmg 5 AP3 weapon are similar in function, they just feel a bit more interesting than both being Damage 8, even though there's little difference between them.
Attacks and wounds could maybe be represented as the unit type perhaps, such as infantry/2/1 for infantry/2 attacks/1 hit point. Not really solving much but itd make the startline seem smaller than it really is.
As for the use of invulnerable saves as modifier rather than a flat save, i never really liked the idea of this field of energy being enough to stop a power sword or missile flat out, so making things less immediately dangerous by reducing their lethality seemed like a good idea, especially from the perspective of the units whose invulnerable saves are not a result of power fields.
And to bring up a point and answer dakkamites' question in one fell swoop, I'd like to make a mod of 40k, which is still recognizable as the game even with extensive changes. This is what has me worried about many of the changes being suggested, funnily enough being brought to light by dakkamite bringing up kings of war. That system is built around formations of models acting as one whole, whereas 40K is about a bunch of individual models working as a cohesive unit. This has always been represented in the round bases and coherency rules, as unlike its fantasy cousin who is a formation game, the models don't fit together nicely, and you purchase and load out individual models. I did like how they had a fairly limited set of statlines, that used special rules to differentiate them, but i think 40k should use a system where variety starts at the stats, then Wargear and special rules drive home the differences and specialities.
Also im not terribly keen on using a D12 if possible, since theyre slightly harder to come by and anything you can do with a D12, you can probably find a way to hack it into working on a D6. The irony of me saying that on a thread that i started titled D10 conversion to 40k is not lost on me.
Also, i dont know about you guys, but i will most certainly be rewriting Codex: Grey Knights to be unrecognizable to the pile of steaming disappointment Ward left at my doorstep.
If we really wanted it at minimum size, we could just have offense/defense, or even just elite/general/horde under quality heading, but one sounds like we'd be playing bloodbowl or something and the other would be awful, so more concise than the current system, but diverse enough to allow variation and distinctions.
Rage sounds like an interesting idea to replace attacks, maybe fury, ferocity, or wrath. I kinda like ferocity, but it might be best to stick with attacks, as its familiar and easy to use in game (they've got two attacks each vs they have a ferocity score of 2 each).
No dice other than D6 are easy to come by in my area, since all FLGS in my area are about an hour away before city traffic makes you rethink your decision. And yeah I was working with D10 specifically to avoid having everything feel like 40K pushed onto a bigger dice, and I've pretty much abandoned that at this point as better ideas have come forth, and. I like the use of a 2-12 scale, im just not so sure about the dice, since to playtest id either have to buy a whole bunch which are expensive or use a dice app which takes forever, whereas I've got access to dozens of D6.
Wait, why does that matter? You don't want to help us anymore? :< I don't want a 40k reskin. I want a mechanically strong and logical game which is familiar to 40k players, but also fresh. 40k rules are broken all over the place. Grimdark took one path, I want to take another. I'm not a fan of the place counters and flip path.
Also by a 2-12 scale you mean 2D6? For me that is out of the picture because not only will it be impossible when it comes to rolling a lot of dice, but also, 2D6 has a fundamental problem of uneven values, as in, the chance of getting 7 is 1/6, whereas the chance of getting 2 or 12 is 1/36. Unless you want some sort of skewered data, which won't get you far anyway, this can't work.
Automatically Appended Next Post: What's your opinion on a chart that goes like this:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marksmanship..................................1......2......3......4......5......6......7......8......9.....10
To Hit (Shooting).............................6+....6+....5+....5+....4+....4+....3+....3+....2+....2+
Target's Stealth...............................-1.....-2.....-3.....-4.....-5....-6.....-7.....-8.....-9....-10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Power..............................................1......2......3......4......5......6......7......8......9.....10
To Damage.....................................6+....6+....5+....5+....4+....4+....3+....3+....2+....2+
Target's Resilience..........................-1.....-2.....-3.....-4.....-5....-6.....-7.....-8.....-9....-10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fortitude..........................................1......2......3......4......5......6......7......8......9.....10
Morale Check.................................6+....6+....5+....5+....4+....4+....3+....3+....2+....2+
Target's Threat...............................-1.....-2.....-3.....-4.....-5....-6.....-7.....-8.....-9....-10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combat Skill.....................................1......2......3......4......5......6......7......8......9.....10
To Hit (Assault)...............................6+....6+....5+....5+....4+....4+....3+....3+....2+....2+
Target's Dexterity............................-1.....-2.....-3.....-4.....-5....-6.....-7.....-8.....-9....-10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Influence..........................................1......2......3......4......5......6......7......8......9.....10
To Affect.........................................6+....6+....5+....5+....4+....4+....3+....3+....2+....2+
Target's Pressure............................-1.....-2.....-3.....-4.....-5....-6.....-7.....-8.....-9....-10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pros:
Uses D6 Allows for variety
Cons:
Chances not perfectly even; without modifiers, the numbers conflict, however with enough modifiers, the difference in difference is minimised.
Needs more stats on the stat card; however stats are paired
Stats will need to start high up and get lowered, which means there isn't enough space for good characters; maybe extend the numbers to 20 or something.
I meant a set of 2-12 as in a D12 where a skill of one is always failing.
So to do a direct comparison to 40K,
2 == 2
3 == 3
4 == 3.5
5 == 4
6 == 4.5
7 == 5
8 == 6
9 == 7
10 == 8
11 == 9
12 == 10
This system lets us add more variety in standard troops, particularly picking out veteran skills, while still letting a us have the high power weapons be represented, though its far from perfect. But it bothered me that sisters of battle never got a higher weapon skill, even though i think we can all agree they could wipe the floor with the guardsman in close combat, if not to the extent they could outclass them in shooting.
The system i've been working on has melee skill, shooting skill, wounds, attacks, morale, and defense as unit stats, with damage, AP, range, and type as weapon stats, with the defense rolls having a chart like this with
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
3 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+ 8+ 9+ 10+ 11+ 12+ ---- ---- -----
4 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+ 8+ 9+ 10+ 11+ 12+ ---- -----
5 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+ 8+ 9+ 10+ 11+ 12+ -----
6 ---- 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+ 8+ 9+ 10+ 11+ 12+
7 ---- ---- 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+ 8+ 9+ 10+ 11+
8 ---- ---- ---- 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+ 8+ 9+ 10+
9 ---- ---- ---- ---- 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+ 8+ 9+
10 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+ 8+
11 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+
12 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+
So anything with toughness more than 6 points above incoming damage can't be hurt by it, while anything with strength 5 over the targets defense auto-wounds? No sure about that last part. So Defense would have to be a scale of 1 to 30 in this new set, so 12 Max Strength, + 8 for Max Penetration, and half a D12. AP reduces the targets Defense value. Far from finalized but i like the feel of it.
Hi folks.
It looks like we need to decide exactly what we want from this development..
I want to have a well defined , intuitive face paced MODERN BATTLE war game .
An interactive game turn, minimal resolution methods , and direct use of stats, to remove the need for separate charts and tables....(And reliance on special rules to carry the game.)
Now if this was just a WWII game populated by humans and similar level of technology across all armies.
Then we could use standard movement for infantry, bike jeep halftrack, tank fast tank slow tank like F.O.W
And a similarly close range of morale and training .
But 40k is supposed to encompass an entire universe.So the more variation we can put in the better, IMO.
Now this is why I wanted to use opposed stats.
Say we start by using infantry and vehcles .And we use D12 or D10 to set the range of results.
Then we want to add super heavies, and titans.
We have to rip up all the charts and tables and start again using a d20 and/or add in loads of special rules .....
If we simply use stats we can just put higher stats in for Super heavies/titans and the weapons to take them down .
A simple question,
Do you want to JUST cover the current game play of 40k in as few pages of rules as possible.Where everything is crammed together with deterministic use of dice.
OR would you like to use ADD more tactical depth to the game , (and cover the wide variety of units found in a universe,)By using new mechanics and reolution methods, and still use less than half the pages of rules 40k does...
In my 30+ years of war gaming, I have found simple simulations make far better games than 'cinematic' marketing pamphlets.
It may be on a different page now.
But when I listed my example starting stats.
I said that we could include the USERS Attacks in the Close combat weapons 'Effect'.(Effect being number of shots /hits/ area of effect.)
And we include the USERS balistic skill in the effective range of ranged weapons.(Better shots hit things further away.)
I listed Morale as the score needed to beat, to rally a unit on poor morale.(Yes I want to use simple supression mechanic, shaken, stunned and routed for ALL units.)
And Command as the number of RE ROLLS and RANGE , the unit leader/Character gives the near by unit per game turn.(These re rolls are dependant on the character type to what dice the unit can re roll.)
I am happy to discuss alternative game mechanics and resolution methods.
BUT it is important to me to use no more than 2 resolution methods (other than direct representation.)
And use the stats directly , to determine in game interaction.
To keep the rules straight forward and intuitive.
I can go through alternative game turn mechanics, and explain the proposed stats in more detail if you like?
Ok so lets break those goals down into more manageable chunks shall we?
Interactive game turn, minimal resolution methods, less reliance on special rules to carry the game.
100% on board with these goals. Interactive game turns would keep players involved and interested with less waiting around, whether this be through unit activation systems of alternating phases, and 40k's current turn system is both dated and broken.
minimal resolution methods make everything more unified, meaning less arbitrary rules that create differing systems, and hopefully make the game play faster. Less reliance on special rules for core gameplay means they can be used to really bring the "Special" portion to special rules.
As for putting as much variation as possible in with regards to movement, i'm not really on board with this idea. Does altering a units movement distance really make it feel or play any differently/better? All you'd be doing is slightly slowing down or slightly speeding up a units movement, unless you wanted some truly drastic effects. Plus I think 40k's current movement system is dynamic enough to not need fiddling with, as slow and purposeful, fleet, Slaanesh Daemons extra movement rule, Eldars Battle-focus, etc allow for very different movement mechanics and tactics without being overly fiddly, andlet us keep simple standard movement rules based on unit types (infantry, jump infantry, jet infantry, bike, etc)
And please, don't even bring up Apocalypse rules, we've got a big enough challenge ahead of us before we even think of approaching that.
As to whether we want to streamline the current 40K system or add tactical depth, why not both? Simplify and keep the best parts of 40K, modifying where necessary to make them faster and less cumbersome, and instead replace the complexity with tactical options in whatever method works best. Just off the top of my head, i'm not sure how i feel about using a Command stat in addition to Morale, but letting sergeants or leaders have warlord-esque traits might be an interesting route to go. Having them issue orders might be stepping on Imperial Guard Players toes a bit, but it would definitely be different and interesting.
Using simple Suppression, Shaken, Stunned, Routed Mechanics for ALL units.
Lanrak, i swear, every post you've got some interesting, innovative idea, keep it up.
And finally,we need to start getting examples and rules set down for many of these ideas. I like the concept of a direct comparison rather than charts, but we need a concrete system to evaluate, even if its only a placeholder to be modified and adjusted. The Ballistic Skill as range system sounds interesting, but without something to experiment with and evaluate, we cant say which parts work and which parts don't, and make necessary changes accordingly. Once we've got a basic ruleset for these ideas, we can start modifying and evaluating, but until then, we don't have the information to make a strong judgement.
Sorry to drop so much work on you Lanrak, but we really need these ideas to be fleshed out before we start judging beyond them being interesting. Also, how do you feel about some of the other ideas discussed, such as consolidating certain stats, dropping the initiative system in favor of roll-offs and fast/slow Initiative special rules, etc?
So what exactly is a direct comparison? Is that simply a 'chart', where every level of difference is a +/-1 modifier? Sort of like the to-wound mechanic of current 40k. So if the base was 7, and I was 2 higher than you, you'd need a 9+ to hit or something?
As opposed to charts like the current melee to-hit chart where the numbers jchange at various points and require that one actually look at a chart.
Hi Rav1rn.
If we want a more tactical game , then we need more IN GAME choice and interaction in the game play.
If you can bear with me a moment as I go over some basic ideas.
I think it is important that units have to choose what 2 actions they are going to perform in the game turn.(Rather than 1 to 4 in the current 40k game.)
EG
Ready (weapons), Then Fire to Full effect.(The only way to fire heavier weapons/ordnance.)
Ready (equipment) Then Move with higher stealth.
Move Then Fire
Move Then Move
Move Then Assault.
(Units can choose different actions to other friendly /enemy units.)
If you want to use alternating phases, here are two popular options.
No1
Player A move.
Player B move
Player A shoot
Player B Shoot
Player A Assault
Player B Assault
No2
Player A Move.
Player B Shoots
Player A Reacts.
Player B Moves .
Player A Shoots
Player B Reacts.
(Units can move shoot or assault as a reaction .)
Anyhow, just to explain why a Movement value might be useful.
Currently in 40k any SLIGHT change in unit /model equipment requires special rules to define slight improvements .
Where as if we use a distance in inches for speed.
We can say extra armour on a vehicle slows its speed down by X inches.
Or stripping off armour increases the units speed by Y inches.
(Making unit load out mutable and gives a finer level of balance.)
Having used Movement values in EVERY battle game except 40k .(And Arty Conliffes Crossfire which does not use ANY measuring.)
Sort of makes it very odd to me to work without a movement value.
I mean how would you feel if weapon ranges were written as every weapons range is 24" apart from weapons with , very short, short ,less than average ,more than average, longish, quite long , very long and super duper long, range special rules .
And than you had to look up and remember what every special range class was in terms of actual range.. .
Anyhow...
I am very happy to combine stats effect to get the NET in game effect.(And allowing us to use ANY value we need to is important IMO.)
This was the idea about using a UNIT WEAPONS PROFILE.(Ill explain later.)
I agree that units could have a 2 stage damage resolution.
Roll to hit. then roll to save.
Damage (AP + STR,)vs Defense (AV + Toughness.)
But most 40k players want to differentiate between armour and natural toughness.(I dont know why but they do.)
However, we could have a halfway resolution.Where the amount you fail the save by , is compared to a Resilience value, to determine the actual damage taken?
EG
If what you fail the save by is less than the Resilience value the model is Shaken.
If you fail the save by MORE than the resilience value the model is damaged.(looses a wound/structure point.)
(I know some people do not like using different terminology,But I want to use universal stats that apply to mechanical AND biological units.)
You seem to be drawing a bit from the Epic rules, so why not just use that?
>Player 1 picks a unit that hasn't gone this round, does all movement, shooting, assault etc, using a variety of 'orders' like 'shoot more', 'move-shoot', 'move-move' etc
>Player 2 does the same
>Then back to player 1
I'm quite fond of this alongside a counters system, but since it seems the majority isn't in favour of the counters it still leaves this as a solid option. A bonus to something like this is that a COMMAND type stat becomes relevant.
If we want a more tactical game , then we need more IN GAME choice and interaction in the game play
I'm very much in agreement here. In fact, I've been thinking on another element that is crucial in promoting IN GAME choices and interaction - and thats to take the power away from PRE GAME choices in army list construction.
Frankly, I hate the army list construction element of 40k. I think that it takes the spotlight away from your tactical decisions on the tabletop, causing the game to be over before its even began, with wars won in the indexes of your army book than on the tabletop. As it is now, I truly believe 40k resembles more Magic: The Gathering than an actual wargame. I see much more in regards to "wow, thats a strong army" than "wow, he certainly used his army to great effect", and rarely see the weaker army come out on top in a game. We also seem to get tons of stuff thats under/over costed or powered this way because theres literally too much choice.
In that vein I'd like to... not necessarily remove choice, but structure it. What I'm talking about is an army construction system akin to that from SAGA. Instead of 1500pts or whatever, you get X choices from your army book (thinking 4 for a small game, 8 for a big one... something like that). A choice might be a solo Dreadnaught or Predator, a small unit of Terminators, a medium one of Space Marines, or a larger one of Scouts - depending on the scale we use (I'm fond of the one you see in Dawn of War 2 - Marines in squads of 3, because smaller units leads to more tactical gameplay plus three marines being equal to a whole mob of other models is more fluffy). Some choices, such as Land Raiders, may cost more, but rather than one unit costing 125pts and another 240 and yet another 734 points, its simple "one choice" (or "point" or "two choices" (two "points" taken up.
Each Option would have various ways of customizing it, but none of them affect the price of the unit. To use the army I'm familiar with (Orks), a "Boyz Mob" of say 8 Boyz led by a Nob can either have Sluggas and Choppas or Shootas on all the models. They then have the option of adding either two special weapons (choice of flamer, rokkit, big shoota) or to give the Nob a Power Klaw to make the unit killier in close combat. The unit may, instead of either or both of the special weapons, choose to take Stikkbomms (grenades, whatever those will do), 'eavy armour to make the unit tougher but slower, or to upgrade one boy to a Painboy (medic) that can also boost the durability of the mob.
Though all of this is encompassed under "Ork Mob - 1 point", I've got options here for a ded killy close combat unit, one thats hard as nails, a shooty unit... all brought about through ticking a few boxes on the list of options for the Mob. What I *don't* have to worry about, is whether to spend 5 points on this, or 7 points on that, or buy the 38.5 point upgrade that gives them something else, and then whether those various point expenditures are 'efficient' relative to choices elsewhere.
No matter what options I pick, its still just 1 point for the "Ork Boyz Mob" selection for my army, and should be 'equal' in utility to all the other 1 point options in my book. Theres still plenty of room for customization but I feel something like this helps to balance the game for more *gameplay* and less list construction.
First off lets address some of Dakkamite's concerns,
Worrying that Pre-Game decisions are more powerful than In-Game decisions is the fault of 40K's designers, not an inherent flaw in the system itself. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no official curve or formula used to describe a units cost since Rogue Trader, and this is just not acceptable. In games with fewer units and less choices to make, playtesting alone might be able to balance things perfectly, with some luck and lots of time and samples. However, with 16 distinct codex's in circulation, and more supplements being introduced all the time, its impossible to get things balanced out even close to perfectly without some way of mathematically describing its power compared to some standard, and attach a points cost accordingly. This is further complicated by the statline not having enough variety to allow units to differ to an appropriate amount, without resorting to special rules. This is why every codex seems to have at least 1 "dud" unit that just doesn't match up to anything it competes with, or you get stupidly overpowered options. The problem isn't the points system, but the lack of distinct control over it, that causes so many problems.
Your alternative of using a system that limits the number of units taken seems like it'd be both interesting, and much easier to balance. Im not a huge fan of it, since i like using the larger squads of standard 40k, but Dawn of War 2 had great gameplay that felt almost exactly like 40K, just at a smaller scale, so theres no reason that idea shouldn't work, im just not sure i want that to be the core 40k system, instead of a faster alternative ruleset, maybe even an introduction to the game kind of thing.
@Lanrak
I like the idea of an action system, it feels similar to the action system you'd find in tabletop RPG's, and those can work very well.
Alternating Phases option 1 is a no-go, it doesn't really address the problem of alpha-strike gameplay, so you'd be trading one flawed system for a different but equally flawed system.
Option 2 looks interesting though, especially since reaction is not the same as a distinct set of actions that can be undertaken in that period, so player choices can be more of a factor. i'd just worry that having both players act in one "player" turn would be a bit odd.
Yes, any slight change to a models movement requires a special rule to describe that, but its either use special rules for the few situations where that occurs, or you create a new stat that can itself vary, then likely have special rules on top of that anyways. It might be a good idea so far as having a unified statline for all units in the game, but i think just letting the units type decide these kinds of things would be better, such as having Heavy Tank/Tank/Light Tank, Heavy Skimmer/Skimmer/Light skimmer. This idea would also let us integrate your idea of changing a vehicles movement by changing its armor values, which i assume was your idea instead of the extra armor upgrade in place right now. This could even be applied to infantry, with Heavy infantry/infantry/light infantry types determining movement effects. Heavy infantry might act as having slow and purposeful, infantry may have no bonuses or penalties, and light infantry might get an extra 3" of movement over the normal value.
As to the change of the range system so it relies on BS, i feel this would either have too much effect, or not enough. Either your gonna get units that can sit outside the range of a less skilled enemy who cant move since they'd take a range penalty or not be able to shoot at all, or it'd just be a much more involved version of the current system that would require me remember how far the chaplain in my squad can fire, vs how far my captain can fire, vs the terminators they're attached to. At least with the current system its fairly fast, if not terribly varied. So while there's room for improvement, i'm not sure how well this new system would replace it.
However, we could have a halfway resolution.Where the amount you fail the save by , is compared to a Resilience value, to determine the actual damage taken?
EG
If what you fail the save by is less than the Resilience value the model is Shaken.
If you fail the save by MORE than the resilience value the model is damaged.(looses a wound/structure point.)
This is a great idea, and would make sure that even if no wounds are caused, the unit is affected. Couple ideas come to mind with this system.
1) Morale check could prevent shaking? might make it too many rolls
2) If unit loses a certain number of models, they do the typical morale check, but if they fail a certain threshold, they are shaken/stunned/routed or whatever
3) Assuming you make shaken/stunned the same as the current vehicle rules, it'd make fearless invaluable to assault units. Would also provide a nice way to keep strong shooting units from hitting as hard without needing to kill all of them.
Again, however, without concrete rules to look over, this is still just based on how i perceive such a system working. I'd really like to see an in-depth exploration of how direct comparison could work, preferably using a D12?
Worrying that Pre-Game decisions are more powerful than In-Game decisions is the fault of 40K's designers, not an inherent flaw in the system itself
I don't understand this at all.
This problem is the *result* of the system, which means the flaw lies in the system itself. The designers are kind of irrelevant, only the system they've given us matters, so I can't really figure what your getting at here
Im not a huge fan of it, since i like using the larger squads of standard 40k
The key aspect of the rules was the replacement of points with selections, not the squad size. If the squad size element is what you believe to be flawed in those rules then it can easily be swapped out for a larger number of models. I just went for smaller because not only do I like smaller, but because the stated mission of this endeavour is to make 40k into something involving the terms "small scale modern style tactical skirmish game" in any given order if I recall it correctly. Modern and skirmish are both in reference to smaller units, not to mention small scale though that particular element could just be a figment of my imagination
But if you're saying you don't want a template for army construction then many armies will just be running full HQ or full Fast Attack, it just won't work imo. And about the point system turning into simply a "slot" system, that will make it the opposite of variety, you'll have, at the bottom, a Gretchin squad, and at the top, some HQ like Calgar or something. Then you have to fit EVERYTHING into 2-6 slots. It will make many units the same price but vastly different power.
I do like the idea you mentioned of "if you take a power klaw you can't take stikkbombs", we'll have to consider that later.
As for the turn system, I love the idea Rav1rn mentioned earlier about:
Player 1 selects one unit and moves, shoots and assaults with that one unit
On a 3+, he may do the same with another unit.
On a 5+, he may do the same with another unit.
After using up to 3 units, the turn switches to the opponent.
It's like Epic rules, with a twist.
I don't like the counter system, it seems to add some unnecessary mechanic which seems to hinder the game a lot.
Also, following on from Lanrak's
Ready (equipment) Then Move with higher stealth.
I think this could be a great idea, moving only a fraction of your maximum distance but gaining Stealth in the process.
Player A Move.
Player B Shoots
Player A Reacts.
What do you mean by react? Move back? Shoot back? Engage in CC?
On a different note I think our focus has gone away from shortening unit statlines, so yes, I fully agree on having a Mobility statistic. This means that Eldar DON'T have to have a weird rule, but instead just move more than everyone else. As for Necrons they still have to get a special rule, but don't need that rule to outline their movement. This is good for beginners who sometimes forget rules; they still get the bulk of the actual game. So we NEED to agree on a very basic thing right now. It's the easiest obstacle to overcome. Do we want a short statline with more special rules? Or an honest one which is long but doesn't need rules backing it up? Imho I go for the latter.
Before we start thinking about all this extra stuff like Rav1rn said, we need to find a concrete, fundamental mechanic which we all agree on. Will it be:
(green = pro, orange = con)
Direct comparison:
Removes the need for charts
Uses D6 Doesn't address the desire for variety - it works just like the current S/T chart system.
It distorts receiving values by 4, which wouldn't be distorted with a chart
Dexterity vs. Dexterity, how is one going to hit another if they're the same value?
Strength Toughness Chart:
Uses D6 Easy to remember
One point in difference means 1/6 chance, which cramps everything together; no variety
S/T chart with D10 or D12:
Addresses the need for variety
Hard to get D10s and D12s, no-one will play.
The result is not of the system, but of poor execution of the system. The system is you buy units and upgrades using points. In an ideal system, a unit's points cost would be representative of its abilities, with upgrades being costed appropriately. There's no problem with this system, assuming there's some mathematical way to ensure everything's costs are accurate. The problem is that the design team doesn't do this.
As for the problems with the actual rules and ways abilities are represented, yeah that's a problem with 40K, and why we're in this thread to begin with, but you addressed the points and buying system 40K uses specifically:
Frankly, I hate the army list construction element of 40k. I think that it takes the spotlight away from your tactical decisions on the tabletop, causing the game to be over before its even began, with wars won in the indexes of your army book than on the tabletop. As it is now, I truly believe 40k resembles more Magic: The Gathering than an actual wargame. I see much more in regards to "wow, thats a strong army" than "wow, he certainly used his army to great effect", and rarely see the weaker army come out on top in a game. We also seem to get tons of stuff thats under/over costed or powered this way because theres literally too much choice.
If things were priced appropriately, these problems wouldn't exist. You could tailor your list to how you wanted to play in addition to the strengths within the codex. Player skill and luck of the dice would determine victory, as one player would have had to either play worse or not take advantage of their codex's strengths or have the dice roll unfavorably all game long to lose.
Edit: as for whether we want a short statline with special rules, or a long statline that avoids special rules, that choice isn't really what we should be deciding on. Do we want to use existing stats to determine more effects in a less dynamic way, or do we want to explicitly state some factors to make that factor have a bigger role in the game system? If you look at most of the 40K armies, each has one special rule applied to almost the whole army that in a way defines them and their playstyle. Space Marine have ATSKNF, Eldar have Battle-Focus, Orks have Mob rule, Tyranids have Synapse, Tau have supporting fire, Necrons have reanimation protocols, Dark Eldar have strength through pain, etc. It just so happens that the Eldar's army special rule affects their movement to a degree, as it lets them move-shoot-move. Otherwise, using a Heavy/Medium/Light system, they could just be light infantry to make them faster than whatever the standard movement for infantry is. The Unit Type is already something in place to describe a unit, why not make it do more than just separate Vehicles, Infantry, Jump/Jet/Bike, and Monsterous Creatures?
However, I still stick with what I said - everything is part of the system, including all the various elements of the game (such as IGOUGO and tons of powerful shooting) that lead to the alpha strike element of current 40k.
None of these systems is exactly ideal, but can we agree that using the d6 just isn't going to offer enough variety to make things more interesting? Otherwise, i think using a D12 plus whatever unusual idea Lanrak has for direct comparison would be the way to go. With the widespread adoption of smartphones, using a dice app wouldn't be too bad, since they're relatively cheap. A good one would probably be better than using actual dice for stuff like 120 attacks from Ork Mobz.
I don't want to use D12 anymore. I don't have a smartphone, and that would be disconcerting in a game which you play in real life unlike computer games, I don't want RNGs to determine my luck. :/
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also I'm still waitin' on my Imperial weapon stats Check my thread to see what my thoughts are right now.
Ok, so run us through an example of how Melee and shooting would work. How about when the shooter has marksmanship 8 and the target has stealth 4?
Is there a way to use direct comparison using a D6 while maintaining variety?
Well, saying you need a set of 20 dice to play at a brisk pace, at ~~$1.00 per dice for a D12, thats only 20 bucks, but the app may be less than 5 dollars, so i meant it as an alternative for cheap play testing more than the final solution, i prefer the physicality of using dice as well.
I've got more than just weapon stats for you IcyFireKnight
I have no idea who should strike first. I was perfectly happy with First Strike (x) and don't really know what direction this process has gone in since then.
I want that to happen, but isn't that a bit boring? Combat where everything puts out its attacks and x number of people die? I think some models should be able to get the upper hand.
I'm going to put something out there:
Models that have a higher Dexterity than the model they are attacking get a number of attacks that strike before equal to the difference in Dexterity.
So a Space Marine charges an Ork. 5-4=1. The Marine gets 1 attack before the Ork.
Bad wording but just an idea.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also:
Now I'm really confused, I thought the idea of using USR to supplement simple rules had been scrapped. I'm glad to see that it hasn't.
I'd say it isn't a simple rule, certainly not as fundamental as Wounds or Attacks. Only about 10% of things have invulnerable saves, so Safeguard 5+ won't be flooding the Special Rules section, unlike Multiple Wounds 2 Multiple Attacks 3, which would.
I am still fully appreciating having USRs for flavoursome mechanics.
A super space marine (Dex 10), three regular marines (Dex 5), and a Scout (Dex 4) charge six Orks (Dex 4), two Nobs (Dex 5), and a Warboss (Dex 8)
How many bonus attacks does each guy get?
Combat where everything puts out its attacks and x number of people die? I think some models should be able to get the upper hand.
Isn't that how vanilla 40k works as is?
I'm all for adding options to the close combat, and the way I'd do it is with a simple STANCE system. During each assault phase, each player may declare (secretly? simultaneously? whatever) that any given unit or units of theirs that is engaged in an assault will use a COMBAT STANCE. The two stances to choose from are OFFENSIVE and DEFENSIVE. A unit fighting with a stance trades attack or defense for the opposite - overall it *must* be less efficient than an unmodified unit, but in exchange it allows a player to tie up a strong enemy unit for another turn, or do that last bit of desperate extra damage to one before reinforcements pile into the assault and wipe you out... stuff like that. You can use stances to make a trade off, selling overall efficiency to gain attack or defense where it is needed the most.
Sounds kinda like the brotherhood-champion special rule from the grey knights codex. Could be interesting, as long as we integrate it properly, so look up that units battle-stances to see how that might feel.Maybe even make it part of the action system lanrak described? Or something command would be used for, readying the troops or egging a unit into ferocity?
That's a good idea. Stance system, I shall think about it. It will add a nice dynamic to assault. Maybe in the first turn of an assault the charger HAS to be on offensive and the target HAS to be on defensive? I say that first turn has to be charger=offensive, target=defensive, then in the later rounds the combat initiator declares his position first. Maybe there could be a Neutral stance where there are no stat changes?
Offensive - +2P, -1R
Defensive - +2R, -2P
This means that defensive units lose out in the long run. Although...less Power means they can stall for longer.
Maybe even some units unlock an even stronger stance? "Seasoned Assailant" - +1P +1A +1D +1F, -2R
A super space marine (Dex 10), three regular marines (Dex 5), and a Scout (Dex 4) charge six Orks (Dex 4), two Nobs (Dex 5), and a Warboss (Dex 8)
How many bonus attacks does each guy get?
Firstly, it's not bonus attacks, it's attacks that hit before the Orks'.
I say that each marine brawls against the closest model (the ones in the front must attack the Orks that they are in base contact with, and the ones behind hit the closest).
This isn't how vanilla 40k works, because it's either ALL or NONE of the models that get the upper hand. I DON'T want an entire Guardian squad hitting before Orks. I want a fraction of them to, but not all.
Edit: So far I've found one use for Influence Value (Command).
Barrage: A weapon with this special rule does not need line of sight, however the user must be within 4 x User's Influence of a unit that can see the target.
Hi folks.
Back to basics....
As far a game turn mechanics go.
Alternating actions ,(governed by dice roll to allow more than one activation per turn.)
I am happy with.(Similar to EA one of my favorite games.)
Interleaving the phases engages the players more throughout the game and delivers more tactical choice.
Why change the assault phase for a reaction phase?
Because it allows more tactical flexibility.SOME unit that are good at close combat want to assault.Others that are better at shooting would NOT assault but shoot.And some units want to move to a better position. (EG towards cover, into weapons range , out of enemy attack range.)
Or we could use the counter system from Grimdark(Based On Net Epic, another of my favorite games.)
As the strategic organisation was mentioned.
He is my idea.
For every HQ unit you may take 2 to 8 COMMON UNITS.(Common units are worth 1 VP)
For every 2 Common units taken you may take ONE Specialized unit.(Specialized Units are worth 2 VP.)
For every 2 Specialized units you may take ONE restricted unit.(Restricted units are worth 4 VP.)
The HQ taken sets the theme of the army .ON theme units are Common, Supporting theme units are Specialized, and Counter Theme units are Restricted.
(So we can put all the Klanz, Cults, Chapters, Craftworlds, Chapters , Regiments , back into the game.I would like more option to theme freely ...but in an organised way )
Set the Game size on the amount of VP you want to play.
The game has RANDOM senarios, each player takes a RANDOM mission card.The mission card sets conditions for minor victory , and major victory.
My problem with the current game set up, is it is obviously win- loose.(The players are set against each other ...)
With random senarios , you get more narrative focus, where you try to complete your mission first and formost, and try to guess what the opponent is trying to do...
(6 Attacker and 6 defender mission cards would give 36 random senarios. With wide and varied mission types there would be no Auto win army list!)
Anyhow , enough on that.(Ill discuss army comp in detail later.)
Here are the basic resolution methods I want to use.
Direct representation.
The range of movement /effective range of attacks expressed in inches.
The base score needed to a pass a skill test. Eg to rally a Shaken unit roll over their Morale Grade.(Targeting an enemy unit is based on their Stealth value.)
The number dice rolled(or re rolled.) .
Comparative stat .
Target AV 2. Attacker Damage 6.
Target needs to roll 5 + on a D6 to save .(5+2=7 , 7 is greater than 6.)
IF the target fails its armour save .
Compare the amount the target FAILED its armour save by to the targets Resilience .
EG If the target above had a Res 2.The if they rolled a 4 or 3 to save (failed by 1or 2.)They become shaken .
If they roll a 1 or 2 they failed by 3 or 4 and loose a hit point (Loose a wound structure point.)
This is a simple roll to target enemy in weapons range .
If successful
Target rolls to save.
If target fails save it takes physical or morale damage.
Ill leave it there for now..I am happy to go over anything again to clarify .(I do ramble a bit , sorry.)
With random senarios , you get more narrative focus, where you try to complete your mission first and formost, and try to guess what the opponent is trying to do...
(6 Attacker and 6 defender mission cards would give 36 random senarios. With wide and varied mission types there would be no Auto win army list!)
This is a great idea. And we will have lots of fun making missions! Lanrak, +1!
However, I have already pointed out that there are so many negatives about direct comparison:
It doesn't provide ANY more variety than the current 1 point difference=1/6 chance.
It will make the statlines jagged - some stats will be naturally 4 points higher.
What about Weapon skill vs. Weapon skill? You can't have one higher than the other, if you want them to be the same.
Nevertheless, your idea about "how penetrated the armour got, the more damage it does" is an extremely good one.
Can you clarify your idea of rolling to see if the weapon is in range?
Liking the stance idea, it adds depth to the assault system that has been sorely missing it for a while now. The only problem i see is that there would be options that one unit would just always take. A mob of Ork Boyz would never use a defensive stance, since doing so would effectively be to refuse additional Melee strength, and since they are cheap and usually found in larger numbers, why not? If they die its not a large loss, but you maximize damage potential. So the option of stances could essentially become just an expected enhancement, rather than a tactical choice, or essentially a counter system to have a unit become more effective against that unit at that moment, rather than working towards a tactical goal, such as tar-pitting a unit.
so either find novel ways to have stances affect combat, or make sure that the changes a stance brings arn't so drastic as to make it an auto choice over another?
Having units receive first strike bonuses instead of extra attacks would be an interesting way of deciding combat, exploring that as an option would definitely be a good idea.
@lanrak
As for using a reaction move that allows shooting units to leverage their shooting and assault units to leverage Melee, i dont see why this would be better than just using an action system you mentioned earlier. Using a reaction move means that there's going to be one option thats always the best choice, rather than units trying to find ways to minimize the effects of their weakness in one phase, while maximizing their strength in another phase.
Supposing you use the actions system mentioned earlier, i like the sound and idea of it, so long as there's restrictions such that units must still deal with their shortcomings.
Your idea of having HQ, Common, Special, and Restricted units sounds interesting, as its straightforward and offers an alternative to the current Force Organization Chart, and breaks away from the current classification of units within the FOG. However, its straying awfully close to the system in Warhammer Fantasy, which may or may not be a good thing. Also, it would reduce Min Maxing, which im 100% in favor of. However, some army builds are built off the idea of using non-standard units as the core of the army, such as Draigowing, Deathwing, Ravenwing, nidzilla, mechguard, etc, so expanding this system to allow such situations would be a good idea. Maybe make it so that HQ choices let you take certain units/classifications without needing the common pre-requisite?
Random scenarios with each side getting mission goals and victory conditions sounds incredible, but lets not ignore that simply killing everything in sight can be fun from both view points, such as facing off against a pure Death Company army that makes holding objectives a nightmare.
So if we're using victory points, do we want killing units and capturing objectives give victory points, then have cards give minor and major victory conditions, such as slay the enemy HQ, prevent the enemy from capturing any objective, kill all non-common/troop units, etc? So that a major victory defeats a minor victory condition which defeats max victory points, and have victory points decide ties on victory conditions?
Your comparative system sounds really cool for determining damage or whatever were calling it now, but i don't see how this is much different from the current charts, though id like to see this way of doing things in action. Idea of having a threshold under which a unit takes physical damage and above which it takes moral damage is a neat idea, and would definitely make morale and leadership have a much greater impact in game, and combined with the shaken, stunned, routed mechanics, would be a very very exciting way of going about things.
Orks are also used to tarpit scary stuff like Dreads/MC/heroes. If I want maximum tarpit value I can chuck them on the defensive.
Gotta stress it though, stances that vary from STANDARD should always be less efficient overall.
Super keen on the missions man. As fun as "kill everything" can be, theres no reason why that can't just either be another mission option or that the players can't simply decide before the game to play like that.
Edit;
Ok, finally got around to reading some of these text blocks
Why change the assault phase for a reaction phase?
Because it allows more tactical flexibility.SOME unit that are good at close combat want to assault.Others that are better at shooting would NOT assault but shoot.And some units want to move to a better position. (EG towards cover, into weapons range , out of enemy attack range.)
If I've read this right, then I strongly, strongly disagree with this.
A dedicated shooty phase and no dedicated assault phase is a massive nerf to stabby armies. A unit can move, shoot, then move to ensure its out of assault phase - or even shoot twice based on what I've quoted above. But where is the ability of stabby units to move and then assault twice? Or assault and then move towards the next target? Double standards like that are what is putting me off of 40k right now
I'm all for broader phases, but make it ACTION and REACTION as opposed to SHOOTING and REACTION - give assault units the chance to benefit from forgoing shooting just as much as shooty units do from sacrificing their assault phase.
Or we could use the counter system from Grimdark(Based On Net Epic, another of my favorite games.)
+1 to the counter system. Not necessarily that one (and not necessarily not), but counters are definitely cool in my book.
As the strategic organisation was mentioned.
He is my idea.
I like this. I'm against limiting players to X Fast Attack, X Heavy Support etc, and more in favour of stuff like this or like the Fantasy army building rules.
IF the target fails its armour save .
Compare the amount the target FAILED its armour save by to the targets Resilience .
Not 100% behind this, but I do like the direction its going in. The big problem is what to do if say, two models in a unit are shaken but the others are fine.
This is a simple roll to target enemy in weapons range .
If successful
Target rolls to save.
If target fails save it takes physical or morale damage.
I'm not sure what I think about random shooting ranges. I absolutely hate gak like "I'm 24.1 inches away, your 24" gun can't hit me!" but we could really just make it a system where guns have *infinite* range but get less and less accurate the further the target.
Your comparative system sounds really cool for determining damage or whatever were calling it now, but i don't see how this is much different from the current charts, though id like to see this way of doing things in action. Idea of having a threshold under which a unit takes physical damage and above which it takes moral damage is a neat idea, and would definitely make morale and leadership have a much greater impact in game, and combined with the shaken, stunned, routed mechanics, would be a very very exciting way of going about things.
I'd like to hear more about this. If its exactly as worded, having attacks do physical or morale damage sounds dumb. I'd prefer to see it do both - perhaps if an attack doesn't do damage it does only morale, and if it does do damage it does both physical and morale damage
Gotta stress it though, stances that vary from STANDARD should always be less efficient overall.
This. Great way to implement stances without being too strong. On the one hand, I'm afraid that stances would benefit generalist armies more so than others that may be more specialized, however, I've always felt that generalist armies struggled in the adaptability area anyways, so this might be a welcome addition.
Taking the action system from earlier might be a good alternative to using the 4 phases, using move/shoot/assault as the actions, with a choice of 3 per turn per unit, but then having units start in assault, move out of assault, and charge back in could be odd, without combat rules to dictate how this would work? Maybe have command be used to make a "tactical retreat" from combat, which would let the other player's unit make a sweeping advance or something. This would mean the current strengths of melee are preserved, as in a player can tar pit a unit or get into combat to avoid getting shot at, while allowing them a way to get out if they really need to, without being able to do so free of consequence.
Otherwise i don't really see a problem with the current turn phases, as they're a nice standard against which things can be measured and compared, and make everything pseudo-balanced, as everything has to handle the same phases. Not terribly exciting, but functionally stable.
I'm not sure what I think about random shooting ranges. I absolutely hate gak like "I'm 24.1 inches away, your 24" gun can't hit me!" but we could really just make it a system where guns have *infinite* range but get less and less accurate the further the target.
Interesting idea, i like it much better than other alternatives i've seen. But there would still need to be a way to determine if something is long/short ranged before taking that into account, to know if something is under or over its "Ideal" range. This could also take lanrak's ballistic skill determining range into effect, as ballistic skill could ignore up to a certain amount of negative range modifiers, or enhance the shooting bonus for shorter ranges? Or maybe have higher ballistic skill reduce the range necessary for a positive modifiers to be applied, and increase the range for negative modifiers to be applied?
Yeah doing physical OR morale damage would be really dumb. This idea seems to have a lot of potential though, so lets keep at it. Maybe a model lost would reduce morale by 1 for shake/stun/rout, while receiving 2 hits would reduce moral by 1 for the purpose of shake/stun/rout, which could be negated by a command roll to keep the squad in line?
Also, having finally gotten around to reading Grimdark, the counter system seems interesting, but it just seems like a complicated form of an "Action" system. Using Command, Action, and Resolution as the three phases is a great idea for the system they built, and prevents the need for all those rules stating they happen before a particular phase.
Splitting Fire as a morale/command check would be a cool idea.
They suggest recovering models as a core mechanic. Not a good idea, keep it in the Necron's where it defines them.
Combining Leadership and Command together to determine activation. There's an idea!!! NOT A CLUE how that idea could be implemented outside of their counter system, but even just the idea of combining the unit's leaders trait (Command) with it's general members trait (Morale) could be very exciting if applied correctly.
And I really hate to keep harking on about it, but if you need movement to be varied, use systems in place to determine that. They use a "Movement Value", which they say goes from 3 (Plaguebearers) to 10 (Dark Eldar Reavers). How much variety and interest would that system really create besides having one more minor element to keep in mind? Heavy/Medium/Light Infantry in the Unit Type (Which is also included), with a 3" difference between each, Heavy 3", Medium 6", Light 9", with different types (Jump, Jet, Bike, etc) would create the same idea with less complexity.
Otherwise i don't really see a problem with the current turn phases, as they're a nice standard against which things can be measured and compared, and make everything pseudo-balanced, as everything has to handle the same phases. Not terribly exciting, but functionally stable.
This. I still think the "choose one unit, do everything with it, then 3+ to use another then 5+, then your opponents go" is very good.
I don't like the idea of BS determining range. What if you had a BS10 Avatar shoot his 12" lightning-bolt firing sword, suddenly able to fire it 72"? Similarly a Leman Russ being controlled by a normal Guardsman, suddenly BS3 only allows it to shoot 12"? The normal system works well. I would maybe add a dynamic of +1 Marksmanship if within 1/2 range, or something like that.
I'm not completely on board with the "morale damage" idea, but I'm willing to embrace it if you make it more clear.
Also imo don't really want the counter system.
And I really hate to keep harking on about it, but if you need movement to be varied, use systems in place to determine that. They use a "Movement Value", which they say goes from 3 (Plaguebearers) to 10 (Dark Eldar Reavers). How much variety and interest would that system really create besides having one more minor element to keep in mind? Heavy/Medium/Light Infantry in the Unit Type (Which is also included), with a 3" difference between each, Heavy 3", Medium 6", Light 9", with different types (Jump, Jet, Bike, etc) would create the same idea with less complexity.
It's really up to personal opinion, whether you want Mobility as a stat or a special rule. I really wouldn't care, but I like having it as a stat because it looks nice. Adds "more flavour" as you were saying earlier. Less rules that you have to look up and more numbers in front of you make things seem more ordered, more balanced, cooler.
Edit: I just checked, it was you that said you don't want special rules for multiple wounds and attacks, because it would make it so crowded in the special rules section. So why should Mobility be any different? You don't want it as a stat but you want Wounds and Attacks?
Personally I'd have all 3 as stats, whereas Dakkamite would want none of them as stats. Where are you?
I agree that BS determining range would be problematic, but i see no reason it couldn't be part of some sort of range modifier system. Say that BS 10 Avatar can shoot his 12" sword at 12" with no penalty, but could shoot it as 24" at BS5, or at a -5 modifier? Or that guardsman can shoot the Leman Russ at its normal 48"? (i don't know IG very well), but could shoot at 24" at BS 6 rather than 3? or at a +3 modifier? Not sure, it could be over complicated or just plain broken, but it would be interesting.
And the Heavy/Medium/Light system isn't a special rule, its added to the Unit Type. No-one complains that you need to look up the movement distance of Jump Infantry or Bikes, because we know how to apply those differences quickly, and they're the basis that all units use, save for rare exceptions like Slaanesh Daemons with their extra D3 movement. This would just be an extension of that system. And to adding more "flavor", i'm all for flavor, but past a certain threshold it becomes a problem. It's like trying to set the stats at 1-20 rather than 1-10 or 1-12, you end up with too many possibilities, and feel obligated to use all those possibilities, even for minimal in-game effect. I just don't feel that having a Space marine move 6", an Eldar move 8", and a Necron move 4" would have enough of an in-game effect to deserve a stat dedicated to that, when there could already be upwards of 10 stats. Not to say that units of the same type shouldn't have different move distances based on fluff or style, but i disagree that a high level of variety is necessary. However, yes it is a matter of personal taste at the end of the day.
Having read that edit, I'm in for Attacks and Wounds as stats but obviously not for mobility.
Moral damage wouldn't really be accurate to describe it, but lets go. I'm kinda building this off of Lanrak's examples and ideas, so should i have misinterpreted it, or you guys see a better way, please point it out.
A Wound gives a -1 morale/command modifier, 2 non-wound hits give a -1 morale/command modifier.
A Guardsman Squad is being shot at, they get hit 5 times, causing 3 wounds. So, having been shot at, they take a morale/command roll, at a -4 modifier (3 wounds, and 2 non-wounding hits). If they pass the save, they are unaffected by the violence. Should they fail by X, they are shaken. Should they fail by Y, they are stunned. Should they fail by Z, the unit is routed, and immediately flees. Where X < Y < Z
Edit: there's no real reason why we couldn't use that warpath-style unit-by-unit activation system, and still explore other systems that the unit could follow during that activation
Battle cannons shoot 72" I gtg, I'll reply in 2 hours
I would say that the weapon has a maximum range (i.e. a bullet running out of energy or plasma disintegrating), then, at closer ranges, the target's Stealth value decreases. The range doesn't depend on Marksmanship, Marksmanship depends on the range. The closer you are to the target, the easier it is to see them, therefore the less Stealth they have, hence the easier it is to hit them. That's it.
Mobility as a stat is no different from Attacks and Wounds.
And to adding more "flavor", i'm all for flavor, but past a certain threshold it becomes a problem. It's like trying to set the stats at 1-20 rather than 1-10 or 1-12, you end up with too many possibilities, and feel obligated to use all those possibilities, even for minimal in-game effect. I just don't feel that having a Space marine move 6", an Eldar move 8", and a Necron move 4" would have enough of an in-game effect to deserve a stat dedicated to that
That's like saying Orks and Tyranids don't deserve their own stat, it's easier just to have a special rule. That's contradicting to what you said earlier, you made a very good point and you persuaded me to keep Attacks. So why didn't you persuade yourself?
As to ditching attack stats in favor of a multiple attack USR, not really a fan of that idea. I think one of the best parts of 40k is the variety created between troops through their stats alone, before any special rules get thrown on top.
Seeing the Ork Boy, Hormagaunt, Death Company, Daemonette, Bloodletter, and Genestealer profiles all demonstrate their position as powerful close combat units through their number of attacks, even before taking Wargear into question, makes them unique compared to other options.
or you make the standard 1 attack and save multiple attacks for higher level units, which seems like itd be really REALLY bland on a unit by unit basis, which was kinda the whole point of working on a new system, not to mention counteracting the purpose and design of many units.
Oups, just saw the rest of your message.
That was an idea at the back of my head which you dug up - losing Fortitude (morale) when being hit. Maybe...
When a unit suffers 5 or more hits, it must take a Fortitude test immediately after those hits have been resolved. The unit's Fortitude is lowered by 1/2 for every 5 hits it has suffered.
When a unit suffers 3 or more wounds, it must take a Fortitude test immediately after those wounds have been resolved. The unit's Fortitude is lowered by 1 for every 3 wounds it has suffered.
Remember to always round up.
Fortitude is a grey area for me, I haven't figured it out yet, but right now I only have it scaling from 1-6, Marines being 5 (4+1 for ATSKNF), Eldar 4, Tau 3. Idk yet.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If Fortitude and Influence is based on Leadership right now, perhaps:
If a model is within 6" of a Character it gains +1F and +1I.
If a model is withing 6" of an Independent Character it gains +2F and +2I.
Mobility as a stat is no different from Attacks and Wounds.
I see where your'e coming from on this point, but the reason that Wounds and Attacks should be stats, besides those reasons i brought up before, is that that slight variation from 1-2, or 2-3 is a massive difference in abilities. When something has 2 attacks, you just doubled its strength in close-combat compared to a unit with the same stats, but only 1 attack. 2 wounds makes something twice as survivable as a similar unit with 1 wound, barring Instant Death and the like.
Another reason is that by changing those two stats, you start to directly affect how players view their uses. When you see a unit has 2 attacks, players are going to think, "This model is powerful in Close Combat, how can i get it into Melee faster to take advantage of this?". The opponent has to think "That unit is dangerous in Close Combat, how do i want to minimize the effect it will have on my army? Shoot them down? Counter-Assault? Deploy further away from them?"
The problem is that mobility doesn't meet either of these requirements, except for at the extreme differences. When a model moves 5 inches instead of the "standard" 6, does that make you rethink its tactics? Does your opponent have to evaluate it differently when forming a plan? No, its only going to move a maximum of 7 inches less than the "standard" over the course of a 7-turn game, up to 14 if you run every turn, which would be silly.
But at the extremes, the Plaguebearer (3" movement) is going to make you rethink its uses. Is it worth the points when it cant keep up with your other forces? Do you want to pay for it to sit on an objective? How about deep striking it to try to tarpit a powerful enemy unit, or take fire to prevent other units from getting shot.
So if mobility doesn't need the level of granularity that a stat provides, and doesn't make you rethink strategies except in the extremes, why not just take the idea currently in place with the difference between infantry and bikers (6" movement vs 12" movement) and expand it to create variety within the category of troops, which could also apply to vehicles and other units too. No one confuses the use of Tactical Marines and Biker Marines, because if you tried to use one like the other, you'd fail miserably, and the difference between the two is just that one is Unit Type Infantry, and the other is Unit Type Biker.
That's like saying Orks and Tyranids don't deserve their own stat, it's easier just to have a special rule.
The current statline already well-represents the differences between these two armies, before special rules and without a difference in movement. Orks are all about high-volume shooting at low BS, while the Tyranids shooting tends to be more generalistic shooting. Orks tend to favor high WS, low initiative attacks, whereas the Tyranids focus on high Initiative volume of attacks.
Say you add a movement difference though. If an Ork Boy moves the "standard" amount, they become focused on utilizing as much shooting as possible while advancing towards the enemy as fast as possible, whereas if the Tyranid Hormagaunt moves faster than "standard", the players can actually focus on getting it into close combat as fast as possible while hugging terrain as much as possible, rather than just being a meat-shield to keep wounds off the more important units.
But a movement difference of 1 inch isn't going to drive home that difference, it needs to be higher, at least 2, more likely 3, inches difference. So if you need that big of a difference in movement to create true variety, why not just standardize it into something similar to the difference between bikers and infantry, rather than create another stat that doesn't need the lesser variety. Otherwise, you're going to feel the need to use the extra possibilities such a system provides in order to justify it, even when there's minimal effect for the complexity it's adding, and things will start feeling schizophrenic as nothings standardized, and values are all over the place.
Moving away from Mobility, max range with bonus modifiers for being close might be a cleaner alternative to the system i suggested, i like it, but its just an enhancement of an existing system, so i kinda feel like we'd just be throwing away some of the great potential ideas that have been brought up.
I think that Volume of hits should affect morale as well as losing models, so your system looks good in that area. But yeah its a really undeveloped idea, i think we'd really need to play around with it to see how it feels and make the requirements higher/lower as necessary. Too low and it bogs the game down, too high and it has minimal effect.
f Fortitude and Influence is based on Leadership right now, perhaps:
If a model is within 6" of a Character it gains +1F and +1I.
If a model is withing 6" of an Independent Character it gains +2F and +2I.
Very interesting idea, i particularly like how adding the Independent Character has a larger effect, thats pretty cool and would make for a good in-game and list-building mechanic.
Hi folks.
Ill try to answer questions comments , and put forward a summary .
Game Turn.(Basic outline.)
Command Phase.
Players place order counters next to units on good morale.(Units that are shaken/stunned /routed do NOT receieve orders but act according to morale state.)
Request off table support.
The order counters are made up of 2 actions from move ,attack ,ready.(As listed prevousily.)
Orders counters ,
Advance, (Move shoot.)
Evade, (Shoot ,move.)
Charge,(Move Assault)
Fire Support.(Ready, Shoot.)
Infiltrate.(Ready move.)
Now we can use alternating phase,(Interleaved single action) or the unit activation (1 to 3 units activated ).
Resolution Phase.
(Attempt to rally units on poor morale.Plot arrivals.)
We can finalize a game turn after a bit of play testing.
I will write in capitals to correct some misunderstood ideas /concepts
THE REASON TO USE STATS DIRECTLY IS TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT OF UN NEEDED TABLES/SPECIAL RULES TO SPEED UP PLAY.
We just use the unit cards and that it...No looking up tables etc.
MORE GAME PLAY but with less fuss.
And if we use a WIDE RANGE OF NUMBERS , we can COVER ALL UNITS with ONE RESOLUTION METHOD.
THE SHOOTING RANGES ARE NOT RANDOM.
The effective range of the UNIT with THEIR weapons is in the unit card.
Ill try to explain this a bit clearer...
What strenght is a close combat weapon in 40k?
it depends on the user right.
How many attacks has a close combat weapon got?
it depends on the user.
So if we extend this logically we can say weapons in game effect depends totally on the model using them.
So we can use a universal weapons table for ALL unit cards.
So rather than having to modify the weapon or user stats, (A,S,BS,WS,)we simply list the net effect on the unit card.
EG A las-gun fired by a unit of White Shields has a effective range of 20"
The las-gun fired by a standard IG squad has an effective range of 24"
The las-gun Gun in a Veteran squad, has an effective range of 28".
The units with better shooting skill simply are able to TARGET ENEMIES FURTHER AWAY.
(The roll to hit is base on the TARGETED MODELS STEALTH.)
Is that clearer?
It is a massive departure from current 40k but it is simple and intuitive.But if you want to add BS as a Stealth modifier (EG +1,+2,+3,+4 etc, to hit roll)That is an alternative we could use.
As reguard to the proposed Army composition, and mission cards.
I put in VP scaling on Common, Specialized and Restricted units just to show how it could be done to set game size.
I do NOT like fidely PV as found in 40k.
NO battle is exactly balanced or fair.
So just broad strokes on army comp , and VARIETY in mission type mean there is no 'auto win' 'cost effective ' list.
You pick YOUR list and learn how to use it YOUR way.
The mission cards set victory conditions.
EG The players try to meet victory conditions of their mission card.
This decide who did best in the game.
If your force got a minor victory and you opponent scored a major victory , you did not 'GET BEATEN' , but you opponent managed his objectives better.
MY PROPOSED MORALE CONCEPT.
If a model takes a hit that penetrates its armour .
it will take Physical damage if the roll beats it armour by its over the targets resistance value .
if it does not cause physical damage the model becomes shaken.
Shaken models may ONLY Move OR SHOOT.
If a unit has lost more than a 25% of its starting Hit Points.In Shaken or Damaged results.
The whole unit counts as SHAKEN. (Will not take orders until rallied.)
If a unit has lost more than 50% of its starting Hit Points.In Shaken or Damaged results.
The whole unit counts as STUNNED.(Can not perform any action, but will fight back if assaulted.Will go to Shaken status if rallied.)
if a unit has lost more than 50% of its starting hit points to physical damage .The unit ALWAYS counts as Shaken.Must take a rally test at the Resolution phase of each turn.If this test is failed the unit routes!
A morale test is simply rolling the value on the units Morale Grade to succeed..
1+Fearless.
2+Elite
3+Veteran
4+Conscripted
5+.Cowardly
Some simple modifiers.
25% casualties +1
50% casualties +2
Out numbered(more enemy within 12" than friendly units.) +1
Highest Command value in range +CV.
EG SM assault squad (MG 2+) is behind enemy lines.(Outnumbered +1), and has taken over 25% casualties from withering heavy weapons fire.+1.
They now need a 4+ to rally.
A Grot mob (MG 5+) is right in front of Warlord Ghazghkull Thrakka (CV 18" 3.)
As the grots are far more frightened of the warlord than they are of death.(Deff only 'appens once,he would 'appen every day!!!)
The grots morale is boosted to 2+!
I hope that makes some ideas a bit clearer...
Automatically Appended Next Post: Sorry about the double post .
Just a quick thought on unit cards.Do you think symbols on the cards would be better.(As this makes them more intuitive to read, and easier to translate in to different languages.... )
EG
Shield = Armour
Heart= Hit points for organic units.
Gear= Hit point for mechanical units
This way we have a pictoral descriptor , and a numerical magnitude.
Do you think this would make the stat cards more intuitive to read?
Symbols would be good, I'm not digging "Dexterity" and such as stats and can never remember what any of the abbreviations stand for.
When I tried to play that fan variant called inquisitor or whatever seeing that it no longer used basic 40k stats was enough to make me close the pdf and never look back. This is why I've been calling things by extremely basic, utilitarian terms such as MELEE and DEFENSE
Players place order counters next to units on good morale.(Units that are shaken/stunned /routed do NOT receieve orders but act according to morale state.)
Can you explain how acting on Morale would work?
Edit, just made the connection. I dont know if id want rallying twice to be how one gets out stunned status, it seems like a rather ham-handed approach. Only being able to move OR shoot while shaken sounds solid though, but if you take damage while trying to move in for a charge with a non-shooting unit (Genestealers) you've essentially neutered them.
Also, loving the orders you set down, their names give them a great feel and would make announcing what a unit is doing exciting to say.
Would you be able to execute more than 1 order in a phase/activation? Otherwise units that can move, shoot, assault in one turn effectively, such as Grey Knights, are going to be hit hard.
We just use the unit cards and that it...No looking up tables etc.
I think we need to make an executive decision here and now, do we want to stick to the current unit index in codexs (Codi?), or break off into unit cards? Or some combination of the two, such as having a unit index, and unit cards being references similar to the psychic power cards of 6th edition?
EG A las-gun fired by a unit of White Shields has a effective range of 20"
The las-gun fired by a standard IG squad has an effective range of 24"
The las-gun Gun in a Veteran squad, has an effective range of 28".
The units with better shooting skill simply are able to TARGET ENEMIES FURTHER AWAY.
(The roll to hit is base on the TARGETED MODELS STEALTH.)
The idea of having the units effective range with a weapon being on the unit card is a system that i think will only feel right in that card system. But even then, i'm not sure how i feel about it. Your example makes a ton of sense, as does your logic behind it, i'm just not 100% sure which side of the issue i fall on.
I put in VP scaling on Common, Specialized and Restricted units just to show how it could be done to set game size.
I do NOT like fidely PV as found in 40k.
NO battle is exactly balanced or fair.
So just broad strokes on army comp , and VARIETY in mission type mean there is no 'auto win' 'cost effective ' list.
You pick YOUR list and learn how to use it YOUR way.
I agree with the premise, but there are certain elements to customizing a unit that i like. I like taking that general Tactical Squad, and saying i'm going to use this as Anti-Tank, give it a Missile Launcher/Meltagun, or Anti-Horde, Heavy Bolter and Flamer, or Anti-Heavy-Infanty, Plasma-Cannon and Plasmagun. But you can mix and match all these options to suit what you want to do with that unit, which is exactly what you just described. Additionally, maybe i want my Sergeant to be able to handle vehicles/monsters/tough units and give him a Powerfist. Maybe I want him to be able to shoot and kill MEQ reliably, i give him a plasma pistol. I want to take advantage of his extra attack as a close combat option, i give him a Power Weapon.
Id like to see these kinds of choices in Wargear and Upgrades be represented in the system you suggested, though i don't know how it could be done. I don't like the idea of the game telling me what i can and can't do with that vanilla unit. I agree the points system is often what leads to those auto-win lists and focus on cost-effectiveness, but that's as much a fault of the poor execution of the points system as it is rules and systems that allowed such lists to emerge in the first place.
Maybe have each common unit get 3 upgrade selections from a list, (1 Heavy, 1 Special, 1 Sergeant) that have no points cost, but would create a meta-game as people try to figure out what weapon selections work best, as they're situation choices that determine how you use that unit? Or a number of army-wide upgrade "points" that can be distributed to any of the units you take, so you can have that uber-HQ monster, and less specialized troops? or a weaker general directing more powerful troops?
Loving your moral concept, it's both streamlined and has depth. I disagree with the outnumbered modifier, as it would make deepstriking/outflank/infiltrate completely pointless. Having Command affect the Morale Test is a very cool idea.
Just a quick thought on unit cards.Do you think symbols on the cards would be better.(As this makes them more intuitive to read, and easier to translate in to different languages.... )
EG
Shield = Armour
Heart= Hit points for organic units.
Gear= Hit point for mechanical units
This way we have a pictoral descriptor , and a numerical magnitude.
Do you think this would make the stat cards more intuitive to read?
Probably the best idea for international systems ever suggested. Unfortunately, it might be a bit more difficult to read than the current system of abbreviations (as the symbols would probably be really small to make everything fit as a statline), but could be amazing once you get used to it.
Shield == Armor
Heart == Hit Points (Organic)
Gear == Hit Points (Mechanical)
Sword == (Melee Skill)
Bullet == (Shooting Skill)
Cloak == Stealth
Boot with motion lines == Movement
Btw, having though about movement in this system, if be fine with movement so long as it something like 3", 6", 9", 12", 18", 24", etc, and nothing more granular than that.
@Dakkamite
When I tried to play that fan variant called inquisitor or whatever seeing that it no longer used basic 40k stats was enough to make me close the pdf and never look back. This is why I've been calling things by extremely basic, utilitarian terms such as MELEE and DEFENSE
Well...it wasn't hard to remember things like Ballistic Skill and Weapon Skill, why not make it a bit fresh and fun?
Also for the icons:
Mobility - Boot
Marksmanship - Red+white target
Stealth - Dark silhouette with motion lines
Power - Fist
Resilience - Shield
Dexterity - Two swords forming an x
Attacks - Maybe a few fists punching through the air?
Vitality - Heart
Fortitude - no clue
Influence - flag in the ground?
We're stuck when it comes to icons for Range and Front/side/rear armour.
THE REASON TO USE STATS DIRECTLY IS TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT OF UN NEEDED TABLES/SPECIAL RULES TO SPEED UP PLAY.
We just use the unit cards and that it...No looking up tables etc.
MORE GAME PLAY but with less fuss.
I can't seem to make that a good enough justification seeing that there are many underlying problems, the main one being not enough variety.
(The roll to hit is base on the TARGETED MODELS STEALTH.)
I don't like this. Rolling to hit should be based on two things: marksmanship AND stealth. Not just stealth. You're right, models with a better BS can target things further away, but that doesn't mean they have the same chance to hit when they are the same distance. Guardsman vs. Avatar both 12" away, and they both have the same roll to hit?
But if you want to add BS as a Stealth modifier (EG +1,+2,+3,+4 etc, to hit roll)That is an alternative we could use.
This isn't intuitive either. They shouldn't modify each other, but you should compare them to each other. Imagine IRL, being a better marksman doesn't make a sniper's camouflage worse, it makes it easier to hit them. Similarly Stealth shouldn't modify how good they are with a gun, it just makes it harder to hit them. If you think about it, they shouldn't affect each other at all, only compare with each other.
But I'm on board with your Army Composition ideas, might need a few tweaks but it's good.
I don't think the names should be shaken and stunned, since a person isn't exactly shaken like a vehicle, more like shocked, even shell shocked.
(Deff only 'appens once,he would 'appen every day!!!)
I rofled lol
Another reason is that by changing those two stats, you start to directly affect how players view their uses. When you see a unit has 2 attacks, players are going to think, "This model is powerful in Close Combat, how can i get it into Melee faster to take advantage of this?". The opponent has to think "That unit is dangerous in Close Combat, how do i want to minimize the effect it will have on my army? Shoot them down? Counter-Assault? Deploy further away from them?"
I can see where your coming from. But don't you think Mobility adds a bit more flavour and USPs (unique selling point) of an army? If you look just at the statlines alone you see: "Ah, orks and tyranids are good in close combat, but wait! Space Marines are good all round units, but look at Eldar! 9" movement! Necrons look tough, except they move slowly and react slowly. Woah! Tau are great shooters! Except they suck at combat! Oh my god Plaguebearers. Tough, lumbering daemons, that's what I want! Hmm. Humans suck 40 thousand years in the future. Why are they so bad?" And then you proceed to tell them they cost half as much. "Cool so I can have 1000 on the field! huehuehuhuehueuhe".
Idk, just, my gut instinct is that Mobility is great, it's harmless, and although not as much as Attacks and Wounds, it makes an impact on the overview of an army, and adds some flavour. When you see Plaguebearers move 4 and Eldar move 8, while Necrons move 5 and Tyranids move 7, it not only looks cool and engaging but does add a good amount of strategic impact, even if it's not as much as Attacks or Wounds.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit: Not to mention vehicles, I've got ideas like "Land Raider 7, Devilfish 9, Wave Serpent 11" kind of thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post: ANNOUNCEMENT RAV1RN LANRAK AND DAKKAMITE, (I think) We are all onboard with the great idea of having 6 offensive and 6 defensive mission cards each. The player that DIDNT set up first can choose to have offensive or defensive cards. That's 12 chances for us to make (40k) extroomously epic! So if you have any ideas, put 'em here and the rest of us can polish it!
Automatically Appended Next Post: PS: I know Lanrak practically wrote Grimdark, try not to take ideas from that! Or if you have to, make them better!
Before we set up mission cards we need to decide what the game will look like. Personally, I'm in favor of having Objectives that need o be captured in order to ensure the action on the board can have focal points, in addition to the mission Goals. No offense Lanrak, but there needs to be ways of saying who wins and who loses, and how we break ties, just saying he managed his objectives better won't cut it if we want serious tournament players to get on board.
After getting that squared away, how much of a degree of difference do we want between minor and major mission goals? How many do we want on a card? I'd suggest 1 major victory goal and 2-3 minor victory goals, maybe say achieving all the minor goals is equivalent to achieving a major mission goal?
Also, are we agreed on the HQ, Common, Specialized, Rare system Lanrak brought? Or at least using it as a basis to work off of.
If we assume all these things others ideas for Major mission goals could be:
Slay the enemy HQ Take every objective
Prevent the enemy from capturing any objectives
Wound every enemy unit?
Lose no units?
Protect your HQ ?
Minor mission goals could be:
Take (x) Objectives
Kill (X) number of units
Kill all the enemies Specialist Units
I don't really have the handle on what minor goals could be.
Idk, just, my gut instinct is that Mobility is great, it's harmless, and although not as much as Attacks and Wounds, it makes an impact on the overview of an army, and adds some flavour.
This is incredibly dangerous thinking. If you start making changes and decisions based on, "we'll how much impact could it really have?" Is what leads to many of the broken, ridiculous, game-breaking rules, units, and weapons found in games. When you're considering something as critical to the functioning of a system as movement, that mindset is deadly.
But a movement difference of 1 inch isn't going to drive home that difference, it needs to be higher, at least 2, more likely 3, inches difference.
There are higher differences, but just having Tyranids with 1 extra inch gives the feel that they are a swift brood travelling across the battlefield wanting your brains.
Anyway, can you think of any reasons why Mobility ISN'T harmless?
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for the missions, one idea (neither offense or defence):
Escort Primary Objective: You have to get your survivors (10 basic infantry) to your own table half whilst trying to finish off the opponent's ones. You gain 3 VP if you either kill the opponent's survivors and/or get your survivor's to their your edge.
Secondary objective: The battlefield is scattered with extremely valuable research data. After setting up terrain, take it in turns to place 3 counters within 12" of the centre line. You gain 1VP if you manage to bring one set of blueprints back to your table edge for analysis.
There is a quad-gun in the middle of the table.
Edit; Nobody even commented on any of what I posted here, so I'm sure nobody will mind if I remove it from the thread
Mission Idea; Extraction
There is a spy (or something) lurking behind enemy lines, with something that we need. Your mission is to get in, extract this objective, and get out again.
Nominate a piece of terrain in the back 12" of your opponents deployment zone. You need to get any scoring unit into this terrain, and have it stay there until the beginning of your next turn, to gain (X) VP(s). If you do so, you may then attempt to evacuate the unit from any table edge on your side of the board, including the 'neutral' table edges from any point on your side of the centre. If you do so, the VP gained is doubled.
You gain the first set of VP even if the unit is later destroyed, however, *any* scoring unit that makes it to that terrain, stays there, and then evacuates will get you the bonus points. So feel free to use multiple units, or send a unit in at a later point to get the bonus. However, you only recieve that bonus once, you cannot evacuate the spy multiple times as that wouldn't make any sense!
This mission does not need to be revealed at any point until the end of the game. So feel free to move a scoring unit into a piece of backfield terrain, then try to evacuate him to psyke out your opponent and think he's worth a bunch of points!
Mission Idea; Something you should know
An enemy commander is sympathetic to our cause, he only needs a little... persuasion.
Note down on a piece of paper one of your independent characters, or a squad leader type model (Sergeant, Nob). Then note down a squad leader model (not a IC) in your opponents army.
If at any point, these two models come within 6" of each other, the target enemy model and his squad betray the enemy and join your forces! You also gain a small number of victory points.
The latter could be a victory card, or instead, we could also have some "Tides of War" event cards like this that each player draws - in which case there would be no victory points gained.
Why add systems or rules in for minimal effect? Its just one more thing to keep track of, with no real impact. If you want to make something feel like a swift brood moving across the tabletop, actually make them a swift moving brood. You can have simple, fluffy movement systems in place that arnt granular, because do i really need to differentiate Plaguebearers from Necrons, rather than just saying they move slower than normal? Or differentiate Eldar from Tyranids, instead of them just being faster than normal? A better comparison than Wounds or Attacks would actually be the discussion we had on Initiative.
From Dakkamite
Do these RPS elements add anything of value that simply saying a unit is "Assault 5" or "Assault 10" or even "Really Good in Assault" doesn't achieve much more simply?
From IcyFireKnight
I think low skill but fast units can be dealt with simply. Some sort of special rule for high initiative low weapon skill models like hormagaunts; Swift Attack: "A model with this special rule gains +1 Dexterity for To Strike First rolls only."
Or indeed low initiative high weapon skill: Sluggish Strike: "A model with this special rule has its Dexterity reduced by 1 for To Strike First rolls only."
If we're willing to take out initiative because there's a simpler model that doesn't require its own stat to provide depth, why would we add such a system to govern movement?
And movement is something that every unit, and by extension every weapon, rule, and plan relies on. Taking a "what harm can it do" approach to something that every element of the game depends on is not wise. And the danger is that some player somewhere might be able to find a way to take advantage of that fact in a way that non-one could have expected to be used as such, its happened before. Serious players will find cheese wherever they can, doubly so if it will give them a legal edge in a tournament.
instead, we could also have some "Tides of War" event cards like this that each player draws - in which case there would be no victory points gained.
This is a very exciting idea, im just not sure i want it to be a mandatory element of play rather than a optional rule that players can use for fun. Kinda like 6th editions battlefield terrain system.
If we're willing to take out initiative because there's a simpler model that doesn't require its own stat to provide depth, why would we add such a system to govern movement?
Why would you quote me as being pro-seperate movement stat?
I'm at the other extreme, wanting all the superfluous stats removed. I'd prefer movement that deviates from the norm to be a Special Rule
I just wanted to show that we used the same argument for removing initiative, not that you were on a particular side, though i like hearing that we're on the same page.
Pretty much, all I want to see is MELEE, SHOOTING, DEFENSE, MORALE with optional STRENGTH, COVER and COMMAND.
Strength is probably needed but I dislike it because it does just one thing, and that thing is just part of a larger thing. Cover can be represented with a special rule. Command is great if we have something it can be used for, such as the NEW ORDERS roll in my proposed turn system.
I loathe the idea of INITIATIVE or ATTACKS, the former can be folded into something else and the latter can be a special rule.
Just wanted to get this on here if we're exploring the card idea (which i love). Look up Warmachine cards for references on using icons, card layout, Statline sizes, weapon representation, etc.
Edit: the following paragraph means using cards like the ones from warmachine.
If we want to take out strength, i dont see why we don't just have strength be a factor of the Melee weapon that model carries. This could work especially well if we use Lanraks varying max distance idea, as that weapons distance on this model could be right there and easy to reference. So Melee weapons could have all the stats of ranged weapons, but have range: Melee or something. Models without Melee weapons could instead have their ranged weapon be listed a second time with its Melee stats represented. Maybe even list the Melee component of a Ranged weapon below the main Weapon Profile in a smaller box with a symbol marking it as the Melee stat (as it only has to cover the weapons Melee Strength, since AP and range and Type are all irrelevant for all of 40Ks Ranged weapons used in Melee that I'm aware of.)
Yes I know saying i want attacks on the Statline but not strength makes no logical sense, but i just like seeing attacks immediately as it makes me see its a powerful CC unit before i delve into Wargear and special rules.
I like exploring what using stealth and alternative cover systems can do, but im currently still in the "Using cover and a special rule (Stealth) and having them add negative modifiers to the firers BS/increase Armor" or equivalent terminology camp. The current shooting system isn't dynamic or terribly interesting, but you could have movement (Both yours and/or the targets) reduce BS, firing at ranges lower than max increase BS, and cover/stealth decrease BS/Increase armor, and it would be much more exciting without needing additional stats or too much complexity.
Im all for the command/influence ideas coming out, the ideas taking advantage of them have so much potential that they can't be ignored.
but i just like seeing attacks immediately as it makes me see its a powerful CC unit before i delve into Wargear and special rules.
It's the same with me. I like seeing mobility AND the way it varies between armies. It makes me see a swift army from a slow army. You have argued; and I take it. Having one inch or so difference isn't going to make an impact. But I still like it. I believe that Mobility as a stat does add flavour, and it adds it at no extra cost, except for just being a stat.
So Dakkamite wants everything to be as a special rule,
Rav1rn wants attacks and wounds but not movement,
I want movement, and I'm impartial about attacks and wounds. Movement doesn't make the statline boring, but attacks and wounds does. With the majority of armies with just 1 attack and practically all with just 1 wound, I find it futile. But I do recognise Rav1rn's point that some armies rely on their attacks/wounds to attract players. I don't mind, but I just add it anyway for now. Still, I'm all for Multiple Attacks 2.
If we want to take out strength, i dont see why we don't just have strength be a factor of the Melee weapon that model carries.
I have thought about this. Intuitively I would think that it is how strong the wielder is that determines how hard his blows are. But now that S and AP are merged into Power, I wouldn't mind having the CC weapon with the Power. I think, to differentiate a Space Marine with a close combat weapon and an Guardsman with a close combat weapon, each army should have their own CC weapons that represent their strength. So Marines could have a combat sabre; Power 5, range 2-3. Meanwhile Guardsmen would have bayonets; Power 4 (or 3 depending on how strong you want IG to be), with a longer range since they're bayonets.
Im all for the command/influence ideas coming out, the ideas taking advantage of them have so much potential that they can't be ignored.
I completely agree, this kind of stat is pure gold.
I am against the idea of a counter/marker/token system.
Mission Idea; Something you should know
An enemy commander is sympathetic to our cause, he only needs a little... persuasion.
Note down on a piece of paper one of your independent characters, or a squad leader type model (Sergeant, Nob). Then note down a squad leader model (not a IC) in your opponents army.
If at any point, these two models come within 6" of each other, the target enemy model and his squad betray the enemy and join your forces! You also gain a small number of victory points.
I have faith in it. It has been working splendidly so far, but lemme hear the criticism.
PS: The average for infantry is going to be 4. So, a statistic test is comparing their stat to a value on 4. This works much better than the "initiative tests" right now where you have to roll equal or under the stat, or you fail. So a Necron (with a Fortitude of 7) passes a Fortitude test on a (compare 7 to 4) 2+.
What would you say to this: the model no longer has attacks, power or wounds. Wounds are naturally 1, but the power and attacks are determined my the close combat weapon? So in wargear, you'd have a specific close combat weapon which basically represents the model's CC.
So each model would have a ranged weapon and a CC weapon. The CC weapon would reflect the strength and number of attacks each model has right now. E.g.
Basically this means that we took all the combat stats from the model (bar WS/Dexterity) and put them in the weapon, just like in ranged warfare. Thoughts?
Yeah the easy solution might just be to give everything a close-combat weapon of some kind, be it Knife, bayonet, claw, talon, scythe, etc.
If we're gonna have unit cards i dont mind having Movement/mobility directly on the card as much, but lets try to keep it from getting into that 1-2 inch difference zone shall we?
As for Close-Combat weapons, how do we want to represent power weapons since the AP system is more or less defunct? Or maybe just drop them all together, though im not a huge fan of that idea.
Also, i just realized this but power weapons kinda filled a nice niche in CC, as they helped you get more efficient at killing high-armor targets while making that upgrade less effective against hordes of weaker units. In fact, the howling banshees and striking scorpions of the Eldar rely on this difference to define their specialties.
I know we decided on consolidating armor and toughness, but this distinction offers the first really important case for separating the two. If we used the upgrade system i talked about earlier in conjunction with Lanrak's HQ, common, specialized, rare system, that plus the included CCW every model carries could let players further specialize a unit using that upgrade point. Do I want that sergeant to have the power weapon replace his CCW for killing MEQ? Or do i want to give him pistol of some kind to get the extra attack to maximize his anti-Melee-Horde strength?
I know its not really worth bringing up, but i think we focused on how AP and armor/toughness interact with shooting, and didnt really discuss Melee? Because we could either drop power weapons altogether, or increase their strength, but that would make them more like power fists than power weapons, and would let them affect bigger, tough units (vehicles/monsters) when that isnt really their domain.
Charts looking good, it feels odd that things need 1 point of difference for the roll value to change, then 3 to change again. Id almost say i want the change to be at 1 point of difference in stat to result in a +/- 1 to the roll, with 2+\6+ going until the the points where the values transition into (--) on your chart. Otherwise, say a guardsman is WS 3, a Sister of Battle is WS 4, and a space Marine is WS 5, that space marine is going to be hitting both models on a 3+, when clearly the sister should be a tougher combatant. This lets us show variety between similar models (+/- 1-2 in that area) while more distantly skilled opponents still have a chance to dodge/hit.
The D6 is, as always, the weak link, but we may just have to deal with that.
Having strength and attacks listed under the Melee weapons stats has been brought up by Dakkamite? before, and i'd prefer attacks stay in the statline, but if we use the card idea, its not as big a deal where that information goes, since its all right there anyways and there's no shuffling around a codex to find those values.
Maybe a middle ground when talking about wounds, again with the card idea providing a solution. Wounds is set in a little circle off to a side, away from the Statline, maybe close to some character artwork on the card. This way it's not being turned into a special rule, but is still represented numerically on the card?
Edit: actually no, id rather have high leadership represent strong leader ship rather than lower. A) it just makes more sense that way, and B) that sort of low scores == good scores is already in place with armor, and it kinda clashes with the other mechanics where high scores == good scores, so lets minimize that problem. Maybe have 12 be the standard, so a Ld 10 unit only needs a 2+, and a Ld 6 unit needs a 6+, though i would greatly prefer the two dice system already in place, i feel it works quite well.
Hey, you brought up a good point on power weapons. I say we drop the idea altogether. We can fill the void with something more "of our cause" kind of thing, if we drop them, we don't have to worry about reworking them, and we can be more creative Models with power swords can instead have something cooler!
And I see where you're coming from with the chart. I've never met Sisters of Battle. But if you want them to be the tougher combatant then I would bump em up to WS 5. What I wanted was more distinction between different units, but not so much that they become UP/OP. I think this chart is a solution, because, while maintaining differences, it doesn't affect the balance so much as a chart where 3s, 4s and 5s both wound 4s on a 4+. That didn't feel right.
What I want is for all stats to be better when higher. So what was the issue with leadership? As previously stated, right now my take on a "Statistic test" is to compare that stat to 4. That way numbers that are 6 or higher benefit now, as well as every stat being better when higher. So if you look at the chart, Orks (F4) and Tyranids (F4) both succeed Fortitude tests (morale) on a 4+ without modifiers. Whereas plaguebearers and Necrons succeed on a 2+ (F7), with Marines and Eldar (F6 and F5) both succeed on a 3+. I think this gives us enough room for Fortitude modifiers like losing combat (every model that you lost by means -1/2 leadership) or morale damage as discussed.
Idk, I like the idea of having attacks in the melee weapon since it is perfectly in sync and in line with ranged weapons. So the weapons possess the range, power and attacks stats while the models provide the rest.
Do you think we should do the same thing to Hull Points? As in, each vehicle has 3 Hull Points unless stated otherwise?
Been working on a cheesy start to the rulebook, explaining model statistics
Spoiler:
Mobility (M) This characteristic defines the warrior's agility across the battlefield. Necron Warriors are maladroit machines, so they have a Mobility of 4; they can move up to 4" in a single move, whereas Eldar Guardians flow across the battlefield gracefully and effortlessly like quicksilver; they have a Mobility of 8.
Marksmanship (Mk) Marksmanship portrays how accurate a warrior is with ranged weapons, from pistols to massive hull-mounted cannons. The higher the Marksmanship the model has, the more likely it is for its shots to find their mark. A well-trained sharpshooter such as a Vindicare Assassin has a Marksmanship of 9, unlike Ork Boys who are infamous for their incompetence at firing guns; they only have a Marksmanship of 3.
Stealth (S) This characteristic represents a warrior hidden in the shadows of cover and concealment, or perhaps a surging skimmer turbo-boosting across the battlefield. A furtive Eldar Ranger coursing through the woods is all but impossible to see with the human eye; they have a Stealth of 8. On the contrary, even an Ork can hit the massive shell of a Land Raider; it has a Stealth of 1.
Resilience (R) Resilience describes not only how tough a warrior's armour is but also how physically capable a warrior is at resisting pain and mortal wounds. A high Resilience might represent a valiant Space Marine Captain in artificer armour, or even a sinuous Tyranid Carnifex.
Dexterity (D) This characteristic conveys the skill and aptitude of a warrior in close combat. The higher the characteristic, the more adept the model is in combat. A clumsy Tau Fire Warrior has a Dexterity of 3 whereas an Avatar - an incarnation of the god of war - has a Dexterity of 12!
Fortitude (F) Fortitude characterises the willpower of the warrior. A warrior with a strong mind will not falter in the face of death unlike a Tyranid Hormagaunt who can sometimes suddenly decide to go back to the Hives!
Influence (I) This characteristic outlines how well the warrior interacts with his brethren, and how his presence affects his foes. Commanding characters can raise the Influence of nearby warriors.
And infantry stats (let me know if some are a bit off!!)
Spoiler:
........................................M..Mk.S...R...D..F...I...Type
Space Marine...................6...6...5...5...5...6...5...Infantry
Imperial Guardsman..........5...5...5...3...4...5...5...Infantry
Tau Fire Warrior...............6...7...5...4...3...4...5...Infantry
Eldar Guardian..................8...6...5...3...5...5...5...Infantry
Ork Boy............................6...3...5...4...4...4...5...Infantry
Tyranid Hormagaunt..........7...3...5...3...4...4...5...Infantry
Necron Warrior.................5...6...5...5...5...7...5...Infantry
Plaguebearer of Nurgle......4...0...5...5...4...7...5...Infantry
And vehicle stats!
Spoiler:
............................................................[Armour]
..........................................M..Mk.S...[Fr..Sd..Rr]..Type
Drop Pod............................0...6...1....10..10..10...Medium, Transport
Land Raider.......................7...6...1....12..12..11...Heavy, Transport
Chimera.............................8...5...2....10...8...8.....Light, Transport
Ghost Ark...........................9...6...3.....9....9...9.....Light, Transport, Skimmer
Devilfish.............................9...7...3....10...9...8.....Medium, Transport, Skimmer
Wave Serpent...................11..6...4....10..10..8.....Medium, Transport, Skimmer, Fast
Finally some weapon stats (only Imperial and Eldar soz )
Spoiler:
............................................Rg...P...A...Type
Lasgun.................................24...3...1...Rapid Fire
Boltgun.................................24...4...1...Rapid Fire
Flamer................................Tmp..4...1...Assault
Frag missile.........................48...4...1...Heavy, Blast
Heavy Bolter........................36...5...3...Heavy
Heavy Flamer.....................Tmp..5...1...Heavy
Ranger long rifle...................36...5...1...Sniper
Death spinner......................12...5...2...Assault, Monofilament
Shuriken cannon..................24...5...3...Assault, Bladestorm
Scatter laser........................36...5...4...Heavy, Laser Lock
Autocannon..........................48...7...2...Heavy
Battle cannon.......................72...7...1...Ordnance, Large Blast
Singing spear.......................12...7...1...Assault
Krak missile.........................48...8...1...Heavy
Starcannon...........................36...8...2...Heavy
Bright lance..........................36...9...1...Heavy, Lance
Plasma gun..........................24...9...1...Rapid Fire, Gets Hot
Meltagun..............................12...9...1...Assault, Melta
Lascannon...........................48..10..1...Heavy
Wraithcannon......................12..12..1...Assault, Distort
IcyFireKnight wrote: With the majority of armies with just 1 attack and practically all with just 1 wound, I find it futile.[/u].
If we're flabbing out the stats with attacks and wounds we might as well have INT and movement and so on, and then we defeat one of the major points that this project is built around - streamlining the game to avoid unnecessary baggage.
but i just like seeing attacks immediately as it makes me see its a powerful CC unit before i delve into Wargear and special rules.
If a model is better at melee, you'll see this because it's MELEE stat will be higher than that of other armies. If anything this will make it easier to tell who is better in a fight. It also avoids instances such as the 40k Orks - giving them heaps of weak but accurate attacks is the sort of arithmetic (and nonsensical fluff destruction in this case) I'm looking to just fold into MELEE as much as possible.
In almost every case of non-solo models, we can represent superior hand to hand ability with just better MELEE and better attack strength (whether that is a stat or a weapon stat). Multiple attacks are only *needed* for solo models like dreads, monsters and heroes, because giving those models one attack, no matter how strong, is gonna get them tarpitted first time every time in every game by any unit at all. In all honesty, incorporating ATTACKS on squad models is no more necessary than we have decided that stats like INITIATIVE or TOUGHNESS are. Those few models that *really* need it can get a special rule to cover it - something like "at the start of each assault phase, choose to allre-roll missed attacks or all enemy hits on this unit"
It's the same with me. I like seeing mobility AND the way it varies between armies. It makes me see a swift army from a slow army. You have argued; and I take it. Having one inch or so difference isn't going to make an impact. But I still like it. I believe that Mobility as a stat does add flavour, and it adds it at no extra cost, except for just being a stat.
As I'm sure your already perfectly aware, I reckon we can just give certain units Swift (x) (moves an additional x") or Sluggish (x) (the opposite)
Strength etc represented with weapon stats
I don't like this idea, but thats just because I've never liked representing abilities with wargear and its purely personal taste. In this situation, for what we're looking to achieve, it'd work great IMO. I'd still rather see Attacks removed from all non-solo models, but you know that already.
Im all for the command/influence ideas coming out, the ideas taking advantage of them have so much potential that they can't be ignored.
Definitely behind COMMAND, as you can see from my use of it in proposed rules. Not really sure what your intending with INFLUENCE though.
I have faith in it. It has been working splendidly so far, but lemme hear the criticism.
Dislike any comparison chart that doesn't have a smooth transition of say, 4+/3+/2+/1+. Doesn't mean it won't work, I just always err towards the simplistic when there are two options available. So I'm neutral towards this pending seeing that it works and works better than the smoother ones, and as long as it is indeed 'universal' - the difference of shooting and melee attack tables in 40k is infuriating to me!
Edit; wtf, only saw one of the three posts. Now to make this post even bigger than before with more replies.
but lets try to keep it from getting into that 1-2 inch difference zone shall we?
We're talking a 20% - 33% movement difference. Thats heaps! The fact that it is so unimportant is an issue with the system and it's "feth Movement, More Dakka" ethos. We need to *make* movement more important than it currently is, as least as important but ideally much more so than anything else in the game, because movement is the purest form of strategic input by the players - everything else, when it comes down to it, is just rolling dice.
As for Close-Combat weapons, how do we want to represent power weapons since the AP system is more or less defunct? Or maybe just drop them all together, though im not a huge fan of that idea.
I covered this earlier. They're just stronger CCW now. Because really, a lightning covered sword would just hit harder than a normal sword - it wouldn't just 'bypass armour' and so do the same thing to unarmoured stuff
Also, i just realized this but power weapons kinda filled a nice niche in CC, as they helped you get more efficient at killing high-armor targets while making that upgrade less effective against hordes of weaker units. In fact, the howling banshees and striking scorpions of the Eldar rely on this difference to define their specialties.
I call that Paper Scissors Rock personally.
I know we decided on consolidating armor and toughness, but this distinction offers the first really important case for separating the two. If we used the upgrade system i talked about earlier in conjunction with Lanrak's HQ, common, specialized, rare system, that plus the included CCW every model carries could let players further specialize a unit using that upgrade point. Do I want that sergeant to have the power weapon replace his CCW for killing MEQ? Or do i want to give him pistol of some kind to get the extra attack to maximize his anti-Melee-Horde strength?
This is the reason I proposed the merger of toughness and armour - to both streamline the game and to remove this exact thing from it.
streamlining the game to avoid unnecessary baggage
But simply moving stats into special rules (which take a lot longer to read!) is the OPPOSITE of streamlining the game. The whole concept of a statline is to make it easier for players. Rules are only the icing on the cake, cool things which add a dynamic to the game; NOT the place for simple things like Multiple Attacks x.
If a model is better at melee, you'll see this because it's MELEE stat will be higher than that of other armies.
Not necessarily. The armies are reflected upon their very core troops' stats. I DO NOT want it so that Space Marines have the same or even lower "Melee" than Orks. They NEED to be kept separate under the feel of the army. Orks ARE NOT an army where every attack hits and wounds. Now, I agree, this is the same issue with Strength and AP. But that is a very subtly different cause. Things like Meltas, plasma, they can afford to lose their AP in favour of more strength. This is because AP and strength are fundamentally linked - You can believe meltas are S9, you can believe lascannons are S10, but you can't believe Orks have the same or even more melee skill than Marines. Whereas Melee, strength and attacks are not. Melee armies need the stats that reflect themselves, and make them different. For example:
Orks need high strength, low skill, moderate amount of attacks.
Tyranids need medium-strength, low skill, high amount of attacks.
Chaos need high strength, moderate skill, low amount of attacks.
etc.
I would hate to see if these were merged; you'd have all of them with the same "Melee" even though we KNOW they are different to each other.
Low skill and a large volume of attacks =/= High skill low volume of attacks.
One interesting idea is that instead of having every unit have an influence stat, why not have only leaders (Sergeants, HQ's, Independant characters) have a command stat instead of a morale stat? That way they still influence their squad and nearby squads, but won't run themselves (they're the heroes after all), and only run when the squad they're attached to runs? Essentially making these hero units fearless?
Ok so if we move wounds off the statline, and put strength on the weapons entry, put mobility on the card but off the statline, and exchange the Hero units morale for command, we've got WS, BS, Amor/Toughness, Attacks, Morale/Command on general troops and hero units respectively.
If we drop power weapons, what mechanic would replace them? They're fairly common, so it can't be anything too ridiculous.
Also, how are poisioned weapons going to work independent of Toughness? We cant just drop that, as it's a major component of both the Dark Eldar and Tyranids.
I call that Paper Scissors Rock personally.
I don't really see anything wrong with rock paper scissors type strength and weaknesses. It adds depth to system in a very simple and straightforward way.
They're just stronger CCW now
That just feels kinda lazy though. Power Weapons had a cool mechanic working for them, i think losing that element in favor of them just being stronger would be a bit disappointing.
We're talking a 20% - 33% movement difference. Thats heaps!
Is it though? at 1 inch difference, i'm moving an extra 6 inches per 6 turn game without running. at 2 inches, i'm moving 12, at 3, i'm moving 18. 1 inch isn't enough of a difference, 2 inches is borderline, 3 inches is a distinct difference. And yeah movement may not be as powerful a factor in gameplay as it probably should be, but we need to be careful as we don't want these models to be taking massive strides across the board each turn.
Hi folks.
IMPORTANT NOTE.
A lot of the ideas I post up are just some examples of how we could implement concepts.(The actual modifiers and magnitude are open to revision when we actually finalize design. )
Also if we are designing a game from scratch , PLEASE do not judge ideas based on how they would affect/fit in with 6th ed 40k.
(I get the feeling some people may be being a bit harsh on new ideas because of this ?)
I am looking at the game playing like modern warfare.(And discussing resolution methods and mechanics found in these types of games to see which ones might fit best...)
I was working on the idea A player EITHER chooses their deployment area first ,(Defender, ) or goes first (Attacker.)
Or roll off if they can not agree.
Example Attacker Mission Cards.
Operation Overlord.
Establish and hold a beach head .
You must clear ALL enemy units out of your area of operations in preparation for a major assault..
If you clear out all enemy units from your deployment zone by turn 3, and keep it clear you have a MINOR Victory.
If you clear out ALL enemy units from your HALF of the playing area by turn 6 you have a MAJOR Victory .
Operation Barbarossa.
Clear a corridor of advance for a following Armoured Spearhead.
If you Clear a 18" wide corridor from your deployment area to the enemy deployment area, by turn 6 you have a MINOR Victory .
if you Clear a 18" wide corridor from your deployment area to the enemy deployment area , by turn 6 , and suffer less than 25% casualties you have a MAJOR Victory.
Operation Damocles
A surgical strike on enemy lines!
You must neutralize the enemies ability to retaliate in this sector by demoralizing or destroying ALL enemy Specialized and Restricted units for a Minor victory.
If you DESTROY ALL Specialized /Restricted enemy units you gain a Major Victory.
Example Defender Missions.
Operation Mincemeat.
This is a mission of attrition you must wear down the enemy assault!
If you cause 50% casualties on the enemy force you gain a MINOR Victory.
If you cause 50% casualties on the enemy force while taking less than 50% casualties yourself you gain A MAJOR Victory.
Operation Totalize.
The enemy have destroyed a forward strategic objective it is vital that it is repaired/rebuilt so we can launch an effective co-ordinated counter attack!
Take and Hold Objective X , for 3 turns , for a MINOR Victory .
Take and Hold Objective X , for 3 turns , and holding units are kept at 75% starting strength to gain a MAJOR Victory.
I always thought of 40k as a small section of a MASSIVE war, raging on all around.
So wanted to re-enforce this with the narrative.And leave the mission objective varied but not overly complicated.
I am not very good at this mission development stuff.(I am using actual WWII operation names because I know them, how sad it that ...)But I hope you get the basic idea ..
Take and hold areas, destroy particular enemy unit types, PRESERVE a friendly unit type,(Saving Private Ryan style,), take and hold particular marked objective etc..
(Place 4 objectives on the table , 2 in each player half.BOTH players draw a number card relating to an objective marker in secret at the start of the game.To determine which objective markers they MIGHT use IF they get that type of mission card.)
On to stat discussion.
Could we say that morale is the same for a particular race?And the Command value of unit leaders and characters modify it accordingly ?
This gets rid of it from the stat line.(And maybe use ONE iconic special rule per race/ army?)
How do you feel about dual stats with symbols?
Eg
SMTac Squad
(Symbol for legs ) 4" .(Going back to 2nd ed as reference here as place holder .)
(Sight symbol B.S.) +2(Modifies to hit dice score for ranged weapons.)
(Knife Symbol W.S) 4
(Shield Symbol)4/2 (Armour value /Resilience value.)
(Heart Symbol) 10/1 (Number of starting models /wounds per model.)
(Cloak Symbol ) 3+
(Shouting Face symbol?) -/1(Command range /command value.)
Looking at this units stat card we can see.
Its a heavy armoured , organic infantry unit, thats above average at shooting and close combat , and has a unit leader.
As reguards strength and attacks.
This can be directly represented in the units weapon profile.
Ill list them down the page so I can explain better.
EG
Weapon profile
(Weapon )Name
Close combat weapon.
(Weapon)Range
0-2 "(Longer weapons like Two handed weapons Force Halberds etc, may be 0-3 ")
(Weapon )Damage
6 (This is determined by the user strength for close combat weapons.)
(Weapon )Effect.
(Attacks/Shots/Area of effect, I called 'Effect' to cover all weapon effects on target )
1 (This is how many hits the user can inflict with the weapon, or the area of effect for some ranged weapons.)
(Weapon )Notes.
This is where weapon type , 'close combat', 'small arms',' support or 'fire support' {can not move and fire}.)
And any special abilities of weapons are written.
Eg-(Some ideas based on using D6)
Parry , model may re roll ONE failed save throw in a close combat.
Chain edged, enemy model must re roll successful armour saves when assaulted by a chain edged weapon.
Power weapon, enemy model only rolls D3 for armour save rolls when assaulted by a power weapon.
Fire support - may not move and fire.
Ignore cover - units loose any modifiers for being in cover /obscured.
Etc etc..
To be fair I am trying to look for common ground to describe all units and weapons .
40k is a game about UNIT interaction.
Vehicles and Monsters would have a slightly different layout of stats.
Armour value would have Front/ Side/ Rear.(As 6th ed 40k.)
And Hit points would be more detailed.
As multiple model units loose effectiveness as they loose models .
I think the same loss of effectiveness to single model units..
Split the wounds /structure points into Mobility/ weapon attacks.
Eg
Predator Battle Tank.
(Symbol for Tracks.) 6"
(Sight Symbol) +2
(Knife symbol ) 0
(Shield Symbol) 13/12/10
( Gear/track symbol )2 (Gear /Sight symbol.) 3
The above is mobility /attacks structure points.
(Cloak Symbol ) 2+
(Shouting face symbol) -/1
IF the predator takes PHYSICAL damage ,
It can lose one mobility structure point and move at HALF speed.Lose TWO mobility and be IMOBILIZED.
If it loses Attacks , it looses one weapon system per structure point damage.
A note on morale .
I will use proper names from now on.
Suppression ,The unit may only move OR shoot.They can not launch an assault , but will fight back if assaulted.
Neutralized. The unit will do nothing, but will fight back if assaulted.
Routed.The unit MUST move as fast as possible away from all known enemy units, and towards its deployment zone.If the unit is assaulted while routing it will be destroyed.
While under the effects of negative morale , the unit has a morale counter placed next to it INSTEAD OF AN ORDER COUNTER.
(Units suffering poor morale must be rallied before they can follow orders.)
It may seem a bit harsh, BUT morale is important part of modern warfare, and sadly lacking from 40k.
Running across no mans land into the heavy machine gun/ artillery fire should not be a preferred tactic.
Why not use the 4 Fs , as armies have been doing for over half a century?
Find the enemy.
Fire on the enemy to suppress them.
Flank the enemy.
Finish the enemy off in close assault.
Your mission ideas are exciting, especially mincemeat.
I like the idea of using a flag over a face for command, i think it'd just look better and be less ambiguous. Having two values on each stat could be confusing but its already done with armor/invulnerable saves so i dont think it'll be a problem
Not sure i'd like for Melee weapons to have ranges, rather than just granting an initiative bonus like in the current system, which could work nicely with the weapon abilities you granted, as base-to-base Melee works pretty well.
To explore initiative more, have all models hit at the same initiative, with a roll off deciding who goes first. But special rules can change this a bit, essentially giving us initiative tiers that dont need a stat, where we start at the highest tier, working our way down, with models at the same tier rolling off.
First Strike (Special characters, extreme cases of speed like Lictors, keeper of secrets,etc)
Swit Strike (Strikes before normal initiative cases) (hormagaunts, Genestealers, eldar,etc)
No special rule (space marines, guardsman?, etc)
Sluggish Strike (strikes after normal initiative)(orks, necrons)
Last strike (powerfists, etc)
So Grey Knight Halberds could grant that squad Swift strike, powerfists would grant last strike, and could put these abilitiess right there with the others you suggested
Also, are you suggesting keeping armor and toughness separate?
Hi Rav1rn.
I only listed some ideas for symbols as place holder examples .(I am not very artistic )
I am sure there would be better ideas from other people and you proved me right ...
Could we go for a really simple idea for replacing initiative.
The Assault value =WS+initiative eg how good the unit is in assault!
The unit / model that launches the assault strikes first.
Then it reverts to highest MODIFIED Assault value strikes first.
Models that are suppressed are placed (carefully) face down , casualties are removed.
The difference in suppressed results and physical damage (wounds) is added to the winning UNITS Assault value.
Weapons that are clubersome to use, just have the 'always strike last' rule in the weapons profile ?
Rav1rn wrote: Paper Scissors Rock is a good game mechanic, etc
Yeah ok mate, I am definitely out now.
Wish you'd mentioned this days ago during one of the many times I've said I'm strongly opposed to pretty much everything you just supported, so I could have saved a bunch of time and effort and quit then
Toughness will be back soon, I can feel it. This game is turning into 40k with alternative activations and bigger numbers, a vastly different creature than it was even on page 2. While such a game is not necessarily a terrible thing but not something I feel the need to contribute to.
Good luck guys. Feel free to use any ideas and stuff that I've posted up if it serves a purpose here.
I'm not saying that that style is the best route to go, or even a particularly good one, but it's one option that works without undue complexity, and would be familiar to people who already have experience with it in standard 40K.
However, if you want to drop out, I'll respect that and thank you for all your contributions.
One interesting idea is that instead of having every unit have an influence stat, why not have only leaders (Sergeants, HQ's, Independant characters) have a command stat instead of a morale stat? That way they still influence their squad and nearby squads, but won't run themselves (they're the heroes after all), and only run when the squad they're attached to runs? Essentially making these hero units fearless?
Well, I don't think I'm quite understanding you but I wouldn't want them to have a different stat, nor would I want a fearless unit xD I think we should have characters with the same influence stat but slightly larger, along with an +1 influence aura. That way the Fortitude and Influence tests can be the majority of the unit - you have to get the majority of the unit in the aura for you to get +1 to the test. Then independent characters can give double bonuses of a character at 6", but normal bonuses at 12", if you know what I mean.
1 inch isn't enough of a difference, 2 inches is borderline, 3 inches is a distinct difference
Technically one inch difference is 2 inches borderline from a 3 inch difference (lol) :3 Essentially you want to magnetise all the movements into 3 inch distances. So where do Necrons and Tyranids go? You want them to be slower and faster than the other armies but they just end up gravitating towards the same thing? Also I'm sad Mobility didn't get a place -.- Why put it elsewhere on the stat card, why not just have it there? C'mon it looks cool, you already agreed to have it on the card, it's info, and we need it.
Rav1rn, we will find different mechanics about power and poison weapons, its ok Maybe poisoned weapons should actually poison the target and not just do extra damage? Oo, perhaps some power weapons can smash Safeguard? (Safeguard being invulnerable saves)
Lanrak has some sweet ideas for missions and morale. Although it shouldn't be TOO much to do with modern warfare, I mean, we are playing with aliens 40,000 years into the future. (and you didn't read the rest of the thread haha, we scrapped armour saves already) But we shall use some of your mission ideas, they're great
To explore initiative more, have all models hit at the same initiative, with a roll off deciding who goes first. But special rules can change this a bit, essentially giving us initiative tiers that dont need a stat, where we start at the highest tier, working our way down, with models at the same tier rolling off.
Ouch I want to make this point clear about the initiative system:
I do not want a system where a whole squad strikes before another; it's preposterous
I want a system that works with multiple dexterities (we scrapped initiative)
So I proposed something to dakkamite earlier on in the thread
Models that have a higher Dexterity than the model they are attacking get a number of attacks that strike before equal to the difference in Dexterity.
So a Space Marine charges an Ork. 5-4=1. The Marine gets 1 attack before the Ork.
You know how, in combat, you remove the closest models first? Well I would say that each model must attack the closest model. This removes the multiple dexterity problem.
Instead of units getting extra attacks when charging, they should get +1 Dexterity.
Rav1rn wrote: Paper Scissors Rock is a good game mechanic, etc
Yeah ok mate, I am definitely out now.
Wish you'd mentioned this days ago during one of the many times I've said I'm strongly opposed to pretty much everything you just supported, so I could have saved a bunch of time and effort and quit then
Toughness will be back soon, I can feel it. This game is turning into 40k with alternative activations and bigger numbers, a vastly different creature than it was even on page 2. While such a game is not necessarily a terrible thing but not something I feel the need to contribute to.
Good luck guys. Feel free to use any ideas and stuff that I've posted up if it serves a purpose here.
Models that have a higher Dexterity than the model they are attacking get a number of attacks that strike before equal to the difference in Dexterity.
So a Space Marine charges an Ork. 5-4=1. The Marine gets 1 attack before the Ork.
You know how, in combat, you remove the closest models first? Well I would say that each model must attack the closest model. This removes the multiple dexterity problem.
Instead of units getting extra attacks when charging, they should get +1 Dexterity.
I do not want a system where a whole squad strikes before another; it's preposterous
I want a system that works with multiple dexterities (we scrapped initiative)
This is a really neat idea, but wouldn't this have no effect most of the time? As most of the models in squad will have identical stats, how would this play any different, other than having another step to think about? Also, there's just too many ways in which this waters down assault, because if a unit assaults a unit with 1 higher dexterity, they get no bonus for attacking that unit, and as we can assume they that since their dexterity is lower, they'd be at an automatic disadvantage for being there, as afterwards they'd be attacking a squad better in combat than they are? Unless they have extra attacks, but i don't think we can count on that situation too often. Or if that space marine squad assaults something less dexterous, say a Tau Firewarrior squad, they only have 1 attack anyways, so what difference would getting 2 or 3 attacks before them make if they can't take advantage of them?
An interesting idea would be to make that difference the number of attacks a unit gets against them, but that could be waaaay too powerful.
As to why relocate mobility, the more stats we have on the Statline, the larger we have to make the Statline on the card to accommodate them and maintain readability. So the smaller the Statline, the larger we can make things like character art, which would be really nice on the card from a visual design perspective. And we're already moving wounds off, so lets go ahead and get it as short as possible.
Edit: forgot to bring up the influence/command thing
Why would standard units need to influence each other? It could be a cool mechanic for hordes, but many units selling points are they deploy ahead/away from the main force, so would they just deal with the disadvantage, or have a special rule that makes them immune to such instances?
And I didn't mean the HQ's make their unit fearless, but that they themselves don't bother themselves with petty annoyances like fear and danger. I mean, hive tyrants are literally immortal so far as consciousness goes, why would they ever run? Space marine captains are hundreds of years old, and have fought thousands, if not tens of thousands of battles, why would they be afraid on this particular occasion? Or warbosses, or autarchs, or any of the other HQ's. They would only flee if you wanted them too, such as keeping them in a squad thats fleeing.
As such, they don't need the morale equivalent trait, they could just have the command/influence trait, and if thats the case, why not just replace morale with command for characters/leaders and let morale be the worries of lesser beings? I know its a fairly radical departure from the systems proposed but i think its interesting.
Then independent characters can give double bonuses of a character at 6", but normal bonuses at 12", if you know what I mean.
As an impulsive statement: But Mobility beloooooongs on the statline
Yeah my idea is a bit rough, we'll have to think of something else.
I've just had a spur of the moment idea for plasma weapons:
Overheats: If a weapon with this special rule is used two turns in a row, the controlling player rolls a D6 before he rolls To Hit. On a 1 or 2, the weapon doesn't fire and it automatically inflicts a single hit on the user at the weapon's Power.
Automatically Appended Next Post: PS: Do you want me to stop those PMs? lol..
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit: Just saw your edit lol
Lol i don't mind them, but i do my best to check as often as possible, so they get a bit redundant.
Taking your plasma idea and running with it, for every turn in a row a plasma weapon is used, a roll must be made, with the save increasing by one for every turn that weapon was fired in a row.
Dont like the shut-down idea for it though, could be annoying as that weapon gets really unreliable, and not worth taking.
As such, they don't need the morale equivalent trait, they could just have the command/influence trait, and if thats the case, why not just replace morale with command for characters/leaders and let morale be the worries of lesser beings? I know its a fairly radical departure from the systems proposed but i think its interesting.
I think that all units still need an influence value, if you think about it in a battle, if you're near another squad you're influencing it and they're influencing you kind of thing.
As for independent characters I could easily make them fearless by giving them Fortitude 9, look at the chart, 9 to 4 is N/A, automatic pass. That way in normal circumstances ICs can appear fearless but if they see such a horrific situation like their loyal men being eaten up by daemons they will get a modifier and maybe even run away crying to their mummies!
Rav1rn wrote: Lol i don't mind them, but i do my best to check as often as possible, so they get a bit redundant.
Taking your plasma idea and running with it, for every turn in a row a plasma weapon is used, a roll must be made, with the save increasing by one for every turn that weapon was fired in a row.
Dont like the shut-down idea for it though, could be annoying as that weapon gets really unreliable, and not worth taking.
Well it's better than the one in Grimdark where you can't fire it at all in consecutive turns. I made this so that if you really wanna fire it again you have to take the risk. And 1/3 isn't really that high enough to make it unreliable, but definitely something you'll regret if you get overconfident. (Plasma at S9 is 2+ to wount for Resilience 5 and instant kill at 4 or lower)
How about this:
Overheats: If a weapon with this special rule is used two turns in a row, the controlling player rolls a D6 before he rolls To Hit. On a 1 or 2, the weapon overheats. Instead of firing, it automatically inflicts a single hit on the user at the weapon's Power. If it is used three turns in a row, it overheats on a 1, 2, 3 or 4. If it is used four turns in a row it automatically overheats.
Do you think it should still fire even if it overheats?
That way in normal circumstances ICs can appear fearless but if they see such a horrific situation like their loyal men being eaten up by daemons they will get a modifier and maybe even run away crying to their mummies!
It's the grimdark 41st millennium, horrors of war are a daily thing. But beyond that, my favorite stories are the ones where a strikeforce is trying to fight their way through far superior enemies, and one man pushes on, past the death and screaming of his brothers and friends, knowing that should he fail, their deaths were in vain, and with his last breath, successfully completes their mission.
Read the grandmaster Mandulis short story in the Grey Knight omnibus for a great example, as he led a strikeforce of 300 Grey Knights onto the surface of a daemonworld, knowing that every man was doomed, but going anyways as it had to be done. He lefts squads behind to die in order to get time for him and his retinue to move forward, and he then left his retinue behind to be slaughtered by lords of change, just so he had a chance to reach the Daemonprince in time. That kind of dedication is what I think leaders should exhibit, so i wouldn't like to see these models run in any situation.
And yeah, each units going to be influencing each other, im just not sure that the in game results would be worth it, it might make castling too prevalent as players want to maximize the influence bonus, and make tactics such as simultaneous flanking weaker, when it should be incredibly powerful.
Edit: to the plasma overheating
Yeah, otherwise it could make it so that people leave plasma weapons behind, as they don't want that risk, because the current overheat rules are a bit weak, but people are willing to take the risk, as it still fires, and they can defend against the overheat. Taking away the defend might not be too bad, but taking out the continuing to fire would put off a lot of players, particularly serious tournament players, who despise randomness in its every form.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit: Ok, It will still fire but still overheat
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ou, what about these changes
Stealthy Relocation: Instead of moving the unit's maximum Mobility, they can choose to move at up to half their Mobility and receive +1 Stealth until the end of the opponent's next turn.
Run: Instead of shooting, a unit may make another move at half their Mobility.
Charge: In the Assault Phase, a unit may charge at a target within half their Mobility.
Wasnt stealthy relocation basically one of the orders that Lanrak suggested?
Run: Instead of shooting, a unit may make another move at half their Mobility.
Charge: In the Assault Phase, a unit may charge at a target within half their Mobility.
cool idea, i like it, but some players might complain about there not being a unified charge distance for all nits, but this looks really good for an alternative.
Maybe fleet becomes move up to your full mobility instead of half while running?
Edit: still really confused on how BS and Stealth would interact for shooting, can we get some examples posted? Otherwise im still favoring cover as a system, and special rule stealth
To Hit (Shooting): Compare roller's Marksmanship to target's Stealth
To Hit (Assault): Compare roller's Dexterity to target's Dexterity
To Damage: Compare roller's Power to target's Resilience
Take a Statistic test: Compare statistic to a target's value of 4
........................................M..Mk.S...R...D..F...I...Type
Space Marine...................7...6...5...5...5...6...5...Infantry
Imperial Guardsman..........6...5...5...3...4...5...5...Infantry
Tau Fire Warrior...............6...6...5...4...3...4...5...Infantry
Eldar Guardian..................9...6...5...3...5...5...5...Infantry
Ork Boy............................6...3...5...4...4...4...5...Infantry
Tyranid Hormagaunt..........8...3...5...3...4...4...5...Infantry
Necron Warrior.................5...6...5...5...5...7...5...Infantry
Plaguebearer of Nurgle......4...0...5...5...4...7...5...Infantry
If this needs explaining just ask..
Automatically Appended Next Post: Actually, now that I think about it, Rav1rn, I propose against your statement that 1" difference is negligible
When a model moves 5 inches instead of the "standard" 6, does that make you rethink its tactics? Does your opponent have to evaluate it differently when forming a plan? No, its only going to move a maximum of 7 inches less than the "standard" over the course of a 7-turn game
When you take into account that Mobility is not just for the Movement phase, it's for Running AND Charging (neither of us took this into account until now) a difference of 1" is going to be stacking and stacking and multiplying and multiplying the more you move. Sure, it doesn't make you rethink its tactics, but it doesn't have to. You said 3" is a distinct difference.
If, for example, I bumped Tyranids up from 6 to 7, The max range is no longer 12" in a turn (6" move, 3" run, 3" charge), it is 15 (7" move, 4" run, 4" charge). Something to think about.
Hi folks.
Was everyone ok with the 2 action order counters I posted earlier?
And were the references to how 1" difference in mobility MASSIVELY effects tactics made with these in mind?(Because it does make a massive difference over the length of a game !)
Because if we have mobility values , all the special rules like SAP,fleet, fast vehicle etc etc will become REDUNDANT!
Are you happy with placing order counters at the start of the game turn , and these counters being replaced with morale damage counters, when units become suppressed neutralized etc.?
Proposed Order counters ...
Advance , Move Then Shoot.
Evade , Shoot Then Move.
Charge Move Then Assault.
Dash,Move Then Move .
Fire Support.Ready Then Shoot.
Infiltrate Ready Then Move.
(I think these 6 will give a wide spread of tactical interaction! )
Because as soon as you have more interactive game turn , these counters help you keep track of whats happening, and what units have done what, and what they are going to do next...( this is very important is beer drinking is going on at the same time... )
Here are the resolutions as I see them .(Taken from IcyFireKnights list above.)
To Hit (Ranged.)Roll over Targets Stealth value.(Modified.)
(Attackers Marksmanship modifies this/or sets effective range.)
To Hit (Assault).
Roll over targets assault value .(Modified.)
To Damage.
The target rolls a D6 and adds its AV value , If it beats the weapon hit Damage , the target passes its armour save.
If the target fails the armour save roll.It compares how much it failed its AS by to its resilience value determine how much damage it takes.(Physical or psychological.)
To take an characteristic test, roll the score on the unit profile.
Eg to pass a morale test beat the score on the unit profile.
(EG SM Morale grade 2+)
Resolution methods
A)Roll over the stat on the unit profile.(With modifiers.)
(A few simple modifiers to target score/dice roll as required.)
B)OR add a D6 to the unit stat.(And compare it to the opposing enemy stat.)
@lanrak,
I like the 2 action order idea, but i think we should let them issue two, so long as they don't do the same thing (IE, no advance, then evade) as we'd have to totally rethink how some units and armies work, since a lot of strategies depend on move, shoot, charge. Grey knights in particular are built with this in mind.
Or maybe come up with an alternative way of doing all three types of action in one turn thats even more exciting? Maybe choosing to move/shoot/assault would make you forfeit your charge bonus?
Counters are probably the best idea for the unit activation system icyfireknight and i like, lets explore ways to implement that
And I just realized this, but isn't the current 40k thing the same as the direct comparison idea you have, just consolidated for reference on a table?
@icyfireknight
Yeah, that combination of move, run, assault makes it look crazy, but if you can't assault after running, its not a big deal, and 90% of units won't be running every turn, they do need to shoot after all. Also, id suggest round down on running and assault, rather than up if you want to have mobility do that instead of a standard distance.
As for making the tyranids ridiculously fast as a result, id say lets go for it, lets make people worry constantly about their speed and aggression, and have to play accordingly.
We need a name for Lanraks Force Organization Chart idea, im tired of writing HQ, common, specialist, and rare,
Second, id suggest 1 HQ unlocks 4 common units, rather than 8, just based on personal feel, as i think thatd make it feel like an HQ is leading a smallish (max 7 units) detachment, instead of this monstrous army? Maybe have both be part of variant rule sets, idk.
And im on board with the stealth and marksmanship interaction, i think it'll open up some cool situations, even if i still think the current BS system is still an option with modified cover systems.
@Lanrak, we've already discussed that although your resolution method is easy, no chart no fuss thing, the issue that we have spent ages trying to amend, LACK OF VARIETY, isn't being addressed by your resolution method. Yes, I would use your one, but I wanted to go further. I am willing to sacrifice just one chart which I already know by heart, for increased variety and the staying of the D6, as well as being completely UNIVERSAL. Even for characteristic tests.
Sadly, imho I am still reluctant about the counters thing. Can we try to make it work without counters?
No counters no fuss.
Haha, they're just a small burden, it's another thing you have to bring to the game, do you have to make them or something? I'm SURE we can make it work without counters.
As for the force org chart:
One HQ unlocks 4 Core, 1 Support and 1 Specialist
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ok, some feedback on the direction I'm going with these special rules!
Stealthy Relocation: Instead of moving the unit's maximum Mobility, they can choose to move at up to half their Mobility and receive +1 Stealth until the end of the opponent's next turn.
Run: In the Shooting Phase, a unit may make another move at half their Mobility. A unit that does this may not fire any of their weapons in that Shooting Phase.
Charge: In the Assault Phase, a unit may move directly towards a target within half their Mobility. A unit that does this gains +1 Dexterity in that Assault Phase.
Snap Shot: If a model moves in the Movement Phase, it may only fire Heavy weapons at -4 Mk (down to a minimum of 1). This modifier is done after any positive modifiers.
Split Fire: If a model passes an Marksmanship test, it may fire at a target up to 12" away from the unit's original target. Up to than a third of a unit has the chance to Split Fire.
Fleet: A model with this special rule adds 1" to their Run and Charge distances.
Seasoned Marksman - A model with this special rule may allocate any wounds it causes at range however it wishes.
Nimble Fighter - A model with this special rule gains +1 Dexterity when being attacked in combat.
And They Shall Know No Fear - A model with this special rule gains +1 Fortitude when rolling for morale checks.
Furious Charge - A model with this special rule gains +1 Power when it Charges into combat.
Safeguard (X+): A model with this special rule may roll a D6 for every wound it suffers. On a (X+), the wound is ignored.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Damnit Rav1rn, reply D;
Hi folks.
Do you want to call the new FoC Proportional Rarity Composition.(PRC.)
The amount of Common units would be finalized when play testing .Remember current units found in Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support can be Common units in the new composition..
Maybe 8 is too many Common units per HQ unit?How about 6 as a compromise .(As 4 seems to few to me.)
I would like the option to take an extra HQ + 2 minimum Common units ,when you have taken maximum Common units with your first HQ.
I wanted to recreate a composition method with more synergy with actual army composition, but without the complication of mapping OOB for each force.
The proportion of 1 specialized to 2 common units and 1 restricted unit to 4 common units is the corner stone of this idea.
Current 40k has heavily strategic focus.
Reducing the actions per game turn to 2 , and deciding what actions you are going to take is part of improving the tactical focus.
The increase in interaction between units and players will invalidate current strategies anyway.
When I say counters, ANY sort of marker will do, (A bit of paper with a letter/number written on one side,a D6 when each face maps to 1 of the 6 orders, colored disc buttons etc.)
The other alternative is declare the order for the units at the point of activation.(if we use alternating unit activation.)
My method of using the stats directly does not limit the interaction to ,3+,4+,5+ as the WS chart does in 40k.
But allows us to use 1,2,3,4,5,6 directly .TWICE as much variety and no chart!
And using modifiers allows us to extend this range as much as we need to.(Eg some units that are very hard to hit in assault may have assault values of 7,8,9,10.And need units armed with specialized equipment that gives modifiers to assault. to hit them.)
The good thing a bout modifiers is you can add as many as you like.
Want a fast play game use up to 6 .Want a highly detailed simulation use 20 or more!
I think it is best to sort out the core rules and resolutions before we try to work out what special rules we need.
If you have only played 40k it may be hard to comprehend how much game play can be covered by core rules.
Maybe 8 is too many Common units per HQ unit?How about 6 as a compromise .(As 4 seems to few to me.)
I would like the option to take an extra HQ + 2 minimum Common units ,when you have taken maximum Common units with your first HQ.
Personally, i'd like to have to take a second HQ to play above the equivalent of a 1500 point game right now (which would probably be around 7ish units and an HQ) since it would mark a very clear distinction between small and large games, as well as making sure your every choice of units is critical, since they're heavily limited, but yes, play testing is key here.
Edit: each HQ unlocks the same number of units, but you don't need to max out the first HQs PRC choices before taking another HQ. Maybe have players set a unit limit before the game starts.
The proportion of 1 specialized to 2 common units and 1 restricted unit to 4 common units is the corner stone of this idea.
Yes, I agree, I like that logic, it feels very progressive and would allow us great control as designers to decide what goes in which category.
When I say counters, ANY sort of marker will do, (A bit of paper with a letter/number written on one side,a D6 when each face maps to 1 of the 6 orders, colored disc buttons etc.)
i agree that counters are just going to be the best way to mark effects and activations on the models. I don't like making people bring more stuff, but if we're already pursuing the cards idea, that battle's lost anyways, plus whats a few poker-chip sized counters when youre already bringing 30-100 models, plus a few dozen dice?
But allows us to use 1,2,3,4,5,6 directly .TWICE as much variety and no chart!
I agree that the current WS chart is dumb and values should be expanded to 2+ to 6+, but wouldn't a roll of 1+ just be an automatic pass?
Reducing the actions per game turn to 2 , and deciding what actions you are going to take is part of improving the tactical focus.
The increase in interaction between units and players will invalidate current strategies anyway.
Not totally on board with this, but lets see where it takes us, could be revolutionary.
Proportional Rarity Composition.(PRC.)
For a fan designed alternative ruleset, this is starting to sound very well done, i love it.
Damnit Rav1rn, reply D;
sorry been working for the last 11 hours non-stop
Edit:
One HQ unlocks 4 Core, 1 Support and 1 Specialist
as stated above i like the 4-2-1 PRC idea, but the idea of having a support slot could be interesting...maybe place things like rhinos, chimeras, transports, etc in this category that don't affect the PRC such as unlocking a specialist or rare, but could reduce your options in other ways...
I've got some ideas for Tyranid unit revisions that would fit nicely with such a system...
Second edit: Id like to see some sort of shoot, then assault order, not exactly tactical, but definitely brutal in the right situations.
Hi Rav1rn,
Ooops mis-understood about the Support unit option(s) for HQ.
That is a good idea.
The support option(s) could be a retinue and/or transport for the HQ , a fire base or air support directly under the command of the HQ unit.
(This would follow the theme of the HQ /army.)
So each HQ allows you yo take ..
1 Support unit
6 Common units
(Revised after play testing ... )
The game play from 2 action sets and interleaved/alternating actions is pretty standard in modern war gaming .(Epic Space Marine now net Epic has been using it for over a decade!)
It promotes tactical use of combined arms
As far as shoot then assault.
As most units in 40k have some form of ranged attack that puts the defender slightly on the back foot.(Even just screaming loudly to unerve the enemy counts, .)
Then that is why we let assaulting units strike first.
It sort of includes the shooting spitting screaming in the general direction of the target unit, allowing the attacker to strike first.
We could use rough Unit Values to set the size of game .
Eg
Weakest units =1 UV, then allocate Unit values at 2,3,4,5 etc as apporproate.
Eg start with the weakest unit, and work out how much better every other unit is.
(Rather than start with the elite super human army and work out how every other army could beat it... )
So rather than pretend 1500pts from any list is EXACTLY equal to 1500pts from any other list.
We simply say 15 UV is ROUGHLY equal to 15 UV of another army.
I want to focus on fun and exiting game play with themed armies and cool missions.
NOT get bogged down in working out unit competitiveness...
To Hit (Shooting): Compare roller's Marksmanship to target's Stealth
To Hit (Assault): Compare roller's Dexterity to target's Dexterity
To Damage: Compare roller's Power to target's Resilience
Take a Statistic test: Compare statistic to a target's value of 4
........................................M..Mk.S...R...D..F...I...Type
Space Marine...................6...6...5...5...5...6...5...Infantry
Imperial Guardsman..........5...5...5...3...4...5...5...Infantry
Tau Fire Warrior...............6...7...5...4...3...4...5...Infantry
Eldar Guardian..................8...6...5...3...5...5...5...Infantry
Ork Boy............................6...3...5...4...4...4...5...Infantry
Tyranid Hormagaunt..........7...3...5...3...4...4...5...Infantry
Necron Warrior.................5...6...5...5...5...7...5...Infantry
Plaguebearer of Nurgle......4...0...5...5...4...7...5...Infantry
If this needs explaining just ask..
Automatically Appended Next Post: Actually, now that I think about it, Rav1rn, I propose against your statement that 1" difference is negligible
When a model moves 5 inches instead of the "standard" 6, does that make you rethink its tactics? Does your opponent have to evaluate it differently when forming a plan? No, its only going to move a maximum of 7 inches less than the "standard" over the course of a 7-turn game
When you take into account that Mobility is not just for the Movement phase, it's for Running AND Charging (neither of us took this into account until now) a difference of 1" is going to be stacking and stacking and multiplying and multiplying the more you move. Sure, it doesn't make you rethink its tactics, but it doesn't have to. You said 3" is a distinct difference.
If, for example, I bumped Tyranids up from 6 to 7, The max range is no longer 12" in a turn (6" move, 3" run, 3" charge), it is 15 (7" move, 4" run, 4" charge). Something to think about.[/spoiler]
You've still got Tau Fire Warriors waaay too high in marksmanship. I suggest bumping them down to 4 or 5. Remember that Tau use Markerlights as a core mechanic in order to compensate, extend, and modify their shots. Marksmanship 6+ should be reserved for grisled veterans (Kasrkin for example) or genetically designed races (certain Tyranid broods, Space Marines and Eldar) or simply the technologically superior Necron. This is not what I wanted to address though, my point is to the D10 system in general:
You guys need to alter weapon ranges. The primary reason for GW to have 6" increments on all weapons is that this means they are compatible with D6 rolls. With D10 rolls the 6" increments are no longer compatible. Additionally, you have the opportunity to bring the game down from being 1st turn alpha strike to become more about tactics and have shooting begin around the 2-turn mark.
If guns are 5" base range (and let's ignore the idiotic non-metric system of 12 inch per foot) with the standard speed for an infantry at 5" (meaning 10" for bikes, beasts, and cruising vehicles)
If the standard range of a gun was 20" with 10" as rapid fire range and most long-range weapons at 30" (Bright Lance, Heavy Bolter, Pulse Rifle, etc)
If the standard no-mans land was 30" instead of 24" (and yes, the silly boards would still be 48" with 9" deployment zones, can't really do much about that) or at least 25"
-> you would have better ability to both preserve the random distance modifications by dice as well as preserve your army from first round alpha strikes.
Ideally movement, running and charging would be done in the same phase. Have you guys had a glance at other systems where it is like that?
You've still got Tau Fire Warriors waaay too high in marksmanship. I suggest bumping them down to 4 or 5. Remember that Tau use Markerlights as a core mechanic in order to compensate, extend, and modify their shots. Marksmanship 6+ should be reserved for grisled veterans (Kasrkin for example) or genetically designed races (certain Tyranid broods, Space Marines and Eldar) or simply the technologically superior Necron.
agreed
Also we've more or less abandoned the D10 in favor if D6 in new systems, feel free to look through some of the other pages to see all of that.
NOT get bogged down in working out unit competitiveness...
we are going to have to work out some sort of standard for each PRC slot though, right?
I think we can do this without counters - NEVERTHELESS - you guys put forward some great ideas and I'd like to compile them into a strong mechanic.
Primary Phase:
Players take it in turns to move their units. Bonuses are given for moving units minimal distances or not moving them at all.
Secondary Phase:
Players take it in turns to operate their units, either by shooting, charging (charging now allows you to shoot a little bit as well) or fleeting.
When people take it in turns to move units one by one, it introduces a WHOLE NEW aspect of tactics. What to activate first and what to delay will be key to a successful mindset.
My idea: 1 HQ, 4 Core and 2 Support is compulsory. You can choose to take up to: 1 more HQ, 4 more Core, 2 more Support and 2 Specialist. I don't like the idea of "restricted" because in real warfare since when were some things "restricted". In reality there are always support units. If you don't have support units its like having a human body without a skeleton.
I still think the points system is concise.
@Mahtamori, I am oblivious to Tau and everything about Tau. I think Marksmanship 6 is right for Tau, because it shows that they are good at shooting compared to everything else. I think you made a good point on 1st turn Alpha Striking. I have always thought 24" is stupid; a DA squad can get Guided, then move, run and shoot on the first turn...I would actually think 36" away is better.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Hey Rav1rn, sorry to bore you again with my stubbornness...
I suddenly thought that...well...what I said earlier about Power and Attacks was wrong.
I'd much much much prefer Power and Attacks to be on the statline. We can't just disregard them purely to shorten the statline. I believe that simply shifting them to the melee weapon is neither justified nor realistic. Strength and number of attacks should be innate - just like Marksmanship. I think that Power is definitely IN. Again.
As for attacks, they're like wounds - would you want them in, boring the statline with 1s? Or have them as a special rule?
Rav1rn: Yeah, I noticed the discussions on D6 but the thread is still called D10
IcyFireKnight: That's the thing, Tau are rather crap at shooting. They're near-sighted and have an average lifespan of a third of a human's (naturally a Fire Warrior's life expectancy is drastically shorter, which is common among all warriors throughout the ages)
They are on par with humans only because they are the genetically best suited specimen for the job and they have been thoroughly trained.
Typically light infantry like Dire Avengers are not the problem, sadly it's the long range stuff that are far too good at taking out tanks and artillery.
Roughly speaking, artillery in 40k has lost it's tactical meaning because they reach everywhere and because just about everything fits the mold.
Try playing a game of Warmachine where 30" is a huge distance that no piece (that I am aware of) can reach. Position plays a massive role in that game in comparison. (And also, you get benefits for shooting people in the back.)
Rav1rn: Yeah, I noticed the discussions on D6 but the thread is still called D10
its just been more convenient to stick to this one thread rather than make a new one, anyone feel like migrating? Otherwise it seems to have worked out fine this far.
Typically light infantry like Dire Avengers are not the problem, sadly it's the long range stuff that are far too good at taking out tanks and artillery.
Roughly speaking, artillery in 40k has lost it's tactical meaning because they reach everywhere and because just about everything fits the mold.
Agreed, i think nothing should have range over 48", as it just creates too many problems, and isn't exciting since nothing can hit back at ranges beyond that. Having unlimited as the range is just insanity and i think everyone knows it too.
When people take it in turns to move units one by one, it introduces a WHOLE NEW aspect of tactics. What to activate first and what to delay will be key to a successful mindset.
we have two different ways to doing things here, and both have good points. IcyfireKnights idea will be more familiar to 40K players, but Lanrak's orders have so much potential. Since icyfireknights idea is basically a reskin of 40K with the new activation system, i dont think too much exploration beyond playertesting will be necessary, but lets keep it as a viable option.
I still think the points system is concise.
i agree that there's no problem inherent in the points system, its just much harder to balance perfectly. The choice of options and upgrades can make it rewarding though. But lets keep the PRC idea going, i like its ease of balance and all the potential it has.
As for attacks, they're like wounds - would you want them in, boring the statline with 1s? Or have them as a special rule?
i dont think tyranid players would be bored with all the multiple attack special rules in their codex. The fact is, there's just too many units, regardless of codex, to make that solution simple. Veteran marines, terminators, HQs, tyranid troops, orks, ogryns, necron wraiths, there's just too many.
Also, here's an idea, using the new activation system, instead of activating your first unit, you may instead select to bring a unit in from reserves. You may then continue rolling to activate further units as normal.
It makes reserves, particularly deep strikes, much more reliable, so people might actually like them as a mechanic.
I am oblivious to Tau and everything about Tau
tau are very frail and weak physically. They make use of technology to supplement this, hence why markerlights play such a large role in their tactics, and why GW has kept their BS at 3 despite many people's arguments to the alternative.
I think my idea isn't a "reskin" but a more interactive and tactical alternative. Also, I want to steer a little bit away from Grimdark, so we can explore a different path.
I think your reserves idea is good, but perhaps to bring on reserves your HQ has to take an Influence test? If we make HQs Influence 7 then they'll bring em on on a 2+. You have to take into account that anything could happen to those reserves - intercepted by a Tyranid brood, orbitally bombarded, or loss of communication...
It is more interactive and tactical, but it is still at its heart the 40k system we all know. So yes it could represent a marked improvement, particularly when coupled with the new activation system, but we can easily theorize on how itd play out, so we don't need to explore it as much as Lanraks order system.
Edit:
And those effects would only need to come into play with deep striking, for normal reserves i dont think it'd be as big a deal.
We do need to find a way to limit this though, as players could potentially bring their whole army in from reserves in one turn.
Well I think Lanrak's system has been explored, in the form of Grimdark. I think that if we do counters again, we''ll end up not far from Grimdark. Don't get me wrong Grimdark is awesome, it's just I want to try to create something a bit different.
Profiles should have wounds written on them. This will become apparent why when you start doing the Tyranid and Chaos Daemon codexes. Or when you stick the HQ in the same table as non-hero HQ or non-HQ units.
Also, if you are redesigning from scratch, have you considered removing armour value in favour of straight up toughness and wounds for vehicles? Mechanical units would have a special rule which said they are immune to poison, shred, fleshbane and instant death but vulnerable to tank hunter, armour bane, lance*, haywire etc.
* although it makes sense if lance worked just fine against monsters as well.
IcyFireKnight wrote: Yeah, wait you want me to bring them down to Mk 5? So they hit on a 4+. What exactly do Markerlights do?
Everything, basically. Each marker sticks a one-use token to the hit unit which other Tau can use to improve ballistics skill, remove cover, force pinning and a couple more that I don't know because no one ever uses them for anything except the godly +1BS (stacking) and stripping cover (which costs two lights)
We have merged toughness and Sv together into Resilience. To kill something all you need to do is to hit and to wound. Vehicles still have front side and rear armour but it's on the same scale as resilience. Lances now always wound tanks on a 4+.
I kinda thought that too. The statline is fine whatever length. In fact, the more stats, the better. When we start trying to shorten the statline we are faced with dozens of consequences, and it's just not worth it.
Also, if you are redesigning from scratch, have you considered removing armour value in favour of straight up toughness and wounds for vehicles? Mechanical units would have a special rule which said they are immune to poison, shred, fleshbane and instant death but vulnerable to tank hunter, armour bane, lance*, haywire etc.
The route we've taken is consolidating armor and toughness into resilience, and wounds have become universal Hitpoints. We've brought up several ideas on how to differentiate different types of units (Monsters, Infantry, Vehicles), but the symbol for Hitpoints on vehicles is a Gear, for organics its a Heart, as well as having different unit Types on their card. I like the idea of having lances affect Monsters more though, maybe have them do double wounds? Though that feels insanely overpowered.
Well I think Lanrak's system has been explored, in the form of Grimdark. I think that if we do counters again, we''ll end up not far from Grimdark. Don't get me wrong Grimdark is awesome, it's just I want to try to create something a bit different.
I agree its very similar, but having units only able to do 2 kinds of actions (Move, Shoot, Assault) each activation could have a very large impact on how the game is played. I personally would like to have all three be represented each activation, but i want to see where this system leads under our rules, it seems very interesting. And if we're doing Unit-By-Unit activation, there needs to be a way to show which unit has been activated and which hasn't, regardless if we use the orders system, or all three phases in one activation, and unfortunately thats going to have to be a counter of some sort, be it a piece of paper, a poker chip, a die, etc.
The statline is fine whatever length. In fact, the more stats, the better. When we start trying to shorten the statline we are faced with dozens of consequences, and it's just not worth it.
Whoa now, lets not just throw away work, remember we're using a card template, so things like wounds and mobility don't have to be on the Statline to be represented in an easily visible and intuitive way. And the more space we dedicate to the Statline, the less space we have for things like Artwork, special rule space, weapon profile space, etc. and taking Strength off the Statline would work fine if we just gave everything some sort of CCW profile (Knife, bayonet, claw, teeth, etc) or even just added a Melee profile for their gun, all of which would be very easy to do and look good on their card.
I'll try to upload some sort of early format for what the card could look like under various versions of our system, gimme a little bit.
Hi all .
To be clear I would like to take the basic Grimdark mechanics , and use more straight forward resolutions (direct comparisons,) to maximize game play while minimize the rules.
I understand most current 40k players like all the 'chrome'.
But I would like to get to the most elegant and efficient rules possible for 40k,And the rules deliver the most tactically deep yet intuitive game play.
Counters work fine for adding tactical decision making , with either alternating unit activation, OR interleaved phases.
(One counter next to a unit is minimal book keeping , that allows the condition /actions and order sequence to be easily tracked.)
As soon as you start using more PLAYER interaction the harder it is to keep track.
EG
Current 40k.
I move everthing I want to.
I shoot /run with everything I want to.
I make any assaults I want to,
Then its over to you..not hard to remember whos turn-what phase it is...
NEW alternatng activation.
I may activate 1,2,or 3 units ,
The you activate 1,2 or 3 units ,
We are drinking beer, and after a toilet break mid game we cant remember EXACTLY which unit activated last or if my ordnance has fired yet...(it happens believe me! )
New Interleaved phases.
Similar problem as above, did that unit stay still in the first action phase?can it can fire at full effect now?(etc.)
(Maybe its just my gameing group and our love of beer?But an order/status counter next to the units make keeping track a doddle. )
I agree we need to use a stat line that covers as much of the unit interaction as possible.
AND the stat line needs to apply to ALL units.
Not separate stats for different unit/weapon types.
Ok guys, I just ran some numbers when testing out how shooting would play out with our new Damage and Defense (Resilience) values, with players having to roll above the weapons damage score to prevent the wound. Let's say a Boltgun is Damage 9 and a Space Marine in Power Armor, Tau Battlesuits, and a Necron Immortal are Defense 7. They would save that hit on a 3+, looks good. Let's have a Sister of Battle, an Eldar in Heavy Aspect Armor, Tyranid Warriors, and a Necron Warrior have Defense 6, they would save on a 4+, ok not bad. Now let's say that a Stormtrooper in Carapace Armor, a Tau Firewarror, and a Scout Marine have a Defense value of 5, they'd be saving on a 5+, ouch that's a lot of wounds for units that are supposed to be somewhat survivable, but still not awful. Below them we have your typical Guardsman, Ork Boyz, and some Eldar Units at Defense 4, they'll be saving on a 6+, not bad, particularly for Guardsman and Boyz, but losing that many Eldar units could really hurt. Below that we have Tyranid Gaunts at Defense 3, who will be getting no save against Boltguns, to be expected.
Now I would argue that Lasguns should be Damage 7, letting us insert weapons that should be stronger than Las Weapons, but weaker than a Boltgun (Ork Gunz, Tyranid Gaunt Bioweapons, Eldar Shuriken Weapons, Hellguns (Upgraded Lasguns), etc) into the Damage 8 slot, but doing so would mean Space Marines cannot be wounded by the common Guardsman at range, which just feels awful, unless we make a roll of a 1 an automatic failure, in which case Terminators and other 2+ save, Toughness 4 models (Ork Meganobs, Battlesuits with the Armor Upgrade) have Defense 8, that way it's still a 2+ against all "standard" infantry weapons, even the ones that are better than a Boltgun, such as Tau Pulserifles (Damage 8), and I would argue Necron Gauss Flayers (Damage 8, Come on their fluff says they can cleave through armor at the molecular level, pseudo-rending against vehicles just doesn't cut it).
Do we want to make it so that a roll of 1 always fails, up to a certain point, or just after you get below a 2+ or above a 6+, it becomes auto-wound?
things like wounds and mobility don't have to be on the Statline to be represented in an easily visible and intuitive way
I don't mean to sound blatant, but when you take wounds and attacks etc off the statline you have to put them somewhere else, as a special rule?
less space we have for things like Artwork, SPECIAL RULE SPACE
I just want to say...that one or two stats on the statline is going to take up less than a few cm squared? Whereas moving them to the special rules is going to take up more?
things like wounds and mobility don't have to be on the Statline to be represented in an easily visible and intuitive way
I don't mean to sound blatant, but when you take wounds and attacks etc off the statline you have to put them somewhere else, as a special rule?
No on the card we can have wounds and mobility be in their own little area, perhaps overlapping a corner of the artwork, or above the special rules box. They can be numerically represented, but they don't have to actually be on the Statline, despite being represented the same way. They don't even have to be next to each other, they could be placed separately from each other.
I just want to say...that one or two stats on the statline is going to take up less than a few cm squared? Whereas moving them to the special rules is going to take up more?
If we have a good piece of art that is a certain size format, if we don't want to distort that image by shrinking it, we have only so much space on the card for that Statline, unless we want to move the Statline to another area, which may not look as good. So yes, it's only a few more cm square, but that may be a few cm square we don't have. And I'd rather have the art dominate the card, rather than a box with the Statline.
Again, look up warmachine cards to see what I mean, they have a small Statline on the top right side, with weapon profiles under it, the art on the left side, with various data located underneath that art, with a box area on the bottom for quotes and other information to be included.
I can't really reply to that. The reasoning you put...I have no idea. I completely agree with Lanrak that we need to cram as much information on the statline as possible , so that we DONT need to fit it somewhere else . Statlines are the most effective, efficient, good-looking and intuitive thing you can get to representing data.
Ok so dealing with this less than crucial issue later, can we talk about how influence/Command might work between units? Examples of both HQ's/Characters and normal units, normal units and normal units, and HQ's/Characters and HQ's/Characters would be wonderful.
Also, examples of how stealth and Shooting would vary and interact? I still don't understand how stealth as a stat would work better than Stealth and Concealment as special rules? I understand that units such as Genestealers would probably have a better stealth stat than a space marine, and a scout marine better than a tactical marine, and a tactical marine over a terminator, but im still kinda hazy on hard concepts and examples.
Originally I just wanted To Hit to be a marksmanship test, so you just compare it to 4. But I added stealth as a stat so that vehicles could be easier to hit and there could be realistic stealth modifiers instead of the alternative Mk modifiers. Eg, being in a bush improves your stealth, NOT decreases your aggressors Mk.
Idk, i think we'd need to work out a somewhat final card design before reaching a conclusion with on that topic, and frankly we're still working out core mechanics so its a bit early.
But I added stealth as a stat so that vehicles could be easier to hit and there could be realistic stealth modifiers instead of the alternative Mk modifiers. Eg, being in a bush improves your stealth, NOT decreases your aggressors Mk.
Thats a really good point. My worry is that there just won't be enough variety to warrant a stat without adding to much complexity or unbalancing the game. It would be really cool to have some units become harder to hit to compensate for them being easier to wound. It could potentially make units such as Daemonettes and Harlequins the dangerous foes they never managed to be, since they were just too easy to gun down. It could also compensate by making units that are easier to wound in our system than in normal 40K, harder to hit, thereby retaining their survivability. It would be interesting to have units in 2+ save equivalents (Terminators, Meganobs) have lower stealth stats than other less-Armored units, since these are typically large, loud, heavy armor systems, though i worry this may be a bit too micro.
Right now I've got no ideas to do with Influence.
That's just my problem, i can't think of how to have these units interact as such. Lanrak, you're up, bestow upon us your ideas of interest and intrigue.
Yeah of course we could do that. Terminator can get 3 stealth instead of 4 but have resilience 7 instead. On the contrary Harlequins can have their holo-suits and wave serpents can have their holo-fields give +1 and +2 stealth respectively. I think stealth as a stat is warranted given that Land Raider = 1 stealth while Eldar Ranger in area terrain = 8 or 9 stealth.
That's what I was thinking, i really like the idea now that i understand it, I just want to playtest it some to ensure that it A: doesnt slow down the game too much, and B: doesn't feel overpowered.
I think it would allow us to integrate other ideas that have been brought up as well, such as increased chance to hit at short ranges. We could make it so that firing at units within 12" decreases their stealth value by 1, and/or shooting at the enemy at half the weapons max range could confer a+1 to Marksmenship.. Spotlights on vehicles could reduce the stealth of units by 2 or something, etc.
Edit: if possible, id like to have your average Space Marine have 5's across the board for stats as much as possible, since their easy to remember Statline is a big part of what defines their place as the easy, intro army.
Second Edit: would you guys agree with Bolters at Damage: 7, Lasguns at Damage: 5, and Space marines in Power Armor at Defense: 5? The saves are exactly the same as i described a few posts ago, just lower to bring it inline with the rest of the 5's on his Statline, and to keep vehicle/Monster Defense values from getting too high?
Wait what about all the stuff I have proposed? Your scale starts very high up? I have already came to quite a good balance for stats, I can't post it with this phone, maybe check my thread ?
As for a space marine, look on my thread for the stats compared to other armies, I think it's polished but let me know if anything's a bit off . I can't give them 5s across the board but mostly it's 5s and 4s.
Wait is it defender rolls a D6 and adds it to their Defense score, and if they beat the Damage, they save the wound? Or the attacker rolls the D6 and adds it to the damage value to beat the defenders Armor?
Neither! I can't agree with Lanrak's direct comparison system because it has too many problems. My system is the universal comparison chart: To Hit is comparing attackers Mk to target's stealth. To wound is comparing attacker's/weapon's Power to target's resilience .
Wow I am really confused. Ill probably try both out, since my review of the system using direct comparisons went pretty well, just played out as having a slightly different way of resolving things. also, i remember objecting to that universal chart since it made differences of 1 and 2 have the same value to beat, which would make the minor differences youd find between normal troop units irrelevant. Fixing that, I'd be much more in favor of it.
Edit: the charts probably the best way of handling things, but i can't deny the feel of rolling for defense against incoming damage using the direct comparison was neat. But for things like weapon skill, the chart method is pretty much necessary, and if we're going for unified resolution methods, thats about it.
Well not only that but direct comparison doesn't address the variety issue...I will accept any suggestion that isn't direct comparison. My chart has been working beautifully, and the differences of 1 and 2 being the same is completely and utterly intended, to create a sort of diminishing focal point between close values, if you know what I mean.
My problem is that if you have differences of 1 and 2 have the same value on the chart, then you only have 3 outputs for a set of 5 values that would normally represent regular troops. That's less variety than the direct comparison method, at least so far as normal units go, and less variety than standard 40K at that, which was one of the main reasons i wanted to change the system in the first place.
For example, id like to have values between 2 and 6 be normal troop values, so for Marksmenship examples we could have things like
2 == Orks, Whiteshields
3 == Guardsman, Tyranid Gaunt
4 == Sisters of battle, Eldar Guardians, Veteran Guardsman, Tau Fire Warrior
5 == Space Marine, Necron warrior, Tyranid Warrior
6 == Tau Battlesuit, Veteran Space Marine
If we wanted to preserve this variety using your chart, we'd have to take up more of the Statline values for troops, which would take away from values that HQ's would normally use, and thats where I'd like to see more ambiguity than at the standard troops level, since that Dark Eldar Archon is going to Flay that Guardsman alive just as well as a Hive Tyrant, but the differences between the two is meant to come into play between units of that calibre.
Im tired of seeing the same few numbers be repeated on Statline after Statline in normal 40K, to the point where a 2 or a 5 are exciting and strange events. i remember there being a lot of buzz about the new necron warrior Statline, simply because by dropping their armor save to a 4+, their Statline was quite unique, which shows just how bleak that situation had become.
you only have 3 outputs for a set of 5 values that would normally represent regular troops. That's less variety than the direct comparison method
Hm, I see where you're coming from but it's been crazily misunderstood. I'm looking for a variety of values between infantry. You are too, no? That's exactly what this system gives. A variety of stats. It does this by making 1-2-3-4-5 point differences LESS. The problem with the current system which we have been trying to address since page 1, and a mirrored consequence with direct comparison IS THAT, you can't have that variety without completely unbalancing everything. You try making variety with a direct comparison system. It's no different from "standard 40K". Do you see where I'm coming from? Direct comparison does NOTHING to address the variety problem. I hope Lanrak reads this (he's been on direct comparison for ages, despite me telling him many times it can't work -.-)
Direct comparison = standard 40k, without the chart. otherwise it has 99 of the same issues.
If we wanted to preserve this variety using your chart, we'd have to take up more of the Statline values for troops, which would take away from values that HQ's would normally use, and thats where I'd like to see more ambiguity than at the standard troops level, since that Dark Eldar Archon is going to Flay that Guardsman alive just as well as a Hive Tyrant, but the differences between the two is meant to come into play between units of that calibre.
The troop stats I have worked on go from the Plaguebearer's Marksmanskip 0 to a Necron Warrior's Fortitude of 6. 0-6? Seems right. My chart goes up to 12. Infantry take up the first half. Good enough. (with your proposal earlier on this page you had bolters at strength 9? What your scale goes up to 20? )
The troop stats I have worked on go from the Plaguebearer's Marksmanskip 0 to a Necron Warrior's Fortitude of 6. 0-6? Seems right. My chart goes up to 12. Infantry take up the first half. Good enough.
Assuming i understand your point correctly, we're trying to address this issue two very different ways. I want the variety to be between closely skilled troops, you want the difference to be between very differently skilled troops.
The thing is that your system, while having values between 1 and 6, only provides for 3 real outcomes, and makes several of those "slots" redundant, since they have no impact on the game in certain situations. For instance, making that veteran guardsman BS 4 instead of BS 3 like the rank and file Guardsman has no impact against a target of the same stealth value,as the next "jump" of the dice is at BS 5 like a space marine. To bring up something you said a while back
And I see where you're coming from with the chart. I've never met Sisters of Battle. But if you want them to be the tougher combatant then I would bump em up to WS 5.
thats the problem with your method. I want that sister of battle to be more skilled than a guardsman in close combat, but less skilled than a space marine, but i can't do that since, to a space marine, they're just as easy to hit under your system.
It'd be great to be able to have all these varied situations be represented directly, but as always the D6 is the limiting factor. I'd like to have 2+ show almost certain to hit, and 6+ almost certain to miss, so that vastly mismatched units can show their dominance/weakness while still being to affect each other, while having 3+, 4+, and 5+ be reserved for similarly skilled combatants.
Edit:
(with your proposal earlier on this page you had bolters at strength 9? What your scale goes up to 20? )
lol, i was just running numbers to get a feel for the system, and what the differences between damage and defense would have to be to achieve the right rolls, not actually finalized values or anything.
Actually the jumps are still quite regulated - to hit a Stealth 4, Marksmanship 3, 4 and 5 all give different rolls.
I know there are some uneven jumps, however if you look at my chart again, you can see that the original was to make it so 4+ took up one diagonal, 3+ took up two and 2+ took up three, but I decided against that because I didn't want a Bolter with Power 4 to be able to hurt Res 9 vehicles.
The chart, if you looked at it like a graph, would be a sort of exponential parabola. The focal point retains the differences as I said, "to hit a Stealth 4, Marksmanship 3, 4 and 5 all give different rolls." but the further away you go the less the difference becomes. I think this is ESSENTIAL to trying to maintain variety with a D6. It's hard, D6 are unhelpful to our cause -_- but I do have a lot of faith in that chart to show how it works splendidly.
As for your anecdote I want sisters to be the same skill as a space marine. If you wanted them to be Dex 4, it would still differentiate them between Guardmen's 3, because on the charge they get +1 Dexterity and they'll break even to SM. If anything it'll make them more tactical, and making them subpar to Space Marines can open more doors for buffing them in other ways to make them more unique.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'd like to have 2+ show almost certain to hit, and 6+ almost certain to miss, so that vastly mismatched units can show their dominance/weakness while still being to affect each other, while having 3+, 4+, and 5+ be reserved for similarly skilled combatants.
If I understand correctly you want to keep the same system/direct comparison? I'm pretty sure you are on the same side as me, but just in case you aren't, earlier I said
1 point difference = 1/6 chance, it's too limiting
The chart, if you looked at it like a graph, would be a sort of exponential parabola. The focal point retains the differences as I said, "to hit a Stealth 4, Marksmanship 3, 4 and 5 all give different rolls." but the further away you go the less the difference becomes
I agree that having 3,4 and 5 give different values when shooting at a stealth 4 target is the right idea, but that Marksmenship 2 unit is going to be hitting them just as easily as that marksmenship 3 unit, when they should clearly be weaker at hitting that target. If i'm at Melee 5, Melee 3 and 4 look the same to me, when one should be markedly easier than the other, same with Melee 4 against Melee 3 and 2. I agree that having it grow exponentially harder/easier to hit is the right way to handle the system, but it won't work on a D6, since as you said
1 point difference = 1/6 chance, it's too limiting
but unfortunately, thats the situation the D6 saddles us with. We can either have a unit have all different rolls against 5 values that troops can represent, only having a roll value repeat itself against 1 or 2 stat values at most below them (WS 5 vs WS 3 and WS 2) and those far above them, or have that roll value repeat against many of the troop stats. Its the same reason why im not a fan of the current WS chart in normal 40K, because i think "there's no way that Guardsman should be hitting that Space Marine Captain 33% of the time, and the Captain hitting back only 66% of the time, when he has literally double his opponents weapon skill"
I just don't like the lack of variety that your chart provides on a D6 for stat differences of more than 1, though I'd love it on a D12.
Edit: yes I want to use the chart over direct comparison, simply to provide a unified resolution system for all situations.
Hi folks.
Well if you are going to use a unified resolution chart, is it going to replace modifiers?
Otherwise its just adding another level of needless complication.
THE only reason to use a resolution table is to massage results to limit possible outcomes, or to replace modifiers.
(Eg values are summaries of ALL elements of the resolution.)
As I want a much wider spread of results by using stats directly.(1 to 100 if necessary to get the spread of results for an entire universe.)
I really can not see the need for resolution tables, with the simple mechanics being used.
(In some historical simulations with things like armour penetration per range band and ammo type , then yes the variety of results needs a table for historical accuracy.)
I really can not see the need for resolution tables, with the simple mechanics being used.
Because there is no way to use direct comparison to resolve melee hits, without a corresponding stat for the offensive melee stat to be resolved against, like BS and Stealth, and if we want everything to be resolved in one way, then we need a way that doesnt require that additional stat, which is that universal resolution chart.
Well if you are going to use a unified resolution chart, is it going to replace modifiers?
Otherwise its just adding another level of needless complication.
I would argue the exact opposite, so long as the way the modifiers are applied is intuitive and simple. For example, light cover such as bushes and smoke giving you a +1 stealth modifier is very easy to remember, and makes a good deal of sense in-game, while providing the results that cover should apply. Craters giving a +2 stealth modifer (or +1 Stealth +1 Defense) would be just as easy to remember and apply, and make just as much sense, and this system could be extended to all forms of cover, from smoke and bushes, to destroyed vehicles and ruined buildings.
(In some historical simulations with things like armour penetration per range band and ammo type , then yes the variety of results needs a table for historical accuracy.)
I've already said that i'm in favor of modifiers as applied to shooting, as that sounds exciting and interesting. Things like bonuses for shooting at less than max range, penalties to BS for you and/or your target moving, or something along these lines of Damage varying with distance could be very exciting, so long as they're executed smoothly. It could certainly solve the problem of Melta-Weapons being ludicrously strong at short ranges in a more believable fashion, and change how we look at long range shooting.
THE only reason to use a resolution table is to massage results to limit possible outcomes, or to replace modifiers.
(Eg values are summaries of ALL elements of the resolution.)
Umm, isn't that the point? We have values that can vary wildly on a chart of 2-12, and have a system of modifiers that can slightly improve or weaken these values, and then we have to find a way to map the resolutions of all these variables onto a simple D6? I could just be misunderstanding you though.
As I want a much wider spread of results by using stats directly.(1 to 100 if necessary to get the spread of results for an entire universe.)
Can you explain how this system would work? And how the D6 would function in such as system?
Also, as to a few posts ago, do you have any examples or ideas of how Influence/Command would function between Hq/Character and Normal units, Between normal units and other normal units, and how it would work between HQ/Characters and other HQ/Characters?
I just don't like the lack of variety that your chart provides on a D6
I think you worded this incorrectly. My chart gives much more leeway for a variety of stat values, because the chances of them are closer together. On a chart like mine, I CAN have 5 different values, because the outcomes are CLOSER together. That's the point. If you make the outcomes FURTHER apart, you can't have the variety.
I know there is a problem. As I was saying, the graph would look like a curve, however, not really a perfect curve, more of a bumpy curve due to the problems you highlighted.
I hope to diminish this problem by using some clever manipulation of the stats, to sort of SMOOTH out the bumpiness of the curve.
By manipulation of the stats, I mean modifiers. Here's some extracts of the stuff I've come up with:
Area terrain and smoke: +1 Stealth
Ruins or Barricades: +1 Stealth +1 Resilience
Fortification: +2 Stealth +2 Resilience
Nimble Fighter - A model with this special rule gains +1 Dexterity when being attacked in combat.
And They Shall Know No Fear - A model with this special rule gains +1 Fortitude when rolling for morale checks.
Furious Charge - A model with this special rule gains +1 Power when it Charges into combat.
Charge: In the Assault Phase, a unit may make a move directly towards a target within half their Mobility. A unit that does this gains +1 Dexterity until the end of the turn.
Stealthy Relocation: In the Movement Phase, a unit may make a move at half their Mobility. A unit that does this gains +1 Stealth until the end of the opponent's next turn.
Pistol: If a model has a weapon with this special rule, it gains +1 Mobility. In combat, the model may fire another shot at the its Dexterity. Also, all Pistol weapons have the Assault special rule.
Heavy: If a model has a weapon with this special rule, it suffers -1 Mobility and -1 Dexterity. Also, if the model moves in the Movement phase, it may only fire Snap Shots in the subsequent Shooting Phase.
Blind: If a weapon has this special rule, any hits it causes reduce the target's Marksmanship and Dexterity by 1 until the end of their next turn.
If I carry on at this pace with the manipulation, those bumps are going to be sanded away. MOREOVER, it might make people think more tactically on how they CAN snag that extra modifier to get their roll better.
Stealthy Relocation: In the Movement Phase, a unit may make a move at half their Mobility. A unit that does this gains +1 Stealth until the end of the opponent's next turn.
I like the idea of incorporating "orders" in this fashion, it seems like it'd be fun and tactical and easy to work with.
Pistol: If a model has a weapon with this special rule, it gains +1 Mobility. In combat, the model may fire another shot at the its Dexterity. Also, all Pistol weapons have the Assault special rule.
Heavy: If a model has a weapon with this special rule, it suffers -1 Mobility and -1 Dexterity. Also, if the model moves in the Movement phase, it may only fire Snap Shots in the subsequent Shooting Phase.
The idea of this would be really good in something like the Deathwatch RPG. In 40k, those heavy weapons need to be able to keep up with the rest of the squad, otherwise you're gonna have coherency rules preventing units from moving max distance. Beyond that problem, I think its just a little bit too micro for the scale 40k is going for.
I think you worded this incorrectly. My chart gives much more leeway for a variety of stat values, because the chances of them are closer together. On a chart like mine, I CAN have 5 different values, because the outcomes are CLOSER together. That's the point. If you make the outcomes FURTHER apart, you can't have the variety.
No i said it right. if we've got regular troops stats being between 2 and 6, lets examine WS.
.......2....3....4.....5....6
2....4+..5+..6+..6+..6+
3....3+..4+..5+..6+..6+
4....2+..3+..4+..5+..6+
5....2+..2+..3+..4+..5+
6....2+..2+..2+..3+..4+
With most units having stats between 3 and 5, with rare cases like Tau Firewarriors in Melee at WS 2, Orks in shooting at BS 2, etc, that's where the most variety is found, just like in your system. However, even in those less common cases, such as WS 4 vs WS 2, that difference in abilities increases, showing that yes, that WS 2 unit is worse than that WS 3 unit. When you move above that difference, such as WS 5 vs WS 2, it doesn't have any more room to decrease/increase so it levels out at a 2+/6+. The problem I have with your system where it levels out for a moment before decreasing again is that if my unit is significantly better at Melee than your unit, i want to see it. I want to feel like my unit is that much stronger, that they can show they are better against a unit, and cut them down easily, missing only rarely (2+) and being hit rarely (6+), not get stuck for that moment at a 3+/5+ situation.Having units that are much higher skilled than the target get stuck at 2+/6+ isn't as big a deal, since they still need a chance to miss and a chance to be hit. But if you stop them in the middle of the dice (3+/5+), it's frustrating, since im clearly higher than they are, and higher than one point below me, but why don't i have a better chance of hitting them? Yes, a greater range of values for units to use could solve this problem, but if several of those values are essentially ignored because they would cause this situation, it feels kind of pointless.
Now, like i said before, i'd love this sort of representation on a D12 or similarly large dice, where there's enough options to use the strengths of this system to their full effect, but that variety isn't available on a D6.
So are you arguing for that kind of chart? When you try to give variety to that chart everything gets unbalanced. I thought we were trying to address 2 points difference = 2+. If you give Marines a WS5, they're frickin hitting WS2 AND WS3 on a 2+. I am absolutely against that...I repeat you can't get variety with that chart without unbalancing everything
And I've seen that my chart is uneven, but I hope to even it out as much as possible with modifiers.
Does it unbalance things though? If you add in the modifiers for charging and things like that, Space Marines get no Bonuses, since they're already maxed out, and everything at WS3( Potentially WS 2 based on the modifier value) can only improve their odds, since their situation can't get worse. And I think that that situation makes sense, since your Guardsman is going to get chewed apart in Melee by a space marine, but they can use numbers to level the playing field. Sure 1 space Marine against 1 guardsman at WS3 is unbalanced but against 2? 3? 5? 10? 50? And to be frank, if a Guardsman is in Melee with a space marine, something has gone horribly wrong for the Guard Player.
And if you set it up so that a system like giving charges a +1 modifier to assaulting units to help this system out, i think it would work great for some units, but what if a unit is at the bottom half of the 5+ comparison between the two units.? That charge bonus wont be enough to pull them out of that 5+ area, so their advantage for taking the charge is no longer an advantage, which would feel pretty irritating.
No but the thing is they max out WAY too early. 2 Points difference and then the rest is futile? That IS unbalanced.
As for your particular anecdote, there's no way you can level it out when you're hitting on a 6+ and being hit on a 2+ AND the same for being wounded too...You'd need 36 guardsmen to put one wound on a space marine?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
but what if a unit is at the bottom half of the 5+ comparison between the two units.? That charge bonus wont be enough to pull them out of that 5+ area, so their advantage for taking the charge is no longer an advantage, which would feel pretty irritating.
If they are at the bottom half of the 5+ area then charging won't give them a bonus, thus the modifier has worked in smoothing the bump. It's hard to understand, but if your unit was 2 points different then you'd play them differently to a unit that was only one point different. So they have been made distinct. It wouldn't irritate the player; they are at a bigger disadvantage being 2 points lower. It certainly wouldn't irritate me, it would make me play them differently.
I agree its a problem that it takes that many, but to your point about creating a system that fixes things, why not make something like outnumbering your opponent by a certain amount (say for double, triple, 4X, 5X, etc) every model in that squad gets +1 to-hit (maybe to-wound as well?), to represent the sheer number of attacks falling on them. This way a Space Marine squad is going to chew through that small unit, but en-mass they would be more dangerous. I just want a unit that is much more skilled to play out as much more skilled.
Edit: this system could also make Multi-assaults absolutely DEVASTATING, which i always felt should've been stronger than it is, as well as
Trying to get people away from MSU style gameplay, which was a big problem in 5th edition.
2 Points difference and then the rest is futile? That IS unbalanced.
perhaps, but we're using a very restricted set of values. Values of 2 and 6 would be very rare, so 3, 4, and 5 would be the overwhelming majority of troops values, and those are all within 2 of each other. A value of 4, which would probably be the most common, would be within 2 of every value between 2 and 6
Second Edit:
If they are at the bottom half of the 5+ area then charging won't give them a bonus, thus the modifier has worked in smoothing the bump. It's hard to understand, but if your unit was 2 points different then you'd play them differently to a unit that was only one point different. So they have been made distinct. It wouldn't irritate the player; they are at a bigger disadvantage being 2 points lower. It certainly wouldn't irritate me, it would make me play them differently.
Ok, now i see what you mean, and thats a pretty elegant way of handling it, I just don't like telling someone "you will never have an advantage for charging" since thats a fairly big part of the game. That being said, lets roll with your chart, i want to see how this distinction influences things, as i see many units becoming much more aggressive while others become a bit more defensive.
perhaps, but we're using a very restricted set of values. Values of 2 and 6 would be very rare, so 3, 4, and 5 would be the overwhelming majority of troops values, and those are all within 2 of each other. A value of 4, which would probably be the most common, would be within 2 of every value between 2 and 6
You're back to square one with the variety issue....I dont want all the values to be in a space of 3 values. I've stretched it to 5 values, creating variety but not unbalancing it all.
Ok, now i see what you mean, and thats a pretty elegant way of handling it, I just don't like telling someone "you will never have an advantage for charging" since thats a fairly big part of the game. That being said, lets roll with your chart, i want to see how this distinction influences things, as i see many units becoming much more aggressive while others become a bit more defensive.
Extremely glad you're on board! Yes the distinction will influence different units. Its not that they never have an advantage at charging - that's only against 2 point differences, and even then you might get an extra bonus somewhere else!
I would write more but my dad's autocorrect is so terrible look: Blowing in the wind, sealed with kiss, the sound of silence歌2，在雨中，你的眼神 Williams Steven Gao 吃饭地方，花马天堂，云南餐厅
How do you feel about that idea of having each time your unit is a multiple of the target unit, they get a bonus modifier for their Melee stat? Maybe having the same idea for shooting, but the number of shots at range, instead of the number of enemy models?
Ex: a squad of 30 Hormagaunts charges a squad of 10 Space Marines. They get a +1 modifier to Melee for the charge bonus, then a +3 modifier for being a brood 3 times as large as the target squad.
Obviously still open for revision and changes, but i love the idea, since we could tune the Hormagaunt Statline to where they want this bonus to reach full potential, but as a small, scraggly unit, they arn't as much of a threat? For example, they are "supposed" to have a WS of 6, but they have a WS of 5 base, and rely on having that overwhelm bonus to hit what they are "supposed" to have, and getting the bonus for being three times as big makes them even more terrifying than they are "supposed" to be?
I just think this would be a great way to really drive home the horde mentality of a lot of armies such as Imperial Guard, Tyranids, Orks, Sisters of Battle (Sorta), and Chaos Daemons (Sorta), while simultaneously making more elite, small model count armies seem even more Elite than they are, and add a dynamic to the game of trying to whittle down enemy squads to a number where that overwhelm bonus isn't an issue, or get crushed.
This is a wonderful idea. Polishing it up further:
A model that is being attacked by three models suffers -1 Dexterity.
I just thought of an idea similar to Focus Fire but for combat. If you gang up on a model you have a higher chance off killing it, but wounds can only be allocated to the target.
Still rough but the sense of guerilla warfare is fresh to be captured.
My concern is that if we make combat too picky then it will slow down the game
A model that is being attacked by three models suffers -1 Dexterity.
i love the idea and logic of it, I just think this would get really hard to keep track of, plus its typically hard to get 3 models BTB when asking about medium to large sized units.
My concern is that if we make combat too picky then it will slow down the game
Agreed, which is why I like just adding a bonus to the whole squad, since its fast and easy to calculate whether or not you qualify. I would argue wounds only being able to be allocated to models you're in BTB with should be the rule, rather than a condition for gang-ups.
However, i definitely think these suggestions could be put in place for attacking independant characters, to make sure people really think about where these models are placed in regards to Melee, to avoid gang-ups and the associated penalties.
Edit: it is too late for me to be evaluating this stuff, disregard this entire post, i like your suggestions.
In a combat between two units, if one unit has more models than the other, that unit gains an amount of extra attacks with the Strike First special rule equal to the difference in models. The player with the larger squad assigns these attacks to models closest to the target first.
Strike First: An attack with this special rule is triggered before any other attacks. If there are multiple models with this special rule, they attack at the same time, but still before any other attacks. A model can only have a maximum of one attack that has the Strike First special rule.
Maybe, i like the idea of having "initiative" give you a number of attacks before your opponent, but it just seems too complex, and doesn't seem like it would mesh well. I think having special rules create initiative "tiers" somewhat similar to the current system is going to be the simplest method, and prevents us from having to totally rework units that depend on that speed like Genestealers and Keepers of Secrets.
Also means players don't have to roll off to see who goes first each Melee Phase, as they would with the attacks before the opponent system for any attacks over 1
I've been thinking of an EXTREMELY radical way to change laser weapons. Will need a LOT of smoothening.
- laser weapons (and beams) get the laser special rule
- they lose damage over distances; lasers bloom (dissipate)
- they do damage in a line, and they lose 1 power if they go through a model
quote wikipedia:
A laser beam or particle beam passing through air can be absorbed or scattered by rain, snow, dust, fog, smoke, or similar visual obstructions that a bullet would easily penetrate. This effect adds to blooming problems and makes the dissipation of energy into the atmosphere worse.
so:
- lasers lose power through smoke and fog
[Techniques to reduce blooming]: using a very short pulse that finishes before blooming interferes, or focusing multiple lasers of relatively low power on a single target.
- weapons with pulse special rule never lose damage to distance or fog and smoke
- multilazers, scatterlazers (?) wtf am I doing
meh
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit: Yah I don't really like Initiative at all anymore it's just way to hard to incorporate without making it extremely hard to balance
EDIT:
In a combat between two units, if one unit has more models than the other, a number of the closest models to the target in that unit gain the Strike First special rule equal to the difference in models.
Strike First: A model with this special rule has one of its attacks trigger before other attacks. If there are multiple models with this special rule, their one attack each trigger at the same time, but still before any other attacks.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So Genestealers would all have the Strike First special rule, meaning one of their attacks each strike first.
Well Genestealers could have the Strike First special rule, so each one gets just one of its attacks before, but not all.
Genestealers rely on having that many high initiative, high WS attacks to take out their opponent before they hit back, since theyre extremely fragile.
Having Lasers be affected like that would be interesting, lets see what can come of such a system. Im just worried that A) itd be way too involved, and B) it would reduce the strength of las cannons, which are the only long-range high damage anti-tank option for a lot of imperial armies.
Not to say that that's a bad thing (since i want the higher-armor vehicles (Particularly Land Raiders) to be much more durable than they are now)
Here are my thoughts on Command.
If we say unit leaders, and independent characters have Commannd Value expressed as a range of command, and a number of re rolls.
Eg
Unit leader -/1
Veteran leader -/2
Low level hero 12"/2
Army leader 24"/3
Special characters 24" to 36", 3 to 5.
Note Command re rolls can be specialized to focus on Assault dice, Ranged Dice , or Comms Dice.
This can be race specific or character specific.
EG these re rolls REPLACE the extra wound /attack the unit leaders get.
WHY restrict a heroes ability to just Close assault.
Commisar Yarrik is an 80 year old supreme tactician.WHY is he made to be a close combat monster.
I would put him as 24" / 4 Comms.(He gets to re roll reserves, air and arty requests , and ANY rally attempts for units within 24"
These simply allow the character to improve the armies performance by giving near by units the chance to re roll failures.
I can not help but think you guys are being heavily influenced by the over complicated development of current 40k.
You seem to be discussing special rules even before you get the game turn and basic resolution methods defined....
I would prefer to simply use Assault values and let the assaults run to conclusion like FoW, rather than add in extra rules for outnumbering etc.
IF you want to produce a HIGHLY DETAILED simulation of modern warfare , then fair enough..
(About 7 or 8 times the amount of game play and detail with a similar amount of pages of rules.)
But I thought we were going for minimal rules maximum game play.(Eg 4 times the tactics of current 40k with half the pages of rules.)
I love the idea of command being used for rerolls, as well as the idea of having them be applicable to Assault, Shooting, or Comms(Kinda feel like another name might suit this aspect better, but that may just be me). I like how you'd represent these aspects on the Statline, but i think 24" might be a bit extreme, nevermind 36". Think about how big a range a Blood Angles Sanguinary Priest's feel no pain bubble feels at only 6". Range(Unit) is probably enough for sergeants/Leaders, 6" for weak HQ/Characters, and 12" for stronger HQ/Characters. Maybe extreme special cases could go up to 18".
Adding a second method by which a Command "Point" could be used would be exciting as well, i don't know what other method could be possible, but I'd like to see that option. Maybe have stuff like disengaging from Melee, overwatch, going to ground, etc take a command point.
I would argue making a "normal" sergeant not get a command re-roll, and make that upgrade to a veteran Sergeant provide that Re-roll would be a greater incentive to take that upgrade, as well as let us price these upgrades more appropriately, as well as show that these Veteran's experience comes into play.
Would people be able to choose where that reroll is applied? Or at least for standard characters/Leaders/etc? I like the idea of giving that choice of when to use it in an activation to the player, plus it'd be easier to show on a Statline without the specialization on it, since you don't need those letters. Plus it would let us give Special Characters excessive amounts of command, but restrict it by giving them special rules that only let them use it in one area.
As to Commissar Yarrick, yes he is an ancient leader, but he also has a huge metal claw instead of an arm, and according to fluff, Imperial Science can keep regular humans alive and kicking for 300-400 years through injections and bionics, so i think applying normal logic to the situation is a lost cause.I do see your point though, and would like to see "Support" Type HQ's get more command to offset their less than stellar combat abilities, or even create a new class of "Command" type HQ/Characters in addition to the "Support" and "Powerful" types.
I would prefer to simply use Assault values and let the assaults run to conclusion like FoW, rather than add in extra rules for outnumbering etc.
I'm not familiar with FoW, can you explain what this means?
But I thought we were going for minimal rules maximum game play.(Eg 4 times the tactics of current 40k with half the pages of rules.)
I agree that simplifying rules and resolutions should be a goal, but i don't have a problem with simple rules that apply to as many typical situations as possible, especially if they help reinforce certain aspects of the game, such as hordes feeling hordish.
You seem to be discussing special rules even before you get the game turn and basic resolution methods defined....
yeah I agree that those should be the first things to worry about, but thinking about what systems will be built around the core is an important part of evaluation too, and if there's an idea, it'd be good to bring up and discuss it right away, rather than potentially forget it and lose a good idea.
I was talking to Rabid and I think it's a good idea to split the game into advanced and basic.
I think Command shouldn't be split. It should be used for COMMAND. Tactics. Strategy. Command shouldn't directly affect assault or ranged fighting, but the core of the fighting.
So for example, a master strategist like Prince Yriel could have a high command value of (10). Whereas a Farseer...isn't really a commander at all, just a squishy priest. So they only get a command of (6). Normal Sergeants would have one more Command than normal people (5). I think, if we gather all the HQs in the game, then make a hierarchy of command to show who is the real boss.
Command SHOULD affect reserve rolls. Command DEFINITELY should affect morale/pinned etc.
Not so sure about the reserves roll. I dont like the current system where a unit can or can't come in on a turn randomly. I'm not a tournament player by any stretch, but i don't like randomness, and i think getting tournament players approval by removing randomness would be a great boon. I think something like having a unit come in instead of activating your first unit in an "activation turn" would be better, since you have greater control over these elements, thus having command affect reserve rolls would be irrelevant, since that weak system would be gone.I do agree that Command should affect things like morale and pinning though, i would like to see using a command point to increase the squads Morale by 1 point for a turn be a way to use the system, rather than the flat use the highest leadership value system in place right now, though again i think we'd have to have leaders/characters not have a morale stat and instead have a Command stat.
I think Command shouldn't be split. It should be used for COMMAND. Tactics. Strategy. Command shouldn't directly affect assault or ranged fighting, but the core of the fighting.
i agree, see my idea for having command points affect things like disengaging from combat. However, i would like to see a system like using Scout Sergeant Telion or the Devastators Signum, where the commanding model forfeits their own attacks to instead guide and support a member of their squad, which is how I think having these re-rolls come into play would work. Its not an automatic bonus like mastercrafting, but instead a tactical choice where you sacrifice something to gain an advantage in another area.
And yes, I am something of a marine fan, having played Vanilla Marines, Blood Angels, and finally Grey Knights, which is why I use lots of space marine examples.
I was talking to Rabid and I think it's a good idea to split the game into advanced and basic.
Who is this Rabid and can you get him on this thread, because it sounds like he'd have some great ideas to contribute.
Ah ok, yeah that would be awesome but if he's busy don't bother him. Glad to hear that forfeit idea was so well received.
How do you feel about having reserves coming in be a choice instead of activating your first unit every "Activation Turn"? And replacing leader units morale with Command, and all it entails?
Also, i think we need to devote some time to how power weapons will function under this rule set. I know its not crucial, but every time i try to work through a situation or list, i hit that problem, so id like to get a preliminary idea out for it.
How do you feel about Terminator armor increasing Melee Damage by 1, increasing Defense by 2, reducing mobility by 2 or 3 inches, and decreasing stealth by 1, as compared to a Power Armor Space Marine? That would really drive home the big, slow, heavy, durable, hard hitting feel terminator armor is always described as having in the fluff, and since they're probably gonna end up in the rare category on the PRC, i think making them a bit more destructive and durable than they currently are would make them a much more comfortable choice in that PRC slot.
Edit:
I love the idea of a character sacrificing something in order to gain something Bryan…LOVE it.
Bryan?
To see what turn your reserves come on, roll a D3+1. If your warlord has a command value of 8 or higher, you may reroll.
as stated before, i want to make bringing in Reserves (Be it though deep strike, outflank, or walk on) a tactical decision in the hands of the player, rather than a random occurrence you hope for.
And the lasers thing - increase every lasers power by 1 but have them lose 1 Power if over half range. So lasers are buffed to be a bit like meltas. But they lose 2 power through smoke and fog. And lose 3 power when travelling through a model.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I don't know much about terminators but your changes, I am fully happy with. Loses 2 mobility tho. Power fists are heavy melee weapons, reduce dexterity and mobility by 1. But do tons of damage to compensate3. Also strikes last.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Yeah but you need to keep some randomness. My idea means you can plan ahead.
Also Bryan is my brother, more autocorrect retardery.
And the lasers thing - increase every lasers power by 1 but have them lose 1 Power if over half range. So lasers are buffed to be a bit like meltas. But they lose 2 power through smoke and fog. And lose 3 power when travelling through a model.
Really interesting idea, could make things like Lascannons ludicrously overpowered and FUN. I particularly like comparing them to meltas, thatd be a cool way of going about it.i think having them lose power if at over half range would be a bit annoying to deal with, but well see.
Unfortunately, the only weapons i know of that are laser weaponry are a few eldar heavy weapons (Maybe, icyfireknight is a much better expert on Eldar than i am), and imperial guardsman las weaponry, and god knows they don't need a nerf. Tau pulse rifles are actually refined plasma weapons if i remember right, so they wouldn't be affected by this.
Edit: lol ok, but why do we need randomness in reserves? All you're doing is taking something that could be a great tactical choice for the player and making it riskier to use without adding a corresponding reward. We could limit it through other means, such as making only a certain number of reserves could enter each game turn, or having units only be able to enter after game turn 1 has ended, that leave that tactical focus in the players control.
Second Edit:
I don't know much about terminators but your changes, I am fully happy with. Loses 2 mobility tho. Power fists are heavy melee weapons, reduce dexterity and mobility by 1. But do tons of damage to compensate3. Also strikes last.
i can work with the dexterity loss, but again, i don't think mobility drops should be a result of weapons, because then you have different units in a squad moving less than others which would be really hard to manage, or frustrating since it slows down the whole squad. Having both a dexterity modifier and last strike might be a bit too much of a nerf to powerfists, but well see what power weapons turn out as, as this distinction could be a deciding factor between the two.
I think you still need an element of uncertainty in reserves because anything could happen to them, and otherwise they'll be OP.
With deep strikes (Maybe outflanks), yes, but thats what scatter distance and mishaps are for. And currently there is no mishap system for normal walk on reserves other than the randomness, and its far from overpowered, so i don't think choosing when they come on would be overpowered. And shouldn't it be our duty as designers to create a system that limits the power of such systems while minimizing randomness, while simultaneously maximizing the control players can exert over their units?
Yeah so you need to move with the slow guy.
I really hate the idea of the whole squad slowing down to meet the speed of one model, because its A) just too big of a disincentive to really expect people to take, and B) slowing a unit down unnecessarily would just be frustratingly deal with.
Laser weapons, so las, fire prism, all lance weapons, maybe some tau stuff, maybe some necron stuff?
I think we need to explore this system more and playtest a bit to determine whether or not this idea will really turn out well, as well as get some exposure to and opinions of all of these weapons before determining whether they should be affected by such a rule.
Well to be honest it can be a bit OP , for example holding a 51 point squad of jetbikes until turn 5 then turboboosting to get that 4 point objective.....
Fine I agree, but one inch off by a heavy weapon is never going to affect coherency.
Simple solution, no turbo-boosting or other special movement ability on entry. That way vehicles can't flat-out on entry, Warp Spiders and Interceptors can't teleport on entry, bikes can't turbo-boost on entry, etc.
More complex topic, do we want standardized game turn limits? Maybe deciding how many turns before turn 1 begins? or stick to the current system?
Im also having some issue dealing with stealth and BS between units. For instance, a space marine at BS 5 with Stealth 4, and a guardsman at BS 3 and Stealth...what? At 3 it doesn't make any sense, at 4 it seems like it would be repetitive, and at 5 he'd be competing with units that are meant to be more stealth focused. So is 4 going to be the default infantry stealth score, sorta? With scout/stealthy/agile units being 5s and 6s? And very large cumbersome loud units being 3's? Maybe have Monsters at 2, and large tanks like land raiders, Leman Russ', and monoliths at 1? Maybe have smaller vehicles like rhinos and chimeras as well as the heavy skimmer tanks at 2s, and vehicles like land speeders and other light skimmers at 3s as well?
Of course dude, 90% of infantry get S4, then around that.
As for the reserves, if you make it so you can literally hold back your army however you want, prepare for some Having them come on at turn 2 to 4 with rerolls most of the time, that's ok.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I've done some tablehammer, for reserves ,
The chances of you getting the turn you want is 5/9. Not bad, but not reliable. The chances of you getting anything but turn 4 (if you don't want turn 4) is 8/9. Very low chance of disaster - your reserves have been intercepted.
As for the reserves, if you make it so you can literally hold back your army however you want, prepare for some Having them come on at turn 2 to 4 with rerolls most of the time, that's ok.
what?
The chances of you getting the turn you want is 5/9. Not bad, but not reliable. The chances of you getting anything but turn 4 (if you don't want turn 4) is 8/9. Very low chance of disaster - your reserves have been intercepted.
But what if i wanted this one squad to come in on turn 2, and they get delayed until turn 4? All the ways i could have used that unit are now gone, because the dice didn't favor me.
My point is, if you're going to weaken a system or choice (Be it through adding randomness, limitations, whatever) you need to make sure there is an appropriate reward alongside that weakness. For things like deep strike, this is very well represented, since your unit can mishap, potentially losing them all together, and they can scatter off of where you want them, however, as a reward for taking this risk, that unit doesn't have to handle being shot at while crossing the board, and can land right where you want them to be. Outflank is done similarly too, since there's a chance of your unit winding up on the opposite side of the board from where you want, but if they get the side you want, they don't have to cross the board and deal with being shot at.
Edit: ah ok now i see, the icon was small and distorted on my screen, i couldn't see what it was. And I don't think anyone's ever felt that having units come on the field in smaller numbers without the support of the entire army is cheesy.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Does the icon not work for you -_-
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ok,
I completely agree with you, I overlooked the compensation. I would like to keep that idea - can you think of any ways to compensate for the SLIGHT randomness?
It doesn't feel like slight randomness when the dice get in the way of your plan, but i know what you mean. And I have no idea on how to compensate for that randomness on walk-on reserves.
Id still like to come up with some early idea of what a power weapon is, so i can start playing around with that and feel it out. Id say something like add 2 strength/Damage to the wielder, but that makes it feel a bit more like a relic blade or powerfists than a power weapon, and has the unexpected side effect of possibly giving the wielder greater ability to wound a Monster, which also doesn't really feel right. Something like add D3 damage would make it feel too much like a chaos weapon, and be frustrating to deal with in large numbers, so im completely lost for ideas
It is slight randomness. It's just like seizing the initiative but 50% less likely! You have to take into account that anything could happen to those reserves. It's just wrong if you're able to keep whatever you want off the board and then walk them on with no penalty whenever you want.
It's hardly as much randomness as you say :/
As for power weapons if we use the weapon types idea, they'd get +1 Power and piercing/force???
Power weapons are obsolete. Replace them with something that actually fits our system.
It's just wrong if you're able to keep whatever you want off the board and then walk them on with no penalty whenever you want.
The penalty is inherent to the choice to keep them off the board. If they're not on the board, they're not attacking the enemy, they're not taking fire (thus keeping shots off of other targets), and they're not closing on the enemy, meaning that there are less turns in the game when they begin to close for Melee. The advantage you are getting is saving them from getting obliterated early, at the expense of them not benefiting your army until they enter, and having less game turns with which to have an effect..
Power weapons are obsolete. Replace them with something that actually fits our system.
I agree, the idea of them being auto-armor-penetrators is over, but i think the idea of an improved Close Combat Weapon is alive and kicking, we just need an idea of how to implement them.
As for power weapons if we use the weapon types idea, they'd get +1 Power and piercing/force???
What does Piercing/Force do? sounds like a cool idea from the name.
It's hardly as much randomness as you say :/
It does'nt have to be a large amount of randomness to mess your plan up, all it takes is 1 or 2 bad rolls, and your plan fall to pieces. You hear battlereports of people putting their monoliths into reserves to deep strike them, then they roll badly and get delayed until turn 5, when they're much less useful than they would have been otherwise, and thats a 200+ point model.
If we're going to have reserves and deep strike and outflank, they should be strategic / tactical choices the player can control, within reason of course. The alternative is that players cant depend on or plan around the random chance, and avoid the choices, especially if we're talking about 200+ point units, where you cant just have that big a chunk of your army not come into play, which is what we see in the game today.
Well my counter-argument is that if you let a bad roll ruin your ENTIRE plan then a) wasn't a very good plan and b) you shouldn't have taken a risk if your plan was so frail.
Piercing would probably affect normal physical armour, while Force does some sort of impact concussive treatment, but I don't know until we've finalised the armor/weapon type stuff.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Maybe everyone can have an armour type: metal, substitute for power armour, flak, wraithbone..
Alternatively there can be flesh, metal, wraithbone ???
Maybe everyone can have an armour type: metal, substitute for power armour, flak, wraithbone..
Alternatively there can be flesh, metal, wraithbone ???
Bad ideas, bad ideas everywhere..
Lol, yes WAAAY to micro, but cool idea. Not sure we'll be able to get anything from it.
And i'm all for the idea of random chance affecting gameplay, but i don't want it affecting core elements of the game, like charge distances, run distances, and reserves. Those should be elements the player can depend upon, and plan around accordingly, not hope they work in their favor when they need it, otherwise you're just limiting the tools they can depend on, and thus the tactics they are willing to use.
The player CAN depend on their reserves coming roughly when they want. 1/9 chance is very little. However, that TINY risk is MANDATORY to stop people from abusing their reserve powers. People should be punished if they depend too much on their reserves. Don't you agree?
No because there are so many better ways to restrict the power of reserves than saying that there's a chance they wont come in when you need / want them. Reserve entry limits per game turn, limits per activation turn, etc make sure the system is reliable and ensures tactical control remains with the player without being too powerful. I can guarantee there are other ideas floating about on the internet that would similarly restrict the system without randomizing it, regardless of how little random there is.
Reserves should be an add-on, not an auto-take. Otherwise people will just abuse it. Keeping half your army in reserve? Cheese stall (pun?). And chance is THE CORE ELEMENT. I softened the uncertainty here, but I object to it being removed completely. It's just as frustrating for the opponent if he's being manipulated simply because someone abused their straightforward, point and click reserves.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit: I don't want reserves coming on one at a time.
I think you're seriously overestimating the randomness of that idea. D3, rerolls? Comes on latest turn 4 (its exactly the same probability as current reserves, 1/9), and you shouldn't let your strategy be so reliant on a privilege rule.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On another point reserves shouldn't be 100% yep they can come on now ok good now you ok my strategy is coming together cheese.
Wanna emphasise on the reality part, 1/9 is FINE to give the extra risk-reward. (think reward, tactical superiority) And the fact that again, anything can happen to those reserves.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm sleeping soon, debate with you tomorrow .
Automatically Appended Next Post: Now that I know you are a Marines guy I'll figure out some stats for some models - terminators will automatically get the changes you proposed and terminator armour upgrades will modify the user's stats.
Could you post the statlines for space marine stuff?
people will just abuse it. Keeping half your army in reserve? Cheese stall (pun?)
If half your army is in reserves then that means that the opponent has 100% of their strength deployed against 50% of yours, until all the rest of your units come into play, which at 50% of your army, is probably going to take at least 2 game turns. That's 2 turns for them to annihilate your units since there are less targets for fire to be split between, and less models to be killed and hit back in Melee.
Reserves should be an add-on, not an auto-take.
This argument doesn't even really make sense to me, since the same could be said of running. "Why would you ever NOT run? you can move 150% of your mobility in one activation". "Yes, but you can't shoot and run in the same activation, and heavy weapons are weakened, if capable of firing at all." For every unit taken off the table, thats one less unit to shoot at the enemy, to move towards the enemy, to draw fire, and to make them think about what the biggest threat is, and what decisions they need to make. That is its own punishment for putting a unit in reserves, all by itself. Add on top of that systems like not being able to Run, Teleport, Turbo-Boost, Flat-Out, etc and suddenly you just lost not only a turn of moving and shooting, but now you have to wait another turn for them to advance closer to the frontlines.
The chances of you getting the turn you want is 5/9. Not bad, but not reliable. The chances of you getting anything but turn 4 (if you don't want turn 4) is 8/9. Very low chance of disaster
Wanna emphasise on the reality part, 1/9 is FINE to give the extra risk-reward. (think reward, tactical superiority) And the fact that again, anything can happen to those reserves.
It's actually only a 5/9 chance that i get them when i want them. And it doesn't help me if i wanted my unit a game turn ago, or next game turn if they're coming in now.
And let's not forget, the system i suggested isn't like the current one where you put reserves down, then go about the phases like they've always been there. They're coming in as part of your activation turn, in fact replacing the first unit activation you would get for that actication turn, potentially the only activation you get that activation turn. That means that the opponent is going to have a chance to retaliate against them immediately. It will help create this Meta-Game situation where you are trying to work your unit activations so that your unit can come in when its most advantageous to you, while your opponent is thinking about what you could be bringing out of reserves, and what units to save towards the end of the turn so that they can hit back before you can have too much of an effect.
And i honestly can't imagine what kind of cheese you think this situation could create. That i'm going to go hide out of LoS, waiting for my units to come in piecemeal on my board edge, while my enemy advances towards me without me shooting at them or advancing myself? Or that i'm going to sit still on my board edge, waiting for them to advance, until they're close enough that i can bring some melee units out of reserves that cant charge them or move quickly upon entry anyways, that would have been taking fire instead of the non-assault units had they been on the table? That those Deep Strike units are going to drop into the middle of my army, and get one shooting phase, and not be able to move or assault, then get cut down and assaulted by my units?
Edit: I don't want reserves coming on one at a time.
Are you suggesting that all reserved units come on all at once?
Now that I know you are a Marines guy I'll figure out some stats for some models - terminators will automatically get the changes you proposed and terminator armour upgrades will modify the user's stats.
Could you post the statlines for space marine stuff?
Much obliged, and currently i think a regular space marine is gonna be
WS == 5
BS == 5
Stealth == 4
Strength == 5
Wounds == 1
Defense == 5
Morale == whatever we work out for this system
Attacks == 1
Mobility == 6"
Terminators are gonna be (with Terminator Armor Bonus / Penalty already included) (+1 to WS and BS is due to veteran status)
WS == 6
BS == 6
Stealth == 3
Strength == 6
Wounds == 1
Defense == 7
Morale == Regular Space Marine Morale +1
Attacks == 2
Mobility == 4"
Scout Marines would be (show that they are in training, and much less tough and powerful without their Power Armor, and their role as scouts and stealth operatives)
WS == 4
BS == 4
Stealth == 5
Strength == 4
Wounds == 1
Defense == 4
Morale == Regular Space Marine Morale -1
Attacks == 1
Mobility == 8"
I've got more, but ill work up a more formalized spreadsheet to post. I cant post the exact stats since i really dont feel like getting in a tangle with GW's legal department, so ill post the what they should roughly be in the new system, before we start making and further changes to them.
You're trying to argue that reserves are stupid anyway because your units aren't on the board? There is a reason people use reserves. To benefit themselves. They wouldn't do it if they wanted their unit on the board doing stuff. All the punishment you said is null because people would only put their units in reserve if they wanted to net some advantage. Not drawing fire? Good. One less unit to shoot and move towards the enemy? Didn't want it to.
And you didn't say anything about the REALITY of it. For the third time, anything could happen to those reserves. It's not real that 100% of the time you direct your units on the table whenever you want. That's not realistic.
I want a third of the army able to be reserved, then they all come on the turn specified before the game. That way both sides can plan for 500 point reinforcement. I want that feel of reinforcements, not one by one..
It's getting a bit heated, I know there's flaws in my argument but I still want there to be SOME uncertainty and risk for those that are willing to use a strategic mechanic in their plan. One should plan proportionately to the chances. 1/9 chance that your reinforcements are delayed - not can you plan ahead to suit your strategy. And if you aren't willing to take the risk, or your strategy relies too much on it then don't put them in reserve. Think about the reality, again.
Also what do you say to making SM 7" movement? I heard in the fluff their armour helps them move.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Could you give me the current stats for the space marine stuff i listed a few comments ago? If we figure that out, we can build everything else off that.
Im not trying to say that reserving units is stupid, far from it, since keeping those units out of harms way is a great advantage. But choosing to do so has penalties already included in it that affect every other unit in your army. I've heard the idea of having reserves actually play out as reserves before like you've described, and while im not a fan, i think its a solid system, i just prefer something a little more involved.
And yes anything could happen to those reserves, but if they're just walking onto the field, i think having a chance of something go wrong just feels like busywork and unnecessary difficulty.
As for making Space Marines 7" move instead of 6", yes their armor is meant to help them push through brush and things, and makes them taller which lengthens their stride, but im not sure it merits an increase in mobility. I'd still rather reserve mobility increases of units that are inherently faster than normal, such as scout units like Pathfinders and Scout Marines, Hormagaunts and Genestealers, etc.
How would you feel about instead of going about demonstrating Power Weapons as armor piercers, they improve WS to show their level of craftsmanship? Perhaps on top of a slight strength/damage bonus. This could then be expanded to show the master worksmanship of relic blades and other "super" power weapons, as well as their additional strength/damage. This wouldn't replace master crafting though, which would still provide the reroll.
Edit: which space marine stuff? I can't find which ones you're talking about. Weapons, units, armor, vehicles?
It's far from "busywork and unnecessary difficulty". It's representing what might happen in a real life situation - loss of communication, ambushed by prince yriel, tyranid attack, ork waagh on the reinforcements' position...Presuming you want to reserve things, if you were to be allowed to do it for a tactical advantage and not have to take a risk, then it's unbalanced - people would always take the liberty of using reserves if it benefited them.
It's a good start, having special weapons improve your stats. Perhaps a slim sword gives the user +1 Dexterity but -1 Power for being lightweight. Contrastingly an axe would give +2 Power but -2 Dexterity. Maybe some psychic swords can interact with Safeguard rolls.
But to expand further I need help on the weapon types idea. I'm thinking of two types: Kinetic and Energy. Kinetic is anything physical - bullets, bombs, missiles, shurikens. Energy is everything else - melta, plasma, pulse, laser etc.
Should I move Dexterity to before Marksmanship? Or maybe before Power? Or is it good where it is.
What do you think bikes should do? Imo, for normal bikes: +6 Mobility, +1 Stealth, +1 Vitality. For Eldar jetbikes: +8 Mobility, +2 Stealth, +1 Vitality. This is because I don't think its realistic that bikes increase the riders toughness. I swapped it for another wound to simulate the bike blocking a hit or something.
Thinking about Fortitude, a morale test could be a Fortitude test with negative modifiers depending on how many comrades are being lost, or something like that. As for psychic powers, I'd say firstly the psyker takes a psychic test - a Fortitude test. -1 Fortitude for every psyker the opponent has on the field. If failed, psyker takes D3 S4 hits. If passed, and the psychic power was directed at an enemy unit, the unit may roll To Negate the psychic power. The target's controlling player compares its Fortitude with the attacking psyker's Fortitude. The target unit gains +1 Fortitude for every friendly psyker within 6".
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, since the damage resolution is now only 2 steps, I am worried that things will die to easily.
Do you think I should raise the Stealth by 1 for everything? Or lower everyones Marksmanship.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Another idea popping into my head while your away:
Do you think we should lower the armour values of vehicles but compensate with more Hull Points?
Rabid:
The plan I had been going with was to move everything to the 0-10 stat range. If we move into the 11+ category stats begin to lose some of their meaning. Suddenly terminator armor that would be a 5 by your system would be trivial compared to a trukk. Terminator armor is better than a trukk’s.
I had never though about that. Are you willing to not have any stats go above 10, even vehicle stats? To compensate, vehicles will get more Hull Points, and perhaps make it harder to explode.
It's a good start, having special weapons improve your stats. Perhaps a slim sword gives the user +1 Dexterity but -1 Power for being lightweight. Contrastingly an axe would give +2 Power but -2 Dexterity. Maybe some psychic swords can interact with Safeguard rolls.
Glad to hear you're on board. Good ideas on differentiating power axes and powers swords like that, with axes having high damage low dexterity. What do you mean a slim sword? Because id rather just have the typical "power sword" be +1 dexterity, +1 damage or something like that, since they're just better made versions of a normal weapon, with that nasty power field around it.
But to expand further I need help on the weapon types idea. I'm thinking of two types: Kinetic and Energy. Kinetic is anything physical - bullets, bombs, missiles, shurikens. Energy is everything else - melta, plasma, pulse, laser etc.
what did you have in mind for this distinction?
Should I move Dexterity to before Marksmanship? Or maybe before Power? Or is it good where it is.
What do you think bikes should do? Imo, for normal bikes: +6 Mobility, +1 Stealth, +1 Vitality. For Eldar jetbikes: +8 Mobility, +2 Stealth, +1 Vitality. This is because I don't think its realistic that bikes increase the riders toughness. I swapped it for another wound to simulate the bike blocking a hit or something.
I'd say put mobility at the end of the Statline, it just feels a bit odd having it near the front. beyond that, lets not worry about where things are on a Statline before worrying whats on it. And I don't think a bike would increase the riders "wounds", that would be hard to balance without massive point increases and raising toughness makes some sense, since there's a big chunk of metal between you and whoever is firing at you, its essentially pseudo-heavy-cover you carry on you. Beyond that, i like the increase in mobility you had for both examples, as well as the stealth increase.
I don't really think the current Psychic Power system needs to be changed, since it works in a believable and straightforward manner, but having nearby Psykers give squads a bonus for their "abhor the witch" would be cool, but dangerous since eldar would be EXTREMELY hard to affect. I would like to see this fortitude roll off idea in some sort of Psyker-Duel idea, where rather than attacking or casting powers, its a duel of the minds, and would let them cause wounds without a save allowed, maybe even instant death in rare cases, and their mastery level is their number of attacks in this system.
Also, since the damage resolution is now only 2 steps, I am worried that things will die to easily.
Do you think I should raise the Stealth by 1 for everything? Or lower everyones Marksmanship.
thats just going to come with the territory if you take out a resolution step. I'd say for now we let it be, but keep an eye on it to make sure they don't die off too quickly. If it feels like things are dying too often, we come back and rework things to fix it. Ideally, systems like the more reliable cover system, modifiers for various things, etc would help relieve some of this, but we'll see.
The plan I had been going with was to move everything to the 0-10 stat range. If we move into the 11+ category stats begin to lose some of their meaning. Suddenly terminator armor that would be a 5 by your system would be trivial compared to a trukk. Terminator armor is better than a trukk’s.
I had never though about that. Are you willing to not have any stats go above 10, even vehicle stats? To compensate, vehicles will get more Hull Points, and perhaps make it harder to explode.
its not a bad idea, but im afraid then almost any weapon would be able to wound those vehicles, especially since we made their stealth values so low. With a D6, space Maine Bolters could penetrate a land raider at armor 10, which would be annoying, and keeping track of a large number of hit points would be frustrating. Moving on, how do monsters fit into this? Suddenly they would need tons of wounds too. Not to mention that if we use a 1-10 scale, we can't have troop stats extend from 0 to 6, since we need those high values for characters, HQs, and high-strength weapons.
Edit: as to your space marine statlines, i would argue veteran units ( regular veterans, terminators, veteran sergeants, honor guard) should have 6 BS,since theyre going to be much more restricted than they currently are, and should have a BS increase to show their experience. This would also be the default BS for units like chaplains, techmarines, and librarians as well, while captains, chapter masters, and masters of the forge would have BS 7. This would give the strong shooters at BS 7 the ability to be hitting on 2s vs normal infantry at stealth 4, while the lower ones at BS 6 would only be able to hit that 2+ against units at lower than average stealth (3 or less) which feels right. This kinda gets back to my idea that i always felt that there needed to be values between 3 and 4, and 4 and 5 in standard 40K, which is what the values of 4 and 6 accomplish on this new scale.
Mhm, but we have to make sure that we price power swords correctly (20 points or so) if we're gonna have it like that - jeez that will help in combat a lot! Is there any way we can make each power weapon distinct instead of them just giving a different P/D modifier each time?
I have a lot on my mind for the distinction, but I can't express it to you since its so convoluted. I was wondering if I could get your unmodified ideas/opinion on it first.
What are you thinking for the Bolter vs. Land Raider thing? Unless we are still using the current vehicle damage system If you don't want more HP, then how are you going to assure that Terminator armour is indeed better than a Trukks?
Actually normal infantry is supposed to be in the 3-5 range. Rare cases go to 2 and 6.
If we make special stuff in the 6-8 range, with outliers at 5 and 9/10.
(I didn't even put veterans on there lol)
........................................M..Mk.S...P..R...D...A...V...F..C...Type
Scout...............................7...4...5...5...4...4...1...1...4...3...
Space Marine...................6...5...4...5...5...5...1...1...5...4...
Sergeant..........................6...5...4...5...5...5...2...1...6...5...
Veteran............................6...6...4...5...5...6...2...1...6...5...
Vet. Sergeant...................6...6...4...5...5...6...2...1...7...6
Techmarine......................5...5...3...5...7...4...2...1...5...4
Terminator.......................4...5...3...6...7...4...2...1...6...5...
Honour Guard...................6...5...4...5...6...5...2...1...7...6...
Chapter Champion...........6...5...4...5...6...6...3...1...8...7...
Chaplain...........................6...6...4...5...5...6...3...2...8...8...
Librarian...........................6...6...4...5...5...6...3...2...8...8...
Master of the Forge.........5...7...3...5...7...6...3...2...8...8...
Captain............................6...7...4...6...5...7...3...3...9...9...
Chapter Master................6...7...4...6...5...7...3...3...9...9...
Primarch..........................6...9...4...6...6...9...4...4..10.10..
I don't know what these Techmarine things are, I just see a bunch of machine arms on them and stat them appropriately (easier to hit, slower, beefier, another attack from the arm?).
EDIT: Vehicles going from 7-9, with rare cases at 10?
............................................................[Armour]
..........................................M..Mk.S...[Fr..Sd..Rr]..HP...Type
Dreadnought.......................5...5...3....8....8....7.....4....
Drop Pod............................0...5...1....8....8....8.....5....
Land Raider.......................5...5...1....10..10..10....7....
Land Speeder...................13...5...4....7....7....7.....4....
Predator.............................6...5...2....9....8....7.....5....
Rhino..................................6...5...2....8....8....7....5....
Ahahaha this came out better than I expected - so how does it look? Mandatory 1 HQ 2 Core, then each 2 Core unlocks 1 Support, and each 2 Support unlocks 2 Elite. This means that you need a decent army of 1 HQ, 4 Core and 2 Support before you're even able to get Elite!
Mhm, but we have to make sure that we price power swords correctly (20 points or so) if we're gonna have it like that - jeez that will help in combat a lot! Is there any way we can make each power weapon distinct instead of them just giving a different P/D modifier each time?
idk, at 15 points per model on a Space Marine they feel about right, its the price of a normal model. As for further differentiations, without excessive special rules this is probably all we can provide for them. It has lots of room for differentiation though, so lets see. Plus, that +1 to WS will be valuable, but only up to a point. Btw are we using the universal resolution chart for damage vs defense? Or a slightly modified comparison chart, because the main chart just doesn't feel right for that situation.
What are you thinking for the Bolter vs. Land Raider thing? Unless we are still using the current vehicle damage system If you don't want more HP, then how are you going to assure that Terminator armour is indeed better than a Trukks?
i agree the current system has its flaws, but i like them being able to ignore small arms fire, and be able to have things like weapon destroyed, wrecked, exploded, etc. we can work on finding another way to implement these ideas though, i just dont like the massive Hitpoints direction, itd just be hard to keep track of. As for making a terminator harder than a trukk, i have no idea. It might just have to be a casualty of the system, but im open to suggestions.
I don't know what these Techmarine things are, I just see a bunch of machine arms on them and stat them appropriately (easier to hit, slower, beefier, another attack from the arm?).
yeah that's the idea, for the most part. Each arm is essentially another arm wielding a thunderhammer, with upgraded version having extra arms, and some special guns on two of them. They have 2+ armor, and can repair vehicles. That's a tech marine in a nutshell.
I have a lot on my mind for the distinction, but I can't express it to you since its so convoluted. I was wondering if I could get your unmodified ideas/opinion on it first.
id think something like your laser weapon idea expanded to all energy weapons, with kinetic weapons firing like normal would be a good direction. Go ahead and say your ideas, no matter how convoluted, we can't polish them if theyre not said.
Edit: I.LOVE.THAT.CHART.
The idea of points limit mandatory increases is good, i like it
Btw are we using the universal resolution chart for damage vs defense?
It's universal for a reason
As for high HP, it's not THAT hard to keep track of...At maximum 7 HP of a Land Raider, you can fit it into one die, it's no different to now really....
id think something like your laser weapon idea expanded to all energy weapons
I think this would be good on melta weapons, but not plasma. Imperial plasma weapons fire a ball of plasma surrounded by a magnetic field to stop it from dispersing, so it's not the same sort of thing.
As for high HP, it's not THAT hard to keep track of...At maximum 7 HP of a Land Raider, you can fit it into one die, it's no different to now really...
yeah but with a D6, a Bolter at Damage 5, will be taking a Hitpoint on anything armor 9 or less on a roll of 6, which means vehicles are going to be made out of tissue paper, even more so since their stealth values will be so low. And Im not sure i like the universal chart applied to damage vs defense, but ill playtest some and see.
id think something like your laser weapon idea expanded to all energy weapons
I think this would be good on melta weapons, but not plasma. Imperial plasma weapons fire a ball of plasma surrounded by a magnetic field to stop it from dispersing, so it's not the same sort of thing.
I agree that it should apply to Melta, but this was just the first idea that sprang to mind, id like to know your ideas so we can hammer this out into something worthwhile.
Damage 4? I think it'd be kinda insane for them to be weaker than a space marine punching something.
Edit: nvm retread the chart. Why not just have space marines at strength 5? That would let us open up a stat for things between space marines and guardsman in strength, things like orks, tyranid gaunts, etc, while not actually altering the rolls for anything, as well as firming up the space marine at 5 for every stat.
which means vehicles are going to be made out of tissue paper, even more so since their stealth values will be so low
Ok - so:
AV10 = AV14
AV9 = AV13/12
AV8 = AV11
AV7 = AV10
Bolters will only ever damage vehicles on a 6+, and even then they'll have 4/5 HP.
Shall we say Melta weapons are P8 but gain 1 Power if within half range? 40k Wiki says: "Melta Weapons have a short range but are very powerful and their thermal blast's intensity increases as the distance to the target decreases." Apparently they are plasma weapons, but I don't want them to function like it.
Rav1rn wrote: Damage 4? I think it'd be kinda insane for them to be weaker than a space marine punching something.
Edit: nvm retread the chart. Why not just have space marines at strength 5? That would let us open up a stat for things between space marines and guardsman in strength, things like orks, tyranid gaunts, etc, while not actually altering the rolls for anything, as well as firming up the space marine at 5 for every stat.
What crack are you on Space Marines are P5
........................................M..Mk.S...P..R...D...A...V...F..C...Type
Space Marine...................6...5...4...5...5...5...1...1...5...4...
Ork Boy............................6...2...4...5...4...4...1...1...3...4...
Hormagaunt......................7...3...4...4...3...4...2...1...3...4...
Imperial Guardsman..........6...4...4...3...3...4...1...1...4...4...
Automatically Appended Next Post: If you're really into the 5s, 5s everywhere, then we can do that, but then we have to raise command and stealth to average 5, then bearing in mind they'll be M5 which doesn't reflect their power armour.
Bolters will only ever damage vehicles on a 6+, and even then they'll have 4/5 HP.
Yeah, until they have 20+ of them being shot at them. 1 Grey Knight Strike Squad could wipe out almost any non-heavy vehicles, especially with lower stealth values, even before you bring the amazing psycannons into play.
If you're really into the 5s, 5s everywhere, then we can do that, but then we have to raise command and stealth to average 5, then bearing in mind they'll be M5 which doesn't reflect their power armour.
Why? If we leave the average stealth at 4, then space marines will be hitting most units on 3's which fits what the current system plays as, while BS 4 will be hitting stealth 4 on a 4, which also reflects the current system. Also, i don't mean mobility 5, i still would rather avoid differences of 1, so leave their mobility at 6 I still say we leave command as a stat to leaders/HQ's/Characters and use the system and notation that Lanrak brought up a while ago.
Shall we say Melta weapons are P8 but gain 1 Power if within half range?
Feels a bit weak for Melta. I'd Prefer something more along the lines of them being Damage 8 or so, and receive an extra D3 Damage at half range. Far from a finalized concept, but a starting point.
Second Edit: Jeez i am stuck in the old system. Ok, since the shooter is no longer rolling for penetration, something like damage 8, they gain +2 damage for being at half range would be ok, but if prefer something a little more unique for them. What do you have in mind for plasma weapons and all that good stuff?
Also, just for the sake of keeping everything straight and easy to read, can we keep to WS, BS, Strength, Defense, Stealth, Wounds, Morale, Command, Damage, and Attacks, and avoid using other terms? Having to juggle these different values is starting to get out of hand. We can always deal with the new terms towards the end, but for the sake of record keeping, can we stick to these?
Im attaching a spreadsheet of what i think most of the troop units would look like using the new values. Of course still open to reworking, and i made some changes that i felt would make much more sense, such as shuriken catapults having 2 shots instead of 1, since they are described as firing 100's of rounds per pull of the trigger. I even tried adding in some of Lanrak's range modification due to unit BS idea on some of them, but lets see how that works out.
Edit: Whoops left out mobility as a stat. I'll come back to that later though, this should just give a rough idea of general combat strength.
Shuriken catapults do have 2 shots. Seriously what crack are you on? xDDDD
Minimal experience against Eldar over here, and i lack the codex, so doing my best. Whenever i say something blatantly wrong, assume its due to my lack of codex/experience, so im trying to make up throguh forums, guides, tacticas, etc.
I want command on everyone. If some profiles have another stat but some don't that'll look reaaaaaaaaaaally weird.
I agree, but that doesnt mean we cant have (---) for their Command value.
Sweet jesus I don't even have excel on this computer. Soz, can you put it in a pdf?
Sadly not, but google should be able to open this problem free, give that shot.
But like I said, since things will die much quicker now, having Stealth as 5 is a balance. Also you want a SM statline to be all 5s, so......?
Things should die faster in this system, but vehicles shouldnt worry about your average space marine killing them, unless they have lowest armor possible or are being shot at in the rear. And to take your misunderstanding of what i mean even further, lets give them 5 wounds and 5 attacks each? obviously assume i dont mean crazy amounts of 5's, but they should be dominated by those 5's. And yes having stealth 5 as average would make it harder to hit things, but then we run into the fun of most non MEQ units only being able to hit on 5's, which would feel AWFUL, and i fear would push more people into the Marine Armies, which i definitely dont want to happen, since they already dominate the game in terms of players. Instead, people will take advantage of cover more, especially since its now advantageous to every unit, people will think more about positioning and cover to maximize survivability. Trying to recapture the old level of survivability while leaving out a resolution is just going to cause too many problems,so instead think about how the new systems can synergize and improve each other.
20 bolters, or 20 bolter rounds? because if it's 20 bolter rounds, that's only ~3 wounds.
neither situation is good, i don't want 2 of my Strike Squads to total a vehicle in one turn, even disregarding my psycannons, which let me tell you, can lay down the hurt. If you take away that protection from small arms fire, heavy weapons become obsolete, since all the points youd put into weapons that can take out vehicles (as well as wreck infantry), can instead be put into larger amounts of base models, since they can take down vehicles as is, just not quite as well.
As for weapon types, I've decided there can't be just 2 or 3 or 4 weapon types for everything.
Because when some weapons are "energy", kinetic IS a form of energy, so it doesn't really work..
So maybe:
Projectile/Kinetic/Ballistic
Explosive
Force/Impact
Laser
Plasma
Electric
Toxic/Chemical/Poisoned
Kinetic, Laser, Plasma, Explosive should be good for nearly everything (sorry Necrons), but i want to avoid getting too involved in the individual weapon stats, as its gonna slow down things to a degree. Unless there's some really amazing, out there difference between these groups, id say simple is better. For example, that laser idea is definitely worth exploring, and Poisoned has a unique mechanic we need to work into things.
Edit: yeah seen some of those in action. They actually tried something almost exactly like a boltgun a few decades ago, it was called the gyrojet. Had interesting properties, but they ran into some problems with ammo production quality if i remember, that basically doomed the project.
Nah I can't get excel without having to fill in credit card details :s
That'll be terrible :O --- all over the place! Normal models deserve command, it's like a rank.
Just put yourself back into reality. If you've got little experience with guns, how hard is it to hit a target dozens and dozens of metres away? Definitely not half the time...
i don't want 2 of my Strike Squads to total a vehicle in one turn, even disregarding my psycannons, which let me tell you, can lay down the hurt
Strike squads are squads of 5 no? with storm bolters I'm guessing? Ok, so 20 bolter rounds goes to ~3 HP. And what do psycannons do? I assume they're meant for AT. 10 Grey Knights with all the add-ons and stuff I'd imagine to be at LEAST 200 points....that's about right if you want to down a 150 point vehicle in one turn.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unless there's some really amazing, out there difference between these groups, id say simple is better. For example, that laser idea is definitely worth exploring, and Poisoned has a unique mechanic we need to work into things.
I completely agree, some weapon types should be unique - laser weapons are already 2/3 figured out.
I don't think there should be a few types that EVERY weapon falls into. Every weapon will fall into a type, whether it be Chemical, Gauss, Electric, Sonic etc...
I'd say Laser is not a weapon type, just a weapon special rule. Thermal covers laser and plasma.
Just put yourself back into reality. If you've got little experience with guns, how hard is it to hit a target dozens and dozens of metres away? Definitely not half the time...
We're talking about a game dominated by 8 foot tall warrior monks that are often hundreds of years old wielding guns as heavy as a man that fire exploding missiles, and covered in half a cars worth of hypothetical materials, and have over a dozen bionic / genetic upgrades that were originally derived from an immortal superhuman who was born through the sacrifice of hundreds of psychic shamans before human civilization was born. i think we're WAAAAAAAAYYYY past the point where saying "Think about it realistically" is in play. We should be focused on what makes the system fun to play, not realistic, and having the vast majority units hit 33% of the time is not it.
Strike squads are squads of 5 no? with storm bolters I'm guessing? Ok, so 20 bolter rounds goes to ~3 HP. And what do psycannons do? I assume they're meant for AT. 10 Grey Knights with all the add-ons and stuff I'd imagine to be at LEAST 200 points....that's about right if you want to down a 150 point vehicle in one turn.
Max strike squads are of 10, typically with 2 psycannons on them. Thats 18 storm bolter shots, with 8 Psycannon shots each . Psycannons are 4 shot, str 7, rending guns, with some weird rules im not going into. Yes those 2 squads would cost you about 440 points or so, but i can do this turn after turn after turn. Typical infantry should not be able to affect vehicles except in the rarest of cases, otherwise why would vehicles even be a thing? Im all for reducing the quantity of vehicles in the game, but this would just be frustrating to play.
I don't think there should be a few types that EVERY weapon falls into
I agree, but rather than it being a trait of the weapon, when there needs to be a difference, just make it a special rule attached to it, like Poisoned, Rending, Melta, Overheat, Lance, and the upcoming Laser.
Edit: Ok got the spreadsheet into PDF, and UGH did it mess up all the formatting
I dont know, but reducing hit chances isnt it. For one, the game could probably do with a little more model loss, not a ton, but some. Second, by making things like cover easier to get and use (since its no longer a flat save that may or may not be useful, it can now affect not only a units Defense, but the Shooters BS, players will learn to use cover more. If we add in some modifiers for shooting, whatever those will turn out to be, that will have an effect as well. We dont need to reduce the open field shooting capability, we need to make it so that players think about the field more. Second, the unit-by-unit activation system will make it seem like theres less things dying, even if more overall are, since theyre broken up and not all at once like in the current system.
Second, how do you feel about the Psyker duel idea i brought up a while ago? im really excited about what could be done with it.
- Dire Avengers shouldn't be stronger! We're Eldar guddammit.
- Agree with Guardian down to WS/BS 4
- Instead of Scout +1St, I would keep them at St4 but their cloaks amplify cover saves instead
- Space Marine with D5 but Avenger with D2? pls - Why do Genestealers have better Stealth?
- Too many 2s everywhere imho.
- Ork Boy shouldn't have better WS than a Guardian. They should be D3 too.
- Object to Defense stat - I just said D3.
- Agree with Necron Warrior WS4.
- Necron should be D5. Easily.
- Tau should be BS3, read mahtamori's comments
- What's up with the Boltgun 24" and Boltgun 18"?
- Why are Boltguns better than shuriken catapults -.-
- I would make Storm Bolters 18" - the avenger shuriken catapult of the spacederps!
- Gauss too strong
- Formatting too good....
- What would you say Lasguns get 18" P4 A2 Laser (lose 1P if over half range)
Automatically Appended Next Post: Can you say your psyker duel idea again? Can't find it
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit: Ok don't worry.
This is what I am thinking:
In the Secondary Phase a Psyker may challenge an enemy Psyker within 12 x Psyker's Mastery Level to a Psychic Duel. This is similar to combat - the Attacks is the Psyker's current Warp Charge, and the Dexterity is the Psyker's Fortitude.
I would probably force choke you if we went that route, kiting at 24", then charging when they get frustrated is one of the core facets of the Grey Knights.
- Gauss too strong
Gauss is said to disintegrate and violently pull stuff at the molecular level. I think they warrant a bit of extra strength. Plus, this helps some if we decide to make rending not a random roll.
- What's up with the Boltgun 24" and Boltgun 18"?
Scout trainee vs initiated Space Marine, as per Lanrak's ideas.
- Why are Boltguns better than shuriken catapults -.-
Because you get more shots. I wouldn't mind them being Damage 5, but that could be a bit extreme at 2 shots on some not-expensive models.
- What would you say Lasguns get 18" P4 A2 Laser (lose 1P if over half range)
The problem with dropping lasgun range is that since guardsman units will not want to move and are slowish, enemy units could just sit outside their range and shoot them all day long. To do this and solve this, youd have to give officers some sort of "AIM" command to get that extra bit of range, which would always be necessary, and render all other orders obsolete. I do love the idea of the lasgun being damage 4, then damage 3 past half range.
- Dire Avengers shouldn't be stronger! We're Eldar guddammit
no experience with dire avengers here buddy, im taking wild shots in the dark with what little data i have.
Why do Genestealers have better Stealth?
Because they are infiltrating, scout units that just happen to hit like a runaway ice cream van in close combat. Admittedly, stealth 7 may be a bit extreme, but they should be higher than average, maybe higher than even "Stealth average".
- Ork Boy shouldn't have better WS than a Guardian.
Debatable. From what i understand, a Guardian is more or less just a civilian Eldar pressed into military service, and not an active member of the path of war, where as war and bashing people on the head is not only the only thing orks live for, its what their society is based off of. Plus they need something to offset their ABYSMAL BS.
- Instead of Scout +1St, I would keep them at St4 but their cloaks amplify cover saves instead
Again, they're a scouting, infiltrating unit, which means they use stealth. Playtesting will decide it, but im going with this route right now.
- Tau should be BS3, read mahtamori's comments
They should be lower than a space marine, however they use technology to supplant this. Not to mention they are better equipped and trained than a guardsman, so they should get a reward for this So raw theyre better than a guardsman, with the markerlight buffs theyre at MEQ levels.
As to all the talks about Defense, the way im converting is
T4/3+ == 5
T4/4+ OR T3/3+ == 4
T3/4+ == 3
T3/5+ OR T4/6+ == 2
T3/6+ == 1
In the Secondary Phase a Psyker may challenge an enemy Psyker within 12 x Psyker's Mastery Level to a Psychic Duel. This is similar to combat - the Attacks is the Psyker's current Warp Charge, and the Dexterity is the Psyker's Fortitude.
Very solid ideas, thank you. I'd rather just have the pschic duel area be a fixed 12" area or so, because otherwise your'e gonna have high mastery level models sniping other, weaker psykers without them being able to hit back.
Gauss is said to disintegrate and violently pull stuff at the molecular level. I think they warrant a bit of extra strength
We should be focused on what makes the system fun to play, not realistic
It's ok, I was mainly looking at the Gauss BLASTER which was S7. S6 is k.
Scout trainee vs initiated Space Marine, as per Lanrak's ideas
Maximum range of weapon is not affected by BS. Potential to hit at range IS affected by BS.
Because you get more shots. I wouldn't mind them being Damage 5, but that could be a bit extreme at 2 shots on some not-expensive models.
They're fine as they are now, just convert them - same stats as a bolter just without the 24" single shot capability. BTW S4 guns should stay at S4 right now, S5 is for scatter lasers, heavy bolters etc.
The problem with dropping lasgun range is that since guardsman units will not want to move and are slowish, enemy units could just sit outside their range and shoot them all day long
Lasguns are negligible when fired at 24", but decent at 12". That's why I settle at mediocre at 18", strong at 9".
Hahah yeah, all you need to know about Eldar is that they're T3 except hipster Eldrad.
Because they are infiltrating, scout units that just happen to hit like a runaway ice cream van in close combat. Admittedly, stealth 7 may be a bit extreme, but they should be higher than average, maybe higher than even "Stealth average".
*Bolden words "in close combat". They are just as easy to hit from range, but in combat their WS means they are agile killers.
a Guardian is more or less just a civilian Eldar pressed into military service, and not an active member of the path of war, where as war and bashing people on the head is not only the only thing orks live for, its what their society is based off of
You're right that Guardians are just plumbers sent to battle but they've still got the inhuman reaction's of the Eldar race. Orks, even if they live for it, are just plonkers.
Again, they're a scouting, infiltrating unit, which means they use stealth. Playtesting will decide it, but im going with this route right now.
Doesn't make them harder to hit in open air. When they use cover, yes they may amplify it.
Your defense conversions are solid, but remember to keep the balance at all times.
It's ok, I was mainly looking at the Gauss BLASTER which was S7. S6 is k.
Immortals wield higher power versions of the gauss flayer, thats just what it is.
Maximum range of weapon is not affected by BS. Potential to hit at range IS affected by BS.
Look back at Lanrak's ideas to see what i mean, but im beggining to think max range should never be decreased except for extreme cases like Imperial Guard Whiteshields, but veteran units could wield them at slightly better range. Not saying 100% lets do that, but its an interesting option.
They're fine as they are now, just convert them - same stats as a bolter just without the 24" single shot capability. BTW S4 guns should stay at S4 right now, S5 is for scatter lasers, heavy bolters etc
ummmmm.......? Strength 5 in the new system would be a value of 7, so idk what you mean.
lasguns are negligible when fired at 24", but decent at 12". That's why I settle at mediocre at 18", strong at 9".
that still doesnt address the issue that people will just sit outside their range and poke them to death, since if they leave cover they cant fire, and they're dead out of cover.
*Bolden words "in close combat". They are just as easy to hit from range, but in combat their WS means they are agile killers.
Yes but if we cant have units that are scouts and infiltrating have higher stealth, who does get stealth increases? thered be maybe 2 or 3 units that would benefit, negating the putpose of having a stealth stat.
(Regarding Scouts)Doesn't make them harder to hit in open air. When they use cover, yes they may amplify it
See my above arguement, but its not open air, its a battlefield, even if to us it looks like a flat plane. There's wreckage, outcroppings, dust, shadow, hills, valleys, and all sorts of terrain for them to take advantage of that does not have a terrain representative. Plus they're going to do their best to sneak about the place rather than just stomp through it like a Space Marine, so lets show that.
You're right that Guardians are just plumbers sent to battle but they've still got the inhuman reaction's of the Eldar race. Orks, even if they live for it, are just plonkers.
Agreed, which is why Eldar should have "Swift Strike" special rule, while orks have "Sluggish Strike". You're going to hit first, but they are better at hitting, its what they love to do.
Strength 5 in the new system would be a value of 7, so idk what you mean.
No, idk what YOU mean Average infantry value is 4. Average gun is 4. Bolter are shuriken are S4. Las is S3 (most of the time). Pulse and Gauss would be good at 5.
its a battlefield, even if to us it looks like a flat plane. There's wreckage, outcroppings, dust, shadow, hills, valleys, and all sorts of terrain for them to take advantage of that does not have a terrain representative. Plus they're going to do their best to sneak about the place rather than just stomp through it like a Space Marine, so lets show that.
seconded
Agreed, which is why Eldar should have "Swift Strike" special rule, while orks have "Sluggish Strike". You're going to hit first, but they are better at hitting, its what they love to do.
I've removed those. Since everything strikes at the same time, but some things gain Strike First, I reworked them.
Charging is now +1D only when attacking in combat.
Orks now ALL have Furious Charge (+1P on the charge).
Eldar now ALL have Nimble Fighter (+1D only when being attacked in combat).
I look at Orks and I think that, wow they're beefy but not exactly agile! Orks now strike at a ferocious D5 S6 on the charge, but only one attack. Whereas Eldar are pretty hard to hit in combat due to their superhuman sixth sense (+1 for alliteration).
Automatically Appended Next Post: What's your opinion on splitting WS? I've encountered 5+ situations where dexterity of combat is not the same as hitting in combat.
If we split it then the stuff I've stated above can instead be something like this:
Charging is now +1D only when attacking in combat.
Orks now ALL have Furious Charge (+1P on the charge).
Eldar now ALL have Nimble Fighter (+1D only when being attacked in combat).
I look at Orks and I think that, wow they're beefy but not exactly agile! Orks now strike at a ferocious D5 S6 on the charge, but only one attack. Whereas Eldar are pretty hard to hit in combat due to their superhuman sixth sense (+1 for alliteration).
while i agree with the logic, there needs to be a way to demonstrate faster units and slower units. Necrons may have above guardsman level combat skills, but they are sloooooow. Tau firewarriors may have trash combat skills, but they arnt slow-witted or anything. The idea of giving special rules for attacking or being attacked is exciting and full of potential, but it just feels more confusing than saying this unit is faster than that unit, period. And I can almost guarantee ork players would be up in arms over them not getting two attacks in favor of one slightly stronger attack. And no way would an ork ever hit harder than a space marine. For one, just no, secondly, that ork would be hitting just as hard as a space marine with a power sword under our current system, which is insane, and just as hard as a terminator, which is even more insane.
No, idk what YOU mean Average infantry value is 4. Average gun is 4. Bolter are shuriken are S4. Las is S3 (most of the time). Pulse and Gauss would be good at 5.
are we talking about original 40k or the new system? Because id like to have an area between Bolters and Lasguns for things like tyranid flesh borers, ork gunz, hell guns, etc. i put them in that category because it felt like it fit, but i don't have a problem with them being damage 5 alongside Bolters.
Any ideas for poisoned? I'm all blank.
best idea i have is for any values equal to or less than the poison value, you reroll that die. So a poison 1 weapon would reroll all 1s, poison 2 would reroll 1s and 2s, etc etc etc
What's your opinion on splitting WS? I've encountered 5+ situations where dexterity of combat is not the same as hitting in combat.
my opinion is against this, but i want to explore it, as it could be just as interesting as stealth and BS, so lets find out ASAP.
Hi Folks.
Glad to see you are focusing on core rules and resolution methods and not getting bogged down in special rules and how you want units to work before the core game play is finalized.....
The maximum range of a ranged weapons IS determined by the skill of the user.
Games can display this as maximum effective range , and give the chance to hit at this range .(Current 40k.)
OR they can state the EFFECTIVE RANGE FOR THAT USER, eg better shots hit target further away UP TO the maximum effective range of the weapon.
As respect to scaling weapon and armour interaction .
Have you finalized the suppression mechanic ?As this removes the focus on HAVING to cause physical damage to targeted units.
And would you be better served by defining the overlapping zones of interaction , before scaling the effects?
A plasma round would glow very brightly due to blackbody radiation, leading to quick substantial energy loss. This might also represent a blinding hazard for the operator and bystanders. From basic physics, a 1 cm ball of plasma at 10,000 Kelvin (K) would be equal to a 180 kilowatt (kW) bulb.
Perhaps incorporate a blinding effect.
Many materials already exist that are highly resistant to plasma, reinforced carbon-carbon used on the Space Shuttle's nose cone for example; or the ceramic inserts used in bulletproof vests.
Ceramic plating (2 or 3pts/model?), gives them +2R when being hit by a Plasma weapon.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Wow lanrak 1 second!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
while i agree with the logic, there needs to be a way to demonstrate faster units and slower units. Necrons may have above guardsman level combat skills, but they are sloooooow. Tau firewarriors may have trash combat skills, but they arnt slow-witted or anything. The idea of giving special rules for attacking or being attacked is exciting and full of potential, but it just feels more confusing than saying this unit is faster than that unit, period. And I can almost guarantee ork players would be up in arms over them not getting two attacks in favor of one slightly stronger attack. And no way would an ork ever hit harder than a space marine. For one, just no, secondly, that ork would be hitting just as hard as a space marine with a power sword under our current system, which is insane, and just as hard as a terminator, which is even more insane.
Actually Ork players will still get 2 attacks, one being an attack from the slugga. Orks are strong right? They're buff as hell...
I wouldn't mind it at all if they were P4 R4 D4 with furious charge and 2 attacks + 1 pistol.
A plasma round would glow very brightly due to blackbody radiation, leading to quick substantial energy loss. This might also represent a blinding hazard for the operator and bystanders. From basic physics, a 1 cm ball of plasma at 10,000 Kelvin (K) would be equal to a 180 kilowatt (kW) bulb.
Perhaps incorporate a blinding effect.
Many materials already exist that are highly resistant to plasma, reinforced carbon-carbon used on the Space Shuttle's nose cone for example; or the ceramic inserts used in bulletproof vests.
Ceramic plating (2 or 3pts/model?), gives them +2R when being hit by a Plasma weapon.
interesting, but feels way too involved. Ceramite plating would be bonkers as an upgrade, nowhere do you buy protection from one type of weapon, save invulnerable saves.
And welcome back Lanrak, glad to see you still have an interest in this thread.
Have you finalized the suppression mechanic ?As this removes the focus on HAVING to cause physical damage to targeted units.
And would you be better served by defining the overlapping zones of interaction , before scaling the effects?
not yet, we've been working out other facets of the game right now. Input and ideas on this would be appreciated.
OR they can state the EFFECTIVE RANGE FOR THAT USER, eg better shots hit target further away UP TO the maximum effective range of the weapon.
i like it, lets see where it goes, but it could be tricky to implement, so kinda 50/50 on the idea.
Actually Ork players will still get 2 attacks, one being an attack from the slugga. Orks are strong right? They're buff as hell...
but the should still get 2 attacks if they take a shoota, orks have tons of attacks, thats one of their defining characteristics as an army. And yes they are very strong, but as strong as a genetically engineered human in strength enhancing armor? Probably not. I know i sound like a massive space marine fanboy, but that furious charge bonus is a large part of ork tactics.
are we talking about original 40k or the new system? Because id like to have an area between Bolters and Lasguns for things like tyranid flesh borers, ork gunz, hell guns, etc. i put them in that category because it felt like it fit, but i don't have a problem with them being damage 5 alongside Bolters.
The current weapon stats fit in pretty well with the chart. 3-5 for normal weapons is exactly what I want to see, because it is complimentary to the 3-5 Resilience of normal infantry.
best idea i have is for any values equal to or less than the poison value, you reroll that die. So a poison 1 weapon would reroll all 1s, poison 2 would reroll 1s and 2s, etc etc etc
splendid
my opinion is against this, but i want to explore it, as it could be just as interesting as stealth and BS, so lets find out ASAP.
me too...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
interesting, but feels way too involved. Ceramite plating would be bonkers as an upgrade, nowhere do you buy protection from one type of weapon, save invulnerable saves.
how too involved? This is a scenic direction How about 1 point per model. For just 10 points, it's a good deal unless you're tight on points.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Lanrak. Welcome back,
This is how I see it. Weapons have an innate unmodified maximum range - bolter rounds sinking to the floor, or a plasma containment field dissipating. The firer would fire at any target within his weapon's range. He has a higher chance of hitting closer targets; he has a lower chance of hitting targets further away.
The current weapon stats fit in pretty well with the chart. 3-5 for normal weapons is exactly what I want to see, because it is complimentary to the 3-5 Resilience of normal infantry.
yes but that's what made tau pulse rifles so good, was their higher than Boltgun damage. There need to be things between a Boltgun and a Lasgun, just like there need to be things above a Boltgun. And if a space marine is Defense 5, I'd like for the very scary weapons to be wounding them on more than a 50% chance.
how too involved? This is a scenic direction How about 1 point per model. For just 10 points, it's a good deal unless you're tight on points.
well for one, it would have to be costed appropriately between armies, and second, its too situational to expect people to consider seriously, so i dont see a point in even having it.
It would be rude to say it to you, but you were fanboying a little bit . Honourable to admit it My friend is a massive, sorry, MASSIVE space marine fanbooy, I can't believe anything he says, I can't tell between the S10 AP1 Large Blasts and the 2+ invulnerable saves.
yes but that's what made tau pulse rifles so good, was their higher than Boltgun damage. There need to be things between a Boltgun and a Lasgun, just like there need to be things above a Boltgun. And if a space marine is Defense 5, I'd like for the very scary weapons to be wounding them on more than a 50% chance.
Trying to tone down the fanboyness I see Just kidding. I've actually made them pretty weak; if you think about it, currently marines die to a pulse rifle shot 2/9 of the time. Now it's 1/2 of the time.
Unless we want to add armour back in.
Also stop nerfing the lasguns O.O there doesn't need to be things between a lasgun and a boltgun, bad guns are P3, decent guns are P4, strong guns are P5.
Firstly, stop editing things instead of posting another reply. Otherwise we might miss something!
well for one, it would have to be costed appropriately between armies, and second, its too situational to expect people to consider seriously, so i dont see a point in even having it.
Ok I would just give some things ceramite plating automatically. Like IG veterans or something.
Yeah, I love me some power armor (Especially Grey Knights) but there is no army I don't find interesting and exciting in the 40K universe, so i try to keep it in check. And as much as it feels weird to admit, sometimes the original designers make amazing decisions, like having orks depend on large number of attacks and furious charge to be so scary, so taking that away would hurt not only the tactics, but the feel of the army.
Adding armor back in is an option, but i don't want to do that if possible, i like the new direction too much. And yes im nerfing Lasguns, but doing so is going to open up new opportunities in the guardsman codex to make them scary, such as improving orders and unit interactions, you already did something towards this by increasing Lasguns to str 4, but having them drop down to str 3 beyond a certain point. That's what we need to do to make Lasguns be useful, but weak at the same time, so the value is not the gun, but how you use it.
Also stop nerfing the lasguns O.O there doesn't need to be things between a lasgun and a boltgun, bad guns are P3, decent guns are P4, strong guns are P5.
and outstanding guns are Damage 6, while ridiculous guns are Damage 7
There we go, that is an exciting interesting mechanic. Id say put some sort of limit, such as they may never fire past 48", and integrate your idea from earlier that they can pass through a model for, say, a -3 or -4 modifier. Also leave the lance rule in place, its a very nicely done rule, it would be a shame to lose it.
Edit: my only worry is that youre crippling many imperial armies best long range anti tank gun, the las cannon. This could be solved by making it Damage 12, that way they are still a respectable 8 at max range.
to be fair, fire prisms should have rockin Damage, they are crazy good, second having fanboys design things is actually good in moderation, they make sure things stay interesting, powerful, and fluffy. So long as we don't devolve into shouting matches. Or turn into Matt Ward.
Holy crap dude tone it down, 120"? Im not firing it at the battle on the other side of the room. I know that titan is a big juicy target but my god, he's not even in this game.
Edit: 60 inches might be too much even. Id say 48" is the highest range to be allowed, otherwise its not engaging as there's no risk, or you can't use all of that anyways.
No way, if it's say 72" (Looking at you, battle cannon), even if you fire at max range (remember you can't get exactly 72" so if it's in range it's only -5P) it's still P7.
Idk im exhausted and have a really busy day ahead of me, so id rather not play around with mechanic ideas without being on top of my game. Talk to you guys in the morning.
To go, i think the move but not shoot, and may not move or shoot would work well here, but I'd rather see a shoot but not move, perhaps an option between the two, or use a command point for an order to do one over the other.
Oh, woah, did not realise it was 4am for you! sorry for keeping you awake buddy.
Very rough, but some ideas:
Suppressed: Fortitude reduced by W, cannot move, may only fire Snap Shots (-4Mk)
Dazed: Fortitude reduced by X, cannot move or shoot
Terrified: Fortitude reduced by Y, cannot shoot, automatically moves their full Mobility to the nearest friendly unit
Routed: Fortitude reduced by Z, cannot shoot, automatically moves their full Mobility directly towards the controlling player's table edge
The problem with dropping lasgun range is that since guardsman units will not want to move and are slowish, enemy units could just sit outside their range and shoot them all day long
Lasguns are negligible when fired at 24", but decent at 12". That's why I settle at mediocre at 18", strong at 9".
Hahah yeah, all you need to know about Eldar is that they're T3 except hipster Eldrad.
Not quite. If you utilize a larger spectrum of stats, there is strong fluff foundation for differentiating the physical stats of an Eldar a human military. Eldar are physically stronger, tougher, more refined and also highly resistant to infection and disease. Their psychology is likewise super-human being highly resistant to mind control techniques such as that from Genestealers and also extremely resistant to corrupting influence from chaos which is further reinforced by the path system.
The real question is how large the scale need to be before Eldar begin to pull ahead of Guardsmen.
a Guardian is more or less just a civilian Eldar pressed into military service, and not an active member of the path of war, where as war and bashing people on the head is not only the only thing orks live for, its what their society is based off of
You're right that Guardians are just plumbers sent to battle but they've still got the inhuman reaction's of the Eldar race. Orks, even if they live for it, are just plonkers.
Guardians also have basic combat training far beyond what human conscripts have and will typically have spent time as an aspect warrior or as an outcast. The average Eldar Guardian is essentially a retired veteran.
- Why are Boltguns better than shuriken catapults -.-
Because you get more shots. I wouldn't mind them being Damage 5, but that could be a bit extreme at 2 shots on some not-expensive models.
They aren't very inexpensive since they also lack armour and have a distinct and very real range disadvantage on their guns. There's a reason why there hasn't been a huge outcry of "OP!" when Guardians not only got rending but also +1BS for no point increase what so ever. They're still hard as hell to use and you still tend to lose them by the bucket when someone pays them attention.
At damage 4 you need to implement a special rule for the Shuriken Catapult/Cannon which would emulate rending.
Rending: Treats all targets with a resilience/defense of 5 or higher as being 1 point lower and always damages them on a roll of 6.
Bladestorm: Treats non-vehicles with a resilience/defense of 5 or higher as being 1 point lower and always wounds them on a roll of 6.
IcyFireKnight wrote: I was JUST thinking about that. Ya know Shining Spears? Their lasers are short range...
Laser: A weapon with this special rule loses 1 Power for every 12" away it is from the target and 2 Power if firing through smoke.
While I think this is wholly a bad idea because it makes a long range of long-range artillery fairly useless at long range (with the values you have there you'd need to increase the increment to at least 24" range), I'd like to comment on the Ranger Long Rifle: it'd not a laser rifle, it's a gravitic accelerator rifle, it shoots solid slugs.
They aren't very inexpensive since they also lack armour and have a distinct and very real range disadvantage on their guns. There's a reason why there hasn't been a huge outcry of "OP!" when Guardians not only got rending but also +1BS for no point increase what so ever. They're still hard as hell to use and you still tend to lose them by the bucket when someone pays them attention.
i think everyone and their dog can agree guardians used to be massively overcosted, especially compared to 5th and 6th edition troops. And im fine Shuriken catapults being Damage 5, i just put them at 4 because i felt they should be there.
Not quite. If you utilize a larger spectrum of stats, there is strong fluff foundation for differentiating the physical stats of an Eldar a human military. Eldar are physically stronger, tougher, more refined and also highly resistant to infection and disease. Their psychology is likewise super-human being highly resistant to mind control techniques such as that from Genestealers and also extremely resistant to corrupting influence from chaos which is further reinforced by the path system.
im not sure there's a need to differentiate them from humans, because there are so many troops at higher strength/toughness, ill get into it later. Differentiating their agility or speed is necessary though.
You put some good points about the Eldar basically being better at everything, but we don't want them to be OP now do we (well I don't mind!)
I think that it will be revolutionary if we shove all Eldar into T4, I think T3 is one of the most outstanding drawbacks about the race, so I'd keep it.
........................................M..Mk.S...P..R...D...A...V...F..C...Type
Eldar Guardian.................8...4...5...3...3...5...1...1...4...4...
What do you say to this? High Dexterity, along with Nimble Fighter makes them skilful at combat, but still sadly P3. At shooting, Mk 4 reflects their sub-standard training.
I think Bladestorm/Rending is realistic as it is - the chance to hit a vital spot with a hail of shots. I would change it a bit though:
Bladestorm: Against non-vehicles, any rolls To Hit that would still succeed if the user had suffered -3 Marksmanship, the hit is resolved at +3 Power.
Rending: Any rolls To Hit that would still succeed if the user had suffered -3 Marksmanship, the hit is resolved at +3 Power.
Bolters should be P4. As for a Marine punch being stronger than a Bolter round...don't think there's much to do about that, unless we want to make everyone's Power one less, to emulate bullets being stronger than punches.
Btw thank you for the Ranger long rifle info.
............................................Rg...P...A...Type
Ranger long rifle...................42...5...1...Kinetic, Sniper
Sniper: If a model has a weapon with this special rule, any wounds it causes are doubled. Also, all Sniper weapons have the Heavy, Rending and Suppressing special rules.
Let's discuss it now. Shall we split Weapon Skill into two parts?\
- For example, take a Dreadnought. In combat its Weapon Skill could be 5, but its Dexterity would only be one.
- A Plaguebearer could have a WS of 4 but have a Dexterity of 3.
- A Marine (don't hate!) might have a WS of 5 but a Dexterity of 4 (big armour)
- Whereas a Guardian could have a WS of 4 but a Dexterity of 5.
It's almost the same as BS and Stealth. Just because you're hard to hit doesn't mean you're good at hitting, similarly being good with a weapon doesn't mean your fat armour doesn't affect your agility anymore. But the problem is, that it kinda does -_- If you're skilful it means you're better at parrying blows, dodging, etc..
Any suggestions on what we would name the "attacking" stat? Weapon Skill, Combat Skill, just Skill...
I think Bladestorm/Rending is realistic as it is - the chance to hit a vital spot with a hail of shots. I would change it a bit though:
I think we need to define what Rending does now that we're more or less trying to take out randomness, and im not a fan of the system you laid out, its just too busy. Maybe a pseudo-reverse of what i brought up for posioned weapons. For any roll of 6 to hit, the weapon is resolved at +2 strength? maybe plus 3, idk lets work on it.
What do you say to this? High Dexterity, along with Nimble Fighter makes them skilful at combat, but still sadly P3. At shooting, Mk 4 reflects their sub-standard training.
Id say this could work, so long as we split WS.
Bolters should be P4. As for a Marine punch being stronger than a Bolter round...don't think there's much to do about that, unless we want to make everyone's Power one less, to emulate bullets being stronger than punches.
I dont see why you couldnt just have the really powerful weapons (Pulse rifles, Gauss) be a 6, since we've already said 6 is a rare troop stat, and have bolters and other "Strong" guns at Damage 5, "weak" guns at Damage 4, and weakened lasguns at Damage 3. This would preserve the current way that the Very high power guns damage space marines much more easily on a 3+, Boltguns injure a space marine on a 4+, and weaker units on a 3+, while the weaker guns damage a space marine on a 5+, and weaker units on a 4+ or 3+. Doing otherwise will cause the problems you said here in
Bolters should be P4. As for a Marine punch being stronger than a Bolter round...don't think there's much to do about that, unless we want to make everyone's Power one less, to emulate bullets being stronger than punches.
Sniper: If a model has a weapon with this special rule, any wounds it causes are doubled. Also, all Sniper weapons have the Heavy, Rending and Suppressing special rules.
I like the idea, but it could be a bit too powerful, especially for the likes of tau pathfinders. i think rending would be enough to make them effective, but lets see how playtesting works out on them.
Splitting WS into two parts - like Marksmanship and Stealth?
Plasma having the chance to blind nearby targets?
Morale?
Splitting WS into say WS and Dexterity could yield interesting results to situations like low skill but agile combatants, but im not sure that there would be enough variety to warrant the differentiation. Also, if we keep splitting things and adding stats, the statline is going to get out of control. Lets run some test cases and statlines, and see how they work out gamewise. Also, i dont really want a units agility in close combat to determine its speed in combat, especially if its already making them more difficult to hit, as that could be very very powerful. I still think having initiative tiers defined by special rules will be the way to go for striking order. Perhaps mixing the two, with special rules granting initiative tiers, but otherwise roll offs are done by comparing the two's new Dexterity (Agility) stat instead of the WS stat.
The only idea i have for plasma blinding is a reduction to BS or reduction in targets range, which would be irritating to keep track of, since youd need a counter for it, and with many armies like tau and dark angels having massive amounts of plasma, i think itd be too much complexity for not enough reward, plus plasma weapons are already very powerful, they don't really need a buff.
Morale is such a wide ranging discussion i need a frame to start at.
Edit:
- For example, take a Dreadnought. In combat its Weapon Skill could be 5, but its Dexterity would only be one.
- A Plaguebearer could have a WS of 4 but have a Dexterity of 3.
- A Marine (don't hate!) might have a WS of 5 but a Dexterity of 4 (big armour)
- Whereas a Guardian could have a WS of 4 but a Dexterity of 5.
I agree with this direction and logic, obviously we need to playtest and tweak, but i like it. I vote for Weapon Skill and Dexterity for the names of the new split values. Their obvious and straightforward names, like Ballistic skill and Stealth.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, before i forget and lose this idea, id like to radically alter what a tyranid prime is. Id much rather have them be a MASSIVELY customizable model, beyond just about anything else in the codex, instead of an upgraded tyranid warrior. Fluff-wise, say they are a class of mutable leaders that the hive-mind and norn-queens are constantly adjusting and evolving, at a vastly accelerated rate even compared to other units, to better fit the current battlefield and enemy, and maintain as a distinct entity similar to a hive tyrant.
This way, the player can choose to improve them in any way imaginable, from making them an upgraded Warrior, to a mini-hive tyrant, to a super-broodlord, to a pseudo-lictor. Players start with a relatively cheap base model, and then can improve stats, grant special rules and special weapons, ranging from rending claws and scything talons, to bonswords, lashwhips, poison and adrenal glands, movement bonuses, extra wounds, higher toughness through armor or metabolic upgrades, wings, guns, psychic powers and mastery levels, and everything else imaginable. Essentially, the player would be able to access a modified version of what we as designers would have available to design units and price them accordingly. Obviously the player would have to pay slightly more for every increase than a formula would call for, otherwise they would be a bit too good.
Also let them be 2 to an HQ choice ,similar to chaos heralds, that way a player can have tons of powerful ones if they are willing to put a large portion of their points into them, or a horde player could have more personalized control over individual units using more, weaker Primes, and anything in between
I know this isn't even remotely on topic, but i wanted to get it documented and put up, so ideas and opinons?
I think we need to define what Rending does now that we're more or less trying to take out randomness, and im not a fan of the system you laid out, its just too busy. Maybe a pseudo-reverse of what i brought up for posioned weapons. For any roll of 6 to hit, the weapon is resolved at +2 strength? maybe plus 3, idk lets work on it.
I know it's too busy, but it's as balanced as ever. Ever had it where you're hitting on a 5+, and on a 6+ your shots are rending? Exactly, that's why "on a 6" cant work for everything.
I dont see why you couldnt just have the really powerful weapons (Pulse rifles, Gauss) be a 6, since we've already said 6 is a rare troop stat, and have bolters and other "Strong" guns at Damage 5, "weak" guns at Damage 4, and weakened lasguns at Damage 3. This would preserve the current way that the Very high power guns damage space marines much more easily on a 3+, Boltguns injure a space marine on a 4+, and weaker units on a 3+, while the weaker guns damage a space marine on a 5+, and weaker units on a 4+ or 3+.
I think your bias is showing a little bit, although Marines have very good all-round stats, Boltguns are supposed to be the average gun. If Boltguns wound Marines on a 4+..well then 10cm thick armour isn't doing its job huh :x
im not sure that there would be enough variety to warrant the differentiation
why do you think that?
Space Marine WS5 D5
Guardsman WS3 D4?
Tau WS2 D3?
Eldar WS4 D5
Ork WS4 D4?
Hormagaunt WS4 D4?
Necron WS5 D3?
Plaguebearer WS4 D3?
The statline shouldnt get out of control. I'd say around 12 stats is a good point to finish at - just look at how much information you're conveying with a simple letter and number. Like I said earlier the more you can fit on there, the less info you have to put elsewhere (up to a point).
I still think having initiative tiers defined by special rules will be the way to go for striking order.
Remember we don't want whole squads hitting before the other squad. In an ideal world, I would do a D3 roll-off for every model, but that would take too long.
Their obvious and straightforward names, like Ballistic skill and Stealth.
Would you rather have Marksmanship because it sounds much much cooler or Ballistic Skill because it compliments Weapon Skill?
Spoiler:
Also, before i forget and lose this idea, id like to radically alter what a tyranid prime is. Id much rather have them be a MASSIVELY customizable model, beyond just about anything else in the codex, instead of an upgraded tyranid warrior. Fluff-wise, say they are a class of mutable leaders that the hive-mind and norn-queens are constantly adjusting and evolving, at a vastly accelerated rate even compared to other units, to better fit the current battlefield and enemy, and maintain as a distinct entity similar to a hive tyrant.
This way, the player can choose to improve them in any way imaginable, from making them an upgraded Warrior, to a mini-hive tyrant, to a super-broodlord, to a pseudo-lictor. Players start with a relatively cheap base model, and then can improve stats, grant special rules and special weapons, ranging from rending claws and scything talons, to bonswords, lashwhips, poison and adrenal glands, movement bonuses, extra wounds, higher toughness through armor or metabolic upgrades, wings, guns, psychic powers and mastery levels, and everything else imaginable. Essentially, the player would be able to access a modified version of what we as designers would have available to design units and price them accordingly. Obviously the player would have to pay slightly more for every increase than a formula would call for, otherwise they would be a bit too good.
Umm yeah, that was a bit abrupt lol .. But having extremely customisable models is a pretty cool way to go, my only tip is instead of having a cheap base model with moderate price upgrades, I would have a slightly more expensive model with slightly lower-priced upgrades.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit: I wouldn't have Weapon Skill any much more than Skill, because Weapon Skill kinda covers ranged weapons as well....if it's Combat Skill, you know it's in combat, and it might be their skill with their fists, not necessarily their "weapon".
Well to get technical on it, shooting someone is combat, so thats not right either. And whether you hit someone with a sword or the butt of a gun, its still a weapon, and with the distinction of having Ballistic Skill there, i dont think there will be any confusion, especially since there isn't any right now. Also Weapon Skill is easier to make into an acronym than most other options would probably be. And yes Ballistic skill to compliment Weapon skill.
I know it's too busy, but it's as balanced as ever. Ever had it where you're hitting on a 5+, and on a 6+ your shots are rending? Exactly, that's why "on a 6" cant work for everything.
never had that situation, but so long as the mechanic does its job and is engaging, i dont think it making perfect sense is necessary. Yeah they'll be rending on 1/2 of all successful hits, but theyre still only rending on 1/6 of all possible outcomes, same as every other rending weapon, so it kinda sorta makes sense.
I think your bias is showing a little bit, although Marines have very good all-round stats, Boltguns are supposed to be the average gun. If Boltguns wound Marines on a 4+..well then 10cm thick armour isn't doing its job huh
if we wanted to go pure fluff and logic route, Bolter rounds would almost never penetrate Power Armor, as in BL novels, they can often take dozens of bolter hits before weakening enough for a space marine to actually be wounded by Bolter rounds. The fact is we need marines to be able to kill each other fairly efficiently, since there are so many of them, and the odds of two marine armies facing each other is so great. And even if you put Bolters at Damage 4, they'd still be wounding a great deal of units on the same values as they would be at Damage 5.
As to comments on lack of variety, i hadn't started rolling through units to see what would get what dexterity value, but your dreadnought example gave me a bunch of hope for it.
Remember we don't want whole squads hitting before the other squad. In an ideal world, I would do a D3 roll-off for every model, but that would take too long.
why not? I've yet to see an outstanding mechanic of doing this that isnt incredibly slow, and since most units will be homogenous with the exception of leaders, thats going to be the situation anyways.
The statline shouldnt get out of control. I'd say around 12 stats is a good point to finish at - just look at how much information you're conveying with a simple letter and number. Like I said earlier the more you can fit on there, the less info you have to put elsewhere (up to a point).
true, but we need to be mindful of this, as it could turn off many players, since 12 stats is well into RPG esque territory. And on that note, i question splitting WS since we could use nearly the same Argument to split Defense into Toughness and Armor, and damage into Strength and Ap.
never had that situation, but so long as the mechanic does its job and is engaging, i dont think it making perfect sense is necessary. Yeah they'll be rending on 1/2 of all successful hits, but theyre still only rending on 1/6 of all possible outcomes, same as every other rending weapon, so it kinda sorta makes sense.
that's flawed logic, sure they're rending on 1/6 of all possible outcomes, but they SHOULDN'T be if it's gonna be 50% of the time they hit. E.g.
2+ to hit: 1/5 rending
3+ to hit: 1/4 rending
4+ to hit: 1/3 rending
5+ to hit: 1/2 rending
6+ to hit: ALL FRIGGIN RENDING
if we wanted to go pure fluff and logic route, Bolter rounds would almost never penetrate Power Armor, as in BL novels, they can often take dozens of bolter hits before weakening enough for a space marine to actually be wounded by Bolter rounds. The fact is we need marines to be able to kill each other fairly efficiently, since there are so many of them, and the odds of two marine armies facing each other is so great. And even if you put Bolters at Damage 4, they'd still be wounding a great deal of units on the same values as they would be at Damage 5.
No we don't want marines to be killing each other quickly, look -
7 Bolters in a normal tac squad - 14 shots if didnt move
14 shots, 3+ to hit, ~10 hit. 4+ to wound? 5 Marines dead, in one volley.
why not? I've yet to see an outstanding mechanic of doing this that isnt incredibly slow, and since most units will be homogenous with the exception of leaders, thats going to be the situation anyways.
Whole squads hitting before the other? OP and unrealistic...
why not? I've yet to see an outstanding mechanic of doing this that isnt incredibly slow, and since most units will be homogenous with the exception of leaders, thats going to be the situation anyways.
Current 40k has 9 stats, 3 stats more is a small change. Also turn off many players how? It's not an INSANE number like 18+ or something.
And on that note, i question splitting WS since we could use nearly the same Argument to split Defense into Toughness and Armor, and damage into Strength and Ap.
no it isn't - WS currently is used for the receiving end AND the attacking end. Say it's the same is like saying Defense is the same as Strength, and BS is the same as Stealth.
No we don't want marines to be killing each other quickly, look -
7 Bolters in a normal tac squad - 14 shots if didnt move
14 shots, 3+ to hit, ~10 hit. 4+ to wound? 5 Marines dead, in one volley
Yes but thats only in rapid fire range, and you almost never get two tactical squads into rapid fire range with each other. Most of the time its going to be half that, so 2-3 dead marines, which feels about right, considering they're not taking advantage of cover systems. With soft cover (+1 stealth) they would be hitting on 4's, wounding on 4's thats 7 shots, just under 2 wounds. With hard cover (+1 stealth, +1 defense), they're going to be hitting on 4's, wounding on 5's, thats just over 1 wound. I would say this feels pretty good.
Here's some more ideas for using command and leaders. Leaders can expend one command point for going to ground, running, splitting fire, rallying, letting the squad use the leaders morale, overcoming suppresion/shaken or altering it slightly somehow. Essentially taking the "Orders" and giving them to leaders.
that's flawed logic, sure they're rending on 1/6 of all possible outcomes, but they SHOULDN'T be if it's gonna be 50% of the time they hit. E.g.
I agree, but i don't know of a simple alternative.
Whole squads hitting before the other? OP and unrealistic...
That's whats in place right now, and its not OP. As for it being unrealistic...again, we should not be trying to capture realism, we should be trying to capture fun and engaging, and i havn't seen a system that allows for models to trade blows realistically that doesn't slow everything down to a crawl. Every squad is Homogeneous anyways, with the exception of Leaders, so i don't see how a much faster squad of Genestealers is going to trade blows with a relatively slow imperial guard platoon, when they would just bowl over them.
Ok so whats left that we need to talk about? Morale, Integrating the old damage roll (weapon destroyed, immobilized, wrecked, exploded) into the new system somehow, maybe some Universal Special Rules, more ideas on expanding Command, maybe some terrain rules.
Edit: Also, having started playing with new WS and Dexterity assignments, i would probably say you could raise terminators up to 8 Defense, which means they're approaching vehicle level armor, which starts to help that point from earlier about Terminators and the Trukk.
Yes but thats only in rapid fire range, and you almost never get two tactical squads into rapid fire range with each other
As of yet, rapid fire is allowing a second shot if you didn't move.
With soft cover (+1 stealth) they would be hitting on 4's, wounding on 4's thats 7 shots, just under 2 wounds.
Remember you can't get your whole army into something like area terrain, there's always going to be things out in the open.
I agree, but i don't know of a simple alternative.
I know of an alternative, and it's pretty easy to understand if you're bright.
As for it being unrealistic...again, we should not be trying to capture realism, we should be trying to capture fun and engaging, and i havn't seen a system that allows for models to trade blows realistically that doesn't slow everything down to a crawl.
It seems like you're discarding reality altogether. Just because you don't know how to make it realistic doesn't mean you immediately resort to the closest and easiest thing. Having your whole opponent throw their attacks at you before you can even make a single swipe is NEITHER fun NOR engaging, but certainly "frustrating".
Edit: Also, having started playing with new WS and Dexterity assignments, i would probably say you could raise terminators up to 8 Defense, which means they're approaching vehicle level armor, which starts to help that point from earlier about Terminators and the Trukk.
Sure, as long you put them at some low Dexterity like 3, akin to Tau..
No time to post right now but your Command ideas seem interesting.
Lets try to keep it civil shall we? And as for it being easy to understand, so would multivariable algebra, but if its not fast and relatively easy for new players to understand, i don't see why its a better solution. Im not saying that rending on a to-hit roll of 6+ is the best option, but your system is too complex, if very solid and thought-out, but we need a third direction.
As of yet, rapid fire is allowing a second shot if you didn't move.
Why? The 6th edition version of a rapid fire weapon is the best its ever been, with up to 1 shot like an assault weapon at max range, and a second if you're within 12". Think about what your mechanic means, you are incentivizing these units to stay still and avoid risks, rather than giving bonuses for getting closer and taking more risks, or bonuses for defending against incoming Melee units, which typically wreck a unit with rapid fire weapons.
Remember you can't get your whole army into something like area terrain, there's always going to be things out in the open.
Yes, but i can always keep units out of harms way other ways. Keeping my army more dispersed so that i can take advantage of more terrain, deploying some units off to a side of the table, using vehicles as mobile terrain pieces to block line of sight, using my own units to provide cover for other units, there are many, many ways to avoid having a large chunk of your army out of cover and within LoS.
It seems like you're discarding reality altogether. Just because you don't know how to make it realistic doesn't mean you immediately resort to the closest and easiest thing. Having your whole opponent throw their attacks at you before you can even make a single swipe is NEITHER fun NOR engaging, but certainly "frustrating".
I've never once been charged by a group of genestealers or hormagaunts and thought "im really mad i dont have a chance to strike back", because that high initiative is something i knew beforehand about those units, i expected it, and did my best to plan around it. And you still havn't addressed how to have largely homogeneous units trade blows unevenly without slowing things down. If you have a system that does this, i'd be very interested, but i dont have the slightest idea of how to accomplish it.
Sure, as long you put them at some low Dexterity like 3, akin to Tau..
I did exactly that, actually. currently a terminator is
WS == 6
DEX == 3
BS == 6
STL == 3
DEF == 8
HIT == 1
STR == 6
ATK == 2
MOR == whatever we put for morale
COM == N/A
MOB == 4"
Wasn't trying to offend you But really it seems like a good solution, because you'll only really be able to get rending shots if you fire at full BS or your BS is incredibly high. Someone like Illic would be able to get Rending shots pretty easily.
but your system is too complex, if very solid and thought-out, but we need a third direction.
I know it's a bit ~unorthodox~ but just think how easy it is to use:
Guardians are BS4.
Firing at Marines S4.
Imagine Guardians were -3BS.
Do any shots still hit?
If yes, they're rending.
Now that I look at it I feel like we should up Stealth by one. Because:
1) There is more room for Tank Stealth
2) Just now I was thinking, it's a bit off that you can get Rending shots on a 5+ if you normally hit on a 3+.
3) Previous stated reasons of needing to nerf shooting a bit so things don't die so easily
4) Marines like 5s
using my own units to provide cover for other units
Any ideas for how we can change this? It's neither "realistic" nor that tactically engaging.
For shooting through your own men, I've kinda thought that on a 4+ one of them steps in your line of sight, so you lose a shot. Is that good?
And you still havn't addressed how to have largely homogeneous units trade blows unevenly without slowing things down. If you have a system that does this, i'd be very interested, but i dont have the slightest idea of how to accomplish it.
Just a rough idea, but something somewhat similar (dreaded alliteration again) to one of the ideas ages ago:
Each player rolls a D6; they may assign Strike First attacks to the highest Dexterity models in their unit equal to the difference.
I quite like it, but maybe instead of the highest Dexterity models it can be the closest models?
COM == N/A
I still think all models should have Command - like a rank. Like this
It would dishearten me a bit if 90% of models didn't have a Command stat. And having it like a ranking system would be quite cool, although your "orders" idea can't be implemented like this, because that means the slightest change in Command would mean a massive boost in..everything. We should aim for the variety first, and then flow around that.
Integrating the old damage roll (weapon destroyed, immobilized, wrecked, exploded
Idk, maybe:
1 - No damage
2 - Cannot shoot next turn
3 - Cannot move next turn
4 - Weapon Destroyed
5 - Immobilised
6 - Explodes
maybe some Universal Special Rules
To kick it off:
Fleet - A model with this special rule adds 1" to its Run and Charge distances.
Sharpshooter - A model with this special rule may reroll failed To Hit rolls in ranged combat.
Seasoned Marksman - A model with this special rule may allocate any wounds it causes in ranged combat however it wishes.
But really it seems like a good solution, because you'll only really be able to get rending shots if you fire at full BS or your BS is incredibly high. Someone like Illic would be able to get Rending shots pretty easily.
I agree that it works well, and suits the mechanics of rending well too, unfortunately this is the problem with it
Imagine Guardians were -3BS.
Do any shots still hit?
I have to go back to the universal resolution chart, find where my unit's value on the chart is, then i have to walk it back 3 steps, then go back to the dice and check them. Experienced players in the system would probably be able to do this instantly, if they know the URC fairly well, but new and moderate level players are going to have to deal with these steps. I like it, but we need something more streamlined.
Now that I look at it I feel like we should up Stealth by one. Because:
1) There is more room for Tank Stealth
2) Just now I was thinking, it's a bit off that you can get Rending shots on a 5+ if you normally hit on a 3+.
3) Previous stated reasons of needing to nerf shooting a bit so things don't die so easily
4) Marines like 5s
I would rather see something like a distance modifier when it comes to tanks, something like for every 12" away from the firing model, the vehicles receives a +1 to its stealth value. This way they are MASSIVE targets close up, but more difficult to hit further away, but not overtly so. For instance, a Land Raider could be stealth 1 base, but at 40" away it'd be stealth 4. This would work fairly well for most land tanks, for skimmers, i think we need something like movement stealth modifiers on top of the range modifier, such as for every 12" a skimmer moves, it receives a +1 stealth bonus. Turbo-boosting and Flat-Out could give similar such effects, with many of the Xenos vehicle specialty upgrades making them better, such as the tau shield thing, the eldar star engines, and holo-fields.
Also, yes marines like 5's, but with all the new split stats, they also like some 4's sprinkled in there for things like Dexterity and Stealth, which logically need to be less than the rest of the marine statline since they don't excel in those areas.
Again, id like to see more intuitive ways to let players increase their units stealth or survivability through in-game decisions and tactics rather than just bump everything up. Movement modifiers, range modifiers, etc etc could be options, including things we havnt even thought or heard of yet.
using my own units to provide cover for other units
Any ideas for how we can change this? It's neither "realistic" nor that tactically engaging.
For shooting through your own men, I've kinda thought that on a 4+ one of them steps in your line of sight, so you lose a shot. Is that good?
Yeah its far from realistic and debatably engaging, but tyranids DEPEND on this for their units, as Gaunts are basically just meat-shields that give cover to more important units, and maybe do damage assuming they survive long enough. Guardsman also have tactics that require cover based on other units. I'm not really a fan of losing shots when firing through your own unit, it doesn't make any sense, i admit, but your'e killing tactics like Castling, which many armies depend on when things are stacked against them, and i kinda feel like its just something that would get in the way, as i'd have to make sure that none of my units are in the way, rather than just playing.
Each player rolls a D6; they may assign Strike First attacks to the highest Dexterity models in their unit equal to the difference.
I quite like it, but maybe instead of the highest Dexterity models it can be the closest models?
Hmmmm, idk, i think we need to keep hammering away at this idea. The idea of first strike attacks is interesting, but so many units just have 1 attack, and since charging doesn't give a bonus attack, itd be a bit wasted. I think itd be great for the multi-attack models, like genestealers, orks, gaunts, etc, but lets keep at it.
It would dishearten me a bit if 90% of models didn't have a Command stat. And having it like a ranking system would be quite cool, although your "orders" idea can't be implemented like this, because that means the slightest change in Command would mean a massive boost in..everything. We should aim for the variety first, and then flow around that.
I agree that it'd be annoying to have that stat be N/A or whatever for most of the units, but it makes sense since they lack the authority to issue those orders. As unfortunate as it is, i just think the idea of orders, combined with command "Bubbles" and Command points is too good to pass up, and if having 90% of the models lack a Command stat, so be it. The idea of Command representing seniority or rank is a really cool idea, but it feels more like fluff than mechanics.
As for the Vehicles damage results, i was thinking of looking for a way to ditch the roll altogether, and have the damage roll determine effects somehow. Maybe have for every point above the necessary value to glance, you move up a slot on the damage chart, so a glance would take off a Hitpoint, but 1 above the glance value is shaken, 2 points is stunned, 3 is weapon destroyed, etc etc. Far from a final idea, but its a direction id like to go.
Fleet - A model with this special rule adds 1" to its Run and Charge distances.
Feels a bit weak, maybe have models with fleet be able to run without using a command point, be able to assault after running by using a command point, and/or a movement buff.
Sharpshooter - A model with this special rule may reroll failed To Hit rolls in ranged combat.
LUDICROUSLY overpowered if this is going to be assigned to common units, plus having leaders use a command point for a re-roll type situation might make this redundant. maybe have it work like lance but on infantry, they never count a models Stealth / Defense as being higher than a certain value.
Seasoned Marksman - A model with this special rule may allocate any wounds it causes in ranged combat however it wishes.
Pretty much the same as current 6th edition systems, so i dont see a problem with it.
I have to go back to the universal resolution chart, find where my unit's value on the chart is, then i have to walk it back 3 steps, then go back to the dice and check them. Experienced players in the system would probably be able to do this instantly, if they know the URC fairly well, but new and moderate level players are going to have to deal with these steps. I like it, but we need something more streamlined.
I know what you mean, but it's not that hard, and once you do that method once, you don't have to do it again.
I would rather see something like a distance modifier when it comes to tanks, something like for every 12" away from the firing model, the vehicles receives a +1 to its stealth value. This way they are MASSIVE targets close up, but more difficult to hit further away, but not overtly so. For instance, a Land Raider could be stealth 1 base, but at 40" away it'd be stealth 4.
You know how if you're within half range target gets -1 Stealth? Well I know. If you're over half range target gets +1 Stealth. Easy.
As for the Vehicles damage results, i was thinking of looking for a way to ditch the roll altogether, and have the damage roll determine effects somehow. Maybe have for every point above the necessary value to glance, you move up a slot on the damage chart, so a glance would take off a Hitpoint, but 1 above the glance value is shaken, 2 points is stunned, 3 is weapon destroyed, etc etc. Far from a final idea, but its a direction id like to go.
Yeah but that means Res 12 Land Raiders are gonna be indestructible...
Feels a bit weak, maybe have models with fleet be able to run without using a command point, be able to assault after running by using a command point, and/or a movement buff.
I am approaching cautiously with this command point idea, you know if for example running didn't take up a command point then suddenly you might be able to move run charge shoot or something like that...For something of that reason, I wouldn't like a Command stat to determine how many actions something can do. That should be universal.
LUDICROUSLY overpowered if this is going to be assigned to common units, plus having leaders use a command point for a re-roll type situation might make this redundant. maybe have it work like lance but on infantry, they never count a models Stealth / Defense as being higher than a certain value.
Hmm that does sound like a good idea....Yes I like it.
Sharpshooter - A model with this special rule counts targets with over Stealth 5 as Steath 5. (maybe 6? or even 4?)
To sharpshooter, you could probably treat it similarly to poison, like sharpshooter 4 never treats stealth as being higher than 4, sharpshooter 5 would never treat stealth as higher than 5. Would make it a bit more customizable between units, but idk.
Yeah but that means Res 12 Land Raiders are gonna be indestructible
far from perfect idea, but it was a direction i wanted to bring up.
You know how if you're within half range target gets -1 Stealth? Well I know. If you're over half range target gets +1 Stealth. Easy.
having them gain stealth at half to max range feel odd though, doesnt it? Maybe make some sort of 24" barrier that grants +1 stealth if they are beyond it.
I am approaching cautiously with this command point idea, you know if for example running didn't take up a command point then suddenly you might be able to move run charge shoot or something like that...For something of that reason, I wouldn't like a Command stat to determine how many actions something can do. That should be universal.
Agreed, its still a very rough idea for how Command could be implemented, but i was just throwing ideas out there for fleet, and how it could interact with command in some fashion.
having them gain stealth at half to max range feel odd though, doesnt it? Maybe make some sort of 24" barrier that grants +1 stealth if they are beyond it.
Or sort of the same thing as the laser effect: Every 12" away the target gains 1 stealth. This encourages much much MUCH more within 24" play instead of the problems Mahtamori said about camping heavy weapons doing nothing but pew pew from the edge of the table. But we should nerf charge distances a bit, otherwise things will be too easy to assault.
On that note we should lower the normal move distance to 5, yay for Space Marines (lol) and assault armies wont become extremely overpowered.
........................................M..Mk.S...P..R...D...A...V...F..C...Type
Space Marine...................5...5...5...5...5...5...1...1...5...5...
It's too hard not to resist doing this, and it works.
Targets within 12" suffer -1 Stealth. Targets over 24" gain +1 Stealth. (This encourages fairy close range firefights!)
I'M SO HAPPY RIGHT NOW THOUGH, just look at that SM statline!
Or sort of the same thing as the laser effect: Every 12" away the target gains 1 stealth. This encourages much much MUCH more within 24" play instead of the problems Mahtamori said about camping heavy weapons doing nothing but pew pew from the edge of the table. But we should nerf charge distances a bit, otherwise things will be too easy to assault.
very good point, but if we do the charge range == half mobility rounding down, for most units at mobility 6 thats only a 3 inch charge, thats a huge nerf. I would argue that something like " staring at 24", and increasing by a value of 1 for every additional 12 inches", otherwise there's going to have be either a major recalculation of stealth values on units to account for the new system, or you have a ton of modifiers going on within the ideal battle range of 24" or less.
Id still rather keep average mobility at 6", this way half rounding down is still a respectable 3 inches. Not to mention that dropping it to 5 would make moving between cover and across the field in general just that much harder, which im not in favor of, pus the current set of slow = 4", normal = 6", and fast = 8" feel pretty good, and has clear effects on charge distances.
As hilarious as that Statline is, i still think Space Marines need stealth and dexterity 4, and mobility 6". Thy cant, and snd shouldn't, be good at everything
Rav1rn wrote: Why? Just increasing stats across the board is not a good solution, and if you drop movement to 5 as average average charge distance is only 2 inches.
Well firstly you round up, so it's 3 inches, secondly, why is it not a good solution? We're not just increasing them because we can, we're not JUST doing it to make SMs 5s across the board, there are other reasons previously stated.
I know i said they should have 5's, but if 4 is the standard and 5 is improved, a marine should not have improved stealth and dexterity, we went over this a while ago, theyre not going to be stealthy or agile, its not something they are capable of.
And yes it's not just for those reasons, but we need to make better systems for increasing survivability. I dont particularly where we get these ideas from, we could probably even open a new thread to ask for ideas on this topic, but increasing stats is a heavy handed approach im not a fan of.
And I'd rather have the general rule for halving be round down, rather than round up, since i feel if you need to make a special case where you change the rounding, it feels much better for it to be an improvement rather than a penalty. Also, since 40K players are used to having 6" moves as standard, i think changing that would frustrate players at the very least, potentially even turning off many players, for no real benefit in return.
I know i said they should have 5's, but if 4 is the standard and 5 is improved, a marine should not have improved stealth and dexterity, we went over this a while ago, theyre not going to be stealthy or agile, its not something they are capable of.
It ISN'T improved stealth or dexterity. They have the same effective stealth and dexterity as they ever did.
And I'd rather have the general rule for halving be round down, rather than round up, since i feel if you need to make a special case where you change the rounding, it feels much better for it to be an improvement rather than a penalty. Also, since 40K players are used to having 6" moves as standard, i think changing that would frustrate players at the very least, potentially even turning off many players, for no real benefit in return.
Why do you want it to be rounding down? Rounding up will ALWAYS be an improvement, because I want every value to be "the higher the better".
I thought you wanted Space Marines to have 5s all around, because they're iconic?
How?
And rounding down because thats whats used now, and i personally like it. But its the second part of the quoted section i worry about.
How? Because everyone who had worse stealth and dexterity STILL have worse stealth and dexterity, while everyone who had better stealth and dexterity STILL have better stealth and dexterity, while everyone who had similar stealth and dexterity STILL have similar stealth and dexterity. NOTHING'S CHANGED. It's as if stealth and dexterity were average 5 all along.
And you've got no other alternatives to making things more survivable. If Stealth was average 5 while BS was average 4, and Strength/Defense had the same average, things will be dying on a 5+, 4+ (1/6). While, right now things will be dying on a 4+, 4+, 4+ (assuming average bs is 3 and average Sv is 4+). That's 1/8 of the time. Obviously this will be accelerated by better armies - such as high Strength Tau guns, or high BS Space Marines.
Also where is rounding down used now? I've never seen it.
Rounding down is the default rule if i remember correctly, it just doesn't come up often. And yes I wanted them at fives all around until we started doing things like stealth and dexterity, where it makes no sense for them to have stats that high. I dont care if the stealth average has been raised to a 5, its still the same numerical value as the others, so its not going to feel right, especially when the average for everything else is still a 4.
And yes I have no solution, but thats why we can ask the community on a new topic, which im just about to open for this.
Unfortunately, i dont have access to either my old rulebook or my friends new 6th edition rulebook, i could be remembering it wrong, but im fairly certain im not.
I think we can both agree that it would be best to round up, with higher values always being better.
It's a bit futile getting into such an argument about Stealth and Dexterity. So I'll let you have it, the average for all stats remain at 4. But we still need to address the issue of things dying too quickly.
It's a bit futile getting into such an argument about Stealth and Dexterity. So I'll let you have it, the average for all stats remain at 4. But we still need to address the issue of things dying too quickly.
i agree, i opened that new thread, hopefully well get good ideas off of it. I'd say something like moving increases stealth and/or decreases BS, though that could be very over or underpowered so well see, not to mention being a pain keeping track of. Range modifiers should help with the heavier weaponry, but we do need to deal with that 24" bubble of ideal range where those modifiers don't come into play. Anything from some sort of cover command (Not going to ground though), to Wargear options like "a unit may replace Krak grenades with smoke grenades", to simply saying more cover should be on the board than 25% of the area might work.
I like the idea of a cover command, maybe they take a -1 BS penalty for gaining a +1 stealth modifier, idk
Can you expand on this command/order idea? I'd rather not have the command stat, or any stat, to represent how many commands you can give, but maybe characters give 1, and ICs give 2.
Can you expand on this command/order idea? I'd rather not have the command stat, or any stat, to represent how many commands you can give, but maybe characters give 1, and ICs give 2.
im basically working off of Lanrak's idea of a command bubble of variable range, and they have a number of command points they can spend every activation on issuing orders, or by sacrificing their own attacks(whether Melee or shooting) to give a reroll to a squad member, maybe call it guidance or something, and also things like sharing the leaders morale would take a command point i guess?
Standard sergeants would have no command points, veteran sergeants would have 1 command point and a command range of just their unit. Independant characters would have 1 to 3 command points typically, with a range from just the unit theyre attached to, up to 12" away. Maybe special characters can have more command points and/or a greater range. If a model has a command range larger than just their unit, they may issue orders to any other unit in range as if they were in that unit.
Other ideas are things like sacrificing an attack to do a reverse look out sir type thing where they help a squad member dodge an attack, though whether thats by increasing defense or offering a reroll are both possibilities. Splitting fire would be interesting as a command, though potentially overpowered, but it would let people use larger squads with heavy weapons in them more effectively, without resorting to systems like combat squads. Re rolling a failed rally could be an option, as well as rallying at under 50% strength, both taking a command point.
I agree its kind of a shame that command would be negligible on most models, but a better way of looking at it is how Lanrak's command/orders could make many units much more exciting and interesting combined with the new PRC. I make this assumption on the fact that we will probably need to make specialist and rare units more powerful to compensate for their lower numbers and difficulty in taking. Giving some units in these categories command/order abilities would radically alter how they can be deployed and utilized, on top of making them stronger. For example, if we changed the Space marine HQ and Specialist options, bringing back the cheap force commander option, and moving librarians and chaplains to specialist units, where i feel they should be rather than HQ's, they can be given command/orders and be made extremely powerful, through their support of the rest of the army, even more so than they do standard right now, while still competing for other powerful choices, potentially dreadnoughts if thats where they end up, veterans squads, battle tanks, etc.
This system would also make you think more about squads that dont get access to leaders, and how you can utilize your unit choices to take advantage of orders despite this, as tyranids would likely have to do with gaunts and warriors for example, or necron warriors and members of the royal court, or chaos daemons and heralds. Leaders would also become more powerful, especially veteran ones, so the danger of losing them, combined with the higher damage output of leaders would make people think more about how to use what they have, as to take advantage of the models abilities, it has to be exposed to danger, but losing them means losing orders. It would also give us as designers great power to determine what veteran upgrades should cost, as we know people will consider it at much higher points than are currently typical of a veteran upgrade.
As to the stat not saying how many orders they an give, i like the [6"] / 2 type format to describe a command range of six inches with 2 command points, but i guess you could do a combination of morale and command, where command describes the range their commands can be given, and morale 9 gives the sergeant the "wont run" type deal but no command points, morale 10 gives 1 command point, morale 11 gives 2 command points, and morale 12 gives 3 command points, as id expect leaders to be in control of their units and not run, unless the squad broke,and thus have the highest morale values on the scale.
I'd rather not have the command stat, or any stat, to represent how many commands you can give, because from what you're saying, it could be extremely overpowered and slight changes in command will be devastating/devastatingly good.
I'd suggest that if you are a Character, you are allowed to issue one command per turn. Here are some ideas:
Support: One model within 3" may reroll, at the Character's BS, failed To Hit rolls until the end of the turn.
Inspire: Models within 6" gain +1 Fortitude when making a morale check until the end of the opponent's next turn.
Take Cover!: The unit gains +1 Stealth until the end of the opponent's next turn
Hasten: This turn, the unit Runs and Charges +1".
Escort: One unit member (except Characters) gains Safeguard (4+) until the end of the opponent's next turn.
Maybe Independent Characters can have more of these commands, but also unique ones.
combined with the new PRC
Can we keep it to an FOC? What does PRC even stand for...Also, which FOC are you talking about? My one with the colours and stuff, or Lanrak's core/specialist/restricted one?
Yes the PRC is lanrak's Common, Specialist, Rare system. I think it stands for proportional rarity composition (PRC). You'r color one was almost the same idea, which i like, but i still think support should be its own slot that doesnt affect the ability to take specialist or rare units. This way we can put things like transports, retinue's, etc in there.
I'd rather not have the command stat, or any stat, to represent how many commands you can give, because from what you're saying, it could be extremely overpowered and slight changes in command will be devastating/devastatingly good.
Yes but there are several other factors in play with my idea. Firstly, orders are very powerful, similar to psychic powers in 6th edition. However, they appear more powerful than they really are, which means that we can raise the price and lower the availability of models that can issue commands, and people will still see them as valuable and consider them, even at prices far above what would normally reasonable. For instance, no-one would pay 150 points or more for a stock chapter master right now, but let him cast 3 orders a turn with a 12" range, suddenly he looks extremely valuable, even at incredibly increased prices. Every decision players make to get these orders means that many points taken away from the rest of the army. Also, we can strictly control how many orders a model has, whether we determine the number of orders on the command stat, or using morale, or even just saying it in a special rule or something. Strict control over orders is crucial, but it can be easily playtested.
Support: This turn, one unit member may reroll failed To Hit rolls (this will probably be the missile launcher or something).
Inspire: The unit gains +1 Fortitude when making a morale check until the end of the opponent's next turn.
Take Cover!: The unit gains +1 Stealth until the end of the opponent's next turn
Hasten: This turn, the unit Runs and Charges +1".
Escort: One unit member (except Characters) gains Safeguard (4+) until the end of the opponent's next turn.
Love the names. Support and Inspire sound great. Inspire should probably be until the end of the game turn, since players are going to be trading activation turns a lot during one game turn. Take cover looks good, i'd kinda like them to take a -1 BS penalty for doing so, but lets see how it plays out. Hasten feels a bit weak, i'm not really sure where i'd take it to make it stronger though. Escort doesn't really feel like it should grant an invulnerable save, much less that good of one, but i see the logic of it, so lets see how it works out.
How do you feel about this as a way to limit orders. In order for a character to give an order, he must forfeit all shooting that activation, and 1 attack if he should be in melee. I like it, since it makes players decide early on whether they want to take advantage of his increased combat abilities, or just run him as an order machine, since by giving orders he becomes that much less dangerous in direct combat. This would let us increase the combat capabilities of characters to a degree.
Maybe Independent Characters can have more of these commands, but also unique ones.
Great idea, though we'd have to be extremely careful here, since this would be more likely to make something overpowered than 1 command point too many here or there.
Still don't want stats to determine how many commands you can give. Even a difference of 1 could be WAAAAAAAAAAY OP. I'd say we stick it to 1 for 80% of all cases.
Take Cover!: The unit gains +2 Stealth but suffers -1 Dexterity and may only fire Snap Shots (-4BS) until the end of the opponent's next turn.
I think this makes it underpowered in most situations, but +2 Stealth could be extremely beneficial in some cases. The Dexterity loss is because imagine this situation:
You're a simple Guardsman following your Sergeant's orders, so you go ahead and take cover. But while trying to find a good spot, in the corner of your eye you see a horde of hungry Tyranids! -> proceed to get eaten.
Still don't want stats to determine how many commands you can give. Even a difference of 1 could be WAAAAAAAAAAY OP. I'd say we stick it to 1 for 80% of all cases.
Think of them like psychic powers, for the most part increasing a models mastery level will not be gamebreaking, unless theyre eldar with all their awesome powers. Similarly, 95% or more of all models would have 2 or less command points, with only rare exceptions like chapter masters, autarchs, grand masters, etc, having 3.
Take Cover!: The unit gains +2 Stealth but suffers -1 Dexterity and may only fire Snap Shots (-4BS) until the end of the opponent's next turn.
yeah that might be a bit too much in the other direction, lol but having them lose dexterity is a good idea.
I like that chart, but id have very few support slots instead of many. Also, i like the idea of there being a rare slot, but for the life of me i havnt been able to find a good way to distinguish what goes in it vs what goes in specialist, so id agree that we can drop it all together.
Think of them like psychic powers, for the most part increasing a models mastery level will not be gamebreaking, unless theyre eldar with all their awesome powers. Similarly, 95% or more of all models would have 2 or less command points, with only rare exceptions like chapter masters, autarchs, grand masters, etc, having 3
I'm going to reason like this.
- Psyker's, right now, do not have their own stat reflecting their mastery level. Instead, they have "Psyker (Mastery Level 1)".
- Therefore, Characters should not have their own stat either. They should have "Character (Command 1)".
OK, so we'd have something like Character (Command 2, 6") or something?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ok, so for the areas on the outside of the Universal Resolution Chart, do we want those to be auto hits/wound and auto/misses fails or what? We could do the reroll system that 40k has, but im not sure.
Autohits and misses could frustrate players, but rerolls could really slow things down.
DEFINITELY autohits and misses. How would it frustrate players? It's their fault they tried to assault a Land Raider with Fire Warriors, and it's their fault they let their squishy HQ get squished by a Wraithlord
I would just have Character (Command 2) then, in the commands have the range (just like psychic powers), because some commands don't have range and just affect his unit.
Also, do you want there to be a "command test" like a psychic test?
DEFINITELY autohits and misses. How would it frustrate players? It's their fault they tried to assault a Land Raider with Fire Warriors, and it's their fault they let their squishy HQ get squished by a Wraithlord
Ok, i was just checking, i agree on most of those points.
I would just have Character (Command 2) then, in the commands have the range (just like psychic powers), because some commands don't have range and just affect his unit.
I would argue that having the orders range be due to the character's abilities should be what differentiates it from psychic powers. And the idea of command ranges is that they could issue these "unit orders" to units other than their own.
Also, do you want there to be a "command test" like a psychic test?
Im not really set on how to deply orders. A command test (Whether that be by using their command stat, or by using the morale stat) would be one way to go about it, and probably the best. Something where they forfeit attacks is another. I really want command to not just feel like altered pschic powers, but something completely different.
That would be a bit weird, I think the Characters should only command their own squad, you don't see a fire dragon exarch ordering commands on a banshee squad o.O
Characters forfeiting attacks is one way to do it...but then they're really only used for commands, and I don't want it that way. Otherwise you're paying 5-10 points (?) on an order machine, and I don't really want that.
No things like sergeants, exarchs, nobs, etc have a command range of 0 so they can only issue orders to their squad. Units with command ranges above 0 can give orders to units besides their own, and no squad leaders will have command range above 0.
Well great, that means less and less models are even going to have a command range! You're really just making a stat for 5% of all models...why not just include it in the commands :S
Like you said, it doesn't even have to be a stat, the range can be put into the description like mastery levels. And I don't want this to play like psychic powers with different effects, which is what they would be if you put the range on the orders. Think about how the imperial guard order system feel so different than just about anything else in the game. I want to capture that feeling of difference, and use it for this order/command system.
I don't think simply putting the range somewhere else is going to make it different to psychic powers at all, if you want that feeling of difference then you're gonna have to make it more different.
Its very similar, command squads have officers in them that can issue a certain number of orders each turn, and have a command range inside of which command squads can either issue orders or let guardsman platoons use their leadership, i forget which.
Ok...so for normal squads, each sergeant/exarch etc. has a few set commands. These are quite similar in concept to the stances idea in close combat - you take one based on the situation and positioning (Note: We should be careful not to make it bland such as orders that give +1St -1BS! Each order should be very situational, not an autotake every turn). For these kind of squads, the commands are the same, they have a 6" point-blank area of effect range (bubble) - this means that if your squad is cheesily spread out, then some of the models might not hear the order.
For stronger leaders like veteran sergeants or autarchs, they might be able to choose from a better pool of commands.
Note: We should be careful not to make it bland such as orders that give +1St -1BS! Each order should be very situational, not an autotake every turn
agreed, creative is better.
. For these kind of squads, the commands are the same, they have a 6" point-blank area of effect range (bubble) - this means that if your squad is cheesily spread out, then some of the models might not hear the order.
i would say it should just be the whole unit can hear you, we can assume everyone has some form of intra-squad communication, except orks who just shout loud as hell, and making sure every model is within that 6" bubble would just be slow busywork. Yeah some cheese could come out of it, but its minor and not worth complicating the system over.
For stronger leaders like veteran sergeants or autarchs, they might be able to choose from a better pool of commands.
Cool idea, building off of it, there are some orders that take 2 or even 3 command points to issue?
i would say it should just be the whole unit can hear you, we can assume everyone has some form of intra-squad communication, except orks who just shout loud as hell, and making sure every model is within that 6" bubble would just be slow busywork. Yeah some cheese could come out of it, but its minor and not worth complicating the system over.
Good point, but just wondering, if you had intra-squad communication then why would you have to stay within 2" all the time? Wouldn't you set a few men to go over there and snag the objective while another few men advanced through the forest while the rest got a good line of fire through the ruins? And they'd still be able to hear you with the walkie-talkies/soul-bonds/WAAAGH..?
Cool idea, building off of it, there are some orders that take 2 or even 3 command points to issue?
Yeah. Any ways to make it a bit different from psychic powers?
if you had intra-squad communication then why would you have to stay within 2" all the time? Wouldn't you set a few men to go over there and snag the objective while another few men advanced through the forest while the rest got a good line of fire through the ruins? And they'd still be able to hear you with the walkie-talkies/soul-bonds/WAAAGH..?
Because there needs to be a way to distinguish units from each other, and many of the game systems like morale depend on distinct units, which wouldnt make any sense if models are all over the place. Also because itd be hard to remember what is what like that.
Yeah. Any ways to make it a bit different from psychic powers?
I think having command ranges being dependent on the model, combined with the different effects than typical psychic powers, is the best we are going to do. It feels different, and should play different, but idk. Suggestions?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I do like the idea of different sets of order tables.
my idea goes something like this::
Base Orders: a set of 3 or 4 basic, weak orders that are all useful, but very limited in both their applications and effect.
Veteran Orders: a set of 6ish orders that are all useful and moderately powerful, but nothing over the top. Some of them could even be Base orders as well, to show that normal leaders dont have the experience to issue the higher-calibre orders.
(more awesome sounding name): a set of 3ish orders that take 2 command points each, quite powerful, but can only be issued by a select few models like captains, platoon command squads, etc
(Even more awesomer sounding name): a set of 2-3 orders that may or may not be unique to each army, that are all very powerful, but only issuable by the highest costed and most powerful HQ's like chapter masters, autarchs, etc. This could include things like WAAAGH from the orks.
I think having command ranges being dependent on the model, combined with the different effects than typical psychic powers, is the best we are going to do.
I don't think it should ever be dependent on the model. For normal squad leaders their commands only affect their squad, so that's not a problem, but for HQs + independent characters, their commands could affect a UNIT within 9", however only 1 member of the unit has to be in range, because we assume he passes on the message to his comrades.
You know how psychic powers have a risk - psychic test/perils, well commands don't have to have this risk, but instead have the risk innate to the actual command. So really, all the commands are bad, except in certain situations.
Yeah, exactly, limited in application and effect, that's what I mean!
I like your ideas. Assuming we take the system of taking it in turns to operate units.....here's some ideas:
Commands are made at the start of the Primary Phase. They last for one turn.
Basic Commands Stay Put!: The unit receives +1 Weapon Skill, +1 Dexterity and -1 Ballistic Skill. It may not move.
Take Cover!: The unit receives +2 Stealth, -1 Dexterity and -2 Ballistic Skill. It may not move.
Empty The Mag!: The unit receives -3 Ballistic Skill. It may fire double the amount of shots, but may not shoot next turn.
Let's Roll!: The unit receives +1 Fortitude, +1 Mobility and +1 Strength. It may not shoot.
On a different note, how are these for morale status names?
but for HQs + independent characters, their commands could affect a UNIT within 9", however only 1 member of the unit has to be in range, because we assume he passes on the message to his comrades.
Yeah that's exactly what i meant by having the command range be dependent on the model. Weak commanders like Chaplains and Librarians might have 1 command point, but a command range of 6", whereas a captain would have 2 command points and a command range of 12", and they can issue orders to any unit within their command range so long as one model of that unit is in range.
You know how psychic powers have a risk - psychic test/perils, well commands don't have to have this risk, but instead have the risk innate to the actual command. So really, all the commands are bad, except in certain situations.
Ok good, thats how they should be, situational bonuses that you have to keep in mind to use at the appropriate times.
Commands are made at the start of the Primary Phase. They last for one turn.
I think we need to decide how we want to activate orders after we get a semi-finalized list. Because with the list of basic orders you gave (looks good by the way) this would be ideal, but for the older orders that were brought up, activating them when necessary would have worked best.
As to your list, im conflicted. I really like the feel and idea behind them, im just not sure if having that many effects in game is best. I think it'd be fine, especially once people got used to the list of orders, but playtesting will decide this.I especially like Empty the Mag!, thats just awesome sounding with a cool mechanic behind it, but -3 BS might be a bit too extensive, maybe -2 BS, or even a range reduction too. Let's Roll! feels like a muted furious charge, so id suggest it be some sort of mobility order with the morale bonus, because 1" difference isn't going to affect things enough. Make it 3", you might have something there, since you'd be doubling the run distance of a normal squad. As for take cover, i feel like this is going to become the new going-to-ground mechanic, so i like it. Otherwise, if going-to-ground is still something seperate, id suggest making it a -1 BS modifier instead of -2.
Suppressed
Neutralized
Dispatched
I'm not sure we've gone over the morale changes in enough depth, so lets hit that next along with orders/commands, Cool names though, but i don't know if dispatched fits very well.
Yeah that's exactly what i meant by having the command range be dependent on the model. Weak commanders like Chaplains and Librarians might have 1 command point, but a command range of 6", whereas a captain would have 2 command points and a command range of 12", and they can issue orders to any unit within their command range so long as one model of that unit is in range
Command point kinda sounds like a battlefield objective.
It feels iffy to have longer ranges on better commanders simply because they're better. It's not realistic, and having 12"+ command ranges is going to lower the strategic value of positioning your commanders. I still think commands should have their own ranges.
As for command points, it seems like unnecessary numbers. Remember established commanders get to choose from a better pool of commands, and letting them cast several of them on the same squad or even dish them out to all of your squads also reduces the tactical value of commands altogether.
I think we need to decide how we want to activate orders after we get a semi-finalized list
I'd suggest having to order them first thing in the turn, because some of them don't allow you to move. Think of commands similar Grimdark's command phase.
I especially like Empty the Mag!, thats just awesome sounding with a cool mechanic behind it, but -3 BS might be a bit too extensive, maybe -2 BS, or even a range reduction too.
Thank you :> The reason I put -3 BS is because the system could be well-exploited (in a good way) to squads that may be entering combat soon, or squads that are about to die.
Let's Roll! feels like a muted furious charge, so id suggest it be some sort of mobility order with the morale bonus, because 1" difference isn't going to affect things enough. Make it 3", you might have something there, since you'd be doubling the run distance of a normal squad.
Does that mean you want me to make it stronger? I'd like to keep the Strength boost because its a command that gets people swaggered up and gorilla-like. How are we going to balance it? How about a Weapon Skill decrease, for all their Ork-like rage?
Let's Roll!: The unit receives +1 Fortitude, +2 Mobility, +1 Strength and -2 Weapon Skill. It may not shoot.
Since charging scales off 100% Mobility, +2M would be +4" move. I think a whole 6" is a bit too much.
As for take cover, i feel like this is going to become the new going-to-ground mechanic, so i like it. Otherwise, if going-to-ground is still something seperate, id suggest making it a -1 BS modifier instead of -2.
It WAS going to be Snap Shots only, but then I decided to remove that mechanic completely and go for straight honest modifiers.
Take Cover!: The unit receives +2 Stealth, -2 Dexterity and -2 Ballistic Skill. It may not move.
Just a Dexterity decrease increase (wat?) to make it more situational.
I'm not sure we've gone over the morale changes in enough depth, so lets hit that next along with orders/commands, Cool names though, but i don't know if dispatched fits very well.
I confess I went onto thesaurus.com (I actually always do for these things...) and searched "route" as in routed and dispatched sounded cool. I quite like it; it sounds like you've sent them home, you've dispatched them. I don't mind routed, but it's phonetically the same as "rooted" which can mean rooted to the ground. So it kinda bothers me a bit.
But this is all I have...
Suppressed: Fortitude reduced by W, cannot move, -3BS
Neutralised: Fortitude reduced by X, cannot move or shoot
Dispatched: Fortitude reduced by Z, cannot shoot, automatically moves their full Mobility directly towards the controlling player's table edge
Not really anything done here. Help me out pliz.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Will reply in about 10 hours.
It feels iffy to have longer ranges on better commanders simply because they're better. It's not realistic, and having 12"+ command ranges is going to lower the strategic value of positioning your commanders. I still think commands should have their own ranges.
As for command points, it seems like unnecessary numbers. Remember established commanders get to choose from a better pool of commands, and letting them cast several of them on the same squad or even dish them out to all of your squads also reduces the tactical value of commands altogether.
That's why i put the limit at 12" command range, because anything higher than that, and it become meaningless where your Commander is. And the reason i like having command points over flat command amounts assigned to different unit types is because it lets us fine tune the number of orders a model can issue, not only to make sure that they're balanced, but because it provides us as designers a means to push players towards the higher points-cost models. If my little 60 point space marine commander has the same command range and number of orders as space marine captains and chapter masters, theres very little incentive to take one of those higher-cost models instead of him, where as if you have the stats go:
Strike Force Commander: 2 Command Points, 6" Command Range
Captain: 2 Command Points, 12" Range
Chapter Master: 3 command points, 12" range
Then there is good incentive for people to upgrade to the more expensive models, because very few people will be taking them for their direct combat strength.
And no, command ranges don't make much sense fluff-wise, but they help differentiate models and give incentive to move to more expensive and higher-command models, and help make them a little more different from psychic powers than they would be otherwise.
I'd suggest having to order them first thing in the turn, because some of them don't allow you to move. Think of commands similar Grimdark's command phase
I agree, i like it better this way, its just something to keep open.
Thank you :> The reason I put -3 BS is because the system could be well-exploited (in a good way) to squads that may be entering combat soon, or squads that are about to die.
The reason i suggested adding in a range penalty is for exactly that reason, some armies like orks would be minimally affected by such a penalty, and as such might just go ahead and fire away with this order, since they can maximize their shots for minimal penalty, so a range penalty such as may only fire within 12" would make sure that this is a last ditch about to be killed order.
Does that mean you want me to make it stronger? I'd like to keep the Strength boost because its a command that gets people swaggered up and gorilla-like. How are we going to balance it? How about a Weapon Skill decrease, for all their Ork-like rage?
Let's Roll!: The unit receives +1 Fortitude, +2 Mobility, +1 Strength and -2 Weapon Skill. It may not shoot.
Since charging scales off 100% Mobility, +2M would be +4" move. I think a whole 6" is a bit too much.
I thought charging scaled like running, at 50%? And if this was the direction this order took, it would always be used when you wanted to charge an enemy, which isn't really fitting with the idea of the orders. I think something like a quick sprint from one piece of cover to another would make more sense for this order, so something like +2 Morale and +2/+3 Mobility, not allowed to shoot or assault.
As for morale, i liked one of the idea's that we brought up way back in the day. If you lose 25% of a unit, you have to take a morale check, and take a permanent -1 morale penalty. If you fail the morale check, you are shaken, and can move OR shoot, and to get out of shaken status you must pass a morale test on the next activation. If you lose 50% of a unit, you have to take a second morale check, and receive a permanent -2 morale penalty. Should you fail this check, you are considered stunned, and may only respond to assaults, and must pass a morale check next activation to get out of stunned status. Should a unit fall below 75% of its original size, the unit takes a permanent -3 Morale penalty, and must take a morale test. Should they fail this test, they are routed and flee towards the owning players side of the table.
I don't particularly care about the morale status names at this point, but we do need to solidify the mechanics before we worry about anything else
That's why i put the limit at 12" command range, because anything higher than that, and it become meaningless where your Commander is. And the reason i like having command points over flat command amounts assigned to different unit types is because it lets us fine tune the number of orders a model can issue, not only to make sure that they're balanced, but because it provides us as designers a means to push players towards the higher points-cost models. If my little 60 point space marine commander has the same command range and number of orders as space marine captains and chapter masters, theres very little incentive to take one of those higher-cost models instead of him, where as if you have the stats go:
Strike Force Commander: 2 Command Points, 6" Command Range
Captain: 2 Command Points, 12" Range
Chapter Master: 3 command points, 12" range
Then there is good incentive for people to upgrade to the more expensive models, because very few people will be taking them for their direct combat strength.
And no, command ranges don't make much sense fluff-wise, but they help differentiate models and give incentive to move to more expensive and higher-command models, and help make them a little more different from psychic powers than they would be otherwise.
I don't think having a range difference is going to be an incentive to move to better commanders, it just means they're easier to play, which isn't what I want.
Giving them stronger commands is more than enough to encourage players to move to better commanders.
As for command points, I will ask you: do you want commanders to be able to choose from lower pools of command? And will that mean the worst pool will cost 1 point, the medium 2, the better pool 3 etc?
Because that will be extremely hard to balance, because that means the worst commands are twice as bad as the medium commands, and thrice as bad as the good commands!
The reason i suggested adding in a range penalty is for exactly that reason, some armies like orks would be minimally affected by such a penalty, and as such might just go ahead and fire away with this order, since they can maximize their shots for minimal penalty, so a range penalty such as may only fire within 12" would make sure that this is a last ditch about to be killed order.
I don't think we really need a range penalty, I still want to make the mechanics as real as possible; when people are asked to unload their magazine, they would go nuts and fire away, losing a lot of their precision. And obviously they'd have to reload next turn.
I thought charging scaled like running, at 50%? And if this was the direction this order took, it would always be used when you wanted to charge an enemy, which isn't really fitting with the idea of the orders. I think something like a quick sprint from one piece of cover to another would make more sense for this order, so something like +2 Morale and +2/+3 Mobility, not allowed to shoot or assault.
Well, in the secondary phase, you can either run or charge. If you just run it's half your Mobility, if you charge it's all your Mobility.
Let's Roll!: The unit receives +1 Fortitude, +2 Mobility. It may not shoot or charge.
I think 3 Mobility is a bit much, because that would scale into 5/6" extra. Also, if they aren't charging they wouldn't have their morale raised that much.
As for morale, i liked one of the idea's that we brought up way back in the day. If you lose 25% of a unit, you have to take a morale check, and take a permanent -1 morale penalty. If you fail the morale check, you are shaken, and can move OR shoot, and to get out of shaken status you must pass a morale test on the next activation. If you lose 50% of a unit, you have to take a second morale check, and receive a permanent -2 morale penalty. Should you fail this check, you are considered stunned, and may only respond to assaults, and must pass a morale check next activation to get out of stunned status. Should a unit fall below 75% of its original size, the unit takes a permanent -3 Morale penalty, and must take a morale test. Should they fail this test, they are routed and flee towards the owning players side of the table.
I think 25/50/75% divides it up too much. Even in a squad of 10, they're only going to be falling back with less than 2 men, which kinda makes the routing mechanic obsolete (if it's only going to affect squads that are all but dead anyway).
Also, the morale statuses aren't exactly in a hierarchy. Suppressed means they have to keep their heads down and can't really shoot to their full effect, neutralised means they can't do anything - they're surrounded by fire from all sides, and falling back means they've lost almost all hope.
I'm just thinking, with a clear mind: Suppressed and Neutralised have nothing to do with morale! It just means they're pinned down by fire. Falling back means they've lost morale.
This means: do you want a failed morale test to always be fall back? People can start off with a high morale but lose morale according to how much of their squad has died. So the more people that have died, the more likely it is for them to fall back.
This also means that suppressed and neutralised will only happen as a result of massive amounts of fire directed at a unit. It has nothing to do with morale! This would also create a tactical dimension of focussing fire on a few key units to temporarily suppress/neutralise them. What do you think?
having a range difference is going to be an incentive to move to better commanders, it just means they're easier to play
That is an incentive. Being able to affect units further away is a huge bonus. You don't have to be as conservative with your commander this way, and when paired with stronger/more orders, its a great reason to pay more to get a unit that has those capabilities.
Giving them stronger commands is more than enough to encourage players to move to better commanders.
As for command points, I will ask you: do you want commanders to be able to choose from lower pools of command? And will that mean the worst pool will cost 1 point, the medium 2, the better pool 3 etc?
I think a higher level commander should be able to issue the same orders as a sergeant if that was the best call for that moment, but that could be confusing, so im leaning towards your system of them just having higher level commands, and can issue one per turn. My problem is, i think independant characters and other non-squad level commanders should be able to issue orders whenever they want, which would mean they have to be radically different than other orders. I think this could be done, making them much more powerful than normal orders without growing wildly out of control, but we need to work with it to see.
I think 3 Mobility is a bit much, because that would scale into 5/6" extra. Also, if they aren't charging they wouldn't have their morale raised that much.
The difference between order "Levels" should very much not be linear. The strength should come from other ways of deploying them, such as being able issue orders beyond the start of an activation, and hopefully out of that units activation. If that route isnt possible, then if level 1 orders have a "strength" of 1, then level 2 orders should have a strength of 1.5, and level 3 orders a strength of 1.75.
I don't think we really need a range penalty, I still want to make the mechanics as real as possible; when people are asked to unload their magazine, they would go nuts and fire away, losing a lot of their precision. And obviously they'd have to reload next turn.
Yes but we cant just stick to realism, because then we run into situations like Orks right now with snap-shooting, where they may as well run and shoot since it has very little effect on their ability to hit, while it is a massive penalty for the likes of Eldar, Necrons, and Space Marines.
Well, in the secondary phase, you can either run or charge. If you just run it's half your Mobility, if you charge it's all your Mobility.
What is the secondary phase? And what is the difference between running and charging?
Let's Roll!: The unit receives +1 Fortitude, +2 Mobility. It may not shoot or charge.
I think 3 Mobility is a bit much, because that would scale into 5/6" extra. Also, if they aren't charging they wouldn't have their morale raised that much.
Ok sounds good
I'm just thinking, with a clear mind: Suppressed and Neutralised have nothing to do with morale! It just means they're pinned down by fire. Falling back means they've lost morale.
This means: do you want a failed morale test to always be fall back? People can start off with a high morale but lose morale according to how much of their squad has died. So the more people that have died, the more likely it is for them to fall back.
This also means that suppressed and neutralised will only happen as a result of massive amounts of fire directed at a unit. It has nothing to do with morale! This would also create a tactical dimension of focussing fire on a few key units to temporarily suppress/neutralise them. What do you think?
There's a lot of parts to this idea, so lets break it down. I agree that a mechanic where getting a certain number of shots fired at / hits taken is a good idea, lets see where this goes. As for suppression and neutralized not having anything to do with morale, i disagree. While the word Morale may not be the best choice for this stat, its what im holding to right now for simplicity. That mob of orks doesnt care about how many bullets are coming at them while they charge, neither does that hormagaunt squad, or a squad of fearless death company marines. While most models would be affected by the number of shots coming down on them, it cant be an automatic thing, since some units will ignore it more than others.
I think there should be a way for every unit to overcome suppression or whatever, which would most likely take the form of some sort of stat roll, which under the name i'm using right now, is the morale stat. Should penalties be attached to these units for more fire being directed at them? Yes definitely. For example, taking a number of hits equal to the number of models in the squad forces a suppression roll at a -1 morale modifier, and doubling that takes it to a -2 or -3 modifier could be a direction to look into.
I like the idea of tactical focusing of fire not only to kill someone, but to make them unable to hurt you, is great, but it needs to take a substantial amount of fire, i dont want the first squad to fire to suppress the target immediately. Also, maybe an order that lets someone press on and charge despite suppression, because i dont want a lucky activation phase to completely shut down a charging unit too easily.
I think 25/50/75% divides it up too much. Even in a squad of 10, they're only going to be falling back with less than 2 men, which kinda makes the routing mechanic obsolete (if it's only going to affect squads that are all but dead anyway).
That was just an example, all the numbers were just taken from thin air. It was the idea behind it i was trying to convey, but i like your direction better.
That is an incentive. Being able to affect units further away is a huge bonus. You don't have to be as conservative with your commander this way, and when paired with stronger/more orders, its a great reason to pay more to get a unit that has those capabilities.
Yeah but people shouldn't be drawn to commanders simply because you don't have to be as conservative/they're easier to use.
Yes but we cant just stick to realism, because then we run into situations like Orks right now with snap-shooting, where they may as well run and shoot since it has very little effect on their ability to hit, while it is a massive penalty for the likes of Eldar, Necrons, and Space Marines.
We should adhere to realism, because that is what we want the game to be right? Realistic? We should try and fulfill that as much as possible.
I like the idea of tactical focusing of fire not only to kill someone, but to make them unable to hurt you, is great, but it needs to take a substantial amount of fire, i dont want the first squad to fire to suppress the target immediately. Also, maybe an order that lets someone press on and charge despite suppression, because i dont want a lucky activation phase to completely shut down a charging unit too easily.
Of course.
That mob of orks doesnt care about how many bullets are coming at them while they charge, neither does that hormagaunt squad, or a squad of fearless death company marines.
Yes, I think this means while Orks and Tyranids have terrible morale and so can fall back easily, they can't get Suppressed or Neutralised easily.
How about a level system where your commander has a Command Level. Each level grants you access to another command. So the levels would be something like this:
Yeah but people shouldn't be drawn to commanders simply because you don't have to be as conservative/they're easier to use.
Not solely, but it's a factor, just like psychic powers or other special rules. And right now, many pure combat HQ's such as captains, chapter masters, autarchs, etc are less valuable than support HQ's like Librarians, Chaplains, Farseers, etc, since the latter can have a greater effect on more units, and combat HQ's can have a hard time earning their points back. This system lets us bring them back as much more justifiable and reliable units, since they are typically force commanders and strategists on top of direct combat monsters.
We should adhere to realism, because that is what we want the game to be right? Realistic? We should try and fulfill that as much as possible.
I'd rather stick to fun, reliable, balanced mechanics, and Empty the Mag! without a range penalty means it suffers from the same irritations as Snap-shots right now, in that i can have a big squad of lootas moving around and firing ungodly amounts of str 7 shots at 36" range, for virtually no penalty, which would be incredibly frustrating, especially when you add suppression on top of that.
Yes, I think this means while Orks and Tyranids have terrible morale and so can fall back easily, they can't get Suppressed or Neutralised easily.
How about a level system where your commander has a Command Level. Each level grants you access to another command.
Yeah between Mob Rule and Fearless under Synapse, i dont see it being too big a problem, but its something to keep in mind. As for the command levels idea, it feels kinda flimsy, like we'd be trying to justify a Command stat without strong backing of it. Plus then we have the problem of either giving everything just a few command level options, or we restrict some units from using certain orders, which doesn't feel right.
Love the names of Target Acquired!, Focus!, and Into the Fray!. Really cool names, any ideas for mechanics behind them?
Target Acquired! feels like a BS Increaser
Focus! Sounds like something that increases WS and Dexterity
Into the Fray! maybe some sort of assault and charge bonus i guess
To top off your list of orders, maybe make the last 2 choices out of the set of 12 (the 2 highest level orders) be army specific? Idk, could be hard to do or not really suitable, but i think itd be interesting.
Not solely, but it's a factor, just like psychic powers or other special rules.
Yes it's a factor, but it shouldn't be a factor. As in, you shouldn't be drawn to those commanders because of their range and their ease of use.
it suffers from the same irritations as Snap-shots right now, in that i can have a big squad of lootas moving around and firing ungodly amounts of str 7 shots at 36" range, for virtually no penalty, which would be incredibly frustrating, especially when you add suppression on top of that.
Except it doesnt suffer from the same irritations as Snap-shots right now. Who would fire double their shots at such a significant BS increase? Certainly no-one, in normal situations.
Love the names of Target Acquired!, Focus!, and Into the Fray!. Really cool names, any ideas for mechanics behind them?
Ok, time to work on this xD
Command Level 1: Let's Roll!: The unit receives +2 Mobility. It may not shoot.
Command Level 2: Take Cover!: The unit receives +2 Stealth, -1 Dexterity and -2 Ballistic Skill. It may not move.
Command Level 3: Stay Put!: The unit receives +1 Weapon Skill, +1 Dexterity and -1 Ballistic Skill. It may not move.
Command Level 4: Empty The Mag!: The unit receives -3 Ballistic Skill. It may fire double the amount of shots, but may not shoot next turn.
Command Level 5: Suppressing Fire!: The unit receives -2 Ballistic Skill. All shots fired gain the Suppressing special rule.
Command Level 6: Medic!: The unit recovers D3 models at the end of the Secondary Phase. (?)
Command Level 7: Target Acquired!: The unit receives +1 Ballistic Skill. It may not Split Fire.
Command Level 8: Focus!: The unit receives +1 Weapon Skill, +1 Ballistic Skill and -1 Mobility. It gains the Seasoned Marksman special rule.
Command Level 9: Into The Fray!: They unit receives +2 Fortitude, +3 Mobility and +1 Strength. It may not shoot.
Command Level 10: Arise!: The unit receives +1 Strength and +1 Defense. It removes all morale status effects and gains the Feel No Pain special rule.
To top off your list of orders, maybe make the last 2 choices out of the set of 12 (the 2 highest level orders) be army specific? Idk, could be hard to do or not really suitable, but i think itd be interesting.
mmm.....How about we keep the last 2 commands, but some commanders can have their own commands e.g. an Autarch might have one something to do with reserves or somethin.
Thanks by the way, I spent ages trying to find some inspiration for those names >.<
Except it doesnt suffer from the same irritations as Snap-shots right now. Who would fire double their shots at such a significant BS increase? Certainly no-one, in normal situations.
Orks? At BS 2, they wont really care if they drop to BS 1, so long as they can fire more shots. And if they can suppress or neutralize an enemy unit that was going to be a key part of the opponents plan, like a squad of missile launcher devastators for example or a big scary assault squad, they can do so, at up to 36" range. It doesn't matter that they cant fire next turn, they killed enemy models and probably locked down a key unit, so they've served their purpose. You can't have a defensive order that can be used offensively like that, it needs another restriction. And that's just the situations I expect, I guarantee cheese hunters will find ways to abuse this.
I LOVE Arise! Thats a really cool order to use in this system, especially since it looks like it'd be restricted to the highest level models.
Is the suppression special rule just something that lets you suppress units more easily? Sort of a pinning special rule deal, where if you wound a model in the unit, they immediately have to take a suppression test? Could be OP, but well see.
Medic! is way overpowered, people would abuse this to no end. I would run this order over and over on my terminators. Maybe have it be feel no pain or something, but even that's problematic, since FnP(5+) would be crazy strong, while FnP (6+) would be overlooked and not worth the order.
Giving Seasoned Marksman to a unit that takes Focus! seems like its going to cause tons of problems. Yes its a high level order so it'd be harder to abuse, but imagine giving that to units like snipers, rangers, missile launcher devastators, pathfinders, etc. They are going to annihilate anything they set their eyes on, and i don't want the game to devolve into commanders stuck to heavy firing units because they maximize damage that way, and will be slaughtered by the opponents commander in a big scary shooter squad.
I'm still hesitant about putting a strength bonus on Into the Fray! because if that stacks with Furious Charge, its going to unstoppable. Getting a +2 Strength bonus on the charge means that you can potentially go from a 5+ to a 3+, which would put the hurt on anything. I'd say keep the strength bonuses in special rules and not orders, because otherwise your devaluing Furious charge on one side and massive buffing it on the other.
Target Acquired!: The unit receives +1 Ballistic Skill. It may not Split Fire.
Feels a bit weak for how high it's supposed to be, and as for may not split fire, does that mean you agree that that could be done instead of issuing orders? along with the re-roll idea?
Yes it's a factor, but it shouldn't be a factor. As in, you shouldn't be drawn to those commanders because of their range and their ease of use.
Why? We need a way to show that more expensive commanders are actually better than cheaper ones, and this fits the bill, without being ridiculous or complex. And just because it can be done as ease of use, excellent players will still work hard to take every ounce of power of these units by trying to get more models in range of them. And i'm still not on-board with a command stat at this point, its just not something that couldn't be done more smoothly with a table or chart rather than a stat.
Orks? At BS 2, they wont really care if they drop to BS 1, so long as they can fire more shots.
Yeah but that's not the system. Moving with a Heavy weapon means -3BS (remember you're not supposed to be able to move and fire Heavy weapons anyway!), so an Ork can't move and fire Heavy weapons.
they killed enemy models and probably locked down a key unit, so they've served their purpose. You can't have a defensive order that can be used offensively like that
It's supposed to be used as a last resort, people would rarely use this just because they can.
I LOVE Arise! Thats a really cool order to use in this system, especially since it looks like it'd be restricted to the highest level models.
Indeed :] It sort of feels like you're turning your bog-standard men into half-Necron cyborgs
Is the suppression special rule just something that lets you suppress units more easily? Sort of a pinning special rule deal, where if you wound a model in the unit, they immediately have to take a suppression test? Could be OP, but well see.
Yeah, it would probably suppress people more easily than normal shots, but yeah we gotta balance it obviously.
Medic! is way overpowered, people would abuse this to no end. I would run this order over and over on my terminators. Maybe have it be feel no pain or something, but even that's problematic, since FnP(5+) would be crazy strong, while FnP (6+) would be overlooked and not worth the order.
I put a question mark after it for a reason D:
Giving Seasoned Marksman to a unit that takes Focus! seems like its going to cause tons of problems. Yes its a high level order so it'd be harder to abuse, but imagine giving that to units like snipers, rangers, missile launcher devastators, pathfinders, etc. They are going to annihilate anything they set their eyes on, and i don't want the game to devolve into commanders stuck to heavy firing units because they maximize damage that way, and will be slaughtered by the opponents commander in a big scary shooter squad.
Wait, you know that this is what the special rule actually does:
Seasoned Marksman - A model with this special rule may allocate any wounds it causes in ranged combat however it wishes.
It's just giving precision shots .__.
I'm still hesitant about putting a strength bonus on Into the Fray! because if that stacks with Furious Charge, its going to unstoppable. Getting a +2 Strength bonus on the charge means that you can potentially go from a 5+ to a 3+, which would put the hurt on anything. I'd say keep the strength bonuses in special rules and not orders, because otherwise your devaluing Furious charge on one side and massive buffing it on the other.
I suppose...How about:
Command Level 9: Into The Fray!: They unit receives +2 Fortitude, +3 Mobility and +1 Dexterity. It may not shoot.
I suppose you can justify the Dexterity increase (somewhat).
Feels a bit weak for how high it's supposed to be, and as for may not split fire, does that mean you agree that that could be done instead of issuing orders? along with the re-roll idea?
The reason why it's proportionally weak is because it has close to no downsides. It just increases BS, and this is vital in many situations, and because it's almost universal, it has to be moderate.
Why? We need a way to show that more expensive commanders are actually better than cheaper ones
Yeah, and the way we do that is by giving them BETTER commands, not FURTHER commands. If you don't have to disobey reality, don't.
And i'm still not on-board with a command stat at this point, its just not something that couldn't be done more smoothly with a table or chart rather than a stat.
Me neither, as in command stat determining which powers you can use. So characters would have Character (Command Level X).
I think we need to address something before we go much further, since there's a lot of command ideas floating around.
Right now, i'm in favor of there being different charts for different levels of commanders to use. So a basic chart would be available to all Sergeants, the Veteran Chart would be available to upgraded sergeants and equivalents in other army's, so Exarchs and the like would probably get the veteran chart, and then a leader chart that only the few highest ranking models would get, so warboss's, necron lords, autarchs, captains / chapter master / grand master, ethereal, etc. And on top of this system, i like the idea of sergeant orders being issued at the start of an activation, and commander orders can be issued not only outside of that models activation, but in the opponents turn as well. Both sergeants and higher level commanders should have different number of orders per game turn, and they should have different command ranges.
I like this system for two reasons. One, it's very segmented, so we can set definite limits to the effects orders in each category have. And 2, it lets us show the differences between commanders when the system of these charts doesn't exactly work. For example, a Chaplain is not a force commander, but he does have more experience and authority than a typical veteran sergeant, so he would pick from the Veteran order list, but be able to issue them with a command range of 6". A Strike Force Commander, however, is someone expected to lead troops into battle, and make strategic and tactical decisions, however, he does not stack up to his peers of command, the Captains and Chapter Masters, so he would pick from the Leader Chart, but have a command range of 6" rather than 12" like the other 2.
Command range isn't really the distance they can communicate with, its the amount of the battlefield they are able to comprehend and focus on, and issue orders accordingly, if a realistic approach to this is really necessary.
,
Assuming i understand your command levels right, you mean that a model with a certain command level can issue orders of that level and lower right? The problem i have with this system is that we have 2 options in where to take this. Option one is that we want everything to be able to issue more or less the same orders, which means there are only going to be a couple of these values used. Option two is that we take advantage of the variety this chart presents, but then we have to choose what level certain leader models are, which would not only be a bear to chug through and discuss, but frustrate players, because they don't get to use the whole list of available options while their opponent can.
It's supposed to be used as a last resort, people would rarely use this just because they can.
Players will abuse these systems at the drop of a hat if they think they can get a significant advantage from it. Cheese Hunters will be everywhere, and there have been too many examples of someone finding a way a few rules and units interact in an overpowered fashion to ignore. I don't even play Orks, and i can see that this will be easily abusable by them.
Moving with a Heavy weapon means -3BS
When did this get brought up? And do you mean that a stat can fall below 1? Because if so, then i dont have as much of a problem with it, except now we're essentially shutting down that order for Orks, since they'll never be able to use it, which is problematic in a whole other way.
Wait, you know that this is what the special rule actually does:
Seasoned Marksman - A model with this special rule may allocate any wounds it causes in ranged combat however it wishes.
It's just giving precision shots .__.
Yeah i forgot that snipers got that automatically, but that doesn't change the fact if you give this to a typical squad, they will be able to burn down the most dangerous models in an opponents squad automatically. Plasma Cannons, Power Weapons, Flamers, Sergeants, whatever is the biggest danger to them would be instantly taken down, barring some minor miracle, which would be really frustrating to the opponent player, and probably overpowered to boot.
Command range isn't really the distance they can communicate with, its the amount of the battlefield they are able to comprehend and focus on, and issue orders accordingly, if a realistic approach to this is really necessary.
This is a very good argument. I just want to add, making the ranges into 6/9/12" tiers would make it more varied.
Taking everything you've said into account, I have split it up into tiers. Sergeants would be Level 1. Exarchs and Vet Sergeants would be Level 2. Chaplains, Librarians, any commander that isn't a dedicated strategist would be Level 3. Commanders would be Level 4.
These are issued at the start of the Primary Phase. Level 1: Let's Roll!: The unit receives +2 Mobility. It may not shoot.
Level 1: Take Cover!: The unit receives +2 Stealth, -1 Dexterity and -2 Ballistic Skill. It may not move.
Level 1: Stay Put!: The unit receives +1 Weapon Skill, +1 Dexterity and -1 Ballistic Skill. It may not move.
These are issued at the start of the Secondary Phase. Level 2: Empty The Mag!: The unit receives -3 Ballistic Skill. It may fire double the amount of shots, but may not shoot next turn.
Level 2: Suppressing Fire!: The unit receives -2 Ballistic Skill. All shots fired gain the Suppressing special rule.
Level 2: Medic!:
These can be (?) Level 3: Target Acquired!: The unit receives +1 Ballistic Skill. It may not Split Fire.
Level 3:
Level 3:
These can be issued at any point in the game. Level 4: Arise!: The unit receives +1 Strength and +1 Defense. It removes all morale status effects and gains the Feel No Pain special rule.
Level 4: Focus!: The unit receives +1 Weapon Skill, +1 Ballistic Skill. It gains the Seasoned Marksman special rule.
Level 4: Into The Fray!: The unit receives +2 Fortitude, +3 Mobility and +1 Dexterity.
Players will abuse these systems at the drop of a hat if they think they can get a significant advantage from it. Cheese Hunters will be everywhere, and there have been too many examples of someone finding a way a few rules and units interact in an overpowered fashion to ignore. I don't even play Orks, and i can see that this will be easily abusable by them.
When did this get brought up? And do you mean that a stat can fall below 1? Because if so, then i dont have as much of a problem with it, except now we're essentially shutting down that order for Orks, since they'll never be able to use it, which is problematic in a whole other way.
How do we solve this then?
Yeah i forgot that snipers got that automatically, but that doesn't change the fact if you give this to a typical squad, they will be able to burn down the most dangerous models in an opponents squad automatically. Plasma Cannons, Power Weapons, Flamers, Sergeants, whatever is the biggest danger to them would be instantly taken down, barring some minor miracle, which would be really frustrating to the opponent player, and probably overpowered to boot.
I know what you mean. I've moved that command up to Level 4, so it shouldn't be that frustrating, because although they might have lost their flamer or something, their commander just wasted one of his valuable skills.
and as for may not split fire, does that mean you agree that that could be done instead of issuing orders?
Forgot to reply to this one, but this is what I've got for Split Fire.
Split Fire: If a model passes an Marksmanship test, it may fire at a target up to 12" away from the unit's original target. No more than a third of a unit has the chance to Split Fire.
This is a very good argument. I just want to add, making the ranges into 6/9/12" tiers would make it more varied.
I've been going back and forth on that idea, i'm just conflicted about it. I think the variety would be great, but deciding which units get the 9" version has been tripping me up. I like the 6" and 12" choice, because its a very flat weak commander, strong commander difference, i just dont know what would get 9". Examples would probably sell me on it, but i don't have any good ones in mind.
Your order chart looks good, but filling in that second highest tier could be tricky, and im not sure its totally necessary, as per my last post.
As for solving that problem, i think a max range solves it, but id like something more fitting. Preventing cheese just means we have to be vigilant about thinking about as many situations with as many units and army's as possible.
I know what you mean. I've moved that command up to Level 4, so it shouldn't be that frustrating, because although they might have lost their flamer or something, their commander just wasted one of his valuable skills.
yeah, it's still just something to keep in mind, since they could potentially issue 2 of those per game turn, which is incredibly strong. Maybe say they can't issue the same order twice in one game turn. Its just dangerous since this would let them snipe the other units leader, denying that squad their orders, espeially since things can die more easily now.
Do we want multiple orders to stack? Or even have the higher ranking orders override the lower level orders when issued?
Split Fire: If a model passes an Marksmanship test, it may fire at a target up to 12" away from the unit's original target. No more than a third of a unit has the chance to Split Fire.
im not sure, split fire is a very powerful ability. I think having it take an order, and maybe make you direct half the unit at the second target, or at a BS penalty or something on top of that would be the way to go.
I've been going back and forth on that idea, i'm just conflicted about it. I think the variety would be great, but deciding which units get the 9" version has been tripping me up. I like the 6" and 12" choice, because its a very flat weak commander, strong commander difference, i just dont know what would get 9". Examples would probably sell me on it, but i don't have any good ones in mind.
Actually I think that if 12" is gonna be the maximum command distance for every commander in the entire galaxy, then I would put it into 2" increments, how's this (obviously subject to change):
6" - Chaplain, Librarian, Farseer, Ethereal (?)
8" - The best of above i.e. named models
10" - Autarch, Captain, Chapter Master, Warboss, Necron Lord
12" - The best of above i.e. named models
yeah, it's still just something to keep in mind, since they could potentially issue 2 of those per game turn, which is incredibly strong. Maybe say they can't issue the same order twice in one game turn. Its just dangerous since this would let them snipe the other units leader, denying that squad their orders, espeially since things can die more easily now. Do we want multiple orders to stack? Or even have the higher ranking orders override the lower level orders when issued?
Let's say a unit can only ever receive one command per turn. As for commanders being able to do more than one command per turn...I'm not sure. It would be realistic but undoubtedly hard to balance.
im not sure, split fire is a very powerful ability. I think having it take an order, and maybe make you direct half the unit at the second target, or at a BS penalty or something on top of that would be the way to go.
Okay:
Level 1: Let's Roll!: The unit receives +2 Mobility. It may not shoot.
Level 1: Take Cover!: The unit receives +2 Stealth, -1 Dexterity and -2 Ballistic Skill. It may not move.
Level 1: Stay Put!: The unit receives +1 Weapon Skill, +1 Dexterity and -2 Ballistic Skill. It may not move.
Level 2: Split Fire!: The unit receives -1 Ballistic Skill. Up to half the squad may shoot at a different target. Level 2: Suppressing Fire!: The unit receives -2 Ballistic Skill. All shots fired gain the Suppressing special rule.
Level 2: Empty The Mag!: The unit receives -3 Ballistic Skill. It may fire double the amount of shots, but may not shoot next turn.
Level 3: Target Acquired!: The unit receives +1 Ballistic Skill. It may not move.
Level 3: Medic!:
Level 3: Bide!: The unit receives +2 Stealth and +1 Dexterity. It may not move or shoot.
Level 4: Arise!: The unit receives +1 Strength and +1 Defense. It removes all morale status effects and gains the Feel No Pain special rule.
Level 4: Focus!: The unit receives +1 Ballistic Skill and +1 Weapon Skill. It gains the Seasoned Marksman special rule.
Level 4: Into The Fray!: The unit receives +2 Fortitude, +3 Mobility and +1 Dexterity.
Idk...Level 2 just seems to be a Marksmanship Command Pool. What do you think of Bide! in Level 3?
Actually I think that if 12" is gonna be the maximum command distance for every commander in the entire galaxy, then I would put it into 2" increments, how's this (obviously subject to change)
interesting way of going about it, I like it, but play testing is going to have to be the ultimate decider for this one. As for giving commanders only 1 order, im not sure. Its probably the best way to do this system, but id really like for them to be able to issue 2 of the lower tier orders, though i dont see a great system of doing so without a complete overhaul of the orders. Maybe a unit may issue 2 orders from a chart 2 command levels under their own.
And I think we need some sort of standardization amongst the orders of different tiers. For example,
Level 1) stat bonus of 2 in one stat, drop of 3 total in any other stats or group of stats. Must select either may not move or may not shoot.
Level 2) stat bonus of 2 total, drop of 2 total in any other stat or group of stats,must select may not shoot or may not move.
Level 4) stat bonus of 2 total
These are very rough numbers on a rough idea, but i think getting it a bit more standardized would make it a bit more balanced. We can always play around with them more, but having a core we know and stick too would probably be best.
.Level 2 just seems to be a Marksmanship Command Pool. What do you think of Bide! in Level 3?
im not sure, id like for there to be at least one Melee, one shooting, and one movement order in each set, so we need to break that up more, but thats not to say each order set can't have a "specialty" of some sort, where maybe level 2 just has more shooting, while level 1 has more movement/stealth, while 3 and 4 are more about morale and assault.
interesting way of going about it, I like it, but play testing is going to have to be the ultimate decider for this one. As for giving commanders only 1 order, im not sure. Its probably the best way to do this system, but id really like for them to be able to issue 2 of the lower tier orders, though i dont see a great system of doing so without a complete overhaul of the orders. Maybe a unit may issue 2 orders from a chart 2 command levels under their own.
My gut feeling is that there's no point going into all that weird detail like 2 orders from a chart 2 command levels under their own, it's all much more tidier when it's just one order.
These are very rough numbers on a rough idea, but i think getting it a bit more standardized would make it a bit more balanced. We can always play around with them more, but having a core we know and stick too would probably be best.
I know what you are trying to do, but what I want to keep, is the essence of the command. No two commands are going to ever fit into that template, and if they did, then it would be boring. As long as we make sure that each command is naturally disadvantageous, then the objective has been captured.
im not sure, id like for there to be at least one Melee, one shooting, and one movement order in each set, so we need to break that up more, but thats not to say each order set can't have a "specialty" of some sort, where maybe level 2 just has more shooting, while level 1 has more movement/stealth, while 3 and 4 are more about morale and assault.
I know I want each order to be unique, so I don't want the higher pools to be just a better clone of the lower ones. I want the players to actually feel like they're giving the command, and their boys are being affected correctly by them. But I also want the pools to have a variety of orders.
My herded feelings: Each pool has 5 commands. These commands are:
Level 1: Split Fire!: The unit receives -1 Ballistic Skill. Up to half the squad may shoot at a different target.
Level 1: Overwatch!: The unit receives -1 Ballistic skill. All shots fired gain the Suppressing special rule. It may not move.
Level 1: Let's Roll!: The unit receives +1 Fortitude and +2 Mobility. It may not shoot.
Level 1: Take Cover!: The unit receives +2 Stealth, -1 Dexterity and -2 Ballistic Skill. It may not move.
Level 1: Stay Put!: The unit receives +1 Weapon Skill, +1 Dexterity and -2 Ballistic Skill. It may not move.
Level 2: Target Acquired!: The unit receives +1 Ballistic Skill. It may not move.
Level 2: Empty The Mag!: The unit receives -2 Ballistic Skill. It may fire double the amount of shots, but may not shoot next turn.
Level 2: Raid!: The unit receives +1 Mobility, +1 Weapon Skill and +1 Dexterity. It may not shoot.
Level 2: Sit Tight!: The unit receives +3 Stealth, +1 Dexterity and +1 Fortitude. It may not move or shoot.
Level 2: Flank!: The unit receives +2 Mobility and +1 Stealth. It may not shoot but gains the Move Through Cover special rule.
Level 3: Focus!: The unit receives +1 Ballistic Skill and +1 Weapon Skill. It gains the Seasoned Marksman special rule.
Level 3: Find The Mark!: The unit gains the Sharpshooter special rule. It may not move.
Level 3: Into The Fray!: The unit receives +3 Mobility, +1 Dexterity and +2 Fortitude.
Level 3: Arise!: The unit receives +1 Strength and +1 Defense. It removes all morale status effects and gains the Feel No Pain special rule.
Level 3: Lionheart: The unit receives +1 Strength and +1 Attacks. It gains the Fearless special rule.
My gut feeling is that there's no point going into all that weird detail like 2 orders from a chart 2 command levels under their own, it's all much more tidier when it's just one order.
Yeah thats how i felt about it too, but itd be nice to work that in somehow.
My herded feelings: Each pool has 5 commands. These commands are:
2 shooting commands
1 assault command
2 unique commands
with the last pool not following this rule.
So, smoothening the data further:
My initial reaction is that 5 orders is a bit much, as until players get really involved they'll have to keep a list on hand, or keep referencing. That being said, i really like how that order list is turning out.
Some of the newer ones like Raid!, Sit Tight!, and Flank! are really cool. Im still worried about Empty the Mag!, Focus!, and Find the Mark!. At only 1 order per activation for the last two, i don't think it'll be TOO big a deal, but i think playtesting will show we need to tone it down some, similarly to Empty the Mag!, but lets leave them as is for now and see how it works out.
We do need to determine how to demonstrate a particular command range however. Is it just going to be something like Independant Character (Command Level 3, 8") or something similar?
Ok so so far we've covered weapons, stat changes, morale, orders, changes to the FoC system, changes to initiative, Combination of toughness and armor into defense, the addition of dexterity and stealth, psychic dueling, some special rules, some units, suppression, neutralization, and routing... Is there anything else really pressing to get to before we start doing some preliminary playtesting?
Eventually id like to get to fine-tuning a points formula for deciding how much a model/unit should cost, but thats not a critical issue right now, since we can just guesstimate off current unit costs what the overwhelming majority of units should cost.
Terrain and deployment rules are still extraneous elements at this level. We need to get down to unit vs unit levels of testing, a couple of units on each side max, to see how having all these new rules and systems work together at the smallest of scales. Having some terrain in these samples is crucial, but any sort of official policy beyond light cover, heavy cover, and area terrain , i dont know if we need much more information than that right now. So set light cover (smoke, bush, fence, etc) at +1 stealth, heavy cover at +1 Stealth, +2? Defense, and typical area terrain rules, saying theyre light cover i guess, save for ruins.
Did we ever agree on how reserves should be brought in? I'm still a fan of sacrificing the first activation of a players activation turn to bring a unit in from reserves, with a limit of 2 or 3 units per game turn.
As for the turn system, we wanted to use the unit-by-unit activation system from the warpath system i brought up right?
So something like at the beginning of each game turn, both players roll a dice. The player with the highest value takes the first activation turn. During this activation turn, the player may select and activate one unit, and proceed through the 5? Phases with it (Command, Movement, Shooting, Assault, Resolution). After this unit has completed it's resolution phase, the owning player may roll a D6, and on a 3+, may activate a second unit of their choosing. Upon this unit's completion of its resolution phase, the player may roll a D6 again, and on a 6+, they may select and activate a third unit. Upon having their third unit complete it's resolution phase, or after failing or forfeiting an activation roll, the next player begins their activation phase, and proceeds exactly as the first player did during their own activation phase. The players alternate activation phases until all units on the board have been activated. After all units have been activated, the next game turn begins, and players roll off to determine who takes the first activation turn in the new game turn.
Let's not rush into this, the turn system is one of the fundamental mechanics and I want to get it flawless.
For the warpath system, what happens if you forget which units you've used and haven't used?
I can't help but want a bit of originality...Your warpath system is good, but how can we get it....more realistic. That's what I love! Undoubtedly there has to be some sort of turn aspect to it, but how can we entangle it so much (without losing control) so that it feels like you're in a battle, a real battle, with as close to real space and time interactions as possible. I know I'm going all corny but the game has to be utterly indulging to call it a mission accomplished, and I also don't really want to cut corners by outright copying warpath, as much as I like that idea.
Hi folks,
I have been working away from home for a week.(Stupid service engineer went on holiday, leaving me to cover the ref -fit on off site . )
Having skimmed through the last weeks worth of posts, I have ONE MAIN CONCERN.
You appear to be following 40k influence of over complication in the rules to make things sound cool to sell minatures..
EG the same in game effect has lots of different names JUST FOR THE SAKE OF SOUNDING DIFFERENT!
Could we just start at the beginning , with basic game turn structure and mechanic.
Then cover basic damage resolution .
Then basic morale effects.
Then see if we can include a suitable command mechanic into the morale and or game turn structure.
Looking at other rule sets for influence it seems much easier to cover all the intended game play of 40k +extra game play , without the 'fussiness' of current 40k rules writing.
I know some people like the 'chrome'. But can we get the basics down before we end up with all 'shine' and no substance.
If we decide on alternating unit activation or alternating phases first.
(We can keep the order counters we discussed earlier as place markers and remove them if they are not needed after play testing.)
Then look at damage resolution methods , and then morale and command.
the same in game effect has lots of different names JUST FOR THE SAKE OF SOUNDING DIFFERENT!
It's not different, it's fabulous
Could we just start at the beginning , with basic game turn structure and mechanic.
Then cover basic damage resolution .
Then basic morale effects.
Then see if we can include a suitable command mechanic into the morale and or game turn structure.
Sure we can!
Basic game turn structure and mechanic: We've just started working on it.
Basic damage resolution: Use intuition.
Basic morale effects: Half completed, just need to clarify and elaborate and it's done.
Suitable command mechanic: Prototyped, ready for use.
I know some people like the 'chrome'. But can we get the basics down before we end up with all 'shine' and no substance.
The chrome finish is on sale right now, we should buy as much of it before the sale ends.
We have some great ideas right now, we should refine them before they go stale.
We can keep the order counters we discussed earlier as place markers and remove them if they are not needed after play testing.
![[Disk]](/dakkaforum/templates/default/images/icon_disk.gif){kind=icon}
Models with power swords can instead have something cooler!
...)But I hope you get the basic idea ..
Maybe poisoned weapons should actually poison the target and not just do extra damage? Oo, perhaps some power weapons can smash Safeguard? (Safeguard being invulnerable saves)
I want to make this point clear about the initiative system:
)
Having them come on at turn 2 to 4 with rerolls most of the time, that's ok.
How about 1 point per model. For just 10 points, it's a good deal unless you're tight on points.
