Switch Theme:

Unit based activation  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Dominating Dominatrix






SaganGree wrote:
Well, I played out a few games and I have to say I prefer this way of playing a LOT more than what we have in the rule book... that said something that came up was moral. It was an easy fix though as we moved the Moral check to the beginning of unit activation.

Another issue was auras, we played one game where characters moved like everyone else, and one game where they moved like lance845 suggested and that seemed to make more sense, we just used a different marker to designate that the character had already moved. Additionally, we made it so that characters could move with a unit before or after they activated to make auras work a bit more as intended. In this case we had Tiggy put up his Invul bubble in the first game and everything was moving out of it when they activated... so when we tried it with character moves attached to unit moves we added that caveat.


Right?! Basically any problem that comes up is generally fixed by just doing the simple thing that makes the most sense and puts it where it naturally would go.

As I've been typing this out, I think that targeted psychic powers would need to be adjusted somehow as they were a lot harder to use effectively. Auras have a huge advantage in that they don't require an activation for them to be used whereas a psychic buff does. Not sure how to fix this imbalance other than to move the psychic phase into the command phase (which has it's own disadvantages as well, good for buffs, bad for debuffs)



Please elaborate. I am curious which power falls so outside the norm that you would need to change it.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Specifically, I was thinking of powers like Guide from the Eldar Dex, or any other single target psychic offensive buff. It telegraphs the effect and gives the opponent the ability to weaken the beneficiary before they get a chance to activate.

By the same token, a single target debuff, like Doom, does the same, it allows the opponent to activate that unit before the negative effect can be felt.

But then again.... maybe that's not a bad thing in the end, as it incentivizes one's opponent into an action.

In any case, the mechanic may not need to be changed but the value seems to be off, at least considering this is a bolt on ruleset and not designed with it in mind.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/11/03 13:52:50


 
   
Made in us
Dominating Dominatrix






So there are a couple ways to think about that use.

First, if the caster is a character then they activate with a unit to capitalize on it and they work together.

Second, it's a distraction, by creating the threat you distract the opponent with their next activation or 2 dealing with the threat of this thing instead of something else. (some other objective you may want to grab?) There is a lot of value in being able to predict or manipulate your opponent into doing predictable things. It means you can do things they may not expect.

Finally, the debuff lasts until the casters next activation. Debuff early, reactivate them late in the next turn. That debuff is on that unit for a long time.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/03 13:54:34



These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




I can see activating with a unit in it's entirety working quite well actually... it's essentially attaching the character to the unit like in the old days...

To your second point, I agree whole heartedly.

As to the third, I'm not a fan of this option. I like the fact that all buffs and debuffs drop at the beginning (end?) of turn as it puts more weight on the psycher's need to activate and less possibility to game the system. Example: T1 Doom is cast on a squad of Terminators. Terminators survive. T2 they get shot again and wiped out, then psycher activates and casts doom on a second unit. Which then gets shot in the same turn.

(Though this would be a great opportunity for a stratagem that would do exactly that...)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/03 14:18:16


 
   
Made in us
Dominating Dominatrix






The only issue I have with buffs/debuffs ending at the end of the current game turn is it almost forces you to front load your psyker activations to the front of the turn. And remember how valuable it is to be able to predict what your opponent is going to do.

You can attempt to "force" an opponent to activate early (by threatening the psyker with attacks or unit positions).

You can CHOOSE to go late because you are keeping the threat of the psyker in your pocket. Something that might give the opponent pause.

In the example of 3) activating early turn 1 and late turn 2 does mean you get your most bang for your buck from the one cast. But it also means that psyker is sitting there doing nothing and potentially vulnerable. Remember, I mentioned that their buffs/debuffs end when the unit is killed as well. You can ATTEMPT to activate it last in the second game turn. But the opponent is now incentivized to kill that fether and end his shenanigans.

All of these benefits comes with give and takes. There are pros and cons. You gain x but also paint a target the opponent can attempt to capitalize on. You might need to use other resources to protect it.

All very fluffy and thematic btw.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/03 20:39:19



These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




I don't know about vulnerable... I mean with Characters being able to move with units they would have to clear the meat shield first so a lot of the negatives would be mitigated.
   
Made in us
Dominating Dominatrix






Vulnerable in that they are sitting there unmoving. If I know you are trying to maximize a spell and that character is just going to sit there, as the rest of your army moves you could create openings for a deepstrike. Or I know you intend to use x unit with y character. So I "know" x is also not going to be activated any time soon, which adjusts my prioritization of dealing with them.

It's a complex situation that involves a lot of moving pieces and more or less playing chess against your opponent. Trying to figure out their plans and motivations and undermine them while trying to further your own plans and motivations.

Im just saying that a psyker who moves forward to cast a spell and then just sits there in a forward position can create opportunities that can be acted on.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




All the more reason to play this way... gotta love having to choose between things, instead of just going through the motions.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






I'm working on a AA module for ProHammer, but it could work for 9th edition too.

I'm a little torn on the approach I want to take, so I'll lay out the options I'm considering:

==============================
#1 Alternating Activation Rounds
==============================

Rather than doing a unit-by-unit action (what people typically think of AA), it works like this:

At the start of each battle round, players take a token for each of their units and then divide the tokens into three groups, as evenly as possible. If a player has less than 5 units, they may instead make two groups of tokens.

Players roll a D6, and the player that rolls highest get the initiative and can choose to go first or second.

The player going first takes one of their three sets of tokens, and can use these tokens to activate whatever units they want. These activated units collectively go through each game phase (move / psychic / shoot / assault charges).

Afterwards, the opposing player activates a group of units.

In this manner, each player will have 3 potential activation phases. After all activations, the fight sub-phase occurs.

This format lets you move key groups of units together in a loose formation as needed.

==============================
#2 Alternating Phases
==============================

This is more of an Epic 40K inspired format. Works as follows:

Players roll off to determine initiative.

Players go to the movement phase, alternating units to move or advance (move + D6").

Players go to the shooting phase, alternating units to activate and declare shooting against.

Players go to the assault phase, alternating units to activate and charge with.

After charges are resolved, play a collective fight sub-phase.

Seems like the above would be pretty clear. I think concerns about units moving into assault range and their target "retreating" are overblown. With an alternating phase system like this, you're still alternating unit activations within the phase, so if you're trying to line up a charge, you'd want to hold your melee units back longer and hope your opponent activates the desired target first, so they can't run away later. Also, running away usually means moving off objectives, so there's a bigger question to consider.

I'm not sure what approach is better.

In the context of ProHammer, there is also shooting reactions, charge reactions, and overwatch - so I need to think about how those choices all slot into the systems above.

Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User




I am quite the big fan of the order dice system from Bolt Action/Konflict 47/Antares.

Every player has one token per unit they all go into a bag and are then drawn blind, at the activate a unit step. Gets around players swamping the end of their turn with chaff as the ratio of pulls should stay about the same. Also allows for shenanigans around the draw such as forcing a redraw or putting in other tokens that perform other actions (example an off board artillery token or other effect)

Also like the pinning system used in those games as well.
   
Made in gb
Storm Trooper with Maglight





Fredericksburg, VA

 Mezmorki wrote:
I'm working on a AA module for ProHammer, but it could work for 9th edition too.

I'm a little torn on the approach I want to take, so I'll lay out the options I'm considering:

==============================
#1 Alternating Activation Rounds
==============================

Rather than doing a unit-by-unit action (what people typically think of AA), it works like this:

At the start of each battle round, players take a token for each of their units and then divide the tokens into three groups, as evenly as possible. If a player has less than 5 units, they may instead make two groups of tokens.

Players roll a D6, and the player that rolls highest get the initiative and can choose to go first or second.

The player going first takes one of their three sets of tokens, and can use these tokens to activate whatever units they want. These activated units collectively go through each game phase (move / psychic / shoot / assault charges).

Afterwards, the opposing player activates a group of units.

In this manner, each player will have 3 potential activation phases. After all activations, the fight sub-phase occurs.

This format lets you move key groups of units together in a loose formation as needed.


This is somewhat similar to an approach i'd been thinking about, only the activations tokens would not be simple 1/3rds. Each group of tokens would be min 20% of units, max of 50% of units. To allow a bit of flexibility in groupings - and it just seems weird to activate a group of say Scions dropping in and shooting, and then a random tank on the other side of the battlefield because you had 1 extra token in that group.
   
Made in us
Dominating Dominatrix






You could just do it like apoc where you activate by detachment.

It encourages creating msd (multiple small detachments) with a unified purpose and synergy.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






Min of 20% could mean five activations at the most, but then depending on your opponent, you could end up activating more. For example, say each player had 10 units.

Player A = moves 5 units
Player B = moves 2 units
Player A = moves 5 units (no units left to move)
Player B = moves 8 units

I feel like it makes it more about playing some sort of activation tit-for-tat baiting game of counting units and gaming the system than just having to alternate more equal chunks and make the best decisions within that framework.

Pre-making the groups of tokens let's each player see what they have to work with and consider over the course of the whole turn, putting more emphasis on the planning and strategy I feel.

Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in ca
Steadfast Ultramarine Sergeant






I've always been curious about how it would work if someone played knights, or custodes/ low model count VS hordes/high model count.

I've never played a game like that before really.
   
Made in us
Storm Trooper with Maglight





Fredericksburg, VA

 Mezmorki wrote:
Min of 20% could mean five activations at the most, but then depending on your opponent, you could end up activating more. For example, say each player had 10 units.

Player A = moves 5 units
Player B = moves 2 units
Player A = moves 5 units (no units left to move)
Player B = moves 8 units

I feel like it makes it more about playing some sort of activation tit-for-tat baiting game of counting units and gaming the system than just having to alternate more equal chunks and make the best decisions within that framework.

Pre-making the groups of tokens let's each player see what they have to work with and consider over the course of the whole turn, putting more emphasis on the planning and strategy I feel.


I think I didn't specifically say it in my post, but it would still be exactly 3 sets of tokens, just that each set would not have to be exactly a 1/3 of your army - and you could vary it a bit, even if it was a 20-40% size restriction for any one group.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: