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.

It's an ineffective solution to a problem that I'm not sure exists.

Hi folks.
I do not think D 20s suit any function where you roll more than one dice at once.

I really think lots of people are heavily influenced by GW poor rules writing , using dice in a limited deterministic way.(There are loads of great game that use D6 in a much more intelligent ways.)

If you are rolling hand fulls of dice, (Where the volume of dice rolled averages results ) then D6 are the best choice.

However, if you are just rolling one dice ,(for unit tests , like leadership or morale etc,) then a D10, D12 or D 20 works fine.

If you have to roll to see and hit your target, (and terrain ,range ,etc modify the chance for success.) Then this brings a natural fog of war, that is part of the shooting resolution.And also brings in tactical use of cover, and shooting for effect.

I totally agree with deciding at the start of the game turn, if you unit is moving to allow shooting on the move, or double movement, or moving to assault or remaining stationary to fire to full effect.
Making tactical decisions should be part of the game IMO.
(I am sure you young un's can remember what units are doing what actions in what order one game turn to the next.But Old duffers like me , who often partake of alcohol during a game.
Need to use 'order counters' to help us keep track of what units are doing what actions and when. )

I'm a huge fan of counters and tokens except for the part where it all gets really messy with 30 units on the table and in close proximity. I'm pretty sure my opponent accidentally rallied my own model in Deadzone last week (I thought the suppression counter was mine and he thought it was his).

And if you use stat cards then you can put the counters on the cards instead of on the models, but then it's hard to tell at a glance who's doing what, especially for the opponent.

Argh!

I'm a huge fan of counters and tokens except for the part where it all gets really messy with 30 units on the table and in close proximity. I'm pretty sure my opponent accidentally rallied my own model in Deadzone last week (I thought the suppression counter was mine and he thought it was his).

And if you use stat cards then you can put the counters on the cards instead of on the models, but then it's hard to tell at a glance who's doing what, especially for the opponent.

Argh!

For the cards direction, go to any arts and crafts or dollar store, and pick up a small baggie of multicolored glass markers, typically used in smaller displays or aquariums. It's rare that you'll have more than 3 of the same unit, so a huge variety isn't necessary. Then just place one of these colored markers next to the unit and it's associated card, and bam, no more need to have dice on every unit, you just say "blue tactical squad" "red termagant brood" etc and leave the counters and tokens on the card.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I saw an idea on the "an idea for changing the game up ..." thread that would be pretty cool with Lanrak's command system, where in a game with alternating activations, high leadership models would "interrupt" the opponents action to activate a unit of their own.

Modifying this with Lanrak's system, that would make for a pretty interesting system, where you could forcibly activate any unit within your command range at the cost of a command point when your opponent tries to activate one of his units. That Battlewagon trying to roll up to my gunline to release a big swarm of Orks? Too bad, my devastators on the side of the board hit it first, stopping it in its tracks. Big squad of assault marines trying to flank one of my units? I interrupt, fire at them, and now they're suppressed.

Combine this with some way of bringing in reserves more quickly / reliably at the cost of a command point, and suddenly that makes "Commander" type units play much more like an actual commander rather than close combat beat-sticks. Thoughts? Idea credit goes to Knas Ser.

Yeah actual tactical superpowers for commanders would be good, they do that stuff in the fluff all the time.

Rav1rn wrote:
That Battlewagon trying to roll up to my gunline to release a big swarm of Orks? Too bad, my devastators on the side of the board hit it first, stopping it in its tracks. Big squad of assault marines trying to flank one of my units? I interrupt, fire at them, and now they're suppressed. ...Idea credit goes to Knas Ser.

That might be a cooler way of handling overwatch than just "everyone gets it all the time only at a penalty to BS." Interesting.

I think allowing a command modifier to be used within command range on one dice roll per turn per level.
Works great for showing the leadership of the unit ,and Characters .
I use small white dice,( face up to the value of the command modifier) on the unit cards in play testing.
EG SM Captain Command Value 2/9".
Gets to alter 2 dice within command range , by up to 2 pips per turn.

I have been experimenting with Heroic actions , in addition to this.(Gold Star markers.)
ONLY characters get Heroic Actions ,once per game .They can force an automatic roll of a 1 or a 6 within command range.Extending this to letting units move out of sequence once per game, in a alternating unit activation game mechanic would be cool.

If we are going to use alternating unit activation, would you be happy with an order & activation phase system similar to the one used in Epic SM?

EG
First Fire orders shoot first but do not move.

Charge orders move first, (After FF shooting ) up to double movement value , (And the only way to assault an enemy unit)

Advance orders allow the unit to move,(up to movement value,) then shoot.

But with more order options split into red , amber and green colours, and these colours used to tie the actions to phases..

An heroic action could allow one friendly unit unit to change orders after the game turn has started...(Eg a unit on advance orders changes to first fire or charge orders instead.)

I may need to explain that better.. .

Very much prototypes of thoughts here, but if I were going to rebuild it, here's some basic concepts:

1) Move from d6 to d10. This allows for much easier math, and much broader difference in statlines.

2) There are three main distinctions between models: Units, Characters and Vehicles. The reason for this is, one, Units are bought as a bunch (3, 5, 10, 30, whatever) and have stats as a unit, not as individual models and, two, Units behave differently than Characters or Vehicles, which are separate from one another. Everything that a Unit of troops does is done as a Unit, whether that's attacks, saves, taking Wounds, whatever. Characters are Individuals, and work differently. Vehicles are kind of a blend between the two, and I've not yet really worked on those rules yet.

3) Actions happen by rolling 1d10, and adding to it the Unit or Character's skill (BS, WS, S, T or LD) plus any modifiers from buffs, wargear, special conditions, etc. They are attempting to achieve at least a minimum total, based on what the action is they are attempting to do. As the "average" stat is going to be 4 (rather than 5, as any stat of 7+ is "incredibly super-human") the basic Difficulty for an action is going to be 9+, assuming no penalties or bonuses.

4) Still working on combat specifics, but rough idea is that a Unit has a # of W equal to the number of models in it. Units that are currently expressed as having multi-wound models will, instead, have higher T and Armor, which requires higher rolls to successfully injure in combat. Current idea is that every point above the basic DC for an attack a unit scores, they inflict 1 W on the target unit. Considering maybe having certain weapons provide bonuses to the attack roll, or apply debuffs to the enemy in certain circumstances (for example, a unit armed with heavy bolters gain a +3 on their attack roll, to indicate the superior killing power of this weapon over the standard lasgun, so that 2 identical rolls, lasgun vs heavy bolter, the heavy bolter inflicts extra casualties.) This, obviously, is going to require a bunch of work I haven't done yet, to keep weapons distinct, but also balanced, but not make some weapons obviously superior in all ways to every other weapon that they are auto-take.

5) Streamline all the Special Rules into some universal constants, so that there can be direct comparisons of apples to apples, oranges to oranges, and then counters and balances for every SR a unit might possess. Obviously, this is going to take a *lot* more work.

think allowing a command modifier to be used within command range on one dice roll per turn per level.
Works great for showing the leadership of the unit ,and Characters .
I use small white dice,( face up to the value of the command modifier) on the unit cards in play testing.
EG SM Captain Command Value 2/9".
Gets to alter 2 dice within command range , by up to 2 pips per turn.

while i love this idea, i can see its immediately ready for abuse. For example, i would never put a captain with regular marines, as at best im saving 28 points worth of marines each turn (2 marines roll 2 on armor save) or at worst 1 (1 marine rolls a 1). On terminators (especially assault terminators, dont get me started on storm shields) is where the captain would be most useful, as i can save 2 terminators from weight of fire wounds each turn, saving 80 points. This system seems to essentially promote efficiency calculations rather than actual tactics, since high PPM armies are going to use them to keep things alive, while swarm or more aggressive armies would have less tangible benefits, likely just insuring that some heavy / special weapon hits or wounds the target. It also potentially a massive buff to "on the roll of 6" rules like rending, which could easily unbalance things more than they already are.

If we are going to use alternating unit activation, would you be happy with an order & activation phase system similar to the one used in Epic SM?

EG
First Fire orders shoot first but do not move.

Charge orders move first, (After FF shooting ) up to double movement value , (And the only way to assault an enemy unit)

Advance orders allow the unit to move,(up to movement value,) then shoot.

This might just be me, but i don't really see what advantages this system provides over regular alternating activations. It seems like this system just standardizes the actions a unit would take and requires it to be preset at the beginning of the turn, rather than reactive as a alternating activation system allows for. You would also need specific counters to denote which action is which, i assume ones that can be disguised or hidden so your opponent cannot tell what acts when, rather than a simple "has been activated" "has not been activated" system.

But with more order options split into red , amber and green colours, and these colours used to tie the actions to phases..

similar to those proposed in grimdark?

Hey guys, awesome thread.

So I'm thinking of re-writing the 40k BRB and then every codex and maybe the broken supplements like Escalation. Of course this is going to take ages, but hey, I have some spare time on my hands

So I may borrow some ideas from this thread, I hope that I wont cause any offence to the people who came up with the ideas.

Thinking about this, I may need a team to make this project viable

Borrow my ideas as much as you want, I'd only be flattered. I can't speak for others but I would be surprised if someone posted an idea on the internet and then said "don't use that! It's mine!"

Well, there's "original character don't steal" but that's not the same as "half-formed idea don't steal."

Awesome, I just wanted to make sure

And also from al the suggestions - what do you believe are the best? or the better ideas? for game turns?

Awesome, I just wanted to make sure

And also from al the suggestions - what do you believe are the best? or the better ideas? for game turns?

Yeah, i don't think anyone would be contributing to this thread if they wanted to keep their ideas to themselves, just be sure to give credit and / or ask permission if you use another persons work.

You're going to need to be much more specific when you say "what is best" because 11 pages in, I think there have been suggestions on almost every component of the game. Two good places to start are more interactive turns, for which there are at least half a dozen suggestions and certainly more to come, and reducing the amount of randomness and unnecessary dice rolling. Changing the way success / failure is determined is another place to look, as everything from changing to different dice to entirely new systems for determining success have been proposed, each with their own merits and downsides.

Basically, start from the core of the system, changing or getting rid of the pieces that irritate you the most and replacing them with better versions, and then build up from there. If you ever feel bored or fed up of working on the rules, it is quite fun to create a loose frame of a system, and bolt different ideas and concepts onto it, seeing what works and what doesn't, how all these pieces might fit together, and what the limitations of the current "frame" are. Good way to stay invested in the project while stress-testing different ideas.

I've been experimenting with games like x-wing a lot, and learning infinity and flames of war. I have to say, playing these other rulesets is truly a breath of fresh air after 40k, but I think my heart will always belong to the grim dark setting... so just to kill like 15 minutes of my time and wishlist, I'd like to to see:

-first of all, a core game based on skirmish size, meaning ~10 minis (20 for hordes) is enough for a typical game lasting about an hour. This is essential for people getting into the game, and friendly to painters/hobbyists such as myself, and altogether more efficient and appropriate for 28mm figures. Tanks/large vehicles could be included but totally not necessary, but only in larger games and very expensive (a space marine in proper scale and true to the fluff is pretty much a tank). There could possibly be an expansion and rules to play all peoples minis but lets be honest... if we are really going to reboot do it right. This was how it started and how it should have stayed. Buying a starter set, it should be functional as a real game from the get-go. IF NOT, then the game should still be treated the same way, with about 10 units that function as single entities. The game should not be gender-confused between skirmish and squad-based simulation. Big problem in 40k! IMO, squad based games should be 15mm sorry!

-Realistic combat tactics, that truly recreate the feel of a deadly firefight in the grim dark future. combat that is more deadly, more reliant on using cover and things like grenades and synergy in your own force to use supporting fire. More of a focus on shooting but punctuated by intense, short combats... combats should be decisive as well, not the headache they are in 40k.

-Some kind of 'gambit' factor. Essential to add another dimension to the game, the psychological factor of not knowing what your opponent is going to do and making your move simultaneously based on guesswork, this I take from x-wing and it is so simple yet makes the game so complex (as complex as real psychology). If you eliminate the IGOUGO turn style as suggested in this thread, I'd recommend something similar to x-wing: you plan out your order for every unit on a small device and then reveal either in order of activation due to skill/initiative stats, or active/reactive like infinity, or some other novel concept.

active/reactive is the most true to life I feel; because real life is simultaneous and what the enemy is doing is always affecting what you are doing. However, I think the orders system from infinity could be improved or tweaked, but it really works rather well. I feel there is some simple but elegant solution in there somewhere, that combines a gambit system with a system that allows the enemy to react to a miniature that's being activated or moved.

-Increased use of gaming devices to lay out all the stats and essential info about a unit right there on the table for all to see. X-wing uses game devices that pretty much eliminate all external bookkeeping, there is a counter for everything, and they give you all the info you need to move, make dice rolls and calculate wins right at your fingertips. Game aids are the best way to streamline the game, by eliminating the human error factor and keeping focus on the game itself.

-Polyhedral dice, preferably D20's. This goes along with the above, the more information we can encode into the game aids and statlines the better. A D20 dice is capable of far greater complexity in dice rolling than a D6, with far less dice rolling. Unnecessary dice rolls should be eliminated! And face-to-face rolls infinity style are awesome.

-Increased use of terrain and 3 dimensions, so that the game is playable in a 4x4 table but has just as much complexity as a 6x4. Again, packing more complexity into a more efficient design. Terrain is the 'third army'... and the one that benefit's the quality of game for both players equally.

-Across the board, streamlining and axing special rules and weaponry so that all factions maintain their unique flavor, but essentially function the same way other factions function. Let the heresies bloom, but not the special rules and crap that is waaaay to much to remember, without investing in $400 worth of books. That is not to say that there shouldn't be variety... think of it like Lego's. There should be basic universal rules that fit together and interact in novel ways, to produce the flavor. A handgun might look and feel different than a woo-woo alien laser cannon but keep them the same ruleswise, make the flavor with fluff and miniature.

-Fog of war system. using counters, minis (and indeed even perhaps whole lists) are only revealed in contact with the enemy. This can co-mingle with camo rules. markers can be used to represent the position of miniatures on the battlefield. The more the better. Using multiple counters so the enemy has know idea which is the real unit moving, using imposters and playing mind games, this is all good stuff and fits well with some of the races and factions in 40k, especially if more terrain is used in the game.

-Randomness.... not too much of it! and not for stupid things that any competent survivor of a grim dark future should know how to do. You know what I mean. But in the right places, randomness can be great. Dice rolling is fun and great aspect to the game, and using D20's mitigates the odds of expensive elite units failing on rolling 1's. Throwing a grenade, doing a controlled descent in a parachute, shooting a cannon shouldn't depend on a complex scatter system that takes time and effort to work out, for very little reward and a lot of unnecessary stupidity in the game, like when an elite superhuman soldier(you know who you are) fires a cannon right into his buddy by accident rather than the tank he's supposed to be shooting at. If there is a big target right out in the open like the broad side of a barn, it is hit. Period.

-Cards! It's a great way to add complexity to a game and also this falls under game aids. Every unit should have a corresponding card with artwork, that is also functional with the stats you need. Any upgrades should be in the form of mini add-on cards so that it is clear and visible. I love this aspect of X-wing. Also, it's a good way to use game-wide special rules and actions that affect your whole army, similar to an Ork Waagh! It is also a perfect way to change up miniatures without having to remodel them or buy new miniatures. Another source of eye-candy for those who like nice things, but hey you can always just write the stuff on a napkin and still have a more interesting game. Some 40k flavored things that can be transferred to the card dimension could be: psychic powers and psychic warfare, artillery support/air support, special army-wide orders, orbital strikes, possession and use of strange artifacts, Intelligence advantages (seeing enemy orders and hidden minis), manipulation of morale (that should have more of a factor in the game), and game-wide rock-paper scissors gambits. Possibly using something like an order pool from infinity, orders could be more like currency (or mana pool in MTG) and spent via cards that govern how your mini's are activated. For example you spend your orders on an "assault" card and the enemy on a "entrench" card. The other advantage of cards is the same card can be used for different factions.

-Building off the concept of universal rules that fit together like legos, the game should have a simple but effective system of point-costing your own custom miniatures! based on the statline, wounds, etc. and universal for all factions. If it is based on logic, playtested and it's the same rules applied to all factions, the game will be fair... no system is perfect but there can be logic and a formula behind points costs, even if it is somewhat limited in scope to prevent abuse of certain synergies.

Edit: forgot one thing

-taking this idea from the way units are created in a computer game I played called battle for wesnoth, divide weaponry into classes and form every unit with resistances/weaknesses to certain weapon types. For example weapons could be blade/piercing/impact/explosive/fire/dematerializing or w/e (it would need to be converted from fantasy terms to 40k terms, but 40k is part fantasy). All weapons would fall into one category or another. Again, this is all about 'meta' rules that apply across the board and create the need for synergy in your units, for complexity in power distribution (every strong unit has some weakness) and it's just beautiful.

This would solve something I've had a problem with for a long time in 40k... and just to give an example, being composed of warpstuff, Daemons are supposed to be nearly immune to conventional small arms fire (such as lasguns and autoguns having very little effect). But, they are vulnerable to psychic powers and ritualistic weapons such as blades! Eldar shooting weapons could also be classed as blades.

Fire is also a great theme in 40k, these kind of rules would allow it to really have purpose within the game. It is far more elegant than the AP rules currently being used. In a lot of parts of the game, the AP rules are almost non-functional, and weapons that truly have different character and ways of being used are lumped together. It is also a great way of representing the 'stopping power' of certain weapons... for example bolters have a high stopping power vs. lasguns that have a pitiful stopping power... not as useful against Orks! Another cool example... Necrons are essentially metal skeletons right? so how effective do you think weapons would be that are designed to puncture holes in a flesh bag? Very little. They should have high resistance to piercing weapons! Also should have high resistance to psychic/warp attacks... what you thought they had souls or something?

Also, Armor is a cool stat but not all armor is created equal... some armor is resistant to piercing and some is vulnerable. It seems like the resistances are complex but when you think about it you only need to make one roll to save, that is all, and apply modifiers accordingly!

Another note: calling BS about the idea that GW can sue over rules. Rules themselves are not copyrightable, so long as you use different terminology for everything, don't copy-paste words and names, and obviously don't advertise and sell it as 40k. If you had a generic sci-fi meta rules system that allows you to build units and use them in a functioning game there is no reason you couldn't play your own game in the 40k universe with it, and other universes too for that matter.

We're gonna playtest my "Potica Edition" again tonight with some tweaks.

For starters, we'll try Ld instead of Initiative for reaction tests to reduce the massive disparity between the likes of Orks vs Eldar.

Also introducing more positive mods to shooting, we felt that stuff didn't die fast enough (BS4 needed a 5+ to hit a lot of the time)

Our suppression system thus far:

You make a Morale test after every shooting attack, with a -1 Ld mod for every casualty inflicted by the attack (or every wound lost in the case of MCs and Vehicles). Make the test on 3d6 if the attack involved any Pinning weapons (as an aside, catching a unit in a crossfire counts as a Pinning attack).

If you fail the test, you get a suppression token. Each suppression token means a cumulative -1 to hit with all attacks and -1 Leadership for the entire unit. This applies to all Ld tests except rally tests.

You can try to rally in your Shooting Phase instead of shooting by making an unmodified Ld test. You remove 1 suppression token for a passed test +1 for every point you passed by (say you roll a 5 and your Ld is 7: you would remove 1+2 token). If the unit contains a Character, you remove +1 token, even if you fail the test. If you're within 6" of the Warlord, you remove +1 token, even if you fail the test.

Melee combat results: calculated as normal; every unit on the winning side removes 1 suppression, every unit on the losing side receives 1 suppression, then takes a Morale test (not modified by combat results, but modified by suppression).

Fall Back moves are typically voluntary and done in the Movement phase or as a reaction to shooting or assault.

There is no Broken or Pinned condition. If your unit is suppressed enough that its more trouble than it's wort in combat, it's in your best interest to move it into cover or away from enemies so it doesn't get slaughtered while trying to rally.

Best suppression system I've seen is in Flames of War actually. In that system, in order to make an assault, it's almost essential to pin a unit down... that can be accomplished just by shooting the unit, if they take a certain number of shots, or they take a hit from a weapon like a mortar, grenade or some terrifying area of effect weapon, then they are pinned. Other wise they get their full shots at you before you attack in cc, which can be deadly.

That's why suppression should be combined with overwatch; think of it as every unit is on automatic overwatch until they get shot at, in which case they naturally take cover and are vulnerable to assaults.

Yes. This! I love Meade's way of linking the two.

Also make melee more decisive -- another of Meade's points -- so it's harder for blobs to bog down elite close-combat troops. I suspect that means

1) Suppressing units so they can't fire Overwatch, as Meade said.

2) requiring a LD check for a unit being charged; if they fail, they're not fully prepared, and the charging enemy gets a free round of attacks or at least some super initiative bonus. (I forget who suggested this, but someone in this thread).

3) making it harder for the loser of an assault to pass its Morale check to keep fighting, probably by adding the number of Wounds it lost by to its roll.

4) making it harder for Fearless units to stay in the fight by restoring the old "no retreat!" system of extra wounds for fearless units that lose a round of close combat.

I prefer a less all-or-nothing approach so I made suppression a smaller, but stacking, penalty. Still covers most points, tho.

1) Each token is a -1 Ld for reaction tests and -1 to hit at both ranged and melee (tho a 6 always hits)

2) Frags are basically a Pinning attack that causes no wounds but forces a check

3) Pretty sure that's how 5th and 6th edition do it anyway

4) That gak broke entire armies in 5th. Worked well in 4th where it depended on outnumbering, not difference in kill count.

Hi Rav1n.
Sorry a bout the late reply..

I totally agree if the command values were used with GW 40k rules, they would be abused due to the limited tactical options in the game play

In the new system we are play testing, a characters are there to support the entire force, not just one unit.Because the game play is more focused on a combined arms approach.

If the Captain is off with a unit of terminators , who is going to influence reserve rolls ?, Or scatter rolls on deep striking units, or rally the other units in the force?
If the scout squad is suppressed they can not spot for the artillery, and the tac squads can not advance contest/hold objectives, or engage enemy units.

It is a bit difficult to explain clearly , as we are still sorting out quite a lot while we play test.But we want characters to command be able to influence the whole force, not just kill things, or improve an attached units ability to kill things.


Yes I would prefer to use the alternating activation with phases as used in Grimdark.
I can not think of a single game that just uses alternating unit activation, without some other system to augment it.
Infinity has (ARO?)reactions, Bolt action has random order draw,Epic SM had activation phases, etc.

If you just allow fixed alternate activation , with free choice of units and actions, this allows units to perform several actions without letting the opponent react.
EG Move then move into assault then assault.
And with the way 40k allows uber units , this could almost be as bad as the current game turn for alpha strike.

Making tactical decisions at the start of the game turn ,remain stationary and fire to full effect, move and shoot or shoot and move, double move or move & assault.
Is quite common in lots of battle games .
Simply placing a order/activation counter/marker next to the unit at the start of the turn is a simple way to keep track of what units are doing this game turn.

And these can be replaced if the unit becomes suppressed with suppression markers , which then limit the unit to moving OR shooting in a limited way.

The simple method of having a single counter/marker next to each unit is not that much book keeping , and allows much more tactical consideration.

Splitting up the activation into phases,where decisive actions ( fire support, charges, ) happen before the more 'reactive actions '(move and shoot , shoot and move.)
Makes the activation more 'filtered and tactical' .it replaces the 'reactions option' with in built sequencing .

Epic SM /NET epic was the closest to the 'perfect level of characterful' 40k type battle games in terms of depth and detail IMO.And that is why I would like to use its version of alternating unit activation.(because I know it works with the wide range of units in current 40k.)

What do you folks think of using a single assault value?(Assault values from 2+ to 6+)
EG 4+ means the model(s) in the unit are hit in assault on a attack dice roll of 4,5or 6.

And assault sequencing runs highest assault value strikes first.

These values are modified ,for charging , suppression , defending an obstacle , higher ground, outnumbering etc.

(Currently we are just using the WS as the Assault value for a starting point.)

So suppressing a unit before assaulting it gives you a bonus to your assault value , for sequence of striking and making you harder to hit.

I also like to see suppression rules that are not completely linked with morale, there is no reason for that! Even if you are a battle hardened veteran, it is just common sense to duck when you are under heavy fire, modern (and far future) weaponry is just so deadly that you have to take cover, or die. And the same goes for assaults... running headlong into troops armed with automatic weapons is just suicide unless you have some kind of covering fire and even then it's dangerous. Unless you are some kind of implacable robot or space bug, I guess. I realize in 40k pinning checks and morale checks aren't quite the same thing, but fearless troops still don't go to ground, morale is meaningless in general since it's so hard to pin a unit, etc.

That being said, good to have it interact with morale since for a unit of conscripts, facing that much incoming fire and being faced with a real combat situation can cause morale to break.

I'd say suppression is linked to morale even in real life -- the hardened Special Operator is going to duck and crawl and keep on going, moving from cover to cover and shooting back; the raw conscript is going to hit the dirt and stay there cowering for the rest of the firefight....

With a buddy of mine , we discussed about the sillynes that is the WS chart.

I mean even if you are WS1 and the ennemy is WS 8 or 9, the worst you get to hit is...5+...

Now its perfectly normal on a gameplay-wise standpoint, else if the modification was more severe, then lots of models would simply not be able to participate in the combat.

So what we thoug is that instead to make Models harder to Hit, make them reroll, the way BS do.

It can be simply and plain like BS is, with a Ws of 6 you can reroll attacks, but they only hit on 6's, WS7, you reroll and hit of 5's etc.

Or you get ONE reroll for each 2 point of WS above 5.

exemple if you have WS6 you don't make a rroll, if you are WS7 you can reroll ONE dice, WS9 you reroll 2 Dices, and that is in any addition to any reroll you allready have( outside Hatred or if you allrady did a reroll with the same dice.)

Oh merciful Emperor no more rerolls in this system. Yes, I don't like it that your chances can't get worse than 6+ or better than 2+ throughout most WH40K mechanics. But why is it so bad if some units have WS so high other units can't touch them in close combat, or T so high other units can't wound them in shooting or melee? Just make some extreme combinations -- e.g. WS1 attacks WS10 -- an automatic "sorry, you lose."

@Sister Sydney.
I agree completely with your views on suppression.All units react in a similar way immediately, ( thinking more about self preservation.)
The better disciplined /experienced units simply recover faster.

Eg
The unit is under enough threat to make the unit focus on self preservation , it becomes suppressed.
The unit recovers from suppression by passing a morale check.

As respect to assault, why not use the simple idea of the WS is the score needed to hit the model /unit in assault.

EG you need to roll 4+ to hit a WS 4 unit in close combat, and 2+ to hit a WS 2 unit in close combat.
This removes the need to have a chart at all and makes WS more important.

(This works fine in other games )

Well, you don't really need a chart now

It's two simple rules.

Attacker's WS higher than defender's? 3+
Defender's WS more than double attacker's? 5+

Honestly I don't know why they even print that huge chart that looks so daunting to newbies.

The bigger issue than the big chart is how narrow the range of possibility is... They don't even use the full 2+ to 6+ range possible on one die! So my Gretchin has a 1/3 chance of landing a blow on your Daemon Prince, really?

i've been toying with another way of running damage resolution, but its a bit odd and requires a D12.

A models stats (WS, BS, S) designate the number that needs to be rolled equal to or under to confirm success. Other stats (T, Defensive Skill (DS), Cover Rating) act as modifiers to this roll. However, you simply treat values equal to or less than that modifier as failed dice.

For example, my space marine (S10), hits another space marine (T3). I roll a D12, and remove any dice above 10 as a failure, then remove any dice equal to or below 3 as failures to show the enemy marines toughness modifier. If that marine was hitting a guardsman (T1), any value above 10 would be removed, then all 1's.

If a stat exceeds 12, for every point above 12 lower the associated modifier by an equivalent amount. If a models toughness modifier is lowered to 0 for any reason, the hit causes instant death. This way, my missle launcher (S15) will cause instant death to any model with T3 or lower, while an assault cannon (S13) will instant death all T1 models.

Thoughts? One of my main concerns is how strange the statline will look, since you'll typically have extremely high "rolling" stats, but very low "modifier" stats.

 SisterSydney wrote:
The bigger issue than the big chart is how narrow the range of possibility is... They don't even use the full 2+ to 6+ range possible on one die! So my Gretchin has a 1/3 chance of landing a blow on your Daemon Prince, really?

I guess that decision was made back when GW still remembered that it's stupid and frustrating to make someone roll dozens of dice when there's practically no hope of doing anything meaningful.

@Sister Sydney: Be wary! You are trying to make a game which is to be played. IF you go with specific auto wins like your talking about, your game will break (as 'oh look i get my X to Y level and troll you'), or it will fail in the eyes of many players. You must give a player hope that they can win so that they keep playing. Even if it goes against the reality of a situation. Think about it, how many great stories come out of those off kilter battles in the game as it is? Would you get rid of those? Give players chances, even if they are on in a hundred and they will at least try. Give em another chance in the form of a reroll and they will go for gold. You are attempting to create an enjoyable experience here too after all.

Hmm. Good alternative perspective. Personally, I'd rather say "right, my guy's dead, next?" than roll a hundred dice in hope.