Switch Theme:

40K - Alternative Edition  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





macluvin wrote:
Is there a community of people that play alternative rule sets? Especially on tabletop simulator?

Yup. There's a bunch of FB groups all about that.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/02 20:30:02


 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







 Nurglitch wrote:
Is there anything in here addressing the issue of focused fire?

What issue are you referring to here, Nurglitch?

2021 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

My [url=https://pileofpotential.com/dysartes]Pile of Potential[/url - updates ongoing...

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


 Kanluwen wrote:
This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army... 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






 Nurglitch wrote:
Is there anything in here addressing the issue of focused fire?


As in it being too easy to focus fire down specific units?

ProHammer uses declared shooting - meaning that you declare all of your shooting targets at the start of the shooting phase, and then go unit by unit resolving the attacks. In our experience it does NOT add to the game time (makes it faster if anything) since you don't end up re-evaluating your shooting sequence each time after seeing the outcomes of each unit's attack.

It works well to cut down on focus fire, as you have to make a judgement about how much fire to concentrate all up front. And if you focus on something too much, you can end up "over killing it" and wasting excess fire. It adds quite a bit to the decision making in the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
macluvin wrote:
Is there a community of people that play alternative rule sets? Especially on tabletop simulator?


Our group is pretty insular, but we've been using TTS since the pandemic started, and we like it so much we stopped playing with the physical setup! Lately, we've even been bringing laptops (that can run TTS) to each others houses so we can still be in the same room playing, just over the virtual board!

I have a TTS mod I've been slowly assembling for use with ProHammer, based on adapting the other 40K tables that have been around. i need to get that posted and up for sharing. Has all the old blast markers, tokens, and even a process for custom terrain generation built in.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/02 21:20:25


Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

 Nurglitch wrote:
Is there anything in here addressing the issue of focused fire?


What issue would that be?
   
Made in us
Warp-Screaming Noise Marine




@Mezmorki well if y’all organize into an online presence like a discord group or anything I would love to try your system out.

Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. -Kurt Vonnegut 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





ccs wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
Is there anything in here addressing the issue of focused fire?


What issue would that be?

The issue is simply that units can shoot at whatever is in range, leading the phenomenon of whole armies focusing their fire on single units and eliminating them in a single turn. Various early editions of 40k attempted to get around this problem by having additional requirements, such as passing a leadership test to shoot targets other than the closest and so on. At one point the Tyranids had a rule by which opponents could bypass these targeting restrictions so that opponents could target synapse creatures and larger, more dangerous bugasaurs.

Which makes for something of a dull game, and requires all sorts of additional rules to prevent characters from being 'sniped.'
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






@Nurglitch

ProHammer does the following:

* Declared shooting (as described a few posts up)

* Screening rules - making it difficult to shoot through one unit to hit a unit behind it.

* Independent Characters - can't be shot unless they are the closest unit and within 18"

Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






 Nurglitch wrote:
ccs wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
Is there anything in here addressing the issue of focused fire?


What issue would that be?

The issue is simply that units can shoot at whatever is in range, leading the phenomenon of whole armies focusing their fire on single units and eliminating them in a single turn. Various early editions of 40k attempted to get around this problem by having additional requirements, such as passing a leadership test to shoot targets other than the closest and so on. At one point the Tyranids had a rule by which opponents could bypass these targeting restrictions so that opponents could target synapse creatures and larger, more dangerous bugasaurs.

Which makes for something of a dull game, and requires all sorts of additional rules to prevent characters from being 'sniped.'
This is also one of those things that cuts down on the importance of maneuvering too. If you're guaranteed to be able to shoot at the target of your choice rather than just the closest unit (or closest unit of type X, as was also sometimes the case), there's less of a motivation to move/flank, etc.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






macluvin wrote:
@Mezmorki well if y’all organize into an online presence like a discord group or anything I would love to try your system out.


I don't have much capacity for more games unfortunately - as I barely get in enough game time with my group as it is! I don't know if you use TTS or now, but I do have a TTS base module we've been using (but isn't uploaded on the workshop) that has a lot of assets and things setup specifically for ProHammer. Let me know if interested and I see about making those resources available.

Cheers!

Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in pt
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

 Mezmorki wrote:
Spoiler:
 Nurglitch wrote:
Is there anything in here addressing the issue of focused fire?


As in it being too easy to focus fire down specific units?

ProHammer uses declared shooting - meaning that you declare all of your shooting targets at the start of the shooting phase, and then go unit by unit resolving the attacks.
Spoiler:
In our experience it does NOT add to the game time (makes it faster if anything) since you don't end up re-evaluating your shooting sequence each time after seeing the outcomes of each unit's attack.

It works well to cut down on focus fire, as you have to make a judgement about how much fire to concentrate all up front. And if you focus on something too much, you can end up "over killing it" and wasting excess fire. It adds quite a bit to the decision making in the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
macluvin wrote:
Is there a community of people that play alternative rule sets? Especially on tabletop simulator?


Our group is pretty insular, but we've been using TTS since the pandemic started, and we like it so much we stopped playing with the physical setup! Lately, we've even been bringing laptops (that can run TTS) to each others houses so we can still be in the same room playing, just over the virtual board!

I have a TTS mod I've been slowly assembling for use with ProHammer, based on adapting the other 40K tables that have been around. i need to get that posted and up for sharing. Has all the old blast markers, tokens, and even a process for custom terrain generation built in.

Love this.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

 Insectum7 wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
ccs wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
Is there anything in here addressing the issue of focused fire?


What issue would that be?

The issue is simply that units can shoot at whatever is in range, leading the phenomenon of whole armies focusing their fire on single units and eliminating them in a single turn. Various early editions of 40k attempted to get around this problem by having additional requirements, such as passing a leadership test to shoot targets other than the closest and so on. At one point the Tyranids had a rule by which opponents could bypass these targeting restrictions so that opponents could target synapse creatures and larger, more dangerous bugasaurs.

Which makes for something of a dull game, and requires all sorts of additional rules to prevent characters from being 'sniped.'
This is also one of those things that cuts down on the importance of maneuvering too. If you're guaranteed to be able to shoot at the target of your choice rather than just the closest unit (or closest unit of type X, as was also sometimes the case), there's less of a motivation to move/flank, etc.


So you're issue isn't one of focus fire, it's one of LoS.
   
Made in es
Fresh-Faced New User




There is an alternative core rules call profanus40k. It is created and maintained for people from Spain. I knew about it two weeks ago. At first look appears to be 5th edition with some changes like vehicles with wounds instead of armor and other improvements. They say their goal is maximum equilibrium between factions, lack of destroyer combos, …
As far as I know, they are going to release a new version of core rules (with simplified mechanics and corrections) on Christmas. This release will also include all new codex since last update (April 2021).
There is only one problem, its only available in Spanish.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/04 09:47:30


 
   
Made in us
Dominating Dominatrix






Professor Anus 40k? lol


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in ca
Decrepit Dakkanaut





ccs wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
ccs wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
Is there anything in here addressing the issue of focused fire?


What issue would that be?

The issue is simply that units can shoot at whatever is in range, leading the phenomenon of whole armies focusing their fire on single units and eliminating them in a single turn. Various early editions of 40k attempted to get around this problem by having additional requirements, such as passing a leadership test to shoot targets other than the closest and so on. At one point the Tyranids had a rule by which opponents could bypass these targeting restrictions so that opponents could target synapse creatures and larger, more dangerous bugasaurs.

Which makes for something of a dull game, and requires all sorts of additional rules to prevent characters from being 'sniped.'
This is also one of those things that cuts down on the importance of maneuvering too. If you're guaranteed to be able to shoot at the target of your choice rather than just the closest unit (or closest unit of type X, as was also sometimes the case), there's less of a motivation to move/flank, etc.


So you're issue isn't one of focus fire, it's one of LoS.

No, it's units freely firing on any unit of their choice, narrowing the range of live options down to the optimal firing solution, thereby reducing player choice down to a procedure, and making the game boring as a result.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







Maynard13x8 wrote:
...There is only one problem, its only available in Spanish...


The next question is whether two years of high-school Spanish a decade ago, Google Translate, and a basic understanding of the syntax of Warhammer rules will let me muddle through.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

 Nurglitch wrote:
ccs wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
ccs wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
Is there anything in here addressing the issue of focused fire?


What issue would that be?

The issue is simply that units can shoot at whatever is in range, leading the phenomenon of whole armies focusing their fire on single units and eliminating them in a single turn. Various early editions of 40k attempted to get around this problem by having additional requirements, such as passing a leadership test to shoot targets other than the closest and so on. At one point the Tyranids had a rule by which opponents could bypass these targeting restrictions so that opponents could target synapse creatures and larger, more dangerous bugasaurs.

Which makes for something of a dull game, and requires all sorts of additional rules to prevent characters from being 'sniped.'
This is also one of those things that cuts down on the importance of maneuvering too. If you're guaranteed to be able to shoot at the target of your choice rather than just the closest unit (or closest unit of type X, as was also sometimes the case), there's less of a motivation to move/flank, etc.


So you're issue isn't one of focus fire, it's one of LoS.

No, it's units freely firing on any unit of their choice, narrowing the range of live options down to the optimal firing solution, thereby reducing player choice down to a procedure, and making the game boring as a result.


LoL, just LoL.
So being able to CHOOSE to fire at a target that's in range & LoS & doing so is boring procedure & somehow robs me of choice.
But making up/bringing back some rule that limits one to only fire on certain units isn't boring procedure devoid of choice......

   
Made in es
Fresh-Faced New User




 Lance845 wrote:
Professor Anus 40k? lol

Profanus comes from Latin. In English is profane, blasphemous,…


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Maynard13x8 wrote:
...There is only one problem, its only available in Spanish...


The next question is whether two years of high-school Spanish a decade ago, Google Translate, and a basic understanding of the syntax of Warhammer rules will let me muddle through.


I don’t know, Spanish is my mother tonge , but what I can tell you is that I understand rules in English despite not being good with the language.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/04 22:50:55


 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






ccs wrote:

LoL, just LoL.
So being able to CHOOSE to fire at a target that's in range & LoS & doing so is boring procedure & somehow robs me of choice.
But making up/bringing back some rule that limits one to only fire on certain units isn't boring procedure devoid of choice......


Not LOL.

By giving players unfettered choice over targeting selection snd priority it's setting the for being able to perfectly optimize your firing order. It's an illusion of choice. The only choice is whether or not you decide to spend the time optimizing or not.

By having rules governing target selection based on the relative positioning of units (and specifically going beyond just LoS and range as factors) creates opportunities for actual tactical choices snd trade offs. You can look at it as limited choice when it comes to fire order (which it does), but it's adding choice and additional depth to when it comes to unit positioning and maneuver, which is typically less often a cut and dry matter of optimization.

The above is a situation where constraints and limits create tactical obstacles to work around and that can make the devious more interesting as a result.

Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

 Mezmorki wrote:
ccs wrote:

LoL, just LoL.
So being able to CHOOSE to fire at a target that's in range & LoS & doing so is boring procedure & somehow robs me of choice.
But making up/bringing back some rule that limits one to only fire on certain units isn't boring procedure devoid of choice......


Not LOL.

By giving players unfettered choice over targeting selection snd priority it's setting the for being able to perfectly optimize your firing order. It's an illusion of choice. The only choice is whether or not you decide to spend the time optimizing or not.

By having rules governing target selection based on the relative positioning of units (and specifically going beyond just LoS and range as factors) creates opportunities for actual tactical choices snd trade offs. You can look at it as limited choice when it comes to fire order (which it does), but it's adding choice and additional depth to when it comes to unit positioning and maneuver, which is typically less often a cut and dry matter of optimization.

The above is a situation where constraints and limits create tactical obstacles to work around and that can make the devious more interesting as a result.


We're just going to have to disagree.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






I don't think it's about choice or no choice. What it does is make maneuvering more important to the firing phase, and allow opportunities for an abstracted suppression mechanic by way of screening. Depending on implementation it also provides a way for elite troops to behave more reliably over less elite troops, rather than "elite" meaning "hur-dur-more-wounds-dur".

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 Insectum7 wrote:
I don't think it's about choice or no choice. What it does is make maneuvering more important to the firing phase, and allow opportunities for an abstracted suppression mechanic by way of screening. Depending on implementation it also provides a way for elite troops to behave more reliably over less elite troops, rather than "elite" meaning "hur-dur-more-wounds-dur".

I agree, but......people complained that their "less elite" troops couldn't shoot at what they wanted them to as much as "elite" troops could back then as they do about "hur-dur-more-wounds-dur" now.
   
Made in us
Dominating Dominatrix






Switching the math of optimization from target selection in the shooting phase to positioning in the moving phase doesn't make it less math or optimization and doesn't change players focus firing. It just changes the amount they can do it.
You are not eliminating the problem, you are only changing the factors in the equation. It's still an equation.

If you want players to have to think about when and how they move and shoot without the ability to focus fire unfettered, you need to start looking at AA.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Mezmorki wrote:
ccs wrote:

LoL, just LoL.
So being able to CHOOSE to fire at a target that's in range & LoS & doing so is boring procedure & somehow robs me of choice.
But making up/bringing back some rule that limits one to only fire on certain units isn't boring procedure devoid of choice......


Not LOL.

By giving players unfettered choice over targeting selection snd priority it's setting the for being able to perfectly optimize your firing order. It's an illusion of choice. The only choice is whether or not you decide to spend the time optimizing or not.

By having rules governing target selection based on the relative positioning of units (and specifically going beyond just LoS and range as factors) creates opportunities for actual tactical choices snd trade offs. You can look at it as limited choice when it comes to fire order (which it does), but it's adding choice and additional depth to when it comes to unit positioning and maneuver, which is typically less often a cut and dry matter of optimization.

The above is a situation where constraints and limits create tactical obstacles to work around and that can make the devious more interesting as a result.


People who think target priority rules restrict their joy of playing need to either watch a war movie or read a novel about firefights. Infantry keep their heads down when bullets fly and fire back at opposing units which usually tend to be the closest targets. Apparently having static models on the table standing straight doesn´t help to convey these conditions. When you also add the deafening noise of battle, rubble flying around and dust/smoke kicking up from explosions the thought of calmly selecting a far away target becomes an utter illusion. War is hell.
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Mezmorki wrote:

By giving players unfettered choice over targeting selection snd priority it's setting the for being able to perfectly optimize your firing order. It's an illusion of choice. The only choice is whether or not you decide to spend the time optimizing or not.


So having few or no choices about what you can shoot increases choices about where you can move?

Seems like a poor trade off to me when choices about where to move already exist in games with multiple objectives and obscuring terrain. And if you can only shoot the closest choice, why isn't moving "An illusion of choice" when the strategy is then ALWAYS put your least important units closest to the most dangerous enemy?

No matter what the rules, if the game isn't purely random, there's always a best choice. This never means there is no choice.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






The "depth" of a given decision is a function of the number of factors or layers that play into making that decision. Depth is also increased where the assessment of the likely outcome of a choice is more ambiguous (ie it can't be easily calculated). Ideally this ambiguity emanates from the uncertainty of what your opponent you will do when they in turn face a complex decision about how to respond to your line of play. Navigating these uncertainties in deep decisions are about skillful play (aka heuristics or rules of thumb) that one develops through experience in reading complex board positions.

Consideration of range and LoS are two factors that play into decisions. But many games (even older 40K games) have additional layers to their decisions that make for deeper play.

Having to shoot the closest unit means that a unit's position relative to other units on the board is an added factor.

On the defensive side, a whole realm of strategy opens up regarding what units you try to keep on the front line in order to provide screening. Those decisions must be considered around where one might otherwise move that unit (or the units behind the screen) in terms of moving onto objectives or into better firing positions of their own. Maybe staying behind the screen means being out of effective firing range, do you break the screen to close range?

On the offensive side, having to shoot the closest opens up avenues for maneuvering around enemy units to avoid a screen. Can you swing a unit around the flank to get close to the unit behind the screen? What trade offs are involved in making that maneuver.

That's just screening. Other game systems use things like declared fire, where have to nominate all your shooting targets at the start of the phase before firing. This is to represent the simultaneous nature of units shooting, but in terms of depth adds a whole layer of risk-reward decisions regarding how you spread your fire around.

Other game systems have rules for crossfire, or true overwatch, all of which add depth to the game and often pertain to tougher to assess decision making. Do you shoot now or go on overwatch and wait for a better target to present itself? What if your opponent doesn't take the bait and avoids exposing their units? These are harder to calculate or optimize type decisions, and make for a better game IMHO.

There's no reason these types of mechanisms can't work in 40K (and most of them have in one old version or another) and they would make for a richer gameplay experience. YMMV.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/12/05 19:56:47


Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in us
Dominating Dominatrix






In practice this would devolve into placing unfavorable targets in the way of people. Does that unit have an anti infantry gun? Park a tank in front of it. Especially if that tank is equipped with an anti infantry gun that can mess up the unit.

Or requiring a shooting order. First, I will position and fire all my anti tank to focus fire the tank down. Now that it's dead, I can move on to my anti infantry who now have new targets they can shoot at since the tank is out of the way.

I don't agree that forcing people to shoot the nearest target increases depth or choice.



I have posted terrain rules multiple times that treated intervening units as light terrain (a -1 to hit when shooting through them). You are not telling the player they HAVE to shoot the nearest. You are creating a situation where position provides benefits and hinderences and the players have to make choices about when and how they are going to deal with those things.

The hard cap, all or nothing, have tos don't add depth and they take away choice. The real depth comes from things like that coupled with AA. I could do x y z. But suffer consequences and don't know how the enemy will respond.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






Oh, I totally agree that there better ways to handle having to shoot the closest unit that a hard "Thou must shoot the closest unit." Even when implemented in older 40K rules there were exceptions to that rule, and a leadership test to try and avoid it.

In ProHammer there is a rule specifically for screening, which stipulates when a screen is intact or not. ProHammer also uses declared fire. So you can declare shots against a unit behind the screen, but if the screen is "intact" all of your hits automatically hit the screening unit instead. But - you can try to break the screen first by resolving shooting with a different unit first to kill enough models to let your other unit shoot around the screen. How you distribute your shooting with using declared fire can get pretty agonizing (in a good way!).

Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in pt
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

As it should.

   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
I don't think it's about choice or no choice. What it does is make maneuvering more important to the firing phase, and allow opportunities for an abstracted suppression mechanic by way of screening. Depending on implementation it also provides a way for elite troops to behave more reliably over less elite troops, rather than "elite" meaning "hur-dur-more-wounds-dur".

I agree, but......people complained that their "less elite" troops couldn't shoot at what they wanted them to as much as "elite" troops could back then as they do about "hur-dur-more-wounds-dur" now.
Yeah well, the customer is not always right

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in ca
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Lance845 wrote:
In practice this would devolve into placing unfavorable targets in the way of people. Does that unit have an anti infantry gun? Park a tank in front of it. Especially if that tank is equipped with an anti infantry gun that can mess up the unit.

This sounds really good to me.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: