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
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






 Lance845 wrote:
But that can be as simple as a -1 to hit instead of a full test with the potential to fail.
That doesn't have nearly the same game-space ramifications, obviously, whether you agree with them or not.

nou wrote:
 Mezmorki wrote:
To be fair and having played a lot of 4th back in the day, the times where not shooting the closest unit wasn’t something that I recall coming up all that often. Usually if a unit was baring down towards another unit, it was a threat and shooting it was a no brainer. Things got a little more confounding when you’d have two nearly equally close units that were further away. E.G., you had some devastators in the back line forced to shoot unit A that was 30” away instead of the more dangerous unit B that was only 36” away or whatever.

I could see having a rule for “threat range” or something, where if an enemy unit was within 12”, you had to shoot at that unit or take a leadership test to shoot something else.

This close proximity requirement would better reflect the imminent threat faced by an opposing unit that’s closing range. It also provides some counter play opportunity, as you could tactically withdraw to create more space and free up your targeting abilities (which again could mean moving off objectives, so it has a nice in-built trade off). If all enemy units were further than 12” away, then the unit can choose a target freely.

Combine the above with some basic screening rules that would work on the defensive side, and you could get nice synergies and gameplay dynamics starting to evolve.


That is something I have in my system - weapons have short/long range and you have to test if you have a target in short range but you want to shoot something at long range. Target selection within the same range class is unrestricted. The same applies for charge actions - you have to test if you want to charge with double action when you have a target for single action. Works well and creates much more interesting dynamics than 5th+ ed 40K.
Those seem like reasonable paths to take to establish similar effects. I like the "range band" idea for establishing a sort of "engagement zone" where enemy contact is pressuring troops and reducing awareness or keeping them occupied and under threat. I also like the counterplay idea of retreating slightly to remove the pressure from nearby units, and opening the oportunity to engage other targets further away.

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 au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

"No pre-measuring, but be sure to measure out to see if something is closer or not..."


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






 H.B.M.C. wrote:
"No pre-measuring, but be sure to measure out to see if something is closer or not..."



I think this is solvable.

With declared fire being used, you lock yourself into a firing regime before any measuring. Then when it comes to resolving individual shooting, you can measure ranges as needed, including to check to see if a unit falls within 12” close threat range, and would need to be shot at as a close threat (or take a leadership test to be able to fire at a more distant target).

I like the idea of getting to decide what close threat to shoot at if there are multiple close threats.

Also, with using a leadership test for split fire, that could be rolled into the same LD test as avoiding having to shoot the closest to consolidate some rolling.

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




Hats off to Mezmorki for that bold last stand to defend his position. Twas an admirable hill to die on as well. And a million exalts for admitting that there are other valid and possibly better ways of doing business than his way. I don't even have an oppinion I just want to try all of these suggestions and ideas.
Plus, it would be nice to see leadership interact with the game in some meaningful way like with pinning and possibly suppression mechanics but especially for target selection.

Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. -Kurt Vonnegut 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

You would want to pile Target Priority rolls onto a system where you first make fire declaration and then measure after declaring targets?

1. Declare targets.
2. Check for units within 12".
3. If there are, too bad! Your declaration is worthless, and you spent time on something you now might not be able to do.
4. Roll to see if you can shoot what you want to shoot.
5. Failed? Guess you now have to fire at the other thing.
6. Feel bad both about being unable to use your troops and for spending time declaring targets you can't shoot at anyway.



This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/12/07 03:05:07


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






Yes?

ProHammer already uses declared fire, and uses Ld for split firing. It works great. It doesn't have the shoot closest thing we're talking about here, but there are rules for screening as I've mentioned earlier.

Obviously if we're I to layer target priority onto ProHammer it would work such that if you couldn't hit your declared target because another unit was closer (and you failed the Ld test) you would just default to shooting the closer unit.

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





 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You would want to pile Target Priority rolls onto a system where you first make fire declaration and then measure after declaring targets?

1. Declare targets.
2. Check for units within 12".
3. If there are, too bad! Your declaration is worthless, and you spent time on something you now might not be able to do.
4. Roll to see if you can shoot what you want to shoot.
5. Failed? Guess you now have to fire at the other thing.
6. Feel bad both about being unable to use your troops and for spending time declaring targets you can't shoot at anyway.



You would really not like my system, in which there are Ld checks before twelve different actions (and broken units have it reversed, they do not have to check for only a few actions). It boils down to the expectations from the game really - do you want a war themed game with omnipotent player, or do you want a simulationist wargame.

What puzzles me in this discussion though is the focus solely on the offence side - "I want my dudes to shoot at anything I want". But this coin has two sides - your opponent will shoot at whatever he likes and there is nothing you can do about it. Good target priority mechanics, especially combined with firing arcs, introduce ways of manipulating the board state from defence perspective and results in a fencing-like experience. [to be clear, I don't mean that introducing just this sort of mechanic without addressing other problems would magically turn 40k into a proper wargame, but it's a start]

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/07 11:59:39


 
   
Made in ca
Decrepit Dakkanaut





I've found the best way to do these things is, instead of having some grand, architected plan, play calvinball with your models and a friend. As in, do something fun, and then write that down so other people can have fun in the same way.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






Changing topic a bit...

Surpression

The current thing I'm wracking my brain over is trying to add some sort of suppression rule to ProHammer. The one we have in place isn't really engaging or interesting enough in its current form - so it either needs to go or get transformed into something better.

I like Epic's approach where units accrue blast markers, which is similar to the system in Bolt Action IIRC.

I was thinking of having a system where when X happens the unit accrues a suppression marker, and each suppression marker is a penalty to a units leadership tests (for all types of Ld, psychic tests, split fire tests, casualty, pinning, etc). Suppression markers would be cleared or removed when Y happens.

Trying to figure out good conditions for X (when you gain a marker) and Y (when you lose markers).

Ideas for X (gaining markers), could be based on using one of the following:

(1) If a unit is hit more times by one firing unit than it has models (or wounds). This would better reflect a volume of fire, even if it isn’t that lethal, from forcing suppression.

Or... (2) If a unit is wounded a certain number of times (pre armor save) by one unit’s shooting. I.e., if a unit takes wounds equal to at least half the units’s current strength. This would represent units taking sufficient volume and/or strength of fire such that it poses a real threat.

Or... (3) If a unit suffers a casualty. This is pretty straightforward, but would also trigger from single-shot high power weapons more readily.

I was then thinking that once a unit accumulated X suppression markers (say 3?), you’d be forced to take a pinning test. If passed, the unit loses a marker and continues as normal. If the unit fails, they become pinned and lose a marker as well. Once pinned, units don’t gain additional suppression markers.

Suppression markers could also be cleared in the following situations:

(*) The unit passes a morale test (casualty test, break test, etc)

(*) The unit becomes engaged in melee combat

(*) The unit forgoes it’s moving and/or shooting to rally and remove one or two suppression tokens.

Obviously would need to account for suppression and fearless units or those immune to pinning.

- Fearless units would just ignore the Ld penalty during morale tests, since they automatically pass those. They would still be affected by the penalty for other Ld-based tests.

- Rules like ATSKNF would work well. Marines automatically pass pinning tests but they still need to take casualty tests and could be subject to the morale impacts of suppression. This could make it so that they would fall back more often, but since they automatically regroup after falling back they’d clear the suppression markers quickly.

Thoughts?





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





Part of being pinned is keeping your head down to ensure it remains attached to your body. I've often thought that Fearless units in 40k should suffer some sort of extra attrition for not being pinned.

Likewise I like the idea of 'flinching,' also from Andy Chamber's Starship Troopers, whereby you can save something that isn't going to vaporize you by immediately moving 2" away from the attacker.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

Mezmorki wrote:I like Epic's approach where units accrue blast markers, which is similar to the system in Bolt Action IIRC.


I think Epic's system is straightforward and intuitive, and would be a good base for 40K. Each time an infantry formation comes under fire it receives a blast marker. Each time it takes a casualty, it receives a blast market. Each blast marker on a unit prevents a model from shooting. If the number of blast markers equals or exceeds the number of stands remaining, the unit is broken (in this context it would probably be pinning instead). Simple, straightforward, easy to track.

This system makes suppression an important part of the game without it being separate from killing things. It also innately accounts for the resilience of a target unit, and makes units degrade gracefully in response to fire rather than a binary fine/pinned.

Overall it's maybe a little too deterministic for my taste, but I like it as a starting point. You could also keep the counters but have pinning be an outcome of the morale check; something like using the ratio of suppression markers to models in the unit as a penalty to the Ld test (eg more suppression markers than models = -2), and then failing your Ld test by 1-3 means pinned and 4+ means broken or something like that. That would help make morale less binary, make morale something you're more likely to fail if you keep a unit in combat rather than taking time to rally, and tie pinning into the existing morale system rather than implementing it as a separate thing.

Nurglitch wrote:Part of being pinned is keeping your head down to ensure it remains attached to your body. I've often thought that Fearless units in 40k should suffer some sort of extra attrition for not being pinned.

Likewise I like the idea of 'flinching,' also from Andy Chamber's Starship Troopers, whereby you can save something that isn't going to vaporize you by immediately moving 2" away from the attacker.


For reference, flinching was a rule where if a model survived a hit by passing its save, it was moved 2" from the firing unit.

I like a lot about the SST system, but I don't think flinching would be appropriate to 40K. Imagine a unit of Marines getting pushed off objectives because they're getting bombarded with largely ineffectual lasgun fire, while Guardsmen never flinch because they don't get any saves to begin with. It's a great rule in the context of SST and leads to some fun cinematic moments where the MI hold the Bugs back by weight of fire, but that's a different style of game from 40K.

   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






 catbarf wrote:
Mezmorki wrote:I like Epic's approach where units accrue blast markers, which is similar to the system in Bolt Action IIRC.


I think Epic's system is straightforward and intuitive, and would be a good base for 40K. Each time an infantry formation comes under fire it receives a blast marker. Each time it takes a casualty, it receives a blast market. Each blast marker on a unit prevents a model from shooting. If the number of blast markers equals or exceeds the number of stands remaining, the unit is broken (in this context it would probably be pinning instead). Simple, straightforward, easy to track.

This system makes suppression an important part of the game without it being separate from killing things. It also innately accounts for the resilience of a target unit, and makes units degrade gracefully in response to fire rather than a binary fine/pinned.

Overall it's maybe a little too deterministic for my taste, but I like it as a starting point. You could also keep the counters but have pinning be an outcome of the morale check; something like using the ratio of suppression markers to models in the unit as a penalty to the Ld test (eg more suppression markers than models = -2), and then failing your Ld test by 1-3 means pinned and 4+ means broken or something like that. That would help make morale less binary, make morale something you're more likely to fail if you keep a unit in combat rather than taking time to rally, and tie pinning into the existing morale system rather than implementing it as a separate thing.

^Nice. That's satisfyingly straight forward.

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
Decrepit Dakkanaut





A Plague Marine or Kardain might be able to shrug off a wound, but getting blasted in the face gives them pause. Getting hit by lasguns isn't a problem. Getting wounded by lasguns is, even if your armour allows you to fight on.

That's why I would amend the Epic version of blast markers to be wounds rather than casualties, so that it scales for units of big'uns and vehicles. Wounds accounted for even if they don't actually lose wounds (saved or ignored). That's why this is wounds and not unsaved wounds or casualties.

Effect of Blast Markers
Blast markers affect a unit depending on whether it moves (or advances) in the Movement phase. If a unit moved (or advanced) in the Movement phase, then each blast marker prevents it from firing one weapon. If a unit did not move in the Movement phase, then each blast marker forces a weapon to attack at -1 to hit.

Gain Blast Markers
-Each time the unit is attacked by an enemy unit in the Shooting phase
-Each time the unit loses a wound
-Each time a Blast weapon attacks the unit
-Each time the unit is attacked by an enemy unit in the Shooting phase who can draw a straight line across the attacked unit to another enemy unit ("Crossfire")

Broken Status
Once a unit's number of blast markers is equal to or greater than the unit's remaining total of wounds, then it is broken, and must Fall Back during their Movement phase.

Lose Blast Markers
Units take a morale test in the Morale phase if they Fall Back move in the Movement phase, rolling 1D6+Leadership and removing that many blast markers.
   
Made in pl
Wicked Warp Spider





Suppression rules based on models in 40K fail with things like Tyranid Warriors - 3 model unit that should behave like elite but are surpressed easier than cannon fodder. Based on wounds are just a tad better, but also do not fit the lore/battlefield roles of various units all that well. Small elite squads are pretty much constantly suppressed, so you have to add a special rule changing how they react to suppression to half the units in the game. So instead of counting against wounds, in my system the count is against the Ld and suppression expands the list of actions that require command roll (a Ld check before actions I mentioned above) so fits nicely into existing game flow. Again, works pretty well, is non binary and while punishing, it is not outright an off switch. Another option I've added is an option to shoot only with intention to suppress - hits count double but do not deal damage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Nurglitch wrote:
A Plague Marine or Kardain might be able to shrug off a wound, but getting blasted in the face gives them pause. Getting hit by lasguns isn't a problem. Getting wounded by lasguns is, even if your armour allows you to fight on.

That's why I would amend the Epic version of blast markers to be wounds rather than casualties, so that it scales for units of big'uns and vehicles. Wounds accounted for even if they don't actually lose wounds (saved or ignored). That's why this is wounds and not unsaved wounds or casualties.

Effect of Blast Markers
Blast markers affect a unit depending on whether it moves (or advances) in the Movement phase. If a unit moved (or advanced) in the Movement phase, then each blast marker prevents it from firing one weapon. If a unit did not move in the Movement phase, then each blast marker forces a weapon to attack at -1 to hit.

Gain Blast Markers
-Each time the unit is attacked by an enemy unit in the Shooting phase
-Each time the unit loses a wound
-Each time a Blast weapon attacks the unit
-Each time the unit is attacked by an enemy unit in the Shooting phase who can draw a straight line across the attacked unit to another enemy unit ("Crossfire")

Broken Status
Once a unit's number of blast markers is equal to or greater than the unit's remaining total of wounds, then it is broken, and must Fall Back during their Movement phase.

Lose Blast Markers
Units take a morale test in the Morale phase if they Fall Back move in the Movement phase, rolling 1D6+Leadership and removing that many blast markers.

Under those rules, a 5 man Harlequin squad that is hit by a blast in a crossfire situation (even by the first firing unit) and loses just one member to it is immediately broken. Fun rule, very Elite friendly!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/07 15:39:28


 
   
Made in ca
Sureshot Kroot Hunter





 Mezmorki wrote:
Changing topic a bit...

Surpression

The current thing I'm wracking my brain over is trying to add some sort of suppression rule to ProHammer. The one we have in place isn't really engaging or interesting enough in its current form - so it either needs to go or get transformed into something better.

Thoughts?



Didn't re-post the bulk to save space, but I was thinking of something quick and clean like this:

When you take wounds to either Blast Weapons, or Suppression Weapons (Snipers and the like) you get a suppression token, also if you take 50% casualties in shooting. At the end of your opponents shooting phase you take a pinning test. LD - suppression tokens. Units that are pinned are -1 to be hit, -1 to hit, and cannot move or fire over watch. At the start of your turn you roll to rally and test - suppression again. If you fail you remove some TBD number of suppression tokens, if you pass, you remove them all and can act as normal.

That might not be exactly how I was thinking since I don't have my notes on me at the moment, but something along those lines.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/07 15:44:01


13317 4614 3375 2344 2976 1106 1755
1340 1185 1005 1180 1030  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

Nurglitch wrote:A Plague Marine or Kardain might be able to shrug off a wound, but getting blasted in the face gives them pause. Getting hit by lasguns isn't a problem. Getting wounded by lasguns is, even if your armour allows you to fight on.

That's why I would amend the Epic version of blast markers to be wounds rather than casualties, so that it scales for units of big'uns and vehicles. Wounds accounted for even if they don't actually lose wounds (saved or ignored). That's why this is wounds and not unsaved wounds or casualties.


I totally get what you're saying, but in such a system Plague Marines would be frequently subject to suppression because they survive a lot of their wounds, while Guardsmen would be less susceptible to suppression because they just die instead. I think a system where damage bouncing off your armor still suppresses you is perfect for a historical or modern wargame, but it doesn't really fit the aesthetic of 40K.

I mean, in your system, a unit of 5 Terminators that gets shot at by enough lasguns will typically fall back before they even lose a single model. But if you shoot them with plasma guns and kill 2, the remaining 3 are fine. That doesn't seem right.

   
Made in gb
Never Forget Isstvan!






Bolt Action suppression works like this:
Spoiler:
Any time a Unit is Hit, it takes a Pin Marker.
The Pin Marker causes -1 to the Unit's Ld value which stacks (i.e. 2 Pin Markers = -2 to Ld).
Pin Markers also cause -1 to Hit whenever the Unit shoots, once again stacking (i.e. 3 Pin Markers = -3 to Hit).
Pin Markers can be removed if a Unit passes an Order Test where 1 Marker is removed if successful unless a double 1 is rolled, then D6+1 Markers can be removed.
There is also the "Rally" Order, where the Unit cannot Move or Shoot but removes D6+1 Markers.

However, BA Ld values are much higher on average than in 40k with three tiers:
Spoiler:
Inexperienced - Ld 8
Regular - Ld 9
Veteran - Ld 10

As well as this, Officers provide a Ld bonus when taking Order Tests. This again has tiers:
Spoiler:
2nd Lt - +1 within 6"
1st Lt - +2 within 6"
Captain - +3 within 12"
Major - +4 within 12"

The Ld values are capped at 2 minimum and 10 maximum. So if a Regular Unit had 2 Pin Markers but was within 12" of a Captain, it would go as follows:
Spoiler:
Ld 9 - 2 = 7.
Ld 7 + 3 = 10.
Final value = 10.


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/07 16:29:18


 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






Well, plague marines are fearless, so they would never be strictly pinned or broken as a result of suppression. But suppression would mess with other leadership-based tests they might be trying to take (split fire, etc.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gert wrote:
Bolt Action suppression works like this


Thanks for the details on that!

At least in classic 3rd-th 40K editions, the leaderships are pretty comparable. Guard squad sergeants were Ld8 (ditto for Tau, Eldar Guardians). Marine Vet Sergeants were Ld9. Necrons, Chaos, were mostly Ld10. Most Tyranids were 10 or fearless if in synapse range. 8th/9th edition of 40k scaled the leadership down quite a bit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
nou wrote:
Suppression rules based on models in 40K fail with things like Tyranid Warriors - 3 model unit that should behave like elite but are surpressed easier than cannon fodder. Based on wounds are just a tad better, but also do not fit the lore/battlefield roles of various units all that well. Small elite squads are pretty much constantly suppressed, so you have to add a special rule changing how they react to suppression to half the units in the game. So instead of counting against wounds, in my system the count is against the Ld and suppression expands the list of actions that require command roll (a Ld check before actions I mentioned above) so fits nicely into existing game flow. Again, works pretty well, is non binary and while punishing, it is not outright an off switch. Another option I've added is an option to shoot only with intention to suppress - hits count double but do not deal damage.


Do you have the full rules for your system written out somewhere?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/12/07 16:43:55


Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 Mezmorki wrote:
Well, plague marines are fearless

They haven't ever been fearless or more resilient to morale than other CSM since DG got their own codex.

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

Surpression in WP: FireFight

Spoiler:

Units will be Pinned in the following situations:
Losing or drawing an Assault
Hit as part of a Shoot action by a weapon with the Pinning keyword
It received any hits as part of a Blaze Away action
It is a Vehicle wounded by an Anti-Tank weapon
It has the Fly keyword and has suffered a wound
It is a unit emerging from a destroyed transport vehicle

Place a Pin Marker next to the unit to remind all players of the unit’s current status and the unit will then automatically Hit the Dirt for free. While a unit has a Pin Marker it is Pinned.
A Pinned unit will suffer a -1 modifier to its to-hit roils in an Assault and also to any Nerve tests it makes.
A unit may only ever have one Pin marker.
Units that begin their activation Pinned will remove the Pin marker for free when they Activate, but may only perform a single short action for that activation.
Pin markers may also be removed by spending Command Points in the End Phase, or by some orders and keywords.

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Insectum7 wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
A roll to see if you can roll is just tedious game design, full stop. It adds nothing.
Oh great, I'll just declare I'm hitting and wounding my opponents models then, and I'll just leave it up to them to make save rolls.


Lol!
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






 Jidmah wrote:
 Mezmorki wrote:
Well, plague marines are fearless

They haven't ever been fearless or more resilient to morale than other CSM since DG got their own codex.


To clarify, I'm referring to the classic editions (3rd-7th). Plague Marines were fearless all that time, as were other aligned special marines (Berserkers, Noise marines, Thousand Suns, etc.)

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





 Mezmorki wrote:
Thanks for taking a look - let me know if you have other feedback as well. Curious to see how your core rules stack up as well!

Regarding reactive fire:
Only heavy weapons shooting reactive fire are subject to snap fire. Non-heavy weapons shoot using their normal BS.

The switch to have the weapons AP ignored was due to certain types of units becoming very difficult to counter given that their weapon's were ideally suited to reactive fire. For example, charging Wraithguards with Wraith Cannons becomes a death sentence for many units that specifically intended to be a counter (i.e. elite high strength and armor negating melee units). Again, we want there to be reactive fire, but we want to make sure the lethality of the game is kept in check as well.

Or are you referring to units making reactive fire only hitting on snap fire on their next turn?

Regarding overwarch:
Conceptually, if a unit is going into overwatch I imagine it's doing so with the proper situational awareness to know what the key target is it's trying to target.

Regarding Alternating Activation:
Do you have anything written up (or can you briefly share) the system you've bee using?

Here's a post describing what I've been experimenting with:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/801429.page#11253809



I borrowed the AA mechanic from Epic (90s) in addition with it´s Order system. Now to make things clear from the beginning those Orders have nothing to do with orders issues by Imp officers in later 40K editions. It goes like this:

1. Both players have already set up their forces.
2. Both players place Order counters UPSIDE DOWN next to their units. Should players dislike littering their battlefield with counters then they can also be placed on the corresponding unit cards next to the gaming table. Unit cards are index cards with a unit´s profile written upon it. It takes a pencil, a range ruler, an eraser and a little patience to create them so I am not dependent on GW to provide them via box sets.
3. Those Order counters represent either: First Fire, Advance or Charge. When a unit is activated it can only act within the limits of those actions. However I also want to include more options from the Epic Armageddon ruleset.
4: Turn 1: Both players roll for Initiative. Winner MUST activate a single unit of his force. Then the opponent activates one.
5. Next turn: Place Order counts like above. No initiative roll is needed to see who goes first. Instead the person who used the last activation in the previous turn AUTOMATICALLY loses initiative. This abolishes the phenomenon of the dreaded double turn which plague AoS.

About written stuff:
Nope, nothing yet. I have used either a custom variation of 2nd or 3rd-6th of 40K for my games with the above mentioned AA mechanic.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/07 19:06:22


 
   
Made in pl
Wicked Warp Spider





 Mezmorki wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
nou wrote:
Suppression rules based on models in 40K fail with things like Tyranid Warriors - 3 model unit that should behave like elite but are surpressed easier than cannon fodder. Based on wounds are just a tad better, but also do not fit the lore/battlefield roles of various units all that well. Small elite squads are pretty much constantly suppressed, so you have to add a special rule changing how they react to suppression to half the units in the game. So instead of counting against wounds, in my system the count is against the Ld and suppression expands the list of actions that require command roll (a Ld check before actions I mentioned above) so fits nicely into existing game flow. Again, works pretty well, is non binary and while punishing, it is not outright an off switch. Another option I've added is an option to shoot only with intention to suppress - hits count double but do not deal damage.


Do you have the full rules for your system written out somewhere?


Not in a "dakka-proof" version - this is played by a small group of like minded players who are mature enough to discuss eventual ambiguities on the fly and it is still late WIP, with few dozen games played with it (I think it is around v0.8 for the core rules and a bit less for four faction lists available ATM) so there was no need to write it down in a bullet proof, pseudo programming language yet (especially that I'm not native english speaker). At the current stage it is completely different wargame built around GW model range and parts of the lore, but it's no longer 40K since it has no Space Marines nor the Emperor in it . Except for small parts like suppression or Ld checks above it is not portable to 3rd-7th engine. I'll PM you with more details to not derail the thread.

   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





nou wrote:
 Mezmorki wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
nou wrote:
Suppression rules based on models in 40K fail with things like Tyranid Warriors - 3 model unit that should behave like elite but are surpressed easier than cannon fodder. Based on wounds are just a tad better, but also do not fit the lore/battlefield roles of various units all that well. Small elite squads are pretty much constantly suppressed, so you have to add a special rule changing how they react to suppression to half the units in the game. So instead of counting against wounds, in my system the count is against the Ld and suppression expands the list of actions that require command roll (a Ld check before actions I mentioned above) so fits nicely into existing game flow. Again, works pretty well, is non binary and while punishing, it is not outright an off switch. Another option I've added is an option to shoot only with intention to suppress - hits count double but do not deal damage.


Do you have the full rules for your system written out somewhere?


Not in a "dakka-proof" version - this is played by a small group of like minded players who are mature enough to discuss eventual ambiguities on the fly and it is still late WIP, with few dozen games played with it (I think it is around v0.8 for the core rules and a bit less for four faction lists available ATM) so there was no need to write it down in a bullet proof, pseudo programming language yet (especially that I'm not native english speaker). At the current stage it is completely different wargame built around GW model range and parts of the lore, but it's no longer 40K since it has no Space Marines nor the Emperor in it . Except for small parts like suppression or Ld checks above it is not portable to 3rd-7th engine. I'll PM you with more details to not derail the thread.



I intend to group the ease of suppressing a unit according to it´s size trait:

1. Swarm (Necron scarabs, Ripper swarms, etc.)
2. Small (Grots, Ratlings, etc) & Medium (Standard Humanoid Infantry, Bikes, etc)
3. Monstrous Infantry (Ogryn, Tyranid Warrior, etc.)
4. Large (Dreadnought, Greater Daemon, Vehicles, Tanks, etc)

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 catbarf wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:A Plague Marine or Kardain might be able to shrug off a wound, but getting blasted in the face gives them pause. Getting hit by lasguns isn't a problem. Getting wounded by lasguns is, even if your armour allows you to fight on.

That's why I would amend the Epic version of blast markers to be wounds rather than casualties, so that it scales for units of big'uns and vehicles. Wounds accounted for even if they don't actually lose wounds (saved or ignored). That's why this is wounds and not unsaved wounds or casualties.


I totally get what you're saying, but in such a system Plague Marines would be frequently subject to suppression because they survive a lot of their wounds, while Guardsmen would be less susceptible to suppression because they just die instead. I think a system where damage bouncing off your armor still suppresses you is perfect for a historical or modern wargame, but it doesn't really fit the aesthetic of 40K.

I mean, in your system, a unit of 5 Terminators that gets shot at by enough lasguns will typically fall back before they even lose a single model. But if you shoot them with plasma guns and kill 2, the remaining 3 are fine. That doesn't seem right.

What's not right about it? In one case the squad is prevented from advancing due to a firehose of lasgun fire, and a plethora of wounds, and in the other case the squad is not suppressed because only two guys are hurt and the rest aren't.
   
Made in gb
Never Forget Isstvan!






From my perspective, having a unit lose models and be less effective is preferable to having a unit unharmed and unable to do anything.
It's not an easy situation to resolve because why would Terminators fear Lasgun fire and duck into cover? It won't likely harm them and serves only as a slight annoyance. A volley of Plasma fire is a serious concern because it can and will harm/kill a Terminator.
For Guardsmen, a Lasgun bolt is a potential death sentence so ducking in cover is a legitimate choice. Plasma even more so.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Yeah but you should lose models via the actions of your opponent using structures inherent to causing casualties - toughness values, wounds, saving throws and damage - not to instant remove model rules because you rolled badly.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in gb
Never Forget Isstvan!






I'm not exactly sure what you're meaning here. Could you elaborate, please?
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Combat Attrition is a mechanic that ignores every method of causing casualties in favour of "you just remove models". Relative strengths, toughnesses, wounds, saves and damage values mean nothing in the face of the all consuming combat attrition test.

I don't support a morale system that reduces effectiveness by removing more models. As I've stated probably in this thread, but certainly in a number of others, it's a punishing 'lose more' mechanic that penalises a player when they're already suffering.

I mean there are some units where it's just not worth the risk taking anything that could suffer from even failing a morale test, let alone combat attrition. Points efficiencies aside, why would anyone risk taking 3 Invader ATVs in a single unit if a failed dice roll could result in 1 or even 2 T5 W8 models vanishing into thin air? Your opponent would be cheering, as that's a lot of durability they didn't have to chew through all gone with a single dice roll.

There's also the concept that the morale system should instead be a suppression system, thereby showing that squads that come under fire and take casualties hit the deck in an attempt further incoming fire, rather than running wildly off into the night, whether they be Gretchin or Heavy Intercessors.

That does mean splitting up the way casualties work in shooting vs close combat, because I don't think a unit fighting for their lives in close combat would suddenly hit the deck if a few of them got stabbed to death.

So there needs to be some sort of fleeing from combat mechanic where the opponent can catch you and cause further damage, but were I to do it I would ensure two things:

1. It's not an all or nothing. I hated Sweeping Advance rules that just insta-wiped out units when they were caught both for the aforementioned ignoring the basic methods of causing casualties and because of the way it allowed for extreme situations that didn't make sense (a single Gretchin catching and wiping out several Chaos Terminators, for example). Doesn't matter how rare that situation might be, the fact that it was even possible in the first place is a failing of the rules on a conceptual level.

2. To repeat myself again (and again, and again! ), it would have to exist within the confines of the existing rules for how casualties are caused. Thankfully there's something wonderful that, whilst overused generally, works perfectly in this situation: Mortal wounds. Catch the unit, they suffer X mortal wounds, and are stuck in combat.

I'd even extend that to falling back. Want to fall back? Risk of being caught. Want to ensure that you Fall Back goes off without a hitch? Make "Order Withdrawal" a strat that costs CP, but the enemy can't catch you. Have no CP but still need to get out of dodge? Disorganised Rout, a 0 CP strat that sees you auto-get away, no chance to be caught, but you suffer MW in the attempt. There's an argument to be made that falling back should be a 0 cost strat as well, but that's going beyond the scope of what I'm saying by a bit more than I already have.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/12/08 15:13:08


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: