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: I'll have to do the math on the alternating unit activation setup you suggested but I don't like that it's a setup I'd have to do more math on in the first place; I tried to break up A goes/B goes by interspersing phases better, I don't know how well it scales (I should come up with a shorthand for this, I seem to be saying it so much) but in tests I've done it seems to keep both players engaged during the other guy's turn fairly well.
You know, as I've ruminated over this, I'm starting to come around to your way of thinking here.
If I have a 1000 point death star, that is always going to be the first unit I activate. So even if my opponent gets to activate 2 or 3 units first, I'm always going to have a firepower advantage. Now, I am not a fan of massive deathstar units. I was about to say that the community at large rejects 6th edition deathstar mania, but perhaps I should say instead that it is very divisive.
That leads me to a suggestion I have.
Limit the number of IC's that can join a unit to 1. That would nip most deathstars in the bud. You could still join one IC to a huge unit. For Instance a Tyranid prime with upgrades (200 points) could join 3 Dakkafexes with Adrenal Glands (495). To produce a nearly 700 point deathstar of a sort, but that is mild by comparison to something like Seerstar or Ovesastar.
I generally think that 1 IC per unit is a reasonable limit in most scenarios.
The issue with this is we're starting to get into writing rules with a hole and then patching the hole after-the-fact with an otherwise arbitrary restriction. I'd prefer to make deathstars non-viable through the base rules (as it stands the rule dictating a unit can't get healed by more than one medic in a turn means a deathstar can get focused down more easily than a number of units) rather than make rules that reward deathstars and put "By the way, no deathstars" in the rules.
You wrote in a hole by allowing Medic to heal a fixed number of wounds, and then wrote in a fix that only one medic can heal a turn.
I guess my point of view is why would you want more than 1 IC to join a Unit? On a pro/con scale it doesn't seem to balance out.
Pro: ???
Con: unit considation, massive deathstars, rule exploitation possibilities, Unpredictable balance disrupting synergies and USR interactions.
I don't know a situation in which having multiple Medics permitted to heal one unit in a turn would be helpful to the game at all, but I take your point.
As to multiple ICs in a unit I've expanded the number of things that are ICs to give people a little more flexibility with where they put people, a one-IC-per-unit rule would mean you can't actually run, say, a Space Marine Command Squad (since the Apothecary and the Captain are both technically ICs). The deathstar potential is fairly limited from the perspective of what exactly an IC can do and the cost of ICs in general more so than anything else; I'm considering WHFB where it's allowed within the rules to spend half your points on Lords and Heroes but that's going to get you maybe five or six models in a 2,500pt army and make you one giant tough unit that can't actually do everything you need your army to be able to do as a semi-model for implementation here; a super-deathstar-unit can be possible, but it's not going to win you a lot of games since I'm trying to encourage a broader variety of viable army builds than 40k does and putting all your eggs in one slow short-ranged basket does nothing for all-comers potential.
There's also the multiple-types-of-points angle that I'm busy considering that hasn't been implemented at present where a 2,000pt army could also have only fifty Glory points and be restricted in practice to mandatory characters only, but that's a balance question that can be dealt with later.
Hi AnomanderRake.
Can you please illustrate how modifying values before comparing them to find the D6 roll you need , is so drastically different from having a target score, that is modified to determine the dice score required.
If we agree target score and modifiers is the simplest system that works for all interaction other than armour and AP interaction.(Opposed values determining the dice roll.)
In theory and on paper.Then I need quite a compelling argument to convince me adding more complication is a good idea .
Remember we are using LIMITED modifiers,because 40k does not need huge amounts of modifiers does it?
In this respect I am struggling to see how required 'score 4+', +1 for cover = 5+.
Is so very different from value 3 vs value 3 +1 for cover , so 4 is greater than 3 therefore you need 5+ to hit.
I may have mis understood what you proposed.In which case I apologize.
But this is why I am asking for a clarification just to make sure I understand your proposals clearly .
I agree that a complete re write is the way to go.And 'alternating phases' is probably the most suitable game turn mechnanic for 40k .
It is just the fine detail I want to 'define and refine' as much as possible with you.
Compare X to Y: Value needed to hit is independent of what X and Y actually are, it's dependent on the difference between the two, as opposed to score and modifiers where your score must be between 2 and 6 and modifiers of over -1 or -2 are dramatically powerful. You have about an order of magnitude more possible statlines with the comparison method than the target-score-and-modifiers method.
As to the number of modifiers I needed more under my system because I'm dropping a fair amount of stuff from 40k that might influence the rolls to hit and I'm trying to make low-level gameplay a little more tactically complex with things like the range modifier and the moved modifier shrinking the threat range of most units (a Space Marine unit can still shoot you with bolters when they started their turn about thirty inches away but they have to take -2 to Marks to do it) and forcing players to manoeuvre more carefully.
Lanrak wrote: Hi AnomanderRake.
an you please illustrate how modifying values before comparing them to find the D6 roll you need , is so drastically different from having a target score, that is modified to determine the dice score required.
The reason to modify skills before computing targets for dice rolls is to give you much more versatility. The modifies have a more subtle effect, and thus more of them are possible without creating a stupidly disruptive mechanic like extremely high BS.
Lanrak wrote: In this respect I am struggling to see how required 'score 4+', +1 for cover = 5+.
Is so very different from value 3 vs value 3 +1 for cover , so 4 is greater than 3 therefore you need 5+ to hit.
So in this example, we are comparing Marksmanship(M) to Evasion(E).
A Tactical Marine shoots at a Necron Warrior. The Marine has a 3 M, and the Warrior has a 3 E. That means that it is a 4+ to hit.
If the Warrior is in cover, and we modify the target 4+ -1 = 5+, or we modify the base Evasion 3+1=4 3M shooting at 4E = 5+ which has the same result, true.
However lets consider a Shoota Boy with only 2M shooting at that same warrior. 2M vs 3E base to hit is 5+.
The Warrior is in cover. If we modify the target 5+ -1 = 6+ it is not the same as modifying the stats. 3+1=4, 2M shooting at 4E = 5+.
That example may not be the best because it relies on the Aegis's new system to compare stats.
So Instead imagine an Farseer (5M) is shooting at something with a very low Evasion. For instance, a Tyrannofex (1E). 5M vs 1E base is 2+.
If the Tyrannofex is in cover, and we modify the target 2+ -1 = 3+. However if we modify the stats. 1+1=2 5M vs 2E is still a 2+.
Hi guys.
I understand the use of compared values that are modified , then processing the result through a table .Allows a much more complicated front end to the resolution.
In the same way 40k uses stats of 1 to 10 for WS, then uses a table to restrict actual results to 3+,4+,5+.
It just depends if you want to use simple and straight forward resolution to speed up play.(Like Epic EA,SM, FoW, Warpath, KoW, etc, where tactical interaction makes up the bulk of the game play.)
OR a more complicated resolution that takes all variables into account.But still delivers a similar range of results for some reason?And reduces the room for more tactical interaction like current 40k does.
I would suggest if you want to use the level of modifiers you want , a large value single dice roll would be more intuitive.
Eg the unit rolls a D20 to aquire the target, and this roll takes all the modifiers you want to use into account.And the result determines how many shots find the target.
In the same way the old style super detailed simulations used to.(Firefly II/Challenger II, NRFN etc.)
These rules used 20 to 30 different modifiers for every single resolution!..
I think that other games using limited modifiers to great effect with d6s,has influenced me in thinking this is the best way to write rules.
The table is governed by a very straightforward rule that's fast and easy to memorize.
As to larger dice I'm doing this with d6s because they transport well, they're easy to find, and everyone's already got them. The number of modifiers applied to a given roll is not going to grow beyond what's already in the core rules plus one or two more when I finish psychic powers; if you look at the Space Marines book you may notice zero rules saying "X gets +Y to hit under Z circumstance". I want to be able to sum up the table and all modifiers to the roll on a 3x5" notecard if I have to.
Hi AnomanderRake.
I am aware the table results are fairly easy to remember.In the same way the current 40kWS vs WS table is easy to remember.
But they are still both an unnecessary complication.
They are only included to allow more complexity at the front end of the resolution.But do not add to the end results available.
40k does not need to use other dice than D6.
The reason I commented on this was if you are going to add more than a few modifiers the D6 score required.Then higher sided dice allow them the finer level of definition to be used.
I am looking at the 40k re write as a 'modern battle game'.(Like all the current good modern battle games.(Epic, FoW, FaD etc.)Rather than keeping the essence of 40k rules, but less complicated.
This is probably why we tend to dis agree slightly on the way to present the resolution methods.
Lanrak wrote: Hi AnomanderRake.
I am aware the table results are fairly easy to remember.In the same way the current 40kWS vs WS table is easy to remember.
But they are still both an unnecessary complication.
They are only included to allow more complexity at the front end of the resolution.But do not add to the end results available.
40k does not need to use other dice than D6.
The reason I commented on this was if you are going to add more than a few modifiers the D6 score required.Then higher sided dice allow them the finer level of definition to be used.
I am looking at the 40k re write as a 'modern battle game'.(Like all the current good modern battle games.(Epic, FoW, FaD etc.)Rather than keeping the essence of 40k rules, but less complicated.
This is probably why we tend to dis agree slightly on the way to present the resolution methods.
I'm sticking with 40k-like resolution because I want to avoid the pitfalls Epic fell into where every unit plays identically, mostly.
Not to jump in here, but there is one advantage to using a table system that doesn't directly apply the modifiers to the results, namely that it allows the models skills to come into play more than would otherwise be possible.
If the modifiers affect only the results rather than the front-end calculation, it can result in a mechanically limited system, because you can only apply so large of a modifier before everything become impossible.
A -1 modifier applied directly to results rather than filtered through a table means that both the elite infantry (3+) and the regular foot soldier (5+) are both dropped by the same amount. This could be good or bad, depending on the system youre building, and as Lanrak has said, it's worked well for other games.
However, 40K has a large focus on the traits of each individual model, with a great deal of diversity, and reducing it down to such simplistic terms feels heretical, pun intended.
Which is where the table method shines when combined with some reasonable modifiers. That -1 modifier could be enough to drop the footman from a 5+ to a 6+, while the elite infantry would still be a 3+.
For example, In my system, the faster a model moves, the harder it is to hit, but rather than approximate it through a seperate save, it simply increases the defensive value that shooters compare their BS to. Move fast enough, and they're no longer comparing BS3 to evasion 3, suddenly its evasion 4, 5, 6, etc.
So while this speed increase could affect imperial guardsmen so they're now hitting on 5's or even 6's, an elite space marine could still be hitting on 3's. If a target is moving fast enough, even the space marines could be dropped to hitting on 4's or even 5's, wheras the vindicare assassin is still hitting on 2's because of his astronomical BS.
This also conveniently reduces the need for the BS re-roll chart, because now having a high BS serves to insulate you from increases in the targets speed, rather than needing an arbitrary way of ensuring higher BS translates to higher performance.
So I wouldn't label the table method an unnecessary complication, because it can serve a mechanically important purpose.
Just because there is a limited number of outcomes, doesn't mean there needs to be a similarly limited number of resolutions, because having that -1 modifier affect 4 or 5 different units in totally unique ways can prompt players to view not only their own unit's performance, but their opponent's performance as well when making decisions.
Just read through your core rules. Some interesting stuff but, man, waaaay too many stats... And waay to many modifiers, and markers! And charts! And with all that still no modifier for range.
It doesn't have to be like that. You don't need all that stuff. For most of it all you need is a dice type. I do most of it with only three stats: D-Type, CC Save, and Morale. And I include a modifier for range. Check it out at Poly-K below.
Thirdeye wrote: Just read through your core rules. Some interesting stuff but, man, waaaay too many stats... And waay to many modifiers, and markers! And charts! And with all that still no modifier for range.
It doesn't have to be like that. You don't need all that stuff. For most of it all you need is a dice type. I do most of it with only three stats: D-Type, CC Save, and Morale. And I include a modifier for range. Check it out at Poly-K below.
Range is listed under offensive modifiers to Marks on page seven. To date excepting the morale mechanic (which is under review pending test for scale) everything's there because I needed it to be there with the initial design goal of being able to simulate everything you can currently do in 40k.
I don't see a "poly-k" link, I don't get what you mean by "dice type", and if 40k was reduced to three stats I have my doubts as to whether you'd be able to preserve a nonzero quantity of tactical complexity. Could you explain?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/13 03:51:29
Thirdeye wrote: Just read through your core rules. Some interesting stuff but, man, waaaay too many stats... And waay to many modifiers, and markers! And charts! And with all that still no modifier for range.
It doesn't have to be like that. You don't need all that stuff. For most of it all you need is a dice type. I do most of it with only three stats: D-Type, CC Save, and Morale. And I include a modifier for range. Check it out at Poly-K below.
Range is listed under offensive modifiers to Marks on page seven. To date excepting the morale mechanic (which is under review pending test for scale) everything's there because I needed it to be there with the initial design goal of being able to simulate everything you can currently do in 40k.
I don't see a "poly-k" link, I don't get what you mean by "dice type", and if 40k was reduced to three stats I have my doubts as to whether you'd be able to preserve a nonzero quantity of tactical complexity. Could you explain?
There is no link. When I said "below" I ment lower down in the forum.
I give examples of a shooting attack and a CC assult involving Five Marines and seven Ork. Do the same with your syetem and compare.
Thirdeye wrote: Just read through your core rules. Some interesting stuff but, man, waaaay too many stats... And waay to many modifiers, and markers! And charts! And with all that still no modifier for range.
It doesn't have to be like that. You don't need all that stuff. For most of it all you need is a dice type. I do most of it with only three stats: D-Type, CC Save, and Morale. And I include a modifier for range. Check it out at Poly-K below.
Range is listed under offensive modifiers to Marks on page seven. To date excepting the morale mechanic (which is under review pending test for scale) everything's there because I needed it to be there with the initial design goal of being able to simulate everything you can currently do in 40k.
I don't see a "poly-k" link, I don't get what you mean by "dice type", and if 40k was reduced to three stats I have my doubts as to whether you'd be able to preserve a nonzero quantity of tactical complexity. Could you explain?
There is no link. When I said "below" I ment lower down in the forum.
I give examples of a shooting attack and a CC assult involving Five Marines and seven Ork. Do the same with your syetem and compare.
P.S. How do you "evade" a shooting attack?
So instead of having three unit stats you've got a game consisting of three different models. I'm honestly not sure how this is supposed to be applicable to an attempt to simulate a ruleset with two-hundred-odd different units.
P.S.: Intervening stuff or moving quickly. If it helps consider "adds to Evasion" to be the equivalent of "grants cover save" in 40k today.
Thirdeye wrote: Just read through your core rules. Some interesting stuff but, man, waaaay too many stats... And waay to many modifiers, and markers! And charts! And with all that still no modifier for range.
It doesn't have to be like that. You don't need all that stuff. For most of it all you need is a dice type. I do most of it with only three stats: D-Type, CC Save, and Morale. And I include a modifier for range. Check it out at Poly-K below.
Range is listed under offensive modifiers to Marks on page seven. To date excepting the morale mechanic (which is under review pending test for scale) everything's there because I needed it to be there with the initial design goal of being able to simulate everything you can currently do in 40k.
I don't see a "poly-k" link, I don't get what you mean by "dice type", and if 40k was reduced to three stats I have my doubts as to whether you'd be able to preserve a nonzero quantity of tactical complexity. Could you explain?
There is no link. When I said "below" I ment lower down in the forum.
I give examples of a shooting attack and a CC assult involving Five Marines and seven Ork. Do the same with your syetem and compare.
P.S. How do you "evade" a shooting attack?
So instead of having three unit stats you've got a game consisting of three different models. I'm honestly not sure how this is supposed to be applicable to an attempt to simulate a ruleset with two-hundred-odd different units.
P.S.: Intervening stuff or moving quickly. If it helps consider "adds to Evasion" to be the equivalent of "grants cover save" in 40k today.
Well four actually, (D6, D8, D10, D12) but that's just the basic/ core rules. In the core rules I use only basic infantry with no support weapons, and I make little variation for race, army or unit. The advance rules adds a lot of that stuff, and adds different units, but its all based on the same simple playable base.
The problem with too many distinctions is the game gets lost in the minutia. And really, are the differences so great that they have to be represented in the game? For example, if you were designing a company level modern warfare game would you make a distinction between an M16 and an AK47? Is it really that important? Shouldn't the game be more about maneuver and morale? That's what's really important for a fun tactical experience. Not the minutia and obsession with fine distinctions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/13 04:47:34
I'd make the distinction between a Guardian and an Ork Boy, yes. One thing that's really very important to understand about 40k is that it's not a real-world game where everyone's developing parallel technology tracks. The difference between a .50-calibre fully-automatic rocket-propelled armour-piercing grenade launcher and a millennia-old super-tech lightning gun is rather more than the difference between a 5.56x54mm NATO assault rifle and a 5.45x39mm M74 rifle.
You may argue that you think a symmetrical game would be easier to balance and play but 40k isn't a symmetrical game. If you want to run yet another symmetrical WWII-esque game where every single thing plays identically with very slight variations for unit quality be my guest, but that has nothing to do with 40k and it's outside the design goals of this project.
AnomanderRake wrote: I'd make the distinction between a Guardian and an Ork Boy, yes.
Sure, I do too. Both are base D6 but Guardians are graceful and swift. They get a +1 to their basic movement (6+1=7), and +2 to run/charge (7+7=14). Guardians also have a rifle style gun so they get a bonus to their range (an extra six inches to medium range). They also get a better (lower) Morale number.
Orks are big and mean but theygot those little legs. They get a -1 to their basic movement (6-1=5), and -2 to run/charge (5+5=10). Orks have an assault style gun so they can fire at close range on Run/Charge Orders. (Actually the Shuriken is a hybrid weapon so it gets that too). They are also good at CC. They get the "savage fighter" special rule, meaning they get a +1 on all ties in CC. Orks also get a version of the "endless number" special rule because they are a Horde army. I also gave Orks a better CC Save because they're bigger and meaner and tougher. Space Orcs Save on a 4+. Space Elves on 5+. But their Morale number is worse (higher).
AnomanderRake wrote: One thing that's really very important to understand about 40k is that it's not a real-world game where everyone's developing parallel technology tracks. The difference between a .50-calibre fully-automatic rocket-propelled armour-piercing grenade launcher and a millennia-old super-tech lightning gun is rather more than the difference between a 5.56x54mm NATO assault rifle and a 5.45x39mm M74 rifle.
Really? Certainly GW has tried for some twenty years to make them different and has failed miserably. So much so that the "high tech" weapon is worse than an Ork shoota. At least I give the Eldar the range and tactical flexibility they deserve.
AnomanderRake wrote: You may argue that you think a symmetrical game would be easier to balance and play but 40k isn't a symmetrical game. If you want to run yet another symmetrical WWII-esque game where every single thing plays identically with very slight variations for unit quality be my guest, but that has nothing to do with 40k and it's outside the design goals of this project.
No, fact is you can be true to the fluff without complicated mechanics. There's a lot you can do with just simple dice-type comparisons.
So. Let me get this straight yet again. You've got a game consisting of several "levels of play", the simplest of which consists of four units differentiated by quality...and you're asserting since your "core rules" are shorter than my complete rules your game is somehow better. Then you're asserting that since Assault versus Rapid Fire isn't enough of a difference for you weapons should be identical, claiming Ork Shootas are strictly better than boltguns ignoring the fact that bolters hit twice as often, and then claiming "dice-type comparisons" are simpler than "complicated mechanics" without clarifying what you mean by either term beyond "Look at your game. Now look at mine. Look back to your game. Mine is simpler!".
I'm sorry if this is my inflexible brain having trouble following you or misinterpreting what you're telling me but could you start over at the beginning? I think I lost you somewhere.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm also slightly confused as to how giving every single model a half-dozen special rules that do nothing but give +/-1 to various things is simpler than just having a statline...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/13 06:21:45
So. Let me get this straight yet again. You've got a game consisting of several "levels of play", the simplest of which consists of four units differentiated by quality...and you're asserting since your "core rules" are shorter than my complete rules your game is somehow better.
Don't get me wrong. As I said there's some good stuff in your rules, and I certainly appreciate the time and effort that went into your rule set. I bow to your completeness. I just feel the meta is wrong: having a plethora of stats, staying with only a D6 and flittering everything through charts to determine values, and then rolling for values. There is a better way. Start from a simple clean base, three base stats, and build from there.
... claiming Ork Shootas are strictly better than boltguns ignoring the fact that bolters hit twice as often, ...
No, see my base rules. Shootas and Boltguns are both basic weapons. Basic weapons start with one stat, a D-Type, the same D-Type as the the unit base stat, its D-Type. Orks are base D-Type D6 so Shootas are base D6. Marines are base D-Type D8 so Boltguns are base D8. The D-Type gives you range (3xD-Type), and includes BS and rate-of-fire. No need for those stats, there're built in. The advance rules add to this simple clean base.
... and then claiming "dice-type comparisons" are simpler than "complicated mechanics" without clarifying what you mean by either term beyond "Look at your game. Now look at mine. Look back to your game. Mine is simpler!".
As I said, just by way of comparison, take the example I give of four Marines and a Vet Sergeant vs. six Orks and a Nob at different range and different cover saves, and show us the steps needed to determine casualties for both a shooting attack and CC using your rules. That's all I'm asking.
I'm sorry if this is my inflexible brain having trouble following you or misinterpreting what you're telling me but could you start over at the beginning? I think I lost you somewhere.
As I said, just by way of comparison, take the example I give of four Marines and a Vet Sergeant vs. six Orks and a Nob at different range and different cover saves, and show us the steps needed to determine casualties for both a shooting attack and CC using your rules. That's all I'm asking.
I'm also slightly confused as to how giving every single model a half-dozen special rules that do nothing but give +/-1 to various things is simpler than just having a statline...
I give a stat line, base three stats. The +/-1 I discussed was just the recipe I used applying the fluff. Its not part of the game.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/05/13 12:00:16
Sorry if I got snippy up there; I appear to get defensive late at night while on a DOTA losing streak, will avoid that in the future. Thanks for keeping us grounded in calm dialogue.
As to an example I don't have stats for Orks set up at present but here's a Space Marine Tactical Squad up against a Dire Avenger squad:
Tactical Squad shooting:
The Space Marine player with a Sergeant and four Tactical Marines all equipped with bolters declares he's targeting the seven-model Dire Avenger squad off to his left; first he checks range and LOS, finding the Dire Avengers to be in range but outside half range and in light cover. The two players check the modifiers table and since the Space Marines did not move and the Dire Avengers did not make a double move last turn at this point the Space Marines need a 5+ to hit (Marks 5 -1 for range versus Rea 5 +1 for cover comes out to 4 v. 6, differing by two in the defender's favour; the Veteran Sergeant's Marks 6 doesn't help him here since it changes the roll to differ by 1 in the defender's favour), the Space Marine player elects to use the bolters' Selective Fire rule for the standard Marines to fire one shot only so the roll to hit doesn't get worsened to 6+ from the multiple shots penalty, since the Sergeant has a higher Marks he can take that penalty and still hit on 5s.
The Space Marine player rolls 6d6 and gets two hits (two 5s) and four misses (4, 3, 3, 2). He takes those two hits and compares his bolters' Strength of 5 to Dire Avengers' squishy elvish Durability of 3, from this he needs a 3+ to wound. Rolling produces a 6 and a 3 for two wounds.
The Dire Avengers check their armour save of 3+ and subtract one for the bolter's AP value, they roll two saves against 4+ and whoops, a 2 and a 3, it looks like the Dire Avengers are taking two Wound markers from this. Under the current rules we also place two Pinning markers since the Dire Avengers were shot at by something that inflicted wounds, but the morale mechanic is under review.
At the end of the Shooting phase the Dire Avengers have taken five more Wounds and two more Pinning markers from people with more powerful weapons we're not covering here for a total of seven Wound counters. Unfortunately this unit is off on its own away from the Medics so the Eldar player checks his models' profiles to see that a Dire Avenger has three wounds so he needs to pull two Dire Avengers and six of the Wound counters from play. The last Wound counter remains in play. The Dire Avengers' Exarch with Command (1) as a Sergeant pulls one of the Pinning markers out of play but since three remain the Dire Avenger unit makes a morale test against their Tenacity minus three; they roll a four against six, and get to act normally next turn.
Striking Scorpions in Assault
A hitherto unseen Striking Scorpion unit of five models the Space Marine player wasn't considering a threat rounds a corner into the Tactical Squad's Combat Radius and the exchange of blows begins. Since the Exarch is a Champion he's going to declare a Challenge against the Sergeant, the Sergeant's Tenacity test comes back a 10 and since he failed (10 versus 9) he must engage in the challenge. The Striking Scorpions attack since it's their turn; the challenge is resolved first. The Exarch has a CS of 6 versus the Sergeant's CS of 6, but he's taking a -1 penalty for making multiple attacks, Mandiblasters allow him to ignore the multiple weapons penalty, so the Exarch is attacking with both his chainsword and his shuriken pistol. Rolling separately he gets two hits (a 6 and a 5) and one miss (a 2) with the chainsword and a hit (a 5) with his pistol, to wound the chainsword has a Strength of user +2 for a total of 6 against the Space Marine's power-armoured Durability of 5 and the shuriken pistol is coming back with a Strength of 5 against Durability 5, so he needs a 3+ with the chainsword and a 4+ with the pistol. Two 5s with the chainsword and a 4 with the pistol later both have a save modifier of -1 so the Space Marine Sergeant needs to make three 3+ armour saves. He passes two and gets one wound marker placed on him in the challenge. Since the Sergeant has five Wounds total this remains in play; since he's in a challenge he can't be patched up by a Medic.
The rest of the Striking Scorpions lay into the Space Marines with twelve chainsword attacks and four shuriken pistol attacks, all hitting on 5+ (CS 5 -1 for multiple attacks versus CS 5), I'm not going to list off the results but they got six hits with the chainswords and one with the pistols. The to-wound and to-save numbers are the same as above; three wounds from the chainswords and one from the pistols make it through, and the Space Marines save two of them on 3+. The Space Marines get two Wound markers, not enough to remove a model, but since there's a challenge going on neither side can break until the challenge is over or someone disengages. No models are removed and play continues.
In my experience testing these rules a lot of it sounds much harder than it is in practice.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also it'd be much, much easier to avoid misrepresenting or misinterpreting your rules if we had a complete copy to look at.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/13 15:44:20
Hey man, nothing to apologize for. You have been and remain an intelligent and cordial dude.
AnomanderRake wrote: As to an example I don't have stats for Orks set up at present but here's a Space Marine Tactical Squad up against a Dire Avenger squad: ...
WOW, that’s something. You got just about everything in there. Very impressive. But how do you handle it when half the target squad is in cover and half not, or some at long range and some not?
As I said very impressive, but you go opposite of where I want to go. I want to keep it as simple and intuitive as possible, while still following the fluff. I want as few stats as possible, no charts for the basic game, that kind of thing.
I’ll post my version of your examples when I get home, just for fun.
AnomanderRake wrote: In my experience testing these rules a lot of it sounds much harder than it is in practice.
Yes, I find that true as well. Sometimes writing it out is harder and takes longer than doing it. But you do have lots going on.
Also it'd be much, much easier to avoid misrepresenting or misinterpreting your rules if we had a complete copy to look at.
Yeah, you’re probably right. I just wanted to get some comments on the core rules before I got too far into the project. But it’s a Catch 22. Don’t want to write more without comments, can’t get comments unless I write more.
Actually I was only going to do the basic game, core rules with some add-ons, a skirmish game between a couple of basic units, a Kill Teem kinda thing, and leave the rest for latter. Even with my simple system a full rule book with Codices is a huge project. Of course I don’t need to tell you that. What would be nice is if I could recruit some help, you know with the Codices and such. I just joined a new group and I plan on trying to get some of them involves (little do they know. HAHAHAHAHA!) But I’m also looking for some on line help, someone who’s really into the game, into the fluff, and who’s intelligent and dedicated. Someone like you..., actually. Too bad ya got your own thing going on, and mine’s not your cup-of-tea.
Trying to do the skirmish/kill-team thing on the same rules that have to scale to Apocalypse-sized games isn't typically feasible; I've got rules for a half-assed expansion to Necromunda to include the core armies that was sort of a prototype to this concept floating around but I'm not sure it's going to get finished. A model of a core game and side games running at different scales and in different setups (Necromunda, 40k, Epic, BFG, Aeronautica Imperialis) was a pretty good idea before all the side games got discontinued.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As to partial squads in cover, half range, etc. I'm running off a few assumptions about the level of abstraction inherent in trying to get a tabletop game running and (I don't think it's in the document yet but it will be momentarily) the general form rule for all of those cases is the entire squad treated as such if the majority of the squad is. Line of sight is probably going to be handled a bit differently, though, since logical problems arise very quickly there.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/13 21:39:54
Content on the subject of this project (explaining why I'm doing some things I've done) is up at http://knightofthegrey.wordpress.com/ and the Eldar book will be up within a week.
Taking suggestions as to what book goes up after the Eldar now:
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/19 19:33:50
