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.

No, one bullet point is one "action", so a pilot may move and shoot any number of weapons, representing the more advanced computer systems in aircraft and the systems which connect a pilot with a vehicle through his mind; this number of weapons may be limited otherwise depending on the size of the model and the speed the model moved in the previous movement phase.

Chaospling wrote:
No, one bullet point is one "action", so a pilot may move and shoot any number of weapons, representing the more advanced computer systems in aircraft and the systems which connect a pilot with a vehicle through his mind; this number of weapons may be limited otherwise depending on the size of the model and the speed the model moved in the previous movement phase.

So you intend for a knight, a dread, tau hammerheads to have a "pilot" crew which can move and shoot any number of weapons. But a Rhino or Land Raider is going to have a "Driver" crew which has to choose, but also other rules to give them additional actions.

That correct?

A Rhino will have a single Driver, yes, a Land Raider will have one Driver and One Commander. Regarding T'au vehicles, I can't say yet, but it will probably be a pilot I think. Regarding T'au in general I've sort of changed them, so a player will have to choose a lot more between shooting and moving, for example are the Pulse Rifles Ungainly (Could maybe use a better word?) which is between Basic (former Rapid Fire) and Heavy, so they can't move and shoot in a single turn as much as they used to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
By the way, Rhinos and Land Raiders will not have extra rules to let them operate as they operate in 7th and 8 th edition. A Land Raider for example will fire less weapons while moving because only the Commander will be firing the weapons and because of the placement of the sponson weapon, he can only fire one of them unless the both the sponsons can target the same unit; this can change if a Space Marine is close by, he can use his weapon link and control a sponson weapon to target another unit.

What basis are you using for making these decisions?

Are you just thinking about what "feels right" to you? How are you deciding what gets a pilot and what gets a driver? How are you approaching how many guns a unit can shoot and whether they should be able to move and shoot?

I am trying to understand your process here.

 Lance845 wrote:
What basis are you using for making these decisions?

Are you just thinking about what "feels right" to you? How are you deciding what gets a pilot and what gets a driver? How are you approaching how many guns a unit can shoot and whether they should be able to move and shoot?

I am trying to understand your process here.

Ouch no not at all, the rules have to work, so I can't just use Imperial Armour books blindly. I've gone back and forth on which actions a crew member should have, and I think that I had to slightly change the crew member types for a vehicle - I can't remember which one right now.
The process was roughly to determine what the vehicle in question could do with the 7th edition rules to have a reference point. It wasn't that I just wanted to stay close to this reference point but it was nice to know what a vehicle could do in a certain edition (how far could it move, how many of its weapons it could fire when it stood still, when it moved at different speeds and so on).

 Lance845 wrote:
How are you approaching how many guns a unit can shoot and whether they should be able to move and shoot?

I'm not sure how I can answer this question... I got a reference point and I wanted the shooting phase to be less lethal/be more equal to the assault phase. I also made these general criteria (I've probably forgotten some):

Tanks should be more lethal than walkers, but much more restricted in the movement phase (Limited number of 90 degree turns).

Walkers can be more tactical (can have the Objective Secured special rule) IF they also have a close combat weapon. If it has not close combat weapons it cannot even attack in the assault phase (I hate the idea of a Dreadnought armed with twin-linked heavy bolters and missile launcher being able to do anything harmful in a close combat.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
In my opinion 7th edition had it upside down when it came to tanks and walkers. A tank should, in my opinion, be the optimal platform for a weapon, it's mass low to the ground and very stable, but the 7th edition rules had a tank limited to fire a single weapon when moving and allowing a walker to still fire all of its weapons. So I wanted to correct this and have walkers and tanks to have different advantages to make the players think it through regarding what role he wants it to fulfill in a certain army.

Here's a comparison of two vehicles of roughly the same size (I haven't calculated their point cost yet):

Movement phase:
A Dreadnought may turn any number of times during the movement phase regardless of how far it has moved.
A Predator may turn 360 degrees when stationary.
A Predator may make 2 90 degrees turns when moving at combat speed, 1 90 degrees turn when moving at cruising speed and 0 turns when moving flat out. In addition, a tank halves the value of its movement characteristic, when it moves backwards.

Shooting phase:
A Dreadnought can fire 2 weapons when stationary and when making a normal move. When making a Focussed Move (Twice the normal movement. The term "Running" is out. Only Pistols (and Assault weapons at half range) can be fired, when making a Focussed Move.) 1 weapon may be fired.

A Predator can fire all of its weapons when stationary, 3 weapons at combat speed (combat speed = Normal move), 1 weapon at cruising speed (pistols and assault weapons) and 0 weapons when moving flat out.

That sounds entirely convoluted and too much bookkeeping, even for someone that didn't hate 7th.

So here are some notes...

1) 90 degree turns and 180 degree turns and ANY degree turns are complicated and prone to creating both slow down and arguments at the table. there is no tool you can provide that will speed it up and work with every vehicle for every army and it only takes 1 person disagreeing for the cracks to show.

2) 7th is one of the worst games ever made. Trying to start on a foundation of 7th is horrible. Building MORE complication onto 7th is madness.

3) A unit being stuck in a melee and having no ability to do anything in it is terrible. I can EASILY surround a knight with say.. hormagaunts or gargoyles. I can do the same with a dread. It's not fun for the player who looses a unit because they have been locked out of acting and it's not actually fun or interesting for the guy whos doing it.

All these mechanics open up the doors to all this terrible game play. You don't seem to have a great grasp on the consequences of the mechanics you build. It's not just how it functions when used as intended in optimal situations. It's how it functions in the WORST scenario under the most exploited situations.

 Lance845 wrote:

1) 90 degree turns and 180 degree turns and ANY degree turns are complicated and prone to creating both slow down and arguments at the table. there is no tool you can provide that will speed it up and work with every vehicle for every army and it only takes 1 person disagreeing for the cracks to show.

Agreed, I'm aware of this disadvantage.

 Lance845 wrote:

2) 7th is one of the worst games ever made. Trying to start on a foundation of 7th is horrible. Building MORE complication onto 7th is madness.

Is there a reason why you are stating this?

 Lance845 wrote:

3) A unit being stuck in a melee and having no ability to do anything in it is terrible. I can EASILY surround a knight with say.. hormagaunts or gargoyles. I can do the same with a dread. It's not fun for the player who looses a unit because they have been locked out of acting and it's not actually fun or interesting for the guy whos doing it.

Aha... Yes... Interesting.... Is there a reason why you are stating this?

 Lance845 wrote:

You don't seem to have a great grasp on the consequences of the mechanics you build.

I'm aware of every aspect of this system, which I have build, and that there's pros and cons for every one of them. Now, when you bring up subjects you only mention either the pros OR the cons depending on what you feel (yes what you feel, as you're certainly not being rational or objective.) and make assumptions and that makes your posts quite useless to me. There are a lot of examples to this, one of them is when you commented on pinning:

 Lance845 wrote:

But that isn't even the worst of it. WORSE, you created a system of pinning that can be exploited easier by the same units/armies that gain the most benefit from the alternating phases set up than it can by the short range/melee units that suffer the most under it.

So...
1. Units can no longer break because of shooting attacks.
2. The nearest model does not have to be removed first.
3. Pinning is already a thing

...but I change pinning from being a special rule to being a separate game mechanic.

and we haven't even talked about an example where we're calculating the actual effects.

A person, who can come to concrete conclusions as fast as you can, is in my eyes ruled by his emotions and incompetent when it comes to analyze anything and his opinions are useless and not the least bit constructive to me.

I started out as being angry to be received like that, when I just wanted to share something with fellow gamers, but now you almost amuse me when being so ridiculous in your conclusions. So now you know, that your feedback and opinions will not be taken seriously.

Chaospling wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

1) 90 degree turns and 180 degree turns and ANY degree turns are complicated and prone to creating both slow down and arguments at the table. there is no tool you can provide that will speed it up and work with every vehicle for every army and it only takes 1 person disagreeing for the cracks to show.

Agreed, I'm aware of this disadvantage.

 Lance845 wrote:

2) 7th is one of the worst games ever made. Trying to start on a foundation of 7th is horrible. Building MORE complication onto 7th is madness.

Is there a reason why you are stating this?

 Lance845 wrote:

3) A unit being stuck in a melee and having no ability to do anything in it is terrible. I can EASILY surround a knight with say.. hormagaunts or gargoyles. I can do the same with a dread. It's not fun for the player who looses a unit because they have been locked out of acting and it's not actually fun or interesting for the guy whos doing it.

Aha... Yes... Interesting.... Is there a reason why you are stating this?

 Lance845 wrote:

You don't seem to have a great grasp on the consequences of the mechanics you build.

I'm aware of every aspect of this system, which I have build, and that there's pros and cons for every one of them. Now, when you bring up subjects you only mention either the pros OR the cons depending on what you feel (yes what you feel, as you're certainly not being rational or objective.) and make assumptions and that makes your posts quite useless to me. There are a lot of examples to this, one of them is when you commented on pinning:

 Lance845 wrote:

But that isn't even the worst of it. WORSE, you created a system of pinning that can be exploited easier by the same units/armies that gain the most benefit from the alternating phases set up than it can by the short range/melee units that suffer the most under it.

So...
1. Units can no longer break because of shooting attacks.
2. The nearest model does not have to be removed first.
3. Pinning is already a thing

...but I change pinning from being a special rule to being a separate game mechanic.

and we haven't even talked about an example where we're calculating the actual effects.

A person, who can come to concrete conclusions as fast as you can, is in my eyes ruled by his emotions and incompetent when it comes to analyze anything and his opinions are useless and not the least bit constructive to me.

I started out as being angry to be received like that, when I just wanted to share something with fellow gamers, but now you almost amuse me when being so ridiculous in your conclusions. So now you know, that your feedback and opinions will not be taken seriously.

He doesn't really need to make the math to realize that pinning is a BS stun mechanic as i allready pointed out.
PINNING
• The Degree of Pinning of a unit is subtracted from the target unit’s value of Ballistic Skill characteristic and Initiative characteristic.
• The Degree of Pinning, in inches, is also subtracted from movement except Fall Back moves, Charge moves, Break Off moves and Advance moves.
If a unit’s Charge move is successful, the unit has completely recovered from Pinning as the charging unit summons all the rage and discipline into their possibly last act.
• The Degree of Pinning of a unit is subtracted from the value of the Leadership characteristics of the models in the unit, when making a Regroup check.

Because you degree of pinning favours shooty horde armies literally, even worse then 8th favours cheap spammable chaff.

Player Shooting Phase Step 1.5
– Determine Degree of Pinning If the total amount of Successful Hits from a single unit is equal to or higher than the amount of models in the target unit, there is a chance that the target unit will be pinned to some degree.
Compare the amount of Successful Hits of weapons, which have the same value of Fear characteristic, with the amount of models in the target unit. Hits from weapons with a higher value of Fear characteristic can be added to the amount of hits of weapons with a lower value of Fear characteristic. The player, who is making the shooting attack, chooses the value of Fear characteristic which benefits him the most.
If the total amount of hits of the chosen value of Fear characteristic outnumbers the amount of models in the target unit by 2:1 or more, the chosen Fear value increases by:
1 if they outnumber by 2:1 2 if they outnumber by 3:1 3 if they outnumber by 4:1 4 if they outnumber by 5:1 or more
If the final value of the weapons’ Fear characteristic is higher than the value of the target unit’s Defensive Fear characteristic (use the highest value amongst the models in the target unit), then the difference is the target unit’s Degree of Pinning. Degrees of Pinning are cumulative.
The whole thing is based upin a new stat, and how many bullets you can put down range.
I'll say it again, but stunlocking is not an interactive mechanic, it can be abused as all hell.
Secondly your pilot/driver line is completely arbitrary. A leman russ with 2 sponsons has 4 gunners, a driver and a commander. That is a well known lore fact. Secondly a tank is not the most optimal place for a gun to be.
I don't know if you have military experience, but there is a reason why artillery is still in use and why tanks see massive cost disadvantages comared to said artilery, be it self proppeled or regular towed one.
Also your walker /tank line is completely random, because how would you fit in a Defiler. Arguably a SPAA.

Also dismissing valid criticism like this by just ignoring someone and attacking him ad hominem, as a sentimental fool is certainly not going to help in regards how well this project is taken up or considered.
Because it certainly has it's merits.
Additionally his point on 7th was very valid. 7th was terrible, full stop. Adding more mechanics on top of 7th which suffered massivly from rules favoring certain armies will do you not really anygood.

90% of the 40k players will agree that 7th was to comlpicated and could use a proper trimming of fat. What Gw did with 8th was a trimming down to the roots, certainly not really better then 7th.

Not Online!!! wrote:


He doesn't really need to make the math to realize that pinning is a BS stun mechanic as i allready pointed out.
PINNING
• The Degree of Pinning of a unit is subtracted from the target unit’s value of Ballistic Skill characteristic and Initiative characteristic.
• The Degree of Pinning, in inches, is also subtracted from movement except Fall Back moves, Charge moves, Break Off moves and Advance moves.
If a unit’s Charge move is successful, the unit has completely recovered from Pinning as the charging unit summons all the rage and discipline into their possibly last act.
• The Degree of Pinning of a unit is subtracted from the value of the Leadership characteristics of the models in the unit, when making a Regroup check.

Because you degree of pinning favours shooty horde armies literally, even worse then 8th favours cheap spammable chaff.

Yes the pinning system favours shooting armies, but again... And I've stated this so many times, that it's incredible that I have to say so again: look at all the pros and cons before you come to a conclusion. I'm not in love with this system, it's gone if it's no good but feedback based on very narrow perspectives is useless to me. If some wants to skip the hard work (discussing if the pros equal the cons) and jump right to the conclusion and present that, then it's useless to me.


Player Shooting Phase Step 1.5
– Determine Degree of Pinning If the total amount of Successful Hits from a single unit is equal to or higher than the amount of models in the target unit, there is a chance that the target unit will be pinned to some degree.
Compare the amount of Successful Hits of weapons, which have the same value of Fear characteristic, with the amount of models in the target unit. Hits from weapons with a higher value of Fear characteristic can be added to the amount of hits of weapons with a lower value of Fear characteristic. The player, who is making the shooting attack, chooses the value of Fear characteristic which benefits him the most.
If the total amount of hits of the chosen value of Fear characteristic outnumbers the amount of models in the target unit by 2:1 or more, the chosen Fear value increases by:
1 if they outnumber by 2:1 2 if they outnumber by 3:1 3 if they outnumber by 4:1 4 if they outnumber by 5:1 or more
If the final value of the weapons’ Fear characteristic is higher than the value of the target unit’s Defensive Fear characteristic (use the highest value amongst the models in the target unit), then the difference is the target unit’s Degree of Pinning. Degrees of Pinning are cumulative.

Not Online!!! wrote:

The whole thing is based upin a new stat, and how many bullets you can put down range.
I'll say it again, but stunlocking is not an interactive mechanic, it can be abused as all hell.

It can? (This is a sincere question.) Could you give me an example?

Not Online!!! wrote:
A leman russ with 2 sponsons has 4 gunners, a driver and a commander.

Agreed, what is your point?

Not Online!!! wrote:

Also your walker /tank line is completely random, because how would you fit in a Defiler. Arguably a SPAA.

I don't follow...

Not Online!!! wrote:

Also dismissing valid criticism like this by just ignoring someone and attacking him ad hominem, as a sentimental fool is certainly not going to help in regards how well this project is taken up or considered.
Because it certainly has it's merits.

Yeah I know it's not good to go that way, but his posts are so much against every aspect of the 40kD10: Edge of Revitalization and the arguments are poor, without proper explanation and not at all objective, that I can't imagine a normal person would analyze like that, and so I suspect him of trolling, and so I get like that.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Additionally his point on 7th was very valid. 7th was terrible, full stop. Adding more mechanics on top of 7th which suffered massivly from rules favoring certain armies will do you not really anygood.

Agreed, what is your point?

Not Online!!! wrote:

90% of the 40k players will agree that 7th was to comlpicated and could use a proper trimming of fat. What Gw did with 8th was a trimming down to the roots, certainly not really better then 7th.

Agreed, what is your point?

I will give you an exemple out of a shooter game with a fairly long history of stun/ slowing mechanics.
Take TF2, one character, a fast one with a low HP pool had an option to give up some more HP or a weapon that completely stunned an enemy player for up to 5s.
Keep in mind 5s are a huge time in a shooter, comparable to atleast half a turn .
This weapon was so broken that it never saw the day of light in competitive, deemed by it's community to broken to be even considered, whilest in casual the Item got rebalanced by Valve so often and is still completely off the charts nowadays, either sucking hard or beeing way to good.

This is the base problem of all Stun mechanics. Either they are FAAAAAR to weak or to Strong. Essentially, if you want to play competitive such mechanics are considered cheap and or skilless because they deny an opponent a reaction.
Bear in mind my exemple is a shooter, now apply this to your game and pull the scenario of stolen Initiative in. You just have exemplified the stun mechanic, denied enemy shooting to a degree and successsfully stopped the movement of an unit in it's tracks. Even worse when you were able to stop a unit like Hormagaunts like Lance pointed out. This unit becomes just because of the layout of the mechanic either highly ineefective or unplayable, because you deny capabilites for a reaction.
This is the same reason why in 8th Alaitoc Eldar -bs shenaniganery is doing so well. It denies reaction via denying any unit with a bs up to 4+ a shooting phase.
Denieng of a reaction possibility is terribe, the same is true for Alpha/ Betastrikes. None of these also require skill to play the game but rather make the game decided by inherent faction missmatches and listbuilding then capability of the player.

The point for 7th is, that if you don't take care on which points of it you carry over you will again benefit certain armies.
Remeber fliers? Scatbikes? These units were broken because the main rules favored them massively over other units. That is why 7th is not a good reference point and should be replaced by a overall more balanced outlook over the games editions.

The point on the Leman Russ is, that there is virtually no distinction between a Tau tank and a Leman russ.
It also makes no sense that a Landraider only has a Driver and a commander, period. Additionally the Landraider has one of the most advanced machinespirits to date.
Needlessly favoring flying or ground units is also something that will bring drawbacks that need to be pointed accodringly making the time and care required to bring in units higher up then it is allready.
Add to that if you do missplace the cost of an unit that said unit will be automatically broken, either too good or too bad.

Not Online!!! wrote:
I will give you an exemple out of a shooter game with a fairly long history of stun/ slowing mechanics.
Take TF2, one character, a fast one with a low HP pool had an option to give up some more HP or a weapon that completely stunned an enemy player for up to 5s.
Keep in mind 5s are a huge time in a shooter, comparable to atleast half a turn .
This weapon was so broken that it never saw the day of light in competitive, deemed by it's community to broken to be even considered, whilest in casual the Item got rebalanced by Valve so often and is still completely off the charts nowadays, either sucking hard or beeing way to good.

I ask for an example and you tell me about a computer game!?!?!? Are you trolling too?

Not Online!!! wrote:

Bear in mind my exemple is a shooter, now apply this to your game and pull the scenario of stolen Initiative in. You just have exemplified the stun mechanic, denied enemy shooting to a degree and successsfully stopped the movement of an unit in it's tracks. Even worse when you were able to stop a unit like Hormagaunts like Lance pointed out. This unit becomes just because of the layout of the mechanic either highly ineefective or unplayable, because you deny capabilites for a reaction.
This is the same reason why in 8th Alaitoc Eldar -bs shenaniganery is doing so well. It denies reaction via denying any unit with a bs up to 4+ a shooting phase.
Denieng of a reaction possibility is terribe, the same is true for Alpha/ Betastrikes. None of these also require skill to play the game but rather make the game decided by inherent faction missmatches and listbuilding then capability of the player.

This... You... "Successfully stopped the movement of an unit in it's tracks"... How's that possible?
I guess you mean well, but this is useless as well without anything concrete.

I've made so many calculations to have the pinning system work and yet I've never gotten to the conclusion, that this system will work no matter what; normal test games and test games where the players try to abuse the system may give us a result, but please give me something useful. Maybe make some calculations showing that either the system is much like Fear was (almost redundant because so many were immune) or that it's too effective.

Not Online!!! wrote:

The point for 7th is, that if you don't take care on which points of it you carry over you will again benefit certain armies.
Remeber fliers? Scatbikes? These units were broken because the main rules favored them massively over other units. That is why 7th is not a good reference point and should be replaced by a overall more balanced outlook over the games editions.

And what have I copied from 7th edition?

Not Online!!! wrote:

The point on the Leman Russ is, that there is virtually no distinction between a Tau tank and a Leman russ.

What can I make of this, if it's true?

Not Online!!! wrote:

It also makes no sense that a Landraider only has a Driver and a commander, period.

Blame Forgeworld... The background is from the Imperial Armour books.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Additionally the Landraider has one of the most advanced machinespirits to date.

Well I'm pretty sure (I cannot prove it) that the Power of the Machine Spirit special were introduced to let both sponson weapons of (initially) the Land Raider be fired on different targets. I do not object against the Machine Spirit being part of the background, but I don't think that it needed such a specific role ingame.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Needlessly favoring flying or ground units is also something that will bring drawbacks that need to be pointed accodringly making the time and care required to bring in units higher up then it is allready.
Add to that if you do missplace the cost of an unit that said unit will be automatically broken, either too good or too bad.

...... Agreed....

I gave you the exemple to highlight my point.
The consensus is the same as in a video game, if you regard that as trolling by all means. It does not matter where it comes from, overall edges of balance are interchangable. Stun mechanics are interchangeable. My point was to highlight that denying reactions/hindering movement and capabilities is a GAK gamemechanic. That is also why i brought up Alaitoc Eldar. They fit right in with GAK gamemechanics that do Favour firststrikes and denying of capabilites of units.
Also additionally, what makes you think that you could handle stun mechanics in a competitive environment better, then a multi billion dollar company? If anything that is Hybris.

Also how am i supposed to give you accurate numbers within your ruleset when 80% of the stuff in the game is not yet done?
I am warning you about the possibilities for this and just the base implications, yet you chose again and again to ignore such warnings, regardless if they were uttered politely or more directly.

Video Games and board games are not that different mechanically. A lot of the same game play principles can be seen to get played out in a lot of the same ways. Obviously there is a difference between real time and turn based, but not THAT different.

On top of this, you seem to just assume that there is some nebulous "I can balance this with point costs" with no regard to what impact it has on the actual game.

I am done now. I am checked out of the idea of trying to help someone who plugs his ears repeatedly when people point out why stuff is bad. Enjoy your project. I predict it goes nowhere and gets played by no one.

Not Online!!! wrote:
I gave you the exemple to highlight my point.
The consensus is the same as in a video game, if you regard that as trolling by all means. It does not matter where it comes from, overall edges of balance are interchangable. Stun mechanics are interchangeable. My point was to highlight that denying reactions/hindering movement and capabilities is a GAK gamemechanic. That is also why i brought up Alaitoc Eldar. They fit right in with GAK gamemechanics that do Favour firststrikes and denying of capabilites of units.

Well... It may be that my system wont work either... That sure is a possibility...

What about
The damage table for vehicles back in 7th edition?
The Pinning special rule in 7th and 8th edition?
The new Damage tables for vehicles and monstrous creatures in 8th edition?

Are these considered bad too or are they something completely else?

Not Online!!! wrote:

Also how am i supposed to give you accurate numbers within your ruleset when 80% of the stuff in the game is not yet done?

Precisely, so how can anyone come to any concrete/non-discussable/non-tweakable conclusion regarding the 40kD10: Edge of Revitalization rules?

Some units are done though, so it's quite possible to run some numbers if one wants to.

It's nice to get the "heads up" posts as it's perfectly possible that I have missed something which would need attention for the game to become balanced and playable, so I welcome such posts and time/effort one would take and make to help me out.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
On top of this, you seem to just assume that there is some nebulous "I can balance this with point costs" with no regard to what impact it has on the actual game.

Not at all, but you should drop by the "General Marine fixes" and "How to make terminators worthwhile?" threads and many else like them to tell that should just stop trying, because you know better than all of them.

 Lance845 wrote:

I am done now. I am checked out of the idea of trying to help someone who plugs his ears repeatedly when people point out why stuff is bad. Enjoy your project.

Thank you very much.

 Lance845 wrote:

I hope it goes nowhere and gets played by no one.

Fixed that for you.

I will friendly remind you that pinning in 7th was a non issue, because morale was way to high and or most units had Fearless, therefore ignoring pinning.
I can't remember 1 time i successfully pinned a enemy with my armies and i play a, at the time, army that had huge acess to pinning
Also pinning was highly restricted with certain weaponry. Additionally you could seek cover to improve your cover saves.

Honestly, vehicle rules inbetween 7th and 8th have massive advantages and disadvantages. For one 7th allowed for high risk high reward melta strikes and other maneuvres. on the negative side vehicles were not particullary durable enough to justify their points often.
8th does not really allow for high risk high reward gameplay but does have the advantage of less randomness involved in their damage table. as in not a random weapon down because of a stray shot and then beeing not effective anymore (vindicators faced such problems.)

Not Online!!! wrote:
I will friendly remind you that pinning in 7th was a non issue, because morale was way to high and or most units had Fearless, therefore ignoring pinning.
I can't remember 1 time i successfully pinned a enemy with my armies and i play a, at the time, army that had huge acess to pinning
Also pinning was highly restricted with certain weaponry. Additionally you could seek cover to improve your cover saves.

Honestly, vehicle rules inbetween 7th and 8th have massive advantages and disadvantages. For one 7th allowed for high risk high reward melta strikes and other maneuvres. on the negative side vehicles were not particullary durable enough to justify their points often.
8th does not really allow for high risk high reward gameplay but does have the advantage of less randomness involved in their damage table. as in not a random weapon down because of a stray shot and then beeing not effective anymore (vindicators faced such problems.)

Well my point was that the damage table for 7th edition wasn't a hot topic and people have only been positive regarding the damage tables in 8th edition... So... It's not pinning per se but units (not all) has their effectiveness reduced and that's not even a reduction which is gone again the next round... So couldn't one say that some kind of reduction to the effectiveness is okay for the players and actually brings something else than just removing a model altogether?

Chaospling wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
I will friendly remind you that pinning in 7th was a non issue, because morale was way to high and or most units had Fearless, therefore ignoring pinning.
I can't remember 1 time i successfully pinned a enemy with my armies and i play a, at the time, army that had huge acess to pinning
Also pinning was highly restricted with certain weaponry. Additionally you could seek cover to improve your cover saves.

Honestly, vehicle rules inbetween 7th and 8th have massive advantages and disadvantages. For one 7th allowed for high risk high reward melta strikes and other maneuvres. on the negative side vehicles were not particullary durable enough to justify their points often.
8th does not really allow for high risk high reward gameplay but does have the advantage of less randomness involved in their damage table. as in not a random weapon down because of a stray shot and then beeing not effective anymore (vindicators faced such problems.)

Well my point was that the damage table for 7th edition wasn't a hot topic and people have only been positive regarding the damage tables in 8th edition... So... It's not pinning per se but units (not all) has their effectiveness reduced and that's not even a reduction which is gone again the next round... So couldn't one say that some kind of reduction to the effectiveness is okay for the players and actually brings something else than just removing a model altogether?

Infantery allready suffers from attritional degradation, you know, beeing removed and all that? Tanks did not however. Most of the time it either would blow up, or be capable of firing back. Dead units on the other hand don't fire back and a pinned unit that has lost members will be punished double. Now that can be argued is tactical but in essence you forget that there are units which are specifically used for DTD attacks. Hormagaunts are such a unit.
(DTD stands for dare to die)

This is my last bit... I can't not answer this.

The 8th ed tables on vehicles and monsters are not a positive thing because people are okay with units having their effectiveness reduced to 0.

It's because in 7th the vehicle damage chart was a random mess that was either 1) book keeping (always bad) or 2) just made multi wound vehicles explode instantly.

In 8th a vehicle or monster can still actually act even as it degrades. Being able to do anything is still game play. Your pinning rules is not a degradation. It's a binary toggle. The unit can act or the unit can not act. Thats it. What is not fun is not being able to act. The player should always be able to do something. A choice, any choice, should always be available to them with consequences. Taking units out of the game play either because they are incapable of acting in the fight phase and get surrounded or because your turn structure and the pinning rules favor a long ranged army that will ensure the shorter ranged army will never get to act doesn't create game play, or counter play, or anything. It just locks up the table and grinds the entertainment to a halt.

Seriously. Look up some articles on the concept of counter-play. It's probably the thing you need to learn about the most right now.

 Lance845 wrote:
Your pinning rules is not a degradation. It's a binary toggle. The unit can act or the unit can not act.

Ah come now Lance... It doesn't have to be like this (sincerely): My pinning rules are degradation - not a binary toggle. Not Online even posted the rules above. And I completely agree with you.

 Lance845 wrote:

Seriously. Look up some articles on the concept of counter-play.

Thank you very much (sincerely) - I will do that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Chaospling wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
I will friendly remind you that pinning in 7th was a non issue, because morale was way to high and or most units had Fearless, therefore ignoring pinning.
I can't remember 1 time i successfully pinned a enemy with my armies and i play a, at the time, army that had huge acess to pinning
Also pinning was highly restricted with certain weaponry. Additionally you could seek cover to improve your cover saves.

Honestly, vehicle rules inbetween 7th and 8th have massive advantages and disadvantages. For one 7th allowed for high risk high reward melta strikes and other maneuvres. on the negative side vehicles were not particullary durable enough to justify their points often.
8th does not really allow for high risk high reward gameplay but does have the advantage of less randomness involved in their damage table. as in not a random weapon down because of a stray shot and then beeing not effective anymore (vindicators faced such problems.)

Well my point was that the damage table for 7th edition wasn't a hot topic and people have only been positive regarding the damage tables in 8th edition... So... It's not pinning per se but units (not all) has their effectiveness reduced and that's not even a reduction which is gone again the next round... So couldn't one say that some kind of reduction to the effectiveness is okay for the players and actually brings something else than just removing a model altogether?

Infantery allready suffers from attritional degradation, you know, beeing removed and all that? Tanks did not however. Most of the time it either would blow up, or be capable of firing back. Dead units on the other hand don't fire back and a pinned unit that has lost members will be punished double. Now that can be argued is tactical but in essence you forget that there are units which are specifically used for DTD attacks. Hormagaunts are such a unit.
(DTD stands for dare to die)

Last post for today. Well the loss of actual models (models excluding their rules) are not important, it's the degradation of the power of the unit, which is important. One could even argue that there's a pro for having fewer actual models (lots of cons too). By the way, in 40kD10: Edge of Revitalization even vehicles can be pinned... Remember: Degradation.

I'm not sure what to make of the bit regarding Hormagaunts and DTD.

See you tomorrow.

Hi. I’ve just read the first few phases of a turn, up to the close combat but, so move shoot and prep. And I have to say the game so far feels massively clunky and complicated. I’m not going to get into activation issues they have been discussed at length.

First off. The preparation phase, why do it then? U roll all these dice and have to note down number of charges and nullifies and which d5 and which D10 then don’t use it? And the generation process is too complicated to flow well. Just reading took three or four goes before it made sense. If us have a psyker Heavy army, grey knights or demons for example it’s going to take a good chunk of rolls and book keeping. Why not just roll 2 d5? Or add one for every psyker? I think you could streamline this massively.

Target selection. I like the immediate threat idea but agin its a very clunky mechanic rely on stats, distances etc. It too could be streamlined, a Ld test to not target the closest unit would achieve the same thing. Too long measuring and counting models etc slows the game too much. A basic characteristic check is yuck and intuitive.

The pinning mechanic is way too complicated. It reads like a mathematical exercise. Which isn’t why I play war games. It might be fun to design but in a large war game it’s a right hassle. Maybe a smaller scale game but not 40k.

I will read the rest of your rules but I don’t think from what I’ve read I’d be prepared to play a game of this. Even as a test. It’s far too complicated and clunky. Too many complex mechanics. And I liked 1st and 2nd ed 40k!

This needs a lot of Work to be playable.

Edit. Just to let you know my background is purely as a player. Never designed games or wanted too. I have however been playing war games, board games and rpgs for 30 years and am looking at this as a consumer, my critiques are based on that.

Andykp wrote:
Hi. I’ve just read the first few phases of a turn, up to the close combat but, so move shoot and prep. And I have to say the game so far feels massively clunky and complicated. I’m not going to get into activation issues they have been discussed at length.

First off. The preparation phase, why do it then? U roll all these dice and have to note down number of charges and nullifies and which d5 and which D10 then don’t use it? And the generation process is too complicated to flow well. Just reading took three or four goes before it made sense. If us have a psyker Heavy army, grey knights or demons for example it’s going to take a good chunk of rolls and book keeping. Why not just roll 2 d5? Or add one for every psyker? I think you could streamline this massively.

Target selection. I like the immediate threat idea but agin its a very clunky mechanic rely on stats, distances etc. It too could be streamlined, a Ld test to not target the closest unit would achieve the same thing. Too long measuring and counting models etc slows the game too much. A basic characteristic check is yuck and intuitive.

The pinning mechanic is way too complicated. It reads like a mathematical exercise. Which isn’t why I play war games. It might be fun to design but in a large war game it’s a right hassle. Maybe a smaller scale game but not 40k.

I will read the rest of your rules but I don’t think from what I’ve read I’d be prepared to play a game of this. Even as a test. It’s far too complicated and clunky. Too many complex mechanics. And I liked 1st and 2nd ed 40k!

This needs a lot of ORK to be playable.

Hi there,

Yeah, that's my worry too: that the rules are too clunky. The grammar could possibly be better as I'm not an expert in English, so I'm not sure if it sometimes just could be worded better or if the rules actually are clunky. I know that some mechanics are very simple, but when worded to avoid loop holes and to clarify properly, the explanation ends up being rather lengthy. I'm playing with the thought of writing a short version of the rules with a more "common" language, as most of the times you'll know what was intended anyway. Also, I'm having an intro game shortly where the players don't have to read the rules, so such a game will tell if it's too complicated and clunky or not.
Yet another aspect of this, is that this are the rules of an amateur (shut up Lance ) and so these rules would demand much more open-mindedness compared to an official game because of lack of authority.
Is there any of the rules so far which you are in doubt of?
I could explain rules like Pinning and Allocation of Hits very easily compared how I had to do it in the rule book.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually I thought about adding examples for many of the mechanics in the rule book, and because of your feedback I can see that they must be included in version 0.1.10! Here's a slightly more detailed reply:

Andykp wrote:
Hi. I’ve just read the first few phases of a turn, up to the close combat but, so move shoot and prep. And I have to say the game so far feels massively clunky and complicated. I’m not going to get into activation issues they have been discussed at length.

First off. The preparation phase, why do it then? U roll all these dice and have to note down number of charges and nullifies and which d5 and which D10 then don’t use it? And the generation process is too complicated to flow well. Just reading took three or four goes before it made sense. If us have a psyker Heavy army, grey knights or demons for example it’s going to take a good chunk of rolls and book keeping. Why not just roll 2 d5? Or add one for every psyker? I think you could streamline this massively.

Well I don't have the rules on me from the Warhammer Fantasy 7th edition, but the rules for magic were very much appreciated in the community and that's why I based the psychic power rules on them. You roll 2 D5 and that's how many Warp Charges you get, and the higher number of the two dice is the number of your Nullifiers… That's not too complicated is it? And of course you don't note down Warp charges if you don't have any psykers.

Andykp wrote:

Target selection. I like the immediate threat idea but agin its a very clunky mechanic rely on stats, distances etc. It too could be streamlined, a Ld test to not target the closest unit would achieve the same thing. Too long measuring and counting models etc slows the game too much. A basic characteristic check is yuck and intuitive.

Remember this is only when the units are close to each other. Regarding stats, it'll probably be tough in the beginning because everything will be new. Right now we have terms like GEQ and TEQ and so we know which models across the armies belong to these terms; in a new setting you have to learn everything again, this will require some effort if you want to be as familiar with the ruleset as you are with 8th edition, which is so much more simple.
Here's an example of what would normally happen (stats are not finale - I haven't even begun on the Tyranid codex):
A Devastator unit of 6 Space Marines (Defensive Fear, DF, value of 5) is facing 3 Tyranid units (these are closest to the Space Marine squad and they are placed so it's hard to tell if they're within Immediate Threat range). One unit of 13 Hormagaunts (Offensive Fear, OF, value of 4 but outnumbering 1:2 : 4+2=6) are 5,5 inches away, one unit of 3 Tyranid Warriors (OF value of 5) is 4 inches away and one unit of 1 Carnifex (OF value of 6) is 7 inches away.
Only a OF value of 6 or more matters here and that's the Hormagaunts and the Carnifex and these only matter if they're within the OF value, in inches, which leaves the Hormagaunts within Immediate Threat range.

Andykp wrote:

The pinning mechanic is way too complicated. It reads like a mathematical exercise. Which isn’t why I play war games. It might be fun to design but in a large war game it’s a right hassle. Maybe a smaller scale game but not 40k.

Here's another example:
A Tactical squad unit of 7 Space Marines (5 bolters, 1 Plasmagun and 1 Lascannon) is shooting at 9 Guardsmen (DF value of 3). Fear values of the weapons: Boltgun: 4. Plasmagun: 6. Lascannon: 10.
The Tactical Squad being 10" away make 10 Boltgun, 2 Plasmagun and 1 Lascannon attacks and hit with 5 Boltgun, 1 Plasmagun and 1 Lascannon attacks. As hits need to outnumber the targeted unit the Space Marine player decides to let the Plasmagun and Lascannon attacks being treated as having Fear values the same as the Boltguns. To represent the explosive ammunition of bolt weapons, bolt weapons have the Frag 2 special rule: double the successful hits regarding Pinning. So, 5x2+1+1=12 hits which outnumbers the 9 Guardsmen and as Fear 4 minus DF value of 3 = 1, the Guardsmen now have a Degree of Pinning of 1.
In text this is lengthy but would you think that just doing the math in a game would be that difficult?

Was going through the rules as anew player would and got some basic questions that aren’t clear. I’ve not brought up grammar or English issues as such as I guessed it wasn’t your first language.

When seizing initiative what counts as a detachment?

Models in the way- move models aside, what does that mean, so they are more than 1” away? What happens if they can’t be moved, eg terrain or other bigger models?

Coherency, why variable? What’s the disadvantage of set distances?

Slot coherency, slots and detachment are not explained at this point so rules being there is confusing. Needs definition or explaining that is relevant later.

Shooting phase. Step 1. 1.2 chose targets. In explanations it says 1.2 is suppressive fore and 1.3 is chose a target?

Suppressive fire. Does not read well, confusing as you don’t know what the different results mean.

Choosing a target. As before. Too clunky. Also I don’t think a squad of marines would be bothered about being outnumbered 4:1 by Gretchen. They are always outnumbered. Not sure this mechanic translates fluff wise. A simple ld test would work fine.

Things brings me to the pinning bit. This mechanic is far too complex and unwieldy. I’m sorry but it just sounds horribly complicated. From a players point of view. I had to note it out to figure out how it worked at it was complex.

Looked a bit like this.
z no of models in unit.
A hits of higher value fear characteristic.
B is the number of times z is power than x+a
Y is chosen fear characteristic. No of hits of y= x.
D is def characteristic.
W is weapons final fear characteristic.
P is degree of pinning.

(x+a)> zb=y+(b-1)
y+(b-1)= w
w-d=p

It needs to be is x higher than y. If so apply y. You decide what x,y,and z are but that’s too much. Every time a unit shoots! I can see what you’re trying to do but I’ve seen much more elegant propositions. You prob don’t see as you made this mechanic so to you it’s simple.

Have a look at epic40000. I think it was 3rd edition space marine and how they used blast makers to represent the same effect. It was simple. Each weapon had a fire power. Fire power resulted in units taking x number of blast markers. Blast markers had -ve effect on shooting and moral. It was very intuitive. If you were battered by tons of fire you all got your heads down. You already have a firepower like stat on your weapon profile. Wouldn’t be difficult to adapt.

The saves rule says all models get to use all their saves. This isn’t very clear, do they role invulnerable and all of them or is it all in one. Just clarify.


That’s all I’ve had time to do so far. I’ve skimmed the rest of the rules and overall I would say this game is a long way from playable. It’s far too complicated and clunky. I would hold fire on codecise and play test with a few armies before you go mad making army books. Much needs to change in the core rules.

You put this project out for critiquing. You need a thick skin. No one is commenting on you or the work you’ve done. Lance and co are here putting time into trying to improve a far from polished game. I’m no game designer, but I read an interview with jervis Johnson and he is one of the best I know of. He said he has a technique he calls “murdering his darlings”. He designs a game. Even if he lives it, he goes back and gets people and him self to rip it apart pull on every fault. He goes out of his way to trash his own design. He does it to avoid becoming short sighted and only seeing the good and not the faults, like those parents that dote on horrible spoiled kids.

Give it a go. Don’t be too protective of your game.

I guess I have to reply with several posts.

Andykp wrote:
When seizing initiative what counts as a detachment?

Detachments are listed in the back of a codex. I could mention that in the rulebook.

Andykp wrote:
Models in the way- move models aside, what does that mean, so they are more than 1” away? What happens if they can’t be moved, eg terrain or other bigger models?

Then they're moved further. This is the same rule as in 7th edition, I think.

Andykp wrote:
Coherency, why variable? What’s the disadvantage of set distances?

It makes sense that unit coherency depends on the size of the models. In 7th vehicles had to stay within 4", not 2", when in the same unit. Nothing new or controversial here.

Andykp wrote:
Slot coherency, slots and detachment are not explained at this point so rules being there is confusing. Needs definition or explaining that is relevant later.

I should probably explain slots and detachments here, but slot coherency: "If a slot in a Detachment consists of more than one unit, these units may use the value of the Leadership characteristic of another unit in the same slot if they are within 5” of said unit. ". Is it that you think it's not worded okay?

Andykp wrote:
Shooting phase. Step 1. 1.2 chose targets. In explanations it says 1.2 is suppressive fore and 1.3 is chose a target?

Thank you, corrected.

Andykp wrote:
Suppressive fire. Does not read well, confusing as you don’t know what the different results mean.

Well, the results are mentioned…? Maybe I don't understand you. I think that there's too much text, how's this instead?

You may declare that the nominated unit is using Suppressive Fire. When using Suppressive Fire, there are two kinds of successful hits (you still roll a single die per attack):
1. In addition to other modifiers (except the one below) there is a -2 modifier to the To Hit roll. Successful hits of this kind only do damage.
2. In addition to other modifiers (except the one above) there is a +2 modifier to the To Hit roll. Successful hits of this kind can only inflict Degrees of Pinning.
In addition, the values of the Fear characteristics of the weapons used, when using Suppressive Fire, have +1.

I'll give you an example in the next post, maybe we can come up with a different explanation then.

That’s much better. (Suppressive fire).
As for coherency why not have 2” or 4”;for vehicles? Why complicate it? What’s the advantage of having to work it out for each squad? If it’s a rule in the game it needs to make game play better. Otherwise it’s just complexity for the sake of it.

An example:
Normally a Space Marine would hit on a 4+; when using Suppressive Fire only rolls of 6+ are gathered to resolve damage but all rolls of 2+ are used to determine the Degree of Pinning.

So 5 Boltguns make 10 attacks within 12" and the rolls To Hit are 1,1,3,4,5,5,7,8,8,9. So 8 hits are used for resolving Degree of Pinning and 4 hits are used for resolving damage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
As for coherency why not have 2” or 4”;for vehicles? Why complicate it? What’s the advantage of having to work it out for each squad? If it’s a rule in the game it needs to make game play better. Otherwise it’s just complexity for the sake of it.

Well I'm of the opposite opinion: a rule to me is more simple. Remember that the General Size characteristic can have a value of 1 (all the normal infantry as you know them), 2 (Dreadnought and Predator sizes), 3 (Land Raiders and such), 4 (Imperial Knights and such) and so on. So as you can see, it's nothing like you have to work it out... It's just something you know.

Chaospling wrote:
An example:
Normally a Space Marine would hit on a 4+; when using Suppressive Fire only rolls of 6+ are gathered to resolve damage but all rolls of 2+ are used to determine the Degree of Pinning.

So 5 Boltguns make 10 attacks within 12" and the rolls To Hit are 1,1,3,4,5,5,7,8,8,9. So 8 hits are used for resolving Degree of Pinning and 4 hits are used for resolving damage.

When writing rules you need to keep the language as clear and concise as possible. Be direct.

Having to write exceptions into each line of the mechanic is the opposite of that (Except the one above/except the one below).

Write it like this.

A Unit making a Shooting Attack may choose to do so using Suppressing Fire. A Unit using Suppressing Fire successfully hits their target with a To Hit roll of BS -2 (A BS 4+ will hit on BS 6+). But any To Hit roll at BS +2 will inflict Pinning (BS 4+ will pin on 2+). Any Shooting Attacks made with Suppressing Fire gain +1 to their Fear Characteristic.

Note, any time I wrote anything that was a reference to an actual game term or rule I both capitalized and bolded it. GW is incredibly bad about this. But it's a good idea to do in rules writing. It lets everyone know that you are talking about a specific mechanical rule instead of just using the words in a conversational way.

You don't need to tell people that other modifiers apply. Other modifiers already apply because it's already a shooting attack. You are only complicating the rule by repeating things that are already inherent in the action and making it more difficult to read by piling on more information.


THAT being said, I still think the pinning mechanic is bad in what it does. Stun mechanics are not fun and the armies who would be best at delivering the stun mechanics are the same ones who would be best at abusing your turn structure to cripple armies with shorter general ranges then them.

Go look up the free basic rules for Bolt Action or Beyond the Gates of Antares and look at how their Pin Markers work. A much better mechanic that adds tactical depth without crippling the opposition and requiring significantly less complicated rules.

 Lance845 wrote:

Chaospling wrote:
An example:
Normally a Space Marine would hit on a 4+; when using Suppressive Fire only rolls of 6+ are gathered to resolve damage but all rolls of 2+ are used to determine the Degree of Pinning.

So 5 Boltguns make 10 attacks within 12" and the rolls To Hit are 1,1,3,4,5,5,7,8,8,9. So 8 hits are used for resolving Degree of Pinning and 4 hits are used for resolving damage.

When writing rules you need to keep the language as clear and concise as possible. Be direct.

Having to write exceptions into each line of the mechanic is the opposite of that (Except the one above/except the one below).
You don't need to tell people that other modifiers apply. Other modifiers already apply because it's already a shooting attack. You are only complicating the rule by repeating things that are already inherent in the action and making it more difficult to read by piling on more information.

Yeah I know... It's just that I don't want any confusion whether about other modifiers apply, but if it's clear enough, I don't have to.

 Lance845 wrote:

Write it like this.

A Unit making a Shooting Attack may choose to do so using Suppressing Fire. A Unit using Suppressing Fire successfully hits their target with a To Hit roll of BS -2 (A BS 4+ will hit on BS 6+). But any To Hit roll at BS +2 will inflict Pinning (BS 4+ will pin on 2+). Any Shooting Attacks made with Suppressing Fire gain +1 to their Fear Characteristic.

Note, any time I wrote anything that was a reference to an actual game term or rule I both capitalized and bolded it. GW is incredibly bad about this. But it's a good idea to do in rules writing. It lets everyone know that you are talking about a specific mechanical rule instead of just using the words in a conversational way.

Agreed, or in italic. I capitalize usually, but for different terms such as name of the phases, unit types and so on, I think that I haven't been quite consistent throughout the rule book. To "break up" the text lines (I started by using only normal text lines) I think it will make it easier for the reader if bullet points are inserted when applicable.

1) just be consistent. If your going to write rules out in bullet points then write all rules out in bullet points. If your not going to do that then don't do it at all.

Regular language is fine, but it needs to more or less be written like programing code. Which means defining statements (this = that) and if than statements (If This Than That).

What I wrote follows those rules.

A Unit making a Shooting Attack may choose to do so using Suppressing Fire.

or

If a unit makes a shooting attack than they may choose to do Suppressing Fire.

A Unit using Suppressing Fire successfully hits their target with a To Hit roll of BS -2 (A BS 4+ will hit on BS 6+).

or

Suppressing Fire = BS-2 to hit

But any To Hit roll at BS +2 will inflict Pinning (BS 4+ will pin on 2+).

or

Suppressing Fire = BS +2 to pin

Any Shooting Attacks made with Suppressing Fire gain +1 to their Fear Characteristic.

or

Suppressing Fire = +1 Fear.

2) Don't dick around making claritative statements in the rule itself (except like I did with my small examples in () which means they were not actually a part of the statement itself but instead a side bar within the statement). "The one above" and "the one below" are vague statements. They rely on other information to have any meaning. Don't do that. Each statement in the rules should be definitive. Thats why you caps and bold game terms. Anything Caps and Bolded should have it's own little paragraph or whatever defining it somewhere in the rules. You know EXACTLY what that mechanical entity means because it has been defined. A Index or Lexicon at the back of the book will give the page numbers where those terms are defined for ease of reference for the user. Or since this is a digital doc it's actually possible to turn all those terms into hyperlinks that will take the user to that section when clicked or you could set it up to display the page number of the rule that defines it when you mouse over it. If it's not defined then your rules are sloppy and confusing and the reader can't say with certainty what is supposed to happen.

It does not matter that you were trying to avoid confusion. You made the rule itself cluttered. Trim the fat. The rule should say only exactly what it does.

1) The unit makes a Shooting Attack. Shooting Attacks are defined in their section.

2) A unit that makes a Shooting Attack may choose to use Suppressing Fire. Suppressing Fire is defined in it's section.

3) This ability imposes a + or - to Shooting Attacks. That ability, when and how it is used, and what it does is defined where that ability is.

Whats unclear in that? Suppressing Fire is a shooting attack. That ability modifies shooting attacks. Thus that ability modifies suppressing fire. There is nothing that says otherwise so there is no reason for anyone to think it doesn't.

What lance says makes sense. Also the bit a bolt action, that’s another similar system of inning as a was talking about with epic 40000 but prob easier to find.

As for coherency we will have to agree to disagree. I think it’s an unnecessary extra thing but I imagine if you played a lot you’d get used to it. I just picture moving a unit and pausing to figure out coherency or your opponent getting wrong and leading to delays, and I don’t see an upside to it.

The pinning mechanic needs to change drastically to work, regardless if it overpowers some armies or not it’s just too complex and clunky.