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.

Lotet wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:IG, SoB, Inquisitors and imperial psykers are all S3 T3, even though they all had various degrees of training (SoB would be stronger than IG, for example, due to their power armor and supposedly harsher training), and in the case of sanctioned psykers, no training nor physical exercise. Yet they are all still T3 S3 because they are all unmodified humans.

I'd just like to correct that Psykers are only S2.

moving on...
some civilians wouldn't fight at all while others could be the local 'big man'. they could be on a wheel chair or they could be a veteran who was written of as a casualty. I think WS1 BS1 is fine because a lot civilians won't attack because they have no weapons but you can assume that all the hits and wounds made were from the more ferocious of the lot. generally, I would imagine that most of the 'good' ones have either already joined the Imperial Guard or, failing that, the Penal Legions.

also Penal Legions are WS3 BS3 for whatever reason, just a reminder.

Well, Penal Legions are criminals, and I could imagine a gang member being able to put up one hell of a fight.
Really? Sanctioned Psykers are S2? Huh, makes sense. Still, most of the humans in the game are S3. Even Primaris Psykers and Astropaths, the latter of which never see combat.

If Orks are more accurate than them, there's something wrong. Give them BS2 so they can at least shoot on par with Ork Raiders.

Smitty wrote:If Orks are more accurate than them, there's something wrong. Give them BS2 so they can at least shoot on par with Ork Raiders.

Right an ork pretty much just aims somewhere in the general direction and shoots. Same as a civie. So they should be bs 2.

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:

Smitty wrote:If Orks are more accurate than them, there's something wrong. Give them BS2 so they can at least shoot on par with Ork Raiders.

Right an ork pretty much just aims somewhere in the general direction and shoots. Same as a civie. So they should be bs 2.

I imagine that many civilians would purposely miss however since they lack the killer instinct needed to consciously kill a person. Orks at least try to hit their target.

Then again, if a civilian is trying to defend themselves, they will most likely be able to kill someone in the heat of the moment, and regret it later.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So maybe a special rule to represent this lack of killer instinct, like taking a leadership check to see if they actually shoot, but keep them BS2 for when/if they actually shoot.

Smitty wrote:Then again, if a civilian is trying to defend themselves, they will most likely be able to kill someone in the heat of the moment, and regret it later.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So maybe a special rule to represent this lack of killer instinct, like taking a leadership check to see if they actually shoot, but keep them BS2 for when/if they actually shoot.

The problem with the leadership test is that they would generally fail it due to their low leadership. Civilians aren't meant to fight right? They are just meant to be protected? If that is the case the best solution might be they need to roll for how many models can shoot unless there are enemy models very close, in which case everyone shoots automatically.

Marsden wrote:First of all, apologies for creating three new threads in the proposed rules section within a week. I'm working on a campaign with a friend and want to try and iron out the basic details by the 20th April.

Alright, onto the proposal:

In one campaign mission I was considering having civilians. The general rules I was thinking for them are as follows:

Civillian
Unit composition: 1-5

WS: 1
BS: 1
S 3
T 3
I 3
A 1
W 1
LD 5
SV: -

(S and T upgraded from 2 to 3 upon rational argument. Credit to CthuluIsSpy)

Wargear:
Personal Defence Sidearm
Close Combat Weapon

Personal Defence Sidearm: Pistol, S2 AP-, Range 12" (Originally AP 6, reduced to AP-) Credit to Bobthehero.
Special Rules:
Fleeing: Civilians will always move 6" and run D3 towards the nearest board edge after both players have taken their turns. However, if any model in a unit of civilians passes within 12" of any of model from another unit (Including another group of civilians) they will attempt to fire upon them.
Collateral Damage: When firing upon an enemy unit, if any models in the civilian unit are touched when you draw a line from your unit to the target. Any to-hit rolls of 1 are instead taken upon the civilian unit.



The reason I have chosen the 1-5 model size as opposed to the more obvious choice of a mob of civilians is that I wanted to simulate individual families trying to flee the battlefield were neither side cares about collateral damage. A horde of 10-20 civilians would fit much better in an evacuation scenario, I think, where one faction had an objective of protecting them. For this campaign the civilians are neutral.

I would greatly appreciate your help in refining and improving this idea. The end result that I am looking to simulate is D3+1 groups of civilians running around the battlefield. The campaign is going to be extremely driven by narrative, so I think the addition of civilians in the battle reports would help stir emotion and draw the reader in more.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Mind if I borrow some of these ideas for a campaign?

I have an idea on how one could realisticly show the civs' capacity to fight :

Have it that they cannot make charges (as they are trying to flee away from the enemy, not charge towards them) and that they may only fire at any enemy unit within 6" (as opposed to 12") to represent panicked defensive firing. Let them be BS2, because, lets face it, at close range even an ork could hit something. They should be WS2, as I am sure most imperial citizens have gotten into a scrap at one time or another. Hive cities are not nice places, you know.

The pistol is only S2? That's odd. Most light imperial pistols are S3. At least, that's what I think the stats for an autopistol are anyway. Autopistols are common weapons, right?

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Marsden wrote:Ahh, I see where you are coming from now.

Hmm...

I'm finding it difficult to believe that if a 10 guardsmen and 10 civilians entered unarmed combat that the guardsmen wouldn't have a physical advantage.

-They have higher WS.
-Higher leadership.

However neither of these reflect the additional strength gained from training.

I can lift fairly light weights. My friend in the military can lift much heavier weights. Ergo, by my logic, he is stronger. Is it not possible for white collar workers to be as weak as Gretchin?

I'm a bit more swayed by your point on toughness though. Without chemical steroids human beings will generally always be able to stand the same level of "hurt."

Yes, the guardsmen would have a slight physical advantage, but as I said with the points on the strength differences between SM and IG, a single point of strength is a huge gap.
It makes complete sense for two units to have the same strength values, yet fluff wise for one of the units to be stronger than the other.
Looks at orks and IG. They both have S3, yet orks are a bit stronger than IG.

And yet IG with FC can have the same strength and initiative as a Space Marine? I'm sorry this game doesn't give justice to statlines

Adrenaline is capable of gviing people almost superhuman abilities. I have seen people sprint across a motorway and not get hit by vehicles going 70mph.

What do you guys think about having neutrals in campaigns in general?

Theschisack wrote:What do you guys think about having neutrals in campaigns in general?

I say go for it.
You will always find non-combatants in a full scale war.

I love the rules, they're awesome, but I have a couple of points, if you'd care to hear them.

1. If it's truly a family, Is it truly plausible to have the children pick up weapons in the midst of a warzone?
I'd suggest you roll a die for the amount of people able to attack: it is plausible to have some teenagers hanging around.
2. If these are Imperial citizens who have lived on an agri-world for decades, would they really have the courage to attack hulking monstrosities, mechanic skeletons, or power-armored Angels of Death?
If this has already been said, sorry, but you may want to have a leadership test before attacking?

Again, sorry if I offended anyone, just trying to give my input

Riddick40k wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Marsden wrote:Ahh, I see where you are coming from now.

Hmm...

I'm finding it difficult to believe that if a 10 guardsmen and 10 civilians entered unarmed combat that the guardsmen wouldn't have a physical advantage.

-They have higher WS.
-Higher leadership.

However neither of these reflect the additional strength gained from training.

I can lift fairly light weights. My friend in the military can lift much heavier weights. Ergo, by my logic, he is stronger. Is it not possible for white collar workers to be as weak as Gretchin?

I'm a bit more swayed by your point on toughness though. Without chemical steroids human beings will generally always be able to stand the same level of "hurt."

Yes, the guardsmen would have a slight physical advantage, but as I said with the points on the strength differences between SM and IG, a single point of strength is a huge gap.
It makes complete sense for two units to have the same strength values, yet fluff wise for one of the units to be stronger than the other.
Looks at orks and IG. They both have S3, yet orks are a bit stronger than IG.

And yet IG with FC can have the same strength and initiative as a Space Marine? I'm sorry this game doesn't give justice to statlines

Its a game, simple as that.

Deadshot wrote:Adrenaline is capable of gviing people almost superhuman abilities. I have seen people sprint across a motorway and not get hit by vehicles going 70mph.

It takes A LOT more then adrenaline to be on par with a space marine

40K fluff is deliberately vague. For all we know a space marine could be as powerful as a human who is on adrenaline. Only constantly.

Deadshot wrote:40K fluff is deliberately vague. For all we know a space marine could be as powerful as a human who is on adrenaline. Only constantly.

Except a space marine is a quarter to a half ton of muscle in one ton of power armour. Simple muscle mass means that no, a normal human isn't going to be that strong no matter how much adrenaline goes through him.

It could be that SM are simply on the high spectrum of the S4 range. If we were to treat the strengths as percentiles (as Nagashek suggested, IIRC), then SM would be around 48-49%, and FC buffed IG would be around 41-42%

Seems the civvies are rather random in the OP. If the civvies are supposed to be rescued and are fleeing, consider simply having them be unarmed units that need to be protected. Give them Hit and Run, generally low (panicked) stats and no real weapons.

If it is a single civilian that need to be protected, or a small amount of civilians, such as VIPs, scientists, technicians, and so on, simply make them flesh dolls. 0-level characteristics and let them use any unit they join as a retinue.

Regarding stats: trained human soldiers sit comfortably in the mid range S3 and T3, while Eldar are definitely in the higher end of S3/T3. A Space Marine occupy the scale where humanoid fleshlings of really powerful characteristics end up in, just short of where super-advanced humanoid robots (Wraithguard) start off.
The scale in general doesn't feel linear at all. A S10 model can, without much effort at all, crush a 40k tank and would be magnitudes stronger than the Hulk.
A civilian would most likely be in the lower ranges and probably S2, especially on worlds where food is scarce. A hive worlder isn't exactly given the same priority for food as a guardsman.

Alright, I want to propose a few quick alterations to the basic civilian design and I would like a vote to take place on this. I'm not going to use a poll, I'll just do it here.

Alteration 1:
Increase BS of Civilians from 1 to 2.

Arguments for:
-Orks charge into their enemy's lines without aiming and still have BS 2.

Arguments against:
-Even though Ork's aren't specifically aiming, they still have experience in war. Civilians have no experience of war and only a very small proportion would be trained to use firearms on other living, moving targets.

Alteration 2
Increase WS of Civilians from 1 to 2.

Arguments for:
-Civilians in 40k are likely to come from very rough worlds, like Hive Cities, where there is a lot of crime. It is unlikely that civilians would not be trained in at least, some hand-to hand combat.
-Even physically weak Sanctioned Psykers have WS 2.

Arguments against:
-A WS of 1 simulates the fact that civilians will be terrified fighting alien creatures.

Alteration 3
Reduce S of Civilians from 3 to 2.

Arguments for:
-Civilians are not forced to undergo a physical training regime like regular soldiers. A S of 2 would put them in line with more non-combatant roles like the Sanctioned Psykers.

Arguments against:
-This would put Civilians on the same physical level as a Gretchin. (This argument is slightly flawed as we are comparing non-combat humans to combat trained Gretchin.)



I would appreciate it if everyone who is interested in making these alterations would vote using the system below. After 24 hours I will count the votes up and any proposals which have +5 support will be implemented.

I ask you to vote using the following system.

For each alteration you can either vote:
"In Favour" - this will count as +1 support for an alteration.
"Against" - this will count as -1 support for an alteration.
"Abstain" - this will count as 0 and have no effect upon an alteration.

You can use the table below; copy and paste this into your reply and write in your vote of either, "In Favour", "Against" or "Abstain."
-----------------------------
Alteration 1:

Alteration 2:

Alteration 3:
-----------------------------

You are also more than welcome to propose a new alteration. Send me it in a private message and I will add it to the list of alterations with credit to you for suggesting it.

Thank you all very much for the interest generated in this thread.

Everyone is more than welcome to use this idea for campaigns.

Marsden

A1 = -1

A2 = +1

A3 = -1

I should probably register my votes too:

Alteration 1: In Favour

Alteration 2: In Favour

Alteration 3: In Favour

Marsden wrote:I should probably register my votes too:

Alteration 1: In Favour

Alteration 2: In Favour

Alteration 3: In Favour

Alright then -

Alteration 1: Against

Alteration 2: For

Alteration 3: Against

Alteration One: In Favor
Alteration Two: In Favor
Alteration Three: Against

Alteration One: Having a Ballistic Skill of 2 seems more reasonable, since Imperial Society is rife with Gangers, Schooma Dens, Thieves, etc. and most civilian families would have some sort of weapon they're proficient with to protect themselves from the mundane evils.

Auto Pistols and Guns are fairly common in Imperial Society and, if memory serves, can be bought with the wages of a Hab Worker if he or she wanted to.

So Families and Civilians in general would at least have some proficiency in firing a weapon of some sort, even las-locks. And don't forget it wouldn't just be families acting as civilians; you have to factor in the Gangers, Drug Cartels, House Security Forces, etc...


Alteration Three: Hab Workers usually work in Manufactories or Mining or Hard Labor, or Administration so they're strengths are usually on par with PDF with the exception that they haven't been trained to use that strength in combat.

Keep them at S3.

1= Against
2= For
3=Against

I'll extend voting until we get 10 votes minimum.

Marsden wrote:
-----------------------------
Alteration 1: against

Alteration 2: for

Alteration 3: for
-----------------------------

I would make them WS2 and BS2 but have that they always hit on 5+ and are always hit on 3+

basically WS1 and BS2 but it just soundes better as WS2 than WS1.

A charging ork who isnt even aiming his gun hits things on a 5+. I think a civi can point a shoot something and hit that well. If they cannot even point and click a light side arm then they wouldnt HAVE a shooting weapon.

I would make unit size larger and maybe put in a rule that made them take fearless wounds when they pass Ld tests.

Idea I: Against
Idea II: For
Idea III: Against