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 all.
As my previous attempt to construct a rule set from known game mechanics seemed to get a bit messy in places.
I thought I would take advice from 'Nurglitch' and try to focus on player choices to get the game play objectives first.
(Previously I was 'cherry picking' ideas that made perfect sense in the parent system , but sometimes didnt mesh that well with the resultant game play.)

Please bear with me as this is all new to me!
(Ill call this bit strategic conciderations...)
Player decisions.
Who wants to be the attacker , and who wants to be the defender.(Roll off if both players want the same .)
The defender choses deployment area.
The Attacker takes actions first.

(We could randomly determine deployment area using a D3, short side, long side, or opposing corners of playing area.)

The objective of the game.
I am a fan of random mission cards , so I would like to have an attackers mission card deck and a defenders mission card deck.(6 to 10 missions each.)
Each player draws a relevant mission card,(to represent being given a mission.)The missions MAY be kept secret from the opposing player if BOTH players want to .

The missions have objectives and conditions that determine if the mission is a failure , minor victory or major victory.
The objective of the mission determines failure or victory.(Destroy, capture or defend. etc)
Conditions could be time limit ,eg capture an objective by turn 3, or hold onto an objective for at least 2 turns.
Or the amount of losses that are concidered exceptable, eg HQ units must reamin at least 50% of starting strenght and mobile.
These determine if the mission is a minor or major victory.

This is my personal bais as I like a strong narrative in a game ,it helps me get in to the game easier.
'We are like 30 Corps racing to relive the 2nd Paras at Arnhem,' inspires me more than ,' take as many of thier models out of play as you can,before time runs out.'

I would like to propose force organisation is covered the following way.
If we describe units as , Standard, HQ,(HQ) Support, Specialist and Restricted.

First selection is 'standard units'.
The player may pick from 'infantry' 'mechanised' or 'armoured' versions of standard units.(as aplicable in thier army composition lists.)

For every set number(2 to 4 ) of 'standard units' the player may take an apropriate HQ unit.

For every set number(2 to 4) of 'standard units' the player may take an apropriate specialist unit.

For every HQ unit, the player may take up to 1 (HQ) Support unit, for every Specialist unit taken. (Of the same type.)
For every 2 Specialst units , the player MAY select one Restricted unit(Of the same type).

Eg
The player picks standard infantry units. He takes 4 infantry squads.

This allows him to take an infantry HQ and a specialised unit.

He takes both , this intitles him to take a infantry HQ support unit, so he does.

The player now has the chioce of starting with another type of standard unit ,(eg mechinised or armoured standard units.) OR adding more infantry units to get more specialised infantry units to let him use the restricted infantry units, and add more infantry HQ support units.

This lets players build a force based on 'one theme' Infantry , Mechanised or Armoured with the bonus of obtaining more of the specialised , restricted and HQ support units.
Or have a force made up of a wider variety of standard unit types.

I use the terms infantry -mechanised and armour very loosly .Obviously these may have to be replaced with less decriptive identification, like red green or blue force selections.

I belive in building a army round the basic units, as these tend to determine the playstyle of the player more than the 'window dressing ' that supports them.

Game size could be determined by number of unit selections ,...( or if we get realy desperate some form of Pv allocation .)

This is just my ideas for a different new rule set.If you are interseted in helping develop it please let me know.
If this development holds no interest for you please do not post !

I think this covers the basic 'strategic' conciderations?
(Deployment of units in the playing area is heavily influenced by in game interations, which we can discuss a bit later.)

Constructive critisism and comments most welcome.

TTFN
Lanrak.

So far so good. Much easier to follow this time around. It might be something to discuss the board a bit more to define what it is you mean by "deployment area". Also, is the structure that the players determine the playing area first, or the material they have available?

Hi Nurglitch.
Thanks for the comments.
This is all new to me , so I might need a few pointers from time to time , to make sure I dont miss things out.

I invisaged the players determining the number and type of units they wish to use , BEFORE they decide on the size of the playing area.
As the number of units each player has, determines how large the playing area would need to be.
(I dont want the units to get too cramped up on the playing area as it looks bad ,(IMO,) and could limit player interaction.)
The more units used , the larger the playing area required.

If we imagine the playing area is a rectangle , 1.5 times longer than it is wide.(eg,3x2, 6x4, 9x6)

Then players could deploy thier units along (1)opposite short edges of the area, or (2)opposite long edges of the area, or(3) opposite corners.
Restrictions on how far in from the center of the playing area, each player could deploy units, would be used to prevent 'premature engagments .'

I would like to determine the deployment areas to be used randomly ,(by rolling a D3.)AFTER the objective markers and any terrain has been set up on the playing area.
(Objective markers note points of interest that MAY be the focus of a mission.Terrain features add diversity to the playing area, by providing concealment /physical protection for units,and/or effecting mobility of units.)

This stops players loading any particular part of the playing area too heavily.(In my experiance.)

Has this defined the selection order, and playing -deployment areas enough?

Ill tentativley move on to what I refer to as 'tactical conciderations.'

How the players use the units in the game to interact.

If we assume the players wish to interact like the HQ unit on the table would,(if it was a real world situation.)We have to decide what exactly the HQ unit would be aware of....

The playing areas features would be known, the positions and status of thier own units would also be known.
However ,the opposing players units disposition would not be imediatley apparent , unitll they were confirmed with visual contact of freindly units.

(As the units are trying to spot the enemy before they are spotted themselves I think an opposed roll would fit best as the resolution mechanic for this.Ill go into more detail a bit later.)

So after establishing you shouldnt be able to respond to units you would not be aware of, Ill move on to general unit interaction.

The combat part of the game should balance three factors in a sympathetic manner to reflect the type of game play expected from the units used.(IMO.)
These factors are mobilty, fire power and assault..

If the game setting is modern warfare.ALL three factors should be equaly important .
Mobility is needed to be able to get into position to be effective,firepower is needed to restrict enemy mobility, and assaults are needed to resolve contested areas.
(A units moblity, firepower and assault ability should be determined directly by its Characteristics profile. )

Controling units.

The player will want control thier units by giving them actions to perform.
If the actions are grouped into set of 2 actions ,these could be called orders.
And counter representing these orders could be placed by the units at the start of the game turn.
The actions I would like to concider are , move, shoot, assault, ready.
As move,shoot and assault actions are self explanitory.Ready is the action taken to get ready to act in a concentrated way.

For example ready +shoot means take up the best firng positions and fire to full effect.(All ranged weapon may fire.)
Ready + move , allows the unit to move more stealthily to avoid detection.
These four actions can be combined to get the following six ''tactical orders.''
Counters could simply have the (letter) on one side.(or a specific colour or design.)

(A)Advance order, move+shoot.
(C) Charge order,move+assault.
(D) Double, order, move+move.
(E) Evade order,shoot +move
(F) Fire support order, ready +shoot.
(I ) Infiltrate order , ready+move.

(Units stay 'locked in assault' untill the assault is resovled at the end phase of the game turn.This is to make assaults an effective way of temproarily netralising enemy units.)

The order counters could be placed face down to keep them secret from the opposing player , if prefered.

Setting the level of player interaction.

The order counters allow the players to interact in in a couple of ways.
They could take it in turns alternating between players performing a single units orders.
Or
Let all the Attackers units take the first action of thier orders,(revealing the order counters as they perform the actions.)
Then all the Defender units take the first action of thier orders(revealing the order counters as they perform the actions.)
Then all the Attackers units take the second action of thisr orders,(removeing the order counters as they perform the actions.)
Then all the Defender units take the second action of thier orders(removeing the order counters as they perform the actions.)

(After limited playtesting , I prefer the second method.)

SUMMARY.
A Basic out line for a game runs like this,

Decide the number of units a side,
Players make unit selections,
Players set up an apropriate sized playing area.(With terrain features and objective markers.)
Players decide who is the Attacker / Defender.
Defender rolls for deployment zone type, and picks thier deployment zone.
The attacker sets up in the opposing deployment zone.
(Players can adopt which ever deployment method they prefer, concealed, alternatig etc.)

Out line of basic game turn.

Start of turn phase.(Issue orders.)

Action phases.(Players alternate taking actions with thier units.)

End of turn phase.(Resolve assaults.)

Ill stop there for comments and questions....
I have probaly missed something out , or not expliand it that well.

TTFN
Lanrak.

So far so good. When you say that the players "alternate taking actions with their units" do you mean that players alternate giving orders to their units?


Given that you're concerned with the space taken up by a unit, it might be something to go about defining the relation of units to models so the footprint of a unit on the board can be understood.

I think you're onto something interesting with the situational awareness. It might be something to factor that into the firepower/mobility/assault matrix with which you're working. I'd suggest making the orders that they can be given the product of factors like whether constituent models have line of sight to enemy models, whether they are under fire, in close combat, or otherwise occupied.

Some other things to consider would be:

1. Why units? Are they game-units like Warhammer, or ad hoc like Battlefield Evolution?

2. Why have a fixed time-scale during which all game-units have an opportunity to do something?

3. Why have deployment areas? Can stuff be placed in reserve, like in Warhammer? Why not start games with fully engaged forces? Why roll for a deployment area? Maybe the choice of deployment could be traded off against something else?

Hi Nurglitch.
As always you seem to know EXACTLY the right questions to ask, so I find the answers I need to focus my ideas!

My idea is the players give the units (concealed) orders in the form of counters at the start of the game turn .
Then the players alternate taking the pre determined actions(of the order) with thier units.
(Either alternating activating single units , or players alternate taking the actions of the order in a interleaved way.A takes first action, B takes first action, A takes second actions,B takes second actions.)

This forces players to think tacticaly about what is going to happen over the course of the next few (2/2) actions.As in real life leaders have to plan ahead , without proir knowledge of the enemies intensions , and give thier units orders based on thier tactical acumen and battlefield awarness.

As reguard to the terms 'units ,playing area and deployment'. I am purposly being non specific at the moment , as to focus on the 'theory ' of interaction ,(game play), and so want to be free of pre-concieved ideas that are associated with physical representations .
And this way only, rely on physical atributes of the playing pieces and gaming area, if absolutley necisary.
(Great games dont need finely sculpted minatures to make them enjoyable , do they )

As I want to re-create moden type warfare then mobility is a primary concern, as 'moving into contact' balances with fire power and assaults.
Therfore having enough space between units to allow for tactical positioning and movement is quite important IMO.

The trade off for picking deployment area is , the defender picks thier deployment area and the attacker takes actions first.

I was working on the idea that some HQ support units , could be 'off table' support.Eg higher level artillery , air strikes or specialists held reseves ,like airborne (deepstriking) units. (But didnt want to detract from the basic outlline too much with too much deatail.That has happened previously )

The reason I want to have 'equal oportunity' game turn, eg BOTH players get exactly the same amount of actions every turn, (situations permitting.)Is to keep the players engaged , in an obviously and provably 'fair' game turn system.

(It can be rather dis heartening if a veteran player overwhelms a new player in a variable bound game turn.And as the level of interaction is higher than 'army level IGO-UGO', players hopfuly wont get bored waiting for thier 'turn'!)

I was thinking on restricting the allocation of orders on 2 levels.

Psychological damage to units.
Supression , neutralisation and routing of units.
Units that suffer psychological damage,(low moral) have a 'Moral Counter' placed next to them ,This moral counter replaces the order counter unitll the unit is restored to good moral.Each moral state (counter) has a complusory actions, that replace the order (counters) given by the player.)

Outline details for a basic psychological compulsory actions, you may not want to read yet.........

Supressed ,(shaken)
If in the open , the unit MUST retire to cover at full speed.(Take move actions AWAY from all identified enemy units ,unitll in cover.)

OR the unit MAY move to interveening cover(cover between effected unit and enemy units,) if cover is within movement value of effected unit.

OR if in cover, the unit MAY take shoot actions, directed at located enemy units in effective range, but will not move out of cover.
The supressed unit will only take ONE move or ONE shoot action, in the second action phase of the game turn.

Neutralised.(Stunned).
The unit will not take any actions , unless engaged in assault , (at which point the unit will fight back as normal in the assault.)

Routed .
The unit will take concecutive move actions,(in the first and second action phases,) unitll it exits the playing area or is rallied.The unit MUST attempt to move towards the nearest edge of the playing area , not obstructed by aquired enemy units.(If a routing unit is engaged in assault it is automaticaly destroyed.)

Rallying units.
The player attempts to improve moral of units before allocating orders in the start of turn phase.
The player must roll over the units moral value on a D6 .(Moral values of 1 to 4?)
Positive modifiers,(in cover etc,) add to the dice roll, negative modifiers ,(under half starting strenght,etc) add to the moral value of the unit.

Each sucessful Moral roll improve the units moral one stage, (routed to neutralised to supressed to OK.)

(Units suffer moral damage from intensity /volume of fire directed at them, compared to units current status.)

End of details.............

The second way I want to limit orders, is by what the units are aware of.
As terain features are known , and the possible/probable location of enemy units are concidered by the commander.(If the players can see thier opponents units on the playing area,pretending they can not, or trying to make the act like they can not , is a bit sillly.IMO)

I propose the players can give any order to any unit,(on good moral).
However the ability to attack an intended enemy units is controlled by the units awarness directly...

If units have an Awarness value , and a Field Craft value, the unit wanting to 'aquire' an enemy unit to attack it ,rolls a D6 and adds it to its awaness value along with any apropriate modifiers.
The target unit rolls a D6 and adds it to thier field craft value and any apropriate modifiers.
If the attacking units score is greater than the target units score the attacker has 'aquired' the target and can attack it!
If the attacking unit score is NOT greater than the target unit score , the attacking unit FAILS to 'aquire' the target unit so can NOT attack!

Targets stay aquired , untill the the unit that aquired them becomes nuetralised or worse, or the aqured unit becomes consealed ,(in terrain/smoke screens etc.)

This means players are free to make choices on what to enemy units to target with thier units.BUT the chance of being able to carry out an attack on a unit is proportianal to the disposition of the attacking and the target unit.(Not arbitarily fixed in an abstract way.)

I am unsure how to deal with assault resolution , wether to let it run on untill it is resolved over several game turns, this means units involved in the assault are unable to be given orders untill assault is resolved.(In the end phase of the game turns .)Or to resolve assaults conclusivley at the end of the game turn?

(A side note, some astute readers may have noticed when using the interleaved game turn mechanic , the attacking units are the only units capable to deny the defending units an action by tieing them up in assault.However this is intensional, to balance the defending units ability to shoot at the attacking units after they take thier first action.)

Any how a quick recap on the slightly more detialed game turn.

Start of game turn phase.
Request 'off table' support.
Attempt to rally units on poor moral.
Issue orders to units on good moral.

First Action Phase.
Player A takes first action of orders/moral counter.
Player B takes first action of orders/moral counter.

Second Action Phase.
Player A takes second action of orders/moral counter.
Player B takes second action of orders/moral counter.

End of turn phase.
Determine results of assaults.
Determine arrival/ effect of 'off table support '

Ill stop there for comments, constructive critisisms and alternative ideas...

TTFN
Lanrak.

Lanrak:

Summaries are good, particularly to recap information that is first sketched out in more detail, so thank you for recapping the turn sequence you have so far.

It's not a bad idea to consider the possible details that you're interested in inputting into the system. When I was in academic philosophy the term for developing both the 'bird's eye view' and the details so that they cohered according to a particular set of design criteria was (in some places) called "reflective equilibrium". Think of it like having two points and the design problem being connecting the two points in the desired fashion, so that if the details didn't fit the overall design, then either the details or the design could be cut to fit.

Regarding the variable bound game turn, it's something to consider that games like Warhammer can be more truthfully considered as semi-variable bound games, because actions like Falling Back and Going to Ground are variables added to a fixed bound game turn composed of Move-Shoot-Assault actions.

I bring this up because you may want to consider how the basic game-units ('units' in Warhammer-speak) interact in relation to the game turn. The problem is always the right mix of simultaneity and sequence, so that things like player interactions and player choices are maximized, and the operations (considered as the steps needed to move the sequence along) are minimized.

For example, you may not want to differentiate between shooting and close combat. In Epic Armageddon, for example, shooting and close combat are mixed during Engage actions so that detachments (the game-units) can interact more fully than in Shooting actions such as Advancing, Doubling, and Shooting (I don't think that last one is the actual name, but I'll check) actions.

Already you want, it seems, for players to be able to influence the actions that they can take with their game-units. Going by the principle that they can see you if you can see them, simplifying Shoot and Assault actions into one Engage action might promote simultaneity, player interaction, and co-referential choices, and decrease the number of steps required to represent certain situations, since the exact resolution (who attacks who with what) would be contextual or conditional - a unit that is further away would rely on ranged weapons, a unit that is right up close would rely on close combat weapons, and a unit that is mixed wouldn't have to rely on a kludge like the current mixed of casualty removal in Warhammer 40k, along with the attendent problems of shooting a unit out of an assault, making shooting prior to assaults problematic from both a mechanical and representational perspectives.

So that's why I raise the issue of what will count as game-units in your game, because considerations of material and position should presumably affect the possible outcomes of actions. Take the spotting mechanic you've described above. It doesn't make a difference how much of a unit is exposed.

Representationally one might suppose that a Space Marine that can see 2/3 of a full mob of Orks will be more alert to the presence of a priority threat than a Space Marine that can see only a handful of Orks. The magnitude of the threat would then, talking out of my arse here, have some effect on whether the Space Marine unit can 'see' the Ork unit.

What I'm describing is, I've read, sometimes described as the problem of the 100' giant, the problem that the players are often aware of things that the models on the board are not, and often has a more objective position from which to judge the right action.

So I'd suggest something like a rate at which units are more aware of other units in a general sense, based on position and proportion, and then add in a specific bonus for having a superior tactical acumen/discipline/fieldcraft/etc.

Likewise I'd base the unit's ability to act on factors that can be affected positionally, by their relationships to other material on the board, rather than just a state that they may be in, since such states are somewhat perpendicular to what is going on on the board. For example a unit of Space Marines has a firepower equal to the number of Space Marines with range and line of sight to the target unit, but the firepower of individual Space Marines is a constant whether they are at high risk or low risk of the enemy surviving.

Something that I like about Heavy Gear is that you have the option of using the Rate of Fire of weapons depending on the threat available, either concentrating fire on a single target, walking it amongst targets, or simply saturating an area, depending on the desired outcome (say, facing a single heavy opponent, a horde of light opponents, and trying to interdict movement by the enemy).

So you might want to consider that when confronted by a horde of enemy infantry that units might be less concerned about their supply of ammunition, resulting in perhaps more weapons running out of ammo or jamming or overheating, etc, and when confronted by a tank with staying out of sight and trying to line up a careful shot. This relates to the turn because a semi-variable bound allows you to insert incidental actions to grow the decision tree of the turn sequence, prune it, or change

Hi Nurglitch.
Lots more helpful and informative comments, thankyou.

My previous attempts at building a rule set went off track becuase I was focusing too much on the detail of the units, and often lost sight of the players needs .

So spurred on by your constructive critisisms , I wanted to try establishing 'top level' player interaction first, then defining the 'units' in the simplest way possible.

Dealing with issues in this way , I belive its easier for me to stay on track,(with your assistance.)

The game turn I wanted to use was insipred by interleaved actions used in some histrical games,(And LoTR.)And the order placment and unit activation used in other games.

Rather than follow a set pattern of action sequence, eg, move then shoot then assault.
Or allow a unit to perform multiple actions , and have to take them back , or have lots of conditional exceptions.
Eg
Unit A, charges Unit B, BUT because unit B is over X distance away and passes a reaction check , it MAY fires at unit A half way throught the charge, IF units B decides to shoot, move unit A back to half way and resolve shooting effects, IF unit A meets condition Y, it may continue with the charge, IF it meets condition Z it can not continue the charge.

(6 conditional exceptions , appx 40 words, and may be a glossary of terms explaining definitions. )

My proposed system

Alan gives unit his unit (A )a Charge order.Bob give his unit(B) an Evade order.(Just looking at these two units in isolation for clarity of comparison.)

Alan takes the first action of the Charge order, (move,) and move his unit towards Bobs unit.
Bobs unit now takes the first action of the Evade order,(shoot) and shoots at Alans unit (if aquired,resolve effects of shooting.)
Alans unit now takes the second action of the order,(assault)and assaults Bobs unit ,(if it is able too after taking fire.)
Bobs unit now takes the second action of the order and moves ,(unless Alans unit has locked it in an assault.)

Players can let units perform actions in an 'order' of thier choosing (pun intended. ).
And only one action is carried out before the opponent get chance to respond.
I belive this allows a reasonable level of interaction and representation of 'simultaneity' while having a simple structure of 'sequencing.'

You raise a very good point about why differntiate between assault and shooting.My honest responce is just because I didnt think this far ahead.
Simply using the action 'Attack' and the units offencive ability to listed under 'weapon types' and the particular weapons ' in game effect'.
Would make sense!

Revised actions and Orders.
The three actions are;- Move, Attack,and Ready.

Orders.
(A) Advance, move then attack.
(D)Double move then move .
(E) Evade attack then move.
(F) Full support, ready then attack
(I) Infiltrate, ready then move.

I agree it is probably best if I try to start to define 'units' .
Ill try to do this as simply as possible , so we could add more detail later.(Rather than start with too much infomation an confuse myself ,like I have done before!)

Units on a modern battle field are broadly divided into 2 types.

Units that have multiple 'agile and fragile' elements ,like infantry.

Units that have singular complex element, that are better protected and armed, like APCs and tanks.

Ill try to cover the in game effects of both types of unit with the same characteristics.

Movement rate.(How far the unit can move when taking a move action.)
Movement type.(How the unit moves over the battle field.)
Armour /Resistance to damage.(How hard the unit is to damage.)
Hit Points.(How much damage the unit can take.)
Moral.(How quickly the unit rallies )
Stealth(How well the unit can 'hide' on the battle field.)

May add the follwing if needed
(Awarness?)
(Command value?)

Weapon Types .
Close combat.(Knives axes chainsaws etc.)
Small arms.(Rifles pistols etc.)
Suppport .(Flame throwers, grenade launchers etc,)
Full suport.(Weapon that need a full suport order to use.long set up load-recycle times.)

Weapon characterisics.
Effective range.(The range at which enemy models are effected.)

Armour Piercing.(How good the weapon is a defeating armour.)

Effectivness,(number of individuals effected or template size .)

Bonus Damage .
(Either Penetration bonus in the form of a dice roll, that is added to the armour piercing value of anti tank type weapons.)
(Or a Supresion bonus in the form of a dice roll to establish supression value of anti infantry type weapons.)

Anyhow, I would like to represent units with minatures on a game table.(You knew all along didnt you .)

As the ground scale and vertical scale are often radicaly differnt , (small arms effective range is about 200m , mortar ranges up to 200m, if we keep the 25mm to 2m scale we need a 20m table!)

I prefer to use 'theoretical' based definitions of what would concevably be sensible.Rather than letting interactions become limited purley by physical representations on the game table, as these can become a a bit silly.(Models dont crouch, lay prone etc.)

As reguard to the player knowing the disposition of opposing units.This is similar to 'on the ground commander ' getting intel reports from satelite -scouts-sensors.
However, just because the commander ,(or player) belives (KNOWS) their are enemy units behind that wood.Doesnt mean they can interact with them untill they have been positivley identified by a unit on the ground.(Aquired.)

This is the reason I wanted an mechanic for units to 'aquire targets'.(This is to spot , positivley identify and bring weapons to bare.)

This could be a simple roll to beat target units stealth value, modified by...
(Rough example to illustrate NOT a refined finished product!)

Target unit stealth value incresed by 1 for each of the following.
Aquiring unit supressed.
Can claim cover from terrain ,
Taking (F) or (I ) order,
At long range ,(over X inches away.)
Using specialised stealth equipment.

Aquiring units dice roll score incresed by 1 for each of the folowing.
Target unit fired a support/full support weapon .
Target unit at close range ,(under Y inches away)
Target unit moved more than 6 inches in sight of Aquiring unit.
Using specialised targeting equipment.

EG a Main Battle tank unit Stealth value 1.
Special forces unit commandoes , steath value 4.

To aquire the Main battle tank at short range, you have to roll over 1 with a +1 modifier to the dice roll.
You autmaticaly see the main batle tank dirctley in front of you!

However if the MBT was hull down in prepared positions with camo netting ,at the opposite end of the table on full support oders, and the spotting unit has just been supressed by a recent air strike.
MBT stealth is 1, aquiring unit is supressed+1, for claiming cover +1 , at long range +1, on (F)F order +1,using camo netting+1.
The aquring unit now need to roll over 6 to aquire the MBT.

I wont go into too much more detail ATM.As Ill probably end up confusing myself.But wanted to outline some basic ideas , so you get a better idea of what I am proposing ,(Hopefully).

TTFN
Lanrak.

HI all.
Just going to summerise,(after revisions made ,) and put down a few more ideas and concepts.

SUMMARY.
A Basic out line for a game runs like this,

Decide the number of units a side,

Players make unit selections,

Players set up an apropriate sized playing area.(With terrain features and objective markers.)

Players decide who is the Attacker / Defender.

Players draw mission cards.

Defender rolls for deployment zone type, and picks thier deployment zone,the attacker sets up in the opposing deployment zone.
(Players can adopt which ever deployment method they prefer, concealed, alternatig etc.)

The game turn out line.

Start of game turn phase.
Request 'off table' support.
Issue orders to units on good moral.

First Action Phase.
Player A takes first action of orders/moral counter.
Player B takes first action of orders/moral counter.

Second Action Phase.
Player A takes second action of orders/moral counter.
Player B takes second action of orders/moral counter.

End of turn phase.
Determine arrival/ effect of 'off table support '
Attempt to rally units on poor moral

Orders.
(A) Advance, move then attack.
(D)Double move then move .
(E) Evade attack then move.
(F) Full support, ready then attack
(I) Infiltrate, ready then move.

Moral states.
OK,(no counter)
Supressed,(S)(shaken),
Neutralised,(N)(stunned.)
Routing,(R), (falling back)

I would like to disuss unit in more detail.I would prefer to cover in game processes buy using inclusive,(things that can be applied to ALL units,) definitions , rather than exclusive definitions,(thing that are exclusive to a particualr unit/unit group.)

So looking for cominality NOT exclusivity in units, I have the following basic outlines.

All units are made up of multiple elements.
These elements can be individuals deployed as groups, OR sub systems in a larger more complex asset.

Both type of units SHOULD have thier effectivness erroded as they take physical damage AND moral damage.

So the same characteristics should cover all units.(Why use multile systems when one does the job ?)

Based purley on in game interactions ,I propose the following ..

Mobility.

Covered by how far the unit may move when taking a move action.
(Eg slow infantry 3", normal infantry 4", fast infantry 5", cavalry-bikes 8", jump jets 8" vehicles 6" or 8 or 12")

Type of movment , how the unit interacts with terrain .(Legs,(L) wheels,(W) tracks(T) or hover(H).)

Eg standard infantry (L)4/ Jeep (W) 12/ APC (T)8 , MBT (T)6

(I want to include specialised movement types , like amphibious,(A) jump jets(J) and difficult terrain modifications (D) that allow units to ignore the movement penalies of certain terrain types)

Defencive capability.

Armour resistance to damage.(AR)How hard the unit is to damage, AR values of 1 to 15 ?(Similar to AV in 40k but extended down to cover all units.)

Damage points,(DP) how much damage the unit can take.(Number of wounds of infantry units, number of guns +robustness of propusion in vehicles.)

Stealth. (ST) How well the unit can 'hide' from enemy units.

Offencive capability
Moral Grade (MG) How quick the unit recovers from adverse psychology.(ALL infantry units 'hit the dirt' when they come under fire, veteran units recover and resapond apropriately far quicker than inexperaiced units. )

Weapon capabilities.
The effectivness of weapons and equipment depends on the ability of the user, I propose listing weapon effects for each unit individualy , rather than list a weapon stats seperatley then have to apply units abilities to them to find the net result.
(Eg WS and BS are included in the weapon effects of units and NOT resolved seperatley. )

I propse listing weapon types under descriptive headings to make assesing a units abilities /uses easier.

Close combat(hand weapons used for close in fighting.)
Small arms(standard rifles and pistols of unit)
Support(Specialised weapons like flame throwers, grenade launchers, etc.)
Full support.(Specialised wepons that need a period of preparation to use , need a 'full support' order to use.)

ALL weapons have the following profile.

Effective Range/(ER)(The range at which the weapon WILL effect the target.)

Armour Piercing (AP)(how well the weapon defeats armour )

Targeting.(TG) how many models /times a model, can be hit per attack, either a number of activations per attack or area of effect,{3" dia /5" dia blast])

Damage Type,(DT)A dice roll to add to the relevent secondary effect of the weapon, depending on basic type.

In general weapons either put a lot of energy in one point ,'Anti vehicle'(AV).
OR spay a wde area with low level lethality anti infantry.(AI)

The AV bonus is added to the AP value when used vs vehicles to increase the chance of causing damage.
The AI bonus is compard to the NON vehicle target units AR +DP, to see if the target unit suffers moral damage.


A quick discussion on terrain features.
IMO, these should be defined as;-
1)How they effect a units movement based on movement type.(A simple table of effects.)
2)What units can claim cover from them.If we give terrain a concealment value (if apropriate), any unit that has a HIGHER stealth (ST) value can claim cover.
3) If the terrain has an independant AR value.(Buildings and fortifications.)


RESOLUTION METHODS.(So far )
Targeting
Attacking units picks a target point in LOS of unit and within estimated weapon range.(Originating from unit leader model?)Any enemy units within 6" of this point may be targeted.(To allow units to split fire between nearby enemy units if prefered.)

Aqusition.
Decalre target unit of attack.
Roll over the targets (ST) value on a modified D6 roll to aquire the target.

Resolving damage on aquired target.
Determine what weapons of the attcking unit are in effective range.
Make attacks with appropriate weapons,( in the order- close combat, small arms , support,full suport.)

Resolving attacks on vehicle targets.
Subtract the target vehicles AR value from the AP (+AV bonus dice roll) of the weapon .Consult the following table.

less than 0 no effect.
0 ,supressed.
1 to 2,neutralised.
3 to 4, neutralised , lose a weapon damage point.(transferded to mobility damage when no armamanet left.)
4 to 5, neutralised , lose a mobility damage point .
6 to 7 ,destroyed.
8 + anialated.

Resolving attacks vs NON vehicle targets.

Subtract the target units AR value, from the AP value of the weapon.This value has to be rolled over to save the target models from damage.
Each unsaved hit causes the unit to loose a damage point .The total damage points caused by each attack are used to determine how many enemy models are removed from the unit.(From the enemy models closest to the firing unit.)

After all the attackers weapons physical damage has been resolved.
Total up the number of attacks on the target unit ,add any AI bonus dice values.
If this value is greater than the target units current AR+DP value the target unit becomes supressed.
If this value is over double the target units current AR+Dp value the target unit becomes neutralised.

I propose units will only Route due to extreem physical damage.
Vehicles that have had all armament destroyed make a moral check in the end of game phase, if failed the vehicle Routes.

Vehicles that are immobilised make a moral check in the end of game phase , if failed the crew abandons the vehicle .(counts as destroyed.)

Non vehicle units reduced to less than half thier starting strenght make a moral check in the end of the game phase, if failed the unit routes.

Ill stop again for comments and questions.
TTFN
Lanrak.

Lanrak:

So far you seem to be overloading the system with representative details, which is good to start with, but it might be something to start going through all these ideas and finding what is redundant.

Things like tracking moral and trying to abstract from what the models themselves are doing on the table is a noble ambition, but it really increases the amount of work that the players have to do in order for the state of the game to change, and people generally tend to prefer what is being represented to be represented on the playing surface, rather than by some additional mechanic. That's where the variable bound turn has some advantages over semi-variable bound turns, that you can represent suppression and so on by changing the order of actions or rebalancing play between the players rather than having to fiddle about with some sort of record-keeping mechanism.

Also, with regard to spotting, wouldn't a unit that has attacked another unit be easier to spot?

Hi Nurglitch.
I am not very good at judging the rate of detail, and explanation required ,when trying to convey my ideas!

Ill try to run through the game from the players perspective.And see if this helps....

Players pick the units (cards?) to assemble thier force ,up to an agreed limit of units.(Units could have refernce cards to aid play,like ESM, BFE AT43 etc perhaps?)

They set up an apropriate playing area.

Choose who attacks and who defends,

Determine deployment areas,

Draw mission cards and deploy thier units.

Game turns ...
The players decide if they want to call in 'off table' support or not.(Reserves -air stikes etc,).
Then look at the disposition of units , and decide what actions would be most apropriate and put the relevent order counters next to thier units.

Movement actions are limited by unit mobility capabilities and terrain on the playing area.

Ready actions allow units to peform actions more carfully and or to greater effect.

Attack actions are used to attempt to cause physical or moral damage on enmemy units.

Physical damage is represented by removing models,(or placing damage markers, cotton wool smoke etc,) on models.(Or noted on unit card?)

Moral damage is represented by REMOVING the target units ORDER COUNTER,and replacing it with a MORAL DAMAGE COUNTER.
(Hopfully this is a simple and elegant way to represent loss of command and control?)

Eg
NON vehicle units simply remove the apropriate amount of models to track physical damage.
Vehilce type units can use wire wool (black smoke ) to track mobiity hits , or cotton wool (white smoke) to track armament hits.
Monsters emulating vehicle roles could have 'gore' marker put next to relevant arm or leg perhaps .

If a unit has S/N/R counter it is suffering from moral damage.

I dont think this is overly complicated , and I belive it give players s instant visual representation of what occuring !(But I am biased, it is my idea )

And if ALL actions are resolved as they happen, it allows for fliud game play IMO.(Units movement is slowed/prevented by terrain as the unit moves across tha playing area , dammage is resolved as it happens.)

I am still in the early stages of developing the 'aquisition' mechanic.The modifiers will probably be revised and altered when as we get futher along the development.
All sugestions and alternative ideas most welcome!

Are the unit characteristics over complicated?
40k as reference has BS/WS/S/T/W/I/A/ld/Sve/inv.Thats 8 characteristics and 2 extra ones for saves...(not to mention the assosiated USRs . ).

SM tactical Squad (10 marines) for reference under my proposed characteristics...

M(L) 4 (Unit uses legs to move up to 4" per move action.)

AR 5 (Unit deducts 5 from all weapon attacks to find the value to beat, roll over this value on a D6 to prevent loss of damage points.)

DP 10 (Damage points [wounds]Unit removes one model per damage point lost.)

ST 3 (Unit can claim cover from terain with concealment value of 1 or 2 , enemy units must roll over this value(modified as apropriate) to aquire this unit.)

MG 1 ( Unit has to roll over this value ,(modified as apropriate)to pass a moral check.)

CV 1 (The unit leader is able to add this value to ONE dice roll per game turn.)

UNITS WEAPONS.(Units skill with weapons are reflected in in game effects.)
Weapon name /range/ArmourPiercing /Effect/Bonus damage. (40k uses /range/ AP /str/type/number of shots.)

CC/Combat knives. 2"/5/1/-

SA/Boltguns 2" to 24" /6/1/AI D3 per 4 .(A bonus of D3 is added to the supressive fire rating ,for every 4 boltguns firing)

Sp/Melta gun 0" to 12" 8/1/AV D6(2D6 at 0-6")

FS/Heavy bolter.6" to 36"/ 7/ 3/AI D6

Attacks are resolved in the order CC then SA then Sp then FS.(Dependant on rnage to taget models. )

Has this helped clarify things at all?

Nothing is writen in stone ,I am just hoping for some help in refining -defineing some very rough ideas for a simple simulation wargame.(You are being VERY helpfull, and I appreciate it. )

Is there anything in particular that causes concern?
(I undertsand sometimes streamlining options only become apparent when playtesting).

TTFN
Lanrak.

HI all.
just as qucik thought about how to represent 'characters' in the game, as opposed to ordinary unit leaders.
If we let unit leaders add 1,( or 2 for veterans perhaps?)to one dice roll for thier unit each game turn.

Rather than give characters extra wounds on thier profile, which limits thier skill to just surviving attacks longer.

How about giving them ther apropriate amount of wounds for thier race type.
BUT give them a set number of 'fate' points that allows them to turn a failed dice roll , into an automatic pass,once per GAME .

This means a character doesnt HAVE to engage in attacks directly if they are more suited to leading from the back....

The thought of a 80 year old brilliant tactician, having 5 fate points to spend on thier force to ensure victory,(Eg general ship ), seems more sensible than giving the frail old man a power claw and the charateristics of a close combat monster...

Of course if the brave young captain wants to use his fate points to keep him alive as he leads the counter, attack that fits well too...

Any thoughts on this?

TTFN
Lanrak.

Yes, using stuff like Fate (or Bloodbowl re-rolls, etc) to represent heroics means that grunts can be heroes as well as enabling the upper ranks to lead from the front.

Hi all.
After a bit of playtesting , the game turn mechanic ,(using counters ) has a nice side effect.As long as the players remember who is 'attacking' and who is 'defending', you can leave the game ,(for a brew or a bite to eat, ) and not have to worry about where you were in the game.

(This ability diminishes with age and acohol consumption... )

If the unit order counter is face down, they have not taken any actions.
If the units order counter is face up they have taken the first actio of the order.
If the unit has no order counter they have completed thier order.
If the unit has suffered moral damage they have a S,N,or R counter.

So a quick look at the playing area and you instantly know who's turn it is , and what units have performed what what part of their orders...

I was thinking about changing the damage resolution on vehicles to folow the non vehicle unit format.

EG , subtract the AR value of the target unit from the total AP value (AP + AV bonus dice,) of the weapon hit.
Roll over this value to save the hit.

If you fail the save by up to 1, Minor Damage.(Roll on the damage table with -2 modifier.)
If you fail the save by 2 to 3, Standard damage. (Roll on the damage table.)
If you fail the save by 4 or more Catostophic damage.(Roll on the damage table with +2 modifier)

EG a laser canon ER42" /AP 12/1/ ,AV D6 , hits a MBT(AR 14).
rolls a D6 and gets a 6 for AP bonus!
12+6=18
18-14=4.
The MBT has to roll over 4 to save the hit.(5+save).


If the player controling the MBT rolls a 5 or 6 for the save, no effect.

If the player controling the MBT rolls a 3 or 4 for the save, takes minor damage.

If the player controling the MBT rolls a 1 or 2 6 for the save, takes normal damage.


Damage table .
D6 roll of ;-
1 or less, supressed.
2 neutralised.
3 netralised armament damaged.
4 neutralised mobility damaged
5 destroyed ,
6 or more anialated.

The idea is the better armoured units tend to take minor a normal damage from anti vehicle weapons, where as lighter armoured vehicles can take more severe damage from similar weappon hits.

This means ALL units simjply subtract thier AR value from the AP of the weapon hit to find the saveing throw required .
And the more complex units like vehicles (and monster equivelents,) roll again to determine the extent of the damage.

So the attacking unit rolls to aquire target unit(s), {similar to roll to hit.}

The target unit(s) rolls to 'save' against potential physical damage ,{the chance of causeing damage is dependant on weapon ability and AR of unit compared directly.}

Then the attacking unit rolls to determine moral damage on infantry type units OR details of damage for vehicle type units.


Is this more preferable than having a seperate system for vehicles (and monsters)?

TTFN
Lanrak.

Rather than asking if a particular system of mechanics is preferable to having several systems of mechanics, some of which are not known, I suggest coming up with alternates, making them known and then deciding between them (and cite reasoning so we can check). Don't just settle on something you like and try to justify it, but try to give yourself options.

Hi Nurglitch.
Fair point.

Subtracting the Amour/Resistance to damage,( AR) value of the target, from the Armour Piercing (AP) value of the weapon hit , gives proportionate and scalable range of saves , with the minimum of fuss.(No seperate tables/charts or modifiers for infantry units.)
A simple subtraction, to determine the relevelnt D6 score to stop the weapon hit from causeing damage.

(I have included rough conversion ratios for 40k units in brackets, it the only way some of our younger gamers will help me play test! )

Eg
Light infantry AR 1 or 2(40ks 5+ and 6+ save)

Medium infantry AR 3 or 4 (40ks 3+ and 4+ saves)

Heavy infantry AR 5 or 6( 40ks 2+ saves and 6+Inv saves )

Super heavy 'infantry'/ very light 'vehicles' AR 7 to 8,( 40ks High toughness and 2+ saves , or 2+ saves with 4+ /5+invunerable saves etc.)

Light vehicles.AR 9 or 10(Give 'open topped' vehicles one less '40k AV value' to get relevent AR value.)

Medium vehicles AR 11 to 12

Heavy vehicles AR 13-14

Anti infantry weapons AP 5 to 9( plus supression dice bonus.) (40ks anti infantry weapons Str +2)

Anti vehicle weapons AP 8 to 13(+ D6 AV bonus.) (40ks anti tank weapons Str +3)

With low damage point(one to two wound ,) infantry models, a save or no save to denote active (on table ) or out of action (removed from table,) in game terms, gives a visual reference on how much damage a infantry type unit has taken.As the number of models in the unit determines the over all efficiency of the unit on the playing area.

Vehicle (or M/C,) type units have multiple systems contained withing one model.

The two simplest mechanics I can think of , for resolving damage against these complex units are;-

Subtract the AR value of the target, from the total AP value of the weapon hit,( some would call this the 'penetration value'.)
And look up the difference, (penetration value ) on a damage table .

Pros easy and fast resolution.
Cons breaks with infantry unit damage resolution, doesnt give targeted units a chance to inteveen ,(roll a saveing throw.)

OR,
Deal with vehicle in the same way as infantry type units .

Subtract the AR value from the total AP of weapon hit.

Roll over this number to save the target unit from taking any damage.(Saving throw.)

If the saving throw is unsucessful , consult the damage table , modified by the level of failure.

Pros, follows the same method as infantry damage resolution, gives greater level of interaction.
Cons slightly more complicated resolution.

I am probably making a complete mess of explianing these very simple concepts.
(PS I have edited my previuos post for clarity.)

I am unaware of any other mechanic that gives scalabe results on multiple model units in a simpler way...perhaps you could suh=gest some alternatives ?

TTFN
Lanrak.

(Apart from treating ALL units as a single entity with multiple systems /abilities.Which works fine at higher levels eg batallion and above.But in the gap between 'squad level skirmish' and 'company level battle' its a bit harder to define what the optimum level of detail and managment should be....)

Lanrak:

Okay, re-reading your last post, what are you trying to do? You're trying to have unit-based shooting resolved against what in Warhammer would be called a "complex unit"?

Hi Nurglitch.
I want the command and control to be resolved at the unit level, to speed up gameplay.
(Orders aquisition moral etc.)
Damage resolution is best resolved at the individual weapon hit vs individual element (model) interaction IMO.(To allow the differences in interaction to drive tactical decisions.)

Having individual models removed as casualties in infantry type units, is an easy way to track unit effectiveness.
So for these type of units, simply rolling to save effected models from weapon hits, seemed to be the easiest way, with a the number of failed 'saving throws' detertmining the number DP lost,( the number of models to be removed from the unit.)

If we extend this saving throw mechanic ,to cover vehicle type units ,adding a damage table for failed saving throws , rather than just removing a vehicle after sustaning a set number of damage points.

I thought It would be advisable to modify the severity of the damage by how much the saveing throw was failed by.

EG a Krak missile Rng 48" AP 11/1/AV D6 ,hits a Tank AR/14/12/11 in the front facing .
11=(D6 roll)5 = total AP 16.
Ap16-AR 14= 2 therfore a roll of 3 or more saves the tank from weapon damage.

Fail saving throw by 1,(roll a 2) the attacker rolls for minor damage.
Fail saving throw by by 2,(roll a 1) the attacker rolls for normal damage.

It is very hard to cause damage to higher armoured vehicles.

A warbuggy AV 10/10/10, hit by the same krak missile.
Total AP 16
16-10= 6 therfore a roll of 7 or more is required to save the weapon hit!
The player rolls a save throw.
If the get a 6 (fail by 1) they take minor damage,
If they get 5 or a 4 they Warbuggy takes normal damage
If they get a 3 or less the warbuggy takes major damage.

Lightly armoured vehicles are far more likley to take major damage from powerful anti tank weapon hits.

This way all units 'roll to save' models from wepon hits .(All elements get a saving throw.)
But vehicle type units suffer moral and physical damage as determined by a modified damage chart roll, as more complex results are required for these more complex units IMO.

The other alternative is to simply use total AP - AR = result on the damage table.

Its a simpler method but breaks with the saving throw mechanic .

Has this clarified things or have I mis-understood the question?

I am not very good at explianing my ideas.I am happy to go over anything again if it would help?

TTFN
Lanrak.

Lanrak:

Here's a list of questions:

(1) How does resolving C&C at the unit level speed up gameplay.

(2) Why have a "unit", or collection of elements, when the basic element of game-play is the model?

The reason I ask this is because a lot of the work involved in the Warhammer rules is a result of commensurating two non-distinct sets of elements: models and units. For example, units are targeted, but models are removed as casualties, so one unit can be wiped out by heavy fire while another unit mixed among it can be completely unaffected, unless the attacker is using blast weapons, in which case...etc.

Obviously units are a kludge to speed up game play by allowing the actions of multiple models to be resolved simultaneously rather than in sequence. Less obviously, units require more abstraction and work on the part of the players to map actions directed at the unit onto its constituent models.

Something I really liked about the 4th edition of the game was the casualty removal rules, allowing highly tactical decisions on the part of both attacking and defending player to affect greater friction on a unit than simply reducing the number of models, because complex units could have attacks against them planned to remove their specialists, resulting in a non-linear loss of effectiveness. The players had to weigh vulnerability in defense against effectiveness in attack, but the system preferred homogeneous units and rewarded tactical acumen over strategic insight.

The 5th edition reverses several things from 4th edition, not only making model-sniping nigh-impossible but for special rules (Vindicare, Telion, etc), but reducing the effectiveness of mixed AP wounds. However, it has the advantages of encouraging diversity in units and rewards strategy over tactical acumen.

(3) How do the differences in individual weapons drive tactical decisions?

With regard to this 3rd question, Chess, for example, makes no distinction between how effective any piece can capture any other piece, and drive tactical decisions through differences in mobility and position (and strategic decisions through a matrix of time, space, and material).

But part of the weirdness of 40k stems from using models as wound markers, recording the amount of friction sustained by a unit, and the amount of friction sustained by individual models with multiple wounds.

In fact it's fascinating to have played Tyranid Warriors in 4th edition and 5th edition, and in 5th edition with the 4th codex because we see three situations:

A unit of multi-wound models with the ability to take diverse wargear when diverse wargear can be targeted, a unit of multi-wound models with the ability to take diverse wargear when diverse wargear cannot be targeted, and a unit of multi-wound models with less ability to take diverse wargear when diverse wargear cannot be targeted. The differences in value and role are pretty interesting.

(4) What's with all the arithmetic? It's simple arithmetic, to be sure, but consider the number of operations you're asking players to do.

Hi Nurglitch.
Its obvious I am very bad at explining my ideas.
Thankyou for takeing the time to ask the question that help me focus and explain things better.

What I meant to say is the game is about UNIT interaction.ALL aspects of resolution APART from weapons physical effect on individual models ,is resolved at the unit level.
Rolling for the actions of each individual model for every in game action, would slow the game down conciderably!

The effects of individual weapons on individual models is what defines the UNITS offencive capability, which CAN be the most complex part of a unit.
(In 40k USUALY all models in the same unit , have identical mobility and defence capabilities.ONLY the weapons carried , set them apart from the other identical members of thier unit.)

I am trying to identify and isolate the CORE elements of the interaction , in the game .And redefine them in a more straight forward way.

You sound like you have alot of experiance in 'game therory and development'. And your help is very much apreciated.

I am working from a 'simulationist' direction.Most of the historical wargames I play are very complex simulations of actual events.
In these cases simple maths of 'Attackers value A, minus defenders value B equals result value C', is the ONLY way to deal with the masses of detailed interactions often present.
Many have a huge raft of modifiers to table results.(One game uses 22 modifiers for artillery barrages!)BUT simpler modifiers +/- 1 or 2 , for 3 or 4 situations gives reasonable representation .IMO.

The fact I am terible at explaining my ideas in writing, keeping writen explanations to a minimum by using simple maths is a no -brainer for me.

Looking at what I am expecting the players to do..

1)Place order counters next to thier UNITs at the start of the game turn (command phase).(Moral damage counter replace orders.)To denote what actions the unit will take in the next action phases.

2)Modify UNIT movement distance dependant on terrain -mobility type.(Movement table, similar to difficult terain table.)

3)Select a 'target zone' for the attacking unit to attampt to aquire enemy unit(s) in.

4)Roll to aquire a target unit ,roll a (modified) D6 to try to beat the (Modified ) Stealth value of a potential target unit to allow the attack to happen.

5)Resolve primary damage resolution.(Damaged or not damaged.)
Weapons AP value minus targeta AR value = score to roll over to save the damage.
(This lets natural level of invunerability and auto damage happen!)

(Attacking unit rolls to aquire (spot and attack),target unit rolls to save damage from attack.)

A quick definition , only 2 type of basic UNIT in the game.
1)Multiple model units with low defencive ability , and each individual model ONLY contributing attacks and ablative wound to the rest of the unit.
Infantry, Cavalry,Bikes , Beasts etc.Loss in effecitiveness and friction , covered by removing individual models from the unit.

2)Units represented by complex models , that have multiple ability -systems ,Vehicles and Monstrous Creatures.In these units models SHOULD lose effectivness slowly over time .As no- one wants to break lumps of thier vehicle -monstrous creature models to represent damage in a simialr way to type 1 units , a damage table may be in order...
(40k vehicle damage table is sort of what I want to use.)

Back to the list ...
6)Secondary damage allocation
Type 1 units.
After all damage from attacking unit has been resolved and model that are casualties removed.Add the current AR to the DP of the target unit.
This is the supression value of the target unit.
If the attackers weappns Supressive effect is over this value the target unit become supressed.(Shaken)
If the attackers weapons supresive effect is over DOUBLE this value the target becomes neutralised.(Stunned)

Type 2 units.
If the saving throw is failed, how much the save is failed by ,modifies the roll on the vehicle/ MC,damage table.


7) Moral tests. A (modified) D6 roll to try to roll over the units (modified )Moral Grade.

Players try to rally units on poor moral (Supressed Nutralised) at the start of the game turn.(Command phase.)

Units that have taken extreem damage ( under half starting strenght, ) MUST pass a Moral test or route at the end of the game turn (resolution phase.)

Each passed moral test move the unit to the next moral level.
Routed, to neutralised,to supressed to OK.


Are these 7 thing too mutch?I fail to explain the simplest of ideas clearly ....

If weapons capabilities vs different target types are made obviuos - anti infantry -anti vehicle , then how units are deployed and used in game , tend to follow more convetinonal combined arms tactics.

If coupled with narrative random missions , the players tend to focus on synergistic considerations and develop tactics .
(Or it could just be the way I play wargames ?)

I hope this helps with defining what I wish to achive .
I apreciate your patience.

TTFN
Lanrak.

HI again.
Here is a rough layout of the rule set so far in a PDF format.
It may make it easier to see the over all picture.
(But as I am rubbish at writing my ideas down , it may not? )

I apologise for the layout ,and any grammer or spelling mistakes.

But covering interleaved 'random selection action' interaction, moral effects, fog of war , fully graduated mobility and weapon effects in about a dozen pages is not too bad for me!

Please have a read and post any comments ,questions so I may refine this to a more aceptable level.

My appreciation in advance.

Lanrak.

Lanrak:

My questions above were not questions about what you are doing. They were questions of motivation, or why you are doing certain things and making certain choices.

Now, you say that you want to redefine the core elements of 40k and re-jig them to be more straightforward. That's a clear statement of motivation or design goal if I ever read one. Supposing that is your motivation, your design goal for your project here, I'm asking you how having fixed units composed of models helps you reach you goal.

In particular I'm asking why, in light of how many apparently un-necessary complications the core notion of fixed units requires in order to have units composed of models, you wish to retain this core element or feature of 40k. Why?

Starship Troopers, and its successor Battlefield Evolution, manage to simplify a lot of rules by making units an ad hoc way of (a) constructing armies and (b) managing simultaneous actions.

In fact Warhammer 40k is full of rules that deviate from this unit-addresses-unit paradigm, such as the blast rules, various special rules about targeting (Telion and the Vindicare), independent characters, and so on. Just like its turn sequence deviates from fixed-length bounded turn, the basic 40k rules require a lot of extra baggage to be added down the line because the unit-addresses-unit paradigm is insufficient for many actions to be represented without serious hand-waving on the part of the designers.

Something to consider, from a top-down perspective, is writing up a list of features that you want the game to have, and beside each feature explain what this feature does for the player.

In my Fog of War game, for example, I had three features that I wanted, and that guided the design process.

1. Double-blind Play
I wanted players to be able to play a game using a double-blind system, and I wanted them to do this in order to extend the classic paradigm of Chess beyond time, space, and material to include information. From the outset I wanted a board game that resisted reduction to combinatoric game theory.

2. Uncertainty handled without Dice
I wanted players to be able to play the game without the use of dice as a random element, but without ceding the design parameter given above. This necessitated a shell-game style of system using dummy pieces. Interesting rather than restricting the way the game worked, the use of dummy pieces allowed additional features that I'll describe below.

3. Maximum Amount of Material Used Per Game
The third feature of the game was ensuring that people got to play with most of the pieces provided. I wanted to make the use of game equipment efficient so that players didn't buy expansions and end up only using some pieces because clearing the board was an optimum strategy. First I made it difficult to remove unit pieces from the board, and allowed dummy pieces to be recycled back onto the board (and to prevent surrounded enemy from retreating to preserve the piece). Finally I made the game about capturing territory rather than eliminating the opponent.

To a degree the game meets the goals I set for it, because although it does play double-blind well, people are not well suited to playing double-blind, the uncertainty can be handled by sufficiently adept players because it is only pseudo-random (not really a bad thing), and maximizing the number of pieces on the board makes the stack-by-stack action sequence slow.

Fortunately play-testing feedback means that I've inputted the suggestion that new players start their first few games "open", or non-blind, as an optional rule. to reduce the learning curve, and am weighing whether to have a Blood Bowl style "each force one at a time, ending with an attack" turn sequence to speed up the game (kudos to Pipboy101 and his lads for that suggestion by the way!).

Hi Nurglitch,
To be fair I originaly wanted to develop a generic - modern warfare simulation game.
A sort of 'intro game' rule set , teaching the basic elements of this type of war game in a straight forward way.Having played quite a few simulations and sucessfuly 'streamlined them ' for newer players, ( with help from other gamers) , I was probably a bit over confident .

I was aiming at 'unit ' interaction as the game could easily be scaled from 'squad units ' right the way up to 'battalion units', dependant on what game we were going to use it as an 'introduction ' for.(And the basic mobility, defensive ,offencive , and comand and control elements were defined as straight forward and generic as I could think of.)

Anyhow reading through the rules development boards of several forums, alot of people seem to want more of a simulation type rule set for thier 40k minatures .

As the game of 40k uses 'modern type units' and the game is 'supposed' to be based on unit interaction.
Pg 3 Of the rule book refers to grouping models together into units , (like infantry and cavalry units).Some units are represented by single large powerful models, like tanks and monstrous creatures.
'....All these things are refered to as units...'

This sets the game up as 'unit interaction', doesnt it?
It specificaly refers to the models as being grouped into and classed as UNIT TYPES.

(Then the rules over complicate units definitions on Pg 4 and 5.And use 17 pages of seperate rules for 'vehicle units',pgs 56. to 73)

I looked at my basic ideas for a new rule set , and they looked like they could work in the 40k setting.

I took it upon myself to look at the core game play of 40k , and see if I could get there in a more straight forward way , by using my basic framework of rules.(Revised with lots of help from you. )

As 40k gamers have lots of 40k minatures , and they probably like the current size and scale of the 40k game.

I simply tried to get my basic concepts of 'unit interaction' to be usable with 40k, and the larger player base would mean I would probably get more input from larger amount of all player abilities,to help refine the rule set.(Its not working out like that but never mind...)

My basic design goals were.
(Percived problems with current 40k rules.)

High(er) level of player interaction and in game choices,delivered in a easy to understand and easy to control way.
(Waiting for your opponent take ALL actions with ALL thier units,over 3 phases , before you can do anything, is a bit boring/ counter intuitive.)

Define a wide range of game elements (units) in a common way.Using the same characteristics for all units , vehicles and MC.s have slightly more detail.
(Far to many poorly explained specialised/ seperate rules ,and USRs that could have been covered with better structured basic rules.)

Interaction to be resolved by comparision of charactersistics , or target value of dice roll, based on charactersistics.
(Reducing the number of resolution methods to 2, to make it easier for new players to pick up.)

Add a basic representation of 'fog of war' and moral effects.
(Adding some more 'basic real war elements' to give more intuitive game play, and not having to resort to even more spirous special rules. )


(Reading through the current 40k rule book, it apears to over simplify the basic rules too much.Then rely on loads of additional rules to achive the basic game play.)

Resolving attacks, (and to an extent positioning,) at the model level, is a concession to table top minature gameing.(As opposed to board games etc.)

What is the point of setting up fully painted minature armies on a games table with detailed scenery and terain?If the game rules totaly ignore these physical factors in helping players resolve gameplay?

However, if you totaly obsess about every slight difference , and physical atribute of the minatures.You may loose sight of what the game play is supposed to be about .

I am hopfully going to be able to use random mission cards for 'attacker' and 'defender' to instill a more narrative attitude towards gameplay.And I would like to ditch points values, and go for army composition based on 'core unit groups' to set the theme of the army.


I would like to keep the strong narrative and themes from 2nd ed,(by using randomised secret missions and themed army selection), while altering the focus of the rules from models to units, to acomodate the larger game size efficiently .

(A bit like how LoTR and WoTR are seperate rule sets for 'Skirmish' and 'Battle' games in the same setting.)

I probably still have not realy comunicated the information you want?I am not very good at experessing myself clearly ,(sorry.)

TTFN
Lanrak.

Hi again.
I've just had an idea for more detailed casualty removal, for infantry type units.

Casuialties in a 'Infantry type ' unit, are removed from models in attackers LOS ,and closest to the attacking unit first , then working back away from the attacking unit.(This is sensible IMO, and helps the game mechanics/resolutions below....)

'Ducking back'.
Models that represent Leaders and heros , or models with 'support /full support weapons' may swap positions with models futher back in the unit to avoid being removed as casualties.
The player must swaps the posiotions of these 'noteable models' in the unit formation BEFORE they roll any saves,( that determine the amount of casualties caused.)

This adds a element of risk, to leave the 'notable models' near the front of the unit and risk loosing them as casualties, or move them near the back of the unit and loose effective range -targeting potential.

This represents other troopers picking up the units support weapons from thier fallen comrades, and the more experainced members of the unit (leaders and heroes,)'ducking back' out of harms way to denote thier combat survival skills/dispacer fields /sixth sense /super natural reflexes etc.

Exceptions,
When models are attacked by Assault (close combat) weapons,then casualties are taken from models actualy in weapon range.
(Or when a model becomes a casualty of a sniper team?)

The reason it to make attacks cause target units to 'shrink back' from enemy attacks, is to allow for natural 'positional friction',to make maintaining unit abilities a matter of tactical judgement , and to reward units that make it into close enough range, to use assault weapons.

This is also to allow units to attempt to dis-engage from assaults, as a gap usualy widens between units after assault weapon are used in an attack.

Players can take a double(D) action to 'Run away!'
An evade action (E), to withdraw in good order.
An advance action(A) to try to re-engage.


TTFN
Lanrak.

Hehe.. Double D action

/endimmaturity

Everything that you've written so far looks very interesting; i look forward to seeing more! However I do have on suggestion - if you get around to writing army lists or the like, try to avoid exceptions to your core game rules. In 40k, nearly every army now has effective ways to minimise/ignore most leadership/morale aspects of the game; many models can deep strike in new and 'interesting' ways, then move and fire heavy weapons and then assault... etc etc. I guess just ensuring that any special rules build upon the base rules rather than working around them; and if you find you're making modifications to base rules too often, its probably a problem with that rule.

Hi Trasvi.
I think I have covered all the game play interaction in the basic rules.
(Would you check out the basic rules outline a few posts up and see if I have missed anything you may want included?)

I would like the army composition to simply be about themed unit selection, rather than fiddeling around with PV .

Units would be given 'info cards' listing thier characteristics and game info on one side, and the organisational information on the back.

Eg
Font of card.

Imperial Gurad light infantry squad .
(Coherancy 2")

M L 4"
AR 2
DP 10
S 3
MG 3
Cv 1

Weapon type/Name /Effective range/ Armour penetration/Effect/Bonus damage (AV or AI)

Assault. Combat knives. 2"/5/1/-

Small arms.Las guns .2 to 24"/5/1/-

Support weapon Melta gun 0 to 12 "/11/1/AV D6(2D6 if under 6" range.)

Full support weapon Heavy bolter 6 to 36" /7/3/AI D6.

Rear of card.
Core unit chioce for Infantry companies.
Tanith Daggers, Necromundia Spiders, (Other, better cool names of approproiate IG regiments)

4 of theses units form a Core Unit Group.

An Infantry HQ unit may be selsected for every 4 squads selected.(1per core unit group.)

1 Infantry support unit may be selected for every 2 of these units.


So each unit would have a quick in game reference the size of a playing card, which could be used to build an armies, quickly and easily up to an agreed number of units.

I would fix unit size at the most popular-background based , and give the load out options in sets.

This would be to make army selection easier, and game play more narative based with missions determining the level of sucess.

The army lists would have a section on the organisation.(Following basic infantry, mechanised, armoured and airborne structures.)

And then the unit data and options.

I have mocked up a Ork army list just to show the basic layout.(It is very basic!)

Just what you can take and the cost in 'units'.

No PV, just themed armies made from personal unit preferences.....

TTFN
Lanrak.

Hi all.
As my DTP skills are none existant.
Could anyone help me make the rules more presentable , or help design the unit cards?

Has anyone any ideas on other races army lists basic units ?

I am sure my poor presentation skills are not helping .

Has anyone any problems with the basic rule layout ideas?

Any constructive critisism or alternative ideas wecolme.

TTFN
Lanrak.