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.

@ Rav1n.
I was just suggesting an alternative to the way 40k seems to restrict player choices with ridged and complicated rules.I am happy to change the penalties/conditions as required.

The basic principal of combatants use the weapon they are best with , at the and weapon selection is dependant on range they are from the enemy is agreeable to you?

Are you ok with a unit engaged in melee to be able to shoot with models further back from the enemy , to represent 'opportunity fire ' in assaults?

I am unsure about letting other friendly unit shoot into assaults myself.I just posted a possible way to implement it, off the top of my head.

I would like to speed up assaults to make them fast and deadly.

Just use an Assault value to determine the chance of the enemy hitting you.And the order the assaults are resolved in.(Highest assault values attack first in assault.)
And the saves and damage handled in the same way as shooting.
The highest assault value attacks first , them the opposing unit attacks back.

Then determine the effect of the assault. The unit that lost the most wounds / structure points has lost the assault.

Possible outcome suggestions...

The losing unit must 'Withdraw' from combat.(Moves 3" away from the enemy that beat them.)
The loosing unit takes a Morale test.
If the unit has more remaining wounds,than the unit that won the assault ,.
If successful the unit it is free to act normally receive orders next turn.
If the unit fails the Morale test it becomes suppressed.

If the losing unit has lower number of remaining wounds than that of the winning unit
If successful the unit becomes suppressed.
if it the unit fails the Morale test the unit Routes .

The winner of the assault may choose to consolidate their position by moving the models in the unit back into coherency and automatically recover any models from Suppression.

1) Remove Challenges
2) Remove Battle Brothers level of alliances
3) When allying, you must still stay within 1 FOC chart. Primary + Allies combined in one chart.
4) FAQ Tau and Eldar
5) If formations are going to be part of the game, they should occupy a place on the FOC chart. 0-1 Formation 1-2 HQ 2-6 Troops 0-3 Elites 0-3 Fast Attacks 0-3 Heavy Support
6) Instead of Armor Penetration where AP:2 is just as good at killing 6+ as 2+ it should work like this:
Have armor penetration count up. AP:1 means you need 1 higher than your normal armor save. So a 4+ save would have to roll 5+. And a 2+ save would have to roll a 3+.
AP:4 means that you need to roll 4 higher. So a 4+ would not get a save. A 2+ would have to roll a 6+.
7) Invul and Cover could work similar, but in reverse with a maximum of a 2+
Invul: 1 means roll 1 better than armor. So a 4+ save with Invul 1 on area terrain would have to roll a 4 + 1(ap) - 1(invul) - 1(cover) = 3+
That same model against AP:4 would have to roll a 6+
That way, high AP shooting would have a major effect that wouldn't be ignored, but units with good armor / invul wouldn't be instant killed by high AP shooting, and poorly armored units still would. Also, invuls would be reduced in power.
8) Remove night fighting (because everyone forgets)
9) Switch BS to a positive (like armor) BS:4+ means you have to roll a 4+ to hit.
10) Flyers could either Zoom or Hover. While Hovering they could be shot with full BS (or -1 for a jink). While Zooming, it would still take snapshots to hit, but they would also have to shoot snapshots.
11) Overwatch should be fired at AP:0 this somewhat mitigates the downside of charging through cover.
12) Interceptor fire should be divorced from Skyfire's ability to target the ground.
13) Assaulting units on the 2nd level of terrain should grant the units in that position a +1 to WS, but otherwise be ignored (charge distanced, BtB rules, etc). Remove the terrain to conduct the assault, and then replace it once the assault is done.
14) The first blood victory point should be replaced with a survivor victory point that would go to the army who has the most points left on the board at the end of the game.
15) FAQ the psychic powers and warlord traits.
16) If an independent character loses coherency to a unit, it is no longer joined to that unit, and that unit no longer has buffs from that IC, and vice versa. For instance, Look out sirs would only pass to units within 2". If an IC is separated from a unit, and there are still wounds to be resolved in the wound pool then the attacking player can allocate those remaining wounds between the IC and the unit.

On the issue of assault rules affecting balance....

First of all this deals with balance issues as a whole within 40k. Including points costs, various other rules concerning overwatch, movement, etc. I've already expressed my views on quick fixes to 40k to avoid a rewrite, so I'll spare everyone that.

It also deals with the philosophy of the game itself... do you want to recreate a modern/sci fi combat type situation with high powered ranged weapons shooting at each other. Or more to the side of fantasy in space.

I believe it can be a little of both, but you simply need to balance armies. If all armies have equal parts shooting and assault, or at least access to something like the same thing, the game will move towards balance.

Lets assume we want fantasy in space, with mighty close combat battles between heroic dudes. Well this does not necessarily conflict with the idea of modern warfare or deadly ranged weapons. In fact in the future, combat may very well tend back towards close combat if the pace of technology in personal armor and stealth catches catches up and matches the deadliness of ballistic weapons. We might assume that mighty heroes like space marines, or evil monsters like orks, simply have the capacity to absorb incoming fire. So instead of trying to balance the game by other arbitrary rules... you just try to represent reality (or this fictional reality) better.

So off the top of my head, some rules that express realism in a game and tactical variability and also can help in balancing assaults:

-suppression fire. Coupled with deadly artillery and possibly even off-board artillery rules (and other handy weapons that cause suppression just by hitting the enemy unit, and their primary purpose is to suppress and disorient/keep heads down... like mortars), this rule would help to reduce overwatch fire and fire in general for the assaulters to make their way across the battlefield.
-assault units that can either move fast and get into combat, or have strong enough toughness and armor compared to the firepower available in the game to have a chance walking across the board.
-utilize the missions and objectives in the game to ensure the need to take positions, often using assaults.. make it harder to completely eliminate an enemy through shooting. This can be done with different cover rules and better gone-to-ground or dig in/fortify rules, or in sci-fi, with mystical energy shields or clouds of bio-spore or ork smoke or anything else you might dream up. In fact more smoke on the battlefield and access to smokescreens is a great idea because that would let nightfight rules come more into play. Not to mention, more LOS blocking terrain but that is already recognized in a lot of gaming communities.
-faster, deadlier combat rules. Through some combination of combat rules, make it nearly impossible for combats to drag on past a turn. There are too many ways to bypass 'who won combat'. Being able to tie up strong assault units with weak ones or walkers is a glaring loophole in the game that debilitates assaulting units.
-make assault moves just like normal moves, don't add penalties or make assaulters roll every time and risk a crucial game-deciding step of getting into combat.

@ Meade, I totally agree with you!

It is much easier to tweek a solid system to alter the style of game play that results.
Than try to limit the game play style with the choice of rules you put in the rules in the first place.(As 40k does.)

I would like assault in 40k to be fast and brutal, and 'resolved ' in the turn it occurs.
But as with shooting it can just delay /suppress the losing unit as well as destroy/route the losing unit.

Locking units in close assault IS required if you set the game play up to require it.
But as you say if you allow the tactical use of smoke/cover and suppression to facilitate 'realistic assault ' as found in modern warfare.
You can tweek it to represent 'heroic fantasy in space charges' with a few changes to the system.(Give units a bonus to avoid being hit , or resilience due to fury/frenzy etc.)

I think we agree , if you start with 'ancient warfare rules in space' ,that focuses on close combat , and using ranged weapons in a supporting roles.(WHFB in space.)
It becomes impossible to arrive at a game where assault and shooting are balanced enough to let them be be equally viable in the system.Unless you limit shooting to a supporting role.
But this seems odd when 90% of units in the game carry ranged weapons....Or buff assaults to make them artificially viable , which makes shooting unit look under powered in comparison.(Does this sound familiar. )

Lanrak wrote:

I think we agree , if you start with 'ancient warfare rules in space' ,that focuses on close combat , and using ranged weapons in a supporting roles.(WHFB in space.)
It becomes impossible to arrive at a game where assault and shooting are balanced enough to let them be be equally viable in the system.Unless you limit shooting to a supporting role.
But this seems odd when 90% of units in the game carry ranged weapons....Or buff assaults to make them artificially viable , which makes shooting unit look under powered in comparison.(Does this sound familiar. )

I partially agree, I would say that if you limit shooting, limit long range supporting fire first and foremost. Like missiles, artillery, lascannons. The idea is that it is still necessary for your dudes to trudge across the battlefield and meet with the enemy. Keep those weapons powerful, but balanced by dig in rules (kind of like gone to ground, penalties to movement, but allows you to be very survivable and shoot), smokescreens and cover, make it very hard to win the game just by taking a bunch of artillery or special weapons and point-and-click from the other side of the board to eliminate your enemy. Just like in modern combat... you can't just blast the enemy from the sky, you always need your grunts to go up on foot and dig out the enemy to take ground.

and if we merge assault and close ranged weaponry, a rapid fire weapon becomes something closer to a cc weapon so unit start to look more the same, just use different styles of attack. If rapid fire weapons can still be effective even in close combat to some degree, it's not so much of a problem.

Better cover rules, yes, absolutely. Done right it solves both the problems of "I sit back and kill you from range without ever having to maneuver" and of "I'd like to charge you but since I have to run across the entire board in open ground it's a little World War I-like."

More smoke on the battlefield, awesome. Hadn't thought of that one. But a simple way to deal with any shortage of terrain -- and it creates a tactical option too. Do I use my smoke barrage now to cover these guys as they advance? Or do I save it for someone else later?

Make a USR that ignores interceptor. Make this available at a points upgrade for some outflanking/scout units.

@Meade.
I did not explain my self too well again...

What I meant to say was when you are using units that are equipped and organised as modern warfare type units.Then the only way to arrive at a intuitive balance between ranged and close combat attacks is to use a modern warfare type system .(Which allows units to interact in a intuitive way.)

Forcing an ancient warfare based interaction system on modern type units , makes it practically impossible to balance ranged and close combat attacks without lots of heavy modification and artificial restrictions.(And the level of resulting complication can result in subjective opinion being confused with objective conclusion. )

If there is no artificial demarcation between how models make attacks .It just lists the effects of the attacks at different ranges.Then players can clearly see how each units in game abilities can be used to the most effect , in a combined arms type strategy.

I suppose the only restriction on weapon classification if purely for game balance and intuitive play.And including some ranged weapons that could be effective in a close assault is intuitive.

How do you feel about using these weapon classifications.

Assault , can be used when the unit is in Close Assault.

Small Arms, pistols and rifle /smg type weapons, the basic ranged armament of the unit .

Support , specialist weapons the unit carries to deal with specific targets types.

Fire Support. specialist weapons the unit carries to deal with specific target types.The unit can not move and shoot with these weapons, it needs to take a ready order to prepare to fire .(A Fire Support order.)


@ Sister Sydney.
Using cover , suppression and smoke, effectively adds quite a bit of tactical depth to most of the war games I play!
It is all about giving players in game options IMO.
This makes the game play interesting and it grows with the players experience.

dadakkaest wrote:
Make a USR that ignores interceptor. Make this available at a points upgrade for some outflanking/scout units.

The interceptor rule is another example of a shoddy attempt to introduce reaction systems in the game. Combined with the overwatch, which 95% percent of the time just results in rolling massive amounts of dice that slow the game and do nothing, or, in the case of Tau breaking the game because you can potentially shoot your whole army and something close to normal ballistic skill.

They put interceptor on AA units to give them a chance to fire a fliers... or at least it seems this is the purpose of this USR. Instead it's used to hose down deepstriking units and infiltrate/outflanking, who are already fighting an uphill battle against the large shooting armies that dominate the game. Another example of, if they created the game to be balanced in the first place and include reactions, the rule wouldn't be so dysfunctional.

Anyway, yeah, you can make another USR. That negates the other broken USR. And then maybe make another USR that counters that, too, for certain very very special interceptor units. Eventually you will need whole sheet full of them, probably, oh and did I mention, you will have to re-cost units. That is so fun!

Someone should really take a bit of time to compile a bunch of these in a text document of some sort. Or at least the ones that have gotten an overall thumbs up from the vast majority of those who responded to it.

Otherwise, aside from my revised vehicle rules (which work fabulously btw)

The only other things which I believe need a bit of work are:
- Cover Saves: The fog in front of you wont stop my bullets. It just makes it harder to see you. Most sensible to me is some sort of modifer to BS or reduce the strength/AP of shots fired.
~~~Example 1: guardsman Lucky fires his plasmagun at a chaos marine Bob. The Bob normally has a 3+ save. The plasmagun is AP2. were he in the open, Bob would be dead. However, he is behind a concrete wall. It has a cover rating of 3/3, which reduces the strength AND AP of the shot by 3, effectively turning that plasma bolt into a bolt round [S7 AP2 > S4 AP5]. Still hurts, just not as much.
~~~Example 2: Chaos Marine Bob returns fire after surviving the blast thanks to his trusty wall. He returns fire, but that sneaky guardsman called in a mortar barrage of smoke rounds (or something), making him hard to see. The smoke is REALLY thick has an obfuscation rating of 2, reducing Bob's BS by 2. He now fires at BS2 instead of 4. If Bob were replaced with Random Ork 544922-B, he would hit on a 6.
- Night fighting should go back to 5e style, rather than random space magic darkness that deflects lascannons.
- 'To Hit' in close combat. Seriously janky tbh, and the fact that a WS10 model only has a 66% chance of hitting a blind, deaf, one legged grot in CC is absolutely dumb.
- Transports and assaults. Both to and from. I still think that you should be able to assault models inside of a transport somehow. Whether it be from dropping grenades inside, or by poking various long-hafted weapons through doors/fire ports/etc. And perhaps those charging from a non-assault vehicle that hasnt moved count as making a disordered charge? or let the unit they charge (and only that unit you sneaky Tau) re-roll their overwatch hits, as they had an extra second or so to ready themselves.
- Fliers. There should be a hardset difference between ATA and ATS craft. Now I know comparing to real life things is largely frowned upon in a game like 40k, but how many dedicated dogfighters have the weaponry or targeting systems to paste infantry? Or dive bombers/ground attack craft that can tangle with the former?
- Look Out Sir! is one of the dumbest mechanics so far IMO. If Steve the Guardsmen can follow the trajectory of a sniper round traveling 850m/s (speed of sound in atmosphere is 331 m/s by comparison) to save his commander, why can't he dodge it himself? Moreover, why is he only I3?!?!? Holy crap reflexes.
- Monstrous creatures. These should have to fill the following criteria: 1. Be a (largely) fleshy thing 2. Be considerably large/bulky. The sort of large bulky wherein it doesnt necessarily go through the wall of a building, but rather the whole bloody thing. Neither of those things? Go join mr Astartes Dreadnought over there in the walkers section. YES YOU TOO DREADNIGHT. IF PENETANT ENGINE IS HERE SO ARE YOU. ESPECIALLY YOU "WRAITHLORD -AKA- ELDAR DREADNOUGHT

- Charging through terrain, in so far as....
---Being slowed down because you had to climb over a purpose made barricade, allowing those on the other side to swing at you first? sure. Being slowed down because of the single barrel between you and them? nonsense.
---Having the ability to effortlessly manuever/smash through tight terrain, walls, etc but still being forced to wait for those around you to hit you with various insundry poking objects? nonsense
---Sitting still while Brother Steveicus zip-ties a melta bomb to your ankle/tread/tire/grav intake?Dumb. Step on him. Or run him over with your 22 ton battletank. Or spin your magic hovertank around to make him throw up in his armor and make him feel dumb.
---Unweildy. The rule makes no sense on the weapons that have it. Yes, a powerfist is a bulky weapon. How this makes you slow as hell in delivering a punch to your opponent's face is beyond me. Have it reduce your WS or attacks in exchange for hitting with the force of a battlecannon. or even -1 to your init, instead of a flat 1
- Unit by unit movement. Fantasy has unit-by-unit movement. It is literally 1 more stat. Joe Shmoe should not be moving as fast as an APC such as a rhino or chimera.
- Fear. Make it matter. Somehow. Considering literally every army has ways to ignore this in large-ish quantities if not entirely. It it quite literally a pointless rule right now. Gigantic axe wielding murderhouse of a Daemon over there? Dont worry, the lone Astartes Psyker missing an arm will save us.
- ATSKNF. or as I like to call it: And They Shall Ignore Half The Rules In The Rulebook.

- Line of Sight: this leads to more arguements than ANY other rule in the game in my group. If you are lucky enough to bring a laser pointer, which I now do always it isnt as bad. But when two people are competing in a game to see whose dice wants the other person's little plastic armymen to go back in the box more are judging LoS, shoutfests sometimes ensue. One of those things that is super hard to make a rule for, due to the rather objective nature of determining it.
~~~Example 1: Model all of your fire warriors to be kneeling? too bad. That wall is too tall for them. Too bad they aren't standing up, otherwise they could see. That's what you get for using a proper firing position!!
~~~Example 2: Did you make an epic base for Chaos Lord Wrekurface that adds another 1/2" to his height? Oops... sorry, he doesnt get cover from that window anymore. That's what you get for making your plastic dudes fancy!!!
~*~ The only part of the current TLoS system is how it interacts with the interesting situation of vehicle facings. I -do- like the idea of a krak missile sort of ricocheting off of the rear hatch of a rhino when it is at an odd angle.

@Lanrak, just to try to clarify my views on the ancient/modern warfare thing... I think that the setting of 40k is not exactly one or the other. Just because it's 'fantasy in space' and there are dudes with swords and shields, doesn't mean we should concentrate on the medieval warfare aspect.

As I said before it really is something new... you have to imagine what modern warfare would be like if we included powered armor and material that can stand up to modern ballistic weapons, and alien creatures that could do the same because of weird biology, or robots. So... a new technology causes a reversal to a state that existed in the past!

It really means that all the rules of modern warfare still apply, only you introduce new situations overlaid on top of it that changes the dynamic... but if you neglected to use certain units, like for instance taking some stormtroopers vs. some tau, then things would quickly revert back to modern warfare. I hope that helps you see my general philosophy about this.

Lanrak wrote:

How do you feel about using these weapon classifications.

Assault , can be used when the unit is in Close Assault.

Small Arms, pistols and rifle /smg type weapons, the basic ranged armament of the unit .

Support , specialist weapons the unit carries to deal with specific targets types.

Fire Support. specialist weapons the unit carries to deal with specific target types.The unit can not move and shoot with these weapons, it needs to take a ready order to prepare to fire .(A Fire Support order.)

The first thing that leaps out to me is how to differentiate assault and support, or is the only difference that one you need to be in base contact to use? Support weapons, would this include some close range assault weapons like flamer/melta and does it really make sense to give a separate class to these weapons?

Well, I'll tell you what I'm most interested in. Streamlining weapons types, so that it could easily be conveyed in a small logo on a unit's card. That includes streamlining the ranges of weapons, since I think it's one of those things that is hard and annoying to remember, and causes headache, whether you are premeasuring ranges or trying to guess before you fire.

I love the system used in x-wing, where you basically use one cardboard stick to measure all ranges. There is no need for measuring tape... targets are either in range band 1, 2, or 3 or out of range. Now in a 28mm game using futuristic weapons like laser cannons, it feels very dumb to have those weapons not have infinite range, considering the size of the board represented and the actual range of modern weaponry. So for your support weapons, like your big guns, and sniper weapons, and off-board artillery or air/orbital support, there is no need to check range. However, I realize that eliminates a lot of the complexity in weapons that you might want to have in a game. so maybe use range bands, and have a system that uses range bands; you have weapons that fire in range band 1, band 2 to 4, etc. Then you can also modify ballistic skill by range band.

I feel it's a good compromise. It retains some complexity, and adds some in the sense that it's easier to model distance lowering our ballistic skill, but also enables us to use something very handy; just buy a long thin wooden dowel at a hardware/art store, paint it up in colored bands, and then when you go to fire.... all you do is read the little picture on your card, and instantly you know what dice to pick up... all without measuring tape (although you could just as easily use one) or adding or subtracting anything in your head!

You could have a picture of the weapon class, a little square for instance. Then below it have a segmented bar, lets say you are working with 4 bands. Each segment represents a range band. Now you could color code those bands green/yellow/red for instance to represent challenges to ballistic skill at certain ranges. Black or empty segments would mean it's impossible to fire at a certain range.

Now it depends on what kind of dice system you are using what those color coded segments mean... if you are using a D20 system, for instance you might just add or subtract from your ballistic skill. If you are using a dice pool system you might add or subtract dice to your pool. If you are using a multiple-polyhedral dice system you might shift your dice, etc. Just depends on the kind of system you want to use. If you like rolling dice use the pool system, if not then the d20 system, if you want to be a cool guy then use different poyhedrals...

And as for weapons... let's talk about the basic information you need to convey about weapons.

a) Range: Best done with range bands. This can convey info: is this a melee weapon or is this a long range sniper type weapon. Also can include information on how the shooter's ballistic skill is affected at different ranges. It can also convey information about weapon accuracy... an accurate weapon in the hands of an unskilled shooter would be useful, but an inaccurate weapon in the hands of an unskilled shooter would be useless.

b) Arcs of Fire: Although this is a more advanced skirmish type rule, you could have arcs of fire for every weapon, some attacks are 360 degrees like psychic mind-bullets and some are highly focused, like heavy weapons and sniper rifles. This is independent from the unit's vision/awareness arc, because some units might be equipped with weapons that face forward and backward, and some might be equipped with heavy weapons like mortars that require set-up but also have pistols and rifles on hand. This would make heavy weapons teams more vulnerable and realistic since infiltrators could sneak up from their behind for instance.

c) Templates: If the weapon has a template, you need to convey that info. Possibly with a small symbol that conveys the range, and template used at that range (this would streamline for instance, the torrent special rule, which is basically just a range combined with template at the end).

d) Damage: Usually a number, meant to be converted by a toughness stat into wounds. Conveys the raw power level of a weapon. This can also be potentially simplified into damage bands. That might represent the damage of certain weapons at range: for example the melta, which loses power at range. You could easily combine this in a graphic with a system of range bands; put two range bands together and for every range band, above or below it is a damage band: with a color for it's damage level. So a melta might have a violet (ultra-high) damage in the first band; but a red damage in the second, and so on. Other weapons that might lose power at range: tractor (gravity) beams, lasers (IRL lasers dissapate from atmospheric effects) disintegrators, plasma, sound weapons... plenty of exotic possibilities.

e) Weapon Quality: Is this weapon: fire, explosive, piercing, blade, psychic, impact, disintegrator, etc. Conveys the way power is physically distributed by a weapon. is it spread out, is it tight and focused, is it kinetic or electromagnetic, or some other exotic form. Best conveyed with a small logo representing the damage class. This System can encompass the AP system: just combine a number with the symbol for weapon quality for instance: piercing 3 might convey a md. strength piercing weapon. How 'piercey' it is. But you could do the same thing for fire, Fire 2, or blade 4 or w/e. This eliminates the need for 'power' weapons and special rules for ignoring invul save.

f) Shots: depends on the dice mechanic used, this possibly might combine with ballistic skill and range bands influencing how many shots you get. The more shots you get the more likely you are to hit; but also the more potential wounds you can cause so I think it's not as simple as increasing the number of dice you roll.

g)Wounds or hit points caused: possibly to be integrated with the damage stat, you need some kind of system of how many wounds/hit points a weapon causes or does it cause instant death.

h) Complexity of Use: This ties in with Lanrak's suggestion, that maybe special orders be required to use certain weapons. It also dovetails nicely with an order/reaction system that allows reactions, because certain weapons might be able to react (pistols, rapid fire) while others may not (missiles, heavy weapons). Essentially, you would need to sacrifice movement and 'command' to fire a heavy support weapon, or to take aim with rifles and other mid-range weapons.

i) Special Rules: Unless they portray spectacularly bizarre effects, like hallucinogens, or you change into a squig or a spawn, special rules should be eliminated or streamlined into something that all armies have access to. The ulitimate goal should be, all the information required to produce special effects are encoded into the stats (and how the stats interact) and all it takes is a weird combo of stats to produce that special effect. Then, once people are familiar with the system itself, they make their own units and cost them appropriately in a system that everyone else knows and understands, and carry over more of the background lore into the game.

Again I'm putting all this stuff out there not to force it on anyone, but merely to share ideas and put them out there and receive feedback and inspiration. I'm not fixated on immediately coming to some kind of consensus... that really depends on your gaming group and what it is you're after. I'm only here for the heresies...

Wow, that one last little post I made actually got prop'd. And then I didn't check back till now. Figures lol. I've been sucked into X-Wing by Fantasy Flight of late and that has been sucking up time and creative energy. Not to mention the Magic:TG marathon I pulled last weekend . Someone really should (now that it is pg15) compile all these random Ideas and get them into the OP if possible. How you're going to organize them I ain't got any clue. Something does seem to to be taking some kind of shape here at least. I will go back to my lurking now..muwawahahahwaha

@Meade.
As far as the ancient warfare /modern warfare style goes.I think we actually agree on the basic principals., but express it differently!
(It should be modern warfare with concessions to the background, with a few tweeks/additional layers . Rather than ancient warfare with massive patches to try to get the basic game to work.)

My thoughts on the weapon classes were simply to try to cover how weapons work across all units.

I wanted to class Assault weapons , as the weapons that can be used in Close Assault .
A)The ones that are to used to make BtB (to 2" away.) attacks.Swords , axes, Power gloves etc.
B)The ones that are SAFE to fire at ranges up to 4"* through friendly models in close combat. Pistols , and similarly classed weapons.(May be shot guns?)

(* I am testing using a 4* close combat shooting range for pistols ATM.It is just an idea to restrict range of shots from models engaged in close assault but further than 2" away. )
(Firing super heated plasma balls, high energy thermal beam or chemical/ high rate of projectile spray weapons in close combat is not really that safe for friendly models !)

The idea of Small Arms is to cover the effects of the infantry units main weapons , so they can fire at separate targets to the Support/Fire Support weapons , in an intuitive way!
Eg a IG Squad can fire is (Small Arms ,) lasguns at the Ork boys mob, and the (Fire support ) lascannon can fire at the Batlewagon.

Support weapons (current special weapons ) , are the specialized weapons that allow units to engage enemy units more effectively than Small arms.

Fire Support weapons .(As current heavy/ordnance , as above but can not move and fire.)

I wanted to move away from 'special heavy weapons /ordnance' , and simply just class the weapons as they are on the unit .
So a Heavy bolter is a Fire Support weapon in a IG squad, but just a Support weapon on a Leman Russ Battle tank.

I have always wanted to use a unit card with the new rules.
And have the units weapons effects listed under their stats.The combined effect of the unit and the weapons they carry.

I will try to rationalize the list of weapon information you listed.

I would use ..
Class.(Assault, Small Arms , Support, Fire Support.)

Effective Range , (Could be a colour and a number like X wing?)Eg Assault ;- Red , 1 ,2,3(and 4.) For BtB , 2", 3" and 4".

Armour Penetration.How good the weapon is at defeating enemy armour .(Subtract enemy armour value to arrive at the save roll required, perhaps.)

Damage . The number needed to roll to damage the soft target behind the armour.(This is modified by the enemy resilience/toughness .)

Attacks ,how many hits , the area of effect of the weapon.

Notes, Any special abilites of the weapon/model carrying the weapon. EG Ignores cover, Armour Bane, Parry, etc.

I was thinking of showing fire arcs separately, in diagrams for generic type weapons /models.(And maybe halving fire arcs when units are suppressed?)

I would prefer the fluff to decsribe the nature of how the weapon works .And the weapons profile to just show how it works in the game.And detail what weapons can be used and when in the orders system.As this keeps the weapon stat line cleaner.

its what we have been using for basic play testing in the new rules .I can explain the basic concepts and interactions in more detail if needed?

This is just my take on the basic concepts, open to modification and changes as required..

@Knuckle Wolf.
The problem is there are 3 sets of ideas running in this thread.
A)House rule fixes for 6th ed ,

B)Major modifications for 6th ed.

C)And a complete re-write from the ground up.

As far as C) goes I think it would be helpful if we could agree on a outline of the new rules, covering all the excellent ideas this thread has brought up for a new rule set .

EG .
Modern warfare style battle game.

Interactive game turn, alternating activation , either unit by unit or action by action.

Using the stat line directly to determine in game interaction.(Reducing the need to look up charts and tables !)

Using a unit card with in game info on one side and strategic army comp on the other.(So no flicking through books to find stats and rules !)

Unit leaders and characters to actually command units .
(And have unit coherency as a range from the leader ,character rather than model to model.To speeed up movment of models and allow tactical positioning!)

Have a simple suppression mechanic included in the basic damage resolution.

Allowing the use of suppression ,smoke and cover to be tactically preferable to charging headlong into heavy enemy fire on planet bowling ball!

Cover all interaction with the same straight forward resolution.All models have the same stat line , all weapons have the same stat line, (with different values obviously .)

Special abilities (rules) , add to the game play and do not detract from it!
(Use 'chrome' sparingly to make the game sparkle , not collapse under the weight of it!)

Hi folks.
Just for those interested in writing a new rule set.Can you let me know if you have issues with any of these basic mechanics /resolution ideas?

1)I believe we want an equal blend of mobility, firepower and assault in the game , with an interactive game turn.(Alternating single unit or single action.)

2) Allow units to pick actions and the order the actions are taken in by using 'order counters'. (2 or 3 action sets.)

3) Have a clearly structured game turn , with defined phases.
EG
Command Phase.(Place order counters call in reserves /arty etc.)
Action Phase(s) Models move and fight !
Resolution phase, (To tidy up stuff before the start of next turn.)

4) Use stats directly , the distance in inches (for effective range and mobility), the number of dice rolled or the basic dice score required for success.
These direct values may be modified.(Eg difficult ground reduces movement by 2", resilience value adds to damage target score required.)

5) I believe the weapon and armour interaction should be the most detailed in the game , (to allow penetrating hits to cause suppression, for a simple suppression mechanic.)
So adding a D6 roll to the targets AV (save roll.) And comparing it to weapon hit AP is a simple way to get proportional results.
(As used in FoW for armoured units.)

6) All weapons have the same stat line .And are resolved in the same way.(Roll to hit, roll to save, roll to damage.)
Class,name Effective range , AP,Damage, Attacks,Notes.(Special abilities are covered in the notes.)

7) Unit leaders and characters are the focus of the unit .All coherency measurements are taken from the unit leader/character models.
(This means speeds up model movement and tactical positioning on the table .And mimicks the unit having an invisible base x" diameter , with the leader in the center.)

8 ) Separate the morale of the unit from the command ability of the leader/characters.(To allow leaders/characters to actually command !)

9) Only use positive modifiers.
If the task becomes harder add to the target score .(So success on a 3+ becomes success on a 4+.)
If the task becomes easier add to the dice roll.(So a result of 3 counts as a result of 4)

10) Include smoke/blind munition use back into the game , to allow tactical combined arms tactics.(Request smoke bombardment to cove an advance for example.)
And allow cover to be used universally as a modifier to hit at range!(EG Soft cover +1 to targets stealth, Hard cover +2 to targets stealth.)

Please post and alternatives or comments you may have.

I'm happy with all of this except order counters. It's not the "counter" part that worries me, it's the "order" part. The game has a hard enough time defining what a "charge" is and what a "fallback move is" and has pages of rules to define those two actions; if you have an order like "advance" you either need to define it very loosely (move in any direction you want however much you want) or write agonizingly detailed rules about what "move towards the enemy" means.

Hi Sister Sydney.
I was proposing the use of simple actions like , 'move', 'attack' or 'ready' .
So orders are just made up of these 3 simple actions.How far and what direction the unit moves, what enemies the units attack, is down to the player upon activation of the unit.

I am trying to convey the general idea that unit will have a 'elected a mode of operation' at the start of the turn.
Eg The leader(s) tells the unit to give covering fire, advance and fire on targets of opportunity , run towards cover, or charge into an assault etc.

A bit like the old options of stand still and fire to full effect, move normally and have limited shooting , or move at maximum speed and not make any ranged attacks , or charge into close combat.

EG.(Orders I have been using in the new rules play testing..)
Advance move then attack.

{Charge move then move into close assault.(If assault are resolved simultaneously, or at the end of the game turn?)}

(At the )Double ,move then move .

Evade attack then move.

Fire support ready then move.(Set up then fire to full effect.)

Infiltrate ready then move, (Increased stealth.)

(We have been using paper counters with A,C,D,E,F,I on for play testing hence the names I picked... )

This is just to try to inject some tactical decision making at the start of the turn , rather than write complex and detailed actions that restrict how units operate.

Has that made the intention of using order counters any clearer?
I know I am not very good at explaining things, so please if any thing is unclear please let know so I can try to explain it better.. .

But now your system can only achieve true beauty if you come up with a unique order for each letter of the alphabet

Dude, Hebrew alphabet.

Well we did start by using colours but we noticed how some players claim to be colour blind when the put the wrong order down.( And the kids took all thier felt tip pens back.. )

I would like to point out as I am rubbish at explaining things, I want to keep the rules clear and as as straightforward as possible.

Because of this I would like the rules JUST to explain how players and in game elements interact.I would prefer to keep the background narrative separate.
And with this in mind , I want to keep away from 'but that would nerf/ buff unit /equipment X too much!' type comments.

With the new rules , they are going to require lots of play testing to arrive at final values.So rather than try to make the rules conform to pre conceptions from 40k 3rd -6th ed.I would prefer to try to get the game play intuitive and free flowing .(Removing the need for willing suspension of disbelief/WTF moments.)

Is the basic order counter composition, using simple actions, 'move' 'attack' 'ready',O.K. with you?
If it is then we have to look at how many actions per order we want to use.

The real choices are;-
Do we want to go with 2 action set orders, or 3 action set orders.
Do we want to use alternative unit activation or alternating single player actions.

Most set phase game turns allow 3 actions per game turn , one for each phase.
Because they want to keep moving, shooting and assaulting distinct and separate actions/ resolutions.
Looking at a wide range of games that use this type of game turn.(Excluding 40k because it is such a mess!)

They only allow units/models to perform a maximum of 2 actions per game turn.

1)Do not move in the movement phase and gain a bonus, (to cover, and/or ranged attacks.)

2)Move in the movement phase , then shoot OR assault, OR move again.

Maybe 40k players are pre disposed to the idea of 3 action sets.But in a more interactive game turn , are they needed?
Would 2 actions per game turn flow better ?

Also remember if we are using alternating unit activation, allowing more actions increases the 'temporal distortion' in the game .
In the fact units do more without any natural reactions available from the opposing units. Which may increase the need for interupts /conditional reactions.(Adding to rules bloat.)

I am in favor of 2 action order sets.(Simple to learn and remember,and the lets the interaction flow quickly.)
As they can be used with either alternating unit activation or single action activation.(We can work out game turns for both if you like.Give players the option to pick which is their favorite!)
And give up to about half a dozen possible orders, which is enough for tactical depth , without being overly confusing.

Is there any one who wants to use 3 action order sets ?(Please post reasons why so we can debate this.)

Comments and ideas are most welcome.

When I was toying with a similar concept I had 2 actions per piece, with HQs being able to add a third to their own or another nearby unit.

@lord- blackfang.
That is an excellent idea!
A cool addition to a basic 2 action order game turn ,to allow 'characters' to be more special/useful than 'unit leaders'.
Let them have a 'Heroic Action' , to use maybe once per game turn/or once per game.

Well if most people are happy with 2 action set orders.

Then we have the option of alternating unit activation , or alternating actions.

Basic turn structures .

Command Phase.
Place order counters next to units.Request off table support.

Action Phase.[b].
Alternating Actions.
Player A .Turn order counters over and take first action with all units.
Player B Turn order counter over and take first action with all units.

Player A removes action counters and take second action with all units .
Player B removes action counters and takes second action with all units.

OR

Alternating unit activation.(With action structure sequencing , similar to Epic SM.)
Player A activates a single unit on decisive orders.(Fire Support, Charge.)
Player B activates a single units on decisive orders.

Player A activates units on mobility orders.(Double , Infiltrate.)
Player B activates units on mobility orders.

Player A activates units on reaction orders.(Advance , Evade.)
Player B activates units on reaction orders

[b]Resolution Phase.
Plot arrivals, resolve all remaining actions.Attempt to rally units on poor morale.

Note placing orders face down so they are hidden from the opposing player then turning them over when units activate, and removing them when units have completed all actions.
Allows older gamers with dodgy memory, (made worse by beer .) To be able to keep track of what units have done what and when.

I think it is a good idea to structure alternating unit activation in some way, to reward tactical use of units.(So the imbalance in number of units on each side can be countered a bit.)

I would like to keep the cool additions, (like lord_blackfang suggested) out of the basic game development , and put them in a 'file of advanced rules '...

Has any one got other preferred game turn structures we can discuss?

Or are the basic out lines above ok with everyone

Very thoroughly thought through. I'm not sure, however, I understand what makes something a "reaction" order as opposed to being in one of the other categories.

Also, where does overwatch / opportunity fire fit in?

I don't know about issuing orders during some sort of command phase before any actions are taken, because it seems like it runs the risk of getting in the way of just playing the game. The more time spent thinking and planning before actually doing something during the game turn, the less your'e actually playing the game.

It's one of the advantages having a unit decide what it's going to do when it's activated has over planned orders, as there's less time sitting around twiddling my thumbs while my opponent plans his entire army's actions. There is the loss of a "bluffing" option, but i feel like a similar effect can be achieved by thoughtful activation and withholding of activations and interrupts.

In the system i'm working on, the players roll off at the beginning of each game turn to see who has the first activation phase. Players must activate at least one unit per activation phase. For every 500 points above 1000 points the game is played at, one additional unit must be activated per activation phase. (IE 1850 = 2 units activated per activation phase, 2000 means 3 activated per phase), Don't know how well this would scale to apocalypse though, but i'm not terribly concerned about that right now.

The player with the lowest number of units may choose to activate less than the required number of units in their activation phase, so long as they still activate at least one unit. However, if the opponent activates all of his units, and the player has any unactivated units remaining, those units activations are lost and the next game turn begins. Hopefully helps resolve some of the "one army has way more units" problems alternating actions cause, and gives a slight advantage to the lower unit count player, particularly if the difference in unit counts is extreme (Draigowing vs Blobguard).

This system allows for some interesting tactics built around manipulating activations, where if i hold back key units until the end of the game turn, there's the chance that i can win the first activation phase next game turn, and activate them immediately again. Things like extra brutal shooting, extreme movement across open ground, maybe even extremely risky choices involving deep striking could all build off of that option.

I could also move a unit out of cover at the end of the game turn to avoid damage, then if my opponent wins the activation and tries to shoot at it, i could declare an interrupt, and move it back into cover, essentially wasting my opponents attack. Alternatively, i could try to psych my opponent out by doing the same thing, and make him ignore the unit for fear of wasting an activation, then activate it at the first opportunity to my advantage and rush it forwards to a new position.

I still dislike the idea of giving units orders ahead of time. Since you are so doggedly pursuing that route however I have to ask: why? What is it we are trying to achieve with it?

Addendum: Some would call me a hypocrite since I have fallen in love with X-Wing to which I would point out that X-Wing is trying to do a very different kind of battle and under those circumstances (Space combat at high speed) it makes sense. And it is worth pointing out that the Planning Phase of the game and the sometimes hit or miss nature of the maneuvering mechanics is my one sore spot with the system.

@Sister Sydney .
'Reaction' is just a name.(Picked because they are last and re-act after decisive shooting/moving.)
Opportunity fire can be represented by Fire support orders.If we allow the unit to fire before the opposing units move, or let them hold fire until after opposing units have moved.


@Rav1n & KnuckleWolf.
The reason I prefer to issue orders before the action , is simply to re create the tactical decisions of the force commander .To help the player feel they are in control of a military force.

Eg , Alpha and beta squad give covering fire , Delta advance along the left to draw fire, Echo find a way round the right flank.etc.

Rather than 'erm attack in some sort of way in some sort of order .Just make it up as you go along basically because I cant think of tactical plan of action ...'

However, if we are using alternating unit activation , we could simplify the orders to focus on shooting, focus on moving, or move and shoot.(Green Amber Red, as used in Grimdark.)
(But for alternating actions , as the actions are taken one at a time rather than in an action set, more detailed options in the orders work fine.)

However if the structure of giving orders then carrying out those actions ,may be seen as too much faffing about by some folks.

Why not start with just listing the orders,and letting the players decide when they activate the units .For players with less interest in tactical planning .

How about using the orders from the Grimdark rules which played fast and fun with alternating unit activation .(In quite a few play tests!)
Green (guns) stand still and shoot, Amber (advanced moves)charge* or double move Red (reaction ) move and shoot or shoot and move.
(*When players charge they have to declare intended target before they move.)

Then in the next level we can let players choose to place orders face down in the command phase.

And finally for full tactical interaction , use alternating actions and the 6 orders I listed previously.
This way players pick the game turn that gives them the level of tactical planning they are happy with.(All just using the 3 basic actions , but in different ways.)

I think in the basic requirement for structured turn, all units must activate in every turn.Even if they are put on Fire Support orders , and do not shoot , for example.(Effectively doing nothing, but potential to shoot at targets of opportunity.)Is preferable to min max limitations on how many units may/must activate.

I would like any 'interupts' to be tied to the force command structure , eg giving characters 'Heroic Actions' based on the cool idea lord_blackfang posted.

I also agree that randomizing who activates first each turn is important.

I just had a though.
Remembering all the great times I had learning new games at my old game club.They all had one thing in common.

The guys running the group would break rules in to quick start ,(basic rules to let you get the hang of how the game plays out.)
Then the Core rules .Everything you need to experience the full game.
Then the Advanced rules, either from the game or house rules for narrative games , or more varied missions, more detailed combat etc.

Would this be a good idea for this development?

As I could see lots of ideas being suitable for one of the above.And we do not have to 'reject' or argue over what is included, but just where it goes along the learning the games scale!As we seem to have quite a wide range of ideas, it may be a good idea to widen the scope of the development a bit to keep as many good ideas as possible?

I do wonder if "orders" would fit best as an advanced or optional rule: they add another layer of interesting decisions, but I'm not sure the added complexity is worth it for most gamers...

@Sister Sydney.
If we are moving away from structured fixed phases.
Then we need put something in place to keep the structure of the game turn.

Imagine you are playing a large game and you and your opponent have 20 units a side.
Half way through the 2nd turn, you think your opponent has activated the same unit twice.
They say they only activated it once.Who is mistaken , have they cheated you?or was it a mistake on their part or your part?

If we take the choices from current 40k, stay still and fire to full effect, move to full effect,(including into close assault .) Or move and shoot.
They map to the action sets, 'ready then shoot', 'move then move again', or 'move and shoot'(and shoot then move?)
We could use these 3 simple choices if you prefer?

These could be given names as ' orders', 'Fire Support','Charge', 'Advance'.(Green /Amber /Red for coloured plastic counters perhaps?)
These simply replace the choices from the structured fixed phases in the army level alternating game turn of 40k.

So place them as you activate units in the quick start rules(To keep track of who has done what!)

Place them in a Command Phase in the core rules .

And have extended orders and alternating actions in the advanced rules.

I can not think of any game with alternating unit activation that does not use order counters or order dice to show what units have done /they intend to do.It just makes it easier to keep track of whats happening during the game.

I may need to explain that better...

I'm all in favor of putting down counters after a unit does something so you can remember what it can and can't do next. Say, my unit moved, it gets a green counter so I know (1) I can't move it again this turn and (2) it can't fire heavy weapons at full BS.

Putting down order counters before the unit acts to represent the commander telling it what to do -- that's different and not as appealing to me.