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.

On mobile so I'll be brief....

In the current rules for ProHammer (as written right now) if you use reactive fire during your opponents turn, on your next turn, the unit that shot with reactive fire can only shoot with snap fire.

The old way used both reactive fire shooting rules and then also snap fire rules.

The revised way I'm thinking would be to define "limited Fire" and then have a unit using a reaction utilize limited Fire for their reaction attack and again on their next turn's shooting (representing splitting their fire across two instances at somewhat reduced effectiveness).

hittable models rework proposal:

"2) DETERMINE HITTABLE MODELS
HITTABLE MODELS: Determine which models in the target unit are able to be hit by shooting attacks.
Models that are out of sight from all shooting models are NOT a hittable model.
Models that are out of range from all shooting models are NOT a hittable model.

NO HITTABLE MODELS: If the target unit has no hittable models, then no shooting attacks are resolved.

While resolving a shooting attack, the defender may choose to allocate wounds to models that are not hittable if desired. However, if at any point during the resolution of the shooting attack the condition of NO HITTABLE MODELS above occurs, the shooting attack ends immediately - no additional save rolls need to be rolled."

^this wording removes the ability of the opponent to "Rhino Snipe" models in the opposing unit by strategically blocking his own line of sight, and additionally further clarifies that even in the midst of a roll batch, a shooting attack ends immediately if the condition of "no hittable models" occurs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mezmorki wrote:
On mobile so I'll be brief....

In the current rules for ProHammer (as written right now) if you use reactive fire during your opponents turn, on your next turn, the unit that shot with reactive fire can only shoot with snap fire.

The old way used both reactive fire shooting rules and then also snap fire rules.

The revised way I'm thinking would be to define "limited Fire" and then have a unit using a reaction utilize limited Fire for their reaction attack and again on their next turn's shooting (representing splitting their fire across two instances at somewhat reduced effectiveness).

What I'm proposing is that firepower on demand on your opponent's turn in addition to firepower on your turn seems (to me) a well worth trade-off to being able to fire on one's next turn. I can see myself viewing reactive fire as a CHOICE if i had to give up my following turn's firepower entirely, but as an AUTOMATIC thing if I got to perform half my shooting on your turn and half on my turn at roughly the same effectiveness - even if i am limited in target choice and morale effects.

^^^^^ That makes sense. It's sounds the same the same as what we intended, just the wording is a bit clearer.

Thanks!

 Mezmorki wrote:
^^^^^ That makes sense. It's sounds the same the same as what we intended, just the wording is a bit clearer.

Thanks!

(and, it allows you to trim the "hittable" language from essentially the entire rest of the document, and keep it confined to this rule section only)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shooting into engagements last bullet proposal:

If the intended target is a MONSTROUS CREATURE or WALKER, add +1 to the roll to determine if the intended target is hit.

(just, for clarity)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
let me hit you with this proposal for unifying reduced-fire effects:

-Some rules will indicate that a unit may only make a ranged attack using SNAP FIRE. A unit shooting with SNAP FIRE shoots as normal, but after rolling to hit with roll batch, half (rounding up) of the successful hit dice are discarded.

-Models attacking with TEMPLATE weapons that are subject to snap fire only hit models fully or partially covered by the template on a 4+.

-If a model is under the effects of two or more rules that would require it to SNAP FIRE (e.g. firing a HEAVY type weapon after the unit moved, or the unit having GONE TO GROUND, or firing REACTIVE FIRE) then the model may not make shooting attacks at all.

Snap Fire Example: Keith is attempting to perform React Fire against an opposing unit of Ork Boyz that have declared a charge against his Imperial Guard Infantry Squad. First he lays down the template from the squad’s flamer, and he is able to cover 5 models. He rolls 5 dice, 3 of which are 4+, so his flamer scores 3 hits, which are then resolved as normal. He then rolls to hit combining the laspistol wielded by the sergeant with the 7 lasguns from the ordinary squad members, and scores 7 successful hits. 4 of the successful hits from this batch are discarded, and the remaining 3 roll to wound and save. Finally, he rolls to hit with the squad’s heavy boltgun, successfully hitting 1 time. However, this hit is discarded, as ½ of 1 rounding up is 1.

This system would be the effect from GOING TO GROUND, PINNING, moving and firing HEAVY weapons, vehicles being SHAKEN, and REACTION FIRE. It would cleanly reduce the unit's firepower by 1/2 with only 2 additional rules 'modifications' being required, and the "Round Up" clause prevents manipulation by intentionally trying to split up one's firepower into many different roll batches. The "Two or more effects" clause prevents the situation of "Welp, i'm already snap firing, so, I might as well do *insert silly thing here*" and allows it to be a universal effect BUT also with different 'levels.' Streamlined - but not Simplified and not reducing the number of levers you get to have as a designer.

it also avoids the strange interactions of:

-snap firing 7e-style reduces the firepower of orks by 50% but space marines by 75%
-React Firing Prohammer style reduces the effectiveness of an assault cannon by 83% but a laspistol by 0%


Automatically Appended Next Post:
--------------------------------

Deep strike suggestion: Units that deep strike count as having made a normal move in the movement phase. (this is currently not specified)

I like where that's going - but there's probably some other edge cases to be considered.

"Heavy 1" weapons would never be able to shoot under this situation, as their 1 hit die would be "rounded up" and discarded.

Couple of options to maybe resolve this:

Option A

Since ProHammer is predicated on always batch rolling, what if you roll for all of your attacks (and determine number of hits for template/blast weapons). Then you just discard half of the total successful hits (rounding up), irrespective of what weapons made what hits.

This would likely mean that more of the hits you retain could be from heavy or special weapons. Balance wise, I could see retaining the "resolved at AP-" effect to diminish the relatively higher impact of heavier weapons under this option..

Option 2

Weapons shoot half the number of times (rounding up), but with a -1 to hit. I ran some assorted maths on typical weapons and that about works out such that shooting twice at reduced BS is about the same as one full round of shooting. Single shot weapons get a slight boost. But I think it could potentially ditch the AP- thing and be okay as well.

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

I like Option 2 a little more since I'm generally a fan of trying to reduce the amount of extraneous die rolling that's needed. If you're going to toss out half the die results, might as well just start with rolling half as many to begin with. Option 1 is less elegant IMHO, as you're needing to assemble the full compliment of dice, then separate out all the successful hits, and then split that pile in half following another layer of logic, etc.

Honestly, I dont think this edge case (of a squad with one single heavy 1 weapon) not getting to fire is not worth requiring so many addtional levers.

A devastator squad with 4 lascannons would still be able to fire at snap. Only a squad with 1 single 1 shot weapon would be unable to operate in Snap Fire.

Option 2 could work. IDK. I do think the 'two or more effects' clause has value, I'm just the kind of person that would find it incredibly easy to just toss half the hits in the middle of a shooting batch and in the instances where I've got 1 melta gun or 1 lascannon in a squad would just...not roll with that weapon.

The way my brain is wired I like a rule with 1 step (roll my batches as normal and pitch half the hits each time) more than a rule with 2 steps (figure out how many shots each gun gets, halve them, then deduct -1 from my hit rolls)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
--------------------------------------------

Typo: in the "Special Shooting Rules" section, templates are listed as hitting models fully or partiall under the template on a 5+. In the main Snap Fire section this is listed as a 4+.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
------------------------------------

Rewording: The section "Broken Screen" could be renamed to "Screen Gaps" to avoid confusion with the other, morale-based use of the term "Broken"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
--------------------------------------

Template weapons ignoring cover is mentioned twice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
----------------------------------

In all instances where weapon types are mentioned, recommend changing "units" and "models" to "units containing models" when describing charge allowance.

e.g.: "units containing models firing Heavy weapons may not charge in the assault phase"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
--------------------------

Voluntary Withdrawals:

Timing voluntary withdrawals to occur in the controlling player's assault phase seems unnecessarily punishing. IMO, withdrawals should allow for *some* chance for the unit to escape from the enemy unit in combat with it to allow friendly units to open fire - espcially if the unit in combat is a fast unit that can fall back 3d6", like a BIKER unit.

I would keep this section EXACTLY the same but alter the timing to place it during the controlling player's movement phase. The unit voluntarily becomes BROKEN, performs a FALL BACK move, and the opposing unit can choose to PURSUE or CONSOLIDATE as normal - in my eyes, this grants a nice happy medium between 7e-9e's highly permissive 'fall back' and 3e-6e's highly punishing 'no leaving combat ever'.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
My proposal for Voluntary Withdrawals in the movement phase:

Voluntary Withdrawals

Units belonging to the active player that are already engaged in close combat at the start of their movement phase may attempt to voluntarily withdraw from close combat during the movement phase.

-A unit that is withdrawing immediately BREAKS and FALLS BACK.

-All other friendly units which do not wish to voluntarily withdraw must make a Leadership Test with a -1 modifier if the unit is under half strength and a second -1 modifier if the friendly unit withdrawing would cause them to be outnumbered by opposing models in close combat. If that Leadership Test is failed, that friendly unit also BREAKS and FALLS BACK.

-If the opposing unit is no longer engaged with any of the active player’s units, they may choose to PURSUE or CONSOLIDATE (see CLOSE COMBAT RESULTS).




Automatically Appended Next Post:
----------------------------

Regroup Tests:

Remove the -1 modifier for the unit being out of coherency. Above, units out of coherency are prevented from taking Regroup tests.

Remove the stipulation that at least one model must be alive to perform a Regroup test. Tautology.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
----------------------------------

Psyker models (Available Powers)

Add additional sentence: "If a psyker model’s datasheet indicates specific powers available to that psyker, those are the powers available to it"

(older psyker model datasheets operate in this way)

Gotta say, the_scotsman makes a great point with the simplified snap fire rule. Very elegant solution IMO, especially the fact that it impacts everyone the same, something which the -1 thing does not.
I agree that you shouldn´t make needless complexity just for those single ROF1 weapon squads.
Losing AP makes little sense IMO, seems like a rule that reduces "realism".

Ive realized what it is about the 'hittable' terminology that's been bugging me - you use "Targetable Area" in another section in the rules.

"Targetable" would therefore flow much more naturally as shorthand for models that can be legally targeted, because you introduce the same language earlier in the document. "hittable" leads one to assume it has a relationship with to-hit rolls, which it does not (really, anyway).

Seems like the doc could use a healthy round of terminology cleanup/unification, but the core of it is solid. I've been watching 40k from the sidelines for ages, and now that I finally have the income to start dipping my toes in, all the cool stuff from the editions I grew up admiring gets replaced or removed (templates, individual sponson LOS, army-specific Force Org, ect.) while a whole slew of gak (One-million-and-one stratagems, pRiMaRiS!!!, child-friendly 40k, ect.) took its place. I'm happy I get to enjoy the golden years of the game without having to learn each and every edition and find a community to play each with- and even more so that the project is being actively worked on by the community!
Keeping an eye on this, and hoping it'll be what finally gives me an in on 40k

I could definitely use an adept technical writer to clean up the organization and terminology. Things could probably be streamlined quite a bit that way too!

 the_scotsman wrote:
Ive realized what it is about the 'hittable' terminology that's been bugging me - you use "Targetable Area" in another section in the rules.

"Targetable" would therefore flow much more naturally as shorthand for models that can be legally targeted, because you introduce the same language earlier in the document. "hittable" leads one to assume it has a relationship with to-hit rolls, which it does not (really, anyway).

"Targetable Area" is a term that should be only referring to the main part of the model (e.g. torso/head/legs/arms for figurine models and the hull/turrets for vehicle models). The targetable area is what one would use for determining line of sight through terrain features.

"Hittable" is a term that refers to whether a given model can be allocated a wound as a result of a volley of fire from a unit (i.e. models in LoS and range from at least one attacking unit) or round of melee attacks (i.e models in base to base contact with an enemy or within 1" of friends models in base to base contact with an enemy).

EDIT: I suppose "hittable" should more accurately be "woundable" - since it's about wound allocation more than it is making hits. But woundable is kinda clunky sounding. And with ProHammer a defender can choose to allocate wounds to non-hittable models if they want (in order to potentially keep a hittable model alive).

 Mezmorki wrote:
I could definitely use an adept technical writer to clean up the organization and terminology. Things could probably be streamlined quite a bit that way too!

 the_scotsman wrote:
Ive realized what it is about the 'hittable' terminology that's been bugging me - you use "Targetable Area" in another section in the rules.

"Targetable" would therefore flow much more naturally as shorthand for models that can be legally targeted, because you introduce the same language earlier in the document. "hittable" leads one to assume it has a relationship with to-hit rolls, which it does not (really, anyway).

"Targetable Area" is a term that should be only referring to the main part of the model (e.g. torso/head/legs/arms for figurine models and the hull/turrets for vehicle models). The targetable area is what one would use for determining line of sight through terrain features.

"Hittable" is a term that refers to whether a given model can be allocated a wound as a result of a volley of fire from a unit (i.e. models in LoS and range from at least one attacking unit) or round of melee attacks (i.e models in base to base contact with an enemy or within 1" of friends models in base to base contact with an enemy).

EDIT: I suppose "hittable" should more accurately be "woundable" - since it's about wound allocation more than it is making hits. But woundable is kinda clunky sounding. And with ProHammer a defender can choose to allocate wounds to non-hittable models if they want (in order to potentially keep a hittable model alive).

Right - in LOS, as in, part of the "Targetable Area" is visible to the firing model. They are related concepts, and I'm of the opinion that reutilizing the same language helps to relate the two concepts, as it helps to call the player back and remind them. Also, Targetable is a term that I think is more commonly understood than 'Hittable'.

...I'm actually not 100% clear on exactly how wounding in prohammer works. It seems like its intended to be a way to kind of spread the defenses. Can you let me know if I'm doing this correctly?

-my opponent is opening fire at my unit of Ork Boyz with a unit of Imperial Guardsmen. Lets say a very large unit of imperial guardsmen. My unit of Ork Boyz has 6 models out of cover, 3 models behind a piece of light cover (5+ cover save) and has a boss nob with the 'eavy armor upgrade (4+sv). I take 13 wounds.

Am I correct in assuming that under the prohammer wounding system, I can start by allocating 3 wounds to the in-cover boyz, and 1 wound to the nob, but then I must take 6 wounds on my out in the open boyz - but then the remaining 3 I can choose to put on the nob and 2 cover boyz? So I would make 2 4+ saves, 5 5+ saves, 6 6+ saves....but then after that, I would allocate the UNSAVED wounds to any models of my choice?

 the_scotsman wrote:

...I'm actually not 100% clear on exactly how wounding in prohammer works. It seems like its intended to be a way to kind of spread the defenses. Can you let me know if I'm doing this correctly?

-my opponent is opening fire at my unit of Ork Boyz with a unit of Imperial Guardsmen. Lets say a very large unit of imperial guardsmen. My unit of Ork Boyz has 6 models out of cover, 3 models behind a piece of light cover (5+ cover save) and has a boss nob with the 'eavy armor upgrade (4+sv). I take 13 wounds.

Am I correct in assuming that under the prohammer wounding system, I can start by allocating 3 wounds to the in-cover boyz, and 1 wound to the nob, but then I must take 6 wounds on my out in the open boyz - but then the remaining 3 I can choose to put on the nob and 2 cover boyz? So I would make 2 4+ saves, 5 5+ saves, 6 6+ saves....but then after that, I would allocate the UNSAVED wounds to any models of my choice?

Yes - you got it

The one further note is that you aren't forced to apply unsaved wounds to non-hittable models if you don't want to. Depending on the number of unsaved wounds you have, you could up killing all the hittable models and have wounds left over that would be ignored. Or if the number of unsaved wounds was less than the number of models you had, you could choose to kill off some of the non-hittable models in order to keep a special weapon unit or leader alive, etc.

The reason for this is really about "keeping fun" as the defender has leeway to try and preserve key models and let the chaff fall away. It also speeds things up since you aren't needing to keep track of exactly what models took what wounds with what saves. Lastly, it's a general reduction to shooting lethality as well, since you can use terrain to keep models out of hittable status and not suffer from overkill.

The only other note about this is that if you have units with multi-wound models, you have to apply wounds to already wounded models first on a sequential basis. Eliminates all the shennanigans with 5th edition wound allocation to mixed equipment forces.

 Mezmorki wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:

...I'm actually not 100% clear on exactly how wounding in prohammer works. It seems like its intended to be a way to kind of spread the defenses. Can you let me know if I'm doing this correctly?

-my opponent is opening fire at my unit of Ork Boyz with a unit of Imperial Guardsmen. Lets say a very large unit of imperial guardsmen. My unit of Ork Boyz has 6 models out of cover, 3 models behind a piece of light cover (5+ cover save) and has a boss nob with the 'eavy armor upgrade (4+sv). I take 13 wounds.

Am I correct in assuming that under the prohammer wounding system, I can start by allocating 3 wounds to the in-cover boyz, and 1 wound to the nob, but then I must take 6 wounds on my out in the open boyz - but then the remaining 3 I can choose to put on the nob and 2 cover boyz? So I would make 2 4+ saves, 5 5+ saves, 6 6+ saves....but then after that, I would allocate the UNSAVED wounds to any models of my choice?

Yes - you got it

The one further note is that you aren't forced to apply unsaved wounds to non-hittable models if you don't want to. Depending on the number of unsaved wounds you have, you could up killing all the hittable models and have wounds left over that would be ignored. Or if the number of unsaved wounds was less than the number of models you had, you could choose to kill off some of the non-hittable models in order to keep a special weapon unit or leader alive, etc.

The reason for this is really about "keeping fun" as the defender has leeway to try and preserve key models and let the chaff fall away. It also speeds things up since you aren't needing to keep track of exactly what models took what wounds with what saves. Lastly, it's a general reduction to shooting lethality as well, since you can use terrain to keep models out of hittable status and not suffer from overkill.

The only other note about this is that if you have units with multi-wound models, you have to apply wounds to already wounded models first on a sequential basis. Eliminates all the shennanigans with 5th edition wound allocation to mixed equipment forces.

What happens if there are more wounds than there are models?

If I have a squad of 5 Marines getting shot by some Assault Cannons, and take a total of 8 wounds, 3 of which are AP2 from Rending, how do I allocate those?

 the_scotsman wrote:
Right - in LOS, as in, part of the "Targetable Area" is visible to the firing model. They are related concepts, and I'm of the opinion that reutilizing the same language helps to relate the two concepts, as it helps to call the player back and remind them. Also, Targetable is a term that I think is more commonly understood than 'Hittable'.

I'm not sure what your suggestion is here? Are you saying we should use the terms "Hittable Area" for the LoS determination and "Hittable Model" from a wound allocation standpoint, so that "hittable" gets used in both cases?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
What happens if there are more wounds than there are models?

If I have a squad of 5 Marines getting shot by some Assault Cannons, and take a total of 8 wounds, 3 of which are AP2 from Rending, how do I allocate those?

Well, the AP2 hits penetrate armor so that's 2 unsaved wounds. You'd roll armor saves for the other wounds. If you ended up 3+ failed armor saves, the unit as a whole would take 5+ unsaved wounds in total and everyone is killed.

 Mezmorki wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
Right - in LOS, as in, part of the "Targetable Area" is visible to the firing model. They are related concepts, and I'm of the opinion that reutilizing the same language helps to relate the two concepts, as it helps to call the player back and remind them. Also, Targetable is a term that I think is more commonly understood than 'Hittable'.

I'm not sure what your suggestion is here? Are you saying we should use the terms "Hittable Area" for the LoS determination and "Hittable Model" from a wound allocation standpoint, so that "hittable" gets used in both cases?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
What happens if there are more wounds than there are models?

If I have a squad of 5 Marines getting shot by some Assault Cannons, and take a total of 8 wounds, 3 of which are AP2 from Rending, how do I allocate those?

Well, the AP2 hits penetrate armor so that's 2 unsaved wounds. You'd roll armor saves for the other wounds. If you ended up 3+ failed armor saves, the unit as a whole would take 5+ unsaved wounds in total and everyone is killed.

Derp. Okay, replace them with Terminators-so some get a 3+ and some get a 2+.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Derp. Okay, replace them with Terminators-so some get a 3+ and some get a 2+.

This is why the ProHammer wound allocation is nice - because you don't need to track what models actually get the wound and/or make a save. You just roll all the saves based on an even allocation, and once you have a total number of UNSAVED wounds, you allocate those to whatever models you want.

E.G... two terminators take a 3+ save for the two AP2 rending hits, and then you'd rolls six 2+ saves. Once you determining the number of saves that fail, the total unsaved wounds go onto any models.

I’m not explaining myself well-I’ll try to formulate my words better in a bit, but I’m about to hang with some friends now.

I'm arguing that "targetable" is much more common wargaming terminology, and "targetable" should be substituted for "hittable" but that the current rules are good and if you want to stick with true-LOS, ideal.

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

New thought: The reason I ask about the wounding system is because if I put myself in the shoes of a newbie, it is probably the most un-intuitive wounding system I've seen in 40k.

it's not the worst gameplay wise - actually it probably works basically equivalently to the one I like the best - but the concept of

-my opponent rolls to hit
-then they roll to wound
-then I assign those wounds spread out throughout my unit
-then i roll a save for those models that I wounded, to see if those models survive
-psych, no, it's not that, now I take all the failed saves and put them back togheter in a pile and now I decide who dies, even if it is a model I did not even have take a save.

And I'm not 100% convinced that - compared to 9e's wound allocation system, where you just select a model that's going to take damage and you take saves for that model, fast-rolling if you can to save time - it gets you that much additional value.

lets take my 10 ork boyz from before - 3 in cover, 1 nob with a 4+, 6 boyz just on a 6+ - and shoot them with a guardsman squad using 9e target allocation rules and using Prohammer allocation rules. The guardsmen have a plasma gun and 8 lasguns+pistol.

the plasma gun scores a hit and a wound.

Prohammer: I obviously select a guy in cover to take a 5+. He fails. I can now select a guy out of cover to die.

9e rules: I select that same guy in cover, he fails, that guy must die. (we're pretending we're using everything Prohammer and just swapping out the wound allocation systems here)

The lasguns score 5 wounds. They roll well.

Prohammer: I allocate to the 3 in cover, the nob, and 1 out of cover. I roll 3 separate save types, tally them all up, and wind up with 3 fails, then I remove 3 models from out of cover.

9e: I allocate to the 2 in cover, who absorb 3 wounds total with 1 successful save in there. I then take 2 more saves from the guys out of cover, and they both die.

At the end of the day, the only difference amounted to 1 casualty, and in the prohammer system, we have to consistently square the circle of guys taking their cover saves...and then other guys dying instead of them. And you have other weird interactions - like my ork boyz if theyre being fired on by a special weapon squad where every guy has a different gun are way better at using cover to their advantage than if theyre being fired at by a squad where everyone has the same gun (because that would be resolved as one roll batch and so its much more likely we'd get down to the guys who are out of cover).

I think theres some obvious and understandable desire to avoid the deathstars of ye olden days where you had all these characters intermittently tanking for units to make them super tough, but I think a much simpler rule, like "once you start taking saves with one particular model, that model must be selected to take saves until it is destroyed" and a reminder note about being able to batch like save rolls together (perhaps with a little illustrative example, like "Mary has 3 orks in cover and she takes 5 wounds. She wants to use the protection of her cover save, so he rolls 3 dice together because if all 3 of those rolls fail she will have to begin taking normal armor saves. She succeeds only 1 of the 3 rolls, so now she can only roll 1 die for her models in cover.") and youd achieve nearly the same result of player agency, without some of the mathmatical strangeness and immersion-confusion.

An earlier iteration of ProHammer had it working likey you mention at the end. I.e., you'd assign wounds into like-groups based on models getting the same net armor save (or using a cover save, etc.) and then applying unsaved wounds just within those saving throw groups.

Simply put it's more complicated, and keeping it all straight often requires rolling a bunch of small separate batches of dice to keep track of what came from where. And at the end of the day, it hardly matters to the net result anyway, but just ends up taking longer. It was just a pain.

The way we have it now works with batch rolling 100% of the time and it's much easier to parse complex situations and keep the rolling pretty simple. It also eliminates the need for dealing with any sort of "Look Out Sir!" type rules or other added steps to keep your special models from being unfairly wiped out, etc. And, unlike when rolling saves one-at-a-time, you can't have some super save, re-rolling saves, feel-no-pain model tanking hits over and over for the squad. He'd only get allocated a the appropriate proportion of the total wounds.

Rationale-wise, we're coming off the logic from 3rd and 4th edition that said, right in the rules, some fluffy statement to the effect that casualties can be pulled from anywhere in the unit, representing other models stepping forward to pick up a special weapon or the general chaos of battle not representing the exact models that took hits. Sure, there's some illogical aspects to the way we do it, but it works and is clean from a gameplay perspective.

I'm mostly looking at it as something that seems like it would more often result in clunky allocation shenanigans than the alternative. Regardless of the method you go with at some point you'll have to take split saves for a squad against the same offensive rolls. But in the prohammer system that will occur basically any time a squad is partially in cover - a smart player will allocate whatever wounds they can to the models in the cover and will remove them last, so you'll consistently have

-3 dice for the guys in cover
-4 dice for the guys our of cover
-3 dice for the guys in cover
-1 die for the guy out of cover

Etc etc. Especially if you have a few special weapons etc out of cover that you're trying to preserve.

I understand the concern about "superman" characters tanking for the boys, but the addition of "wounded model must be wounded more" adds a lot more risk to that little maneuver. If you decide your embedded 2+sv captain is gonna tank some hits, and he takes just one wound, then I can turn a melta gun on him and blast the smile off his face.

What you describe is the system working as intended.

Models getting to take advantage of cover saves (proportionally when hit by a large volume of shots) helps reduce lethality while also letting the defender leverage the wound allocation in order to keep special models alive longer.

As mentioned we tried it the other way earlier, more as you described. It has more logical sense, I agree, but just meant that players had to spend more time fussing around with model placement and worrying about whether or not their one special weapon model would get stuck in (or out) of cover and be forced to be killed based on failing that specific sub-batch of saving throw rolls or whatever. Is also meant that the logic of being able to instead remove a non-hittable mode doesn't really hold up anymore either. And we felt keeping that option on the table was more important.

Just wanted to add that I appreciate the dialogue here. It's always good to revisit things and keep options for improving things on the table. Keep at it! Cheers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
i just uploaded a ProHammer Tabletop Simulator (TTS) Mod to the Steam workshop. A little crude but it's what we've mostly been using during the pandemic, in one form or another, to keep playing. Enjoy!

 Mezmorki wrote:
What you describe is the system working as intended.

Models getting to take advantage of cover saves (proportionally when hit by a large volume of shots) helps reduce lethality while also letting the defender leverage the wound allocation in order to keep special models alive longer.

As mentioned we tried it the other way earlier, more as you described. It has more logical sense, I agree, but just meant that players had to spend more time fussing around with model placement and worrying about whether or not their one special weapon model would get stuck in (or out) of cover and be forced to be killed based on failing that specific sub-batch of saving throw rolls or whatever. Is also meant that the logic of being able to instead remove a non-hittable mode doesn't really hold up anymore either. And we felt keeping that option on the table was more important.

Just wanted to add that I appreciate the dialogue here. It's always good to revisit things and keep options for improving things on the table. Keep at it! Cheers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
i just uploaded a ProHammer Tabletop Simulator (TTS) Mod to the Steam workshop. A little crude but it's what we've mostly been using during the pandemic, in one form or another, to keep playing. Enjoy!

Oh yeah - trust me, the reason I'm getting so in depth with this is that this system is basically WHAT IVE BEEN LOOKING FOR and I am invested in contributing as much as I can from an editing standpoint to get it to be as great as it can be.

I'll leave wound allocation alone for now - ill have an opportunity to test it out again this weekend, so I'll do so and report back again. The main thing I'm concerned about is just...being able to explain it quickly and easily to people, since where I'm starting, I'm a single person being an ambassador for this system as opposed to a group that's already kind of 'bought in'.

Leaving that off for a bit, I want to take note of something real quick: Prohammer adds a lot of design levers that could help a lot with the traditional 'first turn problem' and I think with the amount of work youve put in to breaking down the issues with IGOUGO it might be worth looking into this a litle bit.

You determine the first and second player effectively "at the top" before deployment starts. So already, the second player is going to be deploying more defensively and the first player more offensively. But I also think the second player could stand to have a couple more inbuilt ruses and advantages to offset the advantage of going first (which remember, is if anything increased by the additional systems added by Prohammer in the form of active overwatch, suppression, etc)

I'd suggest something like

"DEFENSIVE ADVANTAGES

Before the first player turn begins, the player taking the second turn may optionally choose to apply each of the following advantages to one of their units. A different unit must be selected to receive each advantage

-Forward Scouts: The unit may make a pre-game move up to 6"
-Posted Sentries: The unit may be given an Overwatch token
-Scanner Decoys: The unit may be removed from the board and re-deployed. A unit re-deployed in this manner may be placed into Reserves using any special rules it has."

Glad that ProHammer is going generally in the right direction for you. Happy to have your help refining it too. BTW, I haven't had a chance to dig into the document in the past few days, but your earlier edits and recommendations are on my radar to address.

Regarding turn advantages...

While I don't like the command point system in 9th and how crazy it is with stratagems.... I have been tinkering with a system for "strategic points" that would tie into the mission selection/setup process, reserves systems, and perhaps even army list creation and force organization.

A few disconnected ideas/thoughts I've been tinkering with:

* Players would begin army creation with some number of strategic points (SPs)
* Players would gain bonus SP's for including more units of troops and/or pay SP's to go over other limits on unit types
* Instead of rolling off at the start of the game for who picks sides, goes first, etc., players would instead blindly bid SP (or could be an open back and forth bid, or a blind bid with both players losing their bid amounts) for who picks first/second what at each step during setup.
* SPs could also be used in-game for limited command/strategic/leadership related items. I.e, players could spend SP's to add +1 to their reserve rolls. Players could spend SP's to modify the game length / game end rolls, could be used to modify leadership tests.
* Maybe, maybe even have a few very light ways to spend SPs on things like a command re-roll
* SPs would be pretty limited otherwise

The intent would be to have something where taking a more balanced force, perhaps even slightly more troop heavy, gives you more SPs. If you really want to go first or whatever, you can bid a whole bunch of SPs up front, but that gives you less to work for the rest of the game. Maybe you go first but your opponent gets an easier time dictating when the game ends, etc.

All that said, I could even see the SP's tying into your suggestions, where the defender and/or attacker could spend a few SPs for certain pre-game actions.

 Mezmorki wrote:
Glad that ProHammer is going generally in the right direction for you. Happy to have your help refining it too. BTW, I haven't had a chance to dig into the document in the past few days, but your earlier edits and recommendations are on my radar to address.

Regarding turn advantages...

While I don't like the command point system in 9th and how crazy it is with stratagems.... I have been tinkering with a system for "strategic points" that would tie into the mission selection/setup process, reserves systems, and perhaps even army list creation and force organization.

A few disconnected ideas/thoughts I've been tinkering with:

* Players would begin army creation with some number of strategic points (SPs)
* Players would gain bonus SP's for including more units of troops and/or pay SP's to go over other limits on unit types
* Instead of rolling off at the start of the game for who picks sides, goes first, etc., players would instead blindly bid SP (or could be an open back and forth bid, or a blind bid with both players losing their bid amounts) for who picks first/second what at each step during setup.
* SPs could also be used in-game for limited command/strategic/leadership related items. I.e, players could spend SP's to add +1 to their reserve rolls. Players could spend SP's to modify the game length / game end rolls, could be used to modify leadership tests.
* Maybe, maybe even have a few very light ways to spend SPs on things like a command re-roll
* SPs would be pretty limited otherwise

The intent would be to have something where taking a more balanced force, perhaps even slightly more troop heavy, gives you more SPs. If you really want to go first or whatever, you can bid a whole bunch of SPs up front, but that gives you less to work for the rest of the game. Maybe you go first but your opponent gets an easier time dictating when the game ends, etc.

All that said, I could even see the SP's tying into your suggestions, where the defender and/or attacker could spend a few SPs for certain pre-game actions.

Ok, so I think it's a good moment to chime in and expand on the stratagem part of the list of features of my system I've sent you in PM.

I use a three dimensional point system, where each unit has not only a total cost, but also three partials for mobility, offense and defense. As a result, I have a pretty good metrics for comparing the skew of the armies. This is then used to draw a number of stratagems at the game time to equalise this skew a bit. I have three lists of stratagems, one for each parameter and the player with lower score in a given category draws a number of stratagems. Those are generally thematic effects altering the mission parameters/mission asymmetry instead of a simple "gain scout" or "increase save" etc... but that is just my take on this as I'm leaning more to narrative side of the hobby. This is not directly portable to GWs point system, but you could try to bolt something similar on battlefield role system 40K uses or tie it to the missions themselves and attacker/defender roles. The added bonus apart from increasing balance is that this method adds a lot to games variety in confines of a small playgroup that can't really rely on a large number of players with their diverse play styles and army lists. A problem which I'm pretty sure will affect ProHammer players.

 the_scotsman wrote:

My proposal for Voluntary Withdrawals in the movement phase:

Voluntary Withdrawals

Units belonging to the active player that are already engaged in close combat at the start of their movement phase may attempt to voluntarily withdraw from close combat during the movement phase.

-A unit that is withdrawing immediately BREAKS and FALLS BACK.

-All other friendly units which do not wish to voluntarily withdraw must make a Leadership Test with a -1 modifier if the unit is under half strength and a second -1 modifier if the friendly unit withdrawing would cause them to be outnumbered by opposing models in close combat. If that Leadership Test is failed, that friendly unit also BREAKS and FALLS BACK.

-If the opposing unit is no longer engaged with any of the active player’s units, they may choose to PURSUE or CONSOLIDATE (see CLOSE COMBAT RESULTS).

Wanted to comment on this...

The reason that we didn't do voluntary withdrawals during the movement phase (and we actually had it working this way in an earlier iteration and tested it a few times) is that for good or worse, or undercuts the ability for a melee unit - especially lightly armored ones - from being able to avoid enemy fire by staying engaged in CC. Especially in light of having reactive fire against a charging unit, we didn't want to tip the scales against melee armies too much. We ALSO allow players to shoot into melee combat now, so if something is truely such a horrendous threat that you nee to shoot it, you can at least do that now, at the risk of course of hitting and wounding your own forces in the process. When withdrawal was during movement, you'd rarely have a need to shoot into melee combat anymore.

How it is now, with withdrawal movements timed around charges, is that you can, for example, charge into an on-going melee engagement and then withdraw the weaker/at risk unit right before the fighting. This can add some planning to the use of counter-attacking forces and the like too, which has been a fun add to the system.

 Mezmorki wrote:
Glad that ProHammer is going generally in the right direction for you. Happy to have your help refining it too. BTW, I haven't had a chance to dig into the document in the past few days, but your earlier edits and recommendations are on my radar to address.

Regarding turn advantages...

While I don't like the command point system in 9th and how crazy it is with stratagems.... I have been tinkering with a system for "strategic points" that would tie into the mission selection/setup process, reserves systems, and perhaps even army list creation and force organization.

....my instinct says "Nah."

Part of the design real-estate youre gaining with prohammer is from the fact that you dont have the overly complex army wide rules/stratagems 9e has. Youve freed up brain space, and youve filled it with more options and choices for what you can do with your units when.

You've put down good solid bricks. Use them extensively - build them in to the rest of your system. Every little feature you add doesnt have to be wholly self-contained, when youve introduced a concept to the table like overwatch counters or react fire you can then re-use the concept in another spot and immediately the player recognizes it and gets it because theyve already consumed the concept earlier in the rules.

Besides, i think turn 1 advantage in prohammer is actually not going to be super overwhelming. In my eyes the biggest problem with it is that Overwatch in particular is a really tempo-heavy mechanic - getting to go first and put critical squads on overwatch is a pretty big deal. Hence just a really simple suggestion to allow a little pre-game trickery and tempo compensation for the defending player.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mezmorki wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:

My proposal for Voluntary Withdrawals in the movement phase:

Voluntary Withdrawals

Units belonging to the active player that are already engaged in close combat at the start of their movement phase may attempt to voluntarily withdraw from close combat during the movement phase.

-A unit that is withdrawing immediately BREAKS and FALLS BACK.

-All other friendly units which do not wish to voluntarily withdraw must make a Leadership Test with a -1 modifier if the unit is under half strength and a second -1 modifier if the friendly unit withdrawing would cause them to be outnumbered by opposing models in close combat. If that Leadership Test is failed, that friendly unit also BREAKS and FALLS BACK.

-If the opposing unit is no longer engaged with any of the active player’s units, they may choose to PURSUE or CONSOLIDATE (see CLOSE COMBAT RESULTS).

Wanted to comment on this...

The reason that we didn't do voluntary withdrawals during the movement phase (and we actually had it working this way in an earlier iteration and tested it a few times) is that for good or worse, or undercuts the ability for a melee unit - especially lightly armored ones - from being able to avoid enemy fire by staying engaged in CC. Especially in light of having reactive fire against a charging unit, we didn't want to tip the scales against melee armies too much. We ALSO allow players to shoot into melee combat now, so if something is truely such a horrendous threat that you nee to shoot it, you can at least do that now, at the risk of course of hitting and wounding your own forces in the process. When withdrawal was during movement, you'd rarely have a need to shoot into melee combat anymore.

How it is now, with withdrawal movements timed around charges, is that you can, for example, charge into an on-going melee engagement and then withdraw the weaker/at risk unit right before the fighting. This can add some planning to the use of counter-attacking forces and the like too, which has been a fun add to the system.

interesting. I think ill have to test it out for myself, but part of the thing with melee in prohammer I think is that by removing the really devastatingly damaging aspects of it (sweeping advance) youve kind of opened it up to be much more permissible with stuff like the 'charge from deep strike' and 'charge from transport' rules. Youve also greatly increased defenses with the Save ruling.

Maybe youre right. I think for my part, you as my opponent handing me a bunch of free movement because you withdrew your squad might be enough that I wouldnt mind.

If I may offer a suggestion about the defender's privilege, the three options listed seem impactful yet balanced, but as they are, would have far more impact on smaller games and far less on larger games. The solution I propose is to make it scale with game size, and add some redundancy for the sake of more melee/ranged centric armies (no tau would pass up the chance to dig in and set up a firing line, nor would a tyranid bother with overwatch if they could seize closer/better cover to lessen the distance for their charge.)
The rule is as follows "Defender's Advantage: for every 500pts in the defenders army, they may apply one and only one of the following effects to a single unit- <Insert Forward Scouts, Emplaced Sentries, and Scanner Decoys as suggested>. No unit may receive more than one of the effects, nor may they stack the same effect."
It ensures the defender receives a reasonable compensation for going second without letting them move what amounts to half their army in a smaller game for free- while also allowing them to forgo certain advantages altogether for the sake of moving multiple units forward, setting a firm defensive overwatch line, or risking getting tabled early in exchange for the tactical flexibility of extra unexpected deep strikes.

Obviously I'm only an armchair rules-writer here, I don't have any experience with the system- but from the outside looking in, that seems more balanced without adding any unnecessary bloat.

Regarding defender's bonuses:

I will say, that in practice and based on our games over the past year with ProHammer, I don't feel like going first has yielded much of an advantage. It probably depends more on the army whether or not going first is good or not.

Compared to 8th/9th with the "smaller boards", with the larger older boards often going first means needing to close range, and often still being out of range with the bulk of your fire, which creates an opening for the second player to advance and close range for more impact. But it just really depends on the armies and on the missions. For many missions we use in ProHammer, I'd argue that going second and getting the "last turn" is a major advantage as you get to dictacte the final board state. Given we use mix of missions and objectives in ProHammer, sometimes going first is good, sometimes not, and I'm not sur, honestly, if a "defenders" advantage is even something that's warranted overall.

Speaking of missions - it may well be that such "defender advantages" are things that are part of the mission special rules and only used where the scales are tipped in favor of one player over the other due to the nature of the mission.

Okay, I finally gathered my thoughts. Because it's related to Cover.

I have a squad of 5 Scouts-3 are in cover and have a 4+ save against anything that doesn't ignore it, 2 are out of cover and just rely on their 4+ armor. They are shot by Heavy Bolters. 4+ in cover, 5+ out of cover. They take 8 wounds total-how do I allocate saves?

Would I have to do five at a time? Or could I choose to put them all on the cover saves, even though they might die before taking all the hits? How does it work?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Okay, I finally gathered my thoughts. Because it's related to Cover.

I have a squad of 5 Scouts-3 are in cover and have a 4+ save against anything that doesn't ignore it, 2 are out of cover and just rely on their 4+ armor. They are shot by Heavy Bolters. 4+ in cover, 5+ out of cover. They take 8 wounds total-how do I allocate saves?

Would I have to do five at a time? Or could I choose to put them all on the cover saves, even though they might die before taking all the hits? How does it work?

I get what you're asking for now. It's about the actual wound allocation step to determine the number of different saves that are taken.

The way it works is that each hittable model (i.e. in range and in LoS) gets allocated one wound from the total pool (so with 8 wounds, each of the five models, 3 in cover and 2 out of cover, would get allocated one wound) and then if there are still wounds remaining to be allocated (3 in this case) you'd start another round of allocating wounds (and would logically put those wounds in the next round on the three models in cover).

The result of the above is that you'd end up with 2 automatic unsaved wounds (for the 2 wounds on the models out of cover who don't get a save) and then 6 wounds on the model's in cover, which pass a cover save on a 4+.

Once you roll the cover saves (say you make 4 of of the 6 saves), those unsaved wounds (2 in this case) would get added to the other unsaved wounds from the models out of cover (also 2). In total, you'd have four (4) unsaved wounds and would need to remove 4 models from the squad. You can remove ANY of the models in the unit at the the point of allocating unsaved wounds, as there is no forced link between removing casualties from the exact models that failed a given save. In this case, you could choose to keep one of the models in the open alive if you wanted to, or keep one in cover alive.

In summary, when allocating big batch of wounds, you have to allocate wounds as evenly as possible before rolling saves, to determine the proportional balance of different saves the unit gets. Once the saves are rolled, the resulting unsaved wound can be be applied to ANY model in the unit.

Addendum: The advantage of this approach is that you only ever need to make one batch of hit rolls, one batch of wound rolls, and one batch of armor saves and you can do it all at once, no matter how many different weapons the shooting unit is using or different armor/cover/invulnerable saves the target has. So long as you have different color dice for tracking the different weapons or saves, you can batch roll it all once. It's nice too because knowing the total number of unsaved wounds then gives the defender some choice and leeway in what models they want to keep alive. It's a nice balance IMHO.