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.

Higher Initiative could allow that model to choose the order of attack.

So, let’s say my dude is I6, and has been mobbed by I3 Infantry, lead by an I5 character.

Clearly, my opponent’s plan is to chaff me to death, the I3 dudes making noble sacrifices to stack the subsequent combat boost for the I5 guy, in the hope he’ll pummel me to death.

Where I have a higher initiative by 1 (compared to the highest), I get to pick the first combatant. Which in several cases is going to be the character. Or might be a lowlier spod with a silly grin and a Powerfist.

If my I is higher by 2, 3 or more? That’s how many of the attacking models I can choose to fight first. And declaring that order before any dice are rolled.

I’d need to properly refamiliarise myself with the stat ranges of course. But my suggestion does offer a perk for being more reactive and that,

The 2nd ed combat system is actually a bit of an oddity, as I recall Rogue Trader's initial one was more like the more well known WHFB one that was like most systems.

When I looked at ways to streamline 2nd ed.'s close combat system, a key factor was that the points were what they were, and were based on the system it was built with.

Thus, options were limited if one wanted to preserve that integrity. The solution I came up with (and you can read all of it) was try to get the same statistical result with less dice. And you can do it. It's actually a little different because there is a point where more attack dice are a liability because 1s hurt you more than 6s help you.

If you want to accomplish the same thing with batch rolling, you'd likely have to move into the realm of creating a matrix where attack values are plugged in and cross-indexed to get a result and this is then plugged into a second matrix for the defender.

This is because the game was built around the advantages of individual outnumbering, parries, WS advantages and save modifiers. On top of that we layer special weapons, unique unit abilities and named characters. There also must be a way for position to retain its importance as this was extremely important in 2nd, less so later on.

How would that look? I have no idea. One option would be to create an aggregate attack value and add some dice to it, and compare it to an aggregate defense value in which each casualty deducts so many points from the total. So a force that scores 21 points kills 3 models with a defense of 7. This would incorporate saves in the defensive point value. It would have to be simultaneous.

The problem is that given the various options, weapons, modifiers, and special rules geared to the old system, the mathhammer would take longer than just playing the game as written. Obviously, if you're willing to accept less fidelity, it gets easier, but then a bunch of special advantages vanish, and those all cost points that are now wasted.

My take is that it is what it is. We can play 2,500 points in a session without difficulty. If you play often, don't switch systems so you have to recheck rules, it goes very fast because you're leaning into the next step. Part of 2nd's reputation for being slow was from new players who were comparing it to Fantasy.

Also: drop the psykers, or if you must, just use the basic rules. The whole game-within-a game thing was a time sink, and around here people had two lists: one with them one without. Perhaps people were burned out on the magic system's dominance in fantasy.

I was one of those players, but I liked it better because piles of grunts could actually beat a hero, which they could not dream of doing in WHFB 5th ed.

Psykers could be at least partially restrained with some kind of Max Levels Cap.

It may have to vary between Armies (Eldar for instance must take either a Farseer, or an Avatar as the army leader). But smaller games could have say, 4 Levels Max. Whether you squeeze in a single Lvl 4, a brace of Lv 2 or what have you is down to the player?