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.

Ok, everything is noted - thanks guys. I have a separate document where I have noted down layouts and such to be consistent for a lot of things, but not all and that's mostly because I couldn't actually decide.

Regarding bullet points, they're being used when more than thing is happening in a certain situation to make it clear for the reader.

Feel free to mention anything else - otherwise I guess the pinning rule is up for discussion. I can start the ball and state what I wanted to achieve.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:

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

I guess you mean the Target Priority rule. Well I really hope this is not a strict requirement from your side, because gameplay should come before the need to illustrate the background and to be interesting the Target Priority, Degree of Fear and Degree of Pinning need to affect Space Marines too.

Andykp wrote:

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

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

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

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

Haha I've never seen algebra being used in a game system like this. Well I don't mind algebra at all, but I don't think it will help in any case regarding a game system.

Andykp wrote:

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

I've played Epic a long time ago and I remember that I enjoyed it, so I'll dig the rules out again.

Andykp wrote:

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

Okay I will. Actually Invulnerable saves are gone.

Chaospling wrote:

Andykp wrote:

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

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

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

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

Haha I've never seen algebra being used in a game system like this. Well I don't mind algebra at all, but I don't think it will help in any case regarding a game system.

Thats another problem!

Game design is all algebra. When I told you I could prove that your turn structure didn't work mathmatically it's because simple algebraic equations come into play.

A unit in the game has a maximum effective range that is equal to their mobility(M) + their range (R). A unit taken on it's own who goes first in the movement phase, because of the turn structure, actually has a effective range of M + R - Enemies Mobility (E).

So a space marine with a bolter vs a Hormagaunt. 6+12-8=10. A space marine can shoot something 10" away from where it started the turn. If that same space marine went second it's effective range is 18" because the enemy cannot reposition after his move.

Now run the equation with a Tau Fire warrior.

6+30-8 = 28" on turn 1 or 36" on turn 2.

That hormagaunt vs either of them.

8+7(The range in which the chance of a successful charge becomes greater than 50%)-6=9" or turn 2 15"

Now factor in that degrees of pinning reduce movement.

You think the hormagaunts will ever reach the Tau if the Tau go second? Think the marines will? We haven't even gotten into the much faster crisis suits yet.

Here is another way to compile the data.
Marine mobility (M) with a flamer (R) goes second (S) /against enemy basic infantry mobility (E) goes first(F)

(M+R=S/-E=F)
6+8=14/-6=8 (Tau, Ork, AM, CSM, etc...)
6+8=14/-8=6 (Nids)
6+8=14/-5=9 (Necrons)
6+8=14/-4=10 (Terminators and equivalents)
6+8=14/-12=2 (Bikes and Gargoyles)

With a Bolter.

6+12=18/-6=12 (Tau, Ork, AM, CSM, etc...)
6+12=18/-8=10 (Nids)
6+12=18/-5=13 (Necrons)
6+12=18/-4=14 (Terminators and equivalents)
6+12=18/-12=6 (Bikes and Gargoyles)

Now the same calculations with Tau

6+30=36/-6=30 (Marines, ork AM CSM etc...)
6+30=36/-8=28 (Nids)
6+30=36/-5=31 (Necrons)
6+30=36/-4=32 (terminators)
6+30=36/-12=24 (Bikes and Gargs)

How do you intend to assign a point value to a gun that has a effective range that goes from 36 to 24 depending first and foremost on whether they went first or second that turn and than on intended target? (You can't.. it's too variable to assign a single value)

How do you intend to assign a point value to a gun that has a effective range that goes from 14 to 2 depending first and foremost on whether they went first or second that turn and than on intended target? (You can't.. it's too variable to assign a single value)

How do you balance 2 forces against each other when the turn structure itself is dictating so much of the action? (You can't. It's not the forces that are impacting the battle any more. They are all subject to turn order)

How do you justify widening that gap by introducing a mechanic that favors longer range/better shooting armies by allowing them to reduce the Movement speed of enemies (allowing them to maintain a higher range advantage for longer). (Seriously, how?)

Why would anyone, ANYONE, actually CHOOSE to go first in the movement phase?

Start going through all of your mechanics and lay out their actual mechanical effects as algebraic formulae. 1) if the formulae looks like something that would be scribbled across a chalk board by a science character in a movie then you have done something horribly wrong. It's way to complex for the players to be calculating. 2) You don't need a play test to find simple imbalances. If the equations come up uneven for opposite sides of the board for something as simple as the effect of movement then you can identify problems early and course correct. The farther along you are when problems are identified the more time and effort it takes to correct them. The more deeply seated into your design they are the more other mechanics will be impacted by them and the more you will need to change.

 Lance845 wrote:

Chaospling wrote:

Andykp wrote:

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

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

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

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

Haha I've never seen algebra being used in a game system like this. Well I don't mind algebra at all, but I don't think it will help in any case regarding a game system.

Thats another problem!

Game design is all algebra. When I told you I could prove that your turn structure didn't work mathmatically it's because simple algebraic equations come into play.

A unit in the game has a maximum effective range that is equal to their mobility(M) + their range (R). A unit taken on it's own who goes first in the movement phase, because of the turn structure, actually has a effective range of M + R - Enemies Mobility (E).

So a space marine with a bolter vs a Hormagaunt. 6+12-8=10. A space marine can shoot something 10" away from where it started the turn. If that same space marine went second it's effective range is 18" because the enemy cannot reposition after his move.

Now run the equation with a Tau Fire warrior.

6+36-8 = 36" on turn 1 or 42" on turn 2.

That hormagaunt vs either of them.

8+7(The range in which the chance of a successful charge becomes greater than 50%)-6=9" or turn 2 15"

Now factor in that degrees of pinning reduce movement.

You think the hormagaunts will ever reach the Tau if the Tau go second? Think the marines will? We haven't even gotten into the much faster crisis suits yet.


Start going through all of your mechanics and lay out their actual mechanical effects as algebraic formulae. 1) if the formulae looks like something that would be scribbled across a chalk board by a science character in a movie then you have done something horribly wrong. It's way to complex for the players to be calculating. 2) You don't need a play test to find simple imbalances. If the equations come up uneven for opposite sides of the board for something as simple as the effect of movement then you can identify problems early and course correct. The farther along you are when problems are identified the more time and effort it takes to correct them. The more deeply seated into your design they are the more other mechanics will be impacted by them and the more you will need to change.

You're taking a bad turn here Lance:
1. We were back on track, but assuming that you're the only one who knows basic algebra and how to calculate how extremely basic things would interact is very ignorant
2. Before your critique can be useful, you have to base your examples on my rules - not on other rules or video games

By the way, aren't the Hormagaunts allowed to run?

I really don't want to start a discussion which keeps on going without getting anywhere, but here's a similar example with the 40kD10: Edge of Revitalization rules:
Tau Firewarriors against Hormagaunts (I think I'll give them a movement of 7"). In this example, the Fire Warriors have Pulse Rifles (range 30", type: Ungainly). Ungainly is a new type right between Basic and Heavy. In short, Moving halves your range)

Let's say that there are 24" between deployment zones and the Fire Warriors are held at the back (they can't go further back), 11" from the front and the Hormagaunts are set right at the front, 35" between them to have the Fire Warriors within range and Hormagaunts must remove only those who are in range (the nearest).
Fire warriors go first not moving (sacrificing greater distance to the foe for shooting at the foe), the Hormagaunts make a Focussed move (Twice normal move) and are now 21" from the Fire Warriors. The Fire Warriors shoot (1 turn of shooting, Hormagaunts are removed from the rear - Tyranid players choice).

Second turn. Fire Warriors can
A) move 5" and then shoot 15": 21+5-14=12" Hormagaunts are within range.
B) stay and shoot: 21-14=7" Fire Warrirors are doubling their fire power compared to A) because of rules of the Pulse Rifles.

Fire Warriors are already at the edge of the table (Do anyone deploy like that?) but we let A) let them move the full 5" somewhere anyway to keep the favours for the Fire Warriors.

Choosing A):
*
2 turns of "normal" shooting.
Third turn. The Fire can
A) move 5" and then shoot 15": 12+5-7= 10". Charge range: 7+Gambled charge range of D5 (average of 3)=10" the Fire Warriors are reached in turn 3 having shot 3 turns of normal shooting + Overwatch.
B) stay and shoot double: 12-7=5". Charge range: 7". The Fire Warriors are reached in turn 3 having shot 4 turns of normal shooting.
*

Choosing B):
*
3 turns of normal shooting.
Third turn. Hormagaunts are so close that moving would be strictly worse for the Fire Warriors.
A) stay and shoot double: 7-6=1" (May not be closer than 1"). Charge range: 7". The Fire Warriors are reached in turn 3 having shot 5 turns of normal shooting.

So it didn't pay off to move at all. Whether or not the fire power would be enough is another thing. Terrain could be good and bad for both.

But thank you very much for looking at it from all the angles and seeing all the possibilities... Now Lance... If this has to work... We have to discuss things... Not be dead set on a certain angle... We don't get anywhere... Please...

Pft...

First. No. Hormagaunts dont run and charge. Genestealers do.

Second. I assume you can do basic algebra. I also assume you havent since it was such a shock to you that someone would.

Third, you forgot to factor in your pinning causing the low ld characterstic nids to slow down on each turn. Or the fact that the melee unit just took 3 rounds of shooting from a single unit without having any impact. This isnt realistic. The tau have more than 1 unit. When those hormagaunts get even remotely close they wont get shot by 1 unit. They will get shot by 2. 3. 4 units. Whatever it takes to cripple their movement or their numbers.


I have been having a discusion. You have been avoiding it.

 Lance845 wrote:
Pft...

First. No. Hormagaunts dont run and charge. Genestealers do.

No I meant up until the turn they charge.

 Lance845 wrote:

Second. I assume you can do basic algebra. I also assume you havent since it was such a shock to you that someone would.

Well, it's not that I was shocked, but every mechanic in a game of Warhammer (Fantasy and 40k and whatever edition) is divided into several steps, making it easy and intuitive for the players. Removing everything which has to do with the models/battlefield and so on and replacing them with algebra makes it less intuitive and mixes all the steps into one thing. How is this going to help anything? I would have done a comparison with the Blast Marker rules from Epic, so we could compare the complexity, but the rules I find about the blast markers only tells if a unit gets broken or not; can someone point me to the rules which Andy mentioned?

 Lance845 wrote:

Third, you forgot to factor in your pinning causing the low ld characterstic nids to slow down on each turn. Or the fact that the melee unit just took 3 rounds of shooting from a single unit without having any impact. This isnt realistic. The tau have more than 1 unit. When those hormagaunts get even remotely close they wont get shot by 1 unit. They will get shot by 2. 3. 4 units. Whatever it takes to cripple their movement or their numbers.

It's very situational now, where one can assume so many things. Does 1 unit of Fire Warriors equal 1 unit of Hormagaunts point-wise? Remember Pinning can only happen when the successful hits outnumber the models in the target unit. In the example the Hormagaunts had 7+D5 inches to spare regarding reaching the Fire Warriors in the third turn.
Also, in a normal game, assault units must endure enemy firing as well before they can charge...?
The Tau have more than 1 unit? And the Tyranid players has not?

How about this. Lets stop assuming that what I am saying can be disregarded because you think I am incorporating too many hypotheticals, or I didn't read your rules, or I don't know what I am talking about in terms of game design.

Extend to me the basic courtesy that I may have a point.

First, Yes, The hormagaunts COULD run. BUT, when they run, they cannot charge. So it won't actually help them. And I will get to why.



Second, Steps help a player understand the order of operations. The algebra is whats actually happening. It doesn't matter whether it's ever written out for the players in algebraic formulae. Whats important is that YOU understand what is happening in algebraic formulae. The player has to make calculations to play the game. Sometimes it's as simple as My gun can shoot x distance the the enemy can shoot y distance. If x is greater than y then the optimum position for my unit is within (x-y) inches from his max range. Nobody stands at the table and think of it in that exact way. But anyone making intelligent tactical decisions is coming to the same conclusion. The amount of math that needs to be done to calculate pinning is absurd. There are way to many things to check and way to much math to calculate based on those things to check.

In Bolt Action and Beyond the Gates of Antares it's simple. 1 unit shoots at another unit. If there are any successful hits you add a pin marker (not wounds. hits. The bullets hitting that close to the unit is enough to contribute to making them want to duck for cover. For 40k I would recommend this be wounds. Most armies would march right through hits just not giving a gak. It doesn't matter if the wound is later saved. The fact that it wounded is nerve wracking). If any models die you add another pin for each model that dies. When the unit is activated, if they have any pin markers, they must pass a leadership test with a -1 for each pin or they will "go to ground" and take cover. They will not follow orders because they are being pinned. Each pin is also a -1 to hit rolls (because suppressing fire). A unit can remove pins in a couple ways. 1 is being issued a regroup order which removed 1+1d6 pins or when they have gone to ground they remove 1 pin. If there are more pins on a unit then it has leadership they break and run.

It's a simple mechanic that requires no math, accomplishes most or all of what your trying to do with none of the complication, and is easy to track with a simple chit you place next to the unit.



Third, this is not situational and it's not an assumption of many things. It does not matter if 1 unit of firewarriors = 1 unit of hormagaunts. You are missing the point. The point is not hormagaunts vs firewarriors. The point is melee vs ranged. Or ranged vs superior ranged.

You are playing Tau. You move second. You have all your guys in your deployment zone and lets just assume that you deployed them intelligently based on your opponents army and army composition. I assume you would share army lists before deployment, yeah? So you have set up your side of the board to function well with the units you have.

The enemy, in general, has inferior range. They also have units that are melee only or heavily melee focused.

The Orks use Da Jump to send a group of Boyz forward. The Hormagaunts pop out of a trygon tunnel. The Assault Marines pop out of a drop pod or Assault Terminators teleport onto the field.

It's your movement phase. You can SEE THEM. They are right there. They have been placed where they can try to do what they want to do when it comes time for their turn to act. Mostly 2 phases later when charges start to happen. But even the not melee units. You can see the marines who made it 8-12 inches away with their bolters. You can see the flamers creeping up the field. You can see his every battle plan and then BASED on that you can decide which threats to negate by simply taking a step or using terrain to break LoS. WHILE you are using your movement to negate or diminish many of the threats he just created you can simultaneously set up your own threats to deal with the things that won't get to act for another 2 phases. Use suppressing fire. Use multiple units with superior range to shoot. Use what-the-feth ever.

What is the intelligent thing for you to do? You have such superior range and they HAD to get as close as possible to your units in order for them to TRY to guarantee a charge or really the opportunity to do ANYTHING. BUT, you still haven't moved. Are you going to stand in front of them to let them charge? Are you going to take the closest unit, move them back, use suppressing fire, and then use other surrounding units to chip away at their numbers and add more pinning? I would! Because I am not an idiot and it would be a gross tactical error to stand there and LET my opponent do what he wanted to do.

The point I have made this entire time, but you seem to fail to grasp, is that the player who moves first has to REVEAL. THEIR. PLAN. The player who moves second has a supreme tactical advantage. That advantage is magnified by having a superior range, and it's magnified AGAIN by your pinning rules.


Right now, under IGOUGO, you don't get to react. The unit that deep strikes in gets to make his charge before you turn your entire shooting phase on them. The unit gets a opportunity to act in the game in a meaningful way and impact the flow of the game. It's not tactically deep and it's not especially interesting because IGOUGO is just 2 players taking turns swinging the club that is their army at each other, but at the very least each unit gets to act meaningfully on their turn instead of just sliding up the table to look like a threat and then die or be negated.

But under alternating phases it's actually worse. One player is under the complete mercy of the other because the other player watches them position without meaningful action and then gets their positioning taken away from them as it's exploited by superior range, or just plain obvious planning, whenever possible. This is not simply about how one unit compares to another. I can math it out USING how one unit effects another under this system to give you solid math examples of how it doesn't work. But it shouldn't be necessary. Just, picture the table, and think about what choices you would make. How would you use these opportunities to your advantage. Is there anything, ANYTHING, in your mechanics that lets those units act before the other guy uses his movement to take away or vastly diminish their agency? Cause I can't see anything that helps them!

This issue is INHERENT in your turn structure and made WORSE by your other mechanics. Do you understand inherent? It's a natural consequence of. You cannot have alternating phases, the way your have them ordered and structured, and not create this problem.

Maybe if you had it ordered the phases differently such as... Movement and Charge together, followed by shooting. But even then, while that fixes the issue with melee focused units, it has not in any way helped flamers and pistols and fleshhooks and grenades and lashwhips. They all still get negated because they didn't get to move second.

Even if both sides had an equal number of units that were each 100% equivalent in point value, the player who moves second would decimate the first player so long as their range was at least equivalent to their opposition on a 1 for 1 basis.

It’s in epic 40000 the rules. From 3rd ed in 1997. Books on scribd.

The Pin Markers mechanic is very similar unsurprisingly. Rick Priestly was a major game designer at GW back in the day before he left for creative differences and started the company that made Bolt Action and BTGoA.

It worked really well as well. Really gave the feel of troops struggling on under greater amounts of fire.

@Lance:
First of all I'm sorry that my tone gets rude some times, but you really piss me off, when you're (maybe it's not intentional but you really sound like that) condescending like "you're missing the point" and "you fail to grasp" - I think that it's rude in itself.
Most of the time I'm thinking the same thing about you, but I don't say it (what does that help?), I just try to convince you.

Second, yes some times I'm kind of avoiding your questions or subjects you bring up. It's just that when I'm in such a disagreement with you at a very basic level, it would be so time-consuming so start discussing it... If we were face-to-face it would be a completely different matter.

I'm going to post another reply to your post later, but I have to say that in my example I let the Fire Warriors move their maximum distance from the Hormagaunts thereby illustrating that the Hormagaunts had moved first EVERY TURN giving the Fire Warriors a clear advantage, kind of repying to you that the Fire Warriors can get caught when using alternating phases.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Lance:
Regarding your questions about point cost of weapons. First, that's not the way I approach issue of point cost. Second, the way you lay it out the distance is a variable. What about how many times, a weapon can be fired? In a 6-turn game, you can say, that you paid for a weapon which can be shot 6 times. But Rapid Fire (7th edition rules) allows for double that. What kind of fire power were paid for? There's also the platform of the weapon. In my opinion it would be wrong to regard the weapon isolated without the platform (model) it's on. What if the BS changes through the battle thereby reducing the average damage output? How easy can the platform get destroyed (that would depend on which kind of damage the enemy can deal-is 90/10 anti infantry/vehicles or is it 50/50)
If you think that alternating phases and not alternate unit activation is a version in which you can't calculate the point cost to be precise, then we'll have to agree to disagree - we could keep discussing it without coming to a conclusion.

If you want to convince me then convince me. Not by addressing specific examples but the actual point I am making.

Again, the issue is not Hormagaunts vs Firewarriors. It's not a single unit vs a single unit. It's what happens in a game turn when one player has to reveal all their plans to the enemy without getting to enact any of them before the enemy gets to move and react to those plans.

The specific examples and the one unit vs unit examples give you small snap shots of what plays out but it has to come with an understanding that it is not happening in a vacuum. The hormagaunts and Firewarriors are not alone. The second player has choices to make and the agency to make them. They COULD stand there knowing the hormagaunts will make their charge. They COULD use a unit as bait in that way. But they don't HAVE to. And they don't have any particularly compelling reason I can think of to let them.

The first player however does not have those choices.

The platform pays it's points for it's abilities. A model with a high BS should be paying for that high BS. A platform with a lower BS, all else being the same, should cost less. If each platform gets the same gun that gun should be equal cost for it's number of shots and range and fear and whatever else.

The gun should not change cost with the model. The model already pays for the higher BS. Making the gun more expensive also means it pays for it twice.

I think when the turn structure itself has an impact on the effect of a weapon it's impossible to calculate cost. Because something that 1) has no bearing on the unit or weapon has such a major impact it's no longer about the unit or the weapon and 2) when that thing is not consitent game to game it's made even worse (i.e. it would be ONE thing (still not a good thing but something all together different) if a game was a flat alternating back and forth so you could for sure say that there were 6 turns in a game and 3 of them one player would move first and 3 the other would move first. But it's not. You built it so that you can make rolls and steal initiative with each phase. So, with luck, 1 player could ALWAYS move second AND shoot first. NOW it's full on impossible to calculate fairly.)

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

How does this sound (not that it would work in and on itself):
If there are more successful hits than models in the target unit, the target unit is Pinned? Does that sound complex?

@Lance:
What do you think of the example I posted? I brought it up to reply to your statement about Fire Warriors couldn't be caught.

 Lance845 wrote:

Second, Steps help a player understand the order of operations. The algebra is whats actually happening. It doesn't matter whether it's ever written out for the players in algebraic formulae. Whats important is that YOU understand what is happening in algebraic formulae.

But of course I do... Why wouldn't I? How would I have come up with all the mechanics, model profiles, special rules etc. etc.? Just because I thought it sounded fun and had no regard whatsoever to gameplay, statistics, mathematical possibilities?

 Lance845 wrote:

The player has to make calculations to play the game. Sometimes it's as simple as My gun can shoot x distance the the enemy can shoot y distance. If x is greater than y then the optimum position for my unit is within (x-y) inches from his max range. Nobody stands at the table and think of it in that exact way. But anyone making intelligent tactical decisions is coming to the same conclusion. The amount of math that needs to be done to calculate pinning is absurd. There are way to many things to check and way to much math to calculate based on those things to check.

Are we talking about the same? I'm using rather easy numbers now, but if 5 boltguns attacks are fired at Guardsmen (Boltguns have higher Fear value than the Guarsmen's Defensive Fear value), then Space Marines successfully hit an average of 7 times. If the unit of Guardsmen are 6 or less they will be Pinned to a degree on average, if more than 6, it will be less than average. Is it wrong to use this kind of example? Do you think that it's complicated, what I just wrote?

I'll try to answer more of it later.

I think the example you wrote was nonsense because it doesn't attribute any losses to the Hormagaunts unit for being shot. It doesn't factor in that other units could be using suppressing fire to slow them down. And it doesn't attribute the idea that more than one unit could/would be shooting at the hormagaunts.

If a unit of 30 hormagaunts could not make it into melee with tau in 7th or 8th ed in 1 turn the chances of more than 10 hormagaunts being alive on turn 2 is slim to none. Even if you factor in that in your game those hormagaunts will be twice as durable they will still not survive for 3 turns. And the unit doesn't even need to be wiped. If a unit of hormagaunts is reduced to say.. 5 models. It doesn't even matter if they make it into melee. They are incapable of doing enough damage to matter any more.

Again. It's not happening in a vacuum. I gave those examples as a small scale snap shot of the actual problem. Your answer did not address the actual issue, which is that the tau player has agency because he can see what the Nid player is trying to do and the Nid player is at his mercy because the Tau player hasn't moved yet.



Yes. That is too complicated. You have to count number of models in one unit. Number of models in the other unit. Number of hits. Fear of a weapon fired, (which gets worse if the unit is shooting different kinds of weapons), fear defense stat, and then run a calculation based on all those factors.

You need 5 different numbers every single time a unit fires a gun to calculate a secondary effect of shooting the gun.

In comparison: Bolt action: Did you hit? Yes? Pin Marker. No? Nothing happened.

 Lance845 wrote:
If you want to convince me then convince me. Not by addressing specific examples but the actual point I am making.

Again, the issue is not Hormagaunts vs Firewarriors. It's not a single unit vs a single unit. It's what happens in a game turn when one player has to reveal all their plans to the enemy without getting to enact any of them before the enemy gets to move and react to those plans.

The specific examples and the one unit vs unit examples give you small snap shots of what plays out but it has to come with an understanding that it is not happening in a vacuum. The hormagaunts and Firewarriors are not alone. The second player has choices to make and the agency to make them. They COULD stand there knowing the hormagaunts will make their charge. They COULD use a unit as bait in that way. But they don't HAVE to. And they don't have any particularly compelling reason I can think of to let them.

It's just that you stated earlier that the Fire Warriors always could escape because of alternating phase and so I made an example and let everything be in favour of the Fire Warriors regarding distances and alternating phases. Now, of course we agree that a normal battle is not just these two units and a lot else can affect to benefit both sides, but what point can be made out of that? If we stay with your statement, then didn't I prove that Fire Warriors could be caught in turn 3 even when they could move second and they could maximum range even though being deployed at the edge?

 Lance845 wrote:

The platform pays it's points for it's abilities. A model with a high BS should be paying for that high BS. A platform with a lower BS, all else being the same, should cost less. If each platform gets the same gun that gun should be equal cost for it's number of shots and range and fear and whatever else.

The gun should not change cost with the model. The model already pays for the higher BS. Making the gun more expensive also means it pays for it twice.

I think when the turn structure itself has an impact on the effect of a weapon it's impossible to calculate cost. Because something that 1) has no bearing on the unit or weapon has such a major impact it's no longer about the unit or the weapon and 2) when that thing is not consitent game to game it's made even worse (i.e. it would be ONE thing (still not a good thing but something all together different) if a game was a flat alternating back and forth so you could for sure say that there were 6 turns in a game and 3 of them one player would move first and 3 the other would move first. But it's not. You built it so that you can make rolls and steal initiative with each phase. So, with luck, 1 player could ALWAYS move second AND shoot first. NOW it's full on impossible to calculate fairly.)

We are also disagreeing on this subject, but I really don't have the time to discuss this subject as well other than when reading your explanation, I think that my approach is much more "advanced", not just from another angle, and so I feel confident to just let this subject be.

Chaospling wrote:
It's just that you stated earlier that the Fire Warriors always could escape because of alternating phase and so I made an example and let everything be in favour of the Fire Warriors regarding distances and alternating phases. Now, of course we agree that a normal battle is not just these two units and a lot else can affect to benefit both sides, but what point can be made out of that? If we stay with your statement, then didn't I prove that Fire Warriors could be caught in turn 3 even when they could move second and they could maximum range even though being deployed at the edge?

No.

because it doesn't attribute any losses to the Hormagaunts unit for being shot. It doesn't factor in that other units could be using suppressing fire to slow them down. And it doesn't attribute the idea that more than one unit could/would be shooting at the hormagaunts.

If a unit of 30 hormagaunts could not make it into melee with tau in 7th or 8th ed in 1 turn the chances of more than 10 hormagaunts being alive on turn 2 is slim to none. Even if you factor in that in your game those hormagaunts will be twice as durable they will still not survive for 3 turns. And the unit doesn't even need to be wiped. If a unit of hormagaunts is reduced to say.. 5 models. It doesn't even matter if they make it into melee. They are incapable of doing enough damage to matter any more.

Again. It's not happening in a vacuum. I gave those examples as a small scale snap shot of the actual problem. Your answer did not address the actual issue, which is that the tau player has agency because he can see what the Nid player is trying to do and the Nid player is at his mercy because the Tau player hasn't moved yet.

 Lance845 wrote:

The platform pays it's points for it's abilities. A model with a high BS should be paying for that high BS. A platform with a lower BS, all else being the same, should cost less. If each platform gets the same gun that gun should be equal cost for it's number of shots and range and fear and whatever else.

The gun should not change cost with the model. The model already pays for the higher BS. Making the gun more expensive also means it pays for it twice.

I think when the turn structure itself has an impact on the effect of a weapon it's impossible to calculate cost. Because something that 1) has no bearing on the unit or weapon has such a major impact it's no longer about the unit or the weapon and 2) when that thing is not consitent game to game it's made even worse (i.e. it would be ONE thing (still not a good thing but something all together different) if a game was a flat alternating back and forth so you could for sure say that there were 6 turns in a game and 3 of them one player would move first and 3 the other would move first. But it's not. You built it so that you can make rolls and steal initiative with each phase. So, with luck, 1 player could ALWAYS move second AND shoot first. NOW it's full on impossible to calculate fairly.)

We are also disagreeing on this subject, but I really don't have the time to discuss this subject as well other than when reading your explanation, I think that my approach is much more "advanced", not just from another angle, and so I feel confident to just let this subject be.

Calculate your points however you want to calculate your points. They are the EASIEST thing to change and can be changed constantly without making sweeping changes to the game. Point adjustments don't directly impact anything but the model/option itself. In a list of things from highest priority to lowest priority they are the absolute last item on the list. When something seems over or under costed you will fudge your numbers however you see fit by whatever metric you are using.

 Lance845 wrote:
If a unit of 30 hormagaunts could not make it into melee with tau in 7th or 8th ed in 1 turn the chances of more than 10 hormagaunts being alive on turn 2 is slim to none.

So are you saying that 7th and 8th edition was/is broken as well?

 Lance845 wrote:

Yes. That is too complicated. You have to count number of models in one unit. Number of models in the other unit. Number of hits. Fear of a weapon fired, (which gets worse if the unit is shooting different kinds of weapons), fear defense stat, and then run a calculation based on all those factors.

What about 7th and 8th edition rules of normal shooting (not pinning)? Isn't that a much more lengthy process?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think that it's best that we stop here Lance. We don't seem to agree about much and we aren't getting anywhere

I might post several versions of my pinning system which are more simple. We can then try discuss them and see if they're better.

Chaospling wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
If a unit of 30 hormagaunts could not make it into melee with tau in 7th or 8th ed in 1 turn the chances of more than 10 hormagaunts being alive on turn 2 is slim to none.

So are you saying that 7th and 8th edition was/is broken as well?

No. I am saying your system is worse. In 7th and 8th the hormagaunts COULD get into melee before the Tau shot them to pieces. In your system that is impossible.

Don't try to deflect with a strawman question that has nothing to do with the point I am making. Address the point.

 Lance845 wrote:
Don't try to deflect with a strawman question that has nothing to do with the point I am making. Address the point.

That wasn't my intention. Please be polite Lance.

 Lance845 wrote:

Chaospling wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
If a unit of 30 hormagaunts could not make it into melee with tau in 7th or 8th ed in 1 turn the chances of more than 10 hormagaunts being alive on turn 2 is slim to none.

So are you saying that 7th and 8th edition was/is broken as well?

No. I am saying your system is worse. In 7th and 8th the hormagaunts COULD get into melee before the Tau shot them to pieces. In your system that is impossible.

Can you prove that please? Or rather... Save yourself the time. I proved that it was possible with a concrete example; how many Hormagaunts which would be left is up to the shooting rules and point cost. Save yourself the effort buddy. Let's move on.

Yup. Im moved on. You cant follow the thread of the conversation or answer the points i was making. This has become a complete waste of my time. Good luck Andy.

Ok, so now when Lance is finally away from this thread, there is room for some concrete talk about those poor hormagaunts and fire warriors...

If my math is correct (it might be off, as it was my first contact with your ruleset), then assuming movement of 7", S3 and T3, sv- for gaunts (this is rather a straight conversion based on S/T values on Fire Warriors and what you wrote above), 10 Fire Warriors kill nearly 10 gaunts per shooting phase (20 shots) while each gaunt that makes into CC kills around 0.5 Fire Warrior charging and 1/3 less in subsequent phases. For those two squads to balance out in the void (so their isolated encounter in the open ends in a draw as the most average outcome), assuming those 3 turns of shooting, you need 40gaunts be worth same points as 10 Fire Warriors. And while this would be theoretically balanced and quite fluffy, it is also totally unpractical on the tabletop (you'll run out of deployment zone with basic troops requirement alone) and unjust for horde players at the same time - having to have that much more models to buy, paint and carry just to live through three turns of only removing bodies... It also makes pinning discussion purely academic, as fire warriors can suppress hormagaunts only right before the charge when it hardly matters anyway.

So parameters to (re)consider when working on this - you have based your work on power armour and mass shooting, made a ruleset that accommodates that well enough, but because you did not start with all extremities in mind (or at least it looks so from the above calculation) you may find it hard to balance in some existing factions and their desired modes of play. I would suggest to make faction rules gradually but in parallel - not a codex at a time, but force org slot at a time for as many factions as you can - so first core troops of all factions, then HS, then FA etc... You'll probably avoid a lot of headaches and critique that way later on.

Other than that, cudos for clearly a lot of work with this ruleset. You might want to rephrase some paragraphs (it took me a while to make sense of pinning) and generally implement some better notation/editing practices. From what it looks like after first reading, it is much more suited for (and akin to) 2nd ed sized battles than for modern massed battles (which emphasizes the CC vs shooting problem even more). I also think that some of detailed parameters could be folded into core rules (critical toughness for example doesn't seem necessary, "double strenght" would probably work in very similar way).

nou wrote:
Ok, so now when Lance is finally away from this thread, there is room for some concrete talk about those poor hormagaunts and fire warriors...

*Embracing, hugging and kissing you*

nou wrote:

If my math is correct (it might be off, as it was my first contact with your ruleset), then assuming movement of 7", S3 and T3, sv- for gaunts (this is rather a straight conversion based on S/T values on Fire Warriors and what you wrote above), 10 Fire Warriors kill nearly 10 gaunts per shooting phase (20 shots) while each gaunt that makes into CC kills around 0.5 Fire Warrior charging and 1/3 less in subsequent phases. For those two squads to balance out in the void (so their isolated encounter in the open ends in a draw as the most average outcome), assuming those 3 turns of shooting, you need 40gaunts be worth same points as 10 Fire Warriors. And while this would be theoretically balanced and quite fluffy, it is also totally unpractical on the tabletop (you'll run out of deployment zone with basic troops requirement alone) and unjust for horde players at the same time - having to have that much more models to buy, paint and carry just to live through three turns of only removing bodies... It also makes pinning discussion purely academic, as fire warriors can suppress hormagaunts only right before the charge when it hardly matters anyway.

So parameters to (re)consider when working on this - you have based your work on power armour and mass shooting, made a ruleset that accommodates that well enough, but because you did not start with all extremities in mind (or at least it looks so from the above calculation) you may find it hard to balance in some existing factions and their desired modes of play. I would suggest to make faction rules gradually but in parallel - not a codex at a time, but force org slot at a time for as many factions as you can - so first core troops of all factions, then HS, then FA etc... You'll probably avoid a lot of headaches and critique that way later on.

Other than that, cudos for clearly a lot of work with this ruleset. You might want to rephrase some paragraphs (it took me a while to make sense of pinning) and generally implement some better notation/editing practices. From what it looks like after first reading, it is much more suited for (and akin to) 2nd ed sized battles than for modern massed battles (which emphasizes the CC vs shooting problem even more). I also think that some of detailed parameters could be folded into core rules (critical toughness for example doesn't seem necessary, "double strenght" would probably work in very similar way).

Regarding the unpracticality of many models:
That's been something which have worried me too. I wanted Space Marines to be closer to the background when it came to durability and fire power and so when I started to calculate the point cost of Space Marines and Guardsmen (with my system the cost of a model can only be determined from the cost of another model), the Guardsmen were at 4 points and Space Marines at 17 points, that were changed to 5 and 21 points to give more space for models inferior to Guardsmen. So with 5 and 21 points, it made me aware of the huge possible disadvantage of armies which may have a lot of models. Now, to offset this I've come up with special rules (only for Astra Militarum so far) which urge such players to keep the models close to each other and I also gave me the objective to let the tanks of the Astra Militarum be quite useful and so be quite expensive; this is to keep the number of Guardsmen at an affordable level.
Regarding your math, I have some points.
Gaunts will probably have Strength and Toughness 4 and will have the Beast type, so their charges will have an extra bonus. They will maybe also have some kind of armour save too, though it sure will be negated by the Pulse rifle. Furthermore a Fire Warrior fires 1 shot at 15"-30" when stationary, but I guess you meant "20 shots" when the Hormagaunts are within 15"? One last thing is that I might actually let Gaunts have a Weapon Skill characteristic with values of 2|2 to make the Fear mechanic matter (lower Weapon Skill obviously lowers the point cost of a Hormagaunt, but it's what I had in mind anyway). So... It don't know if the higher Strength and Toughness changes anything (it should), but I can say that I'm also working on an Astra Militarum and Ork codex as far as the stats of models go to calculate point cost and give a better picture. So I'm actually doing it roughly like you say, working out stats gradually, I just came to a point (have been working on this for quite some time now) where I got some stats ready and so I moved on to said models' special rules, wargear and options.

Regarding rephrasing paragraphs, I'll very much listen to any suggestions; I know that I'll into Degree of Pinning for sure.

Regarding complexity and the size of battles, there is some kind of paradox, because some basic mechanics will work best for smaller sized battles and some will work best for bigger sized battles (I know this is not good/optimal) and if I were to choose, the ruleset should work for bigger sized battles. Now, I'm doing this ruleset for the likes of me: I want a ruleset which reflect the background better than have been done so far. I hated the idea of monofilament weapons being harmful to vehicles and now flamers being harmful to flyers and so if some mechanics have corrected this but having the disadvantage of being cluncky in bigger games, then so be it. Then this ruleset will just have a more narrow target group (I hope You are out there) and I'm perfectly fine with that - this is not for making money, so I don't need a huge target group. Having said that, when someone tells you that he's been enjoying and playing 1st and 2nd edition and he thinks that this is too complex... You listen


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Regarding pinning:
When setting Fire Warriors against Hormagaunts, then yes, the Fire Warriors will have a hard time pinning them. When figuring out pinning and the Fear values of the weapons, there are a lot of factors which decide which kind of target a weapon and the unit is effective against, and I really do prefer that a unit is not effective against all kinds of target, but that it need to work together with other units to create an effective and cohesive force. Now, when it comes to pulse rifles, I think it's okay for such a lethal weapon to have a weakness and such a weakness might be hordes. It's powerful enough to weaken the power armour save, but you usually don't have enough shots to suppress horde armies - the Supporting Fire special rule can help with that though.
If I didn't make it clear in my first reply then I'll say it now: thank you very much nou for giving me useful feedback!

Sticking to FW vs gaunts, as this has now become deeply enough dissected example. What you wrote above is a mix of steps to close the gap (beast, S&T) and steps that widen the gap back (WS), so the result would probably lessen the amount of gaunts per FW to 3:1 to be balanced. This is still too much to be practical. But just to cheer you up a bit, I had the same problems with my own "fork" of warhammer (based on 7th but moving it far closer to 2nd feel of things) - when you want to base the ruleset of Warhammer on fluff you will end up with a totall mess. Tyranid armies should, by the fluff, consist of hundreds of gaunts, few synapse creatures and even fewer monsters and still be an easy prey to small force of Imperium's Finest... My sugestion for Tyranids problem would be similar to what has been done with Tyranids in 2nd - make them "endless wave" army. So Hormagaunts may remain cheap, fast and mostly screening/harassment unit that doesn't require Tyranid player to own and operate on hundreds of models but still give the feel of a mass horde of disposable bodies. Giving Hormagaunts movement as fast as bike units and some neat returning deployment options solved the problem for me. This way you can also keep model count in a unit low enough for suppression mechanics to work as intended.

But there is another problem with suppression mechanics based on model count - multi wound models and especially units of multiwound models. It is feasible for Tyranid Warriors to have high defensive fear characteristic (around 10, but I see that even Tau HQ has DF of 6) to overcome that they would be constantly pinned by FW (15 hits for 5:1 bonus is perfectly possible at short range), but Raveners are basically the same model without Fearless and Synapse, so should have low DF and there are a lot of large, multiwound creatures that shouldn't be easily pinned. Also, granting high DF value to fearless units defeats the purpose of high fear single shot weapons, favouring high ROF weapons. So you might consider adding physical size to the pinning mechanism, to not end up with a lot of exceptions to core rules. I stumbled upon the very same problem when I tried to introduce meaningfull pinning against Tyranids - it either worked "backwards", suppressing medium and large creatures the most or was too weak to matter anyways, or needed a unit-by-unit exclusion, which defeats the purpose of core rule...

As you can see, a lot of balance/fluff logic problems arise when considering particular factions and how they interact with core ruleset. One of the best methods of keeping faction feel fluffy while keeping core rules as universal as possible is to differentiate factions at winning conditions level, not at detailed rules level, but it is much harder to balance without serious amount of playtesting and tweaking. But, for example, the endless swarm above could work totally different in "matched play symmetrical scenario" setup and in "faction specific mission goals" setup. Especially if every faction vs faction matchup could generate different win conditions for both attacker and defender roles. And before you reply with "that is something to consider after fleshing out the factions better" - win conditions are probably the most important part of core rules in any conflict game, and by the look of it you are too attached to how official warhammer missions are constructed. And 40K missions were always the weakest/most shallow part of this game.

And I have to ask - how well do you know 2nd ed ruleset? I ask because monofilament weaponry back then had no effects on vechicles except for low probability of hitting actual pilot/driver.

nou wrote:
Sticking to FW vs gaunts, as this has now become deeply enough dissected example. What you wrote above is a mix of steps to close the gap (beast, S&T) and steps that widen the gap back (WS), so the result would probably lessen the amount of gaunts per FW to 3:1 to be balanced. This is still too much to be practical. But just to cheer you up a bit, I had the same problems with my own "fork" of warhammer (based on 7th but moving it far closer to 2nd feel of things) - when you want to base the ruleset of Warhammer on fluff you will end up with a totall mess. Tyranid armies should, by the fluff, consist of hundreds of gaunts, few synapse creatures and even fewer monsters and still be an easy prey to small force of Imperium's Finest...

A Fire Warrior costs 13 points and a Guardsman costs 5 points so this may already be a problem regarding 3:1? I don't know what I will go for but I guess 5-7 points for a Hormagaunt is alright with me.

nou wrote:

My sugestion for Tyranids problem would be similar to what has been done with Tyranids in 2nd - make them "endless wave" army. So Hormagaunts may remain cheap, fast and mostly screening/harassment unit that doesn't require Tyranid player to own and operate on hundreds of models but still give the feel of a mass horde of disposable bodies.

I can't remember the Endless wave... Is it something you call them or was it a special rule?

nou wrote:
Giving Hormagaunts movement as fast as bike units and some neat returning deployment options solved the problem for me. This way you can also keep model count in a unit low enough for suppression mechanics to work as intended.

Armies with a lot of models will also be compensated when deploying in 40kD10: Edge of Revitalization. "returning deployment"? Meaning that a unit will reappear in the deployment zone, when it is killed or something like that?

nou wrote:
But there is another problem with suppression mechanics based on model count - multi wound models and especially units of multiwound models. It is feasible for Tyranid Warriors to have high defensive fear characteristic (around 10, but I see that even Tau HQ has DF of 6) to overcome that they would be constantly pinned by FW (15 hits for 5:1 bonus is perfectly possible at short range), but Raveners are basically the same model without Fearless and Synapse, so should have low DF and there are a lot of large, multiwound creatures that shouldn't be easily pinned. Also, granting high DF value to fearless units defeats the purpose of high fear single shot weapons, favouring high ROF weapons. So you might consider adding physical size to the pinning mechanism, to not end up with a lot of exceptions to core rules. I stumbled upon the very same problem when I tried to introduce meaningfull pinning against Tyranids - it either worked "backwards", suppressing medium and large creatures the most or was too weak to matter anyways, or needed a unit-by-unit exclusion, which defeats the purpose of core rule...

It's difficult for me to talk about when I haven't made stats and made calculations based on those stats, but I may construct Tyranid units at a very different way than you have seen. I have done so with the Orks. The Tyranid is a single mind so representing that could mean that units aren't organised as the other races, which do so to keep it ordered and manageable during a battle - you could say that the Hivemind doesn't need that as it has perfect overview.

nou wrote:
As you can see, a lot of balance/fluff logic problems arise when considering particular factions and how they interact with core ruleset. One of the best methods of keeping faction feel fluffy while keeping core rules as universal as possible is to differentiate factions at winning conditions level, not at detailed rules level, but it is much harder to balance without serious amount of playtesting and tweaking. But, for example, the endless swarm above could work totally different in "matched play symmetrical scenario" setup and in "faction specific mission goals" setup. Especially if every faction vs faction matchup could generate different win conditions for both attacker and defender roles. And before you reply with "that is something to consider after fleshing out the factions better" - win conditions are probably the most important part of core rules in any conflict game, and by the look of it you are too attached to how official warhammer missions are constructed. And 40K missions were always the weakest/most shallow part of this game.

I very much agree - Have you taken a look at the Tactical Objectives (I may change this to "Strategems" to keep a term from the official 40k) at the back of the codices? By the way - remember that a lot of units (mostly in the Blood Angels codex) has just been given point cost and stats from 7th edition, so if something doesn't make sense it's probably because I haven't updated the numbers properly.

nou wrote:
And I have to ask - how well do you know 2nd ed ruleset? I ask because monofilament weaponry back then had no effects on vechicles except for low probability of hitting actual pilot/driver.

When I mentioned monofilament weaponry I meant 7th edition rules and how high Strength is good against vehicles.

Regarding point costs - this subject is rather tricky so I don't want to give you any numbers - you must always make direct "on field" comparisons of unit efectiveness. Exact gaunt value in comparison to FW will depend on how exactly those two unit will perform against each other or other benchmarks. My calculations above were based on some straight port assumptions and 1-on-1 assault attempt scenario just as an ilustration on how deeply your system favors shooting over melee. I understand, that you cannot talk in depth about things you haven't done yet - I was simply pointing out some incoming bumps on the road that first came to mind when reading core rules.

Yes, endless wave (original rule is called Endless Swarm) is a returning mechanic to give a feeling of overwhelming masses while using a reasonable number of models. As such, it messes with kill points and tabling/board control win conditions, so should be balanced out somehow. I just had a look at your "stratagems" section and I'm not really a fan of mixing tactical aids with win condition cards and it's too much to simply eyeball without actually playtesting your ruleset thoroughly, which I won't be doing as I have my own "fork" to maintain. Which leads to another question:

how many actual games have you played with this system? I'm genuinely interested, as I know only how many games it took me to understand/correct/mess up again/improve/rework/balance out my own fork and for only a couple of somewhat related factions it took about 50-70 games and it is still work in progress.

nou wrote:
Regarding point costs - this subject is rather tricky so I don't want to give you any numbers - you must always make direct "on field" comparisons of unit efectiveness. Exact gaunt value in comparison to FW will depend on how exactly those two unit will perform against each other or other benchmarks. My calculations above were based on some straight port assumptions and 1-on-1 assault attempt scenario just as an ilustration on how deeply your system favors shooting over melee. I understand, that you cannot talk in depth about things you haven't done yet - I was simply pointing out some incoming bumps on the road that first came to mind when reading core rules.

Exactly, my point system measures two types of effectivenesses of a model and compares those to another model, then it's up to me to find point costs where I think that the effectivenesses balance each other out.

nou wrote:

Yes, endless wave (original rule is called Endless Swarm) is a returning mechanic to give a feeling of overwhelming masses while using a reasonable number of models. As such, it messes with kill points and tabling/board control win conditions, so should be balanced out somehow.

Yeah but I'm not going do that. I'm of the opinion that rules and the point cost must find me an answer and that nothing is free unless it comes with an disadvantage which is equally bad like those special rules which are available for some Character.

nou wrote:
I just had a look at your "stratagems" section and I'm not really a fan of mixing tactical aids with win condition cards and it's too much to simply eyeball without actually playtesting your ruleset thoroughly, which I won't be doing as I have my own "fork" to maintain.

well I like the idea of having the choice of either taking tactical aids which can help you obtain a single or few specific objectives or allowing yourself several objectives giving you many ways to obtain Victory Points.

nou wrote:

Which leads to another question:
how many actual games have you played with this system? I'm genuinely interested, as I know only how many games it took me to understand/correct/mess up again/improve/rework/balance out my own fork and for only a couple of somewhat related factions it took about 50-70 games and it is still work in progress.

... Ermm... What is classified as a game? So far I haven't had a normal game with several units played by other players than myself.

I say this in good will, but be prepared to have to rewrite huge swathes of this project when actual playtesting starts. From what you wrote you made a fundamental mistake of believing, that linear points metrics is suitable for evaluation of multidimensional space of stats and rules interactions and even more so, you don't really know what are the emergent properties of your ruleset, you only know what you can calculate in the void. And with complex systems that is not enough. I would advise you to stop detailed work on new rules and factions at the moment, find an enthusiastic play partner and spend the time to play the hell out of the very barebones of this system, even with symmetrical forces, but utilizing various scenario, terrain and army composition setups and try your hardest at abusing this system. With fresh set of eyes you will most certainly find flaws, actual limitations, strengths and caveats and dead ends (rules that seem to be balanced and working on paper but after finding a flaw requiring total rewrite because there is no actual room to meaningfully improve them by simple changing of parameters). I know this isn't what you call "concrete feedback" but my whole game design experience tells me, that you have over invested in theory without enough practice... After all, what is a game worth if it doesn't get played at all?

nou wrote:
I say this in good will, but be prepared to have to rewrite huge swathes of this project when actual playtesting starts.

No problem... People find it quite difficult to get a word in, when I'm shouting "LALALALALA"... So critique so far has been at the minimal and so I suspect that no changes are needed…
But seriously, I've rewritten several parts of the rules several times so ready to keep developing.

nou wrote:

From what you wrote you made a fundamental mistake of believing, that linear points metrics is suitable for evaluation of multidimensional space of stats and rules interactions and even more so, you don't really know what are the emergent properties of your ruleset, you only know what you can calculate in the void. And with complex systems that is not enough. I would advise you to stop detailed work on new rules and factions at the moment, find an enthusiastic play partner and spend the time to play the hell out of the very barebones of this system, even with symmetrical forces, but utilizing various scenario, terrain and army composition setups and try your hardest at abusing this system. With fresh set of eyes you will most certainly find flaws, actual limitations, strengths and caveats and dead ends (rules that seem to be balanced and working on paper but after finding a flaw requiring total rewrite because there is no actual room to meaningfully improve them by simple changing of parameters). I know this isn't what you call "concrete feedback" but my whole game design experience tells me, that you have over invested in theory without enough practice... After all, what is a game worth if it doesn't get played at all?

You're right that I could have spend more time at test games rather than keep on writing codices and rules in general, and it's not that I didn't have the chance, but it's just difficult for me to take a day out of the calendar to spend on test games with so much else happening in my life. Remember, even though this is a lot of work, it's still only a pet project, so I only get to work on it, when I have time to spare, which actually is not that often.

Hi guys, so roughly a year has gone with a lot happening in my life besides 40k. I've had some time, but not much, to keep updating and play-testing the rules.

People have received the rules well, though these guys have an advantage as they are good with numbers, which more or less is required with this rule set.

So far the rules and point cost seem balanced, though the T'au Empire need some additional Command Cards which include other ways for them to gain Victory Points, as they have a very hard time to keep an Objective safe, because of their lack of close combat units. This actually make the Kroot even more necessary for the T'au Empire, and I like that, but it would be nice for T'au Empire to focus on getting Victory Points other than from Objective Markers, which also would fit their background perfectly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Some notes about making Blood Angels unique:

"The Reclusiarchs – the highest ranking Chaplains – are the keepers of the Chapter’s Reclusiam, the Blood Angels’ most sacred shrine. The Reclusiam nestles in the heart of a great spire that stands tall over the rest of the fortress monastery and only the tower of the Sanguinary Priesthood stands as high."

"Where the Chaplains aid the Blood Angels in resisting the Flaw, the Sanguinary Priests exhort their brothers to embrace the Red Thirst, and to use it to their advantage. "

"Whilst the sermons and ceremonies of the Chapter’s Chaplains exhort their Battle-Brothers to reject the anger within, those performed by the Sanguinary Priests call upon the Blood Angels to embrace the Red Thirst and wrest it to their control; unleashing its strength to buttress theirs when the day is darkest and the battle goes ill. Even to this day, the Sanguine Tower of the Priesthood is the only part of the fortress monastery that challenges the dark glory of the Chapter’s Reclusiam. These two towers – one a shining beacon of redemption and renewal, the other sinister and sombre – remain a physical monument to the dual nature at the heart of every Blood Angels’ soul. "

From this I made the two special rules: "Dual nature: The Reclusiam" and "Dual nature: The Priesthood" for the Chaplains and Sanguinary Priests . There is also a special rule, "Red Thirst" which a unit must roll to see if it gets. Having one of the dual nature special rules allows to automatically have or deny the Red Thirst special according to the background.

This approach allows the Blood Angel players to lead their armies in different ways and shows the self-accepted flaw and depth of this noble Space Marine Chapter.