Hi all,

Welcome to the ruleset of 40kD10: Edge of Revitalization. This is an unofficial ruleset to be used with your Warhammer 40k models.


How playable is version 0.1.10?



What is the goal of this ruleset?



Is this ruleset simple or complex?



What's new and different compared to 7th and 8th edition of the Warhammer 40k rules?



Critique



Disqlaimer



Codices


Extra

There are a few terrible ideas in this.

First) Alternating phases is a terrible idea. It severely cripples mid to short range shooting and melee against a long range army. Especially when the longer range army moves second.

Example, I move my hormagaunts forward on the board to get them into a position to charge. The Tau player moves backwards so that they are 12" away.

I now have the worst possible chance to successfully charge while the Tau player can shoot me in his shooting phase and overwatch when I declare my charge. My unit will be made worthless before it ever makes contact. It doesn't matter if you have changed the mechanics for charging and/or overwatch. The issue is that an assault or shorter range unit has to play it's hand and reveal what it is trying to do before the enemy moves and negates your plans before you ever get to act. Longer range shooting is vastly more powerful and dominant in a Alternating Phases system.

Second) Why the hell would anyone ever choose to turn 1d5 warp charges into a d10 instead of 2d5?

2d5 has a potential range of 2-10 and 1d10 has a potential range of 1-10. 2d5 will most often generate 6 charges (Of all the potential results on 2d5 the most common end result is 6 in the same way that 2d6 has the highest probability of generating a result of 7) 1d10 has an equal chance of generating 1 and 10 and any other possible number.

The option to make a d5 into a d10 is a non option, because it is categorically worse and so will never be done.

3rd) Across the board you have made the game significantly more complex while introducing a number of all new problems that make the game inherently more unbalanced. Many of the options add complexity without benefit or the illusion of choice where there are clearly superior options.



End result, this is a worse game than GWs already pretty bad game.

That's very kind, but (and this goes for everybody) I really don't need pads on the shoulder, high fives, thumbs up and whatever you young people do - I simply do not have time for it. If you like these rules, great! Use them as much as you like - if you have ideas or think you could contribute constructively, them I'm all noses!


Play responsibly.

I was not saying any of that to be offensive. It's constructive criticism. The turn structure needs to be redone. You need to go over your options in each mechanic with a fine tooth comb and trim the fat.

Complexity in the game should arise from interactions in the mechanics having interesting results instead of a bloat of mechanics.

Right now this looks primarily like a bloat of mechanics.


Game play is often described as a series of interesting choices. An interesting choice has consequences. In tetris you decide how you rotate the piece and where you place it. Do you destroy one line now or try to build for destroying 4 at once? The speed of the game increases with each line destroyed. Can you maintain control after that jump up? The players every action impacts further actions and each action can be equally viable given circumstance.

If anything in your rule book presents the player with 2 options and 1 is clearly sub optimal then it's not interesting and it's not really game play. It's just worthless mechanics that muddy the waters and fatten the rules system.

Likewise, the turn structure doesn't make your positioning or going first or second an interesting choice. As a Tau player I will always do everything in my power to go second. And my positioning will be obvious based on my enemies revealed plans when they complete their entire armies moves. My targets for my shooting will primarily be about crippling the few things that still pose any kind of a threat after my movement took the wind out of their sails.

The game becomes much less dynamic. The tactics much more shallow. The game play significantly less interesting.

That's slightly better but to your information, if I sense that the conversation doesn't lead anywhere, I'll drop out of the correspondence without any further posts.

1. This problem has been addressed/solved - read the Game turn section again (or rather for the first time, I guess).

2. There will be a maximum of dice, which may be used on a single psychic power, that's why a D10 can be better than 2D5.

3. I cannot discuss something unspecific - remember this thread is not for me defending my project - If you don't like this, you shouldn't be wasting your time in this thread. I will not waste my time on posts which clearly reflect that the poster haven't spend proper time and energy to read the rules.

4. This is version 0.1.9 - there's plenty of room for improvement though the problems you have stated so far are not actual problems.

5. This will be my last post responding you Lance if I feel you do not put effort into these rules, and so you will be ignored/blocked.

Haha. Ok. Good luck with your game.

Chaospling wrote:
That's slightly better but to your information, if I sense that the conversation doesn't lead anywhere, I'll drop out of the correspondence without any further posts.

1. This problem has been addressed/solved - read the Game turn section again (or rather for the first time, I guess).

2. There will be a maximum of dice, which may be used on a single psychic power, that's why a D10 can be better than 2D5.

3. I cannot discuss something unspecific - remember this thread is not for me defending my project - If you don't like this, you shouldn't be wasting your time in this thread. I will not waste my time on posts which clearly reflect that the poster haven't spend proper time and energy to read the rules.

4. This is version 0.1.9 - there's plenty of room for improvement though the problems you have stated so far are not actual problems.

5. This will be my last post responding you Lance if I feel you do not put effort into these rules, and so you will be ignored/blocked.

>Says the thread is not defending their project
>Says if you don't like it to leave, and then says the poster hadn't bothered to read the rules in depth
>Says they will block said poster

I hadn't bothered to read the documents yet (as I'm always wary of downloads), but this is definitely you not being able to take an ounce of criticism, as super blunt as Lance was.

Criticism which could have been answered by the reader himself, if the rules were actually read... That's right, not an ounce.

And please respect this thread for what it is. If you find the rules somehow interesting and you want to help improve them, that's fine. Right now you only derail it without adding anything.

Its always fun to see people assume it wasn't read and thus the criticism is invalid instead of hearing what they say.

Chaospling wrote:
Criticism which could have been answered by the reader himself, if the rules were actually read... That's right, not an ounce.

And please respect this thread for what it is. If you find the rules somehow interesting and you want to help improve them, that's fine. Right now you only derail it without adding anything.

He made a detailed post. I can't see how you can actually accuse him of not reading it unless you were trying to be defensive in the first place.

1. The criticism was not constructive at all. Pointing out "problems" without adding or offering a solution is not constructive. It was just a general opinion of a turn sequence camouflaged as oh so helpful criticism.

2. Apparently you, Slayer-Fan, do not even read my posts: a specific"problem" mentioned in his "detailed" post has already been addressed. His example of a game turn cannot even exist through my rules. Ergo, he didn't bother to read the rules.

3. These rules really has potential, you are really missing out of an opportunity, not reading them.

4. You are both derailing this thread and you know it, maybe you are jealous of not having the capability to write an entire rulreset yourselves, but no matter what, please do not derail any further.

Holy cow, your attitude makes me not care about how good your game is, or isn't.

1. The criticism was in fact constructive, but blunt. He showed a flaw in your rules, and an example. It may not be possible for him to offer an alternative without knowing WHY you made that turn structure decision in the first place, or what your end goal is. You didn't state that there had been a design change, as to what may have worked to solve the issue he saw, until well after you became defensive and insulting.

Just going to go ahead and skip to point 4, what is with your attitude?! What makes me want to play a game where any input I have is likely to be met with sarcasm and insults? How is that going to work to grow the community of your fan made ruleset?

What is up with the whole surpressive fire and fear rule?
As a matter of fact those severly profit horde armies via their attribut of having way more firepower on the field, that is something that you seriously need to look into or get rid off.
If it stays you will need to seriously have to take a look at how you write the following Codexes: IG, Daemons, Orks.
Hamper them to much and they will become useless, hamper them not enough and your meta will be dominated by a clusterfeth of a slogfest.

Also you allowing to seize Initiative is a problem in regards of "double-turns" as inbetween game turns, tere's then the possibility that a unit can attack twice in a row, leading to an potentially extremly swinngy turnstructur, favoring high rolling more so then actual tactics in such a case.
i'd personally recommend to get rid of said structure and instead would allow players to split their army into groups which they use alternately, and to insure that players can't just target the other ones group to disrupt their turns i'd allow to change the group on the fly per each turn.
granted that is still more swingy then it should be.

Also pointing out a problem whilest not offering a solution is still constructive criticism.
Mindlessly hating on something is not constructive criticism.

That's because all of your posts clearly show no sincere interest and so you are met with your own tone.

1. Start and end of first post: "There are a few terrible ideas in this." and "End result, this is a worse game than GWs already pretty bad game." - yeah that's how you make people listen.
One could acknowledge, that this is work in progress but no: this is just a really bad game, end of story.

2. What design change!?!?!? The flaw was never there!

3. You are not doing me a favour playing this game. I've put time and effort into this and I'm sharing it with fellow gamers for your convenience. Of course it's fun to hear if people actually use these rules, but I do not need it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
What is up with the whole surpressive fire and fear rule?
As a matter of fact those severly profit horde armies via their attribut of having way more firepower on the field, that is something that you seriously need to look into or get rid off.
If it stays you will need to seriously have to take a look at how you write the following Codexes: IG, Daemons, Orks.
Hamper them to much and they will become useless, hamper them not enough and your meta will be dominated by a clusterfeth of a slogfest.

Thank you very much - finally something. Though, you have to remember that not only the amount of shots counts, also the value of the Defensive Fear characteristic of the target unit.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Also you allowing to seize Initiative is a problem in regards of "double-turns" as inbetween game turns, tere's then the possibility that a unit can attack twice in a row, leading to an potentially extremly swinngy turnstructur, favoring high rolling more so then actual tactics in such a case.
i'd personally recommend to get rid of said structure and instead would allow players to split their army into groups which they use alternately, and to insure that players can't just target the other ones group to disrupt their turns i'd allow to change the group on the fly per each turn.
granted that is still more swingy then it should be.

I'm not sure, I understand you correctly. Phases may be seized, not entire turns.

Chaospling wrote:
That's because all of your posts clearly show no sincere interest and so you are met with your own tone.

1. Start and end of first post: "There are a few terrible ideas in this." and "End result, this is a worse game than GWs already pretty bad game." - yeah that's how you make people listen.
One could acknowledge, that this is work in progress but no: this is just a really bad game, end of story.

2. What design change!?!?!? The flaw was never there!

3. You are not doing me a favour playing this game. I've put time and effort into this and I'm sharing it with fellow gamers for your convenience. Of course it's fun to hear if people actually use these rules, but I do not need it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
What is up with the whole surpressive fire and fear rule?
As a matter of fact those severly profit horde armies via their attribut of having way more firepower on the field, that is something that you seriously need to look into or get rid off.
If it stays you will need to seriously have to take a look at how you write the following Codexes: IG, Daemons, Orks.
Hamper them to much and they will become useless, hamper them not enough and your meta will be dominated by a clusterfeth of a slogfest.

Thank you very much - finally something. Though, you have to remember that not only the amount of shots counts, also the value of the Defensive Fear characteristic of the target unit.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Also you allowing to seize Initiative is a problem in regards of "double-turns" as inbetween game turns, tere's then the possibility that a unit can attack twice in a row, leading to an potentially extremly swinngy turnstructur, favoring high rolling more so then actual tactics in such a case.
i'd personally recommend to get rid of said structure and instead would allow players to split their army into groups which they use alternately, and to insure that players can't just target the other ones group to disrupt their turns i'd allow to change the group on the fly per each turn.
granted that is still more swingy then it should be.

I'm not sure, I understand you correctly. Phases may be seized, not entire turns.

I'll give you a little tip: More stats lead to more balance required, more balnce required leaves more room for screwing up. That is why i warned you about those rules.
Imagine this turn 1 player1 shot last, now is turn 2 player 1 sizes initiative, shoots again with it's unit.
Now said scenario is not a problem when you shoot with a guardsmen squad. IT WILL BE A PROBLEM when my Tau Commander just get's double the time to take down a unit without a possible reaction of said unit.
Each time this happens, instead of the more balanced approach you were going for you have the problems of denying that approach and turning it into the contrary effect.
I hope that makes sense.

Agreed, I thought of posting a "Thought of the Month" and bringing a subject from this ruleset forth to discuss and one could be the profile and values of a model. As I've said, I spend time on this, so the values of the profiles are chosen based on a lot of calculations.

Your example doesn't even need the Initiative to be seized, that's what would happen normally: one turn you shoot first, the next you shoot second. Though there is a lot more to a turn sequence than that: how many detachments in an army, which phases do the players want to Seize and so on.

Chaospling wrote:
Agreed, I thought of posting a "Thought of the Month" and bringing a subject from this ruleset forth to discuss and one could be the profile and values of a model. As I've said, I spend time on this, so the values of the profiles are chosen based on a lot of calculations.

Your example doesn't even need the Initiative to be seized, that's what would happen normally: one turn you shoot first, the next you shoot second. Though there is a lot more to a turn sequence than that: how many detachments in an army, which phases do the players want to Seize and so on.

Indeed, but the fact that you could highroll to achieve such double shooting phases is a problem. It less tactical and more luck driven. Also additionally such double phases can cause serious problems, that is something that is problematic to say the least.
I like that you tackled the i go then you go but the double phase will just shift that problem away from high DPT armies to high DPT modells. Damage per turn.
I am also unsure if not action options like infinity would be a better approach in certain circumstances to lower this problem, frankly i can just offer you a additional viewpoint.
D10 is anyways a better system for 40k, it would allow to represent factions and strenght /weaknesses way better.

Regarding the double-phases:
1. It must count for something that the Movement phase comes between the Shooting phases.

2. I would actually be more concerned for the outcome where one player is lucky and the other one is unlucky through the entire game: the lucky player fire first every single turn. The outcome you talk about seems balanced: A shoots once but first the first turn, from then on the players shoot twice before the other player shoots, given that no player Seizes Initiative of course.

Chaospling wrote:
Regarding the double-phases:
1. It must count for something that the Movement phase comes between the Shooting phases.

2. I would actually be more concerned for the outcome where one player is lucky and the other one is unlucky through the entire game: the lucky player fire first every single turn. The outcome you talk about seems balanced: A shoots once but first the first turn, from then on the players shoot twice before the other player shoots, given that no player Seizes Initiative of course.

On point one, now that would be a problem solver but there is this "pinning" problem, especcialy considering that pinning is cumulative, ergo units will just full stop and take the beating, really bad also potentially for assult armies, but that got mentioned allready.
in my opinion you now got 2 options,
A) remove the "double-turn" problematic, probably a massive rework of the turn structure required
B) remove pinning or only add pinning to certain types of weapons. (Heavy stubber, Heavy Bolter, Hades Autocannons, basically bullet based weaponry with more then 3 shot's per profile, also maybee remove the part about hinderance of movement.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Chaospling wrote:
Regarding the double-phases:
1. It must count for something that the Movement phase comes between the Shooting phases.

2. I would actually be more concerned for the outcome where one player is lucky and the other one is unlucky through the entire game: the lucky player fire first every single turn. The outcome you talk about seems balanced: A shoots once but first the first turn, from then on the players shoot twice before the other player shoots, given that no player Seizes Initiative of course.

On point one, now that would be a problem solver but there is this "pinning" problem, especcialy considering that pinning is cumulative, ergo units will just full stop and take the beating, really bad also potentially for assult armies, but that got mentioned allready.
in my opinion you now got 2 options,
A) remove the "double-turn" problematic, probably a massive rework of the turn structure required
B) remove pinning or only add pinning to certain types of weapons. (Heavy stubber, Heavy Bolter, Hades Autocannons, basically bullet based weaponry with more then 3 shot's per profile, also maybee remove the part about hinderance of movement.

Well it's only a problem if the damage and pinning is out of hand and I've made models roughly more durable. Furthermore pinning reduces the firepower so a game of 40kD10: Edge of Revitalization should feel very different from Warhammer 40k 8th edition, when it comes to how often you remove models from the table.

Have you ever played a game with Stun mechanics?
They are in most cases regarded as atleast unfun and at worst outright broken, this is what i fear for your pinning rule.

No not yet, but T'au and Blood Angels were chosen as the first codices, because two guys with these armies are willing to test the rules, so I'll find out soon enough.

So, I was gonna read this and see if it was any good. But then I saw how the author took critiques... And I'm less inspired to do so.

Not worth commenting on something when any response besides "this is perfect" is dismissed.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, I was gonna read this and see if it was any good. But then I saw how the author took critiques... And I'm less inspired to do so.

Not worth commenting on something when any response besides "this is perfect" is dismissed.

And it hasnt even been play tested yet. Its all theoretical.

 Lance845 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, I was gonna read this and see if it was any good. But then I saw how the author took critiques... And I'm less inspired to do so.

Not worth commenting on something when any response besides "this is perfect" is dismissed.

And it hasnt even been play tested yet. Its all theoretical.

Seems like they just want a pat on the back and to be praised more than they want to actually improve the game.

 NH Gunsmith wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, I was gonna read this and see if it was any good. But then I saw how the author took critiques... And I'm less inspired to do so.

Not worth commenting on something when any response besides "this is perfect" is dismissed.

And it hasnt even been play tested yet. Its all theoretical.

Seems like they just want a pat on the back and to be praised more than they want to actually improve the game.

********** Booting System ***********
...
...
*** Scanning posts for anything contructive ***
...
0 %
...
0% found

*** Scanning for users keeping this thread on the top of the 40K Proposed Rules section ***

OVERLOAD

*** Shutting down ***

Thank you guys


On a more constructive note, I'll bring you Thoughts of week 28:

The special rule Remote Controlled.

This rule was introduced to make the Space Marine forces more cohesive and is based on the camera on the top of sponson weapons.

By the way, I think that some kind of latin names would be more fitting than "Weapon Link" and "Remote Controlled".

There is actually a lot constructive in the posts you quoted if you would drop your ego enough to read it.

Your attitude is gak.

People with experience both building and playing games with mechanics similar to yours provide you feedback with what will happen and you tell them it's both not constructive and that the issues they bring up are not issues.

The thread may be sticking around... for now... but it's not because anyone is reading your rules or playing your game right now. It's because some few of us are trying to let you know whats wrong with both your game and your attitude.

You are willfully oblivious to all of it. Soon enough we will stop. What you will be left with is a game 2 people you know play test once or twice and a document with rules for a game that isn't fun. I hope all the effort making it was worth it.

 Lance845 wrote:
There is actually a lot constructive in the posts you quoted if you would drop your ego enough to read it.

Your attitude is gak.

People with experience both building and playing games with mechanics similar to yours provide you feedback with what will happen and you tell them it's both not constructive and that the issues they bring up are not issues.

The thread may be sticking around... for now... but it's not because anyone is reading your rules or playing your game right now. It's because some few of us are trying to let you know whats wrong with both your game and your attitude.

You are willfully oblivious to all of it. Soon enough we will stop. What you will be left with is a game 2 people you know play test once or twice and document with rules for a game that isn't fun. I hope all the effort making it was worth it.

I just don't stand by when people are calling my ideas terrible and bad the way you did. If you really REALLY are constructive and rational, then why don't you

1. Try again while being polite and see what happens?

or

2. If you think I'm an idiot or something like that, save your own precious time and spend it on something better?

In my opinion, you prove my point by not being constructive, when you keep posting in this thread not adding anything useful to the discussion. If you want, we could kiss and make up and forget it and start a fresh.

Chaospling wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
There is actually a lot constructive in the posts you quoted if you would drop your ego enough to read it.

Your attitude is gak.

People with experience both building and playing games with mechanics similar to yours provide you feedback with what will happen and you tell them it's both not constructive and that the issues they bring up are not issues.

The thread may be sticking around... for now... but it's not because anyone is reading your rules or playing your game right now. It's because some few of us are trying to let you know whats wrong with both your game and your attitude.

You are willfully oblivious to all of it. Soon enough we will stop. What you will be left with is a game 2 people you know play test once or twice and document with rules for a game that isn't fun. I hope all the effort making it was worth it.

I just don't stand by when people are calling my ideas terrible and bad the way you did. If you really REALLY are constructive and rational, then why don't you

1. Try again while being polite and see what happens?

or

2. If you think I'm an idiot or something like that, save your own precious time and spend it on something better?

In my opinion, you prove my point by not being constructive, when you keep posting in this thread not adding anything useful to the discussion. If you want, we could kiss and make up and forget it and start a fresh.

Lets clear up a few things.

1) Saying an idea is terrible is not being impolite. As others have pointed out I am blunt. I didn't sugar coat it or appeal to your ego. I told you what I saw in the document you posted. If you cannot separate criticism of the mechanics from your ego to the point that you construe them for personal attack then you probably have no business posting a created work onto the internet.

2) I didn't call you an idiot. The fact that you THINK I even implied that you are an idiot gets right to the root of the issue here. You are taking personal insult to criticisms of your mechanics. The best game designers still have bad ideas that don't pan out and don't make it into the final cuts. Having bad ideas is not in and of itself bad. You can learn a lot more from mistakes than you do success if you can look at the situation critically.

3) There is no kissing and making up. I am not insulted by you and I don't care what you think of me. You can either right your own ship here and maybe walk away with something worth playing or you can watch this thread go down in flames as everyone who decides to participate inevitably decides to stop when they realize talking to someone who refuses to listen isn't worth their time.

That's definitely not how I see it, but I have to leave it at that, as I have better things do to, such as writing rules and such

While I do that, please feel free to tell us all why you keep posting in this thread; let's say your first post was about the rules, then I guess the rest were about how my response was. One post about the rules and so many about how wrong my response - it almost seems like you entered this thread to start such a discussion and not exactly about the rules...

Lets look at my posts in this thread. Shall we?



My first post. I posted constructive criticisms of 2 of the types of problems I saw. I gave examples of why they were problems. And I finished with a statement saying these types of problems seem to permeate the whole document.

You of course, responded to none of my points and instead with sarcasm.



My second post. I told you directly I was not saying anything to insult you. I explained where complexity should arise from in a tight well made rule set. I gave an example of what good game play looks like. I re-emphasized the points I made in the first post. You more or less told me to feth off after this one along with flat out stating that I didn't read your rules despite me referencing them directly.

Lance845 wrote:Haha. Ok. Good luck with your game.

A pretty light hearted response from me considering the way you have acted thus far.

Lance845 wrote:Its always fun to see people assume it wasn't read and thus the criticism is invalid instead of hearing what they say.

I stand by this. It IS fun to see people assume things that are clearly untrue.



I have probably play tested close to a dozen systems posted onto this forum since I got involved in Proposed Rules. I have made several rule sets myself. I also went to school for and hold a degree in game design. You never played your own rule set before posting it here and only have 2 people lined up to try it. You never played games with similar rule sets but your defending yours with insults and sarcasm to those who have thus far tried to provide constructive criticism to you.



Again, I try to be constructive to you. I explain how your attitude is being destructive to your project. Your killing this thing before it really gets started.



And finally I give it a go to explain to you again from beginning to end what I have done thus far in this thread. Providing constructive criticism from the very first post to the very last.

I post here for the same reason I post anywhere. I feel like I will have some kind of fun or interest in the thread. I LIKE game mechanics. It's why I studied them. I will dig in to any rule set every time because dissecting them for interesting mechanics or ideas is incredibly appealing to me. And helping out those with less education in the practice can also be fun. I don't mind helping others refine their ideas and see if something really great can come out the other side.

No discussion on your rules right now will have any value if your attitude isn't fixed first.

 Lance845 wrote:

I post here for the same reason I post anywhere. I feel like I will have some kind of fun or interest in the thread. I LIKE game mechanics. It's why I studied them. I will dig in to any rule set every time because dissecting them for interesting mechanics or ideas is incredibly appealing to me. And helping out those with less education in the practice can also be fun. I don't mind helping others refine their ideas and see if something really great can come out the other side.

Well then, by all means let's start over. If you praise my rules, I promise to be nice... Just kidding. Please just focus on the rules and what would follow in a game because of the rules - good or bad would be the opinion of the players.

I'd say that we probably have to agree to disagree about alternative phases, but I'm ready to open a discussion/conversation about another topic.

I can add that if most people are really happy about the 8th edition rules, I don't think they would enjoy my rules sadly as I think the majority of players do not need that much depth in their games, if the game gets more complicated (even if we're not talking "over-complicated")

I am not going to participate in this discussion tip toeing around subjects because you decide you don't want to hear it.

You either want criticism or you don't.

To that end, your turn structure is at the very heart of your project. Instead of avoiding it why don't you explain it. I presented you with an example.

I play Tyranids. I have melee only units. Genestealers and Hormagaunts. Warriors and Shrikes if built that way. Hive Tyrants if built that way. Toxicrene, Dimacheron, venomthropes, malanthropes and more.

If in every other turn I move first before the Tau player I am facing moves, then all of those Melee only units have to move as close as possible to the Tau player to prepare for a charge phase. Specifically they have to move as close as possible to their intended charge targets.

AFTER they move the Tau player gets to move. What prevents them from putting unfavorable charge targets in front? (Moving an emptry Devilfish in front of the Hormagaunts instead of his Crisis Suits or Firewarriors) What prevents them from just moving as far back as possible? (Negating my ability to charge all together) What stops them from focusing all their shooting into the units that have revealed themselves as a threat so that he can negate that threat before it had a chance to do anything? (Making any dedicated melee units worthless and longer ranged shooting the clearly superior option in the game, hampering or crippling mid/short/melee ranged armies)

This is a very real issue inherent in alternating phases. What exactly in your rule system do you believe makes this a "non-issue"?

8th is both simple and shallow. You don't fix the shallowness problem by piling on complexity. 7th was incredibly complex but JUST as shallow as 8th. BTGOA and Bolt Action have much better tactical depth while not being anywhere near as complex as 7th.


A game being simple and a game having depth are not mutually exclusive. Poker is a simple game with a lot of depth.

Okay then, back on track! I do not have time today, but I'll give you a response tomorrow.

Okay, first let's take a look at the turn structure from the perspective of a more or less assault oriented army.

In 8th edition, if the assault oriented army has the first turn, it only has to endure one turn less of shooting compared to how many turns it moves and, in the end, charges.
In my version, the enemy will always have the chance to shoot the turn, the enemy charges.

It's correct that in every other turn, in my version, the enemy gets to move after you have moved, not taking into account that the initiative was seized. In every other turn one player has the advantage.
When it comes to the movement phase, it's correct that the enemy can try to block your charge and/or move back if he has the initiative, which he probably will have half of the game turns.
In the shooting phase the enemy always have a chance to shoot at the charging enemy.

Regarding this situation there are many factors:
How deadly are shooting attacks?
How far can the shooting unit move?
How much are shooting attacks reduced if you move and fire?
By moving away, a shooting army gives up board control - is that important?
Do transports still come cheap?
And there is the obvious one: how much do shooting units cost compared to assault units?

Any of the above mentioned can be tweaked to make a balanced game. What if the armies of 8th edition were transferred to a game with alternating phases except T'au, the point costs of their units were raised sky high, so a 2000 points T'au army would consist of one Devilfish and one Strike Team? Who would complain then?

It seems like you always look at the glass as half empty and that your Tyranid army always is fethed, when you ask "What exactly in your rule system do you believe makes this a "non-issue"?" You could have asked that in your first post instead of assuming that I wouldn't take the advantages a shooting army has into account. If I hadn't done that and I refused never to do so, I'd agree that this would be a bad game, but what have I done? Only by knowing that, can you judge my game. I can only say that of course am I aware of the possibility to favour one type of army more than another, but I do what I can to balance the armies, including assault-only oriented armies.

Additionally one also can take the following important points into account:
1. Pinning is introduced which is an advantage for shooting armies.
2. Only in the Assault Phase can units break.
3. I've reintroduced Target Priority which is an advantage for assault armies, especially the Tyranids.
4. Units can disembark from transports as part of a charge move, so can stay embarked in transports in the shooting phase - also an advantage for assault armies.
5. Last (as far as I remember) but certainly not least, in a IGYG system a player of a shooting army can always move his units so to maximise the outcome of his shooting phase - this is only possible half of the game turns with my rules.

Chaospling wrote:
Okay, first let's take a look at the turn structure from the perspective of a more or less assault oriented army.

In 8th edition, if the assault oriented army has the first turn, it only has to endure one turn less of shooting compared to how many turns it moves and, in the end, charges.
In my version, the enemy will always have the chance to shoot the turn, the enemy charges.

It's correct that in every other turn, in my version, the enemy gets to move after you have moved, not taking into account that the initiative was seized. In every other turn one player has the advantage.
When it comes to the movement phase, it's correct that the enemy can try to block your charge and/or move back if he has the initiative, which he probably will have half of the game turns.
In the shooting phase the enemy always have a chance to shoot at the charging enemy.

Regarding this situation there are many factors:
How deadly are shooting attacks?
How far can the shooting unit move?
How much are shooting attacks reduced if you move and fire?
By moving away, a shooting army gives up board control - is that important?
Do transports still come cheap?
And there is the obvious one: how much do shooting units cost compared to assault units?

Any of the above mentioned can be tweaked to make a balanced game.

No they cannot.

There is a baseline thing called inherent value. If I have 2 units and one of them serves no actual purpose in the game then it doesn't matter how cheap I make them they will not be taken. Likewise If I buy a unt that has an impact every turn of the game or one that is undermined every other turn of the game, EVEN if the second one costs half as much, I am going to fill my army with 100% effective units because they will remove models from my enemy more reliably. If my Hormagaunts get dropped to 2 ppm to make up for the fact that they are a purely melee unit with weak armor, 1w, and a middling WS to balance out the sheer number of attacks they will be laying down then they will STILL be worthless when my unit of 30 becomes less than 10 because they are incapable of reaching the targets they are built to hurt with any kind of numbers that allows them to actually hurt them.

Further, if you make shooting less deadly then we have a dragged out game where people are rolling a bunch of dice to no actual effect. Which isn't fun for anybody.

What if the armies of 8th edition were transferred to a game with alternating phases except T'au, the point costs of their units were raised sky high, so a 2000 points T'au army would consist of one Devilfish and one Strike Team? Who would complain then?

The point I was making was not that Tau are broken. It was that if you take any 2 armies and place them on the field the one with more longer ranged fire power has a clear distinct advantage because getting to attack is better than not getting to attack. It doesn't have to be melee. Salamanders and Sister of Battle make use of a lot of flamers. Well... what are all these 8" range weapons supposed to do against necrons with their 24"+ weapons? They walk into range to shoot the flamers and the necrons take a step back out of range and just shoot them.

It seems like you always look at the glass as half empty and that your Tyranid army always is fethed, when you ask "What exactly in your rule system do you believe makes this a "non-issue"?" You could have asked that in your first post instead of assuming that I wouldn't take the advantages a shooting army has into account. If I hadn't done that and I refused never to do so, I'd agree that this would be a bad game, but what have I done? Only by knowing that, can you judge my game. I can only say that of course am I aware of the possibility to favour one type of army more than another, but I do what I can to balance the armies, including assault-only oriented armies.

I own Tau Tyranids and Necrons and I have played Spacewolves,Dark Angles, and AM. This isn't "Woe is me for my army". This is what I said in the first post. Alternating phases is a terrible system that causes inherent unbalance. None of the things you listed address the core actual issue created by the system.

Additionally one also can take the following important points into account:
1. Pinning is introduced which is an advantage for shooting armies.
2. Only in the Assault Phase can units break.
3. I've reintroduced Target Priority which is an advantage for assault armies, especially the Tyranids.
4. Units can disembark from transports as part of a charge move, so can stay embarked in transports in the shooting phase - also an advantage for assault armies.
5. Last (as far as I remember) but certainly not least, in a IGYG system a player of a shooting army can always move his units so to maximise the outcome of his shooting phase - this is only possible half of the game turns with my rules.

1) I noticed. I wanted to get more into the bigger over all problems before I got into the smaller individual ones. Others noted how bad stun mechanics are earlier in the thread. We can get to that latter.
2) They have to get assaulted first. There in lies the issue.
3) Again, only if they can make contact with enough of the unit intact to accomplish anything.
4) Good! But they can still only assault 12" away right?
5) IGOUGO is ALSO a bad system because it creates a shallow game experience and single handedly manufactures first turn advantage. I am not lobbying for a return to IGOUGO. I am simply pointing out how bad alternating phases are and the imbalances you have built into your game.

 Lance845 wrote:

No they cannot.

There is a baseline thing called inherent value. If I have 2 units and one of them serves no actual purpose in the game then it doesn't matter how cheap I make them they will not be taken. Likewise If I buy a unt that has an impact every turn of the game or one that is undermined every other turn of the game, EVEN if the second one costs half as much, I am going to fill my army with 100% effective units because they will remove models from my enemy more reliably.

But what does a subject consisting of a unit, that serves no purpose in the game, add to our conversation?

 Lance845 wrote:

If my Hormagaunts get dropped to 2 ppm to make up for the fact that they are a purely melee unit with weak armor, 1w, and a middling WS to balance out the sheer number of attacks they will be laying down then they will STILL be worthless when my unit of 30 becomes less than 10 because they are incapable of reaching the targets they are built to hurt with any kind of numbers that allows them to actually hurt them.

1. Aren't the Hormagaunts still too few then?
or
2. Aren't the Hormagaunts too weak then?
or
3. Aren't the shooting attacks too deadly?

These and other parameters can't be touched to make the game balanced? Shooting attacks are just too good that nothing can bring balance to such a game?

 Lance845 wrote:

Further, if you make shooting less deadly then we have a dragged out game where people are rolling a bunch of dice to no actual effect. Which isn't fun for anybody.

So we don't even have a reference point or talking about how less deadly we're making shooting attacks - the game goes straight from nothing can balance out the shooting attacks to shooting attacks have no effect.

 Lance845 wrote:

The point I was making was not that Tau are broken. It was that if you take any 2 armies and place them on the field the one with more longer ranged fire power has a clear distinct advantage because getting to attack is better than not getting to attack. It doesn't have to be melee. Salamanders and Sister of Battle make use of a lot of flamers. Well... what are all these 8" range weapons supposed to do against necrons with their 24"+ weapons? They walk into range to shoot the flamers and the necrons take a step back out of range and just shoot them.

So are you saying that the only parameter which counts is the range of the weapons? Nothing can outweigh this parameter?


In short, aren't we disagreeing if an army can be as powerful as an army which have longer ranges for their weapons?

No. My examples are clearly confusing you.

In igougo each unit gets to act in a meaningful way. It can move into position, shoot its gun, and charge before the enemy gets to respond. The unit has agency because it gets to impact the game. The problem is they all do it at once and the enemy has nothing to do but sit there and take it.

This is terrible because its boring. Its uninteresting. It makes for a shallow tactical experience. And it inherently provides a massive first turn advantage.

In alt phases, an entire army moves first. Which reveals to the enemy what they plan to do (but havent done yet) and then the enemy gets to react, before they actually get to do anything. And those defensive movements, can negate the plans of the first players movements.

BECAUSE of that, the longer the range a unit has the more likely that 1) they will still get to act after the second player moves and 2) get to act after moving out of the first players kill box.

There is a critical tipping point where units become truely viable thats roughly equal to the average movement distance of units x2 (there are other variables but i dont really want to calculate out the formula for something that should be obviously bad without the hard math). Any unit with a range less than that value is at a disadvantage due to the turn structure. This disadvantage becomes exponentially more of a disadvantage the shorter their range is. Any unit with a range greater than that value becomes exponentially more valuable.

This isn't based on how easy/hard it is to kill something. It isnt based on point values. Its based entirely on the likelyhood that a unit is going to be able to do anything at all. Getting to attack is more valuable than not getting to attack. When you give the second player free reign to negate the actions of the first (so long as range is in their favor) you inherently unbalance the game against shorter range/melee units/armies.

This is terrible.

Now, with this next part i have been trying to avoid injecting my own preferences because this is your project not mine and i dont want you to make my game i want you to make the best version of YOUR game. But...

Alt unit activations has a player pick a single unit, move, shoot, and charge. The enemy then picks 1 unit and returns the favor. Each activation has agency because it gets to impact the game before the enemy responds, but the enemy STILL gets to respond.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
One more set of examples.

Flamers have an average 8" range. If the first player has a flamer they have to get into (8-targets movement speed) range to garantee that they can fire their gun.

That means if the model with the flamer is anything more than 2" away from a average movement speed 6 model then in the second players movement phase all they have to do is step backwards.

Since most infantry weapons have roughly 12" ranges the flamer models/units are likely to get shot off the board without ever using their gun.

Many pistols have 6" ranges. Its impossible for player 1 to move into a range that garantees they can shoot their gun.

Because charging is a max 12" away it is essentially a 12" gun that has to shoot after all the other shooting and with extra steps. In order to garantee the ATTEMPT to charge you have to end your move within 6" of a enemy unit and HOPE they don't put unfavorable targets in the way to roadblock you.

 Lance845 wrote:


There is a critical tipping point where units become truely viable thats roughly equal to the average movement distance of units x2 (there are other variables but i dont really want to calculate out the formula for something that should be obviously bad without the hard math). Any unit with a range less than that value is at a disadvantage due to the turn structure. This disadvantage becomes exponentially more of a disadvantage the shorter their range is. Any unit with a range greater than that value becomes exponentially more valuable.

I roughly agree, but

1. don't you think there are other parameters which decide the value of a unit?

2. why can't the point cost just reflect these values and thereby make the game balanced?

Don't you think that we just have to agree about disagreeing about this subject? It's an interesting subject of course but neither of us will convince the other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

One more set of examples.

Flamers have an average 8" range. If the first player has a flamer they have to get into (8-targets movement speed) range to garantee that they can fire their gun.

That means if the model with the flamer is anything more than 2" away from a average movement speed 6 model then in the second players movement phase all they have to do is step backwards.

Since most infantry weapons have roughly 12" ranges the flamer models/units are likely to get shot off the board without ever using their gun.

I agree, such a battle would not be balanced.

1) i said other variables exist. They just dont matter as much when the end result is you dont get to attack.

2) what point value do you assign to a unit that cannot shoot its gun?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chaospling wrote:

I agree, such a battle would not be balanced.

But the second player doesn't have that issue. Because the first player already moved the second player only has to end his move 8" away to garantee that he can shoot his flamer.

How are you planning to assign a point value to that? Something that when it moves first is crippled and when it moves second is highly valued?

Again, longer range shooting is exponentially more valuable while shorter and melee is exponentially worse. Tau vs orks, or nids, or khorne, or blood angles.

 Lance845 wrote:

2) what point value do you assign to a unit that cannot shoot its gun?

Maybe one which would allow the unit to take a fast transport which could take the unit within range.

I see your points, I just don't find your examples relevant because a normal game would include much more. As I wrote, I agreed about your example, I just don't find it relevant compared to a normal game.

Hehe it's hard to not answer you, but I really can't keep discussing this as I don't think we get anywhere.

So, what do my Daemons army do?

I run Plaguebearers, Plague Drones, Heralds of varying types, a Prince, and some Nurglings.

How do they get anything done, when the enemy can back away every time I advance towards them?

Tyranids have a single transport in the form of a drop pod. Deamons have no transports at all.

Its also poor design to shackle one unit to a second to be effective. Each unit should have some value on its own. Not require a second simply to function.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, what do my Daemons army do?

I run Plaguebearers, Plague Drones, Heralds of varying types, a Prince, and some Nurglings.

How do they get anything done, when the enemy can back away every time I advance towards them?

You are both making so many assumptions (seeing the glass as half empty) that is to your disadvantage:

Apparently
1. Board control doesn't mean anything.
2. Moving doesn't reduce shooting attacks at all.
3. The Board is endlessly big, so the enemy can back away forever.
4. Your models are as fast or slower as those of your opponents - you can never catch them.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

Its also poor design to shackle one unit to a second to be effective. Each unit should have some value on its own. Not require a second simply to function.

Well the unit with the short range has the fire power and the transport has the speed. Are you now saying that units shouldn't complement each other? We are playing armies against each other, surely it's fun to have one's force work together.

It's been fun guys, but I have to stop for tonight.

Chaospling wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, what do my Daemons army do?

I run Plaguebearers, Plague Drones, Heralds of varying types, a Prince, and some Nurglings.

How do they get anything done, when the enemy can back away every time I advance towards them?

You are both making so many assumptions (seeing the glass as half empty) that is to your disadvantage:

Apparently
1. Board control doesn't mean anything.
2. Moving doesn't reduce shooting attacks at all.
3. The Board is endlessly big, so the enemy can back away forever.
4. Your models are as fast or slower as those of your opponents - you can never catch them.

We are basing this on having play tested this mechanic before.

1) its far easier to control the board when you have numerical superiority. Step 1 is to take a clear advantage in that arena so that your opponent no longer has the man power to come back from it. I dont need to back away all game. I just need to back away long enough to cripple your chances of winning.

2) a reduced shooting attack is far superior to no shooting attack every time.

3) see 1. I dont need to back away forever. Just long enough.

4) speed is a factor yes. Thats why its so powerful to know where player 1 ends their move before you commit to making any of your own. Also the reverse is true. A slow army will never catch a fast one.

You have said we are making assumptions several times now. It's not assumptions. It's not even just experience.

It's math. I can mathematically prove that alternating phases creates imbalance like I did with the flamers. But that isn't even the worst of it. WORSE, you created a system of pinning that can be exploited easier by the same units/armies that gain the most benefit from the alternating phases set up than it can by the short range/melee units that suffer the most under it.

If you want to use alternating phases in a war game , you have to design the game with this in mind.
Current 40k is such a mess of different concepts and ideas ,trying to fix it by adding even more rules , without looking at the core issues in the game play .is just going to end up with another different type of complicated rule set, that does not quite work.

@Chaospling.
What do you think are the core issues with the current 40k game play?

@Lance845
What do you think are to core issues with the current 40k game play?

This seems like a silly question, but when some players see 40k as massive intergalactic strategy sci 'fantasy battle game'.And others think of it a large 'skirmish sized sci fi RPG'.

Finding out 2 different 40k players want different things from a 'improved rule set' is not surprising.

Lanrak wrote:


@Chaospling.
What do you think are the core issues with the current 40k game play?

Hey Lanrak,

Well, this thread isn't for discussing game design in general but who can resist such a polite attitude

I do not have an opinion about the current 40k game play when it comes to issues and such. I think that they successfully have obtained what they wanted with 8th edition - it's just not me.

I do not regard 40kD10: Edge of Revitalization as a fix as so much is different, it's actually a completely new game with the 40k feel. One of my goals was to keep the 40k feeling and it feels like that to me, but already when the dice were changed to D10, I think that a lot would not agree on this.

@Chaospling.
Ok you have written a completely new game with a '40k feel'.

So what core game play issues did you have with GWs 40k game ?You obviously wanted your game to be different enough to fix your perceived issues with GW s version.But keep some elements to appeal to 40k players.
(Otherwise it would be Chaosplings war game, with no reference to 40k at all. )

So what game play issues you have with with GWs 40k game play.To make you want to write a new rule set to address them?
I am asking so I have a clear idea what you want from your new rule set so I can make comments /suggestions in line with your personal goals.

I think alternating phases would be good in a 40k type game.But due to the complexity of GWs 40k,the rest of the game play has to be rewritten with this game turn mechanic in mind.(As all 40k rules and codex are written for alternating game turns, they need lots of adjustments to work with the new game mechanic.)

I think this is where Lance 845 has issues with your rules set.(Please correct me If I am wrong on this.)

Lanrak wrote:
@Chaospling.
Ok you have written a completely new game with a '40k feel'.

So what core game play issues did you have with GWs 40k game ?You obviously wanted your game to be different enough to fix your perceived issues with GW s version.But keep some elements to appeal to 40k players.
(Otherwise it would be Chaosplings war game, with no reference to 40k at all. )

So what game play issues you have with with GWs 40k game play.To make you want to write a new rule set to address them?
I am asking so I have a clear idea what you want from your new rule set so I can make comments /suggestions in line with your personal goals.

I think alternating phases would be good in a 40k type game.But due to the complexity of GWs 40k,the rest of the game play has to be rewritten with this game turn mechanic in mind.(As all 40k rules and codex are written for alternating game turns, they need lots of adjustments to work with the new game mechanic.)

I think this is where Lance 845 has issues with your rules set.(Please correct me If I am wrong on this.)

Well, my perceived issues weren't based that much on rules per se, but rather on how much the rules reflected the background, both accurately (how tough some models should be) and the diversity between so many races and their units. So it wasn't that I needed to change to rules just because I thought the rules were wrong, but I just couldn't find the potential in them to make a "fix", and so I had to come up with something new: D10, new profiles for models and weapons and so on.

More directly related to rules was the need of a more challenging and tactical game and less of the famous "down time" and that's why I wanted alternating phases and the possibility to seize a phase for a single detachment and to make your own objectives, which would open up for so many possibilities.

I guess this is a short answer for such a comprehensive question and it's actually difficult to answer, because, what came first?: the background you want a game to represent or the rules? Well, you have to know the background before you can come up with the necessary rules, but in this case some rules already existed and you didn't think they did the background justice, so they needed to be rewritten.

@Chaospling.
The rules set the framework for the game play, which sets how the elements/units in the game interact.

if you are trying to cover an entire galaxy of wildly different races and factions, all with a large range of units. Then you need core rules that cover this wide level of variety.

And GWs solution of simple core rules and load of special rules,(exceptions.) Does not really cover it for some.

If most units in the game have ranged weapons, then basing the stat line and interaction on ancient warfare where shooting is only used in a supporting role.
Could be seen as problematic.

Similarly alternating unit activation is great in game where models/units have to move into weapons range over a few turns.
However, as most units in 40k start or can be in weapons range after turn 1.This can be seen as problematic.

I agree that a fresh start rule set with a 40k feel is probably the right solution.But I think you may have not filtered out all the anomalies from GWs rule set .

I have already talked about this with you extensively Lanrak. Im not getting into it again. We already know that i dont agree with your philosophy or general hypothetical approach to broad concept game design as some super necessary step when people already answered those questions in the first post.

Lanrak wrote:
@Chaospling.
The rules set the framework for the game play, which sets how the elements/units in the game interact.

if you are trying to cover an entire galaxy of wildly different races and factions, all with a large range of units. Then you need core rules that cover this wide level of variety.

And GWs solution of simple core rules and load of special rules,(exceptions.) Does not really cover it for some.

If most units in the game have ranged weapons, then basing the stat line and interaction on ancient warfare where shooting is only used in a supporting role.
Could be seen as problematic.

Similarly alternating unit activation is great in game where models/units have to move into weapons range over a few turns.
However, as most units in 40k start or can be in weapons range after turn 1.This can be seen as problematic.

I agree that a fresh start rule set with a 40k feel is probably the right solution.But I think you may have not filtered out all the anomalies from GWs rule set .

Thank you for your input, though we have also discussed this before, and as you can see, I have made up my mind of what I wanted to keep to keep the 40k feeling and what needed to change. You can only discuss so much before the test games take over and supply one with answers.

Thoughts for week 29: Crew members

Hey guys,

Continuing the thought for week 28, which introduced the Remote Controlled special rule, week 29 looks into crew members and what this "system" does.

Every vehicle has crew members - the Imperial Armour books have been used as reference. This has been done to reflect background in greater detail. The crew members and their possible actions are shown below. This means that the Astartes' vehicles actually have a disadvantage, as their vehicles have less crew members than those of, let's say, the Astra Militarum. To balance this, special rules could be made to balance this isolated, but keeping in mind that I also wanted armies to be more cohesive, such a problem can be a possibility in disguise, and that's why the Remote Controlled special rule and the Weapon Link was invented for Space Marine forces.

I am noticing a trend.

What armies do you play?

 Lance845 wrote:
I am noticing a trend.

What armies do you play?

Anything Chaos... Though I have a crush on Astra Militarum.

Chaospling wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I am noticing a trend.

What armies do you play?

Anything Chaos... Though I have a crush on Astra Militarum.

Chaos is pretty diverse. Do you own Tzneetch deamons? Khorne? Chaos Marine generic edition or one of the special snow flakes (death guard/TSons)?

Khorne in general (World Eaters and Khorne Daemons), Iron Warriors and some Death Guard, though I could start a Word Bearers, Alpha Legion and/or Night Lords army anytime.
I've started on an Iron Warriors codex, and I haven't come to the vehicles yet, but I can't decide if the Weapon Link should be a lost wargear to Chaos Space Marines like so much else which have been lost in time...

Does any of this fit the trend, which you've noticed?

Yup. Your primarily Chaos Marines. Which, by and large, are a lot like a slightly different flavor of regular marines.

The special rules you have posted so far fit for marines and imperium at large (it's not like Astra militarum vehicles won't have basically all the same rules) and chaos marines by extension. But it also means these rules don't fit by and large with other armies in the game.

A Ghost Ark for example has no crew but 2 racks of guns and a single Driver. How would that be handled?

Tau Tanks are driven by a single Driver. Are hammer heads going to have to choose between moving and shooting? What happens with a devilfish? Same choice? move or shoot it's gun/s?

Are things like Knights going to be considered a vehicle? How are you going to handle their many guns/movement?

How about some of the bigger tanks? Are you just going to make up additional crew for a baneblade?

I imagine the distinguishing characteristic of a "pilot" is they drive fliers while Drivers handle non-Flyer vehicles. You COULD designate the ghost arks single crew as a Pilot, but then the ghost ark JUST gets to do everything every turn while the Imperium vehicles have to go through all the complexity of assigning crew to actions.

Players who tend to mostly play Imperium or imperium like armies often invent rules that flesh out and seem fluffy for the vehicles and fluff they have but don't mesh on any level with the rest of the game or leave an army or 2 as odd men out that just don't work. Thats the pattern I noticed. Your laying all this groundwork and it's going to require cumbersome patches or piles of unique special rules to give any semblance of balance to the other guys. More fair and easier to just let let vehicles do their jobs instead of spending action after action for a single model to see what it can and cannot do this turn.

Tau battlesuits, Dreadnoughts and the like, Knights and even normal Necron Warriors will have a single pilot. Additionally T'au will have AI systems operating as crew members. I haven't started on a Necron codex yet, but take a look at the T'au codex and the wargear they have.

So battlesuiys, dreads, and knights have to choose between movement and shooting?

No, one bullet point is one "action", so a pilot may move and shoot any number of weapons, representing the more advanced computer systems in aircraft and the systems which connect a pilot with a vehicle through his mind; this number of weapons may be limited otherwise depending on the size of the model and the speed the model moved in the previous movement phase.

Chaospling wrote:
No, one bullet point is one "action", so a pilot may move and shoot any number of weapons, representing the more advanced computer systems in aircraft and the systems which connect a pilot with a vehicle through his mind; this number of weapons may be limited otherwise depending on the size of the model and the speed the model moved in the previous movement phase.

So you intend for a knight, a dread, tau hammerheads to have a "pilot" crew which can move and shoot any number of weapons. But a Rhino or Land Raider is going to have a "Driver" crew which has to choose, but also other rules to give them additional actions.

That correct?

A Rhino will have a single Driver, yes, a Land Raider will have one Driver and One Commander. Regarding T'au vehicles, I can't say yet, but it will probably be a pilot I think. Regarding T'au in general I've sort of changed them, so a player will have to choose a lot more between shooting and moving, for example are the Pulse Rifles Ungainly (Could maybe use a better word?) which is between Basic (former Rapid Fire) and Heavy, so they can't move and shoot in a single turn as much as they used to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
By the way, Rhinos and Land Raiders will not have extra rules to let them operate as they operate in 7th and 8 th edition. A Land Raider for example will fire less weapons while moving because only the Commander will be firing the weapons and because of the placement of the sponson weapon, he can only fire one of them unless the both the sponsons can target the same unit; this can change if a Space Marine is close by, he can use his weapon link and control a sponson weapon to target another unit.

What basis are you using for making these decisions?

Are you just thinking about what "feels right" to you? How are you deciding what gets a pilot and what gets a driver? How are you approaching how many guns a unit can shoot and whether they should be able to move and shoot?

I am trying to understand your process here.

 Lance845 wrote:
What basis are you using for making these decisions?

Are you just thinking about what "feels right" to you? How are you deciding what gets a pilot and what gets a driver? How are you approaching how many guns a unit can shoot and whether they should be able to move and shoot?

I am trying to understand your process here.

Ouch no not at all, the rules have to work, so I can't just use Imperial Armour books blindly. I've gone back and forth on which actions a crew member should have, and I think that I had to slightly change the crew member types for a vehicle - I can't remember which one right now.
The process was roughly to determine what the vehicle in question could do with the 7th edition rules to have a reference point. It wasn't that I just wanted to stay close to this reference point but it was nice to know what a vehicle could do in a certain edition (how far could it move, how many of its weapons it could fire when it stood still, when it moved at different speeds and so on).

 Lance845 wrote:
How are you approaching how many guns a unit can shoot and whether they should be able to move and shoot?

I'm not sure how I can answer this question... I got a reference point and I wanted the shooting phase to be less lethal/be more equal to the assault phase. I also made these general criteria (I've probably forgotten some):

Tanks should be more lethal than walkers, but much more restricted in the movement phase (Limited number of 90 degree turns).

Walkers can be more tactical (can have the Objective Secured special rule) IF they also have a close combat weapon. If it has not close combat weapons it cannot even attack in the assault phase (I hate the idea of a Dreadnought armed with twin-linked heavy bolters and missile launcher being able to do anything harmful in a close combat.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
In my opinion 7th edition had it upside down when it came to tanks and walkers. A tank should, in my opinion, be the optimal platform for a weapon, it's mass low to the ground and very stable, but the 7th edition rules had a tank limited to fire a single weapon when moving and allowing a walker to still fire all of its weapons. So I wanted to correct this and have walkers and tanks to have different advantages to make the players think it through regarding what role he wants it to fulfill in a certain army.

Here's a comparison of two vehicles of roughly the same size (I haven't calculated their point cost yet):

Movement phase:
A Dreadnought may turn any number of times during the movement phase regardless of how far it has moved.
A Predator may turn 360 degrees when stationary.
A Predator may make 2 90 degrees turns when moving at combat speed, 1 90 degrees turn when moving at cruising speed and 0 turns when moving flat out. In addition, a tank halves the value of its movement characteristic, when it moves backwards.

Shooting phase:
A Dreadnought can fire 2 weapons when stationary and when making a normal move. When making a Focussed Move (Twice the normal movement. The term "Running" is out. Only Pistols (and Assault weapons at half range) can be fired, when making a Focussed Move.) 1 weapon may be fired.

A Predator can fire all of its weapons when stationary, 3 weapons at combat speed (combat speed = Normal move), 1 weapon at cruising speed (pistols and assault weapons) and 0 weapons when moving flat out.

That sounds entirely convoluted and too much bookkeeping, even for someone that didn't hate 7th.

So here are some notes...

1) 90 degree turns and 180 degree turns and ANY degree turns are complicated and prone to creating both slow down and arguments at the table. there is no tool you can provide that will speed it up and work with every vehicle for every army and it only takes 1 person disagreeing for the cracks to show.

2) 7th is one of the worst games ever made. Trying to start on a foundation of 7th is horrible. Building MORE complication onto 7th is madness.

3) A unit being stuck in a melee and having no ability to do anything in it is terrible. I can EASILY surround a knight with say.. hormagaunts or gargoyles. I can do the same with a dread. It's not fun for the player who looses a unit because they have been locked out of acting and it's not actually fun or interesting for the guy whos doing it.

All these mechanics open up the doors to all this terrible game play. You don't seem to have a great grasp on the consequences of the mechanics you build. It's not just how it functions when used as intended in optimal situations. It's how it functions in the WORST scenario under the most exploited situations.

 Lance845 wrote:

1) 90 degree turns and 180 degree turns and ANY degree turns are complicated and prone to creating both slow down and arguments at the table. there is no tool you can provide that will speed it up and work with every vehicle for every army and it only takes 1 person disagreeing for the cracks to show.

Agreed, I'm aware of this disadvantage.

 Lance845 wrote:

2) 7th is one of the worst games ever made. Trying to start on a foundation of 7th is horrible. Building MORE complication onto 7th is madness.

Is there a reason why you are stating this?

 Lance845 wrote:

3) A unit being stuck in a melee and having no ability to do anything in it is terrible. I can EASILY surround a knight with say.. hormagaunts or gargoyles. I can do the same with a dread. It's not fun for the player who looses a unit because they have been locked out of acting and it's not actually fun or interesting for the guy whos doing it.

Aha... Yes... Interesting.... Is there a reason why you are stating this?

 Lance845 wrote:

You don't seem to have a great grasp on the consequences of the mechanics you build.

I'm aware of every aspect of this system, which I have build, and that there's pros and cons for every one of them. Now, when you bring up subjects you only mention either the pros OR the cons depending on what you feel (yes what you feel, as you're certainly not being rational or objective.) and make assumptions and that makes your posts quite useless to me. There are a lot of examples to this, one of them is when you commented on pinning:

 Lance845 wrote:

But that isn't even the worst of it. WORSE, you created a system of pinning that can be exploited easier by the same units/armies that gain the most benefit from the alternating phases set up than it can by the short range/melee units that suffer the most under it.

So...
1. Units can no longer break because of shooting attacks.
2. The nearest model does not have to be removed first.
3. Pinning is already a thing

...but I change pinning from being a special rule to being a separate game mechanic.

and we haven't even talked about an example where we're calculating the actual effects.

A person, who can come to concrete conclusions as fast as you can, is in my eyes ruled by his emotions and incompetent when it comes to analyze anything and his opinions are useless and not the least bit constructive to me.

I started out as being angry to be received like that, when I just wanted to share something with fellow gamers, but now you almost amuse me when being so ridiculous in your conclusions. So now you know, that your feedback and opinions will not be taken seriously.

Chaospling wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

1) 90 degree turns and 180 degree turns and ANY degree turns are complicated and prone to creating both slow down and arguments at the table. there is no tool you can provide that will speed it up and work with every vehicle for every army and it only takes 1 person disagreeing for the cracks to show.

Agreed, I'm aware of this disadvantage.

 Lance845 wrote:

2) 7th is one of the worst games ever made. Trying to start on a foundation of 7th is horrible. Building MORE complication onto 7th is madness.

Is there a reason why you are stating this?

 Lance845 wrote:

3) A unit being stuck in a melee and having no ability to do anything in it is terrible. I can EASILY surround a knight with say.. hormagaunts or gargoyles. I can do the same with a dread. It's not fun for the player who looses a unit because they have been locked out of acting and it's not actually fun or interesting for the guy whos doing it.

Aha... Yes... Interesting.... Is there a reason why you are stating this?

 Lance845 wrote:

You don't seem to have a great grasp on the consequences of the mechanics you build.

I'm aware of every aspect of this system, which I have build, and that there's pros and cons for every one of them. Now, when you bring up subjects you only mention either the pros OR the cons depending on what you feel (yes what you feel, as you're certainly not being rational or objective.) and make assumptions and that makes your posts quite useless to me. There are a lot of examples to this, one of them is when you commented on pinning:

 Lance845 wrote:

But that isn't even the worst of it. WORSE, you created a system of pinning that can be exploited easier by the same units/armies that gain the most benefit from the alternating phases set up than it can by the short range/melee units that suffer the most under it.

So...
1. Units can no longer break because of shooting attacks.
2. The nearest model does not have to be removed first.
3. Pinning is already a thing

...but I change pinning from being a special rule to being a separate game mechanic.

and we haven't even talked about an example where we're calculating the actual effects.

A person, who can come to concrete conclusions as fast as you can, is in my eyes ruled by his emotions and incompetent when it comes to analyze anything and his opinions are useless and not the least bit constructive to me.

I started out as being angry to be received like that, when I just wanted to share something with fellow gamers, but now you almost amuse me when being so ridiculous in your conclusions. So now you know, that your feedback and opinions will not be taken seriously.

He doesn't really need to make the math to realize that pinning is a BS stun mechanic as i allready pointed out.
PINNING
• The Degree of Pinning of a unit is subtracted from the target unit’s value of Ballistic Skill characteristic and Initiative characteristic.
• The Degree of Pinning, in inches, is also subtracted from movement except Fall Back moves, Charge moves, Break Off moves and Advance moves.
If a unit’s Charge move is successful, the unit has completely recovered from Pinning as the charging unit summons all the rage and discipline into their possibly last act.
• The Degree of Pinning of a unit is subtracted from the value of the Leadership characteristics of the models in the unit, when making a Regroup check.

Because you degree of pinning favours shooty horde armies literally, even worse then 8th favours cheap spammable chaff.

Player Shooting Phase Step 1.5
– Determine Degree of Pinning If the total amount of Successful Hits from a single unit is equal to or higher than the amount of models in the target unit, there is a chance that the target unit will be pinned to some degree.
Compare the amount of Successful Hits of weapons, which have the same value of Fear characteristic, with the amount of models in the target unit. Hits from weapons with a higher value of Fear characteristic can be added to the amount of hits of weapons with a lower value of Fear characteristic. The player, who is making the shooting attack, chooses the value of Fear characteristic which benefits him the most.
If the total amount of hits of the chosen value of Fear characteristic outnumbers the amount of models in the target unit by 2:1 or more, the chosen Fear value increases by:
1 if they outnumber by 2:1 2 if they outnumber by 3:1 3 if they outnumber by 4:1 4 if they outnumber by 5:1 or more
If the final value of the weapons’ Fear characteristic is higher than the value of the target unit’s Defensive Fear characteristic (use the highest value amongst the models in the target unit), then the difference is the target unit’s Degree of Pinning. Degrees of Pinning are cumulative.
The whole thing is based upin a new stat, and how many bullets you can put down range.
I'll say it again, but stunlocking is not an interactive mechanic, it can be abused as all hell.
Secondly your pilot/driver line is completely arbitrary. A leman russ with 2 sponsons has 4 gunners, a driver and a commander. That is a well known lore fact. Secondly a tank is not the most optimal place for a gun to be.
I don't know if you have military experience, but there is a reason why artillery is still in use and why tanks see massive cost disadvantages comared to said artilery, be it self proppeled or regular towed one.
Also your walker /tank line is completely random, because how would you fit in a Defiler. Arguably a SPAA.

Also dismissing valid criticism like this by just ignoring someone and attacking him ad hominem, as a sentimental fool is certainly not going to help in regards how well this project is taken up or considered.
Because it certainly has it's merits.
Additionally his point on 7th was very valid. 7th was terrible, full stop. Adding more mechanics on top of 7th which suffered massivly from rules favoring certain armies will do you not really anygood.

90% of the 40k players will agree that 7th was to comlpicated and could use a proper trimming of fat. What Gw did with 8th was a trimming down to the roots, certainly not really better then 7th.

Not Online!!! wrote:


He doesn't really need to make the math to realize that pinning is a BS stun mechanic as i allready pointed out.
PINNING
• The Degree of Pinning of a unit is subtracted from the target unit’s value of Ballistic Skill characteristic and Initiative characteristic.
• The Degree of Pinning, in inches, is also subtracted from movement except Fall Back moves, Charge moves, Break Off moves and Advance moves.
If a unit’s Charge move is successful, the unit has completely recovered from Pinning as the charging unit summons all the rage and discipline into their possibly last act.
• The Degree of Pinning of a unit is subtracted from the value of the Leadership characteristics of the models in the unit, when making a Regroup check.

Because you degree of pinning favours shooty horde armies literally, even worse then 8th favours cheap spammable chaff.

Yes the pinning system favours shooting armies, but again... And I've stated this so many times, that it's incredible that I have to say so again: look at all the pros and cons before you come to a conclusion. I'm not in love with this system, it's gone if it's no good but feedback based on very narrow perspectives is useless to me. If some wants to skip the hard work (discussing if the pros equal the cons) and jump right to the conclusion and present that, then it's useless to me.


Player Shooting Phase Step 1.5
– Determine Degree of Pinning If the total amount of Successful Hits from a single unit is equal to or higher than the amount of models in the target unit, there is a chance that the target unit will be pinned to some degree.
Compare the amount of Successful Hits of weapons, which have the same value of Fear characteristic, with the amount of models in the target unit. Hits from weapons with a higher value of Fear characteristic can be added to the amount of hits of weapons with a lower value of Fear characteristic. The player, who is making the shooting attack, chooses the value of Fear characteristic which benefits him the most.
If the total amount of hits of the chosen value of Fear characteristic outnumbers the amount of models in the target unit by 2:1 or more, the chosen Fear value increases by:
1 if they outnumber by 2:1 2 if they outnumber by 3:1 3 if they outnumber by 4:1 4 if they outnumber by 5:1 or more
If the final value of the weapons’ Fear characteristic is higher than the value of the target unit’s Defensive Fear characteristic (use the highest value amongst the models in the target unit), then the difference is the target unit’s Degree of Pinning. Degrees of Pinning are cumulative.

Not Online!!! wrote:

The whole thing is based upin a new stat, and how many bullets you can put down range.
I'll say it again, but stunlocking is not an interactive mechanic, it can be abused as all hell.

It can? (This is a sincere question.) Could you give me an example?

Not Online!!! wrote:
A leman russ with 2 sponsons has 4 gunners, a driver and a commander.

Agreed, what is your point?

Not Online!!! wrote:

Also your walker /tank line is completely random, because how would you fit in a Defiler. Arguably a SPAA.

I don't follow...

Not Online!!! wrote:

Also dismissing valid criticism like this by just ignoring someone and attacking him ad hominem, as a sentimental fool is certainly not going to help in regards how well this project is taken up or considered.
Because it certainly has it's merits.

Yeah I know it's not good to go that way, but his posts are so much against every aspect of the 40kD10: Edge of Revitalization and the arguments are poor, without proper explanation and not at all objective, that I can't imagine a normal person would analyze like that, and so I suspect him of trolling, and so I get like that.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Additionally his point on 7th was very valid. 7th was terrible, full stop. Adding more mechanics on top of 7th which suffered massivly from rules favoring certain armies will do you not really anygood.

Agreed, what is your point?

Not Online!!! wrote:

90% of the 40k players will agree that 7th was to comlpicated and could use a proper trimming of fat. What Gw did with 8th was a trimming down to the roots, certainly not really better then 7th.

Agreed, what is your point?

I will give you an exemple out of a shooter game with a fairly long history of stun/ slowing mechanics.
Take TF2, one character, a fast one with a low HP pool had an option to give up some more HP or a weapon that completely stunned an enemy player for up to 5s.
Keep in mind 5s are a huge time in a shooter, comparable to atleast half a turn .
This weapon was so broken that it never saw the day of light in competitive, deemed by it's community to broken to be even considered, whilest in casual the Item got rebalanced by Valve so often and is still completely off the charts nowadays, either sucking hard or beeing way to good.

This is the base problem of all Stun mechanics. Either they are FAAAAAR to weak or to Strong. Essentially, if you want to play competitive such mechanics are considered cheap and or skilless because they deny an opponent a reaction.
Bear in mind my exemple is a shooter, now apply this to your game and pull the scenario of stolen Initiative in. You just have exemplified the stun mechanic, denied enemy shooting to a degree and successsfully stopped the movement of an unit in it's tracks. Even worse when you were able to stop a unit like Hormagaunts like Lance pointed out. This unit becomes just because of the layout of the mechanic either highly ineefective or unplayable, because you deny capabilites for a reaction.
This is the same reason why in 8th Alaitoc Eldar -bs shenaniganery is doing so well. It denies reaction via denying any unit with a bs up to 4+ a shooting phase.
Denieng of a reaction possibility is terribe, the same is true for Alpha/ Betastrikes. None of these also require skill to play the game but rather make the game decided by inherent faction missmatches and listbuilding then capability of the player.

The point for 7th is, that if you don't take care on which points of it you carry over you will again benefit certain armies.
Remeber fliers? Scatbikes? These units were broken because the main rules favored them massively over other units. That is why 7th is not a good reference point and should be replaced by a overall more balanced outlook over the games editions.

The point on the Leman Russ is, that there is virtually no distinction between a Tau tank and a Leman russ.
It also makes no sense that a Landraider only has a Driver and a commander, period. Additionally the Landraider has one of the most advanced machinespirits to date.
Needlessly favoring flying or ground units is also something that will bring drawbacks that need to be pointed accodringly making the time and care required to bring in units higher up then it is allready.
Add to that if you do missplace the cost of an unit that said unit will be automatically broken, either too good or too bad.

Not Online!!! wrote:
I will give you an exemple out of a shooter game with a fairly long history of stun/ slowing mechanics.
Take TF2, one character, a fast one with a low HP pool had an option to give up some more HP or a weapon that completely stunned an enemy player for up to 5s.
Keep in mind 5s are a huge time in a shooter, comparable to atleast half a turn .
This weapon was so broken that it never saw the day of light in competitive, deemed by it's community to broken to be even considered, whilest in casual the Item got rebalanced by Valve so often and is still completely off the charts nowadays, either sucking hard or beeing way to good.

I ask for an example and you tell me about a computer game!?!?!? Are you trolling too?

Not Online!!! wrote:

Bear in mind my exemple is a shooter, now apply this to your game and pull the scenario of stolen Initiative in. You just have exemplified the stun mechanic, denied enemy shooting to a degree and successsfully stopped the movement of an unit in it's tracks. Even worse when you were able to stop a unit like Hormagaunts like Lance pointed out. This unit becomes just because of the layout of the mechanic either highly ineefective or unplayable, because you deny capabilites for a reaction.
This is the same reason why in 8th Alaitoc Eldar -bs shenaniganery is doing so well. It denies reaction via denying any unit with a bs up to 4+ a shooting phase.
Denieng of a reaction possibility is terribe, the same is true for Alpha/ Betastrikes. None of these also require skill to play the game but rather make the game decided by inherent faction missmatches and listbuilding then capability of the player.

This... You... "Successfully stopped the movement of an unit in it's tracks"... How's that possible?
I guess you mean well, but this is useless as well without anything concrete.

I've made so many calculations to have the pinning system work and yet I've never gotten to the conclusion, that this system will work no matter what; normal test games and test games where the players try to abuse the system may give us a result, but please give me something useful. Maybe make some calculations showing that either the system is much like Fear was (almost redundant because so many were immune) or that it's too effective.

Not Online!!! wrote:

The point for 7th is, that if you don't take care on which points of it you carry over you will again benefit certain armies.
Remeber fliers? Scatbikes? These units were broken because the main rules favored them massively over other units. That is why 7th is not a good reference point and should be replaced by a overall more balanced outlook over the games editions.

And what have I copied from 7th edition?

Not Online!!! wrote:

The point on the Leman Russ is, that there is virtually no distinction between a Tau tank and a Leman russ.

What can I make of this, if it's true?

Not Online!!! wrote:

It also makes no sense that a Landraider only has a Driver and a commander, period.

Blame Forgeworld... The background is from the Imperial Armour books.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Additionally the Landraider has one of the most advanced machinespirits to date.

Well I'm pretty sure (I cannot prove it) that the Power of the Machine Spirit special were introduced to let both sponson weapons of (initially) the Land Raider be fired on different targets. I do not object against the Machine Spirit being part of the background, but I don't think that it needed such a specific role ingame.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Needlessly favoring flying or ground units is also something that will bring drawbacks that need to be pointed accodringly making the time and care required to bring in units higher up then it is allready.
Add to that if you do missplace the cost of an unit that said unit will be automatically broken, either too good or too bad.

...... Agreed....

I gave you the exemple to highlight my point.
The consensus is the same as in a video game, if you regard that as trolling by all means. It does not matter where it comes from, overall edges of balance are interchangable. Stun mechanics are interchangeable. My point was to highlight that denying reactions/hindering movement and capabilities is a GAK gamemechanic. That is also why i brought up Alaitoc Eldar. They fit right in with GAK gamemechanics that do Favour firststrikes and denying of capabilites of units.
Also additionally, what makes you think that you could handle stun mechanics in a competitive environment better, then a multi billion dollar company? If anything that is Hybris.

Also how am i supposed to give you accurate numbers within your ruleset when 80% of the stuff in the game is not yet done?
I am warning you about the possibilities for this and just the base implications, yet you chose again and again to ignore such warnings, regardless if they were uttered politely or more directly.

Video Games and board games are not that different mechanically. A lot of the same game play principles can be seen to get played out in a lot of the same ways. Obviously there is a difference between real time and turn based, but not THAT different.

On top of this, you seem to just assume that there is some nebulous "I can balance this with point costs" with no regard to what impact it has on the actual game.

I am done now. I am checked out of the idea of trying to help someone who plugs his ears repeatedly when people point out why stuff is bad. Enjoy your project. I predict it goes nowhere and gets played by no one.

Not Online!!! wrote:
I gave you the exemple to highlight my point.
The consensus is the same as in a video game, if you regard that as trolling by all means. It does not matter where it comes from, overall edges of balance are interchangable. Stun mechanics are interchangeable. My point was to highlight that denying reactions/hindering movement and capabilities is a GAK gamemechanic. That is also why i brought up Alaitoc Eldar. They fit right in with GAK gamemechanics that do Favour firststrikes and denying of capabilites of units.

Well... It may be that my system wont work either... That sure is a possibility...

What about
The damage table for vehicles back in 7th edition?
The Pinning special rule in 7th and 8th edition?
The new Damage tables for vehicles and monstrous creatures in 8th edition?

Are these considered bad too or are they something completely else?

Not Online!!! wrote:

Also how am i supposed to give you accurate numbers within your ruleset when 80% of the stuff in the game is not yet done?

Precisely, so how can anyone come to any concrete/non-discussable/non-tweakable conclusion regarding the 40kD10: Edge of Revitalization rules?

Some units are done though, so it's quite possible to run some numbers if one wants to.

It's nice to get the "heads up" posts as it's perfectly possible that I have missed something which would need attention for the game to become balanced and playable, so I welcome such posts and time/effort one would take and make to help me out.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
On top of this, you seem to just assume that there is some nebulous "I can balance this with point costs" with no regard to what impact it has on the actual game.

Not at all, but you should drop by the "General Marine fixes" and "How to make terminators worthwhile?" threads and many else like them to tell that should just stop trying, because you know better than all of them.

 Lance845 wrote:

I am done now. I am checked out of the idea of trying to help someone who plugs his ears repeatedly when people point out why stuff is bad. Enjoy your project.

Thank you very much.

 Lance845 wrote:

I hope it goes nowhere and gets played by no one.

Fixed that for you.

I will friendly remind you that pinning in 7th was a non issue, because morale was way to high and or most units had Fearless, therefore ignoring pinning.
I can't remember 1 time i successfully pinned a enemy with my armies and i play a, at the time, army that had huge acess to pinning
Also pinning was highly restricted with certain weaponry. Additionally you could seek cover to improve your cover saves.

Honestly, vehicle rules inbetween 7th and 8th have massive advantages and disadvantages. For one 7th allowed for high risk high reward melta strikes and other maneuvres. on the negative side vehicles were not particullary durable enough to justify their points often.
8th does not really allow for high risk high reward gameplay but does have the advantage of less randomness involved in their damage table. as in not a random weapon down because of a stray shot and then beeing not effective anymore (vindicators faced such problems.)

Not Online!!! wrote:
I will friendly remind you that pinning in 7th was a non issue, because morale was way to high and or most units had Fearless, therefore ignoring pinning.
I can't remember 1 time i successfully pinned a enemy with my armies and i play a, at the time, army that had huge acess to pinning
Also pinning was highly restricted with certain weaponry. Additionally you could seek cover to improve your cover saves.

Honestly, vehicle rules inbetween 7th and 8th have massive advantages and disadvantages. For one 7th allowed for high risk high reward melta strikes and other maneuvres. on the negative side vehicles were not particullary durable enough to justify their points often.
8th does not really allow for high risk high reward gameplay but does have the advantage of less randomness involved in their damage table. as in not a random weapon down because of a stray shot and then beeing not effective anymore (vindicators faced such problems.)

Well my point was that the damage table for 7th edition wasn't a hot topic and people have only been positive regarding the damage tables in 8th edition... So... It's not pinning per se but units (not all) has their effectiveness reduced and that's not even a reduction which is gone again the next round... So couldn't one say that some kind of reduction to the effectiveness is okay for the players and actually brings something else than just removing a model altogether?

Chaospling wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
I will friendly remind you that pinning in 7th was a non issue, because morale was way to high and or most units had Fearless, therefore ignoring pinning.
I can't remember 1 time i successfully pinned a enemy with my armies and i play a, at the time, army that had huge acess to pinning
Also pinning was highly restricted with certain weaponry. Additionally you could seek cover to improve your cover saves.

Honestly, vehicle rules inbetween 7th and 8th have massive advantages and disadvantages. For one 7th allowed for high risk high reward melta strikes and other maneuvres. on the negative side vehicles were not particullary durable enough to justify their points often.
8th does not really allow for high risk high reward gameplay but does have the advantage of less randomness involved in their damage table. as in not a random weapon down because of a stray shot and then beeing not effective anymore (vindicators faced such problems.)

Well my point was that the damage table for 7th edition wasn't a hot topic and people have only been positive regarding the damage tables in 8th edition... So... It's not pinning per se but units (not all) has their effectiveness reduced and that's not even a reduction which is gone again the next round... So couldn't one say that some kind of reduction to the effectiveness is okay for the players and actually brings something else than just removing a model altogether?

Infantery allready suffers from attritional degradation, you know, beeing removed and all that? Tanks did not however. Most of the time it either would blow up, or be capable of firing back. Dead units on the other hand don't fire back and a pinned unit that has lost members will be punished double. Now that can be argued is tactical but in essence you forget that there are units which are specifically used for DTD attacks. Hormagaunts are such a unit.
(DTD stands for dare to die)

This is my last bit... I can't not answer this.

The 8th ed tables on vehicles and monsters are not a positive thing because people are okay with units having their effectiveness reduced to 0.

It's because in 7th the vehicle damage chart was a random mess that was either 1) book keeping (always bad) or 2) just made multi wound vehicles explode instantly.

In 8th a vehicle or monster can still actually act even as it degrades. Being able to do anything is still game play. Your pinning rules is not a degradation. It's a binary toggle. The unit can act or the unit can not act. Thats it. What is not fun is not being able to act. The player should always be able to do something. A choice, any choice, should always be available to them with consequences. Taking units out of the game play either because they are incapable of acting in the fight phase and get surrounded or because your turn structure and the pinning rules favor a long ranged army that will ensure the shorter ranged army will never get to act doesn't create game play, or counter play, or anything. It just locks up the table and grinds the entertainment to a halt.

Seriously. Look up some articles on the concept of counter-play. It's probably the thing you need to learn about the most right now.

 Lance845 wrote:
Your pinning rules is not a degradation. It's a binary toggle. The unit can act or the unit can not act.

Ah come now Lance... It doesn't have to be like this (sincerely): My pinning rules are degradation - not a binary toggle. Not Online even posted the rules above. And I completely agree with you.

 Lance845 wrote:

Seriously. Look up some articles on the concept of counter-play.

Thank you very much (sincerely) - I will do that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Chaospling wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
I will friendly remind you that pinning in 7th was a non issue, because morale was way to high and or most units had Fearless, therefore ignoring pinning.
I can't remember 1 time i successfully pinned a enemy with my armies and i play a, at the time, army that had huge acess to pinning
Also pinning was highly restricted with certain weaponry. Additionally you could seek cover to improve your cover saves.

Honestly, vehicle rules inbetween 7th and 8th have massive advantages and disadvantages. For one 7th allowed for high risk high reward melta strikes and other maneuvres. on the negative side vehicles were not particullary durable enough to justify their points often.
8th does not really allow for high risk high reward gameplay but does have the advantage of less randomness involved in their damage table. as in not a random weapon down because of a stray shot and then beeing not effective anymore (vindicators faced such problems.)

Well my point was that the damage table for 7th edition wasn't a hot topic and people have only been positive regarding the damage tables in 8th edition... So... It's not pinning per se but units (not all) has their effectiveness reduced and that's not even a reduction which is gone again the next round... So couldn't one say that some kind of reduction to the effectiveness is okay for the players and actually brings something else than just removing a model altogether?

Infantery allready suffers from attritional degradation, you know, beeing removed and all that? Tanks did not however. Most of the time it either would blow up, or be capable of firing back. Dead units on the other hand don't fire back and a pinned unit that has lost members will be punished double. Now that can be argued is tactical but in essence you forget that there are units which are specifically used for DTD attacks. Hormagaunts are such a unit.
(DTD stands for dare to die)

Last post for today. Well the loss of actual models (models excluding their rules) are not important, it's the degradation of the power of the unit, which is important. One could even argue that there's a pro for having fewer actual models (lots of cons too). By the way, in 40kD10: Edge of Revitalization even vehicles can be pinned... Remember: Degradation.

I'm not sure what to make of the bit regarding Hormagaunts and DTD.

See you tomorrow.

Hi. I’ve just read the first few phases of a turn, up to the close combat but, so move shoot and prep. And I have to say the game so far feels massively clunky and complicated. I’m not going to get into activation issues they have been discussed at length.

First off. The preparation phase, why do it then? U roll all these dice and have to note down number of charges and nullifies and which d5 and which D10 then don’t use it? And the generation process is too complicated to flow well. Just reading took three or four goes before it made sense. If us have a psyker Heavy army, grey knights or demons for example it’s going to take a good chunk of rolls and book keeping. Why not just roll 2 d5? Or add one for every psyker? I think you could streamline this massively.

Target selection. I like the immediate threat idea but agin its a very clunky mechanic rely on stats, distances etc. It too could be streamlined, a Ld test to not target the closest unit would achieve the same thing. Too long measuring and counting models etc slows the game too much. A basic characteristic check is yuck and intuitive.

The pinning mechanic is way too complicated. It reads like a mathematical exercise. Which isn’t why I play war games. It might be fun to design but in a large war game it’s a right hassle. Maybe a smaller scale game but not 40k.

I will read the rest of your rules but I don’t think from what I’ve read I’d be prepared to play a game of this. Even as a test. It’s far too complicated and clunky. Too many complex mechanics. And I liked 1st and 2nd ed 40k!

This needs a lot of Work to be playable.

Edit. Just to let you know my background is purely as a player. Never designed games or wanted too. I have however been playing war games, board games and rpgs for 30 years and am looking at this as a consumer, my critiques are based on that.

Andykp wrote:
Hi. I’ve just read the first few phases of a turn, up to the close combat but, so move shoot and prep. And I have to say the game so far feels massively clunky and complicated. I’m not going to get into activation issues they have been discussed at length.

First off. The preparation phase, why do it then? U roll all these dice and have to note down number of charges and nullifies and which d5 and which D10 then don’t use it? And the generation process is too complicated to flow well. Just reading took three or four goes before it made sense. If us have a psyker Heavy army, grey knights or demons for example it’s going to take a good chunk of rolls and book keeping. Why not just roll 2 d5? Or add one for every psyker? I think you could streamline this massively.

Target selection. I like the immediate threat idea but agin its a very clunky mechanic rely on stats, distances etc. It too could be streamlined, a Ld test to not target the closest unit would achieve the same thing. Too long measuring and counting models etc slows the game too much. A basic characteristic check is yuck and intuitive.

The pinning mechanic is way too complicated. It reads like a mathematical exercise. Which isn’t why I play war games. It might be fun to design but in a large war game it’s a right hassle. Maybe a smaller scale game but not 40k.

I will read the rest of your rules but I don’t think from what I’ve read I’d be prepared to play a game of this. Even as a test. It’s far too complicated and clunky. Too many complex mechanics. And I liked 1st and 2nd ed 40k!

This needs a lot of ORK to be playable.

Hi there,

Yeah, that's my worry too: that the rules are too clunky. The grammar could possibly be better as I'm not an expert in English, so I'm not sure if it sometimes just could be worded better or if the rules actually are clunky. I know that some mechanics are very simple, but when worded to avoid loop holes and to clarify properly, the explanation ends up being rather lengthy. I'm playing with the thought of writing a short version of the rules with a more "common" language, as most of the times you'll know what was intended anyway. Also, I'm having an intro game shortly where the players don't have to read the rules, so such a game will tell if it's too complicated and clunky or not.
Yet another aspect of this, is that this are the rules of an amateur (shut up Lance ) and so these rules would demand much more open-mindedness compared to an official game because of lack of authority.
Is there any of the rules so far which you are in doubt of?
I could explain rules like Pinning and Allocation of Hits very easily compared how I had to do it in the rule book.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually I thought about adding examples for many of the mechanics in the rule book, and because of your feedback I can see that they must be included in version 0.1.10! Here's a slightly more detailed reply:

Andykp wrote:
Hi. I’ve just read the first few phases of a turn, up to the close combat but, so move shoot and prep. And I have to say the game so far feels massively clunky and complicated. I’m not going to get into activation issues they have been discussed at length.

First off. The preparation phase, why do it then? U roll all these dice and have to note down number of charges and nullifies and which d5 and which D10 then don’t use it? And the generation process is too complicated to flow well. Just reading took three or four goes before it made sense. If us have a psyker Heavy army, grey knights or demons for example it’s going to take a good chunk of rolls and book keeping. Why not just roll 2 d5? Or add one for every psyker? I think you could streamline this massively.

Well I don't have the rules on me from the Warhammer Fantasy 7th edition, but the rules for magic were very much appreciated in the community and that's why I based the psychic power rules on them. You roll 2 D5 and that's how many Warp Charges you get, and the higher number of the two dice is the number of your Nullifiers… That's not too complicated is it? And of course you don't note down Warp charges if you don't have any psykers.

Andykp wrote:

Target selection. I like the immediate threat idea but agin its a very clunky mechanic rely on stats, distances etc. It too could be streamlined, a Ld test to not target the closest unit would achieve the same thing. Too long measuring and counting models etc slows the game too much. A basic characteristic check is yuck and intuitive.

Remember this is only when the units are close to each other. Regarding stats, it'll probably be tough in the beginning because everything will be new. Right now we have terms like GEQ and TEQ and so we know which models across the armies belong to these terms; in a new setting you have to learn everything again, this will require some effort if you want to be as familiar with the ruleset as you are with 8th edition, which is so much more simple.
Here's an example of what would normally happen (stats are not finale - I haven't even begun on the Tyranid codex):
A Devastator unit of 6 Space Marines (Defensive Fear, DF, value of 5) is facing 3 Tyranid units (these are closest to the Space Marine squad and they are placed so it's hard to tell if they're within Immediate Threat range). One unit of 13 Hormagaunts (Offensive Fear, OF, value of 4 but outnumbering 1:2 : 4+2=6) are 5,5 inches away, one unit of 3 Tyranid Warriors (OF value of 5) is 4 inches away and one unit of 1 Carnifex (OF value of 6) is 7 inches away.
Only a OF value of 6 or more matters here and that's the Hormagaunts and the Carnifex and these only matter if they're within the OF value, in inches, which leaves the Hormagaunts within Immediate Threat range.

Andykp wrote:

The pinning mechanic is way too complicated. It reads like a mathematical exercise. Which isn’t why I play war games. It might be fun to design but in a large war game it’s a right hassle. Maybe a smaller scale game but not 40k.

Here's another example:
A Tactical squad unit of 7 Space Marines (5 bolters, 1 Plasmagun and 1 Lascannon) is shooting at 9 Guardsmen (DF value of 3). Fear values of the weapons: Boltgun: 4. Plasmagun: 6. Lascannon: 10.
The Tactical Squad being 10" away make 10 Boltgun, 2 Plasmagun and 1 Lascannon attacks and hit with 5 Boltgun, 1 Plasmagun and 1 Lascannon attacks. As hits need to outnumber the targeted unit the Space Marine player decides to let the Plasmagun and Lascannon attacks being treated as having Fear values the same as the Boltguns. To represent the explosive ammunition of bolt weapons, bolt weapons have the Frag 2 special rule: double the successful hits regarding Pinning. So, 5x2+1+1=12 hits which outnumbers the 9 Guardsmen and as Fear 4 minus DF value of 3 = 1, the Guardsmen now have a Degree of Pinning of 1.
In text this is lengthy but would you think that just doing the math in a game would be that difficult?

Was going through the rules as anew player would and got some basic questions that aren’t clear. I’ve not brought up grammar or English issues as such as I guessed it wasn’t your first language.

When seizing initiative what counts as a detachment?

Models in the way- move models aside, what does that mean, so they are more than 1” away? What happens if they can’t be moved, eg terrain or other bigger models?

Coherency, why variable? What’s the disadvantage of set distances?

Slot coherency, slots and detachment are not explained at this point so rules being there is confusing. Needs definition or explaining that is relevant later.

Shooting phase. Step 1. 1.2 chose targets. In explanations it says 1.2 is suppressive fore and 1.3 is chose a target?

Suppressive fire. Does not read well, confusing as you don’t know what the different results mean.

Choosing a target. As before. Too clunky. Also I don’t think a squad of marines would be bothered about being outnumbered 4:1 by Gretchen. They are always outnumbered. Not sure this mechanic translates fluff wise. A simple ld test would work fine.

Things brings me to the pinning bit. This mechanic is far too complex and unwieldy. I’m sorry but it just sounds horribly complicated. From a players point of view. I had to note it out to figure out how it worked at it was complex.

Looked a bit like this.
z no of models in unit.
A hits of higher value fear characteristic.
B is the number of times z is power than x+a
Y is chosen fear characteristic. No of hits of y= x.
D is def characteristic.
W is weapons final fear characteristic.
P is degree of pinning.

(x+a)> zb=y+(b-1)
y+(b-1)= w
w-d=p

It needs to be is x higher than y. If so apply y. You decide what x,y,and z are but that’s too much. Every time a unit shoots! I can see what you’re trying to do but I’ve seen much more elegant propositions. You prob don’t see as you made this mechanic so to you it’s simple.

Have a look at epic40000. I think it was 3rd edition space marine and how they used blast makers to represent the same effect. It was simple. Each weapon had a fire power. Fire power resulted in units taking x number of blast markers. Blast markers had -ve effect on shooting and moral. It was very intuitive. If you were battered by tons of fire you all got your heads down. You already have a firepower like stat on your weapon profile. Wouldn’t be difficult to adapt.

The saves rule says all models get to use all their saves. This isn’t very clear, do they role invulnerable and all of them or is it all in one. Just clarify.


That’s all I’ve had time to do so far. I’ve skimmed the rest of the rules and overall I would say this game is a long way from playable. It’s far too complicated and clunky. I would hold fire on codecise and play test with a few armies before you go mad making army books. Much needs to change in the core rules.

You put this project out for critiquing. You need a thick skin. No one is commenting on you or the work you’ve done. Lance and co are here putting time into trying to improve a far from polished game. I’m no game designer, but I read an interview with jervis Johnson and he is one of the best I know of. He said he has a technique he calls “murdering his darlings”. He designs a game. Even if he lives it, he goes back and gets people and him self to rip it apart pull on every fault. He goes out of his way to trash his own design. He does it to avoid becoming short sighted and only seeing the good and not the faults, like those parents that dote on horrible spoiled kids.

Give it a go. Don’t be too protective of your game.

I guess I have to reply with several posts.

Andykp wrote:
When seizing initiative what counts as a detachment?

Detachments are listed in the back of a codex. I could mention that in the rulebook.

Andykp wrote:
Models in the way- move models aside, what does that mean, so they are more than 1” away? What happens if they can’t be moved, eg terrain or other bigger models?

Then they're moved further. This is the same rule as in 7th edition, I think.

Andykp wrote:
Coherency, why variable? What’s the disadvantage of set distances?

It makes sense that unit coherency depends on the size of the models. In 7th vehicles had to stay within 4", not 2", when in the same unit. Nothing new or controversial here.

Andykp wrote:
Slot coherency, slots and detachment are not explained at this point so rules being there is confusing. Needs definition or explaining that is relevant later.

I should probably explain slots and detachments here, but slot coherency: "If a slot in a Detachment consists of more than one unit, these units may use the value of the Leadership characteristic of another unit in the same slot if they are within 5” of said unit. ". Is it that you think it's not worded okay?

Andykp wrote:
Shooting phase. Step 1. 1.2 chose targets. In explanations it says 1.2 is suppressive fore and 1.3 is chose a target?

Thank you, corrected.

Andykp wrote:
Suppressive fire. Does not read well, confusing as you don’t know what the different results mean.

Well, the results are mentioned…? Maybe I don't understand you. I think that there's too much text, how's this instead?

You may declare that the nominated unit is using Suppressive Fire. When using Suppressive Fire, there are two kinds of successful hits (you still roll a single die per attack):
1. In addition to other modifiers (except the one below) there is a -2 modifier to the To Hit roll. Successful hits of this kind only do damage.
2. In addition to other modifiers (except the one above) there is a +2 modifier to the To Hit roll. Successful hits of this kind can only inflict Degrees of Pinning.
In addition, the values of the Fear characteristics of the weapons used, when using Suppressive Fire, have +1.

I'll give you an example in the next post, maybe we can come up with a different explanation then.

That’s much better. (Suppressive fire).
As for coherency why not have 2” or 4”;for vehicles? Why complicate it? What’s the advantage of having to work it out for each squad? If it’s a rule in the game it needs to make game play better. Otherwise it’s just complexity for the sake of it.

An example:
Normally a Space Marine would hit on a 4+; when using Suppressive Fire only rolls of 6+ are gathered to resolve damage but all rolls of 2+ are used to determine the Degree of Pinning.

So 5 Boltguns make 10 attacks within 12" and the rolls To Hit are 1,1,3,4,5,5,7,8,8,9. So 8 hits are used for resolving Degree of Pinning and 4 hits are used for resolving damage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
As for coherency why not have 2” or 4”;for vehicles? Why complicate it? What’s the advantage of having to work it out for each squad? If it’s a rule in the game it needs to make game play better. Otherwise it’s just complexity for the sake of it.

Well I'm of the opposite opinion: a rule to me is more simple. Remember that the General Size characteristic can have a value of 1 (all the normal infantry as you know them), 2 (Dreadnought and Predator sizes), 3 (Land Raiders and such), 4 (Imperial Knights and such) and so on. So as you can see, it's nothing like you have to work it out... It's just something you know.

Chaospling wrote:
An example:
Normally a Space Marine would hit on a 4+; when using Suppressive Fire only rolls of 6+ are gathered to resolve damage but all rolls of 2+ are used to determine the Degree of Pinning.

So 5 Boltguns make 10 attacks within 12" and the rolls To Hit are 1,1,3,4,5,5,7,8,8,9. So 8 hits are used for resolving Degree of Pinning and 4 hits are used for resolving damage.

When writing rules you need to keep the language as clear and concise as possible. Be direct.

Having to write exceptions into each line of the mechanic is the opposite of that (Except the one above/except the one below).

Write it like this.

A Unit making a Shooting Attack may choose to do so using Suppressing Fire. A Unit using Suppressing Fire successfully hits their target with a To Hit roll of BS -2 (A BS 4+ will hit on BS 6+). But any To Hit roll at BS +2 will inflict Pinning (BS 4+ will pin on 2+). Any Shooting Attacks made with Suppressing Fire gain +1 to their Fear Characteristic.

Note, any time I wrote anything that was a reference to an actual game term or rule I both capitalized and bolded it. GW is incredibly bad about this. But it's a good idea to do in rules writing. It lets everyone know that you are talking about a specific mechanical rule instead of just using the words in a conversational way.

You don't need to tell people that other modifiers apply. Other modifiers already apply because it's already a shooting attack. You are only complicating the rule by repeating things that are already inherent in the action and making it more difficult to read by piling on more information.


THAT being said, I still think the pinning mechanic is bad in what it does. Stun mechanics are not fun and the armies who would be best at delivering the stun mechanics are the same ones who would be best at abusing your turn structure to cripple armies with shorter general ranges then them.

Go look up the free basic rules for Bolt Action or Beyond the Gates of Antares and look at how their Pin Markers work. A much better mechanic that adds tactical depth without crippling the opposition and requiring significantly less complicated rules.

 Lance845 wrote:

Chaospling wrote:
An example:
Normally a Space Marine would hit on a 4+; when using Suppressive Fire only rolls of 6+ are gathered to resolve damage but all rolls of 2+ are used to determine the Degree of Pinning.

So 5 Boltguns make 10 attacks within 12" and the rolls To Hit are 1,1,3,4,5,5,7,8,8,9. So 8 hits are used for resolving Degree of Pinning and 4 hits are used for resolving damage.

When writing rules you need to keep the language as clear and concise as possible. Be direct.

Having to write exceptions into each line of the mechanic is the opposite of that (Except the one above/except the one below).
You don't need to tell people that other modifiers apply. Other modifiers already apply because it's already a shooting attack. You are only complicating the rule by repeating things that are already inherent in the action and making it more difficult to read by piling on more information.

Yeah I know... It's just that I don't want any confusion whether about other modifiers apply, but if it's clear enough, I don't have to.

 Lance845 wrote:

Write it like this.

A Unit making a Shooting Attack may choose to do so using Suppressing Fire. A Unit using Suppressing Fire successfully hits their target with a To Hit roll of BS -2 (A BS 4+ will hit on BS 6+). But any To Hit roll at BS +2 will inflict Pinning (BS 4+ will pin on 2+). Any Shooting Attacks made with Suppressing Fire gain +1 to their Fear Characteristic.

Note, any time I wrote anything that was a reference to an actual game term or rule I both capitalized and bolded it. GW is incredibly bad about this. But it's a good idea to do in rules writing. It lets everyone know that you are talking about a specific mechanical rule instead of just using the words in a conversational way.

Agreed, or in italic. I capitalize usually, but for different terms such as name of the phases, unit types and so on, I think that I haven't been quite consistent throughout the rule book. To "break up" the text lines (I started by using only normal text lines) I think it will make it easier for the reader if bullet points are inserted when applicable.

1) just be consistent. If your going to write rules out in bullet points then write all rules out in bullet points. If your not going to do that then don't do it at all.

Regular language is fine, but it needs to more or less be written like programing code. Which means defining statements (this = that) and if than statements (If This Than That).

What I wrote follows those rules.

A Unit making a Shooting Attack may choose to do so using Suppressing Fire.

or

If a unit makes a shooting attack than they may choose to do Suppressing Fire.

A Unit using Suppressing Fire successfully hits their target with a To Hit roll of BS -2 (A BS 4+ will hit on BS 6+).

or

Suppressing Fire = BS-2 to hit

But any To Hit roll at BS +2 will inflict Pinning (BS 4+ will pin on 2+).

or

Suppressing Fire = BS +2 to pin

Any Shooting Attacks made with Suppressing Fire gain +1 to their Fear Characteristic.

or

Suppressing Fire = +1 Fear.

2) Don't dick around making claritative statements in the rule itself (except like I did with my small examples in () which means they were not actually a part of the statement itself but instead a side bar within the statement). "The one above" and "the one below" are vague statements. They rely on other information to have any meaning. Don't do that. Each statement in the rules should be definitive. Thats why you caps and bold game terms. Anything Caps and Bolded should have it's own little paragraph or whatever defining it somewhere in the rules. You know EXACTLY what that mechanical entity means because it has been defined. A Index or Lexicon at the back of the book will give the page numbers where those terms are defined for ease of reference for the user. Or since this is a digital doc it's actually possible to turn all those terms into hyperlinks that will take the user to that section when clicked or you could set it up to display the page number of the rule that defines it when you mouse over it. If it's not defined then your rules are sloppy and confusing and the reader can't say with certainty what is supposed to happen.

It does not matter that you were trying to avoid confusion. You made the rule itself cluttered. Trim the fat. The rule should say only exactly what it does.

1) The unit makes a Shooting Attack. Shooting Attacks are defined in their section.

2) A unit that makes a Shooting Attack may choose to use Suppressing Fire. Suppressing Fire is defined in it's section.

3) This ability imposes a + or - to Shooting Attacks. That ability, when and how it is used, and what it does is defined where that ability is.

Whats unclear in that? Suppressing Fire is a shooting attack. That ability modifies shooting attacks. Thus that ability modifies suppressing fire. There is nothing that says otherwise so there is no reason for anyone to think it doesn't.

What lance says makes sense. Also the bit a bolt action, that’s another similar system of inning as a was talking about with epic 40000 but prob easier to find.

As for coherency we will have to agree to disagree. I think it’s an unnecessary extra thing but I imagine if you played a lot you’d get used to it. I just picture moving a unit and pausing to figure out coherency or your opponent getting wrong and leading to delays, and I don’t see an upside to it.

The pinning mechanic needs to change drastically to work, regardless if it overpowers some armies or not it’s just too complex and clunky.

Ok, everything is noted - thanks guys. I have a separate document where I have noted down layouts and such to be consistent for a lot of things, but not all and that's mostly because I couldn't actually decide.

Regarding bullet points, they're being used when more than thing is happening in a certain situation to make it clear for the reader.

Feel free to mention anything else - otherwise I guess the pinning rule is up for discussion. I can start the ball and state what I wanted to achieve.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:

Choosing a target. As before. Too clunky. Also I don’t think a squad of marines would be bothered about being outnumbered 4:1 by Gretchen. They are always outnumbered. Not sure this mechanic translates fluff wise. A simple ld test would work fine.

I guess you mean the Target Priority rule. Well I really hope this is not a strict requirement from your side, because gameplay should come before the need to illustrate the background and to be interesting the Target Priority, Degree of Fear and Degree of Pinning need to affect Space Marines too.

Andykp wrote:

Things brings me to the pinning bit. This mechanic is far too complex and unwieldy. I’m sorry but it just sounds horribly complicated. From a players point of view. I had to note it out to figure out how it worked at it was complex.

Looked a bit like this.
z no of models in unit.
A hits of higher value fear characteristic.
B is the number of times z is power than x+a
Y is chosen fear characteristic. No of hits of y= x.
D is def characteristic.
W is weapons final fear characteristic.
P is degree of pinning.

(x+a)> zb=y+(b-1)
y+(b-1)= w
w-d=p

It needs to be is x higher than y. If so apply y. You decide what x,y,and z are but that’s too much. Every time a unit shoots! I can see what you’re trying to do but I’ve seen much more elegant propositions. You prob don’t see as you made this mechanic so to you it’s simple.

Haha I've never seen algebra being used in a game system like this. Well I don't mind algebra at all, but I don't think it will help in any case regarding a game system.

Andykp wrote:

Have a look at epic40000. I think it was 3rd edition space marine and how they used blast makers to represent the same effect. It was simple. Each weapon had a fire power. Fire power resulted in units taking x number of blast markers. Blast markers had -ve effect on shooting and moral. It was very intuitive. If you were battered by tons of fire you all got your heads down. You already have a firepower like stat on your weapon profile. Wouldn’t be difficult to adapt.

I've played Epic a long time ago and I remember that I enjoyed it, so I'll dig the rules out again.

Andykp wrote:

The saves rule says all models get to use all their saves. This isn’t very clear, do they role invulnerable and all of them or is it all in one. Just clarify.

Okay I will. Actually Invulnerable saves are gone.

Chaospling wrote:

Andykp wrote:

Things brings me to the pinning bit. This mechanic is far too complex and unwieldy. I’m sorry but it just sounds horribly complicated. From a players point of view. I had to note it out to figure out how it worked at it was complex.

Looked a bit like this.
z no of models in unit.
A hits of higher value fear characteristic.
B is the number of times z is power than x+a
Y is chosen fear characteristic. No of hits of y= x.
D is def characteristic.
W is weapons final fear characteristic.
P is degree of pinning.

(x+a)> zb=y+(b-1)
y+(b-1)= w
w-d=p

It needs to be is x higher than y. If so apply y. You decide what x,y,and z are but that’s too much. Every time a unit shoots! I can see what you’re trying to do but I’ve seen much more elegant propositions. You prob don’t see as you made this mechanic so to you it’s simple.

Haha I've never seen algebra being used in a game system like this. Well I don't mind algebra at all, but I don't think it will help in any case regarding a game system.

Thats another problem!

Game design is all algebra. When I told you I could prove that your turn structure didn't work mathmatically it's because simple algebraic equations come into play.

A unit in the game has a maximum effective range that is equal to their mobility(M) + their range (R). A unit taken on it's own who goes first in the movement phase, because of the turn structure, actually has a effective range of M + R - Enemies Mobility (E).

So a space marine with a bolter vs a Hormagaunt. 6+12-8=10. A space marine can shoot something 10" away from where it started the turn. If that same space marine went second it's effective range is 18" because the enemy cannot reposition after his move.

Now run the equation with a Tau Fire warrior.

6+30-8 = 28" on turn 1 or 36" on turn 2.

That hormagaunt vs either of them.

8+7(The range in which the chance of a successful charge becomes greater than 50%)-6=9" or turn 2 15"

Now factor in that degrees of pinning reduce movement.

You think the hormagaunts will ever reach the Tau if the Tau go second? Think the marines will? We haven't even gotten into the much faster crisis suits yet.

Here is another way to compile the data.
Marine mobility (M) with a flamer (R) goes second (S) /against enemy basic infantry mobility (E) goes first(F)

(M+R=S/-E=F)
6+8=14/-6=8 (Tau, Ork, AM, CSM, etc...)
6+8=14/-8=6 (Nids)
6+8=14/-5=9 (Necrons)
6+8=14/-4=10 (Terminators and equivalents)
6+8=14/-12=2 (Bikes and Gargoyles)

With a Bolter.

6+12=18/-6=12 (Tau, Ork, AM, CSM, etc...)
6+12=18/-8=10 (Nids)
6+12=18/-5=13 (Necrons)
6+12=18/-4=14 (Terminators and equivalents)
6+12=18/-12=6 (Bikes and Gargoyles)

Now the same calculations with Tau

6+30=36/-6=30 (Marines, ork AM CSM etc...)
6+30=36/-8=28 (Nids)
6+30=36/-5=31 (Necrons)
6+30=36/-4=32 (terminators)
6+30=36/-12=24 (Bikes and Gargs)

How do you intend to assign a point value to a gun that has a effective range that goes from 36 to 24 depending first and foremost on whether they went first or second that turn and than on intended target? (You can't.. it's too variable to assign a single value)

How do you intend to assign a point value to a gun that has a effective range that goes from 14 to 2 depending first and foremost on whether they went first or second that turn and than on intended target? (You can't.. it's too variable to assign a single value)

How do you balance 2 forces against each other when the turn structure itself is dictating so much of the action? (You can't. It's not the forces that are impacting the battle any more. They are all subject to turn order)

How do you justify widening that gap by introducing a mechanic that favors longer range/better shooting armies by allowing them to reduce the Movement speed of enemies (allowing them to maintain a higher range advantage for longer). (Seriously, how?)

Why would anyone, ANYONE, actually CHOOSE to go first in the movement phase?

Start going through all of your mechanics and lay out their actual mechanical effects as algebraic formulae. 1) if the formulae looks like something that would be scribbled across a chalk board by a science character in a movie then you have done something horribly wrong. It's way to complex for the players to be calculating. 2) You don't need a play test to find simple imbalances. If the equations come up uneven for opposite sides of the board for something as simple as the effect of movement then you can identify problems early and course correct. The farther along you are when problems are identified the more time and effort it takes to correct them. The more deeply seated into your design they are the more other mechanics will be impacted by them and the more you will need to change.

 Lance845 wrote:

Chaospling wrote:

Andykp wrote:

Things brings me to the pinning bit. This mechanic is far too complex and unwieldy. I’m sorry but it just sounds horribly complicated. From a players point of view. I had to note it out to figure out how it worked at it was complex.

Looked a bit like this.
z no of models in unit.
A hits of higher value fear characteristic.
B is the number of times z is power than x+a
Y is chosen fear characteristic. No of hits of y= x.
D is def characteristic.
W is weapons final fear characteristic.
P is degree of pinning.

(x+a)> zb=y+(b-1)
y+(b-1)= w
w-d=p

It needs to be is x higher than y. If so apply y. You decide what x,y,and z are but that’s too much. Every time a unit shoots! I can see what you’re trying to do but I’ve seen much more elegant propositions. You prob don’t see as you made this mechanic so to you it’s simple.

Haha I've never seen algebra being used in a game system like this. Well I don't mind algebra at all, but I don't think it will help in any case regarding a game system.

Thats another problem!

Game design is all algebra. When I told you I could prove that your turn structure didn't work mathmatically it's because simple algebraic equations come into play.

A unit in the game has a maximum effective range that is equal to their mobility(M) + their range (R). A unit taken on it's own who goes first in the movement phase, because of the turn structure, actually has a effective range of M + R - Enemies Mobility (E).

So a space marine with a bolter vs a Hormagaunt. 6+12-8=10. A space marine can shoot something 10" away from where it started the turn. If that same space marine went second it's effective range is 18" because the enemy cannot reposition after his move.

Now run the equation with a Tau Fire warrior.

6+36-8 = 36" on turn 1 or 42" on turn 2.

That hormagaunt vs either of them.

8+7(The range in which the chance of a successful charge becomes greater than 50%)-6=9" or turn 2 15"

Now factor in that degrees of pinning reduce movement.

You think the hormagaunts will ever reach the Tau if the Tau go second? Think the marines will? We haven't even gotten into the much faster crisis suits yet.


Start going through all of your mechanics and lay out their actual mechanical effects as algebraic formulae. 1) if the formulae looks like something that would be scribbled across a chalk board by a science character in a movie then you have done something horribly wrong. It's way to complex for the players to be calculating. 2) You don't need a play test to find simple imbalances. If the equations come up uneven for opposite sides of the board for something as simple as the effect of movement then you can identify problems early and course correct. The farther along you are when problems are identified the more time and effort it takes to correct them. The more deeply seated into your design they are the more other mechanics will be impacted by them and the more you will need to change.

You're taking a bad turn here Lance:
1. We were back on track, but assuming that you're the only one who knows basic algebra and how to calculate how extremely basic things would interact is very ignorant
2. Before your critique can be useful, you have to base your examples on my rules - not on other rules or video games

By the way, aren't the Hormagaunts allowed to run?

I really don't want to start a discussion which keeps on going without getting anywhere, but here's a similar example with the 40kD10: Edge of Revitalization rules:
Tau Firewarriors against Hormagaunts (I think I'll give them a movement of 7"). In this example, the Fire Warriors have Pulse Rifles (range 30", type: Ungainly). Ungainly is a new type right between Basic and Heavy. In short, Moving halves your range)

Let's say that there are 24" between deployment zones and the Fire Warriors are held at the back (they can't go further back), 11" from the front and the Hormagaunts are set right at the front, 35" between them to have the Fire Warriors within range and Hormagaunts must remove only those who are in range (the nearest).
Fire warriors go first not moving (sacrificing greater distance to the foe for shooting at the foe), the Hormagaunts make a Focussed move (Twice normal move) and are now 21" from the Fire Warriors. The Fire Warriors shoot (1 turn of shooting, Hormagaunts are removed from the rear - Tyranid players choice).

Second turn. Fire Warriors can
A) move 5" and then shoot 15": 21+5-14=12" Hormagaunts are within range.
B) stay and shoot: 21-14=7" Fire Warrirors are doubling their fire power compared to A) because of rules of the Pulse Rifles.

Fire Warriors are already at the edge of the table (Do anyone deploy like that?) but we let A) let them move the full 5" somewhere anyway to keep the favours for the Fire Warriors.

Choosing A):
*
2 turns of "normal" shooting.
Third turn. The Fire can
A) move 5" and then shoot 15": 12+5-7= 10". Charge range: 7+Gambled charge range of D5 (average of 3)=10" the Fire Warriors are reached in turn 3 having shot 3 turns of normal shooting + Overwatch.
B) stay and shoot double: 12-7=5". Charge range: 7". The Fire Warriors are reached in turn 3 having shot 4 turns of normal shooting.
*

Choosing B):
*
3 turns of normal shooting.
Third turn. Hormagaunts are so close that moving would be strictly worse for the Fire Warriors.
A) stay and shoot double: 7-6=1" (May not be closer than 1"). Charge range: 7". The Fire Warriors are reached in turn 3 having shot 5 turns of normal shooting.

So it didn't pay off to move at all. Whether or not the fire power would be enough is another thing. Terrain could be good and bad for both.

But thank you very much for looking at it from all the angles and seeing all the possibilities... Now Lance... If this has to work... We have to discuss things... Not be dead set on a certain angle... We don't get anywhere... Please...

Pft...

First. No. Hormagaunts dont run and charge. Genestealers do.

Second. I assume you can do basic algebra. I also assume you havent since it was such a shock to you that someone would.

Third, you forgot to factor in your pinning causing the low ld characterstic nids to slow down on each turn. Or the fact that the melee unit just took 3 rounds of shooting from a single unit without having any impact. This isnt realistic. The tau have more than 1 unit. When those hormagaunts get even remotely close they wont get shot by 1 unit. They will get shot by 2. 3. 4 units. Whatever it takes to cripple their movement or their numbers.


I have been having a discusion. You have been avoiding it.

 Lance845 wrote:
Pft...

First. No. Hormagaunts dont run and charge. Genestealers do.

No I meant up until the turn they charge.

 Lance845 wrote:

Second. I assume you can do basic algebra. I also assume you havent since it was such a shock to you that someone would.

Well, it's not that I was shocked, but every mechanic in a game of Warhammer (Fantasy and 40k and whatever edition) is divided into several steps, making it easy and intuitive for the players. Removing everything which has to do with the models/battlefield and so on and replacing them with algebra makes it less intuitive and mixes all the steps into one thing. How is this going to help anything? I would have done a comparison with the Blast Marker rules from Epic, so we could compare the complexity, but the rules I find about the blast markers only tells if a unit gets broken or not; can someone point me to the rules which Andy mentioned?

 Lance845 wrote:

Third, you forgot to factor in your pinning causing the low ld characterstic nids to slow down on each turn. Or the fact that the melee unit just took 3 rounds of shooting from a single unit without having any impact. This isnt realistic. The tau have more than 1 unit. When those hormagaunts get even remotely close they wont get shot by 1 unit. They will get shot by 2. 3. 4 units. Whatever it takes to cripple their movement or their numbers.

It's very situational now, where one can assume so many things. Does 1 unit of Fire Warriors equal 1 unit of Hormagaunts point-wise? Remember Pinning can only happen when the successful hits outnumber the models in the target unit. In the example the Hormagaunts had 7+D5 inches to spare regarding reaching the Fire Warriors in the third turn.
Also, in a normal game, assault units must endure enemy firing as well before they can charge...?
The Tau have more than 1 unit? And the Tyranid players has not?

How about this. Lets stop assuming that what I am saying can be disregarded because you think I am incorporating too many hypotheticals, or I didn't read your rules, or I don't know what I am talking about in terms of game design.

Extend to me the basic courtesy that I may have a point.

First, Yes, The hormagaunts COULD run. BUT, when they run, they cannot charge. So it won't actually help them. And I will get to why.



Second, Steps help a player understand the order of operations. The algebra is whats actually happening. It doesn't matter whether it's ever written out for the players in algebraic formulae. Whats important is that YOU understand what is happening in algebraic formulae. The player has to make calculations to play the game. Sometimes it's as simple as My gun can shoot x distance the the enemy can shoot y distance. If x is greater than y then the optimum position for my unit is within (x-y) inches from his max range. Nobody stands at the table and think of it in that exact way. But anyone making intelligent tactical decisions is coming to the same conclusion. The amount of math that needs to be done to calculate pinning is absurd. There are way to many things to check and way to much math to calculate based on those things to check.

In Bolt Action and Beyond the Gates of Antares it's simple. 1 unit shoots at another unit. If there are any successful hits you add a pin marker (not wounds. hits. The bullets hitting that close to the unit is enough to contribute to making them want to duck for cover. For 40k I would recommend this be wounds. Most armies would march right through hits just not giving a gak. It doesn't matter if the wound is later saved. The fact that it wounded is nerve wracking). If any models die you add another pin for each model that dies. When the unit is activated, if they have any pin markers, they must pass a leadership test with a -1 for each pin or they will "go to ground" and take cover. They will not follow orders because they are being pinned. Each pin is also a -1 to hit rolls (because suppressing fire). A unit can remove pins in a couple ways. 1 is being issued a regroup order which removed 1+1d6 pins or when they have gone to ground they remove 1 pin. If there are more pins on a unit then it has leadership they break and run.

It's a simple mechanic that requires no math, accomplishes most or all of what your trying to do with none of the complication, and is easy to track with a simple chit you place next to the unit.



Third, this is not situational and it's not an assumption of many things. It does not matter if 1 unit of firewarriors = 1 unit of hormagaunts. You are missing the point. The point is not hormagaunts vs firewarriors. The point is melee vs ranged. Or ranged vs superior ranged.

You are playing Tau. You move second. You have all your guys in your deployment zone and lets just assume that you deployed them intelligently based on your opponents army and army composition. I assume you would share army lists before deployment, yeah? So you have set up your side of the board to function well with the units you have.

The enemy, in general, has inferior range. They also have units that are melee only or heavily melee focused.

The Orks use Da Jump to send a group of Boyz forward. The Hormagaunts pop out of a trygon tunnel. The Assault Marines pop out of a drop pod or Assault Terminators teleport onto the field.

It's your movement phase. You can SEE THEM. They are right there. They have been placed where they can try to do what they want to do when it comes time for their turn to act. Mostly 2 phases later when charges start to happen. But even the not melee units. You can see the marines who made it 8-12 inches away with their bolters. You can see the flamers creeping up the field. You can see his every battle plan and then BASED on that you can decide which threats to negate by simply taking a step or using terrain to break LoS. WHILE you are using your movement to negate or diminish many of the threats he just created you can simultaneously set up your own threats to deal with the things that won't get to act for another 2 phases. Use suppressing fire. Use multiple units with superior range to shoot. Use what-the-feth ever.

What is the intelligent thing for you to do? You have such superior range and they HAD to get as close as possible to your units in order for them to TRY to guarantee a charge or really the opportunity to do ANYTHING. BUT, you still haven't moved. Are you going to stand in front of them to let them charge? Are you going to take the closest unit, move them back, use suppressing fire, and then use other surrounding units to chip away at their numbers and add more pinning? I would! Because I am not an idiot and it would be a gross tactical error to stand there and LET my opponent do what he wanted to do.

The point I have made this entire time, but you seem to fail to grasp, is that the player who moves first has to REVEAL. THEIR. PLAN. The player who moves second has a supreme tactical advantage. That advantage is magnified by having a superior range, and it's magnified AGAIN by your pinning rules.


Right now, under IGOUGO, you don't get to react. The unit that deep strikes in gets to make his charge before you turn your entire shooting phase on them. The unit gets a opportunity to act in the game in a meaningful way and impact the flow of the game. It's not tactically deep and it's not especially interesting because IGOUGO is just 2 players taking turns swinging the club that is their army at each other, but at the very least each unit gets to act meaningfully on their turn instead of just sliding up the table to look like a threat and then die or be negated.

But under alternating phases it's actually worse. One player is under the complete mercy of the other because the other player watches them position without meaningful action and then gets their positioning taken away from them as it's exploited by superior range, or just plain obvious planning, whenever possible. This is not simply about how one unit compares to another. I can math it out USING how one unit effects another under this system to give you solid math examples of how it doesn't work. But it shouldn't be necessary. Just, picture the table, and think about what choices you would make. How would you use these opportunities to your advantage. Is there anything, ANYTHING, in your mechanics that lets those units act before the other guy uses his movement to take away or vastly diminish their agency? Cause I can't see anything that helps them!

This issue is INHERENT in your turn structure and made WORSE by your other mechanics. Do you understand inherent? It's a natural consequence of. You cannot have alternating phases, the way your have them ordered and structured, and not create this problem.

Maybe if you had it ordered the phases differently such as... Movement and Charge together, followed by shooting. But even then, while that fixes the issue with melee focused units, it has not in any way helped flamers and pistols and fleshhooks and grenades and lashwhips. They all still get negated because they didn't get to move second.

Even if both sides had an equal number of units that were each 100% equivalent in point value, the player who moves second would decimate the first player so long as their range was at least equivalent to their opposition on a 1 for 1 basis.

It’s in epic 40000 the rules. From 3rd ed in 1997. Books on scribd.

The Pin Markers mechanic is very similar unsurprisingly. Rick Priestly was a major game designer at GW back in the day before he left for creative differences and started the company that made Bolt Action and BTGoA.

It worked really well as well. Really gave the feel of troops struggling on under greater amounts of fire.

@Lance:
First of all I'm sorry that my tone gets rude some times, but you really piss me off, when you're (maybe it's not intentional but you really sound like that) condescending like "you're missing the point" and "you fail to grasp" - I think that it's rude in itself.
Most of the time I'm thinking the same thing about you, but I don't say it (what does that help?), I just try to convince you.

Second, yes some times I'm kind of avoiding your questions or subjects you bring up. It's just that when I'm in such a disagreement with you at a very basic level, it would be so time-consuming so start discussing it... If we were face-to-face it would be a completely different matter.

I'm going to post another reply to your post later, but I have to say that in my example I let the Fire Warriors move their maximum distance from the Hormagaunts thereby illustrating that the Hormagaunts had moved first EVERY TURN giving the Fire Warriors a clear advantage, kind of repying to you that the Fire Warriors can get caught when using alternating phases.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Lance:
Regarding your questions about point cost of weapons. First, that's not the way I approach issue of point cost. Second, the way you lay it out the distance is a variable. What about how many times, a weapon can be fired? In a 6-turn game, you can say, that you paid for a weapon which can be shot 6 times. But Rapid Fire (7th edition rules) allows for double that. What kind of fire power were paid for? There's also the platform of the weapon. In my opinion it would be wrong to regard the weapon isolated without the platform (model) it's on. What if the BS changes through the battle thereby reducing the average damage output? How easy can the platform get destroyed (that would depend on which kind of damage the enemy can deal-is 90/10 anti infantry/vehicles or is it 50/50)
If you think that alternating phases and not alternate unit activation is a version in which you can't calculate the point cost to be precise, then we'll have to agree to disagree - we could keep discussing it without coming to a conclusion.

If you want to convince me then convince me. Not by addressing specific examples but the actual point I am making.

Again, the issue is not Hormagaunts vs Firewarriors. It's not a single unit vs a single unit. It's what happens in a game turn when one player has to reveal all their plans to the enemy without getting to enact any of them before the enemy gets to move and react to those plans.

The specific examples and the one unit vs unit examples give you small snap shots of what plays out but it has to come with an understanding that it is not happening in a vacuum. The hormagaunts and Firewarriors are not alone. The second player has choices to make and the agency to make them. They COULD stand there knowing the hormagaunts will make their charge. They COULD use a unit as bait in that way. But they don't HAVE to. And they don't have any particularly compelling reason I can think of to let them.

The first player however does not have those choices.

The platform pays it's points for it's abilities. A model with a high BS should be paying for that high BS. A platform with a lower BS, all else being the same, should cost less. If each platform gets the same gun that gun should be equal cost for it's number of shots and range and fear and whatever else.

The gun should not change cost with the model. The model already pays for the higher BS. Making the gun more expensive also means it pays for it twice.

I think when the turn structure itself has an impact on the effect of a weapon it's impossible to calculate cost. Because something that 1) has no bearing on the unit or weapon has such a major impact it's no longer about the unit or the weapon and 2) when that thing is not consitent game to game it's made even worse (i.e. it would be ONE thing (still not a good thing but something all together different) if a game was a flat alternating back and forth so you could for sure say that there were 6 turns in a game and 3 of them one player would move first and 3 the other would move first. But it's not. You built it so that you can make rolls and steal initiative with each phase. So, with luck, 1 player could ALWAYS move second AND shoot first. NOW it's full on impossible to calculate fairly.)

Andykp wrote:
The pinning mechanic needs to change drastically to work, regardless if it overpowers some armies or not it’s just too complex and clunky.

How does this sound (not that it would work in and on itself):
If there are more successful hits than models in the target unit, the target unit is Pinned? Does that sound complex?

@Lance:
What do you think of the example I posted? I brought it up to reply to your statement about Fire Warriors couldn't be caught.

 Lance845 wrote:

Second, Steps help a player understand the order of operations. The algebra is whats actually happening. It doesn't matter whether it's ever written out for the players in algebraic formulae. Whats important is that YOU understand what is happening in algebraic formulae.

But of course I do... Why wouldn't I? How would I have come up with all the mechanics, model profiles, special rules etc. etc.? Just because I thought it sounded fun and had no regard whatsoever to gameplay, statistics, mathematical possibilities?

 Lance845 wrote:

The player has to make calculations to play the game. Sometimes it's as simple as My gun can shoot x distance the the enemy can shoot y distance. If x is greater than y then the optimum position for my unit is within (x-y) inches from his max range. Nobody stands at the table and think of it in that exact way. But anyone making intelligent tactical decisions is coming to the same conclusion. The amount of math that needs to be done to calculate pinning is absurd. There are way to many things to check and way to much math to calculate based on those things to check.

Are we talking about the same? I'm using rather easy numbers now, but if 5 boltguns attacks are fired at Guardsmen (Boltguns have higher Fear value than the Guarsmen's Defensive Fear value), then Space Marines successfully hit an average of 7 times. If the unit of Guardsmen are 6 or less they will be Pinned to a degree on average, if more than 6, it will be less than average. Is it wrong to use this kind of example? Do you think that it's complicated, what I just wrote?

I'll try to answer more of it later.

I think the example you wrote was nonsense because it doesn't attribute any losses to the Hormagaunts unit for being shot. It doesn't factor in that other units could be using suppressing fire to slow them down. And it doesn't attribute the idea that more than one unit could/would be shooting at the hormagaunts.

If a unit of 30 hormagaunts could not make it into melee with tau in 7th or 8th ed in 1 turn the chances of more than 10 hormagaunts being alive on turn 2 is slim to none. Even if you factor in that in your game those hormagaunts will be twice as durable they will still not survive for 3 turns. And the unit doesn't even need to be wiped. If a unit of hormagaunts is reduced to say.. 5 models. It doesn't even matter if they make it into melee. They are incapable of doing enough damage to matter any more.

Again. It's not happening in a vacuum. I gave those examples as a small scale snap shot of the actual problem. Your answer did not address the actual issue, which is that the tau player has agency because he can see what the Nid player is trying to do and the Nid player is at his mercy because the Tau player hasn't moved yet.



Yes. That is too complicated. You have to count number of models in one unit. Number of models in the other unit. Number of hits. Fear of a weapon fired, (which gets worse if the unit is shooting different kinds of weapons), fear defense stat, and then run a calculation based on all those factors.

You need 5 different numbers every single time a unit fires a gun to calculate a secondary effect of shooting the gun.

In comparison: Bolt action: Did you hit? Yes? Pin Marker. No? Nothing happened.

 Lance845 wrote:
If you want to convince me then convince me. Not by addressing specific examples but the actual point I am making.

Again, the issue is not Hormagaunts vs Firewarriors. It's not a single unit vs a single unit. It's what happens in a game turn when one player has to reveal all their plans to the enemy without getting to enact any of them before the enemy gets to move and react to those plans.

The specific examples and the one unit vs unit examples give you small snap shots of what plays out but it has to come with an understanding that it is not happening in a vacuum. The hormagaunts and Firewarriors are not alone. The second player has choices to make and the agency to make them. They COULD stand there knowing the hormagaunts will make their charge. They COULD use a unit as bait in that way. But they don't HAVE to. And they don't have any particularly compelling reason I can think of to let them.

It's just that you stated earlier that the Fire Warriors always could escape because of alternating phase and so I made an example and let everything be in favour of the Fire Warriors regarding distances and alternating phases. Now, of course we agree that a normal battle is not just these two units and a lot else can affect to benefit both sides, but what point can be made out of that? If we stay with your statement, then didn't I prove that Fire Warriors could be caught in turn 3 even when they could move second and they could maximum range even though being deployed at the edge?

 Lance845 wrote:

The platform pays it's points for it's abilities. A model with a high BS should be paying for that high BS. A platform with a lower BS, all else being the same, should cost less. If each platform gets the same gun that gun should be equal cost for it's number of shots and range and fear and whatever else.

The gun should not change cost with the model. The model already pays for the higher BS. Making the gun more expensive also means it pays for it twice.

I think when the turn structure itself has an impact on the effect of a weapon it's impossible to calculate cost. Because something that 1) has no bearing on the unit or weapon has such a major impact it's no longer about the unit or the weapon and 2) when that thing is not consitent game to game it's made even worse (i.e. it would be ONE thing (still not a good thing but something all together different) if a game was a flat alternating back and forth so you could for sure say that there were 6 turns in a game and 3 of them one player would move first and 3 the other would move first. But it's not. You built it so that you can make rolls and steal initiative with each phase. So, with luck, 1 player could ALWAYS move second AND shoot first. NOW it's full on impossible to calculate fairly.)

We are also disagreeing on this subject, but I really don't have the time to discuss this subject as well other than when reading your explanation, I think that my approach is much more "advanced", not just from another angle, and so I feel confident to just let this subject be.

Chaospling wrote:
It's just that you stated earlier that the Fire Warriors always could escape because of alternating phase and so I made an example and let everything be in favour of the Fire Warriors regarding distances and alternating phases. Now, of course we agree that a normal battle is not just these two units and a lot else can affect to benefit both sides, but what point can be made out of that? If we stay with your statement, then didn't I prove that Fire Warriors could be caught in turn 3 even when they could move second and they could maximum range even though being deployed at the edge?

No.

because it doesn't attribute any losses to the Hormagaunts unit for being shot. It doesn't factor in that other units could be using suppressing fire to slow them down. And it doesn't attribute the idea that more than one unit could/would be shooting at the hormagaunts.

If a unit of 30 hormagaunts could not make it into melee with tau in 7th or 8th ed in 1 turn the chances of more than 10 hormagaunts being alive on turn 2 is slim to none. Even if you factor in that in your game those hormagaunts will be twice as durable they will still not survive for 3 turns. And the unit doesn't even need to be wiped. If a unit of hormagaunts is reduced to say.. 5 models. It doesn't even matter if they make it into melee. They are incapable of doing enough damage to matter any more.

Again. It's not happening in a vacuum. I gave those examples as a small scale snap shot of the actual problem. Your answer did not address the actual issue, which is that the tau player has agency because he can see what the Nid player is trying to do and the Nid player is at his mercy because the Tau player hasn't moved yet.

 Lance845 wrote:

The platform pays it's points for it's abilities. A model with a high BS should be paying for that high BS. A platform with a lower BS, all else being the same, should cost less. If each platform gets the same gun that gun should be equal cost for it's number of shots and range and fear and whatever else.

The gun should not change cost with the model. The model already pays for the higher BS. Making the gun more expensive also means it pays for it twice.

I think when the turn structure itself has an impact on the effect of a weapon it's impossible to calculate cost. Because something that 1) has no bearing on the unit or weapon has such a major impact it's no longer about the unit or the weapon and 2) when that thing is not consitent game to game it's made even worse (i.e. it would be ONE thing (still not a good thing but something all together different) if a game was a flat alternating back and forth so you could for sure say that there were 6 turns in a game and 3 of them one player would move first and 3 the other would move first. But it's not. You built it so that you can make rolls and steal initiative with each phase. So, with luck, 1 player could ALWAYS move second AND shoot first. NOW it's full on impossible to calculate fairly.)

We are also disagreeing on this subject, but I really don't have the time to discuss this subject as well other than when reading your explanation, I think that my approach is much more "advanced", not just from another angle, and so I feel confident to just let this subject be.

Calculate your points however you want to calculate your points. They are the EASIEST thing to change and can be changed constantly without making sweeping changes to the game. Point adjustments don't directly impact anything but the model/option itself. In a list of things from highest priority to lowest priority they are the absolute last item on the list. When something seems over or under costed you will fudge your numbers however you see fit by whatever metric you are using.

 Lance845 wrote:
If a unit of 30 hormagaunts could not make it into melee with tau in 7th or 8th ed in 1 turn the chances of more than 10 hormagaunts being alive on turn 2 is slim to none.

So are you saying that 7th and 8th edition was/is broken as well?

 Lance845 wrote:

Yes. That is too complicated. You have to count number of models in one unit. Number of models in the other unit. Number of hits. Fear of a weapon fired, (which gets worse if the unit is shooting different kinds of weapons), fear defense stat, and then run a calculation based on all those factors.

What about 7th and 8th edition rules of normal shooting (not pinning)? Isn't that a much more lengthy process?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think that it's best that we stop here Lance. We don't seem to agree about much and we aren't getting anywhere

I might post several versions of my pinning system which are more simple. We can then try discuss them and see if they're better.

Chaospling wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
If a unit of 30 hormagaunts could not make it into melee with tau in 7th or 8th ed in 1 turn the chances of more than 10 hormagaunts being alive on turn 2 is slim to none.

So are you saying that 7th and 8th edition was/is broken as well?

No. I am saying your system is worse. In 7th and 8th the hormagaunts COULD get into melee before the Tau shot them to pieces. In your system that is impossible.

Don't try to deflect with a strawman question that has nothing to do with the point I am making. Address the point.

 Lance845 wrote:
Don't try to deflect with a strawman question that has nothing to do with the point I am making. Address the point.

That wasn't my intention. Please be polite Lance.

 Lance845 wrote:

Chaospling wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
If a unit of 30 hormagaunts could not make it into melee with tau in 7th or 8th ed in 1 turn the chances of more than 10 hormagaunts being alive on turn 2 is slim to none.

So are you saying that 7th and 8th edition was/is broken as well?

No. I am saying your system is worse. In 7th and 8th the hormagaunts COULD get into melee before the Tau shot them to pieces. In your system that is impossible.

Can you prove that please? Or rather... Save yourself the time. I proved that it was possible with a concrete example; how many Hormagaunts which would be left is up to the shooting rules and point cost. Save yourself the effort buddy. Let's move on.

Yup. Im moved on. You cant follow the thread of the conversation or answer the points i was making. This has become a complete waste of my time. Good luck Andy.

Ok, so now when Lance is finally away from this thread, there is room for some concrete talk about those poor hormagaunts and fire warriors...

If my math is correct (it might be off, as it was my first contact with your ruleset), then assuming movement of 7", S3 and T3, sv- for gaunts (this is rather a straight conversion based on S/T values on Fire Warriors and what you wrote above), 10 Fire Warriors kill nearly 10 gaunts per shooting phase (20 shots) while each gaunt that makes into CC kills around 0.5 Fire Warrior charging and 1/3 less in subsequent phases. For those two squads to balance out in the void (so their isolated encounter in the open ends in a draw as the most average outcome), assuming those 3 turns of shooting, you need 40gaunts be worth same points as 10 Fire Warriors. And while this would be theoretically balanced and quite fluffy, it is also totally unpractical on the tabletop (you'll run out of deployment zone with basic troops requirement alone) and unjust for horde players at the same time - having to have that much more models to buy, paint and carry just to live through three turns of only removing bodies... It also makes pinning discussion purely academic, as fire warriors can suppress hormagaunts only right before the charge when it hardly matters anyway.

So parameters to (re)consider when working on this - you have based your work on power armour and mass shooting, made a ruleset that accommodates that well enough, but because you did not start with all extremities in mind (or at least it looks so from the above calculation) you may find it hard to balance in some existing factions and their desired modes of play. I would suggest to make faction rules gradually but in parallel - not a codex at a time, but force org slot at a time for as many factions as you can - so first core troops of all factions, then HS, then FA etc... You'll probably avoid a lot of headaches and critique that way later on.

Other than that, cudos for clearly a lot of work with this ruleset. You might want to rephrase some paragraphs (it took me a while to make sense of pinning) and generally implement some better notation/editing practices. From what it looks like after first reading, it is much more suited for (and akin to) 2nd ed sized battles than for modern massed battles (which emphasizes the CC vs shooting problem even more). I also think that some of detailed parameters could be folded into core rules (critical toughness for example doesn't seem necessary, "double strenght" would probably work in very similar way).

nou wrote:
Ok, so now when Lance is finally away from this thread, there is room for some concrete talk about those poor hormagaunts and fire warriors...

*Embracing, hugging and kissing you*

nou wrote:

If my math is correct (it might be off, as it was my first contact with your ruleset), then assuming movement of 7", S3 and T3, sv- for gaunts (this is rather a straight conversion based on S/T values on Fire Warriors and what you wrote above), 10 Fire Warriors kill nearly 10 gaunts per shooting phase (20 shots) while each gaunt that makes into CC kills around 0.5 Fire Warrior charging and 1/3 less in subsequent phases. For those two squads to balance out in the void (so their isolated encounter in the open ends in a draw as the most average outcome), assuming those 3 turns of shooting, you need 40gaunts be worth same points as 10 Fire Warriors. And while this would be theoretically balanced and quite fluffy, it is also totally unpractical on the tabletop (you'll run out of deployment zone with basic troops requirement alone) and unjust for horde players at the same time - having to have that much more models to buy, paint and carry just to live through three turns of only removing bodies... It also makes pinning discussion purely academic, as fire warriors can suppress hormagaunts only right before the charge when it hardly matters anyway.

So parameters to (re)consider when working on this - you have based your work on power armour and mass shooting, made a ruleset that accommodates that well enough, but because you did not start with all extremities in mind (or at least it looks so from the above calculation) you may find it hard to balance in some existing factions and their desired modes of play. I would suggest to make faction rules gradually but in parallel - not a codex at a time, but force org slot at a time for as many factions as you can - so first core troops of all factions, then HS, then FA etc... You'll probably avoid a lot of headaches and critique that way later on.

Other than that, cudos for clearly a lot of work with this ruleset. You might want to rephrase some paragraphs (it took me a while to make sense of pinning) and generally implement some better notation/editing practices. From what it looks like after first reading, it is much more suited for (and akin to) 2nd ed sized battles than for modern massed battles (which emphasizes the CC vs shooting problem even more). I also think that some of detailed parameters could be folded into core rules (critical toughness for example doesn't seem necessary, "double strenght" would probably work in very similar way).

Regarding the unpracticality of many models:
That's been something which have worried me too. I wanted Space Marines to be closer to the background when it came to durability and fire power and so when I started to calculate the point cost of Space Marines and Guardsmen (with my system the cost of a model can only be determined from the cost of another model), the Guardsmen were at 4 points and Space Marines at 17 points, that were changed to 5 and 21 points to give more space for models inferior to Guardsmen. So with 5 and 21 points, it made me aware of the huge possible disadvantage of armies which may have a lot of models. Now, to offset this I've come up with special rules (only for Astra Militarum so far) which urge such players to keep the models close to each other and I also gave me the objective to let the tanks of the Astra Militarum be quite useful and so be quite expensive; this is to keep the number of Guardsmen at an affordable level.
Regarding your math, I have some points.
Gaunts will probably have Strength and Toughness 4 and will have the Beast type, so their charges will have an extra bonus. They will maybe also have some kind of armour save too, though it sure will be negated by the Pulse rifle. Furthermore a Fire Warrior fires 1 shot at 15"-30" when stationary, but I guess you meant "20 shots" when the Hormagaunts are within 15"? One last thing is that I might actually let Gaunts have a Weapon Skill characteristic with values of 2|2 to make the Fear mechanic matter (lower Weapon Skill obviously lowers the point cost of a Hormagaunt, but it's what I had in mind anyway). So... It don't know if the higher Strength and Toughness changes anything (it should), but I can say that I'm also working on an Astra Militarum and Ork codex as far as the stats of models go to calculate point cost and give a better picture. So I'm actually doing it roughly like you say, working out stats gradually, I just came to a point (have been working on this for quite some time now) where I got some stats ready and so I moved on to said models' special rules, wargear and options.

Regarding rephrasing paragraphs, I'll very much listen to any suggestions; I know that I'll into Degree of Pinning for sure.

Regarding complexity and the size of battles, there is some kind of paradox, because some basic mechanics will work best for smaller sized battles and some will work best for bigger sized battles (I know this is not good/optimal) and if I were to choose, the ruleset should work for bigger sized battles. Now, I'm doing this ruleset for the likes of me: I want a ruleset which reflect the background better than have been done so far. I hated the idea of monofilament weapons being harmful to vehicles and now flamers being harmful to flyers and so if some mechanics have corrected this but having the disadvantage of being cluncky in bigger games, then so be it. Then this ruleset will just have a more narrow target group (I hope You are out there) and I'm perfectly fine with that - this is not for making money, so I don't need a huge target group. Having said that, when someone tells you that he's been enjoying and playing 1st and 2nd edition and he thinks that this is too complex... You listen


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Regarding pinning:
When setting Fire Warriors against Hormagaunts, then yes, the Fire Warriors will have a hard time pinning them. When figuring out pinning and the Fear values of the weapons, there are a lot of factors which decide which kind of target a weapon and the unit is effective against, and I really do prefer that a unit is not effective against all kinds of target, but that it need to work together with other units to create an effective and cohesive force. Now, when it comes to pulse rifles, I think it's okay for such a lethal weapon to have a weakness and such a weakness might be hordes. It's powerful enough to weaken the power armour save, but you usually don't have enough shots to suppress horde armies - the Supporting Fire special rule can help with that though.
If I didn't make it clear in my first reply then I'll say it now: thank you very much nou for giving me useful feedback!

Sticking to FW vs gaunts, as this has now become deeply enough dissected example. What you wrote above is a mix of steps to close the gap (beast, S&T) and steps that widen the gap back (WS), so the result would probably lessen the amount of gaunts per FW to 3:1 to be balanced. This is still too much to be practical. But just to cheer you up a bit, I had the same problems with my own "fork" of warhammer (based on 7th but moving it far closer to 2nd feel of things) - when you want to base the ruleset of Warhammer on fluff you will end up with a totall mess. Tyranid armies should, by the fluff, consist of hundreds of gaunts, few synapse creatures and even fewer monsters and still be an easy prey to small force of Imperium's Finest... My sugestion for Tyranids problem would be similar to what has been done with Tyranids in 2nd - make them "endless wave" army. So Hormagaunts may remain cheap, fast and mostly screening/harassment unit that doesn't require Tyranid player to own and operate on hundreds of models but still give the feel of a mass horde of disposable bodies. Giving Hormagaunts movement as fast as bike units and some neat returning deployment options solved the problem for me. This way you can also keep model count in a unit low enough for suppression mechanics to work as intended.

But there is another problem with suppression mechanics based on model count - multi wound models and especially units of multiwound models. It is feasible for Tyranid Warriors to have high defensive fear characteristic (around 10, but I see that even Tau HQ has DF of 6) to overcome that they would be constantly pinned by FW (15 hits for 5:1 bonus is perfectly possible at short range), but Raveners are basically the same model without Fearless and Synapse, so should have low DF and there are a lot of large, multiwound creatures that shouldn't be easily pinned. Also, granting high DF value to fearless units defeats the purpose of high fear single shot weapons, favouring high ROF weapons. So you might consider adding physical size to the pinning mechanism, to not end up with a lot of exceptions to core rules. I stumbled upon the very same problem when I tried to introduce meaningfull pinning against Tyranids - it either worked "backwards", suppressing medium and large creatures the most or was too weak to matter anyways, or needed a unit-by-unit exclusion, which defeats the purpose of core rule...

As you can see, a lot of balance/fluff logic problems arise when considering particular factions and how they interact with core ruleset. One of the best methods of keeping faction feel fluffy while keeping core rules as universal as possible is to differentiate factions at winning conditions level, not at detailed rules level, but it is much harder to balance without serious amount of playtesting and tweaking. But, for example, the endless swarm above could work totally different in "matched play symmetrical scenario" setup and in "faction specific mission goals" setup. Especially if every faction vs faction matchup could generate different win conditions for both attacker and defender roles. And before you reply with "that is something to consider after fleshing out the factions better" - win conditions are probably the most important part of core rules in any conflict game, and by the look of it you are too attached to how official warhammer missions are constructed. And 40K missions were always the weakest/most shallow part of this game.

And I have to ask - how well do you know 2nd ed ruleset? I ask because monofilament weaponry back then had no effects on vechicles except for low probability of hitting actual pilot/driver.

nou wrote:
Sticking to FW vs gaunts, as this has now become deeply enough dissected example. What you wrote above is a mix of steps to close the gap (beast, S&T) and steps that widen the gap back (WS), so the result would probably lessen the amount of gaunts per FW to 3:1 to be balanced. This is still too much to be practical. But just to cheer you up a bit, I had the same problems with my own "fork" of warhammer (based on 7th but moving it far closer to 2nd feel of things) - when you want to base the ruleset of Warhammer on fluff you will end up with a totall mess. Tyranid armies should, by the fluff, consist of hundreds of gaunts, few synapse creatures and even fewer monsters and still be an easy prey to small force of Imperium's Finest...

A Fire Warrior costs 13 points and a Guardsman costs 5 points so this may already be a problem regarding 3:1? I don't know what I will go for but I guess 5-7 points for a Hormagaunt is alright with me.

nou wrote:

My sugestion for Tyranids problem would be similar to what has been done with Tyranids in 2nd - make them "endless wave" army. So Hormagaunts may remain cheap, fast and mostly screening/harassment unit that doesn't require Tyranid player to own and operate on hundreds of models but still give the feel of a mass horde of disposable bodies.

I can't remember the Endless wave... Is it something you call them or was it a special rule?

nou wrote:
Giving Hormagaunts movement as fast as bike units and some neat returning deployment options solved the problem for me. This way you can also keep model count in a unit low enough for suppression mechanics to work as intended.

Armies with a lot of models will also be compensated when deploying in 40kD10: Edge of Revitalization. "returning deployment"? Meaning that a unit will reappear in the deployment zone, when it is killed or something like that?

nou wrote:
But there is another problem with suppression mechanics based on model count - multi wound models and especially units of multiwound models. It is feasible for Tyranid Warriors to have high defensive fear characteristic (around 10, but I see that even Tau HQ has DF of 6) to overcome that they would be constantly pinned by FW (15 hits for 5:1 bonus is perfectly possible at short range), but Raveners are basically the same model without Fearless and Synapse, so should have low DF and there are a lot of large, multiwound creatures that shouldn't be easily pinned. Also, granting high DF value to fearless units defeats the purpose of high fear single shot weapons, favouring high ROF weapons. So you might consider adding physical size to the pinning mechanism, to not end up with a lot of exceptions to core rules. I stumbled upon the very same problem when I tried to introduce meaningfull pinning against Tyranids - it either worked "backwards", suppressing medium and large creatures the most or was too weak to matter anyways, or needed a unit-by-unit exclusion, which defeats the purpose of core rule...

It's difficult for me to talk about when I haven't made stats and made calculations based on those stats, but I may construct Tyranid units at a very different way than you have seen. I have done so with the Orks. The Tyranid is a single mind so representing that could mean that units aren't organised as the other races, which do so to keep it ordered and manageable during a battle - you could say that the Hivemind doesn't need that as it has perfect overview.

nou wrote:
As you can see, a lot of balance/fluff logic problems arise when considering particular factions and how they interact with core ruleset. One of the best methods of keeping faction feel fluffy while keeping core rules as universal as possible is to differentiate factions at winning conditions level, not at detailed rules level, but it is much harder to balance without serious amount of playtesting and tweaking. But, for example, the endless swarm above could work totally different in "matched play symmetrical scenario" setup and in "faction specific mission goals" setup. Especially if every faction vs faction matchup could generate different win conditions for both attacker and defender roles. And before you reply with "that is something to consider after fleshing out the factions better" - win conditions are probably the most important part of core rules in any conflict game, and by the look of it you are too attached to how official warhammer missions are constructed. And 40K missions were always the weakest/most shallow part of this game.

I very much agree - Have you taken a look at the Tactical Objectives (I may change this to "Strategems" to keep a term from the official 40k) at the back of the codices? By the way - remember that a lot of units (mostly in the Blood Angels codex) has just been given point cost and stats from 7th edition, so if something doesn't make sense it's probably because I haven't updated the numbers properly.

nou wrote:
And I have to ask - how well do you know 2nd ed ruleset? I ask because monofilament weaponry back then had no effects on vechicles except for low probability of hitting actual pilot/driver.

When I mentioned monofilament weaponry I meant 7th edition rules and how high Strength is good against vehicles.

Regarding point costs - this subject is rather tricky so I don't want to give you any numbers - you must always make direct "on field" comparisons of unit efectiveness. Exact gaunt value in comparison to FW will depend on how exactly those two unit will perform against each other or other benchmarks. My calculations above were based on some straight port assumptions and 1-on-1 assault attempt scenario just as an ilustration on how deeply your system favors shooting over melee. I understand, that you cannot talk in depth about things you haven't done yet - I was simply pointing out some incoming bumps on the road that first came to mind when reading core rules.

Yes, endless wave (original rule is called Endless Swarm) is a returning mechanic to give a feeling of overwhelming masses while using a reasonable number of models. As such, it messes with kill points and tabling/board control win conditions, so should be balanced out somehow. I just had a look at your "stratagems" section and I'm not really a fan of mixing tactical aids with win condition cards and it's too much to simply eyeball without actually playtesting your ruleset thoroughly, which I won't be doing as I have my own "fork" to maintain. Which leads to another question:

how many actual games have you played with this system? I'm genuinely interested, as I know only how many games it took me to understand/correct/mess up again/improve/rework/balance out my own fork and for only a couple of somewhat related factions it took about 50-70 games and it is still work in progress.

nou wrote:
Regarding point costs - this subject is rather tricky so I don't want to give you any numbers - you must always make direct "on field" comparisons of unit efectiveness. Exact gaunt value in comparison to FW will depend on how exactly those two unit will perform against each other or other benchmarks. My calculations above were based on some straight port assumptions and 1-on-1 assault attempt scenario just as an ilustration on how deeply your system favors shooting over melee. I understand, that you cannot talk in depth about things you haven't done yet - I was simply pointing out some incoming bumps on the road that first came to mind when reading core rules.

Exactly, my point system measures two types of effectivenesses of a model and compares those to another model, then it's up to me to find point costs where I think that the effectivenesses balance each other out.

nou wrote:

Yes, endless wave (original rule is called Endless Swarm) is a returning mechanic to give a feeling of overwhelming masses while using a reasonable number of models. As such, it messes with kill points and tabling/board control win conditions, so should be balanced out somehow.

Yeah but I'm not going do that. I'm of the opinion that rules and the point cost must find me an answer and that nothing is free unless it comes with an disadvantage which is equally bad like those special rules which are available for some Character.

nou wrote:
I just had a look at your "stratagems" section and I'm not really a fan of mixing tactical aids with win condition cards and it's too much to simply eyeball without actually playtesting your ruleset thoroughly, which I won't be doing as I have my own "fork" to maintain.

well I like the idea of having the choice of either taking tactical aids which can help you obtain a single or few specific objectives or allowing yourself several objectives giving you many ways to obtain Victory Points.

nou wrote:

Which leads to another question:
how many actual games have you played with this system? I'm genuinely interested, as I know only how many games it took me to understand/correct/mess up again/improve/rework/balance out my own fork and for only a couple of somewhat related factions it took about 50-70 games and it is still work in progress.

... Ermm... What is classified as a game? So far I haven't had a normal game with several units played by other players than myself.

I say this in good will, but be prepared to have to rewrite huge swathes of this project when actual playtesting starts. From what you wrote you made a fundamental mistake of believing, that linear points metrics is suitable for evaluation of multidimensional space of stats and rules interactions and even more so, you don't really know what are the emergent properties of your ruleset, you only know what you can calculate in the void. And with complex systems that is not enough. I would advise you to stop detailed work on new rules and factions at the moment, find an enthusiastic play partner and spend the time to play the hell out of the very barebones of this system, even with symmetrical forces, but utilizing various scenario, terrain and army composition setups and try your hardest at abusing this system. With fresh set of eyes you will most certainly find flaws, actual limitations, strengths and caveats and dead ends (rules that seem to be balanced and working on paper but after finding a flaw requiring total rewrite because there is no actual room to meaningfully improve them by simple changing of parameters). I know this isn't what you call "concrete feedback" but my whole game design experience tells me, that you have over invested in theory without enough practice... After all, what is a game worth if it doesn't get played at all?

nou wrote:
I say this in good will, but be prepared to have to rewrite huge swathes of this project when actual playtesting starts.

No problem... People find it quite difficult to get a word in, when I'm shouting "LALALALALA"... So critique so far has been at the minimal and so I suspect that no changes are needed…
But seriously, I've rewritten several parts of the rules several times so ready to keep developing.

nou wrote:

From what you wrote you made a fundamental mistake of believing, that linear points metrics is suitable for evaluation of multidimensional space of stats and rules interactions and even more so, you don't really know what are the emergent properties of your ruleset, you only know what you can calculate in the void. And with complex systems that is not enough. I would advise you to stop detailed work on new rules and factions at the moment, find an enthusiastic play partner and spend the time to play the hell out of the very barebones of this system, even with symmetrical forces, but utilizing various scenario, terrain and army composition setups and try your hardest at abusing this system. With fresh set of eyes you will most certainly find flaws, actual limitations, strengths and caveats and dead ends (rules that seem to be balanced and working on paper but after finding a flaw requiring total rewrite because there is no actual room to meaningfully improve them by simple changing of parameters). I know this isn't what you call "concrete feedback" but my whole game design experience tells me, that you have over invested in theory without enough practice... After all, what is a game worth if it doesn't get played at all?

You're right that I could have spend more time at test games rather than keep on writing codices and rules in general, and it's not that I didn't have the chance, but it's just difficult for me to take a day out of the calendar to spend on test games with so much else happening in my life. Remember, even though this is a lot of work, it's still only a pet project, so I only get to work on it, when I have time to spare, which actually is not that often.

Hi guys, so roughly a year has gone with a lot happening in my life besides 40k. I've had some time, but not much, to keep updating and play-testing the rules.

People have received the rules well, though these guys have an advantage as they are good with numbers, which more or less is required with this rule set.

So far the rules and point cost seem balanced, though the T'au Empire need some additional Command Cards which include other ways for them to gain Victory Points, as they have a very hard time to keep an Objective safe, because of their lack of close combat units. This actually make the Kroot even more necessary for the T'au Empire, and I like that, but it would be nice for T'au Empire to focus on getting Victory Points other than from Objective Markers, which also would fit their background perfectly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Some notes about making Blood Angels unique:

"The Reclusiarchs – the highest ranking Chaplains – are the keepers of the Chapter’s Reclusiam, the Blood Angels’ most sacred shrine. The Reclusiam nestles in the heart of a great spire that stands tall over the rest of the fortress monastery and only the tower of the Sanguinary Priesthood stands as high."

"Where the Chaplains aid the Blood Angels in resisting the Flaw, the Sanguinary Priests exhort their brothers to embrace the Red Thirst, and to use it to their advantage. "

"Whilst the sermons and ceremonies of the Chapter’s Chaplains exhort their Battle-Brothers to reject the anger within, those performed by the Sanguinary Priests call upon the Blood Angels to embrace the Red Thirst and wrest it to their control; unleashing its strength to buttress theirs when the day is darkest and the battle goes ill. Even to this day, the Sanguine Tower of the Priesthood is the only part of the fortress monastery that challenges the dark glory of the Chapter’s Reclusiam. These two towers – one a shining beacon of redemption and renewal, the other sinister and sombre – remain a physical monument to the dual nature at the heart of every Blood Angels’ soul. "

From this I made the two special rules: "Dual nature: The Reclusiam" and "Dual nature: The Priesthood" for the Chaplains and Sanguinary Priests . There is also a special rule, "Red Thirst" which a unit must roll to see if it gets. Having one of the dual nature special rules allows to automatically have or deny the Red Thirst special according to the background.

This approach allows the Blood Angel players to lead their armies in different ways and shows the self-accepted flaw and depth of this noble Space Marine Chapter.