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.

Introduction
So I'd like to present an idea that occurred to me the other night on the train, a method of implementing firefights in 40k. Right at the start I should point out that implementing these rules will probably invalidate all the current points values and completely skew any game you're attempting to play, since they constitute a serious change to the basic rules. Given that this is the case, and that they may not be to your particular taste, then what I'd like to know is what interactions with existing rules do these rules need to account for? Hopefully you'll see what I mean:

Firefights in 40k
The Shooting Sequence
7. Return Fire. The target unit may elect to shoot at its attacker following steps 1-6 of the Shooting Sequence, if it has not Gone to Ground, or been Stunned or Shaken. This represents troops being able to shoot back if they recover from the initial shock, and were not pinned down or shaken by the attack.

If the target unit shoots at its attacker, then its following Movement phase action is limited by its Shooting action; for example an infantry shooting heavy weapons during the opposing shooting phase cannot move or assault in their own following turn. The unit cannot shoot or run in its own following shooting phase, and may only shoot at one attacker. This represents the fact that while the action is taken out of the usual order in the game, the order of events that it represents is the same.

Firefight!
If one model in the attacking unit is within charge range of the target unit, prior to step 2 in the Shooting sequence, then the attacking unit may make an assault move to engage the target unit before shooting. Regardless of whether any attacking models make it into base-to-base contact, the units are treated as being locked in combat, which will be resolved in the Assault phase.

In the Assault phase this combat is treated slightly differently from other combats. The target unit, now the defenders, have a choice of whether to react or not, rather than being forced to react as is normally the case. Models in both attacker and defender units may only use appropriate ranged weaponry, or weaponry that they could have fired in the Shooting phase. Attacking models, for example, always count as having charged, so they cannot use rapid fire weapons unless they have some special rule like Relentless that permits an exception. Defending models, if their unit did not react, may use weapons that they would have to be stationary to use. Otherwise they count as charging for the purposes of shooting. Pinning weapons do not have their normal effect, although assault grenades and defensive grenades do. Shooting to hit is resolved as BS v BS where normal combat would be WS v WS. Shooting is resolved at Initiative steps, as in a normal combat.

Note that more units may join the combat, either because they began the Shooting phase within charge distance and decided to engage, or because they started the Assault phase within charge distance and decided to engage. Models joining the combat in the Assault phase fight as normal, models joining the combat in the Shooting phase fight as described above, with the caveat that they can only direct attacks to their original targets. Close combat attacks against shooters in these combats are resolved as normal (WS v WS, etc). Models may claim cover saves against shooting attacks.

The combat is resolved as normal, and any subsequent round of combat is resolved like a normal close combat: things have gotten too close and desperate for guns!

Design Notes:
The first order of business was not to break the basic rules, but to reconfigure them. So I figured that basically allowing a unit to shoot back after they'd been shot at would be okay because they could be stunned, shaken, pinned, etc. No need to extraneous leadership tests or anything because the players already went through that with the first six steps in the shooting sequence. If you fire Heavy Weapons to return fire in the opposing player's Shooting phase, you don't get to shoot in your own shooting phase (against a preferable target, for example) and infantry don't get to move or assault. Basically there's no free lunch.

The second order of business was to make it so that people weren't completely turned off shooting and then assaulting where the target unit could lose casualties to cut off any attempt at assaults, and shoot back to add injury to insult. So what I figured would be cool would be the image of units closing on a position guns-a-blazing - that's why the assault move doesn't have to connect for the unit to be locked in combat, as it's a fluid engagement that makes any notion of close fire support hazardous. So units can locked down other units in firefights if they would have been able to do so using a regular assault, without the worry about shooting themselves out of a charge. Of course, the defender can react and close any gap that might be the case, but that'll depend on the kind of weaponry that the defender is carrying. A defending unit with flamers may want to fire on a tightly packed scrum, for example, while a defending unit with heavy weapons may be glad to remain back in cover. Players retain the option of shooting and attacking, as well.

Notice that this enables firepower-oriented unit the ability to engage and break units that would otherwise be a much harder proposition. However, before you start worrying about hordes of Firewarriors or Necron Warriors charging around guns blazing, consider that Firewarriors will be shooting at 3+ vs Orks, 4+ vs most everything else, at I2, and if they're armed with Pulse Rifles then only on the defense. Eldar Guardians and Dire Avengers will unquestionably benefit from this, however.

Notice also that this does not disadvantage purely close combat units, as a close combat unit that cannot shoot back may still be able to engage the attacker in the subsequent rounds of combat, particularly if they're Fearless. Tyranids and Orks, at least, pack plenty of Assault weapons that will naturally be ideal for this sort of thing, to defend as well as attack.

Your thoughts? What needs to be covered or further developed?

I think this is a nice set of rules that would go nicely in a small casual game, I dont know what other players would think but i i quite like it.

I think the rules are well thought out and have good benefits and some good side effects.

Usually people are pretty allergic to any changes to the basic rules, particularly ones that affect the basic mechanics. I'm hoping this particular take on firefights is conservative enough, and the allowances for turning an assault into a firefight is kind of an appendix: the original proposal was limited to the change in the Shooting phase, but then I noticed that people would be able to use the ability to return fire in a firefight as a way to prevent units that could otherwise assault from doing so. But it might work without that extra bit, though I don't think it'll work as well.

I definitely want to try these rules!

However I want to simplify them a bit. Simply both player may fire with every unit every shooting phase. However heavy weapons and psychic shooting attacks must wait a turn after firing before firing again. Basically the shooting phase plays out similar to the assault phase.

Nids and Orks should benefit from about a >25% POINT DECREASE ON ENTIRE UNIT RANGE.

Vehicles will likely die way too easily but that is to be seen.

Given a little more thought I also think CC attacks with weapons that normally would not allow it will have to be taken at I, e.g. power fists and T Hammers., barring other rules like assaulting into cover or SC special rules. This way CC upgrades are worth their points since the assaulting unit will be taking more casualties.

Deuce11:

Do you mean heavy weapons and psychic shooting attacks must wait a game turn or a player turn after firing? Why the restriction when everything else has unrestricted fire?

How do you plan to fit both players' shooting into each player's shooting phase? What order will they fire in?

Nurglitch wrote:Deuce11:

Do you mean heavy weapons and psychic shooting attacks must wait a game turn or a player turn after firing? Why the restriction when everything else has unrestricted fire?

How do you plan to fit both players' shooting into each player's shooting phase? What order will they fire in?

Player turn takes precedence (fires first)

Heavy and psychic would only have to wait a player turn to fire again. all other weapons are still firing twice as often as heavy weapons. Normal move and fire restrictions apply.

This is how i imagine it using your novel approach as a basis.

Deuce11:

Sorry to keep hassling you, but I still have questions: You say the order of shooting would be that the player turn takes precedence. Do you mean to say that once Player A has finished shooting in Player A's turn, the Player B can shoot in Player A's turn, but any psychic shooting attacks and Heavy Weapons would miss shooting in Player B's turn?

What is your motivation for doubling all weapons-fire but psychic shooting attacks and Heavy Weapons? I mean I can see why, representationally, some weapons might have a slower rate of fire because they'd be ludicrous if they got twice as many shots in a game, but some weapons seem to be designed for sustained fire, like Heavy Bolters. And then what about highly effective but non-Heavy weapons like Melta Guns, and the like?

Sorry to come off all Interrogator-Chaplain, but my experience with simplicity is that there's such a thing as "too-simple", so you're left with questions in situations that a rule concept was too simple or undeveloped to handle. That's what I'm worried about: I'm trying to strike a balance between simple, and handling the knock-on effects of changing the rules so that the game retains a strong semblance of its current balance.

So while I'm glad that you're using my proposal as a basis for a counter-proposal, I'm worried that your proposal alters the game balance more than necessary and contains too many ad-hoc

I mean, I'm worried about how my proposal alters the game balance, which is why I add the rider that shooters within 6" could assault, so that the ability to return fire wouldn't deter the fluidity that the assault move lends to the game, and since that choice applies to everything that could normally charge after shooting, I feel that it's not ad hoc, but rather a systemic chance to re-balance the ability to return fire, which is itself based on the principle that if you can shoot them, then they can shoot you.

One of the reasons I figured that an ability to return fire would be parimonious but desirable was that while a unit can return fire, whatever is shooting at them may not be their ideal target and they must do so after suffering at least some of the fire they would otherwise normally suffer, so as to maintain the opportunity cost of shooting in the following turn, with the engagement of a back-and-forth fire-fight style shooting phase.

Nurglitch wrote:Deuce11:

Sorry to keep hassling you, but I still have questions: You say the order of shooting would be that the player turn takes precedence. Do you mean to say that once Player A has finished shooting in Player A's turn, the Player B can shoot in Player A's turn, but any psychic shooting attacks and Heavy Weapons would miss shooting in Player B's turn?

Yes... I think haha. Yes. Final answer. I think It would prove to be very strategic.

Nurglitch wrote:What is your motivation for doubling all weapons-fire but psychic shooting attacks and Heavy Weapons? I mean I can see why, representationally, some weapons might have a slower rate of fire because they'd be ludicrous if they got twice as many shots in a game, but some weapons seem to be designed for sustained fire, like Heavy Bolters. And then what about highly effective but non-Heavy weapons like Melta Guns, and the like?

I am not concerned with that which is effective. You hit the nail on the head recognizing how this would represent cumbersome heavy weapons. I believe that was the decision of the designers when making some weapons 'heavy'. Besides I wanted to make sure IG armies can't just throw round after round of pie plates on opponents. I admit it is not air tight but I would like to try a test game.

Nurglitch wrote:Sorry to come off all Interrogator-Chaplain, but my experience with simplicity is that there's such a thing as "too-simple", so you're left with questions in situations that a rule concept was too simple or undeveloped to handle. That's what I'm worried about: I'm trying to strike a balance between simple, and handling the knock-on effects of changing the rules so that the game retains a strong semblance of its current balance.

So while I'm glad that you're using my proposal as a basis for a counter-proposal, I'm worried that your proposal alters the game balance more than necessary and contains too many ad-hoc

No apology necessary. I agree with you. I just happen to think the areas that become unbalanced are in the CC phase. I don't want to completely neuter CC armies but i do think it is ridiculous how the current game mechanics seem to have players watching as assault units leave transports or leap over terrain and then run straight into CC without any return fire. I think my altered proposal should better represent the epic fire fights depicted in the fluff and art of 40K.

Maybe even simpler would be to bring back the overwatch rules?

Essentially units may hold their fire in their own shooting phase to fire at targets of opportunity at any time in their opponents turn. To bring it to 5th ed level you'd need a caveat that they'd have to hold fire and also NOT move during their own assault phase to gain the benefit.

It wouldn't work for the firefights and returning fire, but would definitely be an attractive proposition for a unit that looks like it's about to get assaulted. It wouldn't cause problems with changing the core rules in a big way either.

TBH since getting back into the game I kinda wondered why they removed it.

Pebble Monkey:

Considering the complications of holding off shooting until the next player turn vs the complications of shooting in the previous player turn and absorbing the complications in your own player terms I decided that the latter would be simpler and easier (consider complications like what happens on T1 or when something enters from reserves).

Part of the problem of over-watch was that it deviated too much from the regular shooting rules of 2nd edition, and is practically impossible to shoe-horn into the 3rd edition structure, as well as killing initiative and mobility since it creates "move first, die first" situation. That's why my proposal only allows a unit to shoot at an attacker, and after that attacker has gotten its shots in.

Hi Nurglitch.
Short of altering the game turn mechanic, I think your idea is the simplest way to improve the level of interaction in 40k.
And balances shooting with assault, in the way it allows BOTH players to participate , the defender responding to the attacker.

TTFN
Lanrak.

how about this:

I like the rules, but I think this is simpler

1. attacking team fires.
2. Troops take wounds.
3. remaing troops return fire, halving their firepower. (i.e. 5 marines get 3 shots or 2.5 rounded up or in rapid fire, they get 5 shots.)

Captain Solon:

It is simpler, but how does pinning work? Why is their firepower halved? What happens in the next player turn? Can the original target unit use Heavy Weapons? What happens if a unit is destroyed before it can assault?

Lanrak:

Thank you.

Hi Nurglitch.
(Shamless plug). I would appreciate your veiws on an out line for a new rule set I have developed.(Alternative rules discussion thread.)
I HAVE changed the game turn mechanic , to see how straight forward I could get things...

Its just an attempt to cover basic tactical interaction at platoon to company level, in the simplest way I can think of.

TTFN
Lanrak.

Now that's the Lanrak I'm familiar with. Links?

Hi Nurglitch..
Here it is. just a word doc PDF outlining the basic ideas.

I started a thread 'alternative rules discussion ' on this rules development forum.
If you want to post your reply there....so I dont de-rail your thread anymore.

I value your opinion, as you have far more experiance at rules writing and game development than I do.

Thanks in advance.
Lanrak.

Okay, so returning to the topic at hand, is there anything that the original proposal does not address and that would come up as a YMDC topic if, hypothetically, GW included them in the 5th edition of Warhammer 40k?