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.

I was reading the introduction for wargaming, wondering what is would be like, and looked upon that Little Wars thing. I liked the isolation rule very much. It says that when a unit isn't within a move of another unit at least half its size, several rules for morale and stuff come into action. I was thinking to apply that in 40k, but you should be able to 'cut through' these lines by placing a unit between them. Units would then get, say, -2 for leadership ? Now I'm asking you guys if it isn't too cheesy for jetbike armies and drop pod assaults, making half of the army run away on turn 2. Anyway this is one of my ideas to bring some more maneuver into 40k. Alternatively, you could use something like the crossfire rule in Epic.

I'm not familiar with the Epic crossfire rules, but the Little Wars rules seems a bit difficult to implement. I like the concept but I'm a little shaky on the particulars you are proposing.

You could just add a negative modifier to LD, I wouldn't even think of using the rules system from Little Wars. Epic crossfire involves drawing a straight line from two of your models, and if there is an enemy model between them you get double blast markers (more blast markers on a formation than there are units in it makes the formation run away).

What particulars do you mean? I would like to hear some feedback, as that often makes for hours less playtesting

So when does this negative modifier apply? It seems there might be circumstances where you are trying to surround a portion of the enemy but if it's now his turn YOUR units might be considered to be flanked.

This sort of rule makes more sense for static warfare where a small thrust can pinch off a chunk of real estate. Maybe if a unit is flanked on 3 sides or has an enemy unit in its 'fall back' zone it loses morale?

You just take your normal ld rolls for normal cicumstances, just add a negative modifier to it. I must admit that it doesn't make sense to have a unit run away just because there is an enemy unit in a place you didn't expect. However, when they start shooting/assaulting you, it suddenly gets scary.

"Being flanked on 3 sides" is hard to determine in 40k, so I would prefer either the Little Wars rule (but Spess Mehreens actually like having no one nearby, no one stealing the show!) or Epic crossfire. I like the "fall back zone" idea too.

PS: When you apply this rule, it's no more static warfare, but more of mobile warfare, as you try to beat your opponent through maneuver and less through resources management.

Okay, that makes sense. Sorry if I was a bit daft. A negative modifier would make sense depending on tactical situation, unless maybe fearless. Does WH fantasy still have the rule where units within a certain distance of destroyed friendly unit take a morale check? I always thought that was reasonable.

Do you mean panic tests? Yes, they're still in.

Maybe include that as well, with an additional modifier if more than one nearby unit is destroyed. But that's getting away from what you initially proposed.

Maybe use a variation of the 'Little Wars' rule and make it a straight 12" from another unit? Should troops be affected more readily than elites or fast attack?