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.

Oh, no, I'm not against counters. Given the system I've proposed, in fact, that's probably easiest way of keeping track of which units have fired (and therefore can't fire again yet), which units have moved (and therefore can't use use heavy weapons at full BS), which units have done neither (and can therefore fire Overwatch).

I just don't like systems that require you to give orders to all your units in advance, before the first one acts -- that's what Epic sounded like to me, tho I've never played and may well have gotten that wrong.

Anyone taken a look at Dust Warfare rules system? I am fairly certain that they have a phase system which seems good. I've been wanting to try the game out for awhile now.

I don't know about its phase system, but dust warfare's suppression and reaction system is very cool, and adapting it to 40K could produce some interesting results. As for changing the turn system away from the move / shoot / assault phases, changing this means a significant change to the feel of the system, because so much of the game is dependent on the interaction between these three phases. The concepts behind many armies would have to be re-thought as well, since if a unit can perform only 2 of the three current "Actions" (Move, Shoot, Assault), it seriously weakens armies that are meant to be good at all three. Alternatively, if you let them perform 3 actions, then there's either no change from the current system, or units can repeat an action, which would make them far more powerful. If i can shoot with my Imperial Guard / Tau instead of assaulting, you can bet that i'm going to do so.

So far as counters being bad, they can be frustrating, and id prefer to have no more than 1 or 2 counters on any unit at a time (it can quickly turn into a mess otherwise), meaning the effects that require counters should be severely restricted. Things like pinning / suppression, wounds, or a leader's remaining orders should get counters, not base functions of the system like showing a unit has moved or fired this turn.

Well, as I've tentatively outlined the system above (much much much work to do), a unit could

-- charge (i.e. move into contact), either in on its own side's turn or on overwatch during the other side's, win the combat, and, when its side's next turn came up, charge again.

-- move on its turn, wait out the enemy's turn, move again. (Equivalent to running/turboboosting/moving flat-out now).

-- move on its turn, wait out enemy turn, shoot.

--shoot on its turn or during enemy's turn on overwatch, then move.

So you could actually charge more often than in the current system, I think.

The one thing I don't allow is shooting on your turn, waiting out the enemy turn, and shooting again. But maybe we should?

So far as i can tell, the only two differences between this and the old phase system is the ability to consolidate into combat (kinda), and shoot then move instead of move then shoot. For the first, yeah, lets get some ability to consolidate into combat into the game, it would definitely help to bring Melee back, but there need to be restrictions on it. For the second, I'm not a fan of it, beyond the Eldar's rule that emulates this. You need to not move to fire heavy weapons to full effect, as that trait is dependent on having movement being before shooting, so if you allow shooting before movement, players might accidentally fire the heavy weapon in the shooting phase, and then not be able to move when they planned to. This isn't a big deal on Eldar, since almost all their infantry weapons are assault weapons, and they needed something to make them feel faster and more nimble than they would be otherwise. I'm also leery of having to choose what you do spread across 3 "phases", it seems like it would be confusing as players could forget what action they chose 2 "phases" ago.

The biggest problem though is that this system does not allow for moving, shooting, then assaulting. That combination is key to so many units' design and tactics that getting rid of it will effectively cripple them, and eliminate the entire reason for the assault weapon type, so armies like eldar, orks, grey knights, and tyranids are going to take a massive hit.

Ok so enough critique, hows this sound for a way to combine making leaders feel like actual leaders, as well as out of turn reactions? The basis of this system comes from Lanrak's Xenos and Zealots thread, and yes, such a system would likely require some changes in points costs.
---Leaders (Sergeants, HQ's, etc) have 2 command traits: Command Points and a Command Range, and regenerate their command points every game turn
---You can spend a command point to issue an order to any unit within your command range (Command range of 0 restricts orders to the leaders attached unit)
---Typical sergeant has command range of 0, and 1 command point whereas a space marine captain would have 2-3 command points, and a 12" command range
---Initiative tests always taken on the initiative of the model who issued the order
Orders
Fall Back: Reaction to being charged. Both units take an initiative test, if won, the reacting unit may move D3" . Might add some sort of initative or attack penalty for this as well, playtesting very much needed
Stand Ground: Reaction to being charged. Both units take an initiative test. If won, the reacting unit performs one round of shooting at full BS. Again, some sort of initiative or attack penalty is likely needed.
Counter-Attack: Reaction to being charged. Both units take an initiative test. If won, the reacting unit may move into base-to-base contact with the charging unit. Neither unit receives a charging bonus (Counter-Attack USR gives counter-charger a charging bonus). Probably needs another penalty.

Go to Ground: Reaction to shooting (can still be done without a command point in your own turn). Both units take an initiative test. If won, the reacting unit goes to ground.
Overwatch: Reaction to movement: Both units take an initative test. If won, the reacting unit may fire at full BS at any model that has moved.

Guidance: Allows any model in the unit to re-roll one die in that phase. Additional Penalties?
Run? maybe, im not really sure about changing run from a free option to requiring a command point. It makes sense, but may not play well.
Designate a Target Zone: place a small blast marker anywhere on the table. The unit may fire at any unit with a model under the small blast marker. Allows a unit to split-fire without being excessively powerful.

Your command point & range system is intriguing, though it's another trade-off between making the game more interesting and making it more complex. It'll take me a while to ponder.

I can respond intelligently off the cuff to your good critique of my system

Rav1rn wrote:
I'm also leery of having to choose what you do spread across 3 "phases", it seems like it would be confusing as players could forget what action they chose 2 "phases" ago....You need to not move to fire heavy weapons to full effect, as that trait is dependent on having movement being before shooting, so if you allow shooting before movement, players might accidentally fire the heavy weapon in the shooting phase, and then not be able to move when they planned to.

Good point. I think that's where counters would come in handy. In particular, it would make it much easier to keep track of whether or not you could fire your heavy weapons at full BS -- and for that matter whether you were about to do something, i.e. move, that would prevent you doing that next turn: Putting the "I moved" counter down would be a reminder.

Rav1rn wrote:
The biggest problem though is that this system does not allow for moving, shooting, then assaulting. That combination is key to so many units' design and tactics that getting rid of it will effectively cripple them, and eliminate the entire reason for the assault weapon type, so armies like eldar, orks, grey knights, and tyranids are going to take a massive hit.
....

I think the solution to assault weapons is to give them a special rule allowing them to shoot & then charge in the same turn. Every other kind of weapon would require you to shoot one turn, then wait for the next to charge.


Another potential heresy: You never shoot on your own turn. My turn to move is your turn to shoot, your turn to move is my turn to shoot, so all firing is effectively overwatch... and when you say, "ok, I'm not moving any more units," then any of my guys that haven't fired get to shoot. This means units that move are much more likely to get shot at than ones that stay put, which is actually pretty realistic, since they'd attract more attention.

It may be worth your time to review the "Orders", "Pushing", and "Formation" rules for MechWarrior Clix. http://sarna.s3.amazonaws.com/docs/products/mwda/rule_book.pdf
I always found them to be very usable for a fast paced game, adaptable to preference, and representative of the simulated actions.

Also research armored vehicle combat. There is plenty to learn about how and why vehicles sustain damage or not and what that actually means for the vehicle in combat. There are shockingly good reason why Melta-Guard can annihilate your landraider. Like how the Panzerfaust annihilated U.S. Shermans in WWII. Or how modern anti tank rounds destroy tanks today. (Hint: its the same basic technology) I'm no expert myself but it seems to me it'd be a good idea either way.

Lastly, as a game design consultant (woo, big useless title now, hehe ) I always urged designers to create core mechanics before considering special rules (or as I refer to them, "Breaks"). Like in 40k Stubborn, Hammer of Wrath, etc. Its like trying to put flashy rims on a car when your still putting together the chassis. This keeps your core design free of flaws by forcing them to stand on their own before other rules integrate them selves in to the core like impromptu crutches. This means later when the special rule gets changed, it has no impact on the core mechanics functionality, after all it was only a way around the rule, not an inherrent part of it. Just something to keep in mind.

The main reason I suggested Dust Warfare is because it has a lot of stats and variables that could easily translate to 40k, aside from psychic powers. Not sure how one would do those.

Warpath feels overly basic, and I just taking a look at its rules it seems to me like there isn't a whole that would transfer over easily, one example is that warpath doesn't have individual casualty removal and the system isn't really built around it.

Ultrimenta, any way to get Dust Warfare without paying $20 US? There doesn't seem to be a demo or preview PDF anywhere....

Just downloaded the MechWarrior Clix rules, will read later; thanks, Knucklewolf.

I think the solution to assault weapons is to give them a special rule allowing them to shoot & then charge in the same turn. Every other kind of weapon would require you to shoot one turn, then wait for the next to charge.

But then you have something like 1/3rd of the guns in the game essentially ignoring the action system, since they can perform 3 actions in one turn instead of the usual 2.

As for Mechwarrior clix's system, i'm not really sure how much of that can translate over. Those rules seem fairly entrenched in the low model skirmish mindset. The formation system is interesting, but you'd have to butcher it to get it to fit the 40K mold. Having three 5-30 model units work in concert is a much more complex situation than getting 3 single models into BtB contact. It could give some interesting tactical flexibility though...food for thought. As for tank warfare, do you mean the modern sabot round used as kinetic penetrators? Or the older rounds that did things like use vibrations to send shrapnel from the tank's inner armor walls into the cabin or try to melt through the armor similarly to an RPG? Because yes a meltagun should be very effective at bringing down vehicles. Should a 15 point model be able to essentially auto-penetrate the heaviest armor in the game and then have 50% of the results instantly destroy a 250 point model? Probably not.

As for using other systems, id rather try to make 40K play as you would expect something in between a skirmish and battle game to play, rather than just use another game's rules. Right now, i would say 40K is a little too close to the skirmish side than the battle side, considering how rules havent changed significantly while points costs have been dropping left and right. So take the best both styles have to offer. Take the simplified rolling "stats" that battle games use (such as 4+ to hit instead of BS 3), then use modifiers to bring back the depth that skirmish games have, such as armor and toughness being a modifier to a To-Wound roll, and cover modifying To-Hit rolls. Making the game faster without sacrificing depth would be a good goal to aim for.

Ultrimenta, any way to get Dust Warfare without paying $20 US? There doesn't seem to be a demo or preview PDF anywhere....

There's some nice youtube videos that walk you through the game and rules.

Rav1rn wrote:
Should a 15 point model be able to essentially auto-penetrate the heaviest armor in the game and then have 50% of the results instantly destroy a 250 point model? Probably not.

On the contrary, probably yes. It is a common aspect of any strategy game for the value of a unit to be disproportional to its opponents, unless given the right situation. Consider the Pawn to the King in Chess or Shogi, a normal checker to a crowned one, the 'aji' of a weak isolated stone on a Go board when it becomes a ladder breaker in the mid to late game. Recall Stratego, with its value-to-strength system, or Axis and Allies where a lone $15 Bomber attacking over a territory defended by a $5 AA Gun was a question to be thoroughly debated. If you play Magic consider the Mox Jet, going price on TCGplayer.com $1700, is easily put down by 'Annul' which costs a mere 12 cents, or Emrakul cost 15 mana to cast, which if named by a Nevermore, 3 mana, can't be cast in the first place. These David and Goliath conflicts are essential to a thought provoking and entertaining game. The question I'd have is why did you let that Guardsmen get so close to your Land Raider? It didn't look nearly as intimidating when it was out of range.

As for clix rules, consider: You bump the order/points ratio up to say one order per 500pts. Then you say a formation order can be taken by up to three units of the same type (infantry, vehicle[tank], etc) so long as the units start and end their action within six inches of each other and can do this as long as their is a character in one of the involved units? Now roster organization even becomes more interesting. Players could in theory move their whole army but only if built to do so and as long as the chain of command is upheld. Something to ponder.

These David and Goliath conflicts are essential to a thought provoking and entertaining game. The question I'd have is why did you let that Guardsmen get so close to your Land Raider? It didn't look nearly as intimidating when it was out of range.

I'd agree that having such disparity in cost vs effectiveness is important, but there is a limit before it becomes too much. A meltagun armed guardsman will kill a landraider, a model that costs almost 17 times as much, more often than a space marine will kill another space marine (.146 vs .111), and that's just killing it, not including results like weapon destroyed or immobilized. And i would agree with you about "why did you let it get so close" if getting close wasn't the entire purpose of the Land Raider being a heavy assault transport. Beyond this, getting close isn't terribly difficult with methods such as deep strike, transport flyers, etc allowing rapid movement and approach. Melta-weapons help to remove the incentive to take the high strength, long range AT weapons that would normally be used to deal with tough vehicles, because i can move and still fire a meltagun for great effect, and i can mitigate the effects of cover, as my anti-tank power does not have to remain stationary and hope the enemy doesn't utilize cover. This is what meltaguns should do, but the fact that they're more effective, as armor facing doesn't come into play as much, since the normal penetration value at half range is 15, are more available, and are far less expensive is where the problems come from. Yes, there needs to be a strong, mobile, short-ranged option for anti-tank, but in its current state it is too powerful, particularly against the big expensive vehicles. Think back on 5th edition, when vehicles were tougher than they are now, how many Lascannons did you see, compared to Melta-weapons, or missile launchers, which can't even penetrate AV 14? The entire vehicle damage system could use work, but Melta really does need to be toned down.

As for clix rules, consider: You bump the order/points ratio up to say one order per 500pts. Then you say a formation order can be taken by up to three units of the same type (infantry, vehicle[tank], etc) so long as the units start and end their action within six inches of each other and can do this as long as their is a character in one of the involved units? Now roster organization even becomes more interesting. Players could in theory move their whole army but only if built to do so and as long as the chain of command is upheld. Something to ponder.

Some sort of tactical, in-game way to have friendly units interact with each other (outside of independant characters) would be exciting, but there are units in 40K that are not meant to be meshed with anyone else, such as devastators, genestealers, scout marines, any infiltrating or semi-static fire support unit really. So can you give some examples or sample rules to evaluate and build off of?

Rav1rn wrote:
I'd agree that having such disparity in cost vs effectiveness is important, but there is a limit before it becomes too much. A meltagun armed guardsman will kill a landraider, a model that costs almost 17 times as much, more often than a space marine will kill another space marine (.146 vs .111), and that's just killing it, not including results like weapon destroyed or immobilized. And i would agree with you about "why did you let it get so close" if getting close wasn't the entire purpose of the Land Raider being a heavy assault transport. Beyond this, getting close isn't terribly difficult with methods such as deep strike, transport flyers, etc allowing rapid movement and approach.

Ugh mathhammer, cant stand it personally, lets leave as much math out as possible for now, eh? While the role of the land raider is as you describe, it was the role of the commander to see to it that the unload point was safe-ish. If you consider that there is a compliment of 10+ Terminators mounted as its primary offensive power, you have little excuse to allow a guardsmen within six inches of such an impressive defensive screen of Storm Bolters and Power fists, if they had been deployed first. It is not uncommon for a shrewd commander to leave even his best equipment in rear reserve if he cant be sure that it will protected enough to account for its exposure to enemy action. By all means if it accomplishes a strategic goal throw it at the enemy, but sometimes it may be better to hold it back. Also remember, your opponent is trying to destroy you too, no complaining if he swoops out of the sky and drops Guards out of a Vendetta and Meltas your Land Raider. You were going to use it to crash into his trenches and vomit death from it too. Fair is fair. It is a poor soldier who blames his inability on his weapon.

Melta-weapons help to remove the incentive to take the high strength, long range AT weapons that would normally be used to deal with tough vehicles, because i can move and still fire a meltagun for great effect, and i can mitigate the effects of cover, as my anti-tank power does not have to remain stationary and hope the enemy doesn't utilize cover. This is what meltaguns should do, but the fact that they're more effective, as armor facing doesn't come into play as much, since the normal penetration value at half range is 15, are more available, and are far less expensive is where the problems come from. Yes, there needs to be a strong, mobile, short-ranged option for anti-tank, but in its current state it is too powerful, particularly against the big expensive vehicles. Think back on 5th edition, when vehicles were tougher than they are now, how many Lascannons did you see, compared to Melta-weapons, or missile launchers, which can't even penetrate AV 14? The entire vehicle damage system could use work, but Melta really does need to be toned down.

In general, I would disagree. I think it fits its niche nicely. High risk, high reward. Cinematic. Encouraging thoughtful tactics offensively and defensively. These are all things I would use to describe the Melta. I would rather the longer range options be increased in effectiveness. A predators TL Lascannon should have some kind of bonus to pen tanks. A Tau Rail Gun should chuckle when it encounters enemy Armor. Six, one half dozen of the other. Agree to disagree and move on.

Some sort of tactical, in-game way to have friendly units interact with each other (outside of independent characters) would be exciting, but there are units in 40K that are not meant to be meshed with anyone else, such as devastators, genestealers, scout marines, any infiltrating or semi-static fire support unit really. So can you give some examples or sample rules to evaluate and build off of?

I believe this would be diving into the realm of those 'Breaks' I mentioned earlier. IF, IF, if we assume that the order/300 system above is our final action assignment Core System, (lets call the system "Spartan" for the 300 reference. ) Normally you would spend more time editing for clarity and completeness, but much like you would have probably done I would write it out according to its baseline parameters first, its CORE. I prefer writing in a old BASIC style to organize things:

Spartan Order Assignment System CORE:
10:On a players active ACTION PHASE, they receive one ORDER to issue to one UNIT or one GROUP, for every full 300pts/player in the scenario.
20: During the ACTION PHASE, each ORDER is issued and resolved completely through, step by step if called for, then proceeds to the next ORDER.
30:A player is not forced to use any or all of his ORDERs in his active ACTION PHASE. Unused orders are wasted, and are ignored for the rest of the game. A active player will receive new ORDERs to issue the following active ACTION PHASE.
40:When a UNIT has begun its ORDER, mark it with a visible token clearly. If during an ACTION PHASE a UNIT does not perform an ORDER, but has a placed token from a previous ACTION PHASE, remove the token at the end of that phase.
50:When a player has resolved his last ORDER for each ACTION PHASE, or chooses and declares to not use anymore, proceed to the next PHASE.

Capitalized words are keywords I need to make sure to keep track of as they will be the 'docking ports' that the other core pieces will attach to eventually form the framework of the system. Next I would very loosely pen in the margins my immediate thoughts for 'Breaks' that I'd come back to and explore much later after fitting together all the COREs. My notes probably look like this with your specific request in mind...
'Fire-support= This unit can group "fire" with any unit on the table. (Pay attention to communication method, and sighting concepts, decide on order types, if their are more than one)!..
Recon= This unit can group "move" with other friendly units within 12 inches...(A quality of a unit or special order type?)
Command= Grants extra orders. Maybe acts without orders...
Psycho WF= Places order tokens on enemy units...
Lazy, Independent, Reckless, A faction with higher or lower order ratio to represent its lesser/greater communications abilities...This would be added to often

After the CORES are assembled into a framework, the 'Breaks' are written to reference back to those keywords we capitalized earlier. Often overwriting rules as long as they are in use or short-circuiting an instruction line and replacing it with a different instruction or re-routing you to another portion of the rules to continue. This process I'm sure you are persuing yourself, personally I could spend a week with this "Spartan" core working it along side its future sister cores. May have been more than you asked for, hope it helps. If not I'll try and be more clear.

DUST Warfare is an amazing set of rules. Utterly brilliant and simple (but not as simple to a fault as Warpath, IMHO).

However, if you were trying to convert those rules over onto 40K, it would have major limitations when it comes to unit diversity. For example, special weapons in that game tend to give the firing UNIT a bonus (as there is no easy way to separate out individual model's shooting in that system).

Also, the idea of like an Exarch in a unit having a better 'save' than the other members of the unit wouldn't really be possible either.

It is truly a squad-based game using individual models, which although I love, would be quite 'painful' to most players if you applied it to 40K as a lot of the customization throughout the unit would have to be thrown out or drastically simplified.


And if you're a fan of rules, then do yourself a favor and pay the money to buy the DUST book. Even if you never play a game, it is just a great read if you're a fan of elegant rules.

I like the idea of adding functions like Warzone had in its First Edition, with the ability of models to 'hide and wait' to fire when something presented itself. It meant taking a shot always meant you could get shot.

 Selym wrote:

 Brometheus wrote:
I think weight of fire (small or big) should have a negative impact on leadership tests, like melee has with combat res.

Well, in Epic 40k, each formation would recieve a "blast marker" each time it lost a unit or came under fire, something similar could be implemented here, but it would drastically increase gun power, and make footslogging utterly pointless when facing a gunline.

I don't remember these 'Blast Markers' in Epic....oh wait...it's because I played Eldar. :-P

I'd bring back 5th edition, keep the hull point system from 6th but add 1 hull point to everything across the board, keep the new flyer and AA rules and keep the overwatch rule.

I would keep an allies chart but significantly revise it from it's current makeup.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I'd bring back 5th edition, keep the hull point system from 6th but add 1 hull point to everything across the board, keep the new flyer and AA rules and keep the overwatch rule.

I would keep an allies chart but significantly revise it from it's current makeup.

I would like that, and to have my CSM dex revised - I get roflstomped until I bring out zombie hordes and/or heldrakes, and then I get accused of being WAAC/spam-master/cheesemonger.

yakface wrote:
DUST Warfare is an amazing set of rules. Utterly brilliant and simple....And if you're a fan of rules, then do yourself a favor and pay the money to buy the DUST book. Even if you never play a game, it is just a great read if you're a fan of elegant rules.

Argh, I already have so many sets of rules I read but don't play.... but now I can't resist.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I'd bring back 5th edition, keep the hull point system from 6th but add 1 hull point to everything across the board, keep the new flyer and AA rules and keep the overwatch rule....

But wasn't 5th edition even more of a mess than 6th?

I agree that the current attack/save system is jacked. The rest of the OP suggestions are meh.

One idea to change shooting/cc would be:
1. Determine to hit roll. You start with the BS then modify it for cover, if any. I'd still allow cover ignoring weapons. Then take the roll. Cover as it is now is silly; it shouldn't be a save.

2. Next, I'd get rid of regular armor saves entirely. Instead, armor would be a T modifier. Compare the weapon/attacker S to T and see if it wounds.

3. Invuln/FNP saves would now be taken. Although I'd combine the two types into one. If they don't have a save like this, then a wound is lost.

----
Next, I really don't like alternating between each side for moving/shooting with a single unit at a time. Most games have an unbalanced number of units and this will just lead to players capitalizing on that fact. For example, if I have 10 units and you have 5 then I'll keep my important units back and only move them into range once all your unit actions are done. Then the next round I'd move them first... Point is it's easily gamed. Firestorm Armada 1.0 uses this mechanic (haven't seen the 2.0 rules yet) and it was unilaterally the one game mechanic my group didn't like. I really hope they changed it.

A different thought that I like would be that we roll each turn for initiative; maybe even add the warlords init to each roll. The winner moves, then the loser moves. Then ALL shooting happening simultaneously. That would completely eradicate alpha strikes and radically impact a lot of strategies. I might see if a few others want to try this out.

I love the OP's idea about turns. Would make the game much more fast paced and exciting, without waiting times.

Folks have actually convinced me that alternating sides unit by unit is too much. But after tossing out several half-baked ideas and having them baked by some constructive criticism, I think I have a way to make the game much more interactive without alternating by unit.

In essence, my movement phase is your shooting phase. When my units move, you can shoot at them. When my move's over, any of your units that haven't yet fired can shoot any of my units, whether they moved or stayed put. Heavy units can't shoot at full BS if they moved in the preceding phase, and units can't charge (move into contact with an enemy unit) if they fired anything but assault weapons in the preceding phase.

The tricky bit I'm still wrestling with is exactly how much shots at each unit and when to allow them. Options for y'all to consider:


Who gets to shoot:
1) Only one of my units gets to shoot at each of your units during its move. (At the end of the turn I can have all my units that haven't shot yet fire at a single target if I want).
2) All of my units in LOS can shoot at a single unit during its move. (But my units still only get one shot per turn).

When you shoot:
A) You only shoot at a unit at the beginning of the move and at the end -- which means units can dash across open ground and get under cover without being mowed down on the way, which makes movement relatively more powerful and shooting less.
B) You can shoot at a unit at any point during its movement, as long as you have LOS. This makes crossing open ground under enemy fire nearly as deadly as in real life, which makes movement much trickier and probably discourages moving at all in a lot of cases.... probably not a recipe for an exciting game.

I think combination 2B (everybody can shoot at any point during the move) is way too powerful and would cripple movement, while combination 1A (one unit can shoot at the beginning or end of your move) is pretty weak. So I'm mostly looking at 1B (one unit can shoot, but at any point) and 2A (multiple units can shoot, but only at the beginning or end of the move).

You could also finesse this with Initiative roll-offs to see whether I got to shoot you before you got back under cover, but that really complicates the system... and hurts backwards compatibility with existing Codexes because Initiative suddenly becomes much more important to points value.

Hows this as a system for suppression, to riff off of dust warfare to a degree. Whenever a unit is fired at, it receives suppression tokens (represented by the number face of a die placed next to the unit). The number of tokens received is determined by the rate of fire of the majority weapon of the squad. For instance, a squad of space marines wielding boltguns apply 1 suppression token to the target, but a squad of Eldar Guardians wielding shuriken catapults apply 2. Pistols do not apply suppression tokens. Flame weapons and blast weapons apply a number of suppression tokens equal to the number of models under the templates when firing. Weapons with the suppression special rule apply additional suppression tokens equal to their rate of fire. For example, a heavy bolter would receive the suppression special rule, and would apply 3 suppression tokens to the target unit. If the number of suppression tokens exceeds the remaining number of models in the unit at the end of the turn, they are forced to go to ground, unless they are immune to morale effects through special rules such as fearless or the orks mob rule. All suppression tokens are removed at the end of the turn

I'm not entirely sure about the effect, as it seems like leadership should play a role, but to do so would seriously weaken the effects. Hopefully the suppression special rule would breathe new life into the weapons that are typically overlooked or overshadowed (That's right Psilencer i'm looking at you), as well as make fire-support units more viable (Such as devastators) because they can bring a large number of suppression weapons and suppress enemy units without aid. I'm also not happy about the necessity of such a high number of tokens, but i cant think of any way to represent the effects of high rates of fire without them. I'm not entirely sure how this would work with monstrous creatures or single model units. I'd also like to give a similar system for more moderate strength anti-tank weapons (such as an autocannon) a way to suppress vehicles, to show weapons that aren't really powerful enough to penetrate the armor, but powerful enough and with a high enough number of shots to shake the crew, damage systems or sensors, etc.

Lets back it up a bit and take this to a valuing system. What if you separated it by say three states: Lightly suppressed, Suppressed, and Heavily suppressed. Then give each state a penalty that stacks. something like...

Light Suppressed = Only half the squad can fire.
Suppressed = above and must fire as snap shots.
Heavily suppressed = Above and cant move during movement phase.

At your option you can ignore the effects of the suppression but doing so causes the unit to take a wound with no saves for each level of suppression. Combine this with rav1rn's idea somehow

3 levels feels a bit too stratified, maybe make it 2, one for "under fire", the other for "suppressed". So if a unit takes fire from 2 separate units in the same turn, it has the "under fire" status, and it has to make a leadership test or become suppressed or suffer some other effect. Maybe make it so for every enemy unit firing at the unit beyond the 2 needed to apply the "under fire" status, a -1 leadership effect is applied to the "under fire" leadership test? This way suppression is still a serious effect, but there is a lesser version of it that's much easier to apply? I don't really want to add additional tests into what will likely be a pretty common situation, but leadership/morale should play some sort of role in a suppression system, as the chaos cultists are going to panic and duck long before the veteran space marines. How do the weapon's suppression characteristics seem?

At your option you can ignore the effects of the suppression but doing so causes the unit to take a wound with no saves for each level of suppression.

Interesting...it's kinda like a ranged version of No Retreat!, but voluntary and with tactical choice. Definitely worth exploring. The no saves thing seems a little odd though, because a stray round is going to bypass an Ork's "armor" much more easily than a terminator's.

Understand that this is all VERY exploratory. If I were to step back from design and into player mode. I'd immediately realize that when I build the army I want as many small units as possible to pin enemies. But then depending on how the suppression system works relative to squad size that may just dissolve into rock paper scissors, we don't have the whole picture yet, this would just be another very small Core dedicated to suppression. Often this minute of an observation is difficult to figure out at what point of design it should be developed and integrated. The two level thing would be a good idea. And the taking wounds thing was another steal from WizKids Clix games, "Pushing" in this case.

Also, was intrigued by the I-Shoot-While-You-Move idea. Not sure what to make of it yet but certainly intriguing.

For suppression effects, MSU is actually quite a liability, since they often don't get access to the heavier weapons that would give additional tokens, and are easily suppressed themselves. A dreadnought with a suppression assault cannon would be able to suppress a 5 man unit by himself, and a minimal cost devastator squad with 4 heavy Bolters could suppress 10 man units from 36" away (almost certainly needs balance work, but makes sense considering their role). The lower level "under fire" direction is where the MSU strength really starts to take over though, but it's both an early idea, and could be solved with other systems. The need to fail a leadership roll first is already a decent barrier, and to make it even more so, maybe take the command traits idea i posted a while back and let a command point be used to reroll or modify this test somehow. The effect also doesn't need to be nearly as severe as full suppression, so there's room to reduce the impact there as well, as well as just changing the idea completely.

For the new turn idea, I think the option to forfeit shooting in your turn to fire in reaction the opponents movements is a cool tactical option, and helps solve the waiting around for my opponent to finish problem quite nicely without resorting to unit by unit activation. I don't think only shooting in your opponents movement phase is the best direction though, because then every movement they make is getting interrupted and slowed, since you're essentially doing two phases in one. So a mix of the two would likely work best, I can shoot in my own turn like we always have, but I can place units in a true overwatch instead of firing then and there, so I can fire reactions in the opponents turn. Almost certainly going to need some sort of limitation or consequence for doing so, to prevent just over watching everything and having the board stagnate, but a neat direction to look into. And again, don't be worried about backward compatibility, ideas are flying left and right and I'll take interesting and exciting over easily convertible any day of the week.

1) Suppression

I definitely want this in the revised 40K, but I'm leery of creating a whole new mechanic, especially one with counters and/or bookkeeping. I'd much rather make it another kind of Leadership/Morale test -- and make morale much more important by having fewer units ignore it with Fearless and the like.


2) I shoot while you move?

"I shoot while you move" certainly has some pitfalls I'm still pondering, but it has a certain simplicity that is missing in "I can either fire on my own turn or overwatch during yours," let alone "I can roll initiative to interrupt your turn."

I'm very interested in people's feedback on which is the best of of the four options in my post above.

I like your 2B option the best because it's the most intuitive, but like you say it might be too powerful. Maybe this is where a suppression mechanic can be introduced, though it might make things a bit more complicated:

Player A shoots. Player B takes leadership checks based on casualties which may suppress their shooting this turn. (Ex. Space Marine squad with Ld 8 loses 2 guys, must roll a 6 or less or it can't shoot during the other player's movement.)

Player A now moves any unit that didn't shoot, stopping the first model at any point along its path when declared as a target by Player B. Player A moves rest of unit into coherency and Player B resolves shooting. If the unit survives and passes its Ld checks, it may continue its move. Player B may shoot at the unit along its path with any of its own units in LOS, but once another unit starts its move the previous unit may no longer be targeted that turn (to prevent unrealistic coordination of defensive fire on the fly).

Units that are suppressed aren't really broken, they just can't shoot during the other player's movement phase. Maybe assault weapons can be used by Player A at any point during his turn (either before or after moving).

My biggest concern with all of this is how it might slow down the game.

Yes, slowing things down is always the issue -- though if people don't have to wait passively through their opponent's turn before they get to do anything, they might tolerate a longer game overall.

Your thoughts about integrating suppression in the core move & shoot mechanics are interesting ones. I shall ponder.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Now here's a thought: you can only shoot at moving units if they break cover, ie if they are not only in LOS but also aren't in terrain that gives a bonus to cover. Not sure about that, but would love y'all's thoughts.

Units that are suppressed aren't really broken, they just can't shoot during the other player's movement phase. Maybe assault weapons can be used by Player A at any point during his turn (either before or after moving).

Now here's a thought: you can only shoot at moving units if they break cover, ie if they are not only in LOS but also aren't in terrain that gives a bonus to cover. Not sure about that, but would love y'all's thoughts.

Crazy thought, but if we moved shooting before movement, wouldn't that help these ideas along? I shoot, and any unit that is "under fire" or "suppressed" after my shooting cannot take reaction shots against me when i move my units. Then my assault phase, then my opponent can shoot, and any of my units that are "under fire" or "suppressed" cannot take reaction shots at him while he moves, then his assault phase, then the next game turn. It might help avoid some of the overwatch stagnation that would result from this direction anyways. It'll probably slow down the game somewhat, but there have been other ideas proposed that could speed it up, so hopefully those would help offset it.

Btw how would people feel bringing in warpaths system for buying units, where rather than buy individual models you buy one size of a squad? For instance if I wanted a tactical squad, I can chose a 5-man combat squad with just the combat squad options, or I can buy the full 10 man tactical squad with both the special and heavy weapon options? I rarely hear of people taking squad sizes other than the usual increments of 5 or 10, since these are usually the numbers the additional weapon options are available at, so buying individual models but having weapon available in increments seems a bit counter productive. Having squad sizes be set for purchase could also open up some interesting option for army construction and composition, so long as the depth of the current upgrade system is maintained.