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.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
It's not apparent from your earlier turn order document that you've set up the Assault phase such that only one person attacks; sorry if I confused that with 40k wherein both people fight in every Assault phase.

Okay, I see what happened there. I was focusing on the word "attack:"

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The biggest advantage to my system over yours is each unit can potentially attack in two phases per game turn instead of potentially four,

Yes, both units fight in the assault phase, I've just always considered the attack to come from the unit assaulting.

Details on the rules:
Elements are subgroups of squads, you get to pick out an element to attack. Once you resolve the attack you don't pull models right away, you leave dice of two different colours down for wounds and pinning markers and move along until you've finished all attacks. Medic and Tech units (Apothecaries and Techpriests, for instance) get to pull a number of wound markers off of non-vehicle (Medic) or vehicle (Tech) units. You can't fix up a unit with multiple Medic/Tech units in a turn and they can only remove counters from one unit each. Command units do the same thing with Pinning markers. Once you've done that you pull the closest model to the attackers along with a number of Wound counters equal to his Wounds value (most models have 1-3 Wounds, characters, vehicles, and really tough things can have 4 or more) and repeat until you don't have enough Wound counters to remove another guy; those counters carry over from turn to turn, overkill wounds are discarded. Once you've done that count up the remaining Pinning markers and take a Tenacity test with the number of Pinning markers as a penalty for the unit, if they fail bad things happen.

So my mob of 30 Ork Boys doesn't attack a squad, but one part of a squad? Or does a part of my mob attack a part of a squad? Either way, it sounds like a lot of markers.

Oh yeah. Each "Attacks" can be replaced with "Subphase 1: All guys who can attack, attack. Attack sequence: Roll to hit, roll to wound, roll save, sometimes roll Ward. Place Pinning markers and Wound markers. Subphase 2: Leadership. Defending player removes Wound counters with all Medic and Tech units, removes Pinning markers with all Command units. Subphase 3: Resolution. Remove models and equalize Wound counters, roll Tenacity."

In your description, you make the Tenacity roll in the "Resolution" sub-phase and not in the "Leadership" sub-phase. It's not that big a deal, of course, its just confusing.

The biggest streamlining element here is the fact that I threw out almost the entirety of the Assault phase rules; I tried to make melee and ranged combat use the same rules as much as possible in an attempt to make things move faster by only requiring players to know/reference one set of rules instead of two.

This idea is exciting, though. I'm curious to see how the tests go.

I do think this is still 40k, if I were writing my own game there would be a lot of changes I'd make to this.

Well, geez. Now I'm curious what that game would be like.

 mwnciboo wrote:
Remove Centurions destroy the STC... Oh yes ..
Remove Riptides destroy the STC .Make them require other unit to spot for them. (so more points needed). spotter dead unit can't shoot 48 inch range
Remove Lord of Skulls destroy the STC. definitely
Redraw up allies table...scrap it
Retconn the Necron - Blood Angels connection to be a misreported incident and the Inquisition cover it up. indeed
No Allies of convenience.
Bring back non-aligned Renegade Space Marine chapters - Soul Drinkers, Badab Wars etc.
Bring back Squats. yes and gene stealers

Bring in a Warhammer 29k - Unification Wars - Fight as Thunder Warriors etc on Terra. yes please

Bring in a Warhammer 35k storyline - The Goge Vandire Heresy / The Reign of Blood / Age of Apostasy. As this was an internal battle, release plastic Sisters of battle, Brothers of Battle (as men at arms could serve in the Ecclesiarch at this time) reboot the Agents, Arbites , sisters, inquisitors, Inquisitor troops, Sisters of Silence, Custodes etc etc . also a yes

Streamline/ simplify the rules, but introduce modifiers for various upgrades. good idea we are working on that

Bring in a basic Plastic boxed sets, with separate upgrade sprues to stop the endless releasing of the same models with slight differences. E.g you pay £20 for 10 Plastic Orks, then £10 for an Evil Sunz upgrade sprue, Deff Skulls or whatever.

Make the Orks fun again, ORKS is always fun

chop up the retain network, into bigger regional stores, Allow Click and Collect for FW at GW Stores to save on the (Frankly astonishing) 12% Shipping and handling fee!

 SpaceNinjaJetPilot wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
It's not apparent from your earlier turn order document that you've set up the Assault phase such that only one person attacks; sorry if I confused that with 40k wherein both people fight in every Assault phase.

Okay, I see what happened there. I was focusing on the word "attack:"

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The biggest advantage to my system over yours is each unit can potentially attack in two phases per game turn instead of potentially four,

Yes, both units fight in the assault phase, I've just always considered the attack to come from the unit assaulting.

So correct me if I'm wrong but it's looking like there are now five possible places in your turn order where a given player's guys can get pulled off the table because of enemy shooting/close combat? Own shooting, own melee, enemy move reaction, enemy shoot reaction, enemy melee?

Details on the rules:
Elements are subgroups of squads, you get to pick out an element to attack. Once you resolve the attack you don't pull models right away, you leave dice of two different colours down for wounds and pinning markers and move along until you've finished all attacks. Medic and Tech units (Apothecaries and Techpriests, for instance) get to pull a number of wound markers off of non-vehicle (Medic) or vehicle (Tech) units. You can't fix up a unit with multiple Medic/Tech units in a turn and they can only remove counters from one unit each. Command units do the same thing with Pinning markers. Once you've done that you pull the closest model to the attackers along with a number of Wound counters equal to his Wounds value (most models have 1-3 Wounds, characters, vehicles, and really tough things can have 4 or more) and repeat until you don't have enough Wound counters to remove another guy; those counters carry over from turn to turn, overkill wounds are discarded. Once you've done that count up the remaining Pinning markers and take a Tenacity test with the number of Pinning markers as a penalty for the unit, if they fail bad things happen.

So my mob of 30 Ork Boys doesn't attack a squad, but one part of a squad? Or does a part of my mob attack a part of a squad? Either way, it sounds like a lot of markers.

It does indeed. Elements are mostly an organizational tool right now and a way to run smaller games (declare "each element runs around on its own" and run one or maybe two squads). Each squad is usually going to be composed of two to three Elements of two to ten guys with a squad leader and any Independent Characters treated as separate Elements that can't be targeted by most attacks, so you'd be able to direct your Orks' attacks into three different Elements if you wanted to or you could focus down one Element and kill it very dead. I haven't done a lot of testing on this to see how much it adds over treating squads as individual entities, it may well not survive the next edit.

Oh yeah. Each "Attacks" can be replaced with "Subphase 1: All guys who can attack, attack. Attack sequence: Roll to hit, roll to wound, roll save, sometimes roll Ward. Place Pinning markers and Wound markers. Subphase 2: Leadership. Defending player removes Wound counters with all Medic and Tech units, removes Pinning markers with all Command units. Subphase 3: Resolution. Remove models and equalize Wound counters, roll Tenacity."

In your description, you make the Tenacity roll in the "Resolution" sub-phase and not in the "Leadership" sub-phase. It's not that big a deal, of course, its just confusing.

This is a completely new turn procedure. There is no Leadership sub-phase.

The biggest streamlining element here is the fact that I threw out almost the entirety of the Assault phase rules; I tried to make melee and ranged combat use the same rules as much as possible in an attempt to make things move faster by only requiring players to know/reference one set of rules instead of two.

This idea is exciting, though. I'm curious to see how the tests go.

Me too.

I do think this is still 40k, if I were writing my own game there would be a lot of changes I'd make to this.

Well, geez. Now I'm curious what that game would be like.

The biggest barrier to me actually writing it is not being very good at translating my idea of what a unit should look like into a 3d model I can send to Shapeways. It's much harder sci-fi than 40k but I don't have many details worked out.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
So correct me if I'm wrong but it's looking like there are now five possible places in your turn order where a given player's guys can get pulled off the table because of enemy shooting/close combat? Own shooting, own melee, enemy move reaction, enemy shoot reaction, enemy melee?

I guess so! A player can lose models in:

His own movement phase. (Overwatch)
The enemy's shooting phase.
His own assault phase. (Overwatch)
His own assault phase. (Melee)
The enemy's assault phase. (Melee)

And even worse, if I move a single unit that's in range of 2, 3, 5, or 10 enemy units that can fire Overwatch... May I present... Bloodbath 40,000!

So I'll wrap Overwatch into my Suppression USR. I'm much more interested in Overwatch as a tactical deterrent rather than an actual attack. No BS 1 shooting, no wound rolls, armor saves or casualties. Units that have a weapon with the Suppression special rule may fire Overwatch as dictated in the turn sequence. If the weapon hits, it forces a Leadership test. If that fails, the unit cannot move or assault.

That way, a player only loses models in:

the enemy's shooting phase and
the assault phase, (I'm combining them. Whether its yours or the enemy's, a unit only fights close combat once a turn, right?)

but suppressing fire plays an active role in deterring movement.

Thread seems to have gone quiet. Has development ceased now???

Hi Loki.
I was interested in writing a new rule set.
As discussing how to improve current rules seemed to have taken over , I felt there was very little I could contribute.

Because the only sort of game you can get from WHFB skirmish rules is a good skirmish rule set for 40k.(Eg 2nd ed developed properly.)
And as there are loads of much better skirmish rule sets out there , I can not see the point.

To get a good modern battle game rules set from current 40k rules, you need to make major changes.
And this would mean even more over complication to an already over complicated rule set.

I would prefer to start from scratch , to keep the rules straight forward and elegant, while generating complex and engaging game play.

it is possible to play great games of 40k , with other rule sets!

So I would prefer to start from scratch to get rid of 25 years of FORCED backwards compatibility to WHFB

I think developing a 'tiered rule' set, is the only way to cover the current range of gamers requirements .

EG Small simple skirmish B&P intro.
More detailed skirmish game players can advance to at thier own pace .
Simple battle game for those who have bigger model collections.
More detailed battle game for those that want it.

I would like to write the new rule set in a way that allows the rules to grow with the players , in the direction they want to go.

Unfortunately game mechanics and resolution methods from 1970s Napoleonic rule set are just no where near good enough.

As there is another thread for' 8th ed 40k '
Would it be ok if new rules were discussed in this thread, and 'improvements' were discussed in the other thread?

My development has in no way ceased but in absence of more questions I've gotten the central principles of my rules out here and gotten feedback on the subject. I can put forth questions/make remarks on how I'm implementing specific rules in various Codexes if you'd like.

I am planning on starting a new thread where I can post .pdfs of the rules and ask for feedback when I get far enough that I've got presentable core rules and one or two presentable Codexes, though.

This thread has flourished way beyond anything I imagined when I started it, because of great contributions from lots of people. If anything, there's now too much good stuff to wrap your head around. And my intention was never to come up with a new ruleset -- you really can't do that decently online by committee (trust me, I've tried) but to brainstorm ideas that people can then pick and choose from in their individual efforts.

 SisterSydney wrote:
This thread has flourished way beyond anything I imagined when I started it, because of great contributions from lots of people. If anything, there's now too much good stuff to wrap your head around. And my intention was never to come up with a new ruleset -- you really can't do that decently online by committee (trust me, I've tried) but to brainstorm ideas that people can then pick and choose from in their individual efforts.

Which is what I've been doing
Hows yours going ?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Suggestion People keep saying use dawn of war, as inspiration.
I suggest company of heroes. instead.

 loki old fart wrote:

Suggestion People keep saying use dawn of war, as inspiration.
I suggest company of heroes. instead.

I've been pulling concepts from everywhere I can find them, myself.

@Loki.
DoW and CoH are practically the same game with different skins and stats dont you agree?

@AnomanderRake.
The best way to find the solution for 40k war game rules is look at war game rules , not 40k!

Lanrak wrote:
@AnomanderRake.
The best way to find the solution for 40k war game rules is look at war game rules , not 40k!

I dug through a lot of sci-fi skirmish game rules when putting this together and didn't find one I liked; the big problem with using other wargames for inspiration is that 40k's got a much broader variety of units and a wider power distribution between individual units than anything else I've ever seen. In that respect I did have to take a look at Dawn of War quite a bit, the DoW2 core and Chaos Rising campaigns were fantastic in their handling of asymmetric warfare and in making your guys function distinctly depending on their gear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lanrak wrote:
@Loki.
DoW and CoH are practically the same game with different skins and stats dont you agree?

The statement doesn't mean a lot; The Witcher 1 and Neverwinter Nights are practically the same game with different skins and stats, but nobody would argue they're similar enough to be used interchangeably. Company of Heroes does certain things in a manner I'd like to incorporate into 40k more, particularly their implementation of specialist infantry (snipers, mortars, flamers), but Dawn of War actually tells us more about the 40k universe and its armies and how you get them to interact in a plausible way. Not to mention the DoW2 campaign is one of the best stories starring Space Marines I've ever seen (though I haven't gotten into the Horus Heresy books yet so that may change).

One that would really make my games interesting:

A minimum board size! I routinely play Necrons, who all have a range that on average is 24" for almost everything. And I play I.G.

I would LOVE to use Basilisks (I don't because of minimum-range inaccuracy shenanigans), but my opponent refuses to play on a board bigger than 2ft X 4ft, because he thinks it would make infantry "slow and useless". I have an inkling ( just a thought) that that is exactly the reason why transports exist (especially his rage-inducing Night Scythes). He also says it would make his small-ranged weapons a disadvantage, and that most people play on that sort of size board. This usually results in me screaming , but he doesn't listen.

Also, Shooting with Blast & Large Blast weapons. I think this scattering rule is massively inaccurate. GW seems to think that, because it explodes, the weapons designer must believe that any degree of accuracy is not needed, and therefore it has none. The Scattering rule would be good, if it rolled only one D6, or if vehicles had BS 5 or up just for Blast weapons. Anyone else agree?

 Xx_ZLOBENIA_xX wrote:
....my opponent refuses to play on a board bigger than 2ft X 4ft....

What.

Isn't 4' by 6' the norm and 4' by 4' considered a little cramped?

Four by six for 1500-2500, four by four for most smaller games, and four by eight+ for Apocalypse. Bigger boards give the person with more long-ranged weapons and skimmers a massive advantage, smaller boards mean you can't keep away from one of the armies that's going to chop your face off if you get near it. Your friend's insistence on two by four boards means you can't do long-edge deployment with a 24" no-man's-land and weapon range becomes almost irrelevant. Tell your friend that he's correct in that infantry are slow, incorrect in that they're useless, incorrect in that short-range weapons aren't useful (the aforementioned Night Scythes, for one thing), most people play on a board three times the size, and that if he's worried about the Guard blasting him to death at extreme range the solution is more terrain and more transports, not shutting himself into a sardine can with them.

As for the blast weapons the scatter system makes much more sense for barrage weapons than direct-fire weapons like frag missiles and Battle Cannons; I'm thinking if you've got direct-fire ordnance you roll to hit against the guy you're planting the template on (for purposes of Evasion) and scatter 1d6 with no BS reduction to scatter if it misses rather than plant the marker and scatter. This makes blasts more reliable, rewards high Ballistic Skill, and removes the silliness of high-Strength barrage weapons being very good at downing Skimmers.

Barrage weapons would roll to hit like normal blast weapons, but you only get the roll to hit if you've got a designated spotter with the correct specialized gear who can see your target, if you don't have that it's scattering every shot.

Lanrak wrote:
@Loki.
DoW and CoH are practically the same game with different skins and stats dont you agree?

Not really they play very different.
If you play as germans, The 88 is a riptide equivalent. The pill boxes suppress troops, unless they have an officer with them.(suppressed against leadership?).

 loki old fart wrote:

Lanrak wrote:
@Loki.
DoW and CoH are practically the same game with different skins and stats dont you agree?

Not really they play very different.
If you play as germans, The 88 is a riptide equivalent. The pill boxes suppress troops, unless they have an officer with them.(suppressed against leadership?).

That's sort of where I got the general usage of command models (sergeants, force commanders, captains, the like) in my implementation of characters; all character models have one (in some cases two) "Archetype(s)" that gives them some base function:
Command models remove Pinning markers from units before they roll Morale tests. They also sometimes grant additional benefits to nearby friendly models and units in their command radius (their squad for squad leaders, 12" for independent characters, entire army for the Warlord) can use their Ld.. Examples: Space Marine Sergeants, Dark Eldar Sybarites, Tau Shas'ui.
Medic models remove Wound markers from non-vehicle models before models are removed from the board. They don't usually have anything extra. Examples: Space Marine Apothecaries, Guard Medics.
Tech models remove Wound markers from vehicles in the same manner as Medics. They have some wacky wargear but usually little else. Examples: Space Marine Techmarines, Eldar Bonesingers.
Psykers generate Warp Charge that can be used to activate psychic powers and certain equipment. Examples: Space Marine Librarians, Tyranid Zoanthropes.
Champions are beatsticks, they have no special effects on their own (though I'm considering giving them a challenge mechanic) and are usually advisers taken alongside higher-ranking characters rather than leaders. Examples: Space Marine Champion, Grey Knight Brotherhood Champion.
Scouts unlock alternate deployment trickery for their unit. Examples: Space Marine Scout Sergeant, Eldar Pathfinder.

The intent here is to try and make Sergeants do more than merely provide an extra wargear item or two and an extra Ld point and balancewise to permit alternate squad leaders (imitate the Red Scorpions with Apothecaries as Sergeants or the Iron Hands with Techmarine Sergeants, for instance, or give Eldar Warlocks (who are psykers but can choose to generate less Warp Charge to be Commanders, Medics, Techs, Champions, or Scouts too) the ability to be flexible as a leader unit) by making it a tradeoff in more ways than merely points.

In coh they have a tank that gives bonus just by being close to other models. captain perhaps, or chapter master?

Hero tank crew. Available on certain specific tanks with restrictions on which slots it's there for.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Hero tank crew. Available on certain specific tanks with restrictions on which slots it's there for.

It drives close to any friendly tank, and they get a bonus.

Aura of authority, any unit within 6" of (insert name here) has a bonus to xx.

 loki old fart wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Hero tank crew. Available on certain specific tanks with restrictions on which slots it's there for.

It drives close to any friendly tank, and they get a bonus.

Aura of authority, any unit within 6" of (insert name here) has a bonus to xx.

Under my rules it's just a tank with the Command archetype (usually, some people (SM Dreadnaughts, some Eldar vehicles, and GK stuff) can have Psyker vehicles too).

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Hero tank crew. Available on certain specific tanks with restrictions on which slots it's there for.

It drives close to any friendly tank, and they get a bonus.

Aura of authority, any unit within 6" of (insert name here) has a bonus to xx.

Under my rules it's just a tank with the Command archetype (usually, some people (SM Dreadnaughts, some Eldar vehicles, and GK stuff) can have Psyker vehicles too).

And you could make it so special tank commanders other than longstrike are actully worth their points.

I'm consolidating a bunch of digital Codex concepts and a few other things that I don't feel like I can expand into entire armies easily into a set of rules resembling the old WHFB Dogs of War system wherein you've got a formation you can take alongside certain other armies; so far I've got the Inquisition, the Adeptus Arbites, the Deathwatch, the Legion of the Damned, and Eldar Harlequins. Anyone have any other suggestions for small forces that appear across multiple armies that could be implemented in this manner? (No Genestealer Cult, that'd be a variant in the Tyranid book allowing them to take PDF platoons, not its own list)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Hero tank crew. Available on certain specific tanks with restrictions on which slots it's there for.

It drives close to any friendly tank, and they get a bonus.

Aura of authority, any unit within 6" of (insert name here) has a bonus to xx.

Under my rules it's just a tank with the Command archetype (usually, some people (SM Dreadnaughts, some Eldar vehicles, and GK stuff) can have Psyker vehicles too).

And you could make it so special tank commanders other than longstrike are actully worth their points.

Absolutely. Still fuzzy on whether/how Special Characters are going to be included (the plan at the moment is to take a big Relic arsenal and the power to purchase some additional special rule so you've got more variety/customization in the standard characters) but Hero Tank Commanders are absolutely going to be playable and worthwhile.

Have you seen those event cards from necromunda?
They were a good idea, should bring them back

 loki old fart wrote:
Have you seen those event cards from necromunda?
They were a good idea, should bring them back

They're not a bad idea but they're also mostly reliant on campaign rules (give people extra territories, more XP, that sort of thing), I'll consider it if I get around to writing a campaign system to work on top of this.

Been a while since anyone posted anything.

I've been trying to figure out a way to make sergeant models act more like leaders instead of just slightly improved Melee beat sticks, but couldn't really find a solution i liked.

So what if these sergeants played into the suppression system by clearing suppression tokens?

So my 10 man squad of tactical marines is being led by a veteran sergeant (leader 3), and take a lot of enemy fire, killing 3 marines and giving them 8 suppression tokens, suppressing the squad. At the beginning of the squads next activation, the sergeant removes 3 suppression tokens, leaving them with 5, less than the remaining number of models in the squad, and un-suppressing the unit.

This neatly solves some problems I had with my suppression system, namely that the number of suppression tokens a unit could receive would often combine with losses suffered to make even elite, high morale units be easily suppressed.

It also addresses how these tokens are cleared, as my previous plan, just having all tokens reset at the beginning of a new game turn, felt like a place-holder more than anything else.

It also leads to some interesting new ways of approaching target priority, because if I can do some sort of precision shot, I have to choose between killing the special and heavy weapons doing the most damage, or killing the sergeant, making my return fire that much more effective.

In the case of the sergeant dying, I'd probably say normal models can clear 1 token per activation, because they are at least capable of leading the squad to a degree.

Though this could potentially leave units in a perpetual state of suppression, even after the enemy has stopped shooting at them... Maybe say suppression only lasts so long as the enemy has fired at you within the last game turn?

There's still the issue of how to handle small, super-elite units, like terminator squads, as under current rules they can be suppressed fairly easily...

Alternatively you could say these leader models would allow the unit to ignore a certain number of tokens each turn, which I might turn to if it appears that the rate tokens are added stays too high. This would leave the issue of how are tokens removed, but I'll cross that bridge if I come to it.

Rav1rn wrote:
Been a while since anyone posted anything.

I've been trying to figure out a way to make sergeant models act more like leaders instead of just slightly improved Melee beat sticks, but couldn't really find a solution i liked.

So what if these sergeants played into the suppression system by clearing suppression tokens?

So my 10 man squad of tactical marines is being led by a veteran sergeant (leader 3), and take a lot of enemy fire, killing 3 marines and giving them 8 suppression tokens, suppressing the squad. At the beginning of the squads next activation, the sergeant removes 3 suppression tokens, leaving them with 5, less than the remaining number of models in the squad, and un-suppressing the unit.

This neatly solves some problems I had with my suppression system, namely that the number of suppression tokens a unit could receive would often combine with losses suffered to make even elite, high morale units be easily suppressed.

It also addresses how these tokens are cleared, as my previous plan, just having all tokens reset at the beginning of a new game turn, felt like a place-holder more than anything else.

It also leads to some interesting new ways of approaching target priority, because if I can do some sort of precision shot, I have to choose between killing the special and heavy weapons doing the most damage, or killing the sergeant, making my return fire that much more effective.

In the case of the sergeant dying, I'd probably say normal models can clear 1 token per activation, because they are at least capable of leading the squad to a degree.

Though this could potentially leave units in a perpetual state of suppression, even after the enemy has stopped shooting at them... Maybe say suppression only lasts so long as the enemy has fired at you within the last game turn?

There's still the issue of how to handle small, super-elite units, like terminator squads, as under current rules they can be suppressed fairly easily...

Alternatively you could say these leader models would allow the unit to ignore a certain number of tokens each turn, which I might turn to if it appears that the rate tokens are added stays too high. This would leave the issue of how are tokens removed, but I'll cross that bridge if I come to it.

reasonable enough.
The way I;m doing it is. When hits exceed leadership unit is suppressed, and suppressed units automatically go to ground. If the opposing player tries to suppress again, they're already gone to ground, so get a cover save. which is usually enough to unsuppress them.

My solution to this issue is similar; models of the Command archetype pull Pinning markers off of units and provide their Ld to units in their command radius. As to things that would be hard to suppress there are Stubborn models that take morale tests on their unmodified Tenacity regardless of the number of Pinning markers on them and Fearless units that auto-pass Morale tests. I did stick with resetting Pinning markers at the start of the turn as well, and you do need at least a Sergeant to pull Pinning markers before making morale tests.

I decided to make unit leaders,(sergeants etc,) actually lead the unit by making them the focus of the unit interaction.

They decide the level of unit coherency , (measured from the unit leader.)
So better leaders allow more tactical flexibility in placement of models.(They can spread out more.)

All target selection is carried out from the unit leader model, to represent them directing the units fire.(Limited splitting of fire , weapon dependent.)

I view suppression as something that happens when weight of fire exceeds unit confidence.(As previously explained.)
I think suppression should be s in effect untill the unit is rallied.(pass a morale test.)
This way well trained units rally quickly, poorly trained units are harder to rally.

if you decide if the unit becomes suppressed based on leadership, then some units may be impossible to suppress.(Not just difficult to suppress.)
Which can put artificial blocks in the process.(Like using separate cover saves rather than a to hit modifier, for example.)

Lanrak wrote:

if you decide if the unit becomes suppressed based on leadership, then some units may be impossible to suppress.(Not just difficult to suppress.)

Agreed like boys mobs 0f 15 or over, khorne berzerkers, space marines, etc, anybody with fearless.