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.

 koooaei wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

KnuckleWolf wrote:
Varying move stats was brought up before in this thread and others. Since it seems roughly half the forum writers (personal observation) do want to use it, despite being more practically argued against than for, I'm curious to know: How would you do it/like to see it done. For arguments sake lets say you must use a 6'x4' board and of course the model scale can't change. Please post your modified deployment zone size/area and rough turn by turn or round by round lay out of a games progress using some various units with these new speeds. Also, melee combat must NOT be possible in round one or until player turn three. I'll explain why if needed but that one should be mostly obvious.

I've got Move stats ranging from 3" (slow things like Obliterators and Wraithguard) to 20" (Flyers), I rolled movement, running, and charging into the Movement phase such that you have three options for what to do:
Remain stationary: Attack with any weapon at no penalty
Move a number of inches equal to your Move stat ("Full" move): Attack with non-Heavy ranged weapons at a penalty or melee weapons at no penalty
Move a number of inches equal to double your Move stat ("Double" move): No ranged attacks, melee attacks at a penalty.

This means the absolute fastest melee-capable units (Eldar/Dark Eldar Jetbikes at Move 15 (16-20 are reserved for Flyers)) are going to have a potential melee threat range of thirty-six inches once the combat radius rule (which I covered in my really long post earlier on this page) is factored in as compared to a maximum melee threat range of twenty-four inches in 40k today (12" move and 12" charge from a Jump model or someone hopping out of an open-topped transport or a Land Raider); with the standard 24" no-man's-land zone in normal 40k games that means you could potentially see melee on turn one easily but that's not a big change from 40k. If you really don't want to see melee combat on turn one you'd pick a scenario map that has further-apart deployment zones (though expecting players to start sixty-six inches apart to ensure that player A's Eldar Jetbikes can't charge player B's Eldar Jetbikes in round one isn't likely), but if one player really wants to get into melee and the other doesn't all the second person has to do is deploy back away from the edge of their deployment zone. The combat radius mechanic, however, also mitigates some of the problems with CC by making fights much less one-sided since non-Heavy guns actually matter in CC; if you think overmuch charge range isn't fair to people like the Tau consider that Fire Warriors are shooting at a penalty to accuracy with their pulse rifles in melee combat and they've got (*gasp*) playable Kroot for countercharges.

Good luck fighting jetseer councils all around with a bunch of ork boyz that can move...how fast?

Twelve inches, more if they WAAAGH!, for an eighteen-plus-inch melee threat range. And a Jetseer Council isn't actually a thing under my rules; Warlocks are squad leader characters, you can't stick them into a big squad of just Warlocks. Not to mention that with the revised cover mechanics (plus to Evasion, makes the unit harder to hit), revised armour penetration mechanics (-x to armour instead of 'ignore armour below x'), rewritten Fortune (only affects armour saves) and Conceal (soft cover for +1 to Evasion, doesn't stack with normal cover), and nerf to Jetbikes (lower Evasion than infantry when stationary, higher when moving), even if you did have a Jetseer Council it'd go down pretty damn fast to anti-aircraft autocannons/lascannons/ion cannons (great AP value, high Strength, Multiple Wounds in the case of the Lascannon, and AA tracking to ignore the Evasion modifier from moving quickly as a Jetbike).

To KnuckleWolf: The goal here is to make the game move faster. I'm trying to build around a broader and more varied set of scenarios than standard 40k such that an army with really slow troops can work out fine in a defensive situation because they're tough and well-armed, but you can just as easily have a scenario where both players start very far away from the objectives and the person who can make better use of Jump Packs, Bikes, Skimmers, Flyers, and Deep Strike/Infiltrate is going to win. I'm not yet sure how composition mechanics are going to play into a core set of missions for pick-up games but I doubt I'm going to have a table you roll on for six missions that play out relatively similarly like 40k today does. As for fall back mechanics the scenario designates a "rally point", either a zone on the table or a table edge; if you get to an on-the-table rally point you rally automatically, if you run off the table edge you're out of the game.

I get where you're coming from on turn one engagement but I'm considering deployment to be "turn one" here. If someone decides that jetbikes into melee on turn one is a cool idea they'll have to contend with the enemy deploying to hard-counter them with the AA units that every balanced list will have at least a few of screened by fodder, and they'll have to contend with the fact that there aren't easy steamroll melee fights under these rules. Someone who charges an entire army of Shining Spears and Storm Guardian Jetbikes into an enemy force may find that he wipes a wave of sacrificial troops before getting silly quantities of bullets dumped on him and/or countercharged by some people he really doesn't want to engage in melee.

So yes, turn one charges are possible. They're also very easily countered.

Hrmmm. I understand deployment is very strategic, but it doesn't really count as "turn one" in my mind. One problem 40K and a lot of wargames have is they start you in range of the other guys and there's no room for maneuver, which takes out a lot of interesting interaction. Maybe realistic for medieval/ancient armies lining up and advancing, but dull and unrealistic for anything that fights at all like a modern force.

Maybe do something really radical, and make deployment types actual deployment types, rather than a range in which each player can line up. If i'm playing space marines and my opponent's playing IG, maybe he decides to deploy defensively, with all of his units set up and ready, but i decide to deploy via orbital decent, and have my entire army deep strike onto the table. Or Tyranids tunnel in from below, or dark eldar deploy via webway portals, daemons from warp rifts, etc etc etc.

The fluff is full of truly epic ways of entering the battlefield, from drop ships and shuttle craft, to crashing meteors into the planet, and SisterSydney brings up a good point, in that the current method is very reminiscent of medieval warfare instead of 41st millenium methods.

I think the solution might be to build this into the idea of "off table support" i see a lot of. Maybe have units be able to purchase a means to enter the battlefield like drop pods or spore pods, but for entire portions of armies instead of just one unit. So i could purchase a "Thunderhawk" deployment method for a formation of units, and would follow the rules associated with that, say "may carry 25 infantry models, as well as 2 large vehicles or 1 massive vehicle". Then this entire group of units would enter the table as one, with the exception of options like having assault marines jump out and descend on their own. Similarly, i could purchase outflanking for my bikers, or a stealth entry for my scouts.

Now THAT is an interesting idea. There even could be a standard list of deployment methods all armies can use (e.g. dug in) and then special methods for each army (e.g. webway).

 SisterSydney wrote:
Now THAT is an interesting idea. There even could be a standard list of deployment methods all armies can use (e.g. dug in) and then special methods for each army (e.g. webway).

Tau could have something like an ambush (which tau love to do in the fluff) or being droped in via orca.
Eldar+Dark Eldar could have webway gates.
Orks could crash meteors with engines into the planet.

Rav1rn wrote:
Maybe do something really radical, and make deployment types actual deployment types, rather than a range in which each player can line up. If i'm playing space marines and my opponent's playing IG, maybe he decides to deploy defensively, with all of his units set up and ready, but i decide to deploy via orbital decent, and have my entire army deep strike onto the table. Or Tyranids tunnel in from below, or dark eldar deploy via webway portals, daemons from warp rifts, etc etc etc.

The fluff is full of truly epic ways of entering the battlefield, from drop ships and shuttle craft, to crashing meteors into the planet, and SisterSydney brings up a good point, in that the current method is very reminiscent of medieval warfare instead of 41st millenium methods.

I think the solution might be to build this into the idea of "off table support" i see a lot of. Maybe have units be able to purchase a means to enter the battlefield like drop pods or spore pods, but for entire portions of armies instead of just one unit. So i could purchase a "Thunderhawk" deployment method for a formation of units, and would follow the rules associated with that, say "may carry 25 infantry models, as well as 2 large vehicles or 1 massive vehicle". Then this entire group of units would enter the table as one, with the exception of options like having assault marines jump out and descend on their own. Similarly, i could purchase outflanking for my bikers, or a stealth entry for my scouts.

I like this; Epic had a sort of similar system with buying cruisers for orbital bombardment shots, I may draw on that a bit. I'm also considering requiring units to make some sort of sacrifice to be deployable by Deep Strike or outflanking, a Guard squad might have to pay a few points for a grav-chute, for instance; I'm also looking to make Deep Strike more interactive with the models on the table through the addition of more homing beacons/jammers. I like a mixture of units sticking together as a formation for purposes of Reserves; it echoes the sort of feudal hierarchical system you'd expect to find in most 40k armies and allows for some very flexible mini-detachments, not to mention allowing for Apocalypse-formation-like rules on a smaller scale (applied more broadly than dataslates, thank you very much) that open up more interaction between units and more army-building options, not to mention the possibility of tailoring the same block of miniatures to multiple scenarios instead of having each unit be black-and-white useful/useless in a given situation.

I think the idea of forces arriving sporadically throughout the game, from reserves,concealment is a good idea.
This would open up tactical options.

I was thinking of determining how much of the force is held in reserve, depending on the mission types.(If we use multiple mission cards and deployment /set up options, in a random senario generator method.)

Eg
In an attacking mission ,you could start with a 'scouting or recon' group, that calls in back up when encountering enemy units.
And the 'defencive patrol/ position group ' calling up reserves to support them.

This way players can start with more 'exotic' units, that are task specific.

How the reserves arrive would be race specific, they arrive as determined by the background.(Jump pack, drop pod,tellyporta,webway, tunnelers etc.)

If we are wandering into the 'strategic ' area of game development ,should we look at replacing the awful FOC 40k uses.

Eg Rather than using function as a deciding factor, we use commonality to support thematic narrative of the force?

Eg replace Elite, troops , fast attack , heavy support .
With Common, Specialized, and Restricted.

And how rare a unit is in the force composition is determined by the HQ chosen.

Could air craft be counted as off board support, requiring a command vehicle on table to call in. although the thought of a sorcerer standing in a chaos rhino, summoning a heldrake to strafe infantry, seems weird. It would make people think, is it worth the points, as it may not reach the table.

Lanrak wrote:
If we are wandering into the 'strategic ' area of game development ,should we look at replacing the awful FOC 40k uses.

Eg Rather than using function as a deciding factor, we use commonality to support thematic narrative of the force?

Eg replace Elite, troops , fast attack , heavy support .
With Common, Specialized, and Restricted.

And how rare a unit is in the force composition is determined by the HQ chosen.

My conceptual org chart is a little complex and needs polishing right now but at the moment you've got as building blocks Elements (small groups of models of the same type), Characters (individual squad leaders), and Vehicles.

Squads are composed of a squad leader Character and some mixture of Elements, for instance a Space Marine Bike squad of a Bike-mounted character, a Bike element, and optionally a couple of extra Bike elements or Attack Bikes; most Elements can also have a light vehicle or a transport, a Bike Squad can have a Land Speeder accompanying them, for instance.

Getting up past that we have Platoons, composed of a Platoon-level character (a junior HQ choice in terms of 40k), who can be accompanied by Adviser characters (which is where you usually get non-leadership people like Bonesingers and Techmarines) and leads some number of Squads plus potentially an armour squadron of a couple of tanks. The type of Platoon is going to have a lot of bearing on what you can take here; an Eldar Aspect Platoon led by a Xentarch (senior Exarch) is going to have a lot of Aspect Warriors but it's not going to have many tanks or any Wraith units, for instance. You can also get unique formations here; these are the rough equivalent of a Dataslate formation in terms of you taking these X guys and getting this Y benefit but they're going to be a little more toned down, count against your normal limits, and you're limited to one per platoon. This is the rough equivalent of a standard 40k game.

Company level is for really big games; it's only here you start to get more senior officers (Space Marine Captains, Dark Eldar Archons, the like), accompanied by some selection of Platoons. This is where unique Platoon-level formations, the rough equivalent of an Apocalypse formation, come into play, as well as Super-Heavy vehicles and Gargantuan Creatures. The 'type' of Company is much less restrictive than the 'type' of Platoon; you've got certain more specialized Platoons only unlocked by specific Company officers (you might need a senior Spiritseer to be able to take a whole Wraith Platoon, for instance) but you don't have to declare "this is a Space Marine defensive line company" and restrict yourself to slower-moving Platoons in order to unlock a couple of scary things in the same way as you do at the Platoon level. This is the rough equivalent of an Apocalypse game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 loki old fart wrote:
Could air craft be counted as off board support, requiring a command vehicle on table to call in. although the thought of a sorcerer standing in a chaos rhino, summoning a heldrake to strafe infantry, seems weird. It would make people think, is it worth the points, as it may not reach the table.

I've split that up a bit; some aircraft would be off-table support, but the problem with that is that they're much less accurate while zooming around at high speeds than the planes that have models on the board, who are hanging around at low altitude hovering just above stall speed in order to see and target ground units accurately. You can take off-table support planes, but they're going to be much less effective than a plane actually on the table would be.

@ loki.
If we are going to include aircraft in a modern war battle simulation , then having them as 'on call' off table support.And making appearance as ground attack, or dropping off reserve units in LZs is the best way of incorporating them in a new rule set IMO.
(And having the equivalent of a forward air controller would make sense!)

However, if we are just modifying current 6th ed rules,they would need to spend more time on table to justify the use of actual models and current PV.
As AnomanderRake's suggestion .

@AnomanderRake.
I can sort of understand the idea you want to implement .A sort of OOB built bottom up.But I would prefer to use something a bit easier to use.

I would simply define elements as units.(As now, they can be a single model unit or a multiple model unit.)

And the units fall into 4 classes.HQ units, Common units , Specialized units and Restricted units.
(Maybe class off table support as Support units ?So we have Common Support , Specialized Support and restricted Support units.)
(The mission determines how many of these units are placed in off table support.)

Each HQ unit in a force , allows the player to take 2 to 8 Common units.
For every 2 common units you can take a Specialized unit.
For every 2 Specialized units you can take a Restricted unit.

However, it follows the idea the type of 'HQ you pick' determines what the units are classed as in the army.
Assault marines can be Common,(HQ equipped with Jump packs.)
OR Specialized,(HQ foot slogger or vehicle mounted.)
OR Rare , ( HQ with defence strong point , or siege type equipment.)

This assumes that unit leaders are equipped in a similar way to the rest of the unit.(Ranged weapon or close combat focused.)And there is no link between the old classification and the new one.(Not just troop choices are common in the new method for example.)

After a force has maxed out on common units , it can take a new HQ of a different type/Theme along with 2 new common units .(If points allow.).
So as in your concept the bulk of units in any sized force are of a' similar theme to the HQ.'

The ability to go full reserve and to assault from reserve would change everything imho. Need something to make the shooters watch their backs...

KnuckleWolf wrote:
Varying move stats was brought up before in this thread and others. Since it seems roughly half the forum writers (personal observation) do want to use it, despite being more practically argued against than for, I'm curious to know: How would you do it/like to see it done. For arguments sake lets say you must use a 6'x4' board and of course the model scale can't change. Please post your modified deployment zone size/area and rough turn by turn or round by round lay out of a games progress using some various units with these new speeds. Also, melee combat must NOT be possible in round one or until player turn three. I'll explain why if needed but that one should be mostly obvious.

To start with, the easiest thing is to simply give everyone a move stat of 6". Combat speed for vehicles is their move stat, Cruising speed is double their move stat. Everything going all right so far. Beasts/Cav/Bikes all get 12" obviously. That sorts out most things without changing balance at all.

Now pick out things with eg Fleet. This could translate to a +1" or +2" Move - or make your Run your full Move (or a fixed amount) instead of D6. Slow and Purposeful translates to -1/-2".
Moving through terrain halves your movement, rather than rolling dice.
Run moves probably remain at D6 for nearly all models, with speed modifications affecting move+assault rather than run,
Personally I dislike random charge distances also, and would make charges = the base movement stat plus 2" (or some fixed amount... +2 or +3 probably works best)
This would result in move/run/assault like so:
Infantry: 6/D6/8
Cavalry/Beasts/Bikes: 8/D6/10
Jump Pack: 12/D6/8, or 8/D6/10

Then you can also add in a move type: Foot/Wheeled/Jump/Hover/Beast, which would change the effects of difficult/dangerous terrain.
But then the 'fasterer' models, eg Eldar, Hormagaunts, Seekers of Slaanesh and the like, could be given an extra inch or two of movement to show their fastness.

Also in relation to your post, assault CAN occur first player turn if player 2 scouts to a bad spot; or second player turn under most circumstances if player 1 moves forward. Battles between two assault armies can quite easily have combat on turn 1.

Why keep run distances random?

Also, Imperial Guard's unique way of entering the table is in a huge landing craft like the ones on the cover of the 5th generation rulebook.

 SisterSydney wrote:
Why keep run distances random?

Also, Imperial Guard's unique way of entering the table is in a huge landing craft like the ones on the cover of the 5th generation rulebook.

Aquillia lander? I think that's the thing on the IG fluff page in the BRB (188).
Also SoB use their faith in the emp. to create a invincible dropship through faith alone! Or they just all hold on tho the feet of their winged saints, either one .

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 SisterSydney wrote:
Why keep run distances random?

Also, Imperial Guard's unique way of entering the table is in a huge landing craft like the ones on the cover of the 5th generation rulebook.

Aquillia lander? I think that's the thing on the IG fluff page in the BRB (188).
Also SoB use their faith in the emp. to create a invincible dropship through faith alone! Or they just all hold on tho the feet of their winged saints, either one .

The Aquila Lander is a shuttle for important people, not for entire Guard regiments. There are bigger shuttles.

And no, they don't. If they need to drop into battle I'd guess they'd make use of Guard equipment, though I've seen theories about Sisters having their own patterns of Storm Eagles and Stormravens.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 SisterSydney wrote:
Why keep run distances random?

Also, Imperial Guard's unique way of entering the table is in a huge landing craft like the ones on the cover of the 5th generation rulebook.

Aquillia lander? I think that's the thing on the IG fluff page in the BRB (188).
Also SoB use their faith in the emp. to create a invincible dropship through faith alone! Or they just all hold on tho the feet of their winged saints, either one .

The Aquila Lander is a shuttle for important people, not for entire Guard regiments. There are bigger shuttles.

And no, they don't. If they need to drop into battle I'd guess they'd make use of Guard equipment, though I've seen theories about Sisters having their own patterns of Storm Eagles and Stormravens.

Wrong name then.
And the SoB part was a joke.

So just to try to formalize this a bit,i would say the goals of the FOC system should be:
1) Allow players to play the army types and units they want
2) Encourage proper army compositon (my army should not be 2 5-man squads of firewarriors and 3 riptides)
3) Minimize spam and cheese (hopefully balance will make this a non-issue, but a backup layer of protection is never a bad idea)

The issue is that none of these goals exist independantly, at the very least proper balance and costing is going to play a role in each, so we run into the situation of by heading towards one goal, we move further from another, so we need to find a nice balance.

I'm worried the 2 common > 1 Specialist /// 2 specialist > 1 restricted is going to fail to meet goal 1, because if i want to take a terminator squad and a dreadnought, i have to take 12 other units before i can take them both. That's going to force me to either use some FOC changes i may not want to make it easier to get one of them, or use minimum squads to save as many points as possible so i can still afford them in anything but the largest games.

Having units be purchased in the slot fitting their battlefield role (FA, HS, Elites, etc) does a decent job of forcing a player to make decisions about which options would be best to bring to fill a certain role. This is subverted by poor balancing, often leading to one or two options that dominate a slot, but that's hardly the fault of the system, so i'm not sure the change to Common, Specialist, Restricted is warranted, especially when the "HQ makes this unit common" is functionally identical to the current system.

There is the issue that certain slots are often overcrowded, such as the heavy support slot for both tyranids and imperial guard, leading to either irksome limitations (Tyranids) or ways around the system (imperial guard vehicle squadrons), so i've been looking at ways to combine Fast Attack and Heavy Support into one "Support" slot that would include both groups, but there are concerns about moving away from goal 3.
---------------------
The system i've been thinking of is:
1 HQ unit unlocks 3 Formations

1 Formation =
1-2 troops units
0-2 support units
0-1 elite units
0-1 specialist units
---If a formation includes 1 troop unit and 1 support unit, they may take up to 1 elite unit
---If a formation includes 2 troop units, they may take up to 1 specialist unit (apothecary, techmarine, painboy, venomthrope, likely other units as well but these are the ones that come to mind)
---You may never take 2 of the same support units in a single formation (could have some nasty consequences for armies with few choices, so keep an eye on that)

This way, there is a restriction on certain groups of units, but it's nothing extreme or insurmountable, and also encourages proper army composition. The system encourages the player to maximize their use of a single formation, rather than investing the minimum amount in each formation necessary to get the unit they want, though that option is still available.

I feel that making a player feel like they are losing opportunities if they don't do something is a much better way of directing behavior than forcing them to fit a very strict set of rules or actively punishing them for doing what they want.

Depending on how any new deployment method works out, this system could also slot very nicely into those rules as well, as the player is already buying units in very distinct groups, and don't have to arbitrarily assign units into groups after they are done with the list.

There's also potential to do what GW dataslates have been doing, in that they introduce relatively fixed groups of units that could bend the rules of formations slightly, and include options or units that would typically be unavailable in a single formation, or offer a discount at the cost of a degree of customization.
-------------------
I would like something a bit more refined than "pick this HQ and these units become troops", because while the current system is decent, i feel like it has a lot of room for improvement, though I have no firm ideas on how to do this.

Maybe purchase FOC modifiers along the lines of Space Marine Chapter Tactics, so i could chose to play a reserve company and make assault marines troops, at the cost of no longer being able to purchase devastators. Maybe make it so picking the specific HQ just removes the consequences, rather than making it possible in the first place.

DUST warfare has an interesting army selection mechanic:

Each force can choose from 3 (+ additional in expansion) Platoon types.
A platoon consists of a command squad, 2-5 Core Units, and 1 support unit per 2 Core Units.
Each Core unit in a platoon is a selection from a set of options. For many of the platoons the core choices were varied, so that eg Core Units A+B could have Assault Marines, Tac Marines or Bikes, Core Units C+D could have Assault Marines, Vanguard Vets and Assault Terminators, and Core Unit E might be Assault Centurions. Support choices were things like Landspeeders, Scouts or Techmarines.
Then you'd have options for a Fire Support Platoon or Terminator Platoon.

A typical force ends up with 2-4 platoons of 2-4 units including support. The structure means that you can create a themed list but the amount of each is naturally limiting. The more basic units are available in many platoons, some of the dedicated ones are available only in particular platoons. It also means that you can potentially have a force of 2 Assault Platoons + 1 Firebase platoon, vs a force of 1 Assault, 1 Firebase, 1 Terminator, both composed of exactly the same units! Support elements are also similarly limited, which could let you have a platoon with great core choices but terrible support elements, vs a platoon with terrible support choices but great support.
If people want to spam the dedicated units (eg, have a Assault Centurion themed army) they would need to pay a 'tax' by taking extra Command elements and extra Core elements to get the 'good' units. It grows naturally as points increase, and it supports themed forces with 'ideal' distributions.


An example for the Tau Army:


Basically... any improvement I think of to 40k borrows from Dust Warfare. Improvements for Dust take a lot from 40k too - Dusts' Blast mechanic is pretty unbelievable, and it could benefit from specific skill tests rather than just 5+ for everything - but I think Dust plays a LOT like a modern version of 40k. Which is probably to be expected seeing as it was written by Andy Chambers.

Basically... any improvement I think of to 40k borrows from Dust Warfare. Improvements for Dust take a lot from 40k too - Dusts' Blast mechanic is pretty unbelievable, and it could benefit from specific skill tests rather than just 5+ for everything - but I think Dust plays a LOT like a modern version of 40k. Which is probably to be expected seeing as it was written by Andy Chambers.

I dunno, i think the mechanics behind that "success on a 5+" could create some interesting results for 40K. If the number of shots and BS of the model were consolidated into one value, so the way a model is shown to be a better shooter than another is that they just get more shots, it could create a cool situation where this models likelihood of hitting is not only higher, but their potential number of hits is also higher.

If my space marines fire rapid fire weapons 3 times, whereas a guardsman fires only once, then they're no longer just better shots, they have much higher potential damage output. This would lead to some really exciting moments, like a 5 man squad of space marines getting really lucky with rolls, and hitting almost all 15 of their shots, and annihilating a guard squad. There's problems here to be sure, but it is very interesting.

You're right, that could be pretty cool. A squad of 5 marines could conceivably take down a squad of 20 'gaunts in a single round of shooting .
The problem then is that you have a slightly unbelievable and tricky-to-implement mechanic where a Tac marine fires 3 shots with his bolter but a veteran fires 4 shots... but both still only fire 1 shot from a Missle Launcher.... Whaa? I think that would end up requiring a very large lookup table.


But then again, Dust implements armor classes by reducing the number of shots, so I suppose it's not that different. In Dust, a squad will fire eg 10 shots vs Armour 2, 5 shots vs Armour 3, 2 shots vs Armour 4. The difference is that each gun stays the same across all units.

You're right, that could be pretty cool. A squad of 5 marines could conceivably take down a squad of 20 'gaunts in a single round of shooting .
The problem then is that you have a slightly unbelievable and tricky-to-implement mechanic where a Tac marine fires 3 shots with his bolter but a veteran fires 4 shots... but both still only fire 1 shot from a Missle Launcher.... Whaa? I think that would end up requiring a very large lookup table.

The two methods don't necessarily have to be mutually exclusive though. Maybe have it so that if a models BS is above a certain value, they may increase the number of shots by one. This way modifiers could adjust this value. If my marines are BS 5, then so long as their BS is not reduced from something like taking a double move then firing, they meet the BS5 threshold for increased Rate of fire. Sternguard on the other hand, at a BS of 6, could feel free to move as much as they'd like and still get the increased Rate of fire.

Alternatively, have it as a "firing mode" that a model could access, where they increase their shots at the cost of BS. I'm sure there are tons of ways to run this, but i like it as it's another vector with which is improve a models shooting ability besides just "better at hitting stuff".

Look at veteran guardsman and stormtroopers. While both should be better shooters than the rank and file, they could be expressed in two different ways. Veteran guardsmen would have an increased Rate of fire with Lasguns, as they have extensive experience with the weapon to fall back on, but stormtroopers could have a higher BS, demonstrating their superior training. Of course, a higher BS would typically correlate with more shots, and with different weapons for each, this example isn't exactly accurate of either unit, but the idea is exciting.

@Rav1n.
You may have miss understood what I was proposing, with proportional FoC with multiple thematic HQ's. Only completely counter theme units are Restricted.

If you pick a 'vanilla list' where Common units are current troops choices, all non troop choices can be taken as Specialized or Restricted.(3 non 'Troop' units for every 2 Troop units taken.)
As this mimics the current FoC maximums 6 troops and 9 non troops , and just makes the relationship proportional.(And allows it to extend to 8 and 12 for bigger armies!)

So to pick 2 terminator squads and a dreadnought , you need to field 2 tac squads.

If you want a more focused theme (where current Elite, Heavy Support and Fast Attack units are common.)
Eg 1st company heavy strike force, (Death wing.)Then you can expect more restriction on the Specialized and Restricted options! (Not many lightly armoured scouts would be used in a 1st company deep strike op, for example!)

To improve balance in the system more accurate PV cost on units , and more synergistic control in FoC is needed.
I am not saying this is the only way to do it .

But it is simple and allows a great deal of flexibility in the army composition, while maintaining the proportional structure found in an OOB system.
I know i have not explained it too well though...

Imagine one system that can cover all races army composition , all the old Klanz, Regiments, Craft World , Pantheons,etc.

My concept involves X "squads" with a restriction on the number of characters per squad and the number of armoured units (which includes tanks, planes, and a lot of the modern big Monstrous Creatures) per squad (usually you'll have one Dedicated Transport or light vehicle per squad, but for a Riptide or a Predator or the like you need to be in a larger game and you've got to have the minimum platoon requirements before you start taking the tanks) but depending on how big of a game you're playing/what characters are leading the squads you will have different limitations on what the squads can be, such that if you want an all-Terminator army or an all-Wraithguard army you just need to take the right leader characters.

variation on a theme
shooting
To Hit Modifiers: (all effects are cumulative if more than one applies)

Target behind light cover: -1 to rolled
Target behind medium cover -2 to rolled, example: behind a wall or in ruins:
Target behind fortifications -3 to roll (aegis etc)
Large Target: +1 to die roll.
Medium range The target is over half of the weapon’s range away. -1 to roll.
Maximum range -2 to roll
If firers ranged weapon skill (rws)+d6 minus cover minus range is greater than targets armour. Then target is hit, and takes one wound.

@AnomanderRake.
Is your system similar to the old Epic system of buying detachments from an OOB?
Or the system where you by 'companies' in blocks of units.And each 'company' allows a set number of support units?

Could you post a rough example please?

@loki (fellow old fart. )

If you are keeping the current BS system then the to hit modifiers make sense.

However, I would just keep it to;-
Soft cover.(Thing that just make units harder to see.)-1

Hard cover, (Things that offer physical protection and make the model /unit harder to see.)-2

Large target +1

Over half the weapons effective range, (over 18" only*) -1.
(*As applying to hit penalties on short range weapons like melta guns and pistols could be counter intuitive.)

I should probably elaborate on the specifics, though you may have to bear with me, this is sort of complicated and clunky right now.

Element: An Element consists of one or more models with the same statline, all equipped similarly, sometimes with an upgrade weapon. The individual Element rules will contain any restrictions. Example: Space Marine Tactical Element. 2-4 Space Marines in power armour with bolters, one may replace his bolter with a weapon from the Special Weapons list.
Squad: A Squad consists of a Squad-level Character (Sergeant, Exarch, Aspiring Champion) and one or more Elements. The individual Squad rules will contain any restrictions. Most Squads will come with the option to purchase a Dedicated Transport or a light support vehicle. Example: Space Marine Tactical Squad. Sergeant and Tactical Element plus 0-2 Tactical, Assault, or Devastator Elements. Elements in a Tactical Squad may not purchase mounts.
Platoon: A Platoon consists of a Platoon-level Character (Force Commander, Exalted Hero, Dracon), optional Advisers (lesser characters with special abilities) and one or more Squads. Some armies will restrict what Squads can be taken with which Platoon, many don't. A Platoon may also include an Armoured unit (Tanks, Artillery, Flyers, Monsters, the like) for every Squad.
Company: A Company consists of a Company-level Character (Captain, Chaos Lord, Farseer, Shas'el; note that if the game is above a certain points level this may become a Command Character (Chapter Master, senior Farseer, Shas'O, Guard General)), optional Advisers and an optional Command Squad, and one or more Platoons. For each Platoon a Company may purchase a Heavy Armoured unit (squads of Armoured units, Heavy Armour (Land Raiders, Monoliths, Storm Eagles, other big things)).

Conceptually this works a lot like 40k today but with a hierarchical system of unlocking advanced units not unlike Battlefleet Gothic and much more customizable Squads. A Space Marine Tactical Squad, for instance, requires a Sergeant and a Tactical Element, but it can have 0-2 of Tactical, Assault, and Devastator Elements so long as they're on foot, and it can purchase a Rhino, Razorback, or Drop Pod so long as all the models fit. Where a Tactical Squad in 40k today is 5-10 models with the option for one Special and one Heavy weapon plus whatever upgrades you put on the Sergeant this system creates a squad from 3-13 models with the option for one Special and up to two extra Special, Heavy, or close combat weapons plus whatever you want to put on the Sergeant.

Lanrak wrote:


@loki (fellow old fart. )

If you are keeping the current BS system then the to hit modifiers make sense.

However, I would just keep it to;-
Soft cover.(Thing that just make units harder to see.)-1

Hard cover, (Things that offer physical protection and make the model /unit harder to see.)-2

Large target +1

Over half the weapons effective range, (over 18" only*) -1.
(*As applying to hit penalties on short range weapons like melta guns and pistols could be counter intuitive.)

Which is basically what I was thinking. Only put in -3 because of people whinging if aegis was nerfed.

 loki old fart wrote:

Lanrak wrote:


@loki (fellow old fart. )

If you are keeping the current BS system then the to hit modifiers make sense.

However, I would just keep it to;-
Soft cover.(Thing that just make units harder to see.)-1

Hard cover, (Things that offer physical protection and make the model /unit harder to see.)-2

Large target +1

Over half the weapons effective range, (over 18" only*) -1.
(*As applying to hit penalties on short range weapons like melta guns and pistols could be counter intuitive.)

Which is basically what I was thinking. Only put in -3 because of people whinging if aegis was nerfed.

I implemented a slightly different system; instead of modifiers to hit, models have a separate "Evasion" stat that BS is compared to when determining the roll to hit not unlike hitting in close combat. All forms of cover are incorporated in here; "sort" cover (trees, intervening models) is a +1 to Evasion, "hard" cover (fortifications, an ADL) is a +2 to Evasion, and Jink saves can provide from +1 to +4 as well; this makes it so you don't quite need dedicated AA weapons to attack Flyers to the same degree, capable ground units can hit them with ground weaponry on better than a 6.

@AnomanderRake.
IMO there are 2 basic ways to cover shooting.
A fixed base score with modifiers.(Either base it on the targets ability to not get shot!(As FoW, )Or base it on the shooters skill.)

If you want to use opposed values, do not use modifiers as well.(its too complicated.)I would just use opposed dice rolls.(And modifiers simply alter the number of dice rolled.)

That is why I proposed using a Stealth value.(The basic value opponent needs to hit the model at range.)With modifiers.(Cover etc adds to the stealth value .Short range etc adds to the dice roll score.)

Thanks for explaining you proposed FoC.
Basically you buy 'mini themes' that provide blocks of units you use to build the force.(if i understand it correctly?)

Shooting

Detection range
If you can’t see it. You can’t shoot it. So your weapon can fire 72 inches. How far can you see? 24 inches that’s tough you need push someone forward to spot for you.

cover
Any soldier can tell you that concealment does not always provide cover, but cover always provides concealment. (e.g., shrubs aren't bulletproof, walls are.)

Shooting at something in cover is harder to hit, therefore "a unit shooting at a target in cover does so at a reduced skill level.
(all effects are cumulative if more than one applies)
To Hit Modifiers:

Target behind light cover: -1 to rolled
Target behind medium cover -2 to rolled, example: behind a wall or in ruins:
Large Target: +1 to die roll.
Medium range. the target is over 24 inches away. -1 to roll.
Maximum range -2 to roll
If firers ranged weapon skill (rws) - cover - range +d6 => toughness + armour target is hit, unit takes one wound.
Target profile