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.

Hi rabid.
In my post I just listed the number of units that could activate and when.(Thats what I ment by +4 veteran units can activate in this turn.4 more units can now activate..)

I am fine with 'mutable' alternate unit activation.Where in some cases more than one unit can activate in a player turn.
But allowing the opportunity for the whole army to do everything in one go is stretching it a bit ...

The cornerstone on alternating unit activation is the units activate in the order decided by the player.(And its friction and outside forces that place limitation on this ability.)

It sort of generates the basic Ying and Yang of command.The player controls what he wants to happen, and then real life sort of counter acts this.(No plan survives contact with the enemy or the battle field...)

The example of dice roll to allow more unit activation in one turn, with associated penalties , was just to illustrate the wide variety of options available.

If you wanted to use a variation on this theme using Command value as a modifier to the extra activation dice roll..

Roll a dice and add the command value (1 to 4)

Activate one unit.2+(Automatic pass for all units.)
Activate two units 5+
Activate three units 7+

The range of this ability is set by the command range...

Eg If the force commander has 3-12" Then they can only activate more units within 12" of themselves.

I am not saying the sequencing idea you had was not any good or it would not work.But simply it may not be the best solution when the rest of the game is in place.
And so keeping the option open to change it in mind ,if needed is my point .

I agree all game turn mechanics, alternating game turn, alternating phase, alternating activation and mutable game turn.(Variable bound).

All have strenghts and weaknesses..alternating game turn is great for showing the unwieldly and slow command structure of ancient battle.

Most modern games use alternating phase or activation.

Mutable game turns are usually in board games, or games with well defined boundaries..

I just put out the basic idea for morale being based on unit confidence, where its level of protection (AV ) and current strenght (Wounds or structure points ) has greatest impact.

We can work on the detail later..
Got to go now, my wife is giving me that... 'we should have been in the shops ages ago' look...





Automatically Appended Next Post:
Back now...(£500 on a new washing machine,grumble grumble...... )

The thing is the basic turn sequence , single unit alternating activation(green, amber , red, ) has its own tactical considerations.(Activation order, and counter action , is the main tactical consideration)
This sets up a basic direction of tactical thought.(Priority actions in green amber,and reactions with red orders give it a basic structure.)
The sequencing you propose simply supplants this original tactical consideration with a new one.
(The command value and Ld value sets the conditions when the units can activate not the player.)

Adding in a different simple mechanic to allow multiple activation ,can achive the same effect, but without the 'headache' of keeping track of multiple overlapping 'activation windows'.
It adds on to the original tactical thought process.what units do I activate in what order.AND do I need to activate any units at the same time.(Without sequential limitation.)


The use of seperate counters,(and associated actions,) helps definition and gives an 'instant view' of the state of your force, and the state of play
(Which is a real boon to keeping track ,as beer is often involved when we play.... )

The basic system of beat armour value =shaken, beat armour AND resistance value = damaged/casualty.
Can help give a lot of definition and character to units...

A large mob of 30 Ork boys are hard to slow down simply due to the actual strenght in numbers...Unless more than 25% (8 boyz) become shaken or casualties , the unit keeps rampaging on!
But as the number of boys in the unit are reduced they become easier to slow down ...

At the other end of the spectrum..
A main battle tank , relies totally on its heavy armour for protection,as soon as this single model has its armour penetrated , it becomes suppressed.

We would have to re jig the armour and resistance values to get the effects right.(But lots of other games manage to do, so it is possible.)
I belive we could keep the system clean ,(no modifiers,) if we were careful with values.
All units get supressed in a similar way ,and the speed of recovery is down to the morale value and any contributing commanders ...

I would like to get as many of the 'in game effects' to be part of the natural game play from playing the core rules .Rather than 'nailed on' as 'special rules' as an afterthought...
Pinning, out flanking, strenght in numbers,Hive mind etc



I think It might be a good idea to write up my concepts as a full outline, so you can see how It all hangs together..(or does not, as the case may be. )

Ill write up a PDF doc, as soon as I can...Ill keep contributing ideas obviously.

Cool, the PDF sounds like a good idea. I'm going to work on making an ongoing PDF on my end to eventually load and distribute.

Sorry I haven't had the time to do an in depth reply, lots of stuff going on from my end so this has been moved to the back burner.

Anyways, the turn mechanics stuff you put in your last post are interesting but there isn't anything that I really want to incorporate from it like almost all of what you've previously said. I still really want to hear your ideas for turn mechanics, and if you come up with ways to merge them with what we already have in place it can really help me understand them

However, for once this all actually sounds more complicated on paper than it does in application. Because you declare which units are being activated at the beginning of the turn, and you do so by flipping over all the counters, it makes it incredibly easy to remember which units have been activated. The counters are removed during the resolution phase unless they are a broken unit (not sure if I mentioned that already.) So the counters are all flipped, then you proceed through the green - amber - red ones as normal. I tried to make this as inebriated-proof as possible because beerhammer is besthammer

It might be a little hard to remember which units can be activated that step, but with the unit cards right in front of you and how common some units are that problem won't be as big as you might expect.



As for morale, I really am starting to like what you're saying. Here is the most recent idea I was thinking for merging it with what we have:

If >50% of a unit has a round go through their armor, they must make a morale check. If they fail they are suppressed, if they fail by more than 2 they are pinned (this allows for pinning weapons to bypass this.)

If >50% of a unit becomes a casualty, they must make an additional morale check. If they fail they are routed.

Naturally, this seems simple to me but how does it sound on your end. We've both started getting much better at communicating through posts, so hopefully this all makes sense to you

Hi rabid,
The morale state you propose where 50% of the unit is the 'tipping point' is fine.

Its simple and gives a nice spread of results.

Over half a unit fail their armour saves, (this does not necissarily mean the armour is penetrated, but the weapon hit(s) has negatively effected the models behind the armour. Concussive effects,near miss fear etc)

Take a morale check Failure =the unit becomes suppressed.(move or fire.)
Fail the morale check by 2 or more = the unit becomes neutralized.(Can not move or fire.)

If a unit falls below half original starting strenght,(wounds/ structure points,) ANY failed morale check causes the unit to route.(run away!)

I like it!

Hi Lanrak,

Sorry I was at a seminar the last few days and didn't have the time to reply.

Anyways, I think we've managed to work out morale stuff now

If 50% of the unit fails their armor save, the unit must take a leadership check.
If the unit fails their leadership, they are suppressed and can either move or shoot. They cannot run or charge and are reduced to a command value of 0.
If the unit fails their leadership check by 2 or more, they are pinned and can only shoot at the nearest unit. They cannot move, run, or charge and are reduced to a command value of 0.
If the unit fails their leadership and is below 50% of their starting strength they are routed, and must move 2D6" towards their board edge and are reduced to a command value of 0.


Special rules associated with Morale:
ATSKNF - ATSKNF units ignore panic, pinning, and suppressive weapons for shooting.
Stubborn - Stubborn units never suffer negative modifiers for morale checks.
Fearless - Fearless units ignore all morale checks.
Panic - Units that fail their leadership are routed regardless of being below 50% of their starting strength.
Pinning - Units must take a morale check if any model fails their armor save. Failing this morale check results in the unit being pinned; however, they may still be routed if below 50% starting strength.
Suppressive - Units must take a morale check if any model fails their armor save.


So 6 special rules that look like they cover 90%+ of any special cases that could come up with morale. I think we're good to go, but if anyone has anything else to add please don't hesitate


We've talked a lot about wound resolution, and I think we've got it all settled. If you could please review what's in the first post, we can move on to part 3

HI rabid.
I am not sure about the allowing units to fire at nearest enemy unit when 'pinned'(Neutralized.).
(As some artillery and gun platforms could cause carnage!)
I would prefer the unit is 'stunned' and can not take any actions, but can fight back in assaults.

If we have a range of morale values, and effects on the units, do we need so many 'exclusive' special rules?
What is the point of having a more detailed morale system if units can simply ignore all effects?

Here are my revised ideas...
UNITS.
Stubborn units ,Ignore negative modifiers to morale checks.

Fearless Units .NEVER ROUTE.But can be 'Shaken' (suppressed,)and 'Stunned'.(pinned/neutralized.)

(ATSKNF= Stubborn and Fearless?)

Cowardly , Count the next highest level of morale damage when they fail a morale test.(Suppressed counts as neutralized, and neutralized counts as routed.)
If a Cowardly unit falls below 50% starting strenght and fails a morale check it routes and can not be rallied.

Weapons.
Pinning. Reduces the units command value by 1.(Everyone is keeping their heads down,and not focusing on the leader.)

Suppressive Units morale value reduced by 2.

Ill have a look at the first post, and reply tomorrow.. .

Interesting take on pinning and suppressive. I like them not being tiered a lot more than I thought.

I definitely want fearless to mean they will always go into the fray, tactics and self preservation be damned!

Here is the next iteration I was thinking, I'll give justification where I deviated.

Stubborn - Ignore negative modifiers for morale.

Fearless - Morale checks auto pass (justification given above)

ATSKNF - Leadership is treated as 2 higher for morale checks. (Much simpler to implement and has the desired effects, and when combined with Stubborn can be very powerful)

Cowardly - All failed morale checks cause routing. (I changed this to make it much easier to remember, and more punishing. I expect to only use this on things like conscripts and grots.)

Pinning - Command value is reduced by 1 if forced to take a morale check this turn.

Suppressive - Leadership is reduced by 2 if forced to take a morale check this turn.

Panic - Unit must take a morale check to see if they are routed if any armor saves are failed. (I added this back in because I feel some weapons should instill terror in their foe. Flamers are the ones that come to mind.)



A quick glance back at what I wrote shows that Stubborn + ATSKNF nearly means fearless. However, I do plan on fearless having some consequences. Tarpitting units slow the game down drastically, so I'm hoping we can come up with something in the Assault section that can help remedy this.


-Rabid

Hi rabid.
Most games that have more variation in their morale simply use the range of values to determine, conscripts, average, veteran elites and fanatics...

40k being stuck with physical damage only and very limited morale , has lots of special rules to stop units running away ...one in every codex?


HOWEVER, If we use fearless and cowardly VERY sparingly, they would be ok.
EG 1 or 2 units per army MAX.


Just checked the 1st post.

Game turn clarification...

'Green' fire support orders are 'stand and shoot'. NO MOVEMENT!

Amber orders allow units to use assault weapons if charging into assault NOT running.)

Red reaction orders allows units to use rapid fire AND assault ranged weapons.(Move and shoot or shoot and move.)

Be back later...I have got roped into a school project tonight...

Here are my interpretations (and how I planned on writing) of the counters. Please tell me if yours differ, no matter how minor it may be

Green:
-The unit may fire to full effect, but make no other voluntary actions this turn.

Amber:
-The unit may choose two of the following actions to be completed in any order.
---Move
---Run
---Charge
---Fire Assault Weapons

Red:
-The unit may shoot with rapid fire and assault weapons then move, or vice-versa.

Suppressed:
-The unit may either move or shoot this turn, and their command value is reduced to 0.

Pinned:
-The unit may not move, but may fire with BS -2 and their command value is reduced to 0.

Routed:
-The unit must flee towards the nearest friendly board edge 2D6". After moving, take a morale test to see if they regroup. The unit's command value is reduced to 0.


So a slight change to pinning, letting them shoot but with reduced effect. I think it's a balanced change that represents them not having as much time to aim before ducking back down.



I agree that fearless and cowardly should be used sparingly, with an average of 2 per codex for each. Some codices will obviously have a lot more than others.


Alright, just to wrap up the wound allocation/resolution:

Here is what we've already agreed on
-Weapons are fired in this order:
---Template, Large Blast, Small Blast, short range -> long range
-After the weapon is fired, you don't shoot the next one until the previous one has all the wounds resolved (i.e. hit, save, and wound rolls already done)
-Wounds are allocated in this order:
---Under the template/blast marker, closest -> farthest assuming in range and LOS of the weapon firing.

Here is what I'm thinking of adding
-If the entire unit is destroyed:
---Count the number of excess wounds already rolled
---Add the number of models that have not fired
---This is the new overkill number, to a maximum of 18.

We can use the rules I mentioned already for what overkill does, but it's a way we can help make the game not favor MSU so heavily.


Just a quick idea that I'm willing to totally discard. I think it is really simple, but I know that others might not.

Started reading with serious intent to finish, wanted to play test it for ya, and you lost me at the OP where you have something about 20 initiative steps and multicolored orders that are hidden and revealed. A friend proposed almost identical rules for DnD 3.5 with multiple initiative ordering and hidden action tokens for each action type per active game piece. It was a disastrous idea that we just couldn't bend straight, and we were only dealing with four players, one character apiece, and 1 to 5 monsters. I did skim over some other tidbits that I thought would be neat and was a little 'meh'. What type of game are we going for here? Like a 'move-shoot-next-your turn' action strategy or a 1 hour turn consisting mostly of paperwork strategy game? Just want to know before I really sit down with it and give it a worthy once over and throw in legitimate two-cents.

Hello again,

Sorry for not saying much recently, I've been torn over the leadership rules being discussed.

On the one hand they very nicely capture the idea of what is happening, and very nicely too.

On the other they are more complicated to play ("how many saves did I fail again"). Usually a small measure of additional complexity for a game improvement is fine, but in this case I am less certain as only about half the factions in 40k ever run away anyway (Tyrinids, necrons, space marines and demons just dont run).

KnuckleWolf: The 20 step initiatve activation (which I will henceforth call I20 for space) is an idea which appeals in theory (it appeals in theory a lot lot). Although I have never played it and foresee confusion in large games. Was their anything specifically that didn't work about it in your DnD game or was the whole thing a failure?

(sorry for the interogation, just curious)

Hi rabid.
I agree with most of that.

Amber the unit MUST run (move twice,) OR charge into assault (move then move into assault)if charging into assault the unit may fire assault weapons...

I would prefer pinned units not being able to move or shoot, though.like the old shaken and stunned results for vehicles.

If we allow units to be rallied at the resolution phase, why add a morale check after moving routed units?

Are we allowing units to target an area/multiple units?Eg units within a 12" diameter of target point?
As this would allow units to split fire in a reasonable way.And if we are resolving weapon hits one at a time, would we need another mechanic to transfer woulds to nearby units?

Why not let players just shoot at nearby units (within 6")when original target destroyed.Direct resolution of damage within normal game rules, negates the need for the overkill idea.IMO.

@Dast.
Currently 40k only models physical damage, and so has to have lots of extra rules to stop units runnig away.
If we model morale damage in more detail we get similar results without lots of extra rules...
(The special rules for morale are not really needed but 40k players seem addicted to special rules. )

I would propose laying a model on its side to show its armour has been penetrated,(or turning vehicles to face backwards,) temporarily to keep track of what models failed their armour save.

However, if you wanted we could use another method to model morale damage , that compares shots on target to unit confidence instead?

Add units AV to its remaining wounds/structure points.This is the units Current Confidence.
All ranged attacks have a suppressive effect = number of shots on target, + suppression bonus of weapon(s).

Eg 12 ork boys have a Current Confidence value of 12(W)+2(AV)=14

They are fired on by a SM unit 8 bolter hits, +3 heavy bolter hits and D6 suppresion bonus.(For the heavy bolter.)
14-11=3, the SM unit needs to roll 4 or more for the suppressive bonus of the Heavy bolter to suppress the Ork mob...


I would like to suggest putting the 'initiative steps 20-1' in an optional advanced set of rules

So players can get to grips with the basic,Green then Amber than Red, order sequence first.
And add the additional sequencing restrictions on later if they want to...

TTFN

(oops, almost wrote a whole essay! Sorry! )
Np, good question. It wasn't a bad idea in theory but when it got to the table, ugh was all we got out of it. While me and him were ok with it, him moreso of course, players felt interupted in their suspension of disbelief. You see when its just going around the circle or however the rolls came up with rolled initiative (any method) players get this feeling of being ready to pounce. Then they roll the dice for their turn which is them pouring concrete data(success/failure) into an evolving experience. The result is interpreted, things happen, next person. (important to note for later, a turn took about two minutes) But with rolled Initiative you only have to figure out who was first according to value, with a number of slots in your initiative order equal to thee number of players plus one for the monsters. In total like five for an average encounter. Simply put it was bite size. When you start getting into an army game like this with like 6+ units to a side, your first two turns or there-a-bouts are spent just figuring out who the hecks turn it is. Then as units disappear you constantly re-figure-out the order. With five initiative slots in DnD, no big deal. Twelve or more on a table? That's paperwork

Then with the colored tokens we used to indicate like a standard attack, move action, start/finish of a full-rounder. they got locked into play choices that were determined before the emergent chaos of the game provided them with more information to make a potentially different decision. The disruption was everyone did all their thinking in one step, then like a gambler at the horse track sat around and waited to see what happened as ten or so minutes of resolution went by. And shock of shocks, THEY GOT BORED! And that was where it failed. It was too complex, too lengthy, and surprisingly un-interactive. It wasn't that they wanted it to go super quick, but they weren't playing. they were waiting.

To help you visualize it a different way, another RPG had a great out look on turn order/initiative: Feng Shuei the RPG. It was a game based entirely around being an action movie hero. And true to theme of being a movie hero, instead of turns, you were allotted 'frames' as in frames on a film reel. They came to the game development from the angle of a film maker and said look, when you watch a fight scene with more than two heroes in it the camera is moving, your switching between cameras, sometimes the camera isn't even looking at the heroes but at the bad guys. Kinda like a turn order right? This is important! Lets give each player a turn to be 'in the shot' but only when they do something awesome which we'll interpret as 'what they did on their turn'. Even though there's fighting all around including the other players, they can just be assumed to be doing classic punches and kicks, when we get back to their turn though, THATS when they'll do something awesome like throw a dude through a wall! And that order could change up as the 'camera' went back to 'actors' that were interacting more often. FANTASTIC gameplay. Check it out

That's one of the few things 40k does mostly well. It keeps the players moving, puts units in the spotlights for their closeups when they want to interact with the board. The experience evolves and grows creating a narrative without the player even needing to put a lot of effort into it. It often doesn't seem that way as its I-go-you-go. But it doesn't put itself in a corner by making players constantly refer to data sheets and just lets the players go (for the most part). It fairly well allows you to visualize this table of models locked in combat while the 'camera' moves from unit to unit as they perform battle changing deeds.

This is why I ask if your going for 'Record keeping Strategy Simulator' or 'Action strategy'. Either is a legitimate answer. Both exist and do fine. I just want to know before I go much further. I have read through more and I think it looks like your going for the former. It's imperative that I know so I know how to/what level to provide feedback on y'know? This ain't my first play-test-rodeo

@KnuckleWolf

Thanks for bringing all that up! However, I think you're misinterpreting the turn system a little. It is much more dynamic that what I'm interpreting what you're saying, and a lot less pre-written. When I play tested this, by about the 3rd turn it was all very easy to play (and that was the first time we ever played this version.)

Let me think of a good way to describe everything using the terms that you put


Here is a walkthrough of an entire turn, giving more detail than is probably necessary but putting it all out there just in case.

We'll do a simple Space Marine vs Tau game.

Space Marine
-Captain (Ld 10 CV 5)
-Terminator Squad (Ld 9 CV 3)
-Tactical Squad (Ld 8 CV 2) w/ Sgt (Ld 9 CV 3)
-Scout Squad (Ld 8 CV 1) w/ Sgt (Ld 9 CV 3)
-Predator (Ld 8 CV 2)

Tau
-Shas'o Commander (Ld 10 CV 5)
-Crisis Suit Team (Ld 8 CV 2) w/ Shas'vre (Ld 8 CV 3)
-Fire Warrior Team (Ld 7 CV 1) w/ Shas'ui (Ld 8 CV 2)
-Fire Warrior Team (Ld 7 CV 1) w/ Shas'ui (Ld 8 CV 2)
-Broadside Team (Ld 8 CV 2) w/ Shas'vre (Ld 8 CV 3)


Turn starts

Command Phase:
-Hidden from the other player, each player places a green/amber/red counter by each of their units. I used a base with the underside painted one of these colors and it worked very well.
-The Tau player wants to pour out as much firepower as possible this turn, but knows he needs to move his Crisis suits back. He puts a green counter on his Shas’o, both fire warrior teams, and the broadside team.
-The Space marine player doesn’t have the same kind of range that a Tau player does, and wants to move up. However, the Predator has a bead on the Crisis suit team and wants to try to kill them as soon as possible. He puts a green counter on the predator, an amber counter on the terminators and captain, and a red counter on the scout squad and the tactical squad.

Action Phase:
-Step 20: No units can act
-Step 19: No units can act
-Step 18: No units can act
-Step 17: No units can act
-Step 16: No units can act
-Step 15: The Shas’o and Captain have the option to act this step. The counters for every unit being activated this step are flipped over. Both players decide they want to act as soon as possible with their commanders, and reveal their counters. The Tau player will get to act first because he assigned a green counter and the Space Marine player assigned an amber counter. The Shas’o remains still, and shoots at the Scout Squad. The Captain moves up and shoots a Fire Warrior Team with his pistol.
-Step 14: No units can act, because the two units that have step 14 in their range have already been activated this turn (the Captain and Shas’o.)
-Step 13: No units can act, because the two units that have step 13 in their range have already been activated this turn (the Captain and Shas’o.)
-Step 12: The Terminator Squad, Scout Squad, and Tactical Squad have the option to act at this step. The counters for every unit being activated this step are flipped over. The Space Marine commander wants to apply pressure with his Tactical Squad and Scouts as soon as possible, but wants to wait to move his Terminators in order to best react to what his opponent is doing; so the Tactical Squad and Scouts reveal their counters. They are both red counters and owned by the same player so they can go in whichever order they wish. They each move up and shoot their bolters into a squad of Fire Warriors.
-Step 11: The Crisis Suit Team, Broadside Team, and Terminator Squad can be activated this step (the Captain, Shas’o, Tactical Squad, or Scouts could be activated at this step as well if they had not already been activated.) The counters for every unit being activated this step are flipped over. The Tau player wants to shoot at the Predator before it can shoot back at the Crisis Suit team, but isn’t sure if he’ll be able to destroy it; the Crisis Suit Team and Broadside Team reveal their counters. The Broadsides have a green counter, meaning they must go before the Crisis Suit Team (who have an amber counter.) The Broadsides fire at the Predator, blowing it sky high. The Crisis Suit team then moves up and shoots at the commander, who lucks out and survives the volley.
-Step 10: Both Fire Warriors teams and the Terminator Squad can act this turn (all other previously acted units could act this turn if they weren’t already activated, and the Predator could have acted this turn if it were still alive.) The counters for every unit being activated this step are flipped over. The Fire Warriors can sense the impending pain that will happen if the Tactical Marine Squad gets any closer, but the Terminator squad knows that it will only move into LOS of the Fire Warrior teams if it moves up any closer; the two Fire Warrior teams reveal their counters. They open fire on the Tactical Marine Squad, dealing a few wounds.
-Step 9: The Terminators can be activated this step (all other previously acted units could act this turn if they weren’t already activated, and the Predator could have acted this turn if it were still alive.) The counters for every unit being activated this step are flipped over. There is no point waiting any longer for the Terminators, and the Crisis Suit Team has made a grave error; the Terminators reveal their counter. The Crisis Suits have unknowingly moved into charge range of the Terminators when they moved up to try to kill the Captain. The Terminators charge.
-Steps 8 through 1 are skipped because all units have been activated.

Resolution Phase:
-There are units locked in assault because the Terminators charged the Crisis Suit team. Resolve this first (we all know how it ends haha.)
-The Fire Warriors took enough casualties/failed armor saves that they must take a leadership test. Passing or Failing determines how effective they will be next turn.
-The Tactical Marine squad lost a missile launcher in the carnage, so the commander trades out one of his bolter models for the missile launcher model. He can do this because his squad is not suppressed/pinned/routed.

Turn ends


So here are some things that you mentioned that are very much so present:
-A focus on the unit acting (zooming in on action shots as you said)
---Units are activated one at a time, so you can really dive into what they’re doing if you want to role play or anything like that.
-When me and my friend were play testing, we definitely didn’t get bored. The game was constantly moving, and we had to adapt to it. If we didn’t, we were punished. I slipped up once and forgot that he could act after me, so I moved right into rapid fire range and was punished. He slipped up and forgot about my Shokk Attack Gun after he tried to chase down a fleeing squad of boyz. Ended up losing because of that one actually.
-The reference sheets are there to reference if you forget, not use as a crutch. If you are thinking too much into the numbers, you miss opportunities on the battlefield. The numbers create a range to act, but if you think of the numbers too much you’ll trick yourself into always acting at your highest step or lowest step. Frequently acting somewhere in the middle is optimal.


As to your main question:
-This is more action strategy than record keeping. I hope that the way I described everything gives the justification for why it’s like that, but if it doesn’t don’t hesitate to tell me

-Rabid

Hi rabid,
If the range of unit LD values is 6 to 10 and Command value maximum of 5.
The the activation steps are 15 down to 1.Why start at 20?

I have played a few games allowing units to activate one at a time in the order the players choose, restricted only by order sequence.
And found the game play engaging enough.(Far more tactical than 40k anyway.)

I am a bit concerned adding the additional activation sequencing may be too much complication for some new players to cope with.
That is why I suggested putting it in a 'Advanced rules book'.

I would like the basic game to be straightforward intuitive and easy to learn.(And less than 40 pages .)
If we get this core rule set sorted, we can add on more detail and complexity /complication.

I think many of your ideas are excellent as 'advanced rule options'.But may be a bit 'over complicated' for the basic core rules perhaps?

TTFN

Lanrak,

I think breaking the rulebook down into "basic" and "advanced" is a good idea. It is especially good for newer players and days when you just feel like a simpler game.

In a perfect world where I know what I'm doing, the rulebook would have white pages for basic rules--and tan pages for advanced rules. One would flow into the other in each section, rather than pages 1-20 are basic and 21-40 are advanced. My wife is going to be the main one to design the actual rulebook, so hopefully she can make something like that a reality
-Examples of basic vs advanced:
---The colored-counter system resolution would be basic. Adding in the activation steps would be advanced.
---Jet pack units will be the same as jump packs in basic. Distinguishing the two would be advanced. (Don't know how, but just an example)


The reason for starting at 20 is to allow for extraordinary units. Every stat will have a value of 1-10, so why limit one of them? I don't know all the special characters off the top of my head, but some are known for their extraordinary command ability. A good example is the Swarmlord, who I think should have a higher command value than 5 (I think 6 is good.)

If you don't remember what my system was before, here it is again (names have probably changed haha):
1 - Trivial
2 - Below Average
3 - Average
4 - Above Average
5 - Excellent
6 - Extraordinary
7-10 - Legendary

I know there is a character in the Imperial Guard codex that is supposed to have absolutely incredible command capalities. Someone like that could have a command value of 7.

If we expanded these rules to include the Horus Heresy, than Horus/Guilliman/Corax are the only ones I can think of that would have like a 9, and the emperor a 10.


So just like how in a standard game, the highest toughness you'll probably see is a 6; the damage chart goes to 10. It's just to have the capability, but not necessarily something you have to use.




Oh, I forgot to mention this earlier.

I'm fine with changing Amber to this:
-Amber units can run or charge. If charging, they may fire assault weapons. These are resolved prior to charging (e.g. storm bolter fires, then you move the models)

-Red units can fire assault weapons or rapid fire weapons and move, or vice-versa.

How does that sound? It really distinguishes Amber as the rapid mobility counter, and Red as the tactical movement counter.

After reading your post yeah this is almost exactly our DnD version blended with a minute weird part of every RPGs initiative. Trust me brother, there was no misinterpretation Seems good. It's all about Questions! First I ask every designer I consult this question before we get to far, usually first meeting, so I'll give it to you now belated. If your going for action, which you are, its even more important. Do you always round up or do you always round down? For any number in the game when modified by halving, which way do you let the gavel fall this will partly set the tone and feel of the rest. Very important oft overlooked part of any design. Seriously think about this one and give it some time. (Seriously, lots of time) Now some specific thought provoker questions tailored to your game. Most of our discussion will be me asking things like these. These are your 'no wrong answer' questions that will help us refine the goal and then the rule by addressing it's purpose more than its outcome. (My methodology is this: Goal first, rule second, no rule designed with the goal of fixing or covering flaws of another rule. Then confirm that players feel the goal rather than the rule. That means you have intuitive seamless game play)

First give me an operational definition of 'action', 'strategy', and 'action strategy' so that we're talking about the same thing

So in your example I see how you do this action sequence thing and we want some emphasis to be on action (YEAAAH! FIGHTING!). So we'll start with two that address just the action portion of the game:
1.) Why do the initiatives remain static for every turn of every game save for when you delay action? Action is chaos. Why order it? (Lots more questions will come from this one, I can see that right now)
2.) Why do I have to choose what type of action ahead of time? Why not just forget the colored poker chips(what I'll use, worked for the DnD playtest.) and just pick an action on my initiative? (this is part of what killed the DnD trial, remember. Honestly I think you would be making a huge stride to just cut them out now, but we'll see) Sub questions to consider: Are we promoting the emergent chaos, directing it, or stifling it? Is this to promote realism? Planning? Feel spontaneous or 'action-y'? This is the thing I'd most like to hear your thoughts about a few days from now. And It's a big question so take some time on this one particularly.

Think about 'em. Roll 'em around. I'll be back in two to three days while I read the rules and play my first game or more with them.

KnuckleWolf,

Funny you should ask those, I've actually thought considerably about them all and can answer them on the spot


Round up or down?
-Round up. Rounding up makes units feel stronger than they are. It subtly encourages players to make bold decisions. People are happy when their units are a little stronger but just meh if their opponent's units are stronger; people are dissapointed when their units are a little weaker and don't notice if their opponent's units are weaker.

Before I answer the question about initiative, I'm going to assume you mean command value instead of initiative. The terminology has changed since I first started and I just want to clarify. If you mean something else please let me know.
-Command values are static when it comes to models, but in reality are modified throughout the game. If the sergeant of a squad is killed, the unit’s command value drops considerably. If the morale of a unit is damaged, the command value drops to 0. If you do something like deep striking/disembarking/other things that would draw the attention away from a sergeant the command value drops to 0.

Why choose the action ahead of time?
-Because it is a game of armies not individuals. The player shouldn’t feel like they are every soldier on the battlefield, constantly able to immediately react. Instead, the player is supposed to feel like the commander on the battlefield. They can see everything because of surveillance and the like, but they don’t have the ability to literally take control of every unit. Instead the commander starts the turn and knows what their goals are, and how to best accomplish them. Knowing this, they place counters (think a commander gives the orders to the sergeants) and it is then up to the unit’s sergeant to decide when and how to act. This is the fundamental difference between an operational level and a tactical level (strategic would be a campaign.) The frustration of not being able to precisely control every person in your army is very real, and should be simulated on the battlefield.



To answer some of your sub questions:
-War is all about making fewer mistakes than your opponent. You can do this by forcing tough decisions on your opponent, limiting their options, expanding your options, and avoiding tough decisions. This is what I want to promote.
---Force tough decisions on your opponent with target saturation, target denial, and overall unit placement. Make them strongly consider not only which target to go after, but what counter to use. Make them consider if they really have the luxury to go at the top of their activation step, or if they can afford to not move this turn.
---Limit their options by damaging critical parts of their army. If you take out their anti-tank unit, they’re going to have to redirect something less than optimal to use against your tank. Or if you deal morale damage, they have a command value of 0 and are forced to go at their leadership value.
---Expanding your options is done simply with the inclusion of the new turn system. I don’t think I really need to elaborate this.
---Avoiding tough decisions has the same justification as forcing tough decisions on your opponent, but in reverse.

-Realism is the biggest goal that I have, but I know that it will be limited by player ability and by the simple fact we’re using dice and plastic dudesmen.
---To elaborate, the game is meant to encourage planning. To quote the A-Team “I love it when a plan comes together.”
---However, quoting Mike Tyson “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.” Chaos is going to happen. Your plan will never go exactly the way you want it to. However, if you have a good plan it is less likely to deviate. Command values let you react to the chaos of the battlefield though, hence why it is such a powerful stat. It represents influence over the unit, the ability to think under pressure, and the ability to properly execute commands.
---This adds spontaneity and the necessity to think on your feet.


Thing is, I know these are not the easiest rules to pick up. I know that it takes someone who can think tactically and has a good memory. In general, better players will be ones that have the traits to be good officers in real life. That is the ultimate form of realism to me.

-Rabid

Hi rabid.
That makes more sense.I thought command values were 1 to 5, not 1 to 10.(

(leader , veteran leader,detachment commander, force commander,sector commander. not the ones you just posted... )

As reguards to basic and advanced rules.
We could just put the optional/advanced rules at the end of each rule section.

Eg
The game turn.
Basic rules pg 2 to 4.
Optional/Advanced rules pg 5 to6

Movement,
Basic rules pg 7 to 9
Optional/Advanced rules pg 10 to 12.

Excellent changes to define the order counters!

I gave three days to think out answers and really explore the concepts. I come back to print a copy of the rules for today's first game before I head out, and according to the post time stamps you took less than 45 minutes. I must appologize, you seem to be a little defensive/passive aggressive towards me and I can only think I was at fault for some reason, sorry 'bout that. Good luck, but I'm no longer interested. BTW your rules aren't hard to understand even in their current incomplete fluid state. So at least you got that going for you. If they were I would be asking technical questions, not philosophical ones which, to be honest, had unimpressive answers in the strategy section and grasp/translation of command structure in a combat situation to rule interpretations. Lastly, what you have so far isn't classed as 'action strategy', this would better be described as the 'strategy simulator' class often presented on hex-map-and-chit games around the scale of "Conflict of Heroes" which is at about 1" hex scale/per up to 2 squads and/or vehicles. Your actually a little more complicated than that thanks to all the stats and 28mm scale. There's just too many fine detail rules to still be classed as action. (e.g. your effective firing range chart, ER was already built in anyway) Sorry couldn't be more help!

Good luck you two! Post a thread when It's done k?

Hello,

@ KnuckleWolf : Thanks for explaining the issues you had with step initative turns. I think that "Im bored, is it my turn yet?" will be less of an issue in 40k than in a RPG, simply because in the RPG of the 10 things running about (some party and monsters), only one of them is "you", in 40k about half the things will be "yours" and hence half of the moves will feel like your own. The counters being put down at the turns begining complaints I can see more weight to. The counters make the game more "difficult" to play, which isn't nesesarily a bad thing. It depends on whether we are aiming for a game where their is actually a degree of skill and competitiveness, or a casual play with cool models with some dice to tell us the cool stuff that happens. Hidden comands rewards pre-planning, and guessing your oponents actions, it is important enough that new players who miss the complexities will likely be steamrollered and anhilated completely. Essentially you can't reward the thought and tactics of the "try-hards" without effecting the more casual players.

Sorry to hear you are no longer interested, I am sure the rules will be posted when they are finished.

@ Else : KnuckleWolf brought up the issue of rounding up or rounding down. Division of stats is something I think should be avoided, a game cant contain both "sum" and "times" operations and remain balanced (in my opinion). (Simply because if it is rescalled (bigger game/unit) the relative powers of the two operations shift).

However in terms of "half the unit failed armour saves", "half the unit is dead" in leadership it is very relavent. Rabid, by allways round up do you mean that if an 11 man squad looses 5 members then they are counted as bellow half strength? (5/11=45%, round up to 50%). Or do you mean the opposite. (11/2=5.5, rounds to 6. As 5<6 they will not be counted as bellow half strength).

A related issue this has reminded me off is as follows, I will try and explain the problem first, which is hard as I dont quite know how to phrase it:

Problem : It is unavoidable that sooner or later a special ability or rule that applies in an unusual situation will come into conflict with another special ability or usually unimportant rule. In these cases it has to be decided which takes precedence. In 40K basically allways the protocol is to rule in favor of the smaller more elite faction with better tech. (For example both Eladar autarks and upgraded hive tyrants can give +1 to reserve rolls, in the case of the Eldar multiple autarks is cumulative, in the case of tyrinids multiple hive tyrants are not cumulative).

(Rounding made me think of this as when I write rules for games in the little "if..." sentences that follow to explain what happens in odd situations are, in my head, me rounding the rule off).

I beleive it would be useful, before we begin giving special abilities and rules, to decide upon whether abilites are generally rounded down, or rounded up.
("it doesn't say whether I can use it while embarked": Round Down: You cant, Round Up: you can
"it doesnt say if multiple ones are cumilative" : Round Down: They arn't Round Up: they are)

Addressed in PM.

Pressing forward.

Cool, so we're good on the counters and rulebook structure now

Wound Allocation we still need to figure out, and I thought of a good compromise that I hope you like.

Units target units, that's something I've always been in favor of and would prefer to keep. However, targeting multiple units is definitely reasonable and really helps make MSU not so powerful.

So how about this?

If the firing unit desires to target multiple units, they must take a leadership test. If passed, the firing unit may target a number of units up to their command value. Each unit must be within 12" of each other (think coherency in one unit, but instead coherency between multiple units.)


This accomplishes a couple things:
-MSU isn't as strong as it currently is.
-Most units that will take advantage of this will still be limited by their command value.
-No more extra morale rules, including the overkill one I was trying to make work. These won't be needed and this new one is much simpler.
-The wound allocation method we had previously discussed becomes completely valid again. This way we can skip a couple steps



If this is good to you, we can call part 2 100% and move onto part 3. I don't plan on changing a whole heck of a lot with assaults, so that should be pretty quick and we have a good chance at finishing everything up next week

Hi again.

Like the basic idea but '...may target number of units up to their command value... within 12" of each other...' it may be a bit OTT.

I have a super commander, Command (Ld) 10, in a 'death star' unit (20+ models)...I am allowed to target a maximum frontage of 10 x 12"(120"!!!)

I would like to change it to;-
May target units within 12" of original target unit ,if they pass a successful leadership test for each additional targetted unit.

This gives a shooting frontage of 14" to 44"(Assuming the frontage of units between 2" and 20".)

(This is why I wanted to use a fixed target point , and allow units within a set distance to be targeted .As this would give a reasonable fixed frontage of fire .)

I agree we are just about there...

Lanrak,

Whoops, I guess I missed that part

I meant to say that all extra units must be within 12" of the original target. I don't think they should have to take a leadership check for every additional unit, but just one to see if they can split fire.

Oh, another quick point. I figured that the splitting fire rules would be in the "advanced" rules portion of shooting.


With that said, we're done with shooting and I'm ready to move onto assault

Here are a couple notes and a recap on things we've mentioned:
-Units should be locked in close combat once charged.
-Assaults are resolved first thing in the Resolution Phase.
-Assaults should generally not last more than one turn, but still be able to. (Mentioned very briefly)


I don't plan on changing a whole heck of a lot from current 40k when it comes to assaults. Here are some quick changes:
-Overwatch should be gone, or at least toned down dramatically.
-Challenges I think add some really nice flavor but we should adjust them a little.
-I feel like we should modify charging advantages. I say this because if we eliminate the extra attack, it allows the unit card to always be used and we don't have to modify it so often.
-Finding a way to actually use pistols in close combat I'd really like. I don't think it should just confer an extra attack.


Those are the ones that immediately come to mind that I'd like to change. So here are my thoughts on how to change them:

-Overwatch should be changed toa green token and declare overwatch. This means the unit does not declare a target and fire as normal, but may fire at any unit that charges. We can even expand this to allow them to cover nearby units as well. We can add this ability to advanced rules.
-Challenges should be moved to the advanced rules as they are optional. Additionally, we should change it so any model with a CV of 2 or more is eligible to challenge. You can decline a challenge, forcing the model that declined to take a morale check. If they fail their morale check they can’t fight, but otherwise can fight as normal.
-Charging I feel should affect the leadership of a target unit. What about units being charged must take a morale check? Failure means routing, passing means staying and fighting.
-For pistols, maybe make it so you have the choice between firing a pistol that compares your BS to the enemy’s WS, or attack as normal?

Yes that makes more sense for splitting fire.
As the leadership value does not set the number of units that can be engaged.The 12" range from original target does.
I wanted to use the Ld to check to allow units to attack more units.But if you are happy to make it target unit only OR as many units as you like within 12" up to X, from target unit on just ONE ld check... fair enough.(But I would prefer to roll for each additional target.We can sort this at play testing though.)

I agree with assaults locking units until the resolution phase, and assaults are resolved in this phase before any other actions.

The idea of the new interactive game turn was to do away with Over-watch!
If you want to shoot at a unit before it assaults , give the unit the appropriate order counter and shoot at it!If you this mess up you take the full force of the assault !

If you do not give your units the right orders and activate them in the right order, its YOUR fault if you loose!

Challenges should be in the advanced rules IMO.(As they are great for adding flavour but may get a bit lenghty rules wise. )

Charging simply means you strike first in assault!
This makes up for having to pick your way across the battle field with a unit strong enough to launch an assault!
And differentiates between close combat in general and the 'shock of impact' charging can give.(And is easy to learn and implement!)

I would like to use MINIMUM and Maximum ranges on weapons.
if we list most close assault weapons as 0 to 2 ".

And pistols as 2" to 8"

Small arms 6" to maximum range.

(other weapons as appropriate.)

Pistols can be fired into enemy units in assault from a unit that is in the assault..
EG models that are over 2" away from enemy models but within 8".Can fire pistols at enemy models in the combat.
If we say pistols are easier to aim and fire at close quarters, they can be used in assault.

Here is an example.

A Slugga Boyz mob with 18 models left , charges into a IG platoon .
8 boyz get into contact with 10 guardsmen.

The 8 Boyz Attack first because they charged into assault .They resolve the close combat attacks first.
THEN any surviving Guardsmen strike back with close combat weapons ...

Then the Boyz NOT in base to base combat fire their Sluggaz (pistols) at the surviving IG guardsmen.

I am not sure if this would be overpowered though?
I would like close combat to be brutal, and resolved quickly maybe too brutal perhaps.... )

Interesting ideas, I really like some of them.

I guess I'll just go down the line

-Splitting fire
---We'll decide during play testing if the single leadership check is too powerful. If it is then adding a leadership check to target each additional is a really easy fix.

-Overwatch
---I think a "stand and shoot" ability is a good addition. The reason I say to include it as a green counter is simple: you give up shooting at a target of your choosing and in return can fire at every unit that charges you (or none if you have a tricky opponent )
---We can look more into this, I bet this will be one of our biggest debates for part 3

-Challenges
---Cool, we're in agreement there. We'll work out details after we get the core stuff done.

-Charging
---Interesting take on it, I like it better than my idea. We really need to limit this to the models that actually make it into base contact, otherwise it will be incredibly overpowered.

-Ranges (mins and maxes)
---This sounds like a huge divergence from current 40k, and I want to hear you out on it. I know you mentioned it really early on. I think what you're saying actually won't be incredibly overpowered, and will make a dramatic difference between assault weapons and rapid fire weapons. Seeing as how I really don't want rapid fire and heavy weapons firing into an assault. They aren't meant for that, they are meant to be aimed--not hip fired.
---A pile-in move at the start of the resolution phase for units locked in close combat is going to be needed. A flat 3" for the charging unit first, then 3" for the unit charged should cover this.
---I think changing the range to 3" for close combat would be good to simulate a melee. A model can only attack if a model in the unit is in base contact.
---Pistols and assault weapons should be fired at initiative 0, and simultaneously for both sides. Also not letting them fire if in base contact (the whole rock bashing your brains in quote from the rulebook comes to mind.)



I'll try to comment more later, but hopefully it's enough to chew on for a little while

Hello again,

I love the proposed idea for how pistols could be used by the "second rank" (essentially) in close combat. (not entirely unlike spears in fantasy). (I thought I would try the Orkmoticons for once.)

I also agree with getting rid of the plus 1 attack for charging, it never made any sense to me (striking first, like in fantasy made allot more sense to me).

You suggest that pistols being fired in combat would fire at initiative 0. To me it seems that it would be a tiny bit simpler if they just fired at initiative, and I don't really see it being over-powered. (although, some pistols are quite powerful now that I think about it).

Not firing them from base to base contact is a very sensible rule.

When pistols are fired in combat I assume you would use normal "to hit" rolls (BS) not the close combat rolls (WS). Does anyone see a good reason to not do it that way?

I like the splitting of fire rules, and believe that 1 LD test would be sufficient. We should make sure when we write this up properly to remember things like targets have to actually be in range, as well as within 12" of the initial target.

Do either of you think grenades should be done any differenly than they currently are in 40k? I dislike the way they currently just let you ignore random cover and stuff, I would prefer they actually could be "fired", although it might result in too many options. ( Should the tactical squad assualt, rapid fire, or lob grenades?) Maybe grenades could function a bit like pistols? This has been bugging me for a while, but I have thus far thought of nothing I like.

Dast

It's amazing, we're all on the same page for once haha!

If we add initiative back into the unit stats, that will work. I'm pretty neutral on when they should attack.

When firing a weapon in close combat, the firer uses their BS. However, Stealth doesn't matter anymore (you're in their face already.) In close combat, agility and dexterity are what matter. These are all included in WS. Thus, if the rolling player used their BS and the non-rolling player used their WS it would be pretty well represented.


Grenades I don't know what to do with currently, I haven't thought too much about it haha.


I'll get back to you guys tomorrow, hopefully I'll have the time to edit the first post tonight.

A quick update:

The first post has been updated with a lot of our new info, take a look please before commenting

Hi folks.
Well we seem to be making good progress...

We could simply say players can activate units on Fire Support OR Advanced Movement in the 'Decisive Action' phase.(In any order they want to.)
But all Fire Support and Advanced Movement takes place before ANY Reactive Actions.(Move and Shoot,OR Shoot and Move.)
So players could keep some Fire Support units back to tackle enemy units before they charge?

This game turn require far more tactical thought than current 40ks Alternating Game Turn.And allowing units 'conditional reactions' is only really needed in this old type of game turn.
(If you want o interrupt action set orders, then the Interleaved Phases game turn may be more appropriate.)

I would like to call the Initiative replacement 'Assault Value'.(Because this takes equipment and training into account not just speed of weapon swing.) And stops the D&C hammer falling....

Charger strikes first, is a good reward to getting the charge on an enemy unit IMO.(Only units in base to base contact get this bonus.To tone it down a bit .)

I wanted to let ONLY Pistols fire in close assault.(To replace 40ks extra attack in close combat.)As Dast says it sort of similar to spears in WHFB that allow extra models an attack .
And make Pistols significantly different to other weapons.
I think simply using the basic shooting mechanic for this is fine.But perhaps count target in 'light cover' to take the 'swirl of melee' into account?

2 handed ranged weapons are too clumbersome to aim effectively in close assault.We assume these weapons are fired as the unit moves into assault to temporarily suppress the target, allowing them to strike first.


Grenades.. allowing all models in a unit to throw grenades can be very over powered and time consuming...

I would like to suggest ONE model per unit per turn is allowed to throw a grenade instead of shooting with a regular ranged weapon .(Some vehicles could have grenade launchers.)

If I remember right from 2nd ed.grenades could be thrown 6".

Basic grenade types.
Frag grenades 3" blast .(Same as frag grenades IG grenade launcher.)

Smoke /Blind grenades 3" blast.(Blocks L.O.S.)

Krak grenades.One model(Same as krak grenades IG grenade launcher.)

Meltabombs are NOT grenades they are placed on the target as now.(Like magnetic mines in WWII),

Advanced grenades...(In the optional rules...these grenade types are for characters/unit leaders only.)

Anti plant..5" blast, removes trees /plant cover.

Haywire,one model.(On the roll of a 5+ the mechanical unit is suppressed due to electronic interferance.)

Tanglefoot. 5" Blast. The area counts as razor wire entanglements.(Movement penalty to cross this area.)

Halucenagen.3" Blast.On the roll of 5+ models become disorenated.(may not move or shoot.)

(I was not a fan of vortex or virus grenades so would prefer not to include them)

Ill leave it there for comments...

@Lanrak

The reason why I say that is because most assault weapons are designed to be used in some sort of a close combat fashion. Naturally there are exceptions to this rule, but things like a flamethrower would definitely be used in close combat if they knew they wouldn't hit their friends.
These are a little different than the 2-handed weapons you were mentioning. It's really good justification, but we can actually distinguish between them if we need to.

Speaking of that, a good compromise might be a special rule that allows use in close combat. It would be a bit of a throwback to the True Grit special rule.


You were saying to replace Initiative with assault value. I've heard you mention assault value before, but that was in regards to weapon skill. Are you thinking about combining weapon skill and initiative? It's something I've considered, especially if we add "always strike last" as a special rule.


Grenades are a subject I'm having a hard time coming up with rules for. But here were the 5 basic grenades I was planning on.
-Assault Grenades
---These can be used in either a frag or krak mode, and may be thrown in close combat. This is obviously a huge risk to hitting your own models, and should help keep it from becoming horrendously overpowered.
-Defensive Grenades
---These are done in response to an enemy charging, and remove all charge bonuses.
-EMP Grenades
---Combining Haywire, EMP, Gauss, and the like into a single grenade with mechanical bane (4+) It would simply be given a range of 3" like other melee attacks.
-Melta Grenades
---Can only be used against monstrous units. It has a high strength and AP, with a range of 1" instead of 3" to represent the necessity to attach the grenade. Combining that with replacing melee swings I think covers it pretty well.
-Psyk Grenades
---Causes heavy morale damage. I'd like to see it use a large blast, and all models touched by it count as failing an armor save for morale purposes. These would also be really good candidates for multiple morale hurting USRs.


To keep track of new USRs that we've considered:
-Always strike first
-Always strike last
-True grit

My goal is to keep the total amount of USRs to under 15, and it looks like we are on track for that