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 gb
Preparing the Invasion of Terra






Ok but I'm not sure how that's relevant to the criticism of Nurglitchs "Blast Marker" system.
I'm not saying Combat Attrition is good or that things should never change before you put words in my mouth again, but why should Plague Marines suffer more under suppression than a Guardsman squad? In a similar scenario to the one seen earlier, if a Plague Marine squad is hit by a Blast in a Crossfire situation, suffers a wound but then ignores it with Disgustingly Resilient, it gets 4 Markers even though it's taken no damage. If a Guardsman squad has the same but takes the wound because they don't have DR, it takes 4 Markers. Both units are equally affected despite one taking damage and the other not.
The Guardsman rightfully lose models and suffer the effects of suppression because they are baseline humans in flak gear. The Plague Marines lose no models because they are far tougher and can shrug off damage but still suffer the same effects because? Sure the Guardsmen are going to Break before the Plague Marines but due to the stacking nature of Marker debuffs, the Plague Marine unit will be consistently bad throughout the whole game.
Suppression would have to be caused by unsaved wounds to bring any sort of fairness to the system and even then it still wouldn't work all that well IMO since most units will end up spending the game not actually doing anything. That's all well and good if you're recreating real-world scenarios where everyone is the same sack of meat in a uniform but that's not 40k.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






^^^^^ All great points HBMC

I'll chime in on ProHammer for reference:

We too hated the old sweeping advance instant death rules. But there is some logic and rational to the idea of it. So in ProHammer it works like this:

If a unit loses a melee engagement and fails their break test, they must perform a fall back move. Falling back units move 2d6" towards their table edge and must try to end their turn further away from all enemy units to the extent possible (more nuances described in the rules).

The victorious unit can either consolidate up to 3" (letting the retreating unit go or moving into engagement range with another unit), or "pursue". If they chose to consolidate and had charged this turn, they have to take a restraint test (basic leadership test) to resist the urge to chase down the fleeing unit.

To pursue, the unit likewise makes a 2D6" move towards the falling back unit. After making the move, each pursuing model that manages to get into base-to-base contact makes 1 hit that automatically wounds with no armor save (effectively a mortal wound, invulnerable saves can be made). If any models are still in engagement range (base to base or within 2") then the respective units are re-engaged and will fight another round of melee combat next turn.

ProHammer also allows units to withdraw from close combat during the charge sub-phase of their own turn (rather than at the start of the turn like in 9th). This can result in the enemy unit pursuing or consolidating. But it also means you can charge into the engagement with a 3rd unit, to tie the enemy up, and let your original unit fallback without being pursued. This can make for some interesting tactical considerations!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/08 15:48:27


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





Getting back the suppression mechanic, my group uses one that is ok but could certainly be improved.

Currently, a unit is forced to take a morale test if it loses 25% of its current strength. If it fails, it breaks and falls back (or is pinned, depending on what weapons caused casualties). If it passes but only by the exact roll necessary, it becomes suppressed.

(I'll skip how suppression affects a unit for now; this is more about what should possibly lead to a unit becoming suppressed if under fire.)

All additional units firing at the target unit count as a DM for the suppression roll. So if 2 extra units shot at a target forced into a morale test, the unit would need to roll under its normal leadership by 2 to avoid being suppressed.

This approach covers a few bases but misses a few more and is a tad wonky. It's an abstract attempt to simulate crossfire to some degree, all the while resolving the situation with a single roll.

There is no one certain mechanic that reliably covers all situations; as for writing rules its a balance of finding mechanics that are somewhat intuitive, playable and fair to the different units involved.

Other posters have listed very reasonable possibilities as to what should contribute to a unit becoming suppressed. Personally I'd like to make ACTUAL crossfire a thing, whereas a unit taking fire from multiple enemies beyond a 90 degree arc suffers a DM or in another matter. This would encourage maneuver from both players but perhaps this all should be brought up in Proposed Rules.

Regardless, I appreciate all the conversation considering this topic and thank the OP for starting it.

   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






What is DM? I feel like I should know this.

Edit: I'm on my phone and Dakka doesn't give the tooltip.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/08 17:28:00


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





 amanita wrote:
Getting back the suppression mechanic, my group uses one that is ok but could certainly be improved.

Currently, a unit is forced to take a morale test if it loses 25% of its current strength. If it fails, it breaks and falls back (or is pinned, depending on what weapons caused casualties). If it passes but only by the exact roll necessary, it becomes suppressed.

(I'll skip how suppression affects a unit for now; this is more about what should possibly lead to a unit becoming suppressed if under fire.)

All additional units firing at the target unit count as a DM for the suppression roll. So if 2 extra units shot at a target forced into a morale test, the unit would need to roll under its normal leadership by 2 to avoid being suppressed.

This approach covers a few bases but misses a few more and is a tad wonky. It's an abstract attempt to simulate crossfire to some degree, all the while resolving the situation with a single roll.

There is no one certain mechanic that reliably covers all situations; as for writing rules its a balance of finding mechanics that are somewhat intuitive, playable and fair to the different units involved.

Other posters have listed very reasonable possibilities as to what should contribute to a unit becoming suppressed. Personally I'd like to make ACTUAL crossfire a thing, whereas a unit taking fire from multiple enemies beyond a 90 degree arc suffers a DM or in another matter. This would encourage maneuver from both players but perhaps this all should be brought up in Proposed Rules.

Regardless, I appreciate all the conversation considering this topic and thank the OP for starting it.



I have it at 120 degrees - the second unit firing gets BS bonus and then any further unit gets the same bonus regardless of the angle. But knowing how modern community hates any kinds of templates/angles this isn't something that would be widely accepted. With GW's 180 degrees for GSC is easier to avoid needles debates, however this is very hard to achieve without "place anywhere more than 9" " rules.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






 Mezmorki wrote:
What is DM? I feel like I should know this.

Edit: I'm on my phone and Dakka doesn't give the tooltip.
Reading it in the context, I think Dice Modifier? Each additional engaging unit appears to modify the suppression roll by 1.

 amanita wrote:
Getting back the suppression mechanic, my group uses one that is ok but could certainly be improved.

Currently, a unit is forced to take a morale test if it loses 25% of its current strength. If it fails, it breaks and falls back (or is pinned, depending on what weapons caused casualties). If it passes but only by the exact roll necessary, it becomes suppressed.

(I'll skip how suppression affects a unit for now; this is more about what should possibly lead to a unit becoming suppressed if under fire.)

All additional units firing at the target unit count as a DM for the suppression roll. So if 2 extra units shot at a target forced into a morale test, the unit would need to roll under its normal leadership by 2 to avoid being suppressed.

This approach covers a few bases but misses a few more and is a tad wonky. It's an abstract attempt to simulate crossfire to some degree, all the while resolving the situation with a single roll.

There is no one certain mechanic that reliably covers all situations; as for writing rules its a balance of finding mechanics that are somewhat intuitive, playable and fair to the different units involved.

Other posters have listed very reasonable possibilities as to what should contribute to a unit becoming suppressed. Personally I'd like to make ACTUAL crossfire a thing, whereas a unit taking fire from multiple enemies beyond a 90 degree arc suffers a DM or in another matter. This would encourage maneuver from both players but perhaps this all should be brought up in Proposed Rules.

Regardless, I appreciate all the conversation considering this topic and thank the OP for starting it.


That looks mechanically simple, which is nice. But I'm trying to think about how abuseable it might be when MSU squads Split Firing are involved. (Spread your shots around multiple units to increase Suppression Modifiers all around). But maybe there's something I'm missing? I'm having trouble coming up with a solution that doesn't involve a lot of bookkeeping, like keeping track of number of incoming models vs. number of models in the target unit, or something.

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





 Gert wrote:
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.

More broadly, why are the Plasma Guns hitting first? What's the strategic situation, and how does that influence the player's decisions next turn? Where units are more easily suppressed than they are killed, then suddenly players are incentivized to spread their fire to control the game instead of resorting to killing the other guy first. That in turn makes target priority more interesting, as you're balancing killing them with the risk of retaliation. Makes for nice incentives to have mixed squads of heavy weapon specialists as heavy bolters and the like provide suppression while lascannons and multi-meltas provide the damage. Suddenly Imperial Guardsmen have a purpose, to control the board through weight of lasgun fire instead of being wound markers for special or heavy weapons.

Not to mention that the Plague Marines are going to be taking wounds at a considerably lower rate than the Guardsmen. Suppose two squads of 9 exchanged fire across an open field, bolters to lasguns. The Plague Marines can expect to inflict ~8 wounds or so at rapid fire range, before saves, and ignoring extra variables. They can expect ~4-5 wounds in return. So they're giving 9 blast markers and receiving 6 in return. Damage-wise it's 5-wounds to 0-2 wounds, and hence ~5 casualties to 0-1 Plague Marine. Well, if they both go first. The Plague Marines are at an advantage going first and second, since in the first case they should break the enemy before they even get to attack, and in the second case 6 blast markers are a -1 to hit for 6 models if they stand and shoot. They're still not going to lose this firefight. They should still inflict 6-7 wounds even with the lasguns dazzling them, if they stand still and shoot back. That may still break the survivors.

Add a second Imperial Guard squad and it gets interesting, as two of them attacking first should break the Plague Marines, but need to be in position at the right time.

Why is that interesting? Because we need to understand how those Imperial Guard squads have the Plague Marines in rapid fire range. The conditions may be more or less ideal, pushing the odds up and down slightly, but the basic rate will be two squads of Imperial Guard will be able to pin down a Plague Marine squad (or spur them to a charge, as blast markers don't affect assaults, this is why assault exists, because if exchanging fire is bad idea, maybe you can beat them up close).

Having been broken, what are the Plague Marines to do? They can make a Fall Back move, and drop most or all of their blast markers. If they were Death Guard I would just reform my unit coherency and try to make room for another squad, but less cray-cray Plague Marines might move back out of the way of another squad of Plague Marines stepping into their place from out of line of sight. You know, take a breather.

So much like heat in BattleTech you have to manage the break-points of the troops under your command, so that your army can fight as effectively as possible for tempo armies. It's also a curb on the outrageous lethality of everyone and their grandmother. It also gives a good reason for transports, as they are tough and can keep moving troops forward, like armour should. Plus you get to add colour to the board in the form of blast markers, which add a certain "Wait, people are shooting at us?" vibe to the game.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





@ Mezmorki Yes, Insectum7 is correct that DM means die modifier.

@ nou 120 degrees is interesting. How do you determine the arc? Do you choose specific models to orient the angle, such as the nearest enemy model to the cross-firing units? When determining the 120 degrees is that for any model or does the entire unit need to be 120+ degrees over?

@Insectum7 We've never noticed too much abuse from MSU in this system; it's rare when more than 3 units have LOS to a target unit. And the results still depend on causing at least 25% casualties. I wonder if suppression should also be possible merely from volume of fire, but that can skew the result by rewarding weaker or ineffective squads/weapons even more.

Overall I'm OK with our method but I'd like to incorporate some manner of implementing a crossfire mechanic without complicating things too much. And how strong should that effect be? Maybe just a DM for multiple attackers shooting at a target, a DM for crossfire, and a DM for something else, such as weapon types attacking? There are lots of possibilities, and since we are going to reformat our rules at some point, now is a good time to look into making some improvements
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






 Insectum7 wrote:

That looks mechanically simple, which is nice. But I'm trying to think about how abuseable it might be when MSU squads Split Firing are involved. (Spread your shots around multiple units to increase Suppression Modifiers all around). But maybe there's something I'm missing? I'm having trouble coming up with a solution that doesn't involve a lot of bookkeeping, like keeping track of number of incoming models vs. number of models in the target unit, or something.


That's a great point. If you have 4 units, you don't want each unit splitting fire 4 ways to hit different targets on the off chance each one triggers a wound and stacks suppression markers.

I guess the question is what do we intend suppression to represent. Does it reflect purely volume of fire? Does it reflect actually "dangerous" fire that causes wounds?

If the former, which is what I was initially thinking, that makes the argument for something where if a unit gets successfully hit by another single unit's shooting more times than it has in wounds, then it gains a suppression token. This represents the inevitably distracting nature of being shot by a ton of things, regardless of the likelihood of doing damage. It would encourage players to have the bulk of a unit shoot at the same target to try and get in the needed number of hits.

If the later (based on actual wounds), then I think you ignore where the wounds are coming from and would just track total wounds (pre-save) over the course of the round. The total wounds would translate into suppression tokens at some determined rate.

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






@Aminata, whenever I think of a crossfire mechanic I always fall back on the old Epic version which incurred crossfire whenever two attacking units could draw a line between them (any model) through the target unit. Mind you, I forget exactly what Crossfire actually DID in Epic, but the "straight-line-through" was really easy to determine on the tabletop.

For the Suppression DM's, I just worry about it a bit because I don't know your environment, and I know the type of gamer I can be sometimes . But for an easy example, a Rhino and two Combat Squads is 3 units in and of itself. And when I imagine how much I could abuse (a pretty common older build for me) three Drop Pods, including Combat Squads and Characters, like I'm looking at around 10 units all landing in the same, mutually supporting area.

Edit: I didn't catch which versions of 40K you were building off of (if any). The use of Blasts to suppress multiple units also comes to mind. On the one hand, it sounds really appropriate that big templates should suppress multiple units. But again, I worry about a too-high degree of punishment. Also, I may not have totally wrapped my head around it either, so take it all with a grain of salt.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/08 21:26:05


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 pt
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks






your mind

Love the Prohammer fallback getting chased down the use of leadership for restraint… exalted.

   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Had a whole reply to Mezmorki just vanish overnight.

That's cool...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/08 21:57:29


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

 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





Epic Armageddon uses suppression in the following way:

- When a unit is being shot at it receives a blast/suppression marker. The shooting attack may also be out of range to cause this effect so no hits or wounds are necessary. A unit may only receive a blast/suppression marker ONCE in this way so multiple opposing units firing at the same unit still cause only one marker in this manner.

- Each model which is removed from a unit due to ranged combat also adds a blast/suppression marker to this unit.

- Each blast/suppression marker prevents one model from the respective unit from using any ranged attacks during it´s next activation. Models at the back of a unit in relation to the incoming fire are first affected in this way representing the fact that the more cowardly individuals tend to lurk behind their gung-ho comrades.

- Having blast/suppression markers makes a unit perform worse in close combat.

- Having too many blast/suppression markers will force the unit to fall back (automatically broken, no LD check). The unit may of course try to lose blast/suppression markers later in the game.

- There are actions which help to remove blast/suppression markers from a unit.

- "They shall know no fear" USR requires an opponent to stack at least two blast/suppression markers on a SM unit in order to suppress a single model.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/08 22:02:10


 
   
Made in pl
Wicked Warp Spider





 amanita wrote:


@ nou 120 degrees is interesting. How do you determine the arc? Do you choose specific models to orient the angle, such as the nearest enemy model to the cross-firing units? When determining the 120 degrees is that for any model or does the entire unit need to be 120+ degrees over?



This is pretty straightforward to use in practice but actually hard to word for a non-native who doesn’t know english geometry nomenclature . You take a 120 template with long enough arms, place it so that at least one model from each shooting unit is tangential to it on the inside and if you can then cover at least one enemy model at least partially on the tip side of the angle, then the unit is caught in crossfire.

GW’s GSC and Epic rule is a 180 degree case of such procedure (any models within a bounding box of shooting units mean you are caught) and it works for any angle you desire, but it gets funny with small angles or angles larger than 180 degrees, so avoid those

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/08 22:11:18


 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Insectum7 wrote:
@Aminata, whenever I think of a crossfire mechanic I always fall back on the old Epic version which incurred crossfire whenever two attacking units could draw a line between them (any model) through the target unit. Mind you, I forget exactly what Crossfire actually DID in Epic, but the "straight-line-through" was really easy to determine on the tabletop.

For the Suppression DM's, I just worry about it a bit because I don't know your environment, and I know the type of gamer I can be sometimes . But for an easy example, a Rhino and two Combat Squads is 3 units in and of itself. And when I imagine how much I could abuse (a pretty common older build for me) three Drop Pods, including Combat Squads and Characters, like I'm looking at around 10 units all landing in the same, mutually supporting area.

Edit: I didn't catch which versions of 40K you were building off of (if any). The use of Blasts to suppress multiple units also comes to mind. On the one hand, it sounds really appropriate that big templates should suppress multiple units. But again, I worry about a too-high degree of punishment. Also, I may not have totally wrapped my head around it either, so take it all with a grain of salt.


Yep, Crossfire isn´t very complex but gives an edge. Epic Armageddon granted a malus of 1 to armour saves for units caught in Crossfire. Units which have the USR "Thick Rear Armour" (e.g. Terminators, Land Raiders just to name a few) were immune to it´s effects.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






In ProHammer (sorry!!!!) we have a very clear process for determining vehicle facing.

For purposes of flanking or crossfire shots, I wonder if you could use a similar method. For example:

When you shoot an enemy unit for the first time in a round. Nominate a shooting model in LoS to a target model. The line between the two becomes an axis. Imagine a second line perpendicular to the axis centered on the target model to form a "crosshair" of sorts. This could also be determined based on using the closest shooting model and closest target model in LoS (reflecting units being oriented to face the closest enemy threat).

Once you have that "crosshair" established you can do all sorts of things. You could define 90-degree forward, side, rear arcs for the unit (just like ProHammer does for vehicles). Or you could simplify it and say you get a crossfire bonus for any other shooting you have that's positioned in the rear 180-degree arc of the unit.

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






 Mezmorki wrote:
In ProHammer (sorry!!!!) we have a very clear process for determining vehicle facing.

For purposes of flanking or crossfire shots, I wonder if you could use a similar method. For example:

When you shoot an enemy unit for the first time in a round. Nominate a shooting model in LoS to a target model. The line between the two becomes an axis. Imagine a second line perpendicular to the axis centered on the target model to form a "crosshair" of sorts. This could also be determined based on using the closest shooting model and closest target model in LoS (reflecting units being oriented to face the closest enemy threat).

Once you have that "crosshair" established you can do all sorts of things. You could define 90-degree forward, side, rear arcs for the unit (just like ProHammer does for vehicles). Or you could simplify it and say you get a crossfire bonus for any other shooting you have that's positioned in the rear 180-degree arc of the unit.
^That is pretty clever. Kudos! I see some gamesmanship when picking the models however, especially for big squads. I'm not sure if that's better or worse than the gamesmanship of expanding squads to get the straight-line-crossfire, but it's there. Size of units and proximity matter a lot in both versions.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

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





I like that crossfire mechanic from Epic; it's intuitive and seems easy to use. But an angle closer to 120 degrees makes a little more sense to me for typical infantry engagements. I'll have to look further in that.

I agree that simply counting the number of units and adding them up as accumulative DM's could be an issue at some point, so I'm leaning now toward something more like a single DM of 1 if 3+ units are shooting at a target.

The accumulation of blast/pin chits on a target also has merit, but I doubt my group would want more 'extraneous' bookkeeping aids on the table. We abandoned predetermined declared shooting for that reason: it was taking too long to place and collect the markers we used to indicate which units were shooting what targets. Maybe if we tried another way to readdress that issue we'd reconsider declared shooting again.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/08 22:55:41


 
   
Made in pl
Wicked Warp Spider





 Mezmorki wrote:
In ProHammer (sorry!!!!) we have a very clear process for determining vehicle facing.

For purposes of flanking or crossfire shots, I wonder if you could use a similar method. For example:

When you shoot an enemy unit for the first time in a round. Nominate a shooting model in LoS to a target model. The line between the two becomes an axis. Imagine a second line perpendicular to the axis centered on the target model to form a "crosshair" of sorts. This could also be determined based on using the closest shooting model and closest target model in LoS (reflecting units being oriented to face the closest enemy threat).

Once you have that "crosshair" established you can do all sorts of things. You could define 90-degree forward, side, rear arcs for the unit (just like ProHammer does for vehicles). Or you could simplify it and say you get a crossfire bonus for any other shooting you have that's positioned in the rear 180-degree arc of the unit.


I have something similar for establishing facing for flanking purposes - when a unit shoots it establishes it's own facing along the line to the primary target. Subsequent shooting at this unit from an angle larger than 90 degrees gets the benefit of flanking (easier to wound). But this is possible because I have end of round damage resolution, so models double down as markers. Having this sorts of mechanics when you successively remove models during the turn would mean a lot of markers everywhere.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 Nurglitch wrote:
 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.


Because there aren't actually a 'plethora of wounds'; that's just an artifact of 40K's order of operations for fire resolution. If the wounds are being saved, they're not actually inflicting relevant damage. In this system, lasgun fire pinging harmlessly off your armor is more likely to make you seek cover and get your head down than seeing two of your squad being reduced to smoking boots. It doesn't fit at all with the imagery of Space Marines wading through ineffectual lasfire unharmed, but having to act tactically when heavy weapons are in play.

On top of that, it creates a gameplay dynamic where the more heavily armored you are and the less effective incoming fire is, the sooner you break relative to casualties sustained. A unit with a 5+ save will typically break when it sustains 40% casualties, while a unit with a 3+ save will break when it sustains 25% casualties, and a unit with a 2+ save will break when it sustains around 14% casualties. This makes elite armies much easier to suppress than cannon fodder ones, as cost typically scales with resilience, but here being twice as tough does not make you anywhere near twice as hard to suppress.

And the better armored you are, the more likely you are to break from ineffective fire rather than from effective fire. Two plain squads of Guardsmen rapid firing under FRFSRF have a good chance to suppress a 5-man Terminator squad while inflicting zero casualties, but a triple-lascannon squad that gets lucky and kills two Terminators outright has a zero percent chance of suppressing the survivors. So what exactly is being modeled here? Marines being rendered combat-ineffective by lasgun fire, but unfazed by guns that kill them outright, doesn't exactly scream lore-accuracy to me.

I mean, like I said, I like the concept for other settings- I've seen similar mechanics in historicals. But the devil's in the details with regards to mechanical implementation in a space fantasy setting where being nigh-immune to bullets is commonplace.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/09 20:06:57


   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





So we have had nine pages discussing about basic rules. Lets talk about a couple of factions which I want to focus on namely Chaos, Eldar and Orks.

Why those? The others are more or less fine as they are but with the above I intend to do the following:

1. Chaos
The bulk of the army will consist of either traitor guard, mutants, plague zombies or cultists. Beastmen, chaos hounds, trolls and minotaurs will also be available as well as Imperial Guard tanks. Access to CSM will be limited but they will come along with a few veteran abilities to represent their superior combat experience in comparison to loyalist marines. Daemons will also be limited and need to be summoned by earning summoning points during the battle.

Reason for this design decision:
Just lazily implementing a traitor legion here would only replicate the play style of SM which is not desirable. I want to give each faction a specific flavour and for chaos it is the most abundant selection of units to be available.


2. Orks
Orks are present for comic-relief and to mock the Imperium by using a lot of similar units with an orky twist. So funny stuff needs to be implemented again. Another thing which plagues the Orks right now is their abysmal BS score since 3rd. To remedy this BS will be improved and close combat prowess at the same time reduced because Orks shouldn´t play like green Tyranids.



3. Eldar
Mobility is key here. This will not only encompass speed and having access to skimmers but use of portals to quickly move units will also be considered. The aspect of the dying race could be portrayed in such a way that Eldar will have more difficulties regrouping as they don´t want to risk even more losses.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

What would you do with Chaos Daemons as a faction Strg Alt?

Especially since Slaanesh is supposed to be similar to what you wrote for Eldar (replace skimmers with monsters where appropriate)
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Unit1126PLL wrote:
What would you do with Chaos Daemons as a faction Strg Alt?

Especially since Slaanesh is supposed to be similar to what you wrote for Eldar (replace skimmers with monsters where appropriate)


Daemon models are included in the Chaos faction but will play a minor role just like CSM. Limelight is on the Lost & Damned as elaborated above. Priority of the project is to create unique play styles associated to a faction.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

Ah, I disagree there. Daemons have a totally different flavor, narrative theme, etc. to the rest of Chaos.

I also appreciate Lost and the Damned, but making Daemons fill a minor role is disappointing, to me.
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 Strg Alt wrote:
2. Orks
Orks are present for comic-relief and to mock the Imperium by using a lot of similar units with an orky twist. So funny stuff needs to be implemented again. Another thing which plagues the Orks right now is their abysmal BS score since 3rd. To remedy this BS will be improved and close combat prowess at the same time reduced because Orks shouldn´t play like green Tyranids.


Reading that send a shiver down my spine.

If need an old hammer ork army, just take 4th edition's codex as a base and fix the dead weight units in it. It supported various different ways of playing the army and still had all the whacky cool rules like the SAG table and squig curse. The only thing that probably should be taken from an older codex is the looted wagon, as other editions simply did looting better.

7 Ork facts people always get wrong:
Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other.
A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot.
Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests.
Orks do not think that purple makes them harder to see. They do think that camouflage does however, without knowing why.
Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor.
Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers.
Orks do not have the power of believe. 
   
Made in gb
Joined the Military for Authentic Experience





On an Express Elevator to Hell!!

 JohnnyHell wrote:
All 9th Age as a counterpoint proves is that there is no one “community” as I’ve yet to see anyone play a game of it. And also that was borne of GW killing a game with no immediate continuity, which isn’t the same for 40K. Not quite the equivalence you think. Yes, other games have had successful community-modded versions. YakTribe’s Necromunda NCE is the best edition for me, wouldn’t play any other. But again, that’s a game that was binned and picked back up by the community, not made from whole cloth.


Just being devil's advocate, the one counterpoint to this I would say is that 40k has changed so much, certainly from 2nd through to the current edition, and actually even the game setting has moved on, so that they are effectively completely different games and the old game is 'dead'.

Therefore there is a space for people wanting gaming on a smaller scale, no super heavies crashing about, horrible codex creep.

I think this is why the Horus Heresy community is extremely vocal on not wanting an upgrade of their game to 9th edition-equivalent, because the game has changed so much even 7-9th. (Dare post something about this in the FB group - oh boy!) If you go back to 3rd, 4th edition the difference is even more pronounced.

There is a fairly sizeable, and growing, oldhammer community found on social media. I think that's probably your best route - find an old version that is the one you enjoyed playing, then find other people who thought likewise.

Epic 30K&40K! A new players guide, contributors welcome https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/751316.page
Small but perfectly formed! A Great Crusade Epic 6mm project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/694411.page

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





On the bright side, trying to build a better Warhammer is usually the first step on a path to making a game of one's own.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: