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.

MarkingLight wrote:As far as the Guard go, I have already found a credible source that their Rate of Fire is only 220 shots per minute. That very severely limits their ability to suppress, and gives a very good fluff reason for not using them for such business. Plus, I remember reading some fluff about how most officers/commisars don't allow their troops to use the automatic mode as it wastes ammo. Don't have a source on that one, though.

220 shots per minute is more than 3.5 shots per second! That is more than sufficient for suppressing fire. You really only need maybe a shot per second (60 shots per minute) but preferably less. The goal is not to pump insane amounts of lead into the target, it is to put out the minimum amount of sustained fire to keep the target's head down. If you have 5 guardsmen firing away on semi-auto every second or two, you are still putting a huge amount of fire downrange.

JSK-Fox wrote:How about this: They need to be heavy or ordinance (almost all suppressing weapons need to be setup), have 2 or more shots, and have a strength of 4 or higher. It cannot be a blast, template, barrage, or any such other thing.

JSK-Fox - For the Imperial Arsenal that would be: Bolters (12"), storm bolters, heavy bolters, plasmagun, shotgun, autocannon, assault cannon, multi-laser. Honestly I would leave it as no heavy 1 and no pistols, but assault 1 and rapid fire would be fine. If 5 tactical marines put out 10 shots at 12" , surely 10 tacticals putting out 10 shots at 24" should be just as effective at suppressing?

It really depends on what your definition of suppressing fire is. It's definition in real life has been tossed around quite a bit in this thread, but let's look at how this'll go from a fluff perspective in 40k.

The line of dozens of Guardsmen are making their steady advance across the trenches into the lines of the traitor Guardsmen waiting upon the hill. They attempt to do so in order to avoid the commissar's bolt to the head, and are rather willing to charge the enemies' lasguns in order to do it. After all, they know that the weakness of the lasgun is that up close its firepower doesn't really jump up even in full auto, and their weigh the commissar as a greater threat than the these massproduced weapons. However, their advance is very slow. The thundering of the heavy stubber firing from the bunker situated on the hill, firing clear over the trenches and threatening any soldier who wishes to venture uponn open ground made sure that that the advance remained a ponderous and costly affair.

A better example (since it doesn't have a Commisar) would be a Tau Firewarrior Squad under attack from a unit of lasgun wielding Guardsman

The Firewarriors heard the shots smack into the building and rushed into cover. As the lasguns strobed across it's surface and attempted to keep them pinned down, the Tau Shas'la orders his forces to set up below the windows and prepare to pop up. The lasgun fire started to wain as the weapons started to overheat or loss power, and then the Firewarriors made their move. Popping up from their positions, they fired their pulse rifles at the IG soldiers stationed in the other building. The exchange of fire quickly went into the favor of the Tau, as the Guardsmen were either reloading as quickly as was humanly possible behind cover or dead while the superior armor of the Firewarriors kept them from taking many losses.

This example also highlight the fact that factions in 40k have much better personal armor than is available IRL. A Space Marine is fluffwise able to wade through Lasgun shots as though they aren't there, but what they really fear are the heavy bolters and heavy stubbers that traitor guardsmen are using to defend their positions since those weapons actually stand a decent chance of penetrating their armor. Even gamewise, there is no need for the Guard to be able to pin targets down through sheer power of lasgun. Their other firepower is easily able to utilize this rule, and giving the lasgun any sort of of boost is a dangerous affair when so many are available in a single list. If used on heavy weapons designed and functioning in game like machine guns IRL it makes sense, but otherwise there are fluff and gameplay reasons not to do so.

Hmm... that is a great set of fluff examples! Good job. Honestly, I think it will just take playtesting. My regular 40k opponents are out of town at the moment, otherwise I would be testing this out with SM vs guard, nids, and orks.

I see your point though. Will have to try it out both ways and see if allowing lasguns would be to OP.

Grunt13 wrote:@sebster
When it comes to game mechanics versus reality, reality usually takes the back seat. The majority of the negative comments where that my rules were both over powering and too complex. You are asking me to make the rule even more complex and empowering for the sake of keeping with reality.

You are right that a rule should sacrifice some level of reality for the sake of simplicity (and also to enhance the tactical game). You are absolutely wrong in thinking I am asking you to make the rule more complex and powerful just to keep with reality. I am simply asking you to make the rule better. Improving a rule to make it play in an interesting and largely believable way, without adding too much detail, is what good game design is all about.

I will accept your challenge to incorporated your concerns into the rules, but do so simply to satisfy the request, I myself don't think these rules are necessary:

The second option given is a step in the right direction, increasing the amount of suppression the more shots a unit is capable of. You are right that per the rules given, it would make suppression too powerful. I'm left shaking my head as to how and why you concluded that the solution was to drop the scale, instead of simply pulling back the amount of suppression available to a unit putting out just five shots (remember thats three ork boyz, or two tyrannid warriors - not a lot of firepower).

Just pull back on the effect available to a unit putting out 5 shots. Don't automatically hand out a possible hit for every model in the target unit at 5 shots. Allow the target unit to make the leadership check at +1 or +2. Then change the values the more shots you put on target.

HI folks .
In my previous example that I didnt explain very well it was from a different rule set ,not an addition too ,but a possible replacement for 40k current rules.
(Currently 14 pages of rules that covers the detailed tactical game play 40k rules manage to avoid in over 200 pages of rules , in the rule book and codexes. )

MOST representations of supression compare target units 'confidence' , to the attackers 'supressive effect'.

A units confidence is usualy based on how many unit members are left and thier protection level.
(Wounds + armour value.)

A units supresive effect is usualy based on the 'wieght of fire ' which is the volume and effectiveness.
(Number of shots + a bonus value for supressive support weapons.)

As 40k only represents attacks by physical damage alone,adding on a supression system , even a good one, just put more complication in to a complicated rule set.

IMO , if you want a straight forward tactical simulation of modern-scifi warfare, use a different rule set than curret 40k.

TTFN

In the US army training manual the numbers of rifles required to suppress an enemy unit behind a stretch of wall, occupying a room in a building, or within the area by an enemy target vehicle or other objective is one. One soldier with the standard issued M16 is required to perform this as a training exercise. The manual even tells the soldier to pace his shots and not exhaust ammo while performing this action; “Conserving Ammunition: Automatic or burst fire should be used sparingly and only to gain initial fire superiority. Depending on the tactical situation, the rate of fire should be adjusted so that a minimum number of rounds are expended”. By referencing actually combat situations and army training protocol, my rules actually call for an over abundance of weaponry to perform suppressive fire. Under my rules five M16 gunners would be needed, or three if they where within close range. The army says they can get the job done with just one.

At a 5 shot minimum not even a single heavy bolter, scatter laser, or burst cannon is capable of inflicting a suppression by itself, they require assisting weapons. A rate of 5 shots surpasses the spray of assault and splinter cannons, weapons made to spew out as much fire as possible at the enemy. And like I demonstrated with my chart having 3-5 automatic firearms filling the space you would like to occupy with lead would seem likely to inflict a similar level of psychological trauma as watching someone in your group get shot, killed by a mortar, or having to step out of a vehicle rendered inoperable; all these situations already cause pinning tests in the game.

A squad is asking to forfeit its normal shooting to inflict a pinning test on the enemy. The damage the target receives by storming out is rather tame, 2.5 orks out of 30 die due to charging a suppressing marine squad. Putting a min verse max situation together really doesn’t reflect normal game play and even then the damage inflicted is only marginally better than normal shooting.

For comparison sake look at Tau pathfinders. They forfeit their normal shooting to put markerlights on an enemy 36 inches away. Granted its part of their equipment, but it is also really powerful for 12 points a guy. At an average of one markerlight placement for every two tau you are creating a situation where an average of 4 markerlights hits from a unit of 8 could be used to give a -4 to a pinning test, hit with four BS 5 unlimited range krak missiles, add +1 to the BS to four units, negate cover, and some other nifty options; trading a turn of shooting to inflict a simple pinning test doesn’t seem too extreme or overpowering by comparison.

It only takes one sniper, one mortar team, one plasma missile, or one tau pathfinder to inflict a pinning test. Whereas, my rule requires 2 heavy bolters, 3 autocannons, 3 dire avengers, or five termagaunts to inflict a pinning test by forfeiting that unit’s shooting phase to do so, while the other pinning attacks do not sacrifice their ability to damage the opponent as suppression does. I do not think the rule I created is overpowering, against the current theme of pinning, or completely against reality as it has been suggested.

I think that that is true, but it also is rather complicated. The use of current rules and effects is best when making new rules as it makes the additions simpler and easier to implement. I'm not saying that your idea for suppression is a bad one, but I'm saying that if one wanted to implement it in the current ruleset, making it simpler means that there is less chance of major problems in the mechanics of the rule conflicting with others and that there is a greater chance that a game will move at a faster pace. If a new ruleset was created that had Suppression integrated as a more basic element and used some of its effects in other rules, then it would make sense for it to be a more complicated process.

Also, I think it still needs to be said that the forces in 40k do have very good fluff justifications to be unaffected by these sorts of weapons. Space Marines being pinned down by lasguns used in any appreciable number is laughable, both fluffwise and gameplay wise as the rest of the Guard's firepower should be forced to make this choice due to the sheer amount that have when compared to other sides. Also, armor IRL is nowhere near as resilient as the armor of the soldiers in 40k are fluffwise or gameplay wise, so it would make sense that savvy commanders and soldiers would capitalize on this advantage and wade through enemy fire.

I think the biggest problem we're having trying to come to some sort of agreement is that some of us are trying to make a "realistic rule" from literature, while the other side is trying to make a rule that mimics reality in the abstraction of 40k, using experience and supposition as their base.

In my opinion, reading books on a such a subjective issue (and thinking you're getting it right) is akin to handing someone a car maintenance manual and a box of tools to a vehicle virgin and expecting them to be able to completely overhaul a truck. Except in this instance, the manual is for small gasoline engine aircraft and the vehicle being over hauled is a diesel semi. They're similar, but totally different. Oh, and the tool box is full of bananas and soup sandwiches.

40k is an abstraction, all rules for it should have that in mind. Trying to make any rule (or small rulebook, in some instances) to try and perfectly reflect reality is doomed to failure, unless you completely reface 40k from focusing on assaults to fire fights. So what should you do instead? Make something simple that works and works well, one that doesn't leave everyone scratching their heads and trying to figure out exactly what to do in an instance because the rule is five pages long and doesn't fit well to most instances (seriously, you know how long it took people to figure out exactly how to use FNP? And that rule is only a paragraph!).

To quote your sig, skinnattittar, you are right.


Anyways, realism doesn't fit when you have 8 ft tall space marines with semi-auto recoiless grenade launchers, plasma guns, guns that melt everything, robo-mummies, space elves, an emprah, lasers, shuriken firing guns, aliens that eat everything, frog people who made everything *coughcoughslanncoughcough*, dark elves who keep slaves, dwarves who all died, ogryn, and most importantly, people who worship machines.

JSK-Fox wrote:To quote your sig, skinnattittar, you are right.


Anyways, realism doesn't fit when you have 8 ft tall space marines with semi-auto recoiless grenade launchers, plasma guns, guns that melt everything, robo-mummies, space elves, an emprah, lasers, shuriken firing guns, aliens that eat everything, frog people who made everything *coughcoughslanncoughcough*, dark elves who keep slaves, dwarves who all died, ogryn, and most importantly, people who worship machines.

Why thank you

But I am going to disagree with you about the whole "40k can never be realistic," but not completely. You can make realistic rules, to a point. No matter how far in the future we get, wars will still be fought and they will be fought with some basic objectives in mind; neutralizing your enemy. Now, in the far future where there is only war, we can only imagine how warfare will change (one way I do NOT think it will change to is running out across open terrain with swords and pistols thinking you are going to dice your enemy to death, as a matter of course, but that's a different subject), but we should assume that it will be similar to our current methods, as that is what the fluff has told us.

Now, I stopped reading this thread in the middle of the second page, because the incessant sniping was giving me a headache. However, from what I read up to that point has given me an idea how suppression fire could be made quick and simple.

Instead of rolling for shooting as normal, for every 5 shots that the suppressing units(s) are directing at the target, roll 1D6. (If you have 3 or 4 leftover shots, perhaps they can contribute D3 to the effort instead.)

If the total roll is greater than the number of models in the unit, they are suppressed. If they choose to perform any actions, they suffer a hit on a dice roll determined by the number of units that are suppressing them.

Also, if any support/heavy weapons are including their fire in he suppressing fire, the target unit suffers a hit for each 6 rolled. (Perhaps, if the total of the dice roll is double the number of models in the target unit, they might wound on a 5+ instead, just a thought.)

This way, the resolution of the suppression fire is a replacement of the normal shooting dice rolling, not in addition to it, so the game is not slowed down and the relative numbers of the units on both sides are taken into account.

/monocle pops off.
GENIUS!!!

Wait until Monday night, I'll throw it out there at my FLGS and see who it sticks to. Lots of tournament players, so they'll probably scoff because it's not in the Big Red Book, but i'll try anyway. By the way, thanks. I'm full of ideas, but most of them are eventually proven to be crap.

How about making it so the numbers of shots contributed by a single unit has to equal or exceed the number of models in the target mob. That does pretty much the same thing, but doesn’t require rolling or keeping track of numbers.

Huh...my my my this is a lot of information to wade through. i really love grunt 13s suppression rules, I believe they succeeded in creating a very simple rule set to use and is as simple or simpler to learn than learning how to use the arcane to hit chart!( man that was a tough chart to learn!)

I just want to add my two cents to thought pool for I always love a proposed rule that's actually trying to achieve something. (not silly chuck norris or superman rules!)

My first thought is an imperial heavy weapon squad can technically achieve the 5 shot minimum by firing a hvy bolter and 2 lascannons...now does that mean that the base wounds of the suppression are str 5 ap 4 of the single hvy bolter dishing out 3 shots or the str 9 ap 2 of the two lascannons?

Also @ all those who doubt weak weapons for suppression...*ahem* if a lowly Sgt. with a las pistol can kill a magic Armour terminator than why not a concentrated volley of suppression fire from any weak weapon can too?
i had another thought but lost it...ill try to add as soon as i can.

Ah now i remember... i love the man who suggested adding it too the imperial guard orders system! that would satisfy the fluff requirement of the guard unit not "wasting clips", they're doin' it under orders! also it would give more emphasizes on the order system! finally, a real reason to use them!

king-newmic wrote:My first thought is an imperial heavy weapon squad can technically achieve the 5 shot minimum by firing a hvy bolter and 2 lascannons...now does that mean that the base wounds of the suppression are str 5 ap 4 of the single hvy bolter dishing out 3 shots or the str 9 ap 2 of the two lascannons?

Glad you like the rules. Weapons that are Heavy 1 cannot contribute to Suppression, so the lascannons won't do anything.


Article Changes:

Pistols and weapons that get hot are now excluded

Pinning test happen instantly - but a unit will only have to take one pinning test a turn due to Suppression

Shrapnel Rule Added

Grunt13 wrote:How about making it so the numbers of shots contributed by a single unit has to equal or exceed the number of models in the target mob. That does pretty much the same thing, but doesn’t require rolling or keeping track of numbers.

Now that's a good idea!

It might be an idea to simply have a Dangerous Terrain test created for a unit that has taken more shots than number of member models at the beginning of the enemy shooting phase. It would be like a weaker version of the Thunderfire Tremour shells.

Call Blast weapons 3 shots, Large Blast 5 shots, and Template weapons 8 shots, and +1 bonus for Twin-Linked.

Your way simplifies the rule in a sensibly manner. It seems right that charging a blaring gun line is just as threatening as walking through a minefield, running through dilapidated ruins, or driving a bike through an outcrop of trees. It was my original intention to have the rule operate according to your suggestion, that a unit is treated as being in dangerous terrain if targeted.

I changed it to its current state because I felt it was too powerful as a dangerous terrain test. There are also two issues that emerge when it is simplified to such a state. The first is that all weapons from lasguns to autocannons would inflict the same effect on the target. Second that 10 space marine terminators would suffer the same number of casualties as 10 imperial guards when subjecting themselves to suppressive fire. I think people that are interested in playing the rule will tolerate the added level of complexity that is created by rolling to wound in order to preserve the relationship between the power of the weapons used verse the durability of the target.

I like how you made considerations for blast and twin-linked weapons.

I see your point about Dangerous Terrain tests being too flat. Indeed, it makes Lasguns more effective at killing squads of Terminators than Lascannons, which is bad.

However, I still think that trying to delay shots following the normal format takes too much work. So I offer an amendment to my counter-proposal:

Resolve shooting normal with no cover saves allowed, but when it comes to removing casualties, simply note down the number and kind of casualties caused. The target unit will not suffer these casualties until it moves in its own player's turn.

But that would actually require more effort. First to record the casualties and second to do it in all cases. In the original system you place a marker and then you only do any rolling if the unit moves, shoots, or assaults. Thus if the unit stands still nothing happens. In your proposal you always have to do the rolling and calculation even if ultimately nothing happens.

Recording casualties would be simple. Place a marker beside each potential casualty. And as you say, if the unit stands still then nothing happens except the marker being removed at the end of the player turn (unless the suppressed unit moved, in which case the model with the marker is removed instead).

This is simpler than the original proposal because it doesn't break the Turn Sequence, or require so many exceptions or modifications to existing rules, such as requiring players to remember a modifier to cover saves, an additional pinning test out of its normal order, and so on. That's aside from the over-simplification problem that Grunt13 pointed out earlier.

Game-wise it's an improvement because it prevents the usual problem with shoe-horning an "Overwatch" or similar mechanism into 40k, the loss of initiative and aggression. Making the risk of moving a known quantity allows players to make informed strategic decisions.

Your chief concern against the suppression rule seems to be that I will bog down the opponent’s movement phase. I don’t think this will be the case. Take these two examples:

1) A unit of orks are attempting to move across a minefield and find themselves taking a dangerous terrain test. The unit of orks roll a die for each member of the mob and removes the orks that were killed with a die roll of a 6.

2) A unit of orks are attempting to take action while being suppressed by two imperial guard units. Much like dangerous terrain they roll a die for each ork to see if they are hit, which would be a 5+ due to the two IG squads. Then the dice are sorted out so all the hits are together and rolled using the strength of the weapon verse target’s toughness, then armor saves if they apply.

In the case of suppression the player doesn’t have to count out new dice after rolling to see who is effected, just sort out the ones that hit or wound from the pile of rolled dice. It is just two rolls more complex than dangerous terrain, one if they don’t get armor saves. In my experiences, the suppression example would take about 15 to 30 seconds longer to resolve than the dangerous terrain example.

Your rule minimizes the deviation from the normal gameplay, which is desirable in most occasions, but I don;t think it captures what I am attempting with my rules. In the shooting phase my suppression rule only takes a few seconds. Identify the suppressing unit, say what weapons they are using and the target takes a pinning test. Under your suggestion units have to go through the shooting process. Counting out dice, distinguishing between different weapons and BS, roll to wound and armor saves, and the account for the other special situations like blast weapons, get’s hot, weapons that inflicting pinning test like pulse carbines, etc; seems like a lot of work for casualties that might not even happen.

Altered the article to include targeting fire ports.

Minimizing deviations from the basic rules is extremely desirable if you're trying to write a supplement to the "off-the-shelf" rules that people besides you and your close circle of gaming friends will use. At least that's my experience.

I think you're minimizing all the other aspects of your proposal if we're just comparing what happens in the shooting phase. In my proposal shooting is worked out as it ordinarily is, except that cover saves are ignored, and casualties being removed depends on whether the target unit subsequently moves.

In both both proposals a player declares that a shooting unit is engaging in "suppressing fire" and identifies which weapons are being used. As well they both roll to hit, you using a complex (i.e. more complex than the usual formula for calculating attack dice) formula to determine the to hit threshold. And then you defer the same work of rolling to wound and so on , while lumping an automatic pinning test in during the shooting phase. It seems that they're pretty much identical in terms of potential work, thanks to the mandatory pinning test, and the fact that such 'after-the-fact' suppression doesn't actually suppress (or at least not any more than allowing a unit to be fired upon in the first place).

I really like the fact that my proposal involves determining potential casualties prior to the fact so that the player is faced with the decision to either move and sustain the casualties, or not move and be suppressed. Without this definite knowledge of the risk they face, your proposal does no more to suppress a unit than the natural return fire they'd face from acting normally.

Consider the following toy-game called "Highest Wins". The game involves two players, each competing in a number of rounds for a set amount each round, with the amount doubling each round and no set number of rounds. They do this by rolling 1D6 with the highest number winning and ties divide the amount equally between them. In one version (S, for 'simultaneous') player A must either decide to play before player B has rolled their dice or decide to force a tie or default. In another version (O, for 'ordered') player A can bet after player B has rolled their dice, but can also force a tie or default.

Notice that in O, the game has a considerably more interesting game-tree because in S player A only has the two options (where x is the amount at stake) x/2 and x(0.42)+(x(0.16))/2. In O the game tree presents player A with three distinct options depending on what player B rolled, so x/2 and x(0.16) and x(0.33) and x(0.5) and x(0.66) and x(0.83). That's because if player B rolls a 6 then rationally player A must default, and if player B rolls 1 or 2 then so long as x=2 then rationally player A should also roll. If player B rolls 3, 4, and 5, then whether they should take the risk depends on whether 0 ends when one player's total reaches a certain amount, or some other endgame condition.

Your proposal is like game S of Highest Wins, it would not give players a real option for suppressing units because the risk of opting for action is vague, and that vagueness is equivalent to the vagueness of the natural suppressing fire in the game. Under your proposal it would be better for units to engage in conventional shooting (better chance of causing damage), and move if under suppressing fire.

While both rules function very similarly and achieve the same basic effect, I think mine adds more to the tactical play of the game. Under my rules suppression encourages multi-unit cooperation with the crossfire rule; allows the target player to sever suppressive fire by killing the suppressing units or blocking their line of sight; and permits the targeting of transport vehicles. While neither rules have experienced any degree of playtesting I believe my rules would be take a smaller amount of game time when incorporated, I believe that a game using my rule would actually play faster than a game without.

You mentioned that casualties under my rules would not approach those of normal shooting, but that was my intention. I see the hits inflicted on a targeted unit as a consolation prize for the suppressing player that failed to pin their target, and something to make the opponent at least consider whether or not to expose themselves to the suppressive fire. Under your rule, casualties would always equal to exceed normal shooting depending on how much a factor cover is during the encounter. I could see your rule muscling out normal shooting with players using it to get easy casualties against entrench targets knowing that the other player will most likely accept the wounds rather than halt the entire unit. I just foresee games where space marines will never again receive cover saves against plasma guns.

I guess I over-complicated my last post: I got sort of carried away once I started trying to explain the difference between semi-perfect knowledge and imperfect knowledge (you should see the bits that didn't get posted!). My point was that your proposal detracts from the strategic decisions available to the players because ignoring any designated suppressing fire is the Nash Equilibrium or optimal strategy if shooting is worked out after the suppressed unit moves. If the damage effect of the suppressing fire is worked out beforehand, then the Nash Equilibrium will change depending on the potential effects of moving, the point of time in the game, and so on.

The Highest Wins game I described gives you a quick and easy way to play-test the difference between the O and S versions of the game corresponding to my proposal and your proposal, respectively. But play-testing won't do anything a solid understanding of the game-trees of decisions faced by the players won't. Either way you're going to notice that resolving suppressing fire after a player has decided to move a unit makes said suppressing fire useless at suppression.

So here's what I propose that you do, to help you understand what our various proposals entail in terms of 'work' and 'tactics'. Make a tree of all the decisions entailed by your proposal, with each branch of the tree equal to an option that the player has. If a player has an option to say "Yes" or "No" then we would see a Y-shaped fork in the tree, the end points at which would either terminate, or lead to similar forks, though not necessarily limited to two options. You should number each fork along the tree so that you can count the number of choice along any set of choices. This may mean that, depending on the player's decision, they face between one choice between two options and an indefinite number of choices between a multitude of options. As well as enumerating the options faced by the players, enumerate the operations that players must carry out, either to calculate the value of the options they face at any given juncture of choices, or at any give

For example, you will notice that in Highest Wins version O player B goes first (1st operation), and then Player A faces three choices depending on the six results of player B's 1st operation (2nd operation), and that once the value of the operations have been calculated, player A's choice is a 3rd operation. Then there's a 4th operation to determine the winner of the round, and a 5th operation to determine whether the game continues.

Notice that there are three choices faced by player A despite the fact that the 1st operation yields 6 results. That's because 3 results yield only 1 live option each (6 = default, 1,2 = play), while 3 results yield the same two live options (3,4,5 = default or play).

Similarly if a unit of Space Marines is faced with suppressing fire that will kill two Space Marines if they move, and by moving they will prevent nine enemy Space Marines from Rallying, and those enemy Marines will fall back off the board then they'll move. If a unit of Space Marines is faced with suppressing fire that will potentially kill all the Space Marines in a unit if they move, then the Space Marine player will be forced to not move. Finally, if a unit of Space Marines is faced with suppressing fire where it's indeterminate whether the benefit of moving will outweigh the cost of losing some number of Space Marines, the Space Marine player will be faced with a judgement call as to whether they think the move will be worth it depending on criteria such as which turn in the game it is, and so on.

Nurglitch wrote:I guess I over-complicated my last post: I got sort of carried away once I started trying to explain the difference between semi-perfect knowledge and imperfect knowledge (you should see the bits that didn't get posted!). My point was that your proposal detracts from the strategic decisions available to the players because ignoring any designated suppressing fire is the Nash Equilibrium or optimal strategy if shooting is worked out after the suppressed unit moves. If the damage effect of the suppressing fire is worked out beforehand, then the Nash Equilibrium will change depending on the potential effects of moving, the point of time in the game, and so on.

The Highest Wins game I described gives you a quick and easy way to play-test the difference between the O and S versions of the game corresponding to my proposal and your proposal, respectively. But play-testing won't do anything a solid understanding of the game-trees of decisions faced by the players won't. Either way you're going to notice that resolving suppressing fire after a player has decided to move a unit makes said suppressing fire useless at suppression.

So here's what I propose that you do, to help you understand what our various proposals entail in terms of 'work' and 'tactics'. Make a tree of all the decisions entailed by your proposal, with each branch of the tree equal to an option that the player has. If a player has an option to say "Yes" or "No" then we would see a Y-shaped fork in the tree, the end points at which would either terminate, or lead to similar forks, though not necessarily limited to two options. You should number each fork along the tree so that you can count the number of choice along any set of choices. This may mean that, depending on the player's decision, they face between one choice between two options and an indefinite number of choices between a multitude of options. As well as enumerating the options faced by the players, enumerate the operations that players must carry out, either to calculate the value of the options they face at any given juncture of choices, or at any give

For example, you will notice that in Highest Wins version O player B goes first (1st operation), and then Player A faces three choices depending on the six results of player B's 1st operation (2nd operation), and that once the value of the operations have been calculated, player A's choice is a 3rd operation. Then there's a 4th operation to determine the winner of the round, and a 5th operation to determine whether the game continues.

Notice that there are three choices faced by player A despite the fact that the 1st operation yields 6 results. That's because 3 results yield only 1 live option each (6 = default, 1,2 = play), while 3 results yield the same two live options (3,4,5 = default or play).

Similarly if a unit of Space Marines is faced with suppressing fire that will kill two Space Marines if they move, and by moving they will prevent nine enemy Space Marines from Rallying, and those enemy Marines will fall back off the board then they'll move. If a unit of Space Marines is faced with suppressing fire that will potentially kill all the Space Marines in a unit if they move, then the Space Marine player will be forced to not move. Finally, if a unit of Space Marines is faced with suppressing fire where it's indeterminate whether the benefit of moving will outweigh the cost of losing some number of Space Marines, the Space Marine player will be faced with a judgement call as to whether they think the move will be worth it depending on criteria such as which turn in the game it is, and so on.

hmm can i get a simple version of the idea? i think i get it but im just not sure...

also i have a small question reguarding the shooting markers? how would you know how shot at who... unless the markers are numbered but then you need to carry 6 numbered markers to represent the "five" units suppresing a unit and "one" marker for the suppresed unit... and you need to have the 6+ number markers for every other unit that is suppresing or suppresed too.

I think I understand what you are trying to get across. I just don’t see how your way provides more options to the player. If a squad of space marines takes action while being suppressed knowing that action would cause them to take two casualties, it allows the player to make a more informed decision, but how that makes a significant change in the game where instead, the marine player has to decide whether or not to break cover knowing that a statistically average of 2 marines will die?

Your rule gives a level of precognitive that seems out of place. It would be possible for a squad of marines to suppress a squad of imperial guard only to miss or fail to wound with every shot. The IG would be able to leave their cover and take action completely disregarding the squad of marines blazing away at them, confident that they are safe from harm. By providing the effect of the player’s action before they take it appears to me that options are actually removed - A squad that is wiped out can not choose or at least should not choose to move; whereas a squad that suffers no casualties has no reason not to take action despite currently being fired upon. But in a situation where damage is determined after the player commits to action, then the player has the option to stay concealed out of concern of casualties or risk the unit getting destroyed in the hopes that they make it through the hail of fire.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Use whatever method works for you. Markers, dice, scraps of paper, note it down. How do you keep track of wounds, vehicle damage, or when a one use only weapon like a demo-charge is gone?

The best way I can think of it is spend a dollar on a mix bag of colored markers. Place a colored marker of the same color on every unit suppressing a single target and one on the target itself. But really use any way that works for you in keeping track; you probably could just settle on memorizing the units if that works for you and your opponent.

Grunt13:

There's already plenty of things that happen retro-actively in 40k, with saving throws being the most obvious example.

But I don't think you understand what I'm trying to get across because I've explained how conditionally delayed results affect strategic choices using the example of Highest Wins.

If the player faces the choice of two Space Marines fall casualty, that means that at most they will lose two Marines and at worst they will lose two Marines. If the player faces the choice of two Space Marines potentially falling casualty, on average, and the worst that can happen is they lose five Marines while the best that can happen is that they lose zero Marines, then there is no reason not to move.

Perhaps if we return to the Hawk-Dove version of the Prisoner's Dilemma. Players can either give one dollar to their opponent (Dove) or they can keep the dollar for themselves (Hawk). The Nash Equilibrium is to play Hawk, because Dove will always be worse than playing Hawk. When playing multiply iterated games of the Prisoner's Dilemma, with no preset number of games (in other words the number of iterations is random), the Nash Equilibrium is to play Dove (well, technically the "GRIM" strategy), because the aggregate outcome of doing otherwise will always be worse.

In other words, the problem is that in 40k, unlike in the Prisoner's Dilemma, failure is always an option for any strategy, so that moving while under your suppression proposal is never worse than not moving, so you might as well move the unit because it's going to be fired on whether it moves or not, and you could always fail to cause casualties.

So, as I noted above, the three scenarios facing the Space Marines in my proposal, get wiped out, suffer some casualties, or suffer no casualties means that while only one scenario has live options (i.e. more than one rational option), to either be suppressed or to sustain the cost of suppressing fire. In your proposal units should always sustain the cost of suppressing fire because doing so is no less worse than otherwise.

It's interesting that on some level you recognize that players will act regardless of the risk so long as it may turn out that acting will net zero casualties, because you add the additional pinning test at the front end of things so that units can actually be suppressed via the usual pinning mechanic.

If you're worried that a unit of Space Marines may blaze away at an Imperial Infantry squad and fail to cause any casualties, and hence fail to suppress them, consider the steps that players will have to take to anticipate this unlikely outcome and have multiple units ready to engage and suppress units that may not succumb to suppression from a single unlucky unit.

My advice would be that if you want to pursue your proposal (and why wouldn't you? it's yours!) that you simplify it in the following manner: Instead of firing normally, units that are shooting may attempt suppressing fire. Resolve shooting as normal, but give the target unit a +1 to cover saves. If the unit sustains any casualties from a unit engaging in suppressing fire, then it must take a Suppression check at the end of the shooting phase if it does not take a Morale check. This is resolved like a Pinning test, but with a -1Ld for every suppressing unit after the first.

Incidentally Litko Aerosystems makes some fantastic markers, particularly Epic-style blast markers, but also fire, smoke, radiation, and so on. Oh, I'm sure the moderators will pistol-whip anyone who asks about Space Corridors or Industrial Towers.