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- if 40k isn't a war game then there is no reason to bring your feelings about war games into the discussion about how to improve 40k? Beyond that lance spells out the basic issue with your system. It makes shooting (especially long range shooting) more powerful than it currently is not less, and is a huge advantage to player 2 in the instance they have better range/ mobility.

Even WITHOUT the moving away, you deepstrike in your move, now i get an entire shooting phase to negate the closest and biggest threats to me. I dont really have to worry about if i am in range. I am. You got close enough that you think you can reliably charge me so im sure my entire shoting phase can ensure that doesnt happen to any meaningful effect.

Did you teleport some boyz with da jump? Too bad their shot. Did you move and advance with genestealers? Too bad their shot.

Again, alternating phases CRIPPLES melee, short, and mid ranged armies. Its the WORST idea. Its actually worse than IGOUGO.

So just to get this right,
If you advance across ''no mans land'' towards an enemy bristling with ranged weapons, without smoke/cover or suppressing/neutralizing them first, you get the snot shot out of you.

If you drop parachutists (Deep strike ) directly on top of an enemy position without suppressing/neutralizing them first ,then in some way your are at a disadvantage?
Your small elite force is out numbered and out gunned...

And as no one ever bothered developing any sort of tactical options to avoid the mass slaughter as found in the battle of the Somme over 100 years ago. 40k game play is an accurate representation of the attrition type warfare we still wage today....Oh wait.

I think war gamers would like 40k to be a war game, with straight forward rules that deliver tactical game play.Rather than just a tactically shallow short term sales drive.

I though I made it pretty clear than tactical movement options, (like 2nd ed,)and simple a suppression mechanic would be used with alternating phases to fix the majority of issues with 40k core rules.

Where did I say just using Alternating phases would fix everything?

Just changing the game turn mechanic will not fix 40ks many game play issues.

Alternating unit activation crates more issues to be addressed,while reducing some excesses,as outlined above.

It does not fix 40ks 'unrestricted shooting and movement'.(This was used to ramp up the casualty levels to facilitate higher model counts.)Neither does alternating phases.

But alternating phases does not add any more issues to the pile.Just highlights the core issues already there.

It's hard to read the

<line>

<Line>

<LINE> format you use, Lanrak, but let me say this:

40k always struck me as a Napoleonics-style rule-set with some fancy flourishes, more than a modern-war style. It's why it has such trouble handling deep-strikers; they don't fit into the "Volley - reload - enemy volley during reload - 2nd volley" structure that 40k and Napoleonics had.

I don't think it ever will, either. I think the units are designed from a very Napoleonic perspective, even. You'd have to redesign everything from the ground up for a "modern" style wargame. I'd start by slashing anything larger than a Main Battle Tank or a squad of 8-10 men, because we don't use Conscript Hordes or Superheavy Tanks anymore; they're too slow for modern war. On that note, halve the movement rate of infantry and double the movement rate of everything else; the speed of a walking man is insufficient in modern war to make a meaningful difference. Then, after both armies are deployed, resolve air combat and then CAS strikes, because no one is going to move or attack into the teeth of an enemy if they can avoid it. Also resolve indirect fires. Then, once both armies are in tatters and fighting in a utterly destroyed wasteland, the shattered survivors can move forwards in damaged vehicles to sweep and clear....

Lanrak wrote:


But alternating phases does not add any more issues to the pile.Just highlights the core issues already there.

Bull gak. I just explained how alternating phases makes whole swathes of units full blown unplayable. Alternating phases disrupts far more then anything else does. There is no issue with the current deepstrike mechanic. There is no issue with most melee units right now. Especially not with the basic mechanic of getting into melee. Alternating phases makes it impossible however. It creates a WHOLE NEW set of issues.

@Unit1126PLL.
I agree that 40k core rules are the same as WHFB core rules.(Based on WGRG Napoleonic rule set Rick Priestly wrote back in the 1970s)
This works great if the models/units have to maneuver into effective weapons range.( RT and 2nd ed were skirmish games where units had a lot more room to maneuver , and ranged weapons has restriction, based on range ,and how far the unit moved. )

However, since 3rd ed when GW corporate forced a large increase in 40k model count at the 11th hour.There has been little in the way of maneuvering into effective weapons range.As the restrictions on shooting were removed, and movement rates were increased to try to compensate.So special rules were added to try to fix the imbalances,(by a team of proffessional game developer over decades!) And just arrived at a large complicated mess of a rule set that was practically impossible to define clearly , let alone play.

When I refer to modern war I am referring to the strategic and tactical loading.NOT the specific abilities of units .

In Napoleonic war it is all about out maneuvering your opponent to get the best assault match ups.(Ranged weapons are used in a supporting role.)

In modern warfare there is a balance between mobility, fire power and assault.Mobility to take objectives, fire power to control enemy movement, and assault to contest objectives.

My argument is that 40k units are much closer to WW II units and equipment than Napoleonic units and equipment.In terms of composition and function.And a rule set that balances assault and shooting better would be very beneficial to 40k IMO.Compared to the buff /nerf swings , and rules bloat special rules 40k suffers from.


@Lance845.
So unrestricted shooting and movement is not an issue in the 40k game play already?
You can play 40k on a table without any L.O.S blocking terrain and there is no issue for assault based armies ?
And the order combat is resolved is so fluid and intuitive there are no WTF moments at all?
I will have to agree to disagree.

What I said, Lanrak, was that deepstriking, as it is NOW, works. Melee, as it is NOW, works. Melee units are currently a threat in a way they have not been in several editions. What you are proposing removes both of those things and, in fact, makes them worse then they have ever been in the history of the game.

To claim that your proposal creates no new problems is bull gak. Your proposal makes a ton of new problems. And you have no mechanics in place to fix them.

Why the hell would anyone want to play the version where half of all chaos factions, half of nids, blood angles, orks and a smattering of units from every other army no longer have any functional purpose in the game?

If not mentioned, your games would take forever.