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

I guess using the Teardrop template for ranged area effect is just personal preference.
(If all ranged effects were round blast markers it would be more uniform in application.But some may like to have special templates for this type of attack, even though they have similar in game effects.)

I would prefer 'speculative shooting' was restricted to pre- planned off table bombardment /air strikes.

As most modern rules allow a set number of bounds pre planned fire, to soften up general areas .(EG tree line, town , approach to a bridgehead, etc.)

Troops on the ground wasting ammo firing blind is not so common....

Its easier to restrict on table firing to direct LOS or indirect LOS only.(1 rule, 1 exception.)

Again I dont mind adding firing without LOS in later if its needed after we play test.

Ahh, thinking about it I now remember that scatter dice do have an arrow of a kind on the compas-thing on the "hit" side.

Your proposal makes allot more sense now (in my head you were re-rolling every "hit"). Yes, lots of sense, I like the procedural flow diagram as well. I think the rules will be clearer and more interesting if we do many of them that way. (For example acquiring target, armour saving, wounding, and removal of casualties could be a relatively linear one).

On the subject of units taking losses, how will it work? My preference (and the house rule with my group) has allays been to resolve everything as if units were indivisible items in of themselves. For example if one of their models is in boltgun range and LOS of one of your models then your entire squad may fire bolters at their entire squad. If they then suffer X casualties they remove X models from their unit, in any way they like (all the removed models might be out of range and LOS).

(We all got into warhammer fantasy first, we thought we were playing by the rules when we did this for years).

Hello,

I have made some candidate movement symbols, this image shows a quick example of how I imagine them working. Ignore the actual stats, they arent the point of this.

Hi Dast.
That is the sort of symbols I was thinking of for movement.

I was wondering should we use symbols for all stats, instead of letters-names on the unit cards?

Rather than ...M/BS/WS/S/T/W/I/A/ld/Sv which uses letters that are not relevant in some languages...

Eg
(Movement type symbol)+ distance moved in inches.

(Shield symbol for armour) large models like vehilces and Monsters get a front side rear armour values.

(Heart /Cog symbol for resiliance, for biological/mechanical units.)

(Cloak symbol for stealth)

(Target symbol for BS replacement.)

(Crossed dagger symbol for WS replacement )

(Blood drop/oil drop for wounds/structure points symbol.)number of models in unit/ wounds/structure points per model

(Medal symbol for morale symbol.)

(Arm stripes,(star for special characters.) for command value symbol.

Just a thought...as a picture paints a thousand words.

Your suggestion for casualty removal seem pretty straight forward and in common usage.I can not see the point in useing a more complicated resolution to start with.

TTFN

Hello again folks.
As the rules for the game seem to be developing quite well, lots of good ideas so far.

I was wondering if I could just post up an alternative to replacement the current F.O.C.

If we are using unit cards.
We could have one side with the in game information on(Unit name description, followed by unit and weapon stats.)
And the other side could be used for the army organisation and points values.

My proposal is to use the commonality of unit types, rather than in game function to define units in the force organisation.As this allows the same units to be used in different themed lists.

HQ units.
Core units
Specialized units
Restricted Units.

HQ units set the theme of the army, they determine what units are considered Common , Specialized and Rare in their force.

OPTION we might include...
Some HQ unit may be able to bring 'Limited Support Units (0-1, 0-2 or 1-3)These are particular to that specific HQ.
These are the most 'in theme units' that do not apply to other armies. Eg Blood Angel Death Guard, Snakebite Squiggoths etc.

For every HQ unit you may take;-

2 to 8 Common Units.
(0-3 Support units if we use this option.)

For every 2 Common units units you may take 1 Specialized unit.

For every 2 Specialized units you may take 1 Restricted unit.

EG
Assault Squads are common in a 'Assault' themed SM army.'
Specialized in a 'Tactical' themed SM army .
And Restricted in a 'defender' 'Fire support' themed SM army.

This allows the proportion of units types to scale evenly over game sizes.Allows lots of themed lists with very little complication.

I may not have explained it that well though..
Please let me know what you think , or any clarification needed...

TTFN

Just did the second play test (testing the version I came up with.)

Here are the results to the survey taken before:

Better/Worse than current 40k
Random vs In control (1-10)
Static vs Fluid (1-10)
More/Less tactical than current 40k
How "into" the game were you (1-10)
Suggestions:


Friend (playing Tau)
Better
8
10
More
6

Me (playing Orks)
Better
9
10
More
7
Disembarking reduces your initiative to 0, this made it a lot less “rhino-rush,” and a lot more tactical.


Both of us liked this version more than the other one. So I'm going to make the decision to go with this version instead. The big reason is the game wasn't just a decision of shooting vs moving, making things that are supposed to move (like deffkoptas) play a static role.

I would love to have you play test it as well, but I know it's kind of hard to do.



So now, here is how the activation levels are going to work:

Place your counter during the command phase.
Start at level 20, count down.
Activate your unit in the range of levels determined by your leadership + - command value.
Start of the resolution phase you take care of morale checks.
After that, you resolve assaults.



@Lanrak

Hmm... haven't thought too much about redoing the Force Org Chart. I think we should leave that for a little longer, and knock out the rest of the rules we have laid out first.

Command values have been something that I've been thinking a lot about lately. Here are some of them:

Thinking of Tau is the easiest, because of their obvious command structure.

Shas'la - 1
Shas'ui - 2
Shas'vre - 3
Shas'el - 4
Shas'o - 5

1 is a recruit
2 is a normal soldier
3 is a veteran
4 is a high authority figure
5 is a general


So for Space Marines:
Scouts - 1
Marines - 2
Veterans (incl. sgts and terminators) - 3
Librarians/Chaplains/etc. - 4
Captains - 5

Tyranids:
Rippers - 0
Gaunts - 1
Hive Guard/Carnifexes/etc. - 2
Lictors/Genestealers/things meant to function without Synapse - 3
Synapse Creatures - 4
Hive Tyrants - 5

Synapse could have the nice effect of letting the units in Synapse range use their command value. Units outside of Synapse range could be forced to act at their highest activation level (IB - Feed) or their lowest (IB - Lurk.)

Orks:
Boyz - 1
Nobz/Gretchin - 2
Big Meks/Weirdboyz/special Nobz - 3
Warboss - 4
(Still iffy about this one...)

These are just some examples, and leave room for some really cool and unique army abilities. For instance, Space Marines are naturally going to be higher than most because of the presence of a veteran sgt. Tyranids not in Synapse are going to be hurting, with almost no control over the units; but if they are in Synapse they have flawless execution.

I only did armies I was familiar with, but you get the idea (hopefully )


Soon I'll go to the first post and correct it to the new turn order, which will bump part 1 to 100% (huzzah )

I only mentioned the change to FoC as something to consider later in the development.
Its just if i do not post stuff when I think about it , it sort of gets forgotten about...

Could you please explain the new game turn.And how the command values work?
As I am unsure how adding on numerical sequencing adds more tactical depth, it just appears to take control away from players?

I would like to keep this rule set a concise as possible.(Less than 40 pages.)

Sure thing, I understand that if I don't put stuff in the thread I tend to forget about it.


Alright, so I'll try to explain command values and the game turn as best I can.

Command values are simple:
-It's how versatile the unit is when it comes to making actions. If it has a high command value, it is more flexible and can either act before enemy units or after them depending on what the commander wants.

So let's take a Space Marine Captain as an example:
-They have a leadership of 10, and would have a command value of 5.

This is generally the most versatile you can get, as it allows the unit to be activated anywhere from step 15 to step 5 (which is a huge range.)

Next we’ll have a Tau Fire Warrior Team:
-They have a leadership of 7, and would have a command value of 1.

They are very limited on when they can be activated, with only a range of 6 to 8.
If they had a Shas’ui upgrade though, they would now have a leadership of 8 and a command value of 2.
This changes them to have a range of 6 to 10, and are now much more tactically flexible due to the presence of a veteran leading them.


These all come into play below.




The game turn is broken up into three phases:
-Command Phase
-Action Phase
-Resolution Phase

Let me break down what happens, and in what order, during each phase.
-Command Phase
---Reserves arrive first. Both players will roll to find out which reserves come in, but then alternate when placing them. Who goes first will be decided by the players rolling off.
---The players will place a counter face down by each unit. This counter will have either green, amber, or red. Players can place these in whichever order they feel, and once both players have completed this action they continue to the Action Phase.

-Action Phase
---The action phase is broken down into 20 activation levels. Every unit will be activated during one of these levels.
---Starting at activation level 20, count down.
---Once it hits a number that is in the range of the unit you want to activate, they can be activated. This is where the ranges shown above with the Fire Warrior Team and Captain come into effect. Just to clarify, you only count down once per turn (not once per player) and multiple units can be activated in the same activation level.
---If multiple units are activated during the same activation level, the counter priority comes into effect. Green units will go first, followed by amber, and finally it is finished off with red.
---If multiple units are activated during the same activation level and have the same counter color, the players roll off. The winner can decide whether to go first or have the opponent go first. Then you alternate activating units until one player no longer has units being activated at that same level and with the same color.
---When a unit is activated it will immediately do whatever its counter says it is going to do. Also, the activation level is the priority when determining when units will go. (e.g. if a red-counter unit is activated at level 9 and another green-counter unit at 8, the red-counter unit will go first.)

-Resolution Phase
---Units that have taken damage and require a morale check do this as soon as the Resolution Phase starts. The order doesn’t really matter, but if people nit-pick they can figure out something amongst themselves.
---Assaults are resolved next. We’ll figure out the details for this part soon enough.


I know this seems complicated, but as soon as I figure out how to word it and you get a chance to play it will make a lot more sense. I really hope that I got it this time, but I’m not that confident that I did. It is so much easier to do it in person or even through voice-by the end of the game, both me and my opponent already had it pretty well down (just a few slips here and there.)

If this doesn’t at least make it a little clearer, we’re going to have to figure out another way to communicate. Maybe Skype, or even just smaller posts that we’re quick to reply to?

Hi rabid.
The post is very clear.The command value and leadership are determining the activation sequence.
I see this as ... armies with high LD and Command values activate MORE UNITS before armies with lower Ld and command values?!.

I thought the point of alternating unit activation was to EQUALLY SPACE unit activations.
EG Player 'a' activates one unit then player' b' activates one unit.. a,b,a,b,a,b,a,b,a,b,a,b '

letting LD and command values set activation sequencing could mean, Player A activates several units until the 'activation sequence number' is low enough for player B to activate one unit!!
Which allows the massive imbalance of lots of units doing lots of things while the opposing player waits, (THE PROBLEM with current 40k game turn.IMO)

Or if its just applies to singular sequencing of an army , EG SM army can only activate units near its commander first,(Highest LD and command values.)While Tau can only activate the unit near their commander first.(Highest Ld and command values.)
This appears to just artificially restricts player choice.

I honestly do NOT see why you want to add this?(Could you clearly state the reason why it is needed in your opinion?)

In my proposed stats the 'Command Value' shows how good leaders inspire units PERFORMANCE within command range.(Limited re-rolls of dice within command range to show their POSITIVE effect on nearby units/models.)
Communications are assumed instant and freely made to any unit on good morale.The game turn lets players have FULL control of what units take what actions and when.

The system of Green Amber Red was to let players make tactical decisions on action focus, and sequencing.(No additional numerical sequencing is required in the existing games using it!)

If you want numerical sequencing then 'Activation Points' as used in games like 'Space Hulk' would be my preferred option.
Each action has a cost in AP,and each 'leader' generates a set of Action Points for their force.To show how well they motivate units.
This is the system that would make more sense with 'numerical sequencing' as it takes the other sequencing format out of the game turn.(No need for Green , Amber or Red counters.)

Eg
Move 1 AP.
Shoot from the hip 1AP.
Fire support 2AP
Run 2AP.
Charge into assault 3 AP.
Lift Suppression 1AP
Reduce neutralization to suppression 2AP
Reduce routed to neutralized. 2AP
(Accumulative cost , so routed to ok takes 5AP.)

This method restricts the players to using a set amount of actions, (controlled by action points, ) determined by the 'leaders' in the army.
Its the more detailed but complicated version of the 'order counters' I suggested.

Basic alternating activation.
Player A activates a unit.
Player B activates a unit.
Continue until all units activated.

I simply added choosing the actions the unit would perform, (Green Amber Red,) in the Command Phase to add more tactical thought, and tactical depth to the game play..
(Using 'order counters' is quite common in Alternating Activation game turns for a reason.. )

My point is orders counters AND numerical sequencing is ONE method too many!
We should just decide on ONE.

Morning Lanrak,

So the reason for the activation levels is simple:
-It adds more tactical flexibility to commanders, and allows for more diversity in armies.


The goal isn't necessarily for the turn to go a, b, a, b, a, b, a, b, a, b. Instead, the turns tend to go a, b, a, a, b, a, b, b, b, a, b, a, a, b, b or something like that. They are still mixed, but it isn't so mechanical.


When we did the play test, there were a few things that I specifically looked for to see if they would be a problem. You have actually named several of them, I just didn't put them in my post.
Q - Will high leadership armies dominate? i.e. will a whole army be able to go before their opponent?
A - This actually never was a problem. I played as Orks, so my opponent generally was a higher leadership than anything that I brought to the table. However, it allowed me to go after him for my movement and force him to target the things that I wanted him to. So after almost making him waste a turn of shooting, I would start to go at my higher activation levels to get up in his face as soon as possible.

Q - Can't a deathstar unit dominate the board if they have a high command value model joined to it?
A - Certain deathstar units were definitely able to pack a punch due to the flexibility of going at a lower activation level for movement and a higher activation level for assaulting. However, by reducing their command value to 0 if they were disembarking or deep striking it really helped balance things.

Q - Shooting seems to have a distinct advantage because of the counters and their priority. Would they actually dominate the board?
A - Although the games were very bloody in general, it was equally from shooting and assaults. Because you could lock units in close combat before they could shoot, it could be used to really mitigate an opponent’s shooting capabilities. Additionally, if you had a unit that could wipe the enemy in assault they would be free to move and assault another unit the next turn. This meant that assault units didn't cross this magical "too good" barrier that would result in them performing worse because of how good they were.

Q - Will the addition of activation levels actually add to the tactical flexibility of the commander, and make them feel like they were in control?
A - Yes, oh god yes it did. I felt like I had total control of what was going on with my army. I never felt like I should just leave the room and let my opponent finish with their stuff. The game was incredibly fluid. We ended up taking like 3 hours for a 1,000 point game, but that was because we were learning it as we were playing it, and besides that it didn't feel like it was dragging on at all. Previously, when it was just done with counters it strongly favored shooting. If you had to decide between shooting and moving, where one would do damage and reduce incoming damage, the choice is obvious. Maybe with the change of being able to do amber and green at the same time it would help, but then we should almost just make it so that each player takes turns activating a unit because 90% of the units would be green or amber.


I know this seems complicated, but after play testing the choice was obvious to me. I'm thinking I may try to figure out a way to record a game so you can see exactly what I'm talking about, and how fluid it makes the game. However, I'll only do that if you think it's worth it (because that's a lot of work )

Hello,

I like the new version of the 20 steps initiative system. However I do have a question that I'm not sure has been covered (perhaps it has and I missed it though).

Do both players have to simultaneously reveal everything they intend to activate this step, or do they only set the step when the unit actually activates? Do I have to tell you that my bikes and my tactical squad are moving this step, or just the bikes, see how things go, then reconsider the tactical squad. (Say the bikes got lucky and gunned down the only other squad currently in shooting range of the tactical, the tactical might as well wait to see if something ventures closer in the next step rather than shooting the air).

Dast,

The way we had played it was everything reveals at the same time. This worked fine when we did it, and only a few times did a unit end up a little stranded.

In a tournament scenario, a rather dickish player could wait to have their opponent reveal all of their units before deciding which units to activate. We can come up with something to mitigate this if we think it'll be a problem.

So in the scenario you mentioned, a few things could happen:
1 - The commander really wanted a certain squad dead, and decided to use a green counter for both the bike and tactical squad. If the bike squad wipes them out, then it would mean that there was overkill and the tactical squad shouldn't be given the opportunity to change their mind.
2 - To play it safe, the commander wanted their units to be able to move so they were assigned a yellow and a red counter. The bike squad goes first because they are yellow, and end up wiping out the target. The tactical squad had a red counter, meaning they can still do a normal movement afterwards (maybe even being able to target a new unit.)

There are plenty of other things that could end up happening, but the decision was made during the command phase as to what stance the unit was going to take. This perpetuates through the whole turn, with whatever benefits or penalties come with it. A good commander will use serious economy of force, and will be rewarded with it. Two equally powerful lists will come down to whichever commander made the fewest mistakes.

I can understand how moving from 40ks alternating game turn.That ANY level of interaction adds tactics , and deeper game play.

I still feel the numerical sequencing only appeals to you due to the 'over complication expectation' 40k generates.
And it IS open to abuse by more competitive players.(A few friendly play tests wanting it to work , is not a robust enough test.IMO.)

If you did NOT want ALTERNATING unit activation,(a,b,a,b,a,b,a) why not use another game turn mechanic?

Alternating phases, or action point allocation, or even variable game bound...I am happy to discuss alternative game mechanics if you want ?

Unfortunately I don't really have the resources to do extensive play testing like a gaming company could do.

I think it's a lot less complicated than what you are envisioning. I highly suggest finding a way to try out what I'm saying.

I'm willing to discuss other ways to do game turns. Although it is easy for things to become more tactical than current 40k, I think what I came up with is more tactical than most other game turn systems. Though I know that is only 2 people's opinions so far, so I'm willing to hear criticism of it.

Thanks for explaining that Rabid.

I think Rabids system is really quite good, it allows the better organised factions (Space marines, eldar) to actually make decisions either before or after their opponents (Orks) and really brings out the flavor. It also applies unit by unit, so even two armies of the same faction could have quite different in terms of flexibility of activation.

I haven't had a chance to play-test rabids idea yet (probably wont do for a few months), but the theory of it really appeals.

Even if that might sound weird, I find that the "a, b, a, a, b, a, b, b, b, a, b, a, a, b, b" scenario is the best way to equally distribute turn orders. Armies doesn't have the same numbers of units and if I take one of my friend army that have just 4 units in a 1500pts game. Making it 'even' would quickly become "a,b,a,b,a,b,a,b,b,b,b,b,b,b,b,b,b,b,b,b,b,b,b,b,b,b" against an imperial guard player, not really solving the problem of the same player activating 2 units back-to-back anyway. But that's just a my quick grain of salt in that discussion...

What I really wanted to discuss was the method of tie resolution that seems to be used. There can be a LOT of ties in that systems (Especially with similar armies, like Space marines) and rolling to break that tie each time might break the flow of the game... So to solve that (somewhat small) problem, let me introduce the Tie-Breaking-Token-Of-Doom-3002™. (could be sold at any good hobby shop for the small price of 40$)

Tie-breaking-Token Rules:
1. The first player who deploys all his units on the table get the token. (Or choose any other way to determine who begins with it, that's not important)
2. When a Tie occur, the token owner solve that tie how he wishes. After that, he gives the token to the player at his right.
3. If the token is soft enough, it can also be thrown at any cheese-abusing player.

Anyway, until now, I find your project really promising and I really hope that it will see it's completion and be accepted/used by a lots of players, good luck!

Hi folks.
If you dont want to alternate unit activation, then dont pick alternating unit activation as your game turn mechanic!

I can now sort of see why you wanted 'limited multiple activation' to show armies with better leadership.

I was to busy worrying about the 'over complication' and possible abuse of your proposed method to see the reasoning behind it.
You want units close to the 'character-leaders' to act 'as one' in a 'decisive way', yes?

Here is a possible alternative that allows for multiple units to act together under an 'heroic leader' (Command value 2 or more).While sticking to the alternating unit activation ethos...

Combat Attachments!
A leader with a command value of 2 or more, MAY bring more than one unit under their control.
They can take control of a number of units equal to their command value,(Include any attached units /retinue in this calculation.)
The group of units under a single controlling leader is called a UNIT GROUP.
The UNIT GROUP now counts as ONE unit for the perpose of orders and actions.(Place orders by the leader model of the UNIT GROUP.)

Restrictions,
Units in the unit group have to stay in command range of the unit group leader.
The leader of the unit group looses 1 command (re roll ) dice per units controlled over 2.
If the leader of the unit group suffers any morale damage it applies to ALL units in the unit group.
Combat attachments are formed and disbanded in the COMMAND PHASE ONLY!

This leaves sequencing as basic order sequence.(No additional sequencing required.)
BUT give player the CHOICE of making combat attachments , to make a larger unit under the control of a good leader.And has reasonable limitations to curb abuse...

Eg if a MSU army is up against a Deathstar army.They can use Combat Attachments to even up the combat match ups a bit!

Anyhow...

IF you are concerned about the imbalance in the number of units across armies in 40k.
You can say multiple small units have more activations, but are easier to damage, so that is fine!.

OR go for Alternating Phases.(Imagine looking at one army for a few seconds to see what they are doing, then looking back to see what their opposition has done in the same amount of time .)
('Tennis mach view', command phase.. .attacker, defender, attacker, defender,....resolution phase.)

Command Phase as before.

Player A takes ONE action with all their army.
Player B takes ONE action with all their army.
Player A takes ONE action with all their army .
Player B takes ONE action with all their army

Resolution phase as before.

Orders.
Advance, move then attack.
Double-time (run), move then move.
Evade, Attack then move,
Fire support , ready , then fire.
Infiltrate , ready then move

Actions.
Move , move up to movement value,( modified by terrain )
Attack attack enemy units within weapons range, ( resolve in this order, close combat then small arms then support weapons.)
Ready, prepare equipment for stealthy movement, set up fire support weapons 'move or fire' etc.

Command phase. Place order counters face down next to unit.(Units can have different orders as before.)
Primary action phase, flip order counter over and take FIRST ACTION ONLY!!(One unit at a time.)
Secondary action phase, take second action of order, and remove order counter.(One unit at a time.)
Resolution phase, plot arrivals rally units on poor morale..etc.

TTFN

@Dast

When you get the chance to play test (even if it's not for a while) please let me know. I'm really hoping to get a couple dozen games, with a dozen or so different players. So even if it's just a single game near the end when we are on v0.9 it is going to be immensely helpful.


@Static-Cat

By the way, I saw that this was your first post and welcome to DakkaDakka!

I'd never thought of the tie-breaker token, and it sounds very interesting. I'm willing to play test that next chance I get. Just to make sure though, you know that it is once per color that the two players roll correct? Granted that could end up being like 2 or 3 dozen rolls over a 6 turn game. But in the play test that I just did it actually didn't end up slowing down the game really at all.

Both methods should really be play tested, and more methods are highly encouraged in case anyone comes up with more.




Moving forward though.

Let's finish up wound allocation.

There are two methods that I can think of, with one being more realistic and the other being simpler.

More Realistic:
-Break it up into common weapons (bolter, missile launcher, meltagun.)
-Resolve the weapons in this order:
---Templates
---Large Blast Markers
---Small Blast Markers
---Shorter range to longer range for all remaining weapons
-You can only kill things in range of the weapons, and having a longer range weapon in the squad doesn't do anything to benefit the shorter range weapons.
-By resolving, it is everything from rolling to hit to actually removing the casualties. Casualty removal is done from under blasts and templates (if applicable) and from the front.


Simpler method:
-Roll to hit with every gun simultaneously, placing templates and blast markers (and scattering) prior to moving on.
-Roll all the hits for armor penetration, grouping identical AP weapons.
-Roll all that made it through armor for wounding, grouping identical Strength weapons.
-Remove casualties from the front.


I know a lot of people play both methods, I generally prefer the first but I know that it is more complicated. The realism is nice though and something that I like to have; however, I know that a lot of people like simplicity and quicker games.

With all that in mind, what do you guys think? Once we answer this question, we can proceed directly to morale.



We mentioned it before, but I'm in favor of having "overkill." Overkill means that however many extra wounds that are dealt to a unit through shooting are used to force morale checks on nearby units. For every extra inch the unit is -1 to their leadership.

This means that say a unit has 5 members, and they suffer 12 casualties. An overkill of 7 is then present. This means that all units within 7 inches will take a morale check. If another unit was within 4 inches of the unit that had an overkill of 7, they are -3 to their leadership for the morale check.


To go along with this, we can use the new command stat to really help mitigate overkill.

For every command point you can get rid of some of the penalty for being close to a unit that suffered overkill.

Continuing the example from above. If it was a a Tau Fire Warrior squad with a Shas'ui upgrade, his command value of 2 will reduce it so they are only -1 to their morale check.


Also, Lanrak you mentioned this before and I really liked it. There are three levels to failing.

If you fail your leadership, you are suppressed.
-Suppressed units cannot run or charge, and if not firing at the closest target must use a red counter.
If you fail your leadership by 2 or more, you are pinned.
-Pinned units cannot move, their command value is reduced to 0, and to make any action they must use a red counter.
If you fail your leadership by 4 or more, you are routed.
-Routed units must retreat at 2D6", their command value is reduced to 0, and to make any action they must use a red counter.

A total of 5 special rules I can see affecting morale:
ATSKNF - ATSKNF units ignore panic and pinning weapons for shooting.
Stubborn - Stubborn units never suffer negative modifiers for morale checks.
Fearless - Fearless units ignore all morale checks.
Panic - If something causes panic, units are routed if they fail their leadership instead of being suppressed or pinned.
Pinning - If something causes pinning, units are pinned if they fail their leadership instead of being suppressed.

Hopefully these aren't too complicated. It covers any possible morale situation that I can think of in a few simple special rules.



Quite a bit to digest I know, but it's an all-encompassing post for morale. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.

As far as weapon resolution orders goes I agree with you rabid .
Area effect first.(templates and blast weapons .)
Then shortest to longest range weapons.

I think there should be allowance for expressing 'volume of fire on target' causing supression /pinning.
There are other ways more in keeping with modern warfare than WHFBs 'overkill' .
(Which makes sense in the context of WHFB 'our hero was turned into red mist by that big gribbly ..LEG IT!!!)

My prefered method would be letting the AV represent the value where the model is 'shaken by volume of fire'.(Fail armour save.)
And only becomes a casualty if the attacker makes a successful to wound /damage roll.

A unit becomes suppressed if the more than 25% of the unit become shaken.(Fail their Armour save.).
A unit becomes neutralized if it takes more than 25% casualties .(Attacker rolls successful wounds/damage rolls.)
A unit routes if it falls below 50% of its starting strength and fails more than 25% saving throws.

I would replace normal orders with 'MORALE counters, to show the unit is out of normal command.

Suppressed,The unit may withdraw, OR move to intervening cover at normal speed OR Fire at nearest enemy unit.(Only take ONE action, counting as being on RED orders.)

Neutralized. The unit will not take any actions , other than fighting back if assaulted.

Routed.The unit MUST attempt to withdraw from the field of battle at double speed.(Move towards nearest friendly unit-edge of playing area, free from enemy units.)

TTFN

rabid1903 wrote:@Static-Cat

By the way, I saw that this was your first post and welcome to DakkaDakka!

Thanks!


Personally, for the two weapon resolution, I don'T have any preferences between the two...

However... The Template->Blast->Short Range->Long Range solution seems to seriously limit the potential of your 'Overkill' rule, no? If my two flamer killed all of the units... How do I calculate my 7 remaining Bolter shots for the Overkill?

If the overkill idea is implemented, I think that the "roll all at once" option should be used.

@Static Cat.
Welcome to Dakka Dakka.
I agree that the most 'realistic' systematic resolution of weapon attacks is counter intuitive if we want to use the 'over kill' method, rabid suggested.

AND if we are allowing units to target more than 1 unit in the target zone (6" radius from the target point.).After the primary target has been delt with, then the attacker can fire at the nearby unit directly.Which sort of makes the overkill method a bit redundant!

The roll to beat armour =supressed, roll to beat resiliance = casualty is based on damage resolution from a very popular WWII rule set called Flames Of War.

Most of the suggestions I am making are based on games with established history, player base popularity, and heavily play tested by the developers and community.

I would rather stick to well proven methods, (from the last 20 years of game development.)As any play testing is just for preference, rather than proving functionality...

I do have a bit of a problem explaining my ideas clearly though...

Should I run through the basic game turn mechanic options?So we can get this resolved to an agreed conclusion.
If you do not want evenly spaced alternating unit activation , we should look at alternative to alternating unit activation...

Depending on the game turn mechanic used, sort of determines the rest of the resolution methods we should use.
'..in game design there are no bad ideas,just ideas in the wrong place.Good game design is getting the most suitable ideas in the best order...'
(Jake Thornton , great bloke and a very good game designer .)

@Static-Cat

Good call on the conflict between overkill and the weapon resolution. I hadn't thought about that.

An idea that I thought of while running today though has to deal a lot with what Lanrak was saying before about splitting fire.

What if after a unit is wiped out, any models that haven't fired have the option to use an overkill attack.
-To do this, simply make a leadership check.
-If it passes, the remaining models may target any other units within the highest command value x 2"
-This means that a commander on the battlefield can have their units target other nearby squads if the first squad is wiped out. A better commander will be able to split fire more efficiently and to more diverse targets.

How does that sound instead of the current overkill idea?


@Lanrak

I'm willing to hear out what you were saying for suppression and other morale things. They sound really interesting. Now that there is a difference between something going through armor and it causing casualties the door is wide open for some really good ideas

I'm reluctant to continue discussing turn mechanics though, because we've been talking about it since the first post. I understand that it is a new system, but it is just a mixture of two different systems that I think add up very well.

I know there is a chance that I'm wrong, but I think we should push forward and just be ready to go back and modify things. Changing the turn order mechanics might not actually end up changing a whole heck of a lot, and we won't know we need to change it until more play testing is done. Knowing that though, I'm pretty confident that the turn order so far is something that will work and people will enjoy.

I have an old friend moving nearby that I should be able to convince to play (he can borrow an army ) and will allow me to play test significantly more often.




Recently we've been moving at a really good pace, and I'm thinking there is a fairly good chance of having a v0.1 done in the first week of March. After that the fun really starts.

Here is the plan of attack after v0.1 is done.
1 - Adjust these codices to be play testable: Space Marines, Tau, Tyranids, Grey Knights, Daemons, and Orks.
2 - Assuming I can get some help with these, we'll send them to each other for revision. Space Marines will need to be done first, and should be designed so that a fluffy and diverse army is encouraged; however, other styles need to be fully playable. This is a difficult task to accomplish, but with a couple people looking it over and discussing it I think we can do it.
3 - After we have those 6 codices done, I can start some serious play testing. My friend moving into town I imagine will be really excited to help me with this. He really enjoys gaming of all kinds.
4 - Adjustments will be made to the rulebook to try to get rid of bugs and things we didn't see coming.
5 - V0.2 is made with these adjustments in mind
6 - Hopefully we get enough people interested that we can write the codices for the remaining armies. I mention the 6 above because those are the ones I can play test. I have various amounts of models for them, but none from the other armies.
7 - More play testing, but these will likely be out of my hands. I might be able to convince people at my FLGS to help when we get to this point.
8 - We go back and make adjustments again, creating V0.3
9 - Final batch of play testing, with a full array of armies and codices available.
10 - Create V1.0 and release it to Dakka

I'm willing to watch after that, and call upon everyone that's helped so far to try to come up with an FAQ within a month of it actually releasing. I really hope the community likes it but am a little nervous

Hi rabid.
I am happy to modify the game turn I proposed to allow multiple unit activations if needed.(Allowing good leaders to 'take command' of multiple units for example.)
Or we can switch to alternating phases if you like.(with out to much fuss.)

I will express my concerns with adding on leadership sequencing to the basic Alternating game turn.(Your proposed addition.)
IF ALL the battles are just moving straight forward into contact, where the commander is the center of the attack or defence. Then you proposed idea works well.

HOWEVER, consider this..
An army is attacking a city held by the enemy.ALL enemy units are out of sight of the attacking units.Main central force led by the commander.

Under MY system the SCOUTS far way from the force commander can move into visual contact with enemy units.(now defenders can react..) Then the supporting artillery far from the army commander can drop an indirect barrage on the enemy units to soften them up, (then the enemy can react)BEFORE the units with the force commander move forward to engage...

Under your system the central units with the force commander HAVE to act before the know what enemy units are where...which is just artificialy restricting choice, and does not allow tactical use of recon and artillery assets...

If under your system an army can see all most of enemy units in turn one.Putting the force commander in a 'parking lot of ordnance' can just drop multiple 'pie plates' on the enemy units with the potential of decimating a majority of the enemy force in turn one.(And writing more lines of rules to restrict this after writing more rules to implement it , is going against the ethos of 40 pages... )
Has that made my concerns a bit clearer?

Over kill.
My idea for splitting fire in a target zone is a bit cleaner IMO.
If we are to use another type of suppression mechanic, this would allow fire not to be 'wasted' on a unit that was already in the condition the attacker wants.(Allowing tactcial use of suppression , neutralization and routing...).

Morale States...
Rather than take the simple view, a weapon punches through armour or it does not, and if it does not punch through the armour it has no effect.
(Which is over simplified and just wrong.HESH rounds NEVER penetrate the armour of the tank, but the compressive shock and concussion kills the occupants just the same!)

Why not treat the failing of an armour save to mean the force of the hit has enough energy to negatively affect the soft target behind the armour.
This may mean just shaken, badly bruised , slightly winded, mildly concussed, knocked out, (concussed,) or wounded so bad the model becomes a casualty.(Determined by the damage roll.)

So any model that fails its armour save is automaticaly suppressed.(Can we call this shaken?Models shaken, units suppressed.Just a bit clearer on definitions .)

This gives us 3 basic states for a model.OK, shaken, and a casualty/destroyed in game terms.

Units with multiple models count the number of models shaken , or casualties , in relation to the number of models in the unit at the start of turn.

If more than 25% of the units models are shaken or casualties, the unit is suppressed.

if more than 50% of the units models are shaken or casualties , the unit is neutralized.

(Gently lay shaken models down 'face up', and casualties 'face down' as they occur.Then we have a clear visual representation of the state of the unit ! )

Exceptions for vehicles and monstrous creatures;_
Suppressed if they fail an armour save, and fail a morale test.
Neutralized if they loose more than one wound /structure point in a game turn, and fail a morale test.

When a unit looses more than half its original number of wounds/structure points, it becomes open to the effects of routing ,
Any failed armour save ,followed by a failed morale test, or further wound/ structure point loss will cause it to route...
ROUTING replaces normal suppression and neutralization after the units starting strength has been reduced to less than half..

Just a basic out line.(We can adjust value as we play test.)

To show the loss of control of suppressed , neutralized and routing units,I would like to replace the order counters, (Green ,Amber,Red.) with morale damage counters (letters S,N,R.)

TTFN

I am not sure about this overkill attack. It works nicely with different weapons being rolled for 1 at a time, but it feels weird in some cases. For example bolters inflict 9 kills on a two man squad, (so seven bolter kills wasted) but don't worry, the plasmagun can still fire at another target.

Hi Dast.
That is why I re posted my original suggestion of a 'target zone' of a 6" radius from a target point to spread the ranged attacks over.So you could simply fire at the nearby unit when you have done enough damage to your primary target.
Seemed a better implementation of rabids over kill idea...(The attackers just swing their guns onto the next available target in the 'target zone'.)

We could just resolve hits on the models in the 'target zone'.Where the player puts the target point (in leaders LOS) determines what models are targeted in the target zone.

Does this appeal to you?

@Lanrak

I'm really glad you voiced your concerns, because I think I figured out exactly where our disconnect is!

I think you're missing the fact there is a range of values, instead of a set value. Most commanders will not be able to have other units use their command value. Those that do hopefully will not be able to be broken (Tyranid Synapse comes to mind. I had planned on synapse letting other units use their command value, but because of how low most units leadership is this shouldn't break the army.)

What you were saying as far as scouts combined with artillery is completely possible and really encouraged.

Say both have a leadership of 7 and a command value of 2 (very reasonable assumptions.)
-The scouts move out at step 9 to gain vision on the intended target for the artillery.
-At step 8, the artillery rains death upon the newly scouted out target. They could have acted at step 9, but that would have been foolish because they would not have had the vision provided by the quicker scouts.

Say the opposing commander saw this coming though, so they activated the unit the scouts were intending to get vision to during step 9 as well.
-They could move either out of vision if they won the tie-breaker roll and elected to go second. Or if they lost they could try to move to where they wouldn't be vision, or at least would get cover.


I really hope that makes sense and you see how tactical my idea really is, and encourages commanders to be.



@Dast

Yah I'm not very happy with the new overkill idea that I came up with. I'm having a really hard time trying to come up with ideas for it.



Jumping back to morale though...

Lanrak that is a really different way to do morale, and I'm intrigued. Here are some ideas that I have going off of that.

Suppressed and Pinned I feel should be possible without sustaining any casualties. There are things in real life already that do this without causing any damage whatsoever.
-Granted, most weapons won't do this but the mechanics need to be in place to allow for special rules that allow this. I felt the couple I put before allow for this.

So here are my "real life" interpretations of Suppressed and Pinned. Hopefully we can find a good way to incorporate them

Suppressed
-Bullets are flying everywhere, and it's starting to get into the heads of the soldiers being fired at. They are still fighting capable, but their reactions are slowed.

Pinned
-Casualties are starting to mount, and people are beginning to lose hope. They can barely move, have much slower reactions, and can hardly even return fire.

Routed
-The proverbial poo hit the fan, and the soldiers want to get out of dodge. Their leader is going to have to rally them in order to get them back into the fight.


Knowing this, the penalties I think would be fair I mentioned before:
Suppressed
-Command Value reduced to 0
-Can not Run or Charge
-Must use a red counter
Pinned
-Command Value reduced to 0
-Can not move, shooting requires a leadership check
-Must use a red counter
Routed
-Command Value reduced to 0
-Must retreat 2D6" towards the starting table edge
-Must use a red counter
-Only available action is regrouping. If successful regroup is made they may shoot.

For simplicity's sake, I put red counters instead of different morale counters. These can be changed out, and simply mean their actions are taken after red during an activation step.

How units gain these statuses though is really what's up for debate now though.

Failing armor saves I think actually works very well for pinning. They represent the unit getting lucky, and it's sure to rattle their system.

Suppression though doesn't even require the unit to be hit. Unfortunately that doesn't translate nearly as well into 40k as it does modern day/WW2 games.

Routed really needs to be either from panic weapons or loss of casualties. Units don't flee unless they have a damn good reason to.

Lanrak, I'm curious why you moved away from your first suggestion (failing by a certain number results in one of the states above.) Do you not think these will work as well as before? I thought it was a good suggestion, but I also like your new ideas and think, if tweaked a little, they will work very well.



I know this is a pretty discombobulated (I've always wanted a reason to use that word) post; I'm pretty tired and haven't thought the whole post through prior to posting

Hopefully it all makes some kind of sense though

@rabid.
I was assuming the force commanders would have the highest command value.(because they are the CiC on the field .)eg 4 or 5
And the units leaders would have the lowest command value on the field.(1 or 2)

If we assume units have an average morale(ld ) of 7 and 8.

Then the unit(s) near the force commander WILL ALWAYS HAVE THE HIGHEST VALUE! For activation purposes.(Baring negative morale modifiers.)

So activating in strict command + Ld values as your proposal, means the highest value, (EG the force commanders unit) HAS TO GO FIRST ALL THE TIME!
If however, you allow players to ignore this restriction on activation , (eg move out of sequence,)what was the point in adding it in the first place?

If you just want to allow some multiple unit activation , then I would prefer some other method.(Plenty are available.)
Unless I totally miss- understood?


THE reason I posted the alternative for morale , ( mainly because you said you wanted alternative ideas.. )Was to allow units to suffer from suppression without taking 'severe physical damage'
Most modern historical battle war games allow units to suffer morale damage without incurring physical damage.
To represent infantry diving for cover, and tanks buttoning up and having limited vision (vision slits.) etc.

You interpritations of the ideas are pretty much as I and the games that use them interprit the morale system.

Suppressed,( shaken) .
The unit is thinking more about self preservation, and so they either move OR shoot in a slightly restricted way.

Neutralised,(stunned, pinned .)
The unit has suffered severe shock, and or loss of equipment/manpower.They are unable to move or shoot in any meaningful way, while they try to regroup and assess their situation.

Routed.(running away, broken, panicked,etc.)
The unit has taken severe casualties , and the unit has lost all the will to fight on.And any minor threat is enough to set them fleeing the battle field.

I just thought morale damage counter(s) , that replaces the order counter(s), would be easier to implement and play .
Along with set actions and activation sequences,for each state of morale, like the order counters have.

Simply to clearly define unit states at ALL time.
Under normal command and control

Green = actions and sequence.

Amber = actions and sequence

Red= actions and sequence.

Out of command and control.

S=Suppressed.

N= neutralized.

R=Routed

TTFN

@Lanrak

I see you're online, so I'm going to quickly post this in hopes you'll see. I'll add more soon regarding the rest of your post.


Commanders only affect the units they are joined to, not a bubble around them.

There is a range, NOT a set value to act at.

Say there is a unit with a leadership of 8, and a command value of 3.

They can be activated (once per turn) ANYWHERE BETWEEN steps 11 and 5. The player elects to activate them at the beginning of a certain activation step. It is not a set value, where they are forced to act at step 11 in this example. If step 11 comes, and the player doesn't think they should be activated at that step they can choose simply to not activate them at step 11. Step 10 then starts and the player has the choice of activating them during that step because the unit was not activated during step 10.

The only time a unit is forced to act at a specific step is if their command value is 0. So far the only times I've thought of this happening are when they have deep struck, disembarked from a vehicle, or are suppressed/pinned/routed.


I really hope this gets rid of our disconnect

Aha that explains it!
However, if this' just windows of opportunity' , and overlaps of these windows.
CiC CV 4.
2iC Cv 3
vet leader cv2
unit leader cv1.
If we assume ld 8

CiC unit could activate in 12,
+1 2ic units can activate in 11
+4 vet units can activate in 10
+5 units can activate in 9
All units could activate in 8
All units could activate in 7
-5 units could activate on 6
-4 vet units could activate in 5
2ic anc cic could acivate in 4
Cic could activate in 3.


So if an army is has a LD 2 higher than their opponent they could just wait and activate all units together in one activation.(EG 9)
And their opponent could have only activated 2 units the cic and 2ic!

I can understand you wanting to add more tactical consideration to the game.But this allows mass activation of units , which is the counter intuitive to the basic point of the game turn.
I can see players just activating as many units as they can as soon as they are able to.As there is no real drawback to doing this or benifit of waiting .
(Do it to the other guy before the other guy does it to you! )

Warpath (V.2) uses;-
The first activation is automatic,
A second unit activation is on a successful dice roll of 3+
And a third unit activation roll of 5+.
BUT IF the player tries to activate extra unit(s) in their turn, ANY FOLLOWING activations need the same dice roll pass to be successful.

If the player successfully activates 2 units in their player turn.Any other activations in the rest of the GAME turn need a 3+ roll to be successful.

If the player successfully activates 3 units in player turn .Any other activariions in the rest of the GAME turn need a 5+ roll to be successful.

This allows you to take 'tactical risk' in command , in a very simple and easy to understand way.
( it represents the commander spending more time motivating a particular unit to acts above and beyond, so has less time to motivate remaining units.)

There are lots of different ways to tweek the basic Alternating Unit Activation game turn mechanic.
I just think you proposed sequencing system although quite effective, is a bit over complicated form the 'streamlined ' rule set we were aiming for .(40k in 40 pages.)

TTFN

I think you're getting what I'm saying now

The only part that I don't quite understand in you example are the +1, +4, etc.

Here is a similar example to what you were saying, that might clear things up a bit.

Commander (Ld 10, CV 5)
Veteran Squad (Ld 9, CV 3)
Tactical Marine squad (Sergeant is Ld 9, CV 3 / rest of squad is Ld 8, CV 2)
Scout Marine squad (Sergeant is Ld 9, CV 3 / rest of squad is Ld 8, CV 1)


steps 20 - 16: None
step 15: Commander (and unit he's attached to) first activation step.
step 14 - 13: Commander (and unit he's attached to) can still be activated.
step 12: Veteran Squad, Tactical Marine squad (if Sgt is still alive,) Scout Marine squad (if Sgt is still alive) first activation step. Commander (and unit he's attached to) can still be activated.
step 11: All previous can still be activated.
step 10: Tactical Marine squad (if Sgt is dead) first activation step. All previous can still be activated.
step 9: Scout Marine squad (if Sgt is dead) first activation step. All previous can still be activated.
step 8: All previous can still be activated.
step 7: Scout Marine squad (if Sgt is dead) final activation step. All previous can still be activated.
step 6: Final activation step of Veteran squad, Tactical Marine squad (if Sgt is still alive,) Tactical Marine squad (if Sgt is dead,) and Scout Marine squad (if Sgt is still alive.) Commander (and unit he's attached to) can still be activated.
step 5: Final activation step of Commander (and unit he's attached to.)
step 4 - 1: None


Probably more detail than needed (hopefully not so much to induce a wall of text headache,) but I wanted to make sure it was all there.

Looking above, you can see how important the sergeant is to the squad. Looking at scouts as an extreme example, if the sergeant is alive they have a range of 12 to 6 they can be activated at. However, if the sergeant is dead they can only act from 9 to 7. That is an incredible drop that means the leaders of an army are high priority... to both players (mwuahahahahaha.)



I see your concern Lanrak; however, I think it is less of a threat than you do. At absolute worst case, it is you go-I go. Granted, that is exactly what we are trying to avoid, but it allows for something no other game has yet to-a range in how often players go.

Both alternating units and alternating armies have their advantages and disadvantages, but by spanning the entirety of the spectrum the disadvantages are mitigated by advantages still present.

In alternating armies:
-A player gets to see their entire army mobilize and go into action. They don't have to plan on their opponent interrupting them and they can gain some serious momentum.
-However, the opponent is provided the same opportunity and it can devastate your army if you aren't prepared. Additionally, it is very boring when it's not your turn.

In alternating units:
-Players are faced with significant tactical choices, and actually feel like a commander for their army instead of just some overlord playing chess but with dozens of models instead of a couple.
-However, your opponent is going to be constantly stopping your momentum and it can be incredibly frustrating to play your army because you might not feel like you're actually playing because of the constant stop and go.


So instead of picking a point on the spectrum of alternating armies vs alternating units, the system that I brought up covers the ENTIRETY of the spectrum. This I feel is very unique and allows for some serious tactical decisions that will be presented to the players.


I see what you are saying about stacking all your units on a single activation step. However, this is a gamble that should not be taken haphazardly. Say a player knows this is going to happen, and spends the previous turn creating a bluff to draw you out. Presenting seemingly high value targets that deny other options, and cause you to reveal your units or make it so the opponent can move to take advantage of your movement.


Doing damage is only part of the game. The much bigger part of the game is movement.
Movement creates kill cones.
Movement gets you into assault.
Movement gets you out of a firing lane.
Movement captures objectives.

90% of the time, you want to move after your opponent. This way you can see where they are at and can move accordingly. So if you always act at the top of your activation range you are handicapping your movement.

In the play test, I knew this but my opponent did not. He had the same mentality that most people do, where it's "oh crap kill it kill it before it kills me." Because of this, he activated his units at the top of their activation level on the first turn. He was given a single target - my deffkoptas. I acted at the bottom of my activation levels, and got a free turn of movement and closed half the distance unharmed.



This is a more complicated system, but 40 pages actually allows for a really good turn system if we make other portions simpler. The current rulebook is 131 pages, with a single page being dedicated to the turn system. This is a huge injustice to me because a good turn system can lay the foundation for an intensely tactical game.

I still really want to hear about alternate turn systems, don't get me wrong. I just know that because the turn system I wrote is new, I really need to make sure you know what I'm saying so you can provide really good feedback on it. Unfortunately this can very easily make it look like I'm imposing it on you, which I'm really not


The turn system you said is used in Warpath does sound really cool. I like most of it, but it's hard for me to get over the dice rolls. Dice rolls add randomness into tactical decisions, which really doesn't sit well with me. Maybe adding something like a currency system instead of a dice roll? I could flesh this out, but I feel it would add a lot of unneeded complexity (funny I should say that haha.)





Back to morale! (shall I say... back into the fray!)

Good to hear that my interpretations are commonplace

Adding new counters is fine, I just thought using red would be fine. These new counters make it easier to remember which units are fleeing too for new players.

Alternates are highly encouraged, because they encourage us to modify and fine tune things; so please keep throwing more into the thread

With the new things you said, here is an idea that mixes what we already had with it:

Everything from the first post (morale section) stays, but with the only cause to morale being the failure of an armor save.

This does a few things:
-Vehicles are stratified for their difficulty in breaking now. In our Previous system they weren't much harder to break than infantry.
-If a unit has heavy enough armor that they wade through bullets, they are only going to have their confidence shaken after a bullet goes through.
-Suppressing units is much easier to do if the bullets are going near the unit, and the closest call you can have isn't when your armor saves you but when the bullet goes through and you get lucky. This makes you much more likely to be shaken, when previously a well trained soldier can fight through bullets whizzing nearby.


However, with this we are going to need some modifiers. This is because there are going to be a lot more that go through armor than cause casualties. Here are some ideas that might work.
-No leadership test needed if the number of shots through armor are below the command value.
-No leadership test needed if the number of shots through armor are below the leadership value.
-Pinning only happens when casualties are <= command value.
-Routing only happens when casualties are > command value.
-Some kind of protection is given to horde units. Thinking about that though, most horde units have fearless or something like that. This might not be such a problem.



So there's quite a bit to digest, but hopefully it's pretty clear.

*NOTE: Typing is better when done to epic music. My selections today were the 300 soundtrack and the inception soundtrack.