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.

Needs a big look at weapon ranges and the amount of vehicles vs infantry.

The board size for 28mm is just too small for massive armoured companies to face off and pretend any sort of realism with involving infantry in the battle.

Here is my list of how to make a rule set for 40k...

1) DECIDE what the game is supposed to be in terms of scope and scale.
A skirmish game or a Battle game!Modern warfare or Ancient warfare.
(I would go for a modern battle game where mobility, fire power and assault are all equally important, AND equally represented!.)

2) Determine WHAT elements are going to be included in the game, unit types, scope and scale of intended interaction.

3) Devise the most elegant and intuitive game turn mechanics and resolution methods to deliver the maximum game play from the minimum amount of rules covering all these determined elements.(EG completely opposite to current 40k.)

4)Play test and revise until every one thinks its a enjoyable experience to play the game, (even WAACs vs FAACs!)

My preference would be for an interactive game turn , and using stats directly in resolutions. (NO fething stupid tables, or special rules that are at odds with the core rules!)

Eg The stat is a direct representation of distance or number of dice rolled.OR used in direct comparison/as a modifier.

I can list some examples if needed?

All good ideas. Some wrinkles to work out:

1) If you reduce weapon ranges, I take it you would NOT reduce movement distances? Trying to think of a simple way to do that.... maybe weapons ranges are in centimeters but move distances are still in inches?

(2) Not sure I agree with you about saves... but maybe invulnerable saves ONLY could work as a separate die roll, to make them really distinctive from regular armor?

(3) I don't know how ward saves work in Fantasy -- I'm literally 16 years out of date on WHFB rules. Can you clarify?

(4) Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.

(5) Make sense.

(6) I really like alternating unit-by-unit, but IS definitely tricky when one army has way more units, because that army is going to get a string of actions in a row no matter what. Maybe the guy with the smaller army gets to choose whether the larger army moves its "extra" units at the beginning of the turn (so you can wait and see what they do) or at the end (so you can preempt)?

Do you think alternating phases would work better than Alternating unit activation?

How about using Order counters like Epic Space Marine/Net Epic?

There are loads of great rules sets for modern battle game using 6 mm to 15mm minatures.(Epic, Dirtside, FoW, etc.)

Why not use these systems as a base then ADD more detail to up scale them to 28mm?

I think this would be better than starting with ancient skirmish rules and hacking lumps out...

Alternating phases would probably be the easiest route to go, but you may have hit on a solution to the outnumbered problem with unit-by-unit system in your original post. You described "reactions" using initiative tests, such as a squad firing at a tank as it moves or counter-charging a unit, so this would be a pretty nifty way of doing things. Something along the lines of:

If one player has activated all of his units, and the second player has more than one inactivated unit remaining, the first player may nominate one unit to make a reaction each time the opponent activates a unit. When a unit attempts a reaction, both units must make an initiative test. If the first players unit wins the initiative test, they are allowed to perform one action at any point in the activated units activation, making a movement, firing their weapons, or counter-charging. Otherwise, the opponents unit activates as usual. All of the first players units must attempt a reaction before any unit is allowed to attempt a second reaction.

Since most armies that would be seriously outnumbered are lower model count, expensive armies that tend to have better initiative, they are more likely to get a reaction against lower initiative, horde armies, so that helps with the uneven activations without it being automatic or overly powerful. Obviously this would need a lot of work, but it's an interesting direction.

Lanrak wrote:There are loads of great rules sets for modern battle game using 6 mm to 15mm minatures.(Epic, Dirtside, FoW, etc.) Why not use these systems as a base then ADD more detail to up scale them to 28mm? I think this would be better than starting with ancient skirmish rules and hacking lumps out...

That is shockingly sensible -- but this is not a sensible thread! The (almost certainly unachievable) aspiration of my first post was to reboot 40K to the almost same degree D&D got rebooted in 4th edition (and yes that bitterly divided the fanbase). I'd actually like something for which you could use current codexes almost unchanged, just with a conversion sheet for how armor saves etc. translate,

Rav1rn wrote:....If one player has activated all of his units, and the second player has more than one inactivated unit remaining, the first player may nominate one unit to make a reaction each time the opponent activates a unit. ...Since most armies that would be seriously outnumbered are lower model count, expensive armies that tend to have better initiative, they are more likely to get a reaction against lower initiative, horde armies, so that helps with the uneven activations without it being automatic or overly powerful. Obviously this would need a lot of work, but it's an interesting direction.

Very interesting. Thanks!

It could be considered that we take different rulesets for different scales of game.

0-750 pts, gear the rules for skirmish warfare

751-2000 pts, gear the rules for combined arms

2001+ pts, gear for large-scale conflicts

Rather than the current system of trying to combine all three all the time.

If one thinks IGOUGO is clunky or unrealistic, I don't think unit-by-unit actuation is much better. If both sides had only 3 units, maybe.

No, what is needed is more potential interaction from the defending player during the attacker's turn. An over-watch mechanic more akin to 2nd Ed. would help (sacrificing movement the previous turn but allowing shots at any target during enemy movement), not the brain-dead version of 6th Ed.

However, I could see the Assault Phase being decided by an Initiative roll. That could be worthwhile, so a unit could perhaps 'consolidate' away from a charging enemy if it has a higher roll, or even charge into the enemy giving both sides their attack bonuses.

IGOUGO works pretty well for the most part and it has gotten a bad rep because 40K tends to have such a long turn sequence for each player. I'd rather fix it by adding more interaction, not throwing the baby out with the bath water.

True overwatch/opportunity fire is a good thing -- and probably way simpler to implement.

I still don't like waiting for the other guy's entire two-day long turn.

In my experience, unit by unit play is WAAAAY longer to play. You don't have to wait for the other player as much, but the same sized game takes WAAAAAAAY longer. Yuk.

Oooo this looks like fun. i was working on something remarkably similar to your original post :/ now i feel like im plagiarizing.

1) Change to i go you go kinda thing. but give each unit activation tokens that let em do things
(it was going to something like primary/secondary/reaction tokens)
2) Change weapon range to "Effective" range.
(generally keep em the same as current but a unit can still shoot past that range at a heavily modified BS or S)
3) Change cover. I liked zagmans idea of changing cover into a modifier for BS. the math turned out relatively ok.
4) Stream line unit types. make vehicles into high T models with addition rules.
5) balance the point system (god that's gonna take forever)
6) get rid of most of the random. EI:psyker or daemon: "Hur dur how do i warp"

way more to work on.

 Desubot wrote:
4) Stream line unit types. make vehicles into high T models with addition rules.

I would agree, but there's something tactical about having armour values on vehicles - you have to learn how to position them.
You could give them multiple toughness values though.

On a related note, I've been thinking about ditching the current movement system for vehicles, and replacing it with a movement value. They'll have two values: the first is lower, and allows you to fire everything normally, the second is higher, and causes you to only make snap shots.

Ex:

Rhino:

M: 6/12
Bs: 4
T: (F)8, (S)7, (R)7
Type: Tank, Transport (10)

And yes, the number next to "Transport" is it's capacity.

SisterSydney wrote:All good ideas. Some wrinkles to work out:

1) If you reduce weapon ranges, I take it you would NOT reduce movement distances? Trying to think of a simple way to do that.... maybe weapons ranges are in centimeters but move distances are still in inches?

(2) Not sure I agree with you about saves... but maybe invulnerable saves ONLY could work as a separate die roll, to make them really distinctive from regular armor?

(3) I don't know how ward saves work in Fantasy -- I'm literally 16 years out of date on WHFB rules. Can you clarify?

(4) Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.

(5) Make sense.

(6) I really like alternating unit-by-unit, but IS definitely tricky when one army has way more units, because that army is going to get a string of actions in a row no matter what. Maybe the guy with the smaller army gets to choose whether the larger army moves its "extra" units at the beginning of the turn (so you can wait and see what they do) or at the end (so you can preempt)?

I would just chop almost every range in half. It is probably less realistic but it would make for far more interesting game play. The biggest problem with 40K is that ~50% of the weapons can cover almost the entire board with their range. You can either increase board size (harder) or decrease range. I would probably do the fantasy movement characterisitic (average 4 for humans 8 for cavalry) or leave it as is so that games feel fast and furious rather than shooting galleries.

Ward saves are a seperate roll after armour saves. If I had my way it would be armour save, ward save, then FnP to kill something. This would make some units reidiculously hard to kill (termies) but if you are conservative with your designs and don't let it go crazy it really makes them special. In fantasy a really good ward is a 4++.

Rav1rn wrote:Alternating phases would probably be the easiest route to go, but you may have hit on a solution to the outnumbered problem with unit-by-unit system in your original post. You described "reactions" using initiative tests, such as a squad firing at a tank as it moves or counter-charging a unit, so this would be a pretty nifty way of doing things. Something along the lines of:

If one player has activated all of his units, and the second player has more than one inactivated unit remaining, the first player may nominate one unit to make a reaction each time the opponent activates a unit. When a unit attempts a reaction, both units must make an initiative test. If the first players unit wins the initiative test, they are allowed to perform one action at any point in the activated units activation, making a movement, firing their weapons, or counter-charging. Otherwise, the opponents unit activates as usual. All of the first players units must attempt a reaction before any unit is allowed to attempt a second reaction.

Since most armies that would be seriously outnumbered are lower model count, expensive armies that tend to have better initiative, they are more likely to get a reaction against lower initiative, horde armies, so that helps with the uneven activations without it being automatic or overly powerful. Obviously this would need a lot of work, but it's an interesting direction.

It could be really awesome but as proved by many games before extremely time consuming and complicated. I think this may become more possible in the post Augmented Reality age where we all have "google glasses" to keep track of it all for us.

I don't think the weapons ranges are as much an issue as the inadequacy of cover. The game is an abstraction anyway, and TLOS does a disservice to certain aspects of game play.

We don't allow LOS to travel through more than two pieces of area terrain nor through terrain with a cover save that is lower than a weapon's AP value. It makes maneuver and positioning a bit more important while sustaining those clear, long shots.

 amanita wrote:

We don't allow LOS to travel through more than two pieces of area terrain nor through terrain with a cover save that is lower than a weapon's AP value.

So how do you fire at models in, say, a trench, or behind an ADL if you are using infantry standard weapons (lasguns, boltguns, gauss flayers etc)?

You can shoot INTO such terrain, but not past it. Models benefiting from the cover of a wall (w/in one 1") are considered in that terrain.

TLoS is good but if they changed terrain to be -1 to hit for soft and -2 to hit for hard and made them cumulative it would be much more important.

BTW the terrain rules are probably the biggest weakness of 6ed.

My big ideas/wishlisting things I'd like to see.

1) Further reworking of the Vehicle Rules
First I'd like to see there just be Penetrating or Non-Penetrating hits, no more glancing, a shot will either penetrate or it won't.

I'd also like to see Crew Stunned become its own thing when being hit by a weapon, perhaps making a Leadership test and treating all vehicles as having Leadership 10 until vehicles all have their own Ld values. When being hit by a weapon, even if it doesn't penetrate, the vehicle must make a Crew Stunned roll on its Leadership value, if it passes nothing happens. If it fails the vehicle suffers from Crew Stunned. Certain types of wargear can reduce the effects of Crew Stunned to Crew Shaken.

Finally Penetrating Hits no longer roll on the Vehicle Damage Table. To me Hull Points are enough, however I don't think the Vehicle Damage Table should be forgotten entirely, instead rework it to a Critical Hit Table. Critical Hits can only be performed by weapons which roll 2D6 or more when rolling for armour penetration. When an attack successfully penetrates a vehicles armour while at the same time rolling doubles, the vehicle has been critically hit with the only results being Weapon Destroyed, Immobilized, or Extensive Damage. Extensive Damage's effect makes the vehicle lose one additional Hull Point and, if the vehicle is destroyed in such a manner, it will explode.


2) Formation Integration
I see a lot of potential in Formations beyond what GW is doing. I see them as a tool of encouraging fluffy armies or unit compositions by offering bonus special rules or being able to field something normally not allowed via the Force Organization chart. Of course there should be restrictions and rules, for example only Primary Detachments can take them and only one per Force Organization chart. The Formation itself would also take up Force Organization slots depending on its size and composition.


3) Warlord Traits
Not sure if others will agree, but I think we should have some more options here. Not more Warlord Traits, just an option to roll a random one for free OR to be able to purchase one for a points hike.


4) Psychic Powers
Like with Warlord Traits, I feel like we should be able to risk a roll or take a Primaris Power for free OR we can select a power for a hefty points hike.

I can't really come up with any new ideas, but I'll chime in on some that have been suggested!

Alternating phases is a great idea, and one that I've actually tried in 6th to great success. Doing it on a per unit basis not only takes forever, but imbalances the gameplay in favor of armies with a lot of units (i.e. Tervigon spam with 10+ gaunt units running amok).

Making movement less complex would be nice. None of this rolling for movement through difficult terrain nonsense, just modify the move (-1" through rough ground, -2" through forest, etc.). Also, bin random charge ranges. Seriously.

Ignoring cover needs to be less powerful. One way to do this would be for the weapon to remove the cover save but make the weapon AP- as a result. My Guardians in a bunker shouldn't all die to a single flamer.

I fully agree with removing armor saves instead moving to a system of modifiers whereby the weapon characteristic (Str) compares to a defense characteristic (T). If S>T then wound is applied. Modifiers that have been suggested are all great including poison modifying the T and Rending or high AP affecting the armor bonus. Both of these mechanics don't redesign the core character stats and thus avoid a major codex rewrite.

Personally I think the terrain placement rules are pretty straightforward and adequate. Not only do you alternate, but there is randomness where it should be.

Psychic randomness needs to go. Having my Flyrant completely vulnerable because I rolled Hemorrhage and Life Leech is a super downer. Of course being able to select powers would make Hemorrhage, Death Mission, etc. never played . . .

Elimination of armor values and hull points in favor of T values is a great idea and condenses the rules immensely.

Lastly, yes, yes, yes to reducing weapon ranges. While I fully take advantage of it, being able to swoosh my vehicle force shield 60" across a table is absurd.

Sorry for not really adding anything new, but I got to thread too late it seems.

Wow, lots of good stuff here.

Desubot wrote:Oooo this looks like fun. i was working on something remarkably similar to your original post :/ now i feel like im plagiarizing.

Think of it more as "great minds think alike." And, y'know, there being a finite set of other games out there we're all taking inspiration from. I'll try to summarize & synthesize.


1) Less randomness, please, O Merciful Emperor... oh wait He is not merciful never mind




2) Vehicles are people, too

2a) Vehicles get Toughness, Wounds, and Armor Bonus(es)



2b) Critical Hits for everybody!


2c) Ld Stats for vehicles & Suppressing Fire for everyone

If we give vehicles a Leadership value, I suggest all vehicles automatically get either Fearless or Stubborn, but must still always roll for Crew Stunned when they're hit by a strong enough weapon.

Another bonus to giving vehicles a Leadership value is that Psychic Pilot becomes unnecessary and can be dropped from the game.

Hmm, not sure about Critical Hit tables for everything. Vehicle damage is already a bit of a pain to keep track of, adding it to characters and MCs as well would just bog down the game I'm afraid.

Perhaps, instead, if the result of a To Wound roll is a successful roll of 6 and equal to or greater than double the target's Toughness, refer to the chart below and the weapon gains that special rule for the wounds it caused.
- Energy Type (Las Weapons, Flamers, Meltaguns, etc): Blind/Haywire.
- Impact Type (Auto Weapons, Bolt Weapons, some Missiles): Concussive.
- Piercing Type (Rail Weapons, Power Lances?): AP 1.
- Slicing Type (Shuriken Weapons): Pinning.

Or perhaps, far more simply, have any critical hits versus non-vehicle units improves the weapons AP by 1 or something as if the shooter has hit some lesser protected part of the target's body.

I'm against giving wounds and a Toughness stat for vehicles. This merely compounds GW's already sketchy rules writing, and takes away an important aspect of the tactical (and realistic) positioning of vehicle armor facing.

4th Ed vehicles were too weak, 5th Ed vehicles were too strong, and 6th are a little too weak (with more bookkeeping) again. Swing goes the pendulum. When GW makes a stupid rule, they counter it not by discarding or changing it, they usually just add another stupid rule to compensate for it. I'm sorry, but hull points are really pretty stupid. Adding more hull pts for vehicles seems to be a commonly regarded solution when in fact the vehicle damage chart just needs alteration. The same goes for lots of GW's rules that get more convoluted each edition but people keep trying to fix the latest screw-ups. I say go back to 3rd or 4th Ed, fix the blatant errors and call it good.

I'm in favor of keeping vehicles distinct as well, but there needs to be a lot of tuning in this area. My 250 point land raider should not get one shotted by a 15 point guardsman wielding a Melta-Gun. And if that result must be a possibility, then at least make it not an almost guaranteed event. 2D6 +8 penetration averages out to a value of 15, and with +2 on the damage chart, explodes is half the results, that is way too high for the second most durable non-apocalypse vehicle in the game. So some sort of second armor trait to differentiate the durability of a certain tank would be appreciated. Vehicles are not just defined by their armor, their design and redundancies also come into play, so make sure those are done as such, and yes hull points is far too involved of a "solution" to this problem, which it doesn't even really attempt to fix.

Beyond this, tanks need to become more than just metal boxes with guns strapped to them. Make crew play a bigger role, turn it into a unit riding inside of an armored shell rather than just a metal box. Crew upgrades, system upgrades, etc could all be implemented, and while i definitely don't want the focus of the game to be on vehicles, if they're there they should at least be interesting. More crew based effects for glancing hits would be nice, with penetrating shots killing crew and disabling systems. There's so much potential for improving vehicles since they've always been extremely simplified.

Player give orders to all their units in secrecy, then reveal on initiative steps, with possibility to change order as a reaction to some nerfed one e.g. snapshots, flee or sth.

Full blown overwatch as one of the orders.

Such system would also allow easy modifiers to shoot based on target movement, relative position etc.

Total split fire, you can shoot multple targets from one unit. Maybe some BS penalty with each consecutive target or sth unles you have some fancy USR.

Weapons with unlimited ranges (bar maybe shotguns, meltas etc) with BS droping with distance, -1BS on each 24 with bolter, each 48 with rockets or lascanons (as they seem to hae some kind of scope/ targeting system), no drop with sniper rifles etc

No more forced cinematics. The battles are cinematic because they are battles, do not need additional roll d6 to see something awesome.






Top of my head. Also I agree with someone above that IGOUGO is better than alternating units, assuming you introduce real overwatch to the former. I also love my d6s, AP system and separate S vs T and save throws.

Just had a thought - a couple of people mentioned weapon range reductions to better deal with the limited board size, so how about this:

Reducing weapon ranges by 3" for every 12" they normally have:

Old Ranges:

a) 6"
b) 12"
c) 18"
d) 24"
e) 36"
f) 48"
g) 72"

New Ranges:

a) 6"
b) 9"
c) 15"
d) 18"
e) 27"
f) 36"
g) 54"

I agree that weapon ranges are too long. Artillery as a whole does not make sense in the skirmish game that is 40K. Apocalypse or something, sure. But not intercontinental artillery in a small battle between a few units.

72" weapons such as a LRBT just feels too much. Why not just give it unlimited range outside of apocalypse if so? Outranging weapons and putting the right thing within range/LOS is a part of tactics. Massive range weapons (Anything above 48" IMO) removes some of these tactics and makes the game a little less about clever movement and positioning, and a bit more about listbuilding and getting the 1st turn. The game has enough of that already.

Points well made, but I'm leery of rewriting unit stats, as is GW when it issues new editions. I'd rather change the Shooting rules to make long-range shots much less likely to hit.

Under my rough system above, a Leman Russ firing at 72" would effectively be firing at a Ballistic Skill of negative one: It could hit other vehicles (which give +2 for their size) but not infantry or bikes.

That said, you might want to give the Russ the option of just doing area bombardment with Blast and hoping for the best... but it should still scatter like hell given how hard individual infantrymen are to see at long range, which makes targeting even a whole squad of them difficult.

Rav1rn wrote:
I'm in favor of keeping vehicles distinct as well, but there needs to be a lot of tuning in this area. My 250 point land raider should not get one shotted by a 15 point guardsman wielding a Melta-Gun. And if that result must be a possibility, then at least make it not an almost guaranteed event. 2D6 +8 penetration averages out to a value of 15, and with +2 on the damage chart, explodes is half the results, that is way too high for the second most durable non-apocalypse vehicle in the game. So some sort of second armor trait to differentiate the durability of a certain tank would be appreciated. Vehicles are not just defined by their armor, their design and redundancies also come into play, so make sure those are done as such, and yes hull points is far too involved of a "solution" to this problem, which it doesn't even really attempt to fix.

Beyond this, tanks need to become more than just metal boxes with guns strapped to them. Make crew play a bigger role, turn it into a unit riding inside of an armored shell rather than just a metal box. Crew upgrades, system upgrades, etc could all be implemented, and while i definitely don't want the focus of the game to be on vehicles, if they're there they should at least be interesting. More crew based effects for glancing hits would be nice, with penetrating shots killing crew and disabling systems. There's so much potential for improving vehicles since they've always been extremely simplified.

Agreed. Here's our current Vehicle Damage chart we use. No hull points. Vehicles can target multiple enemy units. Shooting is still limited by excess movement. Charging a moving vehicle counts as moving into Dangerous terrain. In our version, you can shoot passengers in open-topped vehicles. Assaults against vehicles are against the armor facing the attacking unit reaches, but a unit is allowed to continue moving around the vehicle to find thinner armor as long as movement remains. Vehicles classified as Tanks all have a 6+ Invulnerable save.

VEHICLE DAMAGE TABLE
D6.. Result............................................Table Modifiers
0... Shaken (no shoot, ½ move)........ Glancing Hit.........................-1
1... Stunned (no shoot or move)........ Hit by AP - Wpn..................-1
2... On Fire!......................................... Hit by AP 1 Wpn.................+1
3... Weapon Destroyed*.....................Open-topped in Assault.....+1
4... Immobilized*.................................AP roll is 3 > Armor............+1
5... Wrecked ........................................Blast Center Off Target.......-2
6... Explodes! (S4 rending)^
7+. Annihilated! (auto wounds)^....... Tanks ~ 6+ invulnerable save

Put a marker on a vehicle for each On Fire! result (max 5). At the start
of the vehicle's turn, roll a D6: if the roll is = to any # of markers, remove
them & roll on the table. If not, add a marker. Any 6 extinguishes the fire.

*A Penetrating hit always causes a Shaken result in addition to any other
effect. Ordnance weapons roll 2 dice and use the highest result.

^An Explodes! or Annihilated! result affects all (+ psgrs) within D6" of the
model's hull. Wrecked & Explodes! results leave the wreck in play but
Annihilated! removes the model & the area is treated as difficult terrain.

P.S. Also, a vehicle may opt to use defensive fire (assault or rapid-fire weapons) against units assaulting them as long as the units are in LOS of the weapon. This is at full ballistic skill, but in so doing the vehicle may not shoot that weapon during its next turn.

I would like higher Initiative values to actually have meaning. Necrons are slow and clunky, so why wouldn't my genetically enhanced Space Marines be able to smack 'em twice?
I feel that if a models Initiative is twice that of majority, he goes twice. Once at full Initiative, with all bonuses, second with just the Attack statline and CCW if it has it.
So here's a scenario: 5 CCW Black Templars charge 10 Necron Warriors. On the charge my Templars would get 3 dice/model. And since they have Initiative 4, they're twice as fast as the Warriors, they would go again at half Initiative because the Warriors are Initiative 2, except they would lose the benefit for the charge.
I thought of this while playing against Necrons and we were having a hell of a time keeping them down, due to Reanimation Protocols. However, Necrons would be able to benefit from this also, against units going at Initiative 1. So, Powerfist wielding Termies, or even that pesky Thunderhammer carrying Captain.

So an Initiative 7 would go at step 7 then again at step 3. Half Initiative rounded down. Same with all odd numbered Initiative values.

There's probably a lot of flaws with this, but it's something that has kinda been bugging me. Just my two-cents.

Templar_Grist wrote:
I would like higher Initiative values to actually have meaning. Necrons are slow and clunky, so why wouldn't my genetically enhanced Space Marines be able to smack 'em twice?
I feel that if a models Initiative is twice that of majority, he goes twice. Once at full Initiative, with all bonuses, second with just the Attack statline and CCW if it has it.
So here's a scenario: 5 CCW Black Templars charge 10 Necron Warriors. On the charge my Templars would get 3 dice/model. And since they have Initiative 4, they're twice as fast as the Warriors, they would go again at half Initiative because the Warriors are Initiative 2, except they would lose the benefit for the charge.
I thought of this while playing against Necrons and we were having a hell of a time keeping them down, due to Reanimation Protocols. However, Necrons would be able to benefit from this also, against units going at Initiative 1. So, Powerfist wielding Termies, or even that pesky Thunderhammer carrying Captain.

So an Initiative 7 would go at step 7 then again at step 3. Half Initiative rounded down. Same with all odd numbered Initiative values.

There's probably a lot of flaws with this, but it's something that has kinda been bugging me. Just my two-cents.

It makes some sense, but it means that Slaanesh and Khorne units would be utter rape machines.

And Daemons Princes with Black Maces would be way overkill...