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.

I agree with mahtamori

The game would go for hardly any extra time and it is more realistic. I mean dont you think a missile launcher would do better at getting through terminator armour than a lasgun?

And with just a to hit Modifier over half range (This also works with rapid fire as it shows how much easier it is to Hit you target at short range) and no more cover save's would be heavenly.

Disruption Pods could finally make sense.

and the gretchin on calgars foot wouldn't save him from a shadow-sword shell.

It would just be harder for the tank to hit him. (Who knows maybe he could throw it into the air)

Hi all.
Perhaps I didnt explaing my ideas that well.
Scalable results require comparison of elements.
The WHFB system works fine for Ancient combat focused on low velocity weapons vs simple armour.

A hand weapon swung at an opponets head could be deflected by thier helmet-hand weapon- sheild.
So roll to hit, roll to wound roll to save, can be rationalised as strike on target, it will wound if not deflected, roll to see if defender deflects the blow.

However as 40k is NOT SUPPOSED to be WHFB in space anymore.
And cught in a hail of high tec high velocity projectiles , torn to shreds them miracle upon miracle, the high tec armour repairs all damage to the wearer and itself...

Now if you belive that physics will remain largley unchaged in the 40k universe, just so we get intuitive interactios.
Rather than use 3 seperate systems that DONT follow any form of logic or acurate physics.

Why not just use 1 system that covers ALL weapon and armour interactions.(Like most other games use.)

IF you want to keep the S v T , method of determining wounds.

Simply reduce the strenght of hit by the effetivness of the armour!
Armour value 1 reduces a strenght 4 hit to a str 3 hit,
Armour value 4 reduces a str 7 hit to a Str 3 hit.
Armour value 12 reduces a Str 15 hit to a Str 3 hit...

This allows natural and logical invunerabilities to damage threshholds that dont need lots of wordy explanations...

This is a simple system that follows actual physical interaction of weapons and armour in a simple way.It covers all weapon and unit interactions.
(And it still allows you to use your presious WHFB game mechanics of roll to wound vs toughness ).

TTFN
Lanrak.

Lanrak wrote: I am at a loss to understand how a target behind armour is totaly impervious to all weapon effects up to a point when the armour just 'fails.'
It goes against all real world balistic evidence.

No, of course it doesn't. It's an abstraction.

If ALL units get an armour value between 1 and 15.
All weapons get a damage rating between 5 and 15.

One simple method, damage -armour value = save roll required.
This gives results that are proportional and follow real world interactions , so they are intuitive .

Yes, it's a common system used in many games. It works reasonably well, but fails to produce points of significant difference - that is to say that a point of armour or a point of damage is not that meaningfully different. Right now the strength vs toughness roll works largely like you've suggested above (with the added rule that a 1 always fails and a 6 will still wound some extra critters) and this is largely ignored as a game consideration. It's nice to be St 4 over St 3, but not really that useful either way if you're not penetrating power armour. What matters most is matching your AP to the target's armour.

Now, it could be argued that at present that element up is over-emphasised in the current rules, and that'd be a fair argument. The answer is not to make armour another junk stat with a minor differences between carapace and power armour (seriously, go play 2nd ed and see how often you say 'I won because my troops are in power armour'). It also makes guns a lot less interesting, the difference between a -3 and a -4 save is nice but not that big a deal, the difference between AP4 and AP3 is huge, and potentially game winning, if you can get your match ups right/stop your opponent getting his own match ups right.

Oh, it would be much more intuitive if you instead "damage - armour value equals save roll required", you had "armour value vs damage + die roll". It's mathematically identical but much more intuitive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lanrak wrote:IF you want to keep the S v T , method of determining wounds.

Simply reduce the strenght of hit by the effetivness of the armour!
Armour value 1 reduces a strenght 4 hit to a str 3 hit,
Armour value 4 reduces a str 7 hit to a Str 3 hit.
Armour value 12 reduces a Str 15 hit to a Str 3 hit...

This would make armour a non-entity in the game. Might as well have armour added to toughness as a single stat. Which has it's merits, it'd break resolution down to two dice rolls instead of one. But it would have the problem of making weapons fairly generic, an extra point of toughness moves your roll to kill from 4 to 5, which is nice but not that decisive a shift that it really matters what weapons you use to deploy. The system at present means that effective match ups are really effective, and that's a good thing.


I've proposed a stat armour system before, where armour is given in terms of it's effectiveness against regular weapons, armour penetrating weapons and armour destroying weapons. So a marine might be listed as 3/4/-. This would mean against weapons listed as having no effect against armour (like a lasgun) the marine would save on a 3+. Against a weapon with the armour penetrating rule (like a heavy bolter) he'd save on a 4+. Against weapons with the armour defeating rule (like a plasma gun) he'd get no save.

It'd give a little leeway to mid range weapons to have some effect on armour, while still leaving a significant point of difference between very effective armour penetrators and regular small arms.

I play both fantasy (Dwarves & WE's mainly) and 40k (marines of all incarnations except the bloody one) and I wouldn't like either to be more like the other. I play them both for different experiences. Generally I play 40k at the local GW vets night after work (less time needed for a decent sized game) and Fantasy at the weekends/On days off when we have more time.

I for one like the rules just how they are barring the odd ambiguous rules wording.

Hi Sebster.
If you use the simple damage -armour value = save roll reqired OR modified strenght.

It doesnt stop weapons from having an Armour Piercing bonus given as a dice roll.
Or weapons having a supression bonus given as a dice roll.

This way weapons can have thier ability vs hard and soft target defined more clearly.
The point is using a D6 in a determinstic way only gives a maximum of 6 posible results.(GW tend to use only 2 pass/fail !)

Where as using the dice roll as a variable MODIFIER, can offer far wider range of results .
IF we use 1 to 15 for armour values.
And damage is 5 to 12 base, with D3,D6.D6 pick highest , or 2D6, etc gives over 300 possible results...

2 to 6 results is a bit limiting when you compare it to 100s of possible results isnt it?

TTFN
Lanrak.

I fail to see what is wrong with the current rules, they are easy to understand and implement. Most of the ides banded around on this thread defeat the point of 40K and just make it more like fantasy. Fantasy is a different game and should remain so. There is no need for a change.

Hi Ed_Bodger.
As 40k is so very different to WHFB, why does it use most of WHFB game mechanics ?

The majority of units in 40k are armed with ranged weapons , so why is ONLY 1 characteristic used for shooting , yet half of the characteristics used for close assault?

Oh that right! the characteristics are the same as WHFB (minus movement ).

So a rule set primarily about manouvering large blocks of close combat armed units in to the best match ups , supported by ranged attacks.

Is perfect for the antithisis of this type of engagment found in 40k battles .....

Any rule set that has more exceptions than rules has gone wrong somewhere.(Can you think of any core rule in 40k that has not got at least one exception?)

TTFN
Lanrak.

If you want to play with save modifiers and all that jazz, pick up a 2nd edition 40k book and Codex Imperialis off of Ebay, figure out how to play, and try a few demo games.

Lanrak wrote:Hi Sebster.
If you use the simple damage -armour value = save roll reqired OR modified strenght.

It doesnt stop weapons from having an Armour Piercing bonus given as a dice roll.
Or weapons having a supression bonus given as a dice roll.

Sure, but then I don’t see what’s wrong with expanding the approach taken in Epic, and defining units as light infantry, heavy infantry and super heavy infantry, light vehicles, medium vehicles and heavy vehicles – and then defining weapon effectiveness against each possible target.

Where as using the dice roll as a variable MODIFIER, can offer far wider range of results .
IF we use 1 to 15 for armour values.
And damage is 5 to 12 base, with D3,D6.D6 pick highest , or 2D6, etc gives over 300 possible results...

2 to 6 results is a bit limiting when you compare it to 100s of possible results isnt it?

Sure, but a wide range of results only goes so far, the key is to make different match ups mean something.

There’s also a problem with combination rolls and multiple dice – did you ever shoot a pile of rounds into a terminator squad, and then sit there rolling 2D6 after 2D6?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lanrak wrote:Hi Ed_Bodger.
As 40k is so very different to WHFB, why does it use most of WHFB game mechanics ?

The majority of units in 40k are armed with ranged weapons , so why is ONLY 1 characteristic used for shooting , yet half of the characteristics used for close assault?

Oh that right! the characteristics are the same as WHFB (minus movement ).

Yeah, this is due to history. 40K was built off of the WHFB stat block, and has been tinkered with and modified ever since. Given the current focus and design goals of the game it’s very unlikely that if it were built from the ground up half of those stats would still exist.

Any rule set that has more exceptions than rules has gone wrong somewhere.(Can you think of any core rule in 40k that has not got at least one exception?)

People have this idea that an exceptions based rules system is automatically bad, and I can’t agree. A simple set of rules where individual units can be distinguished by being exempt from certain rules can be a good system. It’s at least as intuitive, and certainly allows for much more deliberate design intent than defining everything by a giant block of stats.

Hi sebster.
I didnt advocate a rule set totaly defined by characteristics.
But simply pointed out that having so many exceptions to the core rules means 40k has not got the right core rules to start with.

You may agree with this?

A rule set developed from the Epic rule sets would have resulted in more suitable game mechanics for 40k than WHFB game mechanics.

If the core rules deliver the basic interaction in a straight forward way , then you have room to add more detail.WHFB rules fails to deliver the basic unit interaction of 40k, that why THE CORE RULES are so full of exceptions!

I belive in special abilities, NOT umpteen special rules that overide -reverse the basic rules.

WHFB has rules written for the gameplay of WHFB.

40k has rules written for WHFB that have been FUBARed over the years.
40k rule set is so abstract even the 40k dev team can not make any sense out of it.
(They wait for someone else to sort out the FAQs before borrowing them.)

So WHFB has better rules than 40k , because the WHFB rules were actualty written for the gameplay of WHFB.

40k has never had a rule set written specificaly for the game play of 40k that GW PLC published.

I hope that clears up my point of view ...

TTFN
Lanrak.

I still don't see the need for anything different in the shooting phase:

Marine with bolt gun 3's then 4's (genrally) then opponents armour/cover save. Simples.

Lanrak wrote:Hi sebster.
I didnt advocate a rule set totaly defined by characteristics.

Yeah, sorry to imply I thought that of your post. I was talking in general, that a system built around special rules tends to be more tightly designed and accessible than one built around stat blocks.

But simply pointed out that having so many exceptions to the core rules means 40k has not got the right core rules to start with.

You may agree with this?

I certainly agree there's a lot wrong, I'm not sure it's because of the exceptions based style.

I think the problems are more to do with the legacy style of gaming. A framework built on WHFB, turned into 2nd, revised heavily but not entirely for 3rd ed, and then tinkered with twice more - the game design has shifted massively in that time but the underlying mechanics are all still there.

A rule set developed from the Epic rule sets would have resulted in more suitable game mechanics for 40k than WHFB game mechanics.

Yes, this. Definitely.

40k has rules written for WHFB that have been FUBARed over the years.
40k rule set is so abstract even the 40k dev team can not make any sense out of it.
(They wait for someone else to sort out the FAQs before borrowing them.)

The problem, to me, is more that we have all the complexity and fiddliness of a high detail, highly simulationist game, but without actually representing a highly detailed game that actually simulates anything.

A lot of people in the proposed rules forum want a more detailed game, full of much greater points of difference between different types of gun and all that stuff. I don't think that's practical for the size of games that GW wants to put on the table, so I think a much better option would be a rewrite of the core rules towards more streamlined, cleaner play.

Lanrak wrote:Hi Ed_Bodger.
The majority of units in 40k are armed with ranged weapons , so why is ONLY 1 characteristic used for shooting , yet half of the characteristics used for close assault?

I'm confused. You have four characteristics for shooting, and four for close combat.

Shooting is:
Ballistic Skill
Number of Shots Fired (determined by weapon)
Strength of Shot
Armor Penetration

Melee is:
Weapon Skill
Number of Attacks
Initiative
Strength

I am seeing the same effective number of stats for both. You could argue about PKs and PW as being AP for CC, but these are special rules, as they ignore all armor.

All in all, you need a similar quantity of information to shoot as you do for close combat.

I'm sorry, but theres a difference between a genetically altered human marine firing a highly advanced rifle as opposed to a dwarf shooting a revolver...

Yes, we roll more dice. But as opposed to fantasy, theres a lot less "maneuvering" to gain advantage. I enjoyed Fantasy when I tried a stint with it, but realized that people who play Fantasy are usually douchier than those that play 40k... a lot more rules lawyers, a much more "specific" way of doing things, and people are more inclined not to allow you redos when you make a mistake. I was trying to learn and several opponents I faced were there to kick my butt... made it very hard to learn a game when your opponent doesn't try and help you :/

Guess I just have better exp with 40k and find the system works

And there is a difference between being hit by an autocannon shell and a grot pistol but apparently power armour works the same for both.

ChocolateGork wrote:And there is a difference between being hit by an autocannon shell and a grot pistol but apparently power armour works the same for both.

Actually, a marine hit by grot pistol has a one in nine chance of dying, and the grot has to get within 12” to even take that shot. A marine hit by an autocannon has a 5/18 chance of dying, and can be hit by that autocannon almost anywhere on the board. That means each hit is 2.5 times as likely to wound, and that's before we get to the question of why you’re shooting your autocannons at marines at all.

This thing where people pick specific elements out of the game system in isolation with no regard for how they work as part of a greater mechanic, or for how they actually feel in game really, really needs to end. It doesn’t help game design at all.

A good game is a quick game... The 40k rules are designed to be stream lined and easy to follow. Part of the reason why I play 40k over fantasy.

InventionThirteen wrote:A good game is a quick game... The 40k rules are designed to be stream lined and easy to follow. Part of the reason why I play 40k over fantasy.

Not necessarily true. I'd say a good game is one which has flow. The more rules discussions you get down to, the worse it get.

Fantasy battles is extremely fun when played with opponents who see level with you on how the game should be played, but quickly becomes a chore when your opponent is hanging over your shoulder to measure every millimeter is correct or every degree is payed for when turning, etc.

Hi all.
I feel I had to comment on this statement...
2010/06/24 09:20:58 Subject: Re:Thats right Fantasy has better shooting rules than you!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

InventionThirteen wrote:
A good game is a quick game... The 40k rules are designed to be stream lined and easy to follow.

Could you please tell me what games you used to compare the 40k rule set to that made you think it was 'streamlined and easy to folow?'

WHFB had 10 special rules in the rule book, and ONE racial special abilty per race.(In the last edition I played...)
40k has more USRs in the rule book than this , not to mention the completley seperate vehicles rules , without counting the endless special rules in the new codexes that make the new releases appeal to 'special GW customers'.

Most of the games I play can be learned and totaly understood in less than an hour.
Eg read the rule book , play a game and totaly understand how everything works in the game.
40k is not even fully understood by its own development team...because 40k is written to market the latest minature releases.Game play issues are given a back seat.


Hi Heffling.
My point is if 40k was ballanced in reguard to ranged and assault attacks, WS BS and I would be on the stat line, and the assault weapon effects would be listed in a similar format to the balistic weapons.
Eg
Effective range .
Number of shots/attacks
Strenght /AP

Would apply to both ranged and assault weapon profiles.SEPERATE from the unit profile.

The fact that HALF of the characteristic profile consists of resolving close combat makes it easy to percieve the focus of the game to be close combat.
Which is true in WHFB , as shooting plays a supporting role.
But as 40k units are mainly armed with ranged weapons ,this gives a false dichotemy between expectations based on unit types and characteristic profile.

Hi sebster.
I get the feeling our opinions on what could be /should be done are similar , but we may express them differently.

It is possible to make 40k into a detailed BATTLE GAME, focused on detailed UNIT interaction That simulates 'modern-esque' sci fi warfare.
And it possible to make 40k into a detailed skirmish game , that simulates ancient (Charge in and hack and slash)or modern type warfare(supress out flank and over-run.)

Note, any rule set that has to tack on 'special rules' to allow basic tactical chioces, simply has NOT GOT the right game turn mechanic.

But trying to make a 'Battle Game' using modern type units with a Napoleonic assault focused rule set(WHFB) , focusing on UNIT interaction while keeping detailed skirmish rules, (that have been hatcheted randomly to cut down play time) , is probably the least effective way to arrive at a straight forward intuiative rule set suitable for new gamers.

It may appeal to collectors, but collectors dont play many games do they?

As wargames are based on mathematical processes ,( probabilities and statistics).I think it important to establish the game mechanics and resolutiuon methods BEFORE you allocate descriptive nomeclature.

Eg Armour values 1 to 14.
Deduct armour value from weapon damage to determine effect on target.

Then add descropive nomenclature like this...
AR 1 or 2 = Light infantry.
AR 3 or 4 = Meduim infantry
AR 5 or 6 = Heavy infantry
AR 7 or 8 = Monstrous cresatures.
AR 9 or 10 =Light AFVs
AR 11 to 12 = Meduim AFVs.
AR 13 to 14 =Heavy AFVs.

If you use the descriptive nomenclature as a defining method you tend to get lots of conditional rules that are hard to express clearly.
And given 'GWs exelent record of proof reading' , its not suprising how difficult it is to interprit what the dev team actualy intended...
' Character X can ONLY be deployed with unit Y,' instead of 'unit Y can ONLY be lead by Character X, no other character can join unit Y'

The game mechanics characteristic and resolution methods determine how the game actualy works and what game play is achivable.But descroptors are more easy to use in a narrative discussion of events.(Narrative is usualy more to do with emotional storytelling , which overlays the game mechanics .It should not drive the game mechanics, as narrative doesnt use finite terms.)

I agree with using exceptions in a limited and sensible way...
EG
Amphibiuos ability(Amp) allows the unit to count water features as open ground.
Difficult ground modification(Dgm) allows the unit to count rubble and light wood as open ground.
This doesnt re -define any terrain type or how units move across any terrain type .
It doesnt contradict any basic rules at all.
It gives 'special abilities' without any extra 'special rules'

Rather than;-
'... the invunerble save for unit X is not actualy invunerable IF unit X is attacked with special weapon Y, ONLY when wielded by a unit using the Special Attack rule Z...'

TTFN
Lanrak.

Some people have already pointed this out but it bears repeating; 40k did have shooting rules that were basically a clone of the fantasy ones in 2nd Ed. I played second and it was clunky, to say the least. Different weapons had different save modifiers and to hit modifiers. Then you add in the fact that 40k units fight in a dispersed formation, and are generally firing at units in a similar formation, you ended up with all sorts of extra wrinkles. It should also be noted that 40k uses significantly more terrain than fantasy does which causes all kinds of different problems that the fantasy rules are not designed to address. Generally, this resulted in shooting being conducted one squad member at a time. Firing a tactical squad, with its various weapons, at a unit of orks was a nightmare. The 2nd edition rules were certainly more realistic: you could even throw grenades, hide, go on over watch, and hit vehicles in their various component parts i.e. tracks, hull, turret etc., but they did not make for a better game. This is because realistic rules are a slippery slope for game designers. If you add in save modifiers and to hit modifiers for shooting then you also need to do it for close combat. Which then complicates, and consequently slows down, the assault phase too. Basically, 40k with the fantasy shooting rules is called Necromunda (which is an excellent squad based game). 40k bogs down unbelievably quickly when the rules get too complicated.

InventionThirteen wrote:
A good game is a quick game... The 40k rules are designed to be stream lined and easy to follow.

Could you please tell me what games you used to compare the 40k rule set to that made you think it was 'streamlined and easy to folow?'

With ease my friend...





Ever played fething dungeons and dragons? Yeah. That's right.

Lanrak wrote:Hi sebster.
I get the feeling our opinions on what could be /should be done are similar , but we may express them differently.

Yeah, it seems we both favour an extensive re-write, with an emphasis on a more streamlined game with a much cleaner ruleset, yeah? We'd likely differ on specific rule focus, though. I'd prefer distinct types of unit - light, heavy and superheavy infantry, and light, medium and heavy vehicles with weapons given different abilities to score an effective hit on each, in a similar system to Epic. It seems you'd prefer that distinction to come out of a toughness/armour stat. Both could work in developing a decent game.

It is possible to make 40k into a detailed BATTLE GAME, focused on detailed UNIT interaction That simulates 'modern-esque' sci fi warfare.
And it possible to make 40k into a detailed skirmish game , that simulates ancient (Charge in and hack and slash)or modern type warfare(supress out flank and over-run.)

I'm not really sure what you mean by a Battle Game - do you mean a company level game?

Note, any rule set that has to tack on 'special rules' to allow basic tactical chioces, simply has NOT GOT the right game turn mechanic.

Yeah, I agree, the core rules, despite taking up page after page, don't really produce a basic strategy game beyond force maximisation (and the long ranges of most weapons makes that impractical). Instead the core of 40K comes down to identifying the most dangerous enemy units and ensuring they get killed, and using the correct match ups for your attacks vs the different target types.

Which is a fairly dull game, hence the number of special rules. The basic rules of the game could be written on a napkin and lose little strategic depth.

The addition of a genuine suppression rule and enfilade fire rules would give the game considerably more depth without adding that much more complexity.

But trying to make a 'Battle Game' using modern type units with a Napoleonic assault focused rule set(WHFB) , focusing on UNIT interaction while keeping detailed skirmish rules, (that have been hatcheted randomly to cut down play time) , is probably the least effective way to arrive at a straight forward intuiative rule set suitable for new gamers.

That's a really good way of expressing the problem. Most of the time I'm critical of new rules here, it's because they're adding detailed skirmish rules to a system that really isn't built for that kind of play.

As wargames are based on mathematical processes ,( probabilities and statistics).I think it important to establish the game mechanics and resolutiuon methods BEFORE you allocate descriptive nomeclature.

Sort of, basic design elements can be either textual or numerical. Both will be needed to build the basic ruleset.

But I agree that the basic ruleset should facilitate a kind of tactical play before you start adding special rules.

Hi all.
InventionThirteen.
Yup ,I have played a few RPGs in my time, AD&D 2nd 3rd ed, Rifts, Call of Cathulu, Aliens , and a few more not so well known ones.(As a break from table top gaming.)

But I dont think you should compare the complex interaction and detail in a RPG rule set , to what should be a straight forward table top minatures game.

Compared to other SIMILAR games like , F.O.W,Warmachine/Hoards , AT43, SST, No limits , Chain reaction III, Battlefield Evo, etc rule sets.
40k uses an awful lot of pages of rules to arrive at its straight forward gameplay.

Hi sebster.
As there is a difference of definition in game size, some define it as the highest level of command , (Company commander = company level),others define it as the largest unit of organisation.(Company commander commanding platoons= platoon level game.)

So a 'platoon to company level battle game' focused on UNIT interaction. is what we are talking about.
(Eg 40k current size but rules written for gamplay .)

I dont think WHFB rules are the most apropriate to base 40k on.So I DO NOT want to go back to older edtions of 40k either.

Do you like the idea of rolling to see/hit the target, based on the TARGETS skill?

Eg A value the attacker has to roll over to make a sucessfull attack on the target unit.

Either as a hit/ kill value , or a straight aquisition value, with damage resolved seperatley.

As this makes more sense to me than a fixed value to hit irrespective of the disposition of the attacker or defender.
Becuase you can add limited modifiers to the targets value and the attackers roll.

Eg
+1 to targets value for;-
Over 36" away,
In cover ,
Camo-equiped.

+1 to attackers roll for;-
Under 18" away
Stationary ,
Targeting equipment.

So currently a SM needs the same to hit a Chaos land raider 3" away,as a single CSM character, at the other end of the games table. (43 " away.)

Using the alternative method the Chaos Land raider has a 'to hit' or 'to see' value of 1.
And a single CSM character has a 'to hit' or 'to see' value of 4.

The SM would need to roll over a 1 on a D6 with a +1 modifier to the dice roll 'to hit'/'to see' the Chaos Land raider.(Short range +1 to dice roll.)
Automatic hit/seen!

The SM would need to roll over a 5 on a D6 'to hit'/'to see' the single CSM character.(As the CSM gets +1 for being over 36" away.) Needs a 6+ to hit/see the CSM character.

This way target selection becomes a tactical decision of the players.
And similar methods are used in many modern rule sets.

The skill of the attacker could improve the effective range of the weapon (ranged attacks), or the damage inflicted by the weapon(assaults.).This reduces the stat line, (no need to display WS and BS values,) and gives direct effects on the unit profile.Making for a more complex game witha less complicated rule set.
Whats not to like, less time reading rules and more time playing!
TTFN
Lanrak.

Lanrak wrote:Hi sebster.
As there is a difference of definition in game size, some define it as the highest level of command , (Company commander = company level),others define it as the largest unit of organisation.(Company commander commanding platoons= platoon level game.)

So a 'platoon to company level battle game' focused on UNIT interaction. is what we are talking about.
(Eg 40k current size but rules written for gamplay .)

Okay, cool, we're on the same page.

Do you like the idea of rolling to see/hit the target, based on the TARGETS skill?

It struck me as one of the best ideas in FOW.

Either as a hit/ kill value , or a straight aquisition value, with damage resolved seperatley.

As this makes more sense to me than a fixed value to hit irrespective of the disposition of the attacker or defender.
Becuase you can add limited modifiers to the targets value and the attackers roll.

Eg
+1 to targets value for;-
Over 36" away,
In cover ,
Camo-equiped.

+1 to attackers roll for;-
Under 18" away
Stationary ,
Targeting equipment.

Something like that would work, but I'd add in +1 for enfillade and you'd have the core of a decent strategy game.

Hi Sebster.
I only listed a simple set of 3 modifiers to show how the basic idea worked.(As some people have only played 40k.)
IF you made the attacker roll to AQUIRE the target, (to spot , positivley identify and bring weapons to bear.)
A UNIT to UNIT roll=ONLY one dice irrespective on the number of models in the unit!
You could use a larger dice EG D10, and have more modifiers to get far more detail in the interaction, if you wanted to.(Like many 'historical' games do.)

If the LOS is taken from the unit leader , (as they could be assumed to direct the units attacks, eg actualy lead the unit!)
The attacker places the target point within the attacking unit leaders LOS.ALL models within 6" of this point are targeted by the attacking unit.
IF the attacker makes a sucessful aquisition roll.
(They may split fire between target units in this target area, to allow more flexibility without pages of restrictions.)
All targeted MODELS within the attacking MODELS effective weapon range(s),ands individual LOS are effected.


The defender then rolls to save models targeted by the attack(s), and removes any casualties from NON vehicle/MC units.
(Models in 'Cover' are removed AFTER all models in 'Open Ground' have been removed.)

The attacker then resolves detailed damage ,(supression effects or the detailed damage to vehicles/MCs.)

I think treating MC the same way as vehicles is better as they BOTH should lose efficiveness slowly over time.IMO.

In short,

Attacker rolls to make a sucsesful attack,(One dice roll per targeted unit.)
Defender rolls to save,(dice per attack )
Attacker resolves damage in detail.(One dice roll, per target unit.)

Just a basic outline.

TTFN
Lanrak.
I am aware some people like rolling huge amounts of dice , and not having to bother with any form of 'maths.'

But other might like more tactical chioces while playing and a much more complex game with far less complicated rules.