Switch Theme:

Removing Player Turns?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin





Out of my Mind

FWIW,

My friends and tried 2 Things way back in 3rd. Im all for how it's currently setup, but that's how GW plays their games. There is a wealth of other systems to draw from, and they have great mechanics. I gave them some thought, and here's how I'd probably run it now.

1 - Battletech Style.

Battletech was one on the other games out and it had cool system. Both players would roll for initiative every turn. The loser would have to move first, then shoot last. We merged the assaults starting with the player who lost the initiative, allowing the winner of the roll more opportunities for counter assault. We did this because one of our concerns was that CC units got to attack twice,and chain consolidation was a thing.

Updating for 7th. Seizing the initiative could be done every turn, making those Warlord traits applicable for the game and not just at the start. The only other tricky thing would be the psychic phase. Id probably combine both players psychic phases into the one, starting with the winner of the roll. This would force players to use their dice pool for both offense and defense. As stated above, this gives a huge advantage to the player who won the roll. Since who that player is changes during the game.

2 - Confrontation Style.

We all got into Confrontation and loved the original setup. Each unit had its own card and both players cards were shuffled into 1 Deck. Rolled off for initiative with the winner flipping the first Card. If a player flipped one of his own cards, he could choose to activate it, or reserve it. If he flipped his opponents card that uni activated immediately. Players then alternated flipping Cards. The winner could have 2 Reserve units, the loser could have one. If a player wished to reserve another unit, and was full, he'd have to activate one that he was holding. I also think that a player could activate any of his reserve units as an interrupt, or multiple cards for a combo strike. When a unit was destroyed, you removed from the Deck.

Once a card was activated, it performed it's move, it's shooting, and it's charge move, but not Combat. When the deck was exhausted, then we went to the combat step. In confrontation, the winner of the initiative, got to separate the combats out denying charging bonuses. While we tried this, the multiple combat in 40k worked out fine. After all combats though, all units not wiped out separated 1" away before next activations.

Updating for 7th. Again it'd be the psychic phase to implement. I'd probably roll the Dice pools before the turn, then units with Psykers could cast on their activation, and use any from their pool for Deny the witch at any time.

We used generic sets of index Cards with each FOC on it tied to a players list, so HQ 1-2, Troops 1-6, etc. Cards had to be added/removed everytime an IC joined/left a unit,but it was doable enough.

-----
Hope that gives you some ideas for your discussion, it's been a fun read apart from all the usual complaining.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/05/29 14:35:02


Current Armies
40k: 15k of Unplayable Necrons
(I miss 7th!)
30k: Imperial Fists
(project for 2025)

 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: