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.

In reality there really shouldn't be many more steps, it just sounds a lot more complicated right now because it is all basically vomited onto a screen.

This weekend is when I'll hopefully have a version 0.1 done and able to send to anyone who wants it. That should at least be much easier to read. The version after that will hopefully have some pictures to make it much easier to understand.

HI folks.
As I am throwing out ideas, to see what you guys like the sound of.
I may not be explaining myself that well..

Just to be clear, rather than have a FIXED BS of 4+.
ALL units with the same BS would have the same effective range for each weapon type within a codex.

EG rather than write BS 4 umpteen times for all space marines.And then write all the ranges for the weapons they use ..
We simply write the effective range of the weapons for EACH unit on the unit card...
I hope that makes it clearer.

Eg a heavy bolter would have an effective range of 40" for all Current BS 4 marines.
ALL BS2 Orks firing Big shootas would have an effective range of 30"
(Actual effective weapon ranges would be fine tuned by play testing in 1" increments.)

So the effective range simply uses the combination of current BS and standard weapon ranges, displayed in a different way.
(The cost for the upgrades from 'standard load out' would be listed on the back of the card along with the rest of the army composition data,as current rules.)

I prefer to use stats directly rather than look up results on tables during a game.
Example...
(Roll to'aquire' instead of 'hit')
What do I need to aquire that unit.
Base Stealth 4+, they are in cover and over 36" away, thats a 6+ Ill need.
Feth that, I might miss!
Ill blast the nearby behemoth, base stealth 3 + 10" away +1 to aquire...
Only need 2+..
'Large Zenos beast 60 yards,200 rounds rapid fire!!!!'


This simple aquisition mechanics adds tactical depth to target selection. You make chioces based on chance of engagment vs threat level.(A bit like real war...)

And damage resolution is...
(Roll to save.)
You have 6 targets in effective range of my bolters AP 5.
And 3 targets in efferctive range of my heavy bolter AP6.
You are AV 2, so you need 4+ to save the 6 bolter hits.
And 5+ to save the 3 heavy bolter hits.

(Roll to wound.)
You failed 3 saves from the bolter fire (Dam 1), so I need 4+ to wound your RV 4 models.
You failed 2 saves from my heavy bolter fire ,(Dam 2) so I need 3+ to wound your RV 4 models.

Similar 3 stage process ,but far more detailed and intuitive , WITHOUT TABLES AND CHARTS.Just using the stats on the unit cards...IN A MORE INTUITIVE ORDER!

Anyhow..
A slow day at work allowed me to think about a game turn mechanic that may be popular.(Similar to the old Epic game turn..)

As the allocatiton of order counters seemed to be acceptable..And we want to define /shedule action/events..

We have the orders.

Fire support. The unit focuses on firepower, and DOES NOT MOVE.Shoots in the fire support phase,(the ONLY phase , heavy/ordnance can fire.) and the END of the advance phase with rapid fire weapons.

Special Movement. The unit will not shoot but moves up to 2X speed.OR Moves into cover. OR moves into close combat.
(Some heavy/ordnance weapons can only move using this order.Large units can only claim cover if they use this order.)

Advance.The unit may move up to 1X speed, and fire non heavy/ordnance weapons.

Game turn.

Command Phase.
Players place orders next to their units on good morale face down.
Players request off table support.(Artillery /air support and reserves.)

Primary Actions Phase.
1)Fire support shooting.. (Players alternate firing with units on Fire Support orders.)
2)Special movement . .(Players alternate moveing units on Special Movement orders.)

Secondary Actions phase.
1)Advance move and fire..(players take turns moving and shooting with units on Advance orders.)
2)Fire support 'rapid fire' shooting.(Players take turns 'rapid firing', with units on Fire Support units.)

Resolution phase.
Rally units on poor morale.
Plot arrivals.

I think this might be a good starting point .Opinions welcome.

As reguard to army composition lists.We will have to rewrite them for a new rule set anyway.So the more straightforward and intuitive the rules we use the better.
(This is why I like to use simple mechanics like beating a stat score, or comparing stats directly.As simple integers scale uniformly.)

Lanrak,

I really like your suggestion for To Hits and To Wounds now. However, that is for ranged combat.

I'm in favor of some of current 40k's rules when it comes to close combat. These are:
-Locking units
-Seperate skill category (BS vs WS)
-Varying number of attacks


To incorporate some of this, I think the new statlines should be:

Ac - Accuracy: the new version of BS
Dex - Dexterity: the new version of WS
Dam - Damage: the new version of S
RV - Resistance Value: the new version of T
W - Wounds
I - Initiative
S - Stealth
At - Attacks
Ld - Leadership
AV - Armor Value: the new version of Sv



Ranged combat is simple:
Accuracy vs stealth
Damage (ranged weapon) vs Resistance Value
AP (ranged weapon) vs Armor Value

Close combat is a little more complicated.
Dexterity vs average of Dexterity and Initiative
Damage (melee) vs Resistance Value
AP (melee) vs Armor Value


Obviously still needs a lot of work and fleshing out/play testing. This allows for a distinction between "fast" melee units and "skilled" melee units. A fast melee unit obviously is going to be harder to hit, but doesn't necessarily mean they are very accurate. An incredibly accurate melee unit also can be easier to hit because they are using an unwieldy close combat weapon.

Units still go in a kind of initiative order as well, but I haven't thought that through yet.




Your turn order idea still has me confused though. How are the counters assigned? Does the unit determine when they would go or does the commander? What happens if one player has vastly more units than the other (e.g. player A has 5 units player B has 8)?

I'm in favor of giving the orders to a unit, as far as having 4 actions to choose between and giving 2 in a certain order. Making it so you can move-move, move-assault, shoot-move, move-cover, shoot-cover, etc. That's an idea I'd like to move forward with. Breaking it down into primary action - secondary action might be better, but incorporating that into the turn might make it a bit more difficult.

Perhaps each unit has 2 different phases of actions to choose between?
Maneuver phase - Move, Brace, Cover
Action phase - Shoot, Assault, Run

Assaulty units would likely Move - Run until they were close enough, then Move - Assault.
Tactical units would likely Move - Shoot or Cover - Shoot.
Heavy gunner units would Brace -Shoot (letting them rapid fire weapons or shoot heavy weapons)
Scouts could Cover - Run to move stealthy, or Cover - Shoot to snipe, or even Cover - Assault for things like a Lictor.

As allot of the ideas I am suggesting are far from current 40k rules, I do need to explain things better...

I think the ranged combat proposed covers the current ranged combat requirements quite well.
(Adding an accuracy skill may add more complexity without adding meaningful resolution.Could we add more stealth/aquisition modifiers and achive similar results?)
Using a D10 or D12 or D20 would give aquisition rolls higher definition, and as its UNIT to UNIT, not a roll for every model in a unit, it can have more detail -modifiers perhaps?

I agree a bit more detail may be needed for the close combat resolution.
However...
I was hoping the unified weapon stats , would go some way towards defineing close combat ability.

Eg the number in the 'Effect value' shows how many 'hits' the weapon/user inflicts,(or the area of effect for blast/template weapons.)
I wanted to use common stats for all weapon types.(And common stats for all unit types.As this reduces the amount of rules we need to use.)

Models with better agility have higher value in Effect(Hits)

Models with higher strenght inflict higher damage,(brute force).
And those with higher WS have better AP values.(Find weak spots.)

Eg several models are equipped with a 'close combat weapon'.

Grotz have AP 3, Dam 1/ effect 1

IG have AP4 Dam 1/effect 1

Assault SM have AP5 Dam 2 Effect 2

Banshees have AP4 Dam 1 Effect 4

Because we can adjust the AP,(WS) Damage(St) and amount of effect(hits) depending on the user.I though this would cover current skills in 40k ,by a simpler method?

I probably did not explain the unified weapon stats that well...

I agree units should be locked in close combat untill resolved.
Skills are already covered....
BS - effective range of weapon, WS is AP of Close combat weapons, St is damage of close combat weapons, and effect is Attacks with close combat weapons.

However, an 'assault value' may be a good idea , to determine the order the units fight in(Initiative replacment ?)

The game turn...
In the command phase the force commander(player) tells the units under their control what they want them to do by issueing orders.
Placing the relevant order counter face down next to their units.

This makes the players think about what units should do, and in what order...taking into account the likely actions of the opposing units.

Because units are activated in order sequence, fire support then Special movement, then normal moving and shooting.Assigning orders is where tactical decision making comes in.

Eg
Alan activates one of his units on Fire Support , then Bob activates one of his units on fire support.
After all the units on fire support have been activated, (fired ranged weapons.)

Alan activates one of his units on Special Movement orders, then Bob activates one of his units on Special Movement orders .
After all the units with Special Movement orders have been activated..(Made special movements..)

Alan moves and shoots with one of his units on advance orders, then Bob moves and shoots with one of his units on advance orders.
When all the units on Advance orders have fired and moved..

Alan fires rapid fire weapons with one unit on Fire Support orders, then Bob fires rapid fire weapons with one unit on Fire Support orders..
When all units on Fire Support have fired ....

Resolution phase...

If you think vastly different unit numbers is going to cause imballance, then Alternating phases could be preferable to you?

I am happy to explain any ideas in more detail if needed..

Still a little unclear as far as turn order, but the unified combat rules are starting to make some more sense.

I do tend towards a D6 system because... well I have a ton of D6 and not really any others because although I have quite the depth of gaming knowledge, my breadth is lacking.


Now, back to the game turns.
So I understand that at the beginning of the turn, each player puts down a counter saying what each unit is going to do. After this is where I tend to get a little lost.

Who goes first? Is it a roll off or is it defined in some other way. I'm heavily against rolling off, because some armies almost press an "I win" or "game over" button depending on what they roll.

In what order are the units activated? Does the owning player just pick which unit to activate one at a time, or do the fire support units go first, then advance units, etc. This is a little more like what I was planning.


I do favor the initial activation system that I was thinking, but I really like what you were saying on the different actions. I was hoping to get your opinion on merging the two via the maneuver phase and the action phase.

In my system it'd go:

Reserves arrive
Maneuver phase
-start at activation step 20 and work down
Action phase
-start at activation step 20 and work down
Resolution phase
-resolve assaults and morale checks

Though it looks like it would take a while, in reality it wouldn't. It'd take roughly the same amount of time it does now. It'd also eliminate any chance at imbalance due to MSU armies potentially having significantly more units, which seems like an advantage with your system.

 rabid1903 wrote:

Reserves arrive
Maneuver phase
-start at activation step 20 and work down
Action phase
-start at activation step 20 and work down
Resolution phase
-resolve assaults and morale checks

The problem with this is that there is little reason to choose to go at a higher activation step in the Maneuver phase. I think that the maneuver phase and the activation phase should just be lumped together, as the 20 steps seems useless if there is no tactical decision involved.

Overall, I like the core idea of this ruleset.

I'd still like to keep them in two separate phases if at all possible, but am very willing to change my stance on this.

A way we might be able to do that is forcing them to act at the same activation step in the maneuver phase and the action phase, with maybe the exception of the warlord and the unit he has joined. I like the idea of a warlord, I just think that GW went about it the wrong way (i.e. it should never be random, it's supposed to represent the player on the field).

Hi rabid1903.
How about the player that picks deployment area is the 'Defender'. And the other player is the 'Attacker' and activates first.
Would that be ok?.(Or dice off to see who attacks and defends if you can't decide...)

Ill have a go at explaining the game turn again.(It is so much easier with actual minis , counters and a tabletop.. .)

The players take it in turns activating units , ONE UNIT at a time.
EG Attacker then Defender then Attacker then Defender then Attacker ...etc.

The orders given to units determine activation priority..
Fire support shooting ...followed by specialised movement,... followed by normal moving and shooting ,.. followed by additional shooting from fire support.

If we allocate colours to the orders.('traffic lights' to give an intuitive order?)

Fire Support is Green,

Special Movement is Amber,

Remaining Actions.(Move and shoot a bit.) Red.

Then the order is:-
Attacker Green , Defender Green , Attacker Green, Defender Green ,untill all units with green counters have fired.
THEN
Attacker Amber, Defender Amber , Attacker Amber, Defender Amber , untill all units with amber counters have moved.(Double speed or into cover or into assault.)
THEN
Attacker Red, Defender Red, Attacker Red, Defender Red, untill all units with Red counters have moved and fired.
THEN
Attacker Green, Defender Green, Attacker Green , Defender Green , untill all units with Green counters have fired second shots ( if applicable).

This game turn allows players to prioritize shooting for some units, movement for others, and let some units move and shoot in reaction to the opponents priority moving and shooting...

The idea is that different amount of units on each side is mitigated by order counters sequencing the action.

The actual choices a player makes in current 40k are replicated here.
Stay still and fire to full effect.(Fire Support.)
Move as much as possible to get into assault/take objective.(Specialised Movement.)
Move a bit and shoot a bit .(Remaining Actions.)

But rather than one army moving then shooting (or running) then moving again into assault.4 actions in total, unopposed.

The units activate one at a time taking 2 actions per game turn.
Shoot to full effect,(2 shots split into 1st and last phases to limit overpowering effect,)
Or Move twice, (or move and assault/find cover)
Or Move and Shoot./Shoot then Move

The counters keep a tally of whats unit have done what.
Placed during Command Phase,turn over as units are activated, then removed after ALL actions completed.

Also if a unit becomes supressed,(shaken) neutralised(stunned) or routed, it replaces the order counter with a morale damage counter.
(White for supressed ,blue for neutralised and black for routing perhaps?)

EG.
Suppressed units can return fire* OR retire at full speed* OR move to cover at normal speed, in the Remaining Actions phase of game turn.

Neutralised units can not move or fire until rallied.(But may fight back in assaults at half Effect.)

Routed unit MUST retire at full speed.

* Returning fire, the unit must fire at the unit that suppresed them or the closest enemy unit.(Only weapons that are not Fire Support(move OR fire ) can return fire.
*Retire at full speed, the unit moves at 2x speed away from all enemy units , and towards the nearest battle zone exit.

I want to give more control back to the players in game.And make the interaction more detailed...

I hope thats a bit clearer.
I can do an actual example game turn if needed?

Thank you, that really helps to explain what you were saying.

I like basically all of it, but what I don't like is pretty hard for me to get over. The advantages of being the attacker vs defender aren't very equal. Which means it will almost always come to a dice-off, making it just like it is now. Granted, it isn't as significant as it is now because units are alternating. However, it is still something I'd really like to get away from.

The counters idea is great, and I plan to incorporate that.

The command phase can be assigning counters (done with a hidden counter, like a base with a color on the bottom), reserves arrive, and any special effects (like weather) happen.

The action phase is next, where units can be activated similar to what I was saying before. However, if there is a tie (which will be very common) it goes based on the action decided during the command phase vs. a dice-off. If there is a further tie, then dice-off and alternate as normal.

Finally is the resolution phase. Assaults are conducted, morale checks are made, the different kind of morale conditions have their effects, etc.



This method leaves as many tactical decisions as possible to the commander, and out of the hands of dice rolls.


Here's a quick example (using semi-accurate values):

Armies:

Marines:
-Captain (Ld 10, I 5)
-Tactical Squad (Ld 8, I 4)
-Assault Squad (Ld 8, I 4) (In reserves)
-Devastator Squad (Ld 8, I 4)

Orks:
-Warboss (Ld 10, I 4) (joined the Nob Squad)
-Nob Squad (Ld 8, I 3)
-Boyz Mob (Ld 7, I 2)
-Lootas (Ld 8, I 2)



Command Phase:

Assault squad deep strikes in, Initiative dropped to 0 for activation step.

Marine player assigns counters as such:
-Captain - Amber
-Tactical Squad - Red
-Assault Squad - Amber
-Devastators - Green

Ork player:
-Warboss/Nobz - Amber
-Boyz - Amber
-Lootas - Green



Action Phase:

Step 15 – The Captain is activated. He shoots at the Nobz, then moves to be within 6” of the Tactical Squad.
Step 14 – The Warboss is activated with his squad. They double move to close the distance.
Step 12 – The Devastator Squad and the Tactical Squad are activated. The Devastators are green, so they go first and shoot at the Nobz. The Tactical Squad follows by moving and shooting their rapid fire weapons at the Nobz, and joining with the Captain.
Step 10 – The Lootas are activated. They shoot using fire support and shoot at the Devastators.
Step 9 – The Boyz mob could be activated. However, they are not going to be within assault range now and think the Assault Marines are going to charge the Lootas. So they pass on step 9.
Step 8 – The Boyz mob waits a second step to see what the Assault Squad does. The Assault Squad is activated. Just like the Ork player thought, they charge the Lootas.
Step 7 – The last step the Boyz can be activated at. They are activated, and charge into combat with the Assault Squad.



Resolution Phase:

The Assault between the Lootas, Boyz, and Assault Marines is conducted. We’ll say the Lootas are eliminated, the Boyz suffer X casualties, and the Marines suffer Y. X > Y so the Marines take a leadership test and fail. They are now Routed and must flee combat.

The Devastator Squad then takes a morale check because they took 25% casualties to see if they are suppressed. They pass.

The Nobz Squad then takes a morale check because they took 50% casualties to see if they are neutralized. The Warboss if fearless so they auto pass this test.



End of game turn.

I feel like given the two armies and the situation, this is how it *should* work in a real battle. Though granted, this is only one example.

But most importantly, the order in which things happened was at no point random. Each commander picked exactly what he wanted his army to do, and when they were going to do it. They were restricted on certain things, but the commander always had some kind of choice in the matter, even if none of the options were to their liking.

Hi again.
I know you want some sort of 'numerical count down' , to sequence unit activation.

The problem with this is if units have a massive difference in 'LD and In values'
This could lead to some armies taking lots of activations while the opponent just waits and removes casualties...a bit like the current rules.And I realy want to move away from this.
(Unless I miss-understood?)

What is wrong with letting the players chose the order they activate their units in the Fire Support, Special Movement , and Remaining Actions phases?
This gives players more tactical control, they decide what actions the units take , and what order their units activate in...

I don't see the value in making Attacking or Defending the prefered choice.Leaving it up to player preference would ideal IMO.

(I think a lot of preconceptions from the current 40k rule sets heavy strategic focus, no longer apply to a more tacticaly focused game.)

.

I kind of see what you are saying, but obviously there is going to be some things lost in translating it to text that at best gets a response in a few hours.

I think that the Ld and I values are close enough between armies that there won't likely be an alpha strike army in every game unless a player specifically designs an army for that. In addition to that, this allows for certain modifiers that will really help avoid it being so one-sided.

Primarily where an advantage can be taken is with shooting. That is where one player just sits there while the other takes off casualties. This can happen in assaults as well, but likely won't until roughly turn 3 (turn 2 with a few cases and turn 1 very rarely).

To avoid this, these modifiers will really help.

1: Vehicles are obviously going to have a low initiative. Though they are fast, they can't just turn around and react instantly like infantry.
2: Heavy weapons will reduce initiative and can only be fired with a fire support action. Not a dramatic change, but enough so a vanguard unit is a little faster than a support unit. It's not game breaking by any means.
3: Rapid fire weapons are already going to be lowered a little in power because they can't move and shoot unless they use a red token.
4: Deep striking knocks your initiative to 0 for activation. Certain special units will retain their initiative (like lictors, vanguard vets, etc.)
5: To balance assaults with shooting, there is only one assault phase that is shared between the two players. This also helps reward units that bulldoze through instead of becoming too good at assaults and getting shot up in your opponent's turn.



I was actually saying the opposite of what you thought I said. I think attacking and defending should be equally preferable. Right now, attacking let's you go first when alternating. Defending just lets you pick which side to deploy on. The choice seems obvious to me which one players will want.

I think we may have been talking at cross purpouses a bit.

I can NOT see the need for the addition of numerical sequencing to the turn structure.

Having played similar systems , (Epic Space Marine/Net Epic for a better known examples.)

Allowing the players the control the order of activation of their units, simply allows them more tactical flexibility , in the slightly more ridged order counter/phase structure...

An example .Allan has An IG force, and Bob has an Ork force.

Allan(Defending )..
Assigns Fire support (Green ) orders to his ,Heavy Weapon squad , and 2 Leman Russ battle tanks.
Assigns Special Movement (Amber) to his HQ unit , Sentinels and Iron Fist squad...
And leaves his other infantry platoons on Remaining Actions.(Red.)

Bob.(Attacking.)
Assigns Fire Support (Green) to his Big Gunz and Lootaz mobs.
Assigns Special Movement to his HQ (Nob Bikers,) and Trukk Boyz mobs
And leaves his other boys and grot mobs on Remaining Actions ,

Fire Support Phase...
Bob can pick between his Big Guns and Loota units to activate first, depending on what targets are in range, and what threats are apparent..
(Slow Allan's advance toward objectives, or try to prevent one of his units units returning fire, or allow his units to move into an area with less risk.)
He decides to fire his Big Gums on the Heavy Weapons squad,(lots of heavy bolters would threaten his units moving down that flank.)

Allan can now respond in kind ,his Heavy Weapon Squad was supressed by the fire of the Big gunz, so he chooses to fire the Battlecannon of the Leman Russ as a pre-emptive strike
on the Ork HQ Unit , (causing a couple of casualties , but no supression.)As this HQ unit is a real threat to ALL of his units!

Bobs lootaz now pepper the Iron Fist Squad 's Chimera with fire , but fail to damage or suppress it.(Massive sigh of relief from Allan !)

Allan slightly panicked by the volume of fire from the lootaz, decides to sent a Battlecannon shell in their direction with his last unit,(Leman Russ ) on Fire Support order...

Bob decides to move one Trukk mob into the cover of a wood, (no units in charge range!)

Allan gets his Sentinels to move at double speed towards their objective.(Hopefully slow the zenos infantrys approach down some what.)

Bob moves his HQ towards Allan's lines, (hopefully assaulting next turn...)

Allan Backs up his Sentinels with the Iron Fist Squad ....(Hoping to deploy and defend the objective next turn....)

Bob diverts a Trukk mob to try to delay the Sentinels ...

Allan then picks his infantry platoon to move to act as a speed bump between the advancing Orks and his HQ.

Bob moves his Boys Mob up...

Allan decides to take a pot shot at a Trukk with a grenade launcher , just in range...

Bob moves his last Boys mob up towards the IG lines...

Allan has no units in weapons range at this point..

Bob fires both his Mobs Big -shooters , but fails to achive anything ...

I know this may not be that accurate to the current rules ,(I have not played any GW 40k rules since 3rd ed...) But I hope it gives you an idea of how it runs.

It does, and we may be at a stalemate until I can do some play testing.

I feel that making it like the system that I said will help add certain flavors to certain armies. (e.g. changing it so there is a major difference between horde Tyranids and horde Orks who can feel very similar). However, I know that my breadth of experience is limited so I will try to play test it with both methods and see which one is more enjoyable to me.

I think I understand everything that you are saying, and I definitely see where you are coming from. You're right, more tactical flexibility is in the hands of the commanders with your method. However, with my method the force that a commander brings will make a massive difference on their tactical capabilities. I have a hard time accepting that a LRBT is going to be as quick on its feet as a Tau piranha, and am trying to make them play as such.


I feel that this is as far as we can probably go until I play test. On that note, are you willing to continue on to other rule changes?


Next up I was feeling was movement, shooting, and wound allocation. I'll keep it in this thread, edit the first post, and change the title. I don't want to push other threads off the Proposed Rules section.

The command decision making process is pretty much identical in reguards to time taken for most races IMO.
The difference in performance should be represented by the unit characteristics /stats.IMO.

There are other game turn mechanics where the units 'command value' is more important .
EgRoll a dice and add their CV to the dice roll.
If the score is..
Under 6 they can not perform any action.
Over 6 they can perform one standard action.
Over 8 they can perform two standard actions
Over 10 they can perform a special action set.
Over 12 they can double attacks!!

(Morale loss is represented by negative CV modifier , making it more difficult for the unit to perform actions.)
Anyhow next topic...

Movement.
Can we use the simple intuitive and popular method of simply listing the maximum distance the model can move in a movement action?

EG (Values based on 2nd ed 40k.)
A unit that is currently;-

Slow and purpouseful 3"(Ignore difficult terrain)
Normal Infantry 4"
Fleet of foot infantry 5"
Vehicles 6"
Jump packs/jets 8"(loose 2" for every height band jumped over.)
Fast vehicles/cavalry 9"
Bikes 12"

Interaction with terrain.

We can list terrain as ;-
Open , no penalty.
Difficult , -2" from movement rates.
Impassible , can not be moved through .

OR
We could list mobility types.
Legs, Wheels, Tracks , Hover(A symbol for each, and the relevant symbol on the unit data card followed by the unit speed value in inches.)
And have a 'terrain table' listing the modifiers for each mobility type.This means wheeled vehicles get bigger bonuses from roads,and bigger penalties from rubble and light woods.

Eg
Roads..Legs +1",Wheeled +2", Tracked +1" and Hover +0
Rubble..Legs-1",Wheeled -2" , Tracked +0 and Hover +0

Ill leave it there for your comments and ideas...

At first I was hesitant about the mobility types. Then I read your example and it really reminded me or Advance Wars. I love that game and never would have thought about incorporating it.

It's pretty late right now so I can't think too much into that, but tomorrow if I get bored at work I'll give a lot more comments.

Basically though I was going to break it down as such:

Infantry
Beast
Vehicle
Hover

Infantry covers all infantry and walkers.
Beast covers beasts as normal, infantry riding beasts (cavalry), and monstrous creatures.
Vehicle covers all ground based vehicles with the exception of walkers.
Hover covers all skimmers, flyers, and jumping infantry/monstrous creatures.

Fleet adds a flat distance to movement.
Move through cover halves the negative modifier of terrain.
Fast/Lumbering/Normal vehicles have set values for their movement.
Slow and purposeful has a set reduction in distance, or affects their initiative for activation steps depending on which method I think is more fun.


I'll think more tomorrow, but these are the first things that come to mind.

The current 40k rules seem to add pages and pages of rules, due to having lots of seperate rules for each different type of model.(Exclusive rules writing.)
To reduce the rules bloat, we need to write rules to cover ALL units in the game, in the most straightforward and intuitive way possible.(Inclusive rules writing.)

Currently from a game mechanic point of view there are 2 types of unit in 40k.
Those that remove models to show casualties, and those that record damage seperatley.

Yet GW seem to be able to create 14+(?) artificial unit types.

Most of these artificial differences are down to mobility.(And using seperate damage resolution for vehicles and other units..)

These are easily covered with a stat that shows the maximum distance the unit moves when takeing a movement action .
How the unit moves.
And LIMITED SPECIAL ABILITIES!!!

E.G.
Amphibious,(A) The unit ignore movement penalties for water features.

Difficult terrain modification,(D) The ingnore movement penalties for difficult terrain ,( rubble , light woods, built up areas,) etc.
Can be a Bulldoser bade on a vehicle, lighter equipment on a scouting units, or the bulk of a large monster simply bashing/stomping through...

Jump Jets/packs (J) , The unit can 'jump' over terrain and obstacles, but lose 2" of jump lenght per height band .Jump jet equipped vehicles may make 'pop up attacks' if stated in units notes.

Chimera (T) 6" (A)
This vehicle moves as a tracked unit, up to 6" per movement action.And ignores movement penalties for water features.

Dreadnought (L) 6"

Space marine (L) 4"

Eldar Ranger (L ) 5" (D)

Tau Battlesuit, (L) 4" (J)

Carniflex, (L) 6"( D)

Ork Bike (W) 12"

Eldar Jet Bike (H) 12"

Rough riders (L) 8"

We could use a simple stylised symbol for the Mobility type and mobility special abilities on the unit card.To better define the information presentation...

If we did use the terrain type /mobility type movement modifier table, it would give a reason for choosing many different types of vehicle..Eg Warbuggies and bikers take roads and hard ground route to target.(+2 to movement value.) And the Wartracks and Deffcopters cope better with rougher ground /difficult terrain..

Anything to help define units 'character in game' and have a wider range of tactical reasons for unit choice , is good IMO.

I see what you're saying, and I think certain things can be combined in order to give units the same type of feel they have now.

Every unit fills in these categories:
Movement type
-Legs
-Tracks (including beasts)
-Wheels (including cavalry)
-Flying

Size
-Small (swarms)
-Infantry (Most single wound models)
-Large (Most multi-wound models, small vehicles)
-Monstrous (Monstrous Creatures, Vehicles)

Type
-Biological
-Mechanical (includes Necrons)

This effectively gives you 32 different unit types depending on these combinations; however, it still makes the rules super simple.

Here are examples of each (or at least the ones I can come up with, help would be appreciated haha).

Mechanical
---Legs
------Small – Scarabs
------Infantry – Necron Warriors
------Large – Wraiths
------Monstrous – Dreadnought
---Tracks
------Small –
------Infantry – Ork Warbuggy
------Large – Rhino
------Monstrous – Land Raider
---Wheels
------Small –
------Infantry – Bikes
------Large – Ork Trukk
------Monstrous –
---Flying
------Small –
------Infantry – Necron Destroyer
------Large – Stormtalon
------Monstrous – Stormraven
Biological
---Legs
------Small – Gretchin
------Infantry – Marines
------Large – Ogryn
------Monstrous – Carnifex
---Tracks
------Small – Rippers
------Infantry –
------Large – Raveners
------Monstrous – Trygon
---Wheels
------Small –
------Infantry – Rough Riders
------Large – Herald on a Chariot
------Monstrous –
---Flying
------Small – Sky-Slasher swarms
------Infantry – Assault Marines
------Large – Tyranid Shrikes
------Monstrous – Harpy


Incredibly rough right now, but gets the point across.

Most don’t even require a rule given that each unit has a movement value. All it will need is a table that can summarize everything. Plus certain weapons will be more effective vs certain types. For instance, a Railgun is absolutely devastating to vehicles but in reality wouldn’t damage a Trygon as much. On the other hand, flamers wouldn’t do a whole heck of a lot to a necron warrior but should be a Termagant’s worst nightmare (if they slept).

This would also help significantly with creating the new rules for each unit. For instance, you look at a Tau Fire Warrior and can tell it’s biological, legged, and infantry sized. With that, a certain range of values is a given, and it should be in a certain point range.

The basic concept is the units characteristics/stats, tell the story.

A player can simply look at them and know EXACTLY what the unit is how it works and how it interacts with other elements in the game...(I do not want to rely on any 'extra special ' rules, like 40k does.)

Here is a rough outline of the Unit data card I am thinking of..

Unit name.

Mobility (How the unit moves and the maximum distance the unit can move.)

Armour value.(How well protected the unit is .)

Resistance value.(How hard the init is to damage

Stealth value.(How hard the unit is to spot on the battle field.)

Wounds /Structure points (How much damage the unit can take.)

Assault value (Used to determine who strikes first in close assault.)

Morale value of the unit (How willing the unit is to fight on...)

Command value of the unit leader( Or Character/monster.)

Simply by looking at the unit card
You can tell if -
The unit is organic(has wounds ) or mechanical (has structure points )
Is infantry (Legs and a movement rate of 3 to 5")
Is cavalry/beasts (Legs and a movement rate of 8")
Is a bike (Wheels and movement of 12")
Is a Jet bike (Hover and movement of 12")
Is a walker (Structure points, Legs Movement rates of 6")
Is a Tank (Tracks Movement of 6" high Armour value.)
Is a Monsterous creature (Wounds high resistance and a movement of 6 -8")


All the stats are the same type across all units.So you can compare units to units easily .
Because the stats are a simple numbers we use directly in the resolution.
The weapons profile for the units tells you how the unit is armed and how good they are with those weapons.By listing the direct effect in game.

I agree this should make 'defining and balancing ' units easier .

Here is a rough outline of ranged combat...

The unit leader (or attached character) or model if a single model unit, is the model that chooses a ranged target.
All ranges are measures from this models base or hull, closest to the target.

After declaring the intended target point all units within 6" of the target point are available to aquire.
The attacker rolls dice equal to its command value , and rolls that beat the modified stealth value of the target unit(s) sucessfully aquire the target units.

ALL attacking models in the attacking unit may fire on models in the AQUIRED target unit(s) if they are in weapons in range.

Eg.
A Space marine vet Sgnt (CV 2) trys t aquire a large mob of Ork boys (St 5) with a KillaKan Mob (St 4) next to them.
The SM Vet Sgnt picks a target point so the Killa Kanzz And Boysz mob can be aquired.

The Vet Sgnt rolls a 6 and a 5 , and aquires both target units.

The Sm with the lascannon (Er 42" AP 16 Dam 2) is in range of the Nearest Killa Kan AV 11, Rv 5 Sp1 each)
And the Killa Kan takes a save roll needing 5 or more to save .(AV 11 needs 5 + to beat AP of 16)
And fails, the Sm then tries to damage the Killa Kan , needing a 4+ to cause damage (2+4 or higher is greater than RV of 5)

The 4 marines Including the Vet Sgnt that are in bolter (Ap 6 Dam 1)range of the Ork boyz mob(Av 1,Rv 4 W1 each ) unit open fire.
The Orks need 5 +to save , and make 2 saves.The Sms then roll 2 dice to wound the boys needing 4+

Allowing a radius of 6" around the target point allow the unit to split fire between nearby enemy units, in a straightforward way that s not to over powering .IMO.

Ye that sounds good it seems more confusing than now.

 rabid1903 wrote:
Every unit fills in these categories:

(Stuff)

This would also help significantly with creating the new rules for each unit. For instance, you look at a Tau Fire Warrior and can tell it’s biological, legged, and infantry sized. With that, a certain range of values is a given, and it should be in a certain point range.

This is great. It would really help streamline the game, and delete exceptions, and exceptions to exceptions...

Hi guys...
The problem is with any new ideas expressed JUST in the written format, it can make them look complicated ..(And I have the nack of mucking up my explanations.. )

Here is a comparison between the (C)current shooting and (P)proposed shooting so you can see the actual differences..
(Ill call aquisition roll the targeting roll as it may make more sense to more people.)

(C) Attacking unit picks a target UNIT in range and declares a Ranged attack.

(P) Attacking unit leader picks a TARGET POINT and declares an attack.(Targeting an area of battle field with enemy units in.)
(This allows a unit to engage multiple units within a reasonable distance of each other.Allowing splitting of fire without special rules.)

(C )The attacking player rolls to hit with every weapon in range. based only on BS.

(P) The unit leader rolls to TARGET enemy units units around his targeted point.(Less rolls but more detailed resolution.The size disposition and distance to the target are taken into account without multiple special rules.)

(C) models that are hit , have damage rolls made against them.
Weapon strenght vs target toughness using a seperate chart.OR if they are vehicles compare modified weapon St vs AV .

(P) Models in a sucessfuly Targetted unit that are IN RANGE OF WEAPONS of the attacking unit, take an armour save roll.(AV +D6 vs weapon Ap value used directly .) (The same for ALL units.)

(C) wounded models take an armour saving throw, Or a cover save,Or a invunerable save,OR roll damage table roll if they are a vehicle ,and can apply several special rules during or after normal resolution.., FNP, or WBB etc...(How many resolution methods in total?)

(P) Models that fail the saving throw are supressed. If the attacker beats the models resistance value (weapon damage +D6 vs RV.) the model takes the amount of damage the attacker beat the AV by.

NOTES...
They are both 3 stage resolution methods.
Targetting . saving rolls and rolling to damage.

The proposed rules are better because ..

Resolve the process in a more intuitive way.
Target, armour saves then wounds.
As Opposed to
Target, wounds then saves.

Uses the same resolution methods across all units.(So is simpler to learn and easier to use.)

Also allows for more definition in the targeting of units, as there are fewer rolls(one per unit rather than one per model)And so can have modifiers without getting too time consuming.

And allows free choice to the player , take a risky long range shot with a lascannon, or let rip with a storm of bolter fire at a nearby enemy infantry unit. WITHOUT artificial targeting restrictions...

And remember all the info for your units is on an easy to read and use reference card, no need to flick through codex books looking at umpteen poorly defined special rules ...

I hope that explains the new shooting rules a bit better...

SUMMARY.
Target ;-Roll over target units stealth value.(With modifiers.)

Armour save, roll a dice and add your models AV. If its equal of higher than the weapon damage you make your save!

Damage roll.Roll a D6 and add your weapon Damage Value. If its over the target models Resistance Value , it takes damage equal to what you beat its RV by.

This is not overly complicated is it?

I don't really like that method personally. It works well for certain situations, but not for others. For instance, what would a gaunt brood use as their sergeant? Also, it makes it much more all or nothing. All or nothing works well for low shot weapons/squads, but what about a guardsmen blob? Either you roll 60 dice this turn or 0, and the point of taking so many shots is for consistency.

I think just making it so each unit uses their BS vs enemy's stealth skill is just fine. It makes it really simple, and modifying for excess range, cover, etc. is super easy.

I think that targeting an area is a good idea, it negates the stupidness of multiple small unit strategies.

I am with rabid that the acquire target rule might be a bit too variable.

I like the movement types idea. Could I suggest that legged things can move over obstacles shorter than their legs without penalty, and then some sort of penalty kicks in later. (this means that something like a defiler or hive tyrant would step over walls that might slow a gaurdsman) .

When you have modifiers, like wheeled unit moving faster on a road, under what circumstances does the modifier apply. It could be:
-unit moves entirely on road (or whatever) this turn
-unit moves mostly on road this turn
-unit moves a x inches on road this turn
...
Which were you thinking off?

Hi Dast.
I was thinking of the majority of a models movement would determine bonuses. EG A bike moves 2" onto a road then 10" down the road it gains the bonus 2" movement.
But any difficult terrain inflicts penalties even if the unit spend 1" of their movement moving across difficult terrain.

Using common sense to determine unit terrain interaction is neccissary.Your example of a long legged walker simply stepping over a low fence is a great example . I have found talking about the battle field terrain before hand and sorting this sort of thing out is much better than trying to write a comprehensive list of unit and terrain interactions...

My reasoning for the new targeting was making the 'unit leader' more important.As most units in 40k have a unit leader.This would be a good idea IMO.

In the case of Tyranids, we simply explain the slight difference by saying a brood has a brood leader, the gaunt that recives the hive mind instructions and chitters the commands to his fellow gaunts ..and whos sensor y synapse responces are monitored by the hive mind.

I can totaly understand the reservations about using the proposed targeting rules as they are significantly different 'This type of mechanic is used frequently in large battle games , but usualy with smaller scale models .(15 to 6mm.)And in these games the large number of units may make it more practical.

I thought it may be suitable for a game of 40k size but on reflection it probably needs tweeking...

rabid 1903.
You make a valid point.

How do you feel about this modified system...
The attacking 'unit leader' picks the 'target point' as before..And the attacking models in the unit EACH roll to target the enemy models within 6" of the target point and within their weapons range.

This allows targeting multiple units, splitting fire , but gives you more granularity of result similar to the current rolling to hit.

I would like to use 2 resolution methods.(Direct reading is not included, e.g. how many inches you can move or how many dice you roll.)
1) Compare Stats to determine dice score required.
2) Modified target stat to determine dice score required.

If we are going to use a modified target score for targeting.Comparing stats (BS vs St) AND modifying seems to be too complicated.
We could simply add modifiers for things like targeters, marker lights , gitfinders.(eg the slight variation that using BS in a comparative way would achive.)

Are you O.K. with the proposed armour save and damage resolution ?(AP vs AV+ D6 and Dm +D6 vs RV)

I can offer more alternatives if necissary.
I try to start with the simplest solutions I can think of, and add to them if and when required.

Excellent input of ideas and comments so far IMO .

I'm trying to think through one thing at a time, so the new damage resolution I'll get to in a bit.

I haven't heard any good reason why not to use the movement rules I set out before, so I'm going to roll with that and now we can start working on making the rules/table for that. Difficult terrain obviously is an immediate modifier, and every 6" after that also reduces. Beneficial terrain is the opposite: after 6" you get the benefit.

Here's an example of a biker that move 24" (not sure how, but go with it haha).

Grass (no pen) Woods (-2 for bikes) Road (+3 for bikes)
Bike|-----------6"------------|-------------10"-------------|-----------8"--------"


There are the 24" the model moves; however, he doesn't actually move 24".

He starts by moving 6" as normal.
(6" moved, 18" left)
Hits the woods, and loses 2" of movement.
(6" moved, 16" left)
After 6" of woods, he loses another 2" of movement.
(12" moved, 8" left)
He then hits the road, moving another 6" and gaining an extra 2".
(18" moved, 4" left)
Then he finishes the move.
Total move 22".




On to shooting!

I do agree there needs to be some sort of counter to MSU. Two guys standing next to each other should be the same as one squad of two. To counter this, I think it should go to a spill-over type system. The commander can choose to have shots spill over into the neighboring units, but doing so reduces BS by 1 and the highest toughness and stealth values are used. Any squad can be spilled over into so long as they are within 6", and the shooting player picks the order they are spilled into.

Squad A shoots at squads B with a spillover into C.

Squad A has 20 bolters in rapid fire range, at BS 4.
Squad B has 5 models, Stealth7, T 3.
Squad C has 10 models, Stealth 6, T 4.

Squad A then rolls to hit, using their own BS of 4 vs the highest stealth value of 7. Additionally they are -1 to their own BS.

20 hits (4-1 + D6 >= St 7)

20 hits at Strength 4 vs Toughness 4 now.

10 wounds

Squad A then rolls batches of armor saves similar to differently armored units now. After rolling 5 dice, he fails 3. Then he rolls 2 dice, failing 1 more. Then he rolls 1, passing; again, failing.

So now 8 dice have been rolled for wounds. Squad B then takes their spillover saves. They roll 2 dice, and remove casualties.

A bit more complicated, and limited in it's uses. But man would it wreck MSUs. Two squads of 5 units is not much more survivable than 1 anymore, and has the chance at giving up extra kill points. However, trying to game the system and shooting at gaunts with a spillover into a Hive Tyrant won't end near as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also,

Lanrak, did you get my PM by chance?

I feel like you'll a better job summarizing it than I will, and I can put it in the first post to help people comment.

Hi rabid1903.
I like your idea for movement resolution
I think the only problem with having to move 6" before you get the bonus is if the unit has not got a movement of 6"...
Slight modification on you exellent idea...

How about the penalties and bonuses are applied as soon as the unit hits the edge of the terrain .
But bonuses only apply if they remain in the terrain that gives them bonuses , or spend at least 3" of movement in that bonus giving terrain.

Bonuses do NOT stack and are only applied once.penalties are applied every time and do stack.

EG a bike unit moves
Across open ground for 4"(+0).
Then across a road for 6"(+2)
Then across difficult ground for 2"(-2")
Then across open ground for 4"(+0)
Then across a road again for 4"(no modifier for this as its been applied already.)
Then across open ground for 4".

The only reason I suggest this is that if you apply bonuses every time the unit is on a road, TFG will just hop on and off the road to stack movement bonuses.
(We all know some Asshat will always find ways to abuse the best intentions of the guys writing the rules...)

The reason I went with a target point /area, is so units with low model count (and invariably better training,)can split fire as well as units with high numbers.
And from a concept point of view is a bit cleaner..(iMO.)

You method of spilling over appears to be engineered current to rules to stop current type rules form being taken advantage of by MSU.

Just read your PM, sorry .

Ill do a full explanation of the proposed game turn and its benifits next time I post...

I beleive you misunderstood Rabid's suggestion. In his example the -2 inches for the woods was applied as soon as the bike entered. It was applied again after every 6 inches more.


You make a good point about the hopping on and off the road.


Perhaps to counter msu:
Overkill- If you wipe out a unit with shooting, and their is an overkill number of wounds x, then x models of the same type are removed that lie within line of sight and range. (chosen by the player being shot at).

This still doesn't help with the hive tyrant and gaunts, but I think its neater with multiple units of the same type.

Alternatively:
If their is an overkill of x, then all units in x inches of the wiped out unit must make leadership tests.

Ahh, I probably did mis- understand.
This is the problem with communicating in the written word.(If we were round a games table we could thrash stuff out in a couple of afternoons! )
Ok so..
Movement penalties are applied as soon as the unit moves into the terrain feature. And for every distance of 6"(or movement speed , which ever is lower.)moved in the terrain feature.

Movement bonuses are applied as soon as the unit has moved at least 3" (or half their movement speed which ever is higher,)in the terrain feature.And only apply once per movement action. (Irrespective of how far or how many times the unit moves onto a terrain feature that give movement bonuses, only the largest bonus is applied once.)

As reguards targeting ...

What is more in synergy with the 40k background...

Devastator marine squad , Sgnt 2 heavy bolters and 2 lascannons,
The sergeant detect zenos on his auspex, a mob of Ork Boys and supported by a mob of Killa Kans on its right flank...

Sergent Barks out the orders...
'Raiziel and Argonus, purge the ravening hords of zenous scum with heavy bolter shells, Asriel and Guis, turn those mechanical abominations in to a smouldering testiment to the emporors wrath!

OR..
Well I know we could fire at different units with different guns, but I dont think its very sporitng, do you?Which of you nice gentle men would like to shoot now..
Oh how kind, But I belive we shot last shooting phase its your turn now.
But you are closer, please take your shots now we dont mind honestly
Well if you are sure then.... ?

Allowing a unit to split fire on nearby target units ,just seems sensible to me.As it allows hits/saves and wounds/damage to be allocated on the seperate units from the start.
Rather than calculate wounds on one unit then try to transfer them to a unt that may be vastly different ...

Causing panic in nearby units is a bit arbitary.
Using you own argument about my original targeting idea.You either cause panic or you dont, its a bit all or nothing!

If we let the 'unit leader' pick a target point and let models in the attacking unit in weapons range target the enemy units in the target zone.(Within 6" of the target point.)
It just allows more flexibility than pick a specific unit then roll to hit models in that unit.

Anyhow moving on...

I would like to give players a higher level of involvement in the game play, by letting them make decisions on multiple levels .(More tactical thought then current 40k.)

Strategic level
Pick the units and load out for your force.

Then draw a random mission, from the mission deck of cards.

Deploy your force as you see fit.

Tactical interaction.
Every command phase players issue orders (place order counters face down ,) to units on good morale .
This represents the CiC telling the units under his command how he wants them to deal with current actual and percieved threats.
And the unit leaders giving tactical commands to their unit for the next burst of fighting.

Knowing that opposing units can act and re-act to your forces actions , makes the game more involving and dynamic..(Rather like the background of 40k reads..)

While this activation of orders is happening the players STILL retain control of the order they activate units in.
This represents the CiC timing an attack, linking units to support each other, of worldly wise unit leaders waiting for the right time to strike.
(Something that would be lost if activation was purley controled by an arbitary value like initiative.)

The current action options of 40k are still represented , but are decisions made at the start of the game turn and opposed directly by enemy activations.
Rather than made up as you go along unopposed in a very counter intuitive way like current 40k does.

The orders are ..(Traffic light colours used to sequence actions.)
Fire Support (Green.) The unit does NOT move but concentrates on making ranged attacks.(Direct fire, calling in a bombardment, or making ranged psychic attacks.)
(Odjob Da mek sayz 'Green for gunz!')

Advanced Movement,(Amber.) The unit does NOT make ANY ranged attacks but , moves at up to double speed, or moves into cover or moves into assault.
(Odjob Da Mek sayz 'Amber for Assault!)

Reserved Actions.(Red.) The unit may move up to its normal speed , and fire weapons.(Apart from Fire Support Weapons which can not move and fire.)or may shoot then move.
(Odjob Da Mek sayz, Red is for Right you lot get a Zoggin move on!)

During the activation phase players take turns activation units.
They MUST activate units in this order..
Fire Support orders first.
Then Advanced movement
Then Reserved Actions.

ALL units on Fire Support must be activated before units on Advanced movement orders.And ALL units on Advanced Movement must be activated before units on reserved Actions .
If a player has more units on Fire Support orders than his opponent, he activates all the units on Fire support , then the opposing player activates their units on Advanced Movement first.
ALL units on Reserved Actions must be activated before the last shots of fire support.

EG
Command Phase.
Issue orders,and call in *off table support.(Request *reserves/air /artillery support.)

Activation Phase
Players take it in turn activation units on
Fire support orders,
Then Advanced Movement
Then Reserved Actions.
Then last shots of fire support .(Non Fire Support weapons only.)

Resolution phase.
(Resolve close assaults(if necissary), Rally units(if required.), *plot arrivals(if applicable..)

If reserves and air/arty attacks have been sucessfully requested.(Rolled high enough.)
Their intended point of arrival is plotted(4 markers 3 dummies one real) or unit placed on the table.This allows ther effect to start at the start of the next turn .Which doesnt disrupt the flow of the game as much as out of sequence events...

A long post ..Ill stop there for ideas and comments...

Hopping on and off the road actually would be a detriment to TFG.

Beneficial effects on take place AFTER 6", not as soon as they enter. So if TFG hopped on and off he wouldn't get any bonuses because he'd never spend more than 6" on the road.



Dast I really like your alternative. Here is my take on it, let me know what you think.

Unit A shoots at unit B, with unit C within 9" and unit D within 12" (of B).

Unit B suffers 12 unsaved wounds, and there are only 7 models in the squad (x = 5).

y = x * 3", every squad within y takes a morale check. For every excess 6" the squad is -1 to their leadership.

So in this example, y = 15. Unit C would take a morale check at -1 to their leadership, unit D would just take a morale check.

This isn't likely to be game breaking, but would provide a disadvantage to MSU besides extra kill points. It also still lets the commander use an economy of force and not try to overkill the crap out of a unit, because that doesn't result in more casualties than if a smaller unit took out the remaining models.

Hi rabid 1903.
I mentioned the actions of 'TFG' in respect to my reasons for the capping of bonuses in my alternative,using smaller movement distances.
So units with lower movement speed than 6" could qualify for movement bonuses.(3" to 12" movement speeds.)

Using a 'panic in nearby unit' mechanic , works for the 'over kill' of a unit ,if you use the restriction a single target unit per ranged attack.
But is this not more complicated than simply applying hits to the models targeted by the attacking models?(All enemy within a 12" frontage ,including enemy models of different units.)

I am trying to use the rules that represent the action in the most straight forward way.As to allow for minimum pages of rules and maximum game play.

If you use a panic mechanic, then you may have to write rules for units that ignore panic in lesser units.(Eg Ork Boys ignoring Grot panic,Nobz Mobs ignoring Boyz and grot units panicing, etc.)
Otherwise a weak unit panicing ,could cause much stronger expencive units to panic unrealisticaly?

Where as direct damage automaticaly adjusts for the unit types(models) actualy hit by ranged fire.

Are you OK with using movement speeds of 3,4,5,6,8,and 12" ?(Based on 2nd ed Movement .)

Or are there a different range of values you want to use?