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.

I was kind of thinking around the fact that it does not really reflect the changing nature of turns etc.. Why not allow a unit to move, shoot, or assault instead of having seperate phases?

What kind of rules problem would you run into?


I can think of these 3 so far that would need to be implemented.


H. Weapon Cannot Fire if a squad made a move or assault. H. Weapon that fire may not make a Assault, or Move that turn.


I just think it would make the game more fluid and tactical depending on what moved etc... using counters it would not be difficult.. A unit moves put a move counter by it, it shoots put a shooting counter by etc..



When your done shooting assaulting and moving with your units end your turn, Hell I think it be cool if it was more like individual per squad , I move a squad, he moves a squad, etc...

Maybe if each individual unit went through its own little set of phases it would turn out better. No need for all this memorization and such.

Yeah it seems it would make things a little different Tactics wise , allow things to be more fluid i guess.

It's your pick a squad move / shoot/ Assault . Move to the next

It would definitely change tactics in the game, such as having one squad assault to draw a unit out of the way so other units could shoot at the unit behind them without granting cover, or being able to shoot a unit that you couldn't quite make it into assault with, as opposed to not shooting them so they don't remove the closest model making sure you can't (when you weren't sure they were in range or had to roll terrain) are things that immediately pop into mind.

EDIT : Actually, thinking about it, probably not. Theirs a few things it would very dramatically change, making to powerful for some, and less so for others. Such as hit and run. Assault a unit, then pull away so that someone else can shoot it. And with the ability to walk things off the board in this game definitely not. Assault in with something nasty, force a hard leadership test, they either get run down, or they successfully retreat. If they retreat, then you can shoot them, and since a unit that's falling back automatically fails any leadership test (and they'll now have another one to take) you can retreat the unit right off the board to easily. Up to 6d6 of movement if it's a fast choice. And then move another unit up next to them afterward to make sure they can't regroup. So no, not without some serious rework of the basic rules.

This works really well in Starship Troopers. There's a 'Ready' action that, while doing nothing itself, lets a player unlock special moves like jumping, hovering, setting off bombs, using special weapons, and improving the firing of regular weapons. Basically you get two actions (move, shoot, charge, ready) per unit, and if an enemy model finishes within 10" of a unit they can make a reaction (shoot, and then special actions depending on the army). If the unit was set on Ready at the end of the previous turn, reacting prevents them from using that in the next turn.

It makes for a very fluid and interesting game.

I think it would make the game a lot quicker if you took turns with each unit and disregarded phases altogether. After each of your units has done something , the turn is over and then Iniitiave whatever is Rerolled. So you have the chance of going twice in a row.


I think fluidity is important, It would be nice for a complete change of the basic rules. Sort of a 2nd to 3rd style.

In Epic: Armageddon, you activate units for combo-actions, or they just make a Hold action and turn the Initiative over to your opponent. After activating one unit, you can try to activate another unit at a modifier and then it automatically goes to your opponent.

In games like Crossfire, you keep activating units and the opposing player keeps interrupting (like when a unit crosses a line of fire) until an interruption meets a success criterion, and then it's a turn-over, like Bloodbowl except without the limit on the number of actions that can be done.

the priority phase in LOTR works well with 40k it takes a little time to get use to it though.

Deathmachine:

How does it work well? I'm not saying it doesn't, but I think for the purposes of this thread it might be something to cash out what value of 'works well' you're using so that we can relate it to the topic of mixing up actions in Warhammer 40k.

priority: both players role first at the start of each turn. who ever roles higher goes first. and i guess i shouldnt of said just priority it the whole turn system from lotr you each move first then both of you take turns shooting and then you have close combat. so you would be able to move out of a fire line of your opponent it will make you think more about where to move and who would be able to counter your move. does that help nurglitch?

Deathmachine:

It helps a bit. I'm not sure it explains how the LOTR priority system works well with the other elements of Warhammer 40k though.

It would also help if you use capital letters, but I'm just an old bastard that finds it easier to read English with proper capitalization.

well i guess you should all buy a mini lotr rule book it would be worth it.

it helps with the elements of 40k because it changes the very outcome of the game, you might get priority for 3 turns in a row but then on the 4th turn your opponent wins it and he gets to go first changing your game plan for worse or better. In other words the game could change on any turn, having to role a die for each turn makes the game very interesting.

All of these ideas work great as house rules for 1-on-1 gaming. Where they have issues is in mass battle. For example, it's nice to have the other side complete movement totally before anybody moves to shooting, etc. That way, there's less remembering required.

There are some games similar to this that have one large game turn and each unit has its own mini turn. It would be similar to having each unit roll a dice at the beginning of game turn and add some stat, lets say initiative, then work its way down from the highest number to the lowest. Units that rolled the same would act at the same time, moving, shooting, assaulting, etc.

Its an idea that has almost brought me to try a couple other minis games...almost.

JohnHwangDD:

You don't need to remember things: in Epic: Armageddon, for example, you can use those green Orders dice to keep a track of whose done what. Basically any memory deficit can be made up with chits, which I'm biased for because I absolutely love the tokens that companies like Litko Aerosystems can produce.

Yeah, I know about using pennies / tokens / order dice.

The problem is that you need to handle placing and removing tokens for everything, rather than just playing the game.

KISS.

I personally find it easier and simply to play games that track all of the information using objects on the board, so having twice as many pieces but half as much to remember is simpler for me. YMMV.

I like it when the game itself tracks game state, and doesn't require anything more, to the point that state changes are an exception.

I think it's pretty easy to keep track of what you have moved in a turn and what your oppenent has.

This is for switching around. Initially it would work like this.

Turn 1
Roll initiative

Pick a unit follow the phase rule of move, shoot , assault.

Opponent picks a unit. Does the same

You only need one marker to do this.

After all units have either passed or performed a action end of turn.

Reroll initiative.

You could possibly run into problems with the assault phase however.

You can even add in rules for larger scale battles with mini phases.

-1000 one per -1000 to 2000 2 per 2000 to 3000 3 etc...


This would make it so you move your squads more in tandem and supporting each other.

It would also add tactics such as hold, more armies would want to be reactionary.

I just think it would make the game more in depth tactical wise instead of spam spam spam spam. As you have to anticipate almost immediately and react immediately to what your opponent has done.


edit:

I enjoy the rules as they are now ,but overall 40k is not really a tactical game. Especially when you consider CC is overall stronger than shooting in terms of destructive power. One of the strongest strategy is " I have this rock to your paper "

How would you resolve assaults? When would they be resolved?

Have you considered that shooting and close combat even out because there are more turns of shooting and close combat is riskier than shooting?

Close Combat could be worked out just as it is; Defenders still get to react etc.. I dont really see any neccessary changes needing to be made to close combat.


If you had a squad with more that was charged by more than one unit just work them out completely seperately.

It would actually make Ganging up on someone pretty good but also still allow the defenders to attack back.


I dunno seems like it would work just like it normally would.

I think it would be overall "better" as if did charge a unit you would have to take into account other units being able to attack you or countercharge you immediately.

So, close combat would be worked out at the end of the turn? Could you assault multiple units in a turn? Would it be possible for unit A to assault and destroyed unit B, get assault and destroyed by unit C, which in turn is assaulted and destroyed by unit D?

What I'm worried about is that assaults are last after moving and shooting because if you get locked into a close combat, you lose both your ability to move and shoot if it's your following player turn.

I would resolve it right then , allowing a consolidation afterewards.


A unit decides to move, shoot if it has assault weapons , then resolve assault against a unit.


If a unit is attacked by multiple units , the the defenders participate in combat versus the unit that assaulted them.


It would balance toward the defenders in the fact that they could still get ganged up on but not in such a large way that would defeat them. Does it make sense that the other guys do not fight ? No, but there are a lot things that do not make sense.

Logically, it should be:

1A assaults 2B (2B sits there and takes it)
2C does something more important
1D assaults 2B (2B sits and takes it)
2E does something else
1F assaults 2B (again, 2B does nothing)
2B *finally* attacks as it pleases vs 1A, 1D, and/or 1F...

This preserves the unitary actions of each unit. Allowing 2B repeated swingbacks doesn't make sense.

It doesn't make "sense" but it is fair. The other option is to just not allow you to attack back or attack with half your attacks against a second charge, each time the unit being charged reduces its attacks by half rounded down.


It makes ganging up on someone brutal and overwhelming but also makes it so that a unit does get some defense.


I dunno I honestly could go either way with that, I mean I want to provide a set rule set of alternates that still uses the base rules for combat personally and not "add" anything other than the ones I have added.



Here is another one that I would like to see though.


The return of Overwatch. A squad may delay it's action to react to the movement , assault or shooting. This action occurs before that event occurs in response to. The unit that is on overwatch, may make a either a move, a assault, or shooting attack or psychic attack. The action occurs before the opponent moves his models for assault ,moving , and before shooting is declared. When it is your turn to select a unit the unit that is on overwatch loses this status but may be selected again to remain on overwatch.



I loved the "idea " behind overwatch, but did not like it's implementation.


If a move like this were placed in normal 5th edition rules, what would it do, it would still allow you to move out of phase and be reactionary to your opponent. Add a little bit more tactial maneuvering.


I honestly think something like this could easily be added with out having to change much in the ways of rules.

i have tried this for real with a friend and you will find that the person know goes first will almost always win. it's just not logical to me, you are allowing some to shoot move, shoot and assualt with little restriction.

What we've tried in "friendly" games:

Each turn, both players move, shoot, and assault. Unit order is done by unit Initiative, going from highest to lowest. A unit's Initiative is equal to the lowest Initiative of any model in the unit. Vehicles, artillery and other units without an Initiative score are assumed to have an Initiative of 0.

In the Movement phase, first both players deploy any new reserve units, starting with the highest unit Initiative and going down to the lowest (although in general, if they're too far away from each other to really matter which goes first, it's fine for both players to deploy at the same time). Then, going from highest unit Initiative to lowest, each unit is moved. Again, if units are more than a foot or so apart, it's acceptable to just go ahead and move them all at once on both sides to speed up the game. If two units have the same Initiative, either move them at the same time, or if movement order is important, roll off. To denote which units have moved and which units still need to make a move, we use special 'movement' markers (or a D6 turned to the '6' position if we don't have any) placed in the middle of the unit, near the unit's commander.

In the Shooting phase, each unit moves in Initiative order. Units with the same Initiative score shoot at the same time. On each unit's turn to shoot, it decides whether to shoot or run, measures, and resolves its attacks. Yes, this means that lower-Initiative units may be killed before they ever get a chance to return fire. Certain special powers require a slight amount of modification to make this work. For example, the Pavane of Slaanesh and Lash of Submission powers, both of which allow you to move an enemy model during the shooting phase, may only be moved against units with lower Initiative. However, they count as that unit's shooting action, forcing that unit to Run during the attacker's Initiative. Resolve any morale checks as they become necessary during the Shooting phase. To denote which units have fired and which units still need to make an attack, we use movement markers again.

In the Assault phase, each unit engages in charges and resolves its attacks in Initiative order. After all units have finished the Assault phase, resolve any morale checks and consolidations in Initiative order before proceeding to the next turn's Movement phase. To denote which units have assaulted and which units still need to make an attack, we use movement markers again. (It's helpful to use different-colored markers for each side, so that units in assault can be distinguished from each other. When using D6 as movement markers, it's helpful to place the D6 *on* the unit's commander.)

Obviously, this mode of play makes Initiative a much more valuable trait. It also requires a bit of finesse with certain rules and units, which we generally resolve on a case-by-case basis.

I think tactically and overall a single turn where alternating would be somewhat quicker games, I would toss out initiative.


I'd honestly get rid of chance in reserves, when it was your turn you could bring a unit of reserves on.

It just occurs in the second overall turn.


Being able to hold actions, move and respond more fluidily to your opponent , it would be intersting.


The biggest thing would be resolving Assaults.

HI all.
I belive a new more interactive game turn mechanic would work well for 40k.
However the rest of the rules need ovehauling too.

Its probably better to agree on a game play stlye (type and scale of warfare)you want , and use the most suitable mechanics to
achive this.

Starting with regimental level Napoleonic rules set, converting them to modern skirmish, then to platoon level modern type warfare, has not ben kind to 40k game play IMO.

In the few limited playtests I did on my alternative rules,using alternating unit activation.
I found a combination of 2 of the following actions , Move ,Shoot, Ready to be adequate.
Assaults happen when you move in to base contact with an enemy unit.
Both units are 'locked in combat' , and results are resolves at the end of the game turn.

This is to make assaults a viable tactic to 'steal' enemy unit actions.

Also having ONE stat line to cover ALL units/elements seems to make life easier.

Why have differnt stats for vehicles ?

TTFN
Lanrak.

Imo, all that tactical thinking would make a game long, then you'd have to remember who shot and who assaulted and what-not. It mixes things up. I'd prefer the phases where they are.