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 do intend to have grenades and smoke be much more representative (possibly with smoke being a physical blos effect on the field, using a cotton ball pulled apart in a standardized fashion) - also to note, the only real difference between "roll D6+ Armour - if over AP, no damage is taken" and my proposed system is:

all damage instances are set to intervals of 20
damage is done automatically in an amount equal to the amount 20 exceeds Sv+D6.

It simply reduces the number of rolls and comparisons needed, while allowing weapon AP to be standardized against a 5% variance in damage and weapons-fire damage affect more than a single model. Again, it's all in the interest of speeding up the game - damage resolution with this system is exceptionally swift. 10 Guardsmen roll 20 dice, hits 12 times, gets 60 damage. Their target rolls 3 dice and adds 3xSv, then removes wounds based on Durability - if we understand the basic terms I intend to use to describe the breakdown of unit composition, it can even be described in 2 steps:

Roll to hit and apply on-hit effects to save groups.
and
Resolve damage and effects, and remove casualties.

As to morale damage - Think of your day job. Interesting things happen all the time I'm sure - but you don't really pay attention to them or you've incorporated them into your personal image of what your day job is like. This is what veterans in 40K are. War is a day job for them. Terminators have seen so many centuries of war that it's not even neateresting for them anymore. They just wanna finish this gak and go home so that they can polish their armour and be sad about chaos and stuff. There needs to be a morale grade that represents this - as well as morale grades that represent regular morale, and alien morale. Volume of fire simply doesn't mean a lot to factions who have no problem with devouring planets whole or who simply teleport out of harms way or who are on 9000 drugs or who have sold their immortal souls to the powers of chaos.

In 40K, you have two problems - justifying what units and models are able to do with rules, and justifying what units and models are able to do by fluff. Fluff is inclusive, rules are exclusive - It's a matter of limiting fluff, while making the rules as expansive as possible. Sure, terminators MIGHT stop slightly to take tactical surveyance of the situation - but that's part of the tactical phase as a whole, I feel.

I think we've already suggested various levels of scaling suppression a while back, and I thought we were going on the basic assumption that yes, that's how it's going to work - What I've been arguing is not that units wont be suppressed, but that we should have different sets of requirements to suppress certain units, and that some units should just ignore everything but their objective altogether - And it also doesn't mean there won't be units that specialize in suppression tactics, that allow them to suppress units with many suppression sets - I'm just stating for the most part, shooting at terminators isn't going to bother them until they start taking a buttload of damage.

I think your example is more of an example of counter-listing and not being slowed, than anything spectacular tactics wise. Dave has a pretty binary list, with some obvious weaknesses - which is cool - but it shouldn't be a really big thing when someone defeats him using a tactic meant to play on those weaknesses.

To further your example, Dave went on to beat everyone else in the tournament hands-down, and Chiefy's gimmick had little to contribute against more varied, balanced, or power-house lists, putting him down 330 points against most of them.

It's an example of having the right tool for the right job, but also of scoping your meta - things that are decisions and choices you make BEFORE the game starts. What would've happened if Dave had set up mines around his position (for example, I don't know how FF works), or had some cheap mounted machineguns set up to repel close invaders? What if he'd had some guerilla fighters infiltrating the mortar positions?

I want my fights to be a bit more dynamic than that - guardsmen have grenades after all - and just because I don't feel that dividing weapons categories into "AntiInfantry, Assault, AntiTank" doesn't mean that certain weapons aren't going to be better at some things than others -

An example of your scenario in 40k

Dave has 3 andraiders filled with TH/SS terminators. His opponent pops some thunderfire cannons down on them to make them move as if in difficult terrain, and pops smoke.

Chiefy brings in some landspeeders to harry the raiders while he waits for his sternguard to arrive from reserve - hoping a landspeeder manages to destroy one.

Luckily, the difficult terrain destroys one of the treads on a LR, and a speeder's melta bores through the hull of another, wrecking it. The terminators are trapped for a turn as they don't do as well on their Strength Test to open the door as they'd hoped.

The third raider rumbles through unblemished, releasing a squad of terminators into the fray - they take no time to assess the highest priority target, and begin their charge across the open field to demolish the thunderfire cannon and its crew...

Only to be stopped short by sternguard, arriving from the sky. This is something to make them pause - briefly - as now both enemies are valid threats. In the end, they decide to charge the sternguard, who are closer - and receive a withering salvo of plasma for their efforts! Some SG with meltas run off toward the remaining land raiders, while the terminators - badly wounded, but still a deadly threat - deal with the sternguard.

After a brief fight and a scuffmark from the Thunderfire, the Terminators are running through difficult terrain once more, into striking distance of the cannon. The meltaSG are working their way through the hull of the wrecked land raider in an attempt to destroy the terminators before they can surface - they would've gone after the immobilized one, but it vapourized an SG with its lascannon when they peeked from behind cover. One of them manages to trigger a reaction in the plasma core of the Raider, annihilating it in a flash of energy - barely did the sternguard manage to survive, even at such a distance, while the terminators inside were demolished in an instant.

The landspeeder zooms around in an attempt to further hinder the landraider, now that its lascannon is trained on the sternguard, only to be gunned down by its assault cannon.

The sternguard fire on the Terminators with their bolters - they can do nothing else as the terminators dismantle the thunderfire cannon's crew, can only look on in horrible realization as the terminators aim the cannon directly at them, as roiling lightning bubbles up and lances toward them, as they are destroyed. (Yes, artillery will be capturable.)

The terminators in the raider disembark, and hurry over to the objective, only to be cut off once again - the final sternguard arrive. Both squads of terminators quickly try to rally against this foe, but their powerful melta guns make short work of the damaged terminators, and the plasma guns manage to force the terminators into cover - though they charge out once the shooting stops (suppressed: dive for cover - takes the unit's next move action to increase EV by 1 against further attacks, or until another action is taken. May still run or assault). They finally charge the Sternguard, slaughtering them. No one notices the beeping sound of the Drop Pod's self destruct mechanism... Except the landraider, who annihilates it with a flash of its lascannon.

The remaining terminators gather the data disk, and go home.


In my opinion, even points should result in an roughly even battle, assuming players of similar skill. In this case, the terminators won not because of their armour or army list, but because if you look at the current pointsvalues, they're running a 1500 list compared to roughly 800 points - it's a scenario similar to yours, where some nigh-invulnerable units are counter-listed by far less points of units, using a sound strategy - in this case, however, sound strategy simply can't make up that much of a points difference.

And it shouldn't have to. It's the players' jobs to make sure both sides of the fight are as fair as they want them to be - if you want to fight a counterlist and see if you can win, you should be able to. If you want to fight an even battle to see whose strategies win, you should be able to. The strategy SHOULD COME FROM THE GAMEPLAY AND THE DECISIONS IN GAME, not the decisions you make BEFORE THE GAME STARTS.

Looking for common ground...

Differnt reactions to supressive fire is important.

Determining the threat level that triggers a supressive responce is also necisary.

We just persue these using different methods.

The point I was trying to make was,current 40k has NO Fog of War mechanic.(Or artilery fire missions, or recon missions etc.)
Unrestricted shooting (LOS only), and no concideration for attacker or target disposition, restricts the tactical interaction.

Having the best armour an biggest gun , CAN be counters by combined arms tactics using 'less well armed and armoured units.'If the game allows for this sort of tactical develpment.
(As most modern historical wargames do.)

Increasing the amount AND type of unit interaction , opens up tactical options to players.
So more skilled players can use all units in a VARIETY of ways , and counter other units with a wider variety of options.
And so the game grows with the players experiance.

I belive the current focus 40k has made you follow a set of conditions that may be erroneuos?

Current 40k ihas VERY HEAVY strategic focus.Eg it mainly about what you bring to the table, NOT what you do when you get there.

Most of the games I play have far less strategic focus , as they have more tactical interaction.
Which is what you appear to be aiming for?

I may be wrong?

Hi again.
Just had a look at Andy Chambers latest wargame for Fantasy Flight Games 'Dust Warfare'.(Alessio Cavatore was on the the development team too!)And wow just wow.

Simple mechanics, straight forward resolution, and tactical interaction a plenty!And the bidding on mission type is just inspired!

As he was the '40k overlord' for several years, but was not allowed to change the rules to suit the game play.(Thats why he left GW plc behind alledgedly.)
I wonder if this is the direction 40k would have moved in if he was allowed to rewrite the rules?

Anyhow, there is a review on B.O.W .if you want to have a look.

It may be a game for Weird War II, but the streamlined resolution and focus on unit interaction , could be suitable base to work from for a 40k re-write perhaps?

A units capability is defined by its;-
Basic type, infantry, land craft (vehicle ), air craft.
'Target class' (how hard it is to damage).
'Weapon capabilities' (how its weapons effect different unit classes.)
'Special rules ', eg if the units has a medic/mechanic/ radio operator/ etc.

Its simple supression mechanic is,
Normaly all units take 2 actions per turn , move /move OR shoot /shoot OR move/shoot,OR shoot move.

If they take ANY damage they become supressed and may only take ONE action.

Also If they take a reaction in the oponents turn they lose ONE action in thier turn.

I belive this might be a good starting point , to add more detail to as necisary.(Start with a simple elegant intuitive rule set that works well.)

Rather than trying to de-construct and re-build the over complicated and counter intuitive current 40k rule set?

Open for business again; not quite finished up on a bunch of things :C

This is being done-up in the eventual hopes of processing a .PDF with linkables and references and fancy tables and such, similar to the pancake edition. It's meant as an alternative to be used with friends; eventually, codecies and many forgeworld models will be converted, as well as a program to create your own custom factions and units with 'balanced' points costs. The system of damage I'm using ensures that games continue to move in the direction of decisive, tactical victories and fast-paced attrition, rather than standoffish and slow.

Based off of Heroes of Might and Magic, it's a 20-base system, where each point of Armour decreases incoming damage by 5%, and each point of AP increases your damage by 5% - with every 20 damage being a threshold over which AP and Armour is compared. So while doing tonnes of damage is still important, placing the right sort of damage in the right sort of place is equally important - there's no point in wasting bullets on terminators, who will only suffer the minimum damage (1 Durability lost for each 20 damage - and at 10 durability and 2 wounds, this means 400 damage to make a dent!).

This also means that I need to work on updating and fixing codecies and common wargear/weapon tropes while converting them; armies with access to lots of high strength, low AP weapons like plasma will need cost and efficiency to avoid becoming too-powerful spam tools, as Vehicles will now be working off of the Durability/Wounds system as well.

Overall, the result should be a system that allows for MUCH greater degrees of modability; Wargear, Psyker Powers, army-wide effects, special rules, and terrain modifiers should all have a lot more open to them in terms of what they can do. With a gradient system for To-Hit, things like Preferred Enemy can be much more versatile - instead of rerolling to-hit and wound rolls of 1, we can do things like "Treat your weapons' damage and AP as 1 higher", or "Treat your BS as being a class higher for Ev comparison."

When you start opening up interactions between the base rules, and special rules, you end up with more involved rulesets like Magic: the Gathering's - rulesets that allow players to make the way their army interacts with the game something that really stands out - whether it's a gimmicky play on how their supporting psykers create a deathstar to be feared, or how their units simply don't seem to die, or how each time you take a salvo, you find yourself taking more and more damage because of the way their weapons eat at your armour - these are all things that can be dealt with on the fly, in a way that 40K's outdated "maximum stat of 10 with Saves capping at 2+" currently just can't handle in any balanced faction.

The best example I can think of is one of extremes - Can you imagine currently a unit of Scarabs being any real threat to a mixed unit of Assault Terminators? They might kill a single terminator on the charge, if they're lucky - and the loss of a save does nothing to a model with a single wound. What if it was HITS that reduced the save, though, like against vehicles? You'd suddenly have a bunch of Terminators in 6+ or worse saves! Garbage! It would never make it past playtesting.

With a system that relies on larger numbers and direct comparisons, however, we can have Terminators much more representative of their rise in strength and armour, in comparison to guardsmen. With a guardsman being 5's across, with a single wound and an average leadership, Terminators can be WS 10, representative of countless battles at the fore. They can aim their weapons in a manner that no skittering genestealer or xenos scum could avoid up close, with a mighty BS8. Their strength, enhanced by genetics and their armour, can be an equally mighty 8, while their durability in the face of the few onslaughts which make it through their powerful armour can be a staggering 10 - twice that of regular humans. In addition, because of the redundant organs and powerful will, these mighty guardians of the imperium can afford to have 2 wounds each. Finally, Terminator Armour is practically impervious - with a staggering Armour Value of 18. This means against weapons with less than 3 Armour Penetration, on average a Terminator will take merely 1 damage for every 20 - and with 10 Durability, he won't even be phased!

Now the important part of the example - Scarabs rush the terminators under this more robust system, and we can now value their special ability On-Hit! Each hit can eat away at a Terminator, lowering its Armour by 1, without upsetting the game - it's a potent ability that feels at home on Scarab swarms, and more importantly, can be given a meaningful points value without becoming unbalanced.

At the end of a fight, we can now see how effective this tactic is - without breaking the game miserably - by having the nearby Flayed Ones attack the weakened terminators. Ordinarily suicide, the flayed ones' blades and claws now find purchase in the soft flesh of these veteran space marines - Some with Saves as low as 12 after their ordeal. Though still much better armoured than Guardsmen, they quickly fold under the onslaught - their numbers simply not enough to save them from grisly fate.


tl;dr What I'm trying to do, overall, is give the system flexibility. I want interactions between different units to feel like different interactions. I want unique wargears and special rules to provide unique effects, without needing to pull from the same dried-up 'safe' set of abilities. The last time we got an interesting sniper ability was the Eldar Pathfinders; The last interesting 'bloodied' mechanic was Lemartes. So far in, 6th edition has only 3 rulebook-supported flier special rules that modify how they play at their core - the vector X family. This simply isn't a robust enough "base" from which to build on, and it's held back and weighed down and strangled by the 10-cap, 4+ comparison on characteristics. I want to fix this.

tl;dr;tl;dr - Want make 40k more cinematic, capture fluff much better.

If anyone could, is any of the following hard to follow or understand?

GAME TURNS AND ACTIONS
Everything a Model does on the battlefield is part of an
Action. Actions are split up between the four Phases –
Beginning, Tactical, Combat, and Resolution. This cycle is
called a Game Turn, and as you might have guessed, starts
at the Beginning. Phases will be described in this section,
along with the main Actions that can be performed in
them.

At the start of the each Game Turn is the Beginning
Phase, and at the start of the Beginning Phase, you
determine the Active Player, who proceeds to interact
with the game in a process called Activation.

Activation passes Clockwise from the Active Player – In
games with many players, canny Players will often place
themselves later in the queue of Active Players, in order to
gain tactical information at the cost of their Units'
well-being.

During Activation, the Active Player chooses one of their
Units that hasn't been Activated yet in the current Phase,
and performs any available Actions with it. Each Phase has
a number of available Actions to choose from, and any
Actions not listed here will have a Phase associated with
them for clarity. Once a Unit has no more available actions,
the next Player becomes Active Player.

In the Beginning Phase, there are very few Actions
available to most Units; Units in Reserve can attempt to
come in from Reserve, and Units on the field can Wait, or
End their Activation. A list of Actions that Units can
perform each Phase will follow this summary of each of the
Phases.

In the Tactical Phase, the Active Player may Move, Run,
Shoot, and perform actions that are variations of these,
such as Ramming or Diving for Cover.

In the Combat Phase, the Active Player can declare an
Assault, or fall back, or even resolve special attacks or
abilities – like Overwatch or Bracing.

The Resolution Phase is special – it happens in between
each other Phase, and lets players keep their units up to
date. After each other Phase, a Resolution Phase allows
players to assess any Effects applied to their Units, such as
from casualties or Special Rules. No Actions are taken in
the Resolution Phases – each Player simply applies any
effects that happen “Upon Resolution” in Activation order,
and then the next Phase begins!

Exceptions: Sometimes a Player may wish for a slower Unit
to Activate before their Units with higher Initiative; in this case,
the slower Unit makes an Initiative Test with a Target Score
equal to the Initiative of their fastest Unit.

Alternatively, any Unit may perform a Wait action. Units that
Wait are Activated dead last – as if their Initiative was 0.

Phase Timing: There are a many things which can happen over
the course of each Phase, and certain Actions, Rules, or Effects
will refer to things happening at specific times – such as the Beginning,
the Start, the End, etc. For our purposes, the Beginning and Start
of a Phase are considered to be the same thing.

If various Effects, Rules, or Actions would happen in the same timing,
the Active Player resolves them in this order:

1) Static Unit Abilities or Effects which are not Psychic*

2) Blessings and Maledictions

3) Other Psychic Powers

4) Units entering the battlefield from Reserves

5) All other Actions

If there are multiple Actions, Rules, or Effects which fall under the
same category, the Active Player dictates which one happens first.

*A Static Ability is something that happens autoamtically, all the time
– things like Characteristics Profiles and Special Rules that provide
bonuses all the time are Static Abilities and Effects.

ACTIONS: Actions describe most of the activity your Units will be
performing – whether they're Shooting or Falling Back. Actions are
presented in the following format:

ACTION NAME

Phase: Which Phases this Action is available in. Members: Determines
whether individual Models, or entire Units perform this Action.

Restrictions: All Members wishing to perform this action must not be
affected by these restrictions.

Details: The rest of the Action's Details are described.

Hi.
Yes this is fine as a basic concept , but the way you appear to implement it is duffuse and overcomplicated.(IMO.)

I will try to clarify and define your concept.

Game turn.

1)Command Phase.

2)Activation Phase.

3)Resolution phase.

Command Phase.
Players place order counters next to thier units on good morale.(Not supressed, neutralised or routed.)
Players take it in turns call in off table support one unit at a time.(Air artillery strike s and reserves.)

Activation phase.
Players take it in turns activating units.(turn over order counter and take actions on order counter.Move and shoot,shoot and move, move and move etc.)

Resolutiion phase.
Resolve action effects.
Players attempt to rally units on poor morale.

Just trying to keeping it as simple as possible to start, so you can add detail as and when required.

The phases are organized for flow and clarity of rules; see M:tG for precedence in multiple, distinct phases being useful for timing purposes. Timing is currently a hotly debated topic in 40K as it is; reducing the amount of distinction between when something happens and when another thing happens is not something I'd like to move toward.

Command Phase: The name isn't that important; what's important is that it's at the beginning and it lets players do things before they get into interaction with other players' units. I'd rather keep the 'orders' out of it (see HoMM3, M:tG) - and instead resolve each Unit's Activation as its own thing (see: M:tG - The Stack.)

Activation Phase: Still has to be broken into two parts, as Assault must still be a part of the game. Close Combat is half the fun for many players, after all!

The really great thing about the way I'm setting the system up, however, is that it's reasonably modular -- similar to GURPS; players can completely remove the Assault Phase if they so please, or replace it with an alternate phase, or have some factions that use the Assault Phase and others that don't, or alter entirely how Close Combat happens with a few rules replacements.

The Resolution Phase is important the way I've got it because it breaks up timings between the end of one phase, the beginning of another phase, and the time in between. See why this is important in M:tG's End Phase and Cleanup Phase, as well as The Stack; the complete acceptance of both players that "Yes, this is the end of this, and we're going to the next" is an integral part of clarity and gameflow.

I'd also rather keep Rallying in the same step as the Command Phase, as it's one of those things that only affects the Active Player.

I think there's a direction you'd really like to take this game, but I think the skillcap and interactivity and dynamism of the game you want to create is far, far below what I think 40K deserves and is capable of. 40K is a huge hobby, one that, at least in my opinion, encompasses a lot more background and flexibility than many other wargames.

It's space opera, and its battles deserve to be treated as such. It's a game that encompasses everything from single duels to scores of thousands of points, a game with hundreds of special rules and different units - and I personally feel it needs to move in the direction of games like M:tG - games with rules updates and new content that fits seamlessly in with what's already there because it builds on an expandable base, rather than trying to fit into a small structure.

So if anything, the number of phases is going to increase if necessary. The number of things players will be able to do in each phase will go up if necessary. And the focus and emphasis will continue to move toward tactical play, rather than cherry-picked simulationist automation - at least for the 40K module of the game.

HI .
if you dont want to issue set orders, (making tactical decisions in the command phase.)Thats fair enough.

But letting players pick the actions they are going to take DURING THE ACTIVATION PHASE allows an unrealistc level of reactiveness...(Unless you write very restrictive conditional rules adding unecissary complication as you go...)

Why has assault got to be seperate from other activations?

Moving and making a ranged attack is different to moving and making a close range attack, ONLY in the effective range of the weapon.

The current epic scale games (Net Epic and E.A.) seem to allow much more synergy with the 40k background , yet have much more straight forward rule sets.
Because they ALLOW the natural narrative to flow throught the game play in an unobtrusive way.

You appear to be trying to write rules to script specific interaction.(As 40ks current 'special rules do.)

IF you are writing 40k the card game , then MTG is a good starting place.

If you are writing 40k the wargame, maybe Epic Armagedon may be a better starting place?

I'm trying to write 40K as a turnbased strategy game, with unit interactions based on Actions.

CC and Ranged have to be separate because of the way close combats are resolved; the Sweeping Advance and post-combat morale is something that allows players to make up for a lack of ranged weaponry in their armies, something which is a part of the game I like (players are allowed find synergies with the rules in order to play the army they like without being penalized for unconventionality - i.e. shifting the way they deal damage to one that's in their favour, and against the enemy's).

It lets me increase the speed at which the game is resolved overall by creating balancing factors between Ranged Units' ability to avoid damage and focus fire to destroy important targets before they reach objectives, and close combat's ability to tie down and wreck important units while the rest of the army advances or continues shooting. It also lets me limit the actions each player can chain together per unit, speeding the game up overall because players will have less to remember about each specific phase - another important aspect of separating phases.

The main pull away from simulationism in the game I want to create is that, like most TBS, you are in almost direct control of everything your army does. Yes, you have a huge level of how your army plays - it's assumed your army has drilled for, or were bred for, these exact situations.

The Actions are actually fairly open-ended; they're going to have specific restrictions on when they can't be done to limit your Action Economy (similar to D&D) - such as a unit cannot fire if it has run, and cannot run if it has fired, and so forth; Most of the actual restrictions will be in the rules that describe the actions.

So, when I'm describing how movement works (similar to the movement section of the BRB), I can put in there the explicit situations when you're not allowed to move, or when you have to move differently (similar to MtG's Comp. Rules).

This lets me limit the restrictions on the actual Actions to how they interact with other actions in the Phase, and the results of things other players have done, rather than making each Action huge and unwieldy.

This is what I was talking about when I meant an expansive base to build on - By laying out the ground rules in a manner that's explicit and permissive, I can say "You can do X in this manner, except when..." and then it's very easy to point out the relatively few scenarios where X will be altered, such as terrain types, unit types, suppressive rules, and so on.

The problem with EA and NE is that they really don't allow players to do anything outside of the small list of near-identical actions for each faction. One unit's shooting and durability is very similar to any others' because the base they're building off of IS the actions - each action tells you exactly what it can do, and disallows you from doing anything else with it. In my opinion, it's much better to allow you to give the players a bunch of options, and then limit the options based on circumstance - rather than creating more and more exceptions to what a unit can't do.


MTG is a good starting place for turn-based strategy games that have a lot of interesting, unique variables - such as units, creatures, spells, etc., because it has a good, solid base that lets you play any card, any time, except when X for each different cards' unique characteristics. Epic Armageddon is, again, far too limiting for the scope of different unit types, characters, and interactions I'd like to include.

Changes to Morale and some actions.

GAME TURNS AND ACTIONS: Everything a Model does on the Battlefield is part of an Action. Actions are split up between the four Phases – Beginning, Tactical, Close Combat, and Resolution. This cycle is called a Game Turn, and as you might have guessed, starts at the Beginning. Phases will be described in this section, along with the main Actions that can be performed in them.

At the start of the each Game Turn is the Beginning Phase, and at the start of the Beginning Phase, you determine the Active Player, who proceeds to interact with the game in a process called Activation.

Activation passes Clockwise from the Active Player – In games with many players, canny Players will often place themselves later in the queue of Active Players, in order to gain tactical information at the cost of their Units' well-being.

During Activation, the Active Player chooses one of their Units that hasn't been Activated yet in the current Phase, and performs any available Actions with it. Each Phase has a number of available Actions to choose from, and any Actions not listed here will have a Phase associated with them for clarity. Once a Unit has no more available actions, the next Player becomes Active Player.

In the Beginning Phase, there are very few Actions available to most Units; Units in Reserve can attempt to come in from Reserve, and Units on the field can Wait, or End their Activation. A list of Actions that Units can perform each Phase will follow this summary of each of the Phases.

In the Tactical Phase, the Active Player may Move, Run, Shoot, and perform actions that are variations of these, such as Ramming or Diving for Cover.

In the Close Combat Phase, the Active Player can declare a Charge, or Withdraw, or even resolve special attacks or abilities – like Overwatch or Bracing.

The Resolution Phase is special – it happens after each Activation, right in the middle of the other Phases. It lets Players keep their Units up to date as the Turn goes by.
After each Activation, a Resolution Phase allows players to assess any Effects applied to their Units, such as from casualties or Special Rules.

No Actions are taken in the Resolution Phases – each Player simply applies any effects that happen “Upon Resolution” in Activation order, and then the next Activation begins!

Exceptions: Sometimes a Player may wish for a slower Unit to Activate before their Units with higher Initiative; in this case, the slower Unit makes an Initiative Test with a Target Score equal to the Initiative of their fastest Unit.

Alternatively, any Unit may perform a Wait action. Units that Wait are Activated dead last – as if their Initiative was 0.

Phase Timing: There are a many things which can happen over the course of each Phase, and certain Actions, Rules, or Effects will refer to things happening at specific times – such as the Beginning, the Start, the End, etc. For our purposes, the Beginning and Start of a Phase are considered to be the same thing.

If various Effects, Rules, or Actions would happen in the same timing, the Active Player resolves them in this order:

1) Static Unit Abilities or Effects which are not Psychic*

2) Blessings and Maledictions

3) Other Psychic Powers

4) Units entering the Battlefield from Reserves

5) All other Actions

If there are multiple Actions, Rules, or Effects which fall under the same category, the Active Player dictates which one happens first.

*A Static Ability is something that happens autoamtically, all the time – things like Characteristics Profiles and Special Rules that provide bonuses all the time are Static Abilities and Effects.

ACTIONS: Actions describe most of the activity your Units will be performing – whether they're Shooting or Falling Back. Actions are presented in the following format:

ACTION NAME
Phase: Which Phases this Action is available in. Members: Determines whether individual Models, or entire Units perform this Action.
Restrictions: All Members wishing to perform this action must not be affected by these restrictions.
Details: The rest of the Action's Details are described.


THE BEGINNING PHASE: The first thing Players do each Beginning Phase is Initiative -

Initiative: Players determine who goes first each Game Turn with a Roll-Off for Initiative. Players each get a bonus to this Roll-Off equal to the highest Ag value amongst their Units. The winner of this Roll-Off must choose which Player is the first Active Player this Game Turn.

Once the Active Player is determined, the Beginning Phase provides the following Actions to them (certain Special Rules and Unit Types will grant other Actions during the Beginning Phase, even to other Players!)

END
Phase: Any Members: Entire Unit
Restrictions: None

Details: The Unit finishes its current Activation. It may perform Actions as a result of, or in response to, other Actions, but may perform no Actions of its own.

REGROUP
Phase: Beginning Members: Entire Unit
Restrictions: If Unit Morale is Broken, at least 25% of the Unit's original size must still be alive.

Details: The Unit immediately takes a Morale Check to remove Suppression.

RESERVES
Phase: Beginning Members: Entire Unit
Restrictions: Must be a Unit in Reserves

Details: The Unit enters the Battlefield according to its Reserves Type. It counts as having already Moved in the proceeding Phases.

WAIT
Phase: Any Members: Entire Unit
Restrictions: The Unit must not be Falling Back, Pinned, or have taken any other Actions yet this Phase

Details: The Unit takes the rest of its Actions at Initiative 0 this Phase

Explaining the Terms: Some of the terms above are new. Morale Checks, Reserves, Suppression Modifiers, Voluntary Actions – these have yet to be explained. After each Phase's description and Actions, we'll explain any new terms, or tell you where to find them.

Some of these terms have many of their own Rules and Effects, or are more appropriately explained elsewhere. If this is the case, a short summary of the term will be provided here, along with a Hyperlink to where you can learn more.

Morale Checks: The Unit taking a Morale Check rolls 3D6 plus its Morale Grade to determine how many points of Suppression it may remove. If a Unit fails to remove any Suppression, its Morale becomes Broken – Units with Broken Morale suffer serious negative Effects, determined by their Morale Modifier. A list of Morale Grades and Modifiers, and their respective Suppression and Break Effects, can be found in the Morale Section.

Reserves: Reserves are Units you have yet to bring onto the battlefield – they're waiting for the right moment to strike. Reserves is the only time Units will normally get to Move in the Beginning Phase. The Reserves Section fully details the different kind of Reserves, from Teleporting, to Outflanking, to Tunneling.

In Response To an Action and Voluntary Actions: Voluntary Actions are Actions your Models and Units have a choice about making or not – such as whether to Move, or Shoot, or come in from Reserves. Any Actions that the Rules force your Models and Units to make is are Involuntary Actions.

Actions taken “In Response” to other Actions will always include the phrase “In Response” - Overwatch allows you to Shoot “In Response” to a Charge, Withdraw allows you to Move “In Response” to a Unit's Shooting, and so forth. These Actions are taken in a First In, Last Out order – that is, the First Action to be taken is the last to happen. This is so that Players get a chance to, well, respond to the Active Player.

END OF THE PHASE: The Beginning Phase ends when each Player chooses to do nothing, or “End”, with all of their Units. This can be done simply by each Active Player declaring "Done" or some similarly unambiguous term.

A final Resolution Phase happens, and usually no changes are applied, but sometimes a Teleport Slip or Tunnel Accident happens and a Unit will need to assess the damage.

Once this final Resolution Phase ends, the Tactical Phase begins.


TACTICAL PHASE: During the Tactical Phase, Players are given the most freedom of choice. The Tactical Phase provides the following Actions to the Active Player (certain Special Rules and Unit Types will grant other Actions during the Tactical Phase, even to other Players!)

As well, Actions from the other Phases, which list Any Phase are obviously valid Actions for the Active Player.

BRACE
Phase: Tactical Members: Entire Unit
Restrictions: The Unit must not have Shot or Ran this Phase

Details: Models in the Unit Brace against a Charge. They may not perform any other Actions for the rest of the Phase, and may not Charge in the Combat Phase

GO TO GROUND
Phase: Tactical Members: Entire Unit
Restrictions: The Unit must not have Shot this Phase

Details: The Units EV is multiplied by 1.5 its original value, and it becomes Pinned

Go To Ground can be used by any Player - not just the Active Player – In Response to being the Target of a Ranged Attack

The decision to Go To Ground In Response can be made any time before Armour is applied, but not after

MOVE
Phase: Tactical Members: Each Model
Restrictions: Cannot have already Moved

Details: Models in the Unit may each Move up to a number of Inches equal to their Mv. Models do not all have to move the same distance, or at all

Models that Move count as having Moved this Turn

RUN
Phase: Tactical Members: Entire Unit
Restrictions: The Unit must not have Shot this Phase.

Details: Models in the Unit may each Move up to a number of Inches equal to Half their Mv.

Models do not all have to move the same distance, or at all, but the entire Unit counts as having Ran this Turn


Explaining the Terms: Some of the terms above and to the left are new. Brace, Charge, Firing, Moving, Shooting – these have yet to be explained.

Bracing: Bracing is similar to Going To Ground, only it's used in anticipation of, instead of In Response to, being Charged. Bracing is a defensive maneuver made when you feel it might be more practical to simply try to survive a Close Combat, rather than shooting into it. Bracing is described in the Close Combat section.

Charging: Charging is an Action made in the Close Combat Phase. Its rules are covered in the Close Combat section.

Firing: Firing is part of the Shoot Action; it's shorthand for “Making a Ranged Attack with a Weapon.” The rules for Firing are found in the Shooting section.

Moving: Moving is shorthand for “Picking up a Model and placing it elsewhere.” Movement is the most prevalent aspect of WARGAME, as almost every Unit and Faction uses Movement as a key part of their overall Strategy. Movement, Movement Types, and rules for Movement can be found in the Movement Section.

Shooting: Models that Fire can be said to have Shot. Having Shot is a Static Rule that applies to Models that have Fired – it's used to modify how Models which have Shot interact with other Special Rules and Actions.

END OF THE PHASE: The Tactical Phase ends when each Player chooses to do nothing, or “End”, with all of their Units. This can be done simply by each Active Player declaring "Done" or some similarly unambiguous term.

A final Resolution Phase happens and Units assess their damage. Once this final Resolution Phase ends, the Close Combat Phase begins.

CLOSE COMBAT PHASE: The Combat Phase is a specialist Phase, meant for one thing only – Tearing your opponent's Units apart in close combat! It provides the following Actions to the Active Player (certain Special Rules and Unit Types will grant other Actions during the Tactical Phase, even to other Players!)

As well, Actions from the other Phases, which list Any Phase or the Close Combat Phase are obviously valid Actions for the Active Player.

CHARGE
Phase: Close Combat Members: Entire Unit
Restrictions: If Models in the Unit wishing to Charge have Shot this Turn, the Unit may only declare a Charge against Units it has Shot this Turn

Details: Models in the Unit may each Move up to a number of Inches equal to their Mv. Models do not all have to move the same distance, but each Model must attempt to reach Base Contact with a Model in the Unit they are Charging.

Charging allows Models to move into Base Contact with an Opponent's Units.

If no Models in the Charging Unit can reach the Unit being Charged, the Charge fails, and no Models are moved. However, if a Charge succeeds, each Unit involved must Fight.

FIGHT
Phase: Close Combat Members: Entire Unit
Restrictions: To participate, a Model must be in Base Contact with a Unit in the Fight, or within 2” of a Model in Base Contact with a Unit in the Fight.

Details: Each Model in the Unit uses its Close Combat Attacks .

Note: Some of these Actions have supporting rules – These rules are covered in their own section - see Page XX for Charging, Page XX for Consolidation, and Page XX for Fighting.

RESOLUTION PHASE: One everyone's Units have been Activated during any other Phase, they must all agree that they have nothing else they would like to do in that Phase; this starts a Resolution Phase. The Resolution Phase provides the following Actions: Check Morale, Consolidate,
CONSOLIDATE
Phase: Combat Members: Each Model
Restrictions: The Unit must have completed a Charge this Phase, but cannot be in Combat.

Details: Models in the Unit may each Move up to a number of Inches equal to Half their Mv. Models do not all have to move the same distance, or at all.

Models may only Consolidate at the end of a Combat Phase, before the Resolution Phase, and only after a Fight has ended.

Another Morale system was proposed; it basically amounts to "Unit makes a Morale Statistic Test against a Target Score of X (based off its casualties and the damage incoming), using XD6 (based off its Morale), and if it fails, gets a Suppression Counter for every X (based off its Morale) it fails by.

The comparison is basically "damaged unit rolls suppression, or firing unit rolls suppression?"

Thoughts?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What I'm Looking For:
What are your favourite parts of playing a wargame?

What sort of issues do you have with current wargames that I can avoid?

What sort of Morale or Combat systems would you like to see included (Special attacks, fear modifiers, different effects, and such).

What sort of movement modes should I include, outside of normal, hovering, flying, teleporting, (the usual), etc.?

Would you play a game with paper cutouts or legos, or other unstandardized representations? (Papercraft looks like the most interesting route for this!)

What are some of the most important features you'd like to see included?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Finishing up Close Combat Actions, one that stood out as a great example for the amount of terms it holds, and the amount of interactivity I'd like to display -

OVERWATCH
Phase: Combat Members: Each Model
Restrictions: A Unit may declare Overwatch only when another Unit Declares a Charge against it

Details: After all Charges are Declared, but before Waiting Units are Activated, the Unit may Shoot at any single Unit that is Charging it

The Evasion of the Unit being Shot is increased by that Unit's Combat Skill against this Shooting, and the Firing Unit uses its Weapon's Close-Range Modifiers for this Shooting, regardless of the Range to the Target Unit

A Unit that performs Overwatch against a Charging Unit only gains Defensive Bonuses, like from Bracing or Wargear, against the Target of its Overwatch



We can immediately see that the Action is called Overwatch. We know it's used in the Close Combat Phase, and can see that Each Model in the Unit has the choice of performing it or not. It tells us that the Unit as a whole can only Overwatch when another Unit Declares a Charge against it (Capitalization implies it's an Action, or Game Term - these are bolded in the document as well for emphasis).

The Details of the Action tell us that it makes the Unit we choose to use it against harder to Shoot - it tells us how it does this, and it also tells us that we use a Specific Case of Rules for a Weapon, overriding the General Rules (a great example of Specific Trumps General, a game rule that deals with Rule Priority).

It then tells us that using Overwatch leaves the Unit vulnerable to other Attackers - again by removing defenses with Specific Trumps General (Because a unit that uses overwatch getting charged is more specific than a unit getting charged!).

To recap, the action provides details on how and when it's used, on who uses it, an when it cant be used, and what precisely it does in game terms.

Each Action uses pre-defined Terms, or bases its own terms on pre-defined actions, building off of what's already been presented to players. Each of the Actions has its own terms described in the space following the Phase Description, and all of those Terms pull their rules from a specific ruleset (such as the section describing movement, or describing shooting, which they'll hyperlink to in the pdf) - letting players quickly reference and reinforce game knowledge.

I got some great replies from another thread, I'll share them here to pick through!

As someone who is also homebrewing a wargame, I'll wish you luck (though I note that we're trying to build completely different games, presumably for completely different reasons - I for instance would never consider touching GW rules unless extenuating circumstances were involved).

Heh, I don't blame you - they've made a lot of mistakes. Their core movement rules, though, aren't half bad (Pick up a model, move it up to its movement stat, etc. - there's really not many different things you can do with movement, though I'll be incorporating Movement Types into the Movement Rules, rather than the Unit Types rules - it just seems easier that way) - I'll be brewing my own rules for flying, difficult terrain grades, terrain wear on vehicles (one thing that's often neglected in games!), etc.

I suggest playing a lot of skirmish type wargames - Force on Force, Warmachine, Saga and Sharp Practice being the ones that spring prominently into my mind. If you want to build a skirmish game and you haven't played anything that wasn't done by the bloated beast of overbearingness then I worry about clarity of vision.

I'm actually pulling a lot from Infinity, Warhammer FB, Malifaux, FoW, etc.; the theme of the game is going to be 40K because that's the biggest pull around my area - I'm also interested in capturing the cinematic feel, as it's something I think 40K has slowly lost since its 2nd edition.

The first and most important thing when writing any set of rules is to decide EXCATLY what it is you want to model, before even thinking about rules mechanics. Far too many (bad) wargames start by deciding "I want to use this set of mechanics" instead of saying "I want this result to happen in these circumstances, so what mechanics do I need to use to achieve those results?" Because if you do it the wrong way around, you end up with rules that will almost certainly give you results you didn't want or anticipate; and that people will play to the rules you've written, and not to the game as you envisioned it, if you follow me.

Whoo okay. This one's a jiffy. I absolutely agree, and this is something I'm glad you pointed out, as I can already see that I have rules designed this way, for exactly this reason, and rules designed the wrong way out of negligence. You're a cruel man, making me examine my motives.

Spoiled for xbox hueg post.



What level of realism are you going for? Are you planning to make a system that is principally designed to facilitate you push models around for a bit of a giggle and roll some dice, or do you want to make a set of rules that encourages serious tactical thinking (i.e., more along the lines of almost puzzle solving, "how do I attack that position") and maneouver over weapon factors? (The implication is for the former, given that you're basing it around 40K. There's nothing wrong with that, but it is a very different kettle of fish it terms of requirements. The type of wargame people play is as or arguably more diverse than the style of RPG games people play, so the question has to be asked.)

I'd like the QJM to play a large part in how terrain factors into to battlefield, providing a definite boost beyond buffs to evasion. Direct damage reduction, morale buffing, ranged skill improvements... I'd like to see, yes, something that in situations will force players to stop and really think about what resources they're going to have to allocate against a defensive position, or if they even think it's worth taking it on at all.

The biggest role maneuvering is going to be playing is getting to desirable positions for objective capturing and weapons fire; infantry and other 'creature' models will have 180* facings and the only way they're going to be able to move is with a movement action; vehicles are going to have their four facings similar to 40K, and draw line of sight from their cockpit, crew, or other sensors, like real life, because 40K assumes that everyone's guns can see.

Overall, I'm aiming for a fast-paced game where tactical considerations can give you a defined and powerful advantage, where formations can be the difference between being murdered in close combat, or forcing your enemy to withdraw, and where terrain, range, and vehicle wear is a factor in the overall strength of your shooting and bombardments.

But it's also going to be a 40K setting for my IRL players, so expect to see a lot of that go to the wind when the space marine players face off to see who's more Rambo. Still, when simulating a setting like a modern or world war, it should perform well, if a tad dramatically.


What's the nominal ground and time scale? (That should have been the very first thing you decided.)


The boards are going to be (usually) 4x4 for 2 players, with 6x4 for 4 players and 8x6 for 6 players. You can cram more onto smaller boards, or play more spread out on larger boards, of course.

Human ground-pounders have a Movement of 5"; since, like most wargames, unit movement and weapons ranges have to be represented in vastly different scales (because we unfortunately can't play the game in a parking lot, and most people enjoy shooting more than .001 inches).


Have you considered how to deal with the single most important - and least paid-attention-to aspect of ground combat, e.g. terrain? E.g. things like dead ground, what happens when a vehicle drives into difficult going, how to cross obstacles?

I'm using an accelerated version of the QJM for calculating vehicle wear; bigger vehicles will wear faster but have more to wear off. Small vehicles and things like motorbikes and jetbikes will hardly wear. For most other unit types, wear is assumed to be included in their combat profiles, and their reduced speeds through various terrains is assuming they're addressing wear as it happens.

What is unit visibilty like? Can they see and react to anything within 360º, or only to things in a more realistic visibility arc? And spotting and visibility of units in general?

Answered this in a previous address, whups; 180* for most models, spotting models will probably provide a turn-face Action as a response to something happening, but they'll also be vulnerable somehow (such as being on the outside of the unit, where normally the heavy Armour goes.) Spotting is reduced over distance until, at ~36", all but the best humans have no chance of hitting anything. For units like Space Marines, with their bionics and enhanced genetics, this will probably be around 36-42", as some have really great eyesight. 48" is going to be just about the universal vision distance (I'm looking at special characters with obscene values here). Hence, the importance of spotters and artillery.

What is command and control like? (This is not the same thing as round sequence or unit activation.) Ditto morale/ammunition supply/combat effectiveness?

Things like combat orders and special abilities will be available from your Leader units - Increased firepower or movement, morale boosts, etc.; in general, Units are each led by a sergeant or veteran, and so can function fairly well on their own; their profiles and actions are going to be built around the assumption that "they have been given orders, and perform this well on those orders" - with the addendum that at suitably dramatic moments, their HQ breaks through the electronic warfare with help or new orders.

EW itself will not be making it into the game, as there's a surprising amount of ignorance surrounding the issue.

Morale is going to be done through increasing suppression being compared against units' morale grades and types. Not everyone breaks in the same way - some run to friendly lines, others burrow, or go berzerk, or simply shut down. And I mean this literally - there's robots and space bugs and big green berzerkers! I hope to represent about 5 different types of Morale (researched from tropes), with between 5 to 7 different Grades of morale.

I haven't addressed ammo yet; It'll probably be a basic rule, with most of the 40K' themed units ignoring it for cinematic purposes. Other themes may have units with very limited supplies (heroes of might and magic units can only shoot between 4 and 24 times!). Of course, certain units will be providing ammo-dump functions in this case.

Unit effectiveness is directly tied to morale through suppression effects. Morale will obviously be affected by terrain, but mostly by incoming damage and casualties.

What about hull down positions for armoured vehicles, or fighting positions for infantry (or, for that matter, urban fighting with multiple, different levels of buildings?)

Vehicles and Infantry are going to benefit greatly from Terrain, which will provide Actions (such as defensive positions) based on the terrain type; As well, obscured units and vehicles receive bonuses to their Evasion.

I also want to include terrain decay, as the first thing that came to mind was two tanks, circling a hill, completely ineffective against each other :I


I would also like to know what size of games are you imagining? Are you thinking each player has 1 to 10 models, or are we talking about 80 ish? (80 is a bit big for 40k, but I'm a fantasy player so cut me some slack)

probably about 10-50 models per player on average, with some factions (like orks :I) having a lot more.

As already stated, one of the biggest problems with wargames is terrain. in warhammer fantasy it went from "everything might as well be impassable" to "is there a reason for forests to be there, they don't do anything anyway"

TERRAIN IS AWESOME. YOU RUN TO IT AND HIT THE DIRT, THEN NEXT TURN YOU SET UP A DEFENSIVE POSITION, THEN YOU SLOWLY MANGLE THE TERRAIN UNTIL IT'S USELESS, AND HOPE NOBODY WITH A VORTEX GRENADE GETS IN RANGE.

The second issue with most wargames (especially the warhammers) are the special rules and cost balancing. I don't think your to the point of adding in specials yet, but make sure to play test them a bunch to find out.

Yeah, I'm hoping to use a WARGAME-itized variation of the QJM to validate points costs. If that doesn't work out, I'll probably just wing it with a bunch of playtests. My personal 'balancing' method involved "How broken and can I make this if I put my mind to it?" and then toning it down until it's at an acceptable level and "points cost."

As was pointed out, scenario will have a lot of balancing factor as well, requiring players to take a certain number of units and arrange them a certain way. Not every game will have a scenario, and some will let the players build one themselves with bidding.


Reading over Aetherverse, I see he and I went the same way in a lot of directions. In another post, I'll sort of go over why I feel differently about things with him on certain parts, and give my impressions on what I can learn from it

New approach to this: It's zoomed in 200% for some reason, hit zoom out a couple times for your eyes' sake.

http://www.mediafire.com/view/?s7f75i15cl59h87

I think I've got the basics of the Suppression System down:

Whenever a Soldier in a Squadron loses at least 1 Health Point from a single Source, that Squadron immediately gains a Suppression Counter, and must test against Suppression during the Resolution Step.

To test against Suppression, both the Player whose Squadron is testing against Suppression, and the Player whose Damage caused Suppression, Roll-Off on 3D6 (instead of 2D6).

The Player whose Squadron is testing against Suppression (The Defending Player) modifies his Roll based on the Squadron's Morale:
+4 for Cowardly +14 for Good
+7 for Poor +18 for Excellent
+11 for Average +21 for Fearless.

The Player whose Damage caused Suppression (The Attacking Player) modifies his Roll based on the Damage which caused the Suppression test:
+1 for every 100 Total Damage against the Squadron testing against Suppression since the last Resolution Step
+1 for every Health Point lost by the Squadron testing against Suppression since the last Resolution Step
+2 is Squad Leader was a Casualty from any Damage since the last Resolution Step
+3 if Squadron was reduced to Half Strength or lower since the last Resolution Step
+4 if Squadron was reduced to Quarter Strength or lower (This is on top of the +3 for Half Strength) since the last Resolution Step.

If the Attacking Player Ties Defending Player, the Damaged Squadron receives 1 Suppression Counter. If the Attacking Player wins by at least 1, the Damaged Squadron receives an additional Suppression Counter.

If the Attacking Player wins by at least 5, the Damaged Squadron instead receives 2 additional Suppression Counters. For every step of 5 the Attacking Player wins by (10, 15, 20, etc.), the Damaged Squadron instead receives an additional 2 Suppression Counters (4 for 10, 6 for 15, 8 for 20, etc.).

If the Defending Player wins, no Suppression Counters are added.

What it basically amounts to is that if someone does enough damage to you to kill half your buddies (about 10-11 people) you're probably not going to stick around and shoot them back - or you'll be shaking so badly that your aim will suffer because of it.

Each Beginning Phase, Squadrons with Suppression Counters may Activate to Rally. To Rally his Squadron, the Active Player Rolls 3D6, and modifies his Roll based on the Squadron's Morale:
+4 for Cowardly +14 for Good
+7 for Poor +18 for Excellent
+11 for Average +21 for Fearless

And then subtracts 1 for each Suppression Counter on the Squadron

On a roll of 12+, the Squadron may remove 1 Suppression Counter. For every step of 3 beyond 15 (18, 21, 24, etc.), the Squadron may remove 1 additional Suppression Counter (2 at 18, 3 at 21, 4 at 24, etc).

If a Squadron fails to remove ANY suppression Counters, its Morale Breaks - Broken Morale, and the effects of Suppression Counters, are different for each Morale Modifier.

Normal Morale Modifier

At 1 Suppression Counter, and every step of 2 after (3, 5, 7, etc.), apply the following penalties:
-1 to Movement, -1 to Suppression Tests

At 2 Suppression Counters, and every step of 2 after (4, 6, 8, etc.), apply the following penalties:
-1 to Combat Skill, Ranged Skill, Reaction.


When a Normal Morale Squadron's Morale Breaks, it begins Falling Back toward the nearest Friendly Squadron without any Suppression Counters. If none are available, it begins Falling Back toward the nearest Table Edge.

Falling Back is unaffected by any Movement Penalties from Suppression Counters, and is a Hustle Action done in the Movement Phase. Falling Back is done using the shortest route possible. Squadrons that are Falling Back can perform no Voluntary Actions, and never gain Evasion Benefits from Terrain (though their movement is still slowed by it).

If a Squadron that is Falling Back reaches a Friendly Squadron without Suppression Counters, it may attempt to Rally immediately, ignoring Rally penalties from Suppression Counters. It may act normally for the rest of the Turn if it manages to remove at least 1 Suppression Counter.

If a Squadron that is Falling Back reaches a Table Edge, it is placed into Reserves. Leave a token or suitable marker where it left the Battlefield - it re-enters the Battlefield from that spot. For each Turn it remains in Reserves, remove a Suppression Counter from it, and attempt to Rally. When it Rallies, it may attempt to enter the Battlefield from Reserves as normal, except that it must Hustle onto the Battlefield.

If a Squadron that is Falling Back is the target of a Charge, it cannot attempt Overwatch. Instead, once the Charge has finished, it immediately attempts to Rally: If this Rally fails, the Squadron is removed as casualties, and the Charging Squadron counts its destruction toward its Close Combat Results. If the Rally is successful, it participates in the Close Combat normally.

300. Movement

300.1
For each Soldier / Vehicle in a Moving Squadron, determine if it will Move or Remain Stationary.

300.2
Soldiers / Vehicles choosing to Remain Stationary do not move with the rest of the Soldiers / Vehicles in the Squadron, and do not count as having moved.

300.3
Of the Soldiers that have decided to move, choose a Soldier / Vehicle to be moved. This Soldier / Vehicle is the Moving Soldier / Vehicle

300.3a
Choose how the Moving Soldier will move, if it has more than one means of movement.

300.3b
Draw an imaginary line on the Battlefield, the width of the Ground Profile of the Moving Soldier / Vehicle, starting at a point on the Ground Profile of the Moving Soldier / Vehicle.

300.3c
The imaginary line on the Battlefield is called the Movement Path, and the chosen point on the Ground Profile is called the Starting Point.

300.3d
The Movement Path must be at least 0" long, but may be as long, from the Starting Point, as the Value of the Movement Stat of the Moving Soldier / Vehicle in Inches. The Starting Point is the size of the period at the end of this sentence.

300.4
Measuring from the Starting Point, you may pick up the Moving Soldier / Vehicle, and place it so that it's centered along the Movement Path, and so its Starting Point is within the Movement Path.

300.4a
This placement is called the Final Position.

300.4b
The Movement Path, and the Final Position of the Moving Soldier / Vehicle, must not overlap any Impassable Objects.

300.5
Choose another Soldier / Vehicle that has decided to move to become the Moving Soldier. Repeat steps 300.3a to step 300.5 with it.

300.6
The Final Position for each Soldier / Vehicle is not permanent until each other Soldier / Vehicle in the Squadron that has decided to move is finished its Movement, and until the Squadron Ends its Activation.

300.6a
Until the Squadron Ends its Activation, any Soldier / Vehicle that was a Moving Soldier / Vehicle may be placed back at its Starting Point, and moved in a different direction.

Hi.
Can I post a simple alternative for supression?
It simply compares wounds left in unit +armour value, (supression value,) to the total damage recieved .(Supressive effect.)

If the attacker inflicts a supressive effect that is greater than the target units supresion value. The target becomes supressed.
if the attacker inflicts a supressive effect that is over 2 times the target units supression value .The target becomes neutralised.

A units supressive effect is the number of shots on target, added to a supression bonus for weapons like HE or HMG.

Eg add up remaining wounds and the units lowest AV.
Add up the attackers shots and add any supression bonus from weapons.
Compare the values.

Say I have 10 guys in relatively poor armour 5. Three of them die from 10 (7 of which hit) shots with a suppression bonus of, say, 2.

The value of the soldiers is now 12, while the suppression is 9

Nothing happens despite casualties.

i.e. You keep proposing VERY BINARY SYSTEMS that DO NOT ALLOW FOR SCALABILITY OR FLEXIBILITY.

Either it's suppressed or it's neutralized or it's A-OKAY. This is not what the aim is - and again, historically, the soldiers left are not as important as the casualties taken, and the armour is not as important as the overall resolve - which can vary highly despite armour.

Resolve vs Casualties + Small Modifier based off Total Damage = amount of suppression.

Unit taking damage at all = chance of suppression

suppression = very small, but increasing, modifier to stats.

"neutralizing", or morale break = please avoid this it is scary

but also

can be used to your advantage in the right situation.

The point is that 'supression' happens when a units confidence is less that the threat they are facing.

And they are 'neutralised 'when the threat is overwhelming compared to thier confidence.

I was simply posting the basic concept.
As it is easier to discuss the merits of the basic game mechanic , than the finished result with lists of modifiers and special rules etc.

Supression IS NOT reliant on causing physical damage .BUT the psycholiogical effect the' threat of damage' causes.

EG firing a HMG type weapon at MBT, has no chance of penetrating the armour, BUT the tank will 'button up' and thefore the crew have restricted vision and can be shaken up by the closeness of the bullets whizzing past thier vunerable heads, before dropping back into the tank...

A large mob has confidence in numbers.
A well armoured unit has confidence in its armour.
Therfore using number of wounds left and armour value is a good simple measure of unit confidence.

And the amount of shots fired and a supression bonus for supressive weapons is a simple measure of supressive effect of a unit.

The reactions to supresive fire can be different for diferent unit types.(And we could have supressive effects for fear -terror too.)

Just posting up some simple alternatives for you consideration....nothing more.

That's a much better representation of what you're trying to say. When you break it down into confidence and threat, you've created a dynamic that actually has a place within a scaling suppression system.

I feel your tank example is a bit specific to older tanks; we've got remote-control and enclosed tanks now that simply rely on (far superior to human) sensor data, and they do quite well. Your example can be better represented by a lower durability and armour, (but many more hit points), representing their being easier to threaten.

Mobs tend to draw their confidence more from having their ideas and feelings validated, and a bit of sensory overload, than from their leaders or the feeling of anonymity. Though they tend to disband at roughly 25% casualties, there's also the opposite effect where they fight to the last man to avenge their comrades - I'd rather represent mobs by giving them a poor leadership value, than by swapping over from casualties caused to people remaining. It's always the people you see killed, rather than the people you see remaining, which is why armies tend to break so early, despite the chance that they might win simply by making the enemy run away, if they push a little harder (i.e. Pyrrhic battles).

Well-armoured units are are more often confident in their training and privilege rather than simply their armour: This is especially true in the 40K setting and in dogs of war situations, where we see very well-armed people who are armed thusly because of their skill and ruthlessness.

I'll confess that if you stick Joe Shmoe in a tank, he's going to be less afraid of bullets - but that's represented by the higher durability and armour - it's harder to nick a hitpoint off, so it's harder to threaten the confidence of the unit. There doesn't need to be a separate stat or calculation for this.

Therefore, using hit points lost and damage done (offensive stats) as indicators, rather than hp remaining and armour (defensive stats) is a much better indicator of how threatening something is; Confidence is much better described through the Morale Grade, and buffered by the durability/armour.

Shots fired isn't always an accurate count - some weapons have to be equalized for sheer volume of fire (say some rabble soldiers with ak's and rpgs) - if you want to have the rpgs fired in the same timeframe, you have to drastically reduce the amount of shots fired by the ak's, or represent them in volleys - which doesn't translate well to RoF. Instead, total damage done is used, as it represents the Rate of Fire + the Accuracy.

The reactions being different as well are necessary.

I appreciate the alternatives and your viewpoint, really I do, and what you're getting at makes sense for a game dealing with large numbers of older tanks and soldiers, representing platoons. It just doesn't translate well to the range of variables and the basic values present in skirmishes, where each individual is vital to your army and each squadron might have any number of special weapons and armours that all need to react differently.