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.

lanrak;7185735 wrote:Hi Thirdeye.
I can see how you intend to model morale.I am sure it will work fine.
(It is just a bit too complicated for my tastes though.)

P.S. Keep Internal System Synergy.(K.I.S.S.)

Hey lanrak, thanks for the feedback as always. Actually, I changed something with Suppression. Instead of rolling Army's CC Save You just need a roll of 3+ on the unit's highest D-Type.

I really don't understand how you can say this is complicated. Its just rolling off dice to see who has the highest score. That's the basic idea anyway. Instead of modifiers, charts, and a bunch of stats I let the D-Type do the heavy lifting. Its all done automatically when you roll-off dice types. Like the suppression roll. I don't have to add modifiers to the roll or add a stat to represent elite units or commanders. That's all done by the dice type you roll. Yes there are a few twists and turns with some of the mechanics but those were add simply to keep the dice rolls balanced. When on side gets to roll more dice than his opponent he is usually going to win, no matter what the type.

The complication you see is an illusion caused by being trapped in a mind set of D6, stats, and needless minutia. Open your mind and give it a try. You might like it.

I re-did the Morale Rules. Check it out:


Morale Rules

There are three Morale Tests in Ploy-K. An Activation Test, a Suppression Test, and a Fear Test.

Activation Test
The Activation Test is a test of the unit's willingness to do what you, the SCS (Supreme Commander in the Sky) wants it to do.

Before a Player can activate one of his unit's the unit must pass an Activation Test. The Activation Test is a dice roll against a stat, the unit's Moral Value. To past a Activation Test the Player must exceed the units's Morale Value with a dice roll.

Morale Value
The unit's Moral Value is not stated on the unit's profile. That's because it's determined by the size of the unit at the start of the game. So, for example, a unit of ten (10) Marines will have a different Morale Value than a unit of five (5) Marines.

The unit's Moral Value is the unit's size plus a modifier for Troop Quality. A unit's Troop Quality is based on its race or army. The higher the modifier the lower the quality of the troopers. This may seem counter-intuitive at first glance but the goal is to roll over the unit's Morale Value so the lower the Troop Quality the easier to pass the test.

For the Basic Game, Troop Quality is as follows: Marines and Eldar Aspects are Troop Quality 3; Orks are Troop Quality 5. Tyranids and Necrons have special rules. Everyone else is Troop Quality 4. The Advance Game adds some more details to Unit Quality.

Example: For the Basic Game a unit of five Marines has a Morale Value of 8+ (5+3=8).

Players should to note each of their unit's Morale Value before the game begins. As many races/armies use standard unit sizes Players should be able to remember their units' Morale Value, but its always best to keep a record in a competitive game. Some armies, like Orks, Necrons, and Tyranids, have variable unit sizes. So its important that Players note the Morale Value of odd units before the game starts, least they forget.

Activation Roll
When Players take an Activation Test they roll a D6 and the D-Type of highest Model in the unit, then add the number of models currently standing in the unit. To past the test the total of the dice score plus models standing must equal or exceed the unit's Morale Value.

Example 1: A Marine Player declares he will attempt to Activate a Tactical Squad. The unit started the game with five models so it has a Morale Value of 8+ (5+3=8). The Marine Player rolls a D6 and a D10, the Sgt.'s D-Type (the highest D-Type in the unit). The Marine Player scores a 4 and 2. The unit has lost a trooper in combat so he adds four, the number of troopers still standing, for a total score of 10 (4+2+4=10). The unit passes the test.

If the Activation Roll equals the unit's Morale Value the Player can immediately preform any action(s) consistent with the Orders assigned to it during the Order Phase.

If the Activation Roll exceeds the unit's Morale Value the Player can either preform any action(s) consistent with the Orders assigned to it during the Order Phase or he can change the unit's Order and immediately preform any action(s) consistent with its new Orders.

If the Activation Roll is below the unit's Morale Value the unit does nothing that activation. It is still on the Orders assigned to it during the Order Phase but the unit can not act and only react that turn.

Example 2: Continuing the example from above, the Marine Player has just exceed the unit's Morale Value. The unit is on Cover&Fire (C&F) Orders but it has no enemy units in LOS. The Marine Player switches the unit's orders to Advance (Adv) and moves six inches. He can now see an Ork Unit behind a building. He rolls his attack.

Example 3: A Ork Player starts the game with a unit of eight Orks. The unit has a Morale Value of 13+ (8+5=13). On the first turn the unit takes incoming fire and looses three Boys. The unit must take a Morale Check. The Nob has the highest D-Type in the unit (D8). The Ork Player rolls a D6 and a D8, and scores a 4 and a 4. He adds five, the number of troopers still standing in the unit, for a total score of 14 (4+4+5=13). The unit passes the test but just barely. The unit is on Advance Orders. The units can only preform actions consistent with Advance Orders.

 
Suppression Test
A Suppression Test is taken by a Target Unit in reaction to any ranged attack, after all Save rolls are completed, if any. The Target Unit must roll 3+ on the highest D-Type in the unit.  If the score is equal to or above "3" the Unit is not Suppressed. If the score is "1" or "2" the Unit is Suppressed. The Unit's Orders are removed and replaced with a Suppression Counter. If the Unit is already Suppressed it Brakes and runs away.  The models are removed and count as casualties. 

The Advanced Game adds modifiers to the roll based on the Target Unit’s Orders. (+1 for Cover&Fire Orders; -1 for Run; -2 if Suppressed), and an Army specific Chart.


Fear Test
A Fear Test is taken by a Target Unit in reaction to a Charge Action against it (including Tank Shock). 

After the Assaulting Unit makes its initial Assault move (moves six plus D6 inches towards the Target Unit), Players roll-off Command dice. The Target Unit rolls the highest D-Type of its unit against the highest D-Type of the Assaulting Unit. If the Target Unit’s score is equal to or above the Assaulting Unit’s score the Target Unit has suffered no adverse physiological effects in reaction to the charge and can Fire on the Assaulting Unit. This is known as "Counter Charge Fire". The effectiveness of the Counter Charge Fire will depend on the Target Unit’s Orders, and whether or not the Target Unit has been Activated. See Assault Rules for more details.

If the Target Unit’s score is less than the Assaulting Unit’s score the Target Unit has suffered sever physiological effects in reaction to the charge.  The Unit's Orders are immediately removed and replaced with a Suppression Counter. If the Unit is already Suppressed it Breaks and runs away.  The models are removed and count as casualties. 

The Advanced Game adds modifiers to the Fear Test roll based on the Target Unit’s Orders. (+1 for Cover&Fire Orders; -1 for Run; -2 if Suppressed), assault grenades, barricades/cover, and an Army specific Chart.

Been working on some Assault Rules. Check it out:


Assaults/Charges & Close Combat

Assaults
Assaults occur when a Player's unit rushes an enemy unit in an attempt to completely destroy it in do-or-die close range combat. A well planed Assault can quickly eliminate the Target Unit. A poorly executed assault can easily back-fire on the Attacking Unit.

After the Player successfully Activates a unit he can declare an Assault. The Player then proceeds to move the Activated Unit its basic movement plus D4 directly towards the Target Unit. This is called an "Assault Move".

There are, however, certain restriction that apply. Not any unit can make an Assault Move. There are several restrictions to making an Assault Move:

First, the Attacking Unit must be on Run Orders. Only units on Run Orders can execute an Assault Move.

Second, only units with LOS to the Attacking Unit can execute an Assault Move. (The Attaching Unit Commander must have LOS to at least "a few" models in the Target Unit).

Third, the Attaching Unit must be able to move directly towards the Target Unit without passing through impassable or dangerous terrain.

When making an Assault Move, models from the Assaulting Unit can move into base-to-base contact with models of the Target Unit but need not if they do not want to engage in Close Combat (CC).

After the Player makes an Assault Move the Target Unit must make a Fear Test. (See Morale Rules, Fear Test).

If the Target Unit fails its Fear Test it Orders are immediately removed and replaced with a Suppression Counter. If the Unit is already Suppressed it Breaks and runs away.  The models are removed and count as casualties. 

If the Target Unit passes its Fear Test it can Fire on the Assaulting Unit. This is known as "Counter Charge Fire". The Attacking Unit may also fire on the Target Unit, if it has the special rule "Charge Fire". Who fires first depends on the Target Unit’s Order, and whether or not the Target Unit has been Activated.

Any models in base-to-base contact can not shoot but can be shot at.

Any unit that makes an Assault Move is subject to "Overwatch" Fire but, not from the Target Unit. The Target Unit can only "Counter Charge Fire" the Assaulting Unit, as the following rules permit:


Charge Fire/Counter Charge Fire

If the Target Unit has passed its Fear Test it can Fire on the Assaulting Unit. This is known as "Counter Charge Fire". The Assaulting Unit and the Target Unit exchange fire as follows:

If the Target Unit is on Cover&Fire (C&F) Orders it fires before the Assaulting Unit's Charge Fire, and it gets a +2 attack bonus for any shooting at close range. If the assaulting Unit takes casualties it must take an immediate Suppression Test before it can Charge Fire on the Target Unit.

If the Target Unit is on Advance Orders it fires simultaneously with the Assaulting Unit's Charge Fire. Neither side gets a bonus for close range. Saves are rolled and Casualties taken after both Players rolled their Attack Dice. If either unit takes casualties it must then take an immediate Suppression Test.

If the Target Unit is on Run Orders it fires after the Assaulting Unit's Charge Fire. If the Target Unit takes casualties from Charge Fire it must pass a Suppression Test before it can make any Counter Charge Fire on the Assaulting Unit. Neither side gets a bonus for shooting at close range.

If the Target Unit is not Suppressed but has already been Activated prior in the Turn (i.e. Its Order Counter is turned face up), its fires after the Assaulting Unit's Charge Fire. If the Target Unit takes casualties from Charge Fire it must pass a Suppression Test before it can make any Counter Charge Fire on the Assaulting Unit. If the Activated Target Unit is on Cover&Fire (C&F) Orders the Target Unit gets a +2 for any Counter Charge Fire shooting at close range.

If the Target Unit is Suppressed it can not fire on the Assaulting Unit. An Assaulting Unit with "Charge Fire" can Shoot at a Suppressed Target Unit. The Assaulting Unit gets a +1 for any Charge Fire shooting at a Suppressed Target Unit.

If the Target Unit takes any casualties from Charge Fire it must make an immediate Suppression Test.

If the Target Unit fails it Suppression Test it's Order Counter is removed and replaced with a Suppression Counter. The Target Unit must then retreats six inches directly away the Assaulting Unit. If the Target Unit is already Suppressed it Breaks and runs away.  The models are removed and count as casualties. 


If the Target Unit passed it Suppression Test it can Counter Charge Fire on the Assaulting Unit if it has not already engaged in Counter Charge Fire during the assault.

If the Assaulting Unit takes any casualties from any Counter Charge Fire and/or Overwatch Fire the Assaulting Unit must make an immediate Suppression Test.

If the Assaulting Unit fails it Suppression Test it's Order Counter is removed and replaced with a Suppression Counter. The Assaulting Unit must then retreats six inches directly away the Target Unit.

If the Assaulting Unit did not take casualties or it passed it Suppression Test it can move its basic movement plus D4 directly towards the Target Unit. This is called the "Charge Move".

When making the Charge Move models from the Assaulting Unit can move into base-to-base contact with models of the Target Unit but need not if they do not want to engage in Close Combat (CC).


Close Combat

Models in base-to-base contact with an enemy model are considered to be in Close Combat (CC).

Close Combat is resolved in the Close Combat Phase which follows the Activation Phase.

To resolve CC Players roll the D type for each of his models in base-to-base contact with an enemy model. Both players line up the resulting dice results highest to lowest in pairs and compared. The Player with the lowest score in the pair must make a Save. Equal pairs are ignored. Those attacks are considered either blocked or missed. However, Players must make a CC Save(s) equal to or greater than all their dice result of a "1".

The reason for this last bit is that otherwise the Player with more dice is likely to sweep the other Player, meaning he caused the other Player to take a Save on all models in CC while he takes none. That should not be. When you are in a brawl for your life gak happens, especially when everyone is armed to the teeth, and if you role a "1", well, gak just happened to you!

The advance rules add various modifications to CC Saves based on skill levels and weapons type but for the basic rules Saves in CC are race/army based. Space Marines Save on 3+. Humans Save on 6+. Space Orcs Save on a 4+. Space Elves on 5+. Space Elves Heroes Save on 3+.

CC EXAMPLE 1 (using GW models): A group of four Space Marines and a Veteran Sergeant are in base-to-base contact with six Ork boys and one Ork Nob. The Marine Players roll four D8s and a D10, and scores 5, 7, 2, 2, and 1. The Ork Player rolls six D6s and a D8, and scores 6, 2, 4, 4, 2, 4 and 1. The dice are arraigned in pairs hight to lowest: 7to6, 5to6, 2to4, 2to4, 1to2. The Ork Player has two extra dice results, a 2 and a 1. These results "wrap around" and are added to the existing pairs starting with the highest. So the groupings become 7to6+2, 5to6+1, 2to4, 2to4, 1to2. The Marine Player has lost all five pairings and must make five CC Saves. He need not make an addition Save for the "1" he rolled because he is already must make four Saves which is more than the one "1" he rolled.

The Marine Player rolls four D8s and a D10, and gets the results 8, 4, 2, 2 and 2. Since his CC Save is 3+ he loses three Marines. The Marine Player chooses which of his models to remove as casualties.

Since the Ork Player rolled a "1" he must also roll a CC Save. He rolls a 3. Since his CC Save is 5+ he loses a model. The Ork Player chooses which of his models to remove as a casualty.

Hey lanrak, thank's for the input.

lanrak;7191673 wrote:
I like the direction of the new morale rules.
However, could we not make it a bit simpler?

I agree with giving units a Morale value.
But rather than add the number of models in the unit. So an ork mob has a morale value of 35!

Well, my idea is that all the models an Ork Player brings to a battle is his Mob, and he breaks that down into units of, say thirteen to five models a unit. More on that in the Ork Supplement.

lanrak;7191673 wrote:
Why not add to the morale value of the unit for casualties sustained?

Eg Sm Morale Value 2.When they lose over 25% casualties they add 1, when they lose over 50% casualties they add 2 to their morale value.
A unit also adds 1 if it is Suppressed or surrounded.

So the SM Tac Squad, that has lost 6 models and has been suppressed and surrounded by the orks hoard, now need 6+ to pass a morale test!
This makes the modifiers proportional to the amount of casualties lost, and the situation the unit finds itself in.

Yes, we could do it that way as well, but that's not necessarily simpler, just different. Instead of counting standing models you check percentages. You still have to note the size of the unit before the battle, particularly if its a big battle its unusual sized units.

lanrak;7191673 wrote:
I suggested that failed armour saves, (not necessarily wounds,) is a simple way to model suppression.

Simple concepts.
Units ignore fire that can not harm them.(the Land raider is not concerned by lasgun fire is it?)

Therfore if we assume we include unit confidence/experience into the armour value.
This can represent 'unit confidence' based on experience and equipment.

And so to represent the level of threat we could simply use the amount of hits that beat the armour .

This covers the basic unit confidence vs enemy threat level.

Good Stuff here. But it might penalize low armor troops too much? You are already taking Saves into consideration when you say you have to test if you take casualties, but yeah, more casualties the higher the test.

But where to draw the line? Should the roll equal or beat the number of casualties the unit suffered that Activation? If the unit lost three models should the roll be a 3+ or a 4+? If the unit lost one model should the roll be 1+ (i.e. no roll) or 2+? Any thoughts?

lanrak;7191673 wrote:
Fear and terror could simply have a range of effect.(Terror has a longer range .)
This causes a morale test, to be taken immediately , if failed the unit counts as suppressed.

Well, I don't think we need to make fine distinctions. Fear/Terror, it all depends on the dice being rolled. Understand Demons and the like will be rolling D12s, and some war gear, like Banshee Masks and Assault grenades, will add a modifier to the roll.

lanrak;7192887 wrote:
I was thinking of using 'unit cards' for quick in game reference.
So the unit size would be under 'hit points' .Number of models and wounds/structure per model.

EG SM Tac Squad.

(Heart symbol) 10/1= Ten models one wound each.(Biological units have a 'heart symbol'. mechanical units have a 'gear symbol'.)

So you dont have to remember starting strength.

Yeah, I like the idea of Unit Cards, made a bunch of them years ago when my group was house ruling Epic.

I plan on doing Unit Cards too, but that's a long way away.

lanrak;7192887 wrote:

A Mob of 30 orks for example.
To suppress an ork mob you have to suppress 16 models!(Thats 16 failed armour saves from one shooting attack!)

So the mob only suffers from the effects of suppression when they are whittled down by heavy fire.
EG when there are 15 orks left in the unit any further failed armour saves,(suppression or casualties.) would cause the ork mob unit to be suppressed.(As over half the original unit size has been removed as casualties or suppressed.)

Yeah, its automatic. I'm not sure it should work like that. I like the randomness of a roll. It could happen any time on any test, and, following your great suggestion, the more damage the unit takes the worse your odds are for pasting the test.

I just amended my morale rules so for a Suppression test you roll the unit's highest D-Type to equal or beat the number of casualties the unit suffered that Activation So if the unit lost three models the roll be a 3+. If the unit lost one model the roll be 1+ (i.e. no roll).

lanrak;7192887 wrote:
Where as a Heavily amoured unit like a Land raider relies on is armour for protection, so any single penetrating hit on a land raider suppresses it.

Still thinking about how to do morale with armour.

lanrak;7192887 wrote:
I am making units wait until the (end) resolution phase before they can rally.

I do it as the unit's activation. If a unit is Suppressed it can't get Orders until it Rallys. A Rally test is a Morale Test at -2.

lanrak;7192887 wrote:
I am listing the actions suppressed unit are allowed to perform as;-

Move up to movement value towards nearest cover.(Any forward movement must reach cover within this first movement.)Or withdraw in good order up to movement value.
Vehicles and monsters may turn to present their highest armoured facing towards the incoming fire instead.

The unit may fire return fire ,(shoot at the unit that suppressed them.) If this is impossible , they may shoot at nearest enemy unit.

Yeah, good stuff.

lanrak;7192887 wrote:
I only mentioned terror and fear, because some may want to have this 2 tier type system WHFB uses?
But range of effect is important , as it allows simple and intuitive scaling.

For example we could say a Banshee Mask only works in close combat.(0-3")Where as a greater Deamon may inspire fear in enemy units within 12"?

I integrate it with the Assault move. Range is equal to the die type rolled.

lanrak;7192887 wrote:
I think there should be a difference between reduced unit effectiveness from taking physical damage.
And those taken from purely psychological sources.
I think suppression from shooting should alway effect the unit untill the end of the game turn before they can rally.

Where as fear should be an immediate test to see if the unit can overcome their fear as it presents it self.

I do both as a immediate test. Seems to me the way you do the unit can be suppressed and then unsuppressed in the same End-of-Turn clean-up Phase. I like to let Suppressed units linger on the board as targets. The name of the game it is Suppress units then Break them be for your opponent has a chance to Rally. Its all about who gets the Activation and what unit do you activate. Its meant to be involving, even nerve-racking, for both Players. Too many phases makes battle too neat and tiddy, and boring.

Having Fun with Talbles. Thanks Mr. Rose.

Sorry, didn't work.

itcamefromthedeep;7198172 wrote:
This has nowhere near enough granularity for my liking.

Don't be fooled by the base system. There plenty of gradation in Poly-K. It comes in the different combination.

Sure I use only five D-Types (D4-D12) in the base system, but there are thousands of different combination in a base set of five, particularly when you use multiples of each type. Did you know that DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), the basic genetic material for all living things, has only four parts. Yet from that simple base four set nature creates all the diversity in life on Earth.

Poly-K goes nature one better, adding another base unit (five total), then it adds modifiers and special rules on top of that. With variation becomes grater gradation. The system is, in fact, set-up so anyone can add as much variations/gradation as they want. But that usually depends on the fluff you'r adapting the rules too. Poly-K can be adapted to fit any fluff.

itcamefromthedeep;7198172 wrote:
Shooting is going to take forever when you have to do saves one at a time as you go through a unit. It *immediately* kills any time savings you get from your loss of granularity. The real time-killers in 7e are are the fiddly little rolls that probably won't do anything, movement (with a particular note to splitting movement up by phase), and wound resolution in complicated units. While ploy-k may cut down on the time it takes to do movement and it may out out a lot of the fiddly little rolls, the shooting procedure makes everything bog down as if you were shooting at Nob Bikerz.

Its a lot quicker and easier to do it my way, even with rolling saves one at at time. And its better too, as individual models get full credit for their stats and cover. Nothing is generalized.

Its far faster than how GW does it, grouping like stats together, consulting a chart, roll, roll again, then roll a third time, and then maybe a re-roll, then repeat the whole process for the next group. You don't see. You don't see it because you have invested many hours memorizing stats and charts. You're talking about a race where one racer starts four-fifths of the way to the finish line. Even than Ploy-K would win.

itcamefromthedeep;7198172 wrote:
The big stat line and abundance of special rules are a feature, not a bug. They don't take all that long to memorize, particularly when they're put in intuitive places. They help suspension of disbelief by telling players that the mini is being described in detail, and granularity cuts out "game-y" factors where troops do things that wouldn't make sense in the background being described. Also, the kids love all that complicated special rule stuff (that's a non-negligible selling point for a rules system).

GW starts with nine characteristics to a model, each rated on a ten point scale. Then it puts models with differed characteristics into the same group. Then it adds different weapons, each with a unique profile of at least another three characteristics. These are also rated on a ten point scale, (sometime low being the better number, sometimes high), and then it has different rules for armour. And then, for it to all work together, it uses a D6. That's the base rule set. Then it adds modifies and special rules on top of that! Am I the only one who sees how ridiculous all that is?

The rules are really just an explanation on how to untangle the mess you start with, and its not very pretty. Its about how you ignore stats and generalize stats. Again, am I the only one who sees how ridiculous that is? If you're going to ignore stats and generalize stats why have them?

itcamefromthedeep;7198172 wrote:
The overlap in armor saves, cover saves, and force fields helps to prevent troops from spreading too far apart in effectiveness. It isn't *strictly* necessary for a game like this but it's inoffensive to me, particularly in a game who's background suggests that cover shouldn't always be important.

Cover and fields should have a cumulative effect on save, but not in GW's game. Their system can't handle it. So they write the fluff to match their inadequate rules.

itcamefromthedeep;7198172 wrote:
Ploy-K is dead on arrival in my books. I don't even think it'll save a lot of time, and without that selling point there isn't much for me in the system.

It will save a ton of time. Mostly it will save all the time guys like you waisted memorizing a bunch stuff you don't need to know to have fun fighting a space battle. And having fun is what its all about, not memorize stats and charts.

itcamefromthedeep;7199632 wrote:The memorization isn't hard, and the diffence between a relic blade and a lightning claw adds flavor. I *like* the idea that there are different kinds of durability and different kinds of dangerous. That is value added in a game system.

Sure, on a certain level, but often times it becomes meaningless in the sea of stats and competing special rules. And is it really that important in a company size game? Would you have that detail in, say an Epic size game? How about an Apocalypse size game?

itcamefromthedeep;7199632 wrote:Honestly, the to-hit charts and to-wound charts are dead easy, because it's just a pretty straightforward formula in each case. Similarly, memorizing the special rules doesn't exactly take that long and it doesn't do much to slow down gameplay.

It does slow down gameplay, a lot, unless you spend time before-hand memorizing stats, charts, and special rules. Either way you have a significant investment in time and energy before you get to roll to blow something up.

itcamefromthedeep;7199632 wrote:Rolling dice one at a time, however, does. I've played the LOTR strategy attle game, which is far lighter on special rules but takes more time with the dice-rolling for each model, much like your system. A game with a comparable number of models on it is much faster than 40k right now, but that's not a result of the special rules or the time it takes to look up the to-wound chart.

There is only one time you roll separate dice in Ploy-K, that’s Saves for ranged combat. Just about every other time its only two rolls, Attack dice vs. Defense dice. The only exception is CC; it adds a third roll for Saves, but they are rolled as a group. 40K has multiple dice rolls at every turn.

itcamefromthedeep;7199632 wrote:I've played systems like that before. It's not as good as your near-masturbatory self-praise suggests.

You’ve never played a system like Poly-K. You can call it what you want. I call it a better, simpler, cleaner, quicker alternative to what GW is offering.

lanrak;7199682 wrote:Hi Guys.
Having to learn tables and special rules should not be required IMO.

However, special rules , for actual special abilities are good.
And the wide range of abilities of the units should mainly be covered by the stat line directly.IMO.
(So the game does not need so many additional/special rules that contradict/conflict with basic game mechanics /resolution methods.)

I think 40k need a rule set written specifically for it, rather than a conversion of WHFB or another game .

Poly-K needs a lot more development work IMO.
(Hopefully when Thirdeye gets some serious play testing in, we can discuss ways to take the basic ideas and develop them.)

lanrak;7199682 wrote:

Poly-K needs a lot more development work IMO.
(Hopefully when Thirdeye gets some serious play testing in, we can discuss ways to take the basic ideas and develop them.)

Play-testing? What’s that? No, seriously, that needs to be done. So for I haven’t found any guinea pigs, err, I mean, play-testers, but I’m working on it. I want to try-out the vehicles rules. They sound like fun. The first test will be a simple Advance & Destroy mission: Two vehicles at opposite sides of the board. Six game turns. Player closest to his opponent’s board edge at the end wins. You can do teams or even four on four with each Player starting on a board edge. It’s going to be cool.

In the mean time, development, yes indeed. But ya know, its fun.

itcamefromthedeep;7200787 wrote:Roll a die and add your Ballistic Skill. Match or beat 7. If you would pass on a 1 and roll a 1, then instead subtract 5 from your BS and roll again.

If you WS is greater than your opponent's you need 3+. If it's less than half of your opponent's, you need a 5+. For everything else, you need a 4+.

Roll a die and add your Strength, match or beat you oppoent's Toughness+4. 1s always fail. If you would need a 7, a 6 will do.

The tables don't exactly need a lot of work to memorize. They might take some cleaning up, but the shooting BS and SvT rolls are really just "add a die, match or beat target". The WS chart is three dead-easy rules.

There are a ton of fiddly little D6 charts elsewhere in the game (and I certainly think most of those should go) but the basic ones aren't exactly a big strain on the noggin.

---

Closest to your opponents' table edge wins? Dude, you need some serious work on your scenario-writing skills.

---

Why yes, I wouldn't mind more granularity at the Epic scale. Most of those games end up using fewer minis on the table than a game of 40k. There's plenty of room for wider stat lines and more special rules. Like I said, most charts and special rules are easy to remember (particularly when they're well-written).

I want there to be room for toxins that wreck unarmored-but-Tough infantry, while doing next to nothing against power armor. I want room for psychic powers that rot troops from the inside, ignoring armor but allowing tough troops to resist it. I like the difference between troops that are good at fighting because of their high Initiative or Weapon Skill on one hand, and troops that are clumsy but strong and tough. That's interesting and evocative.

I like the difference between command & control bonuses that increase accuracy on the one hand, and super-charged energy weapons that get a bonus to damage without being any more accurate.

I like the difference between troops that are courageous but undisciplined, and troops that are well-drilled but break easily under fire.

I like the difference between a model that has many Attacks because it has a huge number of spiky arms, and a model with a spacial distortion field on the end of stick that only gets one Attack but hits like a truck.

These differences help make the game more fun to me. It helps the process feel less like a math exercise and more like a scene from an action movie. I think 40k could do with a lot less clutter, but that doesn't need to mean sacrifices in granularity.

Thirdeye;7201081 wrote:Hey man, sorry if I came off a little harsh back there. You are obviously a very intelligent veteran player and I value any comments and/or constructive criticism you might offer.



Then roll to Wound, then allocate the Wounds, then check AP, then roll for save. But that assumes you’re dealing with non-mixed units. And generally they are mixed, correct? And that’s when things really get crazy.

I still say my way is better and, generally, faster: Roll all your attack dice. Different weapons, different BS in the same unit? No problem. Weapons characteristics and BS is all represented by an appropriate D-Type. You just roll all your attack dice together. Then you place the attack dice next the models in the Target Unit in LOS and range, the high score next to the closest model in the Target Unit and so forth back through the eligible models. The defender then rolls the D-Type a each model with dice next to it. He must equal or beat the score of the dice next to the model to save. The roll is modified for cover and/or range for each model. Done.



Then roll for save. But again that assumes you’re dealing with non-mixed units. Again that’s when things really get crazy.

My way is better and faster: Roll all your attack dice. Different weapons, different WS in the same unit? No problem. Weapons characteristics and WS is all represented by an appropriate D-Type. Each player just roll their attack dice together. Then you line-up your dice in pairs with your opponent, highest to highest in the first pair, then next highest to next highest, and so on until all dice are paired. Any leftovers “wrap-around”. The Player with the low score in the pair must make a CC Save. Use the low dice in each pair. Since CC Saves are Army/Race specific these dice can be rolled together. For every failed save the losing Play must remove a model as a casualty, his choice. Done.



Yeah, but like I said the real problem comes with mix units.






Well, it’s not meant to be a scenario just a play-testing exercise.



No, the level of detail you’re talking about is not appropriate for an Eric game. It’s also not appropriate for an Apocalypse, nor, in my opinion is it appropriate for a company level game, unless it was confined to challenge matches. It is appropriate for a squad level/skirmish type game.



Sure, but again, what level of detail is appropriate for the game? At company level and larger game you get too bogged-down with too much detail, and mixed units are a nightmare. That’s why GW tried to simplify the game when it went from 1st to 2nd, then from 2nd to 3rd, so players can play bigger games. The problem is their core rules still struggles with mixed units.


If your core rules don’t do mixed units well the scene quickly switches from action movie to foreign film about gallbladder surgery.

itcamefromthedeep;7201250 wrote:If I were really all that insulted, I'd just stop typing and leave.

Mixed units really are where the game bogs down. However, it's important to get an idea of why that's the case. 40k is system that is supposed to describe a background where heroic fighters lead from the front in a remarkably un-sensible way. In order to describe that effectively, the guy at the front can't always be the one taking all the hits.

Your system's way of handling things with shooting, where the troops at the front take the brunt of it, is like the 7e system. Without a Look Out, Sir! equivalent the sergeant or Librarian who leads from the front bites it, hard. That doesn't really fit well with the background of 40k. You can see for yourself how wound allocation changed over the years to try to find a happy medium between the hero who leads from the front always getting shot to death, and the specialists in the unit always being the last to die, without sacrificing playability in terms of the time spent on it. In each case, it was strange outlier scenarios messing the whole thing up.

With your shooting sequence, because each model needs to make a save on their own against a different roll, the whole thing bogs down as if each unit of grunts were a complicated unit. It may end up being faster in some circumstances with complicated units, but if you have some Orks shooting at some Wraithguard, where the ranges on the attack dice are different and some of the Wraithguard are in cover and others are not, the whole thing looks like it would slow down dramatically if only as the players sort out which kinds of dice they need.

In close combat you use a completely different wound allocation system, a system that allows characters to be immune to damage until their entire unit is gone. I believe 40k used a wound allocation system like that in the past. The problem that players expressed with that system is that the sergeant with the power fist was always the last model to die, every time. That got weird. This weirdness led to the more modern, more complicated wound allocation systems you see in recent editions.

What he game needs is a wound allocation system that puts the wounds on specialists and heroes to some small degree, without letting the attack dog-pile them and kill them off with casual ease. Poly-k as it stands has managed to include both extremes simultaneously.

---

I just read your "wrapping around" mechanic and... holy damn that gets out of hand quickly. Here, let me roll 12 D6s for Guardsmen and their lasguns against a Land Raider:

D6s: 6 5 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 1 1
4D10: 10 10 6 3

So the Land Raider actually rolled pretty well, and the Guardsmen rolled a bit on the high side but nothing really spectacular. The result
13 v 10, 11 v 10, 10 v 6, and 8 v 3

The Land Raider dies immediately, hard. To 12 Guardsmen with lasguns.

Let me try it again:
D6s: 6 6 6 5 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 1
D10s: 10 8 6 2
Result: 13 v 10, 12 v 8, 11 v 6, 8 v 2 ... another dead Land Raider

D6s: 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 3 3 3 1 1
D10s: 9 9 6 1
Result: 14 v 9, 14 v 9, 11 v 6, 10 v 1 ... and another

You can't have wrap-around dice add up like that. Outnumbering immediately becomes amazeballs.

Even if you just compared highest to highest and had the second and have the wrap-around dice compare to the original defense dice again, the attacking dice would still be able to bully any of the dice on the defender that happened to roll poorly.

It looks like you have a system where you want lots of attacking units that just bury your opponent in dice. The difference between a D6 and a D8 is nowhere near the difference between 1d6 and 2d6.

D6s: 6 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 1 1
D10s: 10 8 7 5
Result: 12 v 10, 9 v 8, 8 v 7, 8 v 5 ... the Land Raider *almost* survived those lasguns this time. Not once have I rolled less than average for the defending unit there.

Hey Deep, thanks for the continued interest.

itcamefromthedeep;7201250 wrote:

Mixed units really are where the game bogs down. However, it's important to get an idea of why that's the case. 40k is system that is supposed to describe a background where heroic fighters lead from the front in a remarkably un-sensible way. In order to describe that effectively, the guy at the front can't always be the one taking all the hits.

Well, but the guy in the front takes most of the hits. That's just how it is. And I can't suspend my disbelief if it were otherwise. But of course this is Sci-Fi/Fantasy/Gothic so there's options, intelligent options, not that silly Look Out, Sir! stuff. (I mean who comes up with these silly game mechanics anyway?)

itcamefromthedeep;7201250 wrote: Your system's way of handling things with shooting, where the troops at the front take the brunt of it, is like the 7e system. Without a Look Out, Sir! equivalent the sergeant or Librarian who leads from the front bites it, hard. That doesn't really fit well with the background of 40k.

Unlike 40K in Poly-K cover counts, +1 to +4 depending on the type of cover. And of course you got Fields and Auroras. Fields/Auroras add an extra dice to the Save roll. The Field could be any D-Type, D4 to D12.

itcamefromthedeep;7201250 wrote: With your shooting sequence, because each model needs to make a save on their own against a different roll, the whole thing bogs down as if each unit of grunts were a complicated unit.

Well, because they are. Each model has its own unique signature which includes not only its Save/Armour but its cover, range, position, and unique equipment/powers. GW likes to pretend thats not the case but even they have to deal with this reality.

itcamefromthedeep;7201250 wrote: It may end up being faster in some circumstances with complicated units, but if you have some Orks shooting at some Wraithguard, where the ranges on the attack dice are different and some of the Wraithguard are in cover and others are not, the whole thing looks like it would slow down dramatically if only as the players sort out which kinds of dice they need.

The Orks basic weapons have the same range. Special and Hvy weapons fired as Anti-Infantry weapons have the range of the unit's basic weapon and are rolled with the basic weapons, adding dice and D-Type. Special and Hvy weapons fired as Anti-Tank (AT) have a unique stat line and are fired separately. Elite units can fire their AT weapons at separate Target Units.

And yes, some of the Wraithguard are in cover and others are not, that's why you roll separately.

Sorting-out dice is a problem. I try to minimize this by giving Army/Races a basic D-Type and using that D-Type for that Army/Race as much as possible. But that only goes so far. Commanders and Elite units will have different D-Types. The other way of dealing with this problem is to encourage the use of "Chapter Approved" dice: Dice with a unique color and /or pattern which identifies it as dice of that Army. I wrote a post on this subject earlier in the thread.

itcamefromthedeep;7201250 wrote: In close combat you use a completely different wound allocation system,

Well no, not really. Its still Dice vs. Dice. Its just that cover, range, and position are no longer part of the discussion. The models are assumed to be in a swirling free-for-all as far as CC Hits are concerned.

itcamefromthedeep;7201250 wrote: a system that allows characters to be immune to damage until their entire unit is gone.

Yeah, I was afraid you might get that impression from the outline I gave above. Actually its a bit different. As I said you make your Save roll on the dice in the low pair. If that dice happens to be a character or commander dice (a D10 or a D12 say) then you would be rolling a save for a commander or character, and if that dice does not make its save the commander or character is GONE. If the unit has more than one characters or commanders its the Player's choice which goes but a model of that D-Type has to go.

EXAMPLE: A group of four Space Marines and a Veteran Sergeant are in base-to-base contact with six Ork boys and one Ork Nob. The Marine Players roll four D8s and a D10, and scores 5, 7, 2, 2, and 1. The Ork Player rolls six D6s and a D8, and scores 6, 2, 4, 4, 2, 4 and 1. The dice are arraigned in pairs hight to lowest: 7to6, 5to6, 2to4, 2to4, 1to2. The Ork Player has two extra dice results, a 2 and a 1. These results "wrap around" and are added to the existing pairs starting with the highest. So the groupings become 7to6+2, 5to6+1, 2to4, 2to4, 1to2. The Marine Player has lost all five pairings and must make five CC Saves. He need not make an addition Save for the "1" he rolled because he is already must make four Saves which is more than the one "1" he rolled.

The Marine Player rolls four D8s and a D10, and gets the results 8, 4, 2, 2 and 2. Since his CC Save is 3+ he loses three Marines. And since one of the failed saves was on the D10, the Marine Player must take the Veteran Sergeant as casualties. The Marine Player can chooses any D8 models to remove as the other two casualties.

Since the Ork Player rolled a "1" he must also roll a CC Save. And since the "1" was on a D8 he is rolling a save for a Nob. He rolls a 3. Since his CC Save is 5+ he loses his Nob.

If the Ork Player had more than one Nob in the Unit he could chooses which of his Nob models to remove as a casualty.

itcamefromthedeep;7201250 wrote: I just read your "wrapping around" mechanic and... holy damn that gets out of hand quickly. Here, let me roll 12 D6s for Guardsmen and their lasguns against a Land Raider:

Umm, lasguns against a Land Raider?! No, can't do that. Only weapons with an AT Stat line can engage Tanks and a Land Raider is a Hvy Tank. Also, AT shots are no more than two at a time.

Example: An undamaged Predator is attacked by a unit of Ork Infantry with three Hvy weapons. The hvy weapons are each AT D-Type D10 (AT-D10). The Ork Player declares he will attack the Predator with all his Hvy weapons.

First Attack: The Ork Player combines two Hvy weapons shots and rolls 2D10 and scores an 8 and a 4. The Marine Player rolls a D12 and D8 as Defense Dice, and scores an 8 and a 4. No damage.

Second Attack: The Ork Player rolls a D10 and scores a 5. The Marine Player rolls a D12 and D8 as Defense Dice, and scores a 3 and a 4. The Predator looses the Defense Dice in the pair 5 vs. 4. The dice happens to be the D12. The D12 is discarded and is no longer available as a System Dice for the Predator.

itcamefromthedeep;7202052 wrote:Anti-tank weapons only two at a time? Where does that come from, and why is it in the game? Are you making rules to serve your mechanics or to describe the background?

---

The example I gave is there to show how adding "wrap-around" dice onto previous ones breaks down when you have a serious asymmetry in the number of models. If you don't like that example, then call it some 12 Guardians against 4 Terminators. In the examples I rolled, the Terminators don't even get to swing their weapons for all of those 4 rounds of combat. Even if they pass their amazing saves all the time, they're not accomplishing anything. Take 6 Grots (let's call them a D3 each) and have them face off against a character with a mighty D12. Usually, the character will go down like a punk without ever laying a hand on the grots. The effect gets overwhelming long before anyone gets outnumbered 3-1 or 4-1. 40k should be represented by a system that can seamlessly blend fights between 1 powerful model (Abaddon) and 50 weak ones (Conscripts), where they can have a chance to hurt each other and both remain significant on the battlefield.

Speaking of rules that break down when there's an asymmetry of models, it looks like there's some trouble handling anti-infantry weapons like heavy bolters or flamers. When you have a mob of 30 Boyz bearing down at you, getting *maybe* one per turn for a heavy bolter just isn't going to cut it.

When you split weapons into anti-tank and anti-infantry weapons, you start to run into problems when handling light vehicles like Vypers or Rhinos. A heavy bolter may be an anti-infantry weapon by 40k standards, but let's not forget it hits nearly as hard as an anti-tank grenade. This ignores the fact that power-armored troops bring plating as thick as that of a battle tank. The mockup of a Space Marine hanging by my local store tells me that the breastplate and pauldrons on a marine are as thick as the front armor on a WW2 Panther. If you want to split weapons into anti-infantry and anti-tank roles, you'd probably want to put Marines in the tank category.

itcamefromthedeep;7202052 wrote:
Anti-tank weapons only two at a time? Where does that come from, and why is it in the game? Are you making rules to serve your mechanics or to describe the background?

Yeah, it just works that way. Its not a "rain of fire" thing for Armour. Tanks are shielded from that. Its that big hit that breaks though that knocks out a tank. This kinda works that way.

---

itcamefromthedeep;7202052 wrote: The example I gave is there to show how adding "wrap-around" dice onto previous ones breaks down when you have a serious asymmetry in the number of models. If you don't like that example, then call it some 12 Guardians against 4 Terminators.

Oh, four Terminators. Well, in that case you forgot the extra dice. Terminators are Elite troops so yes, a base D10. But they also have a Power Weapon, (D8 in CC), and, generally a Storm Bolter, which is a special weapon with special rules. In ranged combat its a D8 Pistol but in CC it rolls a D10. So that twelve dice in all, 8D10s and 4D8s. So no "wrap-around" dice, just a lot of dead Guardsmen.

itcamefromthedeep;7202052 wrote: Take 6 Grots (let's call them a D3 each) and have them face off against a character with a mighty D12. Usually, the character will go down like a punk without ever laying a hand on the grots.

That character might be rolling four D12s, and saving on a 2+ (Field/Aura Saves in CC?). And if the Grots (D4 by the way) are rolling "1"s they have to make Save rolls, and they Save on a 4+.

I just rolled it: Character scores 12, 9, 8, and 4. Grots score 4, 4, 3, 3, 2, and 1. The 2 and the 1 wrap around, so its 12v4+2, 9v4+1, 8v3. and 4v3. Thats six Grots that need to Save, 4+ on a D4.

itcamefromthedeep;7202052 wrote: 40k should be represented by a system that can seamlessly blend fights between 1 powerful model (Abaddon) and 50 weak ones (Conscripts), where they can have a chance to hurt each other and both remain significant on the battlefield.

Yeah, I got that. But not 50 on one. They have to be in Base contact. Sure, Abaddon is on the big base but you can't fit 50 models around it.

itcamefromthedeep;7202052 wrote: Speaking of rules that break down when there's an asymmetry of models, it looks like there's some trouble handling anti-infantry weapons like heavy bolters or flamers. When you have a mob of 30 Boyz bearing down at you, getting *maybe* one per turn for a heavy bolter just isn't going to cut it.

Not sure what you mean. Hvy Bolters are a hvy weapon. They roll 3D8 against infantry and have an AT of 2D6. Flamers are a special weapon. They have no AT and against infantry they roll 3 dice. The type is Army/Race specific. Its the Army's basic dice type. So for marines it would be 3D8's. For Orks it would be 3D6's.

itcamefromthedeep;7202052 wrote: When you split weapons into anti-tank and anti-infantry weapons, you start to run into problems when handling light vehicles like Vypers or Rhinos.

Vypers are Lt. Vehicles but Rhinos are a tank with PC (Personal Carrier) Special Rule. Light Vehicles can be attacked with Hvy, basic and special weapons. But they have System Dice which can be used for Defense dice and if on Run Orders they get an extra Defense dice, generally a D6 but it could be a D8. They also run in squadrons so Attach Dice are, generally, spread out over the squad.

itcamefromthedeep;7202052 wrote: A heavy bolter may be an anti-infantry weapon by 40k standards, but let's not forget it hits nearly as hard as an anti-tank grenade.

I give them a AT stat.

itcamefromthedeep;7202052 wrote: This ignores the fact that power-armored troops bring plating as thick as that of a battle tank. The mockup of a Space Marine hanging by my local store tells me that the breastplate and pauldrons on a marine are as thick as the front armor on a WW2 Panther. If you want to split weapons into anti-infantry and anti-tank roles, you'd probably want to put Marines in the tank category.

Gee, wish I had a Space Marine hanging by my local store, even if it is just a mockup. All I have hanging by my local store is Larry and he smells bad.

Yeah, Power Armour kinda blurs the line but they are just medieval knights in space, so infantry.

itcamefromthedeep;7202627 wrote:You're still reconstructing scenarios to try to doge the problem of what happens when there's a strong asymmetry of dice (which will still happen both in shooting and close combat).

Well, I’m explaining how the rules work. You seem to have a preconceived motion of how it all works but you’re clearly missing a fundamental notion: it works with multiple of dice in a unit. Units are not limited to one dice to a model. In a small game you could keep track of the dice the unit loses as it loses its combat effectiveness. You tack casualties when the unit dice is less that the unit’s dice count. But that’s for small games.

But yeah, sure a strong asymmetry of dice means the other guy bite-it big time. But that’s how it’s supposed to work. Why would it be any different? I mean, I don’t care how bad-ass your character is if there’s a strong asymmetry of dice against him he bite-it big time. Besides, what your talking about is an extreme case.

itcamefromthedeep;7202627 wrote: You're also now adding in a bunch of special add-on dice from out of nowhere.

No, not from nowhere; I always said there were add-ons and special rules. This is the 40K version of the rules. You clearly have not been reading everything I wrote. And your making assumptions about who it works went, clearly, I haven’t told you how it all works yet.

itcamefromthedeep;7202627 wrote: So Termnators get bonus dice for their gun and their power fist, but their opponents get no bonus dice for their lasguns and close combat weapons?

Well, you never said anything about the Guardsmen having CC weapons. If they did they would be entitled to some extra dice, sure.

But about the Termies, yes, good point. I was thinking about it too. Does seem a little unfair. The idea is the basic guy get a dice that includes a basic weapon. Storm Bolter is the Termie’s basic weapon. But it’s also a Pistol weapon. Pistols always get a bonus in CC, right? Maybe a D8? They still get a D8 for power weapon.

itcamefromthedeep;7202627 wrote:Since when did you start letting troops use their guns in melee, and where did the design concept of a marine being a simple D8 go?

Well, pistols were always a CC weapon, right?

In Poly-K is assumed you’re using your basic weapon in CC as much as possible. That’s the concept of the simple one-dice stat. But basic weapons are, generally meant for ranged combat. Pistol weapons get a bonus because they work better up-close and personal.

itcamefromthedeep;7202627 wrote: The game you're talking to is starting to bear little resemblance to what you described at the start, particularly now that you're adding in a bunch of special rules for using guns in close combat and additional dice for some close combat weapons where other weapons seem to modify the base die type instead. Characters have now moved from being 1d12 at the start of the thread to 4d12 now.

I started out just introducing the basic concepts. I said that from the beginning. I also said the 40K versions would have rules tailored to that universe. You just assumed too much about how it works.

I never said Character were limited to 1D12. That’s part of the fun of Poly-K. You get to build units and Characters out of D-Types and have it work seamlessly in the game at all levels.
---

itcamefromthedeep;7202627 wrote:The assault rules you look to be using are reminiscent of the 3e system, which made assault units quite vulnerable to being attacked even by generalists troops becuase if you hit the side of a unit then only a few of the defending models would be able to make their Attacks. It was a really lame time to be basic infantry.

No sure what you mean. All models in base-to-base contact get all their attacks in CC. There is no facing in CC.

In Poly-K dedicated Assault units are Bad-Ass! They’re throwing a lot of big dice in CC. And they got Fields and stuff to get in with little casualties. PC’s can disembark troops on Advance Orders and the troops can Advance in the same activation. Eldar PC’s can teleport troops D6 or D12 inches from their transports (depending on the System Dice they use).