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 again.
I have to say most ideas to improve 40k lead to 'greater rules bloat', or the recomendation of other rule sets , or a complete re-write of the game from the ground up....

Unfortunatley due to legacy issues and mis handeling of 'streamlining ' the current 40k rule set is a bit of a hollistic abstract mess.
Its practicaly impossible to change anything without knocking somthing else out of line.(Usualy due to multiple systems/rules covering one function.)
So even a simple 'fix' leads to lots of re-writing.

As the team of professional game devlopers at GW have achived (comparitivley) very little in 10 years with the new encarnation of 40k.
(Other companies have developed new games to greater levels of game play-balance in far shorter periods of time.)

I tend to think a complete overhaul is getting to be the more efficient option.
However ,as long as just fixing pre planted errors and minor tweeks still bring in the cash, GW will styill keep on re-cycling mutated WH rules for 40k.

(I am also a fan of the free to down load StargruntII.)

But feel free to experiment with which ever rule set you like best,to get the game you enjoy playing.

Happy Gaming
Lanrak.

If they mean what I think your say thats a great idea. It would make the game flow much faster and smoother. you wouldn't get players taking 1 and 1/2 hours per turn (This happens at my games club im really not exagerating) and it would bring in another level of tactics.

It would also make the game more realistic as gunline or shooty armies like IG or Tau would spend more time shooting where as Nids or Orks would be able to move more and be more based on fighting. It would allow. this would also allow you to make a purely shooting or combat army without wasting phases.

So you need to write up those rules and send them to GW straight away, its exactly what they need to liven up the game.

@Lanrak: I know. It's usually the one complaint that I have on this section of the forum, that it would change the game too much. I see your point, and since I haven't played this game for very long, I don't know how slowly the wheels of games workshop turn yet. I do believe this is one of the less radical rules changes than some other things i've seen, so I'm going to stick with my opinion. Thanks for all the opinions.

@The Devourer: That's exactly what I was going for. (not exactly writing this up and sending it to GW, but you seem to understand the intent of this)


What could be done is vehicles could be slower (It's something I'm worried about, making mech lists even better) and changing the rules on RUN! and Fleet. (in fact, Fleet could become run, and then run could go away.)

Lanrak wrote:Hi all.
I think the OP might be asking for a more interactive game turn.
Rather than the yawn fest of waiting for your opponent to move everything, shoot with everything, assault with everything.....

Some alternatives for game turns are..
'Interleaved Phases'.

(Roll for who goes first reach turn.)
Player A moves.
Player B moves.
Player A shoots.
Player B shoots.
Player A assaults.
Player B assaults.

This is just me thinking here, but i could be totally wrong. Wouldn't this system always have Player A getting the charge? If both are moving towards each other and Player A is first in Assualt phase wouldn't that be an extremely unfair advantag?Or am i just thinking about this wrong.

Well it would require more thinking, because if you don't, by default, yes.

Hi folks.
Did you miss the , 'roll to see who goes first each turn?'
Let the dice decide who goes first each game turn.This means having to plan for loosing 'initiative' , and be in a good position to take advantage if you get it.

Most games that use interleved phases have some form of randomising who goes first .(Roll dice , strategy ratings, number of active units , etc.).

TTFN
Lanrak.

I was about to mention that..... thanks Lanrak.

I would love to see a basic write up of these rules. I can image that it would be complicated to do as there are many exceptions and special rules but they could probably be changed to fit in and have a similar effect.

I personaly think GW need to fully redo the rules as i'm finding many games become boring because the turns feel very long. As all the turns are together I find that large tactics do not play an important role as the game is to slow for you to make any large changes mid game.

I think that GW should aim for the feel of crazypsykos' rules and try and make rules that allow the game to change a lot faster than the present rules.

Hope i'm not going on too much... The Devourer

A while back I was toying with the idea of a single-phase modification 40k, but it basically came down Battlefield Evolution, which is perhaps an unsurprising result of covergent evolution given Andy Chambers' original authorship of what became Battlefield Evolution (aka: Starship Troopers). So I went back to the drawing board and thought a little bit more about what was characteristic of Warhammer, and what might be done with the phases.

One thing I figured as sticking with separate player turns in a single game turn. That's just Warhammer. Another thing was that 40k is already making some headway into mixed phases, by allowing movement in both the shooting and assault phase, assaults to be resolved in both turns, and so on. Plus, Jervis Johnson has already showed a way of integrating shooting and assaults in his phenomenal Epic: Armageddon game.

So, here's the idea:

There are three phases in the each player turn, and in each phase a unit may complete one action. Each phase the player picks a unit, resolves its action, and then moves onto the next unit. Normally a unit will only be allowed to make two actions, and thus only act in two phases, but some special rules and wargear will allow units to make a third action (Eldar Jetbikes, for example, Fleet for another). A unit can only make one kind of action per turn (so no Movement twice). A weapon may only be used in a single phase per player turn. In addition, any reaction that a unit makes in the other army's player turn (Fall Back after failing a Morale check, fight a round of close combat, etc) counts against the number of actions in their own player turn.

Actions:

Movement
As the current movement rules for the Movement phase.

Assault
As the current movement and combat rules for the Assault phase.

Shooting
As the current shooting rules for the Shooting phase.

Fall Back
A unit that is Falling Back must make a Fall Back re/action during the first phase of every player turn. Units that are Falling Back can only make Fall Back, Rally, or Shoot actions.

Rally
As the Rally rules in the Morale section of the rulebook.
Ready

Reactions
Fall Back
See Fall Back! rules in the Morale section of the rulebook.

Stand and Fight
As the current close combat rules in the Assault phase.

So notice that a unit can Stand and Fight during the opposing player turn, and then if it is still locked in close combat during its own player's turn, can fight again. If it had some rule permitting movement after an assault, like Hit and Run, then it can make a third action during on of its own phases.

I like that idea, nurglitch. Now, the only problem I see with this is when exactly are these reactions taken, can a unit fall back when another unit as moved? It would be helpful if you specified when this could happen. If a unit assaults, when do the reactions occur? because, if you're going by initiative (the unit with the higher initiative decides what they do first) then some pansy eldar shooty army (I'm looking at you, fludit!!) is going to get away every time. I think that unless stated otherwise, Fall Back should be dictated by a morale check and a morale check only. Perhaps certain HQs (Ethereals, Autarchs, Necron Lords, CCS, etc.) can allow you to decide to fall back, but other HQs, like the ones that are renown for fighting (not being intelligent in any way) can't.

In terms of USR, Run! is now Fleet, and if you look at it in terms of which phase the move is done in, it still makes sense. A rule that takes place in the shooting phase happens when you're shooting, a rule which takes place when assaulting happens when you're assaulting.

I'm not entirely sure about the whole Fall Back reaction, I think there should be some sort of dice roll involved. Like a morale test, but with initiative.

Something like: "If a unit is attempting to take a 'Fall Back!' Reaction, take their initiative, If it is 5 or lower, use a single dice, if it is higher, (automatically passed? counts as 5?) Roll 1D6, If it is equal to or lower than the initiative of the unit, The fall back test is passed and the unit makes a 'Fall Back!' move."

Another idea I have is that units cannot fall back more than once per game turn.

Just my 2 cents.

The reactions occur as and when they normally occur.

A unit would Stand and Fight when an enemy unit charges into close combat with them. A unit would Fall Back after failing a Morale check at the end of a phase due to shooting casualties or losing an assault, and immediately when getting tank shocked. The order is already in the rules; it's already dictated by morale checks.

Likewise, according to this set-up Run is still done instead of taking a Shooting action. Fleet simply allows an Assault action (movement and combat) in addition to another two actions that permit assault movement, such as Moving and Shooting or Running.

Interesting point about Fall Back actions, although that's already been covered in the prohibition against doing more than one of any type of action during a turn.

Hi Nurglitch.
I was wondering if it might be possible to 'stream line' the actions a bit , without loosing the exellent interaction.(Yes I am a fan of this game turn.)And maybe reduce turns to 2 each?

I we let 'assaults' happen naturaly when units move into contact.And units contacted in this way are assumed to 'stand and fight'?

Resolving assaults at the end of game turn , help balance shooting and ,assault as it ties up units in a lenghty 'fist fight.' (Thus reducing fire power.)
A burst of rapid fire only takes a few seconds, close combat usualy takes a bit longer to decide a victor!

And the effects of moral be summarised into 'OK' 'Supressed' 'Routed'.
(Supressed units will stay in cover, if NOT in cover will move to cover within 1/2 move OR or 'fall back' to cover.Routed unit must move to leave the 'battle area' by the shortest available route.)

Rallying could be part of the 'start of game turn'. turn?(Routed units go to supressed, supressed units go to ready?)

This would leave ,move, shoot , ready. actions.(Ready action is taken before shooting if wanting to use current 'move or fire weapons'.And the default action after rallying.)

Eg
'Start of game turn.'
Players roll for /determine initiative .
Call for off table support, (artillery,air strikes, reserves,). And attempt to rally supressed units.

Player A .
Player B.
Player A.
Player B.

End of game turn.
Resolve assaults, plot arrivals.(reserves air strikes and bombardments!)


Just a few suggestions ,for discussion.

TTFN
Lanrak.

Nurglitch wrote:The reactions occur as and when they normally occur.

A unit would Stand and Fight when an enemy unit charges into close combat with them. A unit would Fall Back after failing a Morale check at the end of a phase due to shooting casualties or losing an assault, and immediately when getting tank shocked. The order is already in the rules; it's already dictated by morale checks.

Likewise, according to this set-up Run is still done instead of taking a Shooting action. Fleet simply allows an Assault action (movement and combat) in addition to another two actions that permit assault movement, such as Moving and Shooting or Running.

Interesting point about Fall Back actions, although that's already been covered in the prohibition against doing more than one of any type of action during a turn.

Alright, I got more sleep last night, so I re-read your rules and understand them, lol. I think that two phases (like what lanrak just said) would make it more streamlined than three phases, but then, of course we need to add a few more turns. Three more? Mathematically to add in the lost phases we'd need 2.5, so 2 or 3 more turns?

I say two phases would be good because it retains the restrictions of not being able to move all the time, and you're forced to do other things. The problem I have with the three phase turn is it becomes the regular turns out of order. The two-phase turn makes more sense to me.

Having three phases maintains backwards compatibility with the existing 40k rules, particularly the ones like Fleet which enable a unit to get an Assault action if they also ran while engaging in a Shooting action.

I'd say resolve assaults at the end of the phase it begins, as usual, with units locked in an assault from a previous turn being resolved during the first phase of the turn (so fighting in combat and then possibly falling back would count as a unit's two actions for that turn). If a new unit engages a locked unit in the next phase, then any unit with re/actions left that turn could fight.

The current morale effects for 40k, keeping in minds backwards compatibility, would be normal, falling back, and gone to ground or pinned. There's no need to change these things if we simply want to play Warhammer with a more flexible turn structure. Indeed, they are superfluous to it, and if we want to change as little as possible and maximize backwards compatibility, what we already have in 5th edition is good enough.

Likewise the introduction of a Ready action is un-necessary because such actions are already presumed in the 5th edition of the rules: a unit that wants to fire Heavy Weapons in that turn cannot move or assault, either before or after the phase in which it shoots.

Basically what I'm proposing here is a way to loosen the strict move-shoot-assault order of 40k turns so that the following options are available.

In fact, in retrospect, I believe my proposal needs amendment, because the existing 40k rules already allow three actions per turn under the right conditions, without recourse to special rules. A unit of Ork Boyz, for example, can move, shoot, and then assault.

So I'd like to amed my proposal to lose the general restriction on two actions per turn, and to leave it at allowing up to one action per phase, pending other limitations. A unit that a player had engaged in shooting Rapid Fire weapons in a previous phase would not have the option of conducting an assault action, for example.

Likewise an assault action would preclude a unit from conducting a Shooting action with Rapid Fire weapons. And a unit that was engaged in a close combat that they lost would only have the option of Falling Back, and then possibly Shooting.

These limits already exist organic to the established system, and do not require additional rules.

So the Turn Sequence would be amended as follows:

Game Turn 1

Player 1 Turn 1

Phase 1 - Player 1, one by one, can declare and resolve a Move, Shooting, Assault, Fall Back, or Rally action, Player 2 resolves Stand and Fight reactions as units are engaged, Fall Back actions at the end of the phase, or during Tank Shock.

Phase 2

Player 1, one by one, can declare and resolve a Move, Shooting, Assault, or Rally action, Player 2 resolves Stand and Fight reactions as units are engaged, Fall Back actions at the end of the phase, or during Tank Shock.

Phase 3

Player 1, one by one, can declare and resolve a Move, Shooting, Assault, or Rally action, Player 2 resolves Stand and Fight reactions as units are engaged, Fall Back actions at the end of the phase, or during Tank Shock.

Player 2, Turn 1

As Player 1 Turn 1, but roles reversed.

Game Turn 2

As Game Turn 1, etc.

The only restriction would be that a unit cannot perform the same action or reaction more than once in one player turn.

Hi Nurglitch,
Ah I see now.
But is modifying a '3 phase interactive game turn' to suit rules developed for 'army level IGO/ UGO game turn' a good idea?

I belive this will lead to lots of wordy descriptions of conditions to be met , for all the conditional squences.

This appears to be a re-occuring theme with 40k development, any attempt to try to inject more game play, results in lots of wordy explinations due to a basicaly inefficient existing system.
And when they are made to be 'backwards compatable', this seems to make good ideas look 'over complicated'.IMO.

What about action-raction type game turn?

Eg.
Player A acts.
Player B reacts.
Player B acts.
Player A reacts.

As you have defined 'actions' and 're-action' opotions , would this make it easier for players to follow the sequencing?

Shorter game turn ,with less happening , but easier to follow?

Again just some ideas for discussion.
TTFN
Lanrak.

Lanrak:

I'm not modifying a '3 phase interactive game turn' to suit rules developed for 'army level IGO/ UGO game turn'.

Warhammer 40k already has a 3 phase interactive game turn developed for 'army level IGO/ UGO game turn. I'm not proposing to change anything except the options that a player has in each phase of the game.

All I'm proposing is giving players the option of what to do in each phase, and following a progression already established in the rules:

As a Warhammer 40k 5th edition player you can move in all three phases, for example, by moving, running, and assaulting (pending rules for combinations of weapons and actions). Likewise players have the option of shooting or running in the Shooting phase (pending rules for units).

In particular, I'm proposing a very conservative modification, one that should make it un-necessary to change much more than the turn sequence, or the content on p.9 and

So a player can assault, move, and shoot, or shoot, assault, move, or move and assault, or move and shoot, or rally and shoot, or fall back and shoot, and so on.

My proposal isn't about "injecting more game play", which remains to be seen since I haven't tried this myself yet, but modifying the rules to fit the original poster's design principles of streamlined play with increased tactical thought. The gameplay concepts are present in 5th edtion (acting in three phases, options in phases), and my proposal just increased the amount of tactical thinking said gameplay generates, while using off-the-shelf streamlining in the form of the existing rules.

If we define streamlined play as simplifying the number of tasks required of the players, and increased tactical thought as more tactical problems for the players to solve, and we add in the additional problem of ensuring retro-compatibility, so that we're still playing Warhammer rather than Stargrunt, Battlefield Evo, Epic Armageddon, Crossfire, or Chess, then I think my proposal is a good first approximation of what the original poster wants (okay, it's three phases per game, but that's Warhammer for you).

You may have noticed I'm naturally "wordy", but if you care to check compare my proposal to the wording of the 5th edition rules, I think you'll find that mine can be written in the same number of column-inches or less.

I could, for example, write it as:

Substitution for "The Turn", The Rules Section, the Rulebook, p.9 wrote:Game Turns and Player Turns
In a complete game turn, both players get a player turn, with each player turn divided into three phases (see Turn Sequence, below). Hence one game turn will comprise two player turns.

During each phase of their turn, a player picks a unit they control, declares an action, resolves that action, and moves on until they run out of units, or they decide to end the phase. A unit may not engage in more than one action of the same type in a single turn.

All close combat is resolved at the end of a phase, rather than before another unit resolves an action. Units already in close combat may declare an Assault action to resolve the close combat at the end of that phase.

Turn Sequence
1st Phase
Options: Movement, Shooting, Assault, Regroup, Fall Back
2nd Phase
Options: Movement, Shooting, Assault
3rd Phase:
Options: Movement, Shooting, Assault

Required Actions
If a unit is falling back at the beginning of the controlling player's turn, then that player must declare and resolve either a Regroup and/or a Fall Back action for that unit during the first phase of the player turn.

Actions/Reactions
- Movement (see Movement phase, rulebook)
- Shooting (see Shooting phase, rulebook)
- Assault (see Assault phase, rulebook)
- Regroup (see Morale, rulebook)
- Fall Back (see Morale, rulebok)

Who Gets the First Turn?
The mission you are fighting will specify exactly who gets the first turn, and how that first turn is determined.

The End of the Game
The standard missions presented in this book last a random number of game turns (five to seven turns), determined by a dice roll.

To reiterate what I said in an above post, certain contingencies of weapon use, unit type, and prior actions will limit the actions that a unit can engage in during any given turn. Firing a Heavy Weapon, for example, will require that an Infantry unit neither engage in a Movement action before engaging in a Shooting action with said weapon, or afterwards. Note that I've left out the reactions, as they're already implicit in the Assault phase and Morale rules anyhow.

so... um...3 phases in a turn means possibly 3 assaults

group A, B, C:
phase 1
A: Assaults(resolve assaults)
B: Moves
C: Moves

phase 2
A: Assaults(still in assault, Must resolve assault?)
B: Assaults(resolve assaults)
C: Runs(Fleet)

phase 3
A: Assaults(still in assault, Must resolve assault?)
B: Assaults(still in assault, Must resolve assault?)
C: Assaults(resolve assaults)

so Group A gets 3 Assault resolutions in a TURN?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Imagine having group A adjacent to a vehicle... that's 3 chances to wreck it.

Lacross:

No. See the second paragraph in Game Turns and Player Turns, "A unit may not engage in more than one action of the same type in a single turn."

Units: A, B, C.
Order by numbers.

Phase 1
1. B Moves
2. A Assault Moves
3. C Moves
4. A resolves close combat, loses, passes Morale

phase 2
A is locked in close combat
1. B Assault Moves
2. C: Runs
3. B resolves close combat, wins, enemy suffers No Retreat!

Phase 3
A & B are locked in close combat
1. C Assault Moves thanks to Fleet
2. C resolves close combat, wins, enemy Falls Back.

Because unit A is locked in close combat after the single round of combat that it can fight, it can do nothing for the rest of the turn. It cannot declare another Assault action, and thus resolve the close combat at the end of the phase, until the next game turn.

ok, i thought that the resolution of an assault in progress(making CC attacks)
was different from declaring an assault(making an assault move and possibly rolling for terrain)

I think I'm going to try some of these rules out with fludit on sunday after the regular game. I'll tell you all how it goes. I think you all should try it as well, otherwise some guy at games workshop could look at this, go OMFG!!! or something, and without testing it, put it in the book or something. We may then find it to be crap (and required.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think that (as a statement of common knowledge/sense) in the weapons section, The statements should become more general as to which phases are allowed, such as with a rapid fire weapon you can either shoot or assault, with assault weapons you can do all three phase types, heavy weapons you can shoot or do other things, etc.

Also, it should be noted that any unit can abstain from any phase (unless stated otherwise [effects of morale]) so that Gwar! doesn't go on a tirade about RAW you have to do everything.

Hi again.
Nurglitch, I didnt mean to infer there was anything inherrantly 'wrong' with what you proposed.
Other than the existing system of 40k rules are rather wordy due to 'artificialy created' interaction.As opposed to the basic interaction arrived at 'naturaly' from simpler game turn mechanics used in other games.

And as in so many cases, good ideas turn into 'very wordy rules explanations' , due to the 'poorly defined and wordy nature ' of the 40k rule set.

In short what you suggested was probably the best backwards compatable option for the current 40k rules.

But there are much simpler ,and easily expalined alternatives, more suited to greater gameplay options with fewer rules.

And if you want to eventualy arrive at a 'simple but elegant combat simulation with loads of game play options ' type game, 40k rules are the worst place to start.

Happy gameing.
Lanrak.

crazypsyko666:

Yeah, there would necessarily be some cosmetic changes In the play-testing and design phase, and pointing out inconsistencies and problems with the rules would aid in re-writing them. You actually kind of want people like Gwar! to test a set of rules, so that you can build in reasonable safeguards against that sort of end-user.

Lanrak:

I didn't think you were suggesting that there was anything 'wrong' with what I proposed. I thought you were proposing more radical changes.

It's the nature of rules that they more definition that they require, the more 'wordy' they'll be. I certainly agree that there are many simpler, more concisely written rules out there, but part of this thread is about tweaking 40k, not making a new game.

So which ones do you think I should end up testing? I was thinking my original idea (A acts, B acts, end game turn), the multi-action three phase per turn game (A acts, B reacts, x3, B acts, A reacts, x3, end game turn), and the same one but each player alternates every other phase. (A acts, B reacts, B acts, A reacts x3, end game turn.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and should I test out my rough idea for an initiative-based Fall Back! move?

I'd recommend testing mine, if only because I've set up a replacement for p.9 of the standard rues.

You should try all three (I'd recommend a Platoon of Imperial Guard vs a Platoon of Renegade Guard, for speed and testing the basics of the system), if you have the time.

Well, of course you'd suggest your own, lol. I'm probably going to play two SM proxies at 500. Same pieces.

The problem I see with the "I move you move, I shoot you shoot" is that it allows the person moving second to "duck for cover" after the first person moves. On a board like cityfight or with lots of tall hills it would annoy me if I moved a AT model (say Pred with tri lascannons) out from behind cover to shoot at another tank, only to have them move it back out of the way.

They already have cover factored into 40k, they are cover saves. Having units duck out of the way before you ever get to shoot at them and breaking LOS makes shooty armies weaker.

Hi TakamineG.

As 40k has a unsuitable and restrictive game turn mechanic, the rest of the rules have to artificialy inject the interaction that would happen naturaly with more appropriate game turn mechanics.
(BTW, cover should modify the chance of bieng seen or hit, not add a seperate level of optional physical protection.IMO.)

Most rules that use a more interctive game turn have far more game play options.
However, if the responce to seeing an enemy unit moving on your position is to move out of sight,(a valid option not currently available),you stop the enemy firing at you, but also loose the chance to shoot the enemy!
And how far can you run away before you run out of table and count as lost?
How many turns would a 'unit in hiding 'last with an artillery bombardment landing on top of them each turn?

Just plonking a sensible idea into an abstract system is often viewed as a bad idea.
Its is very difficult to improve 40k significantly,without replacing complete sections of rules.

And it would be quicker do a complete re-write, than try to modify 40k to get the game some people want.

TTFN
Lanrak.

This is all nonsense.

Irkjoe wrote:This is all nonsense.

I agree. Your post is nonsensical.

So I had taken a hiatus from 40k because all of my friends had started playing magic again, which got me thinking about this whole idea again. So, for those of you who don't know, magic has about 12 phases per turn, but each turn lasts about thirty seconds, which made me realize the problem with my original concept, which is that it is very unstructured. So off the top of my head, I can come up with one to better this system.


Turn Phases:


Begin Phase: All automatic abilities (such as epidemuses abilities, njal the stormcaller's abilities, etc.) and normal abilities (including psychic powers) are activated.

Action Declaration Phase: Players decide which units will Move, Shoot, CC, do nothing and Charge.

Activate Related Abilities: Abilities such as FRFSRF are activated for troops, psychic powers are activated, etc.

Action Phase: Units move, shoot, CC, do nothing or Charge. All psychic powers that shoot, assault, etc. are activated in this phase (fortune, holocaust, etc.)

Casualty Removal Phase: All casualties are removed from the game board.

Test Phase: Leadership tests, and other associated tests after combat or actions are now activated.

Retreat Phase: Units that have failed leadership tests now retreat.

End Phase: All abilities and actions are resolved, the turn ends and the next player starts their beginning phase.


Now, there are alot of things that need to be cleared up. One of the concerns I am aware of is of certain abilities that activate in specific phases, so I propose that these take place when a unit (or to a unit that) is using that action, or in one of the phases that allow psychic powers.

For shooting: the problem posed with shooting is, again, they rely on the three phases. So here, I have a simple solution to this problem.

Setting Up/ Bracing: A unit that attempts to fire a heavy weapon must first setup/brace their weapons. During the action phase, A unit may brace themselves for firing a weapon. (Note: a unit firing a heavy weapon MUST brace themselves) The next turn, they may fire their weapon. No abilities or psychic powers may be activated for the rest of the turn.

Repositioning/Deconstructing/Needs a much better name than one that I can come up with at the moment.... (Let's just call this Action 2): A unit that has fired a non-assault weapon must (better action name here) before assaulting. This takes one action phase, and no abilities or psychic powers may be activated for the rest of the turn. NOTE: A unit may fire as many times as they want once they are setup (if they need to be setup) and move after firing a weapon that requires this.

Weapon Types:

Assault: An assault weapon can be fired regardless of previous action.

Rapid Fire A rapid fire weapon requires repositioning before assaulting.

Heavy Weapons: Heavy weapons require setup/bracing before and repositioning after to move/assault.


Now, I have another Idea that applies to bracing, which is that it could be a BS modifier. A unit may brace for a turn before firing in the subsequent turn for an added +(1, 2?) to their BS. This may not affect every heavy weapon. Perhaps more accurate weapons, such as rocket launchers and snipers, but I doubt a heavy bolter would require it, so maybe allow this for snipers, and for specified heavy weapons?

C&C por favor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Now, I have revising of my ideas for actions: Units can move as many times in a row as they want, in fact, any unit can make any type of action as many times as you desire if it is possible.

For Fleet, I was thinking an added 3" to their movement, (up to 9" total) and a negative BS modifier to their shooting if they fire after a fleet movement, but they may still make a standard 6" move.