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.

Hi, I think it's a little.. stale how a group of marines can fire at a squad of orks, decimating them before they have a chance to fire back, it's very unfair.

I propose we make it work a little more like assault, in which everyone attacks.
Idea 1:
1. attackers fire!
Resolved as normal.
2. defenders react!
i. check if the unit is in sight (like night-fighting, 2D6 * 3)
ii. if the unit is in range, the unit may fire back.
(N: if the squad takes wounds before it may fire, it can't fire, obviously. also if it takes a pinning or has gone to ground by choice.)

Idea 2:
1. Initiative resolved! the troop with the higher initiative opens fire,
i. if this is the defender, then he must take a night fighting test.
ii. if it's the attacker, he can shoot normally.
2. next highest initiative fires, and so-on, following the same rules.

The idea being that everyone should have a chance to fire at their enemies, and this may even be useable for tanks, though they'd fire last (0 for i, except walkers.)
maybe only pistol, rapid fire, assault weapons.

I wasn't thinking ord. barrage but maybe not even heavy weapons.

thoughts?

Idea 1 would probably work, but if you do that you may as well go the whole hog and make it like LotR, where I move, you move, I shoot, you shoot ect.

The example at the top, is exactly why we don't do it like that, for a start, as they are orks, there will be a lot more where they came from, and secondly, if you're a good player you know to keep your orks out of RF range until the last second anyway.

I think its an interesting idea, but IMO, the current system works fine atm.

I find the current system very easy, I felt this may give it an air of tactical firefighting rather then a very close-combat oriented game.

So you like 40k, but you think some of the rules could be Improved? (e.g. shooting tactically) Have you considered any other game systems? It wouldn't suprise me if there was one which could be adapted a bit for this sort of thing. You could use the 40k models as counts-as.

Unfortunately, I don't think the CC aspect of 40k is going to get any less any time soon, it is EXTRAGRIMDARK after all.

I don't see the need for this change, and saying Marines shooting orks to smithereens is a bad example, cause there will always be plenty more of them to stave in some skulls

If you want a more tacticly acurate game, go play Epic or FoW.

anyone remember the rules for overwatch?

40k Is an abstract of an actually battle. It is not meant to recreate the actual battle in a real time setting.

Why do you have to see if the defending unit can see them? Did it suddenly get dark on there side of the board, but the attackers can see fine?

Also in your first option if the attacker kills one model no one can return fire?????

My opinion, slow down your ideas, pick one idea or area you want to change. Play test it with a friend a few times and record the results, and compare that to what would have happened. Then bring it here for a broader range of views. By time you bring it here, you would have changed it a fee times so the first idea would not be so damn over the Top Powerful for one army (normally your favorite Space marines).

Hi all.
There are several game turn mechanics that allow for greater interaction between players.
Interleaved actions , or alternating unit activation seem to be the most common.
With variable game bounds as the most tacticaly flexible , but not suited to certain game play types.

40k is not representative on any real world events, its a hotchpotch of cool ideas implemented cinematicaly ,and hopefuly 'inspiring enough to make people part with thier money' kind of way.

If you want a simple simulation of an actual type of combat, 40k is NOT for you!

Fast and Dirty, Xenocide Firefight, Chian reaction, Stargrunt ,No limits, etc, may be closer to what you want.

If you want to hit a ball with a stick you do not take up fishing and moan about why arent the fish ball shaped!
You take up golf or ,basebal/ cricket, hockey etc.

TTFN
lanrak.

....yeh

there are rules already written for this idea anyway of shooting as the enemy comes into combat.

They're in the Imperial Armor Anphelion Conflict book. (#4 I believe)

Basically you get too shoot any weapon into combat except for heavy weapons or large/small blast templates.

Captain Solon wrote:Hi, I think it's a little.. stale how a group of marines can fire at a squad of orks, decimating them before they have a chance to fire back, it's very unfair.

I propose we make it work a little more like assault, in which everyone attacks.
Idea 1:
1. attackers fire!
Resolved as normal.
2. defenders react!
i. check if the unit is in sight (like night-fighting, 2D6 * 3)
ii. if the unit is in range, the unit may fire back.
(N: if the squad takes wounds before it may fire, it can't fire, obviously. also if it takes a pinning or has gone to ground by choice.)

Why would a unit that is under heavy fire get to shoot more often? That is to say, my marines fire in my turn, outside the range of the orks. Then the orks move into range and return fire, allowing me to fire again, so I've shot twice. Which is odd, because if the orks never fired at me I'd only be shooting once - half the rate of fire for a unit unsupressed by the enemy. That gets sillier when you think of three, four or five units firing on one target, would it return fire at all of them?

Do you think there would be a problem with units electing not to fire to avoid return fire?

More importantly, what tactical decisions are enhanced by this rule? 'Realism' is a dangerous goal in and of itself and will generally harm game design. Instead, consider the tactical options and the types of decision the companyish level commander would be making in a game of 40K. Suppression fire and the like are interesting because they provide a tactical value to shooting beyond killing the enemy, what would return fire achieve?

Idea 2:
1. Initiative resolved! the troop with the higher initiative opens fire,
i. if this is the defender, then he must take a night fighting test.
ii. if it's the attacker, he can shoot normally.
2. next highest initiative fires, and so-on, following the same rules.

This could work with a mutual turn sequence - we both move, then we both shoot, then we both assault. It would require a lot of playtesting and you'd have to throw unit balance out the window.

jbunny wrote:40k Is an abstract of an actually battle. It is not meant to recreate the actual battle in a real time setting.

Why do you have to see if the defending unit can see them? Did it suddenly get dark on there side of the board, but the attackers can see fine?

Also in your first option if the attacker kills one model no one can return fire?????

My opinion, slow down your ideas, pick one idea or area you want to change. Play test it with a friend a few times and record the results, and compare that to what would have happened. Then bring it here for a broader range of views. By time you bring it here, you would have changed it a fee times so the first idea would not be so damn over the Top Powerful for one army (normally your favorite Space marines).

I think the reason he said to implement the night fighting rules for the defender is to simulate firing from the hip instead of actually taking aim. It could be called something else I suppose but it would follow the night fight rules.

And no, he didn't say that no one could return fire, just the model that got wounded. Though I think he should replace wounded with killed in the instance of multi wound models.

IMO 40K is a popular game coz it is quick and easy (well unless ur playin against some1 who questions every rule you use) but this rule would slow it way down like sebster said bout multiple units firing at one target.

Landec_Falkin wrote:IMO 40K is a popular game coz it is quick and easy (well unless ur playin against some1 who questions every rule you use) but this rule would slow it way down like sebster said bout multiple units firing at one target.

Maybe care to use proper spelling?

But the original idea is simply unnecessary. If you ask players, I'm sure >90% of players would say that the current system is fine.

Valk