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.

Ok, so if no one else has suggestions for the resolution mechanism, I'd like to tackle the next big problem: table size and the turn structure.

Right now what I'm thinking would be best is a system where we have three interwoven phases in a turn: the command phase, the first action phase, and the second action phase. The command phase will be used for things such as reserves, morale checks, and outflanking rolls. The action phases will be alternated (Player 1 goes to action phase and completes it, then Player 2, and then Player 1 goes to action phase 2 and then Player 2 so that the turn can end)

Actions will be free and can happen on any phase, meaning that if you want to shoot on Action Phase 1 and move on Action Phase 2, you can do so. I'm thinking to modify unit stats and damage so that if a player decides to shoot twice per turn, it doesn't become an OP tactic. Certain actions require a set-up period, like shooting heavy and salvo weapons. What this means is simply that on Action Phase 1 you'll spend your unit's action to set up a sniper rifle (or whatever other weapon you choose) and you'll be able to fire it on Action Phase 2 and every other phase after that, provided you don't get assaulted or move.

This system will, I think, make turns go smoother and prevent one turn kills or people from doing too many things at once without their opponent being able to retaliate. The fact that you can move twice now makes it easier to get around the map, but there lies the problem.

The table right now is too small for the game. I have some ideas on how to fix this, but I'm not sure about them and I'd like to hear everyone's take on how to solve this. As you all know, Epic Armageddon is great because you can play it on a standard table and since the pieces are so small, you can play entire battles without an issue. Movement and placement are key here, but not so in 40k. In 40k our units are bigger, much bigger. This sometimes leads to cramped gameplay and shooty armies having the range of the entire table, meaning they can just sit and shoot and laugh as you try to charge the no man's land.

We could obviously tell people to get bigger tables, but how can we solve the issue for people that can't simply get bigger tables?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SolarCross wrote:
If we are ready to go on to turn structure..

What we have now is this, right?

Command Phase: Psychic powers that affect unit movement or deployment happen here. Reinforcement happens here. Suppression and leadership morale tests happen here. I know it doesn't make much sense and its ambiguous, but we need this phase. Ignore it for now, but keep in mind its here.

Action Phase 1: Here you get to do anything you want, but only one action per phase. Player 1 goes through AP1 first, and then Player 2 goes through AP1.

Phase Resolution 1:[/b] All the actions you took during AP1 are resolved here. Did you shoot someone? Move somewhere? Did you call an Ork Warboss' mother dirty in a challenge? All the dice rolls and resolution stuff will be here in order to emulate things happening simultaneously. Two squads line up in their respective AP1 and shoot, and during this phase their combat plays out. That way nobody complains about how "he went first, of course he won" or "my units would have trounced yours if you hadn't gotten lucky and gone first". Enough of that. Actions get resolved [b]simultaneously.

Action Phase 2: Same as AP1.

Phase Resolution 2: Same as PR1.

End of Turn: Everyone take a breath, because now it's time to do this alllll over again.

I have a question. Why have two action phases per turn if they are functionally identical? How is that different from having 1 Action phase per turn and just having more turns?

Good question, and you can tell me if I'm wrong with this. The turn needs two action phases because there is a command phase at the start of every turn. The command phase is necessary since we're dealing with a lot of mechanics that have to be done before the players can issue orders, but it'd be kind of annoying to do it so frequently. If you can only perform one action per turn, it limits the amount of things you can do before you have to clear everything up in the command phase, stuff like morale checks and outflank rolls. Heavy weapons will need one turn to set up, then go through the command phase where they might have to deal with morale checks and the like, and then shoot on the next turn. It's not very fast and it can cause delay if you have multiple retreating units. Instead of doing two actions per turn, you can only do one and now you have to roll morale, do warp changes, etc.

Does that simplify things from the current 40k rules?

What do you mean by "current rules"?

 urbanknight4 wrote:

Good question, and you can tell me if I'm wrong with this. The turn needs two action phases because there is a command phase at the start of every turn. The command phase is necessary since we're dealing with a lot of mechanics that have to be done before the players can issue orders, but it'd be kind of annoying to do it so frequently. If you can only perform one action per turn, it limits the amount of things you can do before you have to clear everything up in the command phase, stuff like morale checks and outflank rolls. Heavy weapons will need one turn to set up, then go through the command phase where they might have to deal with morale checks and the like, and then shoot on the next turn. It's not very fast and it can cause delay if you have multiple retreating units. Instead of doing two actions per turn, you can only do one and now you have to roll morale, do warp changes, etc.

Okay I guess it depends on how much is going on in the command phase then.

Table size: That's a really tricky one. Ideally we would just go with a scale change to something a bit more rational like 6mm, but then all those lovely 28mm models have to sit in a display case gathering dust. Being stuck with big models means a certain amount of fudgery to solve the two main issues that come with big models on a "small" table: model footprint and game ranges. First off we should have to say that bigger tables are not a viable option because peoples' arms are not long enough. Tables could get longer but can not really get wider that 4', so given opposing deployment zones of a depth of 12" we have to consider that on the opening turn opposing models will be a minimum of just 2' feet apart from one another.

Game ranges: the main concern here is alpha striking. Weapon ranges can be generally nerfed, though for the model scale they already are wildly short, so it will look even weirder.

Taking a quick look at chess we see that both players have 5 pieces that have range enough to strike from one end of the board to the other in a single turn: rooks, bishops and of course the queen. Yet alpha striking in chess is not possible because the long range pieces start the game fenced in by their own short range plodders the pawns. Unleashing the ranged power of those pieces first requires several turns of manoeuvre to open up fire lanes through the plodders. Of course we can not directly use this in a wargame because army composition and deployment are not and should not be fixed but a more suitable gambit might be employed to accomplish a similar effect. Units on deployment could be considered to have a significant cover bonus until they move or shoot. Certain classes of weapons that have range and power ("ordnance", maybe also "heavy") enough to reach into the opposing deployment zone could prevented from shooting on their deployment turn. These two things help fence in the long range heavy hitters ability to alpha strike.

Model Footprint: Harder to solve as it less about game mechanics and more about the physical reality of using big models on a small table. They will inevitably take up loads of space. Maybe some kind of reinforcement queue that prevents more than 1000 points of models being on the table at once? Define unit-coherancy as base-to-base contact rather than 2"? This makes infantry foot prints smaller but doesn't do much or anything for tanks or monsters.

Alright guys, sorry for the super long hiatus. I'm going out of the country for 11 days so I won't be posting in that time. However, when I get back home I'll make a new thread and write up a tentative draft of the rules we've established on a Word document. I know that some of you guys may disagree with the rules I have decided on thus far, but hopefully we can turn this conflict of ideas into a brainstorm to make the ruleset great and balanced.

I'll see you all soon!