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.

The idea here is to try and capture the ability of squads and units to be checked by a sudden torrent of fire that forces them to take cover and return fire. Basically, I am trying to create a more realistic form of the pinned rule that keeps the game fluid and opens up tactical options for players. Please critique and let me know what you think.

Keep their heads down! Whenever a unit takes a casualty for shooting, take a leadership test. If the unit passes, they may act normally on their subsequent turn. If the unit fails, the enemies fire has proven effective enough to force them to the ground to seek cover. This is called being "suppressed." Units that are "suppressed" may not move in their next shooting phase, but may shoot or run normally in the shooting phase and may launch assaults if enemy units are in range. Because units that are "suppressed" have been forced to seek cover, they receive an additional +1 to their cover saves from any additional enemy units that shoot at them until the start of their next turn. Fearless units are subject to suppression checks as normal, however, a fearless unit that fails a suppression check may choose to ignore the failed result but by doing so forfeits all cover saves until the start of their next turn (because thats what you get for running headlong into enemy fire)

You have to take a moral test if you lose 25% of the unit during a phase, except the assault phase. What if that test was just changed to a pinning test if they pass it and remain normal if they fail. So they take a test, pass it, then take a pinning test.

What if that existing rule was just changed like that?

Idea is good though

Units that are "suppressed" may not move in their next shooting phase, but may shoot or run normally in the shooting phase and may launch assaults if enemy units are in range.

I would say that if you are being "suppressed" you would be to worried about your own self preservation to worry about getting up and assaulting, unless your fearless, in which case you don't care.

The Shooting part makes sense since you would have to return fire in order to reach or take advantage of your cover.

Hi all.
If you want to model supresion efficiently , its best to write it into the basic rules.(Epic Armageddon for example.)

Sticking it on as an optional extra usualy takes ALOT of extra rules to get it to work 'realisticaly'.
If you want to play a simple tactical simulation, 40k is about as far away from this ideal as possible.(40k is an overcomplicated strategic abstraction!)

(The simple 40k game play could be covered in about 20 pages of efficient rules, but the 40k devs manage to write so in-efficently the only complexity is working out the interactions of all the poorly worded special rules.)

Sticking it on as an optional extra usualy takes ALOT of extra rules to get it to work 'realisticaly'.
If you want to play a simple tactical simulation, 40k is about as far away from this ideal as possible.(40k is an overcomplicated strategic abstraction!)

(The simple 40k game play could be covered in about 20 pages of efficient rules, but the 40k devs manage to write so in-efficently the only complexity is working out the interactions of all the poorly worded special rules.)

I agree with you there. But in the interest of making 40K play a little more differently than WHFB, I think that you could add in a simple suppression rule to replace pinning and then all you have to do is clarify how it works with the existing morale checks (i.e. are suppressed units susceptible to morale?). I think it would make shooting a little more effective to counter out how devestating assaults are, but still keep the game fluid and moving.

If you want to introduce more morale influence to shooting, I'd probably just borrow the morale modifiers used in melee resolution, i.e. -1 Ld for each unsaved wound (but you still need to do the 25% to initiate the test) and fearless models (being to crazy or stupid to take cover properly when under fire) must make the same "no retreat" saves.

That would allow shooting armies to break units the same way assault armies do, rather then the current situation where they are more likely to destroy them outright then send them into retreat (in many cases).

Jack

P.S. I do agree with Lanrak that Epic Armageddon handles this effect brilliantly.