Switch Theme:

What would alter 40k if you removed models at the end of the 2nd player's Turn each round?  [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
Been Around the Block




My first game was Battletech, which used/uses this rule where models get removed after the end of the round, so all models get to do something even if killed in the first round. It scaled well for larger games, but that was for a heavy book keeping game already.

I'm looking at testing this out in some large/Epic games of 40k, and 30k, so it's not just a turn 1 alpha strike win either way.

What I see from this,

1. More book keeping, or token putting down, to count/remember models to be removed.

2. Higher body count, as models normally removed get to do something before dying, which means more dead dudes and dudettes (welcome back Sisters.)

3. Close combat units get better, as that's possibly another round of combat if your turn is first, with all models participating twice possibly.

4. Alpha strike not as strong as an instant win, but still good.

5. Deep Strike, Advance Deployment and 1st round charges could likely be put back in

6. Keeping game flow the same, but allowing more fair first rounds

7. Braver actions for models you know are going to die?

8. Advantage of going first lessened, but still slightly dictating the flow.

Thoughts?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/01/19 00:34:54


9,000 pts
8,000 pts
9,000 pts
9,000 pts
10,000 pts
10,000 pts
7,000 pts
 
   
Made in us
Ragin' Ork Dreadnought




Interesting as a thought exercise, but it wouldn't be fun to play. Glass cannons would become way, way too powerful if there was no way to stop them from going off.

You lose the ability to clear out screens, also, so melee armies will actually take a huge hit.

It also doesn't just remove the advantage of going first, it actually places that advantage onto the second player. Player 2 will know which of their units are dead men walking, and so won't ever have to commit troops to objectives that are about to die, or bother taking a turn to set up a combo next round that's never going to get paid off. Player 1 will completely lack that advantage, and won't have any bonuses to their dps to compensate.
   
Made in us
Been Around the Block




Waaaghpower wrote:
Interesting as a thought exercise, but it wouldn't be fun to play. Glass cannons would become way, way too powerful if there was no way to stop them from going off.

You lose the ability to clear out screens, also, so melee armies will actually take a huge hit.

It also doesn't just remove the advantage of going first, it actually places that advantage onto the second player. Player 2 will know which of their units are dead men walking, and so won't ever have to commit troops to objectives that are about to die, or bother taking a turn to set up a combo next round that's never going to get paid off. Player 1 will completely lack that advantage, and won't have any bonuses to their dps to compensate.


I'm going to be testing it out to see, both for fun factor and rules. Follow up questions to your statements

1. Wouldn't there still be ways to remove glass cannons, but they potentially survive one more round? Or am I misunderstanding something

2. Screens would still die, just have a potential other action before they are removed?

3. Better charge blocking ability for sure, good point. Making screens more useful, but also a point sink, yes?

4. Could making the rounds change like they do in AOS alleviate that so it's not a game long advantage?

5. Maybe you could do all the armor saves at the end as well to see what models are removed?



9,000 pts
8,000 pts
9,000 pts
9,000 pts
10,000 pts
10,000 pts
7,000 pts
 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






Oh, you wiped my unit? Might as well hail mary into combat with no possible drawbacks.
   
Made in us
Been Around the Block




 BaconCatBug wrote:
Oh, you wiped my unit? Might as well hail mary into combat with no possible drawbacks.


Yep, so melee is a bit better, half the time, and you can't one shot them off the board without them being able to have done something once; in relation, you might have to move your gun-line or spend points screening.




This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/19 03:22:13


9,000 pts
8,000 pts
9,000 pts
9,000 pts
10,000 pts
10,000 pts
7,000 pts
 
   
Made in ca
Junior Officer with Laspistol





London, Ontario

Why not do alternating unit activation, or random unit activation instead?

An activated unit gets a “depleted” counter that gets removed between game turns. It gives the opportunity to remove units before they act, but that sword cuts both ways. It prevents the “doomed anyway” reactions.

You could mitigate that by having wound pools resolved (saves rolled) at the end of game turn. You have a good idea of casualties stacked but no certainty of result. That would help some.

But for a game like 40k, were I to change away from IgoUgo, it would be to some form of randomized unit activation. Maybe a deck of cards with unit names on them. Shuffle up between rounds. Gets away from MSU getting a million turns after FLU armies, like knights, have activated all their units. Maybe add a few “wild cards” to both factions that let you choose a unit to activate... or reactivate, even.
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






Randomized activation is crap. You want to get away from IGOUGO to get MORE strategy and MORE player agency. Random units takes that away again.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Been Around the Block




 greatbigtree wrote:
Why not do alternating unit activation, or random unit activation instead?

An activated unit gets a “depleted” counter that gets removed between game turns. It gives the opportunity to remove units before they act, but that sword cuts both ways. It prevents the “doomed anyway” reactions.

You could mitigate that by having wound pools resolved (saves rolled) at the end of game turn. You have a good idea of casualties stacked but no certainty of result. That would help some.

But for a game like 40k, were I to change away from IgoUgo, it would be to some form of randomized unit activation. Maybe a deck of cards with unit names on them. Shuffle up between rounds. Gets away from MSU getting a million turns after FLU armies, like knights, have activated all their units. Maybe add a few “wild cards” to both factions that let you choose a unit to activate... or reactivate, even.


The main reason for not random activation in this alternative theory of mine is that the rest of the rules create interaction problems with some rules and factions that require synergy and set up of abilities, as well as advantaging kiting.

I also play larger scale games at this point, to which the system they have now creates a very large alpha strike issue that has dominated the game since I played second edition.IT would still reward units for activating before others, and units not being anything but a quickly removed and unused fire magnet.

I think the best criticism I have heard is dead units kamikaze or holding back, but I think that making the armor save at the end of the turn to prevent models from being removed is amazing.

I think the card system could work, if you got to pick which unit though, but it becomes a much larger thing that messes with a lot of interaction.

Model removal changes and save changes seems an easier book-keeping and rebalancing change than the alt activation.

I like some alt activation, but if I am playing a massive apocalypse game, I think there might be more issues.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Lance845 wrote:
Randomized activation is crap. You want to get away from IGOUGO to get MORE strategy and MORE player agency. Random units takes that away again.


I agree with that thought especially in larger games.

I think messing with that is much more complicated and leads to more issues to fix

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/19 07:52:37


9,000 pts
8,000 pts
9,000 pts
9,000 pts
10,000 pts
10,000 pts
7,000 pts
 
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





Waaaghpower wrote:
Interesting as a thought exercise, but it wouldn't be fun to play. Glass cannons would become way, way too powerful if there was no way to stop them from going off.

You lose the ability to clear out screens, also, so melee armies will actually take a huge hit.

It also doesn't just remove the advantage of going first, it actually places that advantage onto the second player. Player 2 will know which of their units are dead men walking, and so won't ever have to commit troops to objectives that are about to die, or bother taking a turn to set up a combo next round that's never going to get paid off. Player 1 will completely lack that advantage, and won't have any bonuses to their dps to compensate.


Yeah 40k as is it wouldn't work. Why it works in BT is that the rules for BT basically answer to your issues. With players moving their units alternatively and THEN shoot alternatively there's not much of issue of knowing who are dead. It only matters for that combat phase so won't be affecting much. There's every reason to move to objectives because when you move there's no damage done yet aka you don't know what is your dead man.

Also no such extreme glass cannon there as in 40k and one shotting anything is tough prospect. Nor is screen technique much to worry about there.

40k? Nope. You would need redo rules and repoint tons of stuff.

2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in gb
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant






I’ve advocated before that you should work in an alternating units framework but you should also before the battle but after deployment declare which order your units will work for every round, so you are moving tac squad 1 first, then your opponent moves a unit, you then move captain 1 etc etc, and you can pay a command point to move, shoot, or charge outside of that respective sequence.

You also have to share your sequence with your opponent before the first turn starts.

My hobby instagram account: @the_shroud_of_vigilance
My Shroud of Vigilance Hobby update blog for me detailed updates and lore on the faction:
Blog 
   
Made in us
Ragin' Ork Dreadnought




noexit1982 wrote:


I'm going to be testing it out to see, both for fun factor and rules. Follow up questions to your statements

1. Wouldn't there still be ways to remove glass cannons, but they potentially survive one more round? Or am I misunderstanding something

The "Surviving one more round" is the big problem. With a lot of glass cannon units, the game can come down to "Do they get into firing range before they die, or don't they?" At the extreme end we have options like Repentia, who are a T3 W1 6++ unit that can deliver 8 S8 AP-2 D2 attacks apiece hitting on rerolling 4+ and with a reroll on 1s to wound. (This requires some buffs nearby and an Act of Faith, but the buff characters are cheap and the Act of Faith will automatically get a CP reroll on it if it fails because it's so good.) Right now, I have to use care and precision to get them into Close Combat because when they get into combat, a unit of 6 can blow up an Imperial Knight Castellan with wounds to spare. Now give me a situation where I'm immune to overwatch (because I just need to get into one combat anyways,) where you can't actually take the squad down before they get to hit, where I can throw them recklessly at just about any target because you can't do anything about it before I hit? Yeah, that's a problem. There are shooty equivalents to this, too - Predators with the Killshot strategem are incredibly deadly, but vulnerable to having one of their tanks sniped before they can shoot. Except when you can't actually snipe one of their tanks before they shoot. (Repentia would at least be vulnerable to screens, which...)

2. Screens would still die, just have a potential other action before they are removed?

3. Better charge blocking ability for sure, good point. Making screens more useful, but also a point sink, yes?

The screens wouldn't "die" though, not until after it matters. If I've got a choppy unit that needs to get into close combat, and you've got ten cultists covering a 30" stretch of the board, I cannot cross that 30" stretch of the board until the end of the first battle round. There's currently a huge amount of tactics and planning that goes into screening off parts of the board, making sure units are bubble wrapped against assault and melta and other short range stuff, and by making screens semi-immortal until after they're irrelevant, you garuntee that assault units are going to be struggling much, much more. It's not a "Point sink", because people are already buying screening units - You just made those screens cheaper because people don't have to take as many.

Consider a scenario in both the current rules and your proposed rules:
I have 30 Choppa Boyz that want to get into combat. You've got twenty guardsmen wrapped around a couple Knight Helverins.
Right now, in order to charge the Helverins, I would need to do something about your guardsmen. My Boyz can fire their sluggas, but that's only going to kill 3-4, so I have to look at my other available firepower and decide what's worth spending to kill these twenty guardsmen. If I don't have firepower I'm willing to divert, or you've killed all my shooty units, I'll have to charge the guardsmen instead and hope I can at least consolidate into the Helverins. If I do have decent firepower available, I can clear out the screens and make a charge in.

Now imagine we're using your rules, and you have five guardsmen covering about 13" of the board as a screen for your armigers. (8" for coherency, 5" for their bases.)
I can't do anything about it. They become an implacable wall until the end of the battle round that even a couple Stompas could not shift. I can fire the boyz, I can fire all my lootas, and my artillery, and a couple orbital bombardments, and then I can charge in with all 30 Goff boyz and deal an extra 40 wounds, and the guardsmen STILL wouldn't go anywhere, and your Helverins would be just fine. Then the Guardsmen would turn into red slurry at the end of the battle round, and my Ork Boyz would be left standing out awkwardly in the open.

4. Could making the rounds change like they do in AOS alleviate that so it's not a game long advantage?

I don't know how AoS works, so I can't comment on this.

5. Maybe you could do all the armor saves at the end as well to see what models are removed?

This wouldn't fix the above problems, all it would do is add another level of randomness to decision making. Not knowing if you killed anything until after you've fired all of your guns and made all of your charges means that it's impossible to make an informed decision about how to proceed.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/19 19:34:41


 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






Waaagh is correct. It also impacts objectives and especially relic style objectives that get picked up and carried.

You cant kill them off thebobjective and claim it because they will stick around for the entire battle round. The guy carrying the relic can just run towards the next friendly carrier/away from the enemy knowing they are dead anyway. Its not a gamble of holding that objective. You KNOW you lost it and can act acordingly while you still own it.


Lots of problems crop up because models are not being removed.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Been Around the Block




Waaaghpower wrote:
noexit1982 wrote:


I'm going to be testing it out to see, both for fun factor and rules. Follow up questions to your statements

1. Wouldn't there still be ways to remove glass cannons, but they potentially survive one more round? Or am I misunderstanding something

The "Surviving one more round" is the big problem. With a lot of glass cannon units, the game can come down to "Do they get into firing range before they die, or don't they?" At the extreme end we have options like Repentia, who are a T3 W1 6++ unit that can deliver 8 S8 AP-2 D2 attacks apiece hitting on rerolling 4+ and with a reroll on 1s to wound. (This requires some buffs nearby and an Act of Faith, but the buff characters are cheap and the Act of Faith will automatically get a CP reroll on it if it fails because it's so good.) Right now, I have to use care and precision to get them into Close Combat because when they get into combat, a unit of 6 can blow up an Imperial Knight Castellan with wounds to spare. Now give me a situation where I'm immune to overwatch (because I just need to get into one combat anyways,) where you can't actually take the squad down before they get to hit, where I can throw them recklessly at just about any target because you can't do anything about it before I hit? Yeah, that's a problem. There are shooty equivalents to this, too - Predators with the Killshot strategem are incredibly deadly, but vulnerable to having one of their tanks sniped before they can shoot. Except when you can't actually snipe one of their tanks before they shoot. (Repentia would at least be vulnerable to screens, which...)

2. Screens would still die, just have a potential other action before they are removed?

3. Better charge blocking ability for sure, good point. Making screens more useful, but also a point sink, yes?

The screens wouldn't "die" though, not until after it matters. If I've got a choppy unit that needs to get into close combat, and you've got ten cultists covering a 30" stretch of the board, I cannot cross that 30" stretch of the board until the end of the first battle round. There's currently a huge amount of tactics and planning that goes into screening off parts of the board, making sure units are bubble wrapped against assault and melta and other short range stuff, and by making screens semi-immortal until after they're irrelevant, you garuntee that assault units are going to be struggling much, much more. It's not a "Point sink", because people are already buying screening units - You just made those screens cheaper because people don't have to take as many.

Consider a scenario in both the current rules and your proposed rules:
I have 30 Choppa Boyz that want to get into combat. You've got twenty guardsmen wrapped around a couple Knight Helverins.
Right now, in order to charge the Helverins, I would need to do something about your guardsmen. My Boyz can fire their sluggas, but that's only going to kill 3-4, so I have to look at my other available firepower and decide what's worth spending to kill these twenty guardsmen. If I don't have firepower I'm willing to divert, or you've killed all my shooty units, I'll have to charge the guardsmen instead and hope I can at least consolidate into the Helverins. If I do have decent firepower available, I can clear out the screens and make a charge in.

Now imagine we're using your rules, and you have five guardsmen covering about 13" of the board as a screen for your armigers. (8" for coherency, 5" for their bases.)
I can't do anything about it. They become an implacable wall until the end of the battle round that even a couple Stompas could not shift. I can fire the boyz, I can fire all my lootas, and my artillery, and a couple orbital bombardments, and then I can charge in with all 30 Goff boyz and deal an extra 40 wounds, and the guardsmen STILL wouldn't go anywhere, and your Helverins would be just fine. Then the Guardsmen would turn into red slurry at the end of the battle round, and my Ork Boyz would be left standing out awkwardly in the open.

4. Could making the rounds change like they do in AOS alleviate that so it's not a game long advantage?

I don't know how AoS works, so I can't comment on this.

5. Maybe you could do all the armor saves at the end as well to see what models are removed?

This wouldn't fix the above problems, all it would do is add another level of randomness to decision making. Not knowing if you killed anything until after you've fired all of your guns and made all of your charges means that it's impossible to make an informed decision about how to proceed.



You keep leaving out that your situation would only occur half the time and for one round, if that


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Lance845 wrote:
Waaagh is correct. It also impacts objectives and especially relic style objectives that get picked up and carried.

You cant kill them off thebobjective and claim it because they will stick around for the entire battle round. The guy carrying the relic can just run towards the next friendly carrier/away from the enemy knowing they are dead anyway. Its not a gamble of holding that objective. You KNOW you lost it and can act acordingly while you still own it.


Lots of problems crop up because models are not being removed.


Again, Half the time

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/20 20:34:34


9,000 pts
8,000 pts
9,000 pts
9,000 pts
10,000 pts
10,000 pts
7,000 pts
 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






So what?

Right now first turn advantage only happens "half the time" and its a significant issue in the game that stunts tactical game play and provides a clear advantage to one of the players.

Whats the difference in impact here? Its just the other player that has the advantage "half the time".

These issues should exist NONE of the time.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/20 21:37:43



These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Terrifying Rhinox Rider




Waaagh is correct. It also impacts objectives and especially relic style objectives that get picked up and carried.

You cant kill them off thebobjective and claim it because they will stick around for the entire battle round. The guy carrying the relic can just run towards the next friendly carrier/away from the enemy knowing they are dead anyway. Its not a gamble of holding that objective. You KNOW you lost it and can act acordingly while you still own it.


Lots of problems crop up because models are not being removed.


A problem then is you know the result of the shooting and can move with dead units before they get removed. There should be a shooting phase where both sides shoot, remove casualties after they have all shot so it counts as being simultaneous, and then get to move. I think basic AA is not as good as that.
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






pelicaniforce wrote:
Waaagh is correct. It also impacts objectives and especially relic style objectives that get picked up and carried.

You cant kill them off thebobjective and claim it because they will stick around for the entire battle round. The guy carrying the relic can just run towards the next friendly carrier/away from the enemy knowing they are dead anyway. Its not a gamble of holding that objective. You KNOW you lost it and can act acordingly while you still own it.


Lots of problems crop up because models are not being removed.


A problem then is you know the result of the shooting and can move with dead units before they get removed. There should be a shooting phase where both sides shoot, remove casualties after they have all shot so it counts as being simultaneous, and then get to move. I think basic AA is not as good as that.


I think your wrong. Because right now all you are thinking about is the removal of models. What chance does a unit of hormagaunts, genestealers, Boyz, have against the entire shared shooting phase where the enemy can see the unit in position ready to make their charge and so they focus fire and remove the threat?

Alternating/shared phases cripples short/melee ranged vs long ranged. It gives shooting armies even MORE advantages and again, removes all the strategic positioning and tactical thinking. Just because both players swing their clubs at each other at the same times doesn't mean it isn't still just 2 players taking turns swinging clubs at each other. Thats not tactical. There is no room for nuanced battle plans. And melee will suffer for it the worst.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Inspiring SDF-1 Bridge Officer





Mississippi

"Rolling removal" might be a slighter better option if you want to try this method. Each side's casualties gets a chance to "return fire/melee" before it is removed - for both sides.

1st player's turn 1, end of turn: 1st player's melee casualties removed
2nd player's turn 1,end of turn: 2nd player's casualties removed, 1st player's melee casualties removed
1st player's turn 2, end of turn: 1st player's casualties removed, 2nd player's melee casualties removed
2nd player's turn 2, end of turn: 2nd player's casualties removed, 1st player's melee casualties removed
etc.

It never ends well 
   
Made in ca
Junior Officer with Laspistol





London, Ontario

If I might return for a moment, I think Alternating Activations would normally be the preferred method of limiting Alpha Strike, but 40k has it's scale issue that makes that impractical.

If one unit can be 450 points, and another unit can be 50 points (or less) then you can have a situation where both players activate alternately 5 times, then one player has 10 or more activations in a row after that. There is some trade and balance there, but I'd expect the MSU player gains an advantage most of the time.

Which is why I'd suggest the random activations. It spreads both players' activations throughout the "game turn" in an organic way. Less strategy, more tactics... which could be argued as less agency but I'd see it as being able to make the most of your turn. It lets you focus fire on units that have yet to act, which can create a bit of depth and surprise.

I might add a couple of wild cards and "delay cards" to give a bit of sub-game to the activation process... I think that would create some excitement, interplay, and limit alpha strike while functioning within the scale disparity of the units in 40k. That way the Knight player can still act throughout the turn, and the Horde player can have a chance to significantly damage a knight or two before it activates.
   
Made in us
Second Story Man





Astonished of Heck

Bah, aside from a couple Special Rules (which everyone tells me is over-bloated anyway), I've never seen a better turn system than Battletech largely because few units are ever made worthless from having never even had a chance to even move, and resolved many of 40K's odd nonsensical rules.

But hey, what do I know.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





I’ve been thinking about something similar.

During the player turns make to hit and to wound rolls as normal. For each successful wound place a marker on the unit. I imagine this would be similar to blast markers in Epic back in the day.

When a unit accrues a particular number of blast markers, exact number perhaps depending on unit strength, or leadership, then the unit could be degraded. Maybe a minus modifier for to hit rolls or some sort of pinning effect.

At the end of each player’s own turn, make a saving throw for each blast marker in the unit. Remove models as normal for failed saving throws (and apply any FNP rules, or Necron reanimating protocols etc) and remove all the blast markers. Then make morale checks as normal.

Armour penetration would need to be accounted for in some fashion though. Maybe a return to the previous system where you either getting a saving throw or you don’t would make this easier to keep track of, using 2 types of markers, one which doesn’t allow a saving throw and one which does.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut







There a few different issues:

1. If you changes 40k from IGOUGO to anything else, you would have to redesign several forces. Only GW gets to say “We’ve introduce a new edition, eliminated or changed the core rules arbitrarily, and now your codex is overpriced garbage.”

2. Unless you want to turn the entire strategy in the game to multiple-small-unit-based activation manipulation, alternating activations has to be based on roughly equal chunks activating; and you need something to deal with one player having more activations than the other.

3. If you look at 40k and think “Oh, no, if I add more record keeping for Wounds it’ll break the game”, I have no idea what games you’ve been playing.

What I think you’d have to do is keep the current 40k to-hit and Wound mechanics (and all of the funky stuff like FNP), but instead of the result being immediate wounds and model removal, treat it as “casualty points” that you resolve later. How many casualty points should equal the expected removal of a model? That’s a rule that you can adjust based on how tough things are supposed to be, and you can figure out a die roll for it. But casualty points would be resolved only after both players have gone.

Probably, in order to control certain tactics (like screening big units with disposable tissue paper units) you’d want to implement an “overkill” rule where a unit with enough casualty points on it can be ignored by the enemy. It’s all fine if the tissue paper wants to shoot back or charge, but it shouldn’t be able to hold anyone up.

So I guess I’m actually advocating a system where you’re more likely to be able to move through enemy models once you’ve shot at them for a bit, and may become tied up by that unit if it’s not as dead as you expected.

The problem all of this is that you can’t have a “Shoot first and if you kill the enemy, they can’t kill you” glass cannon or a force defined around first strikes in a game designed around making it not matter who goes first. And lots of stuff in 40k—Genestealers, elves, Noise Marines, Slaanesh stuff—is designed around that.

You might get something similar to that if you created a rule that the unit was allowed to negate casualty points on itself equal to the number of casualty points inflicted. But it’s going to be strange to implement.
   
Made in ca
Commander of the Mysterious 2nd Legion





tneva82 wrote:
Waaaghpower wrote:
Interesting as a thought exercise, but it wouldn't be fun to play. Glass cannons would become way, way too powerful if there was no way to stop them from going off.

You lose the ability to clear out screens, also, so melee armies will actually take a huge hit.

It also doesn't just remove the advantage of going first, it actually places that advantage onto the second player. Player 2 will know which of their units are dead men walking, and so won't ever have to commit troops to objectives that are about to die, or bother taking a turn to set up a combo next round that's never going to get paid off. Player 1 will completely lack that advantage, and won't have any bonuses to their dps to compensate.


Yeah 40k as is it wouldn't work. Why it works in BT is that the rules for BT basically answer to your issues. With players moving their units alternatively and THEN shoot alternatively there's not much of issue of knowing who are dead. It only matters for that combat phase so won't be affecting much. There's every reason to move to objectives because when you move there's no damage done yet aka you don't know what is your dead man.

Also no such extreme glass cannon there as in 40k and one shotting anything is tough prospect. Nor is screen technique much to worry about there.

40k? Nope. You would need redo rules and repoint tons of stuff.


Battletech is also much MUCH smaller in scope. Battletech is useally 4-12 units per side. 40k well how many squads vehicles etc do you have on the table?

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






 solkan wrote:
There a few different issues:

1. If you changes 40k from IGOUGO to anything else, you would have to redesign several forces. Only GW gets to say “We’ve introduce a new edition, eliminated or changed the core rules arbitrarily, and now your codex is overpriced garbage.”


This is just flat out untrue. I have played AA 40k... A LOT. And several versions of it. The best versions work seamlessly with 40k as is. No force needs to be changed on any level to function in a AA system that supports 40ks unit structure and unit synergy.

2. Unless you want to turn the entire strategy in the game to multiple-small-unit-based activation manipulation, alternating activations has to be based on roughly equal chunks activating; and you need something to deal with one player having more activations than the other.


The thing is you DO want to turn the game into multiple small unit based activation manipulation with the caveat that it includes a understanding that small units with little impact have inherent disadvantages along with the advantages inherent in having more activations. Larger units or more expensive big model units might have massive impact but alone they get out maneuvered. The armies that really succeed are the ones that have a solid mix of both units so they can plan and strategize when to activate what and to what effect. You do NOT need to have it based on roughly equal chunks. You just can't bring 2 massive titanic units and expect to have the flexibility and maneuverability of a army made up primarily of infantry. Gee... it's almost like it would be in real life.

3. If you look at 40k and think “Oh, no, if I add more record keeping for Wounds it’ll break the game”, I have no idea what games you’ve been playing.


Its easy. With a single unit now, you need 1 dice to indicate how many wounds a single model has lost. With the OPs suggestion you need 1 dice to keep track of wounds and another series of dice or tokens to indicate which individual models have died. And then, since those models get a chance to move, you have to move all those tokens with them and make sure they stay with the same models. Now do that to units of say... 30 models that suffered 25 losses.

What game have YOU been playing?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/04/21 05:23:42


 
   
Made in us
Second Story Man





Astonished of Heck

BrianDavion wrote:
Battletech is also much MUCH smaller in scope. Battletech is useally 4-12 units per side. 40k well how many squads vehicles etc do you have on the table?

Nothing that Necrons haven't had to deal with for several variations.

Of course, BT limited it to Phase, not Turn, which makes them a little bit easier to track.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






Only way this could work is if each player takes each phases in full and remove the casualties at the end of each actions in a semi-alternating action.

Player 1 & 2 alternates moving 1 unit at a time; remove casualties as it occurs.(due to being unable to make minimum move, etc).
Player 1 & 2 declare targets of psychic powers; resolve/deny each power in alternating fashion; remove casualties as it occurs.
Player 1 & 2 alternates activating units for shooting; resolve casualties as it occurs.
Player 1 & 2 plays out charge phase together - choose whether to charge/counter charge or overwatch.
Player 1 & 2 resolves fight phase; remove casualties as it occurs.
Player 1 & 2 resolves morale together; remove models as necessary.

MSU armies will benefit from being able to take "blocks" of actions once the opponent has went through all of his units to activate, but during offensive actions, the player with units of higher density of firepower per unit will benefit.

Fast units will be able to deny positions in the enemy's alternating turn to move, so it will be beneficial to move the fast units up first. (as you'd still need to adhere to no enemy units in 1").

During combined psychic phase, you actively fight against each other to cast and deny each others powers.

Alternating shooting will ensure that there are active decision making involved where you'd need to target your heavy hitter against their heavy hitters before the opponent's heavy hitter will hit your heavy hitter. Distraction carnifexes will provide greater tactical considerations due to it being able to draw fire against it.

During charge phase, you decide to whether to counter charge against a unit or stand ground to fire overwatch.

During fight phase, you cycle through all units that hve charged in alternating fashion. Again, it will be beneficial to pick heavier hitters first to ensure you've done damage before it gets killed.

At the end of it all, morale takes a toll concurrently and each side removes their morale-based losses at the same time.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/22 16:49:40


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut







 Lance845 wrote:
 solkan wrote:
There a few different issues:

1. If you changes 40k from IGOUGO to anything else, you would have to redesign several forces. Only GW gets to say “We’ve introduce a new edition, eliminated or changed the core rules arbitrarily, and now your codex is overpriced garbage.”


This is just flat out untrue. I have played AA 40k... A LOT. And several versions of it. The best versions work seamlessly with 40k as is. No force needs to be changed on any level to function in a AA system that supports 40ks unit structure and unit synergy.


My apologies.

Periodically, people ask questions about game systems that start with "What happens if ..." and don't seem expect the default response to be "If you change a fundamental game mechanic, you have to redesign and rebalance everything that depends on that game mechanic." The last time someone tried the alternative, they were Games Workshop and it was 3rd or 4th edition. And when they did, it created enough lingering animosity that people still post reminders about it like this one.

My point was that changing the casualty removal timing is at least as big a change, because it changes how various game sequences work through. Like if you take the close combat rules from the various edition:
* Once upon a time, it was possible to charge into close combat, kill everyone that could immediately fight, and be immune to retaliation in that fight phase. Then the surviving enemy were forced to consolidate into you, and you'd kill more of them off next turn.
* Once upon a time, how much you lost a close combat by was a negative modifier to your morale check; and then it was changed to how much you were outnumbered.
(That sort of change has a huge impact on which troops armies can use for close combat forces. And this is 40k, where Games Workshop continues to design models for certain armies that are purely close combat oriented with no ranged attacks.)

So if someone is looking at making a change like delaying casualty removal, they have to address the Genestealers, the Daemonettes, and all of the other first strike close combat units and figure out how to make them viable.

It's the similar issue to trying to use integrated alternate activation in the phases in 40k. In IGOUGO, how far away you can catch the enemy is the sum of your Movement plus your charge range. If you alternate phases, if the unit you're trying to charge wants to keep the distance open and can move as fast as you can, you end up running to their charge range and getting charged more often than you get to charge.
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

Models are already tokens. Why add the complexity of adding tokens to remember which tokens to remove later? Just remove the model. I don’t see any benefits for over complicating things. It doesn’t add any elegance, it just clutters.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






If you allow units a whole turn before you remove them, you can end up with immortal models;

1: you kill the model, completely.
2: Their turn, they heal 1 wound back onto the model, using any of a variety of stratagems and abilities.
3: Repeat.

The issues with knowing what will die have already been raised - consequence free kamikaze charges, etc.

I toyed with this sort of technique for my own game, which was a skirmish one, but the damage was dealt in cards, and some cards did no damage - so you might have 4 HP left, and 5 damage cards, walk out of cover thinking you're dead anyway, and then turn the cards over to find you took 4 glancing hits which did no damage, and are now in the open. It would be impossible to implement for a game with as many models as 40k though! The only way I could see it happening would be if saves were like they used to be (unmodified, either you get it or you don't), cover modified "to hit", and you pooled your saves until the end of your turn. if a model gets no save, then just remove him. That way you still have to gamble about whether the unit will die or not, and the opponent has to decide what shoots what in a "simultaneous" manner - you can't move on once you know the unit is dead.

Come to think of it, how hard would it be (assuming you used saves like they used to be) to keep track of how many saves each unit has to make?

12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: