Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I see a lot of post on here about 9th Ed being and edition in which games are settled in round one by the player that goes first as they get to diminish their opponent before they get any shots off.

Has anyone tried simultaneous shooting rounds where both players get to choose their targets roll to hit, wound damage at the same time and then both workout their saves? So both players ge to fire with their full force and take casualties at the same time?

mrFickle wrote:
I see a lot of post on here about 9th Ed being and edition in which games are settled in round one by the player that goes first as they get to diminish their opponent before they get any shots off.

Has anyone tried simultaneous shooting rounds where both players get to choose their targets roll to hit, wound damage at the same time and then both workout their saves? So both players ge to fire with their full force and take casualties at the same time?

not exactly, but i have tried a unit activation method and that worked pretty well. You actually get to do reactionary moves to what the other player is doing makign it much mroe engaging. It also really makes target priority a bigger deal as player taking first turn gets to shoot 1 unit then the opponent chooses a unit to shoot with. Then in the assault phase you can actually deny assaults by moving a unit about to be assaulted into a combat with a separate unit increasing distances or tie up a unit to keep it from assaulting a more important one.

mrFickle wrote:
I see a lot of post on here about 9th Ed being and edition in which games are settled in round one by the player that goes first as they get to diminish their opponent before they get any shots off.

Has anyone tried simultaneous shooting rounds where both players get to choose their targets roll to hit, wound damage at the same time and then both workout their saves? So both players ge to fire with their full force and take casualties at the same time?

I'm pretty sure that's how the old Apocalypse 40k rules for extra large battles used to go, they were reasonably popular

Didn't apocalypse have damage being resolved at the end of the phase for both players in 8th ed? I think people said it was a good rule, not sure how it would work in under 3000pts games though.

Apocalypse was a totally separate ruleset, but yet it did have this sort of damage resolution.

It's a good rule but has some problems, often the only way I can protect my special unit from being killed is to kill the enemy unit first.
This rule essentially just guarantees mutually assured destruction.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Apocalypse was a totally separate ruleset, but yet it did have this sort of damage resolution.

It's a good rule but has some problems, often the only way I can protect my special unit from being killed is to kill the enemy unit first.
This rule essentially just guarantees mutually assured destruction.

Not wanting to turn this in to a simulation vs game conversion but it seems odd to make the game in such a way that one army stand still while the other shoots at them

It’s a failure on GWs part that they want to have big expensive fancy models that are so big an powerful that they become an easy target

Karol wrote:
Didn't apocalypse have damage being resolved at the end of the phase for both players in 8th ed? I think people said it was a good rule, not sure how it would work in under 3000pts games though.

The main problem is apoc is a completely, and I mean COMPLETELY different ruleset.

Each weapon has a "strength vs light" and 'strength vs heavy" wound roll target, and the to-hit and to-wound rolls are both fixed as in age of sigmar. and 'light' targets like infantry, are treated as if they are single models. So your squad of 5 space marines, is a light target with a total of 2 wounds. The unit takes 2 wounds, all 5 space marine models get removed.

A lascannon in apocalypse would be like "8+ vs light, 3+ vs heavy" (wound rolls are rolled on D10s instead of D6s for more granularity) and there's no "AP vs Sv" interaction. Your opponent will always be rolling the same saves against a given amount of damage. Which means you can stack up a ton of damage tokens on enemy units on both players' turns, and then easily resolve that via saves at the end of the turn.

It doesnt work applied to 40k as it is now where a given wound might be AP-3 Dd6 and another wound might be AP- d1. The best you could do, is introduce a system whereby the shooting phase works like the fight phase, like Kill Team does it. Roll initiative, winner does his moves first, then second player does all his moves, then players take turns activating psykers in the psychic phase, then take turns activating shooting units in the shooting phase, then declaring and resolving charges, then take turns resolving fights in the fight phase.

 the_scotsman wrote:
It doesnt work applied to 40k as it is now where a given wound might be AP-3 Dd6 and another wound might be AP- d1.

You could just resolve that when you shoot, and then keep a tally of how many models and spillover wounds a unit has lost, then remove at the end of the phase.

It wouldn't have the same 'unknown' factor that Apocalypse achieves- where you don't know how much damage you've actually done until all the shooting is resolved- but it would allow units to shoot back before taking attrition.

 the_scotsman wrote:

The main problem is apoc is a completely, and I mean COMPLETELY different ruleset.

Each weapon has a "strength vs light" and 'strength vs heavy" wound roll target, and the to-hit and to-wound rolls are both fixed as in age of sigmar. and 'light' targets like infantry, are treated as if they are single models. So your squad of 5 space marines, is a light target with a total of 2 wounds. The unit takes 2 wounds, all 5 space marine models get removed.
.

hmm that sounds like a good idea to me. And I know it is book keeping, but it would help with the feeling that this weapon is the best for that edition, so you spam it. An auto canon could be okey vs tanks and infantry etc with no odd moments where some extra rule or rule overlap makes a flamer, or something as wierd, the anti tank weapon of choice.

Probably wouldn't work with how many rules exist right now in w40k. Though the double stats thing seems like a good idea to me, but I ain't no game designer.

Not only did we try simultaneous damage in a game but we tried simultaneous movement as well! It was very interesting and I expect we'll do it again. We had a referee to organize things, declare charges beforehand, etc. and we used a timer during movement but it all worked rather well.

We broke down ranged combat into two initiative phases, where any unit that didn't move got to shoot and resolve its attacks first and then all units that could still shoot after moving resolved their shots and damage. All in all it created some unique situations but I'd recommend trying it with some close gaming friends.

Karol wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:

The main problem is apoc is a completely, and I mean COMPLETELY different ruleset.

Each weapon has a "strength vs light" and 'strength vs heavy" wound roll target, and the to-hit and to-wound rolls are both fixed as in age of sigmar. and 'light' targets like infantry, are treated as if they are single models. So your squad of 5 space marines, is a light target with a total of 2 wounds. The unit takes 2 wounds, all 5 space marine models get removed.
.

hmm that sounds like a good idea to me. And I know it is book keeping, but it would help with the feeling that this weapon is the best for that edition, so you spam it. An auto canon could be okey vs tanks and infantry etc with no odd moments where some extra rule or rule overlap makes a flamer, or something as wierd, the anti tank weapon of choice.

Probably wouldn't work with how many rules exist right now in w40k. Though the double stats thing seems like a good idea to me, but I ain't no game designer.

Yeah, weapon differentiation in apoc is very, very low. besides a small set of USRs, most weapons' only diferentiation is their shots, range, and score vs infantry and score vs tanks. And most weapons that do have multiple shots in 40k have been abstracted to their 'anti-infantry score' in apoc - for example a heavy bolter has one shot, but it has a high anti-infantry score so you might fire 1 heavy bolter at a unit of 5 eldar guardians, and if they fail their save all of them die at once.

 amanita wrote:
Not only did we try simultaneous damage in a game but we tried simultaneous movement as well! It was very interesting and I expect we'll do it again. We had a referee to organize things, declare charges beforehand, etc. and we used a timer during movement but it all worked rather well.

We broke down ranged combat into two initiative phases, where any unit that didn't move got to shoot and resolve its attacks first and then all units that could still shoot after moving resolved their shots and damage. All in all it created some unique situations but I'd recommend trying it with some close gaming friends.

Sounds really interesting and the 2 initiatives are good idea. I’d rather see CP or special units skills go towards a fire first initiative rather then endless re rolls and ++++++++ saves

mrFickle wrote:

 amanita wrote:
Not only did we try simultaneous damage in a game but we tried simultaneous movement as well! It was very interesting and I expect we'll do it again. We had a referee to organize things, declare charges beforehand, etc. and we used a timer during movement but it all worked rather well.

We broke down ranged combat into two initiative phases, where any unit that didn't move got to shoot and resolve its attacks first and then all units that could still shoot after moving resolved their shots and damage. All in all it created some unique situations but I'd recommend trying it with some close gaming friends.

Sounds really interesting and the 2 initiatives are good idea. I’d rather see CP or special units skills go towards a fire first initiative rather then endless re rolls and ++++++++ saves

Only thing I dislike is the 'everything that didnt move shoots first."

basically allows stationary shooting armies to just decimate any unit trying to launch an assault in close combat.

Assuming we both take our movement, then we both take our shooting, then we both charge and fight, you'll run into a scenario where any glass cannon melee unit is just worthless, because they'll have to hop out of the safety of their transport, or deep strike, or whatever, and then the entire enemy army gets a shot at them before they get to declare a charge.

This doesnt happen in KT because charging happens BEFORE shooting (or "The Combat Phase" as its known in KT.) That's the fix to that problem. in Necromunda youve got true AA, so you wont have a model run forward then eat gak from the entire opposing gang's shooting before they get to perform their close combat attacks, unless someone on the opposing gang has been given the overwatch skill.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
It doesnt work applied to 40k as it is now where a given wound might be AP-3 Dd6 and another wound might be AP- d1.

You could just resolve that when you shoot, and then keep a tally of how many models and spillover wounds a unit has lost, then remove at the end of the phase.

It wouldn't have the same 'unknown' factor that Apocalypse achieves- where you don't know how much damage you've actually done until all the shooting is resolved- but it would allow units to shoot back before taking attrition.

I've done this before, it works fairly well. AA phases with 'die at the end of the turn' means glass cannon melee stuff gets obliterated, but it still gets to do its charge and deal its damage first.

It does make 'suicidal' type units much more powerful though.

Instead of stationary units shoot first I would say stationary units get a bonus to save if they are near cover or hit bonus if they are not in cover.

The only units that would get the chance to shoot first would be special units like snipers. If lots of units can get a shoot first bonus then what’s the point.

It’s something that bugs me about 40K that there are so many opportunities to get a hit,save,damage,re roll, take objective, attack etc bonus that they aren’t special abilities it’s more a case of algorithms to stack bonuses.

And all armies have access to pretty much all the same bonuses from what I have seen

I really hate Killteam's way of doing things. Going first is so crippling to a shooting army; any shots you set up can be countered in full by your opponent. They have total opportunity to simply move out the way if they don't fancy getting shot, or stand still and get shoot-first if they do.

Similarly, going second is equally crippling for a melee army. No player will end their move within charge range of a serious melee threat so you can forget ever making a charge if you lost initiative.