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.

DaemonJellybaby wrote:Well I have read the current 40k CC rules
Like: they are simple and brutal,
Dislike: GW's and rely on large amounts of attacks rather than good quality attacks

2nd Ed CC rules
Like: they are very different to the current rules and show how combat can change
Dislike: Takes ages to play out because it is one-on-one therefore is not smooth, and is GW's

Crimson Galaxy
Like:Options when charged, combat res,
Dislike:Odd wording on some things make it hard to understand fully, to hit score modifiers

Based on the above take a look at Warengine/Shockforce system for ideas.

At first glance it seems to be just a individual vs individual system, which would seem to be slower. However, it has a few things that keep it moving quickly.
1) It uses a "combined attack" mechanic so that figures can group their attacks to support one model attacking another.
2) It does away with hits and armor saves
3) The game tends to encourage smaller squads, so it's not so hard to whittle down the number of an enemy squad.
4) Rather than having a certain number of attacks in the profile, each charachter has a certain number of weapons. This is an interesting way of giving the characther several different kind of attacks without introducing a specific mechanic.

Anywho, give it a read, maybe it will spark something.
http://warengine.darktortoise.com/index.php?title=Core_Rules_v2.1

@Lanrak,

The type of rules I prefer tend to cover EVERTHING in the core rules , and they tend to be less than 40 pages of text.
Unfortunately there are always going to be additional bits changing things, and using different rules for different things, and exceptions to the first and second 'sets' of rules (all over the codexes)

But then I prefer tactical loading (choces in game,)over strategic loading (build dependant,) in games.
I prefer this too, it means you are thinking about how you are playing the game rather than simply buying as many Terminators as possible.

I like strength changing armour values in WHFB because most models are only S3 or 4 without weapons, but in a futuristic setting, where most weapons are going to be considerably stronger than a warrior's arm, having strength modifiers on armour is difficult, when the most common weapon in 40k would cause a -1 save mod.

I would give some weapons a -1 save penalty and some weapons would ignore (infantry) armour outright but not a strength modifier.

But having weapon strength changing tank armour values would mean tanks would have an armour save, and would therefore be possible to take tanks down with lots of lasguns or lasgun equivalents.
Although 'tank saves' would be a cool concept to think about, that means another set of rules that dictate how tanks are damaged and how they lose thier saves, do they gradually get destroyed, or do they explode after a few round of hits?

Am thinking for something similar to the monster damage table from WOTR, modifiers depending on what type of tanks and how much damage it has already taken.

I am overstating the problem, but you see where I am coming from?

*Sorry Eilif, havent got time to reply to you, will get round to it tho!

Although 'tank saves' would be a cool concept to think about, that means another set of rules that dictate how tanks are damaged and how they lose thier saves, do they gradually get destroyed, or do they explode after a few round of hits?

Simply make the toughness of the tank too high for regular guns. You don't have to be limited to stats of ten max.

Hi folks.
Weapons are developed to inflict damage on a target.
Armour is develped to reduce -stop weapons damage from effecting the target.

If we give ALL units an armour value from 1 to 15 for example.

Light infantry AV 1 to 3, meduim infantry AV 4 to 5 , heavy infantry and light vehicles AV 6 to 9, Meduim vehicles AV 10 to 12 , heavy vehicles AV13 to 15.

ONLY anti tank weapons get a bonus dice to damage vs vehicle/ MC targets.

Eg IG trooper AV 2.
Boltgun damage 7.
7-2 = 5+save

Lasgun damage 6
6-2=4+ save.

Heavy bolter damage 8
8-2=6+ save.

A vehicle with front av of 13 is INVUNERABLE to small arms fire.(6 to 9 -13 = less than zero!)

However a Laser cannon Dam 12+D6 rolls a 4 for penetration bonus.
16-13=3+ save for the vehicle .

But on a meduim vehicle AV 11
16-11=5+ save.

IF the armour value modifies the damage we DONT NEED additional modifiers do we?

We can simply alter the AV and weapon damage value and bonuses up and down to get the result we think are most apropriate!
As each change in value of 1 alters the result in an equaly dispersed way.
Unlike tyhe AP system where increasing the AP or save value has dipsproportionate amounts.

IF we have 2 types of unit, descreet and indescreet.

One unit type removes models to denote damage .

The other unit type records damage from a damage table .

Eg vehicles and MCs get damage tables .

The ONLY reason you have to change -add rules to a system is if you were NOT professional enough to include ALL unit interaction types at the original concept stage.

40k written for infantry skirmish.
And so EVERY addition to the game play required more rules to cover it.

Firefly was written to cover ALL land combat with combined air and artillery suport across all thatres of war.
And it covers ALL this plus over 600 units and 45 army list in the rule book with less pages than 40k BBB.


TTFN

Lanrak you are a genius!, hadn't thought of that!

DeamonJellyBaby.
I am not a genuis, I just like to keep things a simple as possible, so I can understand them!

Thats why its important to determine the scale and scope of the game at the start , so we CAN cover everything with the core game mechanics and rules.(In the most intuitive and straightforward way possible.)

I tend to play lots of battalion level and higher wargames.(I am not great at painting minatures, and 2mm to 10mm dont need great paint jobs to look good at a distance. )
And these tend to use straightforward game mechanics and rules so they dont bog down game play when larger numbers of units are in play.

IMO WHFB and 40k are written exclusivley to promote the latest minatures.

I am not saying my ideas are the best, but I am trying to illustrate there are lots of options for straightforward rules that result in complex tactical gameplay.
WE DO NOT NEED TO INCLUDE ANY game mechanic or rules from the current 40k game, if they are not the best fit with the game play we want.

There are a few IMPORTANT features of a modern wargame that have been played down in the current 40k game.
Psychology ....
1/Morale(I have now learned to spell morale properly... )
2/Suppression.

There are lots of simple ways to include these effects in the core rules.And so get the depth of game play without loads of conditioanl additional rules.(Epic Armageddon has one of the most elegant supression game mechanics ever!)
I propose that anti tank type weapons have a bonus to armour piercing , Anti infantry weapons have a bonus to supressive effects.(Small arms do not have any bonuses.)

Spacial awarness-ground scale.
3/Aquisition.
4/Requsition,(of off table support).

Having a fixed chance to hit ANYTHING in range is just too much of an abstraction for my liking.Hitting a Land raiider in the open 1" away SHOULD be far easier than hitting a single infanty model 48" away in heavy cover.

I prefer having to roll to aquire a target.(Rolling to see.)
And the targets Stealth Value is the score the attacker has to roll over to see it.(We could use a FEW simple modifiers for disposition to include them.)
Eg
Add to Stealth value.
Target in cover +1.
Target on stealth order. +1
Target over 36" away. +1

Add to aquisition roll.
Attacker on fire support order+1
Target handed on by friends+1.
Target under 18" away.

This SIMPLE process includes target size/shape distances and dispositions.(To add more detail just add more modifiers, NOT special rules.)This also removes the need to artificialy restrict targeting.The players choose how much risk they want to take on target selection.

IF we use target aquisition to determine engagments,we can show a units skill at shooting DIRECTLY in the units state under the effective range.
Better shots have a longer effective range.
Numpty with a Mauser Sniper rifle effective range 600m.
Trianed Sniper with the same rifle effective range 1500m.
So rather than alloting a fixed efective range to a weapon, and using a seperate fixed chance to hit.
We could simply list the combined effects of the weapon AND user in the unit stats.
'This is my rifle, there are many like it but this one is MINE!Without my rifle I am NOTHING,without me my rifle is NOTHING.'

In the same way we can simplty incresce the amount of attacks or damage for those units that are better in close combat.

When writing rules I prefer to start with the SIMPLEST method to cover the resolution, then work up.
I prefer to keep special abilities to , re roll dice ,OR roll an extra dice,OR ignore ONE condition.

EG
Amphibiuos the unit counts water features as open ground.(Ignores the conditional penalty of water features.)

Chainsaws allow the attacking unit to force the target to re-roll sucessful save rolls in assaults.

Advanced comms. The unit rolls an extra dice when handing on targets and requesting off table support.(Highest value used.)

Sorry about the long post.But if its a modern battle game you want , I have loads of game mechanics and resolution method ideas we can discuss...

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:If we could get Gwar then rule problems would probably be solved. The guy's like an Error-seeking Missile.

Even Gwar was not correct 100% of the time.

DeathReaper.
Concidering the high level of complication and abstraction in the current 40k rule set , coupled with the diffuse and poorly worded rules.I think Gwar does a VERY good job.

Given that a new rule set would be written with intuitive gameplay in mind.Gwar WOULD be 100% correct!

I am sure GW plc just read what Gwar writes, and copies it.And then just alters a couple of things to make it look like THEY know what they are doing.

Current 40k is like trying to translate and decode German Messages in the Enima Code .(Ever changing settings and standard reels.)
Where as error seeking a new rule set would just be gramatical and spelling error check in comparison.

Gwar is far more constant and concistant than GW plc IMO.

If we give ALL units an armour value from 1 to 15 for example.

That seems somewhat akin to the toughness rules out of the Lord of the Ring SBG, except you took out the 6/4, 6/5 thing.

In the rule set I'm currently doing I considered using that toughness thing except with the max at 20, I feel it gives a better approximation because enough lasguns at a monstrous creature should eventually hit an eye or some other weak body spot, but hitting said target should be hard. Hence the 6/6 needed.

This is the most interesting thread I've read in a long time. Okay, here are some of my ideas, from a set of wargame rules concepts that I have been working on for sixteen years.



I have more, but this is the core of the system, and the part than I am most passionate about.

@Ratbarf.
I am not overly fussed what name we give the value.
But the 'how difficult to damage the target ' SHOULD be a numerical value.(Thats used in comparison to weapon damage to determine the chance of survival.)
The scale we use , 1 to 10 ,1 to 20, or 1 to 50 or even 1 to 100.Doesnt alter the core game mechanic.
It just determines the level of 'deferentiation' we have in the system.

The 'lucky shot' can be factored into the 'how difficult the target is to damage value' , or we can add in an aditional machanic for critical hits.


@ warpcrafter.
I TOTALY agree a more interactive game turn mechanic is needed, wether its alternating actions or unit activationis not realy an issue to me.(I have played and like both.)

I would like deployment to be more themed to fit with more narrative tyoe of play.(Eg mission cards mixed with alternative deployment options.)

Lanrak wrote:@Ratbarf.
I am not overly fussed what name we give the value.
But the 'how difficult to damage the target ' SHOULD be a numerical value.(Thats used in comparison to weapon damage to determine the chance of survival.)
The scale we use , 1 to 10 ,1 to 20, or 1 to 50 or even 1 to 100.Doesnt alter the core game mechanic.
It just determines the level of 'deferentiation' we have in the system.

The 'lucky shot' can be factored into the 'how difficult the target is to damage value' , or we can add in an aditional machanic for critical hits.


@ warpcrafter.
I TOTALY agree a more interactive game turn mechanic is needed, wether its alternating actions or unit activationis not realy an issue to me.(I have played and like both.)

I would like deployment to be more themed to fit with more narrative tyoe of play.(Eg mission cards mixed with alternative deployment options.)

I also would like some sort of themed scenario, perhaps something determined by both players. Maybe where one player chooses a deployment scheme, and the other chooses a mission with objectives for both sides, and then they reveal their choices at the same time. That way, both players get to participate.

DaemonJellybaby wrote:Well I have read the current 40k CC rules
Like: they are simple and brutal,
Dislike: GW's and rely on large amounts of attacks rather than good quality attacks

2nd Ed CC rules
Like: they are very different to the current rules and show how combat can change
Dislike: Takes ages to play out because it is one-on-one therefore is not smooth, and is GW's

Crimson Galaxy
Like:Options when charged, combat res,
Dislike:Odd wording on some things make it hard to understand fully, to hit score modifiers

Thank you for the compliments and also the constructive criticism! I am currently redoing the entire combat section to make it easier to understand and easier to play. I will be making a thread with the new ruleset, I'm just tightening up my wording and making the game simpler to understand.

I will be uploading my next draft of the rules tomorrow.

:edit:
I should also mention that although I really like how the mission card system works (I've been using it for Crimson Galaxy), I've been toying around with the games involving an Attacker and a Defender.

For example, let's say the mission is "Supply Raid". Pirates would automatically be an attacker on a 3+ on a d6, otherwise you roll CMD of your Commander+1D12 and winner chooses.

Then, you'd set up some objectives and also add in stuff like explosive crates and whatnot. Attacker gets +VP for capturing supplies and auto-wins if at the end of any turn it controls all of the objectives, and defender wins if it has the majority of the supplies.

That being said, I really like the Attacker vs. Defender and then adding in secret mission cards (for example, attacker could draw Assassination and the defender would get "Protect your Commander") or something to that effect.

I really like Warpcrafter's deployment rules, they're much like the ones I've developed.

Vladsimpaler wrote:

DaemonJellybaby wrote:Well I have read the current 40k CC rules
Like: they are simple and brutal,
Dislike: GW's and rely on large amounts of attacks rather than good quality attacks

2nd Ed CC rules
Like: they are very different to the current rules and show how combat can change
Dislike: Takes ages to play out because it is one-on-one therefore is not smooth, and is GW's

Crimson Galaxy
Like:Options when charged, combat res,
Dislike:Odd wording on some things make it hard to understand fully, to hit score modifiers

Thank you for the compliments and also the constructive criticism! I am currently redoing the entire combat section to make it easier to understand and easier to play. I will be making a thread with the new ruleset, I'm just tightening up my wording and making the game simpler to understand.

I will be uploading my next draft of the rules tomorrow.

:edit:
I should also mention that although I really like how the mission card system works (I've been using it for Crimson Galaxy), I've been toying around with the games involving an Attacker and a Defender.

For example, let's say the mission is "Supply Raid". Pirates would automatically be an attacker on a 3+ on a d6, otherwise you roll CMD of your Commander+1D12 and winner chooses.

Then, you'd set up some objectives and also add in stuff like explosive crates and whatnot. Attacker gets +VP for capturing supplies and auto-wins if at the end of any turn it controls all of the objectives, and defender wins if it has the majority of the supplies.

That being said, I really like the Attacker vs. Defender and then adding in secret mission cards (for example, attacker could draw Assassination and the defender would get "Protect your Commander") or something to that effect.

I really like Warpcrafter's deployment rules, they're much like the ones I've developed.

I read through most of your rules, and they are interesting, but very complex. I have been considering something more streamlined, but not in such an arbitrary manner as what plagues 40K.

Ok then,
@Lanrak, do you want me to PM/Email you my current ideas pages for you to improve/add-to/edit? I have them in Word10
@Vladsimpaler, I think that any unit (that is not looking the wrong way) is going to react to a charge, rather than stand and take it!

Both players roll a die, add the appropriate stat of their overall leader (Discipline, leadership, whatever...) to determine who places a unit first. This player may place the unit anywhere on the tabletop. Then, the next player places a unit, anywhere on the tabletop that is at least 24" away from the unit placed by the opposing player. Then, the players alternate placing units until they are finished. Units may be placed anywhere that is within 3" of a friendly unit, and not within 24" of an opposing unit. If one player has more units than the other, they must place two units at a time until they reach parity.

The problem I see with this is area denial. One unit consisting of a single model has a circular footprint that is 48" in diameter. Ergo, if you have one more unit than your opponent, you can now cordon off almost the entire board against them, or even make it so that your opponent cannot deploy his full army accoding to the rules.

Ratbarf wrote:

Both players roll a die, add the appropriate stat of their overall leader (Discipline, leadership, whatever...) to determine who places a unit first. This player may place the unit anywhere on the tabletop. Then, the next player places a unit, anywhere on the tabletop that is at least 24" away from the unit placed by the opposing player. Then, the players alternate placing units until they are finished. Units may be placed anywhere that is within 3" of a friendly unit, and not within 24" of an opposing unit. If one player has more units than the other, they must place two units at a time until they reach parity.

The problem I see with this is area denial. One unit consisting of a single model has a circular footprint that is 48" in diameter. Ergo, if you have one more unit than your opponent, you can now cordon off almost the entire board against them, or even make it so that your opponent cannot deploy his full army accoding to the rules.

Not true. This is why I included the restriction that units be placed close to a friendly unit, so they can't scatter everywhere and hog the board.

The 'S.T.A.C.S' ruleset someone uploaded is VERY good. Certainly straight-forward and excellently written.
As is Elif's car combat.
Listen to them, they knoes how to write rules

I am quite passionate when it's about making up rules for new games, and this thread is some great fun reading. I made TCG:s together with a friend when I was younger, and this would be very enjoyable to help with.

One idea I got is that it could be set up a bit similar to the Heroes of Might and Magic games, i.e. that you place your units on your deployment part (can be different sized), depending on the mission with or without knowledge of how your enemy has put up his units. Then, instead of using player turns each unit has an initiative value. During each turn each unit makes actions in an order depending on their initiative value (higher value first until each unit has made an action).
I also liked the idea of placing counters upside down at each unit (can't remember who had that idea here).

An idea about what races and stuff should be incorporated (though that may be a bit early), what about not including space humans, space orcs or space elves of any kind, but instead make up our own races? That would be very different

Not true. This is why I included the restriction that units be placed close to a friendly unit, so they can't scatter everywhere and hog the board.

Ah, I misread your limitation. However, there is another problem I see coming up, whats stopping a massive unit deploying their models as far apart as possible from one another? An Ork Boy squad of 30 given a spacing of two inches per model can cover 60 inches of the board.

Ratbarf wrote:

Not true. This is why I included the restriction that units be placed close to a friendly unit, so they can't scatter everywhere and hog the board.

Ah, I misread your limitation. However, there is another problem I see coming up, whats stopping a massive unit deploying their models as far apart as possible from one another? An Ork Boy squad of 30 given a spacing of two inches per model can cover 60 inches of the board.

Point taken.I will work on that.

Perkustin wrote:The 'S.T.A.C.S' ruleset someone uploaded is VERY good. Certainly straight-forward and excellently written.
As is Elif's car combat.
Listen to them, they knoes how to write rules

Thanks for the plug!

I'm not sure how much my Red Asphalt game has to offer a sci-fi combat game, but feel free to read through it here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/373240.page

One addition to this conversation it can definitely make is that it has very specific goals in mind (listed on the first post) for what it wants to accomplish. It's not a system that will please everyone, and it definitely does not attempt to "do it all" but it is at least very clear about what it is.

Perkustin.
Thanks for the compliment on my rough outline for my 'S.T.A.C.S.' rule set.(It still has some spelling mistakes and the odd typoe... It needs more work but its going in the right direction.)


Eiif.
Your rule set is clearly defined and efficiently and elegantly written,IMO.
You obviously understand your subject , as it shines through in the intuitive simulation you have written.

DeamonJellyBaby.
You can PM me your ideas if you want.(I Only have 'Open office ' I hope it will let me read Word 10.)

As reguard to deployment and mission types.
IF we are looking at more narrative based games , then we should NOT worry about having OPTIMUM balance across all mission types and deployment types.
Because as in real war, you have to make the best of what you have got!

If the mission and deployment types are varied enough, there are NO optimum builds .Just a build type thats better at a few missions and not so good at others.So players tend to play the army they LIKE the theme of.Airborne , footslogger, mechanised, amoured etc.

The basic deployment options are across, along or across the cormers of the gaming area.
How do you feel about making this a random selection?
1-2 across.
3-4 along
5-6 Across the corners.

'Terrain and objective markers are placed to in mutualy agreed way.'(As long as the players are happy with the playing area set up,I dont care how it happens!)

IF we simply designate one player as the 'attacker', and the other as the 'defender'.

The defender chooses thier side of the playing area.The attacker takes thier actions/activation first.

The attacker draws an ATTACK mission card.(Which they keep secret.)
The defender draws a DEFENCE mission card .(Which they keep secret.)

The mission cards determine the VICTORY conditions.
They list what is required for a MAJOR victory and a MINOR victory.

After the game the players results are compared.Major Victory is 3 pts, Minor Victory is 2 pts and NO victory conditions met=1pt.
If the scores are the same = Draw.
If one player has 1 more pt than thier opponentthey have won a Minor Victroy.
If one player has 2 more pts than thier opponent they have won a Major Victory.

Excuse my poor narative skills but here is an example of mission cards.(Maybe 6 for attacker, and 6 for defender to give 36 possible game types!)

Attacker , HELLS HIGHWAY.('Operation Market Garden'.)
It is imperative you punch through the opposing defencive line to allow mechanised-armoured units to link up with a deep striking Airborne Assault Force.
You MUST clear and maintain a coridoor of advance at least 12" wide, that MUST be free of ALL enemy units ,and MUST also be out of range/LOS of any fire support weapons /on table F.O.O.

Major Victory , the coridoor of advance is established by turn 3 and held untill the end of turn 6.

Minor Victory, the coridoor of advance is established later than turn 3 and held untill the end of turn 6.

No Victory , the coridoor of advance is NOT estabilshed, or not held at the end of turn 6.

Defender. WHEELS OF TERROR.('Operation Nightshade'.)
Behind you location , the transport network of roads(highways), means the rest of the sector could be at risk from lighning raids by enemies equiped with fast moving vehicles.
You thefore MUST destroy ALL opposing units/vehicles/(M/Cs), with a movement value over 6".

Major Victory ALL enemy vehicles (MCs)destroyed/immobilised.

Minor Victory all enemy vehicles (MCs) have movement reduced to 5" or less.

No Victory , the enemy have vehicles(MCs) with movement value of 7" or more.

Narrative mission can be based on particular area, or objective markers,or unit, or a unit type,etc.Gives far more vairied and interesting games than KILL or HOLD.

I probably made a bit of a mess of explaining this.But moving away from 'Points Value fixation' and towards 'narrative play' is the direction I would prefer.

TTFN

Do you think using actual missions from real world operations as a base for missions is good idea?

I am rubbish at writing this sort of thing.I am sure others on this forum would be mucth better at it!

Do you aprove of the randomised deployment zones.(Along across-across the corners.)?

Are you happy leaving the palyers to set up the table in an agreed way.Or do you think random terrain generators are better?

Random terrain generators are best I think, aside from mission specific terrain such as that one mission in Fantasy where you have to take the central tower. That way it keeps the games fresh and you can't always count on having the terrain disposition that you would like.

As for missions, the best way to set that up I feel is to mimic/take the best from the LotR SBG. Their missions are incredibly fun to play, as are some of their more generic ones as well.

Whats everyone's view on 'secret missions?' . As in special objectives chosen at the beginning of the game. I always thought they would be pretty neato.

There's a good little passage about terrain setups in Vlad's Crimson Galaxy.

@Elif: Anytime
@Lanrak, ah twas you. Well Lanrak i loved your S.T.A.C.S ruleset and think it has real promise.

I think it would be good to have mission cards that players keep secret from each other.
That way it sort of mimics reality, as the oponent is never quite sure what your objectives are, and neither are you about oponent objectives.

And if the mission cards are randomly generated ,fewer seperate missions generate a wider range of games.Than missions which dictate the objectives for attacker and defender.

The alternative is using as set number of missions that dictate attacker and defenders objectives.
And then have a seperate deck of 'secret missions' that the player get bonus victory points for , perhaps.

I like the idea of having secret missions, but these would have to all be compatible with all the others.

On the deployment note, why not deploy as normal but use deployment counters, each one is either a unit (specified) or a dummy.
Each player takes turns to place a counter, then all the counters are turned over at the same time, and the unit they represent is placed next to them.
Dummy counters are ignored.

legionaires wrote:Do you REALLY want to affect GW? Stop buying their product. Just walk away. As far as I can see it there are only three reasons to stick with GW:
1) player base size
2) length the games have been around
3) there is no other scifi game like 40k

So let's work on making a new scifi game on the same scale (28mm large-scale skirmish) as 40k and take away one of those reasons. Hell we can even have playtesters.

what about infinity? you looked over skirmish level games

DeamonJellybaby.
Mission cards are kept secret from your oponent.This can determine the main reason for your deployment in the area,(random senario generation.)
Or just an aditional narrative bonus objectives, similar to the mission card in 2nd ed.

Using 'counters' and 'dummy counters' mechanics....
I have used dummy markers for artillery barrage placement,(where barrages are likley to fall.) and 'hidden deployment.'(Units inside buildings etc.)

Deploying actual units on table is not a problem, IF you make the attacking unit roll to spot the target.
(Only when you let players pick targets with 'god like knowledge' do we run in to unrealistic targeting, in my experiance.)

My mortar team is going to shoot over that wood at your HQ unit I can see, (even though the mortar team would have no idea your HQ is there).Is BAD IMO.

Scout unit spots enemy HQ sheltering behind a wood, and reports its location to its HQ.The HQ then give the information to the mortar section to fire indirect barrage at that point.
Is what actualy happens IRL, and this then makes for a more tacticaly diverse and interesting game.
(Where scout units actual scout , leaders dictate targeting priority, and support weapons are used to support an advance. )

Dahl corp
There are tons of great skirmish games currently available.
Infinty , Dust Tactics, StargruntII, Fast And Dirty,No Limits, Chain reaction III etc.

However, I belive this thread was about developing a 'sci fi battle game' at a similar size and scope to 40k.
But with rules written for gameplay, rather than minature marketing...

40k the background and asthetics are inspiring and awsome.
40k rules are over complicated and abstract to the point of disjoint with reality AND the background they are supposed to represent.

Write a rule set that is more elegant and efficient /has more clarity and brevity than 40k.Easily achievable.

Write a skirmish sci fi rule set that is better than all the others currently available in all aspects. IMPOSSIBLE and POINTLESS>