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.

40k isn't move then shoot, its basically a simplified way of simulating moving AND shooting at the same time. It makes for a much simpler and easy to follow way of playing. If you want more of a simulation type tactical game, theres other games out there. The rules are made for fun and ease of play rather than real-life tactical simulation.

JourneyPsycheOut wrote:40k isn't move then shoot, its basically a simplified way of simulating moving AND shooting at the same time. It makes for a much simpler and easy to follow way of playing. If you want more of a simulation type tactical game, theres other games out there. The rules are made for fun and ease of play rather than real-life tactical simulation.

The issue is that a lot of people seem to feel they fail at that goal.

Then perhaps they can play something *else*.

Or make House Rules.

40k isn't graven in stone, so if you don't like it, change it!

HI all.
JohnHwangDD is absolutley right.

GW rules for 40k are designed to be a 'fun dice rolling game for ages 10 and up'.

And as lots of teen boys like them just as they are, GW are not going to waste time actualy developing 40k beyond a marketing aid .

IF you want to play a tacticaly rich wargame with much more straight forward rules , there are plenty to choose from .(Many are free to down load).

If you dont like GW rules use someone elses!

Happy Gaming
Lanrak.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with “overwatch”. It is the basic mechanism of modern combat since ranged weapons (a) work better if you stand still while firing and (b) are good for hitting people a long way away, for example when they are moving between patches of cover as they try to close with you.

Overwatch might not work as a game mechanism because it is badly implemented.

There are loads of games where Overwatch (or the same thing by another name) is used and works fine.

For example in Squad Leader, the turn sequence goes like this:

Player A: Prep fire
Player A: Movement (not units who prep fired)
Player B: Opportunity fire (overwatch, fire at any point during the Player A movement)
Player A: Advancing fire (moving units, at reduced strength)

Add in a bit of H2H combat (it basically didn’t happen in WW2) and you have an alternative turn sequence for 40K. Please note that it enhances the strength of ranged combat since shooters get to shoot in both player turns. Much like in the current game they get to melee in both player turns.

HI KilKrazy.
The real problem with 'overwatch' as used in 40k was that it was added on as an afterthought , like so many other functions present in 2nd ed.

Most other games development decide what the end gameplay is going to be , and develop rules using the most apropriate game mechanics to get there.

The basic rules SHOULD cover ALL game play elegantly and efficiently as possible.

Unfortunatley 40k current basic rules only cover less than half of the potential game play, And so 40k needs to add lots of extra rules to get this game play 'artificialy.'

I suppose the only question left is if a alternative to IGO-UGO was to be used , what would gamers prefer ,
Alternating unit activation OR interleaved singular actions.

Should I post a new thread will a poll?

TTFN
Lanrak.

I totally agree with your analysis about overwatch in 40K.

As for a poll, I think 40K won't change and doesn't really need to change, because there are other SF rulesets which us various types of activation, such as AT43.

Don't let me stop you from making a poll, though, the results may be interesting. You have to structure the questions well.

The fact is that many rules will accommodate 40K models and unit values, but differences will emerge in gameplay thanks to factors such as the way shooting and H2H are treated.

I mentioned above that the Squad Leader rules favour shooting more than H2H. The current 40K rules favour H2H more than shooting.

Players have to decide which they prefer, shooting or H2H, and make adjustments accordingly.