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.

Lanrak wrote:
For an example of 'over complication ' in the written rules, due to an 'abstract over simplification' of function ,I think the way 40k currently handles weapon and armour interaction is a corker.

In WHFB weapons are basic lumps of wood, rock or metal 'swung' or 'thrown ' at basic armour , made of animal hide or metal.

Armour is made up of light or heavy .(6+ or 5+ save.)
A shield adds 1 to the armour save.
A mount adds 1 or 2 to the armour save.

So 6+ save to represent light infantry, (shield or light armour.) All the way to a 2+ save to represent heavy cavalry , (Heavy armnour shield , barded steed.)

This covers all the armour in the game . with the exception of magical items.Similarly a sImple ASM of -1 or -2 covers most weapons in WHFB.

You forgot Plate Armour (4+ AS) and then Armour modifiers which comes by the Strength of the Attacks (before the Magical Weapons.

But if you think the WHFB system is "less unnecessarily complicated" than 40K, you're crazy because "math is hard". 40K's system is at least "you get it or you don't". That is not complicated and very simple.

Lanrak wrote:
Look at the vast array of technology in 40k weapons and armour. The basic WHFB method simply can not cope with this wide range of values.

These can can be covered by..(Proposed new method.)
1 rule.
Compare the targets AV value, to the weapon hits AP value on a universal resolution chart.To get the score needed to pass an armour save.

OR
Current 40k methods.

1 rule.
Roll over the armour save to pass the armour save.

1 exception.
Unless the AP value of the weapon hit is low enough to cancel the targeta armour save completely.

2 and 3 exceptions.(This would be covered by the to hit roll alteration .But is part of the armour weapon interaction in the current rules.)
Unless the model is in cover when it can get a cover save instead of its armour save.Unless the weapon attacking it ignores cover.

4 and 5 exceptions.
Unless the model has a invulnerable save.(Unless the attacker has a special rule thatr ignores this particular inv save.)

6 exception.
Unless the target is classed as a vehicle , in which case it resolves weapon hits with completely different stats and in a completely different way.

In my preferred rules, they are written to keep exceptions to a minimum.

AP is not an exception. Keep that in mind. Nor is it really complicated.

Also remember that Fantasy also has War Saves and Rejuvenation Saves, which makes your points using them as an example even less effective, as they have even more exceptions in 8th than what you listed in 40K. Such as:
Ward Save OR Rejuv Save, can't use both (sounds familiar).
Rejuv Saves cannot be used against Attacks that are Flaming (sounds like Cover).
Then there are the Magic Spells which deny ALL Saves.

So, your definition of "less complicated" doesn't even stand up in comparison. So, try using a different system that actually could be considered "less complicated".

Lanrak wrote:
I would like more detailed unit interaction in the 40k game play.But achieve this by removing over complication from the core rules.

Well, I just demonstrated that what you perceive as "complication" does not fit that moniker, especially when a system you used for an example is even more complicated and filled with exceptions than the one you are decrying.

@dosiere.
There are at least half a dozen rule sets we have slightly modified, and used 40k minatures with and had a blast with.

However, this thread was discussing what players might want to keep in a ground up re -write of the 40k rules .Focusing on game play with a specific game size , scale and scope.

Every play test using a more interactive game turn has led to more tactical interaction.
However, alternating phase type game play uses familiar phases,in a familiar order.And allows players to take action with entire armies.(So it has more elements of current gaming literacy.)

It also has the benefit of being able to model simultaneous actions in a simple way.(In the basic game turn structure.)
So it removes the need for additional sequencing and/or reaction type rules that still have to be used in an alternating unit activation game turn.

So from a stand point of retaining familiar aspects,(gaming literacy,) and reducing complication in the rules,the alternating phase game turn has a lot going for it.

I really can not see any benefits from moving to a bigger dice size, unless the D6 fails to cover the interaction sufficiently well with more appropriate resolution methods.

@Charistoph.
I am not saying the concept of the rules used in 40k are over complicated.

But the choice of resolution methods and game mechanics means the written instructions on how to play the game are over complicated.In comparison to the way other rule sets are written.

EG
Rule set 'A' has over 400 pages of rules, to cover a set game play at a set level of detail.
Rule set 'B ' has 100 pages of rules , to cover exactly the same set game play , at the same set level of detail.

Therefore rule set 'A' is objectively over complicated in comparison to rule set B.

Analogy.
The simple 'on /off' button is a very user friendly interface.
On a radio they may be one used for power, and perhaps 5 for pre-selected radio stations.

If you only want to listen to 5 radio stations this is the easiest and most user friendly option.

However, if you are travelling long distances, you are soon out of the range of your favorite radio stations.And having to fiddle with the pre set options every few miles makes the on off button much less user friendly.

In this instance a 'tuning dial' is much more appropriate. As you can easily tune the radio in as you move along.And you can quickly find multiple stations , and pick your favorite one.

Its about selecting the most appropriate method to cover the intended function.

Lanrak wrote:
@Charistoph.
I am not saying the concept of the rules used in 40k are over complicated.

But the choice of resolution methods and game mechanics means the written instructions on how to play the game are over complicated.In comparison to the way other rule sets are written.

Considering what you have repeatedly posted, you have presented the concept that 40K rules are both over complicated as well written out in a complicated manner.

Lanrak wrote:
EG
Rule set 'A' has over 400 pages of rules, to cover a set game play at a set level of detail.
Rule set 'B ' has 100 pages of rules , to cover exactly the same set game play , at the same set level of detail.

Therefore rule set 'A' is objectively over complicated in comparison to rule set B.

Which does not apply when comparing WHFB 8th and 40K. Both use large number of pages of rules, with a significant portion provided from a fluff perspective to provide the context and reason for the rule. But they do not quite cover the same set of gameplay and look at replicating a different level of experience, though level of detail could be similar.

A better track would have been to use Mantic's Deadzone system (or would their Warpath system be better?), as that is as close as I can find as a match to the same level of expected army size and level of detail. Infinity is too small in numbers, while Epic, Planetfall, and Dropzone are too zoomed out to do individual Infantry detail.

Though, I don't know how big their book of rules is, actually. Deadzone's Boot Camp downloadable book is about 50 pages once you cut out fluff, pages to write lists on, etc, but also includes stats of certain units and their weapons. I can't remember the size of Dark Vengeance's quick start, book, though, any more than I am aware of how big Deadzone's actual full ruleset is, either (website lists it at 112 pages, but I don't know how inclusive that is) versus 7th Edition's 208 page book which covers rules for a LOT more model types than Mantic provides in its games.

Lanrak wrote:
Analogy.
The simple 'on /off' button is a very user friendly interface.
On a radio they may be one used for power, and perhaps 5 for pre-selected radio stations.

If you only want to listen to 5 radio stations this is the easiest and most user friendly option.

However, if you are travelling long distances, you are soon out of the range of your favorite radio stations.And having to fiddle with the pre set options every few miles makes the on off button much less user friendly.

In this instance a 'tuning dial' is much more appropriate. As you can easily tune the radio in as you move along.And you can quickly find multiple stations , and pick your favorite one.

Its about selecting the most appropriate method to cover the intended function.

And your analogy points out some serious problems with your perspective. You missed out on other important functions and desires as stated in many of the little fluff blurbs associated with many of those rules.

40K was not supposed to be "5 station" simple. That is board game simple. Bringing up the Power button is pointless because that should be on every electrical device.

My car's stock radio has 6 station buttons (some which double as CD controls), a power button in the volume nob, a button to switch bands and preset groups (FM1, FM2, AM1, AM2), a button to switch to or pause the CD, a button for the audio adjustment (L/R, F/B), CD Eject, a scan button, and a tuning lever (looks like two buttons, but setup to rock up and down). 13 controls. My wife has no difficulty using this radio.

Let's compare that to the HD radio I installed in my previous car. A Power button. A multi-purpose nob. A button for SRC (source). A button for Menu. A Button for Back. A four button lever for up/down/left/right (left/right for CD skips). A Disp button (display), a CD Eject Button. A faceplate eject button. An EQ button. 10 controls. My wife could not change the channels after explaining it several times. Yet, I could do far more with all of those multi-purpose buttons than I can do on this stock radio. And that doesn't even consider that the HD Radio is also setup to play MP3, WMA, and connect to iPod, Bluetooth, and satellite radio adapters that the stock radio cannot, nor how much better a receiver it was over all.

It took me about 5 minutes to figure out the stock radio without a manual. It took me an hour to figure out the HD Radio with the manual. User-friendly does not always mean better for the job, and can actually lead to a loss of function, control, fidelity, or adaptability.

@Charistoph.
I have posted that the 'current 40k rules' (as in a set of instructions to play the game,) are over complicated.
I have posted several times that changing the game mechanics , and resolution methods reduces the need to use additional rules.
(And therefore reduces the complication in the written rule set.The 'clarity and brevity' focus on the re write. )

I have never posted that any particular rule had a complicated concept.

However, I may not have been absolutely clear, and that was the reason for my last post.

My analogy was meant to show the difference between simpler interaction in games where roll a 'X+' on a D6 is good enough.
5 buttons that are either on or off.(You have a 'pre set' result represented by the 5 values on a dice .EG save on a 2+,3+,4+,5+ or 6+)

And how counter productive this is if you need to cover a wider range of interaction, and use a method that is too restricted.
(Constantly adjusting the pre sets with modifiers , separate resolution methods and special rules.)

Where as the concept of a'tuning dial' to give finer adjustments , allows the user to get proportional results and allows more direct feed back to the user.
And is much more suitable for use with a much wider band of interaction.

The armour save and limited armour save modifiers work fine with the limited interaction in WHFB.(And a lot of other war games too.)

However the range of units and technology in 40k is too wide for this particular system to cope with.
So replacing it with opposed armour and armour penetration values on a chart to give the save required , allows for a wider range of proportional results to be used.

Both methods are simple concepts, one can cope better with the wider range of weapon and armour interaction in the current game of 40k than the other.


Do you think book ending the game turn with 'start of game phase', and 'end of game phase' is a good idea?

It gives a place for pre movement phase actions to happen, and allows things to be tidied up before the start of the next turn.
I would like to put psychic abilities back into the normal phases. EG models may use a psychic ability in the appropriate phase. (I dont mind having a separate psychic phase if it is needed after playtesting.)

Eg,

'Command' Phase.

Movement Phase

Shooting Phase

Assault Phase

'Rally' Phase.

Do you agree with this basic game turn lay out?

Lanrak wrote:
@Charistoph.
I have posted that the 'current 40k rules' (as in a set of instructions to play the game,) are over complicated.
I have posted several times that changing the game mechanics , and resolution methods reduces the need to use additional rules.
(And therefore reduces the complication in the written rule set.The 'clarity and brevity' focus on the re write. )

I have never posted that any particular rule had a complicated concept.

You just referenced how the Armour Save works a few posts back as being "over complicated".

And I know we have had this out before, but there is "complicated for detail" and "unnecessarily complicated". Many of the examples you specifically trot out usually come with fluff blurbs which define them as "complicated for detail". The less complicated something becomes in a tabletop game, the more abstract it becomes, as referenced by the example of fighters in Star Wars Armada versus X-Wing.

Lanrak wrote:
However, I may not have been absolutely clear, and that was the reason for my last post.

My analogy was meant to show the difference between simpler interaction in games where roll a 'X+' on a D6 is good enough.
5 buttons that are either on or off.(You have a 'pre set' result represented by the 5 values on a dice .EG save on a 2+,3+,4+,5+ or 6+)

And how counter productive this is if you need to cover a wider range of interaction, and use a method that is too restricted.
(Constantly adjusting the pre sets with modifiers , separate resolution methods and special rules.)

Where as the concept of a'tuning dial' to give finer adjustments , allows the user to get proportional results and allows more direct feed back to the user.
And is much more suitable for use with a much wider band of interaction.

The armour save and limited armour save modifiers work fine with the limited interaction in WHFB.(And a lot of other war games too.)

However the range of units and technology in 40k is too wide for this particular system to cope with.
So replacing it with opposed armour and armour penetration values on a chart to give the save required , allows for a wider range of proportional results to be used.

Both methods are simple concepts, one can cope better with the wider range of weapon and armour interaction in the current game of 40k than the other.

Except that before now we were talking about Shooting having an evolved comparison system, not damage resolution. You then referenced a portion of the damage resolution that was more complicated and included more details than you noted that was far more involved AND COMPLICATED than the system in 40K. And all this started when comparing D6 to D10s. You change the goal posts and targets of the conversation without proper segue or notice that you are changing the concepts and ideas you are looking to do. This is what leads to much of the confusions in your presentation.

Lanrak wrote:
Do you think book ending the game turn with 'start of game phase', and 'end of game phase' is a good idea?

Possibly, possibly not. It depends on the needs of the system and the rules you plan on setting out for entire game, both basic and advanced.

It has only become needed in 40K when they stopped having the Movement Phase be the start of the turn, but they still left it rather murky from there. However, it is a good place to do things like Reserves for the Start of the Turn and Falling Back for the End of the Turn, provided a clear delineation is defined and it remains consistent. This is where WarmaHordes processes better than 40K. Even "killing" a model is separated into different stages in the basic rules so that other desired rules could interrupt at desired points to either generate a beneficial affect (Tough) or to prevent one (Snacking). Note, I do not think it needs to be that detailed for 40K, but a little planning and "mapping" is needed so when one reads the Helfrost rule on a Weapon's entry, they know where it comes in to play in regards to Feel No Pain.

Lanrak wrote:
I would like to put psychic abilities back into the normal phases. EG models may use a psychic ability in the appropriate phase. (I dont mind having a separate psychic phase if it is needed after playtesting.)

I am of two minds on this. Witchfires are the only one in which this is actually a problem, for the most part. Previously, almost all others were all in the Movement Phase. What I would do with Psychic Powers is that if left in its own Phase is that Witchfires do not "shoot" automatically, but rather "provide this Weapon" to the Psyker who can then choose to fire it as a normal ranged Weapon.

If a Psychic Phase is presented, I'm not sure it should be after Movement, but there are about as many pros and cons to that as there are to having such a Phase to begin with. If before Movement, one could potentially hinder your opponents units, or you could move your units away from buffed units and towards better targets. If after the Movement Phase, it can become a "gotcha" moment. Good for the Psyker, bad for the other player. However, if after the Movement Phase, it is easier to plan the approach of the Witch and their targets to where they want to apply them.

Lanrak wrote:
Eg,

'Command' Phase.

Movement Phase

Shooting Phase

Assault Phase

'Rally' Phase.

Do you agree with this basic game turn lay out?

It is a good setup and will properly define and delineate everything but the Psychic Phase, unless you want to include that in the Command Phase as well.

HI folks.
Well as we seem to have had quite a long discussion, I thought it might be an idea to post up the basic frame work we could use.Developed from the ideas discussed so far.
Here is the bare bones game turn, with notes on basic resolution to give a general overview.

The game turn.
This clearly defines when and how players interact.EG when the players take specific actions with their units.

'Command' Phase.
This is the 'start of turn' phase, where all actions that are taken before 'player controlled movement ' happens.
EG
Requesting off table support.(Reserves, air or artillery assets.)Some psychic abilities may be used here.Also compulsory movement , like routing units can be done.


Movement Phase .
In the movement phase the play may move their models up to the models mobility value when they take a movement action.
Players alternate moving their units as far as they wish, within the following options..

1)If models do not move at all they can fire more effectively .
Eg They can fire 'Ordnance' weapons, and double the range of 'Rapid Fire' weapons from 12" to 24" when they shoot in the shooting phase.

2)If models take a single movement action.They can only fire weapons that can 'move and fire' in the Shooting phase

3)If models take two movement actions,they can not make any ranged attacks at all.

4)A unit must declare if it charging an enemy unit to initiate an assault.After the assault is declared, the charging unit may take up to two movement actions to get into base to base(hull) contact with the targeted enemy unit.If this happens both units are locked in assault and may not shoot in the shooting phase.

Shooting Phase
Players alternate making range attacks with their units.

To hit score is found by comparing the attackers Shooting skill to the defenders Evasion skill.
The armour save of the defender is found by comparing the Armour value of the defender to the Armour Penetration of the attacking weapon hit.
The damage to the defender is found by comparing the Damage value of the weapon hit to the Resilience of the target.

After all attacks have been resolved casualties are removed.

Assault Phase
Player alternate assaulting with units locked in combat.

To hit score is found by comparing the attackers Assault skill to the defenders Initiative.
The armour save of the defender is found by comparing the Armour value of the defender to the Armour Penetration of the attacking weapon hit.
The damage to the defender is found by comparing the Damage value of the weapon hit to the Resilience of the target.

After all attacks have been resolved casualties are removed.

'Rally' Phase.
This phase is used to tidy up before the next game turn.
Off table support can arrive now and have its effects resolved, before the start of next turn.
Players make morale tests to attempt to lift suppression, or stop a route.

I have changed some stat names to account not biological units, ( Strenght =Damage, Toughness =Resilience)And others to match the phase name.etc.(BS = Shooting skill, WS= Assault skill.)

As attacks are 'simutaneous' initiative is now used directly vs WS(Assault) to determine the chance to hit, rather than the striking order.

I may need to explain this a bit more?

What do you think to this new game turn overview?

It sounds like assault units would be far better off (being able to lock enemy units before they get a chance to shoot at all, and depending on mobility stats, easily getting turn 1 charges).

Would Overwatch still be a thing?

Would Rapid Fire still have double the shots at half range (so if the unit moves, <=6" is 2 shots, <=12" is 1 shot, with 12" and 24" respectively if the unit doesn't move)?

In the shooting resolution, where would Rending come into play? You're rolling the Damage v Resilience (which I'm interpreting as the current S v T or AV equivalent) after you roll through armor.

When you say "After all attacks have been resolved casualties are removed" are you saying that all shooting from all units occurs before any models are actually removed? Is this on a per weapon group, per unit, or per phase basis?

Why use Initiative as the opposed stat for WS, when you've already introduced Evasion (which can be applied more universally without utterly fething over Orks and utterly overpowering high initiative armies like Eldar and SM) as an "I avoid incoming attacks" stat?

Why remove all differentiation between the ability to hit first, simultaneously, or last? Doesn't that remove some serious strategic decisions between giving characters Power swords vs Power Fists vs Relic Blades, or the like?

Generally (for both the Shooting and Assault phases) why are you switching between the Attacker and Defender for rolling on the chart (i.e. the Attacker rolls to hit, the defender rolls on armor, the attacker rolls to wound, rather than the attacker rolls for to hit, armor penetration, and to wound? Give you've already implemented a per-unit activation, and so avoided the "I sit down and do nothing for half an hour aside from rolling armor saves while my opponent takes his turn", why not simplify and consolidate the table to be "active player centric" in all forms? Edit: In essence, given you're already abandoning several legacy issues, and given you've already got both players actively engaging in the game constantly, why not unify the charts and gameplay to be "active player rolls" situation?

Here are my comments:

Command Phase - Looks Good

Movement Phase:
1. Improving shooting of a unit doesn't move should be the exception (Heavy Weapons) rather than the rule for all weapons. You don't want to create incentives for static play.
2. Charges should not preclude all shooting. To reflect 'Assault' weapons and Overwatch and keep assaulting as a easy way to lockdown a good shooting unit, there should at least be the ability for the two units to fire at each other with some weapons at reduced accuracy. Some units (say tanks and monstrous creatures) should be able to ignore an Assault and fire at other targets.

Shooting Phase:
1. See 2 in Movement Phase
2. Given alternating shooting attacks be player, why not have shooting casualties removed immediately. It allows for a sense of initiative and makes the choice of which units you fire with earlier more meaningful.

Assault Phase:
1. Defense Skill, not Initiative. You can be slow to act, but still skilled in defense.

Rally (Resolution) Phase - Looks good.

It would be good to better explain the combat resolution (Hit, Armor, Wound). I am not fully following how it is supposed to work.

 alextroy wrote:

2. Given alternating shooting attacks be player, why not have shooting casualties removed immediately. It allows for a sense of initiative and makes the choice of which units you fire with earlier more meaningful.

In Battletech, all these actions are happening within 11 seconds per turn. It allows for a person who lost the Initiative to have meaningful Shooting without having to be burned by a die roll at the beginning of the game/turn. And Battltech has a chance to trade Initiative every Turn. I don't know if that is Lanrak's intent, but that is the main reason I like it..

There has even been "experimental" rules where a unit could shoot mid-movement (like scooting between buildings), but then they also received shots at the same point they fired, too.

Lanrak wrote:
@Leopard.


I do not intend or suggest using a BS vs BS system
But to give the units a new stat 'Evasion' .This is based on the models size , agility and stealth abilities.

BS vs a new Evasion stat.

So models with jink saves, invisibility, camo cloaks , holo fields etc.Could all show these effects in the new Evasion Stat rather than having to use special rule , and additional rolls.

I was thinking of using WS vs opponents Initiative,If we wanted to model simultaneous resolution with alternating phases. (But that is for another thread perhaps?)

Could use BS vs I, i mean the stat is there to show the speed and reflexes of the model.... so why not use that for the comparison of to hit (a person would be moving fast to dodge those bullets)

Thanks for the replies!

This was just an attempt at looking at how a new rule set might hang together,using some familair concepts.And trying to model simultaneous actions in a simple way.

Ill try to respond to questions in the oreder they were posted.

@Unusual Suspect.

I am trying to balance the assault and shooting effects using the new core rules .The imballance that has been there since 3rd ed.
(When to hit mods were removed in 3rd edition and not replaced with anything, GW just upped the movement rate by about 50%.And allowed 'assaulting' units to move three times, move in the movement phase, run in the shooting phase, and move into assault in the assault phase.And also used special rules to ignore morale from shooting casualties etc.Using Evasion vs shooting reduces the effectiveness of shooting for casualties, but the inclusion of suppression and smoke would increase its tactical effect to compensate.Hopefully. )

As all player controlled movement happens in the movement phase, and the most a model can move is double its mobility value.The only units that can get across the 24" of no mans land in turn 1 are units with a mobility of 12".(Mainly bilkes and some skimmers like Land Speeders.)
IF they are directly in front of the unit they want to charge, with no difficult terrain in the way.And the target unit is deployed exactly on the edge of thier deplotment zone.

So getting a turn one charge with a bike unit, if you opponent has set a unit up to be charged in turn one is possible.
Locking units in assault worked well to balance shooting and assault in the 1st 2 editions of 40k.I would like to play test it in the new rules.

If assault becomes too powerful, we could adjust mobility rates down a bit.(Back to 2nd ed values to compensate?)
Or we could try alternating unit movement between players. EG A,B,A,B,A.B .. rather than A moves everthing them B moves everythiing.

If we are modeling simultaneous actions then over watch is redundant,along with striking order in close combat.
If we assume a game turn is just a few seconds , rather than the 5 to 30 minutes alternating game turns generally represent.

A quick dash followed by a quick burst of automatic gun fire.(Modern warfare.)
Rather than marching for a few minutes to get into fusillade range , and delivering 5 volleys of fire...(Ancient to Napoleonic.)

I mentioned the tactical advantage of remaining stationary, to try to say you can fire weapons that move or fire.(Ordnance.)Or fire further with 'rapid fire' weapons.

The older rules for Rapid fire varied a bit.But generally fire up to 12" if moving.OR fire up to 24" if stationary.
I just generalized fire up to 12" if moving, or double range to 24" if stationary just to show a tactical choice.(Sorry for any confusion caused. )

Shooting resolution for ALL units is;_
Roll to hit.(Compare Shooting vs Evasion.)
Roll to save.(Compare Armour vs Armour Pen.)
Roll to damage.(Compare weapon Damage to target Resilience.)

As each stage of the resolution has a separate value to represent it.Simply adjust the values until they deliver the results we want.
Does 'Rend' still let you roll another dice if you roll a 6 for S vs vehicle hits?Rather than rolling extra dice some times, just give the attack a better AP value.

As all units are comparing AV vs AP to give proportional results for saves. A lot of these add on rules are not needed any more.

I was going with the idea of removing all casualties at the end of the phase.(We used a D10 per unit to mark wounds/damage taken until the end of the phase , when we tried this out in other rules .)

Currently there is no stat to show the size shape and speed of a unit to determine how difficult it is to target at range.So the new rules need a new Evasion stat.

If we are modeling simultaneous action.Initiative is not longer needed to see who strikes first in close combat.As all attacks happen at the same time.

But initiative is currently used to determine who would be likely to hit first in assault.Not who swings first, but who would connect first.

The lumbering Ork swinging wildly vs a swift and agile Eldar Banshee.
Does the Ork stand still while the Eldar Banshee slices him?
Or is it more likely the Banshee doges out of the way of the Orks wild swings, and deftly dispatches the Ork as he lumbers by?

Current abstraction..
Net result Eldar get first blow in and Ork can not strike back if killed..

New proposed rules both Banshee and Ork resolve attacks , the Ork is going to find it harder to hit the Banshee.(Orks hit Banshees on 5+ Banshees hit Orks on 3+)

Weapons that lower Initiative , just make you easier to hit.Rather than hit the opponent last.This is just changing the resolution process slightly, and removing huge swathes of written rules.

As the game turn alternates between the players, alternating the dice rolls between the players seemed like a nice idea to increase player interaction.

With opposed values it is entirely possible to make it attacker rolls in all three stages, or defender rolls middle or last stage.
I am happy to experiment when it comes to play testing to see what feels right.

@alextroy.
As explained higher up, being able to fire' move or fire' weapons is the tactical advantage of remaining stationary.(Along with shooting further with rapid fire weapons.)
Units not armed with heavy/ordnance type weapon gain no benefit from remaining stationary.(Unless we allow units to dig in maybe?)

With more sensible mobility rates , tactical shooting focus,turn 1 assaults are not going to be common.

Assault is not just close combat , but short ranged fire too.(The idea was short ranged shooting was to try to supress the defender while closing, and the defender would try to break up the assault . A simple morale test before the charge is carried out is always an option.)

The idea is with simultaneous actions both side open up with gun fire at the same time.(Over a few seconds of real time.)So both sides take hits as they are shooting .

I am happy to use a different name for the opposed stat to Assault.But is should be based on Initiative.(Original definition of Initiative was how fast to react the model was in close combat.)

I would like to use the universal resolution table to cover all combat interaction for all units.Simply use the appropriate active stat vs the appropriate opposed stat.

Assault.
Assault vs Initiative(Determines the chance to hit.)

Armour vs Armour pen(Deternines the chance to save.)

Damage vs Resiliance.(Determines the chance to wound.)

Shooting.
Shooting vs Evasion(Determines the chance to hit.)

Armour vs Armour pen(Deternines the chance to save.)

Damage vs Resiliance.(Determines the chance to wound.)

@mchammadad .
If all models in 40k were of a similar size.Eg just infantry.This would be fine.But a greater Demon of Khorne, has I 10, and is larger than some vehicles!Let alone a small Ratling sniper I 3.

Because of the massive difference in unit size in 40k , this has to be used as the basic value to oppose BS.

Lanrak wrote:

I am trying to balance the assault and shooting effects using the new core rules .The imballance that has been there since 3rd ed.
(When to hit mods were removed in 3rd edition and not replaced with anything, GW just upped the movement rate by about 50%.And allowed 'assaulting' units to move three times, move in the movement phase, run in the shooting phase, and move into assault in the assault phase.And also used special rules to ignore morale from shooting casualties etc.Using Evasion vs shooting reduces the effectiveness of shooting for casualties, but the inclusion of suppression and smoke would increase its tactical effect to compensate.Hopefully. )

As all player controlled movement happens in the movement phase, and the most a model can move is double its mobility value.The only units that can get across the 24" of no mans land in turn 1 are units with a mobility of 12".(Mainly bilkes and some skimmers like Land Speeders.)
IF they are directly in front of the unit they want to charge, with no difficult terrain in the way.And the target unit is deployed exactly on the edge of thier deplotment zone.

So Infiltrate and Scout are no longer part of the rules?

Because a lot of things have Infiltrate and/or Scout. That includes some models with 12" movement, and some models with Dedicated Transports (so effectively a 12" pre-game movement).

A lot of units have Fleet. What effect does that have in your rules?

You've removed Overwatch, if I've read that correctly. That means you're allowing 1st turn assaults that can completely negate a target unit's ability to shoot at all. As a (biased) Tau player, that is... worrying.

The older rules for Rapid fire varied a bit.But generally fire up to 12" if moving.OR fire up to 24" if stationary.
I just generalized fire up to 12" if moving, or double range to 24" if stationary just to show a tactical choice.(Sorry for any confusion caused. )

You didn't answer my question. Rapid Fire weapons fire twice at half range. Is that rule changed to "fire once"? If not, what range do we use to determine what "half range" is?

As each stage of the resolution has a separate value to represent it.Simply adjust the values until they deliver the results we want.
Does 'Rend' still let you roll another dice if you roll a 6 for S vs vehicle hits?Rather than rolling extra dice some times, just give the attack a better AP value.

So All Rending weapons are given a slightly better AP value, and the Rending rule no longer exists? Could work, given the comparative stat system. Fewer unnecessary rules is good.

If we are modeling simultaneous action.Initiative is not longer needed to see who strikes first in close combat.As all attacks happen at the same time.

But initiative is currently used to determine who would be likely to hit first in assault.Not who swings first, but who would connect first.

The lumbering Ork swinging wildly vs a swift and agile Eldar Banshee.
Does the Ork stand still while the Eldar Banshee slices him?
Or is it more likely the Banshee doges out of the way of the Orks wild swings, and deftly dispatches the Ork as he lumbers by?

Current abstraction..
Net result Eldar get first blow in and Ork can not strike back if killed..

New proposed rules both Banshee and Ork resolve attacks , the Ork is going to find it harder to hit the Banshee.(Orks hit Banshees on 5+ Banshees hit Orks on 3+)

Weapons that lower Initiative , just make you easier to hit.Rather than hit the opponent last.This is just changing the resolution process slightly, and removing huge swathes of written rules.

Have you been able to playtest this yet? This seems like it would be a severe nerf to low Init models (particularly hoard armies like Orks) and a fairly significant buff to Eldar.

How are you comparing stats - on a unit by unit, or model by model basis?

If the former, how is the use of a Powerfist ever a meaningful disadvantage in the way its stats (initiative 1) suggest?

If the latter, isn't that insanely complicated and likely to bog the game down?

...Why have separate melee and ranged defensive stats at all? Why not have just one (Evasion)?

How would a high WS modify, if at all, the melee defensive stat? Should it?

As the game turn alternates between the players, alternating the dice rolls between the players seemed like a nice idea to increase player interaction.

With opposed values it is entirely possible to make it attacker rolls in all three stages, or defender rolls middle or last stage.
I am happy to experiment when it comes to play testing to see what feels right.

I'm interested to see what you find. Conceptually I think I'd prefer the opposed rolls be consistently performed by the activating player, rather than switching back and forth, but for gameplay purposes, I'm worried it would be too "boring" for the non-activating player.

@Unusual Suspect.
I was just trying to post a basic concept for a re write for a 40k war game.(A ground up re write focusing on inclusive rules writing.)

A lot of the current 40k special rules are there to artificially close the gap between units to facilitate assault sooner.(To counter over effective shooting.)

If we follow modern warfare, ranged attacks are to control enemy movement .Suppress units, damage transports, or use smoke to block lines of sight.
In this set up we can allow units to move slower,and take longer to set up assault in a tactical way.
As players will get 1 or 2 (simultaneous) shooting phases before assault happens.Over watch is not needed.

Most of the rules for extra movement can simply be covered by an improved mobility.(EG how they were in 2nd ed.)

If we allow units to ''go to ground''/''dig in'' to improve their Evasion.(Similar to F.O.W.)We can let scouts cancel out these bonuses.(Actually scout for enemy positions. )

If the Rapid fire rule changes to suit the new rules, the only thing that would stay the same would be the option to fire twice as far when stationary.(Or half as far when moving.Actual values still being 12" and 24" in both cases.)

We could go back to 3rd ed, version.
Fire once up to 12" when moving.Fire twice up to 12" when stationary, or once up to 24" when stationary.

Just to put this into context.Currently the highest initiative strikes first.
Banshees strikes first,with a good chance some Orks are killed and make no attacks back.
(Then we have to use pile in moves etc, to get models into contact for the Ork attacks.)

New system all model in assault range get to make attacks.I would like to revise the assault resolution to a single round.A fights then B fights .Resolve assault.
Loser breaks from combat.(Withdraw in good order, or route.)
Winner Consolidates, or Persues.

As most models in a unit will have the same stats and weapons.I dont see how it will bog the game down rolling for each model?
We just used different couluored dice for unit leaders and special weapon modes.

Hitting a target at range is more to do with target size and siluette. Hitting a target in assault is more to do with the targets agility.
If the game is only dealing with similar sized targets.(EG WWII skirmish with just infantry targets) Then you can use the same value for both.
40k has very small units, swarms up to massive monstrous creatures!So needs separate values.

Currently 40k players are used to the defending player rolling for saves.As rolling for saves before damage is more intuitive.(And allows for a simple suppression mechanic.)
That Is why I proposed the order I posted. I am happy to change things around after play tests.

Lanrak wrote:
@Unusual Suspect.

As most models in a unit will have the same stats and weapons.I dont see how it will bog the game down rolling for each model?
We just used different couluored dice for unit leaders and special weapon modes.

Except the active roller in the WS/Init comparative stat roll is the attacker using WS, not the defender using init. That means the defender's Init is only important if it is actually being used as the basis for the defense. Consider a 10 man marine squad with 2 Powerfists - one on the leader, one on a non-character model.

Do we continue using majority stat? If so, a Powerfist would only be a negative if the Powerfists outnumber the other weapons - that is to say, for the vast majority of cases, the Power Fist's main balancing mechanic (striking at initiative 1) would be utterly meaningless except in challenges.

Are we instead comparing model-to-model, i.e. determining who each attack is aimed at based on individual model locations? If so, that fixes the above, but we're now in the realm of bogging down the game with unreasonably detailed determinations.

Currently 40k players are used to the defending player rolling for saves.As rolling for saves before damage is more intuitive.(And allows for a simple suppression mechanic.)
That Is why I proposed the order I posted. I am happy to change things around after play tests.

I must have missed something, what is this suppression mechanic you're speaking of?

But yeah, the attacker rolling to successfully penetrate armor would be a change from the existing rule where the defender rolls to successfully ignore the incoming attacks. Given we're talking a 40k rewrite, this is exactly the sort of Sacred Cow that should be up for slaughter, especially if it streamlines the understanding of what the comparative stat table is intended to represent: an active attempt to overcome a defense (BS vs Evasion, WS vs Init or Evasion, S v T... and AP vs Armor).

But momentum is a helluva drug, and player engagement is probably enhanced under the "I hit, you save, I wound" model you're proposing.

I can tell you now after playtesting a sub phase system where there is only 1 game turn but both players act in 'sub phases' shows promise

(e.g You move, i Move
you shoot, I shoot
you charge, I charge
You fight (with my models from previous fight), I fight (my models who just charged))

This system works in a way and to make it that the sub phases can be different (to show the different tides of battle) there is an initiative roll at the beginning of the turn which is a D6 and compare

I have a draft of this system if anyone is interested. Just pm me if you have any suggestions to tweak it or if I left out any glaring rule loopholes

@Universal Suspect.
My apologies, I was so inspired by the idea of modeling simultaneous actions in the new rules,(after Charistoph suggested it).I sort of ran with it without explaining how I got to the conclusions I posted.

Some of the concepts I posted were dealing with new ideas in resolving assaults, and lots of other ideas that were sparked off by the idea of simultaneous actions.

So I will just return to looking at the alternating phase game turn ,assuming assaults stay as they are in the current rules for now.

As mchammadad suggests , this could need a 'roll off' to determine who goes first each turn, if we stick with Player A then Player B type phases.

As most of the questions were more about the new resolution methods , rather than the game turn structure.
I would like to look at the movement and shooting phases in more detail next.

If we can give ranged attacks a different tactical function to assault.They will not be in direct competition with each other .
I believe a simple suppression mechanic that is part of the new shooting resolution would be good for the game play.

Rather than get all technical with 'threat to confidence ratios' etc.My suppression rule is based on failed saves.(Not just hits which do not take levels of protection into account. Or casualties which still focuses on physical damage to be done .)

Here it is ...
When a unit suffers a number of failed saves that is over half the units remaining wounds/structure points.The unit becomes suppressed.
(Even if the failed saves do not result in any physical damage.)

This scales to the level of protection/survivability all units have weather armour or weight of numbers etc.

Proposed suppression effects.
A suppressed unit may only move up to its mobility rate, or shoot counting as having moved.It may not charge into assault, but will fight back in assault if charged.
A supressed unit counts as gone to ground.(+1 to Evasion.)

This limits the actions of a suppressed unit, while still letting them perform some useful functions.IMO.

So now the three stage damage resolution for shooting delivers a much finer range of proportional results,and includes tactical suppression too.
Limited tactical use of smoke to block L.O.S also allows units to move under the threat of direct fire without sustaining massive casualties as default status.

This means that units can survive longer under fire, and so do not have to rely on high movement rates and/or ablative wounds to see them through.
In our previous play tests 'hoard units' only needed 20 models to survive as an effective assault unit in a 6 turn game taking 3 turns of (suppression ) fire.

When shooting is not just more effective at killing stuff than assault.But has a different tactical function.Mobility fire power and assault all become equally important. And so more 'combined arms' tactics come into play.

I think play testing is the only way to arrive a new mobility rates that allow a good balance between shooting happening before assault can be launched effectively.

We started play testing the following values ,
Slow infantry 4"

Infantry 5"

Fast Infantry/vehicles 6"

Cavalry/beasts/fast vehicles 8"

Bikes/ fast skimmers 12"

Is there any thing I need to clarify on moving and shooting?

Lanrak wrote:
@Universal Suspect.

What an unusual spelling of my username! (Not mad, just find it funny)

When shooting is not just more effective at killing stuff than assault.But has a different tactical function.Mobility fire power and assault all become equally important. And so more 'combined arms' tactics come into play.

That has... worrying implications. My Tau have mobility and fire power, but are explicitly designed to be pretty bad at assault. Other factions have different sets of two out of the three, while some factions just straight up have all 3 (Hi, Eldar!). Will missing an "equally important" element be problematic, or will codexes under a rewrite need to introduce such "heresies" as CQC Tau?

Is there any thing I need to clarify on moving and shooting?

My apologies if you've already answered this, but was the discussion above suggesting that you remove ALL shooting casualties only after ALL shooting is done correct?

@Unusual Suspect ,
Sorry about that.

Let me try to explain my motives in toning down shooting and assault to try to balance them , and allow more tactical interaction within the game.

When shooting is just very effective at killing stuff at long range.(To the point it breaks the game.)
You have 2 options,
Change shooting to give it a different tactical function to assault.
Or buff units that are focused on assault.(Speed up movement and increase unit sizes etc.)

As these buffs are not subtle changes to tactical planning, but out right game breaking in the opposite direction.(Because 40k 3rd ed on wards has no 'fine adjustment'
options. Just over powered swings to core rules or all or nothing special rules. )

I was looking at 'reversing the madness', by introducing the concepts from modern warfare..
Make shooting tactically good at limiting enemy movement.(Assault units can not assault you if they are suppressed. )

And as units are no longer dying in droves to 'over effective shooting', they do not have to be so large to soak up casualties, or move so fast to avoid being hit.

And as shooting tactically can control enemy advances. I would like assault to be toned down a bit in its effect ,to be the preferred method to shift units off objectives. (Assault pushes back enemy units when successful.)
Assault should still be a more effective method to inflict physical damage than ranged attacks.(Due to having to negotiate several rounds of ranged attacks to get into assault.)
But not as inflated as the gap has become over the last 19 years when focus was just on selling more toy soldiers.

These two changes would allow units to tactically maneuver , for more game turns.To try to get suppression fire to block enemy advances, and assault to claim objectives.

I was only suggesting we leave casualty removal until the end of the phase if we were modelling simultaneous actions.
(Which would require a near complete re write of the assault rules.Which I could discuss in more detail if any one wanted to?)

As it would probably be simpler just to use the current rules with alternating phases as proof of concept.Similar to mchammadad suggested to start with.
(Resolve attacks as they happen.)

Then add new rules for movement and shooting.(Mobility, and Evasion as we have discussed so far.)

Then finally tweek assault rules. Before we do the last stage of fine tuning to model simultaneous actions.

There are loads of options to look at, and play around with.

Hi folks.
Am I in a minority of one in thinking GWs version of 40k spends more time putting models on the table , just to take them off again a short while later.Compared to the time you actually get to do useful stuff with them in game?

Would you prefer a game where units got to move and shoot and charge more , (where prolonged fluid interaction let the tactical choices flow)?

If most people are reasonably comfortable with alternating phases as an improvement in the game turn mechanic.

Here are some points I may have to clarify/discuss further?

Unit Mobility
,Is any one unsure how movement rates and movement penalties for specific terrain types would work?

Would you like mobility type to factor into terrain modifiers?

Shooting.
Is everyone OK with proportional armour saves for all units?
Are you happy with armour saves being rolled before the to wound/damage rolls?

Do you think a simple suppression mechanic, ( based on failed saves,) would be a good concept in a 40k war game?

Assault.
We had been experimenting with more fluid assault resolution.We tried resolving assaults just after 1 turn .

The winner of the assault was the unit that caused the most damage.
In the case of a tie, the unit(s) with the the highest number of wounds(structure) left after the assault wins.

The winner of the assault may act normally next turn, if they are over half starting strength.
The winner of the assault may no charge into an assault next turn if they are under half starting strength.

The loser of the assault breaks from the assault if they are over half starting strength.(Compulsory movement away from the unit they lost the assault to.)
The loser of the assault routes from the assault if they are below half starting strength.(Compulsory double move away from the unit they lost the assault to.)

This had the result of units moving more and made the whole process 'faster and cleaner.'
True units did not die in droves and we did not once get a dust pan and brush out to remove casualties.

But it felt more like the fast paced hit and run type assault, snall unit actions tend to generate.IMO.

These are just basic concept and ideas that could work in a new rule set for a 40k war game.

Hi all.
I am not sure if the lack of replies is down to lack of clarity in explaining the new ideas.
Or if people simply do not like the direction we are going in?

I am happy to discuss alternative ideas , if you prefer..

More clarity is always a good thing. I can't follow where you are on just about any topic at this point.

@alextroy.
Now I know that its lack of clarity in the last few posts , Ill walk through a thread summary .
If you an others would be kind enough to point out areas that are not clear.
I can clarify in mere detail untill every one gets the new concepts.

Introduction.
I was wondering what game mechanics and resolution methods of the current 40k rule set would be kept in a complete ground up re write.
As a complete new rule set using completely new game mechanics and resolution methods end up with new game play that does not 'feel like 40k'.

After a bit of discussion , we appeared to have settled on keeping the following elements to help keep the '40k feel' in any new rules.

Action phases.
(As it clearly defines when player perform what actions, and provides a very straight forward structure to assemble into a game turn.)

Three stage damage resolution.
(Three stage damage resolution is needed to support the wider variety of units found in 40k.)

Opposed values in a chart.
(This allows proportional results without having to use more complicated combinations of rules.)

Using D6 to resolve the interaction.
(As players want to roll dice per model rather than unit .D6 are much easier to roll in hand fulls ,amd quick to read.And can deliver much wider range of results when used effectively.)

Using these basic concepts , and applying them into a ground up re write of 40k .
Could improve the depth of game play while at the same time reducing the level of complication in the written rules.When compared to GWs version of 40k.

EG write the new rules for 40k as a war game , focusing on the scale and scope of the game play.(Rather than just selling toy soldier to collectors.)

Then I may have got a bit excited and started looking at options we could use in re writing 40k with these basic elements of 40k in slightly different ways.To generate a 40k war game rule set....

Looking at how we could use these elements in a 40k ground up re write...
For several reasons listed previously in several posts I would like to start at 4th to 5th ed 40k game size.(Company level.)
And looking at the intended unit functions, a modern warfare game play with equal focus on mobility firepower and assault seems like a better fit.When compared to the ancient warfare focus WHFB and by extension 40k currently has.


Proposed changes and reasons.

The game turn.
If we use the action phases in an alternating, phase game turn.We can improve the level of player action at the core game turn level.
This would not need complicated scheduling or reaction mechanics if we modeled simultaneous interaction.

The stat lines and resolution methods .
If we make sure the stat line covers all the units actions and interaction.We can simplify the written rules by not needing lots of exceptions and special rules.

EG
Movement.
When a model takes a move action it may move up to its Mobility rate in inches.Some terrain types will reduce this Mobility rate.(Refer to the terrain chart for details)

If we use opposed stat values on a comparison chart,(similar to current S vs T.)For ALL combat resolution.We can cover ALL units in a similar way, and generate proportional results .Without the need for additional resolution methods, or special rules to try to put some proportionality back into the system.

Also re working the resolution order to follow, to hit, to save, to wound/damage.Allows a simple suppression mechanic to be included in the basic shooting resolution. (Suppression and morale has been undermined and badly applied in 40k for a while now.)

I believe a 40k war game should focus more on tactical choices in game , compared to the current GW 40k .

Is every one following these basic ideas?Please ask questions or comment on any thing you may disagree with.

I will assume everyone is following the general direction I would like to take the new 40k re write rules in so far.

Here is an overview of what the new game turn could look like.(I have used new stat names to avoid confusion with the old system.)

'Command' Phase.
This is the 'start of turn' phase, where all actions that are taken before 'player controlled movement ' happens.
EG
Requesting off table support.(Reserves, air or artillery assets.)Some psychic abilities may be used here.Also compulsory movement , like routing units can be done.


Movement Phase .
In the movement phase the player may move their models up to the models mobility value when they take a movement action.
Players alternate moving their units as far as they wish, within the following options..

1)If models do not move at all they can fire more effectively .
Eg They can fire 'Ordnance' weapons, and 'Rapid Fire' weapons may fire at full range, when they shoot in the shooting phase.

2)If models take a single movement action.They can only fire weapons that can 'move and fire' in the Shooting phase

3)If models take two movement actions,they can not make any ranged attacks at all.

4)A unit must declare if it wants to charge an enemy unit to initiate an assault.After the assault is declared, the charging unit may take up to two movement actions to get into base to base(hull) contact with the targeted enemy unit.If this happens both units are locked in assault and may not shoot in the shooting phase.

Shooting Phase
Players alternate making ranged attacks with their units.

To hit score is found by comparing the attackers Shooting skill to the defenders Evasion skill.
The armour save of the defender is found by comparing the Armour value of the defender to the Armour Penetration of the attacking weapon hit.
The damage to the defender is found by comparing the Damage value of the weapon hit to the Resilience of the target.

After all attacks have been resolved casualties are removed, And units check it they have become suppressed.

Assault Phase
Player alternate assaulting with units locked in combat.

To hit score is found by comparing the attackers Assault skill to the defenders Dodge skill.
The armour save of the defender is found by comparing the Armour value of the defender to the Armour Penetration of the attacking weapon hit.
The damage to the defender is found by comparing the Damage value of the weapon hit to the Resilience of the target.

After all attacks have been resolved casualties are removed.

'Rally' Phase.
This phase is used to tidy up before the next game turn.
Off table support can arrive now and have its effects resolved, before the start of next turn.
Players make morale tests to attempt to lift suppression, or stop a route.


Proposed unit stat line.
Mobility Maximum distance a model may move, when a model takes a move action.This may be reduced by terrain features,(As detailed in the terrain rules.)

Shooting skill.How good the model is at hitting targets at range. Based on current BS values.

EvasionHow hard the target is to hit at range, based on model size and shape etc.(New stat.)

AssaultHow good the model is at hitting targets in assault, based on current WS values.

Dodge.How good the model is at avoiding being hit in assault, based on current Initiative values.

Armour. How much physical protection the model has.based on current saves, and armour values.

ResilienceHow hard the model is to damage after its armour is defeated.

Hit pointsHow much damage the model may take before its removed as a casualty.(Based on current wounds/structure points.)

MoraleHow willing the unit is to fight.

New unit weapon profiles.(Each unit card will have the weapons the unit carried detailed below the unit stat line.)

Name /Range/Attacks/AP/Damage /Notes.

What do you think so far,Any questions or comments?

As no one seems to have a problem with the new basic structure , lets have a look at the possible benefits.

A more interactive game turn allows players to engage more in tactical interaction.Without the heed for the complication of scheduling rules or reaction rules like over-watch.

We can alternate between units in the movement phase if locking unit in assault proves to be too powerful.(Assault preventing charged enemy shooting, is a simple method to help balance shooting and assault in a tactical focused game. )

The addition of a simple suppression effect boost shootings tactical effectiveness.(Along with the use of limited L.O.S. blocking munitions perhaps?)

As all unit resolve damage in the same way, there will not be an artificial difference between vehicles and non vehicle units.(Everything gets a proportional save!)

And because the new stat line and weapon profiles cover more of the interaction in much more detail , and give more proportional results.Less add on all or nothing special rules are needed to put the lack of proportionality back in a complicated way.(In terms of amount of pages of written rules.)

As the main focus of attacks is now to tactically control the position of enemy units, (Fire power to slow them down, and assault to move them out of the way.)
This would have the benefit of unit surviving longer on the table and hoard units do not have to carry so many ablative wounds...


Anyhow.
I would like to ask for opinions on unit cards.
As they seem very popular with other war games.They give players an easy way to construct a force , and give all the in game information in an easy to use format.

If we combined the best ideas from several games, so the back of the card gives the army composition info, and the front of the unit card gives the in game data.
The unit cards can do double duty.
Speed up army co,position, and in game play speed too!

Keep it a corny place where bloodletters can charge at people trying to use modern tactics armed with nothing but daemonic swords and hatred and slaughter the modern tactics users anyway.

If at any point, Khorne and his followers cannot satiate their bloodlust in the close combat because the game's mechanics favor cowardice such as ranged sorcery or artillery too much over Khorne's bloody harvest of axes and skulls in the close quarters that Khorne demands all his followers seek then the game has failed to be Warhammer.

Why would a close combat army like Khorne , not be able to overwhelm an enemy in all out assault?
Shooting armies can only suppress a few units, the others would get through to tie up the enemy in assault.

its a case of picking your priorities , maneuver and attack in co-ordination to win.

So the armies have different play styles , and use different tactics against each other.Its just the rate of attrition is slowed down, and the level of tactical depth is increased.